[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 12, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2278-S2282]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Heath Care Insurance

  I will take a few minutes and talk now about what could be the most 
significant measure that we could pass to expand the cause of access to 
health insurance for people who work for small businesses in this 
country.
  I chaired the Small Business Committee in the House for two terms, 
and from the time I did that, I made it my point to interact with small 
business people around the country and especially around Missouri. They 
have a number of problems they are confronting: Taxes are too high; in 
many cases they face regulations that do not make any sense, that 
inhibit them and hurt them and burden them and accomplish nothing in 
terms of environmental quality or worker safety or any of the social 
goals we want to achieve. Many small businesses have difficulty getting 
access to the capital they need to grow, to expand, to create jobs.
  Those are all problems. We need to work on all those problems. But 
the No. 1 problem facing small business in this country today is the 
rising cost of health insurance premiums. I have seen it all over the 
State of Missouri. I have been in places in Cape Girardeau, in 
Columbia, in Joplin, where small business owners report to me premium 
increases of 25 percent in 1 year or premiums doubling over 3 years. 
The effects of this are incalculable. Small business people cannot 
compete effectively for employees. They have to buy poor quality health 
insurance, and in some cases have to drop their health insurance 
altogether, or else the high premiums suck up money they want to put in 
wage increases or to expand the business. The high premiums are 
tremendously unfair to them, very bad for the country and, most 
importantly, very bad for the people who work for small businesses. Of 
the 41 million people in the United States who are uninsured today, 
almost two-thirds of them own a small business or work for a small 
business or are dependents of somebody who owns a small business. The 
impact on them is enormous.

  And think of the impact on the rest of the health care system. Just 
because these folks are uninsured doesn't mean they don't get sick. At 
a certain point, when they get sick enough they go to the emergency 
room or they go to the hospital. Since, those costs are currently 
unsponsored, they have to be shifted to the rest of the population or 
hospitals have to eat those costs. What a difference it would make to 
the people of this country and the small business sector and to the 
economy if we could introduce and pass a measure that would help cover 
folks who currently are uninsured. We can do that.
  I have talked about the bad news. The good news is that we have an 
idea that can fix this problem very substantially. It is an idea that 
passed in the House of Representatives two terms in a row. It is time 
tested. It is supported on a bipartisan basis in the House. It has the 
broad support of the small business community. It would not cost the 
taxpayers of this country a dime. I am talking about association health 
plans.
  Let me explain what association health plans are. The best way to 
think of them is that they would simply empower small businesspeople of 
whatever kind to get health insurance on the same terms that big 
companies already can. AHPs would reduce the cost of health insurance 
to small businesses by 10 percent to 20 percent. This is how they would 
work. We need to pass a law empowering or enabling the major trade 
associations, the Farm Bureau, the Chamber of Commerce, the NFIB, the 
medical associations, to sponsor ERISA health care plans, including 
self insured plans, the same way big companies can.
  Then, if you joined the trade association, the association would have 
to offer you coverage under the plans. They would have to offer it to 
you. They would have to carry you. So if you were a small business you 
could join the trade association and it would be as if you were 
becoming a little division of a big company. It would be as if your 
small business had been bought by a bigger company and all of a sudden 
you were part of a large national pool of people without having to pay 
the marketing costs or the profit margins of big insurance companies, 
and with much reduced administrative costs. One of the big reasons 
small businesses have to pay more for health insurance is that the 
administrative cost for small businesses is so much greater.
  As I said, this would not cost the taxpayers a dime. It is not a 
Government program. It just allows small businesses to pool together to 
help themselves and their employees. It is not a revolutionary change, 
but the impact would be revolutionary on people who work for small 
business who would have access to health insurance. The number of 
uninsured would be reduced by millions of people.

  We have gone years without really good news in the health care 
sector, and association health plans have the potential to be that good 
news. As I said, the bill has a history already, at least in the House. 
It was introduced first in the 104th Congress 6 or 7 years ago by my 
good friend, then-Congressman Harris Fawell. We passed it twice 2 years 
running in the House. It had strong bipartisan support. I think the 
bill when we introduced it originally in the House had 85 Republicans 
and 25 Democrats, including the ranking member of the Small Business 
Committee in the House. It has very strong support already in this 
body. I am pleased to say the chair of the Small Business Committee, 
Ms. Snowe, is a strong supporter. Senator Bond is a strong supporter.

