Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on this point? First of all, I will put in the Record--and the Senator was there--the exchange between Senator Levin and Secretary Rumsfeld. The Senator from Virginia was at the Armed Services Committee meeting. I remember this meeting--it was 2\1/2\ weeks ago--when Senator Levin said the briefing he had and the answers he had from the intelligence community were not consistent with Secretary Rumsfeld. I am going to put that exchange in the Record, and that will stand in terms of 3 weeks ago. I want to draw attention to this letter. ``The American intelligence community has provided extensive intelligence''--extensive intelligence. It does not say ``all'' or ``complete intelligence.'' It says ``extensive intelligence.'' That is what my letter says.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this morning we heard the most encouraging report so far on the recent developments in Iraq from the United Nations' chief weapons inspectors. Progress is clearly being made. Iraq is beginning to destroy its missiles. As a result of strong international pressure on Saddam, the inspectors are receiving greater cooperation from the Iraqi Government. Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspector, reported this morning that the international pressure is working. He says the inspectors are encountering fewer difficulties than when inspections occurred there a decade ago. The inspectors have free access to the entire country, and they can now conduct air surveillance throughout Iraq. The question is, For how long? Hans Blix says it will not take years or weeks, but months. So we are not talking about an endless process. Saddam knows he is on the clock at the United Nations. The eyes of the world are on him, and he must disarm. We all agree there is still much more to be done before full disarmament is achieved. But inspections are working and Saddam is being disarmed. Yet in its rush to war with Iraq, the Bush administration ignores this progress and rejects the wise words of caution from our allies. President Bush deserves great credit for the progress so far--both in the war against al-Qaida terrorism, and in disarming Saddam. Al-Qaida is on the run, and Saddam is disarming. But it is time for this President and this White House to pause before pushing aside the rest of the world and ordering an invasion of Iraq. Rash action will only place our troops in greater harm's way. As we unleash a firestorm of military might over Iraq, we could easily unleash a firestorm of hatred for America creating a far more dangerous world for Americans here at home and in many other countries. We are squandering the immense good will and support for America following the tragedy of 9/11. We are shattering the coalition that is effectively fighting the war against terrorism, and that is pursuing Osama bin Laden at this very moment. War now will inflame the Arab and Muslim world against us as never before, and generate intense new support for anti-American terrorists who will stop at nothing to do us harm. In recent days, Iraq has destroyed 34 of its 100 illegal missiles--a process which continues. Seven more scientists have been privately interviewed, and each day more come forward. The Iraqi government stepped up and revealed the location of previously destroyed biological weapons in order to enable the inspectors to verify their destruction. Many of us wish that this cooperation had occurred earlier, and that Iraqi officials were more forthcoming. No one ever said it would be easy to disarm Iraq. Even South Africa, which agreed to unilaterally disarm its nuclear program, required two full years of inspections to confirm that its nuclear capability was destroyed. Disarmament is a process--not a single simple event. Disarmament takes time. Progress comes step by step. But when progress does occur, it makes no sense to reject it out of hand. It makes no sense to start a war when we have a genuine chance to preserve the peace. The wisest course for America is to give the inspectors more time and to maintain the pressure on Saddam by keeping our troops in the region. It is better to pay the price of keeping our troops there to pressure Saddam than to pay the far greater cost of going to war. It is clear from the foreign ministers who spoke today at the Security Council that a majority of the world's governments still want to wait before pulling the trigger for war. Even the British are now asking for more time. This is a delicate and dangerous situation. We need allies to help us meet our goals, and to provide for the security of the American people. But surely we can have effective relationships with other nations without adopting a chip-on-the-shoulder, my-way-or-the-highway policy that makes all our other goals in the world more difficult to achieve. We cannot be a bully in the world schoolyard and expect cooperation, friendship, and support from the rest of the world. The threat of war may be tough talk that Saddam needs to hear. But continuing inspections is a tough-minded policy. It takes patience and perseverance. There is the chance that they will succeed in disarming Iraq. And inspections build international support if other steps are required. The goal is the disarmament of Iraq by peaceful means--not to use every opportunity to justify a war, as the administration is doing. All of us agree that Saddam is a despicable and deceitful dictator, but I am deeply concerned that such a war will make the world even more dangerous for Americans--not less dangerous. But as long as inspectors are on the ground and making progress, we must give peace a chance. War must always be a last resort. The question now is whether the Bush Administration will view Iraqi cooperation as a glass half empty, or a glass half full. At his press conference last night, President Bush still failed to offer adequate answers to the key questions on the minds of the American people about the issues at stake in this war and its aftermath. In his speech last week, he also painted a simplistic picture of the brightest possible future--with democracy flourishing in Iraq, peace emerging among all nations in the Middle East, and the terrorists with no place of support there. We have all heard of rosy scenarios, but that was ridiculous. War with Iraq runs the very serious risk of inflaming the Middle East and provoking a massive new wave of anti-Americanism in other countries that may well strengthen the terrorists, especially if the Muslim world opposes us. What if al-Qaida were to time the next terrorist attack to the day we go to war? A year ago, the Wall Street Journal quoted a dissident in Saudi Arabia who has turned his focus from his own government to the U.S. Government. He said the main enemy of the Muslims and the Arabs is America, and that they do not want us to impose on them. He said many Arabs would rather tolerate dictatorship in their own countries than import reforms from America. The burning of the U.S. flag has become a common ritual in Arab capitals. Calling someone an American is now regarded as an insult in parts of the Arab world. What a tragic change in the support we had in the world after 9/11, let alone from the time when America stood as a beacon of hope and a model for freedom and democracy throughout the world. In a desperate effort to justify its focus on Iraq, the