Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I have listened to women throughout the world who have struggled against government regimes that forced them to bear children or to abort them. The decision was taken totally out of their hands. It was left to chambers such as this to make those most personal and intimate of decisions. I will give you a few quick examples. In pre-democratic Romania, they had a leader named Ceausescu, a Soviet style Communist dictator, who decided it was the duty of every Romanian woman to bear five children so they could build the Romanian State. So they eliminated birth control, they eliminated sex education, and they outlawed abortions. Here is what happened to you if you were a woman in Romania during the Ceausescu regime: Once a month you would be rounded up at your workplace. You would be taken to a government-controlled health clinic. You would be told to disrobe while you were standing in line. You would get up on the table. You would be examined by a government doctor with a government secret police officer watching. And if you were pregnant, you would be monitored to make sure you didn't do anything to that pregnancy. When I first heard this, I was dumbfounded. I said: ``Please, that cannot be true.'' That is what happened. If a woman failed to conceive, her family was fined a celibacy tax of up to 10 percent of their monthly salary. The terrible result was many children were born who were abandoned, who were left to be raised in government-run orphanages. We all know what happened when unfortunately HIV-tainted blood was used to help some of those children for medical reasons, and there was a huge outbreak of HIV/AIDS among these Romanian orphans. Now go to the opposite side of the world and the opposite side of this debate. In China, local government officials used to monitor women's menstrual cycles and their use of contraceptives because they had the opposite view--no more than one child. So whether it was Romania saying you have to have children for the good of the state, or China saying you can only have one child for the good of the state, the government was telling us what we were supposed to do with our bodies. If you wanted to have a child in China, you needed to get permission or face punishment. After you had your one allotted child, in some parts of China, you could be sterilized against your will or forced to have an abortion. Today women in Romania and China are working to ensure their countries' family planning practices are voluntary and respectful of individual rights. I don't think we could dismiss these examples. I have seen where government gets this kind of power, it can be quickly misused. The old standard maxim by Lord Acton: Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. I raise these issues not because they are part of the past or because they happened somewhere far away, but because I can guarantee you, standing here as a Senator, if we go down this path, you are going to have the same kind of overzealous, interfering prosecutors and police officials doing the very same kinds of things in this country. Why did we ever have to do Roe v. Wade to begin with? Some States like mine, let abortion, as long as it was done safely and legally, occur under certain circumstances before Roe. Why did we have to have a Supreme Court decision? We had to have it because in many parts of the country these kinds of decisions were not permitted to be made by individual women. Look at the progress we have made. The U.S. abortion rate is now at the lowest level it has been since 1974. When I was First Lady, I helped to launch the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. We increased education and public awareness. And since 1991, teen pregnancy has also declined. We learned that prevention and education, teaching people to make good decisions, really did work. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about those few rare cases.

Mrs. CLINTON. Now, if these bills were to pass, each of these women would have been forced to carry their babies to term, only to see a child with such severe abnormalities die upon or shortly after birth. Their choices would have been limited not because of their moral and religious beliefs--which I deeply respect--nor because of their medical advice--which I can't possibly second-guess--but because of their Government. I have to respectfully disagree with my colleagues about mental health. If we have learned anything in the last several decades, it is that there is no artificial divide between mental and physical health. The mind and the body are a totally integrated system. One affects the other. I believe that mental health is health. And I believe that forcing a woman to carry a child she knows will die is an assault not only on her mental health but on our values as a nation and a free people. Part of the reason I feel so strongly about this is because as First Lady, I had the great privilege of traveling around the world representing our country. I have been to many places I never thought I would have gone in the past. I have seen what happens in other countries. I listened to women throughout the world.

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I thank my friend from Iowa. I thank him for introducing this important sense-of-the-Senate resolution amendment that will reaffirm Roe v. Wade, making it very clear that the policy of this Senate is for abortion to be legal, safe, and rare. But I have to confess I am somewhat bewildered that we are having this debate at this time in our Nation's history. Obviously, the Republican leadership here in the Senate--along with the House and the White House--has made a choice. Of all the grave challenges facing our Nation at this moment in history, we want to work together to criminalize a private medical decision made by women and their physician. With so much at stake, and when our economic security, national security, and domestic security are at stake, I believe that is an unusual and, in my view, a misguided choice. Today, 300,000 men and women wearing the uniform of our military stand in harm's way in the Persian Gulf. The other day we learned that Iran has progressed at an alarming rate for developing its own nuclear weapon capacity. North Korea continues to lob both rhetoric and missiles to demonstrate that it is wanting to be taken seriously as to the threat it poses to our immediate, imminent security. Thousands of Americans continue to fight against al-Qaida in Afghanistan and search for Osama bin Laden. With so many American lives on the line, the Republican leadership has decided to spend its time working to criminalize a medical procedure that is used in very few cases and only when the health and safety of the woman is at stake. Today, we know with all of these global uncertainties that we have a deepening economic crisis made worse because of the potential for war. Last month, we lost 312,000 private sector jobs--the steepest decline since the days following the attack of September 11. Consumer confidence has dropped to its lowest level since October 1993. The number of Americans who have been out of work for 6 months or longer has climbed to nearly 2 million. February marked the 20th consecutive month the private sector experienced negative job growth--the longest stretch of negative job growth since World War II. With so many American families struggling to make ends meet until they can find work, the Republican leadership has made the choice to debate how best to criminalize a private medical decision made by women and their doctors. Just last week, we learned the Federal budget crisis is far worse than was previously reported. The deficit is at a record $304 billion and climbing. Projections to eliminate our debt by 2008 have been replaced with new projections that have our debt level rising to historic highs. You know about the $5.6 trillion surplus this administration inherited. It is gone, along with our Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Out in our States, our States, our cities, and our counties are facing incredibly difficult economic times. The States are facing a combined budget deficit of $85 billion--the worst financial crisis in a generation. We still have billions and billions of dollars of unmet homeland security needs. With so much uncertainty here at home, the Republican leadership has made the choice to debate how best to criminalize a medical procedure for women. I have to ask myself: Why was this moment chosen for this debate? Why aren't we debating the steps we could take to help the 8.5 million Americans who are out of work? Why aren't we debating how we can get our Federal budget back on the road to balance and begin to diminish these overwhelming deficits and this increasing debt load we will leave on the backs of our children? Why are we not debating the necessity of our paying our bills? Why are we not debating what needs to happen if and when those 300,000 men and women in the military in the Persian Gulf are called to action, and in the days that would follow a military victory? As I travel around, talking with people in my State, that is what they talk to me about: What about this war, Senator Clinton? What is going to happen after a war, if it happens? What about homeland security? Are we as safe as we need to be here at home? Senator, what can we do about the jobs that are disappearing, the stagnant economy? How on Earth can we deal with this overwhelming budget deficit? What about not funding No Child Left Behind and the burdens that are being put on public education as a result? When are we going to get around to a prescription drug benefit for our seniors who are suffering and having to face these large bills? What are we doing to protect our environment? We are, after all, stewards of our natural environment for future generations. Those are the questions I am being asked. Not only do I believe this is an inappropriate and unfortunate time for this debate to be occurring, but I find it deeply ironic that it is taking place in the month of March, Women's History Month. Apparently, some people believe that the purpose of Women's History Month is to literally bring us back to a time in history when women had no choices. Instead of celebrating our accomplishments and improving the health and safety of women in the United States and internationally, there are those who would put women's health at risk. But if we are to debate this emotional issue, then we must do so with great care--care about the words we use and the laws we write. Every time we use inflammatory language in this Chamber, it limits our ability to talk about this very private, personal decision between a woman, her loved ones, and her doctor. Emotions run high with this issue. And I deeply appreciate my good friend from Nevada and the way he acknowledged we have very serious differences. But this is not a place nor is this a subject where we should be using language as a weapon to divide Americans. So I am very concerned about some of the words I have heard used on this floor over the last several days. ``Execution,'' ``murder''--those are very inflammatory words that do not do justice to this great Chamber, nor to the seriousness of this debate. I am also concerned about some of the visual aids that have been used by some of my colleagues. They are as deceptive as they are heartbreaking. Because what do they show? They show a perfectly formed fetus, and that is misleading. Because if we are really going to have this debate, then we should have a chart that demonstrates the tragic abnormalities that confront women forced with this excruciatingly difficult decision. Where are the swollen heads? Where are the charts with fetuses with vital organs such as the heart and the lungs growing outside the body? Why would we choose not to demonstrate the reality of what confronts the women I know, women who come with medical diagnoses that have said the brain in the head is so swollen that the child, the fetus, your baby, is basically brain dead? Now, it can be kept alive because it is on life support in the mother's body, but let me tell you what the realities are: these children cannot live outside the womb for more than mere seconds or minutes. That is what these women hear when they go in for their medical examinations and get the worst news that any potential mother could receive. So a picture is worth a thousand words, as long as it is a realistic picture about what it is we are confronting, because a large part of this debate is about words, the words that are left out of this bill: the health and well-being of the mother. The way this bill is written, the choice of language eliminates the distinction of trimesters. The vagueness makes this bill applicable to many other procedures in addition to the ones explicitly named. This bill is extreme, deceptive, and unconstitutional. As my colleague from Pennsylvania stated: This is the beginning of the end. And that is absolutely what he means. If this bill passes, it is the beginning of the end of Roe v. Wade, it is the beginning of the end of the right of women in this country to make the most personal and intimate decisions that any of us would ever be called upon to make. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to sit down with several women who have gone through this terribly difficult decision. What was so sad about each of these women's stories was how much each of them wanted the child they were carrying--only to learn that a fatal abnormality had inflicted each one, creating an unshakable sorrow. Each woman knew that her baby would not live long in utero or for no more than seconds or minutes outside her womb. One of the women in my office told such a sad tale of what had happened to her and her husband. After trying so hard to become pregnant, they were thrilled when she discovered she was pregnant. But her happiness quickly turned to grief when doctors explained that her daughter had a genetic syndrome called Trisomy 13. Now, many fetuses with Trisomy 13 die in utero. And those who survive birth do not live for long. Her choice was not easy, and it was a choice she made with professional medical advice and with her family. This young woman, Audrey Eisen, a Ph.D. student, articulated her concern perfectly when she wrote: Along with my sadness came a realization that if such legislation passed the right to safe second trimester termination of pregnancies might not remain available to those women who come after me. In this event, I don't know how these women will endure; I don't know how I would have endured. I also met with Maureen Britell yesterday. Her daughter had developed a disorder where the brain stem develops. It is a disorder instead of a brain. After consulting with the experts at New England Medical Center, her family, and friends, she terminated her pregnancy. And listen to what she says: Now I'm sharing my story not only as a mother who would be banned from having an abortion, but as a military wife. I find the timing of this bill highly offensive, as we military families are just days away from sending our loved ones into armed combat. I resent the administration using families like mine as a cloak in their effort to ban reproductive health care in this country. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the full statements of both of these women be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON. I respond to the Senator from Pennsylvania that I think it is extreme when the Government prescribes medical procedures that may--despite their not being ones that most of us would ever hope to have experienced by any loved one--be necessary in certain specific events, that were medically determined.

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, if I can ask the Senator for one final point.

