Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to an extraordinary woman, renowned reproductive health expert Dr. Felicia Hance Stewart. Dr. Stewart died on April 13 at the age of 63. Her energy, compassion, intelligence and tireless commitment to

women's health made a difference for countless women in the U.S. and around the world.

Dr. Stewart's keen mind and affinity for medicine were apparent from her distinguished educational background. She received her bachelor of arts degree from the University of California, Berkeley, graduating Phi Beta Kappa and with honors in biochemistry. In 1969, she received her M.D. degree from Harvard University Medical School. She did her postgraduate training at Cambridge City Hospital in Massachusetts and at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center.

Dr. Stewart's passion for empowering women through increased access to reproductive health services was evident throughout her extraordinary career. Dr. Stewart began her practice in obstetrics and gynecology in Sacramento, working for Sutter Medical Group, doing clinical research with a focus on contraceptives. She also worked as associate medical director of Planned Parenthood in Sacramento.

In 1994, Dr. Stewart was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs in the Clinton administration's Department of Health and Human Services, HHS. Working with then-Secretary of HHS Donna Shalala, Dr. Stewart was the senior expert responsible for family planning.

In 1996, she became director of Reproductive Health Programs at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park, CA. She was most recently codirector of the Bixby Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy at UCSF.

Dr. Stewart wrote ``Understanding Your Body: Everywoman's Guide to a Lifetime of Health,'' 1987, and ``My Body, My Health: The Concerned Woman's Guide to Gynecology and Health,'' 1979. She cowrote ``Contraceptive Technology,'' a major professional reference book that has been published in 18 editions, and ``Emergency Contraception: The Nation's Best Kept Secret.'' She also published nearly 100 scientific journal articles.

Dr. Stewart's passionate and reasoned advocacy for increasing access to emergency contraception brought national attention to this critical women's health issue. Dr. Stewart was instrumental in conducting research which established that emergency contraception was safe and effective without a physician's prescription. Her research has helped increase access to emergency contraception in pharmacies throughout California.

In 1973, after Roe v. Wade was handed down, none of us thought we still would be fighting the same battle to protect fundamental women's reproductive rights in 2006. But the fight is more challenging than ever. Not only are we fighting to maintain abortion rights, but access to comprehensive health services, including contraception.

Dr. Felicia Stewart was at the forefront of that fight throughout her career. Her work helped prevent countless unintended pregnancies and empowered women to take control of their reproductive health. Dr. Stewart impacted many lives, from the women and men she served in clinics to the doctors, researchers and activists she inspired to follow in her footsteps. She leaves us with the inspiration to work harder and never give up the fight to secure the full range of reproductive health services for women. She leaves a lasting legacy that will not be forgotten.

Dr. Stewart is survived by her son Matthew Stewart and daughter Kathryn Stewart; her parents Lena and Harold Hance; her brother Allan Hance; stepchildren Tammy Barlow, Wayne Stewart, and Michael Stewart.

I am proud to have stood with Dr. Felicia Stewart in our fight to increase access to women's reproductive health services. She was a wonderful ally and supporter of my work in the Senate. She will be greatly missed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President, thank you so much for your courtesy--and my colleagues. I wanted to be heard on this bill. I haven't spoken on it. It is a bill that I call a drilling bill; I don't call it an energy bill. I rise to speak against it, and I am against it for three very simple reasons.

First, I have no assurances--nor does Senator Feinstein--that the California coast will continue to be protected from new offshore oil and gas drilling. That protection is crucial to my State, to my State's economy, and, of course, it is crucial to the promise that we made to our children and our grandchildren--that this coast will be forever protected. It is one of God's greatest gifts to our State. Every history book that writes about California talks about the beauty of our State--and it starts with the ocean. We know if we lose that beauty it is irreplaceable.

I also wanted to make a point to my friends that in our State, offshore oil drilling is an issue that unites the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats. They do not want to see it happen, whether it is our Governor or our Democratic candidate for Governor. They are in full agreement. This is an issue that unites California.

Clearly, we know that our economy is heavily reliant on tourism. It is reliant on fisheries. And offshore oil drilling threatens both of those economic engines.

Second, this bill will drain billions of dollars from the Federal Treasury. That is indisputable. And it does nothing to help us meet the critical goal of reducing America's dependence on oil. As a matter of fact, this bill deepens our dependence on oil.

Achieving real energy independence must be more than just a slogan. In this unbalanced bill, we admit our addiction to oil. As a matter of fact, I heard many colleagues say we need more oil, that we need this oil. But with this bill, we continue to feed this habit.

I personally believe there are places in this country where you can drill off the coast. I respect Senator Landrieu very much, and I don't have a problem if there is unanimity that there ought to be drilling off her state's coast. And I support her efforts to have some conservation fund to restore the area. But what are we getting on the other side? We are getting drilling, we are feeding the addiction to oil. It seems to me we are getting nothing because we are not allowed to amend this bill with some forward-thinking amendments. We are getting, for sure, a greater and greater deficit and a greater and greater debt.

How would we better balance this bill? We should promote vehicle technologies that get better gas mileage. We can develop and incentivize the use of alternative fuels. We can encourage energy conservation.

We have seen countries such as Brazil just within a 10-year timeframe become independent of foreign oil--become energy independent. But guess what. Because the Republican leadership won't allow it, we cannot offer any amendments to alter this bill. It is either drilling and giving four States a ton of money to reward them for that, causing the Federal deficit to swell, or it is nothing.

It is sad because this is a great country. It is a country of great ideas. Yet the ideas on both sides of the aisle take a back seat to the same old, same old, drill, drill, drill.

We can't drill our way out of this problem. As tempting as the mirage of a quick fix might be, we must not endanger the California coast with new drilling. And that is what will happen if this bill is merged with the House drilling bill.

If the House would take the Senate bill, then I would breathe a sigh of relief for my State--and the west coast and the east coast can also breathe a sigh of relief. But we don't have any assurances that the Pombo bill, which will open up the door to drilling in the most beautiful areas, will not become part of this bill.

Let me tell you that Californians--again, across party lines-- rejected coastal drilling long ago. Even in the days when our State was a red State, we rejected offshore oil drilling across party lines.

It was because we had a devastating Santa Barbara rig blowout that contaminated our ocean waters and beaches almost 40 years ago. The memories of that are still ever present. The memories of that also became a warning sign that we want to preserve our precious coast.

The people of California decided that the potential benefits of future offshore oil and gas development were not worth the risk of destroying our priceless coastal treasures and our most important tourist industry that draws millions and millions to our coast.

I ask anyone listening to this debate: Is there a time when you visit California that you don't go to the coast? Everyone comes to our coast. What you do there is observe the wonder of an unspoiled coastline. There are certain areas where we do have drilling. But for many years we have kept the moratorium in place. When you go to our coastline, from the very far north of the State, down to the south, what you see is God's beauty. When you come to our State and you stay in our beautiful hotels and our bed and breakfasts and go to our restaurants, often having a view of our ocean, you can't help but come away in awe that this is a gift that has been given to us, and a gift that we must preserve. It brings dollars to our State.

This is one of those times when it is the right thing to do economically to keep that coast beautiful. It is the right thing to do spiritually. And, it is the right thing to do environmentally. The California State legislature understands it. In 1994 they passed a law that permanently prohibits oil and gas exploration in our State's waters. I thank them for that. We learned the lesson that drilling is dangerous. We learned it the hard way.

The Senate bill, if it is merged with the House bill, could be disastrous for the California environment and economy. We know it is disastrous for the Federal Treasury. By the year 2017, four States in our Nation would be entitled to $590 million per year; by 2022, $1.2 billion per year. These States will get part of the Federal Treasury. We cannot afford this kind of imbalanced fiscal policy at a time when the Federal deficit is expected to be $300 billion this year and the national debt is over $8.4 trillion and growing.

I think back to the year that President Clinton left office. The budget projections were that we were going to be debt free. Since my friends on the other side have taken control, deficits are back in full bloom. The debt is back and this bill adds to the debt and the deficit. How could we possibly do that today? Sadly, we are not only doing it with the energy bill, we are doing it in another bill I will talk about in a minute.

How about this? No amendments allowed to this bill. What is the other side afraid of? We might have an amendment that will pass? We might have an amendment that increases fuel economy for our automobiles? We might have an amendment that makes sure we have flex-fuel vehicles? We might have an amendment pass that invests in cellulosic ethanol so we can have more farmers get into this act and produce ethanol from products other than corn? That would not use up as much energy to produce.

Americans are paying $3 per gallon at the pump. By the way, in my State, in San Diego, I saw gas at over $4 for full serve. Talk about sticker shock, picture that one. There is not one thing in this bill about going after the gougers. What are they afraid of on the other side of the aisle? That we will go after the people who are essentially holding us up at the pump every single day?

They say the gas prices are going through the roof because of unrest in the Middle East and Nigeria and companies are simply passing along higher costs. If that were true, it would be one thing. It isn't true. How do we know?

While the American people are suffering, the oil companies are raking in record profits. If this were simply about passing along higher costs, the oil companies' profits would be flat.

I used to be an economics major. It is pretty basic. If you are passing along costs, your profits are flat. But if you are passing along costs plus a huge increase in profit, your profits are up.

Yes, Senator Cantwell, who had a great provision to go after the gougers, was not allowed to offer it as an amendment.

Oil executives prosper. We have seen them, by the way, come before our committee. Senator Cantwell and I tried to swear them in. The Republican chairman would not allow us to swear in the oil company executives. I found that to be a bit disgraceful. So they were not under oath. By the way, they did not tell the truth, either. The fact is, transportation fuel costs for families have doubled since the Bush administration has taken office. Yet we cannot offer an amendment to go after the oil companies because the Republicans, who run the House, who run the Senate, and run the White House, do not want the oil companies to face the music. Pretty simple.

I thought we were a country of, ``by and for the people.'' It turns out we are a country of, ``by and for the oil companies.'' You do not learn that in your textbooks.

We have to do better. Democrats have written a bill called the Clean EDGE Act that would require increases in flex-fuel vehicle production, that would make price gouging a Federal crime, would provide incentives for manufacturing hybrid cars, and would set minimum fuel economy standards for tires.

Why do you need standards for tires? Efficient tires on cars and keeping them inflated to the proper pressure improve mileage and would cut oil consumption by 160 million barrels per year. But we cannot offer an amendment. No, we cannot offer an amendment. They are protecting the oil companies. Why are we surprised? The President is an oil man. The Vice President is an oil man.

My Democratic colleagues and I have worked with Republicans to raise CAFE standards. That is the corporate average fuel economy. That is what CAFE is. The Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act would raise CAFE standards for all vehicles, including SUVs, from 25 miles per gallon to 35 by 2017. This is a bill written by my colleagues, Senator Feinstein and Senator Snowe, but they cannot offer their amendment. Why? Because the Republicans want to protect the oil companies as the price for gas goes up.

By closing the SUV loophole, we could save the equivalent of one Alaska National Wildlife Refuge every 7 years. We do not have to drill our way out of this crisis in the God-given wild places. We just need to be a little smarter. We can do it.

