Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I also come to the floor to support the extremely important amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, which is offered to ensure that all students get the educational resources they deserve. This amendment funds title I at the level we agreed to when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act and increases Pell grants so we can help more low-income students afford college. This is the minimum investment we need to make if we truly are going to leave no child behind. Leaving no child behind is a noble goal, one that we all endorse. But it is a travesty to use the mantra of the Children's Defense Fund as a cover for policies and budgets that hurt rather than help American students. Make no mistake, the bill before us, based on the President's budget, will leave students behind. I find it particularly incredible that at the same time the President and his friends in Congress are pushing for a $674 billion tax cut, they are insisting that we provide less money for the education of our children. Look at title I. Title I pays for things such as books, teachers, tutoring, and preschool for our most needy students. The President and his party are saying that we can no longer afford the $1.5 billion increase slated for title I last year, yet we can afford to give $20 billion to 226,000 millionaires. One year ago, when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, we agreed on new sweeping requirements and mandates. We also agreed that title I would need to be funded at $16 billion this year for schools to meet those requirements. America's students and their parents have entrusted us with their future. We cannot turn our backs on them and say we have done our part by setting high standards and creating tough accountability, and the rest is up to you--even if you are trying to learn in overcrowded classrooms or from unqualified teachers or you are coping with crumbling school buildings. That is what they are really saying. Last week, the President celebrated the 1-year anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act by calling it the most meaningful education reform probably ever. But that reform had two parts. On the one hand, it called for higher standards and accountability, and on the other hand it promised more investment so schools could make progress. My good friend, Senator Paul Wellstone, spent many hours on this floor reminding all of us that the so-called No Child Left Behind Act would, at best, be a sham and, at worst, a serious blow to the public school students of our country if it was funded on a tin cup budget. I fear this appropriations bill will prove him right. By providing only an inflationary increase in education funding while significantly raising the demands on our schools, we have reduced America's students to begging for the Government's spare change to finance their future. Setting a high bar is important, but setting a high bar and failing to give kids the resources to succeed is just setting them up for failure. The appropriations bill before us offers the smallest increase in education funding in 7 years. It freezes the State grants that reduced class size and improved teacher quality and, as a result, no new teachers will be hired and fewer teachers will get professional development. This bill does not fully fund our share of special education costs, failing yet again to fulfill that commitment to our communities, our schools, and our disabled students. And it falls far short of title I funding we included in the No Child Left Behind Act because we knew it was necessary to help our students succeed. We know what the needs are. We know what works to help our children succeed. And we also know that making college affordable is critical to helping students succeed and to helping our economy grow. Senate Democrats have worked to increase funding for Pell grants. In fiscal year 2002, while the Bush administration proposed no increase in Pell grants, Senate Democrats increased the top limit from $3,750 per year to $4,000 per year. Again this year, the President proposed no increase in Pell grants. It is a good step that this bill includes a small increase for Pell grants, but it is not nearly enough to meet the rapidly rising needs. In my home State of Washington, our legislature cut $1.6 billion out of their budget last year. This year they are suffering from even deeper economic stress, and they need to cut an additional $2.5 billion. A result of that is tuition at our public colleges and universities increased 12 to 16 percent this year, and we could be looking at similar increases next year. I am really worried that students will look at that increase in tuition, see no significant increase in Federal aid, and decide they cannot afford to go to college. One of the most important things we can do to ensure a safe and secure future is to help educate our young people. We know a college degree means on average an additional $20,000 a year for men and an additional $15,000 a year for women. Given today's global-based economy, the gap in earnings between those Americans who have a college degree and those who only have a high school degree is likely to grow. Ensuring that our young people have the resources to go to college is a critical national priority. Putting America's future first means putting our children's education first. But the sad truth is that this appropriations bill shortchanges all of America's students. We have spent so much time talking about how we can hold teachers, administrators, and parents accountable for doing their jobs well. I think we ought to focus on how well we are doing our job, and that means making good choices for our children and investing in their futures. At a time when we are and should be demanding more than ever from our schools, we must not slow down the Federal investments in our schools. We must not abandon our commitment to help reduce class sizes and provide quality teachers. We must not continue to shirk our responsibility to disadvantaged students. The Republican bill freezes our progress. That is why we have offered this amendment. That is why Senator Kennedy has offered this amendment: To provide the resources that parents, teachers, and students need. This amendment will ensure more children start school ready to learn. It can help children learn in smaller, well disciplined classes by hiring 50,000 fully qualified teachers so we can reduce the size of classes. It will help our local districts that are badly in need of help right now to ensure there is a high quality teacher in every classroom. It could allow communities to offer more afterschool programs to keep 1 million additional latchkey children safe and learning, and it would help more Americans afford college at this critical time.