[[Page S2279]]

  There is simply no reason why we cannot pass this bill. There is 
nothing in this bill that implicates any of the great philosophical 
divisions that separate the two parties on other kinds of issues. The 
bill is in the mainstream of both political parties. It would make a 
huge difference for America, for small business, and for the people who 
are uninsured, and we simply ought to get it done.
  That is the kind of thing I am looking forward to working on in the 
Senate. Let us have an up or down vote on the Estrada nomination and 
then move forward together.
  We have to be able to create jobs. We have to do something about the 
health care situation in this country. We have to attend to the 
national defense. We should confirm the President's qualified nominees 
such as Mr. Estrada and then move on and pass this necessary measure 
for small business and for the people of the country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The senior Senator from 
Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, it is a great pleasure today to be able to 
welcome my new colleague from Missouri to this body. I think he will 
find, since we are not limited to 1 minute on this side of the Capitol, 
that remarks are not nearly as concise as they would be in the other 
body. But certainly his experience there will be of great value.
  I have been proud and pleased to know Jim Talent and his wonderful 
family for many years in the State of Missouri. I knew him when he 
served as the Republican leader in the legislature. I worked with him 
closely when he was the chairman of the Small Business Committee in the 
House. There was a time when the State of Missouri had double duty in 
small business and it was a pleasure to work with him then.
  I also know his children and his wonderful wife, Brenda. They are a 
great family. They make a great team. This fall I got to see a lot of 
them. They give him the courage and the support he needs to do an 
excellent job.
  We also were very saddened that his father, who meant so much to him, 
did not live to see him achieve this victory in the end of the 
campaign. He lost his father and, while it was quite a blow to him, he 
persevered. It was a mark of the man that he came through these very 
difficult times.
  I know this body will benefit from Jim Talent's contributions. He has 
been a champion for association health plans, which I think are 
essential for enabling small businesses to participate in the 
competitive marketplace, to secure health insurance for employees and 
their families. Jim has championed this idea on the House side. I know 
it is a top priority of the President and the Secretary of Labor, and 
it is good to have him leading this charge in the Senate now, along 
with Chairman Snowe and the other members of the Small Business 
Committee and people who are supportive of small business in the 
Senate.
  Obviously, as has been said, the benefit of an AHP, or association 
health plan, is by allowing small businesses with similar interests 
across State lines, across the country, to come together in one pool; 
they can gain the efficiencies of purchasing in volume; They can gain 
the advantages of administering overhead, which can be spread across 
many businesses. For the same reason that you pay less for soda in cans 
if you buy it by the case, or multiple cases, than if you buy it one at 
a time, buying health care is much the same. No. 1, you get 
efficiencies of scale. You also have an opportunity to spread the 
risks. Those who have taken time to study health care know that the 
broader the pool, the broader the actuarial component is, the more 
reasonable the limits will be.
  I see my colleague from Massachusetts is ready to take the floor.
  Mr. TALENT. Will the Senator yield for just a moment? I certainly 
will not delay the Senator from Massachusetts. He has been very kind in 
allowing me to speak, but I wanted to thank the Senator for his kind 
remarks about me and many kindnesses to me, and especially coming out 
on the floor. I also want to say, because I see the senior Senator from 
Massachusetts and the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Utah, 
how impressed I have been and how much I feel welcomed by the many 
senior Members of this body who took a moment to come over on their own 
and say hello to me. I am just grateful for that. It is a real mark of 
the congeniality of the Senate. I appreciate it.