I had amendments I would have offered that would have said the Federal Government has to purchase the most fuel-efficient vehicles available. It is kind of a no-brainer, but I cannot offer it. The President could issue an Executive Order today requiring that. He won't do that because he supports the oil companies, folks. Follow it, all of it; it leads back to that one point.

The average fuel economy of the Federal fleet was an abysmal 21.4 miles per gallon. I have had, for many years, a hybrid car. The new model, if it is driven properly, gets over 50 miles per gallon. Surely, we can do better than 21.4 miles a gallon.

I would have offered an amendment to promote research for cellulosic ethanol, a type of fuel produced by agricultural waste. Promoting this innovative fuel will reduce our dependence on oil and provide our Nation's farmers with new income sources. No, I could not offer it because they are protecting the oil companies. It all comes back to that.

With no amendments, we have a narrow drilling bill that busts the budget. We had an opportunity to work together across the aisle and come up with a comprehensive energy bill. But instead, we are going to protect the oil companies.

So we have more of the same failed policies that, in the end, could, in fact, endanger all of our coasts.

Once again, we call on the Republican leadership to start standing up for an energy policy for this country; not a narrow drilling bill that busts the Federal budget but an energy policy that will save the budget of the American people and help our economy by being on the cutting edge of these technologies.

If a country such as Brazil can do it, aren't we a little embarrassed that we can't? We are so far behind, it is extraordinary. I guess when you run the Senate for the oil companies, that is what you get at the end of the day.

I find it incredible that this Republican Congress that is supposed to care about fiscal responsibility has thrown fiscal responsibility out the window.

You have this bill that will drain the Treasury of over $1 billion a year over time. Then we have this grand compromise in the House headed our way that is going to make changes in the tax laws that impact the top 8,200 wealthiest families in America. It will cut their taxes and, again, rob the Treasury of billions of dollars. Guess what they say. They didn't care too much about that.

Let me tell the truth about what is headed our way, folks. The moderates on the House side went over to the leadership and said--these are the Republicans--we need to vote on the minimum wage because we may lose our seats. We are looking crass and cold because we have never had the ability to vote for the minimum wage because you never let us get it through. So we need to pass a minimum wage increase.

The leadership said: We have not done that in 10 years. We are not about to do it now. But maybe we could figure out a way to twist that around and cut back on that minimum wage increase and let those people at the bottom of the ladder struggle a bit longer while we give tax breaks to the wealthiest 8,200 families. But we will send it over to the Senate, and if they vote no because they decide they do not want to bust the budget, they will look bad because they have been calling for an increase in the minimum wage.

A long time ago when I was a girl, there was a great man who went up against Senator Joe McCarthy. He said to him: Have you no shame? We ought to bring out those words again. I say to my friends, have you no shame? People who work at the minimum wage have not had a raise in almost 10 years. You, Senators, have had a raise almost every year. How about tens of thousands of dollars of raises?

Finally, because you are caught between a rock and a hard place, you decide to pass an increase in the minimum wage, but you do it over 3 years. I never heard any Senator say: I will take my raise over 3 years. Never, and we get thousands of dollars in 1 year. I never had a colleague come over from the other side of the aisle against raising the minimum wage, saying: We will take our raise in 3 years. We will wait 3 years for another increase. No, we get our cost-of-living adjustment, while minimum wage workers are going to wait 3 years.

By the way, for some the House bill will be a pay cut. Some States, such as my State, where employers cannot reduce the state minimum wage paid just because a worker receives tips, will now be allowed to cut that worker's wages.

Have you no shame? Anyone in this Senate live on $10,000 or $11,000 a year? Do you think if you work your fingers to the bone you should be stuck at that level for 10 long years, while people at the top, like us--and, by the way, we are not at the very top, but we are at the top 1 percent or so--we get our cost-of-living adjustments every single year.

I have so much respect for working people. I have tried every year since I have been here to give them a pay raise. I want to give them a pay raise where they can hold their head high and support their families, not tell them they have to wait 3 years to get their full increase after being held to $5.15 an hour for 10 years.

By the way, there are many Republicans who do not believe in any minimum wage. There are some I have heard who have been here 20 years and have voted against it every time. So if they had their way the minimum wage would be $2.25 an hour. I am waiting for the Republicans to come up and tell me they want to take their cost-of-living adjustment over 3 years. Then I am waiting for them to say, if they have a spouse who works: If my spouse gets a little extra money, I will give back some of my raise--as they have done with their tip policy.

I say to those at the very top of the income ladder, the billionaires out there: You are not asking for this. The truth is, many of us here are very willing to say, on the estate tax, that the exemption should be lifted. We have said that. I am on an amendment to do that. Because it is true that the price of houses has gone up, and we do not want to have this estate tax be an onerous burden to anyone--not to a family, not to a farmer--and we can work it out. But what is coming to us in this ``minimum wage train'' is a lot more than an increase in the minimum wage. It is a cruel hoax because it does not give minimum wage workers that raise in a year--after they have waited for 10 years.

And for those workers that receive tips, it may actually decrease their wages if they live in one of six states, including California, that doesn't reduce the minimum wage employers must pay because they get tips. And, of course, it is coupled with this big gift to the richest families of America, which means, at the end of the day, millions--hundreds of millions--and eventually billions of dollars will be drained from the Federal Treasury. And the very people who claim to be fiscally responsible are at it again, adding to the deficit, adding to the debt.

This is really a time for people to stand up and be counted. This is really a time to speak the truth. This is a tough time in the world. All of us are heartsick about what is going on in the world, and we all pray for an end to the fighting, not only in Lebanon and in Israel but in Iraq where things are deteriorating every single day. Hard times. In the middle of these hard times, is this the time to say to the wealthiest 8,200 families: ``We are worried about you''?

And we will have less money for our troops and we will have less money for our kids. This Senate and this Congress has underfunded the No Child Left Behind Act. Oh, everyone said this was the greatest thing since sliced bread. And I voted for it. I really thought George Bush and my Republican friends would fully fund it. I wrote the afterschool section there. We have a million kids on waiting lists. We cannot take them. Funding for that program has been frozen for years now. This President signed the largest increase in student loan costs ever and the biggest cuts in education ever, but they are going to give a big tax break to the richest 8,200 families. I do not get it. I do not think the American people get it. We are going to find out pretty soon.

We have an energy bill that Leader Frist would not let us amend. He is not letting us offer any amendments to slow our oil addiction, to go after the oil companies, to create a bold, new energy policy, get us on the path of energy independence. And then, with Democrats calling for an increase in the minimum wage for 10 years, they give it to us over a 3-year period, when they take their raises to the bank. It is an outrage. Have they no shame? Have they no shame? I do not know. I do not know.

I always say here, sometimes I feel like Alice in Wonderland, and I feel that way today. But my voice will be raised on these issues. And the American people will be the judge if these are the kinds of priorities they want: a drilling bill, no energy independence, no antigouging legislation; a minimum wage increase, long overdue, that takes away money from some minimum wage earners; and two budget-busting bills--this one and the one that has the estate tax cut--that are going to add billions and billions to our debt. By the way, in closing, we should know who carries that debt: foreign countries, folks. They pick up the bonds. If they decide to take their money and go home, we are left in a mess.

So I hope the American people are listening in on these debates. I look forward to discussing these matters as they come up before the Senate.

I thank my colleague very much for his patience.

Mr. President, I am pleased and honored to salute labor leader Perry Zimmerman, the distinguished business manager of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, IBEW, Local 1245, and a vice president of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO. Perry is retiring after 5 years as IBEW Local 1245 business manager and more than 40 years of outstanding service to the labor community in California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.

Perry Zimmerman began his career at Pacific Gas and Electric Company in 1962. During his 19 years there, he was an active union member, serving as a shop steward, unit chairman, and advisory council member.

In 1981, Perry joined the staff of IBEW Local 1245 as business representative, where he served members in Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area. After 11 years, he was promoted to assistant business manager and served area members in both the private and public sectors.

Perry was elected business manager/financial secretary of IBEW Local 1245 in 2001. He was reelected in 2004 and has held this post ever since. As the leader of more than 18,000 members working for over 50 employers and 100 contractors, Perry Zimmerman is the voice of energy and communication workforces in 5 Western States. During this time, he was also a vice president of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO.

Throughout his career, Perry has demonstrated great enthusiasm and compassion for his fellow workers. As business manager, Perry was committed to being in regular touch with members, informing them of leadership decisions and requesting their opinions. He has said this was his favorite part of his job.

After more than 40 years of service to working families, Perry Zimmerman deserves some time off. Along with his friends and admirers throughout the Western United States, I wish him a long and pleasurable retirement.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Feinstein to introduce a bill authorizing the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to make grants to facilitate the establishment of the National Ag Science Center in Stanislaus County, California. This bill will create a facility that will help teach visitors from all across the country about the significance of agriculture in our Nation's culture and economy, the importance of science in agriculture, and California's role as the Nation's preeminent agricultural State.

This bill will designate $10 million in total grant funding to help fund construction costs of the center, with the

federal share limited to 33 percent of the total cost. I am happy to report that the center is making great progress on raising private donations to complete its share of the construction funding.

The center will help promote California's place as the Nation's most diverse and productive agricultural State. With the farmers, growers, and ranchers of our State producing over 350 different crops and commodities, and nearly 80,000 active farming operations, agriculture is one of California's most important industries. From our vineyards and wineries, to the almond, stone fruit, strawberry, cotton, and rice farms, to the citrus groves of central and southern California, to the dairy and cattle ranches across the State, farming and agriculture are ubiquitous in California and impact all of our communities in an important way.

The farms, large and small, produce half of America's produce and are exported all across the globe, providing billions of dollars to our economy and balance of trade.

The center's mission will place an emphasis on agricultural science education, with interactive, high-technology exhibits designed to foster an understanding of the importance of agriculture, and how science plays an essential role in the farm-to-food process. There will also be a strong focus on highlighting the important relationship between agriculture, conservation, and the environment.

I would also like to thank Representatives Cardoza, Matsui and Radanovich for introducing a companion bill in the House of Representatives.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Feinstein to introduce a bill authorizing the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to make grants to facilitate the establishment of the National Ag Science Center in Stanislaus County, California. This bill will create a facility that will help teach visitors from all across the country about the significance of agriculture in our Nation's culture and economy, the importance of science in agriculture, and California's role as the Nation's preeminent agricultural State.

This bill will designate $10 million in total grant funding to help fund construction costs of the center, with the

federal share limited to 33 percent of the total cost. I am happy to report that the center is making great progress on raising private donations to complete its share of the construction funding.

The center will help promote California's place as the Nation's most diverse and productive agricultural State. With the farmers, growers, and ranchers of our State producing over 350 different crops and commodities, and nearly 80,000 active farming operations, agriculture is one of California's most important industries. From our vineyards and wineries, to the almond, stone fruit, strawberry, cotton, and rice farms, to the citrus groves of central and southern California, to the dairy and cattle ranches across the State, farming and agriculture are ubiquitous in California and impact all of our communities in an important way.

The farms, large and small, produce half of America's produce and are exported all across the globe, providing billions of dollars to our economy and balance of trade.

The center's mission will place an emphasis on agricultural science education, with interactive, high-technology exhibits designed to foster an understanding of the importance of agriculture, and how science plays an essential role in the farm-to-food process. There will also be a strong focus on highlighting the important relationship between agriculture, conservation, and the environment.

