Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Patty Skuster, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the proceedings.

Mr. President, I speak to honor the memory of the late John Greeno, Bald Mountain heliport manager with the Mi-Wok Ranger District of Stanislaus National Forest. Mr. Greeno was a 21-year veteran of the U.S. Forest Service who dedicated his life to his family, community, and Nation. He was killed in a tragic helicopter crash in Texas on March 10, 2005, while on volunteer assignment to conduct a prescribed burn in Sabine National Forest.

John Greeno was born on June 2, 1952 in Redwood City, CA, and was raised in the town of Independence, CA. He embarked upon his career with the U.S. Forest Service in 1979 as a temporary employee on the Inyo National Forest. His love for firefighting and the U.S. Forest Service led him to the Stanislaus National Forest where he would eventually rise to the position of Helitack superintendent. During his 21 years of service, John earned the respect and admiration of those with whom he worked for consistently going above and beyond the call of duty. He led by example and was considered a mentor by subordinates. John regularly volunteered for assignments like the one that claimed his life in Sabine

National Forest in order to sharpen his skills and bring back valuable knowledge for his home-base.

John Greeno will long be remembered for his courage and dedication. He is survived by his wife of 11 years and his two children Marcus and Montana. His service and bravery inspired others and he will be deeply missed. I extend my deepest sympathies to his family.

Mr. President, at the end of 2002, the Maritime Transportation Security Act became law.

I was a member of the conference committee on that bill, and I think it was a good first step in improving security at our Nation's ports.

It had many good provisions, such as the creation of national and regional maritime transportation/port security plans to be approved by the Coast Guard; better coordination of Federal State, local, and private enforcement agencies; and the establishment of a grant program for port authorities, waterfront facilities operators, and State and local agencies to provide security infrastructure improvements.

The problem with the bill was that it had no guaranteed funding mechanism. As a result, we are underfunding port security. Since the passage of the Maritime Transportation Security Act, the Department of Homeland Security has awarded approximately $625 million in port security grants. This is not enough. The Coast Guard has estimated a need for $5.4 billion over 10 years for port facility upgrades, and $7.3 billion over 10 years for all port security. At the same time, the administration only requested $600 million for infrastructure protection in fiscal year 2006, and this meager figure does not even specify a dedicated portion for port security grants.

With over 40 percent of the Nation's goods imported through California's ports, a terrorist attack at a California port would not only be tragic but would be devastating for our Nation's economy.

So, today, I am reintroducing a bill to provide more funding to the ports. Specifically, it will create a Port Security Grant Program in the Department of Homeland Security; provide $800 million per year for 5 years in grant funding; and--this is very important to California's ports--allow the Federal Government to help finance larger multi-year projects similar to what is done with many of our airports for aviation security.

I hope that the Senate will act on this bill. Now is not the time to slow down or delay our efforts to increase and improve transportation security. The job is not done, and it must be done.

Mr. President, at the end of 2002, the Maritime Transportation Security Act became law.

I was a member of the conference committee on that bill, and I think it was a good first step in improving security at our Nation's ports.

It had many good provisions, such as the creation of national and regional maritime transportation/port security plans to be approved by the Coast Guard; better coordination of Federal State, local, and private enforcement agencies; and the establishment of a grant program for port authorities, waterfront facilities operators, and State and local agencies to provide security infrastructure improvements.

The problem with the bill was that it had no guaranteed funding mechanism. As a result, we are underfunding port security. Since the passage of the Maritime Transportation Security Act, the Department of Homeland Security has awarded approximately $625 million in port security grants. This is not enough. The Coast Guard has estimated a need for $5.4 billion over 10 years for port facility upgrades, and $7.3 billion over 10 years for all port security. At the same time, the administration only requested $600 million for infrastructure protection in fiscal year 2006, and this meager figure does not even specify a dedicated portion for port security grants.

With over 40 percent of the Nation's goods imported through California's ports, a terrorist attack at a California port would not only be tragic but would be devastating for our Nation's economy.

So, today, I am reintroducing a bill to provide more funding to the ports. Specifically, it will create a Port Security Grant Program in the Department of Homeland Security; provide $800 million per year for 5 years in grant funding; and--this is very important to California's ports--allow the Federal Government to help finance larger multi-year projects similar to what is done with many of our airports for aviation security.

I hope that the Senate will act on this bill. Now is not the time to slow down or delay our efforts to increase and improve transportation security. The job is not done, and it must be done.

Mr. President, I will vote in favor of the fiscal year 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations conference report. This conference report contains important funding that gives our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq the equipment and support they need. It also provides additional resources to help train new Iraqi security forces that will help speed the return of our servicemen and women.

In March, I traveled to Iraq to witness firsthand our military operations. There is no doubt that the insurgency is strong and that our continuing presence in Iraq, without even a goal for leaving, is fueling it.

Therefore, our troops are in grave danger every day, as evidenced by the tragic number of dead and wounded. Since the beginning of the Iraq War, we have suffered more than 1,600 deaths and more than 12,000 wounded.