  I thank my friend and colleague from Missouri for yielding.
  Mr. BOND. I thank my colleague. I appreciate the indulgence of the 
Members on the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, if I may ask my colleague from 
Massachusetts for a moment of privilege, I want to personally praise my 
colleague from Missouri for his maiden speech today and for the 
excellent job he has been doing ever since he began here. I just wish 
we had him on the Judiciary Committee as well because we know the great 
lawyer he is, and we also know about the terrific experiences he has 
had over in the House and also in private practice.
  I just want him to know how much we appreciate having him in the 
Senate and how proud I am of him every day.
  I thank my colleague from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I join with my colleagues in drawing 
attention to the remarks of our new colleague from Missouri speaking on 
the issue of health insurance, the uninsured and the challenges which 
are out there for the small business community. This is, as he has very 
well stated, an extraordinary problem for the reasons he has outlined.
  It is amazing to me that the small businesses in this country 
continue to try to provide coverage. As we know, in his State as well 
as mine, they are all paying about 30 percent more in terms of the 
premiums than larger companies, and in many instances they have a rapid 
turnover in terms of the companies that are available to them.
  This really is an extremely significant part of the whole crisis in 
terms of the uninsured. There are a number of different proposals to 
which we will have a chance to give focus. But I certainly welcome the 
fact that he selected as his maiden speech the whole issue and question 
about the uninsured and the challenges that businesses, and small 
businesses, face. We may have some difference in just how to deal with 
the issue, but I certainly look forward to working with him and others 
to see how we can make progress.
  I thank him for his statement and for the fact that he is focusing on 
an issue that is of such importance to our fellow citizens; that is, 
the question of the uninsured and how we are going to continue to 
provide insurance for small businesses.
  Madam President, one of our most important responsibilities as 
Senators is the confirmation of federal judges. These are lifetime 
appointments. Long after we have served our Senate terms, the judges 
nominated by the President will continue to interpret the Constitution 
and federal laws. A President's nominees are an enduring legacy that 
will affect the life of our country and the lives of our constituents 
for many years to come.

  The important work we do in Congress to improve health care, reform 
public schools, protect workers rights, and ensure enforcement of civil 
rights means less if we fail to fulfill our responsibility to provide 
the best possible advice and consent on judicial nominations. Tough 
environmental laws mean little to a community that can't enforce them 
in our federal courts. Civil rights laws are undercut if there are no 
remedies for disabled men and women. Fair labor laws are only words on 
paper if we confirm judges who ignore them.
  For all of these reasons, we must carefully review the qualifications 
of federal judges, particularly nominees to the DC Circuit. Because the 
supreme Court hears relatively few cases, the appellate courts are 
frequently the courts of last resort for millions of Americans. And, of 
those appellate courts, the DC Circuit is one of the most important. It 
has a unique and prominent role among the Federal courts, especially in 
interpreting administrative law, and it has exclusive jurisdiction over 
many laws affecting the workplace, the environment, civil rights, and 
consumer protection. For the most vulnerable among us, the DC circuit 
is often the final stop on the road to justice.

[[Page S2280]]

