Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator DeWine and Senator Patrick Leahy along with Senators Grassley and Domenici in cosponsoring this important legislation. This bill will take steps to reduce the prevalence of the mentally ill in the criminal justice system by providing more effective treatment. Forty percent of the mentally ill in this country come in contact with the criminal justice system, many for minor but repeated offenses. This wastes tremendous law enforcement resources that can be better focused on more urgent responsibilities and results in many of the mentally ill sitting in jail cells where little treatment is available to them. My State has already taken some forward looking action in this area, and this legislation is an important next step. The Mentally Ill Crime Reduction Act of 2003 funds new grants that will give States the tools they need to work collaboratively to break the cycle of mentally ill people repeatedly moving through the corrections system. This legislation will allow more jurisdictions to follow Seattle's lead in creating mental health courts that monitor individuals to keep them in treatment and out of jail. It will provide much needed funding to mental health and substance abuse programs, and it will provide critical dollars for treatment of those incarcerated in or released from prisons. The legislation has the support of Washington State Corrections Director Joe Lehman and the Washington Department of Social and Health Services as well as the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill and the Council of State Governments. I'd like to especially thank the Bazelon Center for its work in this area. Last year, the Council on State Governments Criminal Justice/Mental Health Consensus Project issued a report that detailed the imbalance of the mentally ill in the criminal justice system. The Project found that, while those suffering from serious mental illness represent approximately five percent of the population of this country, they represent over 16 percent of the prison population. Of that 16 percent, nearly three-quarters also have a substance abuse problem, and nearly half were incarcerated for committing a nonviolent crime. In some jurisdictions recidivism rates for mentally ill inmates can reach over 70 percent. Police, judges and prosecutors are usually without options of what to do with mentally ill patients, given the lack of health services, and thus many end up in jail for minor crimes. The Los Angeles County Jail alone holds as many as 3,300 individuals with mental illness, more than any state hospital or mental health institution in the United States. Each time a mentally ill individual is incarcerated, his or her mental condition will likely worsen. Once incarcerated, people with mental illness are particularly susceptible to harming themselves or others. This environment exacerbates their mental illness, yet access to effective counseling or medication is severely limited. This in turn brings on depression or delusions that immobilize them; many have spent years trying to mask torments or hallucinations with alcohol or drugs and on average spend more time in prisons. This problem is particularly acute in the area of juvenile offenders. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reports that over 20 percent of children in the juvenile justice system, over 155,000, have serious mental health problems. This bill creates specialized training programs for juvenile and criminal justice agency personnel in identifying symptoms of mentally ill individuals that will help identify and treat juveniles at an earlier stage. The prevalence of people with mentally illness in the criminal justice system comes at a high price to taxpayers. In King County, WA, officials identified 20 people who had been repeatedly hospitalized, jailed or admitted to detoxification centers. These emergency services cost the county approximately $1.1 million in a single year. In contrast, an Illinois Cooperative Program which brought criminal justice and mental health service personnel together to provide services to those mentally ill patients released from jail calculated that the 30 individuals in the study spend approximately 2,200 days less in jail, and 2,100 fewer days, in hospitals than they had the previous year, for a savings of $1.2 million dollars. In 1997, Seattle Fire Department Captain Stanley Stevenson was murdered by an individual who had been found incompetent by the local municipal court but was released because of the lack of alternative options. This murder was the impetus for the creation of a Task Force that led directly to the formation of the King County Mental Health Court in 1999. The primary reason why this Court has been growing more effective in dealing with mentally ill offenders is that it has increased cooperation between the mental health and criminal justice systems, institutions that have traditionally not worked closely together. Building on the model of the drug court, the mental health court closely monitors compliance with treatment regimens by assembling a team proficient in dealing with the mentally ill and at using the stick of the criminal justice system to make that treatment work. The vast majority of these mentally ill individuals are responsive to treatment. This program has progressed well and is becoming an effective means of helping mentally ill offenders, assuring public safety, and running a more cost efficient system. Yet to allow this system to continue to expand in Seattle and other communities in Washington State, as well as to allow other States to begin using these types of programs, federal grant funding is critical. That is what this bill provides. Collaboration between mental health, substance abuse, law enforcement, judicial, and other criminal justice personnel is also critical to the success of our mental health court program in Seattle. It is only through full coordination between the criminal justice and the mental health treatment community at the Federal and the local level that these efforts will be successful. Similarly, only through full coordination at the Federal and local level will this bill be able to make a critical difference. I believe that some additional improvements can be made to strengthen that critical coordination and I look forward to working with Senator DeWine and Senator Leahy to accomplish that goal. I welcome the introduction of this legislation and look forward to working with my cosponsors to make this bill law in the next Congress.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, 2003 is the officially designated Year of the Blues. As we now look to music and the arts to guide us through trying times, it is an honor to pay tribute to an international monument to music: Quincy Delight Jones, Jr. and his passion for music education. He is a veritable Renaissance Man, an orchestrator, arranger, conductor, composer, magazine publisher, executive, writer--and music, film and television producer. In his far-flung enterprises, he is the very modern model of a major music mogul. It will take another artist decades to approach his record 27 Grammy Awards and Kennedy Center Honors. And it can be said without exaggeration that the music of Quincy Jones is otherworldly: Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin chose the Quincy Jones-Frank Sinatra rendition of ``Fly Me to the Moon'' as the first song to be played on lunar soil. Quincy Jones's own musical odyssey began earnest in Seattle, where his family had moved to seek better job opportunities in the industrial boom of World War II America. Still trapped in poverty, Quincy and his brother broke into a Seattle recreation hall in search of free meal, but stumbled upon an upright piano. Merely riffing on the ivory keys summoned pleasure in an instant. Playing the piano, he wrote later, enabled him to ``hope and cope.'' Early on Quincy Jones could straddle styles of music--and the egos of musicians. In Seattle, as a student in integrated schools and a band member with Ray Charles playing gigs at black and white venues, he learned to gracefully balance the cusp between commerce and art. He is, as Duke Ellington would say, ``beyond