administration has long asserted there are ties between Osama and Saddam--a theory with no proof, and widely doubted by the intelligence experts. Two weeks after 9/11, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed we had ``bulletproof'' evidence of the link. But a year later, CIA Director Tenet conceded in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee that the administration's understanding of the link was still ``evolving'' and was based on sources of ``varying reliability.'' In fact, the link is so widely doubted that intelligence experts have expressed their concern that intelligence is being politicized to support the rush to war. The Bush administration was wrong to allow the anti-Iraq zealots in its ranks to exploit the 9/11 tragedy by using it to make war against Iraq a higher priority than the war against terrorism. Al-Qaida--not Iraq--is the most imminent threat to our national security. Our citizens are asked to protect themselves from Osama with plastic sheeting and duct tape, while the administration prepares to send our Armed Forces to war against Iraq. Those priorities are wrong. There is also much more we need to do at every level of government to strengthen our defenses at home against terrorist attack, especially if we go to war alone against Iraq and inflame the Arab world. America is already on constant alert. There is no time to shortchange our security at home. Yet across the country the Bush administration is leaving local governments high and dry in the face of continuing threats at home. Despite promises of funding from Washington, our cities are not receiving the urgent help they need. If there is any lesson from September 11, it is that we cannot afford to fail to meet this threat. The cost in lives at home is too great. The war with al-Qaida is far from over, and war with Iraq may well make it worse. And what about the aftermath of war? We know a stable government will be essential in a postwar Iraq. But the administration refuses to discuss, in any real detail, how it will be achieved and how long our troops will need to stay. President Bush assumes everything will go perfectly. But war and its consequences hold enormous risks and uncertainties. As Retired General Anthony Zinni has asked, will we do what we did in Afghanistan in the 1970s--drive the old Soviet Union out and let something arguably worse emerge in its place? The administration has also tried to convince us the war will not be costly to the Treasury. If our national security were at stake, we would spare no expense to protect American lives. But the administration still owes the Nation a more honest discussion about the war costs we are about to face, especially if America has to remain in Iraq for many years, with little support from others. The vast majority of the Iraqi people may well want the end of Saddam's rule, but they may not welcome the United States to create a government in its own image. Regardless of their own internal disagreements, the Iraqi people still feel a strong sense of national identity and could quickly reject an American occupation force that tramples on local cultures. We must recognize that the day we occupy Iraq, we shoulder the responsibility to protect and care for its citizens. We are accountable under the Geneva Convention for public safety in neighborhoods, for schools, and for meeting the basic necessities of life for 23 million Iraqi civilians. This daunting challenge has received little attention from the administration. As the dust settles, the repressed tribal and religious differences of the past may come to the fore--as they did in the brutal civil wars in the former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda, and other countries. As our troops bypass Basra and other Iraqi cities on our way to Baghdad, how will we prevent the revenge bloodletting that occurred after the last gulf war in which thousands of civilians lost their lives? What do we do if the Kurds in northern Iraq claim an independent Kurdistan or the Shia in southern Iraq move toward an alliance with Iran, from which they have long drawn their inspiration? We have told the Government of Turkey that we will not support an independent Kurdistan, despite the fact the Kurdish people already have a high degree of U.S.-supported independence and have even completed work on their own constitution. Do we send troops again to keep Iraq united? This administration's record in postwar Afghanistan is not exactly the best precedent for building democracy in Iraq. Sixteen months after the fall of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai is still referred to as the ``Mayor of Kabul'' because of the weak and fragile hold of his government on the rest of the nation. Warlords are in control of much of the countryside. The Afghan-Pakistan border is an area of anarchy and ominous al-Qaida cells. If we have not been able to get it right in Afghanistan, where we went in with strong international support and involvement, how do we expect to go it alone in Iraq? Everyone talked about a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan where there is a clear need to rebuild and get it right so the Taliban and al-Qaida cannot take over again. President Karzai was here last week at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, begging for the adequate support and resources his new government needs to take hold. To get it right in Iraq, we need the international community and a long-term commitment on the part of the United States. That is less likely to happen if we do not have the international community with us from the start. Depending on our welcome, it could take as many as 200,000 American troops, as General Shinseki told the Armed Services Committee just over a week ago, or even more, to stabilize Iraq. We already have 37,000 troops in South Korea, 8,000 in Afghanistan, 5,000 in the Balkans, and another 1,000 in the Philippines and Colombia. We need to know whether our Armed Forces are being spread too thin. We need to know how long they can keep up this pace. The large-scale mobilization of the National Guard and Reserves for Iraq is already having an effect on police, firefighters, and others who are needed on the front lines at home, especially if there are new terrorist attacks on the United States. We have called up 167,000 Guard and Reserve personnel for active duty. We know the effect on their families who are left behind. What is the effect on the economy in lost productivity as these jobs go unfilled? Can we meet all these obligations now, let alone shoulder the long- term costs of war with Iraq? These may well total hundreds of billions of dollars in the years ahead. One of the highest and worst costs of the war may be the humanitarian costs. Sixty percent of the Iraqi people rely on the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program for their daily survival. Food is distributed through 46,000 government distributors supplied by a network of food storage barns. A war with Iraq will disrupt this network. Many Iraqis, especially low-income families, have no other source of food. Women and children will be the most vulnerable victims of war. According to recent reports, 500,000 Iraqi children already suffer from malnutrition. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks an excellent article in this morning's Washington Post by Ken Bacon and George Rupp.

