Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon completion of my remarks Senator Harkin be recognized for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, it has been quite a while since the Senate has been in session. I spent the entire time traveling up and down my State learning a lot from my people, as I always do. I am coming back here ready to work for as long as it takes to protect the American people, to do what we can about the health care crisis, Medicare, and the rest. How much we get done is going to be up to us. Of course, the leadership around here has to go to the bills that will make us safe, help our seniors, take up the issue of health care, and will get the deficits under control. That is their job. We will see what happens.

I hope we go to Homeland Security appropriations because there is a lot of work we need to do on that bill to make sure it truly does protect the American people.

Best Wishes to Former President Clinton

Mr. President, I want to use this opportunity to send my best wishes to President Clinton as he recovers from very serious surgery, which, thank the Lord, appears to be successful. I know the first few days are the toughest. We have had a number of calls into our office from my constituents. I wanted to say that if they want to send a message to President Clinton, they should, if they have access to a computer, go to the following site: www.clintonpresidentialcenter.org. Then they can go to the right side of the page and there is a link where they can send personal best wishes to President Clinton.

As usual, President Clinton is going to teach the country something about heart disease. I thought I would take a moment to say this is something I have been working on for years, since 1997. I introduced the Women's Cardiovascular Disease Research and Prevention Act. I was proud to do it with Congresswoman Maxine Waters. Together, we wrote this bill and it was to expand and coordinate the efforts of fighting heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases in women.

A lot of women don't think cardiovascular disease--heart attack and stroke--is a threat to them. Yet, if you look at the numbers, nearly 500,000 women die of cardiovascular disease each year. The number is far less for breast cancer. Of course, we live in fear of breast cancer, which kills far fewer. But cardiovascular disease in women is the biggest killer. More than 20 percent of Americans have some kind of cardiovascular disease, with over half being women.

So President Clinton, I know, is going to do very well. He has taught us so many things about issues and I know he will teach us a lot about how to prevent heart disease and how to make sure, if you have a family history, you take the right exams so that you find out early if you have it. I am proud my bill became law in 1998 as part of a larger bill on women's health.

American Deaths in Iraq

Mr. President, according to CNN this morning, there have been 999 total U.S. deaths in Iraq. We are one away from 1,000 deaths. When the President stood on the carrier with the ``mission accomplished'' sign behind him, 138 of our soldiers had died. That was May 1, 2003. Since the President declared mission accomplished--and he did it, as many of us said on both sides of the aisle, without a plan for the aftermath of the war, which was brilliantly executed--we have lost 861 more soldiers.

When I was home, I met with veterans from this war and the one in Afghanistan. Mr. President, 6,916 Americans have been injured in Iraq. According to a report in the L.A. Times, 57 percent have been injured so severely that they are unable to return to duty. I asked what the suicide rate was in Iraq. I learned from the military that the suicide rate is very high--64 percent higher than the suicide rate in our country, and it is 34 percent higher than in any other war theater. So we better be ready for the veterans who are coming back from that war, with 6,916 wounded.

The Washington Post got hold of the veterans budget of this administration, and what did they learn? They learned that the Bush draft budget for 2006 includes an overall VA cut of $910 million. If we love our soldiers--and I believe we all do--how could we possibly cut the VA budget at a time when we are getting close to, at this point, 7,000 injured vets coming home?

The total of California's deaths is 254. I have paid tribute to each and every one of those who died from California--those who were either born in California, lived in California, or went to Iraq or Afghanistan from a California base. Today, I want to pay tribute to 48 more casualties that happened between the time we left 6 weeks ago and now.

This relates to those killed in Iraq, not Afghanistan, since July 5. All of them are from California or based in California. So I will go through these names.

LCpl John Vangyzen, age 21. Lance Corporal Vangyzen died on July 5 as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, at Twentynine Palms, CA.

LCpl Michael S. Torres, age 21, died July 5 as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Twentynine Palms, CA.

Cpl Dallas L. Kerns died on July 5 as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, at Twentynine Palms, CA.

LCpl Justin T. Hunt died July 6 as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar

Province. He was assigned to 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Lejune, NC. He was from Riverside, CA.

SPC William R. Emanuel, IV, age 19, was from Stockton, CA. He died July 8 in Baghdad. He was in the Iraqi National Guard Headquarters when it came under a mortar attack. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, Schweinfurt, Germany.

Cpl Terry Holmes, age 22, died July 10 due to a noncombat-related vehicle accident in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton,

Mr. President, I did not have any time limit on my unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent for enough time until I conclude these names and another 10 minutes to talk about other issues. It should be another 10 to 15 minutes.

If the Presiding Officer could tell me when I have used 10 minutes.

I wish I did not have to take so much time, Mr. President. These are 48 of our best and brightest over there.

LCpl Bryan P. Kelly, age 21, died July 16 due to injuries received from enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to 1st Combat Engineer Battalion, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA.

SSgt Michael J. Clark, age 29, died July 20 due to combat action in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to Combat Service Support Battalion 1, Group 11, 1st Force Service Support Group, Camp Pendleton, CA.

LCpl Mark E. Engel, age 21, died July 21 at Brook Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, TX, of multiple wounds he received as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, Camp Lejune, NC. He was from Grand Junction, CA.

LTC David S. Green, age 39, died July 28 due to enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was a reservist assigned to Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 775, Marine Aircraft Group 16, 3D Marine Air Wing, Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar, CA.

GySgt Shawn A. Lane, age 33, died July 28 due to enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to Headquarters Battalion, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton,CA.

SPC Armando Hernandez, age 22, died in Samarra, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device exploded near his guard post. He was assigned to the Army's 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry, 1st Infantry Division, Schweinfurt, Germany. He was from Hesperia, CA.

Sgt Juan Calderon, Jr., age 26, died August 2 due to enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Cpl Dean P. Pratt, age 22, died August 2 due to enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA.

CPT Gregory A. Ratzlaff, age 36, died August 3 due to a noncombat- related incident at Forward Operating Base Duke, Iraq. He was assigned to Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 166, Marine Aircraft Group 16, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, San Diego, CA.

GySgt Elia P. Fontecchia, age 30, died August 4 from injuries received from enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, CA.

LCpl Joseph L. Nice, age 19, died August 4 due to enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, CA.

Sgt Moses D. Rocha, age 33, died August 5 due to injuries received from enemy action in An Najaf, Iraq. He was assigned to Battalion Landing Team 1/4, 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Sgt Yadir G. Reynoso, age 27, died August 5 due to enemy action in An Najaf Province. He was assigned to Battalion Landing Team 1/4, 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Camp Pendleton, CA.

LCpl Larry L. Wells, age 22, died August 6 due to enemy action in An Najaf, Iraq. He was assigned to Battalion Landing Team 1/4, 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Cpl Roberto Abad, age 22, died August 6 after being struck by an exploding mortar during enemy action in Najaf. He was assigned to Battalion Landing Team 1/4, 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Camp Pendleton, Ca. He was from Los Angeles, CA.

LCpl Jonathan W. Collins, age 19, died August 8 due to enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA.

LCpl Tavon L. Hubbard, age 24, died August 11 in a helicopter crash in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to the Command Element, 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Camp Pendleton, CA.

SSgt John R. Howard, age 26, died August 11 in a helicopter crash in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 166 (Reinforced), 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar, CA. He was from San Diego, CA.

LCpl Kane M. Funke, age 20, died August 13 as a result of enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, CA.

PFC Fernando B. Hannon, age 19, was killed August 15 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, Ca. He was from Riverside, CA.

PFC Geoffrey Perez, age 24, was killed on August 15 from an explosion while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA. He was from Los Angeles, CA.

LCpl Caleb J. Powers, age 21, died August 17 due to enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, CA.

Sgt Harvey E. Parkerson, III, age 27, died after sustaining a fatal gunshot wound to the head while conducting combat operations in Najaf Province. He was assigned to Battalion Landing Team 1/4, 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable), Camp Pendleton, CA. He was from Yuba City, CA.

PFC Nachez Washalanta, age 21, died August 21 from injuries received due to enemy action in Al Anbar Province. He was assigned to 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton,

I will.

Yes.

Mr. President, how much time remains on my time?

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes after my additional 5, so it would be an additional 10.

