Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah because he promised me he would keep within the 15 minutes so that I could get the floor at this time, and I appreciate his cooperation.

I also thank my colleague, the senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, for her great leadership on this issue. I also have to express a little bit of dismay that she was not able to modify her amendment. It kind of gives one a clue that the people on the other side have a different agenda when they say they are not going to allow a colleague they respect and admire to send a modification to the desk.

So I thought I would want to place that on the record because we remember. These things we will remember because it is not right to not allow a colleague to modify an amendment that she has written. So the next time the other side wants to do it, we will have to think a bit. It is just sad. It is not the way the Senate should work.

Senator Feinstein has yielded me 10 minutes of her time, so if the Chair would tell me when I have used 9 minutes, I would appreciate it.

I am very much in favor of enhanced penalties for those offenders, those criminals, who harm pregnant women. I think Senator Feinstein's substitute amendment is one that does exactly that. What I do not support are the efforts of some Members of this body who clearly are the leaders of the anti-choice movement in the Senate. We have heard from them seriatim. They have just come right down and spoken. I do not support what they are trying to do, which is to undermine pro- choice laws, particularly Roe v. Wade.

Now, one can dress up a bill to make it look like anything one wants, but the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act, although they try to dress it up as a criminal statute designed to deter violence, I think has tremendous weakness in the way it is written and in the way it would prosecute a violent criminal who harms a pregnant woman. It is another effort to undermine Roe v. Wade, which as we know, has given women in this country the right to choose, and it is a very important right of privacy.

How do I know this is the supporters' motivation? It is easy for me because if they wanted to create a law that says we believe that a pregnant woman should be protected and we want to punish someone who harms a pregnant woman, it is a pretty easy thing to just support Senator Feinstein's amendment. It is clean; it is clear; she doubles the penalties just as they do in their bill. She avoids the issue, however, of a woman's right to choose, which this is not about. There is nothing about that in this bill.

The substitute that Senator Feinstein has offered to us, which is like

H.R. 1997, creates a separate offense when someone harms a pregnancy or terminates a pregnancy while in the commission of a violent Federal crime. That is very important to do because these crimes are heinous and all the more heinous if a woman is pregnant. As the author of the Violence Against Women Act in the House and working with Senator Biden for 10 years to get it through the Senate and the House and get it signed into law, Senator Feinstein's bill is in tune with that point that we will not stand by and allow violence against women. Particularly if a woman is pregnant, it makes the crime more vicious and it doubles the penalty for such a crime. It creates the same separate penalty for this separate crime, a maximum of 20 years for harm and a maximum of life in the event a pregnancy is terminated. It does not require proof that the offender had knowledge of the woman's pregnancy.

The sole difference between the substitute that Senator Feinstein is offering and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is that they want to bring in the issue of a woman's right to choose, and they want to make this bill about a woman's right to choose.

What on Earth does this have to do with a woman's right to choose? Nothing, not a thing. Senator Feinstein's substitute focuses on the pregnant woman. That is the issue, the pregnant woman. So one wonders why the other side cannot accept it. The answer is simple. Again, they are trying to make this about abortion, not about convicting a criminal.

I want to correct something. When I referenced the House bill, I meant to reference the Zoe Lofgren bill--and I am not sure of that number--not the House bill that is identical to Senator DeWine's bill. Zoe Lofgren in the House had a similar bill to Senator Feinstein's bill. That bill got a lot of support but not enough support.

Again, it is very simple why people over there who are anti-choice did not support the Lofgren bill, and they do not support the Feinstein bill, because they want to make this about abortion and they want to undermine Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose.

I am a little bit shocked because the experts who have written to us have told us that the bill that the anti-choice Senators are supporting would make it harder to convict a criminal.

For example, Peter Rubin, visiting associate professor at Georgetown Law Center, when he testified before the House Judiciary Committee, said:

The phrase ``child in utero'' is ambiguous and would

actually aid an offender in avoiding prosecution.

Imagine. It seems to me the other side is so anxious to undermine Roe and to confuse the subject and to make this bill about abortion, they are willing to pass an ambiguous bill which would actually aid the offender, the criminal, and would actually allow some heinous criminal to go free.

I ask unanimous consent that Peter Rubin's letter be printed in the Record.

Then you have Jon Jennings who in 1999 was the Acting Assistant Attorney General. He submitted a letter to Representative Henry Hyde on behalf of the Justice Department. He also wrote the law would be hard to prosecute because of the difficulty in gathering evidence.

I ask unanimous consent to have Jon Jennings' letter printed in the Record.

Then there is a recent letter of George Fisher, a tenured professor at Stanford, former prosecutor and expert on the criminal justice system. He, too, believes it makes things worse in terms of convicting a criminal.

I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes from my colleague.

I thank my colleague.

I ask unanimous consent the letter from George Fisher be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, according to the experts, creating a separate offense for a child in utero would make it less likely that someone who harms or terminates a pregnancy would be convicted of a separate offense. So I find it stunning that, rather than back Senator Feinstein's substitute, which is very clear--you harm a pregnant woman, you are going to do double the time, you are going to get double the punishment, and it avoids all question of Roe v. Wade--it shocks me my colleagues on the other side would rather have a weaker bill, soft on the criminal, soft on crime, in order to undermine Roe v. Wade. It is an injection of a political agenda into the criminal justice system which I think harms the integrity of the system.

Again, I am at a loss for words. That is hard for me to believe. But if you look at domestic violence groups, they will tell you how they feel about it. They say they don't support the legislation. They feel it would actually be harmful to battered women.

Again, as someone who coauthored the Violence Against Women Act with Senator Biden, here we have a piece of legislation that is going to be harmful to battered women. Yet the other side will not support Senator Feinstein's amendment, which absolutely avoids this problem.

Juley Fulcher, public policy director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, who testified before the House subcommittee in July 2003, said in her written statement:

The bill is not designed to protect women and does not help

victims of domestic violence. Instead, the focus often will

be shifted to the impact of the crime on the unborn embryo or

fetus, once again diverting the attention of the legal system

away from domestic violence or other forms of violence

against women.

I commend to my colleagues the July 8, 2003 testimony of Juley Fulcher before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Committee on the Judiciary.

We also have a letter from Lynn Rosenthal, the executive director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, and the letter of Esta Soler, president of the Family Violence Prevention Fund. I ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record.

Here we have it. I am going to finish with this. We have a bill before us Senator Feinstein has improved greatly. We have a bill before us that, instead of concentrating on punishing the violent criminal, concentrates instead on trying to set the stage to reverse Roe v. Wade, which the vast majority of people in this country think is a good law that balances the rights of the woman and the rights of the fetus. Yet they are so interested in doing this that they have a bill that is going to make it difficult to convict the criminal who commits the heinous crime against the pregnant woman. It shows you how far the other side will go.

When we reach out our hand, as we have done many times with them, they will not take our hand. They push it away, because they are much more interested in the political agenda of taking away a woman's right to choose.

My heart goes out to Laci Peterson's family and to all the other families that have experienced the tragedy of losing a loved one to a violent crime and, on top of that, losing the joy I and Senator Feinstein have of having grandchildren.

But we need to pass laws here that will make matters better, not make matters worse. We need to pass laws here that are clean, that will make the law clear and not murky. I think Senator Feinstein's substitute-- she wrote it with the Laci Peterson family in her heart. She wants to make sure criminals who would attack a pregnant woman are brought to justice and we don't get diverted to some other issues.

