Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am proud to reintroduce the Lifespan Respite Care Act of 2005 today with my colleague Senator John Warner. I'd like to express my sincere thanks to Senator Warner for his leadership on this legislation which would make much needed quality respite care available and accessible to families and family caregivers in need. Caregiving needs do not discriminate: they demand the time and resources of millions of American families from all socioeconomic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds. Caregivers today provide an enormous portion of our health and long- term care for older adults and individuals with disabilities. Although much of family caregiving is unpaid, it is not without cost. In fact, it is estimated that if services provided by family caregivers were provided instead by paid professionals, they would cost over $200 billion annually. In addition, food, medicines and other caregiving necessities place added strain on already tight family budgets. Because of their responsibilities at home, it is much more difficult for caregivers to find or maintain jobs. Many caregiving families are struggling to stay afloat. We simply cannot afford to continue to ignore their struggles. In addition to the financial costs of family caregiving, this labor of love often results in substantial physical and psychological hardship. Research suggests that caregivers often put their own health and well being at risk while assisting loved ones. Meeting these difficult demands can lead to depression, physical illness, anxiety, and emotional strain. One way to reduce the burden of caregiving is through respite care. As you know, respite care is a service that temporarily relieves a family member of his or her caregiving duties. Respite care provides some much needed relief from the daily demands of caregiving for a few hours or a few days. These welcome breaks help protect the physical and mental health of the family caregiver, making it possible for the individual in need of care to remain in the home. Unfortunately, across our country quality respite care remains hard to find, and too many caregivers do not even know how to find information about available services. Where community respite care services do exist, there are often long waiting lists. There are more caregivers in need of respite care than there are available respite care resources. And many caregiving families are hesitant to take advantage of these scant resources. Parents and spouses and other family caregivers are understandably hesitant to leave their loved ones with untrained staff. In an effort to recognize and support the heroic efforts of our family caregivers, my husband signed the National Family Caregiver Support Program into law as an amendments to the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act in 2000. Prior to the establishment of this program, there was no comprehensive Federal program that supported family caregivers. Although the National Family Caregiver Support Program took a step in the right direction, further efforts are now necessary to meet the increasing needs of family caregivers. That is why I am reintroducing the Lifespan Respite Care Act today with Senator John Warner. This legislation would improve efficiency and reduce duplication in respite service development and delivery. And it would make quality respite care available and accessible to families and family caregivers, regardless of their Medicaid status, disability, or age. It would assure that quality respite care is available for all caregivers who provide this labor of love to individuals across the lifespan. My legislation picks up where the National Family Caregiver Support Program leaves off, by recognizing respite as a priority for caregivers and elevating respite as a policy priority at the Federal and State levels. This bill would provide grants to develop a coordinated system of respite care services for family caregivers of individuals with special needs regardless of age. Funds could also be used to increase respite care services or to train respite care workers or volunteers. There is much to do at the local, State, and Federal levels to address the growing needs of family caregivers. It is time that we make caregiving a national priority and provide the support that our family caregivers so desperately need. I would like to thank my Senate colleagues for their support of this legislation which passed the Senate last Congress. I look forward to working with you all to improve the lives of our family caregivers, and those for whom they care.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am proud to reintroduce the Lifespan Respite Care Act of 2005 today with my colleague Senator John Warner. I'd like to express my sincere thanks to Senator Warner for his leadership on this legislation which would make much needed quality respite care available and accessible to families and family caregivers in need. Caregiving needs do not discriminate: they demand the time and resources of millions of American families from all socioeconomic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds. Caregivers today provide an enormous portion of our health and long- term care for older adults and individuals with disabilities. Although much of family caregiving is unpaid, it is not without cost. In fact, it is estimated that if services provided by family caregivers were provided instead by paid professionals, they would cost over $200 billion annually. In addition, food, medicines and other caregiving necessities place added strain on already tight family budgets. Because of their responsibilities at home, it is much more difficult for caregivers to find or maintain jobs. Many caregiving families are struggling to stay afloat. We simply cannot afford to continue to ignore their struggles. In addition to the financial costs of family caregiving, this labor of love often results in substantial physical and psychological hardship. Research suggests that caregivers often put their own health and well being at risk while assisting loved ones. Meeting these difficult demands can lead to depression, physical illness, anxiety, and emotional strain. One way to reduce the burden of caregiving is through respite care. As you know, respite care is a service that temporarily relieves a family member of his or her caregiving duties. Respite care provides some much needed relief from the daily demands of caregiving for a few hours or a few days. These welcome breaks help protect the physical and mental health of the family caregiver, making it possible for the individual in need of care to remain in the home. Unfortunately, across our country quality respite care remains hard to find, and too many caregivers do not even know how to find information about available services. Where community respite care services do exist, there are often long waiting lists. There are more caregivers in need of respite care than there are available respite care resources. And many caregiving families are hesitant to take advantage of these scant resources. Parents and spouses and other family caregivers are understandably hesitant to leave their loved ones with untrained staff. In an effort to recognize and support the heroic efforts of our family caregivers, my husband signed the National Family Caregiver Support Program into law as an amendments to the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act in 2000. Prior to the establishment of this program, there was no comprehensive Federal program that supported family caregivers. Although the National Family Caregiver Support Program took a step in the right direction, further efforts are now necessary to meet the increasing needs of family caregivers. That is why I am reintroducing the Lifespan Respite Care Act today with Senator John Warner. This legislation would improve efficiency and reduce duplication in respite service development and delivery. And it would make quality respite care available and accessible to families and family caregivers, regardless of their Medicaid status, disability, or age. It would assure that quality respite care is available for all caregivers who provide this labor of love to individuals across the lifespan. My legislation picks up where the National Family Caregiver Support Program leaves off, by recognizing respite as a priority for caregivers and elevating respite as a policy priority at the Federal and State levels. This bill would provide grants to develop a coordinated system of respite care services for family caregivers of individuals with special needs regardless of age. Funds could also be used to increase respite care services or to train respite care workers or volunteers. There is much to do at the local, State, and Federal levels to address the growing needs of family caregivers. It is time that we make caregiving a national priority and provide the support that our family caregivers so desperately need. I would like to thank my Senate colleagues for their support of this legislation which passed the Senate last Congress. I look forward to working with you all to improve the lives of our family caregivers, and those for whom they care.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to Senator Frist for his leadership on this issue because we certainly do need to bring our health care system out of the information dark ages. I am pleased to be introducing this legislation today with the majority leader. It is a priority for both of us, and I look forward to continuing our partnership to move this legislation through the legislative process. For several years, I have been promoting the adoption of health information technology as a means to improve our health care system and bring it into the 21st century. I introduced health quality and information technology legislation in 2003 to jump-start the conversation on health IT. I am very pleased that I have had the opportunity now to work with the majority leader for more than a year on realizing what we believe would work, that would enable patients, physicians, nurses, hospitals--all--to have access electronically in a privacy-protected way to health information. We have a lot of challenges facing us in health care. We have a long way to go to achieve the goal of expanding access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans. But creating a health information technology infrastructure needs to be a key part of achieving our health care goals because we are facing an escalating health care crisis. Information technology has radically changed business and other aspects of our lives. It is time to use it to bring our health sector into the information age. Currently, the health industry spends 2 to 3 percent of its revenues on information technology, compared to roughly 12 percent in industries such as finance or banking. That is why you can go to an ATM virtually anywhere in the world and access money from your bank account. But despite evidence that greater investments could yield returns, we have not put in place the necessary infrastructure to facilitate the necessary investment in an interoperable health information technology and quality infrastructure.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I could not agree more. The majority leader comes to this debate with a lifetime of experience and expertise. Researchers at Dartmouth University found that we waste as much as one-third of the $1.8 trillion we spend on health care on care that is not necessary. Doctors write over 2 billion prescriptions each year by hand. With all respect to my doctors, some are unclear or even illegible. Handwritten prescriptions filled incorrectly result in as many as 7,000 deaths each year because we do not have access to a fail-safe system so that providing the prescription electronically, which also would trigger a response if it was interacting with another drug the patient was taking, is not yet available. With that data, it is difficult, sometimes even impossible, to track the quality of care patients receive. We cannot reward good providers or work to improve those who provide inferior care. Widening health care disparities really are a growing problem in our society. It is especially important because every moment that a doctor or a nurse spends with a patient is precious. For every hour that they spend with a patient, they spend one-half hour filling out those forms by hand. So we can save time, we can save money, and we can make it clear that this information will be easily electronically transportable where it is needed.