If I could respond to my friend, and also say to my friend from Iowa, I have found there is so little focus on these young men and women who are sacrificing. We do not see them when they come home. We do not hear about them and the ones who are wounded. I say to my friend, and he may not be aware of this, one more soldier and we are going to see a thousand dead. It is 999 today.

Right, 999. Now is the time, if ever there were a time, to reflect on this policy. Now, President Bush says we are not turning back. One has to ask themselves: What does that mean? We are not turning back from what? We are not turning back from a war without a plan?

Well, I hope we will get a plan. We need a plan. Just as we had a military plan, we need a plan. Things are at a state now where I have to come and take the time to do this. There is discontent on the other side. It takes a long time to read 48 new names of Californians. Is that not the least we can do? I have talked about what the potential of each of them was. These are the sons and daughters of our people.

Yes.

I say to my friend, when I opened up my remarks, I stated that 6,916 Americans have been injured in Iraq. My friend is right, it is an enormous number. According to a report in the L.A. Times, 57 percent have been injured so severely that they are unable to return to duty. These are very severe injuries.

My point is, is this the time, then, to have a budget that the President--we found out about it because The Washington Post got a copy--cuts VA by $910 million? There are these many Americans, and God knows what the total will be by the end of the month.

``We are not turning back.'' The President says that over and over again. ``We are staying the course.'' Well, why do we not look at this course? Why do we not look at these policies? Why do we not see if there are ways to better handle this, to internationalize this, to take the burden off of the backs of our young people, as Senator Kerry has said? Where is the plan?

I yield to my friend.

Absolutely. The sad truth is we got a copy of their budget.

President Bush, this is going to be an issue. People are going to take a look at this. It is one thing to send our troops to war; it is another thing to not be there with what they need when they come back. And we are going to make that an issue.

There is one other thing we need to make an issue because there are some things going on in this country that are on the wrong track. I know my friend agrees with this. The seniors in this country just got hit with a 17.4-percent increase in their Medicare premiums. I say to my friend from Iowa, who is a champion not only of veterans but of seniors and children and education and all these other issues, how are our elderly going to handle this? This is the largest single premium increase in nearly 40 years of history with Medicare.

My friend and I know why. The No. 1 reason is this: This administration worked on a Medicare bill that has a $14 billion slush fund to the HMOs, to ``convince them,'' to convince them to take Medicare patients. That is $14 billion.

What else? Medicare is prohibited from negotiating for lower drug prices. I say to my friend, if you walked down the street in Des Moines or anywhere in your State, and you went up to someone and said: Guess what. The Government is telling you you can't shop around for the best price. If you want to go around and buy a bike for your kid, you have to go to Mike's bike shop, not Ray's bike shop or Barbara's bike shop.

Your constituents would say: Senator, if that is the kind of Government I have, hey, this is not the country I know it is.

Yet and still, this administration, backed by the majority party, tied Medicare's hands. Now our people are paying through the nose and they are frightened.

I have been home for the last 2 months, and my senior citizens--first of all, they say this is the worst prescription drug benefit they ever saw. They don't understand it. The only time they can take advantage of it is if they fit a certain profile. Most of them don't even want it. Now they have to pay for something they didn't want because it is built into these premiums. That is what the administration says. They are giving you a great new benefit. Now you pay for it. And they are paying for a slush fund for the HMOs.

Here is the deal. This President says we are not going back; we are not changing course. All well and good if the course is working. But when it is not working, when we are paying the cost of Iraq, 90 percent of it both in the injuries and in the pocketbook, and we are spending now in excess of $200 billion over there and the deficits are--what are they now, $400 billion plus? The highest ever in the history of our country? Stay the course? Don't turn back from debts that are falling on our people? Don't turn back from Medicare premium increases?

I ask for 1 additional minute.

So it is one thing to stand in front of a microphone and say don't turn back, if you have policies that are working. But when you have policies that are costing us lives in Iraq, 90 percent of the casualties, 90 percent of the cost, and then you turn your back on our allies? When the President landed on that ``mission accomplished'' carrier, our allies begged to help us in Iraq. Oh, no, we weren't going to share the spoils of this with them. The rebuilding was just going to Halliburton folks.

That is the price our people are paying. I love them dearly and I want to see them come back home and be relieved by people from all over the world. And I want to see our senior citizens not have to choose between medicine and food. This is wrong.

So, hopefully, we will see some changes in this country. I think you and I agree they are sorely needed. I yield the floor.

Right.

Good one.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that is important to the security of our air travel: ensuring that our Nation's flight attendants receive anti-terrorist security training.

On September 11th, as we all know, the terrorists hijacked four commercial jets--all of which were heading to California. And while I can say that air travel today is more secure than it was before the terrorist attacks, I still believe that we have more to do--which was proven with the information recently that a flight between LAX and Dulles is a ``flight of interest.'' There are still threats out there.

It is unacceptable to have loopholes in our aviation security--nearly 3 years since the attack.

In addition to air marshals and armed pilots, flight attendants are part of the last line of defense. The most obvious case is Richard Reid--the shoe bomber who was stopped with the help of a flight attendant. That was a courageous--and life saving--act. All flight attendants should be trained and ready to respond to these types of incidents.

As part of the Department of Homeland Security legislation in 2002, we passed strong flight attendant security training, which I helped write with former Senator Bob Smith. Unfortunately, last year, much of that was repealed--at the insistence of a single member of the House-- in the FAA Reauthorization bill.

Therefore, I am introducing legislation today that would reinstate the flight attendant security training included in the Homeland Security bill. The bill would restore the law requiring uniform anti- terrorist training for all flight attendants.

We took a great step forward in 2002. We should not have gone backwards to create a loophole in our aviation security.

We cannot stop fighting terrorism. Well-trained flight attendants are key. We do not have enough air marshals on planes, and the Administration is slow-walking the guns in the cockpit program. We need to rely on our flight attendants now more than ever. We must ensure they get the training they need.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that is important to the security of our air travel: ensuring that our Nation's flight attendants receive anti-terrorist security training.

On September 11th, as we all know, the terrorists hijacked four commercial jets--all of which were heading to California. And while I can say that air travel today is more secure than it was before the terrorist attacks, I still believe that we have more to do--which was proven with the information recently that a flight between LAX and Dulles is a ``flight of interest.'' There are still threats out there.

It is unacceptable to have loopholes in our aviation security--nearly 3 years since the attack.

In addition to air marshals and armed pilots, flight attendants are part of the last line of defense. The most obvious case is Richard Reid--the shoe bomber who was stopped with the help of a flight attendant. That was a courageous--and life saving--act. All flight attendants should be trained and ready to respond to these types of incidents.

As part of the Department of Homeland Security legislation in 2002, we passed strong flight attendant security training, which I helped write with former Senator Bob Smith. Unfortunately, last year, much of that was repealed--at the insistence of a single member of the House-- in the FAA Reauthorization bill.

Therefore, I am introducing legislation today that would reinstate the flight attendant security training included in the Homeland Security bill. The bill would restore the law requiring uniform anti- terrorist training for all flight attendants.

We took a great step forward in 2002. We should not have gone backwards to create a loophole in our aviation security.

We cannot stop fighting terrorism. Well-trained flight attendants are key. We do not have enough air marshals on planes, and the Administration is slow-walking the guns in the cockpit program. We need to rely on our flight attendants now more than ever. We must ensure they get the training they need.

Madam President, I am pleased and honored to salute Walter Johnson, the distinguished secretary-treasurer of the San Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO. Walter is retiring after nearly two decades in this position and more than 50 years of outstanding service to the labor community and the people of the San Francisco Bay Area.

Born in North Dakota, Walter Johnson served his country in World War II and settled in San Francisco after his discharge. He got a job as an appliance salesperson at Sears Roebuck and joined Local 1100 of the Department Store Employees Union. Rising through the ranks of the union, he became its business agent in 1957 and was elected president a year later. He was elected secretary-treasurer in 1964 and reelected 11 times.

Walter was elected secretary-treasurer of the labor council in 1985, and has held this top post ever since. As the leader of more than 80,000 workers in 140 local unions and constituency groups, Walter Johnson represents the face and voice of San Francisco's labor movement.