I am proud to stand with my colleague on this one. I know how hard this is. I know how hard she has worked. I will support her substitute very proudly, knowing it is the right thing to do, to crack down against these heinous crimes and to protect pregnant women.

I thank her very much, and I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of Senator Feinstein's time.

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 was that the bill 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 released $517 million in port security grants. This is not enough. According to the Coast Guard, it is estimated that the ports directly need $1.4 billion this year and $6 billion over the next ten years. Yet, the Administration only requested $46 million in its fiscal year 2005 budget.

Last year, I visited many of California's ports including Crescent City in the north down through Stockton to Los Angeles/Long Beach in the south. I have seen what the ports are confronting. They need more funding for homeland security.

And, with over 40 percent of the nation's goods imported through California's ports, freight rail is extremely important to the nation's commerce. 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 introducing the Senate version of a bill introduced by Representative Millender-McDonald. This legislation will 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 five years in grant funding; and--this is very important to California's ports--allow the federal government to make multiyear grants to help finance larger 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 was that the bill 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 released $517 million in port security grants. This is not enough. According to the Coast Guard, it is estimated that the ports directly need $1.4 billion this year and $6 billion over the next ten years. Yet, the Administration only requested $46 million in its fiscal year 2005 budget.

Last year, I visited many of California's ports including Crescent City in the north down through Stockton to Los Angeles/Long Beach in the south. I have seen what the ports are confronting. They need more funding for homeland security.

And, with over 40 percent of the nation's goods imported through California's ports, freight rail is extremely important to the nation's commerce. 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 introducing the Senate version of a bill introduced by Representative Millender-McDonald. This legislation will 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 five years in grant funding; and--this is very important to California's ports--allow the federal government to make multiyear grants to help finance larger 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 thank my colleague, Senator Stabenow, for those wonderful words about a fantastic woman who always supported other women in their endeavors. You are right, her spirit will live on.

I heard a little bit of Senator Lott's comments about Democrats playing politics with the bill before the Senate. No one should pay politics with a bill in the Senate, but no one should play with people's overtime. The reason it is so important to insist on a vote is I have millions of people in my State who will be adversely impacted because the administration wants to repeal the overtime laws. This group that is very concerned includes the first responders, my police, my fire, my emergency personnel. Say all you want; no one will play with their overtime. I will fight for their overtime pay.

There is no point getting a bill through here--by the way, the bill is very important--if on the one hand you say we are helping with job creation and on the other hand you take away people's overtime. The debate will continue.

Honoring Our Armed Forces

I come to the Senate to show my colleagues a tribute to the men and women who are dying in Iraq every single day. I want to also thank the San Francisco Chronicle, Insight section, dated March 14, 2004. They turned their entire magazine into a tribute to the fallen in Iraq, page after page, so they will not be forgotten. This is well over 500 people.

It is so touching because it has the feel and look of a yearbook, of a high school yearbook or a college yearbook. You recognize these beautiful faces belong to some of the best and the brightest, cut down so early in their lives.

We tend not to pay enough attention around here so I will take some time. I took this very important magazine and turned it into charts, portraits of sacrifice. It says:

This special section commemorates the 556 members of the

U.S. Armed Forces, as of Thursday, who have lost their lives

in Iraq. While views on the wisdom of the war vary, there's

no doubt about the commitment and valor of these Americans.

The portraits can also be viewed online.

I have chart after chart of the fallen. This shows exactly how the war proceeded and how many war deaths, month by month. This shows the home States of those who have died. In Nebraska, six have died; in South Dakota, four; in California, 61. We are the No. 1

state, unfortunately, in losses of these beautiful people.

The charts go on. This shows how they died. How many in helicopter crashes, vehicle accidents, illness, weapons discharges, drownings, hostile fire, combat, noncombat. Bombs are not the only risk of war. I know the Presiding Officer understands that very well.

This chart shows an incredibly somber photograph of a burial and the folding of the American flag on the casket.

This is an editorial of the paper. I will read a few things from it.

The Iraq war won't quit. Since Baghdad's fall, there are no

battle lines. Fighting takes on a new lethal form in

ambushes, bombings or plane crashes. Injury and death come

almost daily.

On May 2, after a lightning-quick sweep through Iraq,

President Bush declared that major combat was over. This

country's vaunted armed forces had made short work of the

Iraqi military.

But the president's proclamation didn't stop the

fatalities, which as of Thursday included 556 American

troops. More than 415 of them lost their lives after Bush

declared that the major fighting was finished.

It goes on.

Many parents of the fallen describe their children as

enormously proud of military service and the chance to serve

in Iraq. Among the thousands from Northern California who

went to Iraq, consider the stories of several who died.

And they go through them.

Gunnery Sgt. Joseph Menusa from San Jose joined the Marines

after high school. Born in the Philippines, he became a proud

Marine recruiter, snappy in dress blues, before taking on

more active duty in Japan, the Persian Gulf, Cuba and Hawaii.

He died in an ambush near Nasiriya in the early days of

active fighting.

It talks about Karina Lau, and Genaro Acosta, and Joseph Norquist, how he played football before earning a degree at Diablo Valley College in Pleasant Hill.

His parents said:

Joe believed in the job he was doing in Iraq.

The article continues:

Iraqis families have suffered, too. Thousands of their sons

and daughters, mothers and fathers, friends and acquaintances

have died in the conflict. We should recognize their losses.

Before the war is wrapped up and American troops depart,

there will be more fatalities. Only then can the full human

cost of the war be measured. But as the first anniversary of

the war approaches, it is time to stop and think about those

who have given their lives and why.

And there are more charts. We have these soldiers' faces. Then there is this cartoon drawing of an American eagle--a big bird with a little baby bird on a branch and an olive branch. It says, ``Abstractions are just abstract until they have an ache in them.''

Then we have: ``The rifle and helmet of Marine Jason D. Mileo stand as a memorial after he was killed by friendly fire in Baghdad.''

This concludes this particular tribute.

Since the day this tribute ran--which was on Sunday, March 14--the following have been killed:

Fern L. Holland, 33, of Oklahoma, died on March 9; Robert J. Zangas, 44, of Prince William County, VA, died March 9; SGT Joe L. Dunigan Jr., 37, of Belton, TX, died March 11; SP Christopher K. Hill, 26, of Ventura, CA, died March 11; CPT John F. Kurth, 31, of Wisconsin, died March 13; SP Jason C. Ford, 21, of Bowie, MD, died March 13; SP Jocelyn L. Carrasquillo, 28, of Wrightsville Beach, NC, died March 13; SSG Clint D. Ferrin, 31, of Picayune, MS, died March 13; SGT Daniel J. Londono, 22, of Boston, MA, died March 13; PFC Joel K. Brattain, 21, of Santa Anna, CA, died March 13; 1LT Michael R. Adams, 24, of Seattle, WA, died March 16; SGT William J. Normandy, 42, of Augusta, GA, died March 15; MSG Thomas R. Thigpen Sr., 52, of Augusta, GA, died March 16; SGT Ivory L. Phipps, 44, of Chicago, IL, died March 17; SP Tracy L. Laramore, 30, of Okaloosa, FL, died March 17; PFC Brandon C. Smith, of Washington, AR, died March 18; PFC Ricky A. Morris Jr., 20, of Lubbock, TX, died March 18; PFC Ernest Harold Sutphin, 21, of Parkersburg, WV, died March 18; SSG Anthony S. Lagman, 26, of Yonkers, NY, died March 18; SGT Michael J. Esposito Jr., 22, of Brentwood, NY, died March 18; CPL Andrew D. Brownfield, 24, of Summit, OH, died March 18; SP Doron Chan, 20, of Highland, NY, died March 18; CPL David M. Vicente, 25, of Methuen, MA, died March 19; PFC Jason C. Ludlam, 22, of Arlington, TX, died March 19; 1LT Michael W. Vega, 41, of Lathrop, CA, died March 20; MAJ Mark D. Taylor, 41, of Stockton, CA, died March 20; SP Matthew J. Sandri, 24, of Shamokin, PA, died on March 20; PVT Dustin L. Kreider, 19, of Riverton, KS, died March 21; PFC Christopher E. Hudson, 21, of Carmel, IN, died March 21; and LCpl Andrew S. Dang, 20, of Foster City, CA, died March 22.