Mrs. CLINTON. If the Senator will yield for one final point, I want the Record to be very clear that I value every single life and every single person, but if the Senator can explain to me how the U.S. Government, through the criminal law process, will be making these decisions without infringing upon fundamental rights, without imposing onerous burdens on women and their families, I would be more than happy to listen. But based on my experience and my understanding of how this has worked in other countries, from Romania to China, you are about to set up----

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Lifespan Respite Care Act of 2003 today, a bill to establish the availability of respite services for our family caregivers, and to increase coordination of these programs so that caregivers will be better able to access them. As a nation, we rely on family caregivers. Twenty-six million Americans care for an adult family member who is ill or disabled, Eighteen million children have a condition that place significant demands on their parental caregivers. Four million Americans with mental retardation or a developmental disability rely on family members for care and supervision. If services provided by family caregivers were replaced by paid services, it would cost nearly $200 billion annually. But these are just numbers. Every member has a human face. Let me tell you about Heather Thoms-Chelsey. I met Heather last year at a press conference announcing the Lifespan Respite Care Act of 2002. At that press conference I also met Heather's then 4-year-old daughter, Victoria, who as Rett syndrome. Victoria is totally dependent on family caregivers for all basic living skills: dressing, feeding, bathing and toileting. She also engages in self-injurious behaviors, hand-biting, head banging, body slamming, hair pulling. She has to be monitored all the time for her protection. Heather says, ``I feel tired and exhausted after only less than 5 years, what will I be like in 15? Or even 20?'' Heather is very resourceful. She has managed to find some respite care--164 hours per year--through her State's department of hygiene and mental health. She used 4 hours of her allotted time to bring a respite care worker with her to the press conference so she could tell us her story. The State allows Heather a maximum payment of $7.50 per hour for respite services. It is difficult to find someone who can care for a child with such complicated needs for that. Most of the time, Heather uses the respite care dollars to hire someone to help her care for Victoria in the home or on an outing. Very rarely does Heather actually get to leave the house and take a real break. Some would say Heather is one of the lucky ones. She actually has some respite care. Many people have none. Heather's story is repeated all across this country. Some people are caring for children or grandchildren with special needs and elderly parents at the same time. Some have called these people the ``sandwich'' generation, sandwiched between the caregiving demands of children or grandchildren and the caregiving demands of elderly parents. Just because family caregiving is unpaid does not mean it is costless. Caregiving is certainly personally rewarding but it can also result in substantial emotional and physical strain and financial hardship. Many caregivers are exhausted and become sick themselves. Many give up jobs to care for loved ones, putting their own financial security in jeopardy. I believe that our country is suffering not just from a budget deficit, but what Mona Harrington has called, ``a care deficit.'' Everywhere we look--nursing, childcare, teaching, long-term care--we see shortages and looming crises that threaten the provision of care on which our children, our parents, and our families all depend. Caregiving is undervalued, underfinanced, and too often uncompensated. Family caregiving seems almost ``invisible'' in our society, perhaps because it is work that women perform in the home. It is time we recognize the heroic effort of our family caregivers and provide them the kind of support they need before their own health deteriorates. One way to do that is through respite care. Respite care provides a much needed break 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, respite care is hard to find. Many caregivers do not know how to find information about services available. Even when community respite care services exist, there are often long waiting lists. For example, the United Cerebral Palsy Association of Nassau County on Long Island, provides respite service to 70 people but they have had a 200-person waiting list since 1995. In the same community, the Association for the Help of Retarded Children serves 140 youngsters; 200 children are on their waiting list. Variety Preschoolers serves 150 toddlers with special needs; 120 children are on their waiting list. The list goes on and on. But, this is not a problem isolated to Long Island, NY. It is happening all across the America. There are more caregivers in need of respite care than there are respite care resources available. Part of the problem is funding and part of the problem is staffing. Children and adults with special needs require trained caregivers. Parents and spouses and other family caregivers are understandably hesitant to leave their loved ones with untrained staff. But training staff costs money and trained staff are going to be reluctant to work for as little as $7-8 an hour. Until we recognize the value of caregiving and pay for it as a valued service, we are going to continue to face shortages: shortages in respite care but also shortage in caregiving in a larger sense. We don't have enough teachers. We don't have enough nurses. We don't have enough childcare workers. We don't have enough trained workers to care for our elderly. And we don't have enough trained staff to provide respite care. It is time that we, as a nation, face this care deficit and do something about it. Today, I, along with my colleagues, Senators Warner, Mikulski, Snowe, Breaux, Jeffords, Murray, Collins, Kennedy, and Smith, are introducing the Lifespan Respite Care Act of 2003. This bill would provide over $90 million in grants annually 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. Some of my colleagues have questioned the pricetag of this legislation. I ask them to do the math. With 26 million caregivers of adults and 18 million caregivers of children with special needs, $90 million dollars amounts to $2.05 per caregiver. If anything, we should be investing more in respite care, not less. Estimates place the cost of current family caregiving at $200 billion annually. We simply cannot afford to continue to ignore this issue. I remain committed to the concerns of family caregivers and to their need for respite care in particular. Together, I believe we can pass respite care legislation. But, our work cannot stop there. The need of family caregivers for respite care is just one important piece of a larger complex picture. I am asking you to join me in a longer term effort to put the care deficit--in childcare, in teaching, in nursing, in long-term care, as well as in family caregiving--on the national agenda.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Lifespan Respite Care Act of 2003 today, a bill to establish the availability of respite services for our family caregivers, and to increase coordination of these programs so that caregivers will be better able to access them. As a nation, we rely on family caregivers. Twenty-six million Americans care for an adult family member who is ill or disabled, Eighteen million children have a condition that place significant demands on their parental caregivers. Four million Americans with mental retardation or a developmental disability rely on family members for care and supervision. If services provided by family caregivers were replaced by paid services, it would cost nearly $200 billion annually. But these are just numbers. Every member has a human face. Let me tell you about Heather Thoms-Chelsey. I met Heather last year at a press conference announcing the Lifespan Respite Care Act of 2002. At that press conference I also met Heather's then 4-year-old daughter, Victoria, who as Rett syndrome. Victoria is totally dependent on family caregivers for all basic living skills: dressing, feeding, bathing and toileting. She also engages in self-injurious behaviors, hand-biting, head banging, body slamming, hair pulling. She has to be monitored all the time for her protection. Heather says, ``I feel tired and exhausted after only less than 5 years, what will I be like in 15? Or even 20?'' Heather is very resourceful. She has managed to find some respite care--164 hours per year--through her State's department of hygiene and mental health. She used 4 hours of her allotted time to bring a respite care worker with her to the press conference so she could tell us her story. The State allows Heather a maximum payment of $7.50 per hour for respite services. It is difficult to find someone who can care for a child with such complicated needs for that. Most of the time, Heather uses the respite care dollars to hire someone to help her care for Victoria in the home or on an outing. Very rarely does Heather actually get to leave the house and take a real break. Some would say Heather is one of the lucky ones. She actually has some respite care. Many people have none. Heather's story is repeated all across this country. Some people are caring for children or grandchildren with special needs and elderly parents at the same time. Some have called these people the ``sandwich'' generation, sandwiched between the caregiving demands of children or grandchildren and the caregiving demands of elderly parents. Just because family caregiving is unpaid does not mean it is costless. Caregiving is certainly personally rewarding but it can also result in substantial emotional and physical strain and financial hardship. Many caregivers are exhausted and become sick themselves. Many give up jobs to care for loved ones, putting their own financial security in jeopardy. I believe that our country is suffering not just from a budget deficit, but what Mona Harrington has called, ``a care deficit.'' Everywhere we look--nursing, childcare, teaching, long-term care--we see shortages and looming crises that threaten the provision of care on which our children, our parents, and our families all depend. Caregiving is undervalued, underfinanced, and too often uncompensated. Family caregiving seems almost ``invisible'' in our society, perhaps because it is work that women perform in the home. It is time we recognize the heroic effort of our family caregivers and provide them the kind of support they need before their own health deteriorates. One way to do that is through respite care. Respite care provides a much needed break 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, respite care is hard to find. Many caregivers do not know how to find information about services available. Even when community respite care services exist, there are often long waiting lists. For example, the United Cerebral Palsy Association of Nassau County on Long Island, provides respite service to 70 people but they have had a 200-person waiting list since 1995. In the same community, the Association for the Help of Retarded Children serves 140 youngsters; 200 children are on their waiting list. Variety Preschoolers serves 150 toddlers with special needs; 120 children are on their waiting list. The list goes on and on. But, this is not a problem isolated to Long Island, NY. It is happening all across the America. There are more caregivers in need of respite care than there are respite care resources available. Part of the problem is funding and part of the problem is staffing. Children and adults with special needs require trained caregivers. Parents and spouses and other family caregivers are understandably hesitant to leave their loved ones with untrained staff. But training staff costs money and trained staff are going to be reluctant to work for as little as $7-8 an hour. Until we recognize the value of caregiving and pay for it as a valued service, we are going to continue to face shortages: shortages in respite care but also shortage in caregiving in a larger sense. We don't have enough teachers. We don't have enough nurses. We don't have enough childcare workers. We don't have enough trained workers to care for our elderly. And we don't have enough trained staff to provide respite care. It is time that we, as a nation, face this care deficit and do something about it. Today, I, along with my colleagues, Senators Warner, Mikulski, Snowe, Breaux, Jeffords, Murray, Collins, Kennedy, and Smith, are introducing the Lifespan Respite Care Act of 2003. This bill would provide over $90 million in grants annually 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. Some of my colleagues have questioned the pricetag of this legislation. I ask them to do the math. With 26 million caregivers of adults and 18 million caregivers of children with special needs, $90 million dollars amounts to $2.05 per caregiver. If anything, we should be investing more in respite care, not less. Estimates place the cost of current family caregiving at $200 billion annually. We simply cannot afford to continue to ignore this issue. I remain committed to the concerns of family caregivers and to their need for respite care in particular. Together, I believe we can pass respite care legislation. But, our work cannot stop there. The need of family caregivers for respite care is just one important piece of a larger complex picture. I am asking you to join me in a longer term effort to put the care deficit--in childcare, in teaching, in nursing, in long-term care, as well as in family caregiving--on the national agenda.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my good friend from Utah. I do not agree with them, but he is always someone who is ready to express his heartfelt convictions about any matter. I believe, having now traveled and talked with and heard from so many of my constituents, that it is time for us to face the real issues that are on the minds of the American people. Obviously, we know Americans today are quite concerned and worried about the continuing defiance of the United Nations by Saddam Hussein and the amassing of 200,000 of our men and women in uniform in the gulf in the event the President must order military action to fulfill the requirements not only of Resolution 1441 but of all the resolutions that Saddam Hussein has defied for over a decade. I know many of the people I represent are deeply concerned that in the last week we have not been able to get any information from the administration about their projected costs of the military action should it occur in Iraq, and the follow-on costs that would be required for the pacification and rebuilding of Iraq, the efforts to try to create a set of conditions that could provide a better opportunity for a brighter future for the people of Iraq. Many of my constituents have said: Senator, how much is it going to cost? How long is it going to take? How many of our people will be put at risk? We do not know the answers. I think that is something on which we should be focused. Certainly, I hear quite a bit of concern about how well prepared we are to defend ourselves at home. Have we put the amount of resources strategically deployed on defense that we have done on offense? As many of my colleagues know, I have been coming to the Chamber now for, I guess, 16 months expressing my deep concerns that the answer to those questions is no; that we have not done for defense what we have done for offense. I am proud of the extraordinary capacity that our military has, by far the most ready, the most powerful in the history of the world. That is a great comfort and point of pride for every American. I was up at one of those facilities just today, the Watervliet Arsenal in Albany. It dates back to the War of 1812. It has been producing guns and tubes, mortars and tank equipment for decades. I am very proud it is in a State I represent that has such a tradition of patriotism where the Revolutionary War was largely fought and won. I am very grateful we have this level of commitment to our military, but I do not hear the same from our mayors, our police chiefs, and our fire chiefs, and I do not think we can honestly say we have done everything we need to do to provide for hometown security, to make sure we get the people on the streets we require. I met today with three mayors from cities I represent: Mayor Jerry Jennings from Albany, Tony Masiello from Buffalo, and Matt Driscoll from Syracuse. They came to talk about their unmet needs. When the alert goes up and the phone calls start coming in and they are expected to respond, they are not given the tools and resources that high level of responsibility demands. I know we are in difficult economic times, but I do not think that can stand in the way of the Federal Government fulfilling its responsibility to the mayors, police chiefs, fire chiefs, emergency responders, hospital administrators, and others who make up our front line defense at home. In fact, I think it is imperative that we give the same attention to hometown security that we have been giving to national security because the two are absolutely inextricably linked. There is no front over there. We do not put people on boats, on troop ships, and send them off somewhere far away. We do not wave goodbye to them at airports as they travel halfway around the world to defend freedom and America's vital interests. When we see a police officer standing on the street, when we go by a firehouse, those are the frontline soldiers. Those are the people who have to respond to whatever happens. It has been troubling to me that this administration repeatedly has talked about the need for security but time and again has not been willing to give support with the dollars that are desperately required. I have spoken with people throughout my State. I want to take a moment to share the comments and concerns of just one of the cities and counties I represent. It happens to be the county in which I live, West Chester County in another community, the city of New Rochelle, with a very dedicated group of leaders, Mayor Idoni and others who are totally committed to building New Rochelle and protecting New Rochelle. They have gone to briefings and training sessions to find out what they need to do. Unfortunately, when I asked if their city had incurred any additional costs due to the recent code orange, this was their response: Unfortunately the city of New Rochelle is nowhere able to prepare for or respond to homeland security alert level orange than we are for alert green. Incurring personnel expenses, i.e., overtime, is not fiscally possible. Additionally, all that we would have accomplished would have been to put more people on the street with limited training and virtually no equipment. These words come from our frontline defenders. These are our generals, our colonels, and our captains. They are the people who are