Floor Statements

Madam President, over the past several months, we have heard about tragic incidents in which female cadets at the Air Force Academy and military service women in Iraq have been the victims of rape and sexual assault. This is deplorable. There are 200,000 women in uniform, yet while they are protecting our Nation, our Nation is failing to protect them from rape and sexual assault.

It is an even greater insult that we are telling our service women that the Department of Defense will not pay if they choose to terminate a pregnancy that is the result of rape.

Current law states that DoD funds may not be used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered. It does not provide any exception for cases of rape and incest--such as is the case in the Medicaid program. The Boxer-Snowe bill would add rape and incest to the life exception that is now law.

While current law allows service members to use military treatment facilities for abortions resulting from rape and incest, the service woman must pay for the procedure out of her own pocket. This is an insult.

According to a study by the Iowa Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 30 percent of female U.S. military veterans report having been raped or having been the victim of an attempted rape during their military service. This legislation will provide help for our female troops in cases of such horrific crimes.

I ask unanimous consent that two letters of support for this bill be printed in the Record.

I am pleased to introduce the First Responders Homeland Defense Act of 2004. This bill would help alleviate funding shortages that our Nation's first responders are experiencing, and would help alleviate confusion about Federal grant programs.

The first provision of the First Responders Homeland Defense Act is a grant assistance hotline. When the Department of Homeland Security was created, many local emergency responder agencies were hopeful that a one-stop shop for homeland security resources would be available. Unfortunately, an easily accessible and understandable resource does not yet exist.

In addition to grants from the Department of Homeland Security, there are many grant programs available to first responders from other federal departments. For example, as part of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention assists state and local public health officials improve hospital preparedness. The Bureau of Justice Assistance at the Department of Justice distributes funding for law enforcement agencies to prepare for terrorist events.

For a local law enforcement agency or fire department, determining eligibility for the wide range of grant programs in a number of different Federal agencies--not to mention even knowing the full range of funding that is available--could be a confusing and daunting task. In order to help make it easier for first responders, my bill would establish a grant assistance hotline at the Department of Homeland Security that would provide local first responders with information on available grants and how to apply for them.

The First Responders Homeland Defense Act also creates a new grant program for tax-exempt non-profit organizations that provide first responder training. Many public and private agencies are creating projects and training programs that involve the business community in defending the homeland. Organizations with non-profit, tax exempt status should be eligible for Federal grant funds when working on community-wide terrorism preparedness. The Department of Homeland Security should fulfill the goal of community-wide preparation by providing Federal assistance to non-profit organizations that operate training programs in conjunction with a local agency.

Finally, the First Responders Homeland Defense Act creates a grant program for another important purpose: interoperable communications systems. Many homeland security experts recognize that while there are many Federal funding opportunities for anti-terrorism activities, there is very little money dedicated to interoperable communications systems. These are systems that allow different local and State agencies to communicate directly with one another--something that is vital to terrorism prevention and response. Yet these systems are all too rare. This bill establishes a grant program at the Department of Homeland Security for the specific purpose of assisting local agencies improve existing communications systems or purchase new systems.

Making the Department of Homeland Security more accessible to local communities and making more resources available to first responders should be a top priority. Many law enforcement officials and other first responders have reviewed this legislation, and I am pleased to introduce the First Responders Homeland Defense Act in response to many of their concerns.

This bill is an important step in fulfilling the Federal responsibility to protect the homeland. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Will my colleague yield for a question?

First let me say how happy I am to hear you and our ranking member have this conversation. This is so important. In a way it is kind of a problem that snuck up on us. I took a look at the loss of manufacturing jobs in California and my heart sank.

Think about it, 272,000 jobs.

There is one area covered in your amendment. Since no one has mentioned it, I want to read into the record a letter and then answer the comment, and then I am done with my role here today other than to say thank you again for your leadership.

This is an interesting issue. It is covered. Your amendment is not reflected on the charts because it deals with agriculture, something in your State you don't have as much of as I have.

I want to read a letter I just wrote to Ann Veneman. I believe this will get you a lot of votes from agriculture country.

Dear Madam Secretary: I was shocked to learn that the U.S.

Department of Agriculture purchased 70,000 metric tons of

rice for the Iraqi people from abroad rather than purchasing

this product from U.S. sources. At a time when U.S. farmers

are facing increased economic pressures and food surpluses,

our taxpayer money should be spent on U.S. commodities, not

the commodities of other nations.

California, like many other States across our nation, is

experiencing a surplus of commodities such as rice that could

provide valuable nutrition to the Iraqi people while

alleviating potential crop losses for our nation's farmers.

Then I talk about California's high quality of rice.

As we work to alleviate food shortages experienced by the

Iraqi people, we have a unique opportunity to assist our own

farmers. I request USDA reconsider this decision and instead

purchase the needed quantity of rice from U.S. farmers. In

the future, USDA should use taxpayer dollars to purchase U.S.

rice before it spends taxpayer dollars on foreign

commodities.

I wrote this letter on February 24. I am so pleased. I discussed this with your staff. Your amendment would cover this.

Here we have the sons and daughters of America's working people, including people on the farms for sure, going off to Iraq and putting their lives on the line. Now their families either see their jobs going abroad or in this case they are ready and willing to feed the Iraqi people. They are excited about it, they have great products, they have surpluses, and our administration, the Bush administration, goes outside.