category.'' Quincy, says arranger Bill Mathieu, is ``a culminator . . . his music contains nearly everything of value that has been done before.'' He was--and is--an innovator, able as Washington University Professor Gerald Early wrote, to shape the world artistically, breaking down barriers and moving across boundaries. ``Jones has become a virtual epoch in American popular cultural history, a person of such importance and achievement that is difficult to imagine the era without him.'' His greatest contribution to our times may be as a passionate proselytizer for music education in the classroom. Half a century ago, in his first forays abroad, Quincy made the startling discovery that people around the globe knew and cherished American music--sometimes more than American themselves did. So in his early twenties, even as he was inventing new music, he made it his mission to teach and preserve the legacy of our musical heritage. Music consists of only 12 notes, yet in its infinite varieties it beguiles, bewitches and beckons us. It can, as Leonard Bernstein observed, name the unnamble and communicate the unknowable. Music not only entertains and uplifts--it edifies and empowers. To know the history of American music is to grasp the history of America. Duke Ellington divided the entire musical opus into two categories: Good and Bad. Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the most lyrical of the founding fathers and himself a composer, believed not only in public education, but that music and musical training was an essential component of good citizenship. President John F. Kennedy knew that arts were good for the nation, good for the soul. ``The life of the arts far from being an interruption, a distraction, in the life of a nation, is close to the center of a nation's purpose--and is a test of the quality of a nation's civilization.'' Widely lauded children's television programming such as Sesame Street and Mr. Roger's Neighborhood have long discovered that the lessons of learning and of life are best realized when music is attached to them. As the late, beloved Fred Rogers often claimed about his early piano playing, ``By the time I was five-years-old, I could laugh or be very angry through the ends of my fingers.'' ``If you don't get kids in kindergarten'' cautions Fred Anton, the CEO of Warner Bros. Publications, ``you won't get them later in high school. If you can reach children when they are young, music will stay with them forever.'' To that end, Warner Bros. has spent four years bringing together pioneers in music, linguistics, the sciences and fine arts and asked them to reinvigorate music education. Music education, from pre-K through high school, benefits everyone, says Anton, not just future virtuosos: ``You are going to develop critical thinking skills and better team players. And this won't be the dreary music programs of 20 or 40 years ago. This is for today's kids.'' A classic musical piece such as ``Follow the Drinking Gourd'' incorporates the new thinking. Children learn that in the Civil War era slaves sang code songs to each other, passing along messages of where to escape and find safe houses. The Drinking Gourd was the North Star. By teaching the kids the story--the ``Behind the Music'' vignette--it brings them into the song, while at the same time teaches impart lessons in history, social studies, and even astronomy. Whether a genius such as Quincy Jones or an enthusiastic student embracing early violin lessons, artists at all levels savor the undiluted joy of the musical mind. It is the flow experience, where passion and precision unite, and one loses track of time and space. In a musical mode, dreamers dream and the impossible seems possible. Music stirs our creative impulses--and it invariably contributes to our math, linguistic and science learning. The most ardent champion of music education today would indubitably be Albert Einstein. When asked about the theory of relativity, he explained, ``It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception.'' Harvard University's Dr. Howard Gardner, whose landmark research in Mind Intelligences was first published 20 years ago, asserts that all of us are gifted with music in the brain, an intelligence that when tapped--especially when we are young--generates bountiful lifetime rewards in all of our other academic and social endeavors. We have empirical data linking music education to higher test scores, lower school dropout rates, higher cognitive skills and an increased ability for students to analyze and evaluate information. A University of California School for Medicine San Francisco paper concluded that learning to play an instrument ``refines the development of the brain and entire neuromuscular system.'' Other brain research contends that music and arts activities develop the intellect, lead to higher test results in mathematics, science and history and strengthens synapses and spatial reasoning in all brain systems. Students exposed to music education are more disciplined, dexterous, coordinated, creative and self-assured. They listen better, learn better, write better and speak better. Or as Charlie Parker would have succinctly put it, ``They get in the groove.'' Yet despite the overwhelming scientific and anecdotal evidence showcasting the benefits of music, music education programs throughout the country are in peril. Some fine arts education budgets have been drastically cut; others have been eliminated entirely. The consequences will harm both our music industry and concert halls, but even more seriously our nation's youth. As Dr. Jean Houston implored 15 years ago, long before the latest rounds in budget cuts, ``Children without access to an arts program are actually damaging their brain. They are not being exposed to non-verbal modalities which help them learn skills like reading, writing and math much more easily.'' Which is why Quincy Jones, Warner Bros. Publications, and other titans of the music world are joining the battle. The fight to initiate and restore arts and music education to our schools needs a volunteer army of teachers, researchers, parents, elected officials, school boards and legislators in formation with the arts industries and artists themselves. For the Year of the Blues, Seattle's Experience Music Project is partnering with the Blues Foundation in Memphis and PBS for a multi- media project that will include a television series, The Blues, executive produced by Martin Scorsese, a public radio series, a comprehensive Web site and education program, a companion book, DVDS and boxed CD set, and a traveling interactive exhibit. Today's advanced multimedia technology will seek to capture the spirit and times of the blues, an era when at myriad clubs jazz greats would come in after working hours and fold into jam sessions. Guests, and the musicians themselves, were treated to wild flights of fantasy and improvisation. On any given night the likes of Sydney Bechet, Jack Teagarden, Louis and Lil Armstrong, and Bud Freeman would sit together and play the music they felt. It was the dawn of great female artists: Dinah Washington, Billie Holliday and Bessie Smith. Music in all its incarnations is one of the most eloquent and memorable reflections of our loud and boisterous democracy. Jazz and the blues represented the vibrant merger of African music, plantation songs, ragtime and the plaintive yearnings of what was then known as hillbilly music. It follows that from jazz, the rivers of rock and roll, hip-hop and rap flowed. The genuis of Quincy Jones is his ability to siphon off music from all eras and seemingly reinvent it. It is as if he were a scientist, extrapolating findings from all disciplines and effortlessly merging them into brand new medical breakthroughs. The challenge for educators is to build upon existing layers of history, knowledge and research to structure a new paradigm, deftly blending the elements to produce the finest school system in the world. Artists such as Quincy Jones have a gift for revering music's past, while keenly anticipating its future. For as Nadia Boulanger, possibly the greatest music teacher of the 20th century said, ``A person's music can be no more or less than they are as a human being.''