Mrs. CLINTON. That is absolutely the case, especially as we tragically know so many young people who have been injured in Iraq or Afghanistan move from the DOD to the VA. We have to have a better system so that they can know what needs to be done for these brave young men and women. Secondly, we believe our legislation should work to reduce barriers and facilitate the electronic exchange of health information among providers in a secure and private way to improve health care quality and meet community needs. When communities come together, as is beginning to happen all over the country, the Federal Government should help them implement an interoperable health IT system. Interoperable sounds like a confusing word, but it means they can talk to each other, they can operate in the same overall system and do it in a way that complies with national standards. To speed up this process, we propose spending a total of $600 million--$125 million a year, over 5 years--to begin the work of rolling out interoperable electronic medical records systems around the Nation. Finally, we must use the data we collect to focus intensely on improving the quality of health care. Our medical system, which is, and deserves to be, the envy of the world, still suffers from enormous and unpardonable disparities in the quality of care. Health IT will be a tool to help our dedicated health care professionals improve care, and efficiently, so that they spend more time at the bedside, more time at the office visit, and less on paperwork. Through this legislation, we will begin to collect consistent data on the quality of health care delivered in America. As the largest health care payer in the country, the Federal Government has a responsibility to begin that process of collecting data on its own health care programs and share it with the public. Then, with this data, we can begin to move to a health care system that actually rewards providers who give their patients superior care.

Mrs. CLINTON. I am delighted to be working on this very important national initiative with the majority leader because we are at a pivotal moment. Pockets of innovation and investment are developing all over the country. In my State, places like Rochester, NY, and in the majority leader's State, the Tri-Cities region of Tennessee, health care providers, employers and community groups are beginning the process of building a health information technology network. That is a positive first step, but it could be either a last step or a misstep because to truly achieve the promise of health information technology, we must ensure that these efforts do not become silos. In other words, there is one system for every hospital, one system for every clinical practice. They cannot talk to each other. So a person goes to one doctor. Their doctor is in New York, but they travel to Tennessee to visit friends, they are in an accident, and nobody knows how to get the information that will give them the best possible treatment. So if we do this right, this comprehensive legislation will create a health information technology framework that improves quality, protects patient privacy and ensures interoperability through the adoption of health IT standards and quality measures. We are marrying technology and quality to create a seamless, efficient health care system for the 21st century. I thank the majority leader, who has brought so much interest and expertise to this, for being a leader and making this happen in the next 18 months.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I ask unanimous consent that Melissa Ho, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on the Energy bill.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to Senator Frist for his leadership on this issue because we certainly do need to bring our health care system out of the information dark ages. I am pleased to be introducing this legislation today with the majority leader. It is a priority for both of us, and I look forward to continuing our partnership to move this legislation through the legislative process. For several years, I have been promoting the adoption of health information technology as a means to improve our health care system and bring it into the 21st century. I introduced health quality and information technology legislation in 2003 to jump-start the conversation on health IT. I am very pleased that I have had the opportunity now to work with the majority leader for more than a year on realizing what we believe would work, that would enable patients, physicians, nurses, hospitals--all--to have access electronically in a privacy-protected way to health information. We have a lot of challenges facing us in health care. We have a long way to go to achieve the goal of expanding access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans. But creating a health information technology infrastructure needs to be a key part of achieving our health care goals because we are facing an escalating health care crisis. Information technology has radically changed business and other aspects of our lives. It is time to use it to bring our health sector into the information age. Currently, the health industry spends 2 to 3 percent of its revenues on information technology, compared to roughly 12 percent in industries such as finance or banking. That is why you can go to an ATM virtually anywhere in the world and access money from your bank account. But despite evidence that greater investments could yield returns, we have not put in place the necessary infrastructure to facilitate the necessary investment in an interoperable health information technology and quality infrastructure.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I could not agree more. The majority leader comes to this debate with a lifetime of experience and expertise. Researchers at Dartmouth University found that we waste as much as one-third of the $1.8 trillion we spend on health care on care that is not necessary. Doctors write over 2 billion prescriptions each year by hand. With all respect to my doctors, some are unclear or even illegible. Handwritten prescriptions filled incorrectly result in as many as 7,000 deaths each year because we do not have access to a fail-safe system so that providing the prescription electronically, which also would trigger a response if it was interacting with another drug the patient was taking, is not yet available. With that data, it is difficult, sometimes even impossible, to track the quality of care patients receive. We cannot reward good providers or work to improve those who provide inferior care. Widening health care disparities really are a growing problem in our society. It is especially important because every moment that a doctor or a nurse spends with a patient is precious. For every hour that they spend with a patient, they spend one-half hour filling out those forms by hand. So we can save time, we can save money, and we can make it clear that this information will be easily electronically transportable where it is needed.

Mrs. CLINTON. I am delighted to be working on this very important national initiative with the majority leader because we are at a pivotal moment. Pockets of innovation and investment are developing all over the country. In my State, places like Rochester, NY, and in the majority leader's State, the Tri-Cities region of Tennessee, health care providers, employers and community groups are beginning the process of building a health information technology network. That is a positive first step, but it could be either a last step or a misstep because to truly achieve the promise of health information technology, we must ensure that these efforts do not become silos. In other words, there is one system for every hospital, one system for every clinical practice. They cannot talk to each other. So a person goes to one doctor. Their doctor is in New York, but they travel to Tennessee to visit friends, they are in an accident, and nobody knows how to get the information that will give them the best possible treatment. So if we do this right, this comprehensive legislation will create a health information technology framework that improves quality, protects patient privacy and ensures interoperability through the adoption of health IT standards and quality measures. We are marrying technology and quality to create a seamless, efficient health care system for the 21st century. I thank the majority leader, who has brought so much interest and expertise to this, for being a leader and making this happen in the next 18 months.