going to direct whatever response we need in the event of some kind of terrorist attack. Seventeen months have passed since that horrible day in September, and all the while the Federal Government has been asking our mayors to do more with less. According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, cities have invested $2.6 billion of their own resources to protect our Nation. In November 2001, after visiting with the people in New York City, who know more about what is needed than literally anybody in our country, and going to Buffalo to meet with the mayor, police, fire officials there, I immediately called for $3.5 billion of direct funding for our first responders. I proposed the homeland security block grant in 2000 and 2002, and it was the first piece of legislation I filed again this year in 2003. Last week, the administration finally conceded what many of us, along with mayors, police commissioners, fire chiefs, emergency response teams, and others have been saying for the last 2 years: We need more resources at the local level to secure our homeland. In January, I released a report that showed how 70 percent of our local cities and counties had not received any Federal homeland security funding. I can go through chapter and verse talking about what each community has had to do. I recall a comment by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget who said in response to my criticism and others: There is not enough money in the galaxy to protect everyone and everybody. That may be objectively true, but I think we have to do more to try, and I sure think we have to recognize places of increased vulnerability, targets of opportunity. As we take great comfort in the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed in Pakistan, we cannot help but notice amongst the documents apparently recovered and the information that was used as a basis for this apprehension were concerns about additional attacks, I must say once again, focused primarily on New York City and Washington. I do not think for a minute these are the only targets in the United States. I do believe they are still the two most prominent areas of concern for us and, therefore, need more attention than most places do. Who would have guessed we would have found a terrorist cell in Lackawanna, NY, a few miles outside of downtown Buffalo? Who would have guessed that people accused of helping to finance terrorism would be arrested in Syracuse, NY? So we need a national plan for local response, and that is why on Friday I called for the establishment of a domestic defense fund within the Office of Domestic Preparedness in the Department of Homeland Security. Whether it is in New York City, where between February 7 through the 20 the NYPD estimates it spent $1.1 million for personnel costs, or in Los Angeles where an additional $650,000 had to be used to put on personnel to search cars at the airport, or Wilmington, DE, which spent $25,000 a day for police overtime, we know these costs are building up. In this time of an ocean of red ink for our State and local budgets, there are no resources that can be dipped into to make up for these losses our cities and counties are experiencing. This domestic defense fund would provide direct funding for our local communities, for personnel costs, equipment, and other first responder needs. It would also include the covering of other emergency preparedness costs, whether it is high overtime costs as a result of code orange or extra security if there is a high profile trial like Zacarias Moussaoui, or to help local law enforcement cover the costs they incur if they arrest a sleeper cell such as they did in Lackawanna. We need to be ready to provide these additional funds. When the Presidents Day blizzard occurred up and down the east coast, cities and States knew that FEMA's disaster recovery fund was in place to help defray these costs. LIHEAP, the Low Income Heating Energy Assistance Program, is set up in the same spirit. When it gets colder and our citizens are at risk of exposure to dangerous temperatures, the Federal Government provides for home heating costs. Right now we have a national alert system and a local response system, but as the threat level approaches orange, our local governments have to dig deep to find the funds to respond. Therefore, we need to do better. Just as we have done for our men and women in uniform, we have to be willing to provide the funds our men and women on the front lines at home need and deserve. I understand the administration plans to come forward with a wartime supplemental appropriations bill. In the Senate, my colleagues and I will be pushing also for an emergency supplemental to address our unmet domestic security needs. That should include direct funding for local communities, and it should include the domestic defense fund. I do not see any way to avoid the necessity of providing the funds that are needed for our homeland-hometown security, and I hope this body, and our colleagues across the Capitol, as well as the administration, will cross party lines and in a bipartisan manner make sure we do everything possible to prepare. We can always hope for the best, but we have to prepare for the worst, and that means we have to pay attention to what we are being told by local first responders. They are the experts. They know what they need. We have to stand ready to assist them, and I hope as we move forward over the next month we will do that. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and begin the consideration of Calendar No. 21, S. 414, a bill to provide an economic stimulus package.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, yesterday, the President's Commission on Opportunity in Athletics released its recommendations for Title IX and some of the findings are a haunting reminder of the way things used to be. It seems that many of the Commissioners believe that men's sports have suffered because of women's programs. They believe that it is okay to count ``slots'' instead of actual women players. And some believe that since men are better ``naturally'' at sports compared to women-- that is their word and not mine. That is a true statement if it comes from me, but it is not a true statement when it comes from other women who are more athletically different--and, therefore, men deserve more funding and support. I don't think we should forget that was the excuse used for decades and for generations to keep women out of college, out of math and science classes, and out of the workplace. I remember as a young girl reading stories of the first women back in the 19th century who wanted to go to medical school to become a doctor or to a law school to become lawyers and who wanted to go to college to further their education. There were court decisions which said women naturally were not suited for higher education. It will wear out their brain. It will undermine their health, and they certainly are not fit to go into the courtroom or into the operating room. Thank goodness we have come a long way from those days. But I think about it frequently because my mother was born before women could vote. Lest we forget that many of the changes which we now take for granted did not come about just because somebody changed their mind. It is because we had to fight for work and for the kind of progress which we can see all around us. For 30 years, title IX has encouraged millions of girls and women to participate in sports. In 1972, only 1 out of every 27 women participated in sports. Today, that number is 1 in 2. The program works. I think we should recognize the extraordinary progress we have made. I remember very well that although I loved playing sports and athletics as a young girl, I was never very good at it. But I played hard, and it was a major influence on my understanding of my abilities, my limits, teamwork, and sportsmanship. It was hard for me to accept the fact that many of my friends and colleagues who were more talented really hit a wall. There were not the kind of interscholastic teams available at the high school level which we now take for granted. There were not scholarships available in most sports for most girls who had the capacity to compete and be good. The colleges were in no way fulfilling the need and desire that young women had to further their athletic pursuits. There really wasn't anything that you could point to as being professional athletic options for extremely well-qualified and motivated women. I believe passionately that title IX changed the rules on the playing field and opened up the opportunities so more girls and women could see themselves on that field--and create conditions that would encourage our institutions actually to respond to those needs and desires. I was very pleased to hear last night that Secretary Paige announced he would only consider the recommendations of the Commission that the Commission unanimously agreed upon. And I applaud that announcement. But I believe that the minority report, which was written by Julie Foudy, the captain and 9-year veteran of the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team, and Donna de Varona, an Olympic swimmer with two gold metals, raises questions about whether any of these recommendations can actually be described as unanimous. The introduction of the report reads as follows: After . . . unsuccessful efforts to include . . . our minority views within the majority report, we have reached the conclusion that we cannot join the report of the Commission. And Julie Foudy and Donna de Varona go on to say: Our decision is based on our fundamental disagreement with the tenor, structure and significant portions of the content of the Commission's report, which fails to present a full and fair consideration of the issues or a clear statement of the discrimination women and girls still face in obtaining equal opportunity in athletics-- They go on to say: [secondly,] our belief that many of the recommendations made by the majority would seriously weaken Title IX's protections and substantially reduce the opportunities to which women and girls are entitled under current law; and, [third,] our belief that only one of the proposals would address the budgetary causes underlying the discontinuation of some men's teams, and that others would not restore opportunities that have been lost. Their goal in issuing this minority report was to make sure it was included in the official record of the Commission. Unfortunately, it is my understanding that the Secretary of Education today has refused to include the minority report. I think that is fundamentally unfair. To me, that report should belong with the majority report, especially since those two women, probably between them, have more direct personal experience in what athletics can mean to a woman's life and what it was like before IX, when Donna was competing, and what it was like after IX was enacted, when Julie helped to lead our women's soccer team to the World Cup Championship. Therefore, Mr. President, I am going to ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this minority report. I am doing so because I believe it is important that on this issue we hear from the people who have the most to lose: women athletes, women students. Julie and Donna were invited to join the Commission to represent that point of view, and their voices should be heard. For the information of my colleagues, the minority report can be found at http://www.womensports foundation.org/binary-data/WSF--Article/pdf--file/944.pdf. Now, along with my colleagues, Senator Daschle, Senator Kennedy, Senator Murray, Senator Snowe, and Senator Stevens, who care so deeply about this issue, we will continue to keep a watchful eye on the Department of Education because the truth is, they do not need permission from the Commission or anyone else to adopt the changes the Commission has proposed; they can propose to change the regulations or offer guidance at any time. So I am here today in the Chamber to say that I, and many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--men and women alike; athletes and nonathletes alike--will fight to protect title IX for our daughters and our granddaughters and generations of girls and women to come. But let me also add, my support of title IX and my support of the right of the minority to be heard with respect to the Commission's recommendations does not, in any way, suggest that I do not believe in the importance of sports for young men, because I do. I strongly support sports for all young people. In fact, I think it is very unfortunate that physical education has been dropped from so many of our schools, that so many of our youngsters not only do not have the opportunity to discharge energy and engage in physical activities, but to learn about sports, to find out that maybe something would inspire their passion and their commitment. There are other ways to ensure that all boys and girls, all men and women have the opportunity for athletic experiences, to participate on teams. I was somewhat distressed, when the Commission was appointed, with the number of Commissioners who represented an experience that is not the common experience; namely, the experience of very high stakes, big college and university football, which of course is important; I very much believe that. But that is only one sport, and it is a very expensive sport. I think there are ways, without taking anything away from anyone-- boys, girls, men, women--that we can listen to the voices of experience, such as Julie's and Donna's, and come to recognize that there may be other reasons, besides the law, that some men's teams have been discontinued, which I am very sorry about and wish did not have to happen and believe should not have happened if there had been a fairer allocation of athletic resources across all sports. So I think we can come to some agreements that would serve perhaps to create additional opportunities, but we should not do it to the detriment of girls and women. I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor to recognize this very important piece of legislation which has literally changed the lives of girls and women and should continue to do so. What we ought to be doing is looking for ways we can enhance the physical activity, the athletic, competitive opportunities of boys and girls. One of the biggest problems we have confronting us now is obesity among young people. We need to get kids moving again. We need to get them in organized physical education classes, intramural sports, interscholastic sports, afterschool sports, and summer sports, so they can have an opportunity to develop their bodies and their athletic interests, as well as their minds and their academic pursuits.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, for thousands of mothers across the U.S., having a child is a momentous occasion filled with happiness and excitement. However, for a smaller percentage of women, childbirth brings about feelings of sadness, fear, and anxiety so overwhelming that they can no longer function normally. Postpartum depression, a mood disorder that is the culprit of these sentiments, severely affects the mental health of new mothers and places a strain on families. This is why I am proud to join my colleagues, Senator Durbin and Senator Fitzgerald, in introducing the ``Melanie Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act.'' I firmly believe that postpartum depression is a national problem; it strikes women regardless of age, race, or economic status. Nearly 80 percent of new mothers experience baby blues, a very common, mild form of depression occurring in the first days or weeks after birth, but 10 to 20 percent suffer from the more severe postpartum depression. This is accompanied by irritability, despair, and anger, which can continue without treatment. The most acute form of depression, postpartum psychosis, can be accompanied by anxiety and fear, but also delusions and hallucinations. It strikes 1 in 1000 women. These two forms of postpartum depression contribute to a mother's sense of worth, inhibits a women's ability to complete her every day activities or enjoy the precious new moments with her child. Despite these serious effects, there is alarmingly little research on postpartum depression. Additionally, while drops in hormone levels such as progesterone and estrogen have been linked to postpartum mood swings, there is no definite known cause for this disorder. This bill seeks to fill a glaring void in the understanding of this illness and provide treatment and care options for new moms. It establishes research programs to explore the causes, prevention, and prevalence of postpartum depression and psychosis. I also believe that women need real support in terms of comprehensive services at the community level. This legislation provides grants to help moms manage postpartum conditions at hospitals, community health centers, and shelters so they can access home based care, screening services, and other comprehensive treatments. Motherhood should be a blessing, not a nightmare. Organizations and health professionals all urge families and friends to inundate at risk or new moms with support as she takes on the complex task of raising a child. This bill is our way of supporting these moms. We hope to provide research results and necessary help to ensure a brighter future for new mothers caught in the fearful grip of postpartum depression. I will continue to support efforts to diminish the anguish of postpartum depression and improve efforts to safeguard the mental well-being for new mothers.