Mr. KENNEDY. I know, but why do they say--I will be glad to read this and go through it, Mr. President, but I want to stick with the facts I know about. The facts I know about are the testimony of the Secretary of Defense and the exchange that he had with Senator Levin in open session in the Armed Services Committee where Senator Levin had been told the evening before, and it was represented that a complete list of these sites had been provided, and he had the materials that demonstrated it had not been complete. Those are security matters, as the Senator well knows. That was 2\1/2\ weeks ago. The point is, as to the intelligence given to the inspector, whatever has been given, is it the Senator's statement now as chairman of the Armed Services Committee that all of the information the intelligence agency has in terms of weapons has been given to the inspectors? Is that what the Senator is telling us?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. That will be fine with me. I am glad if we agree the colloquy go maybe 5 or 6 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to do it. I understand the agreement goes to 12:30. I have not had an opportunity, and I have been here almost an hour. We extended the time shortly over on the other side. I will be glad to yield if we can work that out, but I would like an opportunity.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join with my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg in expressing our deepest concern that Libya will chair the next session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. We know that Libya has supported, trained, and harbored some of the most notorious terrorists in the world. Libya is on the Department of State's list of nations that sponsor terrorism. To allow Libya to chair the UN Human Rights Commission is a serious and shameful mistake. At this difficult time, the United Nations needs the highest possible credibility as it struggles to deal effectively with so many vital issues affecting nations throughout the world. In fact, Libya continues to be in violation of multiple United Nations resolutions. It still has not complied with Security Council Resolution 748 to `'accept complete responsibility for the actions of Libyan officials.'' Libya still has not complied with the resolution to ``commit itself definitively to cease all forms of terrorist action and all assistance to terrorist groups and promptly, by concrete actions, demonstrate its renunciation of terrorism.'' We have received nothing concrete renouncing terrorism. The international community is still waiting for Libya to accept responsibility for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, a bombing that murdered 270 innocent persons, including 89 Americans and 13 from Massachusetts. Until September 11th, the Pan Am bombing had killed more Americans than any other terrorist atrocity in our history. Clearly, Libya should not have been appointed to chair an international human rights commission. Yet, in a secret ballot, 33 countries voted in favor of Libya, 17 abstained, and only the United States and Canada voted against Libya. Fourteen years later, the families and the world community are still trying to find justice. We are still trying to hold Libya accountable for this atrocity, and we are still asking Libya to renounce terrorism and pay appropriate compensation to the victims' families. Colonel Qadhafi still has not acknowledged that he ordered the attack. The victims still have not been compensated. The Libyans are still demanding that international economic sanctions be lifted, and that the Libyan government receive a clean bill of health on terrorism before it provides compensation to the families. This choice of Libya should be a wakeup call for this administration. It shows the need for our own genuine participation in the UN--not the arrogant attitude the administration so often uses in its relations with other nations. We cannot expect to have good ties, even with our allies, if we do not treat them with respect. I urge the Senate to support this proposal that requests President Bush and Secretary of State Powell to object strongly to the UN's current suspension of sanctions against Libya and to work with other members of the UN to reform the Human Rights Commission. Terrorism deserves no support from any nation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on a number of recent occasions, I have outlined here on the floor of the United States Senate my deep reservations about the Bush administration's rush to war with Iraq, particularly as U.N. inspectors are on the ground and making progress. I am especially concerned that war with Iraq at this time without the backing of our allies and the support of the United Nations will undermine the effective coalition against the more dangerous threat of terrorism. And I believe it is the wrong priority, especially in the face of the current nuclear threat from North Korea. But I also believe that this administration's conduct of American foreign relations has angered our friends and encouraged our enemies. This chip-on-the-shoulder, my-way-or-the-highway approach to diplomacy has alienated our allies at a time when we need unity to address modern threats. Recently, a senior member of the U.S. Foreign Service resigned in protest over the administration's approach and its policies. Mr. John Brady Kiesling has served American interests as a diplomat for many years in many difficult situations. And his brave letter of resignation speaks volumes about the dangerous direction of the Bush administration in the conduct of foreign affairs. I urge my colleagues to pay careful attention to his words, and ask unanimous consent that his thoughtful letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I can remember the time when the nominees for the Supreme Court, nominated by Democrat or Republican Senators, when Senators actually gave the questions to the nominees. I used to do that for years and years so that the nominee would have an opportunity to think about these issues and be able to talk about the fundamental protections of the Constitution and constitutional rights. This was never viewed to be a game in the Judiciary Committee. It was to try to elicit from the nominee their understanding and the nature of their kind of commitment to core values. That was always the case. Now we find, as the Senator has historically interpreted, we can never get the responses, the answers. I mentioned the other day about understanding what the roles are of these two institutions. There is an extremely important and vital responsibility on every Member of this body in exercising their judgment. It is a shared responsibility. I can understand the chairman of the Judiciary Committee would rather have it so it is just the President's responsibility. But that defies history and what our Founding Fathers wanted. This is a shared responsibility. I again ask the Senator, how are we going to ever fulfill our responsibilities under the Constitution when the nominees are basically going blank, refusing to respond to members of the committee? I further ask the Senator, is he not concerned this is beginning to be a trend, in terms of nominees we are having now before the committee, where they believe they just don't have to respond?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for another point?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for really----