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Massachusetts is correct, and I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Maryland. I think we should ask the millionaires in this country whether they want the tax cut or whether they would prefer to see no child left behind. My guess is many of them would prefer to make sure that the generation that follows them has the same opportunities they have had in this country.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Maryland for his comments because I think they are essential to this debate. I also thank the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for that statement as well. As I finish my statement, and I know the Senator from Iowa also wants to speak, I think we have to ask ourselves are we going to let our kids go to school in overcrowded classrooms in crumbling school buildings with underpaid and inadequately prepared teachers or are we going to rise to the occasion and make the choices to invest in our children's futures? We know what the needs are out there. We know what helps our kids succeed. We need Members of Congress to stand up and put the money where their mouths are. Parents, teachers, students, and community leaders are saying do not just talk about the importance of education funding, make the tough choices to show the American public that education is truly a priority, and that means giving our local school districts the resources they need to provide a first-rate education to every student in this country by supporting this amendment. I urge the millionaires in this country who are looking at a tax cut to let this Congress know that the education of the next generation, the possibility of creating future millionaires, is far more important than the tax cut they have been promised by this administration. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this extremely important amendment that will benefit our children and grandchildren and their future. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to rise, along with the ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, and my other colleagues who are in the Chamber tonight, to offer this amendment to boost funding for Amtrak to a level that was included in our Transportation appropriations bill that was reported back in July of last year. Six months ago, the Appropriations Committee unanimously reported a bill that funded Amtrak at the level of $1.2 billion. That is the same level that was requested of us by the Amtrak board of directors. Some people seem to believe that the funding level of $1.2 billion represents a massive funding increase for Amtrak. As all Members know, the appropriations bills that we approved last year have now been rewritten by the majority to reflect their priorities, and those new bills are now before us. For Amtrak, that means a cut of $374 million below the level we provided back in July. It also means a $318 million cut, or a 27-percent cut, below the level the railroad received in fiscal year 2002. I am not familiar with the funding level proposed for every single program that is funded in this massive bill, but I suspect there are very few, if any, other programs that have been singled out for a 27- percent cut below last year's level. There is no question that at this funding level Amtrak is heading straight for bankruptcy. That is not a debatable point. That representation is simply not true. We have a letter from Amtrak's new president and chief executive officer, Mr. David Gunn, that makes it clear that Amtrak will be insolvent by spring should this funding level become law. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this evening in strong support of the homeland security amendment that was offered earlier this evening by Senator Byrd. I am pleased that I had the opportunity to work closely with Senator Byrd on the details of the amendment because it impacts the security of our transportation system. Before I start, I wish to align myself with the very thoughtful and important remarks of the Senator from North Dakota made earlier regarding the northern border. Senator Dorgan has brought some real attention to the northern border issues that are so important to my home State of Washington. This work must continue despite the President's cuts to the border security initiative that the Senate previously approved. This amendment represents months of work on behalf of Senator Byrd and the Appropriations Committee. Senator Byrd, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, convened a series of hearings last spring to discuss homeland security needs. We heard from numerous Cabinet Secretaries, including Secretary Powell, Secretary Rumsfeld, and Secretary Mineta. Several respective national security experts gave us very valuable testimony. We also heard from several Governors, including Governor Locke from Washington State. Mayors appeared before the Appropriations Committee as did fire chiefs, health department officials, and water and sewer authorities. Senator Byrd and the Appropriations Committee worked very hard to identify real needs for homeland security. The Byrd homeland security amendment is in large part the result of those hearings and our continued efforts to work with the true first responders. Homeland security is an enormous task. We all know this. It is going to be enormously expensive. We all know this. Sadly, the administration has not requested adequate funding for homeland security needs throughout our country. The President refused to spend homeland security money previously approved in a bipartisan fashion by this Congress. The bill before us today, at the President's insistence, makes further cuts in homeland security funding. Homeland security is about our entire country. However, I must tell you that this issue is tremendously important to Washington State. Already, thanks to an alert Customs agent, we arrested a terrorist suspect crossing into Washington State with explosive materials. We are an international State with vulnerabilities in our ports, our rail and highway infrastructure, and our international airports. We are a trade State with an economy that is closely linked to the world. We have significant military assets, nuclear facilities, and many popular tourist-gathering points. My State is aggressively moving forward to protect Washingtonians. We need a partner in the President and the Federal Government. Unfortunately, the