Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. That is right.

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.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, Donald R. Friary, Executive Director and Secretary at Historic Deerfield since 1975, who has been on staff since 1965, will retire from his present position on December 31, as the western Massachusetts museum concludes a year-long celebration of its 50th anniversary. Friary, who announced his retirement in early 2001, has been named Director Emeritus and on January 1, 2003 will begin work as Historic Deerfield's Senior Research Fellow. In announcing Donald Friary's retirement, Henry N. Flynt, Jr., Chairman of the museum's Board of Trustees and son of the museum's founders said, ``Historic Deerfield is profoundly grateful for Don Friary's energy, imagination and strong leadership throughout his remarkable twenty-seven years as Executive Director. The successful completion of the campaign that made the Flynt Center of Early New England Life a reality, exemplifies his extraordinary skills as both a leader and a fundraiser. I reflect the Board's deep appreciation for Don's strong and steady hand through the years. We are particularly pleased that he has agreed to accept an important new position at Historic Deerfield upon his retirement as Executive Director, namely that of Senior Research Fellow.'' Commenting on his plans to step down as Executive Director Friary said, ``Guiding and fostering the development of Historic Deerfield over these past twenty-seven years has been an extraordinary experience. The ability of this institution to raise the funds necessary to make possible the steady growth of the museum and library collections, the expansion of programs, the increase in both the quality and number of staff, and one of the museum's crowning achievements to date--the creation of the Flynt Center of Early New England Life--has been deeply rewarding for me during my tenure as Director. Deerfield has been home to me and to my family, it has shaped our lives and given much to us, as we have given much to it. Now, I greatly anticipate doing what I have hoped to do since I first came here as a graduate student nearly forty years ago--undertake the research that will allow me to write and lecture about the history of Deerfield and the Historic Deerfield collections. I look forward to keeping in contact with our varied constituencies--our staff, our members and supporters, our Summer Fellows, and all who make this such a unique and exciting place to live and work.'' Donald Friary is one of the longest serving directors of a major American museum. He completed his twenty-seventh year at Historic Deerfield's helm and thirty-seventh year on staff when he stepped down as the museum's CEO at the end of 2002. He was a graduate student in 1965 when he accepted the position of Head Tutor of the Historic Deerfield Summer Fellowship Program in Early American History and the Decorative Arts. A native of Boston, and a graduate of the Boston Latin School and Brown University, he holds a Ph.D. in American Civilization from the University of Pennsylvania. He served as the museum's first Director of Academic Programs from 1971 to 1973 and was named Assistant Director and then Executive Director in 1975. Friary has been honored by election to the American Antiquarian Society, the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, and the Massachusetts Historical Society. He has served on the Boards of the Bay State Historical League, the Dublin Seminar for New England Folklife, the Massachusetts Foundation for the Humanities, the Winterthur Museum's Education Committee, and the Hill-Stead Museum. He was a Trustee and then President of the Williamstown Art Conservation Center where an endowed conservation fellowship bears his name. Over the last three decades, Friary has brought together a staff of curators, conservators, and other highly skilled professionals in a variety of fields to manage, market and interpret Deerfield's nationally renowned collections of decorative arts and the 18th and 19th century houses in which they are displayed. Under his direction the museum has developed a reputation for excellence in programming, interpretation, and the preservation of the historic buildings and the open space entrusted to its care. Friary was instrumental in forging an agreement of affiliation for teaching and research between Historic Deerfield and the Five College consortium in 1986 and has, himself, taught several courses at Smith College through that affiliation. In 1990 he was actively involved as a founder of the Deerfield Land Trust, which has, to date, saved more than 1600 acres of town farmland from development. As Historic Deerfield's major fundraiser, Friary, with some Historic Deerfield Trustees and the museum's development office staff, raised the more than $12 million needed to design, build and endow the Flynt Center of Early New England Life, which opened in 1998. In 2000, on the occasion of his twenty-fifth anniversary as Executive Director, the Center's major exhibition space was named the Donald R. Friary Exhibition Gallery recognizing the role his leadership played in bringing this ambitious project to a successful conclusion. Friary began the Friends of Historic Deerfield in 1976 and today 2000 members in 44 States and 7 foreign countries contribute a significant amount to the museum's operating budget each year. When the Deerfield Inn burned in 1979, Friary led the Board of Trustees in raising the $1.5 million necessary to repair, refurbish, and modernize the original 19th century building, which remains today a centerpiece of the 333- year-old village for the thousands of tourists and travelers who come to Deerfield each year from throughout the world. Donald Friary's colleagues and students note that among his many accomplishments at Historic Deerfield has been his adherence to the highest standards of excellence in the conservation and presentation of the museum's nationally renowned collections for the benefit of all who visit and study at Historic Deerfield each year. Friary summed up his personal hope for the institution's future in the inaugural issue of the museum's semi-annual magazine, published in Winter 2001, when he said, ``Historic Deerfield must and will maintain the standards of excellence that inspired our founders Henry and Helen Flynt, that have guided our staff and Trustees, and that continue to assure our visitors that at Historic Deerfield they have access to the story of New England's and America's past.'' Friary brought the endowment phase of the museum's capital campaign to a successful conclusion at the end of 2001 and has spent time in 2002 traveling across the country celebrating Historic Deerfield's 50th anniversary with hundreds of constituents in several states. In the last several months he has overseen preparations to launch a new campaign to fund a Children's Discovery Center, which is scheduled to open in 2004. And, he is working on several collaborative initiatives as the town of Deerfield prepares to commemorate the tercentenary of its infamous 1704 French and Indian attack, which will take place during 2004. On the occasion of his well-deserved retirement, I salute Donald Friary for his dedication and outstanding service to Historic Deerfield, to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and to the nation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Although the U.N. inspectors have found no evidence so far of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq, there is ample evidence in North Korea. North Korea possesses 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods capable of being reprocessed, by May, into enough plutonium to make up to 6 nuclear bombs. With inspectors gone and North Korea gone from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, we face an urgent crisis, with nothing to prevent that nation from quickly producing a significant amount of nuclear materials and nuclear weapons for its own use, or for terrorists hostile to America and our allies. North Korea has already provided missiles to deliver chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons to terrorist states, including Iran, Syria, and Libya. We understand that. North Korea has already provided the missiles to deliver chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons to terrorist states. Desperate and strapped for cash, North Korea can easily provide nuclear weapons or weapons grade plutonium to terrorist groups, which could be used against us in the very near future. And we are talking about the production of weapons grade plutonium in the next few weeks. There is no division of opinion on that, absolutely none. There is no division of opinion on that. As some have described it, it would be a cash cow for North Korea that is absolutely strapped for cash. Despite these alarm bells, the administration refuses to call the situation on the Korean peninsula what it is: a genuine crisis. If this is not a crisis, I don't know what is. The administration refuses to directly engage the North Koreans in talks to persuade North Korea to end its nuclear program. By ignoring the North Korean crisis in order to keep focus on Iraq, the administration has kept its eye on the wrong place. The administration says we can handle the war in Iraq, we can handle the war against al-Qaida, and we can deal with the problems of the nuclear crisis in North Korea. Any administration should seek to avoid three simultaneous foreign policy crises. In this case, we can, and we should, by not rushing to war with Iraq. It is far from clear that we will be safer by attacking Iraq. In an October 7, 2000, letter to the Senate Committee on Intelligence, CIA Director George Tenet said the probability of Saddam Hussein initiating an attack on the United States was low. But his letter said: ``should Saddam Hussein conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions.'' Yesterday, Admiral Jacoby, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Saddam Hussein would use weapons of mass destruction ``when he makes the decision that [his] regime is in jeopardy.'' CIA Director Tenet agreed with this assessment. This assessment begs the question: If Saddam will not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States until his regime is about to fall, why is it in our national security interest to provoke him into using them? The administration must be more forthcoming about the potential human costs of war with Iraq, especially if it pushes Saddam into unleashing whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses. The administration has released no casualty estimates, and they could be extremely high. Many military experts have predicted urban guerilla warfare--a scenario which Retired General Joseph Hoar, who had responsibility for Iraq before the gulf war, says could look ``like the last 15 minutes of `Saving Private Ryan.' '' Nor has the administration fully explained the ramifications of large-scale mobilization of the National Guard and Reserve--especially its effect on police, firefighters, and others, who will be on duty for Iraq but who are needed on the front lines here at home if there is a terrorist attack on the homeland. In Massachusetts, 2,000 citizens have been called to active duty in the Armed Forces. Many of them are police, firefighters, first responders, and other health workers. Nor has the administration been candid about the humanitarian crisis that could result from war. Refugee organizations are desperately trying to prepare for a flood of as many as 900,000 refugees. Billions of dollars and years of commitment may well be needed to achieve a peaceful post-war Iraq, but the American people still do not know how that process will unfold and who will pay for it. No war can be successfully waged if it lacks the strong support of the American people. Before pulling the trigger on war, the Administration must tell the American people the full story about Iraq. So far, it has not. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I continue to oppose the Estrada nomination. What is at stake in this nomination is a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the land. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals makes decisions that affect millions of Americans every day--whether they will drink clean water and breathe clean air-- whether workers will be safe in the workplace, and can join unions without fear of reprisal by their employer--whether minorities and women will be able to stop workplace harassment. Yet our Republican colleagues want us to rubber stamp the nomination of Miguel Estrada to this important court. They say to us, you do not need to look at his record. You do not need to ask him what kind of judge he would be. You do not have to ask him to explain the serious discrepancies in the answers he gave during his hearing in the Judiciary Committee. They even make the preposterous and shameless claim that Mr. Estrada is being opposed because he is Latino. Our Republican colleagues obviously do not appreciate the importance of the position that Mr. Estrada seeks. If they did, they would not be in such a rush to confirm a divisive nominee about whom we know so little. Our duty under the Constitution is not to rubber stamp. It is to provide informed advice and consent in the nomination process. Our duty is to ensure that the Federal judiciary is fair and independent, a place where everyone, even the most vulnerable among us, can obtain protection of their rights. If we become a Senate that simply rubber stamps judicial nominees, the nomination process becomes a charade. Whoever happens to have the favor of the White House can become a Federal judge simply by refusing to give the Senate the information necessary to provide real advice and consent. The Federal courts would become a political lackey of the executive and legislative branches, and would lose their essential independence. We all know the importance of this judicial independence and the critical role that the Federal courts have in the lives of millions of our fellow citizens, especially those who are minorities. The Latino experience is typical of minority groups that seek justice. When the executive branch has failed them, when the legislative branch has failed them, it is the Federal courts, independent of political forces, that have protected their rights. Federal courts have protected Latinos' right to fair redistricting rules in Lopez v. Monterey County. Federal courts have also protected Latinos' right to bilingual education. They have protected Latinos' right to sit on a jury free from challenge on the basis of their race. They protect Latinos' right to be free from racial profiling. When the Senate considers a judicial nominee, it must take this history into account. We must consider whether the nominee accepts the historic role of the courts in the protection of basic rights. One of the most serious concerns raised by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which met with Mr. Estrada, was that he does not understand and appreciate this history. The Hispanic Caucus does not lightly oppose the nomination of a Latino to a Federal court. In fact, they have never done it before. It would have been far easier for them to decide that a Latino judge on the DC Court of Appeals could be called a victory for them. But they realized it would be a victory in name only. They saw that Mr. Estrada would not uphold the basic rights of the Latino community, and they decided--unanimously--to oppose his nomination. When the Hispanic Caucus reviews a judicial nominee, they look for a person who will have a sense of fairness, who will be sensitive to claims of racial bias and discrimination, and who are aware of the fundamental role of the Federal courts in ending these injustices. Mr. Estrada failed to satisfy them on each of these important points. The Hispanic Caucus asked Mr. Estrada about his legal work on two cases in which he defended anti-loitering ordinances. Statutes such as these have too often been used for racial profiling and to harass minorities performing lawful activities. The members of the Hispanic Caucus left that meeting convinced that Mr. Estrada did not understand the effect of these anti-loitering statutes on minorities, or that he did not care about them. Mr. Estrada has also demonstrated his lack of sensitivity on issues affecting Latinos in his numerous statements about race and affirmative action. He has been dismissive of the under-representation of Latinos among law clerks in the Supreme Court. You do not have to be Latino to understand that there are long-standing barriers to full participation by Latinos. But Mr. Estrada does not see it that way. Perhaps this is why Mr. Estrada has never tried to improve opportunities for Latino lawyers or law students. But if you cannot see the problem, you cannot be part of the solution. I am deeply concerned, given these statements by Mr. Estrada, that he would oppose basic programs, that have done so much to open the doors of opportunity for minorities throughout our Nation. In light of all of these facts, the Hispanic Caucus has decided to oppose this nomination. As I said, they did not make this decision lightly. They have supported the nomination of conservative judges in the past, including judges nominated by the current administration. Jose Martinez, for one, was nominated by this administration. The Caucus met with him. Not all of the members of the Caucus agreed with Mr. Martinez's politics, but they saw that Mr. Martinez was sensitive to the needs and experience of the Latino community. He understood the historic and important role of the Federal courts in the lives of Latinos. So the caucus supported his nomination and Judge Martinez is now a United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida. When Democrats oppose Mr. Estrada, we are standing with these groups. We are standing up for the rights of Latinos and other minorities. In fact, it has been Senate Republicans who have unfairly blocked the confirmation of Latino nominees. The last Republican-controlled Senate unfairly refused to confirm eight--eight--qualified Latino nominees. Two who were nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals from Texas were not even given hearings by the Republicans. The Fifth Circuit is one of the areas where the highest percentage of minorities in this country live. Where were our Republican colleagues when these qualified judges were waiting for confirmation? Where were our Republican colleagues when Richard Paez waited for confirmation longer than any other nominee in U.S. history? Where were they? They were in control of the Senate. When Republicans call on us to rubberstamp a judicial nominee, telling us that we have no right to look into his record to see what kind of judge he may be, they are ignoring their own history, and they are ignoring the proper role of the Senate. President Bush, more than perhaps any other President, has made it his goal to pack the courts with judges who will roll back basic Federal rights, including civil rights, workers' rights, and environmental protections. Ideology clearly guides the President's decision to nominate judges. It clearly guided the decision to nominate Mr. Estrada. It would be wrong to ask Senators now to ignore his ideology. Judges should be committed to basic principles and ideals. They should respect our judicial system and the co-equal relationship between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. It makes no sense for the Senate, in fulfilling its constitutional role, to adopt a head-in-the-sand approach and abandon all ideological considerations in deciding whether to confirm Mr. Estrada. Now we have, instead, a Republican stampede to confirm a nominee we know very little about. Despite the critical importance of the Federal courts, and despite the immense power of the appellate court to which he has been appointed, Miguel Estrada has not answered the questions put to him. He has not been forthcoming about the views that he would bring to the bench. He has failed to resolve the serious discrepancies in his answers to the questions put to him during his hearing. The Bush administration refuses to turn over important documents to the Senate as we consider this nominee, despite clear precedent for doing so. At the same time, what we do know about him clearly indicates that he fails to appreciate the role of the Federal courts and Federal rights in the protection of the most vulnerable members of our society. On this inadequate and unsatisfactory record, the Senate should not confirm a nominee to such an important position. iraq Mr. President, tomorrow, the United Nations inspectors will report to the Security Council about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. In all likelihood we will continue to hear from Mr. Hans Blix that the inspections are