A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require a balanced budget and protect Social Security surpluses.

Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today that would direct the Secretary of the Army to determine whether certain nationals of the Philippine Islands performed military service on behalf of the United States during World War II.

Our Filipino veterans fought side by side and sacrificed their lives on behalf of the United States. This legislation would confirm the validity of their claims and further allow qualified individuals the opportunity to apply for military and veterans benefits that, I believe, they are entitled to. As this population becomes older, it is important for our nation to extend its firm commitment to the Filipino veterans and their families who participated in making us the great nation that we are today.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in our efforts to accommodate many Americans by making Memorial Day the last Monday in May, we have lost sight of the significance of this day to our Nation. My bill would restore Memorial Day to May 30 and authorize our flag to fly at half mast on that day. In addition, this legislation would authorize the President to issue a proclamation designating Memorial Day and Veterans Day as days for prayer and ceremonies. This legislation would help restore the recognition our veterans deserve for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to amend the Public Health Service Act for the establishment of a National Center for Social Work Research.

Social workers provide a multitude of health care delivery services throughout America to our children, families, the elderly, and persons suffering from various forms of abuse and neglect.

The purpose of this center is to support and disseminate information about basic and clinical social work research, and training, with an emphasis on service to underserved and rural populations.

While the Federal Government provides funding for various social work research activities through the National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies, there presently is no coordination or direction of these critical activities and no overall assessment of needs and opportunities for empirical knowledge development. The establishment of a Center for Social Work Research would result in improved behavioral and mental health care outcomes for our nation's children, families, the elderly, and others.

In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost- effective, research-based, quality health care to all Americans, we must recognize the important contributions of social work researchers to health care delivery and the central role that the Center for Social Work can provide in facilitating their work.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation today to modify Title VII of the U.S. Public Health Service Act in order to provide students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with the opportunity to participate in various health professions loan programs.

Providing students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with eligibility for financial assistance in the form of loans, loan guarantees, and scholarships will facilitate a much-needed infusion of behavioral science expertise into our community of public health providers. There is a growing recognition of the valuable contribution being made by psychologists toward solving some of our Nation's most distressing problems.

The participation of students from all backgrounds and clinical disciplines is vital to the success of health care training. The Title VII programs play a significant role in providing financial support for the recruitment of minorities, women, and individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Minority therapists have an advantage in the provision of critical services to minority populations because often they can communicate with clients in their own language and cultural framework. Minority therapists are more likely to work in community settings where ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged individuals are most likely to seek care. It is critical that continued support be provided for the training of individuals who provide health care services to underserved communities.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation on the Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act of 2003, a bill that responds to the dire need of our rural communities for quality health care and disease prevention programs.

Almost one fourth of Americans live in rural areas and frequently lack access to adequate physical and mental health care. As many as 21 million of the 34 million people living in underserved rural areas are without access to a primary care provider. Even in areas where providers do exist, there are numerous limits to access, such as geographical barriers lack of transportation, and lack of knowledge about available resources. Due to the diversity of rural populations, language and cultural obstacles are often a factor in the access to medical care.

Compound these problems with limited financial resources, and the result is that many Americans living in rural communities go without vital health care, especially preventive care. Children fail to receive immunizations and routine checkups. Preventable illnesses and injuries occur needlessly, and lead to expensive hospitalizations. Early symptoms of emotional problems and substance abuse go undetected, and often develop into full-blown disorders.

An Institute of Medicine, IOM, report entitled, ``Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive

Intervention Research,'' highlights the benefits of preventive care for all health problems. The training of health care providers in prevention is crucial in order to meet the demand for care in underserved areas. Currently, rural health care providers lack preventive care training opportunities.

Interdisciplinary preventive training of rural health care providers must be encouraged. Through such training programs, rural health care providers can build a strong educational foundation in the behavioral, biological, and psychological sciences. Interdisciplinary team prevention training will also facilitate operations at sites with both health and mental health clinics by facilitating routine consultation between groups. Emphasizing the mental health disciplines and their services as part of the health care team will contribute to the overall health of rural communities.

The Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act of 2003 would implement the risk-reduction model described in the IOM study. This model is based on the identification of risk factors and targets specific interventions for those risk factors.

The human suffering caused by poor health is immeasurable, and places a huge financial burden on communities, families, and individuals. By implementing preventive measures to reduce this suffering, the potential overall health and financial savings are enormous.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on behalf of our Nation's clinical social workers, I am introducing legislation to amend the Public Health Service Act. This legislation would: 1. establish a new social work training program, 2. ensure that social work students are eligible for support under the Health Careers Opportunity Program, 3. provide social work schools with eligibility for support under the Minority Centers of Excellence programs, 4. permit schools offering degrees in social work to obtain grants for training projects in geriatrics, and 5. ensure that social work is recognized as a profession under the Public Health Maintenance Organization Act.

Despite the impressive range of services social workers provide to people of this Nation, few Federal programs exist to provide opportunities for social work training in health and mental health care.

Social workers have long provided quality mental health services to our citizens and continue to be at the forefront of establishing innovative programs to serve our disadvantaged populations. I believe it is important to ensure that the special expertise social workers possess continues to be available to the citizens of this Nation. This bill, by providing financial assistance to schools of social work and social work students, acknowledges the long history and critical importance of the services provided by social work professionals. I believe it is time to provide them with the recognition the deserve.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to amend Chapter 74 of Title 38, United States Code, to revise certain provisions relating to the appointment of clinical and professional psychologists in the Veterans Health Administration, VHA. The VHA has a long history of maintaining a staff of the very best health care professionals to provide care to those men and women who have served our country in the Armed Forces.

Recently, a distressing situation regarding the care of our veterans has come to my attention: the recruitment and retention of psychologists in the VHA of the Department of Veterans Affairs has become a significant problem.

The Congress has recognized the important contribution of the behavioral sciences in the treatment of several conditions afflicting a significant portion of our veterans. Programs related to homelessness, substance abuse, and post traumatic stress disorder have received funding from the Congress in recent years.

Psychologists, as behavioral science experts, are essential to the successful implementation of these programs. Consequently, the high vacancy and turnover rates for psychologists in the VHA might seriously jeopardize these programs and will negatively impact overall patient care in the VHA.

Recruitment of psychologists by the VHA is hindered by a number of factors including a pay scale that is not commensurate with private sector rates together with a low number of clinical and professional psychologists appearing on the register of the Office of Personnel Management, OPM. Most new hires have no post-doctoral experience, and are hired immediately after a VHA internship. Recruitment, when successful, takes up to six months or longer.

Retention of psychologists in the VHA system poses an even more significant problem. I have been informed that almost 40 percent of VHA psychologists have five years or less of post-doctoral experience. Psychologists leave the VHA system after five years because they have almost reached peak levels for salary and professional advancement. Under the present system, psychologists cannot be recognized, or appropriately compensated, for excellence or for taking on additional responsibilities such as running treatment programs.

In effect, the current system for hiring psychologists in the VHA supports mediocrity, not excellence and mastery. Our veterans with behavioral and mental health disorders deserve better psychological care from more experienced professionals than they are now receiving.

Currently, psychologists are the only doctoral level health care providers in the VHA who are not included in Title 38. This is without question a significant factor in the recruitment and retention difficulties that I have mentioned.

Title 38 appointment authority for psychologists would help ameliorate the recruitment and retention problems. The length of time needed to recruit psychologists could be shortened by eliminating the requirement for applicants to be rated by the OPM. This would also encourage the recruitment of applicants who are not recent VHA interns by reducing the amount of time between identifying a desirable applicant and being able to offer that applicant a position.