I wanted to first of all ask if you were aware of this issue, and, second, say to you whether you were or you were not, I thank you on behalf of the people who make a living from agriculture, because we have our serious problems. We have the best products in the world and we have farmers who are ready to feed the hungry.

No.

I will talk to those from agriculture states because they may not be aware this administration is taking the dollars this body voted on--I had problems with voting on it, but most people voted for it--they are taking that taxpayer money and taking it right out of this country. It is outrageous.

I thank you again for your leadership.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I wanted to ask a question of my friend. I would be happy to defer.

I have a question of my friend, Senator Grassley.

While the Senator was out, I was telling the Senate that I had written to Ann Veneman because with taxpayer dollars the USDA went out and bought rice from a foreign country instead of from my rice farmers. I think that is wrong.

I ask this question of my friend: If there are legitimate concerns, I am sure my friend will sit down and work them out with somebody because you have been here a long time. There is no one who is more patient and more willing to sit down and figure things out. But I have a feeling it is deeper than that. I have a feeling you have touched a nerve today which is a very important nerve to be touched. I think it is being touched in the Presidential campaign. I think it is being touched in the campaigns across our country, and it is being touched here today.

If we don't stand up and do something about this, as my friend pointed out in his very chilling chart--and say there is some complication, there is a message being sent, it may be too late.

I say to my friend, if he is willing and if there is some concerns around the edges which can be worked out, I just hope he won't back off this amendment in a substantial way. If there is a difference between the parties, bring it on, I say. This is what people care about in my State, and I know also in my friend's State. Can he give me a sense of the thinking on how he is going to proceed since the majority will not allow a vote today?

I am really relieved to hear my friend's response to the Senator from Iowa. As I understand his amendment, he has already gone a very long way in answering the concerns that were raised. I hope we will stick with it. I think the people in this country are watching. They are not only watching CNN, but they want to know what we are doing. It is an amendment that I have been looking forward to for a long time. We have to make a stand, and I think what my friend is doing is not overreaching.

I rise to say thank you to the Senator for sticking with it, and I will do all I can to help him get it passed.

Mr. President, over 43 million Americans are uninsured, which means that one in every 7 Americans has no health insurance. It is not surprising that two-thirds of the uninsured are low-income. What may be surprising to some is that most of the uninsured--8 in 10--come from working families. Most of these uninsured are not eligible for public health insurance programs, such as Medicaid or SCHIP.

Lack of health insurance too often means poorer health care. The uninsured receive less preventive care, are diagnosed at more advanced disease stages, and once diagnosed, tend to receive less therapeutic care. The Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 Americans die prematurely each year due to the effects of a lack of health insurance.

The plight of the uninsured has consequences that reach beyond the uninsured. In 2001, the uninsured amounted to about $35 billion in uncompensated care. Those costs are borne by all of us through higher health care costs and government-funded reimbursements.

Furthermore, the Institute of Medicine suggests that the reduced health and higher mortality of the uninsured costs society between $65 billion and $130 billion a year, and concludes that public programs are likely to have higher budgetary costs than they would if everyone under 65 had health insurance. In addition, the Urban Institute recently found that if people were covered by insurance, there could be savings to Medicare and Medicaid of $10 billion a year.

Even those who have health insurance find it extremely expensive and of poor quality. It is time to expand access to affordable, quality health insurance for all Americans.

The bill I am introducing today, the ``Universal Access to Affordable Insurance for All Americans Act of 2004,'' is a partial solution that will give Americans access to the same health insurance program as Members of Congress.

It establishes a separate risk pool within the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program for individuals who wish to purchase individual or family coverage. The Office of Personnel Management would make at least one private health insurance plan available through the FEHBP to non-Federal employees. While individuals will have access to the same program as Federal employees, the entry of others into FEHBP will not affect Federal employees at all.

My bill also makes this insurance affordable by establishing advanceable, refundable tax credits for certain low and middle-income participants. For those below poverty, the credit is 100 percent. The credit is gradually decreased up to 400 percent of poverty. So a family of 4 making $18,850 or less would receive a 100 percent credit. A family of 4 making $75,000 would receive a 30 percent credit.

We need to begin implementing measures to provide all Americans with access to affordable health coverage. My bill is a step toward this goal.

Mr. President, over 43 million Americans are uninsured, which means that one in every 7 Americans has no health insurance. It is not surprising that two-thirds of the uninsured are low-income. What may be surprising to some is that most of the uninsured--8 in 10--come from working families. Most of these uninsured are not eligible for public health insurance programs, such as Medicaid or SCHIP.

Lack of health insurance too often means poorer health care. The uninsured receive less preventive care, are diagnosed at more advanced disease stages, and once diagnosed, tend to receive less therapeutic care. The Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 Americans die prematurely each year due to the effects of a lack of health insurance.

The plight of the uninsured has consequences that reach beyond the uninsured. In 2001, the uninsured amounted to about $35 billion in uncompensated care. Those costs are borne by all of us through higher health care costs and government-funded reimbursements.

Furthermore, the Institute of Medicine suggests that the reduced health and higher mortality of the uninsured costs society between $65 billion and $130 billion a year, and concludes that public programs are likely to have higher budgetary costs than they would if everyone under 65 had health insurance. In addition, the Urban Institute recently found that if people were covered by insurance, there could be savings to Medicare and Medicaid of $10 billion a year.

Even those who have health insurance find it extremely expensive and of poor quality. It is time to expand access to affordable, quality health insurance for all Americans.