proceeding, but that Iraqi authorities need to be much more cooperative. We know that the administration is lobbying Mr. Blix to submit the strongest possible case that Iraq is not cooperating. We all agree that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous and deceptive dictator. We live in a dangerous world and Saddam must be disarmed. The question is how to do it in a way that minimizes the risks to the American people at home, to our armed forces, and to our allies. I am still hopeful that we can avoid war. War should always be a last resort. Earlier today, President Bush quoted President Kennedy and referred to the Cuban missile crisis. President Bush praised my brother for understanding that the dangers to freedom had to be confronted early and decisively. President Kennedy did understand this. But he also genuinely believed that war must always be the last resort. When Soviet missiles were discovered in Cuba--missiles far more threatening to us than anything Saddam has today--some leaders in the highest councils of our government urged an immediate and unilateral strike. Instead, the United States took its case to the United Nations, won the endorsement of the Organization of American States, and persuaded even our most skeptical allies. We imposed a blockade, demanded inspection, and insisted on the removal of the missiles--all without resorting to full- scale war. As he said then: Action is required . . . and these actions [now] may only be the beginning. We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of . . . war--but neither will we shrink from that risk at any time it must be faced. I continue to be concerned that the Bush administration is persisting in its rush to war with Iraq, even as we face grave threats from al- Qaida terrorism and North Korea's nuclear ambitions. The administration has done far too little to tell Congress and the American people about what our country and our troops will face in going to war with Iraq, especially if we have little genuine support from our allies. We are nearing decision time. I urge President Bush to come clean with the American people about this war. Before endangering the Nation's sons and daughters in the Iraqi desert, our citizens deserve full answers to four questions. First, the President must explain what he considers victory in Iraq. The American people deserve at least this much. Is it disarmament? Is it the overthrow of Saddam? Is it the establishment of a stable, democratic government? If we get rid of Saddam, but leave his bureaucracy in power, will that be a victory? Or, as General Zinni has said, will we be doing what we did in Afghanistan--drive the old Soviet Union out and let something arguably worse emerge? This should be a basic consideration in committing American lives to this war. Our country should know what we are fighting for. But the administration has failed to define even this most basic question for the American people. Second, the President must explain whether we are doing all we can to see that America will be secure at home. A war in Iraq may well strengthen al-Qaida terrorists, not weaken them, especially if the Muslim world opposes us. We have not broken Osama bin Ladin's will to kill Americans. Our Nation has just gone on new and higher alert because of the increased overall threat from al-Qaida. What if al-Qaida decides to time its next attack for the day we go to war? The war against al-Qaida must remain our top priority. In fact, our Nation's intelligence experts have maintained consistently since 9/11 that al-Qaida terrorism is the greatest threat to our security here at home. They also fear that an American attack on Iraq will only make matters worse by inflaming anti-American sentiments across the Arab world. Third, the President must fully explain how long, even after the war ends, we will have to commit our forces and economic resources to deal with the consequences of the war. This war will be different than the Gulf war. We will not stop short of Baghdad. If we want to change the regime, we may well have to fight in Baghdad and engage in hand-to-hand combat and urban guerilla warfare. When the war is over, our troops will become an occupying force, possibly for many years. The tribal, ethnic, and religious fault lines that Saddam has held together through repression may fall apart--much as they did in the brutal civil wars in the former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda, and other countries. Will the United States have to manage Iraq for years to come on our own? Are we prepared to commit billions of American dollars to Iraq for years to come? Will our troops be part of a United Nations force? Will they become sitting targets for terrorists? Finally, the President must explain whether our Nation is prepared to use this war as the new foreign and defense policy for the future. Are we prepared to invade any nation that poses a threat? Iran, Libya--forget Libya. Pan Am 103; 67 American servicemen who were killed; 13 families in the State of Massachusetts; scores of families in New Jersey and other States--a country that has used chemical warfare against its neighbors and against Chad in the south. Libya, Iran, with all of the harboring of terrorists and Hamas--the terrorists that are so active in Syria, and these other countries. What are we going to do about these nations as they continue to move forward in developing weapons of mass destruction? What are our policies going to be about them? Which country will be next? Will we attack them, too? Are we really prepared, as the administration is considering, to radically change our nuclear weapons policy and use nuclear weapons in Iraq and other conflicts? Even contemplating the first use of nuclear weapons in Iraq under current circumstances and against a non-nuclear nation dangerously undermines the crucial and historical distinction between conventional and nuclear arms. It undermines our international commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that we will not consider a first strike against a country that is a nonnuclear country. If we use the Nation's nuclear arsenal in this unprecedented way in Iraq, it will be the most fateful decision since the nuclear attack on Hiroshima. All of us are hopeful we will not use the tactical nukes. We have abundant testimony that our conventional weapons are quite capable and able to handle any of the challenges we are going to face in terms of deep bunkers and other activities. But we have to listen to those in the administration who are talking in a different way about the development of a tactical nuke, and also about perhaps changing what they consider to be the STRAPP amendment that limits the research to 5 kilotons and the administration's consideration of that. Obviously, implications of any use of any nuclear war in Iraq would inflame the people not only of that nation but certainly of Arabs all over the world--and not only the Arabs and the move towards developing smaller, more easily usable nuclear weapons and all of the challenges we would have of being more attractive to use under certain circumstances with the dangers of proliferation and the fact these weapons could be proliferated and stolen and used and captured by terrorists. On each of these questions, the President must reassure the American people. They deserve to know that we are not stepping into quicksand and that this military operation is well thought out. He must convince the Nation that we are putting as much effort into thinking about how we get out of Iraq as we are about getting into Iraq. We must take both the short-term and the long-term view of this enormous problem. Whether war with Iraq will be a sprint or a marathon we must always remember the finish line. There is no more important decision by Congress or the President under the Constitution than the decision to send our men and women in uniform to war. The administration must make a compelling case that war with Iraq is now the only alternative and explain it to the American people The administration says we can fight a war in Iraq without undermining our most pressing national security priority--the ongoing war against the international al-Qaida terrorist network. al-Qaida--not Iraq--is the most imminent threat to our national security. Our citizens are asked to protect themselves from Osama bin Ladin at home with a roll of duct tape, while the administration sends the most deadly and sophisticated army in the world to go to war with Saddam Hussein. Those are the wrong priorities. On Monday, Tom Ridge, the Secretary of Homeland Security said that the heightened security warning that has millions of Americans stocking up on food, water, duct tape, and plastic sheeting is connected to al- Qaida and not ``the possibility of military involvement with Iraq.'' On Tuesday, FBI Director Mueller told the Senate Intelligence Committee that ``the Al Qaeda network will remain for the foreseeable future the most immediate and serious threat facing this country.'' On Wednesday, CIA Director Tenet told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the heightened alert issued this week is because of the threat from al-Qaida--not Iraq. For any Member of this body who thinks we have done what we need to do in homeland security, call any mayor in your State, call any mayor in a major city or a small city in your State, and ask them whether they have received the support for the training of first responders. Ask them if they have the various vaccines, how that program is going-- and it isn't going, because we have failed to develop a compensation fund for that and to match our determination for vaccines with the other kinds of supportive efforts in terms of health care. Ask any mayor in any sized city what degree of support they are getting and whether they believe they are receiving the kind of assistance they need--whether it is in the radios, in the communications, whether it is in the training, whether it is in the wide area of support for public health interests--and you will get the answer that all of us heard--that I heard--within the last 10 days when the mayors across this country came together and met here. And the answer is clearly: No, no, no, it is not there. In addition to threatening American lives, Saudi Arabia has indicated it will ask American troops to leave its soil. NATO's division over war has threatened the alliance. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, has said uncertainty over Iraq is slowing our Nation's economy. There you have three activities: Osama bin Laden, wherever he is, American troops out of Saudi Arabia, division in the alliance, stagnation here at home in the economy. And we are all blaming Osama bin Laden. We are about to send our troops on into Iraq, not giving inspections a chance to finish. The wrong priorities, Mr. President. As I mentioned in terms of what we are doing here at home, I am concerned about the state of our preparedness. Clearly, there is much more we need to do at the Federal, State, and local levels to strengthen our defenses against a terrorist attack. First responders are not adequately prepared for a chemical or biological attack. The radios are not interoperable, and they lack the training and gear to protect them in the event of an emergency. Ask any of your mayors, as I mentioned, across the country. You will get your answer. This isn't just a Democrat pointing this out. Last week, our former colleague, Senator Rudman, of the State of New Hampshire, said: There was no rational answer for the White House failure to seek more funds for the domestic security in the 2004 budget. I'm very concerned. We have to put more money into the Coast Guard, into communications gear, into preparedness for the use of weapons of mass destruction, into police and firefighters. We have to spend a huge additional amount of money on port security. Money isn't the only answer, but it is a pretty clear indication of a nation's priorities in this area, and it has not been there in terms of the support on homeland security. Even before the war has begun, we hear of possible threats from a wave of suicide bombers. War with Iraq could swell the ranks of terrorists and trigger an escalation in terrorist acts. As Gen Wesley Clark told the Armed Services Committee last September, war with Iraq could ``super-charge recruiting for Al Qaeda.'' These are real dangers--dangers that the administration has minimized in its determination to attack Iraq. The administration maintains there are convincing links between al- Qaida and Iraq that justify war. But al-Qaida activists are present in more than 60 countries, including Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and also in the United States. Even in the administration, there are skeptics about the links with Iraq. Intelligence analysts are concerned that intelligence is being politicized to justify war, as the New York Times pointed out in a recent article which I will ask to be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, America is on high alert. This is no time to shortchange our security at home. Yet, that is precisely what this bill does. Simply creating a new bureaucracy for homeland security is not enough. We must increase protection at our borders, provide the Coast Guard with additional resources, and provide more security at our ports. We must also assist local authorities to prepare for the worst. Our homes will not stay safe with duct tape alone. Our communities need help to fund law enforcement personnel, firefighters, rescue workers, and medical personnel. Today, I asked mayors in Massachusetts whether the Federal Government is doing its share to help local communities with homeland security. Not one--not one--has received sufficient help from the Bush administration to meet local homeland security needs. Mayor Fred Kalisz of New Bedford tells me that since the Bush administration declared a Code Orange emergency last week, he has posted a 24-hour police presence at his small local airport. And he ordered round-the-clock security for a tanker that is docked in New Bedford's harbor. The budget crisis in Springfield, MA, forced Mayor Michael Albano to cut 76 police officers and 57 firefighters from the city payroll. Police, fire, and rescue officers in Springfield are stretched to the limit to cover continuing duties with fewer officers. Springfield simply cannot afford the additional duties of homeland security without federal help. The same is true in Worcester, where Mayor Timothy Murray is facing cuts to his police and firefighting force by more than ten percent. And his officers not only fight crime in Worcester, but they have protection duties with a strategic reservoir near Worcester as well as major rail hub. And the city of Boston has already spent $2.6 million in scarce city funds for homeland security. These local officials care about their communities. They are doing all they can amid an avalanche of budget cuts just to meet the ongoing needs of their citizens. It is unfair of the Bush administration and the federal government to leave them high and dry in the face of terrorist threats at home. Despite promises of funding from Washington to help with these urgent needs, he has received nothing--and this bill provides no new money beyond what administration promised long ago, and has yet to deliver. Washington must do more--much more--to be a real partner with our local cities and communities to protect our citizens. I am also deeply concerned that this bill is yet another leap in the Republican campaign to undermine years of progress in protecting our environment. This bill contains provisions that allow the indiscriminate logging of irreplaceable forests, and lays the seeds for the destruction of one of our country's greatest natural treasures, the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. In addition, while I commend the fact that this bill represents a step forward on education, and rejects the administration's anti-education budget, I believe that parents and teachers and students across the country will agree that more should have been done. Education is about fulfilling the hopes and dreams of the next generation. And it is about the security and economic future of America. For these reasons I oppose this bill. I ask that unanimous consent that a recent Boston Globe article that describes what our mayors are doing with little or no Federal help to meet homeland security needs in their communities be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, 2002 marked the 50th anniversary of the incorporation of Historic Deerfield. Founded in 1952 by Mr. and Mrs. Henry Needham Flynt of Greenwich, Crt, the western Massachusetts museum complex is located within the 330-year-old village of Deerfield, called ``the gem of rural New England'' by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Cited often as the best documented small community in America, Deerfield attracts scholars, curators, and students to study the history of New England using the village's rich manuscript an research holdings. And, tourists and travelers from throughout the world encounter the story of early America in the parlors and kitchens of Deer Field's old houses and along its mile-long thoroughfare simply called, ``The Street.'' Surrounded by more than 1,000 acres of actively farmed meadows, Historic Deer Field's museum houses and decorative art galleries are filed with more than 30,000 objects made or used in America between 1650 and 1850. This carefully preserved community of 18th and 19th century houses and the renowned collections of antiques within them are framed by working farms in a quintessential New England village that travelers are delighted to discover. In 1936 Henry and Helen Flynt enrolled their son at Deerfield Academy, a college preparatory school founded in 1797. The couple was amazed at the remarkable but fragile state of preservation of the village's houses and buildings dating back to the early 18th century. Many were ghosts of their former selves, but still lived in by descendants of the proud families that had survived the infamous Deerfield Massacre of 1704. In those years preceding World War II, Henry Flynt's great passion for America was stirred as he realized that this little village, founded by English settlers in 1669 and whose meadows were inhabited by native peoples for thousands of years before, had witnessed the great events of this country's history. Encouraged by Deerfield Academy's legendary Headmaster Frank Learoyd Boyden, the Flynts began to purchase several of the old houses and restore their ells and early additions as dormitory space for the school's growing student body. Their interest in every American history and the decorative arts blossomed simultaneously and soon the Flynts were restoring the old houses not as dormitories but as museums filled with their growing collection of the finest antiques then available. In 1945 the Flynts purchased the 1994 Deerfield Inn and restored it for use by parents visiting Deerfield Academy students. In that same year they bought an old house for themselves and furnished it as their Deerfield residence. By 1948 Historic Deerfield's first museum house-- the Parson Jonathan Ashley House--was opened to the public and in the ensuing 25 years 13 more houses were furnished as museums welcoming growing numbers of visitors. Shortly before Henry Flynt's death in 1970, a new research library was opened that also administers the extensive collection of early Deerfield manuscripts owned by the village historical society, The Pocumtuck Valley Memorial Association. Founded in 1880, this repository of local history and art still opens its doors to visitors each year from May to October. In 1998 a long held dream was realized when a new, 27,000-square-foot decorative arts museum--the Flynt Center of Early New England Life--was opened. With galleries for changing exhibitions, a unique storage display of more than 3000 objects appropriately called the Museum's Attic, and expanded lecture and public program space, the Flynt Center was the culmination of a $12 million capital campaign that attracted gifts from more than 800 individuals, foundations, and corporations throughout America and abroad. I congratulate Historic Deerfield on the occasion of its 50th anniversary, and I send my best wishes for 50 more great years.