My trip to Iraq confirmed my fears that not enough is being done to protect our soldiers from the threat of roadside bombs. Roadside bombs are one of the leading causes of death in Iraq and are responsible for 70 percent of those personnel killed or wounded. That is why I am glad that the conference report provides $60 million to rapidly field electronic jammers that help prevent the detonation of roadside bombs. This is consistent with the Boxer amendment that was adopted on the floor during the Senate's consideration of the bill.

I am also pleased that the conference report provides $150 million in additional funding for up-armored Humvees. While this is not as much as provided by the Bayh amendment, it is still a step in the right direction.

I will vote for this conference report, but I do so with serious reservations about the lack of an exit strategy in Iraq and with additional reservations about the way the REAL ID Act was attached to this legislation.

The REAL ID Act contains sweeping changes to our immigration laws. These provisions were not included in the President's supplemental appropriations request, nor were they included in the Senate version of the bill that was approved last month.

But at the insistence of the Republican leadership in the House, this legislation was attached to the House version of the emergency supplemental bill and then rammed through conference without the participation of Democrats. The REAL ID Act will become law without discussion or debate in the Senate.

The REAL ID Act contains a provision that would require states to collect documents proving the date of birth, social security number, principal address, and lawful immigration status for any applicant seeking a driver's license or identification card that would be recognized by the Federal government. States would be required to keep these documents on hand for a minimum of 7 years, maintain this information on a database, and allow electronic access to all other states.

States are understandably concerned that they do not have the capability to meet this mandate. Privacy concerns have also been raised.

Unfortunately, we have not had the ability to fully investigate the privacy implications and other issues related to this provision. My State of California has worked for 3 years trying to find a workable solution to this issue. But in the Senate, the REAL ID Act did not even warrant a hearing. This is why the National Governors Association, the National Council of State Legislatures, and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators all oppose this legislation.

The REAL ID Act also contains a troubling provision that allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive all legal requirements-- including environmental laws--in order to build security fences along U.S. borders. Security fences can be built without waiving environmental laws.

So, while I will vote for this bill because it helps our brave and courageous troops, I am deeply distressed at the way Democrats were left out of all the immigration discussions.

Mr. President, I am deeply saddened to inform you of the passing of Miguel Contreras, secretary-treasurer for the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO. I would like to take a few moments to recognize the many important accomplishments of Miguel Contreras and the tremendous impact he made on the labor movement.

Miguel led the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor for nearly a decade. During his tenure, he continuously fought for the rights of laborers, and did so with great success. Through his guidance and leadership, The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor entered a period of unprecedented advancement and success.

Miguel Contreras was a man with humble beginnings. The son of farm workers, he began working in the fields of California's Central Valley at a very young age. With his early exposure to the difficult life of a farm worker, he quickly joined the ranks of political activists in labor as a volunteer with the United Farm Workers of America. He stood with Cesar Chavez and the UFW during their national grape boycott, and continued the fight for workers for the remaining years of his life.

In 1996, Miguel Contreras became the first Latino to win the post of secretary-treasurer for the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO--comprising 350 local unions and more than 800,000 members. Under his leadership, The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor had seen phenomenal growth. He coordinated many successful labor rights victories including the labor dispute of 2000 when 8,500 janitors from Service Employees International Union, SEIU, Local 1877 fought for and won a higher standard of living and better working conditions.

Fighting for the rights of laborers was at the core of Miguel Contreras' beliefs, an attribute which made him a great leader for laborers throughout the State of California. He cared about regular people and timelessly worked for their welfare.

I invite all of my colleagues to join me and the many mourning members of the labor community in recognizing and honoring Miguel Contreras for his guidance and life-long effort in fighting to improve the lives of laborers. He is survived by his wife Maria Elena Durazo and two sons, Michael and Mario.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the leadership and service of Ronald O. Loveridge, mayor of the city of Riverside. Mayor Loveridge has been honored as the 2005 Distinguished Citizen of the Inland Empire by the Inland Empire Council of Boy Scouts of America.

As mayor of the city of Riverside, Ron Loveridge lends his time and leadership to many organizations committed to the vitality and progress of his community. Last year, he served the State of California as president of the League of Cities. Among the organizations that have honored him for his impressive record of service are the American Planning Association, the California Preservation Foundation, the United Way, and the Youth Service Center.

In addition to his thoughtful leadership as mayor, Ron Loveridge has given the city of Riverside his personal commitment for 40 years. A professor of political science at the University of California, Riverside, since 1965, Dr. Ron Loveridge has used his knowledge and expertise to enrich students' understanding of and interest in the inner workings of local government. He has provided a model of conscientious citizenship, volunteering his time to advance the endeavors of the Riverside Arts Foundation, the Riverside County Philharmonic, and the Dickens Festival.

In 1998, Mayor Ron Loveridge was meeting with council members and staff in City Hall when a man entered and shot his gun several times. Given the circumstances, it is a miracle that no one was killed. Mayor Loveridge was hit in the back of the neck, the bullet just missing his spinal cord. I met with him just after the shooting and was amazed at his grace and good will following such an event. He has gone on to lead his city in a similar manner, always showing grace and good will even in the toughest of times.