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the Feingold amendment reinstating the Senate's pay-go rule. The premise underlying this amendment is that we as a body must return to using the budget enforcement measures that have helped us be fiscally responsible in the past. We have responsibilities to live up to and commitments to fulfill, but we also must have fiscal discipline as we make budget decisions. We must have a framework and strict budget enforcement rules to guide through this difficult, and as we have seen this week, contentious and politically charged process. This amendment helps us at a time when we have seen a multitrillion- dollar surplus turn into a multitrillion-dollar deficit. Perhaps now more than ever, it is critical that we exercise fiscal restraint. Reinstating the pay-go rule by approving this amendment is a good first step. This amendment would extend the ``pay as you go'' budget rule that expired on April 15. The pay-go would subject any tax cuts or new mandatory spending to a 60-vote point of order unless those cuts or spending increases are fully offset. Pay-go had been in effect from 1990 until just a few weeks ago when our colleagues across the aisle allowed it to expire, choosing to replace it with a far weaker provision. The pay-go provision proposed in Senator Feingold's amendment would restore the stronger rule, which in the past decade has proven an important tool for the Senate to maintain fiscal discipline and keep Federal spending within reasonable limits. The actions of the Senate today made clear the absence of fiscal discipline in our Government under this administration. I hope the American people see this morning's tax vote and this subsequent effort to increase the debt limit by nearly $1 trillion--the largest increase in our Nation's history--for what it is: A poor decision that will burden taxpayers with an outrageous debt load for years to come. We know the current and ever-growing deficit is a direct result of the 2001 tax cut, the ongoing recession, and the tragic events of September 11, 2001. For us to enact another poorly targeted tax cut is a mistake. And it is outrageous that minutes after the tax cuts were approved, the Senate began the debate to raise the Government debt limit by more than $900 billion. This is proof that fiscal discipline is not the guiding principle when making decisions about the country's future financial health. This is the second time in 2 years we have been faced with this issue, a clear indication that current fiscal policies are not improving the economic reality. One of the most important actions we can take for the Nation's future economic stability is to pay down the National debt. According to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, paying down the National debt lowers interest rates and keeps the capital markets and investment going. I want to make it clear that I do support efforts to provide hardworking Washingtonians and all Americans with tax relief such as eliminating the marriage penalty, making college tuition tax deductible, allowing States with no State income tax to deduct their sales taxes from their Federal income tax return, and assisting workers in savings for their retirement. But we must look at all budget issues--taxes and spending alike--from a total and comprehensive view. Our total budget must be crafted within a framework that maintains fiscal discipline, and stimulates economic growth through continued Federal investment in education and job training, while also protecting the environment. Furthermore, we need to invest in our Nation's economic future by making a commitment to public research and development in science and technology--maintaining our status as a global leader. It is a balance. We need to make these investments, but within a framework that ensures we don't spend beyond our means. If we want our economy to be strong, if we want revenues, and if we want to make the right decisions, we need to keep paying down the debt. We must have fiscal discipline in the budget and appropriations process. We cannot focus solely on the individual items and programs in our budget but must look at the whole picture. The budget enforcement procedures such as pay-go help us do this, and help us keep our spending under a reasonable amount of control. Budget enforcement rules like pay-go worked successfully as we struggled to get out of the deficit spending in the 1990s, and it will work as we struggle to get out of the recession and deficit financing we face today. I urge my colleagues to support the Feingold amendment and reinstate the Senate's pay-go rule.

Ms. CANTWELL. I am interested in your---- Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Ms. CANTWELL. We have to take care of those who have lost their benefits. The reason we should do that is your very point in your clarification that it is not getting better. I thank you for your clarification.

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator for that clarification because that is the point.

Ms. CANTWELL. Will the Senator from Maryland yield for a question?

Ms. CANTWELL. The Senator's understanding of Senator Kennedy's amendment. I am concerned with the point you are making because just today the Boeing Company has announced it is sending warrant notices to another 1,150 employees. We have already had thousands--5,000--bringing the total to 3,000 employees laid off, and now we are hearing about another 1,100 today who will receive layoff notices probably in June or July. This amendment would cover both employees--those who have already exhausted their benefits and employees who, in the next several months, will run out of benefits; is that your understanding?

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate father and son John and Jess Roskelley of Spokane, WA, for their successful climb of Mt. Everest. The Roskelleys' achievement is both inspiring and historic. By reaching the summit on Wednesday, May 21, the Roskelleys became the first father and son to climb the world's highest mountain together. Jess also became the youngest American to ever complete the climb. Throughout history, explorers and adventurers have held a special place in our imaginations. Their vision and determination to explore uncharted territory, and to surmount overwhelming obstacles in fierce conditions and environments remind us of the indomitable power of the human spirit. Mt. Everest has long captivated mankind as a powerful symbol of the awe the natural world can evoke. Since Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay became the first people to grace its summit 50 years ago, the challenge of climbing Everest has attained an iconic status. Its precipitous slopes, seemingly bottomless crevasses, and thin air are a reminder both of the power of natural forces, and of the fragility of human life. John Roskelley is an expert climber, with 30 years experience climbing in the demanding Himalayas. He is also an accomplished photographer and author, whose work vividly conveys the challenges and emotions of high-altitude mountaineering. John is a dedicated public servant, as well: he serves as a Commissioner of Spokane County. Jess Roskelley has clearly inherited his father's mountaineering talents and taste for adventure. Though he is only 20 years old, Jess is already an accomplished climber in his own right. He has climbed Washington State's highest peak, 14,411-foot Mt. Rainier--also an impressive mountaineering feat--a remarkable 35 times. The Roskelleys' names will long be remembered with those of other magnificent climbers from Washington State--a proud history that includes such giants as Jim and Lou Whittaker, Jim Wickwire, Willi Unsoeld, and Ed Viesturs. With their accomplishment, John and Jess Roskelley have contributed to this tradition, and to that of all the adventurers and explorers who inspire us to challenge ourselves to realize our dreams, and to persevere in the face of overwhelming odds. They remind us of President John F. Kennedy's affirmation that we pursue some goals ``not because they are easy but because they are hard.'' The Roskelleys' remarkable achievement reminds us what we can accomplish when we set our hearts and minds upon difficult goals. I congratulate them on their success, and wish them a safe trip home.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, this amendment is offered by myself, the Senator from Florida, Senator Nelson, and Senator Baucus, to extend the research and development tax credit. What we are saying here today is we will implement a philosophy that has been a proven success in generating jobs in our economy, giving business the ability to deduct research and development costs in an information age when we know there are so many products and services yet to be created. Since its enactment in 1981, the research tax credit has demonstrated it is a very powerful and effective tool for creating jobs. It should be no surprise to my colleagues that research estimates indicate that agreeing to this amendment could, in the next 5 years, increase our gross domestic product by over $10 billion. There is no better stimulus. We should make this investment. It is a bipartisan-supported effort, research and development tax credits. Compared to the other stimulus in this bill, this is the tried and true way for the American public. We know there is research and development in biotechnology, in computer sciences, medical research, and this will help us create jobs. I ask my colleagues for their support.