Mrs. CLINTON. That is absolutely the case, especially as we tragically know so many young people who have been injured in Iraq or Afghanistan move from the DOD to the VA. We have to have a better system so that they can know what needs to be done for these brave young men and women. Secondly, we believe our legislation should work to reduce barriers and facilitate the electronic exchange of health information among providers in a secure and private way to improve health care quality and meet community needs. When communities come together, as is beginning to happen all over the country, the Federal Government should help them implement an interoperable health IT system. Interoperable sounds like a confusing word, but it means they can talk to each other, they can operate in the same overall system and do it in a way that complies with national standards. To speed up this process, we propose spending a total of $600 million--$125 million a year, over 5 years--to begin the work of rolling out interoperable electronic medical records systems around the Nation. Finally, we must use the data we collect to focus intensely on improving the quality of health care. Our medical system, which is, and deserves to be, the envy of the world, still suffers from enormous and unpardonable disparities in the quality of care. Health IT will be a tool to help our dedicated health care professionals improve care, and efficiently, so that they spend more time at the bedside, more time at the office visit, and less on paperwork. Through this legislation, we will begin to collect consistent data on the quality of health care delivered in America. As the largest health care payer in the country, the Federal Government has a responsibility to begin that process of collecting data on its own health care programs and share it with the public. Then, with this data, we can begin to move to a health care system that actually rewards providers who give their patients superior care.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I want to speak strongly in favor of Senator Bingaman's renewable portfolio standard amendment. This is a goal-setting amendment that gives us direction and impetus to do what we should be doing. Requiring us to produce 10 percent of our electricity from renewable energy sources in 15 years is something I think is necessary so we begin to change how we do business, how we conserve, what we invest in. This is a major step in the right direction. Although the critics have raised some alarms about this amendment, numerous studies have demonstrated the efficiency and savings that would flow from the adoption of this amendment. Senator Bingaman has spoken at great length about some of these studies. The recent analysis conducted by the Energy Information Agency, provided some very strong support for what Senator Bingaman has proposed. In fact, it is the administration's analysis that shows if we passed this national 10-percent renewable portfolio standard with a 2020 deadline on it, we would save residential customers over $5 billion, we would lower natural gas prices by 6.8 percent, and that would have enormous benefits for our chemical, pharmaceutical, and other industries that rely on natural gas. It would also reduce electric utility carbon dioxide emissions by 7.5 percent. This does not even take into account all of the benefits that I believe would flow from this amendment. When it comes to renewables, we in the United States need to catch up. We are behind in this effort compared to other countries and we need to spur innovation and creativity. I also support Senator Cantwell's amendment. This improves on a provision in the bill that would require the President to develop a plan to save 1 million barrels of oil per day by 2015. That is a laudable provision. Actually it was approved by the Senate 99 to 1, 2 years ago. It is unfortunate the President opposes this provision and has even threatened to veto the Energy bill over it. At a time when oil and gas prices are high, at a time when national security interests clearly dictate that we reduce our dependence on foreign oil, rather than rejecting this provision, we need to go further than we went with the 99-to-1 vote, and that is exactly what the Cantwell amendment does. It establishes an ambitious goal of reducing by 40 percent the amount of oil the United States is projected to import in 2025. Finally, we are a can-do nation. We can do this. This is something we should be committed to do. These are goals. These are not enforceable standards, but they spur us, they raise our aspirations, they help us to think more clearly about what we need to do to protect our Nation's economy and security. I hope the President will relinquish his veto threat and that we will have strong bipartisan support on both the Cantwell and Bingaman amendments.

Mrs. CLINTON. For 5 minutes.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, the nomination of William H. Pryor, Jr., to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is nothing more than a political promotion cloaked in the thin veil of a judicial nomination. Judge Pryor has been an active and dutiful soldier in the administration's systematic assault on the Constitution and individual rights, effectively making his nomination for a lifetime appointment to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals political payback for a job perceived well done. Given Judge Pryor's disdain for the Constitution and individual rights, I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing Judge Pryor's nomination. If confirmed for a lifetime appointment to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Pryor would pose an enormous threat to the rights, protections, and freedoms of all Americans. Judge Pryor's professional record demonstrates a willingness to contort the law in order to make it fit his political agenda. During his 7-year tenure as attorney general of Alabama, Judge Pryor advanced his own personal, conservative agenda not only through litigation in which Alabama was a party, but also by filing amicus curiae briefs in cases in which Alabama was neither an interested party nor under any obligation to participate. As attorney general of Alabama, Judge Pryor amassed a stunning record replete with hostility for the rights of Americans and contempt for constitutionally mandated protections. In addition to attacking the validity of constitutional freedoms, Judge Pryor advocated for the dissolution of congressionally required protections intended to preserve individual rights, to safeguard our environment and to maintain the barriers that separate church and state. Judge Pryor has advocated a view that the Constitution does not harbor some of our most critical individual rights and freedoms. He has taken the position that these freedoms should be decided by the States, based on majority vote, regardless of whether constitutional rights are violated. The danger of this simple thinking is of course to regionalize the Constitution, making one's constitutional rights dependent on where one resides. But much more egregious is what this proposal would do to our Bill of Rights; it effectively makes our inalienable rights as Americans open to public and political debate. This surely could not have been what the Framers envisioned when they drafted our Constitution. Judge Pryor's general contempt for the Constitution is clear in the positions he advocated as attorney general of Alabama. In one amicus brief to the Supreme Court, Judge Pryor defended a State practice of handcuffing prisoners to a hitching post and exposing them to the hot sun for 7 hours at a time without water or bathroom breaks. This cruel and unusual brand of punishment advocated by Judge Pryor was later rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that ``the use of the hitching post under these circumstances violated `the basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment, [which] is nothing less than the dignity of man.' '' Showing disdain for constitutionally protected reproductive freedom, Judge Pryor has called Roe v. Wade ``the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history.'' In this spirit, he has endorsed the formation of unconstitutional barriers that would thwart the practice of reproductive freedom, going as far as defending Alabama's so-called ``partial-birth abortion'' ban despite the fact that it lacked the constitutionally required exception to protect the health of the pregnant woman. But Judge Pryor's attacks against privacy interests are not only relegated to reproductive rights. Judge Pryor believes that it is constitutional to imprison gay men and lesbians for having sex in the privacy of their own homes. In an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to uphold Texas' ``Homosexual Conduct'' law, Judge Pryor advocated criminalizing homosexual intercourse between consenting adults, ignoring the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. In his brief on behalf of the people of Alabama, Judge Pryor equated sex between two consenting adults of the same gender with ``activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia . . .'' This is from a brief in Support of Respondent at 25, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 2003. Judge Pryor's disrespect for the rule of law however, is not limited to his disregard for the Constitution. Judge Pryor has long been a foot soldier in the conservative movement's attack on the authority of Congress to enact laws protecting individual and other rights. He and like-minded conservative ideologues have hidden behind the labels ``States rights'' and ``federalism,'' when what they are truly advocating is the restriction of Congress to protect Americans' rights against discrimination and injury based on disability, race, and age. Again as attorney general of Alabama, Judge Pryor abused his discretion, making Alabama the only State to file an amicus brief in support of striking down part of the Violence Against Women Act. As Alabama's attorney general, Judge Pryor filed briefs calling for the elimination of protections contained in the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act. On two separate occasions, he testified in Congress against EPA enforcement of the Clean Air Act and against key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. In one Supreme Court case in which his office again filed an amicus brief, Judge Pryor urged the Supreme Court to hold that State employees cannot sue for damages to protect their rights against discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In a narrow 5-to-4 decision, the Court agreed with Judge Pryor's ``States' rights'' argument. After the decision, Judge Pryor expressed tremendous satisfaction for his part in dismantling a portion of one of this generation's seminal pieces of civil rights legislation. Judge Pryor said he was ``proud'' of his role in ``protecting the hard-earned dollars of Alabama taxpayers when Congress imposes illegal mandates on our state.'' Americans deserve better than this. They deserve even-tempered jurists who will not use the bench as a pulpit for the advancement of their own political agenda. Given Judge Pryor's disregard for individual rights, the Constitution and congressionally mandated protections, I cannot in good faith extend my constitutionally required consent to his nomination, and I encourage my Senate colleagues to again withhold their support as well.