Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise as a former member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss something that is very important to all of us: How we should proceed on nominees for our Federal court system. And how we make sure we confirm nominees who will enforce the law and not nominees who might seek to bend the law or interpret it to their own desires. The American people deserve judges who hold the mainstream values of our country and our legal system. They deserve a Federal judiciary willing to interpret the laws as they are, rather than as the judges might want them to be. The American people believe that the Senate needs to do our job. Not to be a rubberstamp on nominees, but to thoroughly evaluate judicial nominees and determine whether they will continue the tradition of the Federal judiciary by being balanced and impartial, and serving as a countercheck for the executive branch and for us, the legislative branch. That was the role the Founding Fathers gave to the Senate, and I believe that is a role the American people think we should play. That is why I don't think it is surprising, that 74 percent of the public believes that the question of judicial views and judicial philosophy should be something we consider in the Senate confirmation process, and that we should get answers to questions about judicial philosophy from nominees. More importantly, a majority of Americans also believe we should not vote to confirm a nominee who might otherwise be qualified if we don't think their views on these important issues reflect mainstream American viewpoint. I believe that the nominee we are debating, Justice Priscilla Owen, fails to meet this test. As a former member of the Judiciary Committee, I attended a hearing on Priscilla Owen that lasted a full day. During that hearing, Owen's record showed a particular disregard for precedent and the plain meaning of the law. Anyone who walks into a courtroom as a plaintiff or a defendant in this country should do so having the full confidence that there is impartiality on the part of the judge on the bench. They should have total confidence that the rule of law will be followed, and believe the issues will be judged on their merits rather than viewed through the prism of an individual judge's personal values or beliefs. There is reason to be concerned about the record of Priscilla Owen. Time after time, even her own Republican colleagues, on a predominantly Republican Texas Supreme Court bench, criticized her for failing to follow precedent or interpreting statutes in ways that ignore the clear intent of the law. Just yesterday a key newspaper in her State, the Austin American Statesman, wrote: Owen is so conservative that she places herself out of the broad mainstream of jurisprudence. She seems all too willing to bend the law to fit her views. I ask unanimous consent to have that editorial printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise to speak on the pending business.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Holocaust Memorial Day, known in Hebrew as ``Yom Ha Shoa.'' Seventy years ago, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany. In 1933, the German Government adopted numerous discriminatory policies against Jews. Jews were prohibited from working as newspaper editors or owning land, and many Jewish immigrants had their citizenship revoked. These actions fueled anti-Semitic sentiments among the general public. Seventy years ago this month, German citizens marched through the streets of Leipzig with signs that read: ``Don't buy from Jews--Shop in German businesses!'' It was a dark time for Germany, but many throughout the world thought that the situation would improve. The 1936 Olympic Games were held in Berlin, even against the backdrop of the rise of Hitler, the Gestapo, state-sponsored Aryan qualifications and the construction of the first concentration camps at Dachau and Buchenwald. In 1939, Jews were relocated into Jewish ghettos, placed under curfews and banned from most professions. The world still ignored the problem; in May of that year, a ship packed with 930 Jewish refugees was turned away by several countries and forced to return to Europe. One of those countries was the United States. By late 1939, Polish Jews were forcibly placed in labor camps and required to wear yellow stars for identification at all times. Mass killings--called pogroms--took tens of thousands of lives, and Jews from conquered states were deported to German concentration camps. Following the German invasion, France signed an armistice with Hitler on June 22, 1940. Exactly 1 year later, Germany invaded the Soviet Union. All the while, the world ignored the extermination of the Jewish people, and the United States wrapped itself in the flawed doctrine of isolationism. It took far too long for our Nation to grasp its responsibility and stake in World War II. When the war ended, Germany had murdered over 6 million Jews in the Holocaust. Pastor Martin Niemoller described his reluctance to stand up and help people in Germany, and I believe his critique can apply to individuals and countries: First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. Today we remember those who suffered. We remember those who were murdered. We remember those who spoke out. We will never forget them. This history informs the difficult choices that we face today.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act substitute offered by Senator Grassley. This legislation is a critical step towards full tax fairness for our military personnel and Foreign Service officers. The American people and Congress stand with our men and women in uniform, and this is the right time to advance tax parity. Last Congress, I was proud to cosponsor the Foreign and Armed Services Tax Fairness Act of 2002, which included many of the provisions that we are passing today. I was pleased to cosponsor the bill again this Congress when it was reintroduced. This legislation will bring some commonsense changes to the way military and Foreign Service families are treated under the Tax Code. It will allow military and Foreign Service families to exclude up to half a million dollars in capital gains from home sales; make death gratuity benefits tax exempt; exclude compensation from the Homeowners Assistance Program; provide a deduction for the National Guard's unreimbursed travel expenses; clarify that dependent care assistance for military families is exempt from taxation; and support education individual retirement accounts for students at service academies. The legislation also extends these benefits to the families of the victims of the space shuttle Columbia tragedy. The Columbia provisions address many of the goals in the Assistance for Families of Space Shuttle Columbia Heroes Act, which I cosponsored with Senator Baucus. Finally, I would like to emphasize a crucial provision addressing IRS treatment of terrorist organizations. Currently, when the United States designates an entity a terrorist organization, there is a long delay before the IRS revokes its tax-exempt status. There is no reason to postpone the action, but it takes time to update these lists. This bill will automatically suspend the tax-exempt status of designated terrorist organizations, expediting the consequences of the designation. Last Congress, Senators Grassley and Johnson introduced bills with this practical remedy, but we have yet to pass it into law. The House version of the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act does not contain this language, but I will work with my colleagues in both bodies to ensure that when we send this bill to the President, this important provision is included. Mr. President, the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act supports our men and women in uniform during these trying times. I urge my colleagues to give it their full support. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to support Senate amendment No. 341, an amendment to provide partial concurrent receipt for veterans. I would like to thank my colleague from Nevada for his unwavering and tireless support of veterans throughout the country. My constituents are aware of his advocacy for full concurrent receipt and appreciate his support. Mr. President, as you know, our current military benefits system requires disabled military retirees who have a service-connected disability to deduct their disability compensation from the funds they would otherwise receive as retirement pay. This requirement unfairly merges two distinct programs and forces many disabled retirees to forfeit a significant portion of their well-deserved retirement pay. The retirement benefit is an entitlement granted to all members of the U.S. Armed Forces who dedicate 20 or more years to providing our Nation's defenses. Disability compensation, on the other hand, is awarded as a compensation for personnel who are injured in the line of duty. I believe veterans should receive each payment separately. Allowing disabled veterans to receive their full military retired pay and disability compensation will restore fairness and common sense to U.S. military retirement policy. Last year, President Bush signed compromise legislation that provides concurrent receipt to two veterans groups: one, any retiree receiving disability compensation, of at least 10 percent, whose disability was combat-related and for which the retiree was awarded the Purple Heart; and two, any retiree with a service-connected disability rated at 60 percent or higher incurred as a direct result of armed conflict, while engaged in hazardous service, in the performance of duty under conditions simulating war, or through an instrumentality of war. Although this compromise was an important first step, it remains an insufficient remedy to a persisting inequity in our veterans benefits system. Senate Amendment No. 341 would expand concurrent receipt to include veterans who have a service-connected disability of at least 60 percent. This is another important step in what will continue to be a long battle to provide concurrent receipt to all eligible veterans--a battle that I remain committed to fighting. Again, I thank the Senator from Nevada for his leadership on this issue. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and look forward to working with them to provide full concurrent receipt for all veterans.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 382.

Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, this is a very important amendment that would restore $678 million to workforce training programs that is vital to America in a time of high unemployment. The underlying bill basically cuts these funds and, instead, gives them to a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. What is really important for us to understand is that we have had report after report that in the Information Technology area there are more jobs to be had if we had skilled workers who had the training to work in this areas, and the same is true for the nursing and health care fields. According to the American Hospital Association there are over 126,000 openings in nursing, yet we are cutting the training programs that could retrain thousands of unemployed workers who could fill these openings. By cutting funding for workforce training, we are eliminating the opportunity for 65,000 Americans to receive training. So where do these jobs go instead, I know because I have had firsthand experience as an employer. You go find the workers and sometimes they are from overseas. So by cutting workforce training, we are sending a message that instead of retraining our dislocated and unemployed workers we would rather have the Department of Labor issue more labor certifications so that these jobs can be filled by foreigners. Please vote for this amendment to restore the funds so that the workforce level in this country will at least be at 2002 levels. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Electricity Market Manipulation Prevention Act--legislation I believe is critical in ensuring our Nation's consumers will never again have to suffer from the type of energy price manipulation that has so devastated the economy of my home State of Washington. This bill is simple yet powerful in concept. In essence, it requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to do its job--protect consumers from energy price manipulation. This bill says that where FERC gives companies the authority to charge market-based wholesale electricity rates, the Commission must also actively ensure that effective competition--the only kind of competition that benefits consumers and businesses--actually exists. It says that if FERC finds that an entity has attempted to manipulate power markets, the Commission will revoke or modify the company's ability to sell power at market-based rates, and the company will be on the hook to pay back revenues in excess of the average regional cost of generating the power. And lastly, it says that FERC will not be allowed to change the legal standard for reviewing whether consumers deserve relief from market manipulation. I first want to make a very important point about this legislation. In large part, it does not expand FERC's existing authority under the Federal Power Act. It simply articulates more explicitly how Congress intends for FERC to exercise its existing authority. Now why is this an important point? As many of my colleagues may know, FERC--under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act--is already given the responsibility of ensuring just and reasonable wholesale electricity rates, and fixing those rates when market activity has gone awry. So why do we need clarification? Because despite overwhelming and undisputed evidence that any number of energy companies--Enron and its ilk--engaged in activities designed to manipulate power markets in the west, FERC has to date failed to take action on behalf of consumers. While prices started skyrocketing out of control during the summer of 2000, it took the Commission nearly a year to step in and reign in those prices throughout the west. The provisions of this legislation that require FERC to perform annual reviews of how well markets are functioning would help ensure the Commission's active oversight, and prevent the type of price gouging from which consumers and businesses in my sate continue to suffer. While the Commission did finally step in to cap prices--under intense congressional pressure, I might add--it has, almost 2 years later, failed to decisively act on the billions of dollars' worth of refund and long-term contract complaints resulting from the crisis. What's more, the Commission's Administrative Law Judges have taken every opportunity to throw additional hurdles in the path of the Northwest consumers, who have suffered more than any as a result of California's ill-fated restructuring scheme. That's why this legislation specifically articulates what legal standard should apply to the Commission's review of complaints for relief. Even in the face of admitted market manipulation--in the most brazen of cases, where Enron has described its own schemes to drive up prices and Reliant's transcripts quote company traders explicitly voicing their plans to drive up prices throughout the west by withholding power--FERC has, more than two years later, failed to use all the tools at its disposal to send a message that such activities will not be tolerated, levying fines that are clearly inadequate compared to the economic devastation these activities have caused. This bill makes the remedies for market manipulation far more transparent, doing away with the multiple years of arcane proceedings in which we are currently embroiled. The protracted cases resulting from the western energy crisis have yet to benefit anyone--certainly neither the industry nor consumers--except, perhaps, for energy attorneys. This legislation tells energy companies that if they are going to attempt to manipulate markets, there will be harsh and immediate consequences. It says that if the commission finds that an entity has attempted to gouge consumers, it will revoke or revise its market-based rate authority, set a just and reasonable rate going forward, and order the refund of revenues collected above the average wholesale generation cost within the relevant regional power market. Concrete, explicit consequences--commensurate with the level of damage caused by marketplace shenanigans--should provide a powerful disincentive for companies tempted to engage in the types of behavior that have crippled the economy of Washington and other western states. Now, I can already hear the outcry from some--but not all sectors--of the energy industry. They will claim that putting concrete remedies on the books--transparent mechanisms for consumer relief, and tangible penalties for companies that endeavor to gouge consumers--will breed too much uncertainty for participants in energy markets. To those who would make that argument, I would simply say, it is absolutely absurd to suggest that energy companies can't make money unless they retain their legal rights to rip off the ratepayers of this country. Ensuring that FERC--which is supposed to be, in Chairman Pat Wood's own words, ``the tough cop on the beat''--takes swift and decisive action when energy companies attempt to manipulate markets is an issue of simple fairness and common sense. Afterall, it is our Nation's ratepayers--residential and industrial customers alike--who pay the price for FERC's inaction, and FERC is the only cop on the beat. I have stood on this floor many times to speak of the economic train wreck created in my state by FERC's inaction in the face of the western energy crisis, which we now know resulted in large part from bad actors who decided to take advantage of a near-historic drought and tragically flawed market rules in California. Today, retail rates in many parts of my State of Washington have risen almost 50 percent, our unemployment is consistently among the top five in the nation, the demand for low- income energy assistance is at record levels, we are struggling to stave off yet another regional rate increase, and there is no end in sight--unless FERC takes long-overdue action. This bill sends a clear signal to FERC: we expect you to right the wrongs from which consumers throughout the west continue to suffer, and we expect you to use your authority to ensure a repeat of the western energy crisis never occurs. There is no other competitively traded commodity aside from electricity--soy beans, wheat, pork bellies, metals--for which a prolonged price run-up can single-handedly cripple industries as diverse as aluminum smelting, microchip manufacturing, irrigated agriculture, paper production or aerospace. Clearly, the economic stakes are exceptionally high when it comes to electricity, and as such, Congress must demand a greater degree of accountability from both the industry itself and those who regulate it. With this bill, we make Congress' intent perfectly clear: FERC must protect consumers; there will be swift and decisive action against those who endeavor to manipulate markets; and the deck will not be stacked against the consumers and businesses who are the victim of Enron-like schemes.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce--along with my colleagues Chairman Domenici, and Senators Bingaman and Murray--the Genomes to Life Research and Development Act. This bill capitalizes on the enormous success of the Human Genome Project, and promises to take this important research to the next level. While the mapping of the human genome is an unparalleled accomplishment on its own, this new initiative will allow researchers to go beyond the science of description, and begin to explore the complex interactions of the elements within cells. It is those intracellular dynamics that truly hold the key to finding solutions to some of our most difficult scientific problems--from detection of biological and chemical agents and nuclear waste clean-up to figuring out new and more efficient ways to produce hydrogen, so crucial in attaining energy independence for this Nation. Where the Human Genome Project has provided researchers with the range and description of musical notes, Genomes to Life will enable scientists to begin to understand the way these notes are arranged to produce music-- the essential process of life. The Genomes to Life Act sets out an aggressive path for DOE, to make this area a high priority for the Office of Science. Of course, none of this would be possible without the successes of the Human Genome Project, and I want to acknowledge the vision of this legislation's other sponsor, Chairman Domenici, in making that a reality. As some of my colleagues may be aware, the senior Senator from New Mexico laid the foundation for the Human Genome Project with legislation he first introduced in 1987. I am thus extremely pleased to be working with him on this bill, which I believe is the Human Genome Project's logical successor. Our legislation would authorize the Department of Energy to design and establish national research centers to investigate proteomics and genomics. Proteomics refers to the study of proteins, how they are modified, when and where they are expressed, how they are involved in metabolic pathways, and how they interact with each other. Genomics refers to the study of three-dimensional structures of thousands of proteins--all of the proteins produced by a species. These are exciting research fields that combine the discipline of physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, and advanced computational and mathematical modeling. The Department of Energy's Office of Science has a long history of success in large scale, cross-discipline scientific research and is thus well suited to manage this program. In addition, a significant component of the Human Genome Project has been the transfer of technology to the private sector, which has in turn catalyzed the multi-billion dollar U.S. biotechnology industry and fostered the development of new medical applications. The Genomes to Life Act that Chairman Domenici, Senators Bingaman, Murray and I are introducing today provides a coordinated and comprehensive plan for the next generation of biotechnology research facilities. The functions and dynamics of all living cells are determined by the complex interactions of the constituent proteins. We do not yet understand these interactions, but the Genomes to Life Act will give us the best tools to investigate these microscopic mysteries. Put in simple terms, teams of American scientists will try to answer the fundamental question, ``How do cells work?'' This bill will ensure that state of the art facilities, leading edge equipment, and the next generation of commuters are available to map and model these complex interactions, as we strive to answer this critical question. The promise of biotechnology research is especially important to my state of Washington--home to many world-class research facilities. Washington has over 190 biotechnology companies employing more than 11,000 people. In 2001, the annual revenue of these companies exceeded $1.2 billion. Nearly one half of these companies were based on technologies developed at research and development institutions and over 40 percent of the companies have been established in the past six years. This legislation's provisions--ensuring that research with its origins at the Department of Energy provides the science and technology basis for new industries in biotechnology, and that DOE continues to identify appropriate commercial applications--will help this important economic sector continue to grow in Washington state and across the country. The Genomes to Life Research and Development Act that Sens. Domenici, Bingaman, Murray and I have introduced today will strengthen our national security and our national economy. Additionally, the integrative and predicative understanding of biological systems will improve our ability to respond to the energy and environmental challenges of the 21st century. The Genomes to Life laboratories will attract top researchers and push the envelope of present technologies. The Genomes to Life Act will help the U.S. to maintain our premiere position in the world in the fields of science and technology. I look forward to working with my colleagues during this session to ensure passage of this legislation. I believe that the United States must continue to invest in scientific research to maintain our standing in the world and I am confident that this short-term investment will pay long-term dividends to our health, our security, and to our economy.