Mr. KENNEDY. Without losing his right to the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Without the President involved?

Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. KENNEDY. Was the Senator trying to elicit from the nominee the outcomes of particular cases or was he inquiring of the nominee to have the nominee's general understanding of the particular provisions, constitutional provisions which are the basis for protecting individual rights and liberties? If you listen to the debate, some would say the members of the Judiciary Committee who were asking questions were trying to basically unethically demand answers of the nominee as to the outcome of particular cases. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I understand, what the Senator is talking about now is to try and gain an understanding about whether the nominee had an understanding of the core provisions of the Constitution and the protections of those core provisions and understood the context with which they were at least passed or considered and interpreted over time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator agree, if I can ask him one other question, particularly seeing our leaders on the floor, would the Senator not agree with me that actually this is the wrong priority for the Senate to be debating for weeks and weeks when we have serious economic challenges facing this country, and I see our Democratic leader trying to get his proposal before the Senate, and the Republicans saying no; or to try and get a prescription drug program before the Senate. I do not know whether the Senator has had an opportunity to see the President's proposal which effectively says to the senior citizens they will no longer have the choice of their own doctor if they want to get the prescription drug they need. A prescription drug program should be part of the Medicare system and should not be a gift to the HMOs and the private insurance companies. Would not the Senator finally agree with me that we have had this debate, and we ought to be debating the country's business in terms of our economic recovery, the issues of prescription drugs, or even the issue of going to war with Iraq?

Mr. KENNEDY. Let me read this. Governor Morris of Pennsylvania described the provision as giving the Senate the power ``to appoint Judges nominated to them by the President.'' The Constitutional Convention adopted this reworded provision giving the President the power, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to nominate and appoint judges. It could not be clearer what our role is. It could not be clearer as to what the constitutional Founders wanted us to do. I commend the Senator from New York for fulfilling that responsibility with regard to nominees. There are others who believe we ought to be a rubberstamp. The Senator from New York is speaking now to his responsibilities as outlined by our Founding Fathers. I welcome the opportunity to join with him. I commend him for his contribution to this debate.

Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator agree this isn't just a matter for the Senators from New York and Massachusetts, this is a matter for the American people? That is what our Founding Fathers, who were the architects of the greatest Constitution in the history of the world, intended: If we fail to exercise our rights on this, we fail our responsibilities under the Constitution? I feel that way very strongly. I just inquire of the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from New York for his presentation today. I want to ask him a question or two. In looking at his position in the broader context--which I think is fair to do, which is important for the American people to understand-- the debate on what institution should have the power for nominating judges was an issue that was before the Constitutional Convention. I heard earlier in the debate that the Senator from New York pointed out this was an issue that was considered by the Constitutional Convention--to just have the sole power with the President--and that was overwhelmingly defeated--overwhelmingly defeated. I ask the Senator whether he would not agree with me that at least it appears there are some Members of this body who still believe it is the President who has the sole power and kind of exercise of responsibility that the Senator from New York and others have attempted to provide in exercising an informed and balanced judgment in fulfilling their constitutional role of advice and consent. Does the Senator not agree with me that any fair reading of the debates of the Constitutional Convention put a prime responsibility on the Senate of the United States to exercise good judgment? And, further, would he not agree with me that if there is not going to be a response to Senators' inquiries, so they cannot have the information to carry forward and make a judgment, then this is a failure of the nominee in meeting their responsibility under the Constitution, being nominated by the President of the United States? Would the Senator not agree with me that this is a constitutional issue? We hear a great deal about what is constitutional and that the Senator from New York and others are basically undermining the Constitution by refusing to let the Senate make its will. On the other hand, I think the Senator, as I understand it, is doing exactly what the constitutional Founders intended the Senate to do; and that is, to have a shared responsibility and give a balanced and informed judgment in meeting the requirements of the advice and consent provisions of the Constitution. I am just asking the Senator if he does not agree with me that we ought to have some understanding among at least ourselves as to what the role is because often we hear those voices saying, what are you objecting to? The President has nominated him. Why aren't you just going along? I would be interested in the Senator's answer.

