Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to support this amendment to accelerate broadband high-speed Internet access across the country. The widespread availability of broadband technology is essential to maintaining our technology leadership in the world. The spread of the information revolution to rural communities and underserved areas in our cities depends on affordable access to the Internet. For too long, these regions have been unable to enter the information age because of their location and the high cost of making service available. One of our greatest challenges is to close this growing economic gap in access to computers and the Internet. If we do not act to close it now, the ``digital divide'' will soon become an unacceptable opportunity gap. The broadband tax incentive is an important step in developing a national broadband policy. The incentive has widespread support in Congress because it goes to those who bring broadband to places beyond the current reach of the private sector. Many of us joined our colleague, Senator Moynihan, when he first introduced legislation along these lines 3 years ago. Last year, the bill had 65 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, and a companion bill in the House had 227 cosponsors. Our colleagues clearly support this idea, and we hope that it will be enacted. In Massachusetts, I have seen how broadband has transformed the economy of the entire Berkshire County region in the western part of the State. Like many rural areas across the Nation, the Berkshires were not an area that could easily attract private investments in Internet access. But business and government leaders worked out an initiative called Berkshire Connect, a partnership with Internet providers to build a multimillion-dollar network of microwave towers and fiberoptic lines linking the county's villages and small cities with fast Internet access. That project put the Berkshires on a more equal footing with the rest of the global marketplace because the Internet helps to level the playing field between large and small businesses and rural and urban areas. I am confident that passage of the broadband tax incentive will bring similar success stories across the Nation for residents and businesses. Another prime broadband application is telemedicine. A fascinating moment occurred in medicine 2 years ago when a surgeon in New York operated by remote control on a patient in France using robot arms at the patient's location, and the operation was successful. Broadband technology can enhance the medical miracles, but it needs a very high bandwidth connection for those kinds of applications. You can't perform remote-control surgery over a narrowband connection. Broadband's potential is immense, and I commend my colleagues from Montana and West Virginia for their leadership. This is the kind of tax incentive we need, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield myself an hour on the bill.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I call up my amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield such time as he may use.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we are speaking as in morning business.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent to be able to proceed as if in morning business.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the health of the American economy has been deteriorating for more than 2 years and the patient's vital signs are getting steadily worse. President Bush's response has been to prescribe sugar pills--tax cuts for the wealthy that may taste good for a moment but do nothing to cure the patient's illness. Like a quack doctor who knows only one remedy, while the patient keeps getting worse despite the treatment, the President just keeps prescribing larger and larger doses of sugar pills. The Bush administration's policies will never revive this sick economy. I am deeply concerned about the continued stagnation of the economy. Unemployment is still on the rise. We climbed to 6 percent in April. There are now 8.8 million men and women unemployed across the Nation. The economy has lost more than a half million jobs in just the past 3 months, and there is no end in sight. In the absence of an effective stimulus from the Federal Government, the economy is not likely to improve quickly. Behind such disturbing statistics are people who need our help. A strong economy allows working men and women to have greater control over their lives and more opportunity to pursue their personal dreams. A stagnant economy takes much of that control out of their hands, leaving families vulnerable to circumstances they cannot control. Across America in the last 2 years, workers have lost their job security. As layoffs mount, they live in fear of being the next to be let go. There are 2.7 million fewer private sector jobs in America today than there were in January of 2001. Those looking for a job are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain one. The number of long- term unemployed has tripled. The pain caused by this destructive wave of economic stagnation is not limited to those who have lost their jobs. Health insurance is becoming less and less affordable for workers and their families across the country. The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that over the course of a year, 60 million Americans go without health insurance. One in ten small businesses which offered their employees health insurance in 2000, no longer do so. Nationally, the average cost of health insurance is rising at double digit rates, up by 11 percent in 2001, and another 12.7 percent in 2002 nearly 4 times the rate of inflation. The health care squeeze on working families is getting tighter and tighter. Senior citizens who desperately need prescription drug coverage are suffering, too. While their incomes are stagnating because of low Social Security cost-of-living adjustments, the cost of prescription drugs is escalating at double digit rates, increasing an average of 16 percent each year. Children who are being asked to do more in school are receiving less support. School districts faced with declining tax receipts have increased class sizes, cut weeks from school calendars, and laid off teachers. Our economy's inability to support public education is setting up America's children to fail in the global marketplace. There is a crisis in public higher education as well that has been created by a weak economy. States are being forced to sharply cut aid to public colleges. State and community colleges in turn have increased tuition to an unprecedented rate to cope with State budget cuts. Nationally, the gap between the cost of college tuition and the tuition assistance provided by the Federal Government has grown by $1,900 in the last 2 years. Millions of families have seen their retirement savings seriously eroded. The value of savings in 401(k) plans and other defined contribution plans has declined by $473 billion in the last 2 years. These are the realities American families face today. It is imperative that the National Government respond to the growing economic crisis. There is much the Government can do to stimulate economic growth in the near term without generating huge deficits that will undermine prosperity in the long term. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has consistently refused to follow such a course of action. Historically, Republicans and Democrats have had fundamentally different views on how to strengthen the economy. Republicans believe if you give tax breaks to the wealthiest taxpayers, they will invest more and the economy will grow. It is called trickle-down economics. The problem with this theory is the wealthy may not immediately use the money to create jobs and expand production. If there is no demand because consumers are not buying, companies will not produce more. They will just wait until the economic climate improves. Democrats believe that tax relief and public resources should go to America's working families. They are the ones who are struggling most in this brutal economy, and they will quickly spend the money. They will create the demand which is needed to get the economy moving again. It is an old debate. We have very different approaches to stimulating the economy. Republicans keep making the same mistake. If trickle-down economics worked, the economy would not be stagnating today. In 2001, at President Bush's insistence, Congress passed one of the largest tax cuts in history, and wealthy taxpayers got the lion's share of the tax benefits. America has lost more than 2.5 million jobs since the first Bush tax cut passed. The Republican response is more of the same. But the American people want a new approach. The President has repeatedly rejected the pragmatic advice of mainstream economists and opted instead for an ideologically rigid and ineffective strategy. His single-minded commitment to ever larger tax cuts for the wealthy as the cure to every economic ailment has made a bad situation worse. The administration has ignored remedies that would provide a significant stimulus this year, while implementing policies that will undermine our future economic strength. As a result, the economy continues to stagnate, and the number of families facing hardships continue to grow. The budget presented to Congress by President Bush this year calls for over $1.6 trillion in new tax cuts, in addition to the massive tax cuts already enacted in 2001. According to the Congressional Budget Office, if the President's budget is accepted, the on-budget deficit will grow to $4 trillion by 2013. More than three-quarters of that amount would be directly attributable to the Bush tax cuts. A deficit that large would make it impossible for the Federal Government to meet its most basic obligations to the American people in national security, in health care, in education, and in retirement security. While imposing this enormous long-term burden on the economy, the President's economic growth plan would not even provide the immediate stimulus the economy needs. The economy needs a real stimulus plan. A genuine economic stimulus must meet three criteria. It must have an immediate impact. It must be temporary. And it must be fair in bringing the recovery to all Americans and not just the wealthy few. The Bush proposal fails on all three counts. Only $40 billion of the $726 billion cost of the administration's plan would reach the economy in 2003, when it is needed to stimulate growth. Most of the revenue will be spent long after the recession has ended. Eighty percent of that total amount would not be spent until 2005 or later. What we need is just the reverse. We need to put much more money into the economy in 2003 and keep the long-term costs low. Temporary tax cuts to stimulate the economy are affordable, but the President's large, permanent, new tax cuts are not. The Republican plan will not provide the timely and targeted stimulus that the economy needs. Under the President's so-called economic growth package, households with annual incomes over $1 million would receive an average tax cut of $90,000 each year. They are not the ones who are struggling to make ends meet in this faltering economy. They are not the ones who need our help. Nor are they the ones who will quickly spend the money they receive. In contrast to this windfall for the richest taxpayers, households in the middle of the income spectrum would receive an average of less than $300 per year in tax benefits. The Bush plan is simply not an effective stimulus. A recent analysis of the administration's economic growth plan by a respected independent financial research firm, Economy.Com, determined that elimination of the income tax on corporate dividends, the centerpiece of the President's plan, is one of the least effective forms of stimulus, generating less than a dime of stimulus for every dollar of Federal revenue lost. By comparison, extending unemployment benefits and providing aid to State and local governments would produce substantially more than a dollar of stimulus for every dollar of Federal revenue spent. The plans announced by House and Senate Republicans in the past few days both contain the same fundamental flaws as the Bush plan. They put far too little money in the economy this year and cost far too much in the long term. Only $60 billion of the House's $550 billion tax cut would go into the economy this year, and even less, just $33 billion of the Senate's $420 billion tax cut, would reach the economy in 2003, when it is needed to create jobs. The Senate Republican bill reported out of the Finance Committee last week would give taxpayers who earn more than $1 million a year an average annual tax cut of $64,400, while middle-income taxpayers would only receive an average tax cut of $233. Sixty percent of all the tax benefits in the legislation would go to the wealthiest 10 percent of taxpayers. This chart I have in the Chamber reflects that. This chart is the result of an analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. The average tax cut for middle-income families is $233 a year, and for the millionaires, $64,400 a year. While the Senate Republican bill is not as extreme as the Bush administration proposal, it still fails the test of an effective and immediate stimulus. It does not maximize the economic impact in 2003. We can create many more jobs much sooner by better targeting the resources provided in the legislation. Senate