  Given its location and jurisdiction, the D.C. Circuit has often 
decided important cases involving separation of powers, the role of the 
federal government, the responsibilities of Federal officials, and the 
authority of Federal agencies. In the 1960s and 1970s, the DC Circuit 
had a significant role in broadening public access to agency and 
judicial proceedings, expanding civil rights guarantees, overseeing 
administrative agencies, protecting the public interest in 
communications regulation, and strengthening environmental protections.
  In the 1980s, however, the DC Circuit changed dramatically because of 
the appointment of conservative judges. As its composition changed, it 
became a move conservative and activist court--striking down civil 
rights and constitutional protections, encouraging deregulation, 
closing the doors of the courts to many citizens, favoring employers 
over workers, and undermining federal protection of the environment.
  In the 1960s and 1970s, the DC Circuit expanded public access to 
administrative proceedings and protected the interests of the public 
against big business. For example, the court enabled more plaintiffs to 
challenge agency decisions. It held that a religious group--as members 
of the listening public--could oppose the license renewal of a 
televisionstation accused of racial and religious discrimination. It 
held that an organization of welfare recipients was entitled to 
intervene in proceedings before a Federal agency. No longer would these 
agencies be able to ignore the interests of those they were supposed to 
protect.
  But in the 1980s, with the ascent of conservative appointees, the DC 
Circuit began denying access to the courts. It held that a labor union 
could not challenge the denial of benefits to its members--a decision 
later overturned by the Supreme Court. It held that environmental 
groups are not qualified to seek review of EPA Standards under the 
Clean Air Act. These decisions are characteristic of the DC Circuit's 
flip-flop in the 1980s. After decades of landmark decisions allowing 
effective implementation of important laws and principles, the DC 
Circuit is now creating precedents on labor rights, civil rights, and 
the environment that will set back these basic principles for years to 
come.
  In the 1970s and early 1980s, the DC Circuit advanced the cause of 
environmental protection. In this period, the court interpreted the 
Clean Air Act in ways consistent with Congress' intent. In Lead 
Industries Associations v. EPA, the court held that the EPA cannot 
consider economic costs to industry in setting air quality standards, 
because Congress had made health the paramount concern in setting these 
standards.
  Decisions in leaded gasoline cases also significantly advanced the 
effort to reduce air pollution and protect people--particularly 
children in cities, from the harmful effects of automobile exhaust. In 
addition, the court took strict action when it upheld the ban on the 
manufacturer and sale of the pesticides DDT, heptachlor and chlordane.
  But in the mid-1980s, conservative judges on the DC Circuit began 
cutting off access to the courts for environmentalists and injected an 
anti-environmental point of view into decision after decision, 
regardless of even Supreme Court precedents. In American Trucking 
Associations v. EPA in 1999, the DC Circuit issued a harsh decision 
denying the EPA the authority to establish health standards for smog 
and soot. That decision was unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court. 
In another notorious decision, Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a 
great Oregon v. Babbitt, it struck down habitat protections for 
endangered species. This decision also was reversed by the Supreme 
Court.
  When Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act, it guaranteed 
workers the rights to join a union without discrimination or reprisal 
by employers, and to bargain with employers over the terms and 
conditions of employment. The National Labor Relations Board interprets 
and enforces the act and reviews appeals of decisions by administrative 
law judges. NLRB decisions are appealable to the circuit court, where 
the unfair labor practice is alleged to have occurred, or here the 
employer resides or transacts business, or in the DC Circuit. As a 
result, the DC Circuit is always available as a forum to challenge 
decisions of the board.
  In 1980, the DC Circuit fully enforced the board's decision 83 
percent of the time, and at least partly enforced the board's decision 
in all the other cases. By the year 2000, when the court had a 5-to-4 
Republican majority, including a solid majority of Reagan/Bush 
appointees, the DC Circuit enforced in full only 57 percent of NLRB 
cases and enforced at least part of the board's decisions just 70 
percent of the time. These enforcement statistics put the DC Circuit 
significantly below the national average of an 83.4 percent enforcement 
rate for the board in all the courts of appeals.
  Given these statistics, it is not surprising that the DC Circuit has 
become the circuit of choice for employers trying to overturn NLRB 
decisions. In 1980, the DC Circuit heard only 3 percent of the NLRB 
appeals heard by the circuit courts. The DC Circuit ranked next to last 
of all the circuits. Only the Tenth Circuit heard fewer cases.
  As the Reagan/Bush effect on the DC Circuit took hold, the court 
became increasingly attractive to industries, and the court;'s share of 
NLRB cases steadily rose. By the year 2000, the DC Circuit ranked first 
among all circuit courts in the percentage of NLRB cases herd by those 
courts. Almost one in five cases--18 percent--were filed in the DC 
Circuit, and employers brought by far the largest number of these 
cases.
  The DC Circuit's willingness to overturn National Labor Relations 
Board decision is deeply troubling because of the precedents being 
established. In Freund Baking Co. v. NLRB, it reversed the NLRB and set 
aside a union election because the court felt that a wage and hour 
lawsuit brought on behalf of several workers shortly before the 
election interfered with a fair election.
  In Macmillan Publishing. Co. v. NLRB, the board had overturned a 
union representation election, finding that a company prevented a fair 
election by distributing a leaflet telling employees to vote against 
the union or risk losing a previously announced wage increase. The DC 
Circuit reversed the board's action.
  The DC Circuit's hostility to the NLRB, to the detriment of workers 
and their unions, is also illustrated in other cases dominated by 
Reagan Bush appointees. In International Paper Co. v. NLRB, the court 
overturned the board's decision and held that the company's permanent 
subcontracting of employees' job during a lockout was an unfair labor 
practice. In Detroit Typographical Union v. NLRB, the court overturned 
the NLRB's determination that Detroit News and Free Press had committed 
an unfair labor practice when it unilaterally implemented a merit pay 
proposal immediately prior to the beginning of a 19-month strike by 
newspaper employees. In Pall Corp. v. NLRB, the court overturned the 
board's determination that it was an unfair labor practice for an 
employer to unilaterally revoke a contract provision on ways for the 
union to obtain recognition at other facilities.
  The DC Circuit also vacated a decision by the board to include 
handicapped workers at a Goodwill production facility in the same 
bargaining unit as other employees. The court held that the handicapped 
workers were not employees. And in C.C. Eastern v. NLRB and North 
American Van Lines v. NLRB, the court overturned the board's ruling 
that truck drivers are employees. Instead, the court held that the 
drivers are independent contractors unprotected by the National Labor 
Relations Act.
  Immediately after Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health 
Act of 1970, the DC Circuit issued major decisions that protected 
workers from job-related hazards. The DC Circuit issued a landmark 
ruling in United Steelworkers of America v. Marshall, which upheld 
OSHA's standard on lead in the workplace. This case continues to be 
important, because it upheld basic principles and protections that the 
agency went on to use in many other workplace safety standards.
  The DC Circuit also held the OSHA Administrator to a high standard in 
implementing the law. In 1983, the court ordered OSHA to expedite 
rulemaking on ethylene oxide, a highly toxic substance used to 
sterilize medical equipment. In a subsequent case,