The bill I am introducing today, the ``Universal Access to Affordable Insurance for All Americans Act of 2004,'' is a partial solution that will give Americans access to the same health insurance program as Members of Congress.

It establishes a separate risk pool within the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program for individuals who wish to purchase individual or family coverage. The Office of Personnel Management would make at least one private health insurance plan available through the FEHBP to non-Federal employees. While individuals will have access to the same program as Federal employees, the entry of others into FEHBP will not affect Federal employees at all.

My bill also makes this insurance affordable by establishing advanceable, refundable tax credits for certain low and middle-income participants. For those below poverty, the credit is 100 percent. The credit is gradually decreased up to 400 percent of poverty. So a family of 4 making $18,850 or less would receive a 100 percent credit. A family of 4 making $75,000 would receive a 30 percent credit.

We need to begin implementing measures to provide all Americans with access to affordable health coverage. My bill is a step toward this goal.

Mr. President, as we all know, law enforcement officers are never ``off duty.'' They are dedicated public servants who are sworn to protect public safety at any time and place that the peace is threatened. They need all the help that they can get.

That is why I am so proud to cosponsor this bipartisan amendment to allow off-duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry a firearm if they meet the same state firearms training and qualifications as an active officer.

Today, there is a complex patchwork of Federal, State, and local laws that govern whether current and retired law enforcement officers can carry concealed firearms. This patchwork approach is confusing and ineffective. This amendment will establish a measure of uniformity and consistency across the country.

Over 740,000 sworn law enforcement officers serve in this country. In the last decade alone, more than 1,700 law enforcement officers have been killed in the line of duty. That's an average of 170 deaths per year. And, roughly 5 percent of these were killed while taking law enforcement action in an off-duty capacity.

Even the death of one police officer is unacceptable. We can and must do more to protect them, and that is why I support this amendment. It will increase the ability of law enforcement officers to protect themselves, their families, and our communities.

Mr. President, I rise to share with my colleagues the memory of retired Air Force LTC Frank Louis Bosch. COL Bosch was a dedicated member of the armed services and a dedicated community volunteer. His life is truly an example of selflessness and service to others.

COL Bosch was born in New Orleans and raised in Brooklyn, NY. Throughout his commendable service in the Army Air Forces, he flew night missions in World War II, commanded a fighter group in the Korean War, and received the Distinguished Flying Cross for his participation in the Battle of Khe Sanh in Vietnam.

Upon retiring, COL Bosch refused to believe that his service to others must end. After earning a bachelor's and master's degree in physical education from George Mason University, he created and led exercise programs for seniors at the Fairfax County recreation department. He also organized softball leagues, ice skating groups, and the Northern Virginia Senior Olympics. He worked as a docent and guide at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and assisted the priests of Fort Meyers with burials of veterans at Arlington National Cemetery. He served as an election officer in Fairfax, Eucharistic minister and usher at St. Michael's church in Annandale, was a former vice president of the WWII Night Fighters Association and a member of the Knights of Columbus.

Although he never looked to be rewarded for his service to both country and community, honors were frequently bestowed upon him. Along with the Distinguished Flying Cross, he was awarded the Virginia Governors Award for volunteering and the National Park Service's volunteer-of-the-year.

COL Bosch's life serves as an inspiration to all who knew him or have heard his story. When his son Paul called my office today, he mentioned that at the colonel's funeral at Arlington, ``the sun came out just long enough for us to have a very warm feeling.'' I know that the example of COL Bosch's life will be a warm feeling for all of us as we remember his bravery, generosity and compassion.

I extend my deepest sympathies to his wife, Mardy, his sons and daughters, his grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. I am confident that COL Bosch's spirit will live on in them for years to come.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the philanthropic works of Ernest C. Levister, Jr., M.D. For his longstanding commitment to the health of residents of the Inland

Empire, he has been honored by the California Medical Association Foundation with the Robert D. Sparks, M.D. Leadership Award.

The Robert D. Sparks, M.D. Leadership Award recognizes individuals or organizations for outstanding community health achievements. Dr. Levister's accomplishments have not only met this criterion, but led to programs and policy that will continue to facilitate medical advances for years to come.

For the past 30 years, Dr. Levister has used his expertise to educate others, empowering his community with knowledge. He has been honored for addressing the medical concerns and questions of the Inland Empire's African-American community through his ``Our Bodies'' column in the Black Voice News since 1986. His founding role in the Technology Access Partnership Foundation, a foundation that endeavors to increase accessibility to informational technologies, is also testament to his commitment to ensuring that traditionally underrepresented groups have the tools they need to live happy, healthy lives.

As president of the J.W. Vines Medical Society from 1994 to 2001, Dr. Levister strove to make educational opportunities available to students of all backgrounds, encourage African Americans' entrance into and continued progress in the medical field, and improve overall patient care. He is a cofounder of the Vines Foundation, which works to create educational opportunities for African-American students pursuing health and science-related careers.

Dr. Levister is credited as a major influence in changes that the University of California, Riverside made to its Bio Medical Science Program, which now offers more opportunities to disadvantaged students and pre-med faculty positions to those who are traditionally underrepresented. Other recognitions include the Silver Scalpel Award from the California Society of Industrial Medicine and Surgery for his work to protect the rights of injured workers and their physicians, the 2000 Black Rose and Humanitarian of the Year Award given to Dr. and Mrs. Levister for their service to their community, and the San Bernardino County Medical Society's 2003 Award for Outstanding Contribution to the Community.