Republicans are still proposing to spend $80 billion on a permanent dividend tax cut and $35 billion on lowering the tax rate on the highest incomes. These cuts, which constitute one-third of the entire cost of the bill, do not provide the needed effective stimulus, and they take resources away from proposals that would. It is incredible that Republicans could not find the dollars to extend unemployment benefits and to provide tax relief for low-income workers but they could find the money to pay for these tax breaks benefitting the wealthiest taxpayers. These priorities are all wrong for America. Let me just point out that in their Republican tax proposal, there are virtually no provisions for unemployment compensation for American workers--either the almost 3 million American workers who have lost their jobs over the period of the last 2 years or those who have already seen their unemployment compensation expire because of the downturn in the economy, let alone the hundreds of thousands of part- time workers and low-income workers, who are primarily women. There is no proposal whatsoever in the Republican tax proposal to have an extension of unemployment compensation in spite of the fact that the unemployment compensation fund is in heavy surplus. At this time, it is well able to afford it. A well-designed stimulus plan could generate far more economic activity at a small fraction of the cost of the Republican proposals. The Senate Democratic plan would inject $125 billion into the economy this year and is designed to maximize the stimulus effect of each dollar. There is twice as much stimulus effect in 2003 as the House Republican plan and three times as much as the administration's plan and the Senate Republican plan. Three widely respected economic models all show that the Democratic plan would generate substantially more growth in 2003 and create a half million more jobs this year than the Republican plan. In the Democratic plan, half of the total amount would be used to provide immediate tax relief to working families. It would provide tax relief to all those who pay either income tax or payroll tax and would provide additional tax cuts to families with children. The tax cuts are directed to hard-working families who need them most and are most likely to spend the dollars quickly. The current installment of Federal unemployment benefits runs out at the end of this month, and the Democratic plan would extend those benefits. An effective stimulus plan also needs to provide immediate, targeted tax relief for businesses to stimulate new investment. Accelerating depreciation to 50 percent for this year and tripling the amount small businesses can expense this year makes sense. The goal is to provide businesses with strong tax incentives to invest in new plants and equipment now, rather than postponing those expenditures until future years. To be credible, a stimulus plan must recognize the dire fiscal problems that State and local governments across America are facing. The current fiscal crisis in the States is the most severe in decades. Collectively, States are facing budget deficits of nearly $100 billion and making up for it by cutting education programs. Last Congress we passed a good bill, a bipartisan bill, in the No Child Left Behind Act, in order to ensure we had smaller classrooms, better trained teachers, improved curricula, and after school services. We had a whole range of commitments: improving literacy, and putting additional kinds of expectations on schools to perform. We did all of that. But we have found now that the administration has backed out of that commitment at the same time we are finding the States are backing out. We have a golden opportunity to strengthen and enhance K through 12 education, but we are undermining that possibility with the cuts that are taking place at the State level as a result of the first Bush tax cut. And we know that this new tax request by this administration will permanently undermine our ability to fund these programs into the future. It is important to remember that more people need to rely on State and local programs in an economic downturn. The number of people eligible for Medicaid grows substantially in times of recession, and many other costs rise as well. Without jobs and without health care, families have nowhere else to turn. They don't have the health insurance, so they have to go to the neighborhood health centers. Who do we think picks up the cost in terms of the neighborhood health centers? It is the local communities that are going to be required to do this. We should make certain that the needed resources are available for them. Our stimulus plan would provide at least $40 billion to hard-pressed States and communities. It would provide additional dollars to maintain health care, education, and social services. It would also help with the substantial costs of dealing with the threat of terrorism. It is money well spent which will help stimulate the economy now. Unfortunately, the President's plan completely ignores this need. We had the hearings in our human resources committee not long ago about the dangers associated with the outbreak of SARS and about how local, State, and public health services are so heavily burdened in responding to various kinds of inquiries and tension in local communities on this, and how they are stretched to the breaking point. SARS is not the result of a terrorist activity, but if it had been or if we should have one now, we know our public health systems are stretched to their limit. And they are our first responders. We also know that the major hospitals now are overstretched because of the reductions in their budgets. They need to be ready to contain any kind of an outbreak of a major terrorist attack that is going to use chemical or biological agents. So we are talking about matters that involve the security of this Nation in terms of terrorism and the potential use of anthrax and other dangerous substances. The best way to stimulate real economic growth is to make sound investments in our human capital and in our infrastructure. That is what the Bush administration does not realize. That is the essential element missing from all their economic plans. If we deny the necessary resources now, we are jeopardizing the future well-being of our people. We are also jeopardizing our future prosperity. Today we need an economic growth plan that recognizes the real forces which drive our economy and invests in them. As President Kennedy said 43 years ago, at the time of another Republican recession: It is time to get America moving again. As debate on the tax bill progresses, I intend to offer amendments to reverse the misguided priorities of the Republican bill. One of my amendments will eliminate the dividend tax cut and the accelerated reduction in the rate of the top brackets in order to provide the necessary funding for a Medicare prescription drug benefit that will effectively meet the needs of the elderly. The people's representatives will have a chance to say what is more important for the American people, a tax cut for the wealthy or a solid prescription drug program which was effectively left out of the Medicare program when we passed Medicare in 1965. We got the hospitalization. We got the physician services. But we left out prescription drugs. We made a commitment to American seniors: Work hard and your health care needs are taken care of. We didn't say they would be taken care of with the exception of prescription drugs, but that is exactly what has happened. Every day that we have Medicare without prescription drugs, it is a violation of that commitment. We will have an opportunity tomorrow to make a decision whether we are going to as a nation place the funding of a good prescription drug program ahead of providing additional kinds of tax reductions for the wealthiest individuals in this country. It is an issue of choice. It is an issue of priorities. The Members of the Senate will be able to make that judgment and decision. One will take place; the other will not. Which way will the Senate go? Too many of our elderly citizens choose between food on the table and the medicine their doctors prescribe. Too many elderly are taking half the drugs their doctors prescribe or none at all because they cannot afford them. The Republican budget shortchanges senior citizens who desperately need prescription drug coverage. Prescription drug spending for senior citizens will cost $1.8 trillion over the next decade, but the Republican budget allocates only $400 billion additional dollars for Medicare. This $400 billion is not even reserved just to pay for prescription drug coverage. The additional $115 billion my amendment provides will help us to enact a real drug benefit without coverage gaps and high deductibles and will meet the needs of all seniors. It is a statement by the Senate that mending the broken promise of Medicare and providing seniors with the lifesaving prescription drugs they need is far more important than additional tax breaks for millionaires. The Republican budget also seriously underfunds education. I am planning to offer an amendment that would reduce the size of the tax cut and use the funds to make real the promise of No Child Left Behind. We made a commitment to parents and children, with No Child Left Behind, that we were going to guarantee a well-qualified teacher in every classroom. We made a commitment that they would be in smaller classes. We made a commitment that parents would be informed as to the progress those children were making and the school was either making or not making. We made a commitment that we would hold schools accountable, and if the schools were not going to perform, they would be altered or changed. And if they still were not performing effectively, they would be completely reorganized. We made that commitment to parents. We made that commitment to the American people. But we also made a commitment to the American people that we were going to do our share by providing the resources to get that done. We have failed them. My amendment will also address the needs of college students caught up in the widening financial gulf between tuition assistance and the cost of higher education. We make choices in the Senate. We are going to give the Members of the Senate the opportunity to make a choice about which is more important: Investing in our youngest children, and those children who are continuing their education into college as well who today are in many instances spending their time during the breaks, rather than talking about their books or the courses they are taking in school, are talking about when their next job will be and how much they will get paid and how much their student loan is going to take out of that. We know so many of the most talented and most gifted students come from hard-working, middle-income families and they turn down the opportunity to go on to school and college because they do not want to assume that debt or assume the debt for their families. We are going to provide an opportunity for the Senate of the United States to make a choice. Do you want to provide more tax breaks for the wealthiest or do you want to invest in schools? They will have that chance tomorrow. Unemployment benefits expire 2 weeks from now. My third amendment will extend the current program for 6 months and help the 1.1 million Americans who are long-term unemployed, and the hundreds of thousands of part-time, low-wage workers. These are men and women who have worked hard and paid into the fund. If they haven't paid into the fund, they are not eligible. Make no mistake. These are men and women who, through no fault of their own, because of the downturn in the economy, are thrown out of work. They are able to collect some unemployment compensation. But then after a period of time, that compensation expires. Historically, in a nonpartisan way, Republicans and Democrats together have said: We will provide a helping hand to you until we get the economy back. And then, when they are on their own feet, they repay back into that fund. That is the way it has worked historically. But not under this Republican proposal. There isn't 5 cents in here, not one nickel for these fellow Americans who are trying to pay a mortgage, educate their children, and put food on the table. We will have a chance tomorrow to vote on this issue and to find out the decision of the Members. The debate will only last for 2 days because of the rules of the Senate. We are limited to 25 hours under the process that was accepted a number of years ago, with which I have great difficulty when we have a situation such as this. We know that national economic policy has a most dramatic and important impact in terms of the national economic well-being and welfare. In the early 1960s, sound fiscal policy led to a long period of economic growth and price stability. We did see a reduction in taxes under President Kennedy at that time, when taxes were up to 90 percent of income. Imagine that. They went down to 70 percent. The distribution in that tax bill, which eventually was signed into law in 1964, was for middle income and low income working families, and over $3 billion went to reduce and close tax loopholes. We don't have that now. There are some provisions in here that raise the taxes on Americans who are working overseas. But I wish we had a committee that would review the tax expenditures the same way that we review the expenditures in terms of