Floor Statements

Will the leader yield for a quick question about the schedule?

I thank you for your comments about the tragedy in California. I was wondering whether it would be possible, when we take up the Healthy Forests bill, to complete work on that without interruption simply because it would send a signal of hope in terms of how we are going to deal with the communities close to forests. It is a very important piece of legislation.

Would that be possible? Could I get the Senator's commitment on that?

If I could make----

Through the Chair, I would like to address another question to the leader.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

I just wanted to say that as far as I am concerned we will work with you to ask Senators on our side if we could have time agreements on amendments on Healthy Forests. We need to give a message of hope to people that their communities will have more help than they had in the past.

I thank you very much for your expressions here in the hope we can work together and get through that bill and move on to the global warming bill which, of course, is very important in its own right.

Mr. President, I thank Senators Cochran and Reid for allowing me to do this. I have been waiting for quite a while. We can get through some of these amendments.

I rise again with a heavy heart to report on the fires raging in my State and bring the Senate up to date on what is happening as of my last report at 3:30 p.m: 600,000 acres of land have been burned, more than 3 times the size of Chicago; 2,000 homes have been destroyed, 18 people are dead. Governor Davis has declared Riverside County a state of emergency. Riverside has asked the President to declare a national disaster there. I have written to the President asking him to act.

In San Diego, we have 30,000 people without power. Our public schools are closed due to bad air. The Cedar Fire in San Diego is raging out of control. It is threatening to merge with the Paradise Fire. The fires as of 3:30 were only 5 miles apart.

The head of the California Department of Fire, Chief Chuck Mayner, said that they have not gotten all of the equipment and the help they have asked for. Senator Feinstein and I have been getting different information. It is a little disconcerting. Yesterday, I heard they got all the equipment. Today I hear they have not. We actually have heard from CDF Chief Mayner that he has not gotten all the equipment and the help. That is backed up by Jim Arta, the deputy chief. I have a list of the things they have asked for. I hope FEMA will act on this.

I have met with Mr. Michael Brown. He is very open to doing all he can, but I merely want to say on the record that we need help. We need strike teams. Strike teams are a combination of resources composed of fire trucks and personnel. We need strike 2 teams composed of fire trucks designed for fighting brush fires. We need 11 engine strike teams for the Paradise Fire, 33 hand strike crews, 12 single resource dozers, two type 1 helicopters, one type 2 helicopter.

We need for the Cedar Fire, in addition to strategic 1 strike teams, strike 3 teams, five type 3 helicopters, four type 1 helicopters, and one type 2 helicopter.

As I stand here giving this report from just a few minutes ago, we are not getting all the help we need to fight these fires. We need it desperately. We urge everyone to work together to get the equipment into these areas.

Our brave firefighters are working to save Julian, which is a town in San Diego County. The winds are making the situation worse. There were hundreds of firefighters working there. The city of Cuyamaca is 90 percent destroyed and 150 homes are gone. In Ventura, we have the Scenic Valley Fire threatening the Stevenson Ranch area. They are already asking us for a FEMA disaster center there.

In San Bernardino, we still have the Old Fire. It is raging out of control, threatening Big Bear and Lake Arrowhead communities. Unpredictable winds are making things worse.

I had a good meeting with a FEMA director today, and a good meeting with Governor-elect Schwarzenegger today. We are all on the same page. We all want to open disaster centers, disaster assistance centers, known as DACs, in the State. I had recommended one in each county. We will have that, plus a couple of mobile units. We are probably going to need more disaster centers because we are talking about so many miles, so many acres. Six hundred thousand acres is a lot of land here. We do not want people to have to go far distances to get what they need.

I want to show a few pictures to my colleagues so you can see what things look like. This is a picture of a home burning in San Bernardino. You can see the raging fires there. Somebody's hopes and dreams are just gone.

I show you a Marine Corps base in San Diego. This is Camp Pendleton. This is a hillside. You can take a look at these fires, and when I am done with these brief opening remarks, I am going to lay down an amendment which deals with helping people in terms of the quality of the air. I wanted to show that.

I want to also share with my colleagues that nine of us, back in April,

sent a letter to the President. I think this is extremely important. This letter was signed by Republicans and Democrats alike--two Senators and Congressmen Dreier, Hunter, Baca, Calvert, Cunningham, Issa, Filner, Davis, Bono, and Lewis--equal numbers, approximately, of Republicans and Democrats.

This is what we asked the President for in April:

We are writing you today to encourage your swift approval

of California Governor Gray Davis' request of a Presidential

emergency declaration for Riverside, San Bernardino and San

Diego counties relative to the high threat of forest fire in

these regions.

Due to drought conditions and infestation by the bark

beetle, our national forests have been met with an

unprecedented danger as the bark beetle has attacked over

415,000 acres of trees in these three counties. Because of

the unique urbanization in and around forests, this

infestation has created a tinder box of such magnitude that

the loss of life and resources would be incomprehensible

should fire break out.

My friends, we said--nine of us--we could have fires like this. We said:

Most of the affected trees are on or adjacent to federal

lands, making this crisis well beyond the ability of state

and local authorities to manage. Therefore, it is critical

that the federal government help provide financial assistance

for infested tree removal from public and private lands, as

well as assist with other mitigation measures. Now that the

State of California has requested a federal emergency

disaster declaration, your help at this juncture remains

critical and would make a positive impact in these areas of

Southern California.

We conclude our letter:

Mr. President, we appreciate the various burdens being

placed upon you in these challenging days. However, we urge

you to consider this matter as expeditiously as possible

since these areas are in need of immediate federal

assistance.

In a bipartisan way, nine of us asked the President to declare an emergency, and he did not do it. We did get some small funding. It helped a little bit. But we did not get the help we needed. We begged for it. I guess if we had a crystal ball, maybe things would have been better.