Mr. KENNEDY. It was before.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. This will be my last intervention at this time. I wanted to ask whether this understanding and this presentation is your understanding, again, about the Constitutional Convention. I will take a moment. I ask him whether this is his understanding as well. On May 29, 1787, the convention began its work on the Constitution with the Virginia Plan, introduced by Governor Randolph, which provided ``that a National Judiciary be established, to be chosen by the National Legislature.'' Under this plan, the President had no role at all in the selection of judges. When this provision came before the convention on June 5, several members were concerned that having the whole legislature select judges was too unwieldy. James Wilson suggested an alternative proposal that the President be given sole power to appoint judges. That idea had no support. Rutledge of South Carolina said that he ``was by no means disposed to grant so great a power to any single person.'' A week later, Madison offered a formal motion to give the Senate the sole power to appoint judges, and this motion was adopted without a single objection. On June 19, the convention formally adopted a working draft of the Constitution, and it gave the Senate the exclusive power to appoint judges. July of 1787 was spent reviewing the draft Constitution. All the decisions having been made, this issue was revisited three different times. On July 18, the convention reaffirmed its decision to grant the Senate the sole, exclusive power. James Wilson again proposed ``that the judges be appointed by the Executive,'' and again his motion was defeated. The issue was considered on July 21 and the Convention again agreed to the exclusive Senate appointment of judges. In a debate concerning the provision, George Mason called the idea of executive appointment of Federal judges a ``dangerous precedent.'' Not until the final days of the Convention was the President given power to nominate. On September 4, 2 weeks before the Convention's work was completed, the committee proposed the President should have a role in selecting judges. It stated: The President shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . judges of the supreme Court. . . .'' The debates made clear, however, that while the President had the power to nominate the judges, the Senate still had a central role. Governor Morris of Pennsylvania described the provision as giving----

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to be here today with Senator Domenici to renew the battle in the Senate to end one of the most shameful forms of discrimination in our society discrimination against mental illness. We renew the battle in the name of our friend and colleague Paul Wellstone who did so much to advance this cause we share and whom we miss so dearly now. Senator Pete Domenici and Senator Paul Wellstone led us with great skill in the Senate in this bipartisan battle in the past, and I'm proud to join Senator Domenici today to carry on this very important effort in the Senate. This bill brings first class medicine to millions of Americans who have been second class patients for too long. We know that millions of Americans across the country with mental illness faced stigma and misunderstanding. Even worse, they have been denied treatment that can cure or ease their cruel afflictions. Too often, they are the victims of discrimination by health insurance companies. It is unacceptable that the nation continues to tolerate actions by insurers that deny medical care for mental illnesses even though the very same insurers fully cover the treatment of physical illnesses that are often more costly, less debilitating and less curable. Mental illnesses are treatable and curable, and it's high time to bring relief to those who experience them. Equal treatment of the mentally ill is not just an insurance issue, it is a civil rights issue. At its heart, mental health parity is a question of simple justice. The need is clear. One in five Americans will suffer some form of mental illness this year--but only one-third of them will receive treatment. According to a report of the Surgeon General, at least 4 million children suffer from a major mental illness that results in significant impairments at home, at school, and with their peers. Families must often make painful choices about how to pay for the care their child needs to live a normal life. The cost is low. As we have seen in state after state and in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, insurance parity does not cause soaring insurance premiums. When parity for both mental health coverage and substance abuse coverage was provided for federal employees, they paid only $1 a month more for individual coverage and $2 for family coverage. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this bill will raise insurance rates by less than one percent a small cost that will bring health care and financial security to many families. It is tragic when a child is diagnosed with any illness. It is heart wrenching for parents to watch their children suffer. The tragedy is even greater when an insurance company denies treatment for a child solely because the illness is a mental illness. It's wrong for insurance companies to promote modern medicine for physical diseases, but leave mental health in the dark ages. It is wrong to force parents to choose between the care their child needs and the other financial needs of the family. I have heard countless stories from mothers and fathers whose children desperately needed the care that their insurance companies refused to provide. There is hope for the future. Today we were presented with 30,000 petitions signed by young people asking Congress to provide affordable coverage for mental health services. The petitions were signed in concerts held across the country to raise awareness for suicide prevention. Pete Domenici and I are here today to bring hope to these parents and to these young people. It is long past time to end insurance discrimination, and guarantee all people with mental illnesses the coverage they deserve.