spending. We hear a great deal about reduced spending, and there are areas where it should be reduced. But what we don't see is any call for reducing the tax expenditures that have been building up over years and years and benefit just the few, the privileged, in the Tax Code. They have been growing and growing and growing. Make no mistake about it, the working families make that up every time we see another tax loophole created. If we are going to get back to a balanced budget, somebody has to fill it in, and it turns out to be the working families who are the ones filling that in. That is wrong. When we saw a strong tax program in the early 1960s, we saw, as a result, economic growth and price stability. It continued for a number of years until we found additional expenditures as a result of the Vietnam war. Then we saw the same thing as the result of President Clinton's economic program in 1993. After that we had the longest period of economic growth and price stability in this country in years, with the creation of millions of jobs as a result of the economic policy decided on the floor of the Senate. We are going to be debating how to recreate this success this week in the Senate. I believe that is the most important question that will be decided by this Congress this year--outside of the particular assurance of our own national security and defense and the battle against terror. The challenge the American people should give to us is to make sure, one, that the economic policy is going to be fair and, two, it is going to be a stimulus to the economy and, three, it is going to be temporary. If we do that, whatever the program, Democrat or Republican, we will have met our responsibilities. We should put an emphasis on meeting the Nation's priorities with respect to education, health care and unemployment insurance. America should be watching this debate and paying close attention because the decisions that are going to be made in the next 36 hours will have a profound impact on our economy and what kind of country we are going to be over the period of these next several years. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe all of our colleagues in the Senate will be interested in an article from today's New York Times entitled ``What Some Much-Noted Data Really Showed About Vouchers'' by Michael Winerip, pointing out the shocking flaws in a widely cited study released in 2000 by Paul E. Peterson on the benefits of private school voucher programs. It is clear that no research on vouchers has conclusively shown that private school students outperform public school students. Private school vouchers are not proven to work and should not be supported by Congress. Public funds should be used for public schools, not on dubious experiments to pay for a small number of students to attend private schools. The No Child Left Behind Act--passed last year with the strong support of President Bush and strong bipartisan support in Congress--is the best hope for improving elementary and secondary education. Its reforms ask more of schools, teachers, and students in communities across the country. Schools need as much funding and support as possible to ensure that no child is left behind. Every dollar in public funds that goes to private schools is a dollar less for public schools. Congress should support public schools, not abandon them. Proven effective reforms should be made--not just in a few schools, but in all schools; not just for a few students, but for all students. I urge my colleagues in Congress to reject voucher proposals and grant increased funds for public schools, and I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this child-abduction legislation is important and needed. According to the Justice Department, 2,200 children are reported missing each day. There are approximately 114,600 attempted abductions by strangers every year, and between 3,000 and 5,000 of these attempts are successful. Each child abduction is a tragedy. Last year, I met with two of my constituents, John and Magi Bish. On June 27, 2000, their daughter Molly Ann Bish, a 16-year-old lifeguard, disappeared from her life- guarding post at Comins Pond in Walden, MA. Molly's family and friends continue to search for her. The Bish family is also working to raise awareness about this important issue. They started the first Missing Children's Day in Massachusetts. They also established the Molly Bish Foundation to provide services to children and families across our State and the New England area. John and Magi Bish have shown extraordinary courage and perseverance in the face of an overwhelming loss. The legislation addresses the problem of child abductions in several ways, and I supported it. It establishes a national AMBER Alert system to help locate abducted children, and it gives prosecutors major new tools to address these terrifying crimes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in 1953, Congress first proclaimed May 6 as National Teacher Day. Our Nation has changed in many ways over the past 50 years; however some things have remained the same. Teachers have always been mentors and role models to students and have made lasting contributions to so many students' lives. Today teachers face greater demands and more diverse student bodies. Too often, they also face inadequate pay and unacceptable teaching environments. In a time of fiscal uncertainty, when budgets are shrinking and teachers have to rely on fewer resources, they still do the best they can to help their students succeed. Little relief is in sight. Communities across the country will need to hire an additional two million teachers over the next 10 years to deal with rising student enrollments and teacher retirements. Congress must do more to help communities recruit promising teacher candidates. We can provide new teachers with trained mentors who will help them not only to survive but to thrive in the classroom. We can do more to see that all teachers and principals have the on-going training they need in order to keep up with modern technology and modern research. In addition, we must find better ways to increase their pay and improve their working environments. It is imperative that we treat all teachers with the respect that they deserve. Teachers have one of the most important jobs of all, and we must support them every step of the way. On this special day, we thank the 3 million public school teachers across the country who work so hard each and every day to do their job. They truly are our community heroes and our national heroes. They have one of the most difficult jobs of all educating the young men and woman who are our Nation's future.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I rise to address the nomination of Deborah Cook to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Senate, to express my very deep concerns about the commitment of this nominee to the interests of working families and to the underlying cause of fairness and justice. I want to say at the outset that I have the highest regard for my friend from Ohio, Senator DeWine. With his recommendations of a nominee, one has to give not only a first look but a second and a third because the good Senator is so highly regarded and respected here in the institution. Certainly anyone he supports has a very heavy presumption in their favor because of the high regard we have for Senator DeWine. So I acknowledge that at the outset. But I must say in reviewing the history of this nominee, there is a pattern of decisionmaking that is of very deep concern for the Senate and for all of us who want to make sure those sitting on the courts of appeal are going to be fair to workers and workers' rights in that district, that district which obviously has so many working families whose rights need to be reaffirmed at different times. I urge my colleagues to vote against the nomination of Deborah Cook to a lifetime seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Her record demonstrates the extreme length to which she will go to protect corporations and deny the rights of injured workers, victims of discrimination, religious minorities, schoolchildren, and others. She is the leading dissenter on the predominantly Republican Ohio Supreme Court, objecting repeatedly to decisions by that court that favor the rights of individuals. Often she stands alone as the only dissenter, and again and again her colleagues have criticized her for ignoring precedents, for manipulating the law to reach the results she wants. Her record is extreme, even in comparison with her Republican colleagues on the Ohio Supreme Court, and she consistently seems bent on narrowing laws intended to remedy violation of the rights of individuals. In cases involving workers' rights, her record is among the worst we have ever seen. Her defenders try to maintain a straight face when they say she is only impartially enforcing the law, but more than any other judge on her court, she seems to think that the law should almost always protect corporations and not injured workers. She consistently dissents from the majority and votes to protect corporations from liability when they harm their employees, and she has even tried to shield these corporations from liability when they attempt to cover up their malfeasance. The pattern is overwhelming. In 37 cases she has supported the rights of employees only 6 times, and in all but 1 of those 6 cases she was joining a unanimous court. Even where a Republican majority on the court rules in favor of the employee, she dissents almost 80 percent of the time. She has never, in any case we know of, dissented from a decision of the court in favor of an employee. In the majority of the cases where she dissents, she is the only dissenter or is joined by only one other member of the seven- member supreme court. Her dissents take an extremely narrow view of workers' access to the courts. On more than one occasion she would have protected employers who were accused of lying to their employees. In one extreme case, in Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, she would have penalized the employee when the store had covered up evidence that the workplace was unsafe. In that case, a Wal-Mart worker was killed operating a forklift at work. He was unloading a truck with the forklift when the truck suddenly pulled away from the loading dock. The forklift fell on him and crushed him to death. His wife brought a tort action to recover damages from Wal-Mart for her husband's death, and during the course of the proceedings on her case, Mrs. Davis discovered that Wal-Mart might have withheld evidence and provided false and misleading testimony. Wal-Mart representatives had denied under oath that they were aware of hazardous conditions at the loading docks, and had denied knowledge of incidents similar to those that caused her husband's death. As it turned out, Wal-Mart had improperly concealed documents on similar accidents and had instructed its representatives to lie about them. If Mrs. Davis had obtained this information sooner, she would have prevailed on some of her claims at the initial trial. With this new evidence, she filed a new claim, in which she alleged that the company's concealment, destruction of evidence and perjury had been used to limit her recovery on her prior claims. All except one of the members of the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Mrs. Davis's claim that Wal-Mart had concealed and distorted evidence could proceed. One Justice said that concealing evidence as Wal-Mart did ``harms the sanctity of the judicial system and makes a mockery of its search for the truth.'' Deborah Cook was the only member of the court to dissent from the holding that the case should proceed. She was the only member of the court to conclude that the company was not accountable for its misrepresentations of the evidence. Incredibly, her dissent would have had the effect of rewarding an employer who lied to cover up its wrong doing. Similarly, in Norgard v. Wellman, Cook wrote a dissent that would shield from liability an employer who lied to its employees about their exposure to beryllium on the job. Beryllium is a toxic chemical that causes a serious chronic illness, and exposure to it can be deadly. The worker in the case developed the disease. The company assured him that he was fine even though it had found through its examinations that he had a heightened sensitivity to beryllium. The company knew that its workers were being exposed to beryllium at the particular job site, and that they were becoming ill from the exposure, but the company concealed these facts from its workers. When the worker learned that the company had withheld information about exposure levels, air- sampling and ventilation problems in the workplace, he filed a lawsuit. When the case came before the Ohio Supreme Court, the issue was whether the suit had been timely filed. The supreme court held that the suit was still timely, because his employer had concealed the beryllium exposure. It ruled that the time to bring suit begins to run not at the time when the worker becomes ill, but when he learned of his employer's deceit. Cook, however, rejected this sensible approach. She said that the period to file the suit began to run when the employee had first become ill--even though at that time the employee could not have known that his illness was caused by his unsafe workplace. Under Cook's approach, workers would be responsible for knowing