We all were asking for buffers around our communities. I think the importance of this legislation before us is it is our opportunity to direct funding, adequate funding, to make sure these buffers are created and the fire damage is diminished greatly.

I myself want to make sure this bill is a Healthy Forests bill and is not something else, a ``cut down the forests'' bill. I will be supporting many amendments to make sure this bill is the best it can be. I do not know the fate of those amendments, but we will be going on the record very strongly.

Amendment No. 2025

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

Mr. President, I thank very much the clerk for reading the amendment. It is a very straightforward amendment. It basically recognizes the fact that our firefighters are our heroes. We certainly learned that. Every American learned that after 9/11. We certainly learned that.

Their health has been affected and impacted. We learned we need to do more to monitor their health. Right now, we have 12,000 brave firefighters frantically working with the California Department of Forestry, the U.S. Forest Service, the California Highway Patrol, the Red Cross, and FEMA to contain these fires in terrible conditions.

Firefighters are not only from California, but they are from Nevada and Arizona. Other help is on the way from other States.

I want to show you a photo of some of the conditions these firefighters are working in at this point.

This is the Simi Valley, where you can see the firefighters, how strong they are, and yet how they look so small in front of this unbelievable blaze they are trying to contain.

I will show you another picture, another view.

This is in San Diego. You can see the incredible black, deadly smoke here. That is filled with toxins and is right over the hill from where they are standing.

Many of these firefighters are living in fire camps, spending 24 hours a day in proximity to the smoke from the fires. We know smoke from these fires--because it is coming from homes, and there are cars and businesses--contains heavy concentrations of carcinogens and other toxins. The smoke contains fine particulates, carbon monoxide, sulfur, formaldehyde, mercury, and heavy metals and benzene. We also know the accumulation of carbon dioxide can lead to progressive heart problems, to brain dysfunction, and may ultimately lead to coma and death.

These are the heroes. These are the heroes. I would hope we would vote 100 to nothing in favor of this amendment.

I can't imagine an argument against it. Numerous studies have shown that the higher the particulate matter, the greater the number of emergency room visits and premature deaths. Why do I put it on this bill? Because the purpose of this bill is to reduce the likelihood we will have these kinds of fires. But if we do, we have to recognize it.

By the way, even with the bill, we may well have fires in the future. We know health monitoring can identify adverse long-term health consequences caused by prolonged exposure to smoke, leading to early detection and better treatment. Those who are the most in danger are those who are exposed the most; that is, these brave firefighters who are working around the clock to contain the fires.

My amendment, again, is quite simple. It directs the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to work with the medical expertise in local areas to monitor the long-term health effects on firefighters who fight fires in disaster areas.

I am happy to yield.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

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

If the Senator will yield, I understood that you--and maybe I was incorrect--and Senator Reid had agreed we would vote for both amendments at 5:15. I believe that was the order.

Mr. President, whatever Senator Cochran would like to do is fine. I need about 3 minutes on my second amendment, and then I will be done. The hope was, perhaps to help move it along, we would vote on each of these back to back at a time certain that Senator Cochran chooses.

Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, this goes to the quality of the air. We have learned so much after what happened on 9/11. When we have this type of a fire, if we could look at this smoke here--I have another picture to show. Look at this black smoke just headed right toward these homes. We know there are pollutants we don't really monitor on a daily basis that are getting into people's lungs. I will mention some of these: Benzene, toluene, formaldehyde, asbestos, ethylene, glycol. Those are just a few.

The effects of these could be devastating: Premature death, cardiovascular illness, neurological disorder, respiratory problems, and cancer. One atmospheric scientist described it in the L.A. Times this way:

When they burn, these homes and businesses are mini toxic

waste dumps.

This is the quality of the air we are seeing here. In San Diego, every single school has been closed because it is too dangerous for the children to go outside their homes. They are telling the elderly to stay inside with their windows and doors closed. We know the elderly and the children are the most vulnerable to the effects of pollution.

I believe we must ensure that the public knows which pollutants they are being exposed to. Today they would not know. My amendment will solve that problem. My amendment will require the EPA to provide each of its regional offices a mobile air pollution monitoring network to go into these areas in the event of a catastrophe and monitor toxic emissions on a continuous and spontaneous basis. The amendment will require this to be done within 6 months. We should begin doing it immediately. We authorized the funding--it isn't much, $8 million--to carry this out.

In short, my amendment assures that we will have the ability to monitor emissions of these hazardous air pollutants in the event of a disaster and give the public the information it needs because if they have a child, a sick grandma, someone who has cancer or heart disease, they need to know to keep them in.

I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the firefighter amendment No. 2025 be voted on first.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vote On Amendment No. 2026

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I appreciate the time. As I understand it, I am yielded how many minutes?

Madam President, I rise as a proud member of the Environmental Committee and the chair of the Democratic environmental team. I will be voting no on the Leavitt nomination. The reason is, while I am not pinning all the terrible decisions of this administration regarding the environment on Mr. Leavitt--clearly, he was not there for those--I was very distressed that the questions I asked him were simply papered over or, in some cases--six cases--there was no answer at all. I will explain in a moment.

I am going to divert for a sentence or two to again express my concern about the fires burning out of control in my State. I send my prayers to the people of my State and thank the President for declaring it a disaster area. This was absolutely necessary because we need help from all over the country. These fires are far from out, and the winds are unpredictable.

Our 7,000 firefighters, the heroes of the day again, are out of breath and need relief. We cannot stand back and say the winds will dictate what happens. We have to save lives and homes. I will be going to the State as soon as I can, when it is appropriate, and offer all the help we can.

My colleagues have been so kind and so good in asking questions. Right now we have lost 14 people, 1,518 homes; 501,000 acres are burning, four times the size of Chicago. It is a travesty.