Dr. Levister's fine leadership has paved the way for the continued propagation of a diverse medical community to address the complex and varied health care needs of the Inland Empire Community. It is with great pleasure that I congratulate Dr. Levister on his receipt of the prestigious Robert D. Sparks Leadership Award.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the 100th Anniversary of Congregation Sherith Israel's historic sanctuary building in the City of San Francisco in my home State of California.

Congregation Sherith Israel, established in 1849, is one of the oldest Reform congregations in the West. Reform Judaism spread throughout North America more than 130 years ago and is

now the largest Jewish movement in North America, with more than 900 congregations and 1.5 million people.

Congregation Sherith Israel's synagogue building is located at the corner of California and Webster Streets in San Francisco. This year marks the centennial of this historic building, whose cornerstone was laid on February 22, 1904. The building was designed by renowned Bay Area architect Albert Pissis, who was an important figure in the rebuilding of downtown San Francisco after the city's most famous disaster, the Great Earthquake and Fire of 1906.

The 1906 Earthquake and Fire left the city in smoking ruins and destroyed many public structures. Congregation Sherith Israel's synagogue withstood this disaster and was able to house many important events following the destruction. The building served as the city's Superior Court for more than 2 years and, in 1945, hosted one of the organizing sessions of the United Nations.

Today, this unique building has an austere exterior which hides a lavish and ornamental interior, complete with the finest stained glass, pews of rare Honduran mahogany, polished marble floors and beautifully detailed painted walls and ceilings. The synagogue is home to a working original Murray M. Harris Company organ. Harris was the pioneer Los Angeles organ builder who is generally regarded as ``the Father of Organbuilding in the West.'' The chapel also contains Congregation Sherith Israel's original Holy Ark, built in 1970.

The blue-grey dome of the synagogue, taller than the dome of San Francisco City Hall, is touted as one of the highest in the city. The dome, visible from many vistas around San Francisco, is a wonderful reminder of this building's history and importance to San Francisco. Congregation Sherith Israel's sanctuary building also continues to represent the spiritual strength, diversity and pioneer spirit of San Francisco's Jewish community. A hallmark of Reform Judaism is ``tikkun olam,'' or repairing the world, a desire to bring peace, freedom, and justice to all people. Congregation Sherith Israel is a wonderful example of tikkun olam in the San Francisco Bay Area.

I am very pleased to recognize this beautiful and historic building. I hope the people of San Francisco and the members of Congregation Sherith Israel continue to enjoy this building for many more years.

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

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

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who worked late into the night to put forward a list of amendments this body would consider. I am very proud my amendment made the list. It is an amendment this Senate has supported before. It is an amendment that will protect our children from violence, and what could be more important to us as we gather here every day than to protect our children?

My measure would do two things. First, it would require that every handgun sold in this country come with a child safety device. The amendment is very broad on what that could be, so it really isn't a micromanaging type of amendment. This device could be a lock using a key or a combination, a device that locks electronically, it could be a lockbox, or technology that is built into the gun itself. Many of the folks working on this type of technology are very enthusiastic about it.

There is no question in my mind, there is no question in the minds of the police in my State who just had a press conference on this issue, if we were to agree to this and it were to become the law of the land, the number of children involved in accidental shootings would go way down. So that is the first thing we do. We require some type of a lock when you buy a handgun.

Second, my amendment would make sure child safety devices are effective and that they are not shoddy or of poor quality. One of the worst things we could do is pass a bill that requires these devices and then the device doesn't work. That would be a terrible thing for our families. So the bill requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission to establish standards for the design of these locks and these boxes and a standard for their performance. We want to make sure, when parents use a child safety device, that they are confident it will work as intended.

In 1999 the Senate passed an amendment by a vote of 78 to 20 to require that all handguns in this country be sold with a child safety device. The majority of our colleagues very strongly

supported this in quite a bipartisan way. I believe we should again agree that we need to protect our children from accidental gun shootings.

My home State of California recently enacted an excellent child safety device bill. It requires that all licensed dealers and manufacturers equip the guns they sell with State-certified child safety devices. This is a very important bill for my State and I am proud of my State for doing it. But it is clear that the States along California's border do not have this requirement. Not one of those States has child safety device laws. That means even if California--and we do--has a good law, anyone can purchase a gun without a safety lock from a border State and return to California with it. Therefore, the progress we hope to make in California will be set back because we don't have a uniform and standard law.

The other important feature of our bill that impacts Californians is that while there is a State-certified standard for gunlocks in my State, those standards have not been set by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and everyone agrees that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is the premier organization in the country that sets the gold standard. Again, I think it is very important that we have this type of standard because, as many colleagues point out, the manufacturers of these devices deserve some guidance. California may have one set of standards, we could have another set of standards in New York, or in the Midwest, and we are going to have a potpourri of standards floating around rather than what I call the gold standard of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The other important point for my people of California--again, they have the safety lock law--is that the amendment allows for a Federal cause of action for violations of this child safety requirement. So if in fact there is a serious problem with a child safety lock, and the State for some reason doesn't get its act together, doesn't put the case together, and so on, there will be a Federal cause of action. It is kind of a double protection for the children.

I would like to talk about the need for this amendment for a moment. I have a chart that shows the statistics. In the United States of America, in our great country, the greatest country in the world, a child or a youth is killed by an accidental shooting every 48 hours-- every 48 hours. Where do these statistics come from? The FBI. For every child killed by a gun, four are wounded. Where does that come from? The Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, December--I am assuming that is 2000--volume 55, No. 12.