underlying bill does not address all of our homeland security needs. Homeland security should not be an unfunded mandate. As a nation, we are working hard to close the security gaps that still exist. We know the transportation systems are a frequent target of terrorist attack. In fact, when you look at the worldwide statistics, one-third of terrorist attacks that take place around the world target transportation systems, including aircraft, highways, rail systems, subways, commercial ships, and ferries. As many have observed, our security is only as strong as our weakest link. This amendment offered by Senator Byrd will help strengthen some of our weakest links in port security, aviation, and mass transit. Let me start with port security. We have a lot of work to do to protect our Nation's ports. As my colleagues will recall, we passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act 95 to 0. That act puts new requirements on our ports. However, effectively no funds have been provided to our Nation's port authorities to implement those new requirements, which will cost billions of dollars. The underlying bill that we are looking at this evening, provides very little money to enhance port security. So I am really, pleased that the Byrd amendment would dramatically increase the security funds available to our ports. I ask Senators to reflect for a moment on what a terrorist incident in our Nation's ports would mean to our Nation's economy. Just look at what happened this past fall, when West Coast dockworkers were locked out of their jobs. It is estimated that the lockout cost our economy $1 billion a day. A terrorist attack on our ports--or an attack carried out through our cargo container system--would undermine our Nation's confidence in the hundreds of thousands of containers that crisscross our country every single day. And beyond the human toll--an attack on, or through, our ports would have a dramatic economic impact and could bring the flow of commerce to a dead stop. It is not enough just to pass an authorization bill saying that we have better secured our ports. We have to actually provide the resources to make our ports more secure. The Byrd amendment boosts--by almost half a billion dollars--the amount of grant money available to our public port authorities. I commend the Senator for his vision and leadership on this critical challenge. Another way to secure our ports is through Operation Safe Commerce, an initiative that I started in last year's emergency supplemental appropriations bill. This TSA initiative was launched with the cooperation of the Customs Service. For the first time, it provides us a mechanism to track containers from their point of origin to their point of destination. As a result, we will have much better information about where the container came from, what is in it, and whether or not it requires either x-ray or further inspection. With the initial funding that we provided for this initiative--and the $30 million that is included in the underlying bill--we have had to limit these grants to the three major container ports in our country. Those three ports take in roughly three-quarters of all the containers entering the United States. With the additional funding provided under Senator Byrd's amendment, we will be able to greatly expand the number of ports that can participate in this important initiative. Finally, as I talk about port security, I want to talk about the new demands being placed on our Coast Guard. For a long time I have been very concerned that these new homeland security requirements mean the Coast Guard isn't getting adequate resources--or paying adequate attention--to its traditional missions, such as search and rescue, fisheries enforcement, and marine environmental protection. In order to get the Coast Guard the kind of assets it needs to conduct port security, Senator Byrd's amendment includes sufficient funds to boost the Coast Guard's inventory of coastal patrol boats. These are the ideal platform for the Coast Guard's homeland security mission. Unfortunately the Coast Guard has not been able to buy enough of them, in part because of other major contract obligations that are outstanding. We cannot continue to burden the Coast Guard with additional missions without providing them with the resources and the tools they need to do their job. I am pleased the Byrd amendment provides these resources. Another weak link this amendment will address concerns mass transit. I think we should all recognize that the majority of fatalities resulting from transportation terrorist incidents have been in the area of mass transit, specifically from buses. The challenge in securing our mass transit systems is daunting. By their very nature, transit systems are designed to be open and accessible and to accommodate many people in a very short period of time. It is a real challenge, but we have to address it. The amendment that Senator Byrd has offered states that we are not going to shrink away from this vulnerability. It says we will better protect the millions of citizens who commute to their jobs every day. The $300 million included in this amendment will make a serious downpayment and get our Nation's transit systems focused on mechanisms that will simultaneously protect their passengers without clogging our transit systems. I commend Senator Byrd for recognizing this vulnerability and for addressing it. Finally, I want to talk about aviation security. I commend the Senator for including an additional $250 million for our Nation's airports. As my colleagues know, the Aviation Transportation Security Act mandated that we check all passengers' checked baggage for explosives. Just a few weeks ago, the Transportation Security Administration met that deadline. But the truth is, there is a huge amount of construction that needs to be done to transition our Nation's airports from the interim explosive detection solutions to more permanent and efficient systems to check all bags for explosives. From the very first day that this requirement was put into law, the Transportation Security Administration has consistently refused to request adequate funds to compensate the airports for these costs. They have consistently underestimated the true costs to implement these massive retrofits in order to leave our airports ``holding the bag'' for these costs. The amendment offered by Senator Byrd provides an extra $200 million--over and above the $250 million included in the underlying bill--to more accurately reflect the real cost of this initiative in fiscal year 2003. We will be paying the cost to implement the Transportation Security Act for many years to come. Our airports do not have easy access to the kind of resources that will be needed to make these very necessary investments. The airlines--which the airports depend on for rates and charges--are almost uniformly in serious financial difficulty. Many airports have already extended about as many bonds as they can currently afford to pay off. So this amendment would provide very critical support. I am proud of the progress this amendment makes in adequately funding port security, mass transit, and aviation security. I commend Chairman Byrd for this amendment, and I urge all my colleagues to support it. We cannot let the protection of the American people be ignored because an OMB director--a few blocks down the road--has said that discretionary spending will not exceed a certain arbitrary figure. We have serious security needs in this country, and this amendment will help us meet them. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURRAY

Ms. MURRAY. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the people of my home State of Washington are hurting in every corner of my State. Families are concerned about what the future will bring. In the last 2 years alone in my home State of Washington, we have faced an earthquake, an energy crisis, the bursting of the high tech bubble, the departure of Boeing, the loss of thousands of jobs, and now we face a State budget deficit of $2.5 billion which could easily translate into major cuts in education, health care, and infrastructure. For much of the last 2 years, Washington State was ranked either first or second in the nation in unemployment rates. We have lost a staggering 74,000 jobs in the last 18 months. These are sobering numbers. Behind every one of these statistics is a man or a woman who is trying to support their family, keep food on the table and a roof over their head. Throughout our country the economic picture is just as bleak. The United States has lost 2.1 million private sector jobs since January of 2001. Despite the President's mammoth $1.7 trillion tax cut last year, the economy is continuing to sputter and Americans are continuing to lose their jobs. When the President signed that tax cut he said it would ``provide an important boost at an important time for our economy.'' That was 20 months ago, May 16, 2001. What are the results? In December alone, 101,000 more Americans lost their jobs through no fault of their own. These fellow citizens are now out of work and many now are without health care. Health care is the unmentioned but painful reality of job loss for many. Since most Americans get their health insurance through their only employer, many Americans have also lost their health care coverage. In Washington State alone, 156,000 families have lost their health care in the last 2 years. That is an increase of 27.4 percent. Today, a staggering figure of Washingtonians are without health insurance. The glimmer of hope should be that we are providing good schools and learning opportunities to educate our young people for jobs in the future. Unfortunately, the President has proposed cutting funds for education at a time when these investments are now more important than ever. Everyone in my State would agree we need to get this economy back on track. We need to do it right. Today, despite the fact that the President's last tax cut has yet to create any net new jobs, the administration is pushing another massive tax cut under the claim of stimulus. Except this time, the Nation is back in deficit spending. According to private economists quoted in Friday's Washington Post, the U.S. could be facing deficits as high as $350 billion next year. We haven't seen deficits that high since the first Bush Administration posted a $290 billion deficit in 1992. On top of that, we have incredible security needs at home and abroad. We have increased needs in spending for defense, for homeland security, for border security and health care. But this week the White House has proposed an economic plan that will blow a hole in the national debt, costing more than $6709 billion over 10 years. And the interest costs will add billions more. I am deeply concerned that the President's plan is a disaster for the Federal budget and for our long-term responsibilities to our country to promote national security, homeland security, and economic security. I thought the Bush plan was billed as an economic stimulus plan to get our economy moving. But when I look at this proposed plan I see it is heavily titled toward the wealthiest Americans. While giving very little to average Americans, the plan give a $90,000 tax break to every millionaire, and these are the people least likely to need to spend an additional dollar of income and stimulate the economy. I just don't see how the Bush plan will work. Eliminating the tax on dividends won't stimulate the economy in the short term. The total cost of the cuts is $670 billion, but less than $100 billion comes in the first year--which is when the economy needs it most. It overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest investors while providing little for most people in my State who are hurting. And it will do long-term fiscal damage with its $670 billion dollar price tag. As I see it, the only thing this plan will stimulate is our deficit. It will add to the mountain of debt that we are forcing on our children to pay back later. It is a trickle-down plan that our President's father once called ``Voodoo Economics.'' I believe that if Congress is going to pass a tax cut, then it should be a plan that actually helps the economy and should do four things: First, it should actually help the economy get moving again. I agree with Senator Baucus's proposals to increase the amount of money small businesses can deduct for investment in new equipment, and to enhance the bonus depreciation provision in last year's stimulus bill. This will actually help businesses create new jobs. Second, it should address unemployment benefits. The President and his allies finally reversed themselves last week and gave in to the urgent need to provide some relief to the folks who need help the most. This will help thousands in my State to keep paying the bills until jobs are available again. Third, it should help Washington State--and all States--deal with huge budget problems. The States do not have the luxury of deficit spending even if they are hit by what the President calls the trifecta of war, recession and national emergency. Our States are having to deal with $70 billion in deficits by cutting funding for education, health care, transportation