He also embodies its heart. Walter's compassion and commitment to social justice are legendary. In the 1950s, he played a key role in breaking the color line by helping the first African American woman secure a position behind the counter at Woolworth's. Over the past half century, he has fought for workers' rights at home and in foreign lands including China and South Korea. A cancer survivor himself, he has been a leader in the fight against breast cancer. He is also active in his church, in promoting sports for children, and in the United Way of the Bay Area.

Walter has become a trusted friend and adviser to me and to other elected officials, but he never lets us forget that we work for the people not the other way around. Even after he retires, I will still hear Walter's voice and feel him tapping on my shoulder, reminding me never to forget the working men and women I represent.

After more than 50 years of service, even Walter Johnson needs a little time off. Along with thousands of his friends and admirers throughout the Bay Area, I wish him a long and pleasurable retirement.

Mr. President, as we are entering the fire season in California, I am today introducing the Healthy Firefighters Act.

Last year, I offered this bill as an amendment to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, and it passed the Senate by a vote of 94-3. Unfortunately, House Republicans insisted on dropping this important proposal in conference.

Last year my State experienced devastating wildfires. Those fires killed 24 people, including one firefighter. Over 750,000 acres burned. More than 3,700 homes were destroyed in five Southern California counties. Thousands of firefighters from local, State and Federal agencies responded to these fires.

Those firefighters--and in fact most firefighters who respond to Federal disasters--are at higher risk of long-term health problems because of exposure to several toxins, including fine particulates, carbon monoxide, sulfur, formaldehyde, mercury, heavy metals, and benzene. As a result, their long-term health should be monitored so that any consequences can be identified, leading to early detection and better treatment.

The Healthy Firefighters Act does just that. It requires long-term health monitoring of firefighters who respond to a crisis in any federally-declared disaster area. This long-term monitoring will be carried out by the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) in consultation with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The USFA will work with a locally based medical research university so that local experts are involved in this important effort.

This legislation is supported by the International Association of Firefighters, the National Volunteer Fire Council, and the California State Firefighters' Association. I ask unanimous consent that support letters from these organizations be placed in the Record.

We owe it to our Nation's firefighters. Our Nation's firefighters put their lives on the line to protect us. The least we can do is to help them remain healthy by providing long-term health monitoring. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

I ask unanimous consent that several letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as we are entering the fire season in California, I am today introducing the Healthy Firefighters Act.

Last year, I offered this bill as an amendment to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, and it passed the Senate by a vote of 94-3. Unfortunately, House Republicans insisted on dropping this important proposal in conference.

Last year my State experienced devastating wildfires. Those fires killed 24 people, including one firefighter. Over 750,000 acres burned. More than 3,700 homes were destroyed in five Southern California counties. Thousands of firefighters from local, State and Federal agencies responded to these fires.

Those firefighters--and in fact most firefighters who respond to Federal disasters--are at higher risk of long-term health problems because of exposure to several toxins, including fine particulates, carbon monoxide, sulfur, formaldehyde, mercury, heavy metals, and benzene. As a result, their long-term health should be monitored so that any consequences can be identified, leading to early detection and better treatment.

The Healthy Firefighters Act does just that. It requires long-term health monitoring of firefighters who respond to a crisis in any federally-declared disaster area. This long-term monitoring will be carried out by the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) in consultation with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The USFA will work with a locally based medical research university so that local experts are involved in this important effort.

This legislation is supported by the International Association of Firefighters, the National Volunteer Fire Council, and the California State Firefighters' Association. I ask unanimous consent that support letters from these organizations be placed in the Record.

We owe it to our Nation's firefighters. Our Nation's firefighters put their lives on the line to protect us. The least we can do is to help them remain healthy by providing long-term health monitoring. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

I ask unanimous consent that several letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I share with my colleagues, the memory of a remarkable woman, Mary Miyashita of Whittier, CA, who died on Sunday, April 25, 2004. Mary was 83 years old.

Mary Miyashita was born in Los Angeles. She grew up in a traditional Japanese household until she was sent as a young woman to internment camps in Santa Anita, CA and Gila, AZ during World War II. While in camp, Mary met Eleanor Roosevelt and was introduced to the work of the Quaker organization: The American Friends Service Committee. This organization helped obtain early release of college-aged persons from camp. These life-changing events later gave Mary the drive and persistence to become involved in social causes and politics.

Mary was an extraordinary woman, with great devotion to her family, her community and our Nation. Mary was a beloved wife and mother. She was admired by many for her strength and conviction. Mary was dedicated to making a difference in the world, and she did. Mary had great passion and believed in basic kindness to all humans.

Mary's work in politics helped shape our Nation. Throughout the years, she was involved in many important history changing causes, such as civil rights movements, peace demonstrations, education and literacy drives. She was a founding member of the first Asian Pacific Caucus, and a founding member of the Women and Children's Crisis Shelter in Whittier. Mary was also a member of the executive boards of the League of Women Voters, Meals on Wheels, Women for Peace, Whittier Area Fair Housing Committee and the Whittier Area Education Study Council.

Mary Miyashita is survived by her husband, Kazuo and her three children, son, David Miyashita, and daughters, Jean and Carole Miyashita, and son-in-law, John Martinez. She was an exceptional individual.

I am proud to recognize the legacy of Mary Miyashita. We can take comfort in knowing that future generations will benefit from her courage, her vision and her leadership.

Mr. President, I am glad to hear Senator Allard say he welcomes the debate because that is the reason I came to the Senate floor today: to debate this issue. As someone who has been married 42 years, as a Democratic woman, I believe I can talk about marriage and what we need to do to strengthen marriage.

Unfortunately, there is not one item on the table here that strengthens marriage and helps people stay married, that helps the family, and that is going to be part of what I talk about.

It is interesting that Senator Allard said there is a great difference between Republicans and Democrats on this issue. I beg to differ with him. You cannot say you stand and speak for all Republicans today. In the ``Roll Call,'' it says:

True Conservatives Oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment.

George Will:

Amending the Constitution to define marriage as between a

man and a woman would be unwise for two reasons.

Constitutionalizing social policy is generally a misuse of

fundamental law. And it would be especially imprudent to end

state responsibility for marriage law at a moment when we

require evidence of the sort that can be generated by

allowing the states to be laboratories of social policy.

That is George Will, a Republican syndicated conservative columnist.

Then we have Lynne Cheney, wife of Dick Cheney, a Republican:

I thought that the formula [Dick Cheney] used in 2000 was

very good. First of all, to be clear that people should be

free to enter into their relationships that they choose. And,

secondly, to recognize what's historically been the

situation, that when it comes to conferring legal status on

relationships, that is a matter left to the states.

That is none other than Lynne Cheney, the wife of the Republican Vice President, a Republican herself and conservative.

Then there is Bob Barr, former Congressman from Georgia and author of the Defense of Marriage Act:

Marriage is a quintessential state issue. The Defense of

Marriage Act goes as far as is necessary in codifying the

federal legal status and parameters of marriage. A

constitutional amendment is both unnecessary and needlessly

intrusive and punitive.

Bob Barr.

Senator Alan Simpson, a former Senator from Wyoming, Republican conservative:

A federal amendment to define marriage would do nothing to

strengthen families--just the opposite. And it would

unnecessarily undermine one of the core principles I have

always believed the GOP stood for: federalism.

That is Alan Simpson, a former Republican Senator.

Then Lyn Nofziger, former White House Press Secretary and assistant to President Ronald Reagan, a Republican:

There are two kind of amendments. One kind would give the

federal government more authority, usually at the expense of

the states, and broaden its intrusions into the lives of its

citizens. These include--

And he lists the ones with which he disagrees, with which I do not agree. He says the equal rights amendment would do that. He also says that proposals to ban same-sex marriage and abortion would violate federalism.

He says:

I favor neither of the latter two but I oppose

constitutional amendments that would ban them.

In other words, he agrees that gay marriage is not what he supports, but he does not believe in this constitutional amendment.

Mr. President, I say to Members of the Senate and anyone else listening to the debate, let's be clear, when the manager stood up and said Republicans and Democrats have a different approach, he forgot about a few Republicans who do not agree with him: George Will, Lynne Cheney, Bob Barr, Alan Simpson, and Lyn Nofziger. And by the way, quite a few on his side of the aisle stated they do not support the amendment. Let's be clear here, this is not a question of Republicans versus Democrats.

After today, we have 27 legislative days until adjournment--27 legislative days to deal with the most pressing issues of the country.