What does this mean, when you multiply it out? Thousands of children are injured or killed by guns every year in this country. According to the CDC, the rate of firearm deaths of children under the age of 14 is nearly 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

Let me repeat that. The rate of firearm deaths of children under the age of 14 is 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized nations combined.

Colleagues stand up and say: Guns don't kill people; people kill people. If you want to, say: Guns don't kill children; children kill children. Yes, children kill children because they pick up a gun and they fire it at a friend. They fire it at a brother. They don't understand the consequences of this. More than 22 million children live in homes with guns. I want you to envision this--22 million children live in homes with guns. More than 3.3 million of those children live in homes where the guns are always or sometimes kept loaded and unlocked.

Too many children are playing with real guns found in their parents' bedroom or a friend's home, and too many children are killed in this country because they are doing what children do: They are exploring; they are being curious. I don't know how many times I have heard stories with tearful parents saying: I kept that gun away from my child. It was far away from my child. It was in the highest, darkest corner of the deepest, tallest closet in my house. I never thought my baby could climb up and find that gun.

Well, they do. They do. Children are smart. They are tenacious. They are energetic. One study found that when a gun was in the home, 75 to 80 percent of first and second graders knew where their parents kept that gun. Seventy-five to eighty percent of first and second graders knew where their parents kept that gun.

In this country, we do so much to protect our children. We worry about them, as we should; it is our responsibility. We make sure that in a car they are put in a child seat facing in the right direction so they don't have a tendency to get hurt in an accident. We have airbags to protect them. We protect them from shoddy toys, such as Play-Doh that they could eat and could hurt them. We set standards. We set standards for Teddy bears, for toys. We care about our children.

I wrote the afterschool law we have here with Senator Ensign. We love our children, every one of us--our own children, our children's children. We are here to protect the children. That is part of our job.

So let me reiterate, one study found that when a gun was in the home, 75 percent to 80 percent of first and second graders knew where the parents kept that gun. So even if that gun is in a closet, at the top of a closet, under towels or blankets, kids are tenacious and they find the guns. But if they found a lockbox and they couldn't open it, they would be protected. If they grab that gun and it had a child safety device on it and they tried to shoot, it wouldn't go off. If the gun had technology built in it so that only when the parents held it it would fire, they would be protected.

It seems to me in this day and age when we are losing a child or a youth to an accidental shooting every 48 hours, we ought to be absolutely united in doing something about it.

I want to show you the face of a beautiful young man, Kenzo, a Californian, 15 years old, with his mom. His friend, Michael, while playing with a gun, shot Kenzo Bix, and he is gone forever. If that gun had had a child safety device on it, it wouldn't have happened.

I will give you some other stories.

Just this January in Indio, CA, a 17-year-old boy named Jason Weed died after his 14-year-old brother accidentally shot him in the head. The other boy was showing him the gun in the home when it accidentally went off, lodging a bullet in the small boy's head. If that gun had had a safety device, and if the amendment we already passed here--the Kohl- Hatch-Boxer amendment that passed here the last time--had been adopted in the other body, if it had been signed into law, Kenzo would be alive; and this child I just talked about, Jason Weed, would be alive.

Then there is a story from Florida. There are so many stories, and we just picked a few.

A 3-year-old, Colton Hinke, and his 2-year old sister Kaile were playing in her parents' bedroom when Colton found an unlocked, loaded handgun in the drawer. A neighbor heard the shot and rushed to the scene and found Kaile on her back, her face pale, her lips blue, and a small hole in her chest. She was in shock, and she was rushed to the hospital, but it was too late.

Mr. President, I was told I had 30 minutes.

May I ask for one additional minute from each side so I can conclude?

Thank you so very much.

There is another incident where a 1-year-old girl was critically injured by her 3-year-old brother. This little girl survived.

I could go on, but I don't have the time at this point.

Let's pass this measure. I know Senators DeWine and Kohl have an amendment to change my bill in a very small way. I don't have a problem with that. I will be supporting that. I just know the overriding concern of mine, and I really do think most people in this body who voted for this the last time, is let us protect our kids. Let us do it in a smart way. It is the right thing to do for the families of America.

I yield the floor.

I take this time to respond to the point made that the gun manufacturers are taking care of the child safety locks and that we do not need to have this law.

The experts in this whole field have turned out to be the National SAFE KIDS Campaign. This is a bipartisan organization that has one mission only and that is to protect our children. When they saw these statistics that are still occurring today, they said enough is enough. A child or youth is killed by a firearm every 3 hours. This has not changed.

In 1997, the gun manufacturers said they would work on this themselves, that they did not need a law. Research assessing the compliance with this agreement found most manufacturers were not providing locks and those that did offered low-quality devices where the locks just fell off and did not work.

The SAFE KIDS Campaign is urging us to include a provision to issue safe standards for gunlocks. This is very important.

My colleague says this is taken care of. It is not taken care of. We still have children dying. We still have our constituents calling with the tragic cases. I read some of the cases, but not all of them, case after case, kids finding out where there is a gun, grabbing it and trying to act out a fantasy, not understanding this is a lethal weapon that can kill or maim a brother, a neighbor, a friend.