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to note the anniversary of the Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court decision. Griswold v. Connecticut marked a major turning point for generations of women. For the first time, the Supreme Court recognized that women have the fundamental right to make their own, private decisions about family planning. The decision paved the way for widespread access to contraception that has dramatically reduced unintended pregnancies, STDs, and abortions, and opened the door of opportunity for women to educational and career advancement that has made women a critical part of our workforce. However, we still have significant work to do. The United States has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies and STDs among industrialized nations, and too many women do not have access to basic preventive health care while the ranks of uninsured Americans continue to grow. As we commemorate the Griswold decision, it is critical that we keep taking steps forward to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and improve access to women's health care. Therefore, I have introduced legislation, the Prevention First Act, which would improve women's health, reduce the rate of unintended pregnancies, and prevent abortions. The legislation takes common sense steps towards strengthening access to contraception for women while also reducing health care costs borne by taxpayers and employers. We should all be able to agree that reducing the number of unintended pregnancies and improving access to women's health care should be a priority. I will continue to fight for the Prevention First bill so that we can keep building on the progress of Griswold v. Connecticut for generations to come.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, while I commend my colleagues for the compromise that momentarily spared this body from the so-called nuclear option, their agreement did nothing to change the fact that several of President Bush's judicial nominees fall well outside the mainstream and the parameters of what is an acceptable jurist. This nominee in particular, Janice Rogers Brown, has shown a disdain for the rule of law and precedent and is undeserving of lifetime tenure on the Federal bench. The administration's agenda has become evident throughout the course of the debate over judicial nominees. The President, the Republican leaders, and their supporters have turned our Federal judiciary into their own personal political battleground. To satisfy the demands of their most ardent right wing supporters, the Republicans have not chosen to appoint capable Federal jurists but rather the political activists willing to contort the law, precedent, and the Constitution in order to promote their own conservative political agenda. Our Federal courts have drifted well to the right in the past two or three decades. Today's so-called moderates would have been called conservatives in the 1970s. And while I personally think that this drift is not in the best interest of our country, I understand and accept that the President is certainly entitled to nominate conservatives to the bench. In fact, I have voted for the vast majority of this President's judicial nominees despite the fact that they maintain a conservative philosophy and support positions on issues that I do not necessarily agree with. I have done so because these nominees have demonstrated a respect for justice and the rule of law. But even accounting for this drift, some of his nominees, such as Janice Rogers Brown, are far outside of even today's conservative mainstream. Justice Brown is an agenda driven judge who, usually as a lone dissenter, shows little respect for the considered policy judgments of legislatures, repeatedly misconstrues precedent and brazenly criticizes U.S. Supreme Court rulings. She has a record of routinely voting to strike down property regulations, invalidate worker and consumer protections and restrict civil rights laws. What makes Justice Brown particularly ill suited for a lifetime appointment to District of Columbia Court of Appeals is her disdain for Government. Among other things, she has long advocated for the demise of the New Deal. She equates democratic Government with ``slavery,'' claims that the New Deal ``inoculated the federal Constitution with a kind of collectivist mentality,'' calls Supreme Court decisions upholding the New Deal ``the triumph of our own socialist revolution,'' accuses social security recipients of ``blithely cannibaliz[ing] their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much `free' stuff as the political system permits them to extract,'' and advocates returning to the widely discredited, early 20th century Lochner era, where the Supreme Court regularly invalidated economic regulations, like workplace protections. ``Where government moves in,'' Justice Brown has stated, ``community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible.'' Justice Brown's contempt for government runs so deep that she urges ``conservative'' judges to invalidate legislation that expands the role of government, saying that it ``inevitably transform[s] . . . democracy . . . into a kleptocracy.'' Furthermore, Justice Brown takes issue with one of the basic tenets of our entire judicial system--precedent. When she does not like the result established case law dictates, Justice Brown tries single- handedly to change it. In one dissent, she proclaimed, ``(w)e cannot simply cloak ourselves in the doctrine of stare decisis.'' These and other comments have prompted her colleagues on the California Supreme Court to criticize her for ``imposing . . . [a] personal theory of political economy on the people of a democratic state.'' Her fellow justices have taken her to task for asserting ``an activist role for the courts.'' They have noted that she ``quarrel[s] . . . not with our holding in this case, but with this court's previous decision . . . and, even more fundamentally, with the Legislature itself.'' And finally, they contend that Justice Brown's brand of judicial activism, if allowed, would ``permit a court . . . to reweigh the policy choices that underlay a legislative or quasi-legislative classification or to reevaluate the efficacy of the legislative measure.'' Justice Brown's nomination makes clear that we have entered an era in which conservative politicians are seeking to nominate and confirm judges who read the Constitution and the law to coincide with the Republican Party's platform. The expectation is that these judicial appointees will toe the party line. This politicization of the judiciary carries disastrous consequences. Because when our judges are viewed as politicians, it diminishes the influence and the respect afforded our courts, which is the lifeblood of their efficacy. Our independent judiciary is the most respected in the world, and our courts' ability to reach unpopular but just decisions is made possible only because of the deep wells of legitimacy they have dug. I urge my colleagues to take the longer view for the good of the American people. Think carefully about what the result to our judiciary will be if we continue to pack our courts with extremists who ignore justice and the law. I implore my colleagues to take seriously their constitutional charge of advice and consent and to reject the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Dirty Bomb Prevention Act of 2005, which I am introducing today in the Senate, and Congressman Markey is introducing in the House. Since September 11, we have increased our focus on dirty bombs, and rightly so. Most Americans are not aware of how common this radioactive material is in our country. Often we think of warheads or rods used in nuclear reactors. However, we use less radioactive materials in positive ways in our hospitals, research laboratories, food irradiation plants, oil drilling facilities, airport runway lighting, and even in smoke detectors. And although these materials have beneficial uses, the fact is that some of them, in the hands of a terrorist, could be used to make a dirty bomb that could be used to contaminate a wide area in New York City or in many other places across the country. According to the Federation of American Scientists, ``material that could easily be lost or stolen from U.S. research institutions and commercial sites could contaminate tens of city blocks at a level that would require prompt evacuation . . . Areas as large as tens of square miles could be contaminated at levels that exceed recommended civilian exposure limits. `` Even if such contamination caused by a dirty bomb did not pose severe health threats, efforts to determine the extent of contamination and clean it up would be both expensive and disruptive. And we know that radiation sources are numerous in the United States. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reports that about 157,000 general and specific licenses have been issued authorizing the use of radioactive materials for industrial, medical, and other uses. About 1.8 million devices containing radioactive sources have been distributed under these licenses. And we know that some of these sources get lost or stolen. A 2003 GAO report found that since 1998, there have been more than 1,300 incidents where radiation sources were lost, stolen or abandoned. While not all of these sources and incidents present potential dirty bomb threats, it's clear that we need to do a better job. This legislation fills in remaining gaps to enable the U.S. to more effectively control radiation sources. First, the bill would give the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the authority and the mandate to control Radium-226 and other naturally occurring radioactive materials that for historical reasons have remained outside of federal control. Radium-226 is of particular concern, as it is on the list of radiation sources that the United States has agreed to control as part of adhering to the International Atomic Energy Agency Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources. Radium-226 was used in medicine, starting early in the 20th century. Its use increased until the 1950s, when there were more than 5,000 radium users in the U.S. Since then, its use declined, and we don't have a good handle on what is left out there. Because it is naturally occurring, it has stayed out federal regulatory net. So we need to give the NRC the authority to go out and get control of it. Second, the bill requires the NRC to develop within 6 months of enactment a ``cradle-to-grave'' tracking system to ensure that we know where radiation sources of concern are at all times. That's just common sense, and if FedEx can do it, I think we ought to be able to do it for materials that could be used in a dirty bomb. Third, the bill requires the establishment of import and export controls for radiation sources. This is obvious--we need