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, one of our most important responsibilities as Senators is the confirmation of Federal judges. Federal judges are appointed for life, and they will be interpreting laws affecting the lives of all our citizens for many years to come. Yet my colleagues across the aisle suggest that something far less than a full review of a nominee's record is warranted. Republican Senators pretend that by seeking additional information to help us understand Mr. Estrada's views and judicial philosophy, we are upsetting the proper constitutional balance between the Senate and the executive branch. They claim the Senate has to consent to the President's judicial nominees, as long as they have appropriate professional qualifications. In fact, the Constitution gives a strong role to the Senate in evaluating nominees. The role of the Senate is fundamental to the basic constitutional concept of checks and balances at the heart of the Federal Government. And when we say ``check'' we don't mean blank check. The debates over the drafting of the Constitution tell a great deal about the proper role of the Senate in the judicial selection process. Both the text of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and the debates over its adoption make clear that the Senate should play an active and independent role in selecting judges. Given recent statements by Republican Senators, it is important to lay out the historical record in detail. The Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia from late May until mid-September of 1787. On May 29, 1787, the Convention began its work on the Constitution with the Virginia Plan introduced by Governor Randolph, which provided ``that a National Judiciary be established, to be chosen by the National Legislature.'' Under this plan, the President had no role at all in the selection of judges. When this provision came before the Convention on June 5, several members were concerned that having the whole legislature select judges was too unwieldy. James Wilson suggested an alternative proposal that the President be given sole power to appoint judges. That idea had almost no support. Rutledge of South Carolina said that he ``was by no means disposed to grant so great a power to any single person.'' James Madison agreed that the legislature was too large a body, and stated that he was ``rather inclined to give [the appointment power] to the Senatorial branch'' of the legislature, a group ``sufficiently stable and independent'' to provide ``deliberate judgements.'' A week later, Madison offered a formal motion to give the Senate the sole power to appoint judges and this motion was adopted without any objection. On June 19, the Convention formally adopted a working draft of the Constitution, and it gave the Senate the exclusive power to appoint judges. July of 1787 was spent reviewing the draft Constitution. On July 18, the Convention reaffirmed its decision to grant the Senate the exclusive power. James Wilson again proposed ``that the Judges be appointed by the Executive'' and again his motion was defeated. The issue was considered again on July 21, and the Convention again agreed to the exclusive Senate appointment of judges. In a debate concerning the provision, George Mason called the idea of executive appointment of Federal judges a ``dangerous precedent.'' The Constitution was drafted to read: ``The Senate of the United States shall have power to appoint Judges of the Supreme Court.'' Not until the final days of the Convention was the President given power to nominate Judges. On September 4, 2 weeks before the Convention's work was completed, the Committee proposed that the President should have a role in selecting judges. It stated: ``The President shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court.'' The debates, make clear, however, that while the President had the power to nominate judges, the Senate still had a central role. Governor Morris of Pennsylvania described the provision as giving the Senate the power ``to appoint Judges nominated to them by the President.'' The Constitutional Convention adopted this reworded provision giving the President the power, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to nominate and appoint judges. The debates and the series of events proceeding adoption of the ``advise and consent'' language make clear, that the Senate should play an active role. The Convention having repeatedly rejected proposals that would lodge exclusive power to select judges with the executive branch, could not possibly have intended to reduce the Senate to a rubber stamp role. The reasons given by delegates to the Convention for making the selection of judges a joint decision by the President and the Senate are as relevant today as they were in 1787. The framers refused to give the power of appointment to a ``single individual.'' They understood that a more representative judiciary would be attained by giving members of the Senate a major role. From the start, the Senate has not hesitated to fully exercise this power. During the first 100 years after ratification of the Constitution, 21 or 81 Supreme Court nominations--one out of four--were rejected, withdrawn, or not acted on. During these confirmation debates, ideology often mattered. John Rutledge, nominated by George Washington, failed to win confirmation as Chief Justice in 1795. Alexander Hamilton and other Federalists opposed him, because of his position on the controversial Jay Treaty. A nominee of President James Polk was rejected because of his anti-immigration position. A nominee of President Hoover was rejected because of his anti labor view. Our Republican colleagues are obviously aware of this. Their recent statements attempting to downplay the Senate's role stand in stark contrast to the statements when they controlled the Senate during the Clinton administration. At that time, they vigorously asserted their right of ``advice and consent.'' Indeed, while public debate and a demand to fully review a nominee's record is consistent with our duty of ``advice and consent,'' many of the actions by Republicans were damaging to the nominations process. Democrats have made clear our concerns about whether Mr. Estrada has met the burden of showing that he should be appointed to the DC Circuit, but Republicans resorted to tactics such as secret holds to block President Clinton's nominees. For instance, it took four years to act on the nomination of Richard Paez, a Mexican-American, to