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Now, Mr. President, on another issue that is of deep concern to me, I come also to raise questions about our commitment to homeland security. This is something I have come to this Chamber to address on numerous occasions, starting in those terrible days after September 11, 2001. And it is an issue I will continue to address in every forum and venue that I possibly can find because, unfortunately, I do not believe we have done enough to protect ourselves here at home. On February 3, Mitch Daniels, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, said: There is not enough money in the galaxy to protect every square inch of America and every American against every conceived threat. This statement bothered me at the time. It has continued to bother me. I suppose, on the face of it, it is an accurate statement. Not only isn't there enough money in the United States, the world, or the galaxy to protect every square inch, but what kind of country would we have if we were trying to protect every square inch? That would raise all sorts of issues that might possibly change the character and quality of life here in America. But I do not think that is what really motivated the statement. The statement was a kind of excuse, if you will, as to why this administration has consistently failed to provide even the rudimentary funding that we have needed for our first responders and to deal with national security vulnerabilities. We have learned, in the last few months, that threats do exist all over our country. It is not just New York City or Washington, DC, that suffered on September 11. We know that in the months since then, we have seen many other parts of our country respond to alerts--our latest orange alert--which have required huge expenditures of resources in order to protect local water supplies, bridges, chemical plants, nuclear powerplants, to do all that is necessary to know that we have done the best we can. Life is not certain. There is no way any of us knows where we will be in an hour or in a day or in a year. But what we try to do is to plan for the worst, against contingencies that might undermine our safety. And then we have to just hope and trust and have faith that we have done enough. But if we do not try, if we do not make the commitment, if we do not provide the resources, then we have essentially just put up our hands and surrendered to what did not have to be the inevitable. When I heard Mr. Daniels make that comment, I thought to myself, if you had made a list of every community in America that might possibly be a site for an al-Qaida terrorist cell, I am not sure that Lackawanna, NY, would have made that list. It is a small community outside of Buffalo where the FBI, in cooperation with local law enforcement, uncovered such a cell of people who had gone to Bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan and then come back home, most likely what is called a sleeper cell. Their leader was in Yemen where one of our predator aircraft found him and took action against him and his compatriots who are part of the al-Qaida terrorist campaign against us. If we were just thinking, where should we put money to protect ourselves, I am not sure Lackawanna, NY, would have been on that list. Yet we have reason to believe it should be on any list anywhere. Just yesterday four men in Syracuse, NY, were accused of sending millions of dollars to Saddam Hussein. I don't know that we can sit here in Washington and say: Well, we can't possibly protect everybody so we shouldn't protect anybody. But that seems to be the attitude of this administration. That is what concerns me most. We should be doing everything we possibly can to make our country safer. We should be thinking 24 hours a day, 7 days a week about new steps, smart steps that we should be taking. Why? Because that is what our enemies do when they think about how to attack us. If somebody is on CNN or the Internet, it doesn't stop at our borders. That is viewed and analyzed in places all over the world. We know that they are working as hard as they possibly can to do as much harm to us and our way of life as they possibly can. Since September 11, our first responders, our mayors, police and fire chiefs have said over and over again they need Federal support so they can do their jobs to protect the American people. During this recent code orange alert, they have done a remarkable job. They have responded to their new responsibility as this country's frontline soldiers in the war against terrorism with grace, honor, and a dedication that Washington should emulate. We have had the opportunity to do so. We could have already had in the pipeline and delivered more dollars to pay for needed training, personnel, overtime costs, equipment, whatever it took as determined by local communities that they require to do the job we expect them to do. But every time the Senate has tried to do more for our first responders, the administration and some in Congress have said we should do less. Senator Byrd stood right over there last summer and offered an amendment, which the Senate supported, that would have provided more than $5.1 billion in homeland security funding. It included $585 million for port security; $150 million to purchase interoperable radio so that police, firefighters and emergency service workers can communicate effectively, a problem we found out tragically interfered with communication on September 11 in New York City; another $83 million to protect our borders. But in each case, despite having passed it in the Senate, the administration and Republican leaders settled for far less. They called such spending ``unnecessary.'' In some cases, such as the funding for interoperable radios, not only did we not get the increase to buy this critical equipment, the funding was cut by $66 million. It was during that debate that we needed the administration's support. But instead, they opposed such efforts, and the President himself refused to designate $5.1 billion last August as an emergency to do the kinds of things that mayors and police chiefs and fire chiefs and others have been telling me and my colleagues they desperately need help doing. The paper today says the President acknowledges we need to do more. I welcome that acknowledgment. But I have learned that we have to wait to see whether the actions match the words. We have to make sure this new awareness about having shortchanged homeland security doesn't translate into taking money away from the functions that firefighters and police officers are called upon to do every day, transferring it across the government ledger, relabeling it counterterrorism, and wiping our hands of it and saying: We did it. That just doesn't add up. That is what they tried to do for the last year, take money away from the so-called COPS program, which put police on the beat onto our streets, which helped to lower the crime rate during the 1990s, taking money away from the grants that go to fire departments to be well prepared to get those hazardous materials, equipment, and suits that will protect them and claiming that we take that money away, we put it over here, and we say we have done our job. That is just not an appropriate, fairminded response. We cannot undo the past, but every day we don't plan for the future is a lost day. I don't ever want to have a debate in the Senate about what we should have done or we could have done or we would have done to protect ourselves, if only we had taken as seriously our commitment to homeland security as the administration takes our commitment to national security. Last month I issued a report about how 70 percent of the cities and counties in New York are not receiving any Federal homeland security funding. I commissioned this study because I wanted to know for myself whether maybe some money had trickled down into their coffers that I was not aware of. Well, 70 percent say they had gotten nothing; 30 percent say they had gotten a little bit of the bioterrorism money that we had appropriated. But then I also asked them, how much did they need and what did they need it for and how did they justify their needs. And I must say, most of the requests were very well thought out, prudent requests for help that in this time of falling revenues and budget crunches, city and county governments just cannot do themselves. When that orange alert went out a week or so ago, what happened? I know in New York City, if you were there, you would have seen an intense police presence because our commissioner of police, our mayor, knew they had to respond. They had to get out there and keep a watchful eye. But there was no help coming from Washington for them to do that. It may be a national alert, but it is a local response. And we are not taking care of the people we expect to make that response for us. Then I was concerned to see that in so many of the discussions of potential weapons of mass destruction, doctors and nurses and hospital administrators are saying: We are not ready. We do not have the funding. We don't even have the funding to do the preventive work, the smallpox vaccination. We don't have the means to be ready for some kind of chemical or biological or radiological attack. When we had the incident a few months ago of the shoulder-fired missile that was aimed at the Israeli airline in Kenya--thankfully it missed--I called the people in the new Department of Homeland Security. I said: What are our plans? How do we respond to the threat posed by shoulder-fired missiles? The response I got back was: Well, that is a local law enforcement responsibility. Are we going to provide more funding so we can have more police patrols on the outskirts of large airports similar to the ones we have in New York and other States have? Well, no, that is not in the cards. You just go out there and keep an eye out for those shoulder-fired missiles. Time and time again we hear about a threat. We hear the conversations from our government officials. We listen to the experts tell us what we have to be afraid of. And if you are a police chief or a fire chief sitting in any city in our country, you are sitting there in front of the television set saying to yourself: My goodness, how am I going to protect my people? How am I possibly going to do the work I need to do when my State budget is being cut, when my local budget is being cut, when the Federal budget is not providing me any resources? How am I going to do that? It is a fair question. Yet when we dial 911, we expect that phone to be answered, not in this Chamber, not down at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House, but right in our local precinct and our local firehouse. Yet in place after place around America, we read stories about police being laid off or being enticed into early retirement to save money, firehouses being closed or firefighters being encouraged to take early retirement, not filling classes in the police and fire academy. There is something wrong with this picture. Now, we have done all we know to do to give our men and women who wear military uniforms every bit of support we believe they need. If we are going to put them in harm's way, then we owe it to them, to their families, to equip them and train them, and give them the best possible protection so they can fulfill their mission without harm to themselves. But this is a two-front war. We hear that all the time. My gosh, there is nothing else coming across the airwaves except about what is happening in the Persian Gulf and on the Korean peninsula and what is happening with al-Qaida. We know we are in a global war against terror and against weapons of mass destruction. That is good offense. We need to be out there trying to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction, rid the world of tyrants and dictators who would use such weapons. But what about defense? What about what happens here at home? We have not done what we need to do to protect our homeland or our hometowns. That is absolutely unacceptable. The one thing we have learned from the horrors of September 11 is that in this new globalization of transportation and information we now live in, boundaries mean very little. Part of the reason we were immune from attack through many decades--with the exception of Pearl Harbor and the attack on this city and on Baltimore in the War of 1812--is we were protected by those big oceans, and with friendly neighbors to the north and south. But those days are gone. You can get on a jet plane from anywhere. You can be in a cave in Afghanistan and use your computer. You can transfer information about attacks and about weapons of mass destruction with the flick of a mouse. So we have to upgrade and transform our homeland defense, just as we have to think differently about our military readiness and capacity. This does not come cheaply. This is not easy to do. I spend a lot of time talking with police, firefighters, hospital administrators, and front line doctors and nurses; they are ready to make the sacrifice to perform in whatever way they are expected to do so to protect us. But we are not giving them the help they need. Now, we can remedy this. It was a good sign when the President admitted today that he and his administration have not funded homeland security, and I am glad to hear they have finally admitted that. But now we have to do something about that admission. It cannot be just a one-day headline. We have to figure out, OK, now that you are seeing what we see, what we have been worried about, let's do something. Let's make sure that whatever budget is sent up here has money in it for these important functions, so we can look in the eyes of our police officers, firefighters, and emergency providers, and say we have done the best we know how to do. That doesn't mean we are 100 percent safe. There is no such thing. That is impossible. That is not something we can possibly achieve. But we have to do the best we can. I believe it is probably a good old adage to ``hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.'' When you have done all you knew how to do, when something does happen, hopefully, you are prepared to deal with it. From my perspective, Mr. President, this is a national priority that cannot wait. Many of the commentators and pundits of the current theme talk about the likely military action necessitated by Saddam Hussein's refusal to disarm, and point to the possibility that such action will trigger an upsurge in potential attack not only here at home but on American assets and individuals around the world. It would be impossible to write any scenario about the next 10 years without taking into account the potential of future terrorism. But what is not impossible--in fact, what is absolutely necessary--is for us to be able to say to our children and the children of firefighters and police officers and emergency responders that we did all we knew to do; we were as prepared as we possibly could be. That is what I want to be able to say, and I know we cannot do that without the resources that will make it a real promise of security, instead of an empty promise. So, Mr. President, it is my very strong hope that in the wake of the administration's recognition of the failure thus far to fund homeland security, now we can get down to business; that we not only can fund it, but do it quickly, get the money flowing, and get local communities ready to implement it, and we can get about the business of making America safer here at home. I will do everything I can to realize that goal. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we provide the kind of homeland security Americans deserve. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, thousands of American athletes are training for the ultimate goal of participating in the 2004 summer Olympic Games in Athens Greece. Americans will have to wait until next summer to applaud their efforts, but we can start applauding another Olympic star today--Nadia Weinberg. A Michigan native, Ms. Weinberg is a member of the Orchestra of Athens and she deserves a gold medal for her beautiful voice and her commitment to helping those who are less fortunate than she. In order to celebrate the games' return to Greece, the Orchestra of Athens and Ms. Weinberg will conduct a world tour including a 15-city tour in America. They will visit New York City, Washington D.C., Boston, and Detroit to name a few. Each concert will benefit a number of charitable organizations: children's abuse centers, college scholarship funds, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and children's hospitals. Ms. Weinberg and the Orchestra of Athens are using their gift of music to help spread the goodwill of the Olympic Games here in America and around the world. We can all be proud that Ms. Weinberg is representing her country with such grace. She has performed in music halls around the world, impressed audiences in Carnegie Hall, the Kennedy Center, and filled the Rotunda of the Capitol with her voice. Each performance shows that the arts have always been a bridge of understanding between cultures. I can think of no finer American--one who is dedicated to helping others, committed to the arts, and determined to encourage goodwill around the world--than Ms. Weinberg. We are proud of her accomplishments and her participation in this endeavor with the Orchestra of Athens, and we are honored that she is representing the United States around the world.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from Vermont for his thoughtful comments. He always brings a really good analysis of any situation to the floor and shares it with us, and I am very grateful to him for that. Occasionally a movie comes to the screen that brings to life the stories that have become routine in our newspapers and on our television stations, and because of that constant repetition we sometimes become numb to the news. That happens across the board on many issues, but there is one in particular I wish to address that I do not think we can ever afford to be numb to or indifferent toward, and that is the abuse and neglect so many children in our country live with every day, the children who are shuffled in and out of our foster care systems, often with little guidance from or connection to any adult. Too often these stories end in the most tragic way possible. Seven-year-old Faheem Williams in Newark, NJ, was recently found dead in a basement, with his two brothers in a deplorable condition, having been chained in that basement for weeks at a time. Six-year-old Alma Manjarrez in Chicago was beaten by her mother's boyfriend and left to die outside in the snow and cold of the winter. And despite 27 visits by law enforcement officials to investigate violence, 7-year-old Ray Ferguson from Los Angeles was recently killed in the crossfire of a gun battle in his neighborhood. Unfortunately, I could take up quite a few minutes of my allotted time telling even more tragic stories such as these, but today I want to focus on a different kind of story, a story of hope and possibility, the story of Antwone Fisher. Mr. Fisher overcame tremendous odds. He was born in prison, handed over to the State, and lived to tell his story of heartbreaking abuse. At the age of 18, he left foster care for the streets, with nowhere to turn. He found the support, education, and structure he desperately needed in the United States Navy. In the Navy, Mr. Fisher received a mentor and professional counselor who helped him turn his life around. Mr. Fisher survived that childhood of neglect, abuse, and violence, and has lived to inspire us all and send a stern reminder that it is our duty to reform the foster care system. I believe we have a moral obligation to make sure that no child languishes in this system, left to develop his or her own survival skills, without the attention, guidance, discipline, and love every child is entitled to from at least one caring, responsible adult. I believe Antwone Fisher's success story should be the rule, not the exception. Tonight, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and I will be cohosting a screening of the movie ``Antwone Fisher''--Mr. Fisher's life story. This is a screening for Members of Congress, but I urge anyone listening or watching today to seek this movie out in their movie theater, because it is an inspirational story. It makes you cry, it makes you laugh, but it leaves you with the very strong fundamental faith that every one of us can do something to help a child like Antwone have a better life. Tom DeLay and I decided to host this together because we both feel it is imperative to raise national awareness about foster care. Because Antwone Fisher's story is inspirational, we hope his movie will give all of us in this Chamber and in the House the inspiration to tackle this tough issue. In the year 2000, Congressman DeLay and I received an award together from the Orphan Foundation of America for the work we have both done over many years in the area of foster care and adoption. My staff and Congressman DeLay's staff have been working together to try to figure out how we could, across party lines, from both Houses of Congress, help to create the kind of attention that is needed in the lives of our foster care children. I commend the commitment Congressman DeLay and his wife Christine have. This is not just an issue for them. They are certainly strong advocates for foster children, but they are also foster parents. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join us tonight at the Motion Picture Association for this viewing. For those who cannot join and for those who are watching at home, I want to share a little bit about Antwone Fisher's story. People should know that his book, called ``Finding Fish,'' is just as good as the movie. So go out and buy that. Pass it around. Make sure everybody you go to school with, you work with, you go to church with sees this book and sees this movie. I would like to read a section from the book. Here is how Mr. Antwone Fisher describes his life story: The first recorded mention of me and my life was from the Ohio State child welfare records: Ward No. 13544. Acceptance: Acceptance for the temporary care of Baby Boy Fisher was signed by Mr. Nesi of the Ohio Revised Code. Cause: Referred by division of Child Welfare on 8-3-59. Child is illegitimate; paternity not established. The mother, a minor is unable to plan for the child.' The report when on to detail the otherwise uneventful matter of my birth in a prison hospital facility and my first week of life in a Cleveland orphanage before my placement in the foster care home of Mrs. Nellie Strange. According to the careful notes made by the second of what would be a total of thirteen caseworkers to document my childhood, the board rate for my feeding and care costs the state $2.20 per day. Fisher continues to describe the document and writes that the child welfare caseworker felt that his first foster mother had become ``too attached'' to him and insisted that he be given up to another foster home. The caseworker documents this change, Foster mother's friend brought Antwone in from their car. Also her little adopted son came into the agency lobby with Antwone . . . They arrived at the door to the lobby and the friend and the older child quickly slipped back out the door. When Antwone realized that he was alone with the caseworker, he let out a lusty yell and attempted to follow them. Caseworker picked him up and brought him in. Child cried until completely exhausted and finally leaned back against caseworker, because he was completely unable to cry anymore. I know a little bit about this because when I was a law student in the late 1960s and very early 1970s, I worked for the Legal Services Organization. The first case I was assigned to was representing a foster mother who had signed up with the State of Connecticut to care for foster children, and in the contract she signed, it said she would never try to adopt any of her foster children. She was just a weigh station. The children were supposed to be just passing by and through. This little girl who came to live with my client was a child of mixed race, a beautiful little girl. She was left with her foster mother for a couple of years. And, boy, did that foster mother get attached. Wouldn't you want a person taking care of a child to become attached? And just as with Antwone Fisher's case, when the State found out that the foster mother had gotten attached to this little girl, they decided they needed to move her on, put her up for adoption, take her to another foster home, but to break the attachment. I was part of trying to reverse that rule that governed in all the States in the 1960s and early 1970s. I was unsuccessful, although later in Arkansas I tried a case where I was able to reverse that rule, making the argument that is not the best interests of the child supposed to be the guiding standard? Why would we let a bureaucracy and the rules of a bureaucracy determine what is in the best interests of a child, as long as that child was well cared for and that child had a home that was loving and supportive? Why would we break it up? That is what happened to Antwone Fisher. All through his case files, everyone always seemed to be slipping away in one sense or another. When he arrived at his next foster home and as he grew, he was first not told about the circumstances of his birth. All he knew was that he felt unwanted, that he did not belong anywhere to anyone. It was not long before he came to the conclusion that he was an uninvited guest. It was his hardest earliest truth that he wanted to belong somewhere. He wanted a mother and a father. He never knew that. He never knew a mother, a father, or a permanent home. Instead, he was left to fend for himself until he was expelled from foster care at the age of 18. That is what we used to do everywhere. It is what we still do in lots of places. When you finish high school, you turn 18, whichever happens first, you are out on the street. I have literally known children whose foster parents and case workers came into the little bedroom, maybe, that they shared with somebody else, took all their belongings, put it in a black garbage bag, handed the garbage bag to the child and said: We are finished with you. I cannot even imagine that, but that is what happens. That is what happened to Antwone Fisher when he found himself, at the age of 18, on the streets and homeless. Luckily, somewhere deep inside him, in some sacred place, he found the courage and resilience to keep going with his life, and he found his way to a recruiting station where he volunteered for the U.S. Navy. He needed a place to sleep; he needed food to eat; he needed to be safe on the streets, and thank goodness he did. Thank goodness the U.S. Navy took a chance on Antwone Fisher. There are lots and lots of children just like him in our foster care system. There are approximately 542,000 children in our Nation's foster care system; 16,000 of these young people leave foster care every year just like Antwone Fisher had to. We worked during the last several years to try to improve conditions. In 1999, when I was First Lady, I advocated for and Congress passed the Chafee Foster Care Independence Act which provides States with funds to give young people assistance with housing and health care and education. It is funded at $140 million annually. That is not nearly enough for the needs of these children, but I am very grateful that we are doing something to recognize what it means to be the age of 18 and have nowhere to go. I have even met foster children who got admitted into college and during the holidays when most of us who went to college look forward to going home and seeing our friends and seeing our family, they begged to be able to stay in the dorm, even if the heat was turned off, because they had no home to go to. This bill came after the very important bipartisan Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 where we made the most sweeping changes in the Federal child welfare law since 1980 that once and for all said a child's safety is the paramount issue in any placement. If you cannot return a child to his or her home with their biological parents, with their natural family, then let's move to relieve that child of the past and put that child in a position to be adopted and placed in a permanent home. The next major hurdle we need to tackle is the financing system. Currently, we spend approximately $7 billion annually to protect children from abuse and neglect, to place children in foster care, and to provide adoption assistance. The bulk of this funding falls to States as reimbursements for low-income children taken into foster care when there is a judicial finding that continuation in their home is not safe. This funding provides payments for foster families to care for foster children, as well as training and administrative costs which gives children a safety net. But it is not enough because the financing is focused on the time when the child is in foster care. The longer the child stays in foster care, the more money the States get, which makes no sense to me. We ought to have the incentives in the other direction. Try to provide the services so you can reunite a child with their family or make the decision to terminate parental rights and put a permanency plan into effect so the child can have a better shot at the future. I appreciate that President Bush has put a proposal on the table to change the way foster care is financed. I look forward to working with him and my colleagues to try to deal with some of these legitimate issues around financing. But I cannot support block-granting our child welfare system because it is imperative we have standards. If the States could have done this on their own, without Federal oversight funding and standards, they would have done so. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves, How do we maintain child safety protections that we passed in the Adoption and Safe Families Act? How do we require the targeting of funds to prevention and postfoster care services? What happens if there is a crisis and more foster care children enter the system? These are all important questions. They deserve answers. But it is critical we begin the process to look at how we change the incentives. In the past, my colleagues, Senators Landrieu, DeWine, and Grassley, put forth a proposal to restructure the priorities in our child welfare system. I think their proposal was headed in the right direction. It ensured that incentives were in place so that foster care stays would be shorter. I applaud my colleague Senator Rockefeller, who has been a long-time champion on these issues, for his welfare reform bill which offers an alternative to financing child welfare by aligning foster care and adoption assistance with TANF eligibility. I look forward to tackling this hard issue in the months ahead. I look forward to seeing the number of children in foster care decrease. I look forward to seeing more children in foster care being reunited with their birth families or being placed into permanent, loving homes. For those of you who want more insight into what this issue is truly all about, I urge you to see the movie ``Antwone Fisher,'' to read Mr. Fisher's book ``Finding Fish,'' to understand that may be just one story but it stands for countless others, innocent children to whom we owe a chance for a better life. I ask unanimous consent that an article appearing in USA Today be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I have been, as I said, listening with great interest to the debate on this issue. It is a very significant and important debate. As I often do when I come to the Chamber, I imagine, instead of being a Senator with the great honor of representing the State of New York and speaking in this Chamber, that I am just another citizen, as I have been most of my life, watching the debate on C-SPAN or one of the other television networks that might cover parts of it, and I would be asking myself: What is this all about? Why has so much time been consumed in the Senate over this one nominee? The bottom line answer is that this side of the aisle has a very deep concern about any candidate seeking a lifetime position who refuses to answer the most basic questions about his judicial philosophy. And that, in fact, to permit such a candidate to be confirmed without being required to answer those questions is, in our view, a fundamental denial and repudiation of our basic responsibilities under the advice and consent clause of article II, section 2, of the U.S. Constitution. Earlier this afternoon, as I was waiting for my opportunity to speak, I heard the Senator from Idaho admit that he had, based on philosophy, voted against certain nominees who had been sent to the Senate by President Clinton. I happen to think that is a totally legitimate reason to vote for or against a nominee. I happened to agree with the Senator from Idaho when he said he voted against nominees by President Clinton based on philosophy. That is an integral part of the advise and consent obligation. The problem that we have on this side of the aisle is we cannot exercise the advise and consent obligation because we do not get any answers to make a determination for or against this nominee based on philosophy. I could not have done a better job than the Senator from Idaho did in summing up what the problem is. I thank the Senator from Idaho for being candid, for saying he voted against President Clinton's nominees based on philosophy. We could resolve this very easily if the nominee would actually answer some questions, legitimate questions that would permit those of us who have to make this important decision and are not just saluting and following orders from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, by being able to look into the philosophy and then deciding: Are we for this nominee or are we against this nominee? This nomination would also be expedited if the President and his legal counsel would respond to the letter of February 11 sent to the President by the minority leader and the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee asking for additional information on which to make a decision concerning this nominee, and, in fact, both Senators Daschle and Leahy are very explicit about what information is required. I will reiterate the request. Specifically, they asked the President to instruct the Department of Justice to accommodate the request for documents immediately so that the hearing process can be completed and the Senate can have a more complete record on which to consider this nomination and, second, that Mr. Estrada answer the questions he refused to answer during the Judiciary Committee hearing to allow for a credible review of his judicial philosophy and legal views. I would argue, we are not changing the rules. In fact, we are following the rules and the Constitution, and we are certainly doing what the Senator from Idaho said very candidly he did with respect to President Clinton's nominees. We are trying to determine the judicial philosophy of this nominee in order to exercise our advise and consent obligation. I have also been interested in my friends on the other side of the aisle talking and reading from newspapers and asserting that we are somehow requesting more information from this nominee than from other nominees and that, in fact, it is honorable not to answer relevant questions from Judiciary Committee members. It may be honorable by someone's definition of honor, but it is not constitutional. It is fundamentally against the Constitution to refuse to answer the questions posed by a Judiciary Committee member. If there were any doubt about this standard, all doubt was removed last year. How was it removed? It was removed in a Supreme Court opinion rendered by Justice Scalia arising out of a case brought by the Republican Party concerning the views of judges. For the record, I think it is important we understand this because perhaps some of my colleagues have not been informed or guided by the latest Supreme Court decisions on this issue, but I think they are not only relevant, they are controlling, to a certain extent, when we consider how we are supposed to judge judges. Republicans focus on the ABA model code that judicial candidates should not make pledges on how they will rule or make statements that appear to commit them on controversies or issues before the court. They are, understandably, using this as some kind of new threshold set by Mr. Estrada who refused to answer even the most basic questions about judicial philosophy or his view of legal decisions. Some judicial candidates, it is true, go through with very little inquiry. They come before the Judiciary Committee. They are considered mainstream, noncontroversial judges. Frankly, the Senators do not have much to ask them. They go through the committee. They come to the floor. That is as it should be. Were it possible, that is the kind of judge that should be nominated--people whose credentials, background, experience, temperament, and philosophy is right smack in the center of where Americans are and where the Constitution is when it comes to important issues. When someone does not answer questions or when they are evasive, it takes longer and you keep asking and you ask again and again. That was, unfortunately, the case with this particular nominee. The Republican Party sued the State of Minnesota to ensure their candidates for judicial office could give their views on legal issues without violating judicial ethics. Republicans took that case all the way to the Supreme Court. In an opinion by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court ruled that the ethics code did not prevent candidates for judicial office from expressing their views on cases or legal issues. In fact, Justice Scalia said anyone coming to a judgeship is bound to have opinions about legal issues and the law, and there is nothing improper about expressing them. Of course, we do not and should not expect a candidate to pledge that he is always going to rule a certain way. We would not expect a candidate, even if he agreed that the death penalty was constitutional, to say: I will always uphold it, no matter what. That would be an abuse of the judicial function and discretion. Specifically, in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, the Supreme Court overruled ABA model restrictions against candidates for elective judicial office from indicating their views. I think the reasoning is applicable to those who are nominated and confirmed by this body for important judicial positions within the Federal judiciary. Justice Scalia explained in the majority opinion, even if it were possible to select judges who do not have preconceived views on legal issues it would hardly be desirable to do so. I want my friends on the other side to hear the words of one of the two favorite Justices of the current President, Justice Scalia: Even if it were possible, it would not be desirable. Why? Because, clearly, we need to know what the judicial philosophy is. Judges owe that to the electorate, if they are elected; to the Senate if they are appointed. Justice Scalia goes on: Proof that a justice's mind at the time he joined the court was a complete tabula rasa in the area of constitutional adjudication would be evidence of lack of qualification, not lack of bias. And since avoiding judicial preconceptions on legal issues is neither possible nor desirable, pretending otherwise by attempting to preserve the appearance of that type of impartiality can hardly be a compelling State interest, either. In fact, that is Justice Scalia quoting Justice Rehnquist. Before this decision, some judicial candidates may have thought--and some of my