It is expected that problems in retention will be greatly alleviated by the implementation of a Title 38 system that offers financial incentives for psychologists to pursue professional development. Achievements that would merit salary increases include such activities as assuming supervisory responsibilities for clinical programs, implementing innovative clinical treatments that improve the effectiveness and efficiency of patient care, making significant contributions to the science of psychology, and becoming a Fellow of the American Psychological Association.

The addition of psychologists to Title 38, as proposed by this amendment, would provide relief for the retention and recruitment issues and enhance the quality of care for our veterans and their families.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to amend Title 18 of the United States Code to allow our Nation's clinical social workers to use their mental health expertise on behalf of the Federal judiciary by conducting psychological and psychiatric exams.

I feel that the time has come to allow our Nation's judicial system to have access to a wide range of behavioral science and mental health expertise. I am confident that the enactment of this legislation would be very much in our Nation's best interest.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would provide a Federal charter for the National Academies of Practice. This organization represents outstanding medical professionals who have made significant contributions to the practice of applied psychology, medicine, dentistry, nursing, optometry, osteopathy, podiatry, social work, veterinary medicine, and pharmacy. When fully established, each of the ten academies will possess 100 distinguished practitioners selected by their peers. These academics will be able to provide the Congress of the United States and the executive branch with considerable health policy expertise, especially from the perspective of those individuals who are in the forefront of actually providing health care.

As we continue to grapple with the many complex issues surrounding the delivery of health care services, it is clearly in our best interest to ensure that the Congress has direct and immediate access to the recommendations of an interdisciplinary body of health care practitioners.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Clinical Social Workers' Recognition Act of 2003 to correct a continuing problem in the Federal Employees Compensation Act. This bill will also provide clinical social workers the recognition they deserve as independent providers of quality mental health care services.

Clinical social workers are authorized to independently diagnose and treat mental illnesses through public and private health insurance plans across the nation. However, Title V of the United States Code, does not permit the use of mental health evaluations conducted by clinical social workers for use as evidence in determining workers' compensation claims brought by federal employees. The bill I am introducing corrects this problem.

It is a sad irony that federal employees may select a clinical social worker through their health plans to provide mental health services, but may not go to this same professional for workers' compensation evaluations. The failure to recognize the validity of evaluations provided by clinical social workers unnecessarily limits Federal employees' selection of a provider to conduct the workers' compensation mental health evaluations. Lack of this recognition may well impose an undue burden on Federal employees where clinical social workers are the only available providers of mental health care.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would exempt from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund excise taxes on air transportation by helicopters of individuals and cargo for the purpose of conducting removal and environmental restoration activities relating to unexploded ordnance on the Island of Kahoolawe.

The Kahoolawe Island Unexploded Ordnance Clearance and Environmental Restoration Project is authorized under Title X of the Fiscal Year 1994 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The Island of Kahoolawe is uninhabited, and it served as a bombing range for the Department of Defense until 1990. The Department of Defense is currently in the process of cleaning up and restoring Kahoolawe for its eventual return to the State of Hawaii.

The Airport and Airway Trust Fund excise taxes help support our nation's air traffic systems and airport infrastructures. However, there are no airports or landing zones on Kahoolawe that receive benefits from the Trust Fund. In addition, the taxes place an undue burden on the air transportation services provided to the Kahoolawe Clearance Project. Compared to a normal airline whose aircraft make fewer trips per day over much longer distances, the services provided to the project are very frequent, with many trips over very short distances. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would extend to qualified teaching hospital support organizations the existing debt-financed property rules that apply to tax-exempt educational organizations, pension funds, and investment consortia of qualified schools and funds.

In a June 21, 2002, article, the New York Times describes the financial straits that nonprofit hospitals now face. More and more people in our weakened economy are seeking medical care from nonprofit hospitals. As a condition for Federal tax exemption, nonprofit hospitals must provide significant charitable services. Fees from other patients, especially in orthopedics, cardiology, and oncology, have in the past, allowed nonprofit hospitals to cover the expense of caring for the poor.

For-profit entrepreneurs, however, are better positioned to win away these specialty care patients because they are not burdened by the same requirement to provide indigent care. Consequently, investors and lenders have readily funded for-profit health care ventures. This available capital allows profit-making companies to build the most up- to-date facilities in competing for the high-margin patient.

No doubt, for-profit operations do offer charity care, but their profit orientation limits the amount they will provide. For example, residency and fellowship programs to train our doctors are not profitable, and, therefore, as the New York Times points out, nearly all the postgraduate medical education in the United States is provided by the nonprofit hospitals.

Of course, rising costs, such as for wages, supplies, and insurance, further compound the problem of nonprofit hospitals of stretching their income to cover significant charitable services. In addition, many of these nonprofit hospitals cannot raise or borrow the capital to modernize. They cover operating costs by postponing hospital maintenance and deferring the purchase of new technology, exacerbating an already bad situation. Eventually, as the New York Times article documents, more and more nonprofit hospitals will be forced to sell their facilities to for-profit enterprises.

The Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu faces these very same financial difficulties. This 143-year-old nonprofit hospital system maintains the largest private, nonprofit hospital in my state. It is a teaching hospital that provides residency training in a number of areas, and it treated 18,000 inpatients and 200,000 outpatients in 2001. With the only accredited trauma center in Hawaii, it served over 40,000 individuals without regard to their ability to pay. Medicaid and Medicare patients comprise nearly 60 percent of all its admissions.

In addition, the Center directly, or through its affiliates, operates community clinics throughout the state, conducts professional training programs, offers home health services, maintains a medical library, in addition to running a rural hospital on the rural, economically depressed Island of Molokai. Like other nonprofit hospitals, the Center provides significant charitable care, with nearly $23 million in uncompensated services in 2002.

Further, like other nonprofit hospitals, it has grave problems raising the funds needed to support all these uncompensated services while at the same time renovating and expanding its treatment facilities. A recent report from the Healthcare Association of Hawaii estimated that the hospitals in my state, similar to hospitals nationwide, will face additional, major losses this year due to reduced reimbursements, higher costs, and greater demand for services.

In the past, Congress has allowed tax-exempt schools, colleges, universities, and pension funds to invest in real estate development so as to help meet these institutions' financial needs. Under the tax code these organizations can incur debt to develop their real estate holdings without triggering the tax on unrelated business activities. Our nonprofit teaching hospitals have equal if not more pressing needs and should have the same opportunity. Unless Congress wishes to assume responsibility for charitable health care, we must help our nonprofit hospitals, especially the teaching hospitals. My bill, which is identical to an amendment that the Senate had previously

adopted during the debate of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, would allow support organizations for qualified nonprofit teaching hospital to engage in limited real estate activities. These nonprofit hospitals would thereby be able to supplement their investment income in order to meet the growing demand placed on them for more community service.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the New York Times article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Republican partisans are acting as if Senate Democrats were treating President Bush's judicial nominees the way Republicans treated President Clinton's. That is not the case. We have worked hard to repair much of the damage of Republican mistreatment of President Clinton's nominees. When we led the Senate we moved forward at twice the rate that Republicans had and during our leadership 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees were confirmed. This year we have proceeded to consider and confirm another 25 lifetime judicial appointments. I would understand the partisanship if Democrats had held up consideration of 125 judicial nominees and the Senate had only confirmed two, but just the opposite is true.