the Ninth Circuit. Senate Republicans repeatedly delayed floor action on Judge Paez through use of anonymous holds. Republicans voted to indefinitely postpone action on Judge Paez's nomination. Finally, in March 2000, 4 years after his nomination and with the Presidential election on the horizon, Judge Paez was confirmed, after cloture was invoked. Reviewing Mr. Estrada's nomination is our constitutional duty. We take his nomination particularly seriously because of the importance of the DC Circuit, the Court to which he has been nominated. The important work we do in Congress to improve health care, protect workers rights, and protect civil rights mean far less if we fail to fulfill our responsibility to provide the best possible advice and consent on judicial nominations. Tough environmental laws mean little to a community that can't enforce them in our federal courts. Civil rights laws are undercut if there are no remedies for disabled men and women. Fair labor laws are only words on paper if we confirm judges who ignore them. What we know about Mr. Estrada leads us to question whether he will deal fairly with the range of important issues affecting everyday Americans that came before him. Mr. Estrada has been actively involved in supporting broad anti- loitering ordinances that restrict the rights of minority residents to conduct lawful activities in their neighborhoods. Mr. Estrada has sought to undermine the ability of civil rights groups like the NAACP to challenge these broad ordinances which affect the ability of minority citizens to conduct activities such as drug counseling and voter outreach in their communities. Information we need to know about Mr. Estrada's record has been hidden from us by the Department of Justice. Democratic Senators have asked for Mr. Estrada's Solicitor General Memoranda. We have moved for unanimous consent to proceed to a vote on his nomination, after those memoranda are provided. Yet, the White House refuses to provide any of Mr. Estrada's memos, even though there is ample precedent for allowing the Senate to review these documents. Even as Republicans refuse to allow us to see Mr. Estrada's memos from his time in public office--and even as Mr. Estrada declined to answer many basic questions about his judicial philosophy and approach--Republicans repeatedly make clear that they are familiar with Mr. Estrada's views and judicial philosophy. Since his nomination, Republican Senators have repeatedly praised Mr. Estrada as a ``conservative.'' A recent article from Roll Call states that the Republican Party is confident that Mr. Estrada will rule in support of big business. The article also states that the Republican Party has asked lobbyists to get involved in the battle over Mr. Estrada's nomination. I have spoken in recent days about the importance of the DC Circuit and it's shift to the right in the 1980s and 1990s. In the 1960s and 1970s, the DC Circuit had a significant role in protecting public access to agency and judicial proceedings, protecting civil rights guarantees, overseeing administrative agencies, protecting the public interest in communications regulation, and enforcing environmental protections. In the 1980s, however, the DC Circuit changed dramatically because of the appointment of conservative judges. As its composition changed, it became a conservative and activist court--striking down civil rights and constitutional protections, encouraging deregulation, closing the doors of the courts to many citizens, favoring employers over workers, and undermining federal protection of the environment. It seems clear that Mr. Estrada has been nominated to the DC Circuit in the hope that this court will continue to be more interested in favoring big business than in protecting the rights of workers, consumers, women, minorities, and other Americans. Mr. Estrada's nomination is strongly opposed by those concerned about these rights. Republicans repeatedly praise Mr. Estrada as a Hispanic-- but many Hispanic groups oppose his nomination. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, the Southwest Voter Registration Project, 52 Latino Labor Leaders representing working families across the country, the California League of United Lationo Citizens, the California La Raza, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund and fifteen past presidents of the Hispanic National Bar Association, whose terms span from 1972 until 1998 have stated their opposition to Mr. Estrada. As these Presidents write: Based upon our review and understanding of the totality of Mr. Estrada's record and life's experiences, we believe that there are more than enought reasons to conclude that Mr. Estrada's candidacy falls short. [These] reasons include: his virtually non-existent written record, his verbally expressed and un-rebutted extreme views, his lack of judicial or academic teaching experience (against which his fairness, reasoning skills and judicial philosophy could be properly tested), his poor judicial temperament, his total lack of connection whatsoever to, or lack of demonstrated interest in the Hispanic community, his refusals to answer even the most basic questions about civil rights and constitutional law, his less than candid responses to other straightforward questions of Senate Judiciary Committee Members. I would like to include in the Record statements at the end of my remarks of two of the past National Presidents of the League of United Latin American Citizens opposing Mr. Estrada's nomination. The first statement is from Belen Robles, a native Texas who has a long and active involvement in the Latino civil rights community. He writes that he is ``deeply troubled with the nomination of Miguel Estrada.'' He is troubled by the positions that Mr. Estrada has taken on racial profiling, and on whether the NAACP had standing to put forward the claims of African-Americans arrested under an anti-loitering ordinance. Mr. Robles writes: As a former National President of LULAC, I know very well that on many occasions LULAC has been a champion of the rights of its membership in civil rights cases. We asserted those rights on behalf of voters in voting cases in Texas, and in many other civil rights cases. Under his view, Mr. Estrada could decide that a civil rights organization such as LULAC would not be able to sue on