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, under section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of the Act for consideration of the pending amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Schumer's amendment to expand the higher education tax deduction. This amendment would make the higher education tax deduction permanent and increase the amount that taxpayers can claim for a deduction. The higher education tax deduction helps families afford a college education at a time when tuition increases are outpacing the cost of inflation. Families need help to be able to give their children the opportunities and support needed for a good solid education. In our information-based economy, the value of a good education is the key to success. I know this from personal experience. When I left the House of Representatives, I went to work for a high technology company in Seattle, WA. I did not have any expertise or knowledge in this area, but because I had a solid education that gave me the foundation to learn on the job, I was able to learn quickly and thrive in my new environment. That is the value of a good education. My experience is hardly unique. According to the Department of Labor, the typical worker will change jobs nine times during his or her career. When workers change jobs, they will find that more and more employment opportunities require a college degree. Eight of the 10 fastest-growing occupations require at least a bachelor's degree. At the same time, jobs for people who have not attended college are quickly disappearing. Twenty-three of the 25 fastest-declining careers do not require a degree. A college degree is no longer a luxury--it is an imperative. There is a ``perfect storm'' brewing at colleges across this country that is making it increasingly difficult for families to afford a college education. First, endowment earnings are down, significantly reducing revenue for colleges and universities. Second, the economy has been sluggish for so long that corporate and individual charitable giving has been reduced across the country. Third, the sluggish economy has put State budgets across the country in crisis. All of these factors are contributing to the skyrocketing costs of college tuitions. In Washington State, the legislature has significantly cut funding for higher education and that means tuition is going up. In just the last 2 years, tuition at 4-year universities and two-year colleges has increased by 12 percent each year. Over the past decade, tuition at the University of Washington has shot up an astounding 103 percent. This trend is not limited to my State. The vast majority of American families rely in part on federal aid to help finance their children's college education. A recent General Accounting Office report illustrated this point. It found that more than 75 percent of all undergraduate students receive some form of federal financial assistance. In addition, more than 40 percent of all undergraduate students benefit from a higher education tax credit. With the cost of tuition on the rise, we can expect that even more families will require aid to send their kids to college. We cannot let the opportunities of higher education slip out of reach. Expanding access to federal financial aid is a critical long- term investment in our workforce, and in our economy. amendment no. 575

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 577.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Kennedy amendment, and I hope my colleagues will see that the essence of this amendment is about setting priorities in America. Yes, we are discussing a tax bill that could end up including $350 billion in tax cuts directed at the most wealthy people in America. While we are doing that, we are doing it in the face of the fact that millions of Americans are unemployed and that their unemployment benefits are running out. So what are we saying by setting this priority, setting a bill in motion out of the Senate that some Members believe is going to help stimulate the economy, that it will really start us on the right track? And instead of paying attention to the very people who have helped build this economy, those in the aviation sector who lost their jobs because of the downturn in aviation after 9/11, those who lost their jobs because of corporate manipulation in the energy crisis, who lost their jobs because of those market schemes and manipulations, and those people who are simply just out of a job because of 9/11 and the economy has not returned, we are saying, we don't have a plan to help you. Instead, we want to propose one of the biggest tax cuts in history hoping that somehow this will trickle down to help you. The point is, when in our history as a country have we proposed a dividend tax cut as a way to stimulate the economy? Yet we have had two of the last administrations, a Democrat and Republican administration, which said one of the best things we can do during times of high unemployment is to make sure we extend unemployment benefits. Why is that? Well, it is quite simple. For every dollar spent on unemployment, it generates $2.15 of stimulus. This is a proven economic plan. For my State in Washington, where over 100,000 people would be impacted by this amendment and would qualify, we are talking about real numbers. We are talking about millions of dollars to our economy over the next several months that can help pay mortgage payments, health care costs, and as Senator Kennedy said, keep the lights on at home in a region of our country that has seen some of the highest energy rates in a long time. What we are doing in this amendment Senator Kennedy is proposing is putting forth an idea of how to help stimulate the economy that has been tested and proven successful by two administrations, both Republican and Democrat. Instead, we are saying we are not going to include this in this package. I must remind my colleagues that we came to this brink in December of last year. While some of us might think we rectified it when we came in in January, there were people in my State, as those unemployment benefits were curtailed in December, who did lose their health care benefits. They did lose the ability to take care of the health care needs of their families. I am sure there were people who probably even lost their homes because of that time period, because of the uncertainty, because of our lack of commitment for these unemployed workers. So here we are at the same point again, 2, 3 weeks away from having this unemployment benefit extension evaporate on May 31 and no commitment, no commitment to say we will extend unemployment benefits, again at a time when we have had administration after administration say, in times of tough economic situations and no job growth, the best thing we can do is keep the stimulus going by making sure there is unemployment. So where are we? Well, as we know, the impact over the last 2 years, the private sector has lost more than 2 million jobs. Unemployment has jumped by 50 percent. As a State that has 7-percent unemployment now and as a region, the Pacific Northwest, with Oregon, Washington and Alaska, that has the highest unemployment in the country, this is no simple matter. This is about priorities. This is about whether we are going to take care of the working families who have helped build this economy and sustain them until job opportunities increase again. We will look for other opportunities to make sure the training programs and the educational opportunities are there to retool the workforce for the jobs of the future. One of the amendments we were successful in getting on the budget bill earlier in setting our priorities was to say that we should not cut the job training programs. We still have people in Washington State who are willing to hire this workforce that has been laid off, but they want them to be retooled. They want them to gain expertise. What better time to do that than now, as they are working through their unemployment, to offer to give them training benefits, make sure they are retooled for the economy of the future--whether it is in nanosciences, in biotechnology, in new aviation construction, in new IT fields, or in nursing where we have over 130,000 openings for nurses in this country, and the people who want to have those jobs. Instead, we are allowing outside people to come in and take them because we are not willing to take care of American workers. This is not a priority. We are simply saying instead of giving the largest tax cut in history, and passing this out of the Senate, knowing that thousands of workers are going to lose their benefits in 3 weeks, we believe we should give them that helping hand. Make no mistake. Nobody in America wants an unemployment check. They would rather have a paycheck. But until we can guarantee to these people that we are going to get them that paycheck, we better extend that opportunity, from a trust fund that they have paid into, the things that they and their employers have paid into, the opportunity to sustain them and benefit our economy.