I understand the frustration that Senator Frist feels regarding the continuing impasse over the nominations of Mr. Estrada and Judge Owen. I am sorry that the White House has chosen confrontation over cooperation with the Senate on these matters. It is too bad that this White House will not work with us, as Senator Bennett and others have indicated was reasonable, in order to provide access to the materials we requested from Mr. Estrada and the Justice Department one year ago today. With respect to the renomination of Judge Owen, I have said that unprecedented renomination of a judicial nominee rejected after a hearing and a fair debate and vote before the Judiciary Committee was ill advised. It remains so.

Along with the other members of the Judiciary Committee, I have voted on the Estrada and Owen nominations. We have not taken the course of prior Republican leadership in which any Senator was allowed to block President Clinton's judicial nominees by use of a secret, anonymous hold. Instead, Democrats acted over the last few years to reform the confirmation process. We have added openness and accountability. What we have not been able to do is obtain a fair level of consultation and cooperation from this White House. We made home State Senators' ``blue slips'' matters of public record. When Republican Senators stymied Judiciary Committee consideration of President Clinton's judicial nominations, they were permitted to do so under the cloak of confidentiality. I changed that in 2001.

The Republican myth of a ``crisis'' in the Senate is punctured by the facts, which show the lowest judicial vacancy rate in 13 years--lower than the national jobless rate of 6 percent.

Court-packing by Presidents of either party is harmful, and I have spoken out often about the need to preserve the independence of our Federal judiciary. The world's emerging democracies envy the judicial independence in the American system, and we should make every effort to defend it, not to undermine it, as the escalating tactics of this administration would do. Just last month the administration and congressional Republicans turned a deaf ear when Chief Justice Rehnquist warned against the assault on the independence of the judiciary when so-called sentencing ``reforms'' were tacked on to a popular bill without hearings or careful consideration.

The White House says it opposes judicial activism, but the President sends the Senate activist nominees. The White House itself pushes results-oriented changes in the rules of the Senate, which is a separate branch of Government. This White House is not satisfied with its subjugation of the House and Senate to its will and removing Congress as a check on the Executive. They also want to pack the independent Federal courts. Republicans are not satisfied with means undermining the independence of the Senate, they are embarked on a course to undermine the independence of the Federal judiciary, as well. They already have convinced Senate Republicans to bend and even break the Judiciary Committee's rules in the handling of judicial nominees. Now they want to change the rules of the Senate itself in a raw bid for unitary government, directed by the White House. The American people and their representatives in the Senate should not let the Senate or the Federal judiciary become mere arms of any political party or any President.

The President's charges about obstruction would be easier to understand if the numbers themselves did not disprove them. The President and some Republicans in the Senate seem to be suffering from confirmation amnesia. The Democratic-led Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominees, acting far faster than Republicans did with President Clinton's nominees. We have confirmed another 24 this year for a total so far of 125 and achieved the lowest judicial vacancy rate in 13 years. The vacancy rate on the Federal bench today is 5.3 percent, which is lower than the national jobless rate of 6 percent. Unemployment has soared, the deficit has soared, crime is on the rise for the first time in a decade--about the only thing that has gone down significantly over the last 2 years is Federal judicial vacancies. Yet the White House complains that it has not been able to bully the Senate into rubber-stamping every one of the White House's ideological choices. Democratic Senators have cooperated to improve the process so that it has worked much more smoothly for President Bush's nominees than Republicans allowed for President Clinton's nominees.

The fact is that 125 have been confirmed, and two have been held back. You would not know that by listening to the President's remarks last Friday or to Republican talking points or various attack ads now being broadcast around the country in a partisan effort to intimidate Senators.

Democrats held hearings on more nominees faster than Republicans had and proceeded on controversial nominations. We have cooperated this year in bringing many controversial nominations to the floor for votes. When Republicans controlled the Senate during the last Democratic administration, they blocked more than 60 judicial nominees. And they were blocked not with cloture votes in the light of day, but sometimes by a single, anonymous Republican objection. And yes, there were also Republican filibusters of President Clinton's nominees.

The answer for handling the remaining controversial nominees is not reckless rhetoric or undermining the Senate's independence by changing its rules so that the independence of the Federal judiciary can become a victim to partisan court-packing. The answer has to start with the President, where the process begins. Despite his earlier promises, the President has been a divider and not a uniter in choosing many of his nominees, who would roll back the hard-won rights of workers, women, minorities and consumers, and who would side with the big polluters over communities when it comes to clean air and water. Several of his choices have divided the American people, and they have divided the Senate. We have drawn a line with a few of his most extreme choices. Drawing that line has been the responsible response to this President's divisive nominations for lifetime positions on the Federal courts.

This President campaigned saying he wanted to change the tone in Washington. He has--for the worse. The White House has adopted the rabid partisanship of House Republicans. The President of the United States has sunk to name-calling, extreme rhetoric and partisan campaigning against the Senate and individual Senators, which is not helpful to the process or to the institutions of our government.

The answer is for the administration to work with the Senate, as earlier Presidents have done. The process starts with the President, and the buck stops with the President.

Here on the Senate floor, when Senators have opposed the most divisive of the President's nominees with whom he is seeking to pack the courts and ideologically tilt them, we have done so on the record. We have debated and put forth the considerations and reasons. That, too, was something all too often missing from the years in which Republicans defeated judicial nominees through stealth tactics. We have voted on the record in vote after vote required by Republican cloture petitions.

Unfortunately, in the case of Mr. Estrada, the administration has made no effort to work with us and resolve the impasse. Instead, there has been a series of votes on cloture petitions in which the opposition has grown and from time to time the support has waned. Recently, there have been press reports indicating that Mr. Estrada had asked the White House months ago to withdraw his nomination. I understand his frustration. If this administration is not going to follow the practice of every other administration and share with the Senate the government work papers of the nominee--the very practice this administration followed with an EPA nominee in 2001--then I can understand him not wanting to be used as a political pawn by the administration to score partisan, political points. That the administration has not acceded to his reported request but has plowed ahead to force a succession of unsuccessful cloture votes and to foment division in our Hispanic community for partisan gain is another example of how far this administration is willing to go to politicize the process at the expense of its own nominees.

The frustration with these two difficult nominations should not obscure the work that the Senate leadership has done to correct some of the abuses of power earlier this year and pave the way for votes on the nominations of Jeffrey Sutton and Judge Cook to the Sixth Circuit and John Roberts to the DC Circuit. There were more votes against the Sutton nomination than the number required for a filibuster, but there was no filibuster of that nomination. Just as there was no filibuster of the controversial nomination of Mr. Tymkovich to the Tenth Circuit or of the controversial nomination of Judge Dennis Shedd to the Fourth Circuit. All three of these circuit court nominations were controversial and opposed by many Americans and many Senators.

The President's recent comments took the Republican Chairman of the Judiciary Committee to task for, among other things, not holding a hearing on the nomination of Judge Terry Boyle. I understand that Chairman Hatch is following a longstanding tradition of the Senate in not proceeding with a nomination that is opposed by a home State Senator. After all, it was Senator Helms' opposition to Judge Beaty and Judge Wynn, as well as to Roger Gregory and a number of others, that has led to there being numerous vacancies on the Fourth Circuit. Having honored Senator Helms' objections, Chairman Hatch would be seen as hypocritical and partisan if he were to ignore the concerns of Democratic home State Senators. Among the difficulties the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has faced since 2001 are the high number of judicial nominees of this White House that do not have home State Senator support. So when the President attacks the Senate for not having acted on nominations that the White House knows does not have the support of home State Senators, he is not being fair to the Senate, to the chairman or to the nominees. The White House knows that judicial nominations do not proceed without the support of home State Senators. Yet this administration continues to belittle the role of home State Senators in the advice and consent process and ignore the important role they have long played in Senate consideration of judicial nominees.