to know what's coming and going as part of our efforts to control these materials. These 3 provisions are fundamental steps that we know we need to take today to reduce the risk that radioactive materials will fall into the wrong hands. But the bill also looks forward in several ways. First, the bill requires an inter-agency task force on radiation source protection to make periodic recommendations to Congress and the NRC about the safety and security of radiation sources. That way we will know how we're doing, and what we need to do in the future. Second, the bill requires a National Academy of Sciences study of whether some current industrial uses of radiation sources could be replaced with non-radioactive or less dangerous radioactive materials. As I stated early on, there are many beneficial and necessary uses of radioactive materials, such as in medicine. But there are some cases where use of radioactive materials can be replaced with newer technologies. Just to give one example, some steel mills have been replacing nuclear process gauges with other technologies. By exploring other opportunities to reduce the use of radioactive materials where possible and appropriate, we can shrink the pool of radioactive materials that are available to make a dirty bomb in the future. So I hope we can take action on this legislation soon. Here in the Senate I will be working with my colleagues to see whether we can include this legislation in a nuclear plant security bill that the committee will be marking up in June. I ask unanimous consent that the text of bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Dirty Bomb Prevention Act of 2005, which I am introducing today in the Senate, and Congressman Markey is introducing in the House. Since September 11, we have increased our focus on dirty bombs, and rightly so. Most Americans are not aware of how common this radioactive material is in our country. Often we think of warheads or rods used in nuclear reactors. However, we use less radioactive materials in positive ways in our hospitals, research laboratories, food irradiation plants, oil drilling facilities, airport runway lighting, and even in smoke detectors. And although these materials have beneficial uses, the fact is that some of them, in the hands of a terrorist, could be used to make a dirty bomb that could be used to contaminate a wide area in New York City or in many other places across the country. According to the Federation of American Scientists, ``material that could easily be lost or stolen from U.S. research institutions and commercial sites could contaminate tens of city blocks at a level that would require prompt evacuation . . . Areas as large as tens of square miles could be contaminated at levels that exceed recommended civilian exposure limits. `` Even if such contamination caused by a dirty bomb did not pose severe health threats, efforts to determine the extent of contamination and clean it up would be both expensive and disruptive. And we know that radiation sources are numerous in the United States. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reports that about 157,000 general and specific licenses have been issued authorizing the use of radioactive materials for industrial, medical, and other uses. About 1.8 million devices containing radioactive sources have been distributed under these licenses. And we know that some of these sources get lost or stolen. A 2003 GAO report found that since 1998, there have been more than 1,300 incidents where radiation sources were lost, stolen or abandoned. While not all of these sources and incidents present potential dirty bomb threats, it's clear that we need to do a better job. This legislation fills in remaining gaps to enable the U.S. to more effectively control radiation sources. First, the bill would give the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the authority and the mandate to control Radium-226 and other naturally occurring radioactive materials that for historical reasons have remained outside of federal control. Radium-226 is of particular concern, as it is on the list of radiation sources that the United States has agreed to control as part of adhering to the International Atomic Energy Agency Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources. Radium-226 was used in medicine, starting early in the 20th century. Its use increased until the 1950s, when there were more than 5,000 radium users in the U.S. Since then, its use declined, and we don't have a good handle on what is left out there. Because it is naturally occurring, it has stayed out federal regulatory net. So we need to give the NRC the authority to go out and get control of it. Second, the bill requires the NRC to develop within 6 months of enactment a ``cradle-to-grave'' tracking system to ensure that we know where radiation sources of concern are at all times. That's just common sense, and if FedEx can do it, I think we ought to be able to do it for materials that could be used in a dirty bomb. Third, the bill requires the establishment of import and export controls for radiation sources. This is obvious--we need to know what's coming and going as part of our efforts to control these materials. These 3 provisions are fundamental steps that we know we need to take today to reduce the risk that radioactive materials will fall into the wrong hands. But the bill also looks forward in several ways. First, the bill requires an inter-agency task force on radiation source protection to make periodic recommendations to Congress and the NRC about the safety and security of radiation sources. That way we will know how we're doing, and what we need to do in the future. Second, the bill requires a National Academy of Sciences study of whether some current industrial uses of radiation sources could be replaced with non-radioactive or less dangerous radioactive materials. As I stated early on, there are many beneficial and necessary uses of radioactive materials, such as in medicine. But there are some cases where use of radioactive materials can be replaced with newer technologies. Just to give one example, some steel mills have been replacing nuclear process gauges with other technologies. By exploring other opportunities to reduce the use of radioactive materials where possible and appropriate, we can shrink the pool of radioactive materials that are available to make a dirty bomb in the future. So I hope we can take action on this legislation soon. Here in the Senate I will be working with my colleagues to see whether we can include this legislation in a nuclear plant security bill that the committee will be marking up in June. I ask unanimous consent that the text of bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, Senator Collins and I, and in the House of Representatives, Congressman Kennedy and Congressman Ros- Lehtinen, are reintroducing the Positive Aging Act, in an effort to improve the accessibility and quality of mental health services for our rapidly growing population of older Americans. We are pleased to be reintroducing this important legislation during Mental Health and Aging Week. I want to acknowledge and thank our partners from the mental health and aging community who have collaborated with us and have been working diligently on these issues for many years, including the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Nurses Association. Today, advances in medical science are helping us to live longer than ever before. In New York State alone, there are 2\1/2\ million citizens aged 65 or older. And this population will only continue to grow as the firs wave of Baby Boomers turns 65 in less than 10 years. As we look forward to this increased longevity, we must also acknowledge the challenges that we face related to the quality of life as we age. Chief among these are mental and behavioral health concerns. Although most older adults enjoy good mental health it is estimated that nearly 20 percent of Americans age 55 or older experience a mental disorder. It is anticipated that the number of seniors with mental and behavioral health problems will almost quadruple, from 4 million in 1970 to 15 million in 2030. In New York State alone, there are an estimated 500,000 older adults with mental health disorders. As the baby boomers age we expect to see the number of seniors in need of mental health services in the State of New York grow to over 750,000. Among the most prevalent mental health concerns older adults encounter are anxiety, depression, cognitive impairment, and substance abuse. These disorders, if left untreated, can have severe physical and psychological implications. In fact, older adults have the highest rates of suicide in our country and depression is the foremost risk factor. The physical consequences of mental health disorders can be both expensive and debilitating. Depression has a powerful negative impact on ability to function, resulting in high rates of disability. The World Health Organization projects that by the year 2020, depression will remain a leading cause of disability, second only to cardiovascular disease. Even mild depression lowers immunity and may compromise a person's ability to fight infections and cancers. Research indicates that 50-70 percent of all primary care medical visits are related to psychological factors such as anxiety, depression, and stress. Mental disorders do not have to be a part of the aging process because we have effective treatments for these conditions. But in far too many instances our seniors go undiagnosed and untreated because of the current divide in our country between health care and mental health care. Too often physicians and other health professionals fail to recognize the signs and symptoms of mental health problems. Even more troubling, knowledge about treatment is simply not accessible to many primary care practitioners. As a whole, we have failed to fully integrate mental health screening and treatment into our health service systems. These missed opportunities to diagnose and treat mental health disorders are taking a tremendous toll on seniors and increasing the burden on their families and our health care system. That is why I am reintroducing the Positive Aging Act with my co- sponsors Senator Collins and Representatives Kennedy and Ros-Lehtinen. This legislation would amend the Older Americans Act and the Public Health Service Act to strengthen the delivery of mental health services to older Americans. Specifically, the Positive Aging Act would fund grants to states to provide screening and treatment for mental health disorders in seniors. It would also fund demonstration projects to provide these screening and treatment services to older adults residing in rural areas and in naturally occurring retirement communities, NORC's. This legislation would also authorize demonstration projects to reach out to seniors and make much needed collaborative mental health services available in community settings where older adults reside and already receive services such as primary care clinics, senior centers, adult day care programs, and assisted living facilities. Today, we are fortunate to have a variety of effective treatments