Getting back to the issue at hand, I do not think it is terribly comforting to the American people to hear that the questions I asked were not answered--many of them--because they know we have had many rollbacks. As Senator Lautenberg so eloquently said, I have a little scroll I could bring to the Chamber, if I were allowed--I think the rules do not allow for that--and I could let out the scroll all the way past where the Presiding Officer is sitting. It would list, in fairly large type, 300 environmental rollbacks.

I was stunned to hear a Senator on the radio today say that this administration has the greatest environmental record of any President. I can't even respond to that except with the truth. The truth is, we have documented 300 rollbacks.

One of my leaders on this issue, in addition to Senator Lautenberg, is Senator Jeffords. He has been fighting for clean air harder and longer and with more focus than anyone I know. He could tell you chapter and verse why we are losing the battle to clean up our air. Every time the administration calls something ``Clear Skies, beautiful forests,'' or ``lovely day,'' it is just the opposite when one cuts through it. It is essentially special interest legislation that is rolling back the progress we have made.

If you go to any school in this country and ask the children, do you have asthma, does someone in your family have asthma, do any of your friends, literally almost half the classroom will raise their hands high. This is not the way it used to be.

This is the time when we need strong environmental leadership. Governor Leavitt is one of the nicest people I have ever met. We had a couple of great meetings. But he essentially rolled over my questions, in many cases not even answering them at all, just as if I hadn't asked anything.

Let me tell you about what happened this summer. I call this past summer ``toxic summer.'' Senator Jeffords and I held a press conference. Senator Lautenberg was there. We documented what has happened just this summer. Let me give you a quick reason why we need a real environmental leader at the EPA.

``Toxic-site cleanups slowing, report says,'' Sacramento Bee.

Spending on the cleanup of hazardous waste sites is slowing

under the Bush administration, and that could delay the

cleanup of three dozen sites in California, including several

around Sacramento. . . .

U.S. is Seeking to Limit States' Influence on Offshore

Decisions; California Officials Denounce the Proposed

Revisions as an Effort to Bypass Court Rulings. . . .

Whatever happened to States' rights? I thought this administration liked to help States. They are rolling over the States, if the States want to do more cleanup, if the States want to protect their coasts.

EPA's 9/11 Air Ratings Distorted. . . .

We all know Senator Clinton did a masterful job of holding up this nomination until she got some promises from the administration that she could see exactly what went on behind the scenes and how ``in the days after the terrorist attack, White House officials persuaded the EPA to minimize its assessment of the dangers posed by airborne dust and debris from the skyscrapers' collapse.'' Withholding information is sick. There is something terribly wrong with this administration.

Bush Eases Clean Air Act for Industries.

In one of the broadest changes to air-pollution regulations

since the Clean Air Act was first approved in 1970, the Bush

administration . . . eased smog rules affecting more than 500

older power plants and some 20,000 aging factories. . . .

This is the issue Senator Jeffords has championed.

This is another one from the Los Angeles Times, just this summer. This isn't all the 300. This is just this summer.

EPA Won't Regulate ``Greenhouse Gases''; Environmental

Groups' Bid for the Agency to Cut New-Vehicle Emissions is

Denied. California May Sue, Saying the Decision Threatens

State Efforts.

Later on this week we will vote on the McCain-Lieberman bill. The administration opposes it.

I ask if I may have 2 more minutes from my friend.

The last chart is frightening.

EPA Eases Rules on PCB-Tainted Properties.

These are the most polluted, dangerous properties. People were not allowed to sell those properties or transfer those properties until they had a plan that EPA signed off on and approved.

Madam President, we need an EPA Administrator with guts and strength and the ability to stand up and say he is going to fight for the environment. The fact that he did not answer a number of my questions tells me that I am

afraid that, in the room when they are debating these issues, Mike Leavitt will be a full team player with the Bush administration and not a team player for the health of the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my support for the nominee for the Central District Court of California--Judge Dale Susan Fischer. Judge Fischer is well regarded by those who know her work.

I want to emphasize the excellent process that we have in place to select District Court nominees in California.

In a truly bipartisan fashion, the White House Counsel, Senator Feinstein, and I worked together to create four judicial advisory committees for the State of California, one in each Federal judicial district in the State.

Each committee has a membership of six individuals--three appointed by the White House and three appointed jointly by Senator Feinstein and me. Each member's vote counts equally, and a majority is necessary for recommendation of a candidate.

This nominee was reviewed by the Central District Committee and strongly recommended for this position. I continue to support this bipartisan selection process and the high quality nominees it has produced.

Judge Fischer has an impressive background and has served the people of California with distinction for several years. She is a graduate of Harvard Law School and the University of South Florida. She had extensive civil experience as a private attorney before she was appointed to the Los Angeles Municipal Court in 1997. She currently sits on the Los Angeles Superior Court where she is well regarded for her knowledge of bail issues. She also serves as Chair of the Los Angeles Superior Court's Temporary Judge Committee, training and monitoring approximately 1000 temporary judges in Los Angeles County.

The Central District will benefit greatly from the exemplary service of Judge Fischer, and I fully support confirmation of this nominee.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I did not hear what the unanimous consent request was.

Fine.

Mr. President, I rise today with great anxiety about what is happening in my State. You can see here behind me the view of one of the fires that is burning from the vantage point of a fireman. These fires have become the worst wildfires Californians have seen in decades. In less than 1 week they burned nearly twice as many acres as are burned statewide in the average fire year.

The numbers in my statement today may already be obsolete. Things are moving that fast in terms of property damage, homes destroyed, and so on. The wildfires range from as far south as the Mexican border to as far north as Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. They have consumed a total of more than 400,000 acres or 625 square miles. To put that in perspective, that is three times the size of Chicago. The fires are devouring businesses and homes and sometimes entire neighborhoods. More than 900 homes have already been destroyed and perhaps 30,000 more are in danger. I know people are without electricity in areas throughout the State. Many are escaping with only the clothes on their backs, and families have had no time to gather anything other than their loved ones as they flee from an inferno that engulfs everything it touches.