Another example is the nomination of Judge Carolyn Kuhl to the Ninth Circuit. This is a nomination that is opposed by both home State Senators. Proceeding on such a nomination is unprecedented. Yet Senate Republicans have forced the nomination out of the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote after knowing that Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer both oppose confirmation.

The last time the Senate voted on a nomination opposed by both home State Senators was only because the Republican caucus ambushed the nomination of Judge Ronnie White of Missouri on the Senate floor in 1999 after one of the Missouri Senators switched from supporting the nomination to opposing it the day of the vote. They proceeded without telling the administration, Senate Democrats or the nominee of the change of position and a number of Republican Senators who had previously voted in favor of the nomination changed their positions, as well, and the nomination was defeated on the only party-line vote to defeat a judicial nominee in Senate history of which I am aware.

With respect to Senator Frist's resolution, S. Res. 138, I look forward to the work of the Rules Committee on this proposal. Initially, I would observe that voting on judicial nominations is unlike Senate consideration of legislation in the way that imposing capital punishment is unlike any other criminal sentence. It is final and irrevocable. A bad statute once enacted can be amended or repealed. A bad judge is on the bench for life and will continue to affect American's rights, our freedoms and our environment in case after case for decades to come, long after the President who appointed that judge is gone. Given that dimension, I believe Senator Frist got his proposal upside down by seeking to exempt judicial nominations from Senate debate rules. It is more important that there be a higher level of confidence and certainty that a judicial nomination being considered for a lifetime appointment be the right person for the job, be a person of fairness, impartiality, judgment and someone committed to our constitutional values. The rights of women, minorities, consumers, workers and those concerned about the environment should not be sacrificed to political expediency and the independence of our federal courts should not be lost to ideological court packing by this administration.

Others will no doubt point out that Senator Frist voted against a proposal in 1995 to revise the Senate filibuster rules. I have pointed out in other statements how many Republicans supported the filibusters against President Clinton's executive calendar nominees, including the judicial nominations of Judge Marsha Berzon and Judge Richard Paez, the last most recent double filibuster in 2000, and the nominations of Judge Rosemary Barkett and Judge H. Lee Sarokin. In addition, recent Republican filibusters succeeded in defeating the nominations of Dr. Henry Foster to be Surgeon General and Sam Brown to be an ambassador. Republicans have not been shy about using filibusters to defeat the nominees of the most recent Democratic President or stall legislation some of them oppose. Just last year, in their tributes to Senator Thurmond, Republicans extolled his use of the filibuster and his setting a record for the longest individual filibuster in Senate history. What they left out of their tributes was the fact that Senator Thurmond had filibustered civil rights legislation.

Others may also point out how many Republicans have proposed supermajority requirements. Not only have Republicans abandoned their commitment to fiscal responsibility and their call for a balanced budget, they have forgotten that they insisted in recent years on three-fifths requirements to raise the debt ceiling or have taxes apply retroactively. Senator Craig and Senator Miller currently support a proposal, S.J. Res. 2, to require a balanced Federal budget that includes a three-fifths rollcall vote of each chamber to increase the debt limit. Last year Senator Sessions introduced a measure, S.J. Res. 11, cosponsored by Senators Crapo, Kyl, Fitzgerald, Hagel, Inhofe and Shelby to require a two-thirds vote of each House in order to increase any tax. Of course, in the 105th Congress, along with former Senators Ashcroft and Abraham, who are now Cabinet secretaries in this administration, Senators Allard, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Burns, Campbell, Cochran, Collins, Craig, DeWine, Domenici, Enzi, Frist, Grassley, Gregg, Hagel, Hutchison, Inhofe, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, McCain, McConnell, Nickles, Roberts, Santorum, Sessions, Shelby, Smith, Snowe, Specter, Stevens, Thomas and Warner all cosponsored S.J. Res. 1 which would have required a three-fifths majority requirement to raise the debt ceiling.

The Senate was not designed by the founders or the Constitution to be a strictly majoritarian institution. To the contrary, the genius of the Framers at the Constitutional Convention was to construct a House of Representatives, structured on majoritarian principles with representatives voting on behalf of relatively equal numbers of constituents, and the Senate using different principles. The Senate has always had two Senators for each State regardless of size. Thus, small States like Vermont and Rhode Island and less populous States like Wyoming, Idaho and Alaska each have equal representation with California, Texas and New York. The Senate and the House are not the same and were not intended to be the same. They were designed to be complimentary institutions of government to form a balanced legislature. I understand why proposals like S. Res. 138 might appeal to newer Republican Senators and to former House Members who are now Republican in the Senate but I fear it would represent another ill- advised step to change the Senate into a second House of Representatives. The Constitution did not assign the advice and consent role to the House but to our distinctive body, the Senate. The Senate has many distinctive traditions including, to me, one of the most significant--that smaller States have a larger role to play in the Senate than in the House.

It is a bit ironic, to say the least, that an administration that was selected with less popular vote than the Democratic Presidential candidate because of a court decision and the workings of the electoral college is now pressing so vociferously to change the Senate rules and allow judicial and executive branch confirmations approved by the barest of ``majorities''--of only those Senators present and voting at the time the Republican Senate majority chooses to call the vote.

In addition, given the Senate's structure, the administration's pretense that somehow the votes of a majority of Senators shows that a majority of Americans favor a nomination may not be factually accurate. For example, Senate Republicans have complained bitterly and resentfully about the Senate's failure to end debate on the nomination of Judge Owen. But the Senators who have voted to end debate represent less than 50 percent of the population of the United States and the Senators who have voted not to end

that debate represent the majority of the American population. Now, put that way, the decision of the Senate on this controversial nominee hardly seem anti-democratic.

I respect the role of the Senate and the ways in which it has traditionally functioned on behalf of the American people. Any rule or practice can be used for ill, of course. For instance, the Senate grants significant authority to committees and to chairs of committees to determine the Senate's agenda and business. Traditionally, when a committee votes down a nominee, that nomination does not go forward. We have made one recent exception for the nomination of Judge Bork to the Supreme Court. That led to a heated battle on the Senate floor that resulted in that nomination ultimately being rejected by the Senate. Never in our history has the Senate or an administration simply overridden the judgment of the Judiciary Committee. That is what this administration chose to do when it renominated Judge Owen after her nomination had been thoroughly and fairly considered last year.

Finally, I am troubled that the administration and Senate Republicans are so intent on changing the rules and procedures and practices of the Senate in so many ways to gerryrig the process in favor of the administration's most extreme, divisive and controversial nominees. That was not the motivation behind the amendment of rule 22 in 1975 that I supported. It used to be rare that judicial nominees would receive so many negative votes and engender so much opposition. In accordance with the consultation and cooperation that prevailed between administrations before this one and Senators from both parties, it was a rarity to have a contested nomination or to have close votes. That this administration is so fixated on forcing through the Senate nominees that do not have the support of more Senators is alarming in itself.