I applaud Ronald Loveridge for his lifetime of public service and am pleased to invite you to join me in congratulating him as he is honored as the Boy Scouts of America Inland Empire Council's 2005 Distinguished Citizen of the Inland Empire.

Mr. President, I oppose this budget and will vote against it. All of my colleagues should. It sets the wrong priorities. It breaks promises to the American people. And it is the height of fiscal irresponsibility.

Let me begin with the priorities. The priorities of the American people are not the priorities of this budget.

It is quite clear what the priorities of this budget are: tax cuts for the wealthy. In just one year, this budget provides a tax cut for millionaires totaling $32 billion.

Meanwhile, education funding is cut almost $1 billion below the services we are providing now. A total of 48 education programs are eliminated. The promise that was made in the No Child Left Behind Act is broken by $12 billion. We should be increasing our commitment to our children, not cutting it.

Veterans programs--for those brave men and women who served our country and are currently serving our country in Iraq and Afghanistan-- are cut $500 million. As more and more veterans return to this country, the demands on the VA system will only grow. This budget ignores them.

This budget provides no funding for additional police officers on the street, and two major programs to help local law enforcement are eliminated.

Medicaid--the health care program for the poor and disabled, a large portion of whom are children--is cut $10 billion.

Funding for the Centers for Disease Control--to prevent diseases and to fight outbreaks--is cut 9 percent.

The promise we made to our farmers in 2002 is broken with cuts of $3 billion.

What is going on here? Our children, our veterans, the safety of our streets, and the health of our people--all are taking a back seat to tax cuts for millionaires. This budget helps the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans at the expense of 99 percent of Americans.

You would think that with all of these cuts in spending for important programs, at least the budget would be balanced--or at least would be more fiscally responsible than it has been in the past 4 years.

You would be wrong. This budget increases our debt by $3.1 trillion over the next 5 years. In 2010, the Federal debt will be over $11 trillion.

That figure is so high, it is nearly incomprehensible. So let me put it another way: $11 trillion is $1 million every day for 30,000 years.

And 11 trillion in debt is not the whole story. This budget does not include the almost $400 billion in costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This budget does not include over $700 billion in costs for the President's plan to privatize Social Security. This budget does not inc1ude over $700 billion to ensure that middle-class Americans are not hit with the alternative minimum tax.

Why aren't these included? Because it would mean even more debt. Debt upon debt upon debt upon debt. And most of it owed to those from foreign countries. We are borrowing from the Japanese, the Chinese, the British, and others--and sticking the bill to our children and grandchildren.

And speaking of the President's plan to privatize Social Security, I find it ironic that the President again tonight tried to scare the American people by saying that Social Security was going ``bankrupt,'' when at the same time, this budget steals $2.5 trillion over 10 years from the Social Security Trust Fund. Instead of tax cuts for millionaires, we should be paying back the Trust Fund.

Finally, this budget sets the stage for opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. It has nothing to do with the budget. It has nothing to do with increasing our energy independence. It has everything to do with destroying one of America's most environmentally pristine areas.

This budget has the wrong priorities, bankrupts our country, and destroys our environment. It should be soundly and overwhelmingly rejected.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to name the Federal courthouse building now being completed at Tulare and ``O'' Streets in downtown Fresno, CA the ``Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse.''

It is fitting that the Federal courthouse in Fresno be named for Senior U.S. District Judge Robert E. Coyle, who is greatly respected and admired for his work as a judge and for his foresight and persistence that contributed so much to the Fresno Courthouse project. Judge Coyle has been a leader in the effort to build a new courthouse in Fresno for more than a decade. Indeed, he personally supervises this project. He is often seen with his hard hat in hand, walking from his chambers to the new building to meet project staff.

Judge Coyle, working with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District, conceived and founded a program called ``Managing a Capitol Construction Program'' to help others understand the process of having a courthouse built. This Eastern District program was so well received by national court administrators that it is now a nationwide program run by Judge Coyle.

In addition to meeting the needs of the court for additional space, the courthouse project has become a key element in the downtown revitalization of Fresno. Judge Coyle's efforts, and those in the community with whom he has worked, produced a major milestone when the groundbreaking for the new courthouse took place.

Judge Coyle has had a distinguished career as an attorney and on the bench. Appointed to California's Eastern District bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1982, Judge Coyle has served as a judge for the Eastern District for 20 years, including 6 years as senior judge. Judge Coyle earned his law degree from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 1956. He then worked for Fresno County as a Deputy District Attorney before going into private practice in 1958 with McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Coyle & Wayte, where he remained until his appointment by President Reagan.

Judge Coyle is very active in the community and has served in many judicial leadership positions, including: Chair of the Space and Security Committee; Chair of the Conference of the Chief District Judges of the Ninth Circuit; President of the Ninth Circuit District Judges Association; Member of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California; and President of the Fresno County Bar.