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce--along with my colleagues Chairman Domenici, and Senators Bingaman and Murray--the Genomes to Life Research and Development Act. This bill capitalizes on the enormous success of the Human Genome Project, and promises to take this important research to the next level. While the mapping of the human genome is an unparalleled accomplishment on its own, this new initiative will allow researchers to go beyond the science of description, and begin to explore the complex interactions of the elements within cells. It is those intracellular dynamics that truly hold the key to finding solutions to some of our most difficult scientific problems--from detection of biological and chemical agents and nuclear waste clean-up to figuring out new and more efficient ways to produce hydrogen, so crucial in attaining energy independence for this Nation. Where the Human Genome Project has provided researchers with the range and description of musical notes, Genomes to Life will enable scientists to begin to understand the way these notes are arranged to produce music-- the essential process of life. The Genomes to Life Act sets out an aggressive path for DOE, to make this area a high priority for the Office of Science. Of course, none of this would be possible without the successes of the Human Genome Project, and I want to acknowledge the vision of this legislation's other sponsor, Chairman Domenici, in making that a reality. As some of my colleagues may be aware, the senior Senator from New Mexico laid the foundation for the Human Genome Project with legislation he first introduced in 1987. I am thus extremely pleased to be working with him on this bill, which I believe is the Human Genome Project's logical successor. Our legislation would authorize the Department of Energy to design and establish national research centers to investigate proteomics and genomics. Proteomics refers to the study of proteins, how they are modified, when and where they are expressed, how they are involved in metabolic pathways, and how they interact with each other. Genomics refers to the study of three-dimensional structures of thousands of proteins--all of the proteins produced by a species. These are exciting research fields that combine the discipline of physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, and advanced computational and mathematical modeling. The Department of Energy's Office of Science has a long history of success in large scale, cross-discipline scientific research and is thus well suited to manage this program. In addition, a significant component of the Human Genome Project has been the transfer of technology to the private sector, which has in turn catalyzed the multi-billion dollar U.S. biotechnology industry and fostered the development of new medical applications. The Genomes to Life Act that Chairman Domenici, Senators Bingaman, Murray and I are introducing today provides a coordinated and comprehensive plan for the next generation of biotechnology research facilities. The functions and dynamics of all living cells are determined by the complex interactions of the constituent proteins. We do not yet understand these interactions, but the Genomes to Life Act will give us the best tools to investigate these microscopic mysteries. Put in simple terms, teams of American scientists will try to answer the fundamental question, ``How do cells work?'' This bill will ensure that state of the art facilities, leading edge equipment, and the next generation of commuters are available to map and model these complex interactions, as we strive to answer this critical question. The promise of biotechnology research is especially important to my state of Washington--home to many world-class research facilities. Washington has over 190 biotechnology companies employing more than 11,000 people. In 2001, the annual revenue of these companies exceeded $1.2 billion. Nearly one half of these companies were based on technologies developed at research and development institutions and over 40 percent of the companies have been established in the past six years. This legislation's provisions--ensuring that research with its origins at the Department of Energy provides the science and technology basis for new industries in biotechnology, and that DOE continues to identify appropriate commercial applications--will help this important economic sector continue to grow in Washington state and across the country. The Genomes to Life Research and Development Act that Sens. Domenici, Bingaman, Murray and I have introduced today will strengthen our national security and our national economy. Additionally, the integrative and predicative understanding of biological systems will improve our ability to respond to the energy and environmental challenges of the 21st century. The Genomes to Life laboratories will attract top researchers and push the envelope of present technologies. The Genomes to Life Act will help the U.S. to maintain our premiere position in the world in the fields of science and technology. I look forward to working with my colleagues during this session to ensure passage of this legislation. I believe that the United States must continue to invest in scientific research to maintain our standing in the world and I am confident that this short-term investment will pay long-term dividends to our health, our security, and to our economy.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Dorgan prescription drug amendment to the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution. The fact is, when Medicare was designed in 1965, the system relied on inpatient hospitalization and seldom on outpatient services, preventive care, or patient drug therapies. At that time, prescription drugs only accounted for 4 percent of all personal health care expenditures. But as we enter the 21st century, the cutting edge of health care has shifted. Every day, as new preventive and therapeutic drugs replace outdated inpatient procedures, Medicare falls further and further behind in providing basic care. Medicare was written to cover the most basic health care for seniors. When the original bill passed, the legislation's conference report explicitly stated that the program was designed to provide adequate ``medical aid . . . for needy people, and should ``make the best of modern medicine more readily available to the aged.'' Well, we are not making the best use of modern medicine when millions of seniors cannot afford the prescription drugs they need. Prescription drugs that had not even been developed when Medicare was enacted are now an essential aspect of basic health care. We owe it to our seniors to live up to Medicare's original mandate and provide them the best medical care. Unfortunately, today, beneficiaries' current drug coverage options are often expensive and unreliable. And as a result, nearly 7 out of 10 Medicare beneficiaries lack decent, dependable coverage for their prescription drug needs, and more than one-third have no coverage at all. Prescription drug expenditures for the average senior in my home state of Washington are over $2,100 every year--over 122,000 of my seniors spend more than $4,000 a year. On average, $1 out of every $5 of every Social Security check to Washington State's seniors is spent on prescription drugs. And seniors with the most serious illnesses spend nearly 40 percent of their Social Security check on prescription drugs. Senator Dorgan's amendment would ensure a fair and adequately funded Medicare prescription drug benefit. The budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 23, currently reserves up to $400 billion for the Finance Committee to report legislation that strengthens and enhances Medicare, improves the access of beneficiaries under that program to prescription drugs, or promotes geographic equity payments. This amendment would first increase the Medicare reserve fund by about $220 billion, for a total of $620 billion. The amendment also specifies that beneficiaries in traditional Medicare should receive a drug benefit equal to that of beneficiaries who enroll in private health plans. The $400 billion that is proposed in the committee resolution for the Medicare reserve fund is not adequate to provide prescription drug coverage for all seniors, because this funding could be used for other Medicare ``reforms''--leaving even less for prescription drugs. The Dorgan amendment would ensure adequate funding for a reliable prescription drug benefit in Medicare for all beneficiaries. Seniors should not have to abandon traditional Medicare--and join an HMO or other private health plan--to receive the prescription drug coverage they need. The Dorgan amendment ensures fairness: all beneficiaries would have a prescription drug benefit without being forced into HMOs and other private health plans. In addition to providing a comprehensive, affordable, and adequately funded prescription drug benefit for all Medicare beneficiaries, the amendment would be fiscally responsible by including language to decrease the deficit by $250 billion and reduce the proposed tax cut by roughly $400 billion. As I visit senior citizen centers in my State of Washington and discuss a prescription drug benefit, my constituents repeatedly tell me the same thing: They want prescription drug coverage to be comprehensive, simple to administer, guaranteed, stable, and based on the very best medical technology. And most importantly, seniors do not want their prescription drug benefit run through an HMO or other private insurance company. In fact, according to a June 2002 survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Kennedy School of Government, 67 percent of American people believe we should expand Medicare to pay for part of prescription drugs, but only 26 percent say we should help seniors buy private insurance to pay for prescription drugs costs. Seniors want a prescription drug benefit run through Medicare--a program they understand and upon which they depend. The Dorgan amendment would ensure that seniors have this choice. Despite basic Federal standards included in Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug plan, a private delivery model means that insurers can vary premium costs, benefit design, and the availability of drug coverage across the country. They can create strict formularies that limit access to prescribed drugs and bar access to local pharmacies. That's too much flexibility in a program that is supposed to guarantee help for seniors. The very basic issue here is that the private market will not cover such a high-risk population--especially a population at such risk for adverse selection. I don't want to see this benefit be a repeat of the Medicare+Choice program. And if the private insurance model hasn't worked for the full Medicare benefit, it certainly won't work for a single benefit where utilization is expected to be high. For seniors who choose to remain in the traditional Medicare program, the Bush plan proposes a prescription drug discount card. The GAO estimates that the prescription drug discount cards will provide less than a $3.50 discount per prescription. However, the National Association of Chain Drugstores estimates that the average retail cost for an outpatient prescription drug in 2001 was $54.55. Clearly, the prescription drug discount cards do not offer a viable prescription drug benefit for America's seniors. In addition, the low- income subsidy of $600 to supplement the prescription drug discount cards is a false promise of assistance for seniors, who spend an average of $2,317 on prescription drugs each year. Seniors account for 12.6 percent of the general population--but a third of all prescription drug expenditures. And while prescriptions are expensive--in some cases, prohibitively so--these are the very same prescription drugs that keep people out of the hospital, out of the nursing home, and living vibrant and happy lives. And while it is difficult to quantify in economic terms, prescription drugs preserve health and eliminate unnecessary hospitalization--which is by far most expensive segment of the health care. Americans are becoming increasingly reliant on more effective--and more complicated--drug therapies. Total health care spending in the United States will total more than $1.5 trillion this year, an increase of 8.6 percent over last year, according to a March report released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Prescription drug expenditures are the fastest growing segment of the health care market--with spending on outpatient prescription drugs by Medicare beneficiaries alone increasing by 12 percent annually. CMS predicts that prescription drug expenditures will continue to increase faster than any other category of health care spending throughout the next ten years. In 1970, drug expenditures in the United States were about $5.5 billion. Now, for Medicare beneficiaries alone, the CBO projects that total drug spending will grow from $95 billion in 2003 to $284 billion in 2013. This is a total of $1.8 trillion on prescription drug costs over the next ten years. Medicare beneficiaries alone will spend $1.8 trillion on prescription drugs over the next ten years. But while we discuss the potential cost of a new benefit, we also need to discuss national priorities. I believe we can do a fair and adequately funded prescription drug benefit while living within our budget, and we can do so by having a clear vision for our country's priorities. One of my top priorities is getting a new prescription drug benefit to the Medicare beneficiaries in Washington State. But this may mean making other tough choices. I strongly believe that we need to include a prescription drug benefit in the Medicare program and I will continue to fight to ensure that all Washingtonians have access to the prescription medications they need.