Consensus, mainstream, qualified nominees will get the support of not just a bare majority of Senators voting but the overwhelming majority of Senators. Thus, Judge Prado, and Judge Gregory, and Judge Raggi were confirmed with overwhelming bipartisan support. So, too, I am confident that Judge Consuelo Callahan will be the second Hispanic nominee of this administration to a circuit court to receive the strong support of Democratic Senators, when the leadership decides to schedule a vote on her confirmation. The 125 judicial confirmations to date are by and large conservative nominees but many enjoyed the strong bipartisan vote of Senators from both parties.

Yet Senate Republicans at the behest of the administration want to grant even more power to the administration by encouraging the President to nominate more controversial nominees. I respectfully suggest that the better way to proceed would be for the White House to work more closely with Democrats and Republicans in the Senate to identify consensus nominees who will not generate a close vote and do not need special rules in order to be considered.

I thank the majority leader for working with the Democratic leader and assistant leader to make what he himself recognized as progress over the last weeks. With some cooperation and consideration from the administration we could accomplish so much more.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, in introducing the Access to Affordable Health Care Act, a comprehensive, seven-point plan that builds on the strengths of our current public programs and private health care system to make quality, affordable health care available to millions more Americans.

One of my top priorities in the Senate has been to expand access to affordable health care for all Americans. There are still far too many Americans without health insurance or with woefully inadequate coverage. More than 41 million Americans do not have health care coverage, including more than 150,000 in Maine.

Health insurance matters. The simple fact is that people with health insurance are healthier than those who are uninsured. People without health insurance are less likely to seek care when they need it, and to forgo services such as periodic check-ups and preventive services. As a consequence, they are more likely to be hospitalized or require costly medical attention for conditions that could have been prevented or treated at a curable stage. Not only does this put the health of these individuals at greater risk, but it also puts additional pressure on our hospitals and emergency rooms, many of them already financially challenged.

Compared with people who have health coverage, uninsured adults are four times, and uninsured children five times, more likely to use the emergency rooms. The costs of care for these individuals are often absorbed by providers and passed on to the covered population through increased fees and insurance premiums.

Maine is in the midst of a growing health insurance crisis, with insurance premiums rising at alarming rates. Whether I am talking to a self-employed fisherman, the owner of a struggling small businesses, or the human resource manager of a large company, the soaring costs of health insurance is a common concern.

Maine's employers are currently facing premium increases of as much as 40 percent a year. These premium increases have been particularly burdensome for small businesses, the backbone of the Maine economy. Many small business owners are caught in a cost squeeze: they know that if they pass on the premium increases to their employees, more of them will decline coverage. Yet, these small businesses simply cannot afford to absorb double-digit increases of 20, 30 or 40 percent, year after year.

The problem of rising costs is even more acute for individuals and families who must purchase health insurance on their own. Monthly insurance premiums often exceed a family's mortgage payment. Clearly, we must do more to make health insurance more available and affordable.

The Access to Affordable Health Care Act, which we are introducing today, it a seven-point plan that combines a variety of public and private approaches to make quality health care coverage more affordable and available. The legislation's seven goals are: One, to expand access to affordable health care for small businesses; two, to make health insurance more affordable for individuals and families purchasing coverage on their own; three, to strengthen the health care safety net for those without coverage; four, to expand access to care in rural and underserved areas; five, to increase access to affordable long-term care; six, to promote healthier lifestyles; and seven, to provide more equitable Medicare payments to Maine providers to reduce the Medicare shortfall, which has forced hospitals, physicians and other providers to shift costs onto other payers in the form of higher charges, which, in turn drives up health care premiums.

Let me discuss each of these seven points in more detail.

First, our legislation will help small employers cope with rising health care costs.

Since most Americans get their health insurance through the workplace, it is a common assumption that people without health insurance are unemployed. The fact is, however, that most uninsured Americans are members of families with at least one full- time worker. As many as 82 percent of Americans who do not have health insurance are in a family with a worker.

Uninsured working Americans are most often employees of small businesses. In fact, some 60 percent of uninsured workers are employed by small firms. Smaller firms generally face higher costs for health insurance than larger firms, which makes them less likely to offer coverage. Small businesses want to provide health insurance for their employees, but the cost is often just too high.

The legislation we are introducing today will help small employers cope with rising costs, by providing new tax credits for small businesses to help make health insurance more affordable. It will encourage those small businesses that do not currently offer health insurance to do so and will help employers that do offer insurance to continue coverage for their employees even in the face of rising costs.

Our legislation will also help increase the clout of small businesses in negotiating with insurers. Premiums are generally higher for small businesses because they do not have as much purchasing power as large companies, which limits their ability to bargain for lower rates. They also have higher administrative costs because they have fewer employees among whom to spread the fixed cost of a health benefits plan. Moreover, they are not as able to spread the risks of medical claims over as many employees as large firms.

Our legislation will help address these problems by authorizing federal grants to provide start-up funding to States to assist them with the planning, development, and operation of small employer purchasing cooperatives. These cooperatives will help to reduce health care costs for small employers by allowing them to band together to purchase health insurance jointly. Group purchasing cooperatives have a number of advantages for small employers. For example, the increased numbers of participants in the group help to lower the premium costs for all. Moreover, they decrease the risk of adverse selection and spread the cost of health care over a broader group.

The legislation would also authorize a Small Business Administration grant program for States, local governments and non-profit organizations to provide information about the benefits of health insurance to small employers, including tax benefits, increased productivity of employees, and decreased turnover. These grants would also be used to make employers aware of their current rights under State and Federal laws. While costs are clearly a problem, many small employers are not fully aware of the laws that have already been enacted by both States and the Federal Government to make health insurance more affordable. For example, in one survey, 57 percent of small employers did not know that they could deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premiums as a business expense.

The legislation would also create a new program to encourage innovation by awarding demonstration grants in up to 10 states conducting innovative coverage expansions, such as alternative group purchasing or pooling arrangements, individual or small group market reforms, or subsidies to employers or individuals purchasing coverage. The States have long been laboratories for reform, and they should be encouraged in the development of innovative programs that can serve as models for the nation.

The Access of Affordable Health Care Act will also expand access to affordable health are for individuals and families.

One of the first bills I cosponsored as a Senator was legislation to establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program, S-CHIP, which provides insurance for the children of low-income

parents who cannot afford health insurance, yet make too much money to qualify for Medicaid. This important program has provided affordable health insurance coverage to over four million children nationwide, including over 12,000 who are currently enrolled in the MaineCare program. Even so, nationwide, hundreds of thousands of qualified children have yet to be enrolled in this program, many because their parents simply don't know that they are eligible for the assistance.

Our legislation builds on the success of this program and gives States a number of new tools to increase participation. For example, the bill gives States the option of covering the parents of the children who are enrolled in programs like MaineCare. States could also use funds provided through this program to help eligible working families pay their share of an employer-based health insurance plan. In short, the legislation will help ensure that the entire family receives the health care they need.

The legislation will also allow States to expand coverage to eligible legal immigrants through Medicaid and SCHIP. Maine is one of a number of states that is currently covering eligible legal immigrant pregnant women and children under Medicaid using 100 percent state dollars. Giving States the option of covering these children and families under Medicaid will enable them to receive matching federal funds, and will help relieve the pressure that most a State budgets are currently experiencing due to the economic downturn and rising Medicaid costs.

Many people with serious health problems encounter difficulties in finding a company that is willing to insure them. To address this problem, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act authorizes Federal grants to provide money for states to create high-risk pools through which individuals who have pre-existing health conditions can obtain affordable health can obtain affordable health insurance.