There were three developments around here in the last few days that underscore the work we should be doing right now.

First, we were all summoned to the secret briefing room here in the Capitol and told we were under the threat of attack from al-Qaida between now and election day. Why is it that I can tell you this if it was secret? Because it has been all over. Immediately from that room came Tom Ridge, the head of the Department of Homeland Security, to a press conference to announce this threat. This is serious. Let's put up what Tom Ridge said so my colleagues can see it for themselves:

Credible reporting now indicates that al-Qaeda is moving

forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in

the United States in an effort to disrupt our democratic

process.

July 8, 2004.

I have a question to my colleagues in the Senate and to all Americans who may be listening to this debate: What is more important to you, what is more a threat to you--al-Qaida moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in America to disrupt our democratic process or two people who happen to be of the same gender moving in together down your street?

Let us be honest. However we feel about gay marriage or civil unions or domestic partnerships, however we feel on those matters, what is more of a threat to you and your family? You need to ask that question, put aside politics, and whatever answer you come up with, I have to believe most would say al-Qaida, not Mary and Carol or Jim and Carl, but al-Qaida, people whose names we do not know.

That is the first thing that happened last week. What else happened. A new report was released showing that the intelligence of our country is in disarray, intelligence we relied upon, intelligence that was used to make the case for war where more than 800 of our beautiful Americans are dead and 5,000 or more of them are injured, some without legs, some without arms, some who will never be the same, most of whom will never be the same.

What is more important to America today? Fixing the intelligence problem--we do not even have a head of the CIA; maybe it is time we thought about getting someone to be permanently in charge--or worrying about two people of the same gender who move in together down your street? I believe you need to ask yourself that question as you watch us in the Senate in this debate: What is more important to you, to your family, to your security, to your children?

Some of you are worried about a draft; you are very worried about a draft. What is more important--fixing our intelligence, making sure al- Qaida cells are drummed out of this country?

By the way, I looked at reports from this administration 30 days after 9/11, and do you know what they told us? Al-Qaida was in 45 countries, including America. Not one cell was in Iraq. Instead of going after al-Qaida, we turned around and went into Iraq based on faulty information.

Our people are dead and dying to this minute, to this day, to this moment. I visit them at Walter Reed, and I see the damage done. There are many Californians. I pay tribute to every one of those brave, unbelievably patriotic, caring members of the armed services who have given their lives with honor, deep honor when your Commander in Chief asks you to sacrifice yourselves for a decision he has made. You are honorable. And, no, you did not die in vain when your Commander in Chief asked you to go. Of course not.

I ask you, with our people dying every day, with the intelligence failures we have seen--and by the way, in my opinion, not only was the intelligence wrong, not only was it misused, not only was it misinterpreted, it appears to me there was pressure brought to bear to skew that intelligence, and that is the next phase of our inquiry that we will go into.

What kind of pressure was put on people to come up with an opinion? How does that relate to all of this? Because we are not talking about ways to stop al-Qaida. We are not talking about ways to fix our intelligence. We are talking about amending the Constitution of the United States, which is a very serious thing to do. It has hardly been done in the history of our Nation. Our forefathers were brilliant about making a constitution that is so flexible that we do not have to amend it every other day, but that is what we are doing about two people of the same gender who may want to care about each other. That is what we are doing today. That is what we did yesterday. That is what we did Friday. That is what we will do tomorrow. If the Senate proceeds, that is what we will do for the immediate future.

I hope the Senate will not proceed to it with all that we have to do.

There is a third thing that happened. In addition to being warned by Tom Ridge, in addition to being told by a bipartisan committee that our intelligence is in disarray in this country, there is something else new. We have news yesterday that discussions are being held within this administration about whether and how to possibly postpone elections if there is an attack on election day or in and around election day.

To this Senator, to even consider postponing our elections, the most ardent symbol of American democracy, because of terrorist threats is nothing more than allowing the fear that they bring to rule this country. This country is too strong for that. This country is too great for that. With our men and women overseas, literally dying for the rights of other people to vote, how could we even consider postponing the election?

If this administration is so concerned about the possibility of terrorist attacks--and to listen to them and to read this clearly they are--and if they are even seriously thinking of disrupting the centerpiece of American democracy, then our priority in the Senate and in the administration should be how to best defend against those attacks, not how to close polling places. Talk about misplaced priorities. It is worse than Alice in Wonderland. One has to pinch themselves, in light of all that we know, that we are more worried as a Senate about two people of the same gender caring about each other wanting to visit each other in the hospital than we are about these unbelievable threats that are facing our Nation, and we are not doing anything about that.

Let me tell the American people who may be listening, as well as my colleagues, what is not being done to make them safer. We do not yet have a port security bill which has been voted

in a unanimous fashion out of the Commerce Committee. It would create command and control centers to improve security at America's ports. There has been no action by the full Senate.

My understanding is the bill was going to be brought here and there were difficulties with it on the other side of the aisle; the Republicans did not want to bring it up. Rail security, another bill voted unanimously out of the Commerce Committee, on which I serve, again there has been no action by the full Senate.

I have to say, in every report one reads Madrid is mentioned. The rail security problems are major.

So here we have a port security bill that unanimously came out of the committee, a rail security bill that unanimously came out of the committee, and those on the other side, the Republicans, are objecting to bringing those bills forward.

Transit security, $5 billion over the next 3 years to improve security on local transit systems approved by the Banking Committee in May, and there has been no action by the full Senate. Nuclear plant security, a bill to assess threats to and require improvements at nuclear facilities approved by another committee that I sit on, the Environment and Public Works Committee, there has been no action by the full Senate. Chemical plant security, a bill to require chemical facilities to have and implement a new security plan to protect against terrorist attacks approved again by the Environment and Public Works Committee October 2003, no action by the full Senate.

Airline security, the administration is cutting the number of air marshals. I had the privilege of writing the language in the air security bill that we passed after 9/11 to put air marshals on high- risk flights. What do we see? Cutting back on air marshals, not training enough pilots for the Federal flight deck officer program that allows for pilots to carry a weapon in the cockpit if he or she is trained as a sky marshal. The administration is not moving forward with that at all. They are slow-walking it. They have approved only a few pilots.

What about the threat of shoulder-fired missiles? I have been working on that with Chuck Schumer, Steve Israel, and others. They are slow- walking these countermeasures. We know there are tens of thousands of shoulder-fired missiles. Terrorist groups have them. They can buy them for very little money on the black market. We know that aircraft have been shot at and shot down. What are we doing about it? Again, slow- walking this.

While Air Force One is protected when the President travels, he has countermeasures on that plane, and I fully support it and thank goodness we have it, but if we can do it there--and in Israel they can protect their commercial airlines--why can we not do it here? I will tell my colleagues the reason. The other side does not want to bring up these issues. They want to worry about two people of the same gender caring about each other and they are going to make a whole deal over this for days and days.

We have been warned over and over again. The FBI warned us a long time ago about the threat of shoulder-fired missiles. They are slow- walking that. They are holding the port security bill at the desk, the rail security bill at the desk, the transit security bill at the desk, the nuclear plant security bill at the desk, the chemical plant security bill is being held at the desk.

How about the COPS Program? We all supported that. We want to put 50,000 more cops on the beat. We put 100,000--and I see my colleague, the senior Senator from California, and I know about the great work that committee did on the COPS Program. But, oh, no, the Bush budget request cuts the COPS program by 87 percent and no new hires.

So now we see why the Republicans want to talk about gay marriage. They cannot point to anything they have done in the past to make us safer.

Firefighters, the Bush budget cuts firefighter assistance by one- third and provides no funding for the SAFER Act to hire 75,000 new firefighters.

We all remember the heroes after 9/11 and how everyone, Republican and Democrat, rallied around our firefighters. The cynicism around this place is unbelievable.

First responders, the bill to provide FEMA assistance to local first responders was approved by the EPW Committee in July of 2003. There has been no action by the full Senate.

So I have shown--and I have not even gone into them in great detail-- what we ought to be doing if our focus is defending our homeland.

It seems we do not have any problem focusing our resources abroad, trying to bring democracy to others while this administration seems completely at a loss on how to protect us at home. It is extraordinary to me. To come out to a microphone and say to the American people, look at these threats, here are Tom Ridge's own words:

Credible reporting now indicates that al-Qaida is moving

forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in

the United States in an effort to disrupt our Democratic

process.