That is the last I have. I hope it stops and I do not have to come back to this floor. I have done this from time to time.

We pray so much the Iraq war will end and the people there will have freedom and democracy, that they will respect each other, and our troops can come home; and, in the meantime, that the burden can be shared by the world rather than falling on their shoulders.

As I read this, and I read the ages, we saw ages from 19 to over 50 years old. Imagine what these people are leaving behind. I wish to say how my heart goes out to their families and how I will do everything I can to see this killing ends.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield?

Will the Senator yield?

I was hoping my friend would stay. I would like to ask a series of questions and give him some information. Does the Senator have the time to stay?

Mr. President, I thank my friend, Senator Harkin, for his wonderful words. It means so much to me coming from him, someone who has been in this Senate for so many years, a voice of the working people. By the way, that is most of the people in this country who have to work for a living. In many families, as we know, two people are working, and in many families they work overtime to be able to pay the bills and college tuition and health care, and on and on. This issue is crucial.

I also thank Senator Baucus for being so strong in his support of allowing a vote on this amendment.

It is very important because, as my friend said today at lunch--I had the honor of listening to Senator Harkin speak as he made the point-- how can you do a jobs bill and not look at the issue of overtime, which if the administration has its way will be taken away from probably 8 million people? As my friend, Senator Harkin, relayed the history, it is a stunning situation that we find ourselves refighting the issue of overtime in the 21st century.

I wish to share with my colleague something that is very interesting, a bit of correspondence that has gone back and forth. When I saw Secretary Chao--by the way, I find her to be a very nice person. I like her. We have a very nice personal relationship. This is not personal. I asked her about the regulation. I said: My people at home are very afraid of this regulation because they think they will be denied overtime.

She said: Oh, it's hardly going to affect anybody.

I said: All right. Instead of asking you about every category, let me tell you that my police men and women, my firefighters, and my paramedics--my first responders--are very concerned about losing their overtime.

She said: Senator Boxer, not a chance. This is not even going to happen.

So I wrote her a letter, and I said: Secretary Chao, you know I oppose this. I am very worried about it. Can you please explain to me why I should not be worried? So she writes back a letter. I wrote her on February 9, and on February 26 I was very pleased that she answered the letter, and she explains why, in her opinion, firefighters and first responders and policemen will not be impacted.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my letter to Secretary Chao and her response.

Well, it did not end there, I say to my friend from Iowa. I got a visit from police officers in my office here in Washington, and what is on their agenda, the first thing? Overtime. I said: Well, look, I am going to do everything I can to protect you. I raised this issue with Secretary Chao. She answered my letter. She says you have nothing to worry about. Will you please go over her answers, and can you please comment back to me as to what you think of her opinion on whether you will lose overtime?

So I have blown up for you to see, I say to Senator Harkin and Senator Baucus, something you might be interested in. These quotes go side by side.

Secretary Chao says in her letter to me:

First, police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and other

first responders are not white collar employees. They do not

perform office or non-manual work.

So, therefore, she is essentially saying they will not fit into this revision of the rules because they are not white-collar employees. This is what she says about police officers.

This is what my police officers write back:

Many police officers do not drive black and white patrol

vehicles and perform only enforcement/patrol duties. Police

officers also serve in investigative and other capacities. As

such they do not wear uniforms and a great deal of their work

is performed in an office.

So here she is saying they are not white-collar employees and they say many times their work is in the office.

In cold case units--

You know what a cold case is: an old case. They call it a cold case. They just put it aside--

The vast preponderance of their duties entail reviewing

files and records in the office.

With the increased use of technology many officers are

spending more and more of their time performing office, non-

manual type work to facilitate the detection and basis for

apprehension of criminal suspects.

Without an explicit non-exempt status--

This is the key point--

Local agencies interpreting the regulation may well

determine that those employees are white collar and perform

office work--and then exclude them from overtime coverage. If

this were to occur, many of the most talented officers would

choose not to be promoted (to the detriment of the

Department) due to monetary concerns.

So with all due respect to Secretary Chao, who is, as I say, a friend, her comment that they are not white-collar employees is not at all clear. So that is one difference.

Now let's go on to the other differences. This is why my police officers are absolutely in favor of what Senator Harkin wants to do, which is to reverse the move of the administration.

Secretary Chao's letter says:

Second, a large number of such employees--such as those

represented by the International Union of Police

Associations--are covered by collective bargaining

agreements, which are not affected by the current or proposed

regulations. We also believe it is unrealistic for unions to

claim that overtime pay granted under a current collective

bargaining agreement is likely to be revoked during a new negotiation.

So that is her second point. First, they say they never do white- collar work. Wrong. Now she says their collective bargaining agreements could never be overturned.

Let's see what the California police officers say:

The clout of independent police associations varies widely.

Some would be able to protect their contract-required

overtime, others would not. Many overtime provisions in

collective bargaining agreements refer to the regulations or

statutory requirements. Those overtime provisions would end

with statutory or regulatory changes and would not even

extend to the next negotiations.

To assume that it is ``unrealistic'' that contract

provisions once granted would not be revoked is simply

ignorant.

Those are strong statements.

Contract provisions are frequently revoked during the

collective bargaining process. The regulatory or statutory

requirements currently in place have held at bay any attack

of the overtime agreement.

Regulatory and statutory requirements have been a major

contributing factor in the successful recovery of moneys owed

and withheld by employers in violation of respective

collective bargaining agreements.

Yes, I yield to my friend.

Exactly.

Exactly.

Exactly the point.

Right. They say right here:

If it was such a foregone conclusion that represented

employees could negotiate and maintain overtime protections

absent statutory and regulatory requirements, the law and

regulations would never have been made applicable to any

workers under a collective bargaining agreement.

That is right. You have the statutory protection, which they are now going to take away from these workers. They are taking it away and saying: Well, you can fix it with your collective bargaining.

And she says, you have it anyway in your collective bargaining, which is not always the case. I think what the police officers have done, in dissecting this, is to be the truth tellers here.

There is one more chart. Secretary Chao says in her letter:

Third, many public safety employees, as well as nurses, are

paid on an hourly basis. Hourly workers are not affected by

Part 541 under either the current or proposed rules.

This is what the California police officers say:

Employers have made determinations on who is exempt based

on the totality of the regulatory requirements. Some will

view any modification as a basis to reconsider exempt status.