whether or not their employers are lying to them. In her view, if an employer deliberately conceals information about safety violations, the worker has no effective remedy. Another shameful example of Cook's willingness to strip workers of their legal protections is the case Petrie v. Atlas Iron Processors Inc. Petrie worked in a scrap-yard, and some of the yard's conveyor belts were in a fenced-in enclosure. Petrie was removing ice and debris from one of the machines when his glove was caught in the moving conveyor belt, and his finger was cut off. Petrie sought additional workers' compensation on the ground that his employer had violated specific safety requirements. Under Ohio law, he had a claim only if the yard's fenced-in enclosure could be considered a ``workshop.'' The Ohio Supreme Court found the answer so obvious that it wrote only a brief three-paragraph opinion holding that the area was a workshop and Petrie could proceed with his claim. Cook, however, wrote a two-page dissent--joined only by one other justice--insisting that because the machine was not ``within a building,'' it was not a workshop and the employee was not entitled to the protection of state safety rules. The cases Cook cited, however, did not hold that outdoor factory work was exempt from workshop safety rules. Nevertheless, Cook would have held that a scrapmetal conveyor belt in a fenced-in area, is not subject to workplace safety protections, just because there is no roof over this employee's head. There are many other examples of Cook's attempts to limit workplace protections. She has opposed allowing employees fired for reporting violations of federal occupational safety and health laws to sue under common law and statutory whistleblower protections. She wrote a lone dissent in the case of a railroad worker who had been repeatedly harassed and threatened on the job and required to work under unsafe conditions. The issue was whether the worker could bring suit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. Cook alone would have barred the suit, despite the clear language of the statute. No Senate should confirm a judge so consistently hostile to protections for workers injured or killed on the job. In 2001, there were 5.2 million occupational injuries and illnesses in the private sector, and 6,000 deaths. Many workers in the four states covered by the Sixth Circuit--Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee--are employed in manufacturing jobs. Often, the workers in such jobs are exposed to a high risk of injury or death in the workplace. The nation has made genuine progress in reducing injuries and fatalities, but only through careful enforcement of Federal and State safety standards. We rely on the courts to uphold these safety laws and give injured workers the chance to obtain compensation for their injuries. Yet Cook seems bent on denying workers their day in court whenever she can. Cook has also tried to limit the ability of students in public schools to vindicate their right to an adequately funded public education. The Ohio Constitution, like many State constitutions, guarantees all students what is called a thorough and efficient public education. In many states, public schools are severely underfunded, partly because of heavy reliance on local property taxes to fund education often leads to gross disparities in funding between school districts. In litigation challenging the constitutionality of Ohio's educational funding system, the Ohio Supreme Court found that many students were attending schools in dangerous disrepair and failed to meet minimum safety requirements. Half of Ohio's schools had unsatisfactory electrical systems, 70 percent lacked adequate fire alarm systems, and more than 80 percent lacked proper heating systems. In one school district, 300 students were hospitalized when carbon monoxide leaked out of heaters and furnaces. In another district, elementary schools, more than 100 years old, had floors so thin that a teacher's foot went through the floor. In another school, students were breathing coal dust from the coal heating system. The system was in such disrepair that the coal dust often covered students' desks after accumulating overnight. In another district, buildings were crumbling and chunks of plaster were falling from the walls and ceilings. In some districts, classes were held under leaking roofs and in former coalbins. Funding of teachers and supplies was also inadequate. Some districts had to ration basic supplies such as paper and chalk and even toilet paper. The majority of the Ohio Supreme Court found that ``school districts were starved for funds, lacked teachers, buildings and equipment, had inferior educational programs, and their pupils were being deprived of educational opportunity.'' The majority of the supreme court found that. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the education funding system was unconstitutional and had to be changed, but not Ms. Cook. She dissented. Despite the shameful conditions in some schools, and the large disparities that existed between school districts, she insisted that Ohio citizens did not have a right to go to court to enforce the State constitution's guarantees. On at least four separate occasions, she dissented from the majority of the court which has repeatedly ruled that the legislature must fill the Ohio Constitution's commitment. In her view, the courts had no authority to define the scope of the Ohio Constitution's provisions on funding education. She says that as long as the legislature provides at least some funding, the constitution is satisfied. As the court's majority has said: [D]eference to the corresponding branches of government does not mean abdication. The court's majority specifically criticized the dissent failing to face up to the evidence of the school problems. As the court majority wrote: The dissent recognizes that it could not in good conscience address these facts and then conclude that Ohio is providing the opportunity for a basic education. Therefore, it does the only thing that it could do: it ignores them. Few issues are more important to the future of our country than ensuring a good education for our children. Courts, of course, do not have the principal responsibility to remedy all these problems. But a majority of the Ohio Supreme Court clearly ruled that the State constitution gave the Ohio courts a role in assuring that a State provides a basic education to its children. But Cook said no, as she always tries to do in such cases. In another basic area discrimination case, Cook again seeks to narrow remedies and reverse jury awards. The Nation has made great progress in combating discrimination against minorities and women, but discrimination and harassment continue to exist. Victims of discrimination rely on courts to remedy such discrimination when other avenues have failed. Cook has joined dissents to protect employers from liability in harassment cases, no matter how flagrant the violation. She has voted to reverse jury verdicts for employees in age discrimination cases and gender discrimination cases, despite the high presumption of the validity of those verdicts on appeal and the clear and abundant evidence of discrimination. In a case on religious freedom, she adopted a position opposed by all of her colleagues on the court. A Native American employee of a State agency was asked to cut his hair by his employer. His religious beliefs prevented him from doing so, and he tried to be accommodating by pinning his hair under his cap. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted that accommodation, but Cook alone dissented. Despite previous Ohio Supreme Court decisions, Cook wanted a higher standard before plaintiffs could prevail in cases involving violations of religious freedom. For reasons such as these, Cook's nomination has generated intense opposition from groups that know her record and that represent women, racial minorities, labor, and consumers. I have more than 100 letters in opposition. I ask unanimous consent to have relevant material printed in the Record.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. The groups opposed to her nomination include the Ohio Organization for Women, the National Employment Lawyers Association, and the AFL-CIO. Many of those who have written to oppose her are lawyers who have participated before her and are familiar with her record and approach. Their message is clear: Justice Cook displays a hostility to workers' rights, consumer rights, and civil rights, and she lacks the fairness and balance we expect of our Federal judges. Many of our Republican colleagues say that when we oppose nominees such as Cook, we are somehow obstructing the President's right to put his nominees on the Federal courts. If fact, the Senate has confirmed 120 of President Bush's judicial nominees--100 of them when Democrats controlled the Senate. Today, our Federal courts have the lowest vacancy rate in more than a decade. When nominees' records raise concern about whether they will be fair, whether they will enforce Federal rights and protections, the Senate does have the constitutional right to withhold our consent. The Constitution is clear that the Senate's role is not simply to rubberstamp nominees. The Framers clearly intended to avoid vesting too much power in the President. The role of the Senate on Presidential nominations is one of the fundamental checks and balances in the Constitution. From the earliest days of the Nation, the Senate has exercised its duty of advice and consent, rejecting Presidential nominees it has found unsuitable. Far too many of President Bush's nominees are controversial and divisive. They are clearly part of a plan to pack the Federal courts, particularly the courts of appeals, with judges who will advance an ideological agenda that is hostile to civil rights, hostile to workers' rights, hostile to environmental protections, and hostile to the right to privacy and a woman's right to choose. We in the Senate do not have to go along for the ride. We should have our constitutional responsibility to safeguard the independence of the judiciary, and to ensure that the courts are not stacked with judges as a part of a White House master plan to tilt the Federal courts as far right as possible. Deborah Cook's record demonstrates she lacks the fairness the Nation expects from the judiciary, and I urge the Senate to reject her nomination. I have a number of items. I will not take a great deal of time, but I will read excerpts from a few of these letters. This one is from the National Employment Lawyers Association. I am writing as President of the National Employment Lawyers Association to urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject Justice Deborah Cook's nomination for appointment to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. NELA is the country's only professional organization that is exclusively comprised of lawyers who represent individual employees in cases involving employment discrimination and other employment- related matters. NELA and its 67 state and local affiliates have more than 3000 members. The Ohio Employment Lawyers Association is among NELA's largest affiliates. Justice Cook's record and temperament display all the characteristics of a bad judge. She is dogmatic, often in an unprincipled manner, insensitive and biased in her decision- making. And he continues: Justice Cook's anti-civil rights, anti-worker and anti- consumer record on the Court is unparalleled. . . . Both Justice Cook's actions and her words demonstrate that she is not fit for a lifetime appointment as a Federal judge. As a State court judge she voted to weaken protections for working Americans, undermine equal employment opportunity laws and spurned the pleas of those who have suffered catastrophic injuries caused by intentional misconduct of their employers. Judge's must be fair-minded and impartial. Justice Cook lacks both of these traits. Her hostile and extreme views concerning laws governing the workplace have no place on the federal bench. Her nomination is a disservice to working men and women. Her appointment will only serve to encourage unscrupulous and prejudiced employers. These are the organizations, the lawyers who represent workers who have been suffered injury and have been discriminated against. This is the national organization. This is as strong a letter as we have received in opposition to a judge by the lawyers who have represented workers who have been before that court. That is a powerful commentary. We also have a letter from the Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers: I write to you on behalf of the Academy . . . Throughout Justice Cook's tenure, I and numerous other Academy members have had a first hand opportunity to observe Justice Cook's temperament, demeanor and decision making as a member of the Ohio Supreme Court. Our observations of her record demonstrate to our Association that Justice Cook is willing to disregard precedent, misinterpret legislative intent and ignore constitutional mandates in an effort to achieve a result that favors business over consumers. Justice Cook's personal background is from big business and she has allowed her background to bias her decision making. She has consistently in our view voted to limit citizens' access to the courts and routinely articulated positions which would leave members of the public without remedies. In our view, Justice Cook is among the most conservative activist justices who have served on the Court. Our Court is viewed by most objective observers as moderate and bipartisan. However, the Court does have extremely conservative Republican members. Justice Cook is to the right of all of them. She has authored 313 dissents, more than any other Justice. Then it continues: Another reason for the Academy's concern about Justice Cook stems from her decisions in the area of basic constitutional rights. Justice Cook issued a sole dissent in a religious free exercise case that would have seriously undermined key rights provisions of our Ohio Constitution. Another example of Justice Cook's lack of commitment to constitutional principles, including due process, can be found in the Bray v. Russell decision. In Bray, Justice Cook dissented from a 5-2 decision striking a state statute which empowered the patrol board add ``bad time'' to a prisoners' sentencing punishment of misconduct occurring during imprisonment. It continues along: . . . there is hardly a case in which Justice Cook does not side with the insurance company over its policyholder no matter how outrageous the circumstances. . . . Justice Cook is not only out of touch with many of the core values shared by most Americans but she lacks the proper judicial temperament and a meaningful sense of justice. She does not afford individual Ohioans a fair opportunity to be heard by an impartial adjudicator. She neither deserves nor is she qualified for a lifetime appointment to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Her presence on that Court would be even more harmful to the public as she would turn many balanced panels toward extreme positions which will jeopardize access to the courts, civil rights and equal justice. For these reasons, we ask the Committee to carefully study Justice Cook's decisions in their entirety before any vote . . . We have given some examples of cases. I may have the opportunity to do that a little later in the afternoon.