We then hear proposals discussed on how to delay the elections. This is pretty clear. But any leader who gives you this, and then doesn't step to the microphone and say: And, American people, we know how to protect you; we know how to make our ports safer; we know how to make our railroads safer; we know how to protect you against a guerrilla attack against a nuclear powerplant--oh, no, they give out iodine pills. That is what they do in this administration. They send iodine pills to people who live within 100 miles of a plant so they can be ``protected'' from cancer. It is extraordinary to me.

The other thing they do is they hold press conferences on the war in Iraq. Then they say it is going to get worse before it gets better. I don't understand that kind of leadership. Maybe I am old fashioned, but I think leadership is about seeing a problem and fixing it to the best of your ability--laying out the plans on how you are going to fix it. If you do not do that, you fail the test of leadership.

We need to be stronger at home. We need to be respected abroad. Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards are taking that message across this country. What I am trying to say today is that message is real.

I am saying there are many things we can do. I have just laid out 10 things we should be doing now instead of worrying about two people of the same gender moving down the street who happen to care about each other. But all we hear about is the fear part, and no plan. Remember how we had no plan for Iraq, except the military plan which was brilliantly executed, but then there was nothing after it? We have no plan to protect our homeland.

It is time to stop the fear mongering like this, unless you are going to say what we are doing to make us safer and carry it out. We have to start protecting our people, our homeland, and our democracy at home. But, again, what does the administration want to do? A constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage. A constitutional amendment that will deny--and make no mistake about it--millions of Americans equal rights because even if it doesn't say so explicitly, it will mean that those in domestic partnerships or in civil unions--which I strongly support--will not get equal rights or equal responsibilities.

Let's be clear. The authors of this amendment say it has nothing to do with domestic partnerships or civil unions; those are fine.

No. I will have later in my statement the lawyers who tell us that, in fact, it will be impossible for domestic partners or civil unions to receive anywhere near the same rights or responsibilities as married couples. This constitutional amendment, if it passes, would guarantee legal challenges to civil unions and domestic partnerships, as I said. That is David Reeves, a partner and legal expert at a well-respected law firm here in Washington.

How about the American Bar Association? They say:

The language of the constitutional amendment is so vague

that the amendment could be interpreted to ban civil unions

and domestic partnerships and the benefits that come with

them.

So be clear what you are doing. Even if you oppose marriage between people of the same gender, if you support civil unions or domestic partnerships, you are condemning them because they will not be able to have the same benefits. This constitutional amendment is divisive to this country. It even divided Lynne Cheney from Dick Cheney. Let's

just look at what Dick Cheney said before he changed his mind in this election year. This is the statement that now his wife supports:

The fact of the matter is we live in a free society and

freedom means freedom for everybody. And I think that means

that people should feel free to enter into any kind of

relationship they want to enter into. It's really no-one

else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit

behavior in that regard.

This is what he says:

I think different states are likely to come to different

conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there

should necessarily be a Federal policy in this area.

That was Dick Cheney in the year 2000. Now, because the President has decided that he needs to do this right now rather than keep us safe from al-Qaida and move forward and help us get our legislative packages through to protect the American people, that this is more important, then Vice President Cheney now supports the amendment. But his wife Lynne has taken a decidedly different view. I have, in fact, shown you that before. Her comments:

I thought the formula Dick Cheney used in 2000 was very

good. First of all, to be clear that people should be free to

enter into their relationships that they choose and secondly

to recognize what's historically been the situation, that

when it comes to conferring legal status on relationships,

that is a matter left to the States.

So when I say it is divisive to the country, it has divided Mrs. Cheney from Dick Cheney and that is just an example of how it divides people.

I will tell you the reason it does. First, it is unnecessary. The States are taking care of this. Second, we are enshrining discrimination into the Constitution, a document that is meant to expand rights. We have never, underline never, amended the Constitution to deny rights, to deny equality.

In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year, University of Chicago Law School professor, Cas Sunstein, noted that:

All of the amendments to the Constitution are either

expansions of individual rights or attempts to remedy

problems in the structure of government. The sole exception

being the 18th amendment that established prohibition and

that attempt to write social policy into the Constitution was

such a disaster that it was repealed less than 15 years

later.

The list of adopted constitutional amendments is short but impressive. There are the first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, that guarantees important liberties to the American people, from freedom of speech and the press, to the right to be secure in our homes, to the freedom of religion. It is the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments that undid the terrible injustices of slavery, ensuring African Americans the right to vote and guaranteeing everyone equal protection under the law.

Then there is the 19th amendment that gave women the right to vote. We know what a struggle that was. The suffragettes worked mightily, long and hard.

The 24th amendment banned poll taxes to further ensure that minorities have the right to vote.

The 26th amendment gave 18-year-olds the right to vote. I remember that debate was, if you are old enough to die for your country, you should be old enough to vote in your country.

It is quite an impressive list. It is a short list. It obviously sought to expand freedom and equality, and it did so.

The other day I happened to see my grandchild watching a show. They were singing a song--which I will not sing, so don't panic--which goes like this, in words:

One of these things is not like the other,

One of these things just doesn't belong.

This proposal before us today doesn't belong in the Constitution of the United States of America. That is why so many organizations, 127, have come out against this amendment. Let's take a look at them. It is a huge list. Many of these groups have absolutely no interest in the debate over same-sex marriage, but they share one common goal: Preventing discrimination from being written into our Constitution. Let me mention a few of these:

The Japanese-American Citizen League says:

The Japanese-American community is keenly aware of what it

means to be the target the Government sanctions and

implemented discrimination and mistrust. We believe

discrimination in any form is un-American.

The National Council of La Raza, the National Black Justice Coalition, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, the American Jewish Committee, the NAACP, the National Asian-Pacific American Women's Forum, the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda say that this will be the first time in history that an amendment to our Constitution ``would restrict the rights of a whole class of people in conflict with its guiding principle of equal protection.''

These Americans who are in these groups--and by the way, there are a lot of religious organizations in this group: The Religious Action Center, you have a number of religions--the Interfaith Alliance, University Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, Presbyterian Church Washington Office--a lot of these folks, not only do they not want to see discrimination written into the Constitution, but they believe the Constitution is a gift to us. I agree with that--a gift we inherited from giants among men who wrote it 217 years ago. We know no document is perfect, but when we amend the Constitution, it would be to expand rights, not to take away rights from decent, loyal Americans. This great Constitution of ours should never be used to make a group of Americans permanent second-class citizens.

This Constitutional amendment is so flawed it couldn't pass the Judiciary Committee. The leadership has to bypass the committee in order to get this bill before the full Senate. Sometimes that happens. We have seen it happen with various bills that come to the Senate floor. This isn't just a bill; this is an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It needs to get 67 votes in the Senate. We don't even know if a majority of the Senate is in favor of it; yet here it is. Instead of doing what they would do to protect our people, this is what we are doing.

This amendment would make it impossible, if it passed, for States to say that two people who love each other, care for each other, and are willing to die for each other, have no inheritance rights, equal hospitalization rights, or equal benefits under the law. That is an outrage.

Don't let anyone tell you: I am for this amendment because it basically says marriage is between a man and woman, but I support civil unions and domestic partnerships. You can't do it. The lawyers tell us that once this is enshrined in the Constitution, the States will not be able to confer equal benefits on civil unions or domestic partnerships. Marriage is not a Federal issue; it is a matter of State law. For some it is a religious issue. Some religions recognize same-sex marriages and some do not. Again, many religions oppose this amendment, including the Alliance of Baptists, Episcopal Church, the 216th General Assembly Presbyterian Church.

When I got married, it was a religious service and I had my civil recognition, so I had both religion and civil present. Guess what. The Federal Government wasn't involved. That was OK. That is the way it has been.

My State has a domestic partnership law. California's law I believe is a good start. It gives same-sex couples many of the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. It isn't perfect. I think we need to do more. But even this imperfect law means so much to some people in California. For this Congress to take that away from them by amending this Constitution is wrong and it is mean spirited. That is what experts tell us will happen. My State has made this decision. Other States are making their decisions. What is wrong with that?