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues, Senators Kerry, Clinton, Sarbanes, Corzine, Mikulski, Dodd, Levin, Reed, Lieberman, Feingold, Inouye, and Akaka in introducing the Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act. Current Federal safety standards limit work hours for pilots, flight attendants, truck drivers, railroad engineers and other professionals, in order to protect the public safety. However, no similar limitation currently exists for the Nation's nurses, who care for so many of our most vulnerable citizens. The Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act will limit mandatory overtime for nurses in order to protect patient safety and improve working conditions for nurses. Across the country today, the widespread practice of mandatory overtime means that over-worked nurses are often providing care in unacceptable circumstances. Restrictions for mandatory overtime will help ensure that nurses are able to provide the highest quality of care to their patients. Some hospitals have taken action to deal with this serious problem. Over the last few years in Massachusetts Brockton Hospital and St. Vincent Hospital agreed to limit mandatory overtime as part of negotiations following successful strikes by nurses. These limits will protect patients and improve working conditions for the nurses, and will help in the recruitment and retention of nurses in the future. Job dissatisfaction and harsh overtime hours are major factors in the current shortage of nurses. Nationally, the shortfall is expected to rise to 20 percent in coming years. The goal of the Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act is to improve the quality of life for nurses, so that more persons will enter the nursing profession and remain in it. The bill limits mandatory overtime to declared states of emergency. Clearly, there are times when other options are exhausted and hospitals need additional help. The bill takes account of such needs. The bill requires health providers to notify nurses of these new rights, and nurses who report violations are guaranteed protection from workplace discrimination. In addition, the bill requires the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality to report to Congress on appropriate standards for the maximum numbers of hours that nurses should work in various health settings without compromising patient care. Improving conditions for nurses is an essential part of our ongoing effort to reduce medical errors, improve patient outcomes, and encourage more Americans to become and remain nurses. The power of providers to force nurses to work beyond what is safe for themselves and their patients is one of the major drawbacks to careers in nursing. The Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act is a significant step that Congress can take to support the Nation's nurses, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues, Senators Kerry, Clinton, Sarbanes, Corzine, Mikulski, Dodd, Levin, Reed, Lieberman, Feingold, Inouye, and Akaka in introducing the Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act. Current Federal safety standards limit work hours for pilots, flight attendants, truck drivers, railroad engineers and other professionals, in order to protect the public safety. However, no similar limitation currently exists for the Nation's nurses, who care for so many of our most vulnerable citizens. The Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act will limit mandatory overtime for nurses in order to protect patient safety and improve working conditions for nurses. Across the country today, the widespread practice of mandatory overtime means that over-worked nurses are often providing care in unacceptable circumstances. Restrictions for mandatory overtime will help ensure that nurses are able to provide the highest quality of care to their patients. Some hospitals have taken action to deal with this serious problem. Over the last few years in Massachusetts Brockton Hospital and St. Vincent Hospital agreed to limit mandatory overtime as part of negotiations following successful strikes by nurses. These limits will protect patients and improve working conditions for the nurses, and will help in the recruitment and retention of nurses in the future. Job dissatisfaction and harsh overtime hours are major factors in the current shortage of nurses. Nationally, the shortfall is expected to rise to 20 percent in coming years. The goal of the Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act is to improve the quality of life for nurses, so that more persons will enter the nursing profession and remain in it. The bill limits mandatory overtime to declared states of emergency. Clearly, there are times when other options are exhausted and hospitals need additional help. The bill takes account of such needs. The bill requires health providers to notify nurses of these new rights, and nurses who report violations are guaranteed protection from workplace discrimination. In addition, the bill requires the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality to report to Congress on appropriate standards for the maximum numbers of hours that nurses should work in various health settings without compromising patient care. Improving conditions for nurses is an essential part of our ongoing effort to reduce medical errors, improve patient outcomes, and encourage more Americans to become and remain nurses. The power of providers to force nurses to work beyond what is safe for themselves and their patients is one of the major drawbacks to careers in nursing. The Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act is a significant step that Congress can take to support the Nation's nurses, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I join with my colleagues in drawing attention to the remarks of our new colleague from Missouri speaking on the issue of health insurance, the uninsured and the challenges which are out there for the small business community. This is, as he has very well stated, an extraordinary problem for the reasons he has outlined. It is amazing to me that the small businesses in this country continue to try to provide coverage. As we know, in his State as well as mine, they are all paying about 30 percent more in terms of the premiums than larger companies, and in many instances they have a rapid turnover in terms of the companies that are available to them. This really is an extremely significant part of the whole crisis in terms of the uninsured. There are a number of different proposals to which we will have a chance to give focus. But I certainly welcome the fact that he selected as his maiden speech the whole issue and question about the uninsured and the challenges that businesses, and small businesses, face. We may have some difference in just how to deal with the issue, but I certainly look forward to working with him and others to see how we can make progress. I thank him for his statement and for the fact that he is focusing on an issue that is of such importance to our fellow citizens; that is, the question of the uninsured and how we are going to continue to provide insurance for small businesses. Madam President, one of our most important responsibilities as Senators is the confirmation of federal judges. These are lifetime appointments. Long after we have served our Senate terms, the judges nominated by the President will continue to interpret the Constitution and federal laws. A President's nominees are an enduring legacy that will affect the life of our country and the lives of our constituents for many years to come. The important work we do in Congress to improve health care, reform public schools, protect workers rights, and ensure enforcement of civil rights means 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. For all of these reasons, we must carefully review the qualifications of federal judges, particularly nominees to the DC Circuit. Because the supreme Court hears relatively few cases, the appellate courts are frequently the courts of last resort for millions of Americans. And, of those appellate courts, the DC Circuit is one of the most important. It has a unique and prominent role among the Federal courts, especially in interpreting administrative law, and it has exclusive jurisdiction over many laws affecting the workplace, the environment, civil rights, and consumer protection. For the most vulnerable among us, the DC circuit is often the final stop on the road to justice. Given its location and jurisdiction, the D.C. Circuit has often decided important cases involving separation of powers, the role of the federal government, the responsibilities of Federal officials, and the authority of Federal agencies. In the 1960s and 1970s, the DC Circuit had a significant role in broadening public access to agency and judicial proceedings, expanding civil rights guarantees, overseeing administrative agencies, protecting the public interest in communications regulation, and strengthening 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 move 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. In the 1960s and 1970s, the DC Circuit expanded public access to administrative proceedings and protected the interests of the public against big business. For example, the court enabled more plaintiffs to challenge agency decisions. It held that a religious group--as members of the listening public--could oppose the license renewal of a televisionstation accused of racial and religious discrimination. It held that an organization of welfare recipients was entitled to intervene in proceedings before a Federal agency. No longer would these agencies be able to ignore the interests of those they were supposed to protect. But in the 1980s, with the ascent of conservative appointees, the DC Circuit began denying access to the courts. It held that a labor union could not challenge the denial of benefits to its members--a decision later overturned by the Supreme Court. It held that environmental groups are not qualified to seek review of EPA Standards under the Clean Air Act. These decisions are characteristic of the DC Circuit's flip-flop in the 1980s. After decades of landmark decisions allowing effective implementation of important laws and principles, the DC Circuit is now creating precedents on labor rights, civil rights, and the environment that will set back these basic principles for years to come. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the DC Circuit advanced the cause of environmental protection. In this period, the court interpreted the Clean Air Act in ways consistent with Congress' intent. In Lead Industries Associations v. EPA, the court held that the EPA cannot consider economic costs to industry in setting air quality standards, because Congress had made health the paramount concern in setting these standards. Decisions in leaded gasoline cases also significantly advanced the effort to reduce air pollution and protect people--particularly children in cities, from the harmful effects of automobile exhaust. In addition, the court took strict action when it upheld the ban on the manufacturer and sale of the pesticides DDT, heptachlor and chlordane. But in the mid-1980s, conservative judges on the DC Circuit began cutting off access to the courts for environmentalists and injected an anti-environmental point of view into decision after decision, regardless of even Supreme Court precedents. In American Trucking Associations v. EPA in 1999, the DC Circuit issued a harsh decision denying the EPA the authority to establish health standards for smog and soot. That decision was unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court. In another notorious decision, Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a great Oregon v. Babbitt, it struck down habitat protections for endangered species. This decision also was reversed by the Supreme Court. When Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act, it guaranteed workers the rights to join a union without discrimination or reprisal by employers, and to bargain with employers over the terms and conditions of employment. The National Labor Relations Board interprets and enforces the act and reviews appeals of decisions by administrative law judges. NLRB decisions are appealable to the circuit court, where the unfair labor practice is alleged to have occurred, or here the employer resides or transacts business, or in the DC Circuit. As a result, the DC Circuit is always available as a forum to challenge decisions of the board. In 1980, the DC Circuit fully enforced the board's decision 83 percent of the time, and at least partly enforced the board's decision in all the other cases. By the year 2000, when the court had a 5-to-4 Republican majority, including a solid majority of Reagan/Bush appointees, the DC Circuit enforced in full only 57 percent of NLRB cases and enforced at least part of the board's decisions just 70 percent of the time. These enforcement statistics put the DC Circuit significantly below the national average of an 83.4 percent enforcement rate for the board in all the courts of appeals. Given these statistics, it is not surprising that the DC Circuit has become the circuit of choice for employers trying to overturn NLRB decisions. In 1980, the DC Circuit heard only 3 percent of the NLRB appeals heard by the circuit courts. The DC Circuit ranked next to last of all the circuits. Only the Tenth Circuit heard fewer cases. As the Reagan/Bush effect on the DC Circuit took hold, the court became increasingly attractive to industries, and the court;'s share of NLRB cases steadily rose. By the year 2000, the DC Circuit ranked first among all circuit courts in the percentage of NLRB cases herd by those courts. Almost one in five cases--18 percent--were filed in the DC Circuit, and employers brought by far the largest number of these cases. The DC Circuit's willingness to overturn National Labor Relations Board decision is deeply troubling because of the precedents being established. In Freund Baking Co. v. NLRB, it reversed the NLRB and set aside a union election because the court felt that a wage and hour lawsuit brought on behalf of several workers shortly before the election interfered with a fair election. In Macmillan Publishing. Co. v. NLRB, the board had overturned a union representation election, finding that a company prevented a fair election by distributing a leaflet telling employees to vote against the union or risk losing a previously announced wage increase. The DC Circuit reversed the board's action. The DC Circuit's hostility to the NLRB, to the detriment of workers and their unions, is also illustrated in other cases dominated by Reagan Bush appointees. In International Paper Co. v. NLRB, the court overturned the board's decision and held that the company's permanent subcontracting of employees' job during a lockout was an unfair labor practice. In Detroit Typographical Union v. NLRB, the court overturned the NLRB's determination that Detroit News and Free Press had committed an unfair labor practice when it unilaterally implemented a merit pay proposal immediately prior to the beginning of a 19-month strike by newspaper employees. In Pall Corp. v. NLRB, the court overturned the board's determination that it was an unfair labor practice for an employer to unilaterally revoke a contract provision on ways for the union to obtain recognition at other facilities. The DC Circuit also vacated a decision by the board to include handicapped workers at a Goodwill production facility in the same bargaining unit as other employees. The court held that the handicapped workers were not employees. And in C.C. Eastern v. NLRB and North American Van Lines v. NLRB, the court overturned the board's ruling that truck drivers are employees. Instead, the court held that the drivers are independent contractors unprotected by the National Labor Relations Act. Immediately after Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the DC Circuit issued major decisions that protected workers from job-related hazards. The DC Circuit issued a landmark ruling in United Steelworkers of America v. Marshall, which upheld OSHA's standard on lead in the workplace. This case continues to be important, because it upheld basic principles and protections that the agency went on to use in many other workplace safety standards. The DC Circuit also held the OSHA Administrator to a high standard in implementing the law. In 1983, the court ordered OSHA to expedite rulemaking on ethylene oxide, a highly toxic substance used to sterilize medical equipment. In a subsequent case, the court sent an ethylene oxide standard back to OSHA for failure to adopt a short-term exposure limit that would have made the standard more protective. In 1987, after unacceptable delay by OSHA, the court ordered the agency to issue a field sanitation standard requiring toilets and drinking water for farmworkers, to protect them from disease. Today however, employees no longer see the DC Circuit as a court in which to bring worker safety and health actions. Despite the court's earlier willingness to hold OSHA to its statutory mandate to protect workers, workers are turning elsewhere for relief, and big business is counting on the DC Circuit for assistance. It is no accident that the National Association of Manufacturers and other trade associations who filed a lawsuit to overturn OSHA's ergonomics standard chose the DC Circuit to bring their petitions for review. In decades past, the DC Circuit was in the forefront of upholding Federal protections for minorities and women. One of the most notable cases on racial discrimination was a 1969 decision upholding measures to end the overcrowding and segregation of schools in the District of Columbia. In another important decision, the court held that a written examination had a disparate impact on African Americans applying for positions in the police department. The court held that unless the test had sufficient relationship to job performance, it violated the Constitution. The DC Circuit also contributed important precedents for women seeking justice and equality. In Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, female flight attendants were assigned to the all-female ``stewardess'' classification, while men who performed essentially the same job were paid more and called ``pursers.'' The female flight attendants sued Northwest Airlines for sex discrimination. The district court held that Northeast Airlines had violated Federal law, and the DC Circuit upheld the argument that the Equal Pay Act extended to identical jobs, and held that it required equal pay for ``substantially equal'' jobs. This principle was emphasized in Thompson v. Sawyer, involving a claim of sex discrimination by employees of the Government Printing Office. The court held that jobs may be ``substantially equal,'' even it they involve work on different machines or equipment, as long as the skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions are the same. All of these decisions are advancing the cause of equal pay for women in the workplace, enormously important decisions. Because of these decisions, we see further compliance by other companies, knowing that this is the law and it has to be respected. In the late 1970s and mid 1980s, in the area of sexual harassment, the court held in a series of cases that sexual harassment in the workplace violates title VII even when there has been no loss of tangible job benefits. The court also held an employer can be held liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor, even if the employee is unaware of the supervisor's actions. These cases were all important steps on civil rights, enormously important to the kinds of conditions in the workplace, particularly for women on equal pay and also in terms of the issues on sexual harassment. This was major progress in decisions made by the DC Circuit. People say: Why are we so concerned about this particular nominee? I have been trying to review for the Senate, this afternoon, these various areas. Whether we are talking about the environment, whether we are talking about worker safety, whether we are talking about issues on women's rights--equal pay, freedom from harassment--all of these judgments and decisions that have been made by the DC Circuit have advanced the cause of greater protection and greater equality for the citizens in the workplace. These cases were all important steps on civil rights. But when more conservative judges were appointed, the tide began to change. In 1973, the DC Circuit had required the Federal Government to take steps to end segregation in educational institutions receiving Federal funds. But a decade later, by a 6-to-4 vote, the DC Circuit held in Adams v. Richardson that the plaintiffs could not obtain judicial review of the Federal Government's settlement with higher education institutions, despite the Government's abandonment of its own desegregation criteria. The workers and the firms affected by such decisions are well aware that the DC Court of Appeals is a powerful court. This fact is not lost on the current administration. For over two decades, Republican administrations have worked diligently to reshape this court and other courts. Current judicial nominees are clearly being chosen for their ideological beliefs. None of us should have any doubt that the Bush administration is intensely pursing this goal today. The President's nominees to the circuit courts are among the most conservative lawyers and