My hope is that, in addition to serving the people of the Eastern District as a courthouse, this building will stand as a reminder to the community and people of California of the dedicated work of Judge Robert E. Coyle.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to name the Federal courthouse building now being completed at Tulare and ``O'' Streets in downtown Fresno, CA the ``Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse.''

It is fitting that the Federal courthouse in Fresno be named for Senior U.S. District Judge Robert E. Coyle, who is greatly respected and admired for his work as a judge and for his foresight and persistence that contributed so much to the Fresno Courthouse project. Judge Coyle has been a leader in the effort to build a new courthouse in Fresno for more than a decade. Indeed, he personally supervises this project. He is often seen with his hard hat in hand, walking from his chambers to the new building to meet project staff.

Judge Coyle, working with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District, conceived and founded a program called ``Managing a Capitol Construction Program'' to help others understand the process of having a courthouse built. This Eastern District program was so well received by national court administrators that it is now a nationwide program run by Judge Coyle.

In addition to meeting the needs of the court for additional space, the courthouse project has become a key element in the downtown revitalization of Fresno. Judge Coyle's efforts, and those in the community with whom he has worked, produced a major milestone when the groundbreaking for the new courthouse took place.

Judge Coyle has had a distinguished career as an attorney and on the bench. Appointed to California's Eastern District bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1982, Judge Coyle has served as a judge for the Eastern District for 20 years, including 6 years as senior judge. Judge Coyle earned his law degree from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 1956. He then worked for Fresno County as a Deputy District Attorney before going into private practice in 1958 with McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Coyle & Wayte, where he remained until his appointment by President Reagan.

Judge Coyle is very active in the community and has served in many judicial leadership positions, including: Chair of the Space and Security Committee; Chair of the Conference of the Chief District Judges of the Ninth Circuit; President of the Ninth Circuit District Judges Association; Member of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California; and President of the Fresno County Bar.

My hope is that, in addition to serving the people of the Eastern District as a courthouse, this building will stand as a reminder to the community and people of California of the dedicated work of Judge Robert E. Coyle.

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

Mr. President, I had asked for an hour to speak for the Record on a number of issues. First, I will pay tribute to 53 young Americans who have been killed in Iraq since December 7, 2004. This brings to 402 the number of soldiers who were either from California or based in California that have been killed while serving our country. I want to make the point to my colleagues this represents 26 percent of all the military deaths in Iraq. Twenty-six percent of those deaths have come from California, either the person was born and raised in California or was stationed in California. We continue to mourn those losses. As I have promised since the day the war started, I will pay tribute to them by name so they are not forgotten.

CPL In C. Kim died December 7 as a result of a nonhostile vehicle incident in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to Camp Pendleton.

PFC Christopher S. Adlesperger died December 9 as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was also assigned to Camp Pendleton.

I want to mention the ages of these soldiers too. Corporal Kim was 23 years old. PFC Christopher Adlesperger was 20 years old.

SPC Edwin W. Roodhouse, 36 years old, died December 5 in Habbaniyah, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his humvee. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 56th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division, Camp Greaves, Korea, and he was from San Jose, CA.

SSgt Melvin L. Blazer, age 38, died December 12 as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He also was assigned to Camp Pendleton.

LCpl Hilario F. Lopez, age 22, died December 12 as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned also to Camp Pendleton.

LCpl Gregory Rund, age 21, died December 11 as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He also was assigned to Camp Pendleton.

CPL Ian W. Stewart, age 21, died December 12 as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was also assigned to Camp Pendleton, and he was from Lake Hughes, CA.

SGT Jeffrey Kirk, age 24, died December 12 as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province, also assigned to Camp Pendleton.

LCpl Joshua Dickinson, age 25, died December 12 as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to Camp Pendleton.

CPL Michael Anderson, age 21, died December 14 as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was also assigned to Camp Pendleton, CA and was from Modesto, CA.

LCpl Neil Petsche, age 21, died December 21 due injuries received from a nonhostile vehicle incident in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to Twentynine Palms, CA.

SSG Robert S. Johnson, age 23, died December 21 in Mosul when his dining facility was attacked. He was assigned to Fort Lewis, WA, but he was from Castro Valley, CA.

SPC Jonathan Castro, age 21, died December 21 in Mosul when his dining facility was attacked. He was assigned to Fort Lewis, WA, but he was from Corona, CA.

LCpl Eric Hillenburg, age 21, died December 23 as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to Camp Pendleton, CA.

LCpl James Phillips, age 21, died December 23 as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He, too, was assigned to Camp Pendleton,

Mr. President, Senator Frist was true to his word. He told me I could have a vote to repeal what I consider to be a very dangerous amendment that came into an appropriations bill without any hearings, without any discussions, without any votes, and I think could very well lead to a very dangerous situation for the women of our country.

I decided not to push the vote. It was too close to call. Some people said

there were 56 votes against us. That was not my count, but I knew that in order to win this vote I needed to talk with people individually at great length.

Why is that? Because this is one of the most confusing amendments that we have ever faced in the Senate. Just ask the people at HHS, who are trying to implement it. Just ask the people who filed suit. They say it is so vague and so broad that it could literally mean people coming into an emergency room, not getting served, and dying in an emergency room. This is what could happen.