The very same people who are always preaching States rights now feel they must move forward. I already gave you Vice President Cheney's statement about the fact that we live in a free society, freedom means freedom for everybody, and he didn't think there ought to be a Federal policy in this area. I believe those words of his from the year 2000 stand up. Frankly, the words he is uttering today are just bowing to the political pollsters. That is really a shame. The Constitution is too great a document for it to be used as a political football. The Constitution is too great a document to be used as an applause meter before a convention. Yet that is what we are seeing.

I don't know what message the people who are bringing this to you want to convey. Is it to send a message that certain Americans are inferior? I hope not. But that is a message that is being sent to a lot of people who are hurting right now.

I have heard my colleagues say the reason for this amendment is that the American family is in a fragile condition. One of my colleagues says marriage is under assault by gay marriage or gay relationships.

I want to tell you something straight from my heart. Not one married couple has ever come up to me and said that their marriage is under assault because two people of the same gender living down the street care about each other. If your marriage is under assault because of that, you have other issues that you should deal with.

If we were truly concerned about strengthening marriage and families in this country, I will tell you there are a lot of things we could do, just like we could do a lot of things to make us safer. There are a lot of things we can do.

We have not raised the minimum wage in 8 years. People are trying to hold their families together on a minimum wage. Two people working on a minimum wage are probably just at the poverty line. Why don't we raise our minimum wage and help our low-income families? We could pass a bill to make sure our families and our married couples have the same health insurance as we have. I think it is a great idea. Open it up. We could pass a bill like that. We could pass a bill to make sure all children have a high-quality education. We could fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act. That would take pressure off of our families. Instead of freezing the number of children in afterschool programs--and I have a lot in my heart about that because I wrote the afterschool law with Senator Ensign. We have frozen that program for 3 years. We have a million kids in it. That is another one. Open it up. Let these children in. Take the pressure off our families. Take the assault off our marriages. That would really help. Keeping our children safe until mom or dad comes home is something we could do.

Now we have some saying the amendment is needed to stop the activist judges. Not one Federal judge has ruled on the issue of same-sex marriage.

I have to say: Is this a new thing we now have on the other side? Suddenly they are upset about activist judges. I can understand if they are concerned about activist judges. Why did they vote for many of them for the most part? My colleagues voted to confirm James Leon Holmes. Regarding women's right to choose, where was the concern when he said the ``concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with the same frequency as snow in Miami.'' He is going to take that opinion that is so wrong and defies science and is so activist in nature so he can change the law.

Where was the concern about William Pryor, who our colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted for, who said the Federal Government should not be involved in the business of public education or the control of street crime? Imagine a Republican saying that when it was Dwight Eisenhower who wrote the very first public education bill.

All of a sudden, we have concern about activist judges when they are voting for activist judges every day.

This same William Pryor called the Voting Rights Act, which guarantees voting rights to all of us, an affront to federalism. They didn't have a problem with that.

What about Charles Pickering, who worked to reduce the sentence for a man convicted of burning a cross on the lawn of an interracial couple?

What about activist judges who stopped the State recount in the recent Presidential election and essentially decided that election when most legal scholars said, they won't do it, the Supreme Court will allow a recount to go forward.

On every count, this argument seems to me to be disingenuous and only before the Senate to hurt some people who are going to cast a tough vote, so use it in 30-second spots. Indeed, some of those 30-second spots have already begun.

Shame on us. This job is too important, this country is too great. The Senate means too much to too many people to use it like this. It is not right.

If this was really about activist judges, we would be debating this after a Federal judge has actually acted. By the way, the timing of that would be inconvenient for my colleagues on the other side because no Federal judge will act before the Democratic Convention.

What we see--and it is really sad, but it has to be said--is crass, cold-hearted politics. Distracting attention from the real issues facing our Nation, this constitutional amendment is being used as a weapon of mass distraction. Again, already it is being used in 30- second commercials.

I hope and I pray the people of this country will see this debate for what it is. Members are going to hear a string of speeches: We have to do this because marriage is under assault.

The next question is, If marriage is under assault, what are you doing to help make family life easier for our people, easier for our hard-working people at a time when women and men both have to work because it is so tough, at a time when actual wages have gone up 1 percent but the cost of health care almost 30 percent, the cost of gas up, the cost of college tuition up well over 20 percent, the worst job record in the last 3 years?

Since this administration took over, we have had the worse job creation record since Herbert Hoover. Fewer jobs are in existence today than when George Bush took over. Do Members want to take the strain off of our marriages, off of our families? Let's have an economic recovery. Let's stop the good jobs from going abroad by giving incentives to create jobs here. Let's raise the minimum wage. Let's assure the people of this country that they will be protected from the threat of shoulder-fired missiles.

When we go up to that secret room upstairs and we are told that al- Qaida is moving forward to disrupt our democratic process and to attack our country, what do we come down here to do? Nothing to take away that threat. Holding bills at the desk, including rail security, transit security, port security, chemical plant security, nuclear plant security--I could go on with the other issues we ought to be discussing. But, no, we do not have time to take care of that.

Now I hear we are going to go to the Australian free-trade agreement after this. I love the Australians and they are great friends of America. But I love the people I represent, too. And when I see threats like this, I cannot sleep at night, worried about it. I didn't come here to stand and debate constitutional amendments that do nothing to make life better for anyone in this country. But that is what they want to do. It is a very sad day.

We are all God's children. No two of us are alike. We have different color eyes. We have different color hair. We have different color skin. We are different genders, different religions, different backgrounds, different views. I come from a State of 35 million people, the most unbelievably diverse State in the Nation. Yes, different sexual orientations is part of that mix. We are all different. Yet we are all God's children. We are all united behind this country and the common cause of freedom, justice, fairness, and equality. That is what unites us.

In this Chamber, we have a job to do. That is to advance the cause of freedom and justice and equality, and to advance the status of our people economically. Doing this does not help any of it.

A constitutional amendment before the Senate is an attempt to use our diversity to divide us instead of to unite us. Ironically, it is being brought by the President and his friends in the Senate who said he would be the great uniter, a healer; that he would change the tone in Washington.

The tone has changed. It is worse than it has ever been in all my years here, and this is the end of my second term in the Senate. I was in the House for 10 years. Before that I was in local government. I have never seen a worse tone.

This constitutional amendment is an attempt to appeal to our prejudice instead of to our compassion, to our hatreds instead of to our hopes, to our fears instead of our dreams. The constitutional amendment is an appeal to

what is the worst in us instead of what is best in us. We are better than that, or we should be better than that.

In his first inaugural address, Republican President Abraham Lincoln appealed to the better angels of our nature. This amendment flies in the face of those words.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about gay marriage, regardless of whether Members are for domestic partnerships or civil unions--which, again, I strongly support--regardless of whether Members support or oppose the laws in their State, this constitutional amendment should be defeated, and the motion to proceed, if it is a vote on that, I hope that fails, as well. The signal will be, when we defeat this motion to proceed, the message we are sending is we want to get to the business of the American people that will make marriages better and stronger, that will protect our people from threat of terrorist attack, not to sit here and talk about a constitutional amendment which the author knows hasn't got one slim chance of passing. He is taking up valuable time on an issue that does nothing at all to help our people.

I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. I urge my colleagues to put the Constitution above any political gain. I urge my colleagues to put the Constitution above their political well-being.

Here is what I have known in the many years I have run for office. When you take a stand out of deep conviction, people know. They may not even agree, but they ask, Do I want someone who is willing to take a hard stand and someone I can trust to do that when the chips are down? They want that. They will see that is what a true patriot is, not someone who reads the polls and says the polls show this or that. The point in the Senate sometimes is to lead. I wish it would be that way every day, but especially it should be that way when there is an amendment to the Constitution. I hope once we dispose of this and vote down the motion to proceed, and they do not get enough votes on that, we can turn our attention to the awesome challenges and the difficult issues we face. Once we send that signal, America will see we did right by the Senate, we did right by our constituents, and we did right by this country that we love so much and we hold so dearly.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in April of 2000, more than one hundred people gathered to dedicate a memorial for the victims of drunk driving. The memorial, created by The Victims of Drunken Drivers Memorial Wall Foundation, was constructed in Pacific Memorial Park in the city of Anaheim. The Victims of Drunk Drivers Memorial Wall has helped people remember those who were tragically lost, brought comfort to loved ones, educated the public and taught valuable lessons to students about this senseless crime. I salute the founders and the many volunteers who helped create this memorial.