to address the mental health needs of American seniors. I believe that we owe it to older adults in this country to do all that we can to ensure that high quality mental health care is both available and accessible. This legislation takes an important step in that direction and I look forward to working with you all to enact the Positive Aging Act during the upcoming Older Americans Act and SAMHSA reauthorizations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, while I commend my Senate colleagues for their success at averting an unnecessary showdown over the so-called nuclear option, the fact remains that Justice Priscilla Owen is still ill suited to serve a lifetime appointment on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. While I voted to invoke cloture on her nomination, this was done in the spirit of compromise and comity. I remain steadfastly opposed to her appointment and note that nothing that has transpired in the last 24 hours has changed her record of judicial activism or extremism, nor has it changed the fact that she consistently and conveniently ignores justice and the rule of law in order to promote a conservative political agenda. For these stated reasons, I cannot vote in favor of her confirmation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. The American people deserve judges--be they conservative or liberal-- who are dedicated to an evenhanded application of our laws, free of political constraints and considerations. Justice Owen's record is littered with examples that demonstrate a lack of respect for these values. In case after case, Justice Owen shows her willingness to make law from the bench rather than follow the language and intent of the legislature. Justice Owen consistently votes to throw out jury verdicts favoring workers and consumers against corporate interests and dismisses suits brought by workers for job-related injuries, discrimination and unfair employment practices. For example, in Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Sys., the Texas Supreme Court responded to a certified question from the federal Fifth Circuit. Then Texas Supreme Court Justice and current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wrote the majority decision holding that a Texas law required manufacturers of harmful products to indemnify sellers who defend themselves from litigation related to their sales of these and similar products. A dissent authored by Justice Owen would have effectively rewritten Texas law to preclude such third-party relief in some cases. Gonzales wrote that adopting the manufacturer's position, as Owen argued, would require the court to improperly ``judicially amend the statute.'' Justice Owen has also authored many opinions that severely restrict or even eliminate the rights of workers. For example, in Montgomery Independent School District v. Davis, the 6-3 majority affirmed the finding of the lower courts that the school district had to reinstate a teacher after finding there was insufficient basis not to renew the teacher's contract. As she often does, Justice Owen dissented from the majority--a majority which included Gonzales and two other Bush nominees. Owen's dissent sets forth an interpretation of the statute that was contrary to the plain language of the law. The majority rightly points out that Owen's dissent, ``not only disregards the procedural limitations in the statute but takes a position even more extreme than that argued for by the board . . .'' In another case, Austin v. Healthtrust Inc., Justice Owen held that employees in Texas could be fired for whistle blowing or refusing to act illegally. She held that whistle blowers--heroes, as Time Magazine entitled them in the wake of the Enron debacle--have no protection in her courtroom. In a time such as this, we rely on our nation's workers to report acts of illegality and provide much needed oversight of corporations. Our courts and judges should acknowledge the important role that these people play. But, again, Justice Owen does not believe that these brave women and men should have access to the courts or a remedy in the law. I could go on and on. These cases make clear that Justice Owen is ready and willing to take extreme positions that run contrary to the facts and the law in order to favor businesses and government. Apart from all of the above questionable opinions favoring business, Justice Owen has also expressed a particular hostility to women's constitutionally protected right to reproductive choice. In Texas, there is a law that is constitutional under Supreme Court precedent. This law mandates that a minor woman who seeks an abortion must notify her parents. The law provides for three exceptions that allow a court to offer what's called a ``judicial bypass.'' The law is very clear about these three circumstances, yet Justice Owen routinely advocates adding additional obstacles to the process and making it much harder for a young pregnant woman to exercise her constitutionally protected freedom of choice. In re Jane Doe I, Justice Owen advocated requiring a minor to show an awareness of the ``philosophic, moral, social and religious arguments that can be brought to bear'' before obtaining judicial approval for an abortion without parental consent, ignoring the explicit requirements of the statute. This and other opinions prompted Justice Gonzales to criticize Owen for attempting to rewrite Texas' parental notification statute, calling her opinions In re Jane Doe ``an unconscionable act of judicial activism.'' As her record unequivocally demonstrates, Justice Owen lacks the impartiality and dedication to the rule of law to separate her conservative political agenda from her judicial opinions. Time after time, when presented with an opportunity to cite precedent, Justice Owen has instead chosen to interject her own political ideology, doing the litigants before her and the rule of law a tremendous injustice. Our federal courts and our constituents deserve better. Finally, Mr. President, as has been noted by many of my colleagues over the last several weeks, the Constitution commands that the Senate provide meaningful Advice and Consent to the President on judicial nominations. I encourage the President to heed the call of our Senate colleagues who brokered the deal that spared this body from the nuclear option--consult with both Democratic and Republican Senators before submitting judicial nominations to the Senate for consideration. Only then can our Constitutional mandate of Advice and Consent be properly honored. In the immediate case of Justice Priscilla Owen, after reviewing her judicial opinions and examining her qualifications for a lifetime appointment on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, I feel it is my Constitutional duty to deny her nomination my consent, and I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in opposing her appointment.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, Senator Collins and I, and in the House of Representatives, Congressman Kennedy and Congressman Ros- Lehtinen, are reintroducing the Positive Aging Act, in an effort to improve the accessibility and quality of mental health services for our rapidly growing population of older Americans. We are pleased to be reintroducing this important legislation during Mental Health and Aging Week. I want to acknowledge and thank our partners from the mental health and aging community who have collaborated with us and have been working diligently on these issues for many years, including the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Nurses Association. Today, advances in medical science are helping us to live longer than ever before. In New York State alone, there are 2\1/2\ million citizens aged 65 or older. And this population will only continue to grow as the firs wave of Baby Boomers turns 65 in less than 10 years. As we look forward to this increased longevity, we must also acknowledge the challenges that we face related to the quality of life as we age. Chief among these are mental and behavioral health concerns. Although most older adults enjoy good mental health it is estimated that nearly 20 percent of Americans age 55 or older experience a mental disorder. It is anticipated that the number of seniors with mental and behavioral health problems will almost quadruple, from 4 million in 1970 to 15 million in 2030. In New York State alone, there are an estimated 500,000 older adults with mental health disorders. As the baby boomers age we expect to see the number of seniors in need of mental health services in the State of New York grow to over 750,000. Among the most prevalent mental health concerns older adults encounter are anxiety, depression, cognitive impairment, and substance abuse. These disorders, if left untreated, can have severe physical and psychological implications. In fact, older adults have the highest rates of suicide in our country and depression is the foremost risk factor. The physical consequences of mental health disorders can be both expensive and debilitating. Depression has a powerful negative impact on ability to function, resulting in high rates of disability. The World Health Organization projects that by the year 2020, depression will remain a leading cause of disability, second only to cardiovascular disease. Even mild depression lowers immunity and may compromise a person's ability to fight infections and cancers. Research indicates that 50-70 percent of all primary care medical visits are related to psychological factors such as anxiety, depression, and stress. Mental disorders do not have to be a part of the aging process because we have effective treatments for these conditions. But in far too many instances our seniors go undiagnosed and untreated because of the current divide in our country between health care and mental health care. Too often physicians and other health professionals fail to recognize the signs and symptoms of mental health problems. Even more troubling, knowledge about treatment is simply not accessible to many primary care practitioners. As a whole, we have failed to fully integrate mental health screening and treatment into our health service systems. These missed opportunities to diagnose and treat mental health disorders are taking a tremendous toll on seniors and increasing the burden on their families and our health care system. That is why I am reintroducing the Positive Aging Act with my co- sponsors Senator Collins and Representatives Kennedy and Ros-Lehtinen. This legislation would amend the Older Americans Act and the Public Health Service Act to strengthen the delivery of mental health services to older Americans. Specifically, the Positive Aging Act would fund grants to states to provide screening and treatment for mental health disorders in seniors. It would also fund demonstration projects to provide these screening and treatment services to older adults residing in rural areas and in naturally occurring retirement communities, NORC's. This legislation would also authorize demonstration projects to reach out to seniors and make much needed collaborative mental health services available in community settings where