Collective bargaining agreements generally do not state that

employees are ``hourly'' employees. Employers would challenge

that assertion.

So that is another point.

Then Secretary Chao says:

Moreover, those public safety employees who are paid on a

salary basis and may be earning less than $22,100 a year will

immediately gain overtime protection under our proposed rule.

They say:

Fine. But this does not apply to and will not affect any

California public safety officers.

Thank God we pay them more than $22,100 to protect our lives and our children's lives. So that is a useless deal in this category of workers.

Lastly, she writes:

I can assure you, however, that it is not our intention to

deny overtime pay to police officers, fire fighters,

paramedics, or LPNs, or to change the current rules with

respect to RNs.

Here is what the police officers say:

We in police work subscribe to a common rule: Say what you

mean, mean what you say and memorialize it in print. If the

intent is not to deny overtime, then put it in writing.

By the way, that was in my first letter I sent to Secretary Chao. I said: You keep saying they are not affected. Why don't you change your rule and simply exempt first responders, and then at least my police and firefighters and nurses and paramedics will not be so upset.

Even more to the point, collective bargaining agreements generally do not state that employees are hourly. So it is very easy for an employer to say: Show me in your contract where it says you are hourly, even if you formally are. So people are going to be stuck, and they are not going to get their overtime pay.

At the end of the day we have to get back to this bottom line. The Secretary says:

I can assure you, however, it is not our intention to deny

overtime pay to police officers, fire fighters, paramedics. .

..

I say to my friend, put it in writing. I think that is pretty obvious. They will not put it in writing.

I am so happy that my friend brought this up. When I first approached Secretary Chao, we had a very friendly conversation. It was right out here.

I said to her: My people are up in arms. Talk to me. What are you doing?

Well, it is hardly going to affect anybody, she said.

I said: Well, if it is going to affect hardly anybody, why bother? That doesn't make any sense.

Then I said: My policemen, my firemen, my first responders are really over the top on this.

And she said: They are not affected.

That is why I wrote to her and said put it in writing. She said: It is not necessary, they are exempt because they are not white collar, and all the rest.

Here we find out from the police officers themselves how silly the Department of Labor position is because of the fact that many of our criminal cases are solved now on computers in the office, doing investigatory work.

I don't know exactly what is going on except an effort to undermine working conditions and pay for millions of people.

I want to read one more letter and then I will leave the floor. This is from SGT Mark Nichols, President of the Santa Ana Police Officers Association in Orange County:

Public safety in California is facing a major crisis as we

try to get back on our feet fiscally. To eliminate the

Federal non-exempt provision at this time when dollars are

scarce would be akin to placing a huge bull's eye on the

already beleaguered morale of our members. We are currently

stretched further than is prudent. To give our employers the

opportunity possibly of stretching us even further to save an

extra buck or two could be devastating to a profession

already facing recruitment and retention problems.

We are a profession that works 24 hours a day, seven days a

week, 365 days a year. I personally left a salaried position

to join police work. Being compensated for extra work at the

overtime rate was a big factor in my decision. We are

continually required to extend our workday or return to work

from off duty time. This is a difficult enough job, with its

disruptions and hardships placed on our members and our

families. To even allow for the possibility that police

officers could lose their non-exempt status and overtime

provisions is irresponsible.

I thank my friend. I know he has to go to other Senate business. I will ask for a quorum call in a moment. But I will yield to him for one more comment. I just say thank you on behalf of my police officers, my nurses, my first responders. I can't thank you enough.

I thank the Senator. He made my day. I am so privileged that he would say such words to me. On this issue, we will not back down. We will stand together with many of our colleagues. Interestingly, a majority of the Senate already voted with the Senator. All we are asking is give us a vote on behalf of the policemen, the policewomen, the first responders, the firefighters, the nurses, the paramedics. Let us make sure we do not take away their overtime pay because to do so would be an enormous hardship on them and on their families at a time when we should be elevating them in status and saying to them, thank you, not only in pictures that we love to show with our arms around them--and we all do that--but in deeds. We really mean what we say, and we say you will not lose your overtime pay.

I hope we can get a vote on this important amendment and move on to the rest of the bill which is quite important.

I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I today honor of Dan Terry, who will be retiring this May after 31 years of service as president of the California Professional Firefighters, CPF, a statewide organization representing more than 30,000 career firefighters in over 150 affiliated local unions.

America's firefighters are the heroes of our times. We know that they are always going to be there protecting us through any challenge.

For more than three decades, as firefighters have protected us, Dan Terry has been protecting them. He has fought for safer working conditions and worked to increase firefighter education, training, and staffing.

Thanks largely to his extraordinary efforts, California firefighters are now covered by statewide legislation that guarantees binding interest arbitration, enhanced retirement benefits, survivor benefits, and firefighter illness presumption laws. Dan Terry has also fought to protect firefighters' right to earn overtime pay as well as disability and workers' compensation benefits.

A retired fire captain with more than 20 years of service on the front lines, Dan Terry was elected CPF president in May 1973. After 31 years in office, he remains passionate and dedicated to the cause of improving the lives of California firefighters and their families. Even after leaving the presidency of CPF, he will remain active in the organization and in the service of California families and the courageous firefighters who protect them every day.

On behalf of the people of California, I express our profound gratitude and admiration to Dan Terry for his outstanding service to our State.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be laid aside.

Mr. President, I appreciate that. I am so sorry. I was sure Senator Nickles had seen this amendment. I don't think there is anything surprising. It is essentially a jobs amendment, initiatives that have been introduced by other Senators. We packaged it in one package.

I ask Senator Conrad if he wants me to take time by discussing Senator Corzine's amendment and making other remarks or take time off the managers' time? Either way he wants it.

I was hopeful, when I spoke last night, that I could have 20 to 30 minutes for the entire amendment. That would be fine for me.

No, no, 30 minutes on my side, or 20 minutes on my side.

No, 20 minutes a side.

I thank my colleague very much. I have been looking forward to offering this amendment. I hope at the appropriate moment in time I will be able to send it to the desk.

Mr. President, if you were to go out all over this country and ask most of our constituents from every State in the Union what is on their minds, they are going to say it is the economy; it is jobs; it is their security. In this particular budget we should do much more to ensure that jobs are created and that our families are protected. So what we do in this amendment, which we pay for, is a number of initiatives which will help us create and retain jobs in this great country.

First of all, I want to give my colleagues a sense of why this is so important. The amendment I am offering is cosponsored by Senators Daschle, Sarbanes, Clinton, Schumer, Kennedy, Kohl, Durbin, Levin and Dodd. I see Senator Kohl is here. I am hopeful he will want to make a few comments as well.

Let me paint a picture of where we are. I think the best way to do it is just show a series of charts, that are very clear:

Private sector jobs decline: Three million jobs lost since

January 2001.

We see the incredible graph that just shows, essentially, almost a straight line down. We did see in February we had a little increase of 21,000 jobs, as I understand it, in the public sector. There is very little in the private sector.

I will if I can reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the Corzine amendment and send my amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, let me continue with the story that is not a very happy story about job loss. We have seen 3 million jobs lost in the last 3\1/2\ years. We see unemployment for 27 weeks or longer. We see that 1.9 million workers are unemployed for more than 6 months. We have statistics that say although the unemployment rate looks to be 5.6 percent, in reality it is over 9 percent if you factor in the people who have given up their search for jobs. We see the smallest share of the population at work since 1994, with 62.2 percent of the population unemployed. These are startling statistics.