And finally, to help make health coverage more affordable for low and middle-income individuals and families who do not have employer- provided coverage and who are not eligible for the expanded public programs, our legislation would provide an advanceable, refundable tax credit of up to $1,000 for individuals earning up to $30,000 and up to $3,000 for families earning up to $60,000. This could provide coverage for up to 6 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured for one or more months, and will help many more working lower-income families who currently purchase private health insurance with little or no government help.

The Access to Affordable Health Insurance Act will also help to strengthen our nation's health care safety net by doubling funding over five years for the Consolidated Health Centers program, which includes community, migrant, public housing and homeless health centers. These centers, which operate in underserved rural and urban communities, provide critical primaary care services to millions of Americans regardless of their ability to pay. About 20 percent of the patients treated at Maine's community health centers have no insurance coverage and many more have inadequate coverage, so these centers are a critical part of our Nation's health care safety net.

The problem of access to affordable health care services is not limited to the uninsured, but it also shared by many Americans living in rural and underserved areas where there is a serious shortage of health care providers. The Access to Affordable Health Care Act therefore includes a number of provisions to strengthen the National Health Service Corps, which supports doctors, dentists, and other clinicians who serve in rural and inner city areas.

For example, taxing students adversely affects their financial incentive to participate in the National Health Services Corps and provide health care services in underserved communities. The tax bill passed by the last Congress provided a tax deduction for National Health Service Corps scholarship recipients to deduct all tuition, fees and related educational expenses from their income taxes. The deduction did not extend to loan repayment recipients however, so loan repayment amounts are still taxed as income. Participants in the loan repayment program are actually given extra payment amounts to help them cover their tax liability which, frankly, is a little ridiculous. It makes much more sense to simply exempt them from taxation in the first place.

In addition, the legislation will allow National Health Service Corps participants to fulfill their commitment on a part-time basis. Current law requires all National Health Service Corps participants to serve full time. Many rural communities, however, simply do not have enough volume to support a full-time health care practitioner. Moreover, some sites may not need a particular type of provider, for example, a dentist, on a full-time basis. Some practitioners may also find part- time service more attractive, which, in turn, could improve recruitment and retention. Our bill will therefore give the program additional flexibility to meet community needs.

Long-term care is the major catastrophic health care expense faced by older Americans today, and these costs will only increase with the aging of the baby boomers. Most Americans mistakenly believe that Medicare or their private health insurance policies will cover the costs of long-term care should they develop a chronic illness or cognitive impairment like Alzheimer's Disease. Unfortunately, far too many do not discover that they do not have coverage until they are confronted with the difficult decision of placing a much-loved parent or spouse in long-term care and facing the shocking realization that they will have to cover the costs themselves.

The Access to Affordable Health Care Act will provide a tax credit for long-term care expenses of up to $3,000 to provide some help to those families struggling to provide long-term care to a loved one. It will also encourage more Americans to plan for their future long-term care needs by providing a tax deduction to help them purchase private long-term care insurance.

Health insurance alone is not going to ensure good health. As noted author and physician Dr. Michael Crichton has observed, ``the future of medicine lies not in treating illness, but preventing it.'' Many of our most serious health problems are directly related to unhealthy behaviors, smoking, lack of regular exercise and poor diet. These three major risk factors alone have made Maine the state with the fourth highest death rate due to four largely preventable diseases: cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic lung disease and diabetes. These four chronic diseases are responsible for 70 percent of the health care problems in Maine.

Our bill therefore contains a number of provisions designed to promote health lifestyles. An ever-expanding body of evidence shows that these kinds of investments in health promotion and prevention offer returns not only in reduced health care bills, but in longer life and increased productivity. The legislation will provide grants to States to assist small businesses wishing to establish ``worksite wellness'' programs for their employees. It would also authorize a grant program to support new and existing ``community partnerships,'' such as the Healthy Community Coalition in Franklin County, to promote healthy lifestyles among hospitals, employers, schools and community organizations. And, it would provide funds for States to establish or expand comprehensive school health education, including, for example, physical education programs that promote lifelong physical activity, healthy food service selections and programs that promote a healthy and safe school environment.

And finally, the Access to Affordable Health Care Act would promote equity in Medicare payments and help to ensure that the Medicare system rewards rather than punishes states like Maine that deliver high- quality, cost effective Medicare services to our elderly and disabled citizens.

According to a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Maine ranks third in the nation when it comes to the quality of care delivered to our Medicare beneficiaries. Yet we are 11th from the bottom when it comes to per-beneficiary Medicare spending.

The fact is that Maine's Medicare dollars are being used to subsidize higher reimbursements in other parts of the country. This simply is not fair. Medicare's reimbursement systems have historically tended to favor urban

areas and failed to take the special needs of rural states into account. Ironically, Maine's low payment rates are also the result of its long history of providing high-quality, cost-effective care. In the early 1980s, Maine's lower than average costs were used to justify lower payment rates. Since then, Medicare's payment policies have only served to widen the gap between low and high-cost states.

As a consequence, Maine's hospitals, physicians and other providers have experienced a serious Medicare shortfall, which has forced them to shift costs on to other payers in the form of higher charges. The Medicare shortfall is one of the reasons that Maine has among the highest health insurance premiums in the nation. The provisions in the Access to Affordable Health Care Act provide a complement to legislation that I introduced in the last Congress with Senator Russ Feingold to promote greater fairness in Medicare payments to physicians and other health professionals by eliminating outdated geographic adjustment factors that discriminate against rural areas.

The Access to Affordable Health Care Act outlines a blueprint for reform based upon principles upon which I believe a bipartisan majority in Congress could agree. The plan takes significant strides toward the goal of universal health care coverage by bringing millions more Americans into the insurance system, by strengthening the health care safety net, and by addressing the inequities in the Medicare system.

Mr. President, I join my good friend, Senator Kyl, in introducing S.J. Res, 1, the Victims' Rights Amendment.

Two years ago, the Senate debated a proposed constitutional amendment drafted by Senator Kyl and me to protect the rights of victims of violent crime. The amendment had been reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a strong bipartisan vote of 12 to 5. After 82 Senators voted to proceed to consideration of the amendment, there was a vigorous debate on the floor of the Senate. Some Senators raised concerns about the amendment, saying that it was too long or that it read too much like a statute.

Ultimately, in the face of a threatened filibuster, Senator Kyl and I decided to withdraw the amendment. We then hunkered down with constitutional experts, such as Professor Larry Tribe of Harvard Law School, to see if we could revise the amendment to meet Senators' concerns. We also worked with constitutional experts at the Department of Justice and the White House, and we came up with a new and improved draft of the amendment. This new amendment provides many of the same rights as the old amendment.

Specifically, the amendment would give crime victims the rights to be notified, present, and heard at critical stages throughout their case. It would ensure that their views are considered and they are treated fairly. It would ensure that their interest in a speedy resolution of the case, safety, and claims for restitution are not ignored. And it would do so in a way that would not abridge the rights of defendants or offenders, or otherwise disrupt the delicate balance of our Constitution.

We had a hearing in the Constitution Subcommittee. Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee did not act on the amendment. There are many reasons why we need a constitutional amendment.

First, a constitutional amendment will balance the scales of justice. Currently, while criminal defendants have almost two dozen separate constitutional rights, fifteen of them provided by amendments to the U.S. Constitution, there is not a single word in the Constitution about crime victims. These rights trump the statutory and State constitutional rights of crime victims because the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. To level the playing field, crime victims need rights in the U.S. Constitution. In the event of a conflict between a victim's and a defendant's rights, the court will be able to balance those rights and determine which party has the most compelling argument.