We did not tell the makers of aspirin, we know you are good manufacturers. They are good manufacturers. We do not tell them, please make a childproof cap. They have to make a childproof cap. There are good manufacturers out there. I applaud them. But if you look at our bill and the way it works, we are not mandating a particular one-size- fits-all solution. We are very careful to

say we know there are many different handguns--this only applies to handguns; in my State we have one that applies to rifles and long guns, but this is just a handgun--we say you can have in your array of products a box that locks. You can have the technology built in the gun. You can have a combination lock.

I appreciate my friend does not like to put regulations on gun manufacturers and dealers. I understand that. And I understand he believes they are the best of the best of the best. But the problem is, our kids are dying in the home. They are smart. They find out where the guns are. I cannot understand why this is not something we would all support. The last time it came to the Senate, we had a huge vote. I am hoping we will have a similar vote.

Look to the people. We are in charge of a lot of issues. The National SAFE KIDS Campaign is about one issue, the safety of kids. They are bipartisan. They are begging us to make this the law of the land. The Senate did it once before. The Senate should do it again.

Children living in the South have an unintentional shooting death rate that is 7 times that of children living in the Northeast. That is a fact the National SAFE KIDS Campaign has shown. All we need to do is see the rate our kids are dying and compare it to 25 other countries to see our kids are at a great disadvantage. We can do something today. I hope we will.

I yield my time.

I appreciate my friend yielding.

I think this argument has now been joined. The argument Senator Craig makes against this amendment, to me, is just off point. This bill is not a mandatory storage law. This has nothing to do with a mandatory storage law. The fact is we have passed this before, 78 to 20. We are not saying you have to have storage. We are saying that when you go to buy a handgun, it has some type of device on it. We don't mandate what that device is. We say it could be one of five or six different things. There will be standards set. It is not one-size-fits-all. It is not a mandatory storage law.

I agree with my friend, if the gun manufacturers do this on their own, that is great. But as we have learned from the SAFE KIDS Campaign, not all of them are doing it. Some of them are and some of our kids are exposed.

I have two quick further points to make.

I ask for an additional minute and give my friend 2 additional minutes.

Let me make this point. When my friend compares an accidental shooting with a gun resulting in a death to a suicide, I would say that is quite different, because in the tragedy of suicide, although my friend is quite right, we do try on some of our bridges to build barriers, but if there is an intent, although we do our best, we often fail. But a 3-year-old or 5-year-old child picking up a gun really doesn't know someone is going to die. So it is up to us to make sure we do our best. That is all; we do our best.

My last point. There are standards for aspirin caps, cribs, Play-Doh, Teddy bears, pajamas. There ought to be a standard for a safety lock on a gun. I don't think we do violence to freedom in any way.

I wish my friend were with me on this, but if not, I hope we can repeat the vote we had last time; 78 to 20 sounds really good. I hope we can do that again.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to note that Sy and Estelle

Opper are being honored on February 29, 2004 in Sacramento, CA on the occasion of the Shalom School's ``Lighting the Way Gala'' for their lifelong contributions to improving our society. Sy and Estelle's extraordinary dedication to helping others is worthy of this special recognition.

The Oppers have an exceptional history of humanitarian work. They provided goods and services to their community as owners of five plumbing supply stores and shared their success and time with deserving causes close to their hearts.

In addition to traveling to Israel for several missions, the Oppers are long-time members of American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC. Sy and Estelle are major donors and participants and helped the Jewish Federation purchase the property and building where Shalom School, Sacramento's only Jewish Day School, is located. Sy Opper has served as president of the board for several Jewish organizations, including the Jewish Federation and B'nei Israel Congregation, and is currently serving on the board of the Trust Fund for the Jewish Elderly and the Jewish Family Service Board. Estelle Opper has also been active in many Jewish organizations such as Hadassah, TDX, Sisterhood, Jewish Family Service and the Grandparents Club at Shalom School.

Children's and health causes have also been a priority for the Oppers. Sy has personally contributed and organized fund raising for the Washington Neighborhood Center of Sacramento. This center provides after-school programs that include performing arts classes and tutoring to at-risk children and teens. Estelle has supported and helped raise funds for the Breast Cancer Fund of San Francisco and the River Oaks Center for Children, a multi-service behavioral healthcare agency for abused children and their families. Estelle has also raised funds for the City of Hope National Medical Center that provides assistance to millions of people battling life-threatening diseases.

I applaud Sy and Estelle for committing their lives to the betterment of their community and beyond, and extend my sincere best wishes for their continued health, happiness and good work. Sy and Estelle Opper are distinguished members of the Sacramento community, and it is with great pleasure that I recognize them today.

Mr. President, in accordance with the Medicare legislation that Congress passed and the President signed into law last year included, beginning in 2010, a ``premium support'' demonstration project in up to 6 areas of the country. If included in this project, seniors will face increased premiums if they choose to stay in traditional ``fee-for-service'' Medicare instead of joining an HMO. They call it a ``demonstration project'' but it ought to be called a ``demolition project'' because this plan will demolish Medicare for millions of seniors.

CBO estimates that 1 to 1.5 million Medicare beneficiaries are likely to be involved in the demolition project. In reality, the numbers could be much higher--one in six Medicare beneficiaries could be forced to participate in this experiment. In California, 12 of its metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) now qualify for the demonstration project. If the two largest MSAs are chosen for this demonstration project, 1.4 million Californians will be forced into this experiment and will be faced with a Hobson's choice. They will be required to join an HMO or pay higher premiums.