judges in the country. This administration is doing all it can to reshape the Federal judiciary for a generation or more to come in its own conservative image. In doing so, the administration is undermining the enforcement of important environmental, labor, worker safety, immigration, and civil rights laws while advancing harsh new policies. If this administration has its way, we will soon be drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, developing and exploiting wetlands and waterways protected by the Clean Water Act, and undermining policies that protect our environment. If this administration has its way, employees will have fewer labor and workplace protections. If this administration has its way, we will see the continued erosion of civil rights laws. It is obvious that Mr. Estrada has been nominated to a court that is overturning important precedents and moving farther and farther to the right--a court that disregards congressional intent and the letter and spirit of the law it has a duty to respect--courts like the current administration, more interested in serving big business than in serving justice. As I reviewed just briefly why this nominee is so important, we get asked why is this particular nominee so important? As I mentioned, it is the DC Circuit. It is making and has made these judgments time and time again in protecting individuals and the environment and protecting workers. We have seen a significant shift in recent times. What we are trying to find out is what the nominee's views are in the general areas I have mentioned in which this court has such important jurisdiction. We could get no answers on the issue of workers rights, no answers on the issue of civil rights, no answers on the issue of the environment, no answers on the issue of the broad sweep of different questions that come in terms of administrative agencies and the importance, what kind of precedence, what kind of latitude they give to administrative agencies. No, we are not entitled to those answers at all. Absolutely none. We just are denied any kind of opportunity to hear any response as to a court of this importance. We are entitled to hear the nominee, not for his specific outcomes of a particular case but to show an understanding and a grasp and an awareness of the importance of the laws and a sense of the type of commitment he has in terms of fundamental constitutional protections. I urge my colleagues to heed the warnings of the many Latino organizations and leaders who have raised concerns about Mr. Estrada's nomination. As 52 Latino labor leaders have written: America's working families look to the federal courts to protect our rights at work, to stop unfair labor practices by employers, and to ensure that employers respect laws regarding fair pay and equal treatment on the job. Of all the federal courts, none--other than the U.S. Supreme Court--is more important to working people than the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It is in this court that the legal rights of working people are won and lost. After a careful review of Mr. Estrada's record, on behalf of the working families of America, we have decided to oppose the nomination of Miguel Estrada. These concerns are shared by the United Steelworkers of America, the UAW, Community Rights Counsel, Defenders of Wildlife, Earth Justice, the Endangered Species Coalition, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, and many other organizations. Earlier today we had meetings with the leaders of the Hispanic Caucus. They reviewed with us how they have interviewed various nominees over recent years, how they were able to get some kind of a sense, and the degree of support they had given to many other nominees who they had a particular interest in, who had a Hispanic background, and how they interviewed this nominee. I will take some time tomorrow to review in some detail with the Senate their conclusions and their observations. They are the ones who speak for the Hispanic community. They are the ones who understand the hopes and dreams of so many of our Hispanic brothers and sisters. They are the ones who have, through life experience, a keen awareness and understanding about the importance of justice. But some of the statements they made this afternoon, which I found so compelling, were the fact that when the dust settles on the Presidency, whether it is one party or the other, when the final action is taken in the appropriations and the legislative branch, the one place the Hispanics have historically been able to look to and have a sense of confidence has been the American judicial system. They consider it sacrosanct in terms of the types of challenges they are facing daily in our society. They challenge us to preserve that kind of equality. They reviewed in careful detail, not just for us but for Americans, in the form of our meeting this afternoon with the press exactly why they are so strongly opposed to this nominee. I stand with these groups and the millions of Americans they represent and urge the Senate to reject the nomination.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in introducing the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003. This Act continues our Federal commitment to ensuring that the Nation's most vulnerable children are protected and safe. Recent cases of abuse and neglect have made national headlines as local authorities have failed to identify abused children. These failures have led to tragic consequences--the deaths of innocent and unprotected children. Clearly, we must do better--at the national, State, and local levels. And the bill we introduce today will enhance the Federal partnership with local officials to bring greater protection to our children. Since 1974, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, or CAPTA, has been a great support in reaching the nearly 900,000 children who suffer abuse and neglect each year. This year's bipartisan reauthorization of CAPTA will continue and expand that support through FY 2008, and extend CAPTA's related programs, including the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act, the Adoption Opportunities Act, and the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act. Child abuse and neglect continues to be a serious and daunting problem in our nation. In local communities, child protective services agencies bear the responsibility of receiving and investigating reports of child abuse and neglect. Each year those agencies respond to nearly 3 million reports of abuse. It is a tremendous challenge, and caseworkers in local agencies perform an admirable task worthy of our thanks. But despite the hard work of child protective services, nearly half of all children in substantiated cases of abuse receive no follow-up services or support. In 2000, over 900 children under the age of 6 died of abuse and neglect. Those children in desperate circumstances need and deserve our help, and we must do better. The Keeping Children and Families Safe Act will bring us closer toward our goal of responding more effectively to child abuse and neglect. Our bipartisan bill encourages better training and qualifications for child abuse caseworkers, creates linkages to better facilitate referrals for neglected children, and coordinates best practices to improve systems that currently serve and protect children. Actions to prevent and address child abuse and neglect must be strengthened and expanded. This bill will improve current systems of child abuse treatment by coordinating information on best practices among child protective services agencies through the National Child Abuse Clearinghouse, and disseminating those practices that hold promise to improve systems. The bill will also ensure that local citizen review panels oversee, review, and bolster the practices of child protective services. Access to technical assistance and grants will also be broadened to private entities working to prevent and treat child abuse. The identification and treatment of abused children cannot be improved without better preparation of those responsible for investigating abuse and neglect. By improving the training, retention, and supervision of child protective caseworkers, the bill will ensure that children receive the help they need. New training will help caseworkers become familiar with their legal duties and receive guidance on how to best work with families. Training will also be provided to protect the personal safety of caseworkers as they enter homes to investigate allegations of abuse. More must also be done to ensure that abused children receive ongoing support and services. This bill will encourage states to adopt a comprehensive approach to treating and preventing abuse by linking child protective services and education, health, mental health, and judicial systems to more effectively follow-up with support and services to abused and neglected children. The bill will also promote partnerships between public agencies and community-based organizations to support child abuse prevention and treatment. I am pleased that the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act continues the legacy of the late Senator Wellstone in combating domestic violence and addressing its impact on children. It is estimated that 10 million children witness physical abuse between their parents each year, damaging their emotional and physical well being, and causing difficulties later in life. Under this Act, new grants will be awarded, once appropriations for the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act reach $150 million, to address the physical and emotional needs of children who witness violence in their homes. Those funds will support direct services and interventions for children who witness domestic violence, bringing together child welfare agencies, courts, law enforcement, and other appropriate entities. This Act also supports a new electronic network to connect victims of domestic violence and support organizations and networks in local communities. This network will enhance the current national domestic violence hotline, which serves as a vital resource for victims of domestic abuse 24-hours-a-day, 365 days a year. The hotline currently provides support and assistance to 300 to 400 callers a day. We must do more to help children and their families overcome the harmful effects of abuse, neglect, and violence. The Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 is a step in the right direction toward that goal, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in introducing the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003. This Act continues our Federal commitment to ensuring that the Nation's most vulnerable children are protected and safe. Recent cases of abuse and neglect have made national headlines as local authorities have failed to identify abused children. These failures have led to tragic consequences--the deaths of innocent and unprotected children. Clearly, we must do better--at the national, State, and local levels. And the bill we introduce today will enhance the Federal partnership with local officials to bring greater protection to our children. Since 1974, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, or CAPTA, has been a great support in reaching the nearly 900,000 children who suffer abuse and neglect each year. This year's bipartisan reauthorization of CAPTA will continue and expand that support through FY 2008, and extend CAPTA's related programs, including the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act, the Adoption Opportunities Act, and the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act. Child abuse and neglect continues to be a serious and daunting problem in our nation. In local communities, child protective services agencies bear the responsibility of receiving and investigating reports of child abuse and neglect. Each year those agencies respond to nearly 3 million reports of abuse. It is a tremendous challenge, and caseworkers in local agencies perform an admirable task worthy of our thanks. But despite the hard work of child protective services, nearly half of all children in substantiated cases of abuse receive no follow-up services or support. In 2000, over 900 children under the age of 6 died of abuse and neglect. Those children in desperate circumstances need and deserve our help, and we must do better. The Keeping Children and Families Safe Act will bring us closer toward our goal of responding more effectively to child abuse and neglect. Our bipartisan bill encourages better training and qualifications for child abuse caseworkers, creates linkages to better facilitate referrals for neglected children, and coordinates best practices to improve systems that currently serve and protect children. Actions to prevent and address child abuse and neglect must be strengthened and expanded. This bill will improve current systems of child abuse treatment by coordinating information on best practices among child protective services agencies through the National Child Abuse Clearinghouse, and disseminating those practices that hold promise to improve systems. The bill will also ensure that local citizen review panels oversee, review, and bolster the practices of child protective services. Access to technical assistance and grants will also be broadened to private entities working to prevent and treat child abuse. The identification and treatment of abused children cannot be improved without better preparation of those responsible for investigating abuse and neglect. By improving the training, retention, and supervision of child protective caseworkers, the bill will ensure that children receive the help they need. New training will help caseworkers become familiar with their legal duties and receive guidance on how to best work with families. Training will also be provided to protect the personal safety of caseworkers as they enter homes to investigate allegations of abuse. More must also be done to ensure that abused children receive ongoing support and services. This bill will encourage states to adopt a comprehensive approach to treating and preventing abuse by linking child protective services and education, health, mental health, and judicial systems to more effectively follow-up with support and services to abused and neglected children. The bill will also promote partnerships between public agencies and community-based organizations to support child abuse prevention and treatment. I am pleased that the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act continues the legacy of the late Senator Wellstone in combating domestic violence and addressing its impact on children. It is estimated that 10 million children witness physical abuse between their parents each year, damaging their emotional and physical well being, and causing difficulties later in life. Under this Act, new grants will be awarded, once appropriations for the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act reach $150 million, to address the physical and emotional needs of children who witness violence in their homes. Those funds will support direct services and interventions for children who witness domestic violence, bringing together child welfare agencies, courts, law enforcement, and other appropriate entities. This Act also supports a new electronic network to connect victims of domestic violence and support organizations and networks in local communities. This network will enhance the current national domestic violence hotline, which serves as a vital resource for victims of domestic abuse 24-hours-a-day, 365 days a year. The hotline currently provides support and assistance to 300 to 400 callers a day. We must do more to help children and their families overcome the harmful effects of abuse, neglect, and violence. The Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 is a step in the right direction toward that goal, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend my friend and colleague from California for an excellent presentation to the Senate outlining the historic responsibilities that the executive and the Senate have in meeting all of our responsibilities to ensure we have qualified members on the courts of this country. She gave an excellent analysis of both the past activities of the court and rebutting a number of the misrepresentations that have been made about those who have raised serious questions about this nominee. I thought the Senator from California summarized in an important way the compelling reasons why many of us have reservations about this nominee. I thank her very much for the statement, and I hope our colleagues will pay close attention to it. One of the most important functions of the Senate is its constitutionally mandated advise-and-consent role in the selection of judges. This role is meant to ensure the appointees to the Federal courts are independent and fair judges, who hear all cases with an open mind, independent of the political process but also of personal ideology. We have all asked at one time or another what is the criteria we use in the advise-and-consent role. I have over time supported the idea that, obviously, enormous deference is given at the time a President is elected to the fact that he or she ought to be able to have the advisers of their choice. That is a period of time, before the President's term expires, when there ought to be at least a willingness to give any benefit of the doubt to those nominees. Then we have independent agencies which go on for a period of time beyond the time of a given President, and we advise and consent on those nominees. And then we have the Federal courts. If we make a mistake in terms of a particular judge, we have the circuit courts to which matters can be appealed, and then ultimately the Supreme Court. Our highest value is focused on the Supreme Court--lifetime appointments, and under the distribution of powers defined in the Constitution, a shared power with the President appointing and the Senate giving its advice and consent. It is a shared power. Many assume the Senate of the United States should rubberstamp a nominee; if we cannot find something wrong with a nominee, that we should give our stamped approval. That clearly is in conflict with the views of our Founding Fathers and in conflict with the great traditions of this institution. We have a very high standard when it comes to this particular court because, although it is not the Supreme Court, it is a lesser court, of the very special responsibilities and unique responsibilities it has. Therefore, we have a duty to find out the views and commitments of a nominee to the core values of the Constitution, not expecting that a nominee is going to answer a question about a particular case or a particular outcome, but talk about their views, their developed views, their mature views about constitutional values, issues on civil rights, issues on the first amendment, on the role of the Congress in terms of our responsibilities in meeting the general welfare clause, the separation of church and State, the issues of privacy and other civil rights issues--all of these matters which are of enormous importance and consequence to the people of this country in which we have seen a generation struggle and individuals in a number of instances give their lives to these causes. We have a very special and important responsibility to make sure those words that are above the Justice Department, ``Equal Justice Under Law,'' are going to be equal justice under law for every person in this country. There is, I believe, a responsibility, not just to any member of the Judiciary Committee, not just to the Judiciary Committee, but to the American people, that a nominee has because we act as their agents in terms of our votes, and there is a responsibility to the American people that a nominee will at least talk about the Constitution and talk about these fundamental values and what the Constitution means. That has been the time-honored tradition of a nominee, going back for pretty much the history of this country. In this instance, there is such a complete contrast. There is an individual who will not give any information, or respond to any of the constitutional issues he was asked, not just by any single member, but by all the members, and also a refusal to provide the material which other nominees for other positions have provided in the past. Judge Bork provided material when he was a nominee for the Supreme Court; Brad Reynolds, when he was being considered as head of the Civil Rights Division, and other nominees, Republicans and Democrats alike. With Mr. Estrada, no; no, we are not going to provide that information to the Judiciary Committee. No, we are not going to answer questions about views on the Constitution. No, we are not going to provide past work. No, we are not going to provide that. No, we are not going to give that information. And yet we expect somehow the Senate will go ahead