More than 50,000 people have been evacuated and the numbers continue to climb. Thirty-six evacuation centers have already been set up in the five county areas. I spent pretty much all of yesterday speaking to mayors and council members and county supervisors and to Governor Davis. I talked three times to the head of FEMA, and I spoke with Andrew Card, the President's chief of staff, who was most helpful. The message I had for the President, through Mr. Card, was: Please, move quickly, as quickly as you can, to declare a national disaster because without that, we simply cannot get these fires under control. It has taken a while, but in the last couple of hours we had our declaration.

This is very important because it means the Forest Service can now go beyond its budget, because its budget is limited, and contract with departments all over the country to bring in the help we need.

I have been through a lot of disasters in my State. I served on the board of supervisors of Marin County. I have seen fires and floods and earthquakes, and then, as a 10-year Congresswoman, I have seen all this. I have not seen anything to this degree where we still don't have our arms wrapped around this problem. We don't have the problem contained, whereas usually when we have these disasters, we are up here saying we need to set up the FEMA agencies where we can now go and have people get repaid and get loans for their businesses and homes, and we will do that in time. That is very important. But right now we need to put out the fires.

I thank Nevada and Arizona. They have helped. They have sent between 25 and 50 firetrucks with personnel to our State.

I will give you another look at San Diego. This is the harbor. You can see it just has the eeriest look to it. You can see the flames in the background.

We also want to say that we have received 50 tanker trucks, and 12 air tankers are coming tomorrow. This is all good news for the people of San Diego. Supervisor Jacob was at her wit's end yesterday because she was not getting enough help. The other areas, the mutual aid, seem to be working better, but San Diego came along afterwards, and I have been very worried about them.

The crown jewels of California's beautiful landscape, our beautiful forests, have been hurt. We are going to have legislation that will in fact allow us to do fuel reduction close to communities. It is very important, when we have a bill that relates to our forests, that we put the money where it is needed, which is near the communities, and that we make sure that what we do will in fact help the communities.

The bill we are talking about is the Forestry and Community Assistance Act, written by Senator Leahy and myself. There are other proposals. I hope we can come to an agreement that the time is now to help our communities and to provide the resources to help them, not the big logging people, because that is the fight we are always waging.

Air traffic across the Nation has been disrupted by these fires. Hundreds of flights in and out of southern California have been canceled or suspended. Our brave firefighters, more than 7,000, are frantically working in conjunction with the California Department of Forestry, the U.S. Forest Service, California Highway Patrol, the Red Cross, and now, happily, FEMA, which are very much involved to contain these fires.

Many are still raging out of control. I want to be back here as soon as I can to talk about how we can rebuild our communities. But today we are talking about fires that are raging out of control.

I thank White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card. I thank FEMA Director Michael Brown. I did try to call Tom Ridge. Unfortunately, he was out of the country, but I spoke with his people and again with many of the local people.

In closing, let me say that my heart is with the people of San Bernardino County where two major fires are burning: The Old fire--by the way, we think arson was to blame for that fire. I have written to the Attorney General and will call him in the hope that he will invite in the FBI to get to the bottom of who would do such a deed. The other fire in San Bernardino is the Old Fire, 24,000 acres. The Grand Prix is 52,000 acres. In San Diego, there were three major fires. Everyone is struggling to make sure they don't merge.

We do have 48,000 customers without power in San Diego. In Otay, 35,000 acres are burning. The Cedar Fire in San Diego has been the deadliest one: 9 deaths, 300 homes destroyed, 150 in Scripps Ranch. The Paradise Fire in San Diego: 160 structures were destroyed, 75 cars, 2 deaths, and so far not contained. In Los Angeles County, it is the Verdale Fire, 9,000 acres. In Ventura, there are two major fires, Simi Valley and Piru. We are very worried about those. And at Riverside, there is one major fire. The Governor has not yet asked for an emergency declaration in Riverside, but it may come to that. If it does, I am very hopeful that the President will act on that request as well because we have lost six homes in Riverside, and the size of the fire there is 11,000 acres.

This declaration by the President is welcome news for us.

We need to put aside all politics now. We have an outgoing Governor. We have an incoming Governor. We all have to just join hands in this because our people are scared. They are filled with anxiety. They want this over. They want to go on and rebuild their lives. I join with my colleague in expressing my condolences to those who

have lost family. My deep hope is that we will contain these fires. We will save additional lives, we will shelter those who have been displaced, and we will rebuild.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Madam President, it has been a year since we heard the terrible news of Paul Wellstone's death and trudged through, with broken hearts, the days and months that followed. Kind, compassionate, a voice for those without a voice, a bundle of energy, Paul Wellstone was unique, he was priceless, he was irreplaceable. When we learned of Paul's death, our grief was magnified by the deaths of the two women he loved most--his wife Sheila and his daughter Marcia--and by the deaths of his devoted aides, Tom Lapic, Will McLaughlin, and Mary McEnvoy.

Their loss still cuts deep. I vividly remember flying back from California to speak in the Senate about Paul, and being overcome by a sense of profound loss seeing the black shroud and flowers over the desk he loved, the launching pad for his extraordinary, impassioned speeches.

I want to read some of the statement I made that day, as what I said then remains true for me now.

``Paul was never afraid to speak out when it might be unpopular, nor was he afraid to be on the losing side of a Senate vote. He had courage. And when you told him that, when you said: `Paul, you have courage,' he shrugged it off. He would say something like: `What else could I do? It's just not right!' He would say that--determined, brave.

``Paul was a powerful man. His power did not come from his physical stature. He was strong but he was slight of build. His power did not come from generations of family wealth. He was not a man of moneyed wealth. His parents were immigrants: Leon and Minnie Wellstone. His power did not come from political connections. His connections were with regular people.