Manufacturing jobs in America: From 1993 to 2000, 385,000 manufacturing jobs created; and from 2001 to 2003, 2.785 thousand jobs lost. That is 75,270 jobs lost per month. For my people in California, we have seen an enormous drop in manufacturing jobs.

I want to show my colleagues the context of this job loss if we look back to other administrations. This is the average number of jobs created or lost per month. Under Ronald Reagan, we had 165,000 jobs per month; under George H. Bush, we had 47,604 jobs created every month; under Bill Clinton, we had 236,625 jobs created per month; and under George W. Bush, 58,815 jobs per month on average lost.

By any standard, this is a unique time. We have a chance to do something about it with this budget resolution.

California jobs: From 1993 to 2000, under the Clinton administration, 25,644 jobs were created per month in my State of 35 million people. Under George W. Bush, 284,900 jobs lost. That is 7,913 jobs lost per month. Nearly 8,000 jobs are lost per month in my State. That is about 8,000 family members coming home to tell their families they are in big trouble. We ought to do something about it. The good news is we can do something about it with this amendment I offered.

I want to show one more chart.

President Bush promised a whole different story--promises, promises, wishful thinking on jobs. The Bush administration has consistently over-predicted job growth for 2002, 2003, and 2004.

Today, I read in the paper that the President is going to appoint a manufacturing jobs czar. He came to a decision about the individual he wants to appoint. We have learned that this particular individual built a plant in China. Whether he will continue with that nomination, I do not know, but clearly that sends a very mixed signal, to be polite about it.

Let me talk for a moment about the amendment I am offering to protect America's jobs.

How much time do I have remaining?

Thank you.

Our amendment creates a $24 billion job reserve fund for the following purposes:

The Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, $110 million cost; Advanced Technology Program, $125 million cost; Federal science at $1 billion cost; new manufacturing jobs tax credit at $7 billion cost; small business health insurance tax credit at $14 billion cost; stop jobs from moving overseas and end the runaway plant tax break, which saves $2 billion; the Dodd amendment with no Federal funds for outsourcing, no cost; worker notification, which is Senator Daschle's amendment in relation to jobs moving overseas, no cost; and worker assistance and trade adjustment expansion for service workers and expanded health insurance, $2 billion.

The way we pay for this amendment is the following: We end the runaway plant tax break, which brings in $2 billion, and we reduce tax breaks for millionaires, which brings in another $1 billion.

I want to spend just a moment explaining why I think that is fair. If you earn over $1 million, under the Bush tax cut you are going to get a refund of about $140,000 every single year.

Let me rephrase that. You are going to get a tax cut of $127,000 every single year. We reduce that refund to $85,000 for a very noble purpose. That purpose is to get America back to work and to help our middle-class families.

I think if you ask the average person in your State, just from what I can tell by looking at polls and talking to people, they will say even if they were in that millionaire category, we will have a stronger economy and more people working by not giving millionaires $127,000 a year from their taxes.

We reduce it to $85,000. Let us talk about that. They will now get back $85,000. How much is that? That is 7.5 times the annual income of a minimum-wage worker, just in the millionaire tax cut. We are, in fact, cutting it to $85,000, but that is 7.5 times the annual income of a minimum-wage worker. It is also two times the median household income. If you are a millionaire and get back $85,000 a year instead of $127,000, you are still getting back every year twice the median household income and 7.5 times the annual income of a minimum-wage worker.

I want to briefly tell you about each of these job creation plans.

Be providing a tax credit for creating new manufacturing jobs--this is a tax credit that goes to businesses that create jobs in manufacturing, originally sponsored by Senator John Kerry--the manufacturing jobs tax credit gives the tax cut to companies that create a new factory job in 2004, 2005 and 2006. This is a good thing for business. It is a great thing for workers. It is a good way to deal with this issue.

We increase the funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. It sets aside $110 million of the reserve fund for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program. In 2003, this program helped create or retain 35,000 jobs.

The administration only asks for $13 million in 2004, and it is requesting only $39 million for 2005. They say they care about jobs, but they ought to do more, and $110 million will create a lot more jobs.

For the Advanced Technology Program, this amendment sets aside $140 million in the reserve fund. The administration proposes zeroing out this ATP program. The ATP helps companies get to market and grow, and that means jobs. Of the first 33 small companies to complete ATP programs, 60 percent doubled in size, and 4 grew more than 1,000 percent. The ATP program bridges the gap between the research lab and the marketplace. We need to see that go up to this $140 million level. I might say, even with that, it is still less than we have spent in the past on the program. George Bush, in 2005, requests zero for this important program.

Then we have Federal research and development, which is so key, at the National Science Foundation. It falls $1 billion short of what is called for in the bill we passed 5 years ago. It is very important. When President Bush says he increases Federal research by 5 percent, the problem for our Nation's researchers and research institutions is that increase is largely targeted for weapons development. However, we have other things we need to do which will create jobs, as well. That is the purpose of this amendment.

The health insurance tax credit for small business is clear. If business pays health insurance for its people, we think they ought to get a tax break. That is the kind of tax break we believe in on this side of the aisle because it is to encourage businesses to help employees with their health care.

We end tax subsidies to U.S. companies that send plants overseas. This is a Dorgan-Mikulski idea. This amendment includes language bringing to an end tax subsidies for employers that ship production of goods abroad. This part brings $2 billion.

We prohibit Federal funds from being used for offshore jobs. This is Senator Dodd's amendment that passed the Senate 70 to 26. When we give State and local governments Federal funds and when we decide to issue contracts, the jobs ought to stay here.

In my own State, the Defense Department wanted to buy rice for Iraq. Instead of buying it from California, which has the best rice in the world, they bought it from a foreign country. That is my farmers, taxpayer dollars, and all my people's dollars going into the war effort. We give a contract on rice to a foreign country when the sons and daughters of our farmers and our people are going to war. I don't get it.

This is an important amendment. We are improving the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program and extending it to service workers. That means help for people who are pushed out of a job because of trade agreements.

I will save some time for colleagues. How much time remains?

I yield 4 minutes to Senator Kohl.

I thank the Senator for asking this question. I have never known that we have offered such a comprehensive jobs amendment on a budget resolution. These are not ordinary times.

My friend is right when he asked this question. If we go back over time to Herbert Hoover in the Depression years in the 1930s, that is the only time we have actually lost jobs. We have created jobs under Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and now we are down to this and we have seen 3 million jobs lost. We need a jobs amendment.

Clearly, we give tax breaks in this amendment to small businesses that pay or help pay for their employees' health benefits.

When we talk to people, they are scared about the cost of health insurance. They are frightened. They are frightened that the costs are going up, that they may lose it, not to mention their entanglements with HMOs that want to walk away.

We say to employers, employees, we will help if, in fact, you pay for your employees' health care, or at least part of it.

We also give a manufacturing jobs tax credit. And this is Senator Kerry's idea.

Madam President, do I have a remaining minute on my time?

I thank my friend.

So I say to my friend from Arkansas--because I would like to continue this give-and-take--what we are seeing is a devastating change in what has been known as economic progress in America--a devastating change--something we have not seen since Herbert Hoover. This is serious business.

