[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 25297-25300]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   FIGHTING FOR FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to attempt to put some 
transparence on what is going on around here.
  This summer, the Republicans very successfully convinced the American 
people that their party was for estate tax relief and marriage penalty 
relief and that the Democrats were not. Well, my friends, that is 
simply not the case. The Democrats are for eliminating the estate tax 
for small businesses and family farms valued at $8 million and for all 
other estates worth $4 million. And, Mr. President, it is the 
Democratic plan for marriage penalty relief that completely eliminates 
the marriage penalty found in 65 provisions in the tax code.
  So, isn't it a bit frightening that the Republicans have so 
successfully twisted the debate so as to mislead the American people 
into thinking that they are actually the party supportive of tax cuts. 
Reality is, however, that they are the party of political rhetoric and 
political maneuvering. If the Republicans really wanted to give the 
American people estate tax relief and marriage penalty relief, they 
could have--they had many, many opportunities for sending the President 
real relief. Instead of giving the American people empty rhetoric--we 
could be sitting here today with elimination of the estate tax and 
marriage penalty tax relief for virtually all Americans.
  Now, why do I bring all this up. Because it is happening over and 
over again. The Republicans are misleading the American people on a 
host of critical pieces of legislation, including: patients bill of 
rights, prescription drug coverage, minimum wage increase, tax cuts, 
health insurance coverage and education.
  Instead of actually providing the American people with real relief--
this year--the Republicans prefer the politics.
  I have heard from constituents who ask me--``If both Republicans and 
Democrats want patients bill of rights, then why can't the Republicans 
and Democrats just work together to get something done?'' That is an 
excellent question. Why?
  Why is it that we cannot just reach agreement? Is it that we are 
missing some magical force here in Washington to bring bipartisanship 
to all? Unfortunately, the answer is that the Republicans want the 
rhetoric--and the Democrats want real reform. So, until the Republicans 
stop pandering and posturing and start sincerely and openly working 
together, there can be no agreements. You see, the Republicans have a 
more difficult time even working with each other--there is nothing 
partisan or bipartisan about that. Yet they have misled the American 
people to think that the Democrats--not the Republicans--are the ones 
holding up the works and refusing to work in a bipartisan manner. Mr. 
President, that is truly overstepping the bounds of the reality of what 
is going on up here.
  Our efforts to fight for fundamental fairness in health, education 
and tax cuts, are being twisted into political pandering and posturing 
by the Republicans. But all we are doing is fighting for the 
fundamental fairness that the American people have fought for by 
working hard every day of their lives.
  Let me illustrate this by highlighting the differences between the 
policies of the Republicans and the Democrats with respect to the bill 
that we have before us.
  The Democrats are fighting to ensure that we do as much as possible 
to meet America's need for safe and modern schools.
  Democrats solution--enact the bipartisan Rangel-Johnson proposal to 
finance $25 billion in bonds to construct and modernize 6,000 schools.
  Republican's bill--is thoroughly inadequate--it provides no 
guaranteed funding for urgent school repairs, provides only $16 billion 
in bonds, and does not include the important Davis-Bacon

[[Page 25298]]

provision to ensure that the construction workers who build and repair 
our nation's schools receive a fair wage for their work.
  Result of their plan--the arbitrage provision encourages delay in 
urgently needed school construction and would disproportionately help 
wealthy school districts.
  The Democrats are fighting to ensure that we promote bipartisanship 
in health care by coupling both the Republican and Democrat priorities 
on health care and long-term care.
  Democrats solution--our FamilyCare proposal would expand coverage to 
4 million uninsured parents at a cost of slightly over $3,000 per 
person.
  Republican's bill--provides additional coverage to one-seventh of the 
people at $18,000 per person--that is one-seventh of the people at 6 
times the cost. Their approach is inequitable, inefficient, and 
counterproductive to health care policy.
  Result of their plan--completely ignores a proposal to cover millions 
of uninsured, working Americans and jeopardizes the insurance coverage 
of those individuals currently receiving employer-based coverage. In 
fact, on the Republican health deduction, the Joint Tax Committee 
estimates that while over 26 million individuals would receive benefits 
under the proposal, only 1.6 million individuals would be newly insured 
as a result. In contrast, the Democrats in Congress and the Clinton-
Gore Administration plan would expand coverage to 5 million uninsured 
Americans.
  The Democrats are fighting to ensure that we help the families who 
care for our nation's elderly.
  Democrats solution--accept the Republicans deduction for long-term 
care insurance in exchange for inclusion of a proposal to provide a 
$3,000 tax credit for long-term care costs.
  Republican's bill--provide a health care deduction for long-term care 
costs.
  Result of their plan--they provide half of the benefits of the long-
term care credit that the Democrats provide.
  The Democrats are fighting to ensure that all Americans are insured.
  Democrats solution--bipartisan policies for health insurance options 
for children with disabilities, legal immigrant pregnant women and 
children, and enrolling uninsured children in schools, needed payment 
increases to hospitals, academic health centers, home health agencies 
and other vulnerable providers.
  Republican's bill--provides over one-third of the cost of their 
medicare bill to the HMOs.
  Result of their plan--there is no accountability to prevent excessive 
payment increases to HMOs and failure to address the urgent health 
needs of seniors, people with disabilities, and children.
  The Democrats are fighting to ensure that we encourage medical 
research and expand vaccine distribution to proactively approach 
medicine.
  Democrats solution--a bipartisan tax credit for vaccine research and 
purchases for malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and any infectious 
disease that causes over 1 million deaths annually.
  Republican's bill--nothing.
  Result of their plan--this is a failure to address a problem of 
serious ramifications. These diseases cause almost half of all deaths 
worldwide of people under age 45, killing over 8 million children each 
year and orphaning millions more.
  The Democrats are fighting to ensure that low and middle income 
individuals save and invest for their future.
  Democrats solution--provide savings incentives to low and middle 
income individuals through retirement savings accounts.
  Republican's bill--they specifically dropped this provision from the 
bipartisan Senate Finance Committee bill.
  Result of their plan--a failure to address the lack of pension 
coverage for 70 million people. I want to just add one point here. 
Every year, through tax incentives, private pensions cost the fisc $76 
billion. Yet 75 percent of American households in the 15 percent tax 
bracket--that means income of about $30,000--receive little or no tax 
incentive on their IRA or pension contribution.
  The Democrats are fighting to ensure that we meet our current 
obligations before we promise new programs for distressed communities.
  Democrats solution--fully fund the currently existing empowerment 
zones to spur economic development in distressed communities.
  Republican's bill--create new renewal communities without meeting our 
promise to the existing empowerment zone communities.
  Result of their plan--irresponsible pandering to wealthy business 
owners who will benefit from their new renewal communities at the 
expense of low and middle income entrepreneurs.
  The Democrats are fighting to ensure that we don't turn our backs on 
those areas most in need.
  Democrats solution--provide an economic activity credit to encourage 
business investment in jobs for the residents of Puerto Rico.
  Republican's bill--they specifically rejected this provision.
  Result of their plan-- this equates to turning their backs on the 
hard working people of Puerto Rico. Even while at an historical low of 
about 10.1 percent, the unemployment rate in Puerto Rico continues to 
remain well above that of any state; the per capita income in Puerto 
Rico, which was $9,908 in FY 1999, is less than half that of any state; 
and well over 50 percent of the labor force in Puerto Rico are within 
$1.00 of the current minimum wage.
  The Democrats are fighting to ensure that we encourage adoption of 
special needs children from foster care programs.
  Democrats solution--change a few words in the current tax code to 
ensure that families who adopt children from foster care can benefit 
from the same tax credit which is available to parents who adopt 
international children.
  Republican's bill--specifically ignored a more inclusive approach.
  Result of their plan--the Republicans turned their backs on those 
children with the greatest needs.
  Let's look at some of those who do benefit under the Republican plan 
for example--the Texas State Universities. Now, stay with me on this. 
The Republicans--well I should say only about 4 or 5 Republicans, in 
their closed door, secret meetings included a couple of interesting 
rifle shots in their tax bill. The one, interestingly enough, would 
provide a specific exception just for the Texas state universities, 
that would make their interest on bonds nontaxable. The American people 
are giving the Texas state universities a $4 million gift --while our 
public elementary and high school students are learning in trailers.
  The bottom line is that the Republicans want to help big business and 
the HMOs. The Democrats reject this approach. The Democrats are 
fighting for fundamental fairness for the American people--our 
children, our elderly, and all individuals of every race, color, and 
creed.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President I rise again today to urge President Clinton 
not to veto the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill that the 
Senate passed yesterday.
  President Clinton has threatened a veto because we did not include 
his so-called Latino fairness act. But have included something much 
better--the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, the LIFE Act. This act 
reunites families and restores due process to those who have played by 
the rules. Our proposal does not pit one nationality against another, 
nor does it pit one race against another. Our legislation provides 
relief to immigrants from all countries. A veto of CJS would be a blow 
against immigrant fairness.
  But a veto would do far more than that. A veto would cut off funding 
for some of our most important programs.
  CJS appropriations allocates: $4.8 billion for the INS and an 
additional $15.7 million for Border Patrol equipment upgrades, $3.3 
billion for the FBI, and $221 million for training, equipment, and 
research and development programs to combat domestic terrorism, $4.3 
billion for the federal prison system; $1.3 billion for the Drug 
Enforcement Administration; and $288 million for the Violence Against 
Women Act program--legislation that I have strongly supported and that 
provides

[[Page 25299]]

assistance to battered women and children.
  Actions have consequences. If President Clinton vetoes this bill, 
he's putting the public's safety and well-being at risk both at home 
and abroad. and he's doing this all in an effort to play wedge 
politics. the President's veto threats ring especially hollow because 
this appropriations bill provides many proposals to help immigrants. 
The President himself has stated that he wants ``to keep families 
together and to make our immigration policies more equitable.'' Well, 
this is exactly what the LIFE Act does.
  So, please, I ask Mr. Clinton, sign CJS appropriations so we can keep 
all of these programs funded for the American people.

                UPCOMING ELECTION AND THE FEDERAL COURTS

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is not often that the President of the 
United States, the editorial board of the Washington Times, People for 
the American Way and Gary Bauer all agree. They all do about the 
importance of the upcoming election to the rights of Americans in the 
decades ahead because of its impact on the third branch of the Federal 
Government, our federal judiciary.
  This first national election of this new century will give the 
American people a choice--a clear choice for President and for 
Congress. Also at stake is the third branch of our Federal Government, 
the judiciary. It is this branch of government, headed by the Supreme 
Court, that is the guardian of our rights under the Constitution.
  The next President is likely to nominate not only the next Justice on 
the United States Supreme Court, but possibly as many as four of the 
nine members of the Supreme Court over the course of his term. The next 
Senate will be called upon to vote to confirm or reject the President's 
nominations to the Supreme Court and the federal courts throughout the 
country.
  These are the judges who can give meaning to the Bill of Rights in 
cases they decide every day or who can take away our rights and the 
authority of our elected representatives and impose their own narrow 
view of our Constitution. The rights of free speech, to practice any 
religion or no religion as we choose, the right to be treated equally 
by the government, the right to privacy and a woman's right to choose 
are fundamental rights that require constant vigilance and protection. 
This new century will pose challenges to our fundamental rights. Will 
we have a President and a Senate who will combine to provide judges to 
protect those rights, or ideologues who will erode them?
  Nothing is more sharply at stake this November than the future of our 
constitutional rights.
  Five-to-four--five-to-four is how closely the Supreme Court is now 
dividing on fundamental issues. One or two votes on the Supreme Court 
can, for the next half century, tip the balance away from the right to 
choose, away from rights of privacy, away from equal rights and toward 
government establishment of religion and government orthodoxy over free 
expression. One or two votes could make it much harder to protect the 
environment or pass meaningful campaign finance reform.
  This last year by a five-to-four majority the Supreme Court held that 
a rape victim can bring no claim in federal court and that Congress was 
wrong to provide that remedy in the Violence Against Women Act. By 
five-to-four majorities the Supreme Court held that state employees 
have no rights to be paid for overtime work and have no protection from 
age discrimination, in spite of the laws passed by Congress. What will 
this mean for other laws prohibiting discrimination in the workplace, 
regulating wages and hours and health and providing safety standards 
for working Americans? And by a mere five-to-four vote, the Supreme 
Court decided that a Nebraska law imposed an undue burden on a woman's 
right to choose when it sought to prohibit medical procedures by vague 
language and without regard to the health of the woman.
  I am confident that Al Gore and Joe Lieberman will nominate women and 
men who understand the proper role of judges as protectors of our 
rights and the proper limits on judicial power. On Tuesday evening the 
President of the United States spoke about the importance of the 
election to the Supreme Court, to the federal courts generally, to our 
rights and to the distribution of power in our country. The President 
noted that ``the American people will make a decision in this election 
which will shape the Supreme Court and the other federal courts, and 
the range of liberty and privacy, and the range of acceptable national 
action for years to come'' and that ``whether we have a new form of 
ultra-conservative judicial activism that rejects the government's 
authority to protect the rights of our citizens and interests of our 
citizens'' is at stake in the November election. As the President 
explained:

       Now we're just a vote or two away from reversing Roe v. 
     Wade in the United States Supreme Court, and I think it's 
     inevitable that the next President will have two appointments 
     to the Supreme Court, could be more. Beyond that, as I 
     intimated in my opening remarks, there has already been a 
     majority in this Court for restricting the ability of 
     Congress, even a bipartisan majority in Congress, to get the 
     states to help implement public interest legislation that 
     protects people.

  There is much at state in the next election and in the appointment of 
our Supreme Court Justices and other federal judges. In June, the 
People for the American Way Foundation published an extensive report 
called ``Courting Disaster: How a Scalia-Thomas Supreme Court Would 
Endanger Our Rights and Freedoms'' that considered the future makeup of 
the Supreme Court and its likely effects on our fundamental rights. In 
his message accompanying that report, Ralph Neas observed:

       The United States Supreme Court is just one or two new 
     Justices away from curtailing or abolishing fundamental 
     rights that millions of Americans take for granted.

  The Washington Times lead editorial on Thursday noted pointedly:

       Before the Supreme Court could overturn Roe vs. Wade, it 
     would take the appointment of two pro-life justices to 
     replace two pro-choice jurists--and their successful 
     confirmation in what would undoubtedly be among the most 
     explosive battles in U.S. Senate history.

  Mr. Bauer made much the same point in a recent appearance on NBC's 
Today Show, in which he said: ``I think if Governor Bush gets to put a 
couple of justices on the court, we will be more likely to protect our 
unborn children under the Constitution.''
  The Republican party platform talks of ideological litmus tests for 
judges and the end of a woman's right to choose. The Republican 
candidate for President says that his models for judicial nominees are 
the most conservative current Justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence 
Thomas. If they formed the majority in the years ahead, our rights 
would be greatly diminished, protections approved by Congress would be 
routinely invalidated and our Constitution would be harshly 
reinterpreted.
  While the other party's platform is filled with calls for rewriting 
the Constitution, we Democrats seek to preserve the Constitution and 
protect our fundamental rights as the guaranties of our freedoms. While 
the Republican Senate has delayed and dissembled over judicial 
nominations during the last six years--to the point that the Chief 
Justice of the United States chastised them for refusing to vote up or 
down--Vice President Gore, Senator Daschle and I have pressed for 
action on outstanding judicial nominees, including historic levels of 
women and minorities.
  While Republican Senators all voted lockstep against the confirmation 
of the first African-American Justice on the Missouri Supreme Court to 
become a federal judge, Democrats voted for Ronnie White of Missouri, 
for Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon of California, for Sonia Sotomayor 
of New York, for Julio Fuentes of New Jersey, and for Barbara Lynn and 
Hilda Tagle of Texas.
  While the Republican leadership of the Congress sought to intimidate 
federal judges, Vice President Gore and Democrats have been working for 
fair up or down votes on the nominations of

[[Page 25300]]

qualified women and minorities such as Enrique Moreno of Texas, Judge 
James Wynn of North Carolina, Roger Gregory of Virginia, Judge Helene 
White and Kathleen McCree Lewis of Michigan, Judge Legrome Davis of 
Philadelphia, Dolly Gee of California, and Rhonda Fields of the 
District of Columbia.
  While the Republican candidate for President made a fine statement in 
which he called for votes on judicial nominations within 60 days, he 
has not prevailed upon the Senate Republican majority to treat nominees 
fairly now. Instead of 60 days, we see Judge Helene White's nomination 
to the Sixth Circuit pending more than 1400 days; Elena Kagan, U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, pending 500 days; Judge 
James Wynn, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, pending more 
than 440 days; Kathleen McCree Lewis, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Sixth Circuit, pending more than 400 days; Enrique Moreno, U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, pending more than 400 days; Bonnie 
Campbell, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, pending more 
than 240 days; Roger Gregory, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth 
Circuit, pending more than 115 days; Lynette Norton, U.S. District 
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, pending more than 1300 
days; Judge Legrome Davis, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District 
of Pennsylvania, pending more than 800 days; Patricia Coan, U.S. 
District Court for the District of Colorado, pending more than 500 
days; Dolly Gee, U.S. District Court for the Central District of 
California, pending more than 500 days; Rhonda Fields, U.S. District 
Court for the District of Columbia, pending more than 350 days; Linda 
Riegle, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, pending more 
than 180 days; Ricardo Morado, U.S. District Court for the Southern 
District of Texas, pending more than 165 days. The Senate is adjourning 
leaving 33 judicial nominees whose nominations have been pending 
without Senate action for more than 60 days.
  And while the Republican majority in the Senate refused for over 
three years to vote up or down on the confirmation of Bill Lann Lee to 
head the Civil Rights Division, this outstanding American continued to 
do his job on behalf of all Americans. With Vice President Gore's 
support, this Senate slight has finally been made right by the recess 
appointment of the first Asian-Pacific American to lead the Civil 
Rights Division.
  The election next month presents a clear choice. The choice the 
American people make will determine what kind of judges sit on the 
Supreme Court and on federal courts all across the country. Those 
elected by the American people in November will select the judicial 
guardians of our liberties and the enforcers of our constitutional 
protections next year and in the decades to come. The future for our 
children and grandchildren hangs in the balance. I am proud that to 
support Al Gore and Joe Lieberman. They will nominate judges who 
understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

                          ____________________