behalf of its members. NO supporter of civil rights could agree with Mr. Estrada's confirmation. Ruben Bonilla, an attorney in Texas who is also a past National president of LULAC, opposes the confirmation of Mr. Estrada. Mr. Bonilla writes: I am deeply troubled with the double standard that surrounds the nomination of Mr. Estrada. It is particularly troubling that some of the Senators have accused Democrats or other Latinos of being anti-Hispanic, or holding the American dream hostage. Yet, these same Senators in fact prevented Latinos appointed by the Clinton Administration from ever being given a hearing. Notably, Corpus Christi lawyer Jorge Rangel, and El Paso attorney Enrique Moreno, and Denver attorney Christine Arguello never received hearings before the judiciary committee. Yet, these individuals who came from the top of their profession were schooled in the Ivy League, were raised from modest means in the Southwest, and in fact truly embodied the American Dream. These highly qualified Mexican-Americans never had the opportunity to introduce themselves and their views to the Senate, as Mr. Estrada did. Mr. President, the Senate is entitled to see Mr. Estrada's full record. Both the Constitution and historical practices require us to ignore the Administration's obvious ideological nominations. Judicial nominees who come before the Senate should have professional qualifications and the right temperament to be a judge. They should be committed to basic constitutional principles. Many of us have no confidence that Mr. Estrada has met this burden. I urge the Senate to reject this nomination. I ask unanimous consent that supporting material be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to be here today with Senator Domenici to renew the battle in the Senate to end one of the most shameful forms of discrimination in our society discrimination against mental illness. We renew the battle in the name of our friend and colleague Paul Wellstone who did so much to advance this cause we share and whom we miss so dearly now. Senator Pete Domenici and Senator Paul Wellstone led us with great skill in the Senate in this bipartisan battle in the past, and I'm proud to join Senator Domenici today to carry on this very important effort in the Senate. This bill brings first class medicine to millions of Americans who have been second class patients for too long. We know that millions of Americans across the country with mental illness faced stigma and misunderstanding. Even worse, they have been denied treatment that can cure or ease their cruel afflictions. Too often, they are the victims of discrimination by health insurance companies. It is unacceptable that the nation continues to tolerate actions by insurers that deny medical care for mental illnesses even though the very same insurers fully cover the treatment of physical illnesses that are often more costly, less debilitating and less curable. Mental illnesses are treatable and curable, and it's high time to bring relief to those who experience them. Equal treatment of the mentally ill is not just an insurance issue, it is a civil rights issue. At its heart, mental health parity is a question of simple justice. The need is clear. One in five Americans will suffer some form of mental illness this year--but only one-third of them will receive treatment. According to a report of the Surgeon General, at least 4 million children suffer from a major mental illness that results in significant impairments at home, at school, and with their peers. Families must often make painful choices about how to pay for the care their child needs to live a normal life. The cost is low. As we have seen in state after state and in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, insurance parity does not cause soaring insurance premiums. When parity for both mental health coverage and substance abuse coverage was provided for federal employees, they paid only $1 a month more for individual coverage and $2 for family coverage. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this bill will raise insurance rates by less than one percent a small cost that will bring health care and financial security to many families. It is tragic when a child is diagnosed with any illness. It is heart wrenching for parents to watch their children suffer. The tragedy is even greater when an insurance company denies treatment for a child solely because the illness is a mental illness. It's wrong for insurance companies to promote modern medicine for physical diseases, but leave mental health in the dark ages. It is wrong to force parents to choose between the care their child needs and the other financial needs of the family. I have heard countless stories from mothers and fathers whose children desperately needed the care that their insurance companies refused to provide. There is hope for the future. Today we were presented with 30,000 petitions signed by young people asking Congress to provide affordable coverage for mental health services. The petitions were signed in concerts held across the country to raise awareness for suicide prevention. Pete Domenici and I are here today to bring hope to these parents and to these young people. It is long past time to end insurance discrimination, and guarantee all people with mental illnesses the coverage they deserve.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for his usual eloquence and passion. Just to sum up two items, as we discussed earlier, we passed a prescription drug program. Fifty-two Members of the Senate did so last year. I don't know why we couldn't debate it. I am sure our leader would support that effort. Finally, let me point out something the Senator has mentioned. This chart summarizes it all. Under the administration's program for the States, over a 10-year period, Medicaid will be cut $2.4 billion, while there will be $1.8 trillion in tax cuts. This is a question of priorities. I went through the various charts that reflected how this $2.4 billion Medicaid cut will be achieved versus the $1.8 trillion in tax cuts. This is a question of choice. This is a question of priorities when it comes to the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. The quicker we get the chance to debate these and get some votes on them, the better off our seniors will be. I yield the floor.