and other critical needs. The people in my State need a safety net now to help get them back on their feet, and that safety net relies on states having adequate funding. We need to help the States get through this critical time. Last, it should not blow an even larger hole in the Federal budget. Keeping our military strong, tracking down terrorists, defending our homeland, giving our young people a good education, making health care more affordable, and building infrastructure are the types of priorities that the Bush plan will crowd out. I hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle and at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue will listen to the hardworking Americans outside the beltway. I hope that they will work with us to get a real, responsible and effective stimulus plan to get America's economy moving again. When my father was called upon during the Second World War, he was proud to serve his country. He earned the Purple Heart as one of the first G.I.'s to land at Okinawa. Today we are engaged in a war on terrorism and on the brink of another. But rather than being asked to sacrifice, we are asked how much we want our taxes cut. I visited Fort Lewis, McChord Air Force Base, and Everett Naval Station during the recent break. These young men and women are serving our country are working so hard to protect our security. Their families are being asked to sacrifice, as these men and women prepare to deploy. It is amazing that at the very time we are asking these troops to leave their families and head overseas to respond to a foreign crisis, we are asking for a tax cut at home that puts our budget in crisis. It is hard for me to imagine how a private first class making $16,000 a year is going to benefit from this tax cut. Yet he--or she--is prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect America's national security. America's defense needs, our homeland security needs, our education and health care needs will be jeopardized by the massive new Bush tax cut. What America needs now is not a plan to stimulate the deficit, but a real plan to stimulate our economy and put Americans back to work. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. As the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the Senator from Alaska is aware that, as part of the fiscal year Transportation Appropriations bill reported unanimously in July, the Committee mandated that the Coast Guard submit quarterly mission hour reports detailing precisely how the Coast Guard has allocated its human and capital resources by mission for the preceding quarter. The Committee also granted the Commandant unprecedented budget flexibility with the dramatically increased funds provided above the fiscal year 2002 level to address simultaneously his homeland security needs while ensuring that his other critical missions return to their pre-September 11, 2001 levels. Finally, the Committee required the Commandant to submit a detailed plan as part of his fiscal year 2004 budget request to show us precisely how he would maintain such mission balance. I am sure that the Senator from Alaska agrees with me that, notwithstanding the fact that the fiscal year 2003 Transportation Appropriations bill has been entangled in the larger delay in the Appropriations process, the bipartisan leadership of the Appropriations Committee expects the Commandant to move forward with the submission of these reports.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, does the Senator from Alaska agree that any significant changes to the authorities, functions, missions and capabilities of the Coast Guard can be implemented only if they are specified in subsequent legislation? And to that end, does he believe the language contained in the bill will serve to protect the non- homeland security missions of the Coast Guard while moving the organization into an important homeland security role?

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would like to thank the chairman of Governmental Affairs Committee, the Senator from Connecticut, for his tireless efforts and leadership concerning the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Our country is facing a range of threats that we must address--from port and airport security to cyber terrorism. We need funding for a new organizational structure to reduce these risks. I also would like to engage in a colloquy with the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the Senior Senator from Alaska, regarding the Coast Guard. The men and women of our Coast Guard make significant contributions to our nation each and every day, and they deserve our support and admiration. Last week, our colleague from Alaska addressed an important section in this legislation, Section 888, which governs the Coast Guard's role in the new Department of Homeland Security. His statement clearly established that it is the intent of this provision that the Coast Guard's non-homeland security missions and capabilities must be maintained without significant reduction when the Service transfers to the new Department. As the chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee and as a Senator from a coastal state, I emphatically agree with my Alaska colleague's remarks about the intent and effect of Section 888. I also would like to ask him some questions about the Coast Guard and its role in the Homeland Security Department. Does my colleague from Alaska agree that the United States Coast Guard is integral to the security of this country, and that the Coast Guard provides a wide range of services to our nation? Does he also recognize that some of these services are related to homeland security while others are not? For instance, the Coast Guard provides vital services in the areas of marine safety, search and rescue, aids to navigation, fisheries enforcement, marine environmental protection, and ice operations. While these traditional missions do not directly contribute to national security, they do ensure the safety of our citizens and our environment.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, as the Senator from Alaska has previously indicated, the essential non-homeland security missions are to be protected pursuant to Section 888. It is also my understanding that the Coast Guard organizational structure shall be maintained. To ensure that we achieve our objectives, the Inspector General of the Department shall conduct an annual review to assess the Coast Guard performance of all its missions, with a particular emphasis on examining the non-homeland security missions. Is this the understanding of the Senator from Alaska?