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I listened carefully to the comments of my friend, Senator DeWine. No one is suggesting in the cases that I mentioned, which were cases where she was a dissent, that they were overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States. I listened carefully to his explanation of these cases. To summarize very quickly, in the Wal-Mart case, it is difficult for me to understand how Cook's position in the Wal-Mart case is defensible. Here is a widow who was trying to move forward on certain claims but could not because Wal-Mart had hid the evidence, and Cook was the only one who dissented. That is the bottom line. That is the bottom line of the case. She is the only one who dissented. In the Norgard case, the employee did not know that he could sue and he did not know he had a claim because the employer had lied. She dissented, making it harder for the employees to recover. These are just two examples, but to come back to the earlier point, if we look over the history of her dissents, we will find that when the Ohio Supreme Court dissented--or when the Ohio Supreme Court ruled for the employees, which was not a great number of times, but whenever they did, she dissented from that 80 percent of the time. Even when the court ruled for the employees, she dissented 80 percent of the time. Justice Cook never dissented from any decision of the court when it favored the employer. These are statistics. The examples I have cited are illustrative of a series of instances where the rights of workers were not adequately recognized or respected and where she took a very extreme position, in many of these cases in isolation. In some, she was joined by other members. I believe there is a consistency and a pattern of insensitivity in terms of workers' rights and workers' needs and the fairness to those workers. That is what both the statistics very clearly demonstrate and what these cases themselves demonstrate. The idea that one could do legal gymnastics to find out that when you have the employer involved in actually lying to an employee, the employee gets sick, the employer knows it is because of beryllium, does not tell the worker that it is because of beryllium, and he finally brings the case and only later on finds out that it is beryllium and that the company has lied to him, for her to say he should have known he was sick a long time ago, and the statute of limitations really went on during that period of time, it is too bad that the employer lied to that person, endangered that person's health, and disadvantaged that person's health in a dramatic degree, and she finds a technicality and says they might have been sick during the time, but even though the company knew that they could have been devastatingly sick and die from this kind of toxic chemical, she looked for the very narrow niche in order to disadvantage the worker. When one finds in the case at the Wal-Mart a coverup was taking place and then discovers in a second case that there was a whole diary where the Wal-Mart had lied and then came back in, how Justice Cook could even at that time--and there was such deception and such deceit by the company--find a way to diminish the rights and the interests and the protections of the workers seems to me to be well out of the mainstream. We are talking about people who should be in the mainstream, and the statistics do not indicate, when it comes to workers' rights and workers' rights cases, that she is in the mainstream. In age discrimination, in religious tolerance issues, I gave examples where she drew the line in a way that I think is outside of the common understanding or common interpretation of the law, and we are being asked to give a lifetime appointment to this individual. It seems to me that we can find people to serve on the Sixth Circuit who are going to be fair and balanced and are going to be in the mainstream in terms of their protection of workers' rights and the workers themselves. This nominee is clearly on the fringes in protecting workers' rights. This circuit court has an enormous responsibility of protecting workers in a major industrial area of our country, and those rights need to be protected when those plaintiffs are up before the judge; they are going to look up at the judge and say: I know from the background, I know from the Senate hearings I am going to get a fair shake. We have the list of letters and reports, all from the representatives of workers, that say they do not believe they will ever get a fair shake. Are they all out of common sense? All these notes and letters representing workers in cases where they have been short shrifted, are they out of the mainstream? I don't believe so. Those who come before our committee should be able to meet the requirement of fairness in the range of different constitutional issues. They ought to understand what the constitutional issues are, and they ought to have a record of fairness and balance in interpreting those. I do not believe this nominee meets that requirement. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to commend Citizens Bank for the strong support it is giving to its employees who have been called up for active duty in connection with the Nation's military deployments in Iraq. Many of us in Congress continue to be concerned that many members of the National Guard and Reserves have been activated with too little of this needed support, or even none at all. We have introduced legislation, S. 647, to deal with these urgent problems for all activated Guard and Reserve members and their families. Citizens Bank deserves credit for strengthening its personnel policies to support its brave men and women called to serve. Unfortunately, too many Guard and Reserve families are not as fortunate, and I hope Congress will act quickly to provide this needed relief. I ask that a statement by Citizens on February 10 announcing its impressive policy may be printed in the Record. The Statement follows. Citizens Financial Group, Inc. Enhances Military Leave Policy, February 10, 2003 Citizens Financial Group, Inc. announced today is has enhanced the company's existing military leave policy to offer additional support to any employee/reservist activated during Operation Enduring Freedom. ``These are difficult and uncertain times in our nation. The current situation in the Persian Gulf has made real the possibility that Citizens' colleagues or family members may be called to serve their country,'' said Lawrence K. Fish, Chairman, President & CEO. ``We are concerned about our employees and providing benefits that match their needs,'' said Fish. ``We hope it won't be necessary for employees to use these benefits, but we are offering the support in the event it is needed.'' In its new military leave policy, Citizens Bank will: Pay the difference between employees' Citizens pay and the military pay for the duration of the active duty. This benefit is currently only available for the annual summer camp; offer the continuance of medical, dental, vision and life insurance coverage; and provide a comparable job upon return. Citizens will also offer support to employees whose spouse, domestic partner or child is called to duty. Citizens will grant a paid leave of absence for five consecutive days to coincide with an in-service leave by the family member. If travel is necessary, Citizens will also pay a portion of their travel expenses. Citizens Financial Group, Inc. is a $56.5 billion commercial bank holding company headquartered in Providence, RI. It is one of the nation's 20 largest commercial banks with 850 Citizens Bank branches, more than 1,700 ATMs and more than 15,000 employees in seven New England and Mid- Atlantic states. It operates as Citizens Bank in Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Citizens is owned by The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Fitizgerald and Senator Snowe in introducing the Treatment of Children's Deformities Act. The purpose of our bill is to see that health insurers and health plans cover the treatment of children's congenital and developmental deformities and disorders. About 7 percent of all children are born with significant problems, including cleft lips or cleft palates, serious skin lesions such as port wine stains, malformations of the ear, or facial deformities. Plastic surgery can correct many of these conditions, but too often parents face significant barriers in obtaining care for their children. More than half of all plastic surgeons report that these patients are denied insurance coverage or had the struggle to receive it. Too often, insurers deny coverage by calling the treatment cosmetic or not medically necessary. The medical, developmental, and psychological problems associated with denied or delayed treatment of these deformities are enormous. Treatment often requires a series of treatments as the child grow. No child should be forced to live with an untreated cleft lip or a facial deformity while parents appeal an insurer's unfair denial. Delayed or denied treatment puts a child's physical and mental health at risk. Our bill requires health insurers and health plans to provide coverage to treat a child's congenial or developmental deformity, or disorders caused by disease, trauma, infection, or tumor. It is supported by many medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. I urge the Senate to support this important bill, and give children and families the support they deserve.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing this legislation to combat hate crimes. Hate crimes are a violation of all our country stands for. They send the poisonous message that some Americans deserve to be victimized solely because of who they are. Like acts of terrorism, hate crimes have an impact far greater than the impact on the individual victims. They are crimes against entire communities, against the whole Nation, and against the fundamental ideals on which America was founded. As Attorney General Ashcroft has said, ``Criminal acts of hate run counter to what is best in America--our belief in equality and freedom.'' Although there was a significant overall reduction in violent crimes during the 1990s, the number of hate crimes continued to grow. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 9,730 hate crimes were reported in the United States in 2001. That is over 26 hate crimes a day, every day. More than 83,000 hate crimes have been reported since 1991. The need for an effective national response is as compelling as it has ever been. Hate crimes against Arabs and Muslims rose dramatically in the weeks following the September 11 terrorist attacks. These hate crimes included murder, beatings, arson, attacks on mosques, shootings, and other assaults. In 2001, anti-Islamic incidents were the second highest-reported type of hate crimes based on religion--second only to anti-Jewish hate crimes. Los Angeles and Chicago reported a massive increase in the number of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim crimes after 9/11. Hate crimes based on sexual orientation continue to be a serious danger, constituting 14 percent of all hate crimes reported. Each person's life is valuable, and even one life lost is too many. It is not the frequency of hate crimes alone that makes these acts of violence so serious. It is the terror and intimidation they inflict on the victims, their families, their communities, and, in some cases, the entire Nation. Congress cannot sit silent while this hatred spreads. It is long past time for us to do more to end hate-motivated violence. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act will strengthen the ability of Federal, State and local governments to investigate and prosecute these vicious and senseless crimes. Our legislation is supported by over 175 law enforcement, civil rights, civic, and religious organizations. The current Federal law on hate crimes was passed soon after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Today, however, it is a generation out of date. It has two significant deficiencies. It does not cover hate crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, or disability. And even in cases of hate crimes based on race, religion, or ethnic background, it contains excessive restrictions requiring proof that the victims were attacked because they were engaged in certain ``federally protected activities.'' Our bill is designed to close these substantial loopholes. It has six principal provisions: 1. It removes the ``federally protected activity'' barrier. 2. It adds sexual orientation, gender and disability to the existing categories of race, color, religion, and national origin. 3. It protects State interests with a strict certification procedure that requires the Federal Government to consult with local officials before bringing a Federal case. 4. It offers federal assistance to State and local law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute heated crimes in any of the federal categories. 5. It offers training grants for local law enforcement. 6. It amends the Federal Hate Crime Statistics Act to add gender to the existing categories of race, religion, ethnic background, sexual orientation, and disability. These much needed changes in current law will help ensure that the Department of Justice has what it needs to combat the growing problem of hate-motivated violence more effectively. Nothing in the bill prohibits or punishes speech, expression, or association in any way--even ``hate speech.'' It addresses only violent actions that result in death or injury. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly--and as recently as this year, in the cross-burning decision Virginia v. Black--that a hate crimes statute that considers bias motivation directly connected to a defendant's criminal conduct does not violate the First Amendment. No one has a First Amendment right to commit a crime. A strong Federal role in prosecuting hate crimes is essential, because crimes have an impact far greater than their impact on individual victims. Nevertheless, our bill fully respects the primary role of state and local law enforcement in responding to violent crime. The vast majority of hate crimes will continue to be prosecuted at the state and local level. The bill authorizes the Justice Department to assist State and local authorities in hate crimes cases, but it authorizes Federal prosecutions only when a state does not have jurisdiction, or when it asks the Federal Government to take jurisdiction, or when it fails to act against hate-motivated violence. In other words, the bill establishes an appropriate back-up for State and local law enforcement, to deal with hate crimes in cases where states request assistance, or cases that would not otherwise be effectively investigated and prosecuted. Working cooperatively, State, local and Federal law enforcement officials have the best chance to bring the perpetrators of hate crimes to justice. Federal resources and expertise in the identification and proof of hate crimes can provide invaluable assistance to state and local authorities without undermining the traditional role of states in prosecuting crimes. As Attorney General Ashcroft has said of current law, ``Cooperation between federal agents and local law enforcement officers and between Justice Department prosecutors and local prosecutors has been outstanding.'' And it will continue to be so, and be even more effective, when this legislation is enacted into law. Now is the time for Congress to speak with one voice and insist that all Americans will be guaranteed the equal protection of the laws. Now is the time to make combating hate crimes a high national priority. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a needed response to a serious problem that continues to plague the nation, and I urge the Senate to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Fitizgerald and Senator Snowe in introducing the Treatment of Children's Deformities Act. The purpose of our bill is to see that health insurers and health plans cover the treatment of children's congenital and developmental deformities and disorders. About 7 percent of all children are born with significant problems, including cleft lips or cleft palates, serious skin lesions such as port wine stains, malformations of the ear, or facial deformities. Plastic surgery can correct many of these conditions, but too often parents face significant barriers in obtaining care for their children. More than half of all plastic surgeons report that these patients are denied insurance coverage or had the struggle to receive it. Too often, insurers deny coverage by calling the treatment cosmetic or not medically necessary. The medical, developmental, and psychological problems associated with denied or delayed treatment of these deformities are enormous. Treatment often requires a series of treatments as the child grow. No child should be forced to live with an untreated cleft lip or a facial deformity while parents appeal an insurer's unfair denial. Delayed or denied treatment puts a child's physical and mental health at risk. Our bill requires health insurers and health plans to provide coverage to treat a child's congenial or developmental deformity, or disorders caused by disease, trauma, infection, or tumor. It is supported by many medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. I urge the Senate to support this important bill, and give children and families the support they deserve.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I pay tribute to one of Massachusetts' finest law enforcement officers--Massachusetts State Trooper Scott McDonald. Recently, Trooper McDonald was honored by the Massachusetts State Police with a Medal of Lifesaving, awarded to bestow recognition upon troopers who undertake significant actions in the saving of another life. On August 4, 2002, Trooper Scott McDonald was on patrol when he was dispatched to a motor vehicle accident in the town of Deerfield. Upon arrival, he observed a truck overturned on the road. As the driver was without a pulse and not breathing, he immediately began CPR. While a passing motorist stopped, identified herself as a doctor and said she would pronounce the victim dead, Scott continued lifesaving efforts. Amazingly, the driver was ultimately revived and flown to Baystate Medical Center in Springfield. Trooper McDonald is a fine example of the Commonwealth's outstanding first responder community. I rise to join the Massachusetts State Police, the City of Holyoke, and Scott's family and friends in honoring a great American, Massachusetts State Trooper Scott McDonald.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing this legislation to combat hate crimes. Hate crimes are a violation of all our country stands for. They send the poisonous message that some Americans deserve to be victimized solely because of who they are. Like acts of terrorism, hate crimes have an impact far greater than the impact on the individual victims. They are crimes against entire communities, against the whole Nation, and against the fundamental ideals on which America was founded. As Attorney General Ashcroft has said, ``Criminal acts of hate run counter to what is best in America--our belief in equality and freedom.'' Although there was a significant overall reduction in violent crimes during the 1990s, the number of hate crimes continued to grow. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 9,730 hate crimes were reported in the United States in 2001. That is over 26 hate crimes a day, every day. More than 83,000 hate crimes have been reported since 1991. The need for an effective national response is as compelling as it has ever been. Hate crimes against Arabs and Muslims rose dramatically in the weeks following the September 11 terrorist attacks. These hate crimes included murder, beatings, arson, attacks on mosques, shootings, and other assaults. In 2001, anti-Islamic incidents were the second highest-reported type of hate crimes based on religion--second only to anti-Jewish hate crimes. Los Angeles and Chicago reported a massive increase in the number of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim crimes after 9/11. Hate crimes based on sexual orientation continue to be a serious danger, constituting 14 percent of all hate crimes reported. Each person's life is valuable, and even one life lost is too many. It is not the frequency of hate crimes alone that makes these acts of violence so serious. It is the terror and intimidation they inflict on the victims, their families, their communities, and, in some cases, the entire Nation. Congress cannot sit silent while this hatred spreads. It is long past time for us to do more to end hate-motivated violence. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act will strengthen the ability of Federal, State and local governments to investigate and prosecute these vicious and senseless crimes. Our legislation is supported by over 175 law enforcement, civil rights, civic, and religious organizations. The current Federal law on hate crimes was passed soon after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Today, however, it is a generation out of date. It has two significant deficiencies. It does not cover hate crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, or disability. And even in cases of hate crimes based on race, religion, or ethnic background, it contains excessive restrictions requiring proof that the victims were attacked because they were engaged in certain ``federally protected activities.'' Our bill is designed to close these substantial loopholes. It has six principal provisions: 1. It removes the ``federally protected activity'' barrier. 2. It adds sexual orientation, gender and disability to the existing categories of race, color, religion, and national origin. 3. It protects State interests with a strict certification procedure that requires the Federal Government to consult with local officials before bringing a Federal case. 4. It offers federal assistance to State and local law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute heated crimes in any of the federal categories. 5. It offers training grants for local law enforcement. 6. It amends the Federal Hate Crime Statistics Act to add gender to the existing categories of race, religion, ethnic background, sexual orientation, and disability. These much needed changes in current law will help ensure that the Department of Justice has what it needs to combat the growing problem of hate-motivated violence more effectively. Nothing in the bill prohibits or punishes speech, expression, or association in any way--even ``hate speech.'' It addresses only violent actions that result in death or injury. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly--and as recently as this year, in the cross-burning decision Virginia v. Black--that a hate crimes statute that considers bias motivation directly connected to a defendant's criminal conduct does not violate the First Amendment. No one has a First Amendment right to commit a crime. A strong Federal role in prosecuting hate crimes is essential, because crimes have an impact far greater than their impact on individual victims. Nevertheless, our bill fully respects the primary role of state and local law enforcement in responding to violent crime. The vast majority of hate crimes will continue to be prosecuted at the state and local level. The bill authorizes the Justice Department to assist State and local authorities in hate crimes cases, but it authorizes Federal prosecutions only when a state does not have jurisdiction, or when it asks the Federal Government to take jurisdiction, or when it fails to act against hate-motivated violence. In other words, the bill establishes an appropriate back-up for State and local law enforcement, to deal with hate crimes in cases where states request assistance, or cases that would not otherwise be effectively investigated and prosecuted. Working cooperatively, State, local and Federal law enforcement officials have the best chance to bring the perpetrators of hate crimes to justice. Federal resources and expertise in the identification and proof of hate crimes can provide invaluable assistance to state and local authorities without undermining the traditional role of states in prosecuting crimes. As Attorney General Ashcroft has said of current law, ``Cooperation between federal agents and local law enforcement officers and between Justice Department prosecutors and local prosecutors has been outstanding.'' And it will continue to be so, and be even more effective, when this legislation is enacted into law. Now is the time for Congress to speak with one voice and insist that all Americans will be guaranteed the equal protection of the laws. Now is the time to make combating hate crimes a high national priority. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a needed response to a serious problem that continues to plague the nation, and I urge the Senate to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I submit this measure today to call attention to one of the most serious injustices in our country. 42 million Americans lack access to quality, affordable health care because they have no health insurance. Most of these Americans work in full-time jobs, but still cannot afford the high cost of health care. As a result, hospital emergency rooms are their only doctor. They face impossible choices in paying for the medicine they need on top of paying the rent, or putting food on the table. As a result, they die younger. Yet, the richest and most powerful Nation in the world looks the other way. For half a century, the United States has led the world in scientific and medical advances. We have more Nobel Prize winners in medicine than any other Nation. We were the first to successfully decode the entire human genome. And yet, we cannot see that every American child gets vaccinated against deadly and disabling diseases. We fail to guarantee that all Americans can obtain the medical treatments that could save their lives. Every year, 8 million uninsured Americans fail to take their medications because they can't afford to pay for their prescriptions. 300,000 children with asthma never get treated by a doctor. Uninsured women diagnosed with breast cancer are 50 percent more likely to die from the disease, because their cancer is diagnosed too late. 32,000 Americans with heart disease go without life-saving bypass surgery or other treatments. And the problem is getting worse. For most of the past 16 years, the number of people without health insurance has increased. Now, when our economy is weak, health care costs are rising at double-digit rates. People are losing jobs and their health insurance too. States are cutting back on Medicaid care for the poor. If we do nothing, the number of uninsured could reach more than 52 million by 2010. Clearly, the time to act is now. We must pass legislation to ensure that every man, woman, and child in the United States has access to high quality, affordable health care. And we must do it soon. Some say we cannot afford the cost of covering the uninsured. But as a country, we are already paying the much higher costs of failing to provide good care for all. We pay for it when we fail to detect cancer early by using the preventive screening that we know is effective. We pay for it in every person with diabetes who becomes blind because of a disease we know how to control. We pay for it by failing to give every child the same opportunity for good health and a productive life. We know that the battle for affordable health care has never been easy. But to solve this problem, we must commit to working together to find a solution. That is why I am submitting this resolution. This measure does not endorse a specific plan to cover the uninsured, but it does state unequivocally that universal health care is our goal, and it sets a time for Congress to get the job done. A similar resolution has already been submitted in the House of Representatives and has received the strong support of our 470 organizations, including many groups representing patients, health providers, and faith-based organizations. Democrats are leading the charge in Congress in the fight for quality health care for all Americans--and, as Congressman Gephardt has shown with his recent proposal, Democrats are prepared to take this issue to the White House as well. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this resolution to enact bipartisan legislation to provide health care for all Americans by the end of the year 2005. Perhaps we can do it earlier, but at least we are setting a realistic goal--the end of the first session of the Congress elected in 2004. The time is long overdue for the United States of America to join the rest of the industrial world in recognizing this fundamental right.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the distinguished career of Jay Cutler, who is retiring this year as the Director of Government Relations and Special Counsel for the American Psychiatric Association, where he has served for 25 years. During that quarter century he has been a powerful advocate for America's psychiatrists, for the patients they serve, and for the broader cause of mental health. He is well known to virtually every Senator as an outstanding advocate and a fine human being. I first came to know Jay many years ago, when he served on what was then known as the Senate Human Resources Committee and is today our Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Jay was Senator Jacob Javits' top staff person on the committee. I worked closely with him on a wide range of issues, especially on health care. Jay's career has had a remarkable breadth and depth. There is no cause in which he has been more deeply involved than better treatment for persons suffering from mental illness and substance abuse. Over the course of his career, there has been a remarkable shift in the perception of mental illness and substance abuse by policy makers and the public. The Nation has made a remarkable transition from the long held and destructive view that mental illness and substance abuse are character flaws, and has achieved a new understanding, that they are diseases which can and should receive the best treatment that medical science can provide. In many ways, Jay's tireless dedication to the cause of mental illness reform and substance abuse treatment has been at the core of this profound shift in public awareness and understanding of these disorders. Among many other accomplishments during Jay's years in the Senate tenure, he had played the central staff role in the drafting, introduction and passage of the landmark Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970, P.L. 91-616, that established the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. He worked side by side with Senator Javits and Senator Harold Hughes to change the perception of national policymakers towards alcoholism and the effects of alcohol abuse. As a Senate aide and later as APA's Director of Government Relations, Jay had a direct impact on virtually every major bill on health policy and mental illness and substance abuse treatment legislation over more than 30 years. Even a selective list of the policies and laws that bear Jay's imprint includes: the landmark Employee Retirement Income Security Act; expansion of the community mental health centers program; public oversight to protect patients in mental health treatment against abuse; reauthorization and reorganization of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration; the exemption of psychiatric hospitals and units from the Medicare prospective payment methodology, ensuring their fiscal viability for nearly 20 years; the expansion of Medicare's limited coverage of outpatient treatment for mental illness, first by lifting the $250 annual dollar limit to $500, then to $1,200, and ultimately repealing the discriminatory dollar limit altogether; enactment of the landmark 1996 Federal Mental Health Parity Act; increased funding for veterans', children's, and Indian mental health services; medical records privacy legislation, especially assuring the confidentiality of medical records for psychiatric and substance abuse treatment. The historic decision by President Clinton to issue an Executive Order requiring non-discriminatory coverage of treatment for mental illness, including alcohol and substance abuse disorders, in the Federal Employees' Health Benefits Program; the APA's successful efforts to enact ``parity'' laws in some 30 States; the bipartisan national campaign to double the NIH research budget, including the budgets on mental illness and substance abuse disorders. For more than 30 years, Jay has dedicated his professional career to the eradication of any stigma against persons with mental illness, including those struggling with alcohol and substance abuse disorders. He has greatly assisted in educating the public and key national policymakers on these vital issues. he has also been at the forefront of efforts to eliminate discrimination against persons with mental illness. He has a record that few can match as an advocate for education, research, and treatment of all mental disorders. Jay's personal qualities have not only contributed immeasurably to his success but have made him countless friends in the Senate, the House, administrations of both parties, and the health policy community. All his interactions are marked by an extraordinary degree of candor and openness and by the incisive intellect and political skill that has made him a valuable counselor to so many of us. Jay has always fought hard and effectively for the interests of the physicians represented by the American Psychiatric Association. Jay's wisest counsel to the APA was to place the public policy needs of its patients first. To his enduring credit, throughout Jay's service as Director of Government Relations, APA could be relied upon to fight just as hard for its patients as its members. No tribute to Jay can fail to mention Jay's beloved wife and lifelong partner, Randy. When the APA hired Jay Cutler, it got Randy as part of the deal. Her generosity of spirit, keen intellect, and strong commitment have meant the world to Jay, to his colleagues at the APA, and to the nation. Throughout his remarkable career, Jay Cutler--with Randy Cutler beside him--has worked to improve the lives of millions of Americans who, for no fault of their own, have struggled to overcome mental illness. Much of the distance that we have come in recognizing their needs and meeting them over the years of Jay's outstanding services and dedication is the result of Jay's ability. On the occasion of Jay's retirement, I comment his brilliant service to Congress, to the American Psychiatric Association, and to the millions of Americans with mental illness. I wish Jay and Randy great happiness and success as they begin this new chapter in their lives.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I welcome the opportunity to address the issue about the qualifications of Priscilla Owen to serve on the Fifth Circuit of the United States. In considering this nominee, particularly in the wake of the recent comments of my friend from Texas, it is worthy to point out that there have been 119 nominations for the Federal bench, including the Court of Claims, either for the district or the circuit court, over the period of this President. We have had one, Mr. Pickering, who was defeated a year ago and who was renominated by the President. There is Priscilla Owen now before the Senate. But there has only been one, according to my calculations, Miguel Estrada, where sufficient questions have been raised as to his commitment to the core values of the Constitution, where that issue is still before the Senate. That is an extraordinary response by the Senate in considering favorably the series of nominees by this President. I don't know the course of our history, but this certainly has to be one of the most favorable records, certainly of any recent times, of response by the Senate in approval of the President's nominees. I listened to my friend and colleague talk about the importance of Priscilla Owen being able to finally get a vote on her nomination. I was thinking about the recent history of the time when my friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, was chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We had three nominees for the Fifth Circuit: H. Alston Johnson, Enrique Moreno, and Jorge Rangel. All three individuals were never given a vote under the Republican committee and the Republican Senate. These are truly outstanding individuals. It is important to have some understanding of history in terms of who has permitted votes to take place and who has failed to permit even these well-qualified individuals, in this instance, just on the Fifth Circuit. I am not taking the time of the Senate to list them all. I know Senator Leahy has done this at other times. I also refer to the history of the Senate to provide some awareness of background. The claim that it is unprecedented to filibuster a court of appeals nomination is false and hypocritical. Since 1980, cloture motions have been filed on 14 court of appeals and district court nominations. Recently, Republicans filibustered, in the year 2000, in an attempt to block the nomination of Richard Paez, a Hispanic, and Marcia Berzon, onto the Ninth Circuit. This is after Richard Paez had been waiting 4 years due to anonymous holds by Senate Republicans. Bob Smith openly declared he was leading a filibuster, and he described Senator Sessions as a member of his filibustering coalition. Even Senator Frist was among those voting against cloture on the Paez nomination. So requiring cloture on judicial nominations is not an extraconstitutional event. The Senate has the role of advise and consent on judicial nominations, and the Constitution leaves it to the Senate to carry out its responsibility in accordance with its own rules. Requiring cloture to end debate on a nomination is permitted under Senate rule XXII. The right of Senators to speak on the floor at length is central to the Senate's role. I ask the Senate to listen to the history of the Senate on nominations. In the first decade of the Senate's history, the Founders rejected a rule providing for a motion to close debate, and for the rest of our history, our rules have provided that debate, which is the lifeblood of our power, cannot easily be cut short. For 111 years, unanimous consent was required to end debate in the Senate. Until 1975, a two-thirds majority was required. Now it is only 60 votes that are required. Until 1949, debates on nominations could not be cut off at all. It is interesting to note the history of the rules as they have applied to nominations historically when we are considering controversial nominees. I daresay if we look at the record today--it is my understanding that there is only one of President Bush's judicial nominations that we have so far blocked on the Senate Floor, and that is Mr. Estrada, which is because of the failure of the Administration to provide key documents from his time in the Solicitor General office so that we can be able to understand Mr. Estrada's commitments to the core values of the Constitution. It was interesting as well that earlier in the day our leaders requested that there be an opportunity to consider Judge Edward Prado, a nominee to the Fifth Circuit, who is on the registrar, to see whether we could move ahead with that nominee. There was objection that was filed, as I understand it, by the Republicans. He is a Republican. We may not all agree with his views or his rulings, but in his time on the bench he has shown that he is committed to the rule of law and not to reshaping the law to fit a rightwing ideology. There is not a single letter of opposition against him, and he is ready to be voted on by the full Senate. Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, and others have indicated-- the Judiciary Committee on our side has indicated--they were prepared to vote on him earlier today. But an objection was raised. Nominees such as Judge Prado should get our full support, but nominees such as Priscilla Owen should not. There is also Judge Cecilia Altonaga. She would be the first Cuban American woman on the Florida district court. I understand she could be considered favorably and passed as the first Cuban American woman to serve on the Florida district court. She had a unanimous vote of the Judiciary Committee. She could be approved this afternoon. That would bring the number up to 121. Earlier today the Senate narrowly voted to confirm Jeffrey Sutton to a lifetime appointment on the Sixth Circuit. Like far too many of President Bush's nominees, he was opposed by a broad array of citizens from across the country because there were many attempts to roll back rights and protections for people with disabilities, women, minorities, and older workers. The drumbeat goes on. This afternoon we begin debate on yet another extremely controversial nominee--Priscilla Owen. It is shameful and shocking that the administration is so bent on packing the courts with nominees such as Jeffrey Sutton and Priscilla Owen, who are so clearly hostile to the rights and protections that are so important to vast numbers of Americans. Many well-qualified, fairminded nominees could easily be found by this administration if they were willing to give up their rightwing litmus test. I have mentioned two who are pending that we could be considering at this very moment. Priscilla Owen, I don't believe should be favorably considered. Her record on the Texas Supreme Court is one of activism, unfairness, and hostility to fundamental rights. I am particularly concerned about her record on issues of major importance to workers, consumers, victims of racial discrimination or gender discrimination, and women exercising their constitutional right to choose. Justice Owen is one of the most frequent dissenters on her court in Texas in cases involving workers, consumers, and victims of discrimination. That she dissents from this court so frequently is immensely troubling. This court is dominated by Republican appointees and is known for frequently ruling against plaintiffs. Yet when the court rules in favor of plaintiffs, only one member of the court, Justice Hecht, has dissented more often than Justice Owen. In her dissents, Justice Owen raises new barriers to limit the role of juries in product liability cases, personal injury cases, and narrowly construes employment discrimination laws. She has limited the time period for minors to remedy medical malpractice. She has limited the ability of individuals to obtain relief when insurance companies unreasonably, and in bad faith, deny claims. Justice Owen's many dissents reveal a pattern of far-reaching decisions to limit remedies for workers, consumers, and victims of discrimination or personal injury. What is also very striking is the level of criticism of Justice Owen's opinions by her colleagues on the court, and efforts to explain these criticisms away are unconvincing. We all know judges are often critical of the reasoning of their colleagues, and occasionally these opinions can be strongly worded. What stands out here are the frequent statements by her own colleagues on the court that Justice Owen puts her own views above the law, even when the law is crystal clear--she does this repeatedly in cases involving the rights of plaintiffs, or of young women seeking to exercise their right to choose. Take Alberto Gonzales, her former colleague on the court, who is now President Bush's counsel in the White House. In one of her cases involving the interpretation of Texas' parental notification statute, Justice Gonzales accused Justice Owen of ``an unconscionable act of judicial activism.'' In these parental notification cases, Justice Owen repeatedly grafts barriers to restrict a young woman's right to choose. She inserts new standards that are based on her own views and not on the clear language of the statute. At her hearing, Justice Owen and some of my Republican colleagues suggested, for the first time, that Justice Gonzales was not referring to Justice Owen and the other dissenters when he accused Justice Owen of ``unconscionable activism'' That isn't credible. Justice Gonzales wrote a separate concurring opinion specifically to defend the majority's opinion and to dispute the positions taken by the dissenters. He emphasized that the majority's opinion was based on the language of the Parental Notification Act as written by the Texas Legislature, and said: [O]ur role as judges requires that we put aside our own personal views of what we might like to see enacted, and instead do our best to discern what the legislature actually intended. Justice Gonzales went on to say that, contrary to the legislature's intent: [T]he dissenting opinions suggest that the exceptions to the general rule of notification should be very rare and require a high standard of proof. I respectfully submit that these are policy decisions for the Legislature. It is this narrow construction of the statute, put forward by the dissenters that Justice Gonzales criticizes as unconscionable activism. It is obvious--beyond any reasonable doubt--that Justice Gonzales is referring to the opinions of the dissenters, including Justice Owen. Similar criticisms of Justice Owen appear repeatedly in other opinions of the Texas court. A striking example of the lengths Justice Owen will take to narrow remedies for plaintiffs is found not in a dissent, but in a disturbing concurrence in a case called GTE v. Bruce. In this case, three employees sued GTE for intentional infliction of emotional distress because of constant humiliating and abusive behavior of their supervisor. The supervisor harassed and intimated employees, including through daily use of profanity; screaming and cursing at employees; charging at employees and physically threatening them; and humiliating employees by, for instance, making an employee stand in front of him in his office for as long as 30 minutes while he stared at her. The employees suffered from severe emotional distress, tension, nervousness, anxiety, depression, loss of appetite, inability to sleep, crying spells and uncontrollable emotional outbursts as a result of his behavior. They sought medical and psychological help because of their distress. GTE argued that the employees could not pursue an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim in court. They said that the employees' remedies were limited to worker's compensation. Eight justices on the Texas court agreed that the Worker's Compensation Act did not bar the plaintiffs' claims. These justices concluded that the actions of the supervisor when looked at as a whole were so extreme and outrageous as to support the jury's verdict of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Justice Owen, alone, wrote a separate opinion. While she agreed that there was more than a ``scintilla of evidence'' to support the jury's finding that the supervisor intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the plaintiffs, she declined to join the court's opinion because ``most of the testimony that the court recounts is legally insufficient to support the verdict.'' Justice Owen then lists all the supervisor's behavior that is not a basis for sustaining a cause of action. Justice Owen, alone among all the justices, felt the need to write separately to adopt as narrow a construction as possible of a plaintiff's right to recover for a supervisor's outrageous and harassing conduct. Justice Owen argued at her hearing last July, and again at her most recent hearing, that she wrote separately simply to make clear that no plaintiff could recover for any one of these individual actions standing alone. This is not, however, what Justice Owen's opinion says. Her opinion draws no such distinction. Furthermore, it is clear from the majority opinion that the standard is whether the supervisor's actions ``taken as a whole'' are sufficient to sustain a claim. Not only is Justice Owen's opinion troubling, but her answers to the concerns raised seem less than candid. Justice Owen's record is particularly troubling given the range of important issues that come before the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit is one of the most racially diverse circuits, with a large number of Latinos and African-Americans. The States in the Fifth Circuit are also among the poorest. It is vital on this court in particular that a judge is fair to workers, victims of discrimination, and the personal injury victims that come before the court. Those who contend that we oppose Justice Owen simply because she is a Republican appointee miss the point. I oppose her because I believe she will put her own view above the law in cases regarding the basic and fundamental rights on which all Americans have come to rely, including the right to privacy and equal protection under law. Not long ago, the Fifth Circuit was hailed as a brave court for protecting civil rights. When Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965, many States and localities in the South resisted these measures. Federal judges such as Elbert Tuttle, Frank Johnson, and John Minor Wisdom, all Republican appointees, helped to make real the promise of legal equality that was contained in these important Federal statutes. It is particularly important that a judge appointed to this Court show a commitment to civil rights and to upholding constitutional safeguards for all Americans. I do not believe that Justice Owen is in that proud tradition of independence and fairness. Justice Owen's nomination has incited a great deal of opposition from a broad range of citizens and groups in her home State of Texas. Those individuals who have observed her on the Texas court, who have been harmed by her rulings, have written to us in droves opposing her appointment to the Fifth Circuit. These include the Gray Panthers of Texas, the National Council of Jewish Women of Texas, the Texas AFL- CIO, the Texas Civil Rights Project, and the Texas Chapter of the National Organization for Women. At least 20 attorneys who practice in Texas have written expressing their opposition. A broad range of environmental groups also oppose her nomination. The issues at stake with Justice Owen's nomination go beyond partisan games. This debate is about lifetime appointments of courts that decide cases that shape the lives of all American people. Our Federal courts have made real the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and by Federal laws. Federal courts are the backbone of our pluralistic democracy, helping to ensure that black children have the same access to education as white children, that a disabled woman has the appropriate workplace accommodation so that she can help provide for her family, and that our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water in their communities. Because the Supreme Court takes less than 100 cases, many of the cases most important to Americans are decided by lower court judges. The basic values of our society--whether we will continue to be committed to equality, freedom of expression, and the right to privacy--are at issue in each of these controversial nominations. If the administration continues to nominate judges who would weaken the core values of our country and roll back the laws that have made our country a more inclusive democracy, the Senate should reject them. No President has the unilateral right to remake the judiciary in his own image. The Constitution requires the Senate's advice and consent on judicial nominations. It is clear that our duty is to be more than to rubber-stamp. I urge my colleagues to vote against Priscilla Owen's nomination. I suggest the absence of a quorum.