I would also like to thank Representatives Cardoza, Matsui and Radanovich for introducing a companion bill in the House of Representatives.

Since my colleague has spoken for 10 or 15 minutes----

I would like to have 5 minutes to respond. I thought we were going to start the debate after the luncheons. Upon his conclusion, perhaps in the next minute or so, may I have a few minutes to open?

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada. I rise to speak as a mother and a grandmother--a mother of a daughter and a son, a grandmother of a grandson, and a Senator who has been here now for three terms, and I served over in the House for many years--to say that my friend from Nevada is right that this is not a parental consent bill at all.

Some States have parental consent laws, some don't. In my particular State, it has been voted down because my people feel that if you ask them do they want their kids to come to their parents, absolutely. But if you ask them should you force them to do so, even in circumstances where there could be trouble that comes from that, they say no.

I respect those States that have parental consent laws, and perhaps we will have a law that is drafted in California that the voters will approve. So far, we have not seen that.

It is true it is not a partisan issue. When we voted down those laws, we did it regardless of political party. But the reason is unintended consequences in the way certain bills are drafted. I want to speak to that because I believe this bill is well-intentioned.

This bill emanates from a desire that our children come to us when we have family matters, when our children are in trouble, that they not be fearful, that they not be afraid that they disappoint us, that they be open with us and loving toward us, and we toward them. This is what we want to have happen.

The question is: Can Big Brother Federal Government force this on our families? That is where we will differ.

I have to tell you, as I look at this bill coming before us now, I have to ask the question: why are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who run this place, who run the House, who run the White House, putting so much effort into this bill, having killed stem cell research, which all of our families are desperate to have--talk about 80 percent of America, it is 90 percent who want to find cures to Alzheimer's and all the rest. Oh, no, instead of getting another chance to pass that bill and convince the President, who is now backing off a little bit in his rhetoric, to sign a stem cell research bill, or to prevent teen pregnancies, which is so important, we don't have that. We have this bill that impacts very few people. Instead of improving the health of women and girls, we are spending precious time on a bill that, in essence, protects incest predators. This bill, as it is written, protects fathers who commit incest. Can you imagine? It allows them to drive their daughter across State lines. Unbelievable. We are going to try to fix this problem with an amendment. I hope my colleagues will support that, and it will improve this bill.

Right now, imagine, a father retains parental rights if he has committed rape on his daughter. This is supposed to be a warm and fuzzy bill? I don't think so. It also throws grandmothers in jail.

When I am finished.

This bill, as it is drafted, will throw a grandmother in jail. Say the father committed incest on the daughter and she is hysterical. The first place she goes is not some judge but to her grandma, who she adores and who gives her unconditional love, or to her priest or rabbi, and says please help me out of this. That incestuous father, as the bill is written, can sue that caring adult who takes her over the line.

My friend is going to offer an amendment that goes part of the way on the incest provision. It will say the father cannot sue. I am so happy because I will join him in that. I hope we have a 100-to-0 vote. But I am shocked that we

cannot reach agreement on that. Talk about finding common ground. Even with the Ensign amendment that says a father cannot sue, he can still take the daughter across State lines. And the Federal Government can still sue the grandmother or the clergy.

This debate is just beginning. The Senator from Nevada and I are friends, but we will have a tough debate. I hope we will vote for the Democratic amendment to improve this bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President, that time will be taken off my colleague's time.

Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry. I ask that the quorum be suspended so I can make a parliamentary inquiry.

I ask unanimous consent and I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada.

There is a lot of interest in this bill. People want to do something for our young people. People want to avoid these horrible situations. My friend cited the case of a young woman who was raped by her father, yet in this bill, the father retains all rights to take her over a State line. Can you imagine, to sign a parental consent form, a father who raped his daughter? So we want to correct these problems.

I yield 5 minutes to Senator Patty Murray and then 2\1/2\ minutes to Senator Lautenberg at the close of the debate.

Mr. President, I was told we have until 5 after, equally divided.

I thank the Chair. It is the first time all day I have been correct.

I yield to Senator Murray 5 minutes and then, at the end of the debate, Senator Lautenberg for 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. President, before we yield the 2\1/2\ minutes, this issue of incest is extraordinary. The bill as written ``protects the predators on our children who have committed incest.'' All you have to do is read it. These parents, these fathers, retain their parental rights in the bill. And even under the Ensign amendment it says they cannot sue a friendly person for helping their daughter. The government under this bill can still go after a grandma, or a clergyman who says to a young child, Let me help you, your father raped you. Those vicious criminals retain all their rights. It is an absolute outrage.

The point is, why I am in favor of the Lautenberg amendment is the Lautenberg amendment says let us take a step back, let us prevent these pregnancies. And if people want to vote against teen pregnancy prevention, I guess they have a right to do that. How they would explain it is beyond me. We are talking 800,000 teenagers who get pregnant, and in about 18 percent it was not intended.

I thank Senator Lautenberg and yield to him the remaining time before the vote.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I want to go back to the Lautenberg-Menendez amendment. It is extraordinary to me; when we try to talk about common ground on the issue of pregnancy prevention, doesn't my colleague believe one area we ought to all come together on, regardless of whether we call ourselves pro-choice or anti-choice, would be preventing pregnancies among teens?

If my friend will further yield, is my friend aware there are 800,000 pregnancies among young women and that we could prevent these unwanted pregnancies and all of the attendant upset among families and that we had an opportunity to do that?

Here we had a chance to do something to prevent these unintended pregnancies. This bill focuses on a small number of cases. It seems to me by two votes we lost that vote. It is an issue, wouldn't my friend say?

Mr. President, I yield myself time off the bill. How many minutes is remaining on our side on the general debate on the bill?

Mr. President, I have not yet had a chance to lay out my objections to this bill. I would like a chance to do that and, of course, those objections have just been elevated given the fact that by just two slim votes, we failed to adopt teen pregnancy prevention legislation, which is, of course, one of the most important issues we face in our society today. We have 800,000 young women whose pregnancies could have been prevented if they had such education.

Here we are dealing with a bill that seems to come back before the Senate every election for reasons that the other side can explain. Instead of tackling the issues of health care for our young people, insurance for our young people, pregnancy prevention for our young people, we are dealing with an issue that impacts just a few people. But so be it.

The good news is, we have had a debate on teen pregnancy prevention. The whole country got to see it, and they got to see where the votes lined up. It is pretty clear.

The other good news is that we had a debate on stem cell research, and we saw a very similar situation where we picked up a few votes on the other side but not enough votes. The President vetoed stem cell research. You want to talk about a health issue, you want to talk about helping the health of our young people who have juvenile diabetes or those who are paralyzed because of an accident; if you want to talk about helping people with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. But oh no, the President vetoed that. Another four or five votes in this Chamber could have made the difference between having stem cell research and not. But now we are not going to have it.

Frankly, in my State, we took matters into our own hands, and Republicans and Democrats together voted for stem cell research, and we have a $3 billion program. This isn't a partisan issue in my State. But oh boy, it is a partisan issue here. It just shows how far to the right we have come in the national debate.

So instead of doing something to improve a lot of our people, we are looking at this small issue. We are looking at a bill that, as it is now drafted, protects incest predators. We are working on that, hoping to come to some joint approach that can stop that problem, or part of it anyway.

As drafted, this bill throws grandmothers in jail and violates our Constitution. I would say this bill has a problem.

Again, we tried to make it better, but even our amendments did not go far enough. We did not have an exception for rape. If a young girl gets raped and she runs to the most trusted adult she knows, perhaps her grandma, and her grandma takes her into her loving arms because she is too scared to go to her parents for whatever reason. We have situations and I will share those with you where girls were so fearful, so frightened, and with good reason, that they couldn't go to their parents. So they go to a loving grandmother. And guess what? Under this bill, the parents can sue the grandmother. Unbelievable. That is Big Brother all right. Talk about family values interfering straight in. It is unbelievable.

We tried to fix the thrust of this bill to add on a Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act. We couldn't do it.

So this bill, at the end of the day, focuses on a small number of young women crossing State lines with an adult to get an abortion and ignores 800,000 pregnancies which could have been prevented.

We had our chance. We had our chance, but, oh no, it is going to be

about political correctness. It is going to be about rightwing ideology. Oh no, we can't do that.

This bill does nothing to increase communications between parents and teens. It does nothing to stop sexual predators. Most young women who become pregnant already turn to their parents for help.

This is a wonderful country. We have loving families, for the most part, loving open families who say to their kids, as I certainly did to mine, and my husband did: Anything you have on your mind, you just come to us. You feel free to tell us. That is how it should be.

When I was a child, my mother said I could tell her anything, and I did. I told her anything. She loved me unconditionally and helped me through whatever problem I might have had.

With my own children, I tried to emulate my mother. I hope and I think I did that. They are now grown. They take care of me.

But what about young people who don't have that warm feeling in their families? What about the millions of victims of violence and abuse? This bill, as it is drafted, hurts just those victims. It doesn't mean to. That is not the purpose of it. But we have found out in our lives that some bills have unintended consequences, and this one sure does.

As this bill is drafted, a father who commits incest and takes his daughter over a State line--we are trying to fix it, and we hope we can fix it--that father has rights under this bill. It is an outrage.

Nearly half of pregnant teens who have been abused or assaulted are found to be abused and assaulted by a family member. That is the sad truth. Thirty percent of minors who don't tell their parents have experienced violence in the home. In other words, they are too fearful to go to the home where they have suffered violence. They fear violence or they worry that, in a rage, their parents will kick them out if they tell them they have become pregnant.

Don't we want them to be safe and secure? Don't we want them to have help from a caring adult? I would hope so. But under this bill, a clergy member who really cares about the family could be sued by parents who abuse their children. A loving grandma or a loving aunt could be sued. Oh, there are no exceptions allowed.

Senator Feinstein, unfortunately, is suffering from the flu and cannot be here today. She had an amendment--she cannot offer it--that would have exempted caring clergy and caring relatives. She couldn't be here.

This bill is so imperfect that I cannot begin to count the ways.

In my State, as I mentioned previously, parental notification laws have been voted down. In general, we all want to have adult consent. I believe it is important to help guide a young person through such a decision. But when we look at some of the unintended consequences of these bills and the fine print of these bills, we find that they are going to have the opposite effect of what we want. Instead of helping the minor, it puts her at risk.

We know some specific cases: A 12-year-old whose pediatrician discovered she was pregnant. It turned out the rapist was her stepfather and the mother wasn't living with the girl. The doctors recommended that her Aunt Vicki bring her to a specialist in a neighboring State. She was only 12 years old, the aunt said. It is bad enough to go through incest, but then to have a child from that incest. We should all agree that only the father should go to jail, not the caring relative, Aunt Vicki.

I know it is very difficult to talk about this topic, but some very sick people do rape. Fathers do rape, uncles do rape and even impregnate their daughters.

Look at these newspaper stories from around the country.

``An American Tragedy.'' This is from The Oregonian:

A 13-year-old girl in Idaho whose father had impregnated

her. . . . the morning she was supposed to have an abortion,

her father, who admitted his guilt, walked into her room with

a rifle . . . shot her in the head and then he shot himself.

How does this bill prevent that? This bill will frighten a girl, make her more alone because she can't go to a caring adult because a caring adult could be sued by a parent. So she is scared. She gets in a car. She drives over the State line by herself. She is all alone. The father finds out, grabs her. She has no protection. He shoots her, shoots himself.

What are we doing here? Why don't you look at what you are doing. Why don't you look at the practical impact of what you are doing?

Here is another: ``Teen Accuses Father of Rape,'' The Journal News, Westchester County, NY.

. . . man was arrested and charged with first degree rape

of his teenage daughter. The man tried to force his daughter

to take an unknown pill to cause a miscarriage because he

believed she was pregnant.

This happens too often.

``Father Sentenced for Raping Daughters,'' Newark Advocate:

Man convicted of raping his two daughters. . . . the girls

were 13 and 17 at the time of the crimes.

``Man Charged with Incest is Arrested in North Carolina'':

Police said a father raped and impregnated his 16-year-old

daughter and raped his step-daughter who is mentally and

physically disabled.

The way this bill has come to us from the committee protects the father. Senator Ensign and I are working hard--and I hope we can reach agreement--to solve the problems of this bill. But the way the bill passed the other body, they didn't pay any attention to this. Wonderful, we pass a bill that protects fathers who rape their daughter. It is basically a bill that, all of that incest aside, really will wind up in a young woman getting into a car on her own, frightened to death to tell her parents, and driving alone.

``Ordeal Ended/Dad's Arrest Ends Years of Rape for Teen,'' Newsday.

For years, a convicted child sex offender used his Bronx

home as a pornographic movie studio for sex videos of himself

and his young daughter. The girl had tried at least once to

alert someone--her mother . . . her mother took no action.

``Her mother took no action.'' As Senator Ensign and I try to reach an agreement on an incest amendment, let me be clear: We are not going to reach that mother. I, if I go along with this, am giving up a lot of my amendment. This is still an imperfect bill, and I will show you in a checklist my amendment versus the Ensign amendment and what we try to do in our amendment.

The Ensign amendment, as was originally proposed--we support it-- stops a father who has raped his daughter from suing the trusted adult who helped his daughter end the resulting pregnancy. We applaud that amendment, and that amendment will hopefully be adopted.

But we don't stop with that because the Ensign amendment doesn't go far enough. We want to stop a father who has raped his daughter from exercising any parental consent rights. We want to stop all criminal prosecution or jail time for a trusted adult who helps a victim of incest.

Imagine under this bill a child goes running to a nextdoor neighbor whom she loves, a kind of an aunt to her, and she says: Please help me, please help me. I am pregnant. My father raped me. I can't go in that house. I can't tell my mother. My mother won't believe me. The nextdoor neighbor helps her. Under this bill the mother and the father can sue. We have to fix that. We are not going to fix it today. We can't reach all of what I am trying to do because I can't get agreement on the other side. It is still going to be an awful problem.

We also stop a father who has raped his daughter, or any other family member who has committed incest against a minor, from transporting her across State lines to obtain an abortion.

We don't want these perpetrators of incest to take their victims across the State line. We are working hard under the parameters of this bill to address the issue of incest.

At the end of the day, if our negotiations go well, we will have taken care of two of the five Boxer provisions. Will I be happy that these three provisions are not taken care of? No. I am not happy. It is outrageous that we can't get it all done. So be it. Let the people judge. But we will do as much as we can to improve this bill.

This bill as written protects the rights of brutal fathers. There are not many out there, but there are some.

There is only one thing that we can do to make matters worse than parental consent: that is giving these sexual predators more power over their children to keep on perpetrating these acts

and then saying they know how to handle it. They can handle it. Just take a child in the car and go.

The bill as written actually forces some young incest victims to get permission from their rapist fathers to get an abortion. Can you imagine? We have to fix that. And it allows the predator fathers to take their daughters across State lines.

We are trying hard to reach an agreement to take care of this problem. I am grateful that we may get two-fifths of the way there on my amendment.

I will work hard if this bill becomes law to fix this bill. I will introduce legislation to fix this bill. I will also prepare legislation that goes further than this and says if someone is a victim of rape and they are fearful of telling their parents, that parent, adult, or grandma can't be sued.

We really have a long way to go. This bill has many problems. It sends a message to young girls: Go it alone. Avoid all of this. Get in your car and go it alone. Don't take anyone with you. If you get in trouble at your moment of need, this bill says go it alone. She can go across the State line on her own. This bill doesn't do anything about it--only if she has a parent with her to help her.

I believe this bill is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has been clear that abortion restrictions must not impose an undue burden on women, and they must include a health exception. There is no health exception in this bill. If a doctor takes a girl across State lines because he worries about her health, and if she doesn't get an abortion right away and faces paralysis or faces infertility, there is no exception in this bill. The doctor can be sued.

What kind of message are we sending to young women? Go it alone. What kind of message are we sending to fathers who commit incest or mothers who turn a blind eye to it? Oh, don't worry. You are protected. Maybe Boxer will get two of her provisions, but we are not going to give you the five. I thought it was one nation under God, indivisible.

I didn't think when we cross over State lines we are going to have the pregnancy police look in our cars. This is unconstitutional. You don't have to carry the laws of your own State on your back. If you go through another State and there is a speed limit that is different than the one you live in, you obey the laws of the State you are in. That is the law you carry on your back, not the State you left. No one could go gambling in Nevada if we said: If you live in Tennessee and no gambling is allowed, you can't go gamble in Nevada because you will be arrested by the police at the border.

There are different criminal acts and different penalties in different States. Some have tough laws. We know that. States have rights.

We find it interesting how someone only supports the States when they agree with them. But if they don't agree with that State's law, then they try to force another State's law onto the State with which they disagree. I don't know of any other law in history, with the exception of the Fugitive Slave Act, that has required citizens to carry the laws of their own State on their backs. That was back in the days of slavery. If you ran away to another State, you were still stolen property until the court said no.

If you look at the constitutionality issue, if you look at the fact that victims of rape are left in deep trouble, as are victims of incest, if you look at the fact that good, kind, loving people like grandmas and grandfathers could go to jail for helping their granddaughter--no matter how you look at this bill, I believe you should come to the conclusion that this bill has major problems.

Parental consent--you know something, Senator Ensign is right. People support the idea that a parent should be contacted by their child and talked to when a child has an unintended pregnancy. We want that so much. I want that so much.

I also want kids to know they could talk to their grandma, they could talk to their grandpa, they could talk to their clergy, they could get help when they need it.

I don't believe the American people support throwing grandma in jail because she embraced her granddaughter and said: My God, I am worried that your parents, your dad might hurt you if you tell the truth. She throws her arms around the granddaughter and protects her and helps her through a crisis.

I believe stopping an abortion is worth preventing a teen from having a lifetime of paralysis, infertility, or worse, and yet there is no health exception in this bill. I think people want us to stop using this issue as a political football.

I know who brought this up. It is brought up by the other side of the aisle every time we have an election.

I hope we can join hands to stop teen pregnancies. We had a chance to do it. But no, we had a vote and we lost that vote. It is unreal. We got a couple of Republicans, but not enough.

I hope the American people are watching this debate. If our goal is to help our young people--and that is the stated goal--there are a lot of ways we could help rather than scaring them to death and making them go it alone in a desperate situation, making criminals of their grandmas and their grandpas and their clergy.

I am sad that the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act didn't pass as part of this bill. It would have made this bill better. I am glad that we are going to have some coming together on the incest amendment, although as I said, it is only going to take care of two of the five problems we have relating to the bill. But at least we are making a bit of progress.

The bill, to me, is blatantly unconstitutional. It violates our core principles of federalism. It puts caring adults in jail and endangers the health and lives of our most vulnerable teens. On that basis it ought to be defeated.

I believe this bill will pass. I also believe our incest amendment will pass. I think that is important. We should have two votes on that. I think it is important to have those recorded votes so that the message goes to the House that their bill blatantly helps the predators. I call it the ``Incest Predators Protection Act.'' Thank you very much. I know my time is up. I yield the remainder of my time at this time.

Mr. President, again, for the benefit of our colleagues, we are waiting patiently to have the amendment we agreed on to come before us. Then we are hoping at the right time, Senator Ensign will make a unanimous consent request for a vote on an amendment we have agreed on, and then vote on final passage. So hopefully we will have that done very soon. As soon as it is done, I will yield the floor and allow the Senator, the good Senator from Nevada, to make his unanimous consent request.

The Senator from Nevada wants to protect our daughters. He is a dad of a daughter. I am a mom of a daughter. I want to protect our daughters. So let's not get confused on this point. We all want to protect our daughters. We all adore them. We want them to be safe, and we want them to get the help they need. We want them healthy. We want them well. We do not want them afraid.

But I do fear that this bill, the way it is drafted--and, yes, we are going to make a little bit of a correction on the incest part, but not as much as we should, but some--we are going to make some progress, and I am grateful for that. Basically, the way this bill is drafted, it is going to frighten our daughters because here is the way it works, folks: If you are a young woman in a parental notification State, you will take matters into your own hands because you are too frightened to go to your parents.

Now, we all hope all parents will be open and loving and caring and helpful and will be able to be approached when a young woman becomes pregnant and it is an unintended pregnancy. We would hope and pray that family, that loving family, will sit around and talk about what ought to happen here, what is the best thing for everybody. I am pro-choice. I am for whatever the family decides. If they decide that the best thing is to raise that child in the family, that is their choice. If they decide

it is best if the young woman exercises her right to choose, which is her right in this country--and has been since 1973--she has that right.

That is what we hope happens, that there will be these conversations. Of course, my friends on the other side of the aisle do not want a choice. They want to force her to have the child. They are against Roe v. Wade, but that is another debate. That is a debate we take to the people, and that is a debate that the pro-choice people win. They do not want Senator Boxer or Senator Ensign involved in that family discussion, saying: But, no, you must have this child. You must not have any rights to choose. They do not want that. People do not feel comfortable with it. They want to deal with this their own way, with their own God, with their own family, with their loving family members. But that is not before us.

What is before us is a very narrow bill that deals with a very narrow circumstance where there is a young woman who does not go to her parents, mostly because she is scared to death to go to them. For whatever reasons, in her mind, she is fearful: Will they--if she is from a violent home--beat her up? Will they hurt her? Will they verbally abuse her? Will they be disappointed? And that weighs on her.

So what we are saying with this bill to that girl in a parental notification State is: You are alone. You can't go to anyone else. You can't go to your grandma who you adore, you can't go to your grandpa, you can't go to your big sister, you can't go to your Aunt Susan, you can't go to your clergy who has taken care of you and looked after you.

So you can't go to your doctor. You can't do this because they could be sued and put in jail. That is what this bill does. Is that America? Rather than go to the people who she knows who adore her, love her, care about her, would counsel her, would help her and, perhaps, by the way, talk her into speaking to her parents or going with her to speak to her parents, this bill says: Go it alone, get in your car, get in an airplane, don't take anyone with you, don't tell anyone else, because that person can be sued and, worse, put in jail.

These are our kids. My God, what a situation. And somehow this is supposed to be a wonderful thing we are doing, a family-values thing we are doing. I don't think you can force families into these situations. We don't know enough to be able to do that. There will be unintended consequences. We will have suicides. We will have very serious problems.

As we wait around here in these last moments of this debate--and I am hopeful we can bring it to a close--let me say again that I thank Senator Ensign for coming my way, not quite halfway, on the issue of incest. Because the bill as written allowed a father who raped his daughter to have all kinds of parental rights: the right to sign an agreement that she could have an abortion, the right to take her over State lines, the right to sue a loving and caring adult who helped her.

I wish to show this chart which I have shown previously. Under this amendment we are hoping is coming to us momentarily, we will stop a father who has raped his daughter from suing the trusted adult who helped his daughter end the resulting pregnancy. So in the case of incest, if the child goes to grandma, the incestuous father cannot sue grandma.

Then, at the end, Senator Ensign was not willing to take these three provisions which I will debate. He did take my last provision.

We now stop a father who has raped his daughter or any other family member who has committed incest against a minor from transporting her across State lines to obtain an abortion. That would be a crime.

The three things that are not done, which is why I think this amendment falls short: we haven't stopped a father who has raped his daughter from exercising parental consent rights; we haven't stopped all criminal prosecution or jail time for a trusted adult who helped a victim of incest; and we haven't stopped all civil suits against a trusted adult who helped a victim of incest. But we have taken care of two issues. For that I am grateful because this bill will become law. It will be sent to the President, who will sign it. Unlike his veto on the stem cell bill, which he should have signed, because that bill would help our families, help our children with juvenile diabetes, help grandmas and grandpas with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, help our youngsters who were paralyzed--he vetoed that. He will sign this one.

This is a political bill. It did come to us in 1998 just before the election. Let's face facts. We know when it came.

My friend from Nevada is right when he says people support parental notification. They do want to believe we could all to go our parents with these problems. But let me tell you what they don't want. They don't want to give incest predators any rights whatsoever. They would want to make an exception in this bill for rape victims so that if you are a victim of rape and you were too scared to tell your parents, you could go to your grandmother, but not under this bill. A victim of rape, you are too scared to tell your parents because of the circumstances--maybe it was date rape, maybe you just can't explain it. Maybe you are frightened to death. You go to your grandma. She could be sued by the parents and she could be put in jail by the Federal Government. Send your grandma to jail. That is what we are doing here today. Why? Because she loved her granddaughter, because she was there for her granddaughter, and because by stepping in, she may have really saved a tragedy from occurring.

I don't believe the American people want us to be this radical. I think they would have wanted us to do more exceptions to this bill. Seventy percent of the American people oppose abortion laws that put people in jail. I don't believe Americans think that stopping an abortion is worth causing a teen a lifetime of paralysis, infertility, or worse. This bill, if it does get signed into law, and I say it will, and unless it is overturned by the courts, which I think it might be, but if it isn't, it basically will put these young women in a situation where they feel the world is closing in on them. That is not right.

I will close my debate and urge a ``yes'' vote on the Boxer-Ensign amendment that will go part way toward solving the predator incest issue. Then I would urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill because of all the problems it creates that we have not been able to address.

I thank the staffs on both sides. We have had a long and difficult day, emotional issues for us all. Yet we have handled it in such a way that I am hopeful that momentarily we will have a unanimous consent request to resolve the procedures governing the rest of the evening.

I yield back my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I only need 30 seconds.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I thank Senator Ensign. I had an amendment to solve this incest predator problem. He came to me almost halfway. We didn't quite get there, but it is a start. Again, for the benefit of my colleagues, two out of five provisions I wanted are in this amendment. This amendment stops a father who has raped his daughter from suing the trusted adult who helped his daughter end the resulting pregnancy, and it stops a father who has raped his daughter or any other family member who has committed incest against a minor from transporting her across State lines. This is an improvement. The reason we want to have a vote on it is because we hope it is a strong statement going into the conference on this bill. Again, we still need to fix many more provisions of this bill.

I believe, at the end of the day, it doesn't make our teenagers any safer. It will make them fearful. It will make them feel alone. I think the bill is unconstitutional. I hope we have some ``no'' votes to send a message that this bill needs a lot more work.

I thank Senator Ensign and his staff and my staff. It has been a tough day.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before Senator Kerry leaves the floor, I want to thank him. The issues he raised absolutely have to be a part of this debate. I will address them after he leaves. The reason I stood up and objected to the Ohio count is because I knew firsthand from the people of Ohio who came and talked with me through Stephanie Tubbs Jones that they were waiting in lines for 6, 7 hours. That is not the right to vote. I think Senator Kerry's remarks and the remarks of the Senator from Oregon are very important.

So let a message go out from this Senate floor today that we are not stopping our efforts to make sure people can vote with the very important passage of this very important legislation. I am very pleased to follow him in this debate.

I rise to cast my vote in support of a very historic bill named after three amazing women whom I truly admire--Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King. These three legendary women were part of the heart and soul of the civil rights movement in this country, and those women helped move the conscience of this Nation in the 1960s and, frankly, inspired me to serve in public service.

In 1950, I was a little girl and I was in Florida with my mother. I went on a bus. It was a crowded time of day. A woman came on the bus. Her hands were filled with packages. To me she looked really old. I guess she was my age. I jumped up because I was taught to do that. I jumped up and I said: Please, please, take my seat. My mother kind of pulled at my sleeve, and the woman put her head down and she walked to the back of the bus.

I was perplexed by this. I said to my mother: Why was she rude to me? Why didn't she say thank you and take the seat?

My mother explained to me the laws in those days that sent African Americans to the back of the bus. I at 10 years old was astounded, shocked, angry. My mother said to me: Why don't we just stand up. And that is what we did. We walked to the back, and we stood.

That was an America that is no more, but that is an America we cannot forget. That was an overt law to hurt people, to make America ``we and them.'' That is why the law we are passing today is so important-- because it says that we all recognize that even though that America is no more, we have more work to do.

And then came the sixties. Of course, we know it was Rosa Parks who changed the world with that one act of defiance of hers, where she just went on that bus and she wasn't going to the back.

When I met her, when President Clinton invited her to the White House and I went there, I stood in awe because it said to me how one person can make a difference in this, the greatest nation in the world. We get so frustrated sometimes; we feel we can't make a difference. Here is one woman saying, No, I won't do that; that's wrong; I'm one of God's children. And that act of defiance changed our country. I am so happy this bill is named after her and Fannie Lou Hamer who helped organize Freedom Summer in 1965 which helped lead to passage of this landmark bill we will vote on today. She had a very simple phrase that she used: ``Nobody's free until everybody's free.'' ``Nobody's free until everybody's free.'' That reminds us of the work that we certainly have to do today.

So Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King, who worked with her great husband during the civil rights movement in the sixties and carried on his work after his horrific assassination, working for justice, worked for equality not only in this country but around the world.

In the late eighties, she worked tirelessly to help bring an end to apartheid in South Africa. I often quote Martin Luther King, almost in every speech I give, because he is one of my heroes. One of the lines he said, which isn't really one that gets quoted all the time, is that ``Our lives begin to end when we stop talking about things that matter.'' ``Our lives begin to end when we stop talking about things that matter.'' That touched me and reached me.

I think his words, of course, reached every American, regardless of political party. Don't stop talking about things that matter, even though it might be easier to do so, even though it might be easier when you are at a friend's house and somebody says something that is bigoted toward somebody else. It is sometimes easier for us to make believe we didn't hear it. No, that matters, you matter, your view matters, your values matter. Speak up.

That is what we are doing, and I am proud to be in the Senate today because we are doing something good today. It is a privilege and an honor to vote for this reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act.

I had a number of people visit me from my State yesterday--old and young, children, grandmothers, great grandmothers, granddads, lawyers, workers, doctors. They just jammed into my conference room and they said: Senator Boxer, we know you are with us. We know you have been on this bill. We know where you are. We have listened to you all these years. We wanted to come here and say thank you.

I said: You don't need to thank me. What you need to do is join with me so that after this vote, we truly get equal voting rights in this country.

That was touched on by Senator Kerry, and it was touched on by Senator Wyden. The right to vote--without it we are nothing. Without it, we are not standing up for the principles upon which this Nation was founded: a government of, by, and for the people.

How do you have a government of, by, and for the people, if the people turn away from the voting booth? I hear every excuse in the world: Oh, you are all the same. What is the difference. I can't make a difference. It is just false. It is just an excuse.

Show me two candidates running against each other at a local level, at a State level, at a Federal level, and I will show you the differences. If you pay attention, you will find out the differences, and you will cast your vote for the candidate that most represents you. You are not going to agree with them 100 percent of the time. That is another issue: Oh, I used to agree with him, but he did three things, and I don't agree with him anymore. Look at the totality. Look at the totality of the voting record. Look at the totality of the opposition and make a decision. Don't just walk away. Don't pull the covers over your head with excuses: They are all alike. I can't make a difference. What is one vote?

We all know the election of John Kennedy was decided by a couple of votes per precinct. It could have been one vote per precinct. That is how close that election was.

In the voting booth, we are all equal. In the voting booth, we are all equal. Your vote and my vote, whether you are 18 years old or you are my age and a Senator, we are all equal in the voting booth. We have one vote. We should cherish it. The CEO of a giant company who earns multimillions of dollars a year is equal to a minimum wage worker. And if that minimum wage worker thinks it is time he got a raise or she got a raise after almost 10 years of not getting a raise, he or she ought to vote, and vote for the candidate who supports your right to join the middle class.

Every citizen of this country who is eligible to vote should be guaranteed that their vote is counted and that their vote matters. That is why it is so important that we maintain the protections of this historic Voting Rights Act, such as requiring certain localities with a history of discrimination to get approval from the Federal Government before they make changes to voting procedures. Why is this important? It is important because it is a check and balance on an area that has in the past not shown--not shown--the willingness to fight for every voter. And, requiring certain jurisdictions to provide language assistance to voters with limited English proficiency, and authorizing the Federal Government to send election monitors to jurisdictions where there is a history of attempts to intimidate minority voters at the polls, we just want to make sure these elections are fair, wherever they are held.

The Federal Government must work hard to guarantee that the inequities we have seen in the past never resurface again. And won't that be the day, when we have a system that we believe we can be proud of again.

I am proud to stand here today with an opportunity to cast a vote to reauthorize provisions of the Voting Rights Act. But today didn't come without struggle. Why did my people have to come all the way from California, spend their hard-earned dollars to get on a plane? I will tell you why: Because this was a hard bill to get before this body. People objected. People complained. It was a hard bill to get before the House. But many people worked hard, and House Members listened to the people, and Senators listened to the people.

I want to thank my friends at the NAACP who were finally able to convince enough that, yes, this was something we had to do. We have to be honest. There were attempts to weaken this bill, but we succeeded in not allowing that to happen.

In my closing moments, I want to say that our work does not stop today, as Senator Kerry said and as Senator Wyden said. For example, several of us have introduced the Count Every Vote Act, a comprehensive voting reform bill that will ensure that every American indeed can vote, and every vote is counted.

Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, who lived through a harrowing experience during the last election, with her constituents being given the runaround and standing in line for 6 and 7 hours. Is that the right to vote, standing in line for 6 and 7 hours, people who have to work, people who had health problems, people who couldn't stand up, people whose legs were weakening beneath them? Is that the right to vote? I say it is not the right to vote. I say it is harassment.

Senators Clinton, Kerry, Lautenberg, Mikulski, and I have introduced the Count Every Vote Act, and I want to highlight the two key provisions that are in this bill. The first is the bill would require electronic voting machines provide a paper record which will allow voters to verify their votes, and it will serve as a record if a manual recount is needed. We go to a restaurant, we get a receipt. We go to the store, we get a receipt. We save it in case there is a problem. When we vote, we should get a receipt. We should look at it, we should check it, just as we add up the bill from the restaurant. We should give it back and then it is stored. In case there is a problem, we have a paper trail.

The second provision: We say election day should be a Federal holiday. We all give speeches. We stand up and we stand behind the red, white, and blue. What a great, free country this is, and indeed it is. Why shouldn't we make election day a holiday so that we can celebrate on every election day our freedoms, our history, our rights, our protections as citizens to choose our own leaders?

Let me say, we cannot even get to page 1 in terms of moving this bill forward. There is resistance to this bill. There are those in this body who don't want a paper trail. They don't want to make it easier to vote, and let's call it what it is. That resistance exists, and that is wrong. So I call on the leadership of this body: Let's do something more for people. Let's not have another situation where a Senator has to go over and protest a vote count because people said they had to stand in line for hours.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Then we have the people of Washington, DC. They are not represented with a vote. That is wrong. Over 500,000 people live in this great city, the heart and soul of our democracy. Eighty percent are voting age. They can't cast their ballots in national elections for congressional representatives. They don't have Senators or Representatives here. That is why I have joined Senator Joe Lieberman on his bill that calls for full voting rights for DC residents.

So, again, I say what a privilege and honor it is for me to be here, to stand here, thinking back to my days as a child when African Americans had to go to the back of the bus in some parts of the South, feeling the pain of that myself for those who had to live in that way. So this bill is a fitting tribute to Rosa Parks and Fannie Lou Hamer and Coretta Scott King.

I thank the Presiding Officer for his indulgence. This is a starting place for a lot of us, and we are going to make sure that, in fact, the right to vote is a reality for every single one of our citizens.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to 45 young Americans who have been killed in Iraq since April 6. This brings to 595 the number of soldiers who were either from California or based in California who have been killed while serving our country in Iraq. This represents 23 percent of all U.S. deaths in Iraq.

LCpl Juana Navarro Arellano, 24, died April 8 from wounds received while supporting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. She was assigned to the 9th Engineer Support Battalion, 3rd Marine Logistics Group, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Okinawa, Japan. She was from Ceres, CA.

Cpl Richard P. Waller, 22, died April 7 from wounds received while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

LCpl Eric A. Palmisano, 27, died April 2 after the truck he was riding in rolled over in a flash flood near Al Asad, Iraq. Palmisano was listed as Duty Status--Whereabouts Unknown until his body was recovered April 11. He was assigned to 1st Transportation Support Battalion, 1st Marine Logistics Group, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Cpl Joseph A. Blanco, 25, died of injuries sustained in Taji, Iraq on April 11 when an improvised explosive device detonated near his Bradley Fighting Vehicle and he subsequently came under small arms fire during combat operations. He was assigned to the 7th Squadron, 10th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, TX. He was from Bloomington, CA.

LCpl Marcus S. Glimpse, 22, died April 12 as the result of an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. He was from Huntington Beach, CA.

LCpl Philip J. Martini, 24, died April 8 of a gunshot wound while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar Province of Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Cpl Salem Bachar, 20, was killed due to enemy action in the Al Anbar Province of Iraq on April 13. He was assigned to Headquarters Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. He was from Chula Vista, CA.

LCpl Stephen J. Perez, 22, was killed due to enemy action in Al Anbar Province, Iraq on April 13. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Petty Officer 3rd Class Marcques J. Nettles, 22, died April 2 when the truck he was riding in rolled over in a flash flood near Al Asad, Iraq. He was previously listed as Duty Status--Whereabouts Unknown. His body was recovered April 16. He was assigned to 1st Combat Logistics Battalion, 1st Marine Logistics Group, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Sgt Kyle A. Colnot, 23, died of injuries sustained in Baghdad, Iraq on April 22 when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle causing a fire. He was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 67th Armored Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, TX. He was from Arcadia, CA.

LCpl Aaron W. Simons, 20, died April 24 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA. He was from Modesto, CA.

Pfc Raymond L. Henry, 21, died on April 25, in Mosul, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle during combat operations. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, Fort Wainwright, AK. He was from Anaheim, CA.

LCpl Michael L. Ford, 19, died April 26 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to the 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA.

Cpl Brandon M. Hardy, 25, died April 28 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Sgt Lea R. Mills, 21, died April 28 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Sgt Edward G. Davis III, 31, died April 28 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

LCpl Robert L. Moscillo, 21, died May 1 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to the 1st Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Sgt Elisha R. Parker, 21, died May 4 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to the 1st Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Pfc Benjamin T. Zieske, 20, died of injuries sustained in Kirkuk, Iraq on May 3 when an improvised explosive device detonated during a dismounted combat patrol. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, KY. He was from Concord, CA.

LCpl Leon B. Deraps, 19, died May 6 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to the 7th Engineer Support Battalion, 1st Marine Logistics Group, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

LCpl Benito A. Ramirez, 21, died May 21 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

LCpl Robert G. Posivio III, 22, died May 23 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Pfc Steven W. Freund, 20, died May 23 while conducting combat operations against enemy forces in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Cpt Nathanael J. Doring, 31, died May 30 following a nonhostile helicopter accident near Al Taqaddum, Iraq, on May 27. He was assigned to Marine Light/Attack Helicopter Squadron-169, Marine Aircraft Group- 39, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Cpl Richard A. Bennett, 25, died May 30 following a nonhostile helicopter accident near Al Taqaddum, Iraq, on May 27. He was assigned to Marine Light/Attack Helicopter Squadron-169, Marine Aircraft Group- 39, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Cpl Ryan J. Cummings, 22, died June 3 from wounds received while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Spc Issac S. Lawson, 35, died in Baghdad, Iraq, on June 5 of injuries sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle during combat operations. He was assigned to the National Guard's 49th Military Police Brigade, Fairfield, CA. He was from Sacramento, CA.

Spc Luis D. Santos, 20, died on June 8 in Buhritz, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his military vehicle. He was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 68th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO. He was from Rialto, CA.

Hospitalman Zachary Mathew Alday, 22, was killed on June 9 while conducting combat operations against the enemy in the Al Anbar Province of Iraq. He was assigned to 7th Marines, Regimental Combat Team 7, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA.

LCpl Brent B. Zoucha, 19, died June 9 of wounds received while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA.

LCpl Salvador Guerrero, 21, died June 9 of wounds received while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA. He was from Los Angeles, CA.

Cpl Michael A. Estrella, 20, died June 14 while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Marine Corps Base Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. He was from Hemet, CA.

Cpl Christopher D. Leon, 20, died June 20 from wounds received while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 5th Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Company, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Okinawa, Japan. He was from Lancaster, CA.

SSgt Benjamin D. Williams, 30, died June 20 while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Pfc Christopher N. White, 23, died June 20 while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

LCpl Brandon J. Webb, 20, died June 20 while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Sgt Jason J. Buzzard, 31, died on June 21 in Baghdad, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his military vehicle. He was assigned to E Company, 2nd Battalion, 8th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, TX. He was from Constantinople, CA.

Cpl Jason W. Morrow, 27, died June 27 from wounds received while conducting

combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq, on June 26. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, CA. He was from Riverside,

Mr. President, I thank Senator Feingold for his leadership. I also thank Senator McCain. They have two amendments before us, the next one coming shortly. I enthusiastically support this amendment. I think this one is very much a reform. I strongly oppose the other one. But I am not going to use my time now to talk about the second amendment because I do want to concentrate on what an important step forward this particular amendment is.

The 2005 hurricane season taught us many valuable lessons--lessons that we will never forget because we saw them with our very own eyes. And one of the most important lessons is that major water resources projects and especially flood control projects must be carefully reviewed to be sure they will be effective.

What a disaster it is for our taxpayers to spend millions and billions on these projects, only to learn that they were not designed well or they didn't meet the real threat that was posed by Mother Nature or that there was cronyism dealing with putting together the alternatives.

I believe this amendment will put independent and expert eyes on the data, on the science, and on the engineering of our major public works projects. We need these independent and expert eyes because so much is at stake.

I come from a State that has every kind of natural disaster imaginable. The people there are very good at pointing out what the problems are, and we have to be equally as good in responding to these needs and making sure we give them quality, that we give them the protection they deserve.

In this amendment, we are giving the people what they deserve. When a review is triggered under this proposal, a panel of experts, of engineers and hydrologists to biologists and economists, must look at the underlying technical data and look at the project in its whole and make sure that the project will meet and achieve its goals.

There is little point in expending hard-earned taxpayers' dollars unless we know it is being spent right. What this particular amendment does is bring in those outside experts to kind of give a seal of approval on what we are doing.

Again, I don't go along with the next amendment, and I will be back to talk about that, but this amendment does what needs to be done. The panel will make recommendations to improve the project. This particular amendment is common sense, pure and simple.

Complex and costly engineering projects deserve the additional scrutiny. Mistakes do happen. You know what. Mistakes will happen no matter how many panels we have, but the idea is to cut down on those mistakes. We are all human. We all make mistakes, but how much better is it to get a very seasoned pair of eyes to take a look at what we are doing.

I believe this amendment will make these projects safer, and they will make them more effective.

I support the Army Corps of Engineers' mission. When I first got into politics in local government, I worked very closely with the Corps on many flood control projects. We have had our arguments, we have had our debates, but over the years, we have managed to work well together. But there were moments during those debates when I knew I could benefit from outside experts, and that is what we are giving to the Congress and, therefore, to the American people. We are going to have additional scrutiny, and we are going to make sure that mistakes are rare.

When we talk about mistakes, it is one thing to make a mistake on an issue that doesn't put lives at risk, but we are talking about the protection of life and limb for our people.

I think this amendment will help the Corps do its job better. It will improve public faith in the work of the Corps because, frankly, after Katrina, many people are saying to me: Can we trust these public works projects, these flood control projects to really protect us?

They have doubts, and they should have doubts, having seen what they saw.

I, again, thank Senators Feingold and McCain for their leadership on this particular amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote. I know it is going to be a close vote, but I really do believe people listening to this debate will see that all we are saying in support of this amendment is we are bringing in outside experts to keep an eye on taxpayers' dollars and keep an eye on these designs to make sure that when we fund a public works project, we have done everything in our power to make sure it is designed well, that it will be cost-effective, and it will be safe.

Mr. President, I thank my chairman, Chairman Inhofe, for granting me this time.

I feel so strongly against this amendment. I really need the time to explain to my good colleagues why I think it ought to be voted down.

We have amendments before us from time to time and they come to us as reform. I totally understand that we need reform in this whole area of the way we prioritize projects that come before us. But I don't believe this is reform at all. In my view, I think this is a delegation of the responsibility of the Senate and the House over to the executive branch. I believe it is going to be put into the hands of people who won't know a thing about this subject matter, and it is going to bring politics right into this Chamber. We were elected by the people. The cities and counties count on us to do our homework, to do our due diligence and understand what the needs are of our people, what our flood control needs are in our States, what our other needs are in our States, the studies that need to be performed, and all of that. That is our job.

The McCain amendment just simply wraps it all up and tosses it over to the executive branch. It sets up a whole new bureaucracy that I think is absolutely unnecessary and, frankly, I think it is disastrous for this WRDA bill. Unlike the other amendment which we supported, which is peer review, that looked forward, this amendment looks back into this bill where we have sat for years and years.

Again, I thank Senators Inhofe, Jeffords, Bond, and Baucus and the leaders of this committee who have worked with us to ferret out the projects that didn't have merit. I can attest to the fact that I had an amendment that I wanted to move forward.

I was persuaded by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that there was a better way to move forward.

We have done our work. This amendment is well intended. I know that. I know the people who have put it forward to us have good intentions. But I think it is going to make it more difficult for worthy projects to get needed funding. That includes projects that have an impact on public health and safety.

I may have a debate with Senator Bond over which project I think is the more worthy and we will sit and talk about it and we will argue about it. At the end of the day, there will be a decision. Why should the two of us toss that all over to the executive branch, no matter who is President? What does it have to do with them? It is our bill. The President has the right to veto it if he doesn't like it or sign it. But thrashing out what ought to be in it and what is good, we have done that. That is part of our job.

There is another problem with this amendment. It sets up a nightmare of a tier system. You have to fight your way into a tier in order to be funded. The administration--this one and the next one and the one thereafter--will be able to recommend which tier your State projects ought to be in. When the first tier reaches $5 billion, or when there are 100 projects in it, that tier is finished. So if you have a very important project, a large project, but let's say we all know we have to move to help the folks who are impacted by Hurricane Katrina, and they have priority--we all agree that it has a very high priority--if you represent a large State, you have a large project, you will never make it into the first tier. It is bad for my State.

Frankly, it is bad for any project that is large enough and can't get into the first tier--it gets knocked down. You get stuck in a lower tier simply because the project may protect more people. How does that make any sense whatsoever? It is an arbitrary system. It can label a project as second tier despite critical local public safety needs. It will undermine a project's chances of receiving appropriations.

We already know what a fight we have to convince our colleagues in the Committee on Appropriations that the projects in our State have merit. We subject these projects to tremendous scrutiny, first in this particular WRDA bill. As we struggle to get appropriations funds, we have to make the case. Then we have to go to conference and continue to make the case.

Under this amendment, I am sorry to say this is no reform. I ask rhetorically if this makes any sense. There is a very important committee that has been set up in the underlying bill. The committee has some very important functions, but now the McCain amendment adds this next function on to this committee, this coordinating committee which, by the way, is going to hire an executive director.

If anyone wants to learn how projects and laws get bogged down, here is an example. This committee that is going to be set up includes the following people: The Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Housing and Development, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of the EPA, the chairperson of the Council on Environmental Quality, and here is my favorite, the Secretary of Homeland Security.

We all know about their priority list. We just took a look at their priority list. Petting zoos should be protected before bridges and highways. They have included Old McDonald's Petting Zoo, a bourbon festival, a bean festival, the Kangaroo Conservation Center. This is what the Department of Homeland Security said ought to be prioritized.

Do we want to invite them into a new prioritization game for the WRDA projects? I hope not. What could come out of this is not good.

In discussing this with my colleagues, they say: But, Senator Boxer, they are just going to recommend. We have the ability to sit down among ourselves--Democrats and Republicans--as we have done in this bill, and come to some decisions on what the priorities are. I believe the Committee on Appropriations, working with all of us, has a second bite at that apple.

I don't believe we need to ask this President or any future President to get into this issue and convene meetings, have studies, and waste money just to put together a list that they say is their priorities. What makes their priorities better than our priorities? They are not even elected. This is not even their job. How do you come forward--I ask my friend from Arizona, rhetorically, because he is not here-- giving people who have no idea what this is about the power over the projects? They say it is just a recommendation, but we know they will take that seriously.

We remember the whole tizzy when they said they thought it was fine for the country of Dubai to run our ports. There was a big debate in the Senate. Most Members believed that was a mistake. That also came out of some committee.

We all fight to get here. We all work hard to get here. At a minimum, we are in touch with our States and we know the needs of our States. The Congress, not a political appointee, not some bureaucrat, but Members of the Senate should retain the central responsibility for establishing the border resource priorities for their States. Instead, this amendment leaves the recommendation of priorities up to a committee made up of Cabinet and other political appointees.

We are inviting politics into this debate. As Senator Inhofe said, this is one of those rare moments in history, this bill, where politics is left at the committee door. We worked together. We worked hard together. Now, with this McCain amendment, we are injecting partisan politics. In this case it is a Republican President. In future years it could be a Democratic President. It does not make any difference.

We should do our job. We should not punt the ball elsewhere. What are we here for? Anyone who votes for this, and I am sure there will be a few--I hope not too many--the message they are basically sending is that they do

not feel comfortable enough, they do not feel knowledgeable enough, they do not feel strong enough to stand up for what needs to be done in their States.

Again, I ask, do we really want to have the Department of Homeland Security deciding the critical water resource projects? They have enough to do to get their own priorities in order.

With all due respect to members of the Cabinet, we as individual Senators know our States' needs. We know our States' priorities. This is not reform; this is injecting, in my view, partisanship into a very bipartisan approach.

I trust my colleagues, whether Republican or Democrat, in this bill because they have to explain why their projects are worthy. This is not like an earmark where something is stuck in the bill in the middle of the night. This is a major reauthorization bill where every project is looked at very carefully. I don't believe any Cabinet is going to be more effective at telling us what projects should be funded.

As Members of Congress, let us not surrender our responsibility to an executive branch that, in my view, will not reflect the real needs of our people. I urge my colleagues to vote no, a very sound no, on this amendment. Let's send a message today that this Senate knows what it is doing in this bill.

I feel very comfortable with the leadership of Senators Inhofe and Jeffords, that we do know what we are doing in this bill. If you are for this bill, I hope you will vote no on the McCain amendment.

I give the remainder of my time to the good Senator, Mr. Inhofe. I thank him so much for the chance to speak against this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise in support of this long overdue legislation to expand stem cell research.

When this issue first came up with President Bush in 2001, he had a choice between helping scientists conduct lifesaving research or putting politics before science. To the detriment of the millions of Americans suffering from diseases and conditions for which there is no cure, the President chose politics and decided that Federal funds could only be used for research on existing stem cell lines.

At the time, there were 78 existing stem cell lines--only 22 of which were usable. Scientists agreed that this was nowhere near enough to fulfill the promise that stem cell research provides. To make matters worse, scientists at the University of California San Diego and the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla conducted an extensive study showing that even those lines are contaminated by mouse feeder cells--and unsuitable for human therapies. So the President's policy--painted as a compromise at the time--left scientists with little to no chance to advance their research.

At least 10 countries have made significant financial commitments to stem cell research. Our commitment is less than one quarter of Australia's. Our country's failure to lead on this is having significant consequences. Here is one example:

After the President's announcement in 2001, Roger Pedersen, one of the world's leading stem cell researchers, announced that he was leaving his faculty position at the University of California San Francisco for one at the University of Cambridge. He saw a promising future for stem cell research in the United Kingdom, yet saw none in the United States.

We need to change this.

I am proud to say that California recognized that our Federal policy was unacceptable. The State has enacted the Nation's first law to permit research involving human embryonic and adult stem cells while facilitating the voluntary donation of embryos for stem cell research. Now how did this happen in California? It started with one man and one family.

Roman Reed was 19 years old when he broke his neck in a college football game and became paralyzed. Roman's

parents led a campaign in 2002 to pass legislation to invest in spinal cord injury research.

Then, in November 2004, Californians passed Proposition 71, which provides $3 billion in State funding over 10 years for embryonic stem cell research. Unfortunately for Roman and his family, legal challenges have stalled these funds, and with them, stalled their hope for a brighter future.

More States are considering their own initiatives, but these State efforts simply can't supplant the resources and expertise that would result from research supported by this administration and the National Institute of Health.

Today, after years of struggling to pass this legislation, we have an opportunity to offer hope to thousands of Americans and put America back on the cutting edge of science. We know we can make a difference when we give our scientists the tools and support to do their work.

Because of our national commitment to scientific achievement and through NIH-supported research, death rates for heart disease and sudden infant death syndrome have been nearly cut in half in the past several years. The number of AIDS-related deaths fell 70 percent between 1995 and 2001. HIV/AIDS has become a disease that more people live with and fewer die from. And as a result of critical research at the National Cancer Institute at NIH, the survival rate for children with cancer rose by 80 percent in the 1990s.

The current Federal policy has been a roadblock to progress. This bill will put us back on the right track. Some in this body have been telling the American public that stem cell research is morally wrong. But we have taken every step to address their concerns in this bill.

This legislation would only allow Federal funding of research on stem cell lines derived from excess fertilized embryos that were never actually used in couples' in vitro fertilization processes. Right now, these embryos are being discarded, and we are losing hundreds or even thousands of valuable new stem cell lines.

I believe it is wrong to have those embryonic stem cell lines go to waste when we could instead offer hope to Americans suffering from devastating medical conditions. We have a moral imperative to try to relieve their pain.

That is why we have seen a broad coalition of people across political lines that support this research. One example is former First Lady Nancy Reagan. She took a stand that was based on compassion and not politics. For many years, she cared for President Reagan. She inspired millions of Americans with her quiet courage and dignity. She knows that this research holds the best hope for the 4.5 million people who, like her late husband, suffer from Alzheimer's. She knows that supporting stem cell research would save many lives.

Our beloved Christopher Reeve--who we all know was paralyzed from a riding accident--supported and actively campaigned for this research because he knew that those 250,000 to 400,000 people with spinal cord injuries potentially could be treated.

How many of us have ever seen a colleague, friend, or family member suffering from a terrible disease like Parkinson's? Where the sufferers and their families struggle with debilitating physical deterioration, ever-changing medications with terrible side effects and the knowledge that the patient's condition will continue to decline--often fatally?

How many of us have met with constituents and patient advocate groups--like the ALS Association, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society--that share their stories of courage and great hope for the passage of this legislation? Stem cell research has the potential for finding cures to diseases like Parkinson's, ALS, diabetes, and cancer, and has the great potential to reduce suffering. We should fulfill that potential and pass this important legislation now.

I hope that Senators support H.R. 810 because we can change the current policy and open the door to major advances in medical science through stem cell research.

President Bush has said that he will veto this legislation if it reaches his desk. I ask him to reconsider this unwise decision. The lives of millions of Americans are in his hands.

Can you do a unanimous consent request?

For 20 minutes.

Mr. President, I was pleased to yield time to Senator Stabenow who had a very pressing matter regarding some of her constituents who are stuck in Lebanon with no way out, and a very vulnerable time for many of the families in her district and in her State.

Let me start out by saying thank you to my chairman, Senator Inhofe, and to our ranking member, Senator Jeffords, and, of course, Senators Bond and Baucus, and the array of Senators who have worked so hard on this very bipartisan bill. We have all worked together, and I believe it is an excellent bill. I thank the staffs for their commitment to this product, particularly Let Mon Lee with Senator Bond, Angie Giancarlo and Stephen Aaron with Senator Inhofe, and Catharine Ransom and Jo-Ellen Darcy with Senator Jeffords. They put in very long hours, many of them, to help all of us, and for that I thank them.

All together, this bill represents the collective work of nearly 6 long years. That is how long it has taken to get this water resources bill to the Senate. I think we all agree that 6 years is far too long to wait for a bill that authorizes essential flood control, navigation, and ecosystem restoration projects, projects that help protect thousands of homes and the lives of millions from catastrophic flooding; projects that help restore the great wetlands and the rivers of our Nation. What we learned during Katrina is what happens when we lose the wetlands in our country, and we have been losing them. As a result of that, we lose the natural flood protection that we so desperately need. So restoring the great wetlands we have lost in California--I think it is about 90 percent of our wetlands, and nationwide I think it is even more than that. So we really have lost a great deal of our wetlands, and this bill helps to correct that. It protects the rivers of our Nation, also very important and is addressed here.

We have projects that help increase our port capacity and projects that make shipping easier and safer. Specifically, for my State of California, there are many great and valuable provisions in this bill, essential flood control provisions that more than double the amount of current funds authorized to improve and upgrade levees in the San Joaquin River Delta, levees that

will help protect two-thirds of California's water supply.

I remind my colleagues--I know you are aware of this--we have almost 37 million people in my State. So when we talk about flood control protecting the population, we are talking about quite a sizable population.

We have included ecosystem restoration pilot projects to help improve and restore the Salton Sea, which has been steadily shrinking into the deserts of southern California. The Salton Sea is a remarkable-- remarkable--body of water.

The bill also includes authorization to restore vast salt marshes and wetlands around the Napa River.

I want to highlight one final provision in this bill for California. Earlier this year, I introduced the Los Angeles River Revitalization Act. When I tell my colleagues that there was a river in Los Angeles-- there still is--they look at me and say: Well, where is this river?

Well, you can take it from me, there is a river. It has been destroyed over time. The local people, with a wonderful project, are trying to restore this river and continue to protect the residents of the area from flooding, but also to provide recreational opportunities for the communities on the riverbanks.

The 2006 WRDA bill before us contains key provisions from that bill, including a feasibility study and provisions authorizing demonstration projects to help get this great restoration effort going. If you have time to come with me to Los Angeles, I say to my colleagues, I will show you the amazing possibilities we have for recreation and for the young people in an area that is in great need, desperate need of recreation, because it is so populated and so crowded.

So in short, Mr. President, this is a great and important bill for my State. We cannot ignore our water infrastructure. We learned that from Hurricane Katrina. We cannot allow long periods of time to elapse without reauthorizing such a vital and important bill. Most of our colleagues agree, earlier this year, more than 80 Senators signed a letter requesting full Senate consideration of this bill. I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly Senators Inhofe and Jeffords, in trying to address every colleague's concerns so that we could get to this moment, and here we are.

I look forward to discussing and debating several key policy issues relating to this bill. We have a couple of controversial ones, and I will be on the Senate floor as these issues come before us.

Amendment No. 4679

Mr. President, at this time, I call up my amendment No. 4679, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I offer this amendment on Sacramento flood control at the Folsom Dam, and I want to speak on behalf of my amendment. My statement will be brief because I am very pleased that my amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. Again, I thank Senators Inhofe and Jeffords and their staffs. We will be voice-voting this amendment, and it means a great deal to Senator Feinstein and to me and the people from California, be they Republicans or Democrats or Independents. I again extend my thanks to Letmon Lee with Senator Bond, Angie Giancarlo and Stephen Aaron, Catherine Ransom and Jo-Ellen Darcy. I am saying their names again because I think all too often staff just don't get the credit they deserve for the long hours they put in. Their work on this amendment, like so many others in this bill, has been invaluable.

I thank Senator Feinstein for being a cosponsor of this amendment. I offer my appreciation for her help in this effort. Very briefly, I want to talk about why this amendment is so important, and then we will have a voice vote and we can move on to Senator Specter's amendment.

Sacramento is one of America's largest metropolitan areas that has less than 100-year flood protection, less than 100-year flood control protection. The Sacramento-American Rivers floodplain contains 165,000 homes--I want my colleagues to think about that--nearly 500,000 residents, the State Capitol is there, and many businesses providing 200,000 jobs. It is also the hub of the six-county regional economy, providing hundreds of thousands of jobs.

A major flood would cripple the Sacramento region's economy, significantly impair the operations of our government in Sacramento, and cause up to $15 billion in direct damage and up to $30 billion in total economic losses, and it would likely result in significant loss of life.

As the capital of the world's sixth largest economy--the world's sixth largest economy--no one can deny it is important to protect the Sacramento region and, fortunately, no one today is denying that. Yet Sacramento is terribly vulnerable to catastrophic flooding, so vulnerable that parts of the Sacramento area were under serious flood threat earlier this year. I remember well, when Senator Feinstein and I came to the floor and we showed you the pictures. We are not going to go through those again tonight because I think you remember those pictures. There was that whole area where you have homes below sea level at risk every single day.

To protect this region from flooding, Folsom Dam was completed in 1956. It is located 15 miles northeast of Sacramento on the American River. To improve the dam's flood control capabilities, Congress authorized two projects to increase the dam's capacity and waterflow control. Over the past year, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation have been working to refine and improve these plans.

My amendment ensures that this important process continues expeditiously and without interruption. This is what it does. It sets a strict timeframe of June 2007 for the Corps and

the Bureau to complete their report, so that design work can proceed without delay.

We all know bureaucracy. They will figure out one way to delay and another way to delay, and before long we have real serious questions of the costs for the project and having to pay more for the project. We pray during that time there will not be a catastrophic flood.

We are so pleased that this amendment has been signed off on, on both sides. It also calls for quarterly reports on the progress of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps.

The bill as agreed to by the managers of the bill today is an important next step to provide the region of Sacramento the level of flood protection it deserves. The Corps, the Bureau, and their non- Federal partners are continuing to work on designing the best solution for Folsom Dam, and the outlook is very promising.

As S. 728 moves to conference with the other body, I intend to work with my colleagues in any way needed to support this project. Again, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for agreeing with this important amendment, and I hope the day will soon come when we will have that report ready for you and move forward.

I ask unanimous consent that all of my time and the time of Senator Stabenow be charged against my amendment. I think that will clear up the time confusion with the Chair. Is that correct? Mr. Chairman, is that making you happy?

We are done. I hope now we can voice vote this amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I will take less than a minute to thank both sides.

Can the Senator help me? This is my able assistant.

I have never had such a fantastic, underpaid, assistant in my life.

I will take a minute to explain why I am very delighted that Senators Gregg and Murray have signed off on this amendment we are about to adopt.

Senator Schumer has worked very hard on this issue. Here is what we say. We say the inspector general did an investigation and found out that on the out-of-place assets list--these are assets that the Department of Homeland Security will protect--were places such as the Nestle Purina Pet Food plant, the Sweetwater Flea Market, petting zoo, the beach at the end of a street, the Pepper and Herb Company, Auto Shop, groundhog zoo, high stakes bingo, mule day parade.

We wish we could protect every activity in America, but I think when you are looking at a budget that is limited, we should go after the targets that al-Qaida has told us--the bridges, the highways, the infrastructure, the chemical plants, the nuclear plants. We do not have to spend taxpayer money protecting the bourbon festival, as an example.

The point is, we are going to ask the Department to either accept the recommendations of the inspector general or tell us why not. That is the essence of the amendment.

I thank my colleagues. I don't know if I need to ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of certain funds for travel by officers

or employees of the Department of Homeland Security until the Under Secretary for Preparedness has implemented the recommendations in the report by the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security titled ``Progress in Developing the National Asset Database'', dated

June 2006)

On page 90, line 24, before the period, insert the

following: ``: Provided further, That none of the funds made

available in this title under the heading ``Management and

Administration'' may be used for travel by an officer or

employee of the Department of Homeland Security until the

Under Secretary for Preparedness has implemented the

recommendations in the report by the Inspector General of the

Department of Homeland Security titled `Progress in

Developing the National Asset Database', dated June 2006; or

until the Under Secretary for Preparedness submits a report

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental

Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and

the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on

Appropriations of the House of Representatives explaining why

such recommendations have not been fully implemented.

Mr. President, I oppose the proposed U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement. This agreement is not fair to American workers, plain and simple.

The theory behind free trade agreements is that two nations will agree to the free flow of goods as long as there is a relatively even playing field in terms of labor and environmental standards.

Without that even playing field, we face a worldwide ``race to the bottom,'' where the nations that pay their workers the least and offer them the fewest rights and protections, wins.

Sadly, the Bush administration has entered this particular race with gusto.

The Sultanate of Oman does not have much of a track record on worker's rights. There is no right to form independent unions or bargain collectively. The Omani constitution and labor laws do not prohibit the use of forced labor for public services and child labor is still permitted in law and practice.

The country of Oman has only 3 million people--and half a million of them are foreign ``guest workers,'' mainly from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and other Asian countries. And there have been numerous reports about how guest workers in that region have been exploited and underpaid, enabling their employers to turn out extremely low-cost products.

Unfortunately the trade agreement we are considering today offers no guarantees that Oman will not treat its ``guestworkers'' in the same way, and then be able to sell the products of their labor, duty free, to U.S. companies.

And we are asking American workers to compete against that? That's not free trade, defined as a mutually beneficial arrangement between two nations that raises living standards and general prosperity for the citizens of both countries. That's merely pitting American workers against the poorest, most desperate workers in the world, who work as foreign contract workers and have few legal or institutional protections.

I cannot support that approach to free trade. I proudly join with 400-plus labor, environmental, religious, human rights, consumer, business and family farm organizations, to oppose the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize an exceptional group of students with disabilities in southern California from Hesperia Junior High School. Kattie Greene, Emilee Landon, David Perez, and Eric Coldwell have achieved outstanding success in science and problem solving.

These students formed the Hands-Off Telephone Band Team. Together, they developed an apparatus that allows a cellular telephone to be mounted to a wrist or arm--creating an effective and simple assistive technology device that enables some individuals with disabilities to independently use a cellular phone.

The Hands-Off Telephone Band Team's ingenious creation was chosen as one of eight projects from nationwide to be judged by the renowned Christopher Columbus Foundation, which, along with the National Science Foundation, strive to improve America's middle school students' literacy in mathematics and science. Despite facing formidable competition, the Hands-Off Telephone Band Team's project was deservedly selected as the Gold Medal Award Winning Team. Kattie, Emilee, David, and Eric's commitment to excellence, coupled with their mastery of the scientific process, enabled them to return to Hesperia Junior High School as heroes of the community.

I commend these students not only for their success in this prestigious competition but also because they are the first team comprised of students with disabilities to win this national competition. Each of these incredible young people utilized their abilities and coordinated their efforts to succeed. Eighth grade instructor Barbara Jacobs deserves commendation on her successful mentorship of these young students.

I applaud the dedication of the Hands-Off Telephone Band Team from Hesperia Junior High School. Their success has provided an example of determination to us all.