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Electricity Market Manipulation Prevention Act--legislation I believe is critical in ensuring our Nation's consumers will never again have to suffer from the type of energy price manipulation that has so devastated the economy of my home State of Washington. This bill is simple yet powerful in concept. In essence, it requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to do its job--protect consumers from energy price manipulation. This bill says that where FERC gives companies the authority to charge market-based wholesale electricity rates, the Commission must also actively ensure that effective competition--the only kind of competition that benefits consumers and businesses--actually exists. It says that if FERC finds that an entity has attempted to manipulate power markets, the Commission will revoke or modify the company's ability to sell power at market-based rates, and the company will be on the hook to pay back revenues in excess of the average regional cost of generating the power. And lastly, it says that FERC will not be allowed to change the legal standard for reviewing whether consumers deserve relief from market manipulation. I first want to make a very important point about this legislation. In large part, it does not expand FERC's existing authority under the Federal Power Act. It simply articulates more explicitly how Congress intends for FERC to exercise its existing authority. Now why is this an important point? As many of my colleagues may know, FERC--under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act--is already given the responsibility of ensuring just and reasonable wholesale electricity rates, and fixing those rates when market activity has gone awry. So why do we need clarification? Because despite overwhelming and undisputed evidence that any number of energy companies--Enron and its ilk--engaged in activities designed to manipulate power markets in the west, FERC has to date failed to take action on behalf of consumers. While prices started skyrocketing out of control during the summer of 2000, it took the Commission nearly a year to step in and reign in those prices throughout the west. The provisions of this legislation that require FERC to perform annual reviews of how well markets are functioning would help ensure the Commission's active oversight, and prevent the type of price gouging from which consumers and businesses in my sate continue to suffer. While the Commission did finally step in to cap prices--under intense congressional pressure, I might add--it has, almost 2 years later, failed to decisively act on the billions of dollars' worth of refund and long-term contract complaints resulting from the crisis. What's more, the Commission's Administrative Law Judges have taken every opportunity to throw additional hurdles in the path of the Northwest consumers, who have suffered more than any as a result of California's ill-fated restructuring scheme. That's why this legislation specifically articulates what legal standard should apply to the Commission's review of complaints for relief. Even in the face of admitted market manipulation--in the most brazen of cases, where Enron has described its own schemes to drive up prices and Reliant's transcripts quote company traders explicitly voicing their plans to drive up prices throughout the west by withholding power--FERC has, more than two years later, failed to use all the tools at its disposal to send a message that such activities will not be tolerated, levying fines that are clearly inadequate compared to the economic devastation these activities have caused. This bill makes the remedies for market manipulation far more transparent, doing away with the multiple years of arcane proceedings in which we are currently embroiled. The protracted cases resulting from the western energy crisis have yet to benefit anyone--certainly neither the industry nor consumers--except, perhaps, for energy attorneys. This legislation tells energy companies that if they are going to attempt to manipulate markets, there will be harsh and immediate consequences. It says that if the commission finds that an entity has attempted to gouge consumers, it will revoke or revise its market-based rate authority, set a just and reasonable rate going forward, and order the refund of revenues collected above the average wholesale generation cost within the relevant regional power market. Concrete, explicit consequences--commensurate with the level of damage caused by marketplace shenanigans--should provide a powerful disincentive for companies tempted to engage in the types of behavior that have crippled the economy of Washington and other western states. Now, I can already hear the outcry from some--but not all sectors--of the energy industry. They will claim that putting concrete remedies on the books--transparent mechanisms for consumer relief, and tangible penalties for companies that endeavor to gouge consumers--will breed too much uncertainty for participants in energy markets. To those who would make that argument, I would simply say, it is absolutely absurd to suggest that energy companies can't make money unless they retain their legal rights to rip off the ratepayers of this country. Ensuring that FERC--which is supposed to be, in Chairman Pat Wood's own words, ``the tough cop on the beat''--takes swift and decisive action when energy companies attempt to manipulate markets is an issue of simple fairness and common sense. Afterall, it is our Nation's ratepayers--residential and industrial customers alike--who pay the price for FERC's inaction, and FERC is the only cop on the beat. I have stood on this floor many times to speak of the economic train wreck created in my state by FERC's inaction in the face of the western energy crisis, which we now know resulted in large part from bad actors who decided to take advantage of a near-historic drought and tragically flawed market rules in California. Today, retail rates in many parts of my State of Washington have risen almost 50 percent, our unemployment is consistently among the top five in the nation, the demand for low- income energy assistance is at record levels, we are struggling to stave off yet another regional rate increase, and there is no end in sight--unless FERC takes long-overdue action. This bill sends a clear signal to FERC: we expect you to right the wrongs from which consumers throughout the west continue to suffer, and we expect you to use your authority to ensure a repeat of the western energy crisis never occurs. There is no other competitively traded commodity aside from electricity--soy beans, wheat, pork bellies, metals--for which a prolonged price run-up can single-handedly cripple industries as diverse as aluminum smelting, microchip manufacturing, irrigated agriculture, paper production or aerospace. Clearly, the economic stakes are exceptionally high when it comes to electricity, and as such, Congress must demand a greater degree of accountability from both the industry itself and those who regulate it. With this bill, we make Congress' intent perfectly clear: FERC must protect consumers; there will be swift and decisive action against those who endeavor to manipulate markets; and the deck will not be stacked against the consumers and businesses who are the victim of Enron-like schemes.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to express, on behalf of Washington State, our prayers and thoughts for the men and women of the United States armed forces that have now been called to duty in service of their country. I am proud to join my colleagues in the Senate and Americans throughout the country to come together to support our troops and pray that their mission is completed quickly, effectively, and with minimal casualties. America's deepest hope is for a swift conclusion to this war to liberate Iraq and protect the world from its weapons of mass destruction. In Washington State, we are proud to be the home to thousands of troops from our State that are currently serving our country in this conflict. The men and women of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, homeported in Everett, WA, have been deployed in the region since last summer and are a critical element of our efforts as a launching stage for air operations, including 50 missions over Southern Iraq just yesterday. Air operations will depend heavily on tanker aircraft, many of which are based in Spokane, WA's Fairchild Air Force Base. And almost all air missions will be dependent upon the critical support of EA-6 radar jammers and P-3 aircraft, many of which are based in Naval Air Station Whidbey Island in Oak Harbor, WA. In the ground operations, troops from Fort Lewis, near Tacoma, WA, will be providing critical infantry support. And cargo planes from McChord Air Force Base, also near Tacoma, have and will continue to be crucial in providing transportation support. We also recognize the important sacrifices being made by the National Guard and reserve units in our State that have been activated, leaving jobs and livelihoods behind to serve the call to duty. And let us not forget the parents, wives, husbands, friends and children of the men and women of our armed forces, whose support--in the face of fear and anxiety--is admirable and inspirational. We are enormously proud of our fellow Washingtonians that are serving the Nation. Along with men and women from all 50 States serving in the military, these brave and courageous Americans have volunteered to put their lives on the line to defend the security of our country and the stability of our world. Our prayers are with them, and we look forward to their speedy success and return home. I have tremendous confidence in the men and women of our armed services to bring this conflict to a successful conclusion. Yet, this support for the effort is accompanied by a deep sense of anxiety and concern. Nobody wants war. The death, destruction and misery of war are things that we should never ignore and we cannot forget. When our troops are called to defend our Nation and international peace, we do so with a heavy heart but strong confidence that we will prevail. In reaching our objective of disarmament, we must not forget the plight of the Iraqi people. Iraqi civilians have been victims of a brutal, harsh and inhumane dictator that has not only stripped away political liberty and free expression, but has combined the tactics of torture, deprivation and murder to maintain his terrible regime. We must soberly recognize that the Iraqi people will be innocent victims of this conflict, and we must remain dedicated to doing everything in our power to ensure their safety and, ultimately, liberation. Importantly, this dedication must extend beyond military success. We, in this Chamber, must recognize that the prospect of creating a stable, post-Saddam Iraq will be a huge, expensive and politically volatile endeavor. This will not be easy, especially given the historic rivalries among Iraq's Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni population. However, whatever the costs and whatever the commitment, we owe it to ourselves and the world to ensure that the liberation of Iraq our troops are fighting for is not wasted away by a failed post-war strategy. Our troops are answering the call of duty. As our hearts go out to their families and loved ones, we are a Nation that is profoundly grateful for their courage, dedication and sense of mission. We know that our troops will meet the challenge that they have been given.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise at this late hour to address an amendment that will be offered tomorrow dealing with the issue of workforce training. I applaud both of my colleagues from New Jersey for being here at this late hour to articulate a variety of needs in Superfund cleanup and infrastructure. I would like to address an issue about our human infrastructure and our investment in job training and education at a time when we have in the Northwest are experiencing some of the highest unemployment in the country, over 7 percent in the States of Washington, Oregon, and Alaska, and a very high average national unemployment rate. The question we are debating on the floor this week is how do we move forward with a budget resolution and what should our priorities be? I am here tonight to advocate that our priorities should be about a program that will help put people back to work by making sure they have the skills that are necessary in today's economy. While we hear a lot about the high unemployment, we also know from employers that they can't find the skill level that they are looking for in the workplace among the employees out there today. Why do they say that? We know for a fact that there are thousands of jobs in our State in the health care field that cannot be filled. There are thousands of jobs in the Information Technology field, but people can't be hired because the skill level just isn't there. Yet we have 110,000 dislocated workers in my State of Washington who would love to have those jobs. It is about matching those unemployed workers with job opportunities that employers would like to give them. The missing ingredient is funding, as we have in the past, adequate levels of job training dollars to train workers to meet the skills gap. People consider this issue and think: Isn't this about whether we help an individual worker? And it is. It is about retooling the American workforce. It is about retooling our workforce in an information age economy. But it is also about helping our national economy. Think of it for a second. What happens when you help re-train somebody and they upgrade their skills, as we have done in Washington State? I know a woman who was working, employed in the timber industry. She went back to a community college, was re-trained, got an Information Technology job, and made twice as much money. That was good for her but what was also good was that firm that hired her found a needed employee to help improve the productivity and bottom line of that company. That bottom line productivity and improvement in that company also helped our local economy. It produced a better output and a better general economy for the State. So by investing in workforce training