colleagues may have thought--that judicial candidates could not share their views on legal issues, and I think that might have been a fair assessment of the state of the law at that time. But that is no longer a fair assessment. A judicial candidate cannot be compelled to share his views, but Justice Scalia tells us that a judicial candidate who does not share his views refuses to do so at his own peril, and that is exactly what this nominee has done. At his own peril, he has gotten his marching orders from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, from all those who advise judicial nominees, from the Federalist Society and all the rest of those organizations, not to answer any questions, to dodge all of the issues, to pretend not to have an opinion about any Supreme Court case going back to Marbury v. Madison. Well, he does so, in Justice Scalia's words, at his peril. That is what has brought this nomination to this floor for all these days, because this nominee wants to be a stealth nominee. He wants to be a nominee who is not held accountable for his views so that we who are charged under the Constitution to make this important judgment cannot do so based on his judicial philosophy. Justice Scalia has a lot to say to my friends on the other side. If it were possible to become a Federal judge, with lifetime tenure, on the second highest court of the land, without ever saying anything about your judicial philosophy, I think that would be astonishing. It would be troubling. It would run counter to the Constitution and to this opinion written by one of the most conservative members of the current Court. Mr. Estrada basically has come before this Senate and claimed he cannot give his view of any Supreme Court case without reading the briefs, listening to the oral argument, conferring with colleagues, doing independent legal research, and on and on. That is just a dressed up way of saying: I am not going to tell you my views, under any circumstances. One has to ask himself--and I do not want to be of a suspicious mindset--why will this nominee not share his views? Are they so radical, are they so outside the mainstream of American judicial thought, that if he were to share his views, even my friends on the other side would say wait a minute, that is a bridge too far; we cannot confirm someone who believes that? How can I go home and tell my constituents that I voted for somebody who actually said what he said? I cannot think of any other explanation. Why would a person, who clearly is intelligent--we have heard that constantly from the other side--who has practiced law, not be familiar with the procedures of the Judiciary Committee, of the constitutional obligation of advise and consent or even of Justice Scalia and Justice Rehnquist's opinions about the importance of answering such questions? So I have to ask myself: What is it the White House knows about this nominee they do not want us to know? And if they do not want us to know, they do not want the American people to know. I find that very troubling. I do not agree with the judicial philosophy of many of the nominees sent up by this White House. I voted against a couple of them. I voted for the vast majority of them, somewhere up in the 90 percentile. At least I felt I could fulfill my obligation so when I went back to New York and saw my constituents and they asked why did I vote for X, I could say to them it was based on the record. He may not be my cup of judicial tea, but he seems like a pretty straightforward person. Here is what he said and that is why I voted for him. Or to the contrary, I could not vote for this nominee because of the record that was presented. I cannot do that with this particular nominee. And you know what. The other end of Pennsylvania Avenue that is calling the shots on this nomination does not want me to have that information. I think that is a denial of the basic bargain that exists under the Constitution when it comes to nominating and confirming judges to the Federal courts. It could have been different. The Founders could have said let's put all of this into the jurisdiction of the Executive; let him name whoever he wants. Or they could have said: No, let's put it in the jurisdiction of the legislature; let them name whoever they want. Instead, as is the genius of our Founders and of our Constitution, there was a tremendous bargain that was struck, rooted in the balance of power that has kept this Nation going through all of our trials and tribulations, all of our progress, that balance of power which said we do not want this power to rest in any one branch of Government; we want it shared. We want people to respect each other across the executive and legislative lines when it comes to the third branch of Government. So, OK, Mr. President, you nominate. OK, Senators, you advise and consent. That is what this is about. Sometimes I wonder, as my friends on the other side talk about it, how they can so cavalierly give up that constitutional obligation. The unfortunate aspect of this is we could resolve this very easily. All the White House has to do is send up the information. Let Mr. Estrada answer the questions. He may still have a majority of Senators who would vote to put him on the DC Circuit. I do not know how it would turn out because I do not have the information. While we are in this stalemate caused by the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, which for reasons that escape me have dug in their heels and said, no, they will not tell us anything about this person, there is a lot of other business that is not being done, business about the economy, the environment, education and health care, business that really does affect the lives of a lot of Americans. On that list of business that I consider important is what is happening in our foster care system. Tomorrow evening, I will have the great privilege of hosting the showing of a tremendous movie about the foster care system, along with Congressman Tom DeLay. I invite all of my colleagues from both Houses of Congress to come and see this movie that vividly illustrates what happens in our foster care system. I have worked in the past with Congressman DeLay to try to improve the foster care system. I look forward to doing that in the future. He has a great commitment to the foster care system and the foster children who are trapped within it. I use that word with great meaning because, indeed, that is often what happens to them. And the stories of abuse and neglect that first lead children to go into the foster care system are compounded by the stories of abuse and neglect once they are in that system. Mr. Fisher will be joining Congressman DeLay and me at the Motion Picture Association screening room for this important movie. This is a screening just for Members of Congress. I think it will illustrate better than certainly my words could why it is so important we join hands and work on this issue along with many others who affect the lives of children as well as men and women across America. Occasionally, a movie comes to the screen that brings to life the stories that have become routine in the newspapers and that we too often ignore--the stories of children living with abuse and neglect, shuffled in and out of our foster care system, often with little guidance from or connection to any one adult. Too often these stories end in the most tragic way possible: 7-year-old Faheem Williams in Newark, NJ was recently found dead in a basement with his two brothers where they were chained for weeks at a time. 6-year-old Alma Manjarrez in Chicago was beaten by her mother's boyfriend and left to die outside in the snow and cold of the winter. And despite 27 visits by law enforcement to investigate violence, 7- year-old Ray Ferguson from Los Angeles was recently killed in the crossfire of a gun battle in his neighborhood. Antwone Fisher's story is different. Mr. Fisher overcame tremendous odds: He was born in prison, handed over to the State, and lived to tell his story of heartbreaking abuse. At the age of 18, he left foster care for the streets. With nowhere to turn, he found the support, education, and structure in the U.S. Navy. In the Navy, Fisher received a mentor and professional counselor, which helped him turn his life around. Mr. Fisher survived his childhood and has lived to inspire us all and send us a stern reminder that it is our duty to reform the foster care system so that no child languishes in the system, left to find his own survival or to die. Antwone's success story should be the rule not the exception. Tomorrow night, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and I will be cohosting a screening of the movie ``Antwone Fisher'' for Members of Congress. We decided to host this together because we both feel that it is imperative that we raise national awareness about foster care-- through one child's own experience--and encourage our colleagues to tackle this tough issue with us. Congressman DeLay and I had received an award together in the year 2000 from the Orphan Foundation of America for the work that we both have done in this area. Earlier this year, I asked my staff to reach out to his staff to find ways we might work together to focus on this issue. This movie was a natural fit for both of us and I look forward to continuing to work with Representative DeLay as we take a hard look at reforming our foster care system. Congressman DeLay and his wife, Christine, are strong advocates for foster children and are foster parents themselves. I hope that many of my colleagues in the Senate will take us up on the invitation and join us for this important movie. But, for those who can't join us, I wanted to share a little bit about Antwone's story in his own words from his book, ``Finding Fish''-- The first recorded mention of me and my life was [from the Ohio State child welfare records]: Ward No. 13544. Acceptance: Acceptance for the temporary care of Baby boy Fisher was signed by Dr. Nesi of the Ohio Revised Code. Cause: Referred by division of Child Welfare on 8-3-59. Child is illegitimate; paternity not established. The mother, a minor is unable to plan for the child. The report when on to detail the otherwise uneventful matter of my birth in a prison hospital facility and my first week of life in a Cleveland orphanage before my placement in the foster care home of Mrs. Nellie Strange. According to the careful notes made by the second of what would be a total of thirteen caseworkers to document my childhood, the board rate for my feeding and care cost the state $2.20 per day. Antwone went on to document that the child welfare caseworker felt that his first foster mother had become ``too attached'' to him and insisted that he be given up to another foster home. The caseworker documents this change: Foster mother's friend brought Antwone in from their car. Also her little adopted son came into the agency lobby with Antwone. . . . They arrived at the door to the lobby and the friend and the older child quickly slipped back out the door. When Antwone realized that he was alone with the caseworker, he let out a lust yell and attempted to follow them. Caseworker picked him up and brought him in. Child cried until completely exhausted and finally leaned back against caseworkers, because he was completely unable to cry anymore. Later he describes when the caseworker brought him to his next foster home--she too slipped out the door when he was not looking. He says, ``All through my case files, everybody always seemed to be slipping away in one sense or another.'' When Antwone arrived at the next foster home and as he grew, at first he was not told of his troubled entry into the world: But for all that I didn't know and wasn't told about who I was, a feeling of being unwanted and not belonging had been planted in me from a time that came before my memory. And it wasn't long before I came to the absolute conclusion that I was an uninvited quest. It was my hardest, earliest truth that to be legitimate, you had to be invited to be on this earth by two people--a man and a woman who loved each other. Each had to agree to invite you. A mother and a father. Antwone Fisher never knew a permanent home--never knew a loving mother and father. Instead, he was left to fend for himself when he was expelled from foster care at 18--a time when the state cuts off payments to foster parents. Antwone found himself on the streets and homeless. Thanks to the work of many on both sides of the aisle in Congress we have begun important work to make sure that Antwone's story is not repeated. No child should have to grow up in foster care from birth and never be adopted and no child should ever have to leave the system at 18, with absolutely no support. There are approximately 542,000 children in our Nation's foster care system--16,000 of these young people leave the system every year having never been adopted. They enter adulthood the way they lived their lives, alone. In 1999, when I was First Lady, I advocated for and Congress took an important step to help these young adults by passing the Chafee Foster Care Independence Act. This program provides states with funds to give young people assistance with housing, health care, and education. It is funded at $410 million annually, and should be increased. But it was an important start to addressing the population of children who ``age- out'' of our foster care system. This bill came after the important bipartisan Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. As First Lady, it was an honor to work on what's considered to be one of the most sweeping changes in federal child welfare law since 1980. It ensured that a child's safety is paramount in all decisions about a child's placements. For those children who cannot return home to their parents, they may be adopted or placed into another permanent home quickly. Since the passage of this law, foster child adoptions have increased by 78 percent. The next major hurdle that I believe we need to tackle in reforming our child welfare system is the financing system. Currently, we spend approximately $7 billion annually to protect children from abuse and neglect, to place children in foster care, and to provide adoption assistance. The bulk of this funding, which was approximately $5 billion in fiscal year 2001, flows to States as reimbursements for low-income children taken into foster care when there is a judicial finding that continuation in their home is not safe. This funding provides for payments to foster families to care for foster children, as well as training and administrative costs. This funding provides a critical safety net for children, who through difficult and tragic circumstances end up in the care of the state. It ensures that children are placed in foster care only when it is necessary for their safety, it ensures that efforts are made to reunify children with their families as soon as it safe, it works to make sure that the foster care placement is close to their own home and school, and it requires that a permanency plan is put in place. All of these safeguards are critical. The financing, however, is focused on the time the child is in foster care and it continues to provide funding for States the longer and longer a child is in the system. The funding is not flexible enough to allow for prevention or to help children as they exit the system-- critical times when children fall through the cracks. President Bush has put a proposal on the table to change the way foster care is financed in order to provide greater flexibility so that states can do more to prevent children form entering foster care, to shorten the time spent in care, and to provide more assistance to children and their families after leaving. While I absolutely do not support block granting our child welfare system--I do think that it is important that President Bush has come to the table with an alternative financing system and I believe that it provides us with an opportunity to carefully consider how to restructure our child welfare system. We must ask critical questions: Will States be required to maintain child safety protection that we passed as part of the Adoption and Safe Families Act? Will States be required to target funds to prevention and post-foster care services? What happens if there is a crisis and more foster care children enter the system? Will States receive additional funds? While I believe all of these questions deserve answers, I applaud President Bush and Representative DeLay for being willing to tackle this hard problem. I look forward to working with them to find solutions so that we do not allow any child to fall through the cracks. This is just one of the many issues that are basically left on the back burner while we engage in this constitutional debate that could be resolved if information were provided. As I said, I have to question the reasons why that information is not forthcoming. It gives me pause. This administration is compiling quite a record on secrecy. That bothers me. It concerns me. I think the American people are smart enough and mature enough to take whatever information there is about whatever is happening in the world--whether it is threats we may face or the judicial philosophy of a nominee. That is how a democracy is supposed to work. If we lose our openness, if we turn over our rights to have information, we are on a slippery slope to lose our democracy. Now, of course, in times of national crisis and threat like we face now, there are some things you cannot share with everyone. But you certainly can and should share them with the people's elected representatives. That is why we are here. I err on the side of trying to make sure we share as much information as possible. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the White House will not share information about this nominee. Until it does, until Mr. Estrada is willing to answer these questions, I have to stand with my colleague from Idaho--I cannot cast a vote until I know a little bit more about the judicial philosophy. This is not a Republican or Democratic request. This is a senatorial request. This is what the Senate is supposed to be doing. I urge our colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle, do whatever you can to persuade the White House and the Justice Department to level with the Senate, to level with the American people, to provide the information that will enable us to make an informed decision and fulfill our constitutional responsibility. It seems to me to be the very minimum we can ask. It certainly is what has been provided and asked for in the past. I hope it will be forthcoming, that the letter sent by Senators Daschle and Leahy will get a favorable response, we will be able to get the information the Judiciary Committee has requested, that many Members feel we need, and we can move on. We can tend to the people's business, including the need to reform our foster care system to try to save the lives of so many children who would otherwise be left behind and left out of the great promise of America. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander.) The Senator from Missouri.

Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his kindness and consideration with respect to the order. I was happy to have the opportunity to hear him, as I often am. With respect to the arguments that have been made in the last hour or so, I think it is clear that there is a fundamental difference of opinion regarding the Senate's obligation and duty under the advise and consent clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I listened with great interest to my friend and colleague from Utah. I have the highest respect for him. I must confess, in listening to him, though, it brought to mind that wonderful old saw about trial lawyers. You know: If the facts aren't on your side, argue the law. If the law isn't on your side, argue the facts. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table and hope nobody notices. From my perspective, that is exactly what we have been hearing from our friends on the other side with respect to this very important matter that is not just about a nomination but about the role and responsibility of the Senate under our Constitution. I rise today to expand on the points I made yesterday because, after further reflection and careful thought about this body's constitutional obligations to provide advice and consent on judicial nominations, I believe there are even greater reasons for us to focus during this time on that responsibility. There has been, clearly, a debate going on about the role of the Senate in judicial nominations, and many of my friends on the other side have made the point that their view is the Senate defers to the executive when it comes to judicial nominees. That would certainly be a surprise to the 42nd President of the United States, that that is the position of my friends on the other side. Furthermore, there are those who argue the Senate's role is to give advice and consent, but that does not encompass an inquiry into a nominee's judicial philosophy. I, for one, believe on both of those grounds our colleagues are mistaken. I have done some further research and inquiry into what is it we mean when we open up our Constitution and we look at article II, section 2 and we see these words, ``advice and consent.'' Given the extraordinary brilliance and the economic use of words in the Constitution, I assume every word means something. Each word was battled over. Each word was poured over. A lot of effort went into coming up with those words that would help to guide our infant Nation. So I take advice and consent very seriously. It is particularly important to recognize I am not alone in viewing this obligation with seriousness. From the very beginning of our country it has been a concern. It was one of those elements in the balance of power that was so carefully constructed among our three branches of Government. It is something I think we ignore at our peril. What is it we are talking about? Again, I sometimes wonder what our friends and fellow countrymen who might be watching this debate, as they look for something perhaps more interesting or exciting on their televisions, stop and think if they see one of us talking about advice and consent, or talking about our Constitution. Article II, section 2 states that: The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for and which shall be established by law. . . . That is what the Constitution tells us. It is our obligation, as it has been ever since this body was formed, to determine what that means and how we apply it. The Framers of our Constitution did not envision the Senate's power of advice and consent to be a mere formality. In fact, at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the power of judicial appointment was a subject of enthusiastic debate. The first proposal that came from delegates to the Convention was that the choice of Federal judges should be left to the Senate alone-- that it would be this body, acting on its own, that would appoint judges to the bench. Then a competing proposal was put forth arguing that, no, the President should nominate and appoint judges and that the Senate should have only the power to reject or approve those candidates. But what was it after the debate that our Founders decided was the American way? How did they conclude what was the proper balance between these competing positions? Clearly, the adopted language was a compromise. And, equally clearly, those who agreed to that compromise did not view our role--the Senate's role--as insignificant or deferential. In fact, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 76 writes that the Senate's participation in the judicial nomination process was essential in order ``to promote a judicious choice of men''--of course, he would say men and women were he writing today--``for filling the offices of the Union.'' He further stated that the Senate's advise and consent role serves as ``a considerable and salutary restraint upon the conduct'' of the President. There is plenty of evidence that exists which demonstrates what the Framers intended with respect to the advice and consent clause. This clause added formation and, in all of the decades since, contemplated a strong and decisive Senate role that would serve to advise and consent with respect to the President's nominees--or, to put it another way, would serve to balance the power of the President's nominating authority by Senate legislative power. This strong role that the Constitution granted the Senate has only grown stronger in the years following the adoption of our Constitution. We know very well that members of both parties have historically expected judicial nominees to be fully candid and forthright with any information that Senators deem relevant. The Republicans are acting as though the questions we are asking and the opposition which we are presenting to the process that has been adopted and the responses--or, I should say nonresponses--of the nominee are unprecedented. But I have to just point to recent history. We don't have to go back to the Federalist Papers. We don't have to go back to the 19th century. We only have to go back a few years to find many instances in which my friends on the other side did not rest until they had satisfied themselves with the information provided by nominees sent up by a Democratic President. A June 22, 1998, floor statement by Senator Hatch demonstrates that the advise and consent obligation is indeed a strong one. Here is what he said: While the debate about vacancy rates on our Federal courts is not unimportant, it remains more important that the Senate perform its advice and consent function thoroughly and responsibly. Federal judges serve for life and perform an important constitutional function without direct accountability to the people. Accordingly, the Senate should never move too quickly on nominations before it. I couldn't agree more. I think Senator Hatch was right in 1998. He also stated that he had ``no problem with those who want to review . . . nominees with great specificity.'' That is all we are asking for. But we can't review this nominee with great specificity because he has become kind of an emblem of nonspecificity with nonanswers and nonresponses. It is really hard to imagine someone being considered for the important position that he would hold for life telling Senators who inquired that he really didn't have anything to say about any Supreme Court decision in the history of the Court. Of course, my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, has also reminded us that: Yes, the President has a right to make nominations to the Federal bench of his choice. However, we--namely, the Senate--have a role in that process. We should, and we do, take it very seriously. We should not give a man or a woman life tenure if there is some problem with his or her background, whether academically or ethically, or if there is a problem with a series of decisions or positions they have taken. Of course, we don't know whether there is any problem with respect to this nominee's decisions. He has never been a judge, and we have no idea what his positions are on anything. It is hard to imagine that any Member of this body could, as some of my colleagues on the other side have been saying over the last days, say that we really do not have to worry too much about this advice and consent clause because the Senate plays only a minor role in the nomination process. I would be more than happy to provide a list of citations and references so that any Senator who has been led to believe that would know it is not the case. In fact, one of the very best descriptions of what advise and consent means in the Constitution that I have able to find comes from a very well respected former Republican Senator from Maryland, Mr. Charles McC. Mathias. In 1987, Senator Mathias submitted an essay that was published in the University of Chicago Law Review, a very prestigious publication. The essay is entitled ``Advice and Consent: The Role of the United States Senate in the Judicial Selection Process.'' This I would commend to all of my colleagues because the debate we are having today is not just about one nominee. And it is not just about one President or one political party. It is about how we fulfill our constitutional obligations. Senator Mathias has it just right. Among the important points he makes are the following: Among all the responsibilities of a United States Senator, none is more important than the duty to participate in the process of selecting judges and justices to serve on the Federal courts. Senator Mathias goes on: The Senate's duty in this sphere is extraordinary. Most other senatorial decisions are subject to revision, either by the Congress itself or by the executive branch. Statutes can be amended, budgets rewritten, appropriations deferred or rescinded, but a judicial nomination is different. When the Framers of the Constitution decided that Federal judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, and may be removed only by the rarely utilized process of impeachment, they guarantee respect for the principle of judicial independent. Senator Mathias goes on to point out: It will no longer provide--Their decision also meant, however, that the vote to confirm a judicial nominee must express the Senate's confidence in the nominee's ability to decide the burning legal controversy not only of the day but of future decades as well. The Constitution gives the Senate the consent power, not as a mechanical formality but as an integral part of the structure of government . . . If the Senate does not take its role seriously, it will lose its effectiveness as, in Hamilton's words-- ``a considerable and salutary restraint upon the conduct'' of the President. Senator Mathias points out what should be obvious to us all. A nominee should: [E]merge from the nomination process knowing that the president and the Senate have confidence that he will preside with only one unalterable loyalty, to the Constitution, and with only purpose, to assure the individual standing before him a judgment based upon the law of the land. Senator Mathias makes another very critical point in his University of Chicago Law Review article about the advice and consent clause. He says: The Senate must be convinced that a nominee is impeccably competent. But competence alone is not sufficient. It is not enough that a nominee be skilled in legal argument and knowledgeable about legal doctrine, and that . . . he be able to write clearly and forcefully. A candidate for the federal bench must, as Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78; ``unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge.'' The nominee also must exhibit a strength of character and a range of vision that will help [him] look beyond the world that exists on the day on which [he] is nominated. . . . [T]he full senate should have the opportunity to consider each nomination on a complete record. . . .[Senators] should have the opportunity to review the transcripts of hearings and to solicit other advice on the merits of the issue before voting. The goal of these procedures is not to second-guess the judgment of the president in submitting the nomination to the Senate, but to ensure that the factors underlying that judgment are sufficiently disclosed to permit the Senate to make an informed and independent evaluation of the president's choice. That is really the nub of what we are concerned about. Listen to the words of a former Republican Senator who served with great distinction in this body: The goal . . . is not to second-guess the judgment of the president . . . but to ensure that the factors underlying that judgment are sufficiently disclosed to permit the Senate to make an informed and independent evaluation of the president's choice. Senator Mathias concludes: For when the Senate carries out its function of advice and consent, its first loyalty must be not to the political parties, nor to the president, but to the people and the constitution they have established. It is not only former Senators who have understood this and would be astonished at the amnesia that seems to have descended upon us about what the debate among the Framers was, about what the settled law and understanding of the Constitution was, about what distinguished Senators who served in this body always believed it to be. But this is the weight of all of the legal and academic analysis of the clause that has been done over so many years. One of the most effective and thorough analyses of the advise and consent obligation is found in a joint statement by Philip Kurland from the University of Chicago and Laurence Tribe from Harvard, dated June 1, 1986, entitled: ``Joint Statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Role of Advice and Consent in Judicial Nominations,'' submitted to the Judiciary Committee. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON. Professors Kurland and Tribe, joined by Professors William R. Kenan and Ralph S. Tyler, wrote that: [P]roviding ``advice and consent'' on judicial nominations . . . is no mere senatorial courtesy but a constitutional duty of fundamental importance to the maintenance of our tripartite system of government. Now, that is a mouthful that really says a lot. This little clause-- just three words--is so important to our tripartite; namely, our three branches--executive, legislative, and judicial--of Government. Well, it is. That is why we advocate it, not at our peril--we will come and go-- but at the peril of undermining this extraordinary, brilliant construction of the United States, a tripartite form of Government, kept in equilibrium by a balance of power. That is a heavy responsibility, to think of giving up advise and consent, giving up the Senate's constitutional duty because, as this statement goes on to say: The reasons that the Framers contemplated a strong Senate role in the process of judicial appointments are plain. It must be remembered that Federal judges are not, like the president's cabinet, to serve the will of the Chief Executive, but officers appointed for life to a separate and independent branch of government. If those appointed to these lifetime judicial posts should ultimately prove unequal to the task or unsuited to the role, they cannot be dismissed. Impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate is the only constitutionally authorized method of removing unfit judges, and the great difficulty of such a process makes it usable only in situations of outrageous misconduct. The only practical opportunity to consider the merits of a judicial candidate, therefore, is before that appointment is made. It thus becomes not only appropriate, but obligatory, that the Senate pass on judicial nominees with greater scrutiny than it reviews the president's choices for his own subordinates. Whatever the philosophy of government or theory of law, the demands that the Nation makes on its federal judges are indisputably great. The federal courts play an increasingly critical part in American government. To federal judges is given the task of policing the boundaries between state and federal government, of giving principled articulation to the content of the basic human rights protected by the constitution, of enforcing the myriad and complex federal statutes and regulations, and of overseeing complicated commercial and criminal litigation. Senators therefore have a duty, both to the constitution and to the Nation's citizens [who sent us here] to ensure that the president's nominees have the experience, the talent, the intellectual acumen, and the fairness of mind to perform their functions, and, particularly in the case of appellate judges, to contribute lucidly to a body of legal precedents that guide [our] courts. . . . The Senate has the further obligation to assure itself that a nominee's substantive views of law are within the broad bounds of acceptability in American public life and not on its lunatic fringes--whether left or right. The Republic may demand--and its Senators ought therefore to ensure--that its life-tenured judiciary does not disdain the Bill of Rights or the Fourteenth Amendment's command for equal protection of the laws and due process. Even in the absence of evidence of a nominee's lack of adherence to constitutional values, it is something that we have to take seriously. We have to be assured, we have to be reassured, that when we cast our votes, we are doing so in the best interests of our Constitution and our country. It has been clear in the debate so far that the Constitution has become something of a political football. There are those who--when the shoe was on the other foot and the occupant of the White House was of another party--were certainly more than ready to ask any question and to raise any objection that they could possibly imagine. I listened, with great interest, to my good friend from Utah say, with great conviction: We never, ever filibustered a judge. That may be technically true, but the reason is because they wouldn't give nominees hearings. They wouldn't give nominees votes, and they would not bring them to the floor where they possibly could be filibustered. It is somewhat surprising to hear that argument being made with a straight face. In the years between 1995 and 2000, the Judiciary Committee refused to hold hearings or to permit votes for more than 50 judicial nominees submitted by President Clinton. Some nominees waited years for a hearing. Some nominees waited years for a vote. One such nominee, a Hispanic judge, Judge Paez, waited more than 1,500 days. Others waited more than 1,500 days, never received the courtesy of a hearing, never received the courtesy of a vote. So here we are, and we are being somehow taken to task because the other side never filibustered. But they controlled the committee. They didn't have to filibuster. They just let nominees languish, twist in the wind, and eventually disappear. I didn't approve of that. I thought that was unfair to a lot of very decent Americans of tremendous intellectual, academic, and legal experience and qualifications. What we are doing now is trying to do the work of the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee would not stand for the prerogatives of this body and insist the nominee answer questions, provide information, require the administration to come forward forthrightly and give the documents and the other background material that was requested. The only way we can exercise our constitutional duty to advise and consent is to raise these issues here in the Chamber. I want to put this into the context of why this would be important to anybody outside the Senate. Again, I imagine people trying to make sense of all of this, trying to figure out what it is all about. In fact, it is about the people themselves. Senators come and go. Presidents come and go. The Constitution, we hope, not only stays but prevails. The Constitution, which set up this genius form of government, unlike anything that any group of human beings have ever devised for themselves, is our underpinning. It is our bedrock. The interpretation of it can change from time to time. That is as it should be. That is part of the genius of our Constitution--that it was an organic, growing document to take into account a nation that started out primarily agrarian and now is in the midst of the information revolution. We couldn't even imagine thinking we had to live and work and govern ourselves in the same way as our predecessors did 200 plus years ago. But the values don't change. The balance of power that is fundamental to our tripartite system of government doesn't change. Human beings may fly through the air in airplanes rather than traverse from place to place on horseback, but fundamental human nature doesn't change. The reason we have a balance of power is because the Framers were absolutely the best psychologists who ever came together in any place in the world. They knew, as they revolted against a king and a royal system, that they were setting up the potential for self-government. They recognized in order for self-government to work, you had to be realistic about human beings. You couldn't be too optimistic. You couldn't be too pessimistic. You had to get it just right, kind of like Goldie Locks. If you were too optimistic about human nature, you would certainly be disappointed. If you were too pessimistic about human nature, you wouldn't have enough hope to get up and move forward and try to solve problems. So the Framers had to get it right. And did they ever get it right. They understood completely that