and give its approval to a nominee who comes to this nomination. I congratulate Mr. Estrada. He comes to this position on the basis of very humble roots and a life of personal achievement. Does that guarantee one will hold a position on the district court because one has had that experience? Should that entitle someone? Should one think of serving on the courts as an entitlement or as a reward? Clearly not. There are too many issues involving the everyday life experience of American citizens that are being decided by that court and that will affect the lives of individuals in this country. Therefore, this is too important a position for anyone, as talented as they are and as unique as their past experience, to expect they are just going to be in a privileged position and not have to be responsive to the inquiries of the members of the committee. That is the dilemma in which we find ourselves with this particular nominee. The Senator from California reviewed the facts, and I wish to address them as well this afternoon. Mr. President, we also heard important testimony about the judgment, temperament, and the commitment to statutory projections and core constitutional values that are necessary to serve as a Federal judge, especially on a court as important as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Then we have had the assault and attack on those who question his core commitment to the values of the Constitution, but the fact is, we do not know because he refused to answer the most basic questions. We heard the pillorying by many who expressed opinions in opposition to Mr. Estrada, and their characters were assaulted as well, I think unfairly and unjustly. We would not have to resort to the opinions of others if Mr. Estrada had been willing to respond to the questions. Mr. Estrada has refused to answer the basic questions posed to him in the confirmation process. As I mentioned, the White House refused to release the materials necessary for a full review of his qualifications. With this troubling and inadequate record, I do not believe Mr. Estrada should be confirmed to this important court, the second most powerful court in the Nation. The Federal courts have the power to make far-reaching decisions affecting lives of people and the life of our Nation. We have the responsibility to ensure that the people who serve on the courts will protect important constitutional and statutory rights. I do not believe Mr. Estrada is such a person. Although he is a distinguished legal advocate, his commitment to core constitutional values is far from clear. Mr. Estrada prevented us from learning much at all about his legal and constitutional philosophy, and throughout this process he has evaded even the most basic questions concerning how he would serve as a judge. In addition, Mr. Estrada and the administration refused to produce the documents from Mr. Estrada's time in government practice that might have helped us answer questions. So these are very serious problems, and they would require this body to reject any nominee who came before it. Unfortunately, some of our Republican colleagues have decided it is in their best interest to claim that we are opposing Mr. Estrada because he is Latino. This irresponsible accusation is absurd. It is belied by the strong history of those who are members of our party who have fought for opening the doors for all minorities in America, including Latinos. The Republican accusation is also dangerous and destructive. It has even been said that if we did not confirm Mr. Estrada to the DC Circuit, we would shut the door on the American dream of Hispanic Americans everywhere. Nothing could be further from the truth. As they say in sports, let's look at the record. In fact, President Clinton nominated 11 Latinos to the Nation's most powerful courts. He nominated 21 Latinos to the district courts. For these nominees, achieving the American dream meant being sensitive to the core values that make this country strong, that are embodied in the words at the entrance to the Supreme Court: ``Equal justice under law.'' Nonetheless, Republicans unfairly blocked many of these nominees. Not only these nominees, but I remember Bill Lann Lee who was an Asian American, who was denied the opportunity to have a vote. He was absolutely an extraordinary and distinguished nominee whose life experience in many respects was similar, if not more compelling, in terms of his own personal success. He came from extraordinarily humble beginnings. He did not speak the language. He worked his way through school, was able to get a scholarship, I believe to Yale University. He had an absolutely distinguished record, went on as a lawyer to help knock down the walls of discrimination. He was selected as the head of the Civil Rights Division. He had just about every defendant against whom he had tried a case over the period of his career--a young man came before the committee and said: Look, we differed with Bill Lann Lee on the issues of the facts, but we want to tell this committee that this was an extraordinary lawyer who did a lawyer's job in understanding the law when arguing his case. We had nothing but the highest regard and respect for his presentation, his ability, and the way he conducted himself. Senators testified to this before the Judiciary Committee. But was Bill Lann Lee able to get a vote in the Judiciary Committee? No, absolutely not. Do you think he was able to get consideration on the floor of the Senate? No, he was denied that. With all of the hopes and dreams there were for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of Asian Americans and the hopes and dreams of all of his family and relatives, he was denied confirmation and turned back. We will let the other side give the explanations for that. But this outstanding nominee, who eventually had a temporary appointment to the Justice Department and did an extraordinary job, was denied the opportunity to be voted on. The Bush White House, by contrast, until a short time ago, has nominated only one Latino to the court of appeals, and that is Mr. Estrada. One of the most important functions of the Senate is constitutional advice and consent. We cannot perform this function if we are not allowed access to the nominee's record, and by refusing to provide the Senate with the most important memoranda produced by Mr. Estrada when he was in the Solicitor's Office, the administration is trying to prevent us from performing our constitutional duty. The administration's refusal to provide these memoranda is not based in law or precedent. Past administrations have disclosed the legal memos in connection with both judicial and executive nominations. We have repeatedly made the administration aware of the clear precedence on the disclosure of confidential internal documents relating to the nominations of several judges, including Robert Bork to become Associate Justice on the Supreme Court, Brad Reynolds as Assistant Attorney General, Benjamin Civiletti to become Attorney General, Stephen Trott to become a judge on the Ninth Circuit, Justice Rehnquist to become Chief Justice. In some of those instances, they made those memoranda available only to the members of the committee, and then they asked us for the memoranda back. Agreements were worked out with the members of the Judiciary Committee. But not with regard to this nominee. We were effectively denied all of this. Justice Rehnquist, Bradford Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Benjamin Civiletti to become Attorney General, Robert Bork to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court--we were able to get those memoranda. But not from Mr. Estrada. They told us: You cannot have the memoranda. And we have a nominee who will not answer any questions on this. Then Members are asked why they are concerned about this process. Indeed, the administration has itself disclosed the past memoranda for purposes of evaluating its nominees. The Bush White House disclosed legal memoranda written by an attorney in the White House Counsel's Office in connection with the nomination of Jeffrey Holmstead for the position of assistant administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency. They are prepared to give all of the memoranda to the appropriate committees for Jeffrey Holmstead, when he was in the White House Counsel's Office in connection with a position as assistant administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, but they will not give it to the Senate for a nominee for the DC Circuit in our Nation's Capital. Why is that? Why do they give it on the one hand and refuse to give it on the other? What is the justification that they do not have to do it? Then they list a number of prominent figures, many of them Democrats, who say they are under no obligation to do it. But clearly, in the past, under Republicans and Democrats, when there has been an interest in trying to reach accommodation and to have an understanding about the nominees, there has been a willingness to do it. But, no, they are not going to do it. We can only assume that the Administration's inconsistent position means that it has something to hide in Mr. Estrada's memoranda. Given the administration's recalcitrance about providing the Estrada memoranda, the Senate is left with very little to review to assure ourselves that Mr. Estrada has the commitment to constitutional and statutory protections necessary to serve on the DC Circuit. What little we do know is very troubling because Mr. Estrada's direct supervisor in the office has raised questions about whether Mr. Estrada had the necessary temperament to sit on the DC Circuit. As my friend and colleague from California has pointed out, Mr. Bender has stated that those statements he made were entirely true and he still stands by them. We will hear a brutal assault on Mr. Bender and his character. We have heard it previously in the Judiciary Committee, and we have heard it here. He is an outstanding individual, a former clerk to Justice Frankfurter. He argued before the Supreme Court, had an extraordinary and distinguished record, but we will hear him assaulted because he has questioned the temperament of Mr. Estrada. These serious allegations require some response on the merits and some evidence to the contrary. Instead, some of my colleagues in the Senate have responded by attacking Mr. Bender. Mr. Bender is not alone in the assessment of Mr. Estrada. It has been reported that some of Mr. Estrada's colleagues have said he is not open-minded and he ``does not listen to other people.'' After an in-depth meeting with Mr. Estrada, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus said he appeared to have a short fuse and did not have the judicial temperament necessary to be a judge. According to the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, with whom Mr. Estrada met, he is not even-tempered and he became angry during their meetings with him and even threatened the group with legal action because they raised concerns about his record. Now, we have that information, but we are denied any information on the other side. Anyone who has questioned Mr. Estrada finds they are questioned themselves. But we are denied the information that may reflect an entirely different temperament. Some of our Republican colleagues have said Democrats who oppose Mr. Estrada's nomination are motivated by his ethnic background, but these reports that raise serious concern about Mr. Estrada come from some of the most important Latino organizations in the country. These groups correctly point out that Mr. Estrada had not taken any steps to reflect or serve his community and has never provided any pro bono legal expertise, supported or joined or participated in events of any organization dedicated to serving or advancing the Latino community, never made any efforts to open the doors of opportunity for Latino law students or junior lawyers. Mr. Estrada appears to be committed neither to his community nor to an open, fair, and impartial judicial process. Mr. Estrada has attempted in the past to limit the first amendment rights of minorities. I have inquired about his standing in this particular case. He sits on the board of the Center for Community Interest which advocates for police tactics that have often led to harassment and racial profiling, and his efforts reflect a lack of concern for important American ideals. In a case heard by the Supreme Court, Chicago v. Morales, he represented the U.S. Conference of Mayors in an amicus brief defending a tenant-loitering ordinance in Chicago. The Center for Community Interest also submitted a brief in support of the ordinance. The Chicago antiloitering ordinance applied to any group of two or more individuals who gather, with no apparent purpose, in any public place, including streets, parks, restaurants, or any other location open to the public, and mandated if a police officer reasonably believed any of the individuals to be a gang member, he could order all of the individuals, including those not suspected of gang membership, to disperse and remove themselves from the area. The Supreme Court found the ordinance violated the due process clause of the 14th amendment. It held the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague because it did not provide adequate notice of the prescribed conduct and did not set minimum guidelines for law enforcement. At his hearing, Mr. Estrada suggested that minority lawmakers supported the antiloitering ordinance. This is false. In fact, the ordinance was initiated by residents in a predominantly white neighborhood, and drawn up by several white aldermen. The majority of the African American aldermen on the Chicago City Council voted against it. Several aldermen compared it to an apartheid-era law in South Africa. When the case came before the Supreme Court, many of the civil rights minority groups joined amicus briefs against the ordinance, including the National Council of La Raza, Mexican American Legal Defense, and the NAACP. Before I come back to that issue, I take a moment to discuss the opposition to Mr. Estrada's nomination that has been voiced by some of these groups. Let me finish with the legal defense. Now we had the holding by the Supreme Court in finding that the Chicago ordinance was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said the broad antiloitering ordinance in the Chicago-Morales case was unconstitutional. Mr. Estrada devoted man-hours in defending the City of Annapolis following this against the challenges to the Constitution of a similar antiloitering ordinance. When the NAACP challenged the ordinance, he would take the city's case all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, free of charge. Mr. Estrada lost that case, too, however, after a district court struck down the law as unconstitutional. Here he went all the way to the Supreme Court on the antiloitering. The Supreme Court made a finding, and then he takes the time to go right back to another antiloitering ordinance and insists on taking all of that and it was struck down in the district. It is difficult to understand on an issue such as that why he would have been so involved in that kind of continued activity when it reaches issues involving the first amendment. I am deeply concerned by Mr. Estrada's intense focus on enforcing an antiloitering ordinance. As MALDEF noted, many of the individuals who are targeted under such ordinances are minorities. Often Latino urban youth are harassed by police enforcing such ordinances, and day laborers--most often newly arrived immigrants--congregating on particular streets waiting to be offered a manual labor job are often targeted. Mr. Estrada does not seem to appreciate this effect on the minority population and did not let it affect his defense of those statutes. Other statements by Mr. Estrada raise additional concern about his commitment to civil rights, expressing skepticism about affirmative action. The DC Circuit has become closely divided on affirmative action and public employment programs, and a narrow majority of the DC Circuit held the Federal Government cannot require broadcasters to conduct targeted outreach to minorities and women even for the purpose of increasing the pool of qualified applicants. According to MALDEF, in meetings where Mr. Estrada has answered questions, he has made statements about affirmative action, calling into question whether he would find a compelling interest to justify such programs. Mr. Estrada indicated he has not raised the issue of diversity in places where he has worked and he would not be particularly vigilant about giving opportunities to Hispanic clerks. Mr. Estrada was asked about the possible reason for the lack of minority law clerks by a reporter for USA Today. According to the article, Mr. Estrada dismissed statistics showing little representation of minorities and indicated if there was some reason for underrepresentation, it would be something to look into, but I don't have any reason to see it as other than a trend in society. This is contrasted with quotes of others saying there are a variety of reasons for the lack of minority clerks. All of these aspects of Mr. Estrada's prior work indicate he would not bring a fair and open mind and sensible judicial temperament and commitment to civil rights and equal opportunity to the bench. During the course of the hearing on Mr. Estrada, he did little to allay our concerns about his record. In fact, many concerns were actually intensified by Mr. Estrada's unwillingness to respond to even the most basic and innocuous questions about his views. For instance, Mr. Estrada refused to name a single Supreme Court case of which he was critical. In addition, Chairman Leahy asked Mr. Estrada whether an employer or school could take race or ethnicity into consideration in hiring admissions and Mr. Estrada refused to give any opinion on the matter. Chairman Leahy asked Mr. Estrada what he thought about the Supreme Court decision in Romer v. Evans, a decision he was purported to criticize, and he refused to agree whether he agreed with the decision, stating because he did not hear the arguments he could not have an opinion. At the same time, Mr. Estrada gave contradictory answers in response to a series of questions about whether he had an applied ideological litmus test to clerks. I take a moment or two again to underline the importance of the DC Circuit Court. Mr. Estrada's nomination is particularly troubling, given the importance of the DC Circuit to issues of concerns for a broad range of Americans seeking to enforce their basic rights. The DC Circuit is widely regarded as the second most important court in the United States, behind only the Supreme Court. With a unique and prominent role among the Federal Courts of Appeal, particularly in the area of administrative law, it has exclusive jurisdiction over many workplace, environmental, civil rights, and consumer protection statutes. Because the Supreme Court grants reviews of only a small number of lower court decisions, most administrative law is established by the DC Circuit. Despite the importance of the DC Circuit to a broad array of Americans, some Republicans have worked to undo any balance on the court. During the Clinton administration, the Senate, controlled by Republicans, refused to approve two of President Clinton's nominees to the DC Circuit, Elena Kagan and Allan Snyder. Last fall's hearing for Mr. Estrada was the first hearing for a nominee to the DC Circuit in 5 years. No questions were raised about the qualifications of either Ms. Kagan or Mr. Snyder. Both had stellar qualifications. Nevertheless, hearings for these nominations were delayed. After they finally received hearings, they were refused a vote in the committee or on the floor. Many Republicans argued that the DC Circuit did not need any more judges. Yet shortly after President Bush was elected, two judges were nominated for the court. I see my good friend and colleague from New York here, Senator Schumer. I know others want to speak about this important issue. The DC Circuit Court has a major influence on decisions involving the National Labor Relations Board. The National Labor Relations Board is the arbiter of disputes between workers and employers. We have a process where that board is to work and work effectively. There has been enormous deference given to administrative boards by the circuits generally, and by the DC Circuit in particular, but that is no longer the case. We are finding increasing numbers of decisions that are made by the National Labor Relations Board appealed to the DC Circuit and effectively overturned. This has an enormous impact and affect on workers' rights, with all of the implications that workers' rights have in terms of health care policy, in terms of wages, and in terms of pensions. This DC Circuit Court has great influence on whether our occupational health and safety laws are going to be enforced. We have seen over the