we are actually helping our entire national economy. Why at a time with high unemployment, why at a time when our economy is transitioning and we are trying to come up with a budget that will stimulate growth for the future, would we cut such an economic development tool as job training? I know there will be some people tomorrow who will say we are not really cutting programs, instead we are actually just moving the dollars around. Earlier in this year we also heard that there were carryover funds to fund these job training program. However, my State has spent those dollars. They have actually committed those dollars to retrain people and upgrade their skills. We will hear tomorrow that, no, the money is there. But, what is really happening is that we are actually decreasing the money to fund important programs like the dislocated worker program or adult training program by as much as $678 million dollars. The President FY 04 budget proposal simply transfers dollars from other existing job training accounts and consolidates them into one adult training account under the Workforce Investment Act and calls that an increase. We are really robbing Peter to pay Paul. What I would like to be advocating is that those job training dollars need to be increased beyond prior years. What we should be talking about is, not the 2002 level, but a much higher level in 2004, if we want to reap the benefits of having a fully employed workforce. That should be our goal. I would even advocate we ought to be looking at the GI bill for job training and education this year as we reauthorize WIA and the Higher Education Act. That is the best way for us to keep our competitive edge in a global economy. Think about it. What is going to happen? I have been in the private sector. I hired lots of people for a high-tech firm. What is going to happen when you as an employer can't find the workforce because they are not skilled? You don't stop looking. You can't. You have to ship products. You have to develop your services. You go find the workforce wherever they exist. In this case they might be foreign workers. What we are really saying tomorrow is this: By cutting the workforce dollars by this budget proposal, we are really saying we would rather have foreign skilled workers in nursing, in Information Technology and other professions. Let foreign workers take these jobs rather than helping American workers to fill these jobs. I don't think that is what we want. We want to put the best foot forward in an economy that is changing, where companies have to compete in a global environment. Any company will tell you that their workforce has to be robust. By robust they mean well educated and ready to shift to new products and services as they meet the competition from other companies in a world that is changing much more rapidly. Even in the best of economic times, I would say we should be greatly increasing our investment in the workforce. In bad economic times, we ought to be filling that gap in an even much more aggressive fashion, to make sure we do not fall behind and that more of these jobs do not go, either overseas internationally because the skill level isn't here, or to foreign workers who are coming into our country on green cards and filling these jobs because they are the skilled workers. Tomorrow we have an important opportunity, with this workforce development amendment I will be offering, to say to people in this country that it is not just a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans that will get our economy growing. I disagree with that. But even if you do make some of those tax cuts to those brackets, you have to be saying to Americans who are unemployed and unable to find work at a time when employers are saying I can't find the workers either, when the health care industry is saying there are thousands of nursing jobs to be filled or there are thousands of Information Technology jobs, just give me the skills and we will hire them. We need to be making that investment. So I hope that my colleagues will join me tomorrow in supporting this very important amendment, to make the right priorities and the right decisions about where our workforce, our economy needs to go in the future.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from California for her articulate presentation of this issue, not only protecting a very important part of our wildlife refuge system but also for talking about the issue from an energy consumption perspective. Where is the best place for the United States to be investing its time and energy and to get the highest return, particularly at a time when our foreign dependence on oil is very important for us to make those decisions to move forward? I commend the Senator from California for her time and energy and for her amendment that we will be voting on tomorrow, a very important amendment that, on the one hand, you could say got a lot of attention in a debate last year. This body heard many hours of presentation from a variety of Members and made a decision on that issue. Tomorrow I will support Senator Boxer's amendment, but I question seriously why we have to go to this extent of having Senator Boxer's amendment at all. Why is this issue coming up on a budget resolution when a more appropriate time and place would be for us to take it up as part of our energy discussion, even though we did that last year and decided that it wasn't a priority for us in the Senate? I support what we are trying to do in protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because by protecting that wildlife, we are protecting as well a great part of what has been the last great wilderness in the United States. Proponents of drilling in the Arctic Refuge talk about reducing dependence on foreign energy supplies. I also support us focusing on reducing that foreign energy. But the best way to meet that goal is to develop a domestic natural gas resource, particularly looking at Alaska, and also to promote renewable energy technologies and reduce oil consumption through conservation measures. Alaska is a very important source of domestic energy. Make no mistake about that. The North Slope has trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. We should develop that natural gas on Federal lands, including the National Petroleum Reserve which was set aside for development. I am eager to work with my colleagues, Senator Stevens and Senator Murkowski and others, to build that gas pipeline to bring natural gas to the marketplace. Building a gas pipeline and developing the NPRA in an environmentally sound manner will create jobs in Alaska and will benefit the Native communities. It will strengthen our overall energy policy. We also, though, need to develop renewable energy sources, including domestically produced biofuels, and to focus on energy efficiency technologies, some of which I am sure we will be discussing later in an energy bill. These technologies can reduce our dependence on foreign oil sources. For example, Senator Boxer showed a chart on what could be done by using low-friction tires. That was an interesting chart because we have seen that in focusing on these new cars to help them comply with fuel standards, these new tires could cut gasoline consumption of all U.S. vehicles by 3 percent. That is a savings to our Nation of about 5 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years. As Senator Boxer pointed out, the reason that number is so important is, it is the same amount, 5 billion barrels over the next 50 years, that the U.S. Geological Survey says can be economically recovered from drilling in ANWR. Why take what is a national treasure in the last great wilderness for these 5 billion barrels when we can do the same thing by moving to a more efficient energy economy? I believe through a balanced approach, we can demonstrate our commitment both to wildlife conservation and strengthening energy security. However, this budget resolution is not a balanced approach. Drilling in the Arctic really is a reversal in America of about 100 years of commitment to conservation. I say that because, most importantly, the resolution would violate our duty as stewards of the Arctic Refuge, in the National Wildlife Refuge System as a major system, and would take away what has been one of our most valuable national treasures. During this debate, we must consider the number of people who have been involved and how we have been involved over the last 100 years to work to protect the sensitive wildlife habitat in this country and specifically the Arctic Refuge. Senator Boxer showed many pictures demonstrating what that wildlife refuge looks like and how pristine it is today and the wildlife that exists there. Everyone in this body wants to see us continue the Wildlife Refuge System. Last week, we marked our 100th anniversary of establishing the National Wildlife Refuge System. That was done by President Theodore Roosevelt at Pelican Island--the 100-year anniversary. Through that work, countless Americans have helped build a system of over 500 refuges in every State in the country. Tens of thousands of volunteers, several hundred ``friends organizations,'' scores of partnership organizations have worked closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to maintain the integrity of the system. In Washington State, local volunteers have built and helped protect various lands: Willapa Bay, the Nisqually River, the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, and many other locations. Americans have worked to build the system because they love wildlife and because there is the trust that we in Congress will be good stewards of these lands. Unfortunately, that stewardship is being called into question with this budget resolution as an assault on the system as a whole. This budget undermines the work of millions of Americans, including hunters, anglers, wildlife enthusiasts, and many others. It is very important that the hard work and focus of maintaining our wildlife, not just in the Arctic but all throughout America, be celebrated this week as we have reached this 100th anniversary, and that we support the Boxer amendment tomorrow, to say there is a wiser way for us to preserve and to move forward our energy conservation and security, and that there is a wiser way for us to get off our foreign dependence on oil, and that wiser way will mean making the right investment in natural gas, in technology, in conservation, and in preserving the Arctic Refuge. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to support Senator Harkin's Sense of the Senate that Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision recognizing a woman's constitutional right to choose, was rightly decided and should not be overturned; I also want to express my opposition to the underlying legislation. Thirty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a woman has a constitutional right to privacy when making decisions concerning her personal reproductive choices. That decision, Roe v. Wade, was carefully crafted to be balanced and responsible while holding the rights of women in America paramount in reproductive decisions. And Senator Harkin's amendment is very simple: it asks the U.S. Senate to reaffirm that Roe v. Wade was rightly decided and should not be overturned. This amendment asks the U.S. Senate to reaffirm a woman's right to privacy in making her own personal medical and reproductive decisions. Roe v. Wade held that women have a constitutional right to choose, but after the point of viability, the point at which a baby can live outside its mother's body, States may ban abortions as long as they allow exceptions when a woman's life or health is in danger. Yet the legislation before us, which lacks an important health exception, fails to do just that: provide for a woman when her health or her life is in danger. In June 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced the importance of a health exception with its decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, which determined that a Nebraska law banning the performance of so-called ``partial birth'' abortions violated the Roe ruling by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has stated unequivocally that every abortion restriction, including bans on so-called ``partial-birth abortion,'' must contain a health exception. The Court emphasized that, by failing to provide a health exception, the Nebraska law was structured so as to place a woman's life in danger. That's exactly what the legislation before us today does as well: it places a woman's life in danger. Despite the Supreme Court's very clear mandate, the legislation before us today does not provide an exception for the health of the mother. For this reason, this legislation, like the one struck down in Stenberg, is unconstitutional. While I assume the author of this legislation is referring to a specific procedure, the legislation is not clear on that fact. In fact the U.S. Supreme Court held in the Nebraska case that even if the statute's basic aim is to ban one specific procedure, its language was so broad that it will also ban other medical abortion procedures. Moreover, this legislation imposes an undue burden on a woman's