For our small businesses that are creating whatever jobs are being created--although we still are not seeing a net increase in those jobs--we need them to get help. So in this amendment not only do we suggest a reserve fund to help our workers, but we suggest tax credits and tax breaks to our businesses that create manufacturing jobs. For every job they create, they get a tax credit, and also for those businesses that pay for health care for workers.

So I think the question was right on the mark.

I would be glad if my friend has any other questions.

I am happy to yield.

Absolutely.

This health care tax credit is very important as well.

In my State, my small businesses that do the right thing by their employees are being hurt. We ought to recognize if you do the right thing, you ought to get rewarded for it. So that is why we do this.

I say to my friend, he is right; this jobs amendment helps workers and helps businesses. It is a balanced approach.

Here is how we encourage the creation of American jobs: We provide tax credits to companies that create new jobs. We provide tax credits to help small businesses pay for health insurance. We expand funding to the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program, which really helps small businesses in an enormous way. What we do with these programs is we help them go from the research part of things to the marketing part of things. It has been a huge success.

Unfortunately, the President has zeroed out the ATP. I cannot understand it. This is something our businesspeople really want.

Also, as to basic scientific research, we see it in the budget, but it is mostly for defense weapons programs. We do not have it on the civilian side.

Again, coming from a State--I am sure your State has them, as well-- with very entrepreneurial people, who really can take off from scientific research, it is very important.

I say to my friend, we pay for this. We pay for this by ending--this is Senator Dorgan's idea--we end the tax break for companies that move offshore. Oh, yes, they are creating jobs, but they are creating jobs offshore. And we pay for it by saying to the millionaires--people who make over $1 million a year--we are saying to those folks: Instead of getting $127,000 a year back, can you take $85,000 a year back? That is still 7.5 times more than a worker at the minimum wage.

So this is a golden moment for this Senate to come together across party lines on behalf of our small businesses, on behalf of our workers, and create jobs.

I have already shown my colleague the historic proportions of this moment in history in which we find ourselves: the worst record since Herbert Hoover, the only Presidency since Herbert Hoover not to create jobs. This is an extraordinary moment. We need to take a moment to realize if a millionaire gets back $85,000 instead of $127,000, that is not a great sacrifice to make for putting people to work, for giving a lift to small business.

Madam President, I thank my friend because he is exactly right. This outsourcing is a very tough issue. I say to my friend, before he goes to his committee hearing, I met a young man in California who had an excellent job as a computer program manager. He is a newlywed and very excited about his life. He finds out he is being fired, not because he is not a good employee--he is a great employee, terrific--but because his job is being outsourced to another country. And the person over there is going to get a quarter of what he makes. Now, here is the real kicker. He is told he has to train his replacement.

I have to say, this is what is happening all over America. If we cannot take a stand in this budget which reflects all of our priorities as a nation, if we cannot take a stand for America's workers and America's small businesses, I do not know why we are here. What are we here for?

I ask my friend again to look at this chart which shows that the smallest share of the population is at work since 1994. This is not a good chart when you translate it into real lives of real people--and we know the stories in our States: a mother wakes up worried because her company says it no longer will pay health care--that is why we give a health care tax credit in this amendment--a gentleman, as I described, is told by his boss: You are losing your job. It is being outsourced, and you have to train your replacement. This is what is happening in America.

I know some colleagues are here who would like to be heard on this amendment, which I am very pleased about.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this Washington Post article from today: ``Bush Choice for Manufacturing Post in Question.''

Madam President, I will only read the first paragraph, and then I would like to yield 5 minutes to my friend from New Jersey, Senator Corzine.

Here is what it says:

Six months after promising to create an office to help the

nation's struggling manufacturers, President Bush settled on

someone to head it, but the nomination was being reconsidered

last night after Democrats revealed that this candidate had

opened a factory in China.

Now, I ask you, what signal are we sending to the workers of America, to the businesses of America, when the President's No. 1 choice for manufacturing czar has opened a business in China?

So if you put together this fact with this fact, with the chart I showed you that illustrates the worst problem in job creation since Herbert Hoover, we have an explosive situation on our hands. The vote on this amendment should not be about parties; it should be about our people, whether they are in Alaska, Wyoming, New Jersey, Michigan, or California.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey and ask, after yielding that time, how much time would be remaining on my side?

I yield Senator Corzine 3 minutes and Senator Stabenow 4 minutes.

Excellent. So how much time will the Senator yield off the resolution?

I thank the Senator.

Will the Senator yield for a question before his time expires?

When my friend goes home to New Jersey and talks to people, does he find what I find; that people are anxious, they are insecure, they are concerned about retaining their job, retaining a good job, retaining health benefits? What I find is, even if people have good jobs, they are fearful of the cost of health insurance.

As the Senator knows, in our Democratic jobs alternative, we give a tax credit to businesses that pay for all or part of health insurance. I wondered if my friend has that same sense when he goes to talk to his people at home?

I ask my friend if he will yield an additional minute to the Senator.

If the Senator will yield, he is so right. Consumer confidence is almost everything in our economy, which is a consumer- based economy.

I took economics, so I have an economics background from my college years. But my friend practiced economics and did very well at it. What he says is so important. If your next-door neighbor is suffering because of a loss of jobs or downward pressure on job income, it has a contagious impact. A lot of this lack of consumer confidence is what we are seeing today.

I wish to ask my friend another question that has to do with the fact we paid for this amendment. We paid for this in two ways. First, we eliminate the tax loophole for companies that send their jobs overseas. That brings in $2 billion to pay for this reserve fund for jobs. We also say to millionaires, we know you are going to get back $127,000-- and people who earn more than that will get exponentially more--so instead of getting back $127,000, you get $85,000. That difference is more than a minimum-wage worker's salary for an entire year.

As my friend looks as his people in New Jersey and knows the median income level there, do you think this is a fair thing we do here, ask everybody to sacrifice?

To reiterate, we are saying to the millionaires of this country, we are proud of you, that you got the American dream; and you worked for it--most of them did, not all of them. Can't you make that sacrifice so we can put people to work and turn around these numbers?

Look at this chart. We talked about this before, going back to Ronald Reagan. We haven't seen this kind of deal since Herbert Hoover. Looking at New Jersey and the people making over $1 million who would be impacted, does my friend not believe we pay for this in a fair way?

I have one more question and that is it. First, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Mikulski and Dorgan be added as cosponsors of the amendment.

I ask for that as well.

When we look at the promises made and the reality, I would like my friend----

I will wait on that. I thank my friend from New Jersey.

Will my friend yield for a moment?

She was right on target about this manufacturing czar, this potential nominee, who may be a very lovely gentleman; nonetheless, what a poor choice. We should be rewarding people and companies that create jobs for the American people.

You know, I wish the world well. I want Iraq to have democracy and the Haitians to have democracy. I want the people of Afghanistan to thrive. Lord knows, we spend enough money there to help them. What about people at home? Isn't that our first responsibility?

I am telling you, when I have to hear stories from constituents who say, Not only was I laid off and my job is going to be outsourced to a foreign country but I have to train my replacement--I say somebody may call that outsourcing; I call it painful. I call it wrong.

My friend from Nevada wants me to get to the question and I will.

When this gentleman moves his jobs to China, does he not get a tax advantage? And are we not closing that loophole--it is the Dorgan idea--and does my friend support that, as well as the other items on this list?