period of recent times a reduction in funding for the enforcement of these laws. That has been true. But, nonetheless, some of these find their way on up to the DC Circuit Court. Having someone there who is going to understand the law, understand the importance of that legislation, and who can interpret that legislation in a fair and reasonable way is going to be enormously important if we want safety in the workplace. The DC Circuit Court is the court that makes those judgments and decisions. We have seen what has happened, even since OSHA has been enacted. We have reduced the number of deaths in the workplace by half. We see a number of other new challenges coming in the workplace in more recent times. Nonetheless, it has been effective legislation. Do you care about wetlands, do you care about clean air, do you care about clean water? The D.C. Circuit Court is the final court that is going to be making judgments on these environmental issues. We have seen where the administration has gone ahead and cut back on the protection of those environmental issues. We have already seen the appeals working their way through the courts and they are going to end up to the DC Circuit courts. Do you care about clean air? Do you care about clean water? Do you care about the environment? The DC Circuit Court is where these matters are going to be decided. Do we have anything from Mr. Estrada to indicate whether he has any interest at all in protecting the environment? Whether he has any interest at all in workplace justice? Any interest at all in workplace safety? It just goes on from there. The D.C. Circuit will also hear cases on civil liberties. In the past, the wiretap issue has come up in the appeals process. Are we going to be a country that protects its Constitution? The list goes on, issue after issue, defining what this country stands for. In terms of protecting rights, the D.C. Court is the court. To stonewall the committee on each and every one of these subjects, as the nominee has done, refusing to talk about any of them, I think reflects a contemptuous attitude towards the whole nomination process. In that way, he is not worthy to receive the support of the Senate of the United States. To reiterate, one of the most important functions of the Senate is its constitutionally mandated advice and consent role in the selection of Federal judges. This role is meant to ensure that appointees to the federal courts are independent and fair judges who hear all cases with an open mind, independent not only of the political process but also of personal ideology. Miguel Estrada does not fit this model. He lacks the judgment, temperament, and commitment to statutory protections and core constitutional values that are necessary to serve as a Federal judge, especially on a court as important as the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He has refused to answer many basic questions posed to him in the confirmation process, and the White House has refused to release the materials necessary for a full review of his qualifications. On this troubling and inadequate record, Mr. Estrada should not be confirmed to this important court, the second most powerful court in the nation. We cannot stand by and allow a Republican White House and Republican- controlled Senate to steamroll the confirmation of controversial nominees like Mr. Estrada, who would undermine the important role of the Federal courts as a place for a full, fair, and impartial hearing. The Federal courts have the power to make far- reaching decisions affecting the lives of our people and the life of our Nation. We have the responsibility to ensure that the people who serve on these courts will protect important constitutional and statutory rights. Mr. Estrada is not such a person. Although he is a distinguished legal advocate, his commitment to core constitutional values is far from clear. Mr. Estrada has prevented us from learning much at all about his legal or constitutional philosophy. Throughout this process, he has evaded even the most basic questions concerning how he would serve as a judge. In addition, Mr. Estrada and the administration have refused to produce documents from Mr. Estrada's time in government practice that might help us answer questions about his record and the approach he would bring to judging. These are very serious problems, and they would require this body to reject any nominee who came before it. Some of our Republican colleagues, unfortunately, have decided it is in their interest to claim that we are opposing Mr. Estrada because he is Latino. This irresponsible accusation is absurd. It is belied by a strong history in the Democratic Party of opening doors for all minorities in America, including Latinos. The Republicans' accusation is also dangerous and destructive. It has even been said that if we do not confirm Mr. Estrada to the D.C. Circuit, we would ``shut the door on the American dream of Hispanic-Americans everywhere.'' Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, President Clinton nominated 11 Latinos to the Nation's powerful appellate courts. He nominated 21 Latinos to the district courts. For these nominees, achieving the American dream meant being sensitive to the core values that make this country strong, and that are embodied by the words above the entrance to the Supreme Court: ``equal justice under law.'' Nonetheless, Republicans unfairly blocked many of these nominees. The Bush White House, by contrast, has, until last week, nominated only one Latino to the courts of appeals: Mr. Estrada. The White House and some Senate Republicans have complained that Senate Democrats have not supported Mr. Estrada because he is Latino. We should not lightly accuse other Members of this body of such prejudice, but make no mistake: That is exactly what some Republicans are accusing Democrats of. The record belies this accusation. Until last week, President Bush had nominated 130 people to the Federal courts. Out of those 130 nominees, there were only 8 Latinos. Six of these Latino nominees were confirmed last session when Democrats controlled the Senate. The record is clear that Senate Democrats are eager to see the diversity of the Federal bench increased by confirming Latino nominees, even when those nominees come from a Republican White House. Senate Democrats have eagerly confirmed Latino nominees, even when those Latino nominees are relatively conservative. So when some Members of the Senate say that Democrats have a different standard for Latino nominees, that accusation is unfounded. Nonetheless, these accusations have continued. It is a dangerous and irresponsible attempt to play politics with important issues of race, and frankly it is beneath the dignity of this body. For example, Senator Lott has said quite bluntly that Democrats ``don't want Miguel Estrada because he's Hispanic.'' Senator Hatch has said that Democrats are creating a glass ceiling for Latinos, so that ``if they do not think a certain liberal way . . . then they are not good enough.'' Senator Domenici has said that he is perilously close to saving our opposition to Miguel Estrada's nomination is because of his race. Senator Domenici is right about one thing, these statements are perilous. They are also just plain wrong. During the last Democratic administration, 23 Latino nominees were confirmed to the Federal court--more than in any prior administration, Republican or Democrat. It has been Senate Republicans who have unfairly blocked the confirmation of Latino nominees. The Republican-controlled Senate refused to confirm eight Latino nominees. No one accused Republicans of prejudice. Jorge Rangel and Enrique Moreno, both nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals from Texas, were not even afforded hearings by the Republicans. Still, no one cried prejudice. Mr. Rangel and Mr. Moreno each waited more than a year in the Senate. When Senate Republicans refused to give these nominees a hearing, their nominations were returned to the White House. President Clinton renominated Enrique Moreno, but President Bush withdrew his nomination. In his place, President Bush nominated Judge Pickering and Justice Owen, two divisive and controversial nominees with very troubling records on issues such as civil rights. Just as disturbing, Senate Republicans expressed the notion that Mr. Moreno may not have been qualified for the position. Mr. Moreno, like Mr. Estrada, was a Harvard-educated lawyer who was adjudged well- qualified by the American Bar Association. Mr. Moreno was eminently qualified for the position, but Senate Republicans disparaged him without even affording him a hearing. Still, we did not say this was the result of bigotry. Other Hispanic-Americans who were never confirmed by the Republican- controlled Senate include Christine Arguello, nominated to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals from Colorado; Ricardo Morado, nominated to the District Court in Texas; and Anabelle Rodriguez, nominated twice to the District Court in Puerto Rico. None of these qualified individuals were confirmed by the Republicans. Mr. Estrada, on the other hand, received a hearing from the Democratic-controlled Senate. We wanted to look into his record and see what kind of judge he would be. But we were blocked at every turn. The Bush administration refused to let us look at some of Mr. Estrada's most important work as a Deputy Solicitor General in the Justice Department. Mr. Estrada himself has refused to answer questions about his views on the law and the courts. We have serious concerns about Mr. Estrada that have nothing to do with his ethnic background. We have been prevented from learning anything about him. We certainly have not been allowed to learn enough to justify support for this nomination. Our Republican colleagues also claim that Mr. Estrada ``has tremendous support among Hispanic people.'' In fact, major Latino organizations have raised strong concerns about Mr. Estrada. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has opposed his nomination. Other Latino organizations that have opposed or raised concerns about Mr. Estrada include: the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the National Council of La Raza, the California La Raza Lawyers, the Southwest Voter Registration Project and the Illinois Puerto Rican Bar Association. These groups represent a wide array of views and the broad diversity of the Latino community. Listen to what they say about him, and why they oppose him. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has said: The appointment of a Latino to reflect diversity is rendered meaningless unless the nominee can demonstrate an understanding of the historical role courts have played in the lives of minorities in extending equal protections and rights; has some involvement in the Latino community that provides insight into the values and mores of the Latino culture in order to understand the unique legal challenges facing Latinos; and recognizes both the role model responsibilities he or she assumes as well as having an appreciation for protecting and promoting the legal rights of minorities who historically have been the victims of discrimination. Based on the totality of the nominee's available record and our meeting with him, Mr. Estrada fails to meet the CHCs criteria for endorsing a nominee. In our opinion, his lack of judicial experience coupled with a failure to recognize or display an interest in the needs of the Hispanic community do not support an appointment to the federal judiciary. There is no mention of the fact that Mr. Estrada is conservative. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus did not come out against the other Latino nominees put forward by the Bush administration. Their opposition is grounded in the fact that Mr. Estrada himself does not reflect the views of the Latino community, and that he has shown to be unable or unwilling to set aside his conservative ideology in his legal analysis. The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund issued a statement opposing Mr. Estrada last Monday, stating: The most difficult situation for any Latino organization is when a President nominates a Latino who does not reflect, resonate or associate with the Latino community, and who comes with a predisposition to view claims of racial discrimination and unfair treatment with suspicion and doubt instead of with an open mind. Unfortunately, the only Latino who President Bush has nominated in two years to any federal circuit court in the county is such a person. President Bush nominated Mr. Estrada to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. After a thorough examination of his record, his confirmation hearing testimony, and his written answers to the U.S. Senate, we announce today our formal opposition to his nomination. Is this the racism that Senator Domenici is perilously close to claiming? No. These groups and others raise serious concerns about Mr. Estrada's ability or willingness to be sensitive to the needs Latino and other minority communities. Other groups have echoed these concerns. The Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund also oppose his nomination. They have stated: We strongly believe that Mr. Estrada's nomination should be opposed and rejected. Potential nominees who aspire to such important positions as circuit judges should be better qualified and possess the unquestioned ability to be fair, open-minded and committed to equal justice for all Americans. They should be connected to the real-world concerns of the people who will be governed by their decisions. They should also be even-tempered. In our view, Mr. Estrada clearly does not possess the qualities necessary to be placed in such an important position of trust--for a lifetime--interpreting and guarding the rights of ordinary Americans. These groups and others like them raise serious concerns about this nominee. They certainly are not opposed to Mr. Estrada because of his race, and neither are the Senate Democrats who feel that this nominee lacks the judgment and temperament to serve on the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. One of the most important functions of the Senate is our constitutional advice and consent role. We cannot perform this function, however, when we are not allowed access to a nominee's record. By refusing to provide the Senate with the important memoranda produced by Mr. Estrada when he was in the Solicitor General's office, the administration is trying to prevent us from performing our constitutional duty. The administration's refusal to provide these memoranda is not based in law or precedent. Past administrations have disclosed legal memos in connection with both judicial and executive nominations, including the nominations of justice Rehnquist to be Chief Justice of the United States, and of Stephen Trott to be a judge on the Ninth Circuit. Indeed, this administration has itself disclosed past memoranda for purposes of evaluating its nominees, including the nomination of Jeffrey Holmstead for the position of Assistant Administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency. We can only assume that the administration's inconsistent position means that it has some thing to hide in Mr. Estrada's memoranda. Given the administration's recalcitrance about providing Mr. Estada's memoranda, the Senate is left with very little to review to assure ourselves that Mr. Estrada has the commitment to constitutional and statutory protections necessary to serve on the D.C. Circuit. What little we do know is very troubling. Mr. Estrada's direct supervisor in the Office of the Solicitor General has raised questions about whether Mr. Estrada has the necessary temperament and moderation to sit on the D.C. Circuit. Mr. Bender is not alone in this assessment of Mr. Estrada. It has been reported that some of Mr. Estrada's colleagues have said that he is not open-minded and that he ``does not listen to other people.'' After an in-depth meeting with Mr. Estrada, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus stated that Mr. Estrada appeared to have a ``very short fuse'' and that he did not ``have the judicial temperament that is necessary to be a judge.'' According to the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, with whom Mr. Estrada met, he is not ``even- tempered''--indeed he became angry during their meetings with him, and he even threatened the group with legal action because they had raised concerns about this record. Some of our Republican colleagues have said that Democrats opposed to Mr. Estrada's nomination are motivated by his ethnic background, but these reports that raise serious concerns about Mr. Estrada come from some of the most important and committed Latino organizations in the country. These groups correctly point out that Mr. Estrada has not taken any steps to reflect or serve his community. He has never provided any pro bono legal expertise to the Latino community. He has never joined, supported, volunteered for or participated in events of any organization dedicated to serving and advancing the Latino community. And he has never made any efforts to open doors of opportunity to Latino law students or junior lawyers. Mr. Estrada appears to be committed neither to his community, nor to an open, fair and impartial judicial process. Mr. Estrada has attempted in the past to limit the first amendment rights of minorities. He even sits on the board of the Center for Community Interest, which advocates for police tactics that have often led to harassment and racial profiling in minority communities. His efforts reflect a startling lack of concern for important American ideals. In a case heard by the Supreme Court, Chicago versus Morales, Mr. Estrada represented the U.S. Conference of Mayors in an amicus brief defending an antiloitering ordinance in Chicago. The Chicago antiloitering ordinance applied to any group of two or more individuals who gather with ``no apparent purpose'' in any public place including streets, parks, restaurants, and any other location open to the public. The ordinance allowed police to disperse any group of two or more individuals, so long as they reasonably believed any of the individuals to be a gang member. The Center for Community Interest also submitted a brief in support of the ordinance. Many civil rights and minority groups joined amicus briefs against the ordinance, including the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, and the NAACP. The Supreme Court found that the ordinance violated the Due Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment. I want to take a moment here and discuss the opposition to Mr. Estrada's nomination that has been voiced by some of the groups that argued against the Chicago ordinance. These groups, including the National Council of La Raza and MALDEF have understandably opposed Mr. Estrada's nomination. Some of my Republican colleagues would have you believe that this opposition, which I share, is somehow on account of his ethnic background. It is not. One of our colleagues has said of Democrats that ``if you're a conservative and a minority, we hate you.'' In fact, the Democratic-led Senate has confirmed a number of Latino judges who have been nominated by the conservative White House. We confirmed Judge Christina Armijo, Judge Phillip Martinez, Judge Jose Martinez, Magistrate Judge Alia Ludlum, Randy Crane, and Judge Jose Linares. Mr. Estrada is opposed, not because he is Latino, but because what little record we have been allowed to review shows that he is not concerned with important constitutional rights, and he is unable to separate his ideology from his legal analysis. Even after the clear rebuke from the Supreme Court about broad antiloitering ordinances in Chicago versus Morales, Mr. Estrada devoted many hours to defending the City of Annapolis against challenges to the constitutionality of a similar antiloitering ordinance. When the NAACP challenged the ordinance, Mr. Estrada ``offered to take the city's case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary, free of charge.'' Mr. Estrada lost that case too, however, after a Federal District Court struck down the law as unconstitutional. I am deeply concerned by Mr. Estrada's intense focus on enforcing antiloitering ordinances. As MALDEF has noted, many of the individuals who are targeted under such ordinances are minorities, and often, Latino urban youth are harassed by police enforcing such ordinances. Day laborers who are most often newly arrived immigrants who look for work by congregating on particular public streets to wait to be offered a manual labor job for the day are often targeted under these ordinances. Mr. Estrada did not seem to appreciate this effect on the minority population, and he certainly did not let it affect his defense of those statutes. Other statements by Mr. Estrada raise additional concerns about his commitment to civil rights. For instance, Mr. Estrada has