We know what happens in these situations. Healthy people will choose the HMO, leaving sicker seniors in fee-for-service plans. As costs in traditional Medicare spiral even higher due to its pool of sicker seniors, the costs of Medicare will rise. Medicare will be weaker.

That brings us to the real question: Why is this necessary? Is it because seniors can't choose HMOs under the current system? No. Seniors can choose to join an HMO right now if they wish. I'll tell you why: It is a backdoor attempt to achieve Newt Gingrich's vision for a Medicare that will ``whither on the vine.''

Twenty-two of my colleagues are introducing bills to exempt their States from this demolition project. Along with them, I am introducing a bill that will exempt California as well. I do not want California seniors to be forced to swallow the bitter choice between high costs or lower quality HMO service.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, we would all agree that we need to protect our children from violence. However, too many of our children continue to be injured or killed by guns. That is why I am introducing the Child Safety Device Act.

This is a very simple measure. Every handgun sold must come with a child safety device. This can be a lock using a key or combination, a device that locks electronically, a lock box, or technology that is built into the gun itself. With this safety measure in place, we can reduce the number of accidental gun deaths among our children.

More than 22 million children live in homes with guns. And more than 3.3 million of them live in homes where the guns are always or sometimes kept loaded and unlocked. The result is the accidental deaths of 182 young people each year--that's one every 48 hours.

We ``childproof'' our medicine bottles; we put gates up near stairs; we make sure that toys are not toxic. But we don't require that guns come with safety devices. We should.

And to ensure that those devices are effective, my bill requires that the Consumer Product Safety Commission establish standards for their design, manufacture, and performance. When parents use a child safety device, they should have confidence that it works as intended.

The Child Safety Device Act will improve the safety of our children-- and it will help save lives.

Mr. President, in accordance with the Medicare legislation that Congress passed and the President signed into law last year included, beginning in 2010, a ``premium support'' demonstration project in up to 6 areas of the country. If included in this project, seniors will face increased premiums if they choose to stay in traditional ``fee-for-service'' Medicare instead of joining an HMO. They call it a ``demonstration project'' but it ought to be called a ``demolition project'' because this plan will demolish Medicare for millions of seniors.

CBO estimates that 1 to 1.5 million Medicare beneficiaries are likely to be involved in the demolition project. In reality, the numbers could be much higher--one in six Medicare beneficiaries could be forced to participate in this experiment. In California, 12 of its metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) now qualify for the demonstration project. If the two largest MSAs are chosen for this demonstration project, 1.4 million Californians will be forced into this experiment and will be faced with a Hobson's choice. They will be required to join an HMO or pay higher premiums.

We know what happens in these situations. Healthy people will choose the HMO, leaving sicker seniors in fee-for-service plans. As costs in traditional Medicare spiral even higher due to its pool of sicker seniors, the costs of Medicare will rise. Medicare will be weaker.

That brings us to the real question: Why is this necessary? Is it because seniors can't choose HMOs under the current system? No. Seniors can choose to join an HMO right now if they wish. I'll tell you why: It is a backdoor attempt to achieve Newt Gingrich's vision for a Medicare that will ``whither on the vine.''

Twenty-two of my colleagues are introducing bills to exempt their States from this demolition project. Along with them, I am introducing a bill that will exempt California as well. I do not want California seniors to be forced to swallow the bitter choice between high costs or lower quality HMO service.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, we would all agree that we need to protect our children from violence. However, too many of our children continue to be injured or killed by guns. That is why I am introducing the Child Safety Device Act.

This is a very simple measure. Every handgun sold must come with a child safety device. This can be a lock using a key or combination, a device that locks electronically, a lock box, or technology that is built into the gun itself. With this safety measure in place, we can reduce the number of accidental gun deaths among our children.

More than 22 million children live in homes with guns. And more than 3.3 million of them live in homes where the guns are always or sometimes kept loaded and unlocked. The result is the accidental deaths of 182 young people each year--that's one every 48 hours.

We ``childproof'' our medicine bottles; we put gates up near stairs; we make sure that toys are not toxic. But we don't require that guns come with safety devices. We should.

And to ensure that those devices are effective, my bill requires that the Consumer Product Safety Commission establish standards for their design, manufacture, and performance. When parents use a child safety device, they should have confidence that it works as intended.

The Child Safety Device Act will improve the safety of our children-- and it will help save lives.

Mr. President, I start off by thanking the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, for telling me yesterday that he would be really pleased for me to speak for 5 minutes. This Environment and Public Works Committee is quite a unique committee, extremely bipartisan. Working with Senator Jeffords, Senator Inhofe, also with Senator Reid, Senator Bond, and also with the help of the majority leader and the Democratic leader, this is a very important moment for this Senate.

Why do I say that? Times are very tough in this Nation and we have a Nation divided on so many issues. But one thing we are not divided about is the fact that we have a very serious job issue in our country. Now, each party has reasons for why they think this is happening and I will not go into that; I don't have enough time to do it now.

This morning, I learned on the news that, surprisingly, jobless claims are up this week again, and retail sales are down. We have a problem in this country--outsourcing of jobs. That is a big problem in this country, although it seems that the administration doesn't think so. I think most Americans--a very strong number of Americans--believe that taking jobs overseas is a serious problem. Without those jobs, families struggle. With the fear of losing their jobs, our families are anxious.