ability to choose by banning abortion procedures at any stage in a woman's pregnancy. This bill does not ban post-viability abortions, a limit I would support, but unconstitutionally restricts women's rights regardless of where the woman is in her pregnancy. This legislation does not have a clear exception for women's health. I fundamentally believe that private medical decisions should be made by women in consultation with their doctors--not politicians. And this includes the methods by which a physician chooses to treat his or her patients. Why should we decide that here on the Senate floor? And I do not believe that congressional findings make up for medical consultation between a patient and her doctor. But this ban would undermine a physician's ability to determine the best course of treatment for a patient. Physicians must be free to make clinical determinations, in accordance with medical standards of care, that best safeguard a woman's life and health. Women and their families, along with their doctors, are simply better than politicians at making decisions about their medical care. And I don't want to make those decisions for other women. Three states, including my home state of Washington, have considered these bans by referendum. All three failed. We considered this debate in my home state in 1998. The referendum failed decisively--by a vote of 57 to 43 percent. These so-called ``partial-birth'' abortion bans--whether the proposals that have been before the Senate in the past or the one before us today--are deliberately designed to erode the protections of Roe v. Wade, at the expense of women's health and at the expense of a woman's right to privacy. I also want to say that I am extremely disappointed that my colleagues voted down Senator Murry's women's health amendment yesterday because the easiest way to reduce the number of abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. One critical way to do this is through better access to contraception, both by improvements in insurance coverage of contraception, as well as by improving knowledge of, and access to, emergency contraception. The Supreme Court, during the thirty years since it recognized the right to choose, has consistently required that, when a state restricts access to abortion, a woman's health must be the absolute consideration. This legislation flouts the Supreme Court's explicit directive, the advice of the medical community, and the will of the American people. We must continue to ensure that the women of America have the right to privacy and receive the best medical attention available. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Harkin's Sense of the Senate that Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision recognizing a woman's constitutional right to choose, was rightly decided and should not be overturned. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Craig Thomas to introduce legislation that would exclude loan repayments made through the National Health Service Corps from taxable income. I am pleased that Senators Leahy, Smith, Wyden, Snowe, Durbin, Hagel, Roberts, and Chambliss are also cosponsoring this important legislation. There have been many developments in the area of health care in the last few years from managed care reform, to increases in biomedical research, the mapping of the human genome, and the use of exciting new technologies in both rural and urban areas such as telemedicine. In fact, it seems that almost every day we hear of astounding new scientific breakthroughs. But unfortunately, while we are making great strides in the quality of health care, we are losing ground on the access to health care for so many. The sad truth is that there are currently 38.7 million Americans without health insurance coverage--9.2 million of whom are children. In Washington, before the recession, 13.3 percent of the population, and 155,000 children, lacked health insurance. That is undoubtedly higher today. Access to health insurance for the uninsured is of the utmost importance--we know that at the very least, health insurance means the difference between timely and delayed treatment and at worst between life and death. In fact, the uninsured are four times as likely as the insured to delay or forego needed care--and uninsured children are six times as likely as insured children to go without needed medical care. But even insurance isn't enough if there are no available providers. Hospitals and other health care providers across the country are facing an increasingly uncertain future. The sad truth is that it is increasingly more difficult to recruit health care providers to work with underserved communities--especially in rural areas. In addition to economic pressures, rural areas must overcome the environmental issues involved with recruiting a doctor who may have been raised, educated, and trained in an urban setting. The National Health Service Corps was created in 1970 by Senator Warren Magnuson, one of the most distinguished Senators to come from Washington State. He saw the need to put primary care clinicians in rural communities and inner-city neighborhoods, and developed this program to fill that need. Since then, the Corps has placed over 22,000 health professionals in rural or urban health professions shortage areas. There is no doubt that National Health Service Corps has been extremely successful. In fact, the most recent available data show that more than 70 percent of providers continued to provide services to underserved communities after their Corps obligation was fulfilled--80 percent of these health care providers stayed in the community in which they had originally been placed. During the last August recess, I had the opportunity to travel throughout Washington State and held 15 community discussions on health care. I met patients who would not have access to health services but for the providers there through the Corps and I met many doctors who have been living in our rural communities for years because of their Corps' placements. And because it has been so successful--right now in Washington State there are 75 physicians or other health professionals working in underserved areas that would not otherwise be here--we must do everything possible to support this program. Under current law, the National Health Service Corps provides scholarships, loan repayments, and stipends for clinicians who agree to serve in urban and rural communities with severe shortages of health care providers. In 1986 the IRS ruled that all payments made under the program are considered taxable income. Understanding the immediate detriment to scholarship recipients, who were forced to pay the tax out of their own pockets, Congress eliminated the scholarship tax in 2001. And while the scholarship program is now not considered taxable income to the IRS, the loan repayments and stipends are. By statute, the current loan program awards also include a tax assistance payment equal to 39 percent of the loan repayment amount, which is to be used by the recipient offset his or tax liability resulting from the loan repayment ``income.'' This means that nearly 40 percent of the Federal loan repayment budget goes to pay taxes on the loan repayment ``income'' alone. If these Federal payments were not taxed, and the funding was freed up, more health professions students could take advantage of the loan repayment program, and could be placed in shortage areas, thereby increasing access to health care in both urban and rural areas. This is not a new problem. The tax burden that accompanies the National Health Service Corps loan payments is a significant deterrent to increasing the number of clinicians enrolling in the Corps. I do not want to see a situation where, as happened several years ago, over 300 applicants actually left underserved areas because the Corps could not fully fund the loan repayment program. The legislation we are introducing today, the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act, would address this disincentive, making the Corps available to more medical and health professionals, and thereby bringing more providers into underserved areas. If loan repayments are excluded from taxation, the National Health Service Corps will have greater resources to provide aid to health professionals seeking loan repayment, and will be able to increase the number of providers in underserved areas. There is no doubt that strengthening the National Health Service Corps is a win-win situation. Corps scholarships help finance education for future primary care providers interested in serving the underserved. In return, graduates serve those communities where the need for primary health care is greatest. The bill is supported by over 20 national organizations including the National Rural Health Association, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Medical Student Association. I am especially pleased that the Washington State Medical Association is supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the complete list be included in the Record after my statement. I understand that there are no easy solutions to the health care problems we are facing right now. But we need to do something--even if it is taking small steps forward, and come in at this problem from many different angles. I urge my colleagues to look at this bill and to join us in expanding this vitally important and immediately successful program.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Craig Thomas to introduce legislation that would exclude loan repayments made through the National Health Service Corps from taxable income. I am pleased that Senators Leahy, Smith, Wyden, Snowe, Durbin, Hagel, Roberts, and Chambliss are also cosponsoring this important legislation. There have been many developments in the area of health care in the last few years from managed care reform, to increases in biomedical research, the mapping of the human genome, and the use of exciting new technologies in both rural and urban areas such as telemedicine. In fact, it seems that almost every day we hear of astounding new scientific breakthroughs. But unfortunately, while we are making great strides in the quality of health care, we are losing ground on the access to health care for so many. The sad truth is that there are currently 38.7 million Americans without health insurance coverage--9.2 million of whom are children. In Washington, before the recession, 13.3 percent of the population, and 155,000 children, lacked health insurance. That is undoubtedly higher today. Access to health insurance for the uninsured is of the utmost importance--we know that at the very least, health insurance means the difference between timely and delayed treatment and at worst between life and death. In fact, the uninsured are four times as likely as the insured to delay or forego needed care--and uninsured children are six times as likely as insured children to go without needed medical care. But even insurance isn't enough if there are no available providers. Hospitals and other health care providers across the country are facing an increasingly uncertain future. The sad truth is that it is increasingly more difficult to recruit health care providers to work with underserved communities--especially in rural areas. In addition to economic pressures, rural areas must overcome the environmental issues involved with recruiting a doctor who may have been raised, educated, and trained in an urban setting. The National Health Service Corps was created in 1970 by Senator Warren Magnuson, one of the most distinguished Senators to come from Washington State. He saw the need to put primary care clinicians in rural communities and inner-city neighborhoods, and developed this program to fill that need. Since then, the Corps has placed over 22,000 health professionals in rural or urban health professions shortage areas. There is no doubt that National Health Service Corps has been extremely successful. In fact, the most recent available data show that more than 70 percent of providers continued to provide services to underserved communities after their Corps obligation was fulfilled--80 percent of these health care providers stayed in the community in which they had originally been placed. During the last August recess, I had the opportunity to travel throughout Washington State and held 15 community discussions on health care. I met patients who would not have access to health services but for the providers there through the Corps and I met many doctors who have been living in our rural communities for years because of their Corps' placements. And because it has been so successful--right now in Washington State there are 75 physicians or other health professionals working in underserved areas that would not otherwise be here--we must do everything possible to support this program. Under current law, the National Health Service Corps provides scholarships, loan repayments, and stipends for clinicians who agree to serve in urban and rural communities with severe shortages of health care providers. In 1986 the IRS ruled that all payments made under the program are considered taxable income. Understanding the immediate detriment to scholarship recipients, who