Will my friend yield for a quick question before my colleague continues? I find this give-and-take very helpful.

I read an economic report that said although the jobless rate is officially at 5.6 percent, if one factors in the people who have given up, it is well over 9 percent. I wonder if my friend could comment on that, because he talked about how important it is to just keep up with the people who are coming in. What about the people who have given up?

Madam President, will my friend yield for a question?

I thank Senator Sarbanes and Senator Conrad for their enormous contribution in support of this amendment, which is really an amendment that is made up by the contribution of various members of the Democratic caucus, including Senator Dodd, who has just come to the floor. An important amendment ensuring Federal contracts should not be outsourced passed this Chamber with flying colors. It is important. As a matter of fact, I met with my local elected officials and I asked, Do you have any idea whether any of your department jobs are outsourced? They looked at me, and said, I don't know. I will go back and make sure tax dollars aren't being used to create jobs overseas.

I thank my friend for his contribution to this amendment. I want to ask my friend a question. It has to do with this whole notion of the anxiety in this country. I think anyone watching this debate understands there are many reasons for people to feel anxious. They feel anxious when there are deficits as far as the eye can see. It is stunning to think back to 3\1/2\ years ago. There were surpluses as far as the eye could see. What mismanagement.

I say to my friend the shocking part is--and when I was an economics major a long time ago we thought when there were big deficits it would create a lot of jobs. Here we have a circumstance where you have runaway deficits, runaway debt, and no job creation whatsoever. In fact, there is a net job loss.

I want to say to my friend from North Dakota, when he talks about the budget deficit, the trade deficit, the twin deficits, there is also the job deficit. Now you have the tripling. I think my friend made a good point when he talked about people being laid off and then having to train their replacement workers. I met such a gentleman who was a newlywed. He had a job as a computer program manager and he had to train his replacement. I cannot tell you the look on this man's face. He is leaving my State. He thought for sure this could never happen in the Golden State. As we know, it is happening in California and all over this country.

This is a stunning moment in history. That is why this amendment is so important.

The budget document is in fact the priority of the country. If we turn our back on the people of this country who need to work for a living, we shouldn't be here, to be honest, because that has to be an essential part of what we do to protect the country, from the standpoint of defense, protect workers and make sure they have jobs.

I want to ask my colleague this point about the anxiety in the land. I think what is feeding it is when your next-door neighbor loses a job, or someone in your family loses a job, you begin to feel anxious. When your next-door neighbor loses his health insurance or pension, you begin to get anxious yourself. Then when you pick up the papers--I put a lot of this together last night, and you can read this. ``Analysts Gloomy Over Job Creation''; ``Growth In Jobs Is Still Sluggish''; ``Job Growth Falls Short of Forecast''; ``Jobs Slump''; ``Fewer Small Businesses Plan To Hire''.

I am saying to my friend I think all of this is creating an anxiety in the land.

I will ask this question: Given everything we said--it is not rhetoric; it is reality; we have shown the numbers. They are real. We have talked about real families. We have seen what is happening. I ask my friend, is not this the time, if there was ever a time, we should say to the American people whom we care about and their families, their ability to have a quality of life, their ability to educate their children and send them to college, and their ability to look at the future with hope and optimism--wouldn't it be the moment we should be united as Republicans and Democrats and Independents here today in passing the amendment we put forward which not only will stimulate jobs directly but will stimulate small businesses by giving them the tax credits they deserve, so they can pay for health care insurance or create jobs? I ask my friend, is this not the moment in time to make this a priority for this Senate across party lines?

Mr. President, in 1 minute let me give it to you straight: We have seen a loss of 3 million jobs in the last 3 years. This is not sustainable. Our people are hurting. What this amendment does is gives us a chance to do something about it. We give tax credits to businesses, if they pay for health insurance, if they create manufacturing jobs. What we do is boost up some of the wonderful programs that are working in advanced technology, manufacturing extension. We increase investments in basic science. We close the loophole so if companies move abroad, they can't get special tax breaks, and we don't allow Federal funds to be used to offshore jobs.

We pay for it by saying to the millionaires of this country: Instead of getting back $120,000, you will get back $80,000. That is multiple times what a minimum-wage worker will get. Millionaires will still get back $80,000 a year under the Bush tax cut. We are asking them to make that sacrifice because we need the jobs.

I urge an aye vote.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, I want to express my deep concern about recent developments in Iran.

Today, the International Atomic Energy Agency is meeting to discuss a proper response to findings that Iran has failed to disclose many nuclear related activities in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This is a serious issue. There is no doubt that Iran is in violation of its commitments under the NPT. The IAEA Board of Governors

must insist that Iran come into complete compliance with its obligations, disclose all information about its nuclear program, and allow unrestricted access to IAEA inspectors. Given the high degree of enriched uranium found in Iran--weapons grade uranium--and yesterday's statement from Iran indicating that it planned to resume enrichment, this matter should immediately be referred to the United Nations Security Council for further action.

I am also deeply troubled by Iran's terribly flawed elections of February 20. The people of Iran deserve our support and they deserve true democratic reform. We cannot turn our backs on the people of Iran because its political leadership has failed them. There are an estimated 700,000 Iranian Americans living in California who are so hopeful for democratic change in their homeland. The election of February 20 was clearly a step in the wrong direction.

On February 12, the Senate passed an important resolution, S. Res. 304, that was submitted that same day by Senator Brownback. Denouncing the elections as harmful for true democratic forces in Iran, the resolution stated that the policy of the United States should be to advocate a democratic government in Iran that will restore freedom to the people of Iran, abandon terrorism, protect human rights, and live in peace and security with the international community. I fully agree.

I hope that the Iranian people know that they have the support of the Senate as they aspire for the freedom denied them by the current Iranian regime.

Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the Consolidated Student Loan Reduction Act of 2004.

A college education is becoming more and more crucial as American workers seek to compete in the global marketplace. Yet, the cost of a college education is rising each year, making it less accessible to low and moderate income individuals. While grants and scholarships are available, students have come to increasingly rely on student loans. Between 1992 and 2002, Federal student loans increased by 165 percent, and in 2003, $65 billion--or 70 percent of total Federal student aid-- was in the form of loans. The average debt for a college graduate is $17,000, and it can exceed $100,000 for a graduate student.

Under Federal law, and in order to receive longer repayment terms, individuals may consolidate their student loans into one loan. The interest rate on the consolidated loan is fixed. So while current law gives individuals a longer time to repay their student debt, it does not allow them to take advantage of the low interest rates that prevail in the marketplace today. Graduates may refinance their houses at lower rates but cannot do the same with student loans.

My bill would change that and would permit individuals to refinance their consolidated Federal loans at the same interest rate as Federal Stafford loans, which fluctuate with the market and are generally below the prevailing market rate. Individuals could refinance anytime their consolidated loan rate exceeded 1 percent of the Stafford loan rate. And under my bill the borrower is not required to pay any fee or costs when they refinance.

There are many in Congress who have introduced legislation to make a college education more accessible and affordable to American students. I support many of those efforts. My modest bill is a step in this direction, and I encourage my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to prevent chemicals that leak from underground storage tanks from causing environmental and public health damage. My colleague in the House of Representatives, Mr. Dingell, is introducing companion legislation.