I thank Senator Frist for being true to his word, for giving me the opportunity, and I want to briefly explain what I plan to do about this Weldon amendment, with the help of my friends and colleagues.

Senator Harkin and I plan to work across the aisle to modify this amendment so that it really is what it claims to be, a conscience clause. No one objects to conscience clauses. I support them. Conscious clauses are in the law. I am happy to clarify them, make sure anyone who has a moral objection to performing an abortion absolutely has every right not to have to do that.

I have talked at length with Senator Harkin, and we are going to work with our colleagues. That means with Senator Specter and the other members of the Appropriations Committee so they understand the ramifications of this Weldon amendment, which I will go into in a minute.

Second, as I mentioned, there have been lawsuits filed challenging the constitutionality of the Weldon amendment. I believe the arguments are compelling. As I have said before--and we were proven right when other anti-choice amendments that were thrown out of court--I believe this one also will be thrown out. Because it cannot possibly be that any judge anywhere, regardless of whether he or she is liberal, conservative, moderate, Republican, Democrat, or anything else, would put women's lives in danger like this could do. So I feel very confident it will come out all right.

I am going to give a brief discussion on what I think the Weldon amendment means as it is now written.

Although the proponents of the Weldon amendment call it a conscience clause, nowhere in the amendment do we see the words ``religion,'' ``morals,'' ``beliefs,'' or ``values.'' It is masquerading as a conscience clause, but it really is not. I call it a denial clause because it will deny women emergency care when their lives are in danger, deny low-income rape victims reproductive health care, deny doctors the right to give their patients vital information, and deny States the ability to enforce critical laws ensuring the health of women.

The fact is, our hospitals and doctors already have a Federal conscience clause, it's called the 1973 Church Amendment. What Weldon does is different. It's a big loophole that allows anyone, including HMOs, to decide, for any reason, that they do not want any of their doctors not only not performing abortions but also telling a woman that it is a legal right for her, referring her, talking to her honestly about what her options are.

This amendment is giving a denial clause to an HMO which, by the way, I do not think they have a conscience, given the way many of them treat people. So we are giving the HMO, a corporation, a big denial clause-- not the doctor, not the nurse but the corporation. So that means they can now gag doctors who work for them by telling them: You better not inform a woman about her rights because if you do, it is against the guidelines of this HMO.

Now, in this Weldon amendment, there is no exception for rape or incest. Imagine, there is no exception for rape and incest. So even if a woman comes in who has been brutally raped or the victim of incest, under this Weldon amendment, the hospital or the HMO could violate current law and say: So sorry about that, you are on your own. Now, this is America in 2005. Where is our conscience? Where are our moral values? Where are our family values if we pass an amendment like this, that would throw a woman out in the most dire of circumstances? It is just horrific.

And this goes against our Medicaid law. The Hyde amendment makes an exception for rape and incest if a woman is on Medicaid and if she is poor. Henry Hyde and I talked about that quite a bit, and he supported that very much. First the exception was if one's life is at stake, they can get Medicaid help to end the pregnancy. Then it was rape and incest. There is no such exception in Weldon, and guess what happens. If the Medicaid law is enforced, states can now lose all of their Federal funds for education, labor, and health. This is just crazy. It makes no sense at all.

We believe that Weldon would allow a woman to die in an emergency room. There are very unbelievably tragic stories. Let us say a woman is in a car accident while she is in the early stages of her pregnancy. She is rushed into the emergency room, and she is losing blood. The only way to save her life is to terminate the pregnancy. Under Weldon, if the hospital says, I am sorry, we do not do that, she could just simply die waiting for help. This is what Weldon does. This is why I cannot believe a judge is going to allow it to continue.

So the Weldon amendment is drawn in such a way that all the laws we have--including the emergency room law ensuring a hospital takes measures to stabilize patients if their lives are endanger and the Medicaid law that allows a woman to get an abortion if she is raped or the victim of incest--are overridden by Weldon. Any State law that steps in to help guarantee reproductive services and referrals to woman is overridden by Weldon. And if States enforces their own law to help a woman in a crisis, they can lose all of their Federal funds, not just their family planning funds but every dollar of their education money, their labor money, and their health money. We are talking about billions of dollars across the board.

We all know it is totally unconstitutional to gag a doctor. Every year the anti-choice people pass a Mexico City gag rule, which I am proud to say the Senate does not support, but the President does, and it always manages to survive. The gag rule is in effect abroad, but they cannot do it here. Why? Because in this country we have freedom of speech, and a gag cannot be put around a doctor's mouth and tell them they cannot let their patients know all of their options; that is unconstitutional. But here, under Weldon, an HMO can gag any doctor that works for it. So it is really completely outrageous.

In essence, we are going to have a whole series of laws overturned by the Weldon amendment. The odd thing is, if the backers of the Weldon amendment would come to the table and tell us all the things they want to do, we could have an honest debate. The trouble we have is that the people who support Weldon will say: All we have is a conscience clause. But that isn't the case.