``Let me tell you where his power came. It came from a fierce dedication to justice and truth and honesty and righteousness. He gave comfort and he gave hope to those he touched. And he gave them some of his power--the power to see the possibilities of their own lives. Paul died on his way to give comfort and hope to those facing death. He was flying to a funeral service.''

As his staff wrote at the time of his death, ``He was a passionate visionary who never gave up hope that we could make the world a better place for everyone; a committed fighter for social justice who gave a voice to the voiceless; a man with a huge heart who lit up a room--and the hearts of others when he walked in. He was a man who valued others for who they were, not where they came from, or what they wore, or their position or social status. He was dedicated to the little guy in a business dominated by the big guys.''

You cannot speak about Paul Wellstone without speaking about the center of his life--his wife Sheila, his children and grandchildren. Paul and Sheila were partners in the truest sense, and shared almost 40 years of love and affection for each other. They were inseparable, and it was obvious to anyone who saw them together, they were deeply in love. They were also partners in public service, and in their shared sense of idealism, values, and purpose. They died as they had lived-- together, even probably holding hands.

Paul and Sheila adored their daughter Marcia, whose radiant smile could light up the darkness, and doted on her very special child and their grandson, Joshua. They reveled in their sons David and Mark, and were enormously proud of David's entrepreneurial spirit and the gift he had at being a good father, and Mark's skill with Spanish and his talent as a teacher in the classroom. All of their grandchildren-- Joshua, Cari, Keith, Acacia, Sydney, and Matt--delighted them and brought boundless joy to their lives.

Today we say to Paul again: We will give comfort and hope to those you left behind by doing all that we can to continue your legacy and your dream. What a gift you gave us all. You are impossible to replace. We will always miss you.

(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President this bill includes many projects that are important for my State of California, and I wish to take a minute to highlight those projects.

For the Bay Area, $113.75 million in new funding is included for transportation improvements. The projects include $100 million for the BART extension to the San Francisco International Airport and $4 million for upgrades to the Muni System.

In addition, the bill includes: $3 million for AC Transit-CalWorks Job Center. This funding will continue successful Job Access programs and expand those services further for CalWorks recipients; $750,000 for the City of Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center. These new funds will go toward the planning and design of a new regional intermodal transit center in Palo Alto.

There is $1 million for Oyster Point Ferry Vessel. Funding will be used to build a ferry vessel to serve a new ferry route between San Mateo County and downtown San Francisco. This route will serve over 2,000 passenger trips daily.

There is $1 million for the Zero Emissions Bus--ZEB--Program. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority will use this funding to move away from using clean diesel technology to even cleaner Fuel Cell technology.

There is $4 million for the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor. These funds will be used to extend the BART system to Santa Clara County.

For the Sacramento region, $5.5 million in new funding is included to improve transportation. Most of these funds--$4 million--will be used for job access to help under-served communities get to work. The remaining funds will be used to improve the Intelligent Transportation System.

For the residents of Los Angeles, $12.1 million is included to improve a variety of transportation projects, including $5 million for LA Eastside Corridor Light Rail. The new funds will be used to develop a six-mile, nine-station light rail system running through Little Tokyo, Boyle Heights, and East Los Angeles.

There is $2 million for Alameda Corridor East. This funding will be used to help reduce traffic congestion for residents and businesses in the Alameda Corridor East and improve the shipment of goods from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

There is $3 million for the MTA Bus Program. These new funds will be used by MTA to make bus service in Los Angeles County more efficient. Improvements will be made to Metro Rapid Bus facilities and new technology will be utilized to upgrade traffic signals for more efficient bus service.

There is $2.1 million for LA Metrolink San Bernardino Line: Platform Addition and Extensions. These funds will be used to improve commuter access and safety. The project

consists of constructing new platforms, extending current platforms, and improving pedestrian access.

For transportation projects in San Diego and the surrounding communities, $113 million is included. The new funding includes $65 million for the extension of the San Diego Trolley's Blue Line from the Mission San Diego Station to an Orange Line connection near Baltimore Drive in La Mesa. The approximately 5.9-mile line will run adjacent to Interstate 8 and add four new stations.

This extension will increase the efficiency of San Diego's public transportation, while reducing congestion and providing an environmentally-friendly alternative for commuters.

The new funds also provide $48 million for the North County Transit District's Oceanside-Escondido Rail Project. This project will convert 22 miles of freight rail corridor into a light rail system running east from Oceanside to Escondido.

During our current time of economic uncertainty, all of these projects will help strengthen California's economy by improving infrastructure and creating new jobs. These improvements will move products and people more efficiently, while also promoting a cleaner and healthier environment.

In addition to the various transportation projects, this bill includes $50 million for a new Federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles. The Los Angeles area is experiencing an increase in cases that is stretching the existing courthouse beyond its limits.

Currently, the Los Angeles court complex operates out of two separate buildings located several blocks apart, which causes delays, security concerns and general confusion. The two buildings cannot accommodate expected growth and high security trials--making them inadequate to handle modern judicial needs.

The need for a new Los Angeles Courthouse is great. In order for the courts to effectively serve the public and provide adequate security, we need to provide them with the resources to get the job done. The construction of this courthouse is a step in the right direction.

I thank Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Murray for their support to help improve California's transportation system.

The Eastside LRT project will provide vital transit service for tens of thousands of people, many of whom do not have access to an automobile. Almost 20,000 people are expected to ride the line once it has opened, providing a much needed transportation alternative and congestion relief in one of the lowest income areas of Los Angeles.

I understand that the Eastside LRT project is expected to receive its FFGA in the coming months, which will enable construction to move ahead rapidly.

Senator Feinstein and I urge you to give every consideration to fund this project according to the levels that will be recommended in its forthcoming FFGA.