Underground storage tanks can hold extremely toxic chemicals that can move rapidly through soil, contaminating the ground, aquifers, streams and other bodies of water. Underground storage tanks are located in urban and rural areas. When they leak, they present substantial risks to groundwater quality, human health, environmental quality, and economic growth.

There are approximately 700,000 underground storage tanks in the United States, and more than 430,000 confirmed releases from these tanks as of

mid-2003. By and large, MTBE contamination has come from leaking underground storage tanks. MTBE has contaminated water supplies in 43 States. Twenty-nine States have drinking water contamination. Estimates indicate that it will cost at least $29 billion to clean up MTBE contamination nationwide. Currently, the leaking underground storage tanks program and other laws ensure that responsible parties pay to clean up the damage caused by these leaking spills.

However, the best solution to leaking underground storage tanks is to prevent them from leaking in the first place with the use of secondary containment, such as double walls. There is already widespread support for this throughout the country. Twenty-one States already require secondary containment, either for all new or replaced tanks--such as in California, or for all new or replaced tanks in sensitive areas. In addition, two States are awaiting final passage or approval of such requirements, and one State requires tertiary, such as triple walls, containment. According to figures from the Petroleum Equipment Institute, 57 percent of all tanks installed from 2000 through 2003 were double walled.

But this is not fast enough in the face of the threats to our drinking and groundwater. Approximately 50 percent of the population relies on groundwater for their drinking water. In 2000, 42 States had MTBE detected in soil or groundwater at gasoline-contaminated leaking underground storage tank sites. The time to prevent contamination is now.

We must ensure the environmental health and safety of our water. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the Consolidated Student Loan Reduction Act of 2004.

A college education is becoming more and more crucial as American workers seek to compete in the global marketplace. Yet, the cost of a college education is rising each year, making it less accessible to low and moderate income individuals. While grants and scholarships are available, students have come to increasingly rely on student loans. Between 1992 and 2002, Federal student loans increased by 165 percent, and in 2003, $65 billion--or 70 percent of total Federal student aid-- was in the form of loans. The average debt for a college graduate is $17,000, and it can exceed $100,000 for a graduate student.

Under Federal law, and in order to receive longer repayment terms, individuals may consolidate their student loans into one loan. The interest rate on the consolidated loan is fixed. So while current law gives individuals a longer time to repay their student debt, it does not allow them to take advantage of the low interest rates that prevail in the marketplace today. Graduates may refinance their houses at lower rates but cannot do the same with student loans.

My bill would change that and would permit individuals to refinance their consolidated Federal loans at the same interest rate as Federal Stafford loans, which fluctuate with the market and are generally below the prevailing market rate. Individuals could refinance anytime their consolidated loan rate exceeded 1 percent of the Stafford loan rate. And under my bill the borrower is not required to pay any fee or costs when they refinance.

There are many in Congress who have introduced legislation to make a college education more accessible and affordable to American students. I support many of those efforts. My modest bill is a step in this direction, and I encourage my colleagues to support this effort.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to prevent chemicals that leak from underground storage tanks from causing environmental and public health damage. My colleague in the House of Representatives, Mr. Dingell, is introducing companion legislation.

Underground storage tanks can hold extremely toxic chemicals that can move rapidly through soil, contaminating the ground, aquifers, streams and other bodies of water. Underground storage tanks are located in urban and rural areas. When they leak, they present substantial risks to groundwater quality, human health, environmental quality, and economic growth.

There are approximately 700,000 underground storage tanks in the United States, and more than 430,000 confirmed releases from these tanks as of

mid-2003. By and large, MTBE contamination has come from leaking underground storage tanks. MTBE has contaminated water supplies in 43 States. Twenty-nine States have drinking water contamination. Estimates indicate that it will cost at least $29 billion to clean up MTBE contamination nationwide. Currently, the leaking underground storage tanks program and other laws ensure that responsible parties pay to clean up the damage caused by these leaking spills.

However, the best solution to leaking underground storage tanks is to prevent them from leaking in the first place with the use of secondary containment, such as double walls. There is already widespread support for this throughout the country. Twenty-one States already require secondary containment, either for all new or replaced tanks--such as in California, or for all new or replaced tanks in sensitive areas. In addition, two States are awaiting final passage or approval of such requirements, and one State requires tertiary, such as triple walls, containment. According to figures from the Petroleum Equipment Institute, 57 percent of all tanks installed from 2000 through 2003 were double walled.

But this is not fast enough in the face of the threats to our drinking and groundwater. Approximately 50 percent of the population relies on groundwater for their drinking water. In 2000, 42 States had MTBE detected in soil or groundwater at gasoline-contaminated leaking underground storage tank sites. The time to prevent contamination is now.

We must ensure the environmental health and safety of our water. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, this budget resolution is $6.9 billion below the President's request for defense spending for fiscal year 2005. I am voting for the Warner amendment to restore this cut.

I am doing so because I believe we should pay for our activities in Iraq

and Afghanistan within the budget. I do not believe we should pretend those costs do not exist and then have the President come back to Congress saying we did not give him enough money and he needs more.

We must have truth in budgeting. The costs of our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan should be included in the budget; the costs should be paid for with regularly budgeted funds. The alternative is further escalating debt.

I am extremely concerned about the runaway debt. If we do not include in the budget the costs of our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the President will come back with a request for emergency supplemental funds. Those funds do not have to be offset, thereby adding billions of dollars to our national debt.

Therefore, I will vote for the Warner amendment to restore the cut in defense spending.

Madam President, I bring to the Senate's attention an exception and talented student, Moriah Katherine Nachbaur, 17, of Crystal Springs Uplands School in Redwood City, CA. Moriah is the daughter of Dr. Thomas and Susan Nachbaur.

Moriah Nachbaur was recently named a California finalist in the 2004 Intel Science Talent Search for her botany project. The Intel Science Board Talent Search recognizes and rewards America's brightest young minds for their achievements in science and math. Over 1,600 students applied nationwide for the 2004 Intel Science Talent Search, and the field has been narrowed to 40 finalists. A grand prize winner will be selected on March 16th in Washington, DC. I am proud that my State of California has three finalists.

At Crystal Springs Uplands School, Moriah plays varsity badminton. She is a classical pianist and an award winning photographer and poet. Moriah is an outstanding student who was earned many science honors.

California is proud of Moriah Nachbaur and I am pleased to recognize her outstanding accomplishment. I wish her the best of luck at the final awards event and continued success in her education.

Madam President, today I bring to the Senate's attention an exceptional and talented student, Phillip Thomas Deutsch, 17, of La Canada High School in La Canada, CA. Phillip is the son of Doctors Andrew Deutsch and Jeanne Wallace.

Phillip Deutsch was recently named a California finalist in the 2004 Intel Science Talent Search for his chemistry project. The Intel Science Talent Search recognizes and rewards America's brightest young minds for their achievements in science and math. Over 1,600 students applied nationwide for the 2004 Intel Science Talent Search, and the field has been narrowed to 40 finalists. A grant prize winner will be selected on March 16 in Washington, DC. I am proud that my state of California has three finalists.

At La Canada High School, Phillip is an outstanding student. He plays in the flute choir and the concert and marching bands. Phillip was also a semi-finalist for both the U.S. Chemistry and Physics Olympiad Teams in 2003.

Californians are proud of Phillip Deutsch, and I am pleased to recognize his outstanding accomplishment. I wish him the best of luck at the final awards event and continued success in his education.