Ms. CANTWELL. I yield the Senator from Montana as much time as he needs.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today, along with my colleagues, Senator Nelson of Florida and Senator Baucus, to offer an amendment to revise and extend the research and development tax credit. I know my colleagues will be familiar with this amendment, but I want to clarify three things this amendment does. First, it will extend the research credit through June 30, 2014, which is the end of this reconciliation period. Second, it will increase the rates of the alternative incremental credit; and third, it will create a new alternative simplified credit for qualified research expenses. This language is identical to the language that was originally included in S. 664, introduced by Senator Hatch from Utah and cosponsored by 27 bipartisan Senators. The amendment pays for this tax credit by eliminating the underlying legislation's section reducing the dividend tax credit. Since its increment in 1981, the research tax credit, I believe, has demonstrated that it is a powerful incentive for companies to increase research spending. The tax credit lowers the cost of doing research in the United States, so it encourages companies to continue to make investments in critical R&D. The bottom-line benefit is that research and development creates new jobs in the United States. The current R&D tax credit is expected to expire on June 30, 2004. Many of my colleagues know we play this annual game of continuing to say the R&D tax credit is important, but not renewing it on a permanent basis, thereby saying to companies and organizations: You don't know whether you will actually get this research credit or not. It is important for companies to have access to this information because the kind of planning it takes to do research and development, to increase productivity in America, is not necessarily done in 1 year or 2 years. The major investments in nanotechnology and biotechnology, in software, and in the computer sciences take several years of investments. So what we are talking about is giving businesses the predictability they want to see in research and development so they can move ahead. The long-term nature of these research projects, I believe, is something Congress should recognize today and make part of a priority package for reinvigorating America. This is a tried and true program, again, for creating jobs in America. In this tax cut bill--we are trying something that is new, effectively saying, let's cut taxes on dividends for individuals, and hope it trickles down to create jobs in America. We know the R&D tax credit works--it works, and it works effectively. The point I want to make to my colleagues is, what we need to understand, is the changing nature of businesses today in an information economy. So many of the businesses that have been the great engines of growth in the 1990s are companies that now spend 27 percent of their overall dollars on research and development. So research and development has become a bigger percentage of a company's overall plans, and predictability about that research and development has become more important. That is why two years ago Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan told a Senate Budget Committee: Had the innovations of recent decades, especially in information technologies, not come to fruition, productivity growth during the past five to seven years, arguably, would have continued to languish at the rate of the preceding twenty years. So here was someone in charge of advising us on Federal investment and tax policy basically saying these companies have been able to invest in R&D, and have gotten us to that productivity rate we are so interested in. So why aren't we including that in this package-- something we know is tried and true, something we know many organizations have come before us to argue for, asking, why not make this permanent? So in my amendment, we expand that tax credit through June 2014--which will help the economy turn around. I would like to enter into the Record comments--I have no idea where my colleague will be on this particular amendment, but I would like to enter into the Record, or reenter into the Record, I guess--comments from my colleague from Utah, who I think spoke eloquently on this particular issue. As my colleague from Utah said: As it stands, companies have to take account of the fact that Congress could allow the credit lapse for a few months, as it did a number of years ago. So companies hedge their bets, they spend a little less on R&D, and our economy suffers as a result. By contrast, permanence helps planning. The sooner we make this permanent, the sooner companies can begin to enlarge and expand their research and development units, and the sooner their innovations will strengthen economic growth. He quoted a variety of studies that I think are very important. He went on to say: A permanent extension of this credit may seem costly in terms of lost revenue. However, when you consider the value this investment will create for our economy, it is a bargain. In fact, one study estimates a permanent research credit would result in our gross domestic product increasing by $10 billion after 5 years and by $31 billion after 20 years. The Senator is quoting a study and analysis of various economists who are saying this is really how we get to productivity in our economy. I am quoting the Senator because I believe in what he said. I understand my colleagues may not think that now is the time for this particular amendment. I argue that it is exactly the time for this amendment because let's think about it. Who has created jobs in the last decade? Who has stimulated our economy to move forward? It is a lot of companies that have invested in R&D. It is the Microsofts. It is the Amazons. It is the variety of companies from my State and others that have made the investments which increase the productivity of their workforce, where they can then hire new people as new products and services are delivered. That is something with which we have had good experience. I want to get back to 3.5-percent economic growth. I know the economic engine that will take us there will be these companies and corporations that know about producing product and services in an information age economy. What they tell us is important to them, is making permanent the R&D tax credit. They say this because there is currently no certainty--they come to us every few years to try to understand whether we are going to give them these tax credits. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a statement from the R&D Credit Coalition.