[[Page S2281]]

the court sent an ethylene oxide standard back to OSHA for failure to 
adopt a short-term exposure limit that would have made the standard 
more protective.
  In 1987, after unacceptable delay by OSHA, the court ordered the 
agency to issue a field sanitation standard requiring toilets and 
drinking water for farmworkers, to protect them from disease.
  Today however, employees no longer see the DC Circuit as a court in 
which to bring worker safety and health actions. Despite the court's 
earlier willingness to hold OSHA to its statutory mandate to protect 
workers, workers are turning elsewhere for relief, and big business is 
counting on the DC Circuit for assistance. It is no accident that the 
National Association of Manufacturers and other trade associations who 
filed a lawsuit to overturn OSHA's ergonomics standard chose the DC 
Circuit to bring their petitions for review.
  In decades past, the DC Circuit was in the forefront of upholding 
Federal protections for minorities and women. One of the most notable 
cases on racial discrimination was a 1969 decision upholding measures 
to end the overcrowding and segregation of schools in the District of 
Columbia. In another important decision, the court held that a written 
examination had a disparate impact on African Americans applying for 
positions in the police department. The court held that unless the test 
had sufficient relationship to job performance, it violated the 
Constitution.
  The DC Circuit also contributed important precedents for women 
seeking justice and equality. In Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, female 
flight attendants were assigned to the all-female ``stewardess'' 
classification, while men who performed essentially the same job were 
paid more and called ``pursers.'' The female flight attendants sued 
Northwest Airlines for sex discrimination. The district court held that 
Northeast Airlines had violated Federal law, and the DC Circuit upheld 
the argument that the Equal Pay Act extended to identical jobs, and 
held that it required equal pay for ``substantially equal'' jobs.
  This principle was emphasized in Thompson v. Sawyer, involving a 
claim of sex discrimination by employees of the Government Printing 
Office. The court held that jobs may be ``substantially equal,'' even 
it they involve work on different machines or equipment, as long as the 
skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions are the same.
  All of these decisions are advancing the cause of equal pay for women 
in the workplace, enormously important decisions. Because of these 
decisions, we see further compliance by other companies, knowing that 
this is the law and it has to be respected.
  In the late 1970s and mid 1980s, in the area of sexual harassment, 
the court held in a series of cases that sexual harassment in the 
workplace violates title VII even when there has been no loss of 
tangible job benefits. The court also held an employer can be held 
liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor, even if the employee is 
unaware of the supervisor's actions.
  These cases were all important steps on civil rights, enormously 
important to the kinds of conditions in the workplace, particularly for 
women on equal pay and also in terms of the issues on sexual 
harassment. This was major progress in decisions made by the DC 
Circuit.
  People say: Why are we so concerned about this particular nominee? I 
have been trying to review for the Senate, this afternoon, these 
various areas. Whether we are talking about the environment, whether we 
are talking about worker safety, whether we are talking about issues on 
women's rights--equal pay, freedom from harassment--all of these 
judgments and decisions that have been made by the DC Circuit have 
advanced the cause of greater protection and greater equality for the 
citizens in the workplace.
  These cases were all important steps on civil rights. But when more 
conservative judges were appointed, the tide began to change. In 1973, 
the DC Circuit had required the Federal Government to take steps to end 
segregation in educational institutions receiving Federal funds. But a 
decade later, by a 6-to-4 vote, the DC Circuit held in Adams v. 
Richardson that the plaintiffs could not obtain judicial review of the 
Federal Government's settlement with higher education institutions, 
despite the Government's abandonment of its own desegregation criteria.
  The workers and the firms affected by such decisions are well aware 
that the DC Court of Appeals is a powerful court. This fact is not lost 
on the current administration. For over two decades, Republican 
administrations have worked diligently to reshape this court and other 
courts. Current judicial nominees are clearly being chosen for their 
ideological beliefs.
  None of us should have any doubt that the Bush administration is 
intensely pursing this goal today.
  The President's nominees to the circuit courts are among the most 
conservative lawyers and judges in the country. This administration is 
doing all it can to reshape the Federal judiciary for a generation or 
more to come in its own conservative image. In doing so, the 
administration is undermining the enforcement of important 
environmental, labor, worker safety, immigration, and civil rights laws 
while advancing harsh new policies.
  If this administration has its way, we will soon be drilling in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, developing and exploiting wetlands and 
waterways protected by the Clean Water Act, and undermining policies 
that protect our environment.
  If this administration has its way, employees will have fewer labor 
and workplace protections. If this administration has its way, we will 
see the continued erosion of civil rights laws.
  It is obvious that Mr. Estrada has been nominated to a court that is 
overturning important precedents and moving farther and farther to the 
right--a court that disregards congressional intent and the letter and 
spirit of the law it has a duty to respect--courts like the current 
administration, more interested in serving big business than in serving 
justice.
  As I reviewed just briefly why this nominee is so important, we get 
asked why is this particular nominee so important? As I mentioned, it 
is the DC Circuit. It is making and has made these judgments time and 
time again in protecting individuals and the environment and protecting 
workers. We have seen a significant shift in recent times. What we are 
trying to find out is what the nominee's views are in the general areas 
I have mentioned in which this court has such important jurisdiction.
  We could get no answers on the issue of workers rights, no answers on 
the issue of civil rights, no answers on the issue of the environment, 
no answers on the issue of the broad sweep of different questions that 
come in terms of administrative agencies and the importance, what kind 
of precedence, what kind of latitude they give to administrative 
agencies. No, we are not entitled to those answers at all. Absolutely 
none. We just are denied any kind of opportunity to hear any response 
as to a court of this importance. We are entitled to hear the nominee, 
not for his specific outcomes of a particular case but to show an 
understanding and a grasp and an awareness of the importance of the 
laws and a sense of the type of commitment he has in terms of 
fundamental constitutional protections.
  I urge my colleagues to heed the warnings of the many Latino 
organizations and leaders who have raised concerns about Mr. Estrada's 
nomination. As 52 Latino labor leaders have written:

       America's working families look to the federal courts to 
     protect our rights at work, to stop unfair labor practices by 
     employers, and to ensure that employers respect laws 
     regarding fair pay and equal treatment on the job.
       Of all the federal courts, none--other than the U.S. 
     Supreme Court--is more important to working people than the 
     U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 
     It is in this court that the legal rights of working people 
     are won and lost. After a careful review of Mr. Estrada's 
     record, on behalf of the working families of America, we have 
     decided to oppose the nomination of Miguel Estrada.

  These concerns are shared by the United Steelworkers of America, the 
UAW, Community Rights Counsel, Defenders of Wildlife, Earth Justice, 
the Endangered Species Coalition, the Environmental Defense Fund, the 
Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, the 
Wilderness Society, the Mexican American

[[Page S2282]]

Legal Defense Fund, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, the 
Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, and many 
other organizations.
  Earlier today we had meetings with the leaders of the Hispanic 
Caucus. They reviewed with us how they have interviewed various 
nominees over recent years, how they were able to get some kind of a 
sense, and the degree of support they had given to many other nominees 
who they had a particular interest in, who had a Hispanic background, 
and how they interviewed this nominee.
  I will take some time tomorrow to review in some detail with the 
Senate their conclusions and their observations. They are the ones who 
speak for the Hispanic community. They are the ones who understand the 
hopes and dreams of so many of our Hispanic brothers and sisters. They 
are the ones who have, through life experience, a keen awareness and 
understanding about the importance of justice.
  But some of the statements they made this afternoon, which I found so 
compelling, were the fact that when the dust settles on the Presidency, 
whether it is one party or the other, when the final action is taken in 
the appropriations and the legislative branch, the one place the 
Hispanics have historically been able to look to and have a sense of 
confidence has been the American judicial system. They consider it 
sacrosanct in terms of the types of challenges they are facing daily in 
our society. They challenge us to preserve that kind of equality.
  They reviewed in careful detail, not just for us but for Americans, 
in the form of our meeting this afternoon with the press exactly why 
they are so strongly opposed to this nominee.
  I stand with these groups and the millions of Americans they 
represent and urge the Senate to reject the nomination.