We have letters from doctors, patients, States, and we have lawsuits that really unmask the true ramifications of Weldon. What we have is a provision that masquerades as a conscience clause when it is really a denial clause that would punish States. These are the people who I thought liked States rights.

Let us take the issue of hospital mergers. In the past, under current law, every State in the Union that I know of has the ability, when a hospital merges, to set conditions for those mergers. The attorneys general of those States have the right to put conditions on those mergers. Under Weldon, that's no longer possible if such conditions include making sure that in this merger a woman has still reproductive health care. So it is taking away the rights of States, and that is again why I believe we can fix this, because it is so dangerous in its current form.

We have this amendment masquerading as a conscience clause. But it is not a conscience clause, it is a denial clause because it will deny women the health care they need to live, to be helped and saved in an emergency. It will gag doctors. It will stop attorneys general in all of our States from carrying out their duties. A couple of States have sued on behalf of this. Many who must implement it have thrown their hands up. They do not know how to enforce it. It never had a hearing in the Senate. We never looked at it, and it passed as part of the appropriations bill.

Again, I thank Senator Frist for living up to his commitment he made to me. I appreciate it. What we are going to do is continue to work to let everyone know how outrageous this law is, how far reaching this law is, how dangerous this law is to women, how it walks away from family values, from States rights, from anything decent when one says to a woman who has been raped or is the victim of incest that she is on her own. That is not what this country is about.

At some point, we are going to make sure that this Weldon amendment is either modified so it becomes what it says it is, which is a conscience clause that no one has an objection to, or is repealed.

How much more time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I want to close on a couple of topics. The first one, because I sit on the Foreign Relations Committee, is the nomination of John Bolton to be our Ambassador to the United Nations. I do call on the President to rethink this nomination. Out of the thousands of strong, conservative Republicans who care about the world, there has to be somebody better than someone who has a pattern of not only abusing his staff, called a serial abuser by one witness, but also, and this is really threatening, trying to get them fired if they do not give him the information he wants.

I am talking about false information and reaching down from the very high level at which he has been to the bottom of another agency that he did not even have direct line control over and trying to force not one but two and maybe three intelligence analysts to paint a picture that he wanted to use so that he could present a country as an imminent threat to this Nation, which could have led to some serious ramifications. Of all the people to pick now, it should not be someone who would try to politicize intelligence gathering.

I received another letter on Friday, which I sent to both sides of the committee. I hope this will be looked at. It concerns a case where years ago John Bolton was trying to overturn a U.N. resolution--or have it modified--that dealt with infant formula in the developing nations. Some of my colleagues may remember that issue, where babies were dying throughout the developing world because they were mixing the baby formula with contaminated water, and the U.N. voted very strongly to stop distributing and selling that baby formula. According to this woman, who has a lot of credentials--an attorney who worked with John Bolton--she said that Bolton ordered her to contact these developing nations and tell them to back off and modify this resolution so that Nestle Company and others could sell their product in the developing world. And this is interesting--conscience clause--she said: My conscience does not allow me to do this because if one baby died as a result of what I did, I could not live with myself. There is a conscience clause in the agency that says if somebody has a conscience problem when given an assignment, they do not have to do it. Well, Bolton said, if you do not do this, you are fired, and he fired her on the spot, according to her. She is going to go under oath and testify to this. Then he found out he could not fire her because she was protected by Civil Service. She comes back to work, and what do they find? Her entire office had been moved. Where is it moved? To the basement of the building. No telephone. A desk and a chair. She loved her job, and she eventually got a telephone down there and worked around John Bolton and stayed there doing her work.

This is yet another story. So we have a pattern of abusive behavior. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle say, this is just the person we need for the U.N.--somebody tough. If you want someone in the U.N. who has a history of trying to change intelligence information-- and now the world knows it.

As my ranking member Joe Biden has stated, this is the guy who may have to make the intelligence case against Iran. This is the guy who may have to make the intelligence case against North Korea with this background of using political pressure to get the kind of intelligence he wanted to build a case. This is not the right person. We do not want someone there who will politicize intelligence gathering. I don't think we want someone there who is such a hothead that it will turn a lot of people off.

We have testimony from multiple sources. At first, my friends on the other side of the committee said it is an isolated incident; you are talking about one incident. We have incident after incident.

Oh, he is just the person we need. We want someone tough. Tough is one thing. Tough and principled and committed is one thing. Abusing people is something else. A man is called a serial abuser by someone who has the credentials to know--e-mails back this up--trying to get people fired because they want to do their job.

It was so bad that Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, had to actually go and talk to all these ``independent'' analysts; his message was, don't you worry about it. You continue to do your work. I thank him for that. The testimony is clear. He went there and told those analysts, don't you be bullied. I am using those words. But the message he had was, don't you worry about it. Do your work. Do your job. It is very clear.

How refreshing it was to see Senator Voinovich, at the committee, listen to what Senator Biden, in particular, was saying. They had the information, chapter and verse, proof of why this is not a good appointment.