we had to restrain ourselves, that we had to have systems that protect against runaway executive power, runaway legislative power, runaway judicial power. They had it absolutely right. The advice and consent clause is part of how they got it right. I don't care if you are Republican or Democrat, if you served in the Senate in the 19th or 20th or 21st century, they got it right. What we are saying is we don't want to second-guess the Framers. We don't want to substitute our judgment for theirs. We want to do what we are expected to do by the Constitution. We wouldn't even be here having this debate if the constitutional responsibility had been fulfilled in the Judiciary Committee. I have listened to my colleagues talk about all of the paper that has been submitted and all of the time that has been taken to pass this nominee through the Judiciary Committee. But they know as well as we that many of the critical questions were never answered. Many of the essential documents that would give us insight into the attitudes and the beliefs and the philosophy of this nominee were never produced and that, in effect, we are asked to basically abdicate our advise and consent responsibility, to turn our back on the Constitution and to do what we are told to do. That is not what the decision was when the debate took place among our Framers. If you look at the Federalist papers, if you look at all of the commentary in the many years since, this was a solemn duty that was given to the Senate. When people say: Why are you debating this, I think there are a number of reasons. First, because it seems to those of us who are debating, it is our duty. It is our responsibility. We read the Constitution. We read what people said about it at the time it was written, what people have said about it recently. We read what our colleagues have said about it, when the shoe was on the other foot, and we have to conclude we are fulfilling our constitutional responsibility. I went back and looked at the Congressional Record at some of the comments some of my friends on the other side have made in the past about what we should do when it comes to advising and consenting. I agree with what they said. When the shoe was on the other foot and it was a Democratic President sending judicial nominees, the same speeches were said on the other side of the floor, which strikes me as definitive, conclusive proof of what this is all about. For example, Senator Smith, March 9, 2000: The Constitution gave the Senate the advise and consent role. We are supposed to advise the President and consent, if we think the judge should be put on the court. We do not get very much opportunity to advise because the President just sends these nominations up here. He does not seek our advice. And then we are asked to consent. It seems as if the Senate should be a rubber stamp, that we should just approve every judge that comes down the line and not do anything about the advise and consent role. I agree 100 percent with what Senator Smith then said: That is not the way that I read the Constitution. I believe that is wrong. We have an obligation under the Constitution to review these judges very carefully. In that same vein, Senator Smith on another day, the same month, March 7, 2000, went on to explicate this important responsibility. I wish all of us would listen to it. I think this is exactly right. He said: I think the constitutional process is very clear, that the Senate has the right and the responsibility under the Constitution to advise and consent. That is exactly what I intend to do in my role as a Senator as it pertains to the two nominees before us. The issue, though, is whether it is OK to block judicial nominees. We have heard from a couple of my colleagues in the last few moments that it isn't OK to block judicial nominees, as if there was something unconstitutional about it. There is thinking by some that we should not start down this path of blocking a judicial nominee whom we do not think is a good nominee for the Court because it may come back to haunt us at some point when and if a Republican should be elected to the Presidency. Senator Smith goes on: Let me say, with all due respect to my colleagues, I am not starting down any new path. I am going to be very specific and prove exactly my point that we are not starting down a new path of blocking a judicial nominee. That path is well worn. We are following a path; we are not starting down any new path. I could not say it better myself. In fact, I wish I had said it as well. But it is not only Senator Smith, it is also Senator Hatch, on January 28, 1998: Conducting a fair confirmation process, however, does not mean granting the President carte blanche in filling the Federal judiciary. It means assuring that those who are confirmed will uphold the Constitution and abide by the rule of law. Senator Hatch, October 3, 2000: The President has broad discretion, as we know, to nominate whomever he chooses for Federal judicial vacancies. The Senate, in its role, has a constitutional duty to offer its advice and consent on judicial nominations. Each Senator, of course, has his or her own criteria for offering this advice and this consent on lifetime appointments. The Judiciary Committee, though, is where many of the initial concerns about nominees are raised and arise. All of this information is, of course, available to every member of the Judiciary Committee and must be thoroughly reviewed before the nominee is granted a hearing by the committee. If questions about a nominee's background or qualifications arise, further inquiry may be necessary. Obviously, this is a long process, as it must be. After all, these are lifetime appointments. Senator Hatch, May 23, 1997: The primary criteria in this process is not how many vacancies need to be filled, but whether President Clinton, or whoever the President is--whether their nominees are qualified to serve on the bench and will not, upon receiving their judicial commission, spend a lifetime, a career, rendering politically motivated activist decisions. Then Senator Hatch goes on to say something else I agree with 100 percent: The Senate has an obligation to the American people to thoroughly review the records of all nominees it receives to ensure that they are capable and qualified to serve as Federal judges. Listen to that specific point that Senator Hatch made back in 1997: There has to be a thorough inquiry and the Senate has to determine whether a nominee would, upon receiving their judicial commission, spend a lifetime, a career, rendering politically motivated, activist decisions. That is really the nub of what we are looking to determine. There is more than sufficient concern that the nominee before us would do just that. And the reason why the administration will not, and maybe perchance cannot provide the information requested, is because to do so would make abundantly clear that this is a nominee on a mission, that this is a nominee who will do exactly what Senator Hatch warned about when the shoe was on the other foot; namely, render politically motivated, activist decisions. Now, there may be some on the other side who believe they would agree with these politically motivated activist decisions, so bring it on. But I don't think that is our responsibility. Our responsibility is to know ahead of time. The American people don't get to interview and vote on these nominees. If some nominee overturns, when he or she is on the bench, fundamental worker protections for people who work hard and play by the rules of what they are supposed to do at work, that affects the lives of millions of Americans. If someone decides they don't like the Violence Against Women Act, or they don't believe there is a right to privacy embedded in the Constitution, that affects millions of Americans. So I think it is imperative that we listen to what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said during the 1990s. All of this concern about advice and consent, all of this caution about rushing to judgment and voting--slow it down, do a thorough review, don't move too quickly. In fact, don't even give people hearings or a vote in committee. It is imperative that now we try to get back to that balance of power that the Constitution established. Turning down nominations for a judgeship is something that goes back to the beginning of our Republic. It is not as though this is the first time we have ever had this debate. We have had many nominees rejected, starting with one of President Washington's nominees. John Rutledge was nominated in 1795 by President Washington. Why was he turned down? He was thought to be well qualified. He had quite an experience that could certainly be impressive when examined. He was a member of the Federalist Party, which should certainly ring a bell with my colleagues on the other side. But he was turned down because of his political views. The idea that somehow the political views and positions of a nominee for a lifetime appointment are off limits to the Senate has no basis in fact, history, or law. The very first nominee in 1795 by probably the most popular President that we have ever had, because he was the first--and lucky for him he didn't have to be compared to other people and given all of the difficulties that our subsequent Presidents have faced--but President Washington's nominee was rejected because of the political positions he had taken. Of course, that was not the only early nominee to be rejected. President Madison nominated Alexander Wolcott in 1811. He was rejected. He was rejected. President Jackson nominated Roger Brook Taney in 1835. He was rejected the first time. He came back a year later and was accepted. There are many such situations. It is revising history to claim that we cannot inquire into someone's opinions. If we are going to put someone on the bench who does not believe there is a right to privacy in the Constitution, which would perhaps lead to the overturning of many decisions that protect people's privacy in the sanctity of their home or with respect to their bodies, we should know that. That person might still be nominated and confirmed, but the American people have a right to know who these people are who are being nominated because they are going to be making decisions that affect the daily lives of Americans. When you nominate a stealth candidate, when you send him up to the Judiciary Committee and tell him to dodge and duck and divert and do not answer a straight question with a straight answer, is it any wonder that people get a little suspicious and maybe say: Wait a minute; if this man will not even come and tell us what Supreme Court decision he agrees with, going back to Marbury v. Madison, and he says he cannot name one; How about one with which you disagree? Well, I can't name that either; that does not pass the smell test, I am sorry. That is a witness who has been well coached and told: Don't rock any boats, don't answer any questions, don't reveal your true opinions. Just try to get through the process. That is why we need an advice and consent clause in the Constitution, and that is why the Framers put it there. It very well may be if he answered the questions forthrightly, if he said: My favorite Supreme Court decision is Marbury v. Madison, my least favorite is--pick one out of thousands--we would say: We do not agree with you, but OK. But he will not do that. You have to ask yourself: Why won't he do that? Certainly given the kinds of questions that were asked of nominees during the 1990s that went into all kinds of areas--their associations, the meetings they attended, how they even voted--it is hard to understand why this nominee cannot be expected to answer pertinent questions about the law, about his opinions concerning Supreme Court decisions. The fact he refuses to do so, or has been ordered not to do so, fundamentally defies the constitutional duty of this body to advise and consent. I know there are those who have argued that there is already an adequate amount of information in the record that should be taken at face value. That is hard to do. That is hard to do because, in the absence of a willingness to answer pertinent, relevant questions, many of us do not believe the nominee has sufficiently subjected himself to the process that this body has established to permit Senators to make an informed decision. If we go back and look at the reams of material that I reviewed to determine what was the basis for the advice and consent clause, I think that is obvious to us all it is there for a purpose. We ignore it at our peril. We have a duty to abide by it. I again urge my friends and colleagues on the other side to read the extensive description of the advice and consent clause and the role of the Senate in the judicial selection process by former Republican Senator Charles McC. Mathias. When my friends and colleagues raise the issue that somehow this is focused on a particular nominee, for whatever reason, I think that does a disservice to the seriousness of our concerns because it was this nominee who would not answer the questions. It was this nominee who did not provide the materials. My very alert counsel has just reminded me that when Justice Taney was first rejected after being nominated by President Jackson in 1835 and then was renominated and confirmed in 1836, he went on to write one of the most discredited, racist, despicable opinions in the history of our court. Judge Taney was the author of the Dred Scott decision. Maybe the country would have been better off and saved a whole lot of misery if the Senate had delayed action and had never confirmed him when he was renominated. We just never know. We have to do the best we can given our own human limitations and idiosyncrasies based on the information available. There are some, and I respect their opinion, on both sides of the aisle who say: If the President sends somebody up, I am voting for it, no questions asked. That is how I believe the Constitution is to be interpreted, as far as I am concerned. With all due respect, I think that is an abdication of responsibility. For most of us, we try to get behind the nomination. We try to understand, not just the academic or legal background which can be described by where you worked, who you worked for, what clients you had, what cases you tried or argued, but if that is all we did, we could put that into a computer. We would not need the Senate. We would computerize that decision. That is not what we are supposed to do. We are supposed to get behind the statistics, under the resume to satisfy ourselves that the person we give this lifetime job to is motivated by only one reason: to render justice to the best of his ability no matter who the parties are, no matter what the outcome of the matter may be, not to serve a political philosophy or ideology, not to serve a political party or even a President but to really do the hard work of justice. It is a hard job, it is a really hard job and especially today. There are so many factors at work in our society, so many difficult decisions to be made about how we keep this wonderful, precious democracy of ours moving forward that judges have a very tough job. It is not for the casual or the indolent. It is for people who really care, will work hard, and will follow the law, the Constitution, and their conscience. We are judging not just a legal resume. We are judging a potential judge. We are asking ourselves: Will everyone who appears before this court get the benefit of a fair rendering of justice? Until we can satisfactorily answer that question about this nominee, we cannot move forward. We should not move forward. We should follow the words of our colleagues when the shoe was on the other foot and it was a nominee from a Democratic President that caused questions and concerns on the other side. I personally think that was overdone, and that many good, decent people who would have made fine judges were denied the right to go forward, but it was done in the name of the Constitution. It was done under the rubric of advise and consent. It is a little hard to understand how my friends on the other side can, with straight faces, say that is not what it means at all. How dare we question this nominee. How can we ask for more information? Because that is what we think our duty is, just as at a previous time those on the other side thought it their duty. It is difficult to explain how the Constitution's interpretation could flip so quickly. I do not think that is good for the Constitution. I do not think that is good for this body. I do not think it is good for the judiciary. Most of all, I do not think it is good for our country. I think no matter who is in the White House, no matter who is in the Senate, we ought to do our level best to fulfill the duties the Constitution places upon us. That is what I am attempting to do to the best of my ability. I know that is what all of my colleagues attempt to do. When we face a moment such as this, which seems fraught with so much meaning not only with respect to a nominee and not only with respect to the judiciary but to that fundamental balance of power, we have to be careful. We will live with the precedents that are set. Lord Acton had it right when he said, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We must have those checks and balances. We must keep that fabulous, unbelievable genius of our Framers alive. I hope we can see some attention being paid to the legitimate questions and concerns that are being raised about this nominee and about this process and about the Constitution we revere and serve. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I ask unanimous consent that Robyn Rimmer, a legal fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for this debate.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an important issue to which I have pledged my constant dedication throughout my career--ensuring that children have access to affordable and safe vaccines. These vaccines are one of the most successful and cost- effective tools we have to prevent disease and death. Yet only a year ago, however, doctors had to turn families away at the door because of national vaccine shortages for eight out of the eleven vaccine-preventable diseases. During the vaccine shortage, children became ill with pneumococcal meningitis and pneumonia, diseases that could have been prevented with an adequate supply of the pneumococcal vaccine. Since the HELP Committee met to discuss the vaccine shortage crisis, we have witnessed some significant progress, which is a credit to a collaborative effort by public health officials, vaccine manufacturers and providers. Shortages for five vaccines have stopped, and childhood vaccines for eight different diseases are no longer being delayed. These shortages, temporarily alleviated, could return at any time. I know that my home state of New York, like the rest of the Nation, only has a one-to-two month stockpile for some of the routinely recommended childhood vaccines. At the most recent HELP Committee hearing no vaccines, we listened to a GAO report that acknowledged two critical components to protecting our children's health security, and today I rise to present legislation that would take these two important steps. Having the government stockpile vaccines is important because vaccine production is a complex process. The GAO report confirmed that a pause in production for safety reasons could happen again and would have a critical and devastating impact on the ability to vaccinate children and adults. I appreciate the administration's announced commitment to provide funds in the 2004 Budget for a vaccine stockpile. The Childhood Vaccine Supply Act would strengthen and support the administration's authority in these efforts and assure that the stockpile includes adults as well as all children, who were affected by the tetanus- diphtheria toxoid shortage last year. * * * We also need an additional buffer because DCD acknowledges that it will take 4 years before we can have a 6-month stockpile of childhood vaccines. We need a notification mechanism so that CDC can work with other manufacturers to maintain the vaccine supply when a manufacturer cannot produce an adequate supply of vaccine. Each of the four major vaccine producers has stated that they do not object to this sort of an advance notice provision. The Childhood Vaccine Supply Act would create a notification mechanism for manufacturers to give one-year advance notice when they intend to stop making a vaccine. We have worked amicably with Senators Frist, Gregg, and Kennedy on both of these vaccine provisions. We have work amicably with Senator Frist on this issue and our vaccine provisions, and fully expect to continue working with this bipartisan group of Senators to accomplish the important goal of assuring safe vaccines for all children.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Yes. I will.

Mrs. CLINTON. I think what I judge is by what people say at the end of a conclusive discussion and what they determine based on their own consideration. Much of my concern is based on the Constitution and the role of this body--not on what people did or didn't do, although I think that is instructive, and I think it is very helpful. It does have sway with me because I don't believe we have developed an adequate record in the Judiciary Committee that would give even those of us who might end up opposing his nomination--I don't know that for a fact--an adequate basis on which to exercise our constitutional responsibility.