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, does the Senator from Alaska believe that it is imperative that these essential non-homeland security missions be maintained, and that the language in the bill clearly identifies the need to protect these critical services?

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the Senate today took an important step to combat domestic terrorism and improve safety at home. The Department of Homeland Security will help protect our communities by coordinating prevention and response efforts throughout the country. The legislation also maintains the integrity of the Coast Guard, so that the important function of search and rescue, drug interdiction, and environmental protection will not be degraded. Throughout his tenure, I have found Governor Tom Ridge to be a responsive member of this Administration, and I look forward to continuing to work with him in a constructive manner. While much of this legislation is important and necessary, I am concerned about several of the provisions. First, are the special interest gifts to the pharmaceutical and manufacturing industries that House Republican leaders slipped into the bill last week. Second, are the new surveillance powers granted to the Federal Government, and the potential impact on Americans' civil liberties. The Administration has assured Congress and the American people that the new authority will be used judiciously, and the Administration now must act responsibly and prudently. Third, I believe that men and women who serve their country in uniform are entitled to the same civil service protections as other federal workers, and I am disappointed that because of this bill, some workers will lost important rights. I intend to work with the new Department to protect Washington State's interests and will continue to monitor the implementation of this bill.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the confirmation of Judge Dennis Shedd to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the confirmation of Professor Michael McConnell to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. At every level of the Federal court system, federal judges have a tremendous impact on the rights and protections of all Americans. The federal judiciary effectively ended segregation and ensured a woman's right to reproductive choice. Every day we count on federal judges to protect our civil rights and liberties. The Senate serves as the only effective check on the Federal judiciary. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to advise and consent to the President's judicial appointments. These are lifetime appointments. Furthermore, because the U.S. Supreme Court hears only a few cases, the Circuit Courts of Appeals are often the courts of last resort for citizens seeking justice from the federal bench. As Senators, we have a constitutional responsibility to evaluate these candidates. I believe judicial candidates should be experienced, even-handed, possess a fair judicial temperament, and be committed to upholding the rights and liberties of all Americans. Dennis Shedd does not meet that standard. He has failed to show this Senator that he possesses the characteristics necessary to receive a lifetime appointment to the Circuit Court of Appeals. As a Federal District Court Judge, Shedd's rulings and actions on the bench indicate he lacks the even-handedness we expect from our federal judges. He has consistently sided with employers in workplace discrimination suits on issues ranging from sexual harassment to race and age discrimination. In fact, in his 11 years on the Federal bench not a single plaintiff in a civil rights or employment discrimination case has prevailed in his courtroom. His willingness to inject his own personal bias about the rights of individuals shows he also lacks the requisite judicial temperament we should require in a Federal judge. He has shown hostility to those seeking justice from the bench by assisting the defense and granting summary judgment for the defense in a disproportionate number of cases. Aside from employee rights and discrimination cases, he has also shown an unwillingness to uphold the basic civil liberties and rights of all Americans. He has favored a state government's ability to violate an individual's right of privacy by selling their personal information despite a federal law to the contrary. He also struck down part of the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, by arguing a State cannot be sued under FMLA due to sovereign immunity. He has further shown a disregard for protecting the rights of voters, and has displayed an insensitivity on issues concerning race. Considering his history of narrowly interpreting the rights of individuals and his hostility toward civil liberty protections, we can only assume he would not uphold the civil liberty of privacy, including honoring the Roe v. Wade decision. In fact, at his confirmation hearing he refused to commit to upholding the fundamental right of reproductive freedom. Dennis Shedd's record clearly illustrates he is not even-handed, that he lacks the right temperament for the appeals bench, and that he has consistently failed to protect the rights and liberties of our people. He should not be confirmed for the Federal appeals court. I urge my colleagues to vote against this nomination. I would also like to express my opposition to Professor Michael McConnell's recent confirmation to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Professor McConnell has consistently expressed strong opposition to protecting civil rights and liberties, going so far as to call the Roe case ``a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution.'' He has also argued, contrary to existing law, that abortion protestors have a ``constitutional right to protect against abortion--forcefully and face-to-face.'' He holds extreme opinions on the separation of church and state and other key civil rights protections. Professor McConnell has severely criticized the Supreme Court's 8 to 1 decision in Bob Jones University v. United States. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the IRS may deny tax-exempt status to a religious school with racially discriminatory policies. Professor McConnell wrote that the racial discriminatory practices at Bob Jones University should be tolerated because they were religious in nature. He has also argued for giving religious institutions preferential treatment and has advocated direct federal funding of religious institutions. Clearly, Professor McConnell's opinion on the separation of church and state strays far from the mainstream and far from generally recognized conservative legal analysis. Finally, Professor McConnell has argued for weakening both statutory and constitutional protections against discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation through exemptions for private entities. Like Judge Shedd, I believe Professor McConnell lacks the basic qualities needed to serve on the Federal appellate bench.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. As the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the Senator from Alaska is aware that, as part of the fiscal year Transportation Appropriations bill reported unanimously in July, the Committee mandated that the Coast Guard submit quarterly mission hour reports detailing precisely how the Coast Guard has allocated its human and capital resources by mission for the preceding quarter. The Committee also granted the Commandant unprecedented budget flexibility with the dramatically increased funds provided above the fiscal year 2002 level to address simultaneously his homeland security needs while ensuring that his other critical missions return to their pre-September 11, 2001 levels. Finally, the Committee required the Commandant to submit a detailed plan as part of his fiscal year 2004 budget request to show us precisely how he would maintain such mission balance. I am sure that the Senator from Alaska agrees with me that, notwithstanding the fact that the fiscal year 2003 Transportation Appropriations bill has been entangled in the larger delay in the Appropriations process, the bipartisan leadership of the Appropriations Committee expects the Commandant to move forward with the submission of these reports.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, does the Senator from Alaska agree that any significant changes to the authorities, functions, missions and capabilities of the Coast Guard can be implemented only if they are specified in subsequent legislation? And to that end, does he believe the language contained in the bill will serve to protect the non- homeland security missions of the Coast Guard while moving the organization into an important homeland security role?

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the Senate today took an important step to combat domestic terrorism and improve safety at home. The Department of Homeland Security will help protect our communities by coordinating prevention and response efforts throughout the country. The legislation also maintains the integrity of the Coast Guard, so that the important function of search and rescue, drug interdiction, and environmental protection will not be degraded. Throughout his tenure, I have found Governor Tom Ridge to be a responsive member of this Administration, and I look forward to continuing to work with him in a constructive manner. While much of this legislation is important and necessary, I am concerned about several of the provisions. First, are the special interest gifts to the pharmaceutical and manufacturing industries that House Republican leaders slipped into the bill last week. Second, are the new surveillance powers granted to the Federal Government, and the potential impact on Americans' civil liberties. The Administration has assured Congress and the American people that the new authority will be used judiciously, and the Administration now must act responsibly and prudently. Third, I believe that men and women who serve their country in uniform are entitled to the same civil service protections as other federal workers, and I am disappointed that because of this bill, some workers will lost important rights. I intend to work with the new Department to protect Washington State's interests and will continue to monitor the implementation of this bill.

Mrs. MURRAY. It is with great disappointment that I have to tell the Senator from Alaska that I am greatly concerned by some preliminary indications from the Department of Transportation Inspector General, IG, that the Coast Guard may not have fulfilled its statutory obligations to fully fund mandated improvements to its Search and Rescue Program in fiscal year 2002. As part of the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002, the Committee mandated that not less than $14,541,000 be used solely to address the many deficiencies that the IG found with the Coast Guard's readiness in the area of Search and Rescue. We also mandated that the Inspector General monitor the Coast Guard's compliance with this directive. While the Inspector General's office has not yet finalized its report, I am greatly concerned by preliminary indications that the Coast Guard did not, I repeat ``not fulfill the requirement in the law. This is precisely the kind of concern that makes it essential that we continue to monitor the Coast Guard's compliance with Appropriations Committee directives as well as with Section 888 of the Homeland Security Act. Again, I commend your leadership in this area and look forward to working with you and Admiral Collins, the Commandant, on these issues in the future. I also want to thank the Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee again for his foresight and leadership in the efforts to create the Department of Homeland Security.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, as the Senator from Alaska has previously indicated, the essential non-homeland security missions are to be protected pursuant to Section 888. It is also my understanding that the Coast Guard organizational structure shall be maintained. To ensure that we achieve our objectives, the Inspector General of the Department shall conduct an annual review to assess the Coast Guard performance of all its missions, with a particular emphasis on examining the non-homeland security missions. Is this the understanding of the Senator from Alaska?

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, does the Senator from Alaska believe that it is imperative that these essential non-homeland security missions be maintained, and that the language in the bill clearly identifies the need to protect these critical services?