In 2003, 17,401 people died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes. It is estimated that alcohol-related crashes kill someone every 30 minutes. The memorial reminds us that these victims are real people with families and loved ones left behind.

The Victims of Drunken Drivers Memorial Wall Foundation has honored victims and raised awareness since the year 2000. A wide range of individuals contributed to the memorial and helped make the project a success. For 4 years they contacted the thousands of families who lost loved ones and accepted small contributions to successfully raise $25,000. Law enforcement agencies have educated area children about drunk driving using the memorial and have held sessions at the memorial.

Judges also require convicted drunk drivers to visit the memorial and reflect on their actions.

I commend The Victims of Drunken Drivers Memorial Wall Foundation for their hard work. The memorial continues to reach families and serves as a constant reminder of the consequences of drunk driving. I wish the foundation continued success.

Mr. President, I know that most in the Chamber, and those who are in their offices, went home to their home States over the Fourth of July break. It is always a treat for me to do that because, frankly, I think I come from one of the most beautiful places in the world. For me to go to California and get ``rooted'' in why I want this job, to protect that beautiful place, and to protect the people who live there and to work for them, it is always a joy.

Constituents asked me: What are you going to be doing when you come back? They had asked me about a number of issues they cared about. They are worried about this economy. They say it is uneven. They point out that college tuition is going up more than 20 percent. They are squeezed. They point out that gasoline prices in our State are raging. It is costing them more. They point out that their health care premiums are going up. They are worried about even keeping health insurance. Some of them do not have any.

Those on Medicare are very worried about what they view as a false promise of the administration's Medicare proposal which was supposed to be so great for them in terms of prescription drugs. It turns out the thing is so bureaucratic and such a nightmare they cannot figure it out.

Not only that, they express shock when I tell them in that bill we do

something outrageous, saying to Medicare, you cannot negotiate for lower prices for the people on Medicare. Constituents say: Wait a minute. Why does that make sense? If you are sitting across the table from someone and you represent 40 million senior citizens, you have a good card in your hand that you can play. You can say, if you want to have your high blood pressure medicine on our formulary, if you want to have your heart medicine on our formulary, if you want to have an arthritis drug on our formulary, you have to give us a better deal.

No, this administration and the majority in this body decided to tell Medicare they could not negotiate for lower drug prices for our seniors.

When I go home, people are flooding me with these questions. They are very worried about Iraq. What is the plan? What is the plan to get more help there? Why are we spending so much there? Why aren't we focusing on our problems at home? This is what I heard all over my State.

They ask: Senator, what is on the agenda when you get back? Which one of these issues are you going to take up? What about rail security? We are worried about that because we have a lot of Amtrak ridership in California. What about nuclear plant security? When are you doing more about that? I have to tell them the truth; that is, I am not in charge. My party is not in charge of the Senate. The Republican leadership has chosen, instead of putting any of those issues you have mentioned on the agenda, they are taking up class action reform because there is too much forum shopping--at which point they look at me and ask, What?--and we have to protect business from these consumer complaints.

They kind of look at me quizzically and say: There are other things that mean a lot more to my family. Then they ask: What are you going to take up after you take up class action reform? We are going to talk about gay marriage. And they say: Well, wait a minute. Every day in my life I have all these pressing issues; I thought the States handled that issue. Well, I say, you are right; the States have always handled that issue.

I find it amazing, given the Republicans are in charge of this Senate and they always believe in States rights and local control, they are now going to bring up the issue of gay marriage, and not only take it up--it was taken up once before; Bob Barr in the House wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, and Bob Barr said that would take care of everything and still says it takes care of everything--but, no, they are going it take the most precious document known to human kind, the Constitution of the United States, and they are going to now talk about marriage in the Constitution. In fact, marriage has been sacred in the various religions, along with the rules surrounding marriage, and the States have handled marriage for years.

My constituents are completely confused. They have many worries. They have many concerns. They are worried about the fact they are not respected abroad. They are worried about this recovery that they see as very wobbly. They see better corporate profits--although those seem not to be going as well--and they do not see the increases in their standard of living.

If we look at the numbers, the increase in the take-home pay, when you include inflation and the high cost of living, has only gone up about 1 percent, while all the other issues have gone up over 20 percent, the issues people deal with every day.

Now I come back to Washington and I am called to a meeting in a secret room in the Capitol. The press knows all about this. We are called to a secret room in the Capitol. We have to discuss the threats to our country. This is very serious stuff. Of course, I cannot go into everything that was said, but I can state what has been reported in the press, which is not classified. And that is, we need to be on the alert at home. We have known since September 11 that al-Qaida has cells in our country and that they never give up. If they fail, they go back again. We know all this. We need to stay ahead of the threat.

That is why I am so proud to be on the Commerce Committee. I am so proud to have as part of the portfolio of the Commerce Committee, rail security, aviation security, and port security. These are key issues. Since Madrid, for example, and the horrible bombing of the train there, we need to be on our toes. That means we need to pass rail security legislation.

This is the great news I have for my constituents and for all Americans. At a time when we are in the middle of an election, where there is a lot of disagreement, where we have even seen language that is prohibited to be used in the Senate being used by the Vice President of the United States--in other words, a time where emotions are running high politically--guess what happened on rail security. Every single member of the committee voted for that bill--every single member. From liberal to conservative, to moderate, everybody voted for that bill. That means we could easily take up that bill. That means we could easily pass that bill.

But what do we have before the Senate? Class action. The people who want us to pass this bill say there is a lot of abuse and that we need to make sure we take these cases away from the States and put them more into the Federal courts. Again, I find it unbelievable that we have a Republican majority that keeps saying, States rights, States take care of it, States do it, but when they are not happy with the way it goes-- oops, forget that. As Roseanne Rosanna-Dana used to say, ``Never mind.'' Take it to the Federal court. Everyone knows what will happen there.

A lot of these cases are very important. We remember Dalkon Shield was one of those class action cases where women were dying. Not until there was a class action lawsuit was that fixed. That does not mean there aren't abuses. It does not mean that we cannot have reforms.

It does say to me that there is no crying need to take this up when we are called to room 407 for a secret briefing about the threats that face this country before the election. It is extraordinary to me. And I believe the American people who are watching what we do here are thinking: What is the Senate doing about my life, about my family, about what I need for my kids?

I went to a press conference on the minimum wage. Do you know the minimum wage has not been raised in 8 years? Every colleague here has had a pay raise. For 8 years the minimum wage has not been raised. People are living below the poverty line. Mr. President, 61 percent of those people happen to be women, many single moms. All we want is a chance to do that. We should do that by unanimous consent today. Why do we need to debate it? Eight years long and no increase in the minimum wage, zero.

These are people who work hard. These are not mostly teenagers; these are grownups who are working hard to support their families on the minimum wage. The cost of living has gone up 14 percent in those 8 years. The minimum wage has stayed stagnant. These people are falling, falling, falling, falling--and we talk about family values here? And we are rushing to do a marriage amendment when the States are taking care of that?

My State has decided what it wants to do. They have a law. It is not perfect. It says there are domestic partnerships and they have rights and responsibilities. We could make it better. But do you know what. My State has taken care of this, thank you very much.

It is all about politics, folks, let's face it. For 5 minutes, why don't we put aside politics and pass the minimum wage and help the millions of people who need it to be done? What are we talking about? We are talking about an increase, over a couple years, of $3,800 a year for these people, who will still be below the poverty line. I bet if you had a vote in this Senate, the way it is made up, to give more tax breaks to the people making a million bucks a year, it would fly through here, it would fly through this place, even though those in the million-dollar range are already getting back hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Imagine.

So every once in a while I come down to this Senate floor and I say: Why am I here? What are we doing? Are we meeting the needs of the people? And this is a perfect time to do it because there is a bill on the Senate floor that not one person in my State, except

high-paid lobbyists in very fancy suits, want to take up. This is true. The things we should take up, the things we talk about in that room, that secret room in the Capitol--making our rail systems safe, making our ports safe, making our buses safe--oh, no, we do not have time for that because after we do this for the big businesses in this country, oh, we are going to go on to gay marriage before the Democratic Convention so some people can cast a vote that might hurt them in their election. Shame on us. We should be better than that as Senators. We should be better. So I am going to give us a chance to be better.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2273

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to calendar No. 536, S. 2273, the Rail Transportation Security Act, that the bill be read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

I understand.