expressed skepticism about affirmative action. The D.C. Circuit has recently been closely divided on affirmative action in public employment programs. A narrow majority of the D.C. Circuit recently held that the Federal Government cannot require broadcasters to conduct targeted outreach to minorities and women even for the purpose of increasing the pool of qualified applicants. According to MALDEF, in meetings where Mr. Estrada has answered questions since his nomination, he has made statements about affirmative action that call into question whether he would find a compelling interest to justify such programs. Mr. Estrada indicated that he had not raised the issue of diversity in places where he has worked, and that he would not be particularly vigilant about giving opportunities to Hispanic clerks. Mr. Estrada was asked about the possible reasons for the lack of minority law clerks by a reporter for USA Today. According to the article, Mr. Estrada ``dismissed the statistics showing little representation of minorities'' and stated that ``if there was some reason for under-representation, it would be something to look into, but I don't have any reason to think it is anything other than a reflection of trends in society.'' His quote was contrasted with statements by others that a variety of reasons are to blame for the lack of minority clerks. All of these aspects of Mr. Estrada's prior work indicate that he would not bring a fair and open mind, a sensible judicial temperament, and a commitment to civil rights and equal opportunity to the bench. Mr. Estrada's hearing did little to allay our concerns about his record. In fact, many concerns were actually intensified by Mr. Estrada's unwillingness to respond to even the most basic and innocuous questions about his views. For instance, Mr. Estrada refused to name a single Supreme Court case of which he was critical. In addition, Chairman Leahy asked Mr. Estrada whether an employer or a school could take race or ethnicity into consideration in a hiring or admissions decisions. Mr. Estrada refused to give any opinion on the matter. Chairman Leahy asked Mr. Estrada what he thought about the Supreme Court decision in Romer versus Evans--a decision he was reported to have criticized. Mr. Estrada again refused to answer whether he agreed with the decision, stating--incredibly--that because he did not hear the arguments in the case, he could not have an opinion. At that same time, Mr. Estrada gave contradictory answers in response to a series of questions about whether he had applied an ideological litmus test to clerks. Mr. Estrada, along with other former law clerks of Justice Anthony Kennedy, helps the Justice in choosing clerks by interviewing applicants. Two prospective clerks stated in an article in the Nation last September that Mr. Estrada told them that he screened clerks for Justice Kennedy in order to prevent Justice Kennedy from hiring any liberal clerks, apparently in response to Justice Kennedy's voting to strike down the anti-gay rights statute at issue in Romer versus Evans. Senator Schumer asked Mr. Estrada whether he ``had ever told anyone that you do not believe any person should clerk for Justice Kennedy because that person is too liberal, not conservative enough, because they didn't have the appropriate ideology, politics, or judicial philosophy or because you were concerned that person would influence Justice Kennedy to take positions you did not want him taking?'' Mr. Estrada answered unequivocally that he had not. After the break for lunch, however, Mr. Estrada revised his answer saying: there is a set of circumstances in which I would consider somebody's ideology, if you want to call it that, in trying to interview somebody for Justice Kennedy, whether on the left or on the right. And that is to say, if I thought that there was somebody who had views that were so strongly held on any subject, whether, you know, the person thinks there ought not to be the death penalty or whether the person thinks that the income tax ought not to be constitutional or anything, if I think that the person has some extreme view that he will not be willing to set aside. Again, when Senator Schumer repeated his earlier question, Mr. Estrada hedged, saying that ``I have taken account the ideological learnings of a potential law clerk only when it appears to me--and this is something that I don't have a final say on, but I do tell Justice Kennedy that this person has a strongly held view on a subject that he would not be willing to put aside in the service of the Justice.'' Mr. Estrada later conceded that ideology was one of the areas he ``would explore in trying to find whether the law clerk candidate was suitable for Justice Kennedy.'' This response is troubling, because it suggests a lack of candor in answering the first, very clear question put to Mr. Estrada by Senator Schumer. Clearly, it would be troubling if Mr. Estrada were subjecting clerks to an ideological litmus test in order to ensure that only conservative clerks would gain clerkships with Justice Kennedy and to avoid outcomes that Mr. Estrada found unfavorable. My Republican colleagues, unfortunately, have decided to react to these serious allegations by simply leveling personal attacks against the individuals who were interviewed by Mr. Estrada. Such personal attacks seem to be a pattern. Our Republican colleagues have attacked Paul Bender, Mr. Estrada's direct supervisor, because they did not like what he had to say about Mr. Estrada's inability to separate his ideology from his legal analysis. They have attacked Senate Democrats, accusing us of opposing Mr. Estrada on account of his ethnic background, when the concerns we raised are legitimate concerns about his ideology. And now they attack these law clerk applicants, whose voices have joined a growing chorus of people who question Mr. Estrada's ability to keep his conservative ideology from affecting his professional judgment. I call upon my Republican colleagues to halt these personal attacks, and talk about Mr. Estrada's qualifications to serve on the D.C. Circuit. Mr. Estrada's nomination is particularly troubling given the importance of the D.C. Circuit to issues of concern to a broad range of Americans seeking to enforce their basic rights. The D.C Circuit is widely regarded as the second most important court in the United States, behind only the Supreme Court. It has a unique and prominent role among the federal courts of appeals, particularly in the area of administrative law. It has exclusive jurisdiction over many workplace, environmental, civil rights, and consumer protection statutes. Because the Supreme Court grants review of only a small number of lower court decisions, most administrative law is established by the D.C. Circuit. Despite the importance of the D.C. Circuit to a broad array of Americans, some Republicans have worked to undo any balance on the court. During the Clinton administration, the Senate, controlled by Republicans, refused to approve two of President Clinton's nominees to the D.C. Circuit--Elena Kagan and Allan Snyder. Last fall's hearing for Mr. Estrada was the first hearing for a nominee to the D.C. Circuit in 5 years. No questions were raised about the qualifications of either Ms. Kagan or Mr. Snyder--both had stellar qualifications. Nevertheless, hearings for these nominees were delayed, and after they finally received hearings they were refused a vote in the Committee or on the floor. Many Republicans argued then that the D.C. Circuit did not need any more judges. Yet shortly after President Bush was elected, two judges were nominated to the D.C. Circuit. Given the importance of this circuit, and the Republicans' obstruction of President Clinton's nominees, scrutiny of this nominee is particularly warranted. Mr. Estrada's record is troubling, and his unwillingness to supplement the record with meaningful answers to questions or the production of the memoranda from his tenure at the Solicitor General's office, preclude his confirmation to the important D.C. circuit. A life-tenure appointment to a court so important is resolving issues involving workers, immigrants, women, and the environment cannot be given to a nominee about whom we know so little. The Constitution does not contemplate a Senate that acts as a rubber stamp. A genuine advise and consent role is essential. If the administration continues to nominate judges who would weaken the core values of our country and roll back the civil rights laws that have made our country a more inclusive democracy, the Senate should reject them. Everything we know of Miguel Estrada leads to the conclusion that he would be such a judge. His confirmation should be rejected.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Corzine in introducing the Chance to Succeed Act, which will benefit the most vulnerable families across the Nation. I'm concerned that the Administration's proposal on welfare reform fails to give States the flexibility needed to assist families who face serious barriers to employment. The Chance to Succeed Act provides this essential flexibility. Many of the individuals still remaining on welfare face significant and real barriers to finding and keeping jobs. These barriers include physical or mental disabilities, substance abuse, domestic or sexual violence, learning disabilities, problems with literacy or English proficiency, or the need to care for a sick or disabled child. These recipients are less likely to find jobs or earn adequate wages, and they are more likely to lose public assistance due to sanctions for noncompliance. It makes sense to assist these families on the road to self- sufficiency by enabling states to do what is necessary to provide them with adequate work supports and needed services. This approach works, I've seen it in Massachusetts, which has been highly successful in serving its neediest families. In fact, even before the 1996 welfare reform, the state had developed a welfare program in which all recipients are screened for barriers to employment. We've successfully helped families without major barriers to obtain employment, and we've reduced our caseload by over 64 percent in five years. We've also been able, consistently and effectively, to serve families facing barriers and provide educational, rehabilitative, and other services appropriate for their situations. We have a socially and fiscally responsible welfare policy. The Chance to Succeed Act will encourage all states to take such steps. It will facilitate the development of screening, assessment, and service delivery procedures that enable states to identify these individuals and provide appropriate support and services. It will provide funding and technical assistance for state advisory panels, model practices, and more effective standards and procedures to help individuals find employment. This bill also helps the many persons who are unable to comply with current work requirements because of previously unidentified barriers to employment. It will enable each family to develop its own plan that includes career goals and private sector employment. It provides flexibility to states to design plans that meet families' unique needs. Activities essential to reducing and eliminating barriers can be counted as work. It will enable states to establish conciliation and follow-up procedures to remove barriers and improve compliance, so that fewer families are needlessly penalized and left vulnerable. Individuals with barriers to employment are an important part of genuine welfare reform, and it is long past time for Congress to include them. The Chance to Succeed Act is a first step in helping the many families who face barriers to become more self- sufficient.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Gregg, Senator Frist, and Senator Bingaman in introducing legislation to improve the role of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health. The Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Improvement Act that we introduce today makes several improvements in the 1990 law that established the Foundation. Most significantly, the bill assures that the Foundation will receive $500,000 from the NIH to support its administrative and operating expenses. These funds will enable the Foundation to use its resources for the actual support of projects to strengthen NIH programs, rather than raise money for its own expenses. In addition, the bill makes clear that the NIH Director and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs are ex officio members of the Foundation's board of directors. Congress established the Foundation to raise private funds to support the research of the NIH. Since its incorporation as a private, nonprofit organization in Maryland 7 years ago, for every $1 that the Foundation has received in support from the NIH, it has raised $13 in private funds to support the work of NIH. By last fall, the Foundation was managing 20 programs with multi-year revenue and funding goals of over $45 million. For example, the Edmond J. Safra Family Lodge on the NIH campus will be completed in the summer of 2004 using private funds donated through the Foundation, with services and land donated by the NIH. Families of patients receiving in-patient cancer treatment at the NIH Clinical Center will have the Lodge as a place to stay, at no cost to them. In addition, the Foundation has formed partnerships with the NIH to develop new cancer treatments, to identify biomarkers for osteoarthritis, and to build on the promise of genomics. Through a public-private partnership, the Foundation helped accelerate the sequencing of the mouse genome. The Foundation is also collecting private funds to study drugs in children. On January 26, 2003, Bill Gates announced a gift to the NIH through the Foundation of $200 million over the next 10 years to support research on global health priorities. Clearly, the Foundation's role with the NIH will grow productively in the coming years. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this legislation, so that the Foundation can continue its effective support of the work and mission of the NIH. 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 my colleagues in introducing a bipartisan bill to extend the availability of the unused funds in the Children's Health Insurance Program, so that hundreds of thousands of children can retain their health coverage, and so that the CHIP program can continue to grow. We recently celebrated the fifth anniversary of the CHIP program. Over its relatively short life, the program has served children across America, providing health coverage for those who would be otherwise uninsured. Last year, over 4.5 million children received health insurance through CHIP or through Medicaid expansions under CHIP, including 105,000 children in Massachusetts. Health insurance provides children with a healthy start in life, and CHIP is important in providing that healthy start for millions of children in moderate- income working families. Unfortunately, because of a technical provision in the law, $1.2 billion in unspent CHIP funds reverted to the Treasury last October. Another $1.5 billion will revert to the Treasury this October if Congress fails to act. We know that 20 States are projected to run out of CHIP funds soon, including 5 States--Alaska, Arizona, Maryland, New Jersey, and Rhode Island--that are projected to run out of money as early as next year. It makes no sense to allow funds to revert to the Treasury when there is so much unmet need. Some States have not been able to use all their CHIP funds within the allotted period in current law. Yet some of these same States will run short of funds in the very near future, forcing them to drop children from their programs. One of our Nation's most fundamental principles should be to give every child the opportunity to succeed in life. But that principle rings hollow if children must fact a lifetime of disability and illness because they did not have needed health care in their early years. That is why this bill we introduce today is so important. It enables States to maintain and expand their CHIP programs. It lets States keep a portion of their unspent funds that would otherwise expire. It reallocates the rest of the funds to States that have already used their original allocation to enroll children in their program and are ready, willing, and able to enroll even more children. This reallocation is vital to enrolling the highest possible number of children in CHIP. The retention and reallocation of these funds will prevent an unacceptable loss of coverage for the Nation's children. Our legislation moves us one step closer to fulfilling the promise that all children should have adequate health insurance coverage. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, so that we can give the Nation's children the healthy start they deserve.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing a bipartisan bill to extend the availability of the unused funds in the Children's Health Insurance Program, so that hundreds of thousands of children can retain their health coverage, and so that the CHIP program can continue to grow. We recently celebrated the fifth anniversary of the CHIP program. Over its relatively short life, the program has served children across America, providing health coverage for those who would be otherwise uninsured. Last year, over 4.5 million children received health insurance through CHIP or through Medicaid expansions under CHIP, including 105,000 children in Massachusetts. Health insurance provides children with a healthy start in life, and CHIP is important in providing that healthy start for millions of children in moderate- income working families. Unfortunately, because of a technical provision in the law, $1.2 billion in unspent CHIP funds reverted to the Treasury last October. Another $1.5 billion will revert to the Treasury this October if Congress fails to act. We know that 20 States are projected to run out of CHIP funds soon, including 5 States--Alaska, Arizona, Maryland, New Jersey, and Rhode Island--that are projected to run out of money as early as next year. It makes no sense to allow funds to revert to the Treasury when there is so much unmet need. Some States have not been able to use all their CHIP funds within the allotted period in current law. Yet some of these same States will run short of funds in the very near future, forcing them to drop children from their programs. One of our Nation's most fundamental principles should be to give every child the opportunity to succeed in life. But that principle rings hollow if children must fact a lifetime of disability and illness because they did not have needed health care in their early years. That is why this bill we introduce today is so important. It enables States to maintain and expand their CHIP programs. It lets States keep a portion of their unspent funds that would otherwise expire. It reallocates the rest of the funds to States that have already used their original allocation to enroll children in their program and are ready, willing, and able to enroll even more children. This reallocation is vital to enrolling the highest possible number of children in CHIP. The retention and reallocation of these funds will prevent an unacceptable loss of coverage for the Nation's children. Our legislation moves us one step closer to fulfilling the promise that all children should have adequate health insurance coverage. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, so that we can give the Nation's children the healthy start they deserve.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Gregg, Senator Frist, and Senator Bingaman in introducing legislation to improve the role of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health. The Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Improvement Act that we introduce today makes several improvements in the 1990 law that established the Foundation. Most significantly, the bill assures that the Foundation will receive $500,000 from the NIH to support its administrative and operating expenses. These funds will enable the Foundation to use its resources for the actual support of projects to strengthen NIH programs, rather than raise money for its own expenses. In addition, the bill makes clear that the NIH Director and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs are ex officio members of the Foundation's board of directors. Congress established the Foundation to raise private funds to support the research of the NIH. Since its incorporation as a private, nonprofit organization in Maryland 7 years ago, for every $1 that the Foundation has received in support from the NIH, it has raised $13 in private funds to support the work of NIH. By last fall, the Foundation was managing 20 programs with multi-year revenue and funding goals of over $45 million. For example, the Edmond J. Safra Family Lodge on the NIH campus will be completed in the summer of 2004 using private funds donated through the Foundation, with services and land donated by the NIH. Families of patients receiving in-patient cancer treatment at the NIH Clinical Center will have the Lodge as a place to stay, at no cost to them. In addition, the Foundation has formed partnerships with the NIH to develop new cancer treatments, to identify biomarkers for osteoarthritis, and to build on the promise of genomics. Through a public-private partnership, the Foundation helped accelerate the sequencing of the mouse genome. The Foundation is also collecting private funds to study drugs in children. On January 26, 2003, Bill Gates announced a gift to the NIH through the Foundation of $200 million over the next 10 years to support research on global health priorities. Clearly, the Foundation's role with the NIH will grow productively in the coming years. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this legislation, so that the Foundation can continue its effective support of the work and mission of the NIH. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Corzine in introducing the Chance to Succeed Act, which will benefit the most vulnerable families across the Nation. I'm concerned that the Administration's proposal on welfare reform fails to give States the flexibility needed to assist families who face serious barriers to employment. The Chance to Succeed Act provides this essential flexibility. Many of the individuals still remaining on welfare face significant and real barriers to finding and keeping jobs. These barriers include physical or mental disabilities, substance abuse, domestic or sexual violence, learning disabilities, problems with literacy or English proficiency, or the need to care for a sick or disabled child. These recipients are less likely to find jobs or earn adequate wages, and they are more likely to lose public assistance due to sanctions for noncompliance. It makes sense to assist these families on the road to self- sufficiency by enabling states to do what is necessary to provide them with adequate work supports and needed services. This approach works, I've seen it in Massachusetts, which has been highly successful in serving its neediest families. In fact, even before the 1996 welfare reform, the state had developed a welfare program in which all recipients are screened for barriers to employment. We've successfully helped families without major barriers to obtain employment, and we've reduced our caseload by over 64 percent in five years. We've also been able, consistently and effectively, to serve families facing barriers and provide educational, rehabilitative, and other services appropriate for their situations. We have a socially and fiscally responsible welfare policy. The Chance to Succeed Act will encourage all states to take such steps. It will facilitate the development of screening, assessment, and service delivery procedures that enable states to identify these individuals and provide appropriate support and services. It will provide funding and technical assistance for state advisory panels, model practices, and more effective standards and procedures to help individuals find employment. This bill also helps the many persons who are unable to comply with current work requirements because of previously unidentified barriers to employment. It will enable each family to develop its own plan that includes career goals and private sector employment. It provides flexibility to states to design plans that meet families' unique needs. Activities essential to reducing and eliminating barriers can be counted as work. It will enable states to establish conciliation and follow-up procedures to remove barriers and improve compliance, so that fewer families are needlessly penalized and left vulnerable. Individuals with barriers to employment are an important part of genuine welfare reform, and it is long past time for Congress to include them. The Chance to Succeed Act is a first step in helping the many families who face barriers to become more self- sufficient.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, as I stated at the hearing, the personal attacks on Paul Bender are really beneath this body. Paul Bender has a long and esteemed history in public and private practice. He clerked for Felix Frankfurter on the Supreme Court. He argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court. He taught constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Arizona. To criticize Paul Bender because you disagree with his statements is also chilling to anyone who wishes to express their personal opinions about a nominee. I really hope we can talk about the issues without resorting to personal attacks. Others as well have echoed the Bender criticism. Among the great debates at the Constitutional Convention two centuries ago was the issue of judicial appointments. Initially, there was broad agreement among the delegates that either the Senate alone or the legislature as a whole should appoint federal judges, and in June of 1787, the delegates tentatively adopted a proposal to give the appointment power to the Senate. But opposition soon arose. The delegates re-opened the issue and considered alternatives such as giving the power of appointment to both the Senate and the House, or to the President with the advice and consent of Congress, or to the President alone. After months of debate, the issue was finally resolved in September. It was decided the President was to nominate, and the Senate would be asked to concur before the appointment could be made. The Framers believed that one person should have the responsibility for nominating judges, but they clearly wanted to avoid vesting too much power on this issue in the President. The Senate would have the power to prevent the President from shaping a judiciary in his own image. As Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist No. 77, ``If by influencing the President meant restraining him, this is precisely what must have been intended.'' By requiring the President and the Senate to share the responsibility of appointing federal judges, the Framers created one of the most important checks and balances in the Constitution and laid a solid foundation for the independence of the judiciary that has served the Nation so well. In keeping with this shared responsibility, the Senate must fulfill its constitutional duty to review the nominations sent to us by President Bush--including the nomination of Miguel Estrada. We must assure ourselves that every nominee has the qualifications, temperament, and commitment to enforcing the constitutional and federal statutory protections that are central to our American democracy. This is not a role we take lightly. At stake are lifetime appointments to courts that have the power to make far-reaching decisions affecting the lives of our people and the life of our Nation. The D.C. Circuit is one of the most important courts in the country-- second only to the Supreme Court. It is particularly important to workers, immigrants, and those seeking to enforce their civil rights. It has a unique and prominent role among the Federal courts of appeals, particularly in the area of administrative law, and has exclusive jurisdiction over many workplace, environmental, civil rights, and consumer protection statutes. If confirmed, Mr. Estrada would make decisions about the rights of workers. He would decide cases involving the right to form a union without intimidation by an employer and cases that affect health and safety rules and regulations--regulations affecting workers exposed to tuberculosis, and dangerous, even toxic, chemicals. These problems aren't going away--they are increasing. The administration continues to issue anti-worker Executive Orders and undermine the labor rights of airline workers. It refuses to put a plan in place to address the serious problem of ergonomic injuries in the workplace. We need judges who will interpret the law fairly--not judges tied to special interests that drive the administration's agenda. In recent years, the D.C. Circuit has become a safe haven for employers eager to defy the orders of the National Labor Relations Board. In 1980, 83 percent of all NLRB decisions were enforced in full by the D.C. Circuit. Deference was given to the Board by the court. In 2000, however, only 57 percent of NLRB decisions were enforced in full. Time after time, the closely-divided D.C. Circuit has refused to defer to the NLRB's expertise. Jose Castro knows that one judge's vote can make a difference. A few years ago, the Hoffman Plastics Company fired workers in retaliation for their attempts to organize a union. In response, the National Labor Relations Board ordered reinstatement and backpay for the workers affected. The board later denied reinstatement and granted only limited backpay to Mr. Castro, an undocumented worker. When Hoffman Plastics challenged the board's decision, the D.C. Circuit--in a 5 to 4 decision--rejected the employer's argument and enforced the board's order. The court determined that the board had appropriately crafted its order to take into account the policies underlying both the National Labor Relations Act and the Immigration Reform and Control Act. Last year, however, the Supreme Court reversed the board and the D.C. Circuit and held--in a 5 to 4 decision--that many immigrant workers are not entitled to backpay remedies under the National Labor Relations Act. The Supreme Court's decision affects as many as 6 million immigrant workers across the United States, and employers have used it to claim that those workers have no labor protections. If confirmed, Mr. Estrada would make decisions about our environmental laws--such as challenges to clean water regulations, Superfund clean-up of toxic sites, and Clean Air Act regulations. He will decide cases such as American Trucking Associations v. EPA, which denied EPA the authority to establish health standards for smog and soot. The issue in that case directly affects the thousands of children who suffer and die from asthma every year. Mr. Estrada will be making these decisions as the Bush administration takes dramatic steps to curtail enforcement of our environmental laws. The administration has proposed rules to remove 20 million acres of wetlands from Federal protection, new regulations to weaken national forest protections enacted by the Reagan administration, approved natural gas drilling in Texas along the Nation's longest stretch of undeveloped beach, and proposed to scale back environmental reviews and judicial oversight over national forests and public lands. Mr. Estrada will also make decisions about the enforcement of our nation's civil rights laws when he reviews race, gender, and disability discrimination cases like Kolstad v. American Dental Association. Carole Kolstad sued her employer for gender discrimination, and a one- vote majority of the D.C. Circuit upheld a very high standard for the collection of punitive damages. The Supreme Court later vacated the D.C. Circuit's decision, but once again it is clear that one vote can make a difference on the D.C. Circuit. The question before the Senate is what role Mr. Estrada will play on this important court and in the lives of the American people. Will he be a fair and impartial advocate for the law and the Constitution, or will he be at the forefront of efforts to deny basic rights and protections for those who need them? Mr. Estrada's record and his testimony before the Judiciary Committee provides little information and even less assurance that he is the right person for this important position. It is difficults--if not impossible--for us to exercise our constitutional duty of advice and consent, and to satisfy ourselves that Mr. Estrada is fit for a lifetime appointment without full information. Yet, Mr. Estrada remains a mystery. He refused to provide candid answers to questions during his hearing or in writing to the committee. And the Justice Department refuses to provide memoranda produced by Mr. Estrada when he served in the Solicitor General's office. These Solicitor General memoranda would be helpful in understanding Mr. Estrada's fitness for a judgeship. They would aid us in determining how he would approach the complex task of judging, and whether he would be able to separate his own personal views from an objective analysis of the law. This administration and previous administrations have provided us with this kind of information in the past, and it is incumbent upon the administration to provide the Senate with the information necessary to evaluate nominees to our Nation's Federal courts. The little we do know of Mr. Estrada's record raises grave concerns. In fact, his direct supervisor in the Office of the Solicitor General has raised questions about whether Mr. Estrada has the temperament and requisite moderation to sit on the D.C. Circuit. The supervisor, Mr. Bender, has expressed his belief that Mr. Estrada would have difficulty separating himself from his personal ideological views. It has been reported, for instance, that some of Mr. Estrada's colleagues have said that he is not openminded and that he ``does not listen to other people.'' After an in-depth meeting with Mr. Estrada, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus stated that Mr. Estrada appeared to have a ``very short fuse'' and that he did not ``have the judicial temperament that is necessary to be a judge.'' According to the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, with whom Mr. Estrada met, he was not ``even-tempered"--he became angry during their meetings with him, and he even threatened the group with legal action because they had raised concerns about his record. These reports are very troubling. What we seek in our judges is a quality that makes them more than just talented lawyers or advocates. We want to know that a judge is openminded and fair. I am not persuaded that Mr. Estrada possesses the key qualities of moderation, openness and fairness required of our judges. The cases that Mr. Estrada has made the primary focus of his pro bono activity also raise concerns about whether he will be fair in the wide range of cases that come before him. In two cases, Mr. Estrada tried to limit the first amendment rights of minorities to congregate and associate on public streets. He also sits on the board of the Center for Community Interest, which advocates the kind of police tactics that have often led to harassment and racial profiling in minority communities. Mr. Estrada's single-minded focus on justifying such ordinances is cause for great concern. Even after the clear rebuke from the Supreme Court about the Chicago ordinance, he devoted many hours to defending the City of Annapolis against challenges to the constitutionality of its own antiloitering ordinance. When the NAACP challenged the ordinance, Mr. Estrada ``offered to take the city's case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary, free of charge.'' Mr. Estrada lost that case, too, however, when a Federal district court struck down the law as unconstitutional. We know that decades of important civil rights precedents may well be at stake in coming years. These issues raise very serious concerns about Mr. Estrada's nomination. He is an intelligent and talented lawyer. But that is not enough. To serve as a Federal judge-- particularly on the second most important court in the land requires a commitment to the core constitutional values of our democracy. It requires the special qualities that enable judges to meet their own important responsibilities--fairness, impartiality, and openmindedness. There is nothing anti-Latino about our objections to Mr. Estrada. President Bush has nominated five Latinos to the Federal courts, four of whom were confirmed last year, when the Democrats controlled the Senate. It is the Democrats who have taken the lead in appointing Latinos to the Federal courts. During the Clinton administration, 23 Latino nominees were confirmed to the Federal courts--more than in any previous administration, Republican or Democrat. More Latinos would have been confirmed had it not been for the unfair tactics of Senate Republicans. In fact, five Latino nominees sent to the Senate by President Clinton were not confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate. Two of them, nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals from Texas, were not even given hearings. One waited more than a year in the Senate before his nomination was returned to the President because of inaction by the Judiciary Committee. The other waited more than a year, and was then renominated by President Clinton in January of 2001, but President Bush withdrew it. All five Latino nominees blocked by Senate Republicans had the full support of the Latino community--but the same cannot be said of Mr. Estrada. The major Latino organizations have raised strong concerns about Mr. Estrada. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has opposed his nomination. The Latino organizations opposing or raising concerns about Mr. Estrada include: the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the National Council of La Raza, the California La Raza Lawyers, the Southwest Voter Registration Project, and the Illinois Puerto Rican Bar Association. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Mr. Estrada does not meet their criteria for endorsement of a nominee. As the letter they sent to the committee states: The appointment of a Latino to reflect diversity is rendered meaningless unless the nominee can demonstrate an understanding of the historical role courts have played in the lives of minorities in extending equal protections and rights; has some involvement in the Latino community that provides insight into the values and mores of the Latino culture in order to understand the unique legal challenges facing Latinos; and recognizes both the role model responsibilities he or she assumes as well as having an appreciation for protecting and promoting the legal rights of minorities who historically have been the victims of discrimination. Based on the totality of the nominee's available record and our meeting with him, Mr. Estrada fails to meet the CHC's criteria for endorsing a nominee. The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund opposes Mr. Estrada as well. According to their statement: The most difficult situation for any Latino organization is when a President nominates a Latino who does not reflect, resonate or associate with the Latino community, and who comes with a predisposition to view claims of racial discrimination and unfair treatment with suspicion and doubt instead of with an open mind. Unfortunately, the only Latino whom President Bush has nominated in two years to any Federal circuit court in the country is such a person. President Bush nominated Mr. Estrada to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. After a thorough examination of his record, his confirmation hearing testimony, and his written answers to the U.S. Senate, we announce today our formal opposition to his nomination. We cannot in good conscience stand on the sideline and be neutral on his nomination or others like his. We oppose his nomination and that of others that will prevent the courts from serving as the check and balance so desperately needed by our community to the actions being taken by the executive and legislative branches. Recently, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund also issued a statement reaffirming its opposition to Mr. Estrada's nomination. Many of us have deep concerns about Mr. Estrada's record and his unwillingness to supplement the record with answers to important questions or production of the memoranda from his days in the Solicitor General's office. I urge the Senate to reject this nomination. A lifetime appointment to a court so important in deciding so many basic issues should not be given to a nominee about whom we know so little. The basic values of our society--whether we will continue to be committed to equality, opportunity, freedom of expression, the right to privacy, and many other fundamental rights--are at stake in all of these nominations. On the role of the Senate in the appointment process, the genius of the Constitution is the clear system of checks and balances that it provides. The Constitution says ``advice and consent''--not ``rubber stamp.'' When this or any other administration nominates judges who would weaken the core values of our country and roll back the basic rights that make our country a genuine democracy, the Senate should reject them. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. I just stated that--

Mr. KENNEDY. You have the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. I believe there was an order before the Senate that I be recognized at 5:40, as I understood it?

Mr. KENNEDY. I believe I was in the Chamber at 5:40. I heard the Senator speak at that time.