were forced to pay the tax out of their own pockets, Congress eliminated the scholarship tax in 2001. And while the scholarship program is now not considered taxable income to the IRS, the loan repayments and stipends are. By statute, the current loan program awards also include a tax assistance payment equal to 39 percent of the loan repayment amount, which is to be used by the recipient offset his or tax liability resulting from the loan repayment ``income.'' This means that nearly 40 percent of the Federal loan repayment budget goes to pay taxes on the loan repayment ``income'' alone. If these Federal payments were not taxed, and the funding was freed up, more health professions students could take advantage of the loan repayment program, and could be placed in shortage areas, thereby increasing access to health care in both urban and rural areas. This is not a new problem. The tax burden that accompanies the National Health Service Corps loan payments is a significant deterrent to increasing the number of clinicians enrolling in the Corps. I do not want to see a situation where, as happened several years ago, over 300 applicants actually left underserved areas because the Corps could not fully fund the loan repayment program. The legislation we are introducing today, the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act, would address this disincentive, making the Corps available to more medical and health professionals, and thereby bringing more providers into underserved areas. If loan repayments are excluded from taxation, the National Health Service Corps will have greater resources to provide aid to health professionals seeking loan repayment, and will be able to increase the number of providers in underserved areas. There is no doubt that strengthening the National Health Service Corps is a win-win situation. Corps scholarships help finance education for future primary care providers interested in serving the underserved. In return, graduates serve those communities where the need for primary health care is greatest. The bill is supported by over 20 national organizations including the National Rural Health Association, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Medical Student Association. I am especially pleased that the Washington State Medical Association is supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the complete list be included in the Record after my statement. I understand that there are no easy solutions to the health care problems we are facing right now. But we need to do something--even if it is taking small steps forward, and come in at this problem from many different angles. I urge my colleagues to look at this bill and to join us in expanding this vitally important and immediately successful program.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Black History Month. On February 1, 1960, four brave freshmen from North Carolina A&T conducted the first major sit-i9n protest of the civil rights movement. The ``Greensboro Four,'' as they came to be known, acted on the American principle that all people are created equal. Although the United States was founded on that premise, it is too often denied. We know that when one person breaks a barrier to equality, the potential opportunities for all Americans are redefined. That is why every February, we teach our students about pioneers like Ralph J. Bunche, the first African American to win a Nobel Peace Prize, and Jackie Robinson, the first African American in the major leagues. We must also remember, however, that individual success does not assure universal progress. My State is proud that the University of Washington accepted its first Black student in 1874. This was an important step towards equal access to education. At the time, the Puget Sound Dispatch declared, ``Every child of African descent born in this country has the same right of access to our public schools as the children of the most privileged of Caucasian blood. No teacher or school officer has any more legal right to exclude one than the other.'' However, it took 70 more years for the Supreme Court to endorse this standard. Now we face racial inequities in education and the resegregation of our schools. In fact, this year a study found that public schools have been undergoing a ``process of continuous resegregation'' since the early 1990s. We must ensure that our legal ideal of equality is a reality for every American. Hiram Revels, the son of former slaves, became the first African- American Senator in 1870. He overcame many obstacles and forever changed this institution. Because of leaders such as Senator Revels, this is the most diverse Senate in the history of the United States. And yet at the same time, there is not a single African-American Senator serving in this body. The American people want leaders who represent their values, ideas, and life experiences. For this reason, I am optimistic that as our country moves forward, we will continue to select leaders who value diversity and the representation of all people. It is the right way to protect our founding principle of equality, and the best way to ensure our prosperity. As Dr. Martin Luther King explained in his letter from Birmingham jail, we are bound by a ``single garment of destiny where whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.'' Our world is even more intertwined today. Like the great Americans before us, from Thomas Jefferson to the ``Greensboro Four,'' this month we reaffirm our commitment to the fundamental premise that all people are created equal, and must be treated equally.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce--along with my colleagues Senators Smith, Murray and Feinstein--the Renewable Energy Production Incentive, REPI, Reform Act. This bill reauthorizes the REPI program, which was created as part of the 1992 National Energy Policy Act to foster greater renewable energy production and level the playing field for public power utilities, which do not qualify for renewable energy tax credits. The REPI program provides direct payments to publicly- and cooperatively-owned utilities at a rate of 1.5 cents/kWh, indexed for inflation, for electricity generated from wind, solar, certain geothermal and biomass sources. As some of my colleagues may recall, the Senator from Oregon and I introduced a very similar bill last session, which was subsequently included in the energy bill that passed the Senate last spring. While conferees were ultimately unable to reach agreement on the broader energy bill, reauthorizing the REPI program must remain a priority as we again contemplate energy legislation during the 108th Congress. Since this program's creation, REPI has become an important incentive for locally-owned, not-for-profit utilities to become involved in the effort to diversify our Nation's generation sources to include clean, sustainable sources of power. Since 1995, more than 36 projects in 17 States have received more than $21 million in REPI incentives and produced more than 3,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per year. In my home State of Washington, where 55 percent of the overall energy load is served by public power, the REPI program had already helped support wood-waste and landfill gas projects, and promises to help locally-owned utilities tap into our tremendous wind resources. Already, the hills south of Kennewick, WA are home to the Nine Canyon Wind project--a 48-megawatt wind farm consisting of 37 turbines-- producing enough energy to serve 12,000 households. This bill will provide continued support for these innovative projects. The Renewable Energy Production Incentive Reform Act that my colleagues and I have introduced today will do three simple things. It will: reauthorize the program for another 10 years; direct the Department of Energy, which runs the program, to allocate funds on a more equitable basis in years in which the demand for REPI dollars far outpaces available appropriations; and clarifies that landfill gas projects and tribal governments are eligible to receive REPI funding. One of the key challenges in developing a 21st century energy policy for this Nation is putting in place the proper incentives to add new and sustainable sources of power to the grid. My colleagues and I from the Northwest have learned this lesson well over the past few years, during which prolonged droughts have stretched to the limit the hydroelectric system that has--since the 1930s--formed the basis for our region's economic growth. The new clean energy projects the REPI program supports help relieve some of the stress on our hydro system and position my state and region for the next cycle of innovation in energy technology. I look forward to working with my cosponsors during this session to ensure this small but important program is reauthorized--whether as stand-alone legislation or part of a broader energy bill. I believe we as a Nation now stand on the cusp of a revolution in clean energy technology. The Renewable Energy Production Incentive program is key in helping public power systems participate, as we work to put in place an energy policy that will meet the needs of our 21st Century economy.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce--along with my colleagues Senators Smith, Murray and Feinstein--the Renewable Energy Production Incentive, REPI, Reform Act. This bill reauthorizes the REPI program, which was created as part of the 1992 National Energy Policy Act to foster greater renewable energy production and level the playing field for public power utilities, which do not qualify for renewable energy tax credits. The REPI program provides direct payments to publicly- and cooperatively-owned utilities at a rate of 1.5 cents/kWh, indexed for inflation, for electricity generated from wind, solar, certain geothermal and biomass sources. As some of my colleagues may recall, the Senator from Oregon and I introduced a very similar bill last session, which was subsequently included in the energy bill that passed the Senate last spring. While conferees were ultimately unable to reach agreement on the broader energy bill, reauthorizing the REPI program must remain a priority as we again contemplate energy legislation during the 108th Congress. Since this program's creation, REPI has become an important incentive for locally-owned, not-for-profit utilities to become involved in the effort to diversify our Nation's generation sources to include clean, sustainable sources of power. Since 1995, more than 36 projects in 17 States have received more than $21 million in REPI incentives and produced more than 3,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per year. In my home State of Washington, where 55 percent of the overall energy load is served by public power, the REPI program had already helped support wood-waste and landfill gas projects, and promises to help locally-owned utilities tap into our tremendous wind resources. Already, the hills south of Kennewick, WA are home to the Nine Canyon Wind project--a 48-megawatt wind farm consisting of 37 turbines-- producing enough energy to serve 12,000 households. This bill will provide continued support for these innovative projects. The Renewable Energy Production Incentive Reform Act that my colleagues and I have introduced today will do three simple things. It will: reauthorize the program for another 10 years; direct the Department of Energy, which runs the program, to allocate funds on a more equitable basis in years in which the demand for REPI dollars far outpaces available appropriations; and clarifies that landfill gas projects and tribal governments are eligible to receive REPI funding. One of the key challenges in developing a 21st century energy policy for this Nation is putting in place the proper incentives to add new and sustainable sources of power to the grid. My colleagues and I from the Northwest have learned this lesson well over the past few years, during which prolonged droughts have stretched to the limit the hydroelectric system that has--since the 1930s--formed the basis for our region's economic growth. The new clean energy projects the REPI program supports help relieve some of the stress on our hydro system and position my state and region for the next cycle of innovation in energy technology. I look forward to working with my cosponsors during this session to ensure this small but important program is reauthorized--whether as stand-alone legislation or part of a broader energy bill. I believe we as a Nation now stand on the cusp of a revolution in clean energy technology. The Renewable Energy Production Incentive program is key in helping public power systems participate, as we work to put in place an energy policy that will meet the needs of our 21st Century economy.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, last night I sat in my office listening to my colleagues, most on the other side of the aisle, debating the issue of Miguel Estrada's nomination to the second most powerful court in the country, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. Even after all of the debate, some people may not realize that the D.C. Circuit Court is the overseer of all Federal agencies. It is the court that is most likely to make decisions about whether Federal regulations will be upheld or overturned, whether reproductive rights will be retained or lost, or whether intrusive Government actions will be allowed or curtailed. I understand why some of my colleagues last night may have become heated with the determination of our side of the aisle to filibuster this nomination. Many of my colleagues wanted to know why we believed we had no other choice but to filibuster the nomination. It is time we quit dancing around the issue. The question that has gotten so many of us concerned is whether this body is going to approve Bush administration nominees to the court of appeals who are out of step with the mainstream views of America. Someone said last night: Maybe that side of the aisle doesn't want to appoint conservatives. That is not the issue. What is at issue is we don't want to appoint someone who clearly refuses to answer questions on key issues of the constitutional right to privacy, only later to find out they will not uphold current law on protecting a woman's right to choose! Upholding a woman's right to choose is an important issue of privacy and something about which we should all be concerned, It is an issue on which we have 30 years of settled law, and women across America count on that right. But there are other stories and other issues of privacy we should also be concerned about. We are at a unique time in our country's history, a time when U.S. citizens have been treated as enemy combatants and imprisoned without access to counsel or trial by jury. We are at the tip of the iceberg of the information age where businesses may have access to personal information and exploit that information. Where health care industry people might have access to your most personal medical information. Where the Government has established a process of eavesdropping on and tracking U.S. citizens without probable cause. Where the Government has the ability to use and develop software that can track one's use of web sites and information on their personal computer without their consent or knowledge. These are all important privacy questions that deserve to have the attention of any nominee to the Circuit Court of Appeals. When Miguel Estrada refused to answer the questions my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee posed to him about the issue of privacy, and if he in fact believed in a constitutional rights to privacy, it was troubling to me and to my colleagues who are opposing this nomination. We need to have answers to these questions before Miguel Estrada can be confirmed. Make no mistake--the public is hearing a lot of bickering in the Chamber about numbers. How many nominees on this side have we pushed through, how many nominees have they pushed through, when a particular party was in charge. I am not sure the public wants to follow that debate. But one debate I am sure they want to follow is the failure of Miguel Estrada to tell us what he believes. A 2001 poll shows that seventy four percent of the American public believes the question of judicial philosophy should be asked of nominees to the appellate court and that answers should be given. Over 50 percent of Americans, in a survey done in 2001, believe Members should not vote to confirm otherwise qualified nominees if they think their views on important issues are wrong. Of course we cannot even make that judgement and we aren't left with a lot of options, when Miguel Estrada won't specifically answer the questions. Some have said that the issue is simply that we don't like his answers to the questions. I do believe that it is important to view this debate in a larger context. This debate is about what this Administration means when it says we should appoint people to the court and who have a strict constructionist view of the Constitution. Like most Americans, I was not entirely sure what that phrase means. So I looked for further clarification. I found some that was very interesting. In January 2000, the President appeared on one of the Sunday talk shows. And he was asked about strict constructionism. He was asked the following: With regard to strict construction, we will put up on our screens some words from Justice Scalia pertaining to abortion. [Justice Scalia] said: ``There is no constitutional right to abortion. I reach that conclusion because of two simple facts: One, the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it and, two, the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed.'' The host then asked the President, ``Would you ask a nominee that question? Do you agree with that?'' The President responded: I guess you would have to say that is my idea of a strict constructionist. So when people talk about a strict constructionist, very often they are talking about someone who doesn't believe in the constitutionality of a woman's right to choose. An editorial in the Atlanta Journal Constitution makes the point as well when they wrote: The same spirit of deception is apparent when the topic turns to abortion. Bush is committed to overturning the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing early term abortion; but in most settings, he dares not mention the truth because he understands how unpopular it would be. So instead of being frank about his stance, he talks in code of appointing judges who believe in strict construction of the U.S. Constitution. Mr. President, I don't think that is what this body should support. And in this context I do not think we should approve nominees who will not answer questions about their view on whether the right to privacy is guaranteed in our Constitution. Make no mistake about it. This is not about someone's political views, this is about each nominees' judicial philosophy. We had a very interesting debate before the Senate Judiciary Committee on a nominee to the Tenth Circuit, Michael McConnell. A man who in private practice and as a law professor had espoused many views in opposition to abortion rights and was very critical of the decision in Roe v. Wade. I do not agree with probably any of the political views of Michael McConnell. Yet he came before our committee and, for hours, outlined his judicial philosophy, his understanding of stare decisis, his view on where the right to privacy exists within the Constitution and how it evolved. He was very specific in saying he thought the issue had been settled. In just one of the many, many answers he gave on privacy he said: I think most scholars would agree. In Roe, the Court canvassed several different possible textural bases and said it didn't matter which one of the bases. It was only in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that the Court finally came down to a single methodology and identified the privacy right as rooted in the substantive due process of the 14th amendment. Mr. McConnell went on: Not only was Roe v. Wade decided by the Supreme Court, but a lot has happened in the 26 to 27 years, or however many it has been, since Roe v. Wade. That decision has now been considered. It has been reconsidered and reaffirmed by justices appointed by Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton after serious re-argument. At the time when Roe v. Wade came down, it was striking down State statutes of 45 of the 50 States of the Union. Today it is much more reflective of the consensus of the American people on the subject. I offer this as an example of a nominee who was confirmed! Approved with bipartisan support. Was it because we agreed with his political views on abortion? No. It was because he came before the Senate and answered the question about the constitutionality of people's right to choose. Now, some may say, well, this particular nominee, Miguel Estrada doesn't want to be that specific. We have all heard about this particular court, the District of Columbia, and how important it is to our country--the second highest court in the land--and the particulars of why this particular nominee may be so important. But again we also have to look at this nominee in context. This is not the first troubling nominee this administration has supported. They have put before us other individuals who, I believe, have been judicial activists in their role on various courts. We have been successful in defeating their nomination. Although we may be going to see them sometime in the future. Several months ago, the President nominated Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit. In a series of cases interpreting a new Texas law on parental consent, Owen suggested that a minor, even in the case of rape and incest, should be required to demonstrate that she had received religious counseling before receiving medical care. She insisted that her holding followed Supreme Court precedent, yet she was unable to demonstrate where in the Supreme Court precedent the requirement on religious counseling existed. That is because it doesn't. Our law does not require those seeking abortion to have religious counseling. Her dissent in a similar case was called an ``unconscionable act of judicial activism,'' by White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales. Another Bush nominee, Charles Pickering, received an unfavorable vote from the Senate Judiciary Committee last year after it became clear he had intervened on behalf of a convicted cross burner, calling prosecutors, including high-level officials in the Department of Justice, in an effort to lower the sentence of the convicted cross burner. The victim in this case said, after learning for the first time about the role that was played by Judge Pickering, that her ``faith in the judicial system had been destroyed.'' This is the context in which we view the nomination of Miguel Estrada. It is not clear where Miguel Estrada stands on the issues. He doesn't have a record like Priscilla Owen, or like Judge Pickering, about which we can ask questions. So the fact that he refuses to answer those questions, and the fact that the administration has proclaimed that they are very interested in nominating people with ``strict constructionist'' views about the Constitution, has left us very concerned about this particular nominee. Let me be clear. The public doesn't care about our bickering on numbers, but they do care about us doing our job and asking questions about the nominee's views on important issues. Another survey that was done last year asked whether individuals thought the views of nominees on specific issues should be taken into account, that Senators are expected to have a viewpoint by the people who elect them and not simply rubberstamp the nominees the President sends to the Senate. And 77 percent found that to be the persuasive argument to which they agreed. The public was also asked whether the views of nominees on specific issues should be taken into account since Federal judges serve for life and are not elected by the people, and no one should be put on the bench if that person holds a position on an important issue that Senators think is simply wrong. Again, 77 percent of the public believed that was a persuasive argument and correct. The issue is that the public does want us to do our job. They want us to find out the positions of these nominees. It was not that long ago we had another issue before this body, a nomination to the Supreme Court of Justice Clarence Thomas. At that time, Judge Thomas refused to answer questions on the right to privacy, saying he thought there had been too much controversy on the issue and he did not have a personal view on whether Roe v. Wade had been rightly decided. But then, only one year later, he dissented in Planned Parenthood v. Casey stating that Roe v. Wade should be overturned! This debate is very alarming to Americans. It is alarming because they want to know that their judiciary represents the views of the mainstream public; they want to know that the judiciary will uphold current law; that they will follow stare decisis. They want to know that the right of privacy, as it has been recognized in the Constitution, will be upheld. We have to go back and do our homework on this particular nominee. I think most people in America understand if you go to take a pass-fail test and you do not answer the questions, it is very hard for you to pass. We have all heard of oral exams where you have to show and understand the material you have been studying for years. If you do not show the comprehension of that material, you do not pass. I think people here understand that if you come before the Senate Judiciary Committee and fail to answer the questions, you do not pass as well. Maybe we will not agree on the types of positions this side of the aisle would support for a nominee. Maybe that side of the aisle does support people of strict constructionist views who do believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, but let's not put forth and continue to pursue a nominee who refuses to answer the questions. These are questions that deserve an answer. These are questions about which this body should hold its head up high and say, as we continue in an age where privacy is going to become more important, we will continue to fight for the rights of the American people. I yield the floor.