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I would like to thank the chairman of Governmental Affairs Committee, the Senator from Connecticut, for his tireless efforts and leadership concerning the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Our country is facing a range of threats that we must address--from port and airport security to cyber terrorism. We need funding for a new organizational structure to reduce these risks. I also would like to engage in a colloquy with the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the Senior Senator from Alaska, regarding the Coast Guard. The men and women of our Coast Guard make significant contributions to our nation each and every day, and they deserve our support and admiration. Last week, our colleague from Alaska addressed an important section in this legislation, Section 888, which governs the Coast Guard's role in the new Department of Homeland Security. His statement clearly established that it is the intent of this provision that the Coast Guard's non-homeland security missions and capabilities must be maintained without significant reduction when the Service transfers to the new Department. As the chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee and as a Senator from a coastal state, I emphatically agree with my Alaska colleague's remarks about the intent and effect of Section 888. I also would like to ask him some questions about the Coast Guard and its role in the Homeland Security Department. Does my colleague from Alaska agree that the United States Coast Guard is integral to the security of this country, and that the Coast Guard provides a wide range of services to our nation? Does he also recognize that some of these services are related to homeland security while others are not? For instance, the Coast Guard provides vital services in the areas of marine safety, search and rescue, aids to navigation, fisheries enforcement, marine environmental protection, and ice operations. While these traditional missions do not directly contribute to national security, they do ensure the safety of our citizens and our environment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the confirmation of Judge Dennis Shedd to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the confirmation of Professor Michael McConnell to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. At every level of the Federal court system, federal judges have a tremendous impact on the rights and protections of all Americans. The federal judiciary effectively ended segregation and ensured a woman's right to reproductive choice. Every day we count on federal judges to protect our civil rights and liberties. The Senate serves as the only effective check on the Federal judiciary. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to advise and consent to the President's judicial appointments. These are lifetime appointments. Furthermore, because the U.S. Supreme Court hears only a few cases, the Circuit Courts of Appeals are often the courts of last resort for citizens seeking justice from the federal bench. As Senators, we have a constitutional responsibility to evaluate these candidates. I believe judicial candidates should be experienced, even-handed, possess a fair judicial temperament, and be committed to upholding the rights and liberties of all Americans. Dennis Shedd does not meet that standard. He has failed to show this Senator that he possesses the characteristics necessary to receive a lifetime appointment to the Circuit Court of Appeals. As a Federal District Court Judge, Shedd's rulings and actions on the bench indicate he lacks the even-handedness we expect from our federal judges. He has consistently sided with employers in workplace discrimination suits on issues ranging from sexual harassment to race and age discrimination. In fact, in his 11 years on the Federal bench not a single plaintiff in a civil rights or employment discrimination case has prevailed in his courtroom. His willingness to inject his own personal bias about the rights of individuals shows he also lacks the requisite judicial temperament we should require in a Federal judge. He has shown hostility to those seeking justice from the bench by assisting the defense and granting summary judgment for the defense in a disproportionate number of cases. Aside from employee rights and discrimination cases, he has also shown an unwillingness to uphold the basic civil liberties and rights of all Americans. He has favored a state government's ability to violate an individual's right of privacy by selling their personal information despite a federal law to the contrary. He also struck down part of the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, by arguing a State cannot be sued under FMLA due to sovereign immunity. He has further shown a disregard for protecting the rights of voters, and has displayed an insensitivity on issues concerning race. Considering his history of narrowly interpreting the rights of individuals and his hostility toward civil liberty protections, we can only assume he would not uphold the civil liberty of privacy, including honoring the Roe v. Wade decision. In fact, at his confirmation hearing he refused to commit to upholding the fundamental right of reproductive freedom. Dennis Shedd's record clearly illustrates he is not even-handed, that he lacks the right temperament for the appeals bench, and that he has consistently failed to protect the rights and liberties of our people. He should not be confirmed for the Federal appeals court. I urge my colleagues to vote against this nomination. I would also like to express my opposition to Professor Michael McConnell's recent confirmation to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Professor McConnell has consistently expressed strong opposition to protecting civil rights and liberties, going so far as to call the Roe case ``a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution.'' He has also argued, contrary to existing law, that abortion protestors have a ``constitutional right to protect against abortion--forcefully and face-to-face.'' He holds extreme opinions on the separation of church and state and other key civil rights protections. Professor McConnell has severely criticized the Supreme Court's 8 to 1 decision in Bob Jones University v. United States. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the IRS may deny tax-exempt status to a religious school with racially discriminatory policies. Professor McConnell wrote that the racial discriminatory practices at Bob Jones University should be tolerated because they were religious in nature. He has also argued for giving religious institutions preferential treatment and has advocated direct federal funding of religious institutions. Clearly, Professor McConnell's opinion on the separation of church and state strays far from the mainstream and far from generally recognized conservative legal analysis. Finally, Professor McConnell has argued for weakening both statutory and constitutional protections against discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation through exemptions for private entities. Like Judge Shedd, I believe Professor McConnell lacks the basic qualities needed to serve on the Federal appellate bench.