This is a bill that will build the highway and transit systems we need. This is a bill that will put people to work with good jobs, excellent jobs, and good benefits that will bring a benefit to the country. No country that wants to be the leader of the world--which we already are--can survive if it doesn't keep it up with its infrastructure needs. This committee understands that. This Public Works Committee has overcome the things that divide us.

Is the formula perfect? No, it is not.

For my State, we are definitely doing better, and I am very pleased about that. But I can tell you this: We need the million jobs this bill will bring. We need the 100,000 jobs that will come to my State. We need these important road projects. We need to move goods in this society. Goods movement is one of the key issues we have addressed in this bill.

In States such as California, where goods are moving off ports and into the interior of the country, we need attention to these problems. This bill pays attention to these problems.

At my behest, there is language in the bill about using funds to reduce congestion. Congestion is a real problem. This chart shows how many hours are wasted every year with people sitting in their cars in traffic.

In Los Angeles--we are talking about a year's time--136 hours. That is what the average person is wasting sitting in their car in Los Angeles; San Francisco-Oakland, 92 hours a year; San Jose, 74; the inland empire, an area that is receiving all the goods from a very robust port of Los Angeles, 64 hours; San Diego, 51 hours.

Whether you are looking at jobs, whether you are looking at goods movement----

Mr. President, I ask if I may have 1 minute to complete my thoughts.

That would be wonderful.

Mr. President, since I have 2 minutes, I wish to say to my chairman--he may not have heard me--how proud I am of this committee. His work, along with Senator Reid, Senator Jeffords, and the two leaders, has brought us to this point. I personally say for my State and the people in my State who are stuck sitting in traffic 136 hours a year in Los Angeles, thank you.

The Senator's State is a small State. We are a State with 35 million people, growing to 50 million people. This bill is our lifeblood. I am so pleased we have a chance today to vote up or down on a clean bill.

Are there problems with the fact the Commerce Committee did not produce a piece about rail? I think it is a problem. I sit on the Commerce Committee, and I wish we had done it, and I hope, as this bill moves forward, we can address that issue. But we have a bill that is going to meet the problems of this century, that is going to move us forward.

This is the greatest country in the world. We have to have an infrastructure that keeps up. I thank very much the leaders of the committee on which I am proud to serve. I thank the Chair. I hope we get a resounding vote so we can move to this bill and do something to create jobs and create an infrastructure that we need at this time.

Mr. President, I wanted to discuss the importance of the seismic retrofit project for the Golden Gate Bridge.

The Golden Gate Bridge is an internationally known landmark. The bridge was constructed with local funding and opened in 1937, serving as a critical link in California's highway system.

The Golden Gate Bridge now carries 40 million vehicles a year and is visited by more than 10 million people annually. However, retrofitting this bridge to withstand an earthquake with a magnitude of 8.3 is an expensive undertaking, with a total cost of $392 million.

The Golden Gate Bridge District paid for the first part of the retrofit--$71 million--with tolls. But, tolls will never raise enough money. Federal assistance is needed to protect this national treasure.

In TEA-21, I was able to obtain $50 million for the seismic retrofit of the Golden Gate Bridge. I would like to be able to provide funding for this project in SAFETEA.

Thank you for your support.

spirit high priority corridor

Mr. President, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard School of Public Health survey of non-elderly Americans with private health insurance, one-half reported that they had a problem with their health insurance plans in the previous year. They cited delays and denials of coverage or care as their two most common problems. They also said they worried that if they became sick, their health plans would be more concerned about saving money than providing the best treatment. For those in managed care plans, such as HMOs, over two-thirds had this concern.

And they have good reason to be concerned. Let me tell you about two of the many people, who were hurt when HMO decided it needed to save money. Ruby Calad had a hysterectomy and her doctor recommended that she stay in the hospital longer than a day. Cigna, Ruby's insurance company said one day was enough. So Ruby went home, but she was soon in the emergency room because she had developed serious complications. Had Ruby been able to stay in the hospital longer, as recommended by her doctor, this would not have happened.

Juan Davila suffers from diabetes and arthritis. His doctor prescribed VIOXX for his arthritis because it had a lower rate of bleeding and ulcers than drugs on the formulary developed by Aetna. But instead of approving the VIOXX, Juan was required to enter a step program and try two other medications before VIOXX could be approved. He was given naprosyn--a cheaper drug--and three weeks later was rushed to the hospital. He had developed bleeding ulcers, which caused a heart attack and internal bleeding. Juan survived but now cannot take any pain medication that is absorbed by the stomach.

These examples show why medical decisions should be made by doctors, not HMO bureaucrats, and in 2001, the Senate, in a bipartisan vote of 59-36, passed S. 1052, the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act to make sure that happened. Yet, intransigence from the House leadership and the White House prevented that bill from becoming law. Nearly 3 years later, we still have not acted. So, today, I am introducing the exact same bipartisan bill that passed in the Senate in 2001.

This bill provides comprehensive protections to all Americans in all health plans. It says to all Americans who have health insurance, you have rights and protections. It says to HMOs, you have responsibilities and will be held accountable for your wrongful and harmful actions.

This bill ensures that patients have the right to have medical decisions made by their doctors and not HMO bureaucrats. Patients will have the right to see a specialist and go to the closest emergency room for treatment. They will be able to keep the same doctor throughout their medical treatment and appeal adverse claim decisions to an independent reviewer. And if they are injured by a decision made by the HMO, they will have the right to hold their HMO accountable in a court.

A meaningful patients bill of rights is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.