I know the pressures that have come to bear on Senator Voinovich. It is not pleasant to be alone. I have been there. I know how it feels. But he is answering to his conscience. I think he did the Senate proud by doing that.

Now we hear other colleagues on the committee saying maybe they need more time and more information.

Again, this can all be avoided. There are so many other people who can do this job. I said before that John Bolton is very loyal to this conservative doctrine. There could be many positions for him in the administration. We need someone in the spirit of John Danforth-- Republican, conservative, wonderful former Senator who went to the United Nations, who immediately had the support and the credibility and the respect.

In closing, I will talk about an issue I know the Presiding Officer has been very involved with, and that is the filibuster issue. As someone who once wanted to end a filibuster myself at an early stage, I now understand how foolish I was at that point. Why did I want it to end when I first came here as freshman? We had the majority and the Republicans were thwarting us. It was very frustrating. We wanted to fix everything. I voted to say this filibuster has to go.

Little did I realize that is the way the Senate is supposed to operate in a deliberative fashion. As one of the Founders said, the House is the cup. It gets hot. It is steaming. And when the issues get to the Senate, it is the saucer. They cool down. One of the ways to ensure that is to have extended debate.

Mr. President, there has been so much misinformation on the filibuster I want to make sure I put my thoughts into the record. We hear Republican Senators actually get up and say they never filibustered any judges. I was stunned, so we went back into history and we have a chart for that.

The first filibuster in modern times was started by the Republicans in 1968 against Abe Fortas for the Supreme Court. We know there have been 11 in recent times, 11 filibusters. Here is one in 1971, probably started by the Democrats, William Rehnquist to be a Supreme Court justice. Here is one in 1980, probably started by the Republicans, Stephen Breyer, to be a judge on the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Then in 1984 Harvie Wilkinson, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In 1986, Sydney Fitzwater, to be a judge for the Northern District of Texas. 1992, Edward Earle Carnes to be judge on the Eleventh Circuit. 1994, Lee Sarokin to be a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In 1999, Brian Theodore Stewart, to be a judge for the District

of Utah. In the year 2000--and this is my State--there was a major filibuster; we fought hard and we beat the filibuster. We got the votes needed, Richard Paez to be a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Marsha Berzon to be a judge on the Ninth Circuit.

When we hear Republicans say they never launched a filibuster, you can ask, what? Here is Bob Smith who led the filibuster, Republican, from New Hampshire. Here is what he said:

. . . It is no secret that I have been the person who has

filibustered these two nominations, Judge Berzon and Judge

Paez.

Here he is again:

So don't tell me we haven't filibustered judges and that we

don't have the right to filibuster judges on the floor of the

Senate. Of course we do. That is our constitutional role.

Here is a Republican Senator who started a filibuster against two judge nominees for the Ninth Circuit. He called this a ``constitutional role.'' Now we have other Republicans saying the constitutional option is no filibuster. Wrong. You are contradicting your own people here.

Now, Orrin Hatch himself admitted there were filibusters on the floor:

Indeed, I must confess to being somewhat baffled that,

after a filibuster is cut off by cloture, the Senate could

still delay a final vote on nomination.

That is Orrin Hatch. This is the major point I want to make, Who is the real leader out there pushing to end the filibuster on judges? Pushing, pushing, pushing?

And, by the way, it is unbelievable we have confirmed 205 of George W. Bush's nominees to the courts. We have stopped 10. Let me say it again: 205 have gotten through and we have stopped 10.

Now, do the math, and I will say to you: In your life, if you get 95 percent of what you want, wouldn't you go around with a smile on your face? I would. If I got 95 percent of what I wanted from the Senate, I would be so happy. If I got 95 percent of what I wanted from my family--if they sought my way 95 percent of the time--I would be happy; especially when they were teenagers, I would be really happy.

But do you know what. If I were arrogant, and I wanted everything, and I thought I knew best all the time, and I wanted to grab all the power, I would be sunk. So these folks over here, who got 95 percent of what they wanted--205 judges, and then 10 whom we thought were out of the mainstream--and, by the way, wow, are they out of the mainstream-- they are unhappy. And now they are going to change the rules in the middle of the game.

For 200 years of our Constitution we have been able to speak and express ourselves. I have to tell you, this is dangerous to our democracy. When one party wants its all, when one party wants to stop minority rights, that is dangerous. And that is where we are.

But here is the best of all--and I hope people will know this--when we had this filibuster on Marsha Berzon, and when we had this filibuster of Richard Paez, guess who voted to keep the filibuster going on Richard Paez. I will give you a clue. He appeared on a big screen over the weekend. I will give you another clue. He was elected by the Republicans to be the majority leader of the Senate, Bill Frist. He says filibusters are terrible, filibusters are wrong. Yet he voted to continue the filibuster on Richard Paez.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Executive vote No. 37 of March 8, 2000, on Richard Paez to cut off the filibuster be printed in the Record.