Ms. CANTWELL. They write: Growth in our high tech economy depends on solid R&D, and there is no good reason to delay making the credit permanent. A permanent tax credit will go a long way to providing the planners and investors the certainty that they need. Another document by that same coalition states that research jobs that are created by this R&D are quite significant; that more than 90 percent of the costs eligible for credits from the R&D tax credit go directly into salary and wages of researchers. So the only way for the company to go ahead and increase the credit is to get an R&D payroll. That is what we are talking about, getting the R&D payroll. We are sitting here discussing how we are going to move forward. I know my colleagues have a variety of ideas. We all probably have ideas that we think are an avenue or path within this tax proposal that will be effective. I know as somebody who has been in the private sector, has seen a company grow from 10 people to 1,000 people in a short time, the major focus of that company was in research and development. Let's turn our attention to those very companies that we think are the basis for our future. We still see great growth and opportunity in medical devices and research. We see great opportunities in biomedicines, as I mentioned, in nanosciences, in computing sciences, in supercomputing. We see great opportunity in energy technology, in the new energy economy we think will be so important. We certainly see from the State of Washington how the great investment in software and communications technologies can move our country forward. Let's take this amendment that I believe is a bipartisan amendment supported by many of my colleagues and say that this is a priority. Let's not make these organizations, which have been the engine of job creation, continue to come back to us as we pass the largest tax cut without including something that the very job creators have told us they need to move forward. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Let's make the research and development tax credit permanent. I retain the remainder of my time.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. CANTWELL. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I have the utmost respect for the Senator from Iowa and his comments about the R&D tax credit amendment and his great work on trying to put together a package to bring before the Senate. It is clear that my colleague from Iowa has had a tough challenge working with a variety of people, and I am sure he will face an even tougher challenge working in conference with the House of Representatives and the White House on their priorities. I respect his commitment to working on the R&D tax credit expansion or permanency and I take him at his word that he is very earnest and will work towards this. I guess the reason we are bringing this up today is that we do have a fundamental difference about how to move forward with the economy and where the White House is on this proposal. What I am trying to say is not extension of R&D, but permanent R&D tax credits are a better economic stimulus than what the current underlying proposal gives to the American public. Let's think about it: A dividend tax cut that would give some money back to investors who may or may not reinvest that versus companies that have proven they have taken the R&D tax credit and turned that into new products and services, and have hired people to, in fact, do the R&D which we are talking about. I think we can easily look at history and say corporations have done a better job of that because they know what products and services can be created in the marketplace and have used this incentive to do that. The second point I wish to make is that small businesses can take advantage of this credit. In fact, in the past decade we saw a lot of increases in productivity by large corporations because they were able to take advantage of research and development and new technologies, and they were able to deploy that, while small businesses that had less flexibility, not as much revenue, and had smaller operations had a much harder time making those productivity improvements. I have heard from small businesses throughout our State that said: I am a subcontractor, or I do business with some of the larger companies in the State, but our computer systems and our software do not communicate. The way I now have to talk to my customers and providers of service I work with throughout the State is being challenged by new systems and operations, and I need to upgrade and move forward. So small businesses, to maintain their competitive edge, also need help in the research and development area. Oftentimes it is the small business that is created prior to becoming a large organization. As I said, the companies that grow from 10 jobs and take advantage of R&D tax credits and then grow to 1,000 jobs are the very companies about which we are talking. So both small and large companies will benefit. The third point is that this is about priorities. In an information economy, it is very important for us to keep our deficits down and to get access to capital. Think about it. In the industrial age, when we were making automobiles, Mr. Ford said: Just give me the hands. I do not even need the brain that goes with it. Why? Because it was about a manufacturing process, that was not necessarily about the worker, and the increase in productivity. The process and system had been set in place. Well, the information age is just the opposite of that. It is all about new ideas in a global economy where information flows quickly and competition is created quickly, and whether we are going to maintain our competitive edge by making the right levels of R&D investment. Actually, the U.S. economy is so strong in biotechnology, in pharmaceuticals, and in software. Why? Because we make the investment in R&D that keeps that technological advantage in an information age. So while some of my colleagues, argue that a dividend tax break is an issue of fairness, I say there are lots of things about our Tax Code that I do not think are particularly fair. But given the 7 percent unemployment rate in my State of Washington, with over 2 million jobs lost and no sight of what we are going to do to stimulate the economy that will create jobs, it is imperative to make this tax credit permanent now. My colleague has offered to look at this at another time. But the issue is, are we going to make it permanent at another time? In an information age this is the best thing we could do for companies that are spending almost 30 percent of their company's overall expenses in R&D. An information economy means so many new products and services are going to come into creativity by thousands of ideas floating around, things that we never even imagined before--who thought 20 years ago we were going to be buying our books online or communicating with global media through the Internet? But those are the products and services that have been created. The good news is we are at the infancy of this information age. So let's take advantage of that. Let's harness that information age economy with one of the best tools we have to encourage them, and that is make permanent the R&D tax credits so those products, those services, those job-creating activities, will take place in our economy. If we asked economists, or asked businesspeople, sure, they would like both. I am sure there are people who would say: Give us the dividend and give us the R&D tax credit. But ask them to prioritize, and I have no doubt they would say the R&D tax credit is more important because they know it will give them certainty and predictability in a time and age where research and development is going to be the way for us to continue the productivity. Make no mistake, that opportunity for productivity is great. We had great increases during the industrial age--a constant 3\1/2\, 4, 5 percent economic growth in the last decade. If we harness the ability for new products and services by making the right level of investment in research and development, we can have that kind of productivity increase and we can have that kind of GDP. For all of us here, we want to get back to that. We want to get back to having families who have jobs and communities that are healthy and a government that can own up to its responsibilities in the future for Social Security and Medicare. So let's make the investment now. This is about making a priority statement today. It is about saying that R&D tax credit has a higher priority and ranking over some of the proposals that are in this bill, and that it will benefit both small and large companies, and ultimately will benefit many Americans by getting them employed. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today my colleagues and I introduce the Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative. This bill outlines an important initiative that would give our northern border States and counties financial assistance in prosecuting criminal and immigration-related cases that arise because of proximity to the border. I thank my fellow northern border Senators and cosponsors, Senators Crapo, Murry, Murkowski, Leahy, Clinton and Schumer for joining with me to introduce and work to pass this important legislation. This initiative is modeled on a successful program already in place for southern border States. The Southern Border Prosecution Initiative allows States and counties to apply for reimbursement of costs incurred in any federally initiated or declined-referred criminal case. The program is targeted at immigration-related cases, but is not limited only to cases involving immigration charges. Cases arising out of immigration issues but ranging from a misdemeanor property charge to a felony drug conviction are eligible for reimbursement under the southern border program. The program proposed in the legislation introduced today would be operated in the same way. Federal agencies--such as the Border Patrol and INS--have ongoing efforts to police the Nation's borders, resulting in hundreds of arrests each year. For many reasons, some of those cases are not pursued by Federal law enforcement authorities and instead are handed off to State or county officials for further prosecution. Instead of asking States to absorb those costs--likely at the expense of other important local law enforcement initiatives--the Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative allows States and counties to receive compensation for pursuing these immigration-related cases. The Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative would be administered by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance. States and counties would be able to apply for reimbursement during an annual application period, with no limit on the number of cases submitted. Under the act, funds distribution is not based on the size or population of a northern border State, but upon the number of eligible cases submitted by each jurisdiction. It is possible for reimbursement to equal 100 percent of costs, though money is distributed on a pro rata basis if applications exceed available revenues. Each of the 14 States along the northern border would be eligible for the reimbursement program: Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Last year, $40 million was provided to southern border States Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas, offsetting the costs of prosecuting immigration-related cases. For 2002, $50 million was allocated to the program. My legislation simply authorizes $28 million for Fiscal Year 2004 be made available to northern border states for the same purpose. In the years leading up to Sept. 11, 2001, activity along the northern border had shifted primarily from a focus on immigration issues to those related to trade and commerce. However, homeland security has grown into a paramount concern in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks, and our States and local governments are increasingly bearing an unfair financial burden in protecting and patrolling our national borders. There are hundreds of crossings along the 4,000 mile long northern border between the United States and Canada, and though improvements have been made to tighten security, the northern border has yet to receive the resources it needs to adequately enforce our Nation's immigration laws and border restrictions. The need for greater enforcement efforts along the northern border became glaringly evident in 1998 when Ahmed Ressam, a terrorist trained at one of Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan, was arrested shortly after crossing the Canadian border into Washington State. Explosives and other bomb-making materials were found in the trunk of Ressam's car. This frightening incident made clear the vulnerabilities we face along the porous northern border, vulnerabilities that became even more concerning after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. In the last two years, the Senate has taken steps to improve northern border security. I have worked with Senators from the 14 States that comprise the northern border--including my colleagues who join me as cosponsors on this legislation today--and we have successfully devoted more resources to northern border security efforts. The 2001 Department of Defense Appropriation's bill included $55.8 million for 500 additional Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors along the northern border--a 105 percent increase in staffing levels. That legislation also provided $23.9 million to transfer 100 border patrol agents and hire 100 new agents. Working to protect our northern border has been a bipartisan effort, enjoying cooperation from senators across the aisle and across the country. Now it is time to take another step toward greater border and national security and approve the Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative. The costs of homeland security are increasingly being borne by States and local governments, an issue that this legislation tackles head-on. Without giving States and counties the necessary resources to pay for cases initiated by Federal authorities, other important local law enforcement initiatives will undoubtedly be shortchanged. States and the Federal Government must work together if our borders are to be truly safe. The Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative is a mechanism by which all of the resources of the criminal justice system--local, State, and Federal--can work in harmony.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today my colleagues and I introduce the Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative. This bill outlines an important initiative that would give our northern border States and counties financial assistance in prosecuting criminal and immigration-related cases that arise because of proximity to the border. I thank my fellow northern border Senators and cosponsors, Senators Crapo, Murry, Murkowski, Leahy, Clinton and Schumer for joining with me to introduce and work to pass this important legislation. This initiative is modeled on a successful program already in place for southern border States. The Southern Border Prosecution Initiative allows States and counties to apply for reimbursement of costs incurred in any federally initiated or declined-referred criminal case. The program is targeted at immigration-related cases, but is not limited only to cases involving immigration charges. Cases arising out of immigration issues but ranging from a misdemeanor property charge to a felony drug conviction are eligible for reimbursement under the southern border program. The program proposed in the legislation introduced today would be operated in the same way. Federal agencies--such as the Border Patrol and INS--have ongoing efforts to police the Nation's borders, resulting in hundreds of arrests each year. For many reasons, some of those cases are not pursued by Federal law enforcement authorities and instead are handed off to State or county officials for further prosecution. Instead of asking States to absorb those costs--likely at the expense of other important local law enforcement initiatives--the Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative allows States and counties to receive compensation for pursuing these immigration-related cases. The Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative would be administered by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Assistance. States and counties would be able to apply for reimbursement during an annual application period, with no limit on the number of cases submitted. Under the act, funds distribution is not based on the size or population of a northern border State, but upon the number of eligible cases submitted by each jurisdiction. It is possible for reimbursement to equal 100 percent of costs, though money is distributed on a pro rata basis if applications exceed available revenues. Each of the 14 States along the northern border would be eligible for the reimbursement program: Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Last year, $40 million was provided to southern border States Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas, offsetting the costs of prosecuting immigration-related cases. For 2002, $50 million was allocated to the program. My legislation simply authorizes $28 million for Fiscal Year 2004 be made available to northern border states for the same purpose. In the years leading up to Sept. 11, 2001, activity along the northern border had shifted primarily from a focus on immigration issues to those related to trade and commerce. However, homeland security has grown into a paramount concern in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks, and our States and local governments are increasingly bearing an unfair financial burden in protecting and patrolling our national borders. There are hundreds of crossings along the 4,000 mile long northern border between the United States and Canada, and though improvements have been made to tighten security, the northern border has yet to receive the resources it needs to adequately enforce our Nation's immigration laws and border restrictions. The need for greater enforcement efforts along the northern border became glaringly evident in 1998 when Ahmed Ressam, a terrorist trained at one of Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan, was arrested shortly after crossing the Canadian border into Washington State. Explosives and other bomb-making materials were found in the trunk of Ressam's car. This frightening incident made clear the vulnerabilities we face along the porous northern border, vulnerabilities that became even more concerning after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. In the last two years, the Senate has taken steps to improve northern border security. I have worked with Senators from the 14 States that comprise the northern border--including my colleagues who join me as cosponsors on this legislation today--and we have successfully devoted more resources to northern border security efforts. The 2001 Department of Defense Appropriation's bill included $55.8 million for 500 additional Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors along the northern border--a 105 percent increase in staffing levels. That legislation also provided $23.9 million to transfer 100 border patrol agents and hire 100 new agents. Working to protect our northern border has been a bipartisan effort, enjoying cooperation from senators across the aisle and across the country. Now it is time to take another step toward greater border and national security and approve the Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative. The costs of homeland security are increasingly being borne by States and local governments, an issue that this legislation tackles head-on. Without giving States and counties the necessary resources to pay for cases initiated by Federal authorities, other important local law enforcement initiatives will undoubtedly be shortchanged. States and the Federal Government must work together if our borders are to be truly safe. The Northern Border Prosecution Reimbursement Initiative is a mechanism by which all of the resources of the criminal justice system--local, State, and Federal--can work in harmony.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I have the great honor of being in Washington State today in order to welcome home the USS Lincoln. After a 10-month deployment, including valuable service in the recent war against Iraq, the men and women of the USS Lincoln finally reach Everett and Washington today. Unfortunately in order to be present for this important homecoming in my State it was necessary for me to miss the vote on the confirmation of Cecilia Altonaga to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida. If I had been present, I would have voted ``yea'' to confirm Cecilia Altonaga.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I have the great honor of being in Washington State today in order to welcome home the USS Lincoln and USS Camden. After a 10-month deployment, including valuable service in the recent war against Iraq, the men and women of the USS Lincoln and her carrier strike group will finally reach Everett and Bremerton, WA in the next few hours. Unfortunately, in order to be present for this important homecoming in my State--it was necessary to miss two votes today.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. What some of Owen's colleagues on the bench have said about her opinions I think is important. In a case dealing with a developer seeking to evade Austin's clean water laws, her dissent was called ``nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric.'' In another case, her statutory interpretation was called ``unworkable.'' In yet another case, the dissent she joined was called ``an unconscionable act of judicial activism.'' Some of our other colleagues have already mentioned that particular quote. One of the reasons we all find it somewhat unbelievable is the fact that it was made by her then-colleague on the Texas Supreme Court, now the White House General Counsel Alberto Gonzales, who is in charge of pushing her nomination. But the criticism of Owen comes not only from her colleagues but from across the country. The San Antonio Express calls her nomination misguided. The Atlanta Journal called the Judiciary Committee's original objection to her nomination ``the right decision for the American people.'' The New York Times wrote last week that it was abundantly clear at her hearing that her ideology drives her decisions. The Kansas City Star even said there are better nominees and better ways for the executive branch to spend its time than re-fighting these battles. There is another reason this nomination is so important. I believe this is critical to all the nominees we are considering for appointment to the Federal bench. That is, what is the judicial philosophy and commitment to upholding current law as it relates to a citizen's right to privacy. I asked Justice Owen at her hearing about her beliefs on the right to privacy. I asked her if she believed there was a constitutional right to privacy and where she found that right in the Constitution. She declined at the time to answer that question without the relevant case information and precedents before her. When Senator Feinstein followed up with a similar question, Owen again would not answer whether she believes a right to privacy does exist within the Constitution. The question of whether a nominee believes that the right to privacy exists with regard to the ability to make decisions about one's own body is only the tip of the privacy iceberg. I believe that we are in an information age that poses new challenges in protecting the right to privacy. We are facing difficult issues including whether U.S. citizens have been treated as enemy combatants in a prison without access to counsel or trial by jury, whether businesses have access to some of your most personal information, whether the Government has established a process for eavesdropping or tracking U.S. citizens without probable cause, and whether the Government has the ability to develop new software that might track the use of your own computer and places where you might go on the Internet without your consent or knowledge. There are a variety of issues that are before us on an individual's right to privacy and how that right to privacy is going to be interpreted. A clear understanding of a nominee's willingness to follow precedent on protecting privacy is a very important criteria for me, and it should be a concern for all Members. Of course, some of my concern and skepticism about Justice Owen's views on privacy results from the opinions she wrote in a series of cases interpreting the Texas law on parental notification. In 2000 the State of Texas passed a law requiring parental notification. But they also included a bypass system for extreme cases. Eleven out of 12 times Owen analyzed whether a minor should be entitled to bypass the notice requirement, she voted either to deny the bypass or to create greater obstacles to the bypass. Owen wrote in dissent that she would require a minor to demonstrate that she had considered religious issues surrounding the decision and that she had received specific counseling from someone other than a physician, her friend, or her family. Requirements, I believe, that go far beyond what the Texas law requires. In interpreting the ``best interest'' arm of the statute, Owen held that a minor should be required to demonstrate that the abortion itself--not avoiding notification--was in the individual's best interests. In this particular case, I think she went far beyond what the statute required. Where does that put us? Women in this country rely on the right to choose. It is an issue on which we have had 30 years of settled law and case precedent. In the Fifth Circuit, there are three States that continue to have unconstitutional laws on the books, and legislatures that are hostile to that right to choose. The Federal courts are the sole protector of women's right to privacy in these states. I do not believe that the rights of the women of the Fifth Circuit can be trusted to Justice Priscilla Owen. Owen's rulings on privacy and not following precedent raise grave concerns. But this is not the only area where Justice Owen has been criticized. She also has been criticized in areas of consumer rights and environmental law. The Los Angeles Times singles her out as a nominee who disdains workers' rights, civil liberties and abortion rights. And even a predominantly Republican court--one considered by legal observers and scholars to be one of the most conservative in this country--Justice Owen still seems to go further than a majority on that court. Time after time, Justice Owen has ruled in favor of business interests over working people, against women, against victims of crime and negligence, and against the environment. Over a career a judge can have many controversial cases. But, as the Austin Statesman points out, Justice Owen is widely known as a nominee that ``could usually be counted on to side in any important case that pitted an individual against business interests to side with business.'' I don't think that is the type of representation that we want to have on our courts. Her controversial rulings include an opinion that a distributor who failed to conduct a background check on a salesman was not liable for the rape of a woman by that salesman. In a case challenging the ability of Texas cities to impose basic clean water control, she held the legislature had the power to exempt a single developer from city water pollution controls by allowing the developer to write their own water pollution plan. The majority called her dissent ``nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric.'' There are other cases dealing with Texas public information law which I think are important for all of us, for all of our citizens to have access to public information. She wrote that a memo prepared by a city agency about an employee should not be subject to disclosure under the Texas Public Information Law because it discussed ``policy,'' an exemption that a majority of others on the board said would be ``the same as holding there is no disclosure requirement at all.'' In another similar case about public information laws, she held that a report prepared by the city of Houston and financed by taxpayers could not be disclosed under the Texas Public Information Act. Again, her colleagues criticized her decision not only as ``contradicting the spirit and language of the statute, but gutting it.'' It is possible to find cases or points to argue in the record of almost any judge, but because of the reaction of her own colleagues to her decisions. I find the constant criticism and rebukes that run through the opinions of Owen's colleagues surprising. They consistently indicate that they think she has overstepped or misinterpreted the law to such a degree that they have used the words ``gutting'' or ``judicial activism'' or ``overreaching.'' As do many of my colleagues, I believe that we should move off this nomination and on to more important matters. We in the Northwest have an economy that has failed to recover. We in America are looking for an economic plan to move our country forward. There are many issues of national security that we must continue to debate. I think that we could do better than renominating Priscilla Owen, and others who have already been rejected by a previous Senate Judiciary Committee. The fact that we are even debating this nominee is unprecedented. While I respect the President's right to renominate her, I find his decision to do so given the breadth of opposition and genuine questions that have been raised by her troubling. The American public cares about us doing our job on nominees. It cares about us asking the right questions. It cares about us making sure that judicial nominees are following important laws that are already on the books. I believe the majority of Americans are becoming more and more concerned about their right to privacy and how it might be protected in the future. With all the issues that we are facing on our judicial nominees, I say to my colleagues that it is time to move off this nominee--not to move forward on it and instead to the important business that needs to be done for this country and specifically for the Northwest. I ask my colleagues to oppose the motion to proceed to a vote on this nomination and turn instead to the business that the people of America want us to address: our economic livelihood and how we can all work together to provide better opportunities for Americans. I yield the floor.