I will yield for a question.

Mr. President, I thank my friend. It is obvious he sees it the way I see it.

We were called up to a secret meeting today to hear about all the threats on our Nation. That is not an idle trip up to that room. If it is to mean anything, we better get busy. I meet with my local police and fire. Do you know what? When there is a terrorist attack, the White House does not get the call; the Senate does not get the call; the House does not get the call. They dial 911, and our local people--be they in Nevada, be they in New Mexico, be they in California--get the call. They are hurting.

The bill I wanted to get us to vote on today--and I have a couple of others I am going to ask since we got objection to this one. The Rail Transportation Security Act--this is one that passed out of the Commerce Committee, I say to the assistant Democratic leader, unanimously. It is very important. I will tell my friend what it does. The bill authorizes grants to all of our railroads and to hazardous material shippers for freight and passenger rail security. It is a critical bill.

We saw what happened in Madrid. You do not have to haul me up to any secret room. The minute we saw that happen in Madrid, the Commerce Committee, which the Presiding Officer of the Senate is on and participated in this, we for the second time voted in a unanimous fashion--100 percent of the committee--for this rail security bill. Unfortunately, there has been objection to it because the Republicans, who control the Senate, are not interested in moving this bill.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2279

So I am going to give them a chance to move another bill, and that is the port security bill. Port security is another bill that passed out of our committee without one dissenting vote. We know the problem at our ports. We have containers coming into them. They are not checking them. We do not know who is going to be putting something in one of those containers. We are doing better, but we are not giving it the attention it deserves.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to calendar No. 530, S. 2279, the Maritime Security Act of 2004.

I will be happy to yield.

I am from California. I was born in New York, but I am from California.

You said: I say to my friend from New York. I was born there, but I am from California and have been since I was 25 years old.

I know. When we have known each other 23 years, you will get it right, I know.

I am quite aware we have not done what Senator Hollings has long asked us to do. We have not done the work of homeland security. There is a lot of talk. There are a lot of meetings. There is a lot of yack-yack about it. But when it comes down to where we are putting the dollars and where we are putting the emphasis, we are on some bill here I can honest to God tell you, not one person except a highly paid lobbyist has ever talked to me about, class action. I can honestly tell you, on the gay marriage, people have a lot of views in my State, but they believe our State is handling that issue in a good way. So there is no reason to go to this.

In Madrid, 200 people died, 1,400 people were injured in that rail accident. And we go up to 407 up here and we hear all the talk about what we need to do. I am suggesting as a result of my unanimous consent requests today, both being objected to, when you have this majority party, it is very clear: there is a lot of talk, but there is no action.

That is a reason why people are disenchanted. It is the reason why people want change around here. They want us to be strong at home. They want us to be respected in the world. And it is time for many changes to occur. I am looking forward to those changes, to the day when we can vote these bills out of the Commerce Committee without one single objection, and no one on the floor here would then object to taking them up.

I yield the floor.

Will my friend yield?

I came to thank the Senator for bringing out that chart, if he would keep it up there for a minute, and for making this point to our colleagues and anyone else who might be listening. It is one thing for us to critique the administration and say they are not addressing the real issues. When I go home, people say this administration cares about everybody else in the world; there is money for everybody else in the world; we are going to help everybody else; we are going to help the people of Iraq. Fine, but they are going to have universal health care and we are not? They are going to have their classrooms built and we are not? And it goes on.

So what I believe our people want us to address is what is happening to them, and what my friend has done in a most eloquent way, as he always does, is to point out this middle-class squeeze that is hitting our people.

These are the problems I care about. I say to my friend, we have a bill about reforming class action. I have taken a look at some class action lawsuits, and I have realized that is one tool to help middle- class families who may be harmed by products that are not safe. So I do not know why they are running off to do that and they are ignoring all of these other things.

I guess my question to my friend is, As we debate the Presidential election and we have a point of view that this administration is ignoring this middle-class squeeze, do we not find that happening right here with the Republicans who are in charge of this Senate? Are they not ignoring this middle-class squeeze? The best way to prove the point is what they bring up before the Senate. Are they bringing up anything to deal with college tuition and giving tax breaks to those folks who so desperately need it? Are they doing anything at all to help with gas prices, health care premiums, or prescription drugs, or are we going to face, after this class action debate, these constitutional amendments my friend referred to that I have to say in all honesty and frankness I have never had one person in California come up to me and say: Senator, the most important thing facing us is gay marriage. That is just ruining my life. Take that up. Ban it because that is what I think about night and day. No. They tell me they are worried about paying college tuition; they are worried about filling up their gas tank; they are worried about not being able to afford prescription drugs.

So my question to my friend is, Could we not do more to implore this leadership to take up some of the issues that are really affecting the people we all represent?

Mr. President, last month California bid farewell to President Ronald Reagan. This month, on a happier note, we are greeting a great new ship named in his honor. On July 23, 2004, the people of California will welcome the USS Ronald Reagan, CVN 76, to her new homeport in San Diego.

As the Navy's newest and most technologically sophisticated aircraft carrier, the Reagan will project tactical airpower over the sea and inland while providing critical sea-based air defense and antisubmarine warfare capabilities.

It is proper and fitting that the new carrier be based in our State: Ronald Reagan was one of California's own. Though he traveled the world and served two terms in the White House, he always called California his home.

The Reagan crew will find a warm welcome in San Diego, a beautiful and vibrant city that is proud to be a navy town. San Diego is a cornerstone of America's national defense, and the Navy is a cornerstone of San Diego.

On behalf of the people of California, I want to welcome the USS Ronald Reagan and her crew to your new homeport. We are pleased and proud to have you with us, and we will do all we can to make you feel at home.

Mr. President, today I join Senators Smith, Chafee and Feingold in introducing legislation aimed at helping the 110 million orphans in the world. This legislation is a companion measure to Congresswoman Lee's bill that unanimously passed the House of Representatives last month.

Current estimates suggest that by 2010, there will be more than 25 million orphans worldwide as the result of the HIV-AIDS pandemic. We must do more to provide hope for these children. This legislation is an important step forward.

Our bill would authorize the President to provide assistance to orphans and other vulnerable children in developing countries. Specific authorization is provided in the areas of basic care, HIV-AIDS treatment, school food programs, protection of inheritance rights, and education and employment training assistance.

The legislation also calls on the President to use U.S. foreign assistance to support programs that eliminate school fees. Throughout the world, many orphans are prevented from attending school because they cannot afford to pay for school or are forced to financially support their families or care for sick relatives.

Finally, the bill would establish an Office for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children within USAID and a monitoring system that will ensure that U.S. assistance is effective. Right now, there is no office or individual within the Agency with responsibility for the overall oversight or implementation of programs for orphans and vulnerable children.

I look forward to working with Congresswoman Lee and the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, in passing legislation to address the tragic issue of AIDS orphans throughout the world.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter in support of this bill signed by the Global Action for Children be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I join Senators Smith, Chafee and Feingold in introducing legislation aimed at helping the 110 million orphans in the world. This legislation is a companion measure to Congresswoman Lee's bill that unanimously passed the House of Representatives last month.

Current estimates suggest that by 2010, there will be more than 25 million orphans worldwide as the result of the HIV-AIDS pandemic. We must do more to provide hope for these children. This legislation is an important step forward.

Our bill would authorize the President to provide assistance to orphans and other vulnerable children in developing countries. Specific authorization is provided in the areas of basic care, HIV-AIDS treatment, school food programs, protection of inheritance rights, and education and employment training assistance.

The legislation also calls on the President to use U.S. foreign assistance to support programs that eliminate school fees. Throughout the world, many orphans are prevented from attending school because they cannot afford to pay for school or are forced to financially support their families or care for sick relatives.

Finally, the bill would establish an Office for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children within USAID and a monitoring system that will ensure that U.S. assistance is effective. Right now, there is no office or individual within the Agency with responsibility for the overall oversight or implementation of programs for orphans and vulnerable children.

I look forward to working with Congresswoman Lee and the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, in passing legislation to address the tragic issue of AIDS orphans throughout the world.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter in support of this bill signed by the Global Action for Children be printed in the Record.