Second, a constitutional amendment will fix the patchwork of victims' rights laws. Eighteen States lack state constitutional victim's rights amendment, and the 32 existing State victims' rights amendments differ from each other. Also, virtually every State has statutory protections for victims, but these vary considerably across the country. Only a Federal constitutional amendment can ensure a uniform national floor for victims' rights.

Third, a constitutional amendment will restore rights that existed when the Constitution was written. It is a little known fact that at the time the Constitution was drafted, it was standard practice for victims, not public prosecutors, to prosecute criminal cases. Because victims were parties to most criminal cases, they enjoyed the basic rights to notice, to be present, and be heard. Hence, it is not surprising that the Constitution does not mention victims.

Now, of course, it is extremely rare for a victim to undertake a criminal prosecution. Thus, victims have none of the basic procedural rights they used to enjoy. Victims should receive some of the modest notice and participation rights they enjoyed at the time that the Constitution was drafted.

Fourth, a constitutional amendment is necessary because mere State law is insufficient. State victims' rights laws lacking the force of Federal constitutional law are often given short shrift. A Justice Department-sponsored study and other studies have found that, even

in States with strong legal protections for victims' rights, many victims are denied those rights. The studies have also found that statutes are insufficient to guarantee victims' rights. Only a Federal constitutional amendment can ensure that crime victims receive the rights they are due.

Fifth, a constitutional amendment is necessary because Federal statutory law is insufficient. The leading statutory alternative to the Victims' Rights Amendment would only directly cover certain violent crimes prosecuted in Federal court. Thus, it would slight more than 99 percent of victims of violent crime. We should acknowledge that Federal statutes have been tried and found wanting. It is time for us to amend the U.S. Constitution.

The Oklahoma City bombing case offers another reason why we need a constitutional amendment. This case shows how even the strongest Federal statute is too weak to protect victims in the face of a defendant's constitutional rights. In that case, two Federal victims' rights statutes were not enough to give victims of the bombing a clear right to watch the trial and still testify at the sentencing, even though one of the statutes was passed with the specific purpose of allowing the victims to do just that.

Let me quote from the first of these statutes: the Victims of Crime Bill of Rights, passed in 1990. That Bill of Rights provides in part that:

A crime victim has the following rights: The right to be present at all public court proceedings related to the offense, unless that court determines that testimony by the victim would be materially affected if the victim heard other testimony at trial.

That statute further states that Federal Government officers and employees ``engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that victims of crime are accorded the[se] rights.''

The law also provides that ``[t]his section does not create a cause of action or defense in favor of any person arising out of the failure to accord to a victim the[se] rights.''

In spite of the law, the judge in the Oklahoma City bombing case ruled, without any request from Timothy McVeigh's attorneys, that no victim who saw any portion of the case could testify about the bombing's impact at a possible sentencing hearing:

The Justice Department asked the judge to exempt victims who would not be ``factual witnesses at trial'' but who might testify at a sentencing hearing about the impact of the bombing on their lives. The judge denied the motion. The victims were then given until the lunchbreak to decide whether to watch the proceedings or remain eligible to testify at a sentencing hearing. In the hour that they had, some of the victims opted to watch the proceedings; other decided to leave to remain eligible to testify at the sentencing hearing.

Subsequently, the Justice Department asked the court to reconsider its order in light of the 1990 Victims' Bill of Rights. Bombing victims then filed their own motion to raise their rights under the Victims' Bill of Rights. The court denied both motions. With regard to the victims' motion, the judge held that the victims lacked standing. The judge stated that the victims would not be able to separate the ``experience of trial'' from the ``experience of loss from the conduct in question.'' The judge also alluded to concerns about the defendants' constitutional rights, the common law, and rules of evidence.

The victims and DOJ separately appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. That court ruled that the victims lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution because they had no ``legally protected interest'' to be present at trial and thus had suffered no ``injury in fact'' from their exclusion. The victims and DOJ then asked the entire Tenth Circuit to review that decision. Forty-nine members of Congress, all six attorneys general in the Tenth Circuit, and many of the leading crime victims' organizations filed briefs in support of the victims. All to no avail.

The Victims' Clarification Act of 1997 when then introduced in Congress. That act provided that watching a trial does not constitute grounds for denying victims the chance to provide an impact statement. This bill passed the House 414 to 13 and the Senate by unanimous consent. Two days later, President Clinton signed into law, explaining that ``when someone is a victim, he or she should be at the center of the criminal justice process, not on the outside looking in.''

The victims then filed a motion asserting a right to attend the trial under the new law. However, the judge declined to apply the law as written. He concluded that ``any motions raising constitutional questions about this legislation would be premature and would present questions issues that are not now ripe for decision.'' Moreover, he held that it could address issues of possible prejudicial impact from attending the trial by interviewing the witnesses after the trial.

The judge also refused to grant the victims a hearing on the application of the new law, concluding that his ruling rendered their request ``moot.'' The victims then faced a painful decision: watch the trial or preserve their right to testify at the sentencing hearing. Many victims gave up their right to watch the trial as a result.

A constitutional amendment would help ensure that victims of a domestic terrorist attack such as the Oklahoma City bombing have standing and that their arguments for a right to be present are not dismissed as ``unripe.'' A constitutional amendment would give victims of violent crime an unambiguous right to watch a trial and still testify at sentencing.

There is strong and wide support for a constitutional amendment. I am pleased that President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have endorsed the amendment. As the President put it last year, ``The Feinstein-Kyl amendment was written with care, and strikes a proper balance. Our legal system properly protects the rights of the accused in the Constitution, but it does not provide similar protection for the rights of victims, and that must change. The protection of victims' rights is one of those rare instances when amending the Constitution is the right thing to do. And the Feinstein-Kyl crime victims' rights amendment is the right way to do it.''

I greatly appreciate their support. And I am also pleased that both former President Clinton and former Vice President Gore have all expressed support for a constitutional amendment on victim's right. Moreover, in the last Congress, the Victims' Rights Amendment was cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 28 Senators. I have spoken to many of my colleagues about the amendment we introduce today and I am hopeful that it will receive even more support in this Congress. In addition I would vote the following:

Both the Democratic and Republican Party Platforms call for a victims' rights amendment. Governors in 49 out of 50 States have called for an amendment. Four former U.S. Attorneys General, including Attorney General Reno, support an amendment. Attorney General Ashcroft support an amendment. Forty State attorneys general support an amendment.

Major national victims' rights groups--including Parents of Murdered Children, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD, and the National Organization for Victim Assistance, support the amendment. Many law enforcement groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Nation Troops' Coalition, the International Union of Police Associations AFL-CIO, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the California District Attorneys Association support an amendment. Constitutional scholars, such as Harvard Law School Professor Larry Tribe, support an amendment.

The amendment has received strong support around the country. Thirty- two States have passed similar measures--by an average popular vote of almost 80 percent.

I am delighted to join my good friend Senator Jon Kyl in sponsoring the victims' rights amendment, and I look forward to its adoption by this Congress.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter dated April 15, 2002 from Harvard Law School Professor Larry Tribe be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Crime Victims' Rights Amendment.

The scales of justice are imbalanced. The U.S. Constitution, mainly through amendments, grants those accused of crime many constitutional rights, such as a speedy trial, a jury trial, counsel, the right against self-incrimination, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to subpoena witnesses, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to due process under the law.

The Constitution, however, guarantees no rights to crime victims. For example, victims have no right to be present, no right to be informed of hearings, no right to be heard at sentencing or at a parole hearing, no right to insist on reasonable conditions of release to protect the victim, no right to restitution, no right to challenge unending delays in the disposition of their case, and no right to be told if they might be in danger from release or escape of their attacker. This lack of rights for crime victims has caused many victims and their families to suffer twice, once at the hands of the criminal, and again at the hands of a justice system that fails to protect them. The Crime Victims' Rights Amendment would bring balance to the judicial system by giving victims of violent crime the rights to be informed, present, and heard at critical stages throughout their ordeal.

The amendment gives victims of violent crime the right: to reasonable and timely notice of any public proceeding involving the crime and of any release or escape of the accused; not to be excluded from such public proceeding; reasonably to be heard at public release, plea, sentencing, reprieve, and pardon proceedings; and to adjudicative decisions that duly consider the victim's safety, interest in avoiding unreasonable delay, and just and timely claims to restitution from the offender.

These rights have been at the core of the amendment since 1996, when Senator Feinstein and I first introduced the Crime Victims' Rights Amendment. The amendment is the product of extended discussions with the White House, the Department of Justice, Representative Steve Chabot, Senators Hatch and Biden, law enforcement officials, major victims' rights groups, and such diverse scholars as Professor Larry Tribe and then-Professor Paul Cassell. The current version is similar to the version in the 107th Congress. As President Bush stated when announcing his support for the language of the amendment, the amendment was ``written with care, and strikes a proper balance.'' http:// www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020416-1.html. One of the nation's leading constitutional scholars, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, who is on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum from President Bush, concurred. Professor Tribe praised the Amendment's ``brevity and clarity'' and commented, ``That you achieved such conciseness while fully protecting defendants' rights and accommodating the legitimate concerns that have been voiced about prosecutorial power and presidential authority is no mean feat. . . . I think you have done a splendid job at distilling the prior versions of the Victims' Rights Amendment into a form that would be worthy of a constitutional amendment.'' Letter of April 15, 2002.

If reform is to be meaningful, it must be in the U.S. Constitution. Since 1982, when the need for a constitutional amendment was first recognized by President Reagan's Task Force on Victims of Crime, 32 states have passed similar measures, by an average popular vote of about 80 percent. These state measures have helped protect crime victims; but they are inadequate for two reasons. First, each amendment is different, and not all States have provided protection to victims; a Federal amendment would establish a basic floor of crime victims' rights for all Americans, just as the federal Constitution provides for the accused. Second, statutory and state constitutional provisions are always subservient to the federal constitution; so, in cases of conflict, the defendants' rights, which are already in the U.S. Constitution, will always prevail. The Crime Victims' Rights Amendment would correct this imbalance.

It is important to note that the number one recommendation in a 400 page report by the Department of Justice on victims rights and services was that ``the U.S. Constitution should be amended to guarantee fundamental rights for victims of crime.'' U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, New Directions from the Field: Victims' Rights and Services for the 21st Century 9, 1998. The report continued: ``A victims' rights constitutional amendment is the only legal measure strong enough to rectify the current inconsistencies in victims' rights laws that vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction on the state and federal levels.'' Id. at 10. Further: ``Granting victims of crime the ability to participate in the justice system is exactly the type of participatory right the Constitution is designed to protect and has been amended to permanently ensure. Such rights include the right to vote on an equal basis and the right to be heard when the government deprives one of life, liberty, or property.'' Id.

Some may say, ``I'm all for victims' rights but they don't need to be in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is too hard to change.'' But the history of our country teaches us that constitutional protections are needed to protect the basic rights of the people. Our criminal justice system needs the kind of fundamental reform that can only be accomplished through changes in our fundamental law, the Constitution. Attempts to establish rights by Federal or State statute, or even State constitutional amendment, have proven inadequate, after more than twenty years of trying. Then-Attorney General Reno has confirmed the point, noting that, ``unless the Constitution is amended to ensure basic rights to crime victims, we will never correct the existing imbalance in this country between defendants' constitutional rights and the haphazard patchwork of victims' rights.'' Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, April 16, 1997, statement of Attorney General Janet Reno, at 41.

On behalf of the Department of Justice, Ray Fisher, then Associate Attorney General, now a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, testified that ``the state legislative route to change has proven less than adequate in according victims their rights. Rather than form a minimum baseline of protections, the state provisions have produced a hodgepodge of rights that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution will receive greater recognition and respect, and will provide a national baseline.'' Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, April 28, 1998, statement of Associate Attorney General Ray Fisher, at 9.

A number of legal commentators have reached similar conclusions. Harvard Professor of Law Laurence Tribe has explained that the existing statutes and state amendments ``are likely, as experience to date sadly shows, to provide too little real protection whenever they come into conflict with bureaucratic habit, traditional indifference, sheer inertia, or any mention of an accused's rights regardless of whether those rights are genuinely threatened.'' Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, March 24, 1999, statement of Laurence Tribe, at 6. He also stated, ``there appears to be a considerable body of evidence showing that, even where statutory or regulatory or judge-made rules exist to protect the participatory rights of victims, such rights often tend to be honored in the breach . . . .'' Id. at 7. Indeed, according to a report by the National Institute of Justice, even in states that gave ``strong protection'' to victims rights, fewer than 60 percent of the victims were notified of the sentencing hearing and fewer than 40 percent were notified of the pretrial release of the defendant. National Institute of Justice, Research

in Brief, ``The Rights of Crime Victims--Does Legal Protection Make a Difference?'' at 4 (Dec. 1998).

If crime victims are to have meaningful rights, those rights must be in the U.S. Constitution. As President Bush has stated, ``The protection of victims' rights is one of those rare instances when amending the Constitution is the right thing to do. And . . . the Crime Victims' Rights Amendment is the right way to do it.'' http:// www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020416-1.html.

The Crime Victims' Rights Amendment has strong bipartisan support in the House and Senate. Senator Feinstein is the lead Democratic sponsor. I would like to thank her for her tireless efforts on behalf of crime victims and for her hard and very valuable work on the language. Also, a bipartisan group of 39 State Attorneys General has signed a letter expressing their ``strong and unequivocal support'' for an amendment. In January 1997, the National Governors' Association voted in favor of an amendment. In 1996 and 2000, both the Republican and Democratic Party Platforms called for a crime victims' rights amendment. Additionally, the amendment is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and major national victims' rights groups, including Parents of Murdered Children, the National Organization for Victim Assistance, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD, the Maryland Crime Victims' Resource Center, Arizona Voice for Crime Victims, Crime Victims United, and, Memory of Victims Everywhere.

The amendment has received strong support around the country. As I mentioned earlier, 32 states have passed similar measures--by an average popular vote of almost 80 percent.

Since we first introduced the amendment in 1996, Nila Lynn has been murdered in my home State of Arizona. Nila and her husband Duane were three months short of their 50th wedding anniversary. Nila was shot in the back by Richard Glassel and died in Duane's arms. Despite the fact that Duane had a State constitutional right to be heard at Glassel's sentencing and despite the fact that Glassel was afforded the right to make a sentencing recommendation to the jury, Duane's voice was silenced because he had no U.S. Constitutional right to make a similar sentencing recommendation.

For far too long, the criminal justice system has ignored crime victims who deserve to be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect. Our criminal justice system will never be truly just as long as criminals have rights and victims have none.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.