So let's hold people accountable for what they do and say. I admit I was foolish on the filibuster when I was a freshman and I came in here. I also wanted everything to go my way. I was wrong. And it is hard for a Senator to say they are wrong. We do not like to admit it. But I was wrong. But how can Bill Frist lead the charge, say that filibusters are wrong, it is terrible, it is awful, it is against the Constitution, and everything else he says--which I do not agree with any of what he said--and then not address the fact that he voted to sustain a filibuster. It does not make sense.

We have soldiers dying in Iraq, in Afghanistan. Lord knows where they are going to go in this very dangerous world. And the mission: to make sure democracy thrives. Do you know that when I was in Iraq, we were told one of the reasons the minority groups there, the Kurds, felt comfortable was they knew they were going to copy the model of this democracy, including the filibuster?

They said: Oh, we know we are going to have our rights heard because we are going to have the right to filibuster. They even told that to a Republican Senator who went over there.

By the way, when I was in the Palestinian territories--this is another interesting part of my trip--the first thing the Palestinians said they want to do is make sure their people get a monthly social security benefit that is guaranteed. I truly wanted to ask the Minister there--I think he was the Minister of the Interior--to please contact President Bush and tell him that a guaranteed social security benefit was their first priority, as the President tries to undo the guaranteed benefit for Social Security. That trip I went on was fascinating in so many different ways. But mostly, what I realized was, we need to be the model of freedom and democracy. If we start taking away minority rights, if we start saying we cannot stand to hear each other--by the way, I understand it. I know it is painful to hear me speak for some of my colleagues who do not agree with me. They say: Oh, I can't listen to one more word. And I feel the same way when they start talking about things with which I fundamentally disagree.

But that is what it is about here because all of America has to be represented here, from the most liberal, to the most conservative, to everything in between. All of us have to feel represented. But if we stop the ability of the other to debate and discuss, especially on judges, where it is a lifetime appointment, at a very high salary--they never have to face the electorate. This is the only moment.

So what if we say they have to meet a higher bar? That is a good thing on behalf of the people. Because--guess what--do you know what they rule on? They rule on everything to do with your life. They rule on whether there should be child labor. They rule on whether you should be harassed and exploited in the workplace. They rule on whether you have the right to clean air and safe drinking water. They rule on everybody's rights: voting rights, civil rights, human rights. They rule on whether your child can get a good education. They rule on whether corporate America must provide a safe workplace for you. They rule on whether the Federal Government can say that people who pollute have to clean up that pollution.

Why do you think there are so many people who want to get every single judge? Because they want judges of a certain philosophy. That is wrong. We should work for mainstream, fair judges--that is what we need on the bench--who can see all sides. But when one side wants everything, when 95 percent is not enough, when 205 to 10 is not good enough, beware of what is coming down. Do not change the rules

in the middle of the game. That is not fair. That is not right. It is throwing a fit over something, when you have gotten 95 percent of what you want.

You do not change the rules in the middle of the game, like they did in the House on the Ethics Committee. Do not do that. That is not right, it is not fair, and it is wrong. It is wrong for the American people.

Everyone in the world looks to America--everyone in the world. When we start weakening our rules around here, and weakening the rights of the people to exercise the rights they have been given as Senators, we are in a lot of trouble.

So, Mr. President, I have gone through a number of issues, starting off with the most solemn, which was reading the names of those in the military who have died, who were either from California or were based in California. I promised my constituents I would always come to the floor periodically to remember them. The saddest thing: 26 percent of the dead soldiers happened to be either from California or based in California. That is a huge number. So it is with a very heavy heart that I did that.

But we have a lot to do, a lot on our agenda. I hope we will stay focused on the things that matter to the people--on the things that matter to the people. Let's not spend time changing the rules of the Senate that we have had for so many years. Let's not do that. Let's do the work. Let's get a success strategy for Iraq. Let's get health care for our people. Let's get education for our children. Let's make sure the air is clean and the water is safe, that we protect our beautiful places. Let's make sure we attack this issue of gas prices, which in my State we are seeing $3 a gallon. I wrote to the FTC, and I said: Please investigate what is going on with the refiners. Please look at these mergers that are coming at us now that will make it even worse.

We have work to do. But, no, we have to have our leader go on a Sunday, or whatever, and--big publicity--address a group about changing the rules of the filibuster. This does not meet the test, it seems to me, of doing the job.

We know there will be fallout. That is the nuclear option, and nuclear explosions have fallout. It doesn't mean shutting down the Senate, but I can assure you, it is going to mean working harder in the Senate, working really hard, working on some things that maybe we haven't worked on in a while, forcing that. But I have to tell you, 205 to 10, you should be smiling, not frowning, not addressing people and saying how terrible you are doing. You should be happy. It is a heck of a lot better than a lot of Democratic Presidents have done. You should be happy.

You should bring us judges that are mainstream, and there wouldn't be any filibusters. I have supported so many. You succeeded 205 times. You failed 10 times because you tried to put people on there who really were so far out of the mainstream it would be dangerous.

Can't we compromise this thing and come together? Let's get back to work.

I ask unanimous consent that my prepared text on the Weldon amendment be printed in the Record.