older adults reside and already receive services such as primary care clinics, senior centers, adult day care programs, and assisted living facilities. Today, we are fortunate to have a variety of effective treatments to address the mental health needs of American seniors. I believe that we owe it to older adults in this country to do all that we can to ensure that high quality mental health care is both available and accessible. This legislation takes an important step in that direction and I look forward to working with you all to enact the Positive Aging Act during the upcoming Older Americans Act and SAMHSA reauthorizations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would allow States to use Federal funds to provide critical healthcare services to pregnant women and children. I want to thank Senator Chafee for his leadership on this important issue. I also want to recognize former Senator Bob Graham and the late Senator John Chafee, who championed this legislation for many years. Their commitment laid the groundwork for our bill introduction today. This bill, the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act, is fundamentally about three things--fairness, fiscal relief, and financial savings. I will start with fairness. All across New York and America, legal immigrants work hard, pay taxes, and exercise their civic responsibilities. I see examples of this every day in New York. They fight for our country in the military. They contribute to our Nation's competitiveness and economic growth. They help revitalize neighborhoods and small towns across the country. And most are fiercely proud to call themselves Americans. Yet, in 1996, Congress denied safety net services to legal immigrants who had been in the country for less than 5 years. Today, Senator Chafee and I are here to introduce legislation that would take a first step towards correcting that injustice. The Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act will allow States to use, Federal funds to make SCHIP, (the State Children's Health Improvement Program, and Medicaid available to pregnant women and children who are legal immigrants within the 5-year ban. There is tremendous need for this legislation. An Urban Institute study found that children of immigrants are three times as likely to be in fair or poor health. While most children receive preventative medicine, such as vaccines, too often immigrant children do not. They are forced to receive their healthcare via emergency rooms--the least cost-effective place to provide care. To make matters worse, minor illnesses, which would be easily treated by a pediatrician, may snowball into life-threatening conditions. This legislation is also a matter of good fiscal policy. Today, 19 States, including New York and Rhode Island, plus the District of Columbia, use State funds to provide healthcare services to legal immigrants within the 5-year waiting period. According to the most recent estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, at least 155,000 children and 60,000 adults are receiving these benefits. A total of 387,000 recent legal immigrants would be eligible to receive these services if their States opt to take advantage of the program. And finally, this bill is about long-term healthcare cost savings. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, covering uninsured children and pregnant women through Medicaid can reduce unnecessary hospitalization by 22 percent. Pregnant women who forgo prenatal care are likely to develop complications during pregnancy, which results in higher costs for postpartum care. And women without access to prenatal care are four times more likely to deliver low birth weight infants and seven times more likely to deliver prematurely than women who receive prenatal care, according to the Institute of Medicine. All of these health outcomes are costly to society and to the individuals involved. Thank you for allotting me this time to speak on such an urgent matter. I look forward to working with you and the rest of my colleagues to enact this bill into law in the near future.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Vermont who has been a stalwart defender of the Constitution his entire public life. And as a member of the Judiciary Committee, as chair and ranking member, and all of his activities on behalf of this issue, he has demonstrated the highest level of leadership. Mr. President, I started my day today in Newburg, NY, at the military headquarters of GEN George Washington. Many of the most important battles of the Revolutionary War were fought in New York, up and down the Hudson River Valley, the Champlain Valley, the Mohawk Valley, down into New York City, out on Long Island. Today, we were announcing legislation that I had sponsored here in the Senate with my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, to commemorate the Revolutionary War. We were reminded at this event today of something called the Newburg Conspiracy. What was that? That was an effort by a small group of people to persuade George Washington to begin to assume the mantle of absolute power, to, in effect, become more like a king than what had been envisioned for this new Republic, a President and a system of government with checks and balances. In one of his greatest speeches, then General Washington repudiated the Newburg Conspiracy and memorably said that we should all stand against any effort to consolidate power. We must stand for our Republic. And that Republic, which is unique in human history, has this unusual system of checks and balances that pit different parts of the Government against one another that, from the very beginning, recognized the importance of minority rights because, after all, that is what the Senate is, a guarantor of minority rights. I represent 19 million people. Yet my vote is no more important than the Presiding Officer's or any of my other colleagues who may represent States with far fewer citizens because we have always understood that majority rule too easily can become abusive, that those in the majority and particularly those who lead that majority always believe that what they want is right by definition. It is what they fight for. It is what they care about. But we have understood, thanks to the genius of our Founders--great leaders such as George Washington--that human nature being what it is, we have to restrain ourselves, not only in the conduct of our day-to-day relations with one another but in the conduct of our government. So we have created this rather cumbersome process of government. Sometimes people in a parliamentary system look at it and say: What is this about? You have a House of Representatives where you have majority rule, and then you have this Senate over here where people can slow things down, where they can debate, where they have something called the filibuster. It seems as if it is a little less than efficient. Well, that is right. It is, and deliberately designed to be so, with the acute psychological understanding that every single one of us needs to be checked in the exercise of power, that despite what we may believe about our intentions and our views, not one of us has access to the absolute truth about any issue confronting us. So one of the ways we have protected the special quality of the Senate over all of these years is through unlimited debate, through the creation of rules that would make it possible for a minority to be heard, and more than that, create a supermajority for certain actions that the Constitution entrusts to the Senate, and, in particularly, the appointment of judges for lifetime tenure. Now, why would you have a supermajority for judges? Again, I think it shows the genius of our Founders in their understanding of human nature. This is a position of such great importance, such overwhelming power and authority, that anyone who comes before this body should be able to obtain the support of 60 of our fellow Senators. It has worked well. There have been people going back in American history, and not just back to the beginning but back just a few years into the Clinton administration, who I believe should have been confirmed as judges. The Senate decided not to. The President has sent us his nominees, and we have confirmed more than 95 percent of them. I voted against a number of them, but the vast majority were acceptable to more than 60 Members of this body. What is happening now with this assault on the idea of the Senate, on the creation of this unique deliberative body that serves as a check and a balance to Presidential power, to the passions of the House, which has exercised the opportunity to create consensus with respect to judicial nominees, is that we have a President who is not satisfied with the way every other President has executed his authority when it comes to judicial nominees. Many Presidents have not liked what the Senate has done to their judicial nominees. We can go back to Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson, one of our greatest Presidents, was really upset because John Adams appointed people Thomas Jefferson did not think should be on the Federal bench. He did not agree with their philosophy. He had personal problems with some of them and the relationships between them. So he tried to undue what his predecessor had done. And the Senate, recognizing what General Washington had understood back during the Revolutionary War, what the writers of the Constitution had understood in Philadelphia, said: No. Wait a minute, Mr. President. We are not substituting one king for another. We are trying something entirely different. You may get a little frustrated, but Presidential authority is not absolute, so we are going to expect you to abide by the rules. Every President has faced these frustrations. Franklin Roosevelt, at the height of his power, with an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, faced all kinds of setbacks from the judiciary, and he wanted to change them. He wanted to pack the courts, and the Democrats in the Senate, who put the Senate first, who put the Constitution first, said: No. Wait a minute. We admire you. You are saving our country. You are doing great things. But, no, we cannot let you go this far. Well, today, we are here because another President is frustrated. He has gotten 95 percent of his judges. He wants 100 percent. I can understand that. That is the way a lot of people get when they have power. They want it all. If you are against him, then he thinks you are against everything he stands for as opposed to having legitimate disagreements. So this President has come to the majority in the Senate and basically said: Change the rules. Do it the way I want it done. And I guess there were not very many voices on the other side of the aisle that acted the way previous generations of Senators have acted and said: Mr. President, we are with you. We support you. But that is a bridge too far. We cannot go there. You have to restrain yourself, Mr. President. We have confirmed 95 percent of your nominees. And if you cannot get 60 votes for a nominee, maybe you should think about who you are sending to us to be confirmed because for a lifetime appointment, 60 votes, bringing together a consensus of Senators from all regions of the country, who look at the same record and draw the same conclusion, means that perhaps that nominee should not be on the Federal bench. But, no, apparently that is not the advice that has been given to the President. Instead, it looks as though we are about to have a showdown where the Senate is being asked to turn itself inside out, to ignore the precedent, to ignore the way our system has worked--the delicate balance we have obtained that has kept this constitutional system going--for immediate gratification of the present President. When I was standing on the banks of the Hudson River this morning, looking at General Washington's headquarters, thinking about the sacrifice that he and so many others made, many giving the ultimate sacrifice of their life, for this Republic--if we can keep it, as Benjamin Franklin said--I felt as though I was in a parallel universe because I knew I was going to be getting on an airplane and coming back to Washington. And I knew the Republican majority was intent upon this showdown. I knew the President had chimed in today and said he wants up-or-down votes on his nominees. And I just had to hope that maybe between now and the time we have this vote there would be enough Senators who will say: Mr. President, no. We are sorry, we cannot go there. We are going to remember our Founders. We are going to remember what made this country great. We are going to maintain the integrity of the U.S. Senate. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would allow States to use Federal funds to provide critical healthcare services to pregnant women and children. I want to thank Senator Chafee for his leadership on this important issue. I also want to recognize former Senator Bob Graham and the late Senator John Chafee, who championed this legislation for many years. Their commitment laid the groundwork for our bill introduction today. This bill, the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act, is fundamentally about three things--fairness, fiscal relief, and financial savings. I will start with fairness. All across New York and America, legal immigrants work hard, pay taxes, and exercise their civic responsibilities. I see examples of this every day in New York. They fight for our country in the military. They contribute to our Nation's competitiveness and economic growth. They help revitalize neighborhoods and small towns across the country. And most are fiercely proud to call themselves Americans. Yet, in 1996, Congress denied safety net services to legal immigrants who had been in the country for less than 5 years. Today, Senator Chafee and I are here to introduce legislation that would take a first step towards correcting that injustice. The Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act will allow States to use, Federal funds to make SCHIP, (the State Children's Health Improvement Program, and Medicaid available to pregnant women and children who are legal immigrants within the 5-year ban. There is tremendous need for this legislation. An Urban Institute study found that children of immigrants are three times as likely to be in fair or poor health. While most children receive preventative medicine, such as vaccines, too often immigrant children do not. They are forced to receive their healthcare via emergency rooms--the least cost-effective place to provide care. To make matters worse, minor illnesses, which would be easily treated by a pediatrician, may snowball into life-threatening conditions. This legislation is also a matter of good fiscal policy. Today, 19 States, including New York and Rhode Island, plus the District of Columbia, use State funds to provide healthcare services to legal immigrants within the 5-year waiting period. According to the most recent estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, at least 155,000 children and 60,000 adults are receiving these benefits. A total of 387,000 recent legal immigrants would be eligible to receive these services if their States opt to take advantage of the program. And finally, this bill is about long-term healthcare cost savings. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, covering uninsured children and pregnant women through Medicaid can reduce unnecessary hospitalization by 22 percent. Pregnant women who forgo prenatal care are likely to develop complications during pregnancy, which results in higher costs for postpartum care. And women without access to prenatal care are four times more likely to deliver low birth weight infants and seven times more likely to deliver prematurely than women who receive prenatal care, according to the Institute of Medicine. All of these health outcomes are costly to society and to the individuals involved. Thank you for allotting me this time to speak on such an urgent matter. I look forward to working with you and the rest of my colleagues to enact this bill into law in the near future.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I would like to briefly describe my amendment No. 681, which includes modifications to section 1612 of the bill. I want to thank Senator Inhofe for cosponsoring the amendment, and Senators Bond, Jeffords, and Baucus for working with me on this important issue and this amendment. New air quality standards are driving a new round of air quality programs in many of our States. This is good for public health, and I strongly support these new standards. To meet these standards, I believe that new tools and strategies will be required. I believe that one example of a new strategy that works was demonstrated in my State of New York. Despite making great strides in reducing emissions from a variety of sources, New York City has not yet been able to meet the air quality standards in the Clean Air Act. We are getting there, but it is a tough job, and there is more to do. After the tragedy of September 11, it was clear that a large number of diesel-powered fleets and other diesel equipment would be operating around ground zero for many months. New York received emergency Federal funds to pay for those contractors. And, partly because they were being paid by Federal tax dollars, and partly because of New York's continuing struggle with air quality issues, diesel equipment operating at ground zero was required to be retrofitted with pollution control equipment, and some Federal funds were used to pay for the retrofits. Communities across New York and the country face similar challenges, in that emissions from diesel equipment involved in highway construction projects can put a temporary--but significant--increase in emissions in communities struggling to meet air quality standards. The amendment has three main provisions. First, it requires States to develop emission reduction strategies for fleets that are used in construction projects located in non-attainment and maintenance areas and are funded under this title. Second, it requires EPA to develop a non-binding guidance for the States to use in developing their emission reduction strategies. The guidance will include technical information on diesel retrofit technologies, suggestions on the methods for inclusion in the emission reductions strategies, and other information that Administrator of EPA, in consultation with the Secretary, determine to be appropriate. Third, it clarifies that States may use CMAQ funding to finance the deployment of diesel retrofit technology and other cost-effective solutions as part of the emission reduction strategies. I first introduced this provision as an amendment during the debate on the transportation bill last year. That original provision was included in the bill reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee earlier this year. During committee consideration of the bill, it came to my attention that the Association of General Contractors had concerns with the amendment. I am pleased to say that the chairman and I have worked with them to accommodate their concerns, and the revised section 1612 that this amendment contains reflects those negotiations. The Association of General Contractors now supports this provision, and has agreed to actively support it during the conference. I will ask unanimous consent that their letter of support be placed in the Record following my remarks. This amendment will also result in the cost-effective use of CMAQ funds. During the debate over the last reauthorization of the highway programs, Congress asked the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences to assess the CMAQ programs. Specifically, Congress asked the board to report on whether CMAQ-funded projects are cost-effective relative to other strategies for reducing pollution and congestion. The Transportation Board reported its results in a 2002 Special Report 264, the CMAQ Improvement Program, Assessing 10 Years of Experience. The report concluded that `` strategies directly targeting emission reduction have generally been more cost-effective than attempts under CMAQ to change travel behavior.'' It recommended re- authorization of the CMAQ Program with modifications to improve its cost-effectiveness and to enhance its performance in improving air quality. In addition, a recently completed report for the Emission Control Technology Association that builds on this report and other data reaches similar conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of diesel retrofits. I will also ask unanimous consent that this report be printed in the Record after my remarks. This amendment achieves both goals. It improves CMAQ cost- effectiveness by authorizing states to use CMAQ to fund the deployment of diesel retrofits. These are new technologies that have been found by EPA, the Diesel Technologies Forum, and others to be very cost- effective relative to other CMAQ-funded projects to improve air quality. The amendment will also enhance the performance of CMAQ in improving air quality by financing diesel retrofit technology that reduces emissions of fine particulate matter, the most serious airborne threat to human health today. This is a problem that everyone agrees is a top air pollution priority. It's why I feel so strongly about this amendment and have worked to fund the EPA's Clean School Bus USA program. Recognizing the seriousness of the problem, the administration has acted as well, promulgating the 2004 on-road heavy duty diesel regulations, the 2010 off-road diesel regulations, the Clean School Bus USA Program, the National Clean Diesel Campaign, and the newly-proposed Clean Diesel Initiative that is in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget proposal. I am pleased that the Senate will adopt this amendment because I believe it will provide States with additional tools to achieve our Nation's air quality goals. Reducing diesel emissions from construction activities is often the most cost-effective way to improve air quality. This amendment will help make that happen do just that. I want to again thank Senators Inhofe, Bond, Jeffords, and Baucus for working with me. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the material to which I referred be printed in the Record.