Mr. President, today, I have a long-standing commitment to a remarkable project in the ongoing downtown Los Angeles redevelopment effort. Therefore, I am unable to be present for the votes today in the Senate.

However, if I had been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the motion to table the Dorgan amendment.

I would have voted ``yes'' on the motion to table the Feingold amendment.

I would have voted ``yes'' on both the Thomas and Mikulski amendments.

I would have also voted ``yes'' on the motion to waive the Budget Act with regard to the Dodd-McConnell amendment.

Finally, I would have voted ``yes'' on final passage of the Transportation appropriations bill.

I have a question. That would take Senator Brownback until 11:40 or 11:45?

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, do let me know when I have 2 minutes remaining out of my 20 minutes.

Mr. President, I stand before my colleagues as a Senator from California but also as a mother who had two complicated pregnancies and two wonderful, fabulous children, and also as a proud grandmother. I stand before you to tell you this is a very sad day for the women of America, a very sad day for the families of America, because what is about to happen here is this Senate is about to pass a piece of legislation that for the first time in history bans a medical procedure without making any exception for the health of a woman. This is a radical thing that is about to happen.

Let's clear something up for the record. When the clerk read the bill, she said this is banning something commonly called partial-birth abortion. There is no such term in medicine as partial-birth abortion. There is either a birth or there is an abortion. There is a miscarriage. There is no such thing as partial-birth abortion. It is a made-up term to inflame passions.

My friend knows very well, if he was willing to agree to a health exception to protect the health of women, if he would have sat down with us on our side, we are ready to ban all late-term abortion. We are ready to ban all late-term abortion on our side, as long as there is an exception for the life and the health of a woman, which is the centerpiece of Roe v. Wade. If he was willing to do that, we would not be taking the time of the Senate. This would be done.

This is more a case of wanting to keep an issue alive out there to make people believe those on the other side are cruel, whether we are mothers or grandmothers or aunts. That is what it is about. It took me a while to figure that out. But once I saw this bill come back to us in this form--clearly unconstitutional, clearly without a health exception, clearly vague, and all those who have discussed this with me tell me it is clearly going to be declared unconstitutional because it is practically identical to other bills that have been declared unconstitutional--I saw what this is about. This is about politics. That is what I believe. Because we could have a bill today, as long as we protected the health of the women of this country.

Why would anyone in this Chamber be so callous as to pass a law knowingly keeping out a health exception for women? Well, if you listen to my friend's words and you hear the words he uses, you will understand why this is happening from the other side. My colleague uses the term ``killing the child.'' As the author of the Violence Against Women Act and the Violence Against Children Act, I take deep offense at that language--deep offense. Women do not want to kill their child. Women who have had this procedure have come to the Congress, have begged Members of Congress: Do not pass this without a health exception for the mother. If I didn't have this procedure, I would have been made infertile.

I am going to go into those stories later in the debate. But here is the situation. If you listen to the language ``killing the child,'' you must come to the conclusion my colleague believes abortion is murder and women are murderers and doctors are accomplices. I thought we moved away from that when Roe v. Wade became the law of the land.

Why are we here today? I will be honest with you: because I didn't want this bill to go through, and neither do people who believe women are important. Women deserve to have their health and lives protected and their fertility protected and their organs protected. Women want to take a look at what this debate is all about. I have already told you we were willing to go down the aisle with my friend and ban this, as long as it was not vague and had a clear health exception for women. Forget all this other talk about how cruel we all are. We were ready to do that. But no, my friend and his colleagues had to keep this thing going. It is their way or the highway.

Forget about what the Supreme Court has said about vagueness. Forget about what the Supreme Court has stated many times. This is basically a Republican court that has upheld Roe v. Wade.

With the next breath my colleague says: This bill is consistent with Roe v. Wade. It doesn't do anything to Roe v. Wade.

If that is the case, why in the conference--and I was a conferee along with the Senator from Pennsylvania--did they say--and they run the Senate and the House and the White House--we are taking out the Senate amendment authored by Tom Harkin which simply said: The Congress believes that Roe v. Wade ought to be upheld?

There are two things in my friend's verbiage that show exactly what this is about. One, the term, used over and over again, ``killing a child,'' which gives me a very chilling feeling that what this whole thing is about is eventually saying women are murderers and should to go jail, and doctors are their accomplices and they should go to jail. When you listen to verbiage, you hear a lot around here. And then, no problem, this bill, he says, is just in concert with Roe v. Wade, even though there is no health exception because they declared, in writing this bill, that this procedure is never necessary to save the health of a woman, which I will prove to you is made up.

The Senators on the other side who are pushing this are not doctors. There is one, but he is not an OB/GYN. I would rather listen to the doctors. I would rather listen to the health organizations rather than my friend from Pennsylvania. I like him. We are friends. That is not the point. We just strongly see this very differently. And we will continue to see this very differently as this issue goes on and on.

There we are. We are sitting in a conference committee. Here is where we are. The House and the Senate passed different bills. What was different about our bill, S. 3? Senator Harkin put in language, and the Senate voted on it twice--twice: once was unanimous, once was a majority--to keep Roe v. Wade in the bill, a simple statement of support of Roe. So I come to

the conference committee ready, along with Senator Feinstein, and other Congress people, to debate this issue. After all, my friend says here, we don't have any problem with Roe. This has nothing to do with Roe.

Fine. Let's keep it in the bill, folks, a sense of the Senate that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned. The Senate voted for it twice.

Let me tell you how long it took them to kick that amendment out. It was about 5 minutes. Not even a real discussion, not even a discussion about an amendment that passed this Senate twice, not even a discussion about a law which was a landmark law which passed in 1973, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court over and over and over. That is the kind of attitude you find from the other side when it comes to a woman's right to choose. They threw out Roe v. Wade faster than you could blink an eye. That is what they want the Court to do, and that is what this bill is about. That is why I want to take time here.

I know this thing is going to pass. I know exactly that it is going to pass. I have respect for that. I wish my friends would have respect for the fact that Roe passed also and leave it in this bill, so we do not send a confusing signal to the women of this country that their health no longer matters.

The Senator from Pennsylvania says, no problem, there is no reason ever to use this procedure. Let's look at what some of the doctors' organizations say. Let's hold up some of our charts on that. I will tell you something; I never dreamed I would be down here with Senators who think they know more than doctors, but that is what happens. Let me read you a statement by the American College of OB/GYNs:

Especially for women with particular health conditions,

there is medical evidence that D&X [that is the procedure

being banned] may be safer than available alternatives. A

select panel convened by ACOG concluded that D&X may be ``the

best or most appropriate procedure in a particular

circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a

woman.''

Look at this. You are in the Supreme Court and you are hearing this case, S. 3; this bill is coming before you. They are going to quote Senator Santorum that never is this needed to save the life--though he will not say that--of a woman. It is not a problem. Are you going to believe Senators or the doctors who deal with this every day of their working lives? Common sense tells me, when I want to go to the doctor, I don't go to the Senator from Pennsylvania. We might have a nice chat about things, a good political talk, but I don't want him telling me or my daughter; I want a doctor who knows what they are talking about.

The doctors tell us this is necessary. Let's look at some other statements. This is a very important letter from the University of California-San Francisco, Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy. This is a very important letter signed by a very important physician. What does she tell us. This print is too small to read, so let's get the large one that lists the problems women can face. What Dr. Stewart tells us in very clear terms is there are serious health consequences of banning safe procedures, which she considers the procedure that is being banned in this bill to be, a safe procedure: hemorrhage, uterine rupture, blood clots, embolism, stroke, damage to nearby organs, and paralysis. This is a partial list of what doctors tell us could happen to a woman if this procedure that is being banned is no longer an option.

Who do you think the Supreme Court will listen to? Senators with no degree in OB/GYN or doctors who are telling us this is what could happen to a woman? Do you think we are doing the right thing by banning a procedure without which a woman could face damage to a nearby organ, paralysis, or a blood clot? What is it about this bill that makes it so sacrosanct that you cannot add an exception for the health of the mother? We tried everything. The straight health exception is the one that is the most constitutional. Others around here said serious adverse health consequences. Oh, no, that wasn't good enough.

There wasn't anything we could say on behalf of the women in this country that the other side would not shoot down. I don't understand it. I do not understand that kind of mentality. Don't we love our wives and our daughters and our aunts and all the women in our lives? How could we pass a bill that would say even if a woman's health is threatened, this procedure cannot be used, when we could have walked down the aisle together and passed a bill with a health exception?

So when I come before the Senate this morning, it is with a very heavy heart. But it is also with the knowledge that I think this Court is going to throw out this bill, regardless of whether colleagues say in the beginning there is no problem, no relation to a woman's health, because doctors have told us the serious health consequences of banning this procedure include all these horrible things. By the way, what is not listed here is infertility. Later today I will show you the cases of women who were spared that problem because this procedure was used on a very complicated, difficult, emergency abortion where the brain was outside the baby's head, where the child would have suffered.

I am telling you that I don't know where the compassion is, when we would have agreed to do this with a health exception. I don't know where the compassion is on the other side. My friend talked about a civilized society. I want a civilized society. That means you care about the women of this country. That means you care about their pregnancies. That means you want to help them through the most difficult times. That means you don't play doctor here because you are not a doctor. We are about to play doctor in a big way. Fortunately, across the street in the Supreme Court they will see right through it.

So there are many things I could tell you about this bill. I will show you some others. Let's see what the Supreme Court said about why we believe this bill is unconstitutional. There was a case called Stenberg v. Carhart. The Supreme Court found their ban of this procedure in this State--it was Nebraska, I believe--was unconstitutional. They said it put an undue burden on women because the definition is vague.

Now the other side said they fixed that problem. We don't think they did. That will be decided. The second reason it was thrown out is there is no exception to protect women's health. I have to tell you that on both of these counts S. 3 failed the Supreme Court test. It failed it. Even some of the most anti-choice people out there have written letters criticizing the other side because they said why don't you do something that matters.

This is going to be overturned in the Supreme Court. So why are we going through this, seeing these pictures? Once I was on the Senate floor and a colleague wanted a 5-year-old to sit up there and look at these pictures. I objected to that. That is inflaming passions. I can show pictures of what it looks like when a woman gets a blood clot or when a woman is in a wheelchair and paralyzed, but I would not do that because this is not about sensationalizing anything. It is about doing the right thing.

I will yield the floor at this time. I see the Senator from Alabama here. I will return to continue this debate.

Mr. President, will you let me know when I have used 7 minutes and I will yield time to the Senator from New Jersey.

I am very pleased to be joined by Senator Lautenberg. I will respond with my comments to the comments of the Senator from Kansas who was very eloquently talking about the most vulnerable among us.

As the author, when I was in the House, of the Violence Against Women Act, as the person who offered the amendment which allowed abortion after rape in the House--and that passed for Medicaid patients--and as the author of the Violence Against Children Act today--and I hope my colleague will cosponsor that bill because it is a wonderful way to highlight the most vulnerable among us--the example the Senator talked about, the case of Samuel, illustrates why the pro-choice position is so much the right position--In that case, the doctor recommended an abortion but the parents made another choice. The parents acted and said to the doctor: We do not agree. So they had the right to choose what they wanted to do. And good for them.

But if we legislate bans on this and bans on this--you have to have a child, you do not--and we turn into China or countries like Romania that said you shall have the babies, on the one hand, or you may not ever have a baby, on the other, then we lose the ability for families, with their God, with their conscience, with their doctor, to make the decision they want to make.

The important thing is that the family have the choice. That is why I stand here today.

I will not yield time because Senator Lautenberg is in a rush.

I yield for a short time.

Senator, you did not listen to what I said, because you were talking to your staff, when I stood up.

No, you did not. I said, good for the parents for making the choice and standing up for the doctor who gave them another suggestion. Fine. That is what a pro-choice position is. That is why I am so much for Roe v. Wade. That is why I stand here as a mother, as a grandmother, as a Senator from a very large State, admitting, Senator, and admitting to all my friends in the Senate, in the Congressional Record for all times, that I am not a doctor and I am not God. I am a human being. I trust other human beings to make these decisions. I trust Samuel's family to make the decision they made. The doctor gave his opinion.

And I will not yield at this time.

I will not yield at this time. I will continue my statement. I do not want to lose my trend of thought because we are about to do something today that, although hailed by the other side, is the first time in history that the Senate is going to ban a medical procedure that is considered by many doctors--and we have put it in the Record, pages and scores, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record--doctors and nurses have told us this procedure is often essential to protect the life and health of a woman.

Let me reiterate who is being compassionate. Our side of the aisle, down to every person, and the pro-choice side of the aisle. On the other side we have a few. We agree to this ban if there is an exception for the health and life of a woman. The other side said no. And the clear fact is, when the other side says there will not be an exception for the health of the woman, the other side is not being compassionate.

Let me tell you, when a woman is told--and we will take out what could happen to a woman if this is not available--some of the health consequences, when a woman is told she could have a stroke, that she could wind up paralyzed, that she could wind up hurting or harming other organs, we are talking about a major problem to women.

To say you are being compassionate and you are being caring to the most vulnerable when you turn your back away from the fact that a woman could have a hemorrhage, she could have her uterus ruptured, she could be made infertile, she could have blood clots, embolism, a stroke, damage to nearby organs, or paralysis if this particular procedure is not available to her--if you have no compassion, if you smile when you look at this, if you do not feel what it is like for a woman to face this, if you put this in the back of your mind, I am sorry, in my view you are not for the most vulnerable at all.

We could have banned this procedure if we had added a health exception. But the other side is so demagogic on this, they will not walk down the bipartisan aisle with us. That is a very sad commentary. They said the health exception is too broad. They do not trust women. Face it, they think a woman is going to make something up?

We said, OK, add ``serious adverse health consequences.'' No, they would not do that either.

The Supreme Court decided a very similar ban was unconstitutional. What the Supreme Court said about the fact that there was no health exception in the Stenberg v. Carhart case, that came out of Nebraska law, that had no health exception and was vague--first, they said the bill bans more than one procedure:

Even if the statute's basic aim is to ban D&X, its language

makes clear that it also covers a much broader category of

procedures.

Some would say that is the intent of the other side, to take away a woman's right to choose. So they say they are banning one procedure when, in fact, it is so vague that maybe they are banning more.

I would have more respect and admiration for my friends on the other side if they just said, let's just ban abortion, just call it killing, put away the women into jail who have an abortion, send the doctors to jail. That is what is in their heart. But no, they do not want to do that.

My colleague from Alabama talked about a poll. I have other polls that did not track that which I will print in the Record. The polls I have do not go along with those polls.

I will take 3 more minutes before I yield as much time as he may consume to my colleague from New Jersey.

The poll I have is very difficult. We have a majority of 56 percent believing abortion should be legal in all or most cases. That is a very recent poll. It has a margin of error of 1 to 3 points; 55

percent believe the Government should not be involved in this private medical decision. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.

We have different polls. But my friend from Alabama is totally correct. This is not about polls. He can prove in one poll that he is right; I can prove in one poll that I am right. The issue is in our hearts. We do not agree with each other.

If you want to make a woman a criminal, make a doctor a criminal, come here, we will have a vote up or down on that. Do not chip away, chip away, chip away, and hurt women in the process. The Court has stated that this is unconstitutional, bottom line.

On the other hand, my colleague said: our bill that bans this procedure is not violative of Roe because we have declared in the findings that the health issue is immaterial.

Well, good luck. When you have doctors testifying, when you have nurses testifying, when you have health professionals testifying, when you have women testifying, ``We have had this procedure,'' because they knew they might die if they did not or they would be made infertile, and compare that to Senators or Congresspeople, I think the Court will look at the professional judgment of doctors because we are not doctors here. And we are certainly not God.

So let's call it what it is. It is not compassionate to pass a bill today that turns its back on the health of women. That is not compassionate. And the Supreme Court, let's see what else they said about this particular philosophy that you are going to get in this bill and why they overturned the last one that did the same thing.

Even if it only banned D&X, meaning the proposal my colleagues say they are banning, this ban would pose grave health risks. This is the Supreme Court:

The record shows that significant medical authority

supports the proposition that, in some circumstances, D&X

would be the safest procedure.

This is the Court, the same Court that is going to hear your ban that has no health exception:

A statute that altogether forbids D&X creates a significant

health risk. The statute consequently must contain a health

exception.

I ask my colleague if he is ready to speak because I am ready to yield the floor.

Here is what we know so far. We have a bill that has no health exception. It bans a procedure doctors say is needed. We have a bill that looks just like the Supreme Court case, and the Supreme Court said it is unconstitutional. And in the course of the conference, the conferees on the other side threw out the language that supports the Roe v. Wade decision.

This is a bad package for the families of America. I know the handwriting is on the wall that it will pass, but the issue is not going away.

I yield to my colleague as much time as he may wish to consume, Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey. I thank him for coming over today.

Mr. President, how much time do I still retain?

I mean under the agreement.

I thank the Chair. I will use the 6 minutes and then the time will revert to my colleague from Pennsylvania.

I thank my colleague and friend from New Jersey for coming to the Chamber to lay out so many of the unstated issues that revolve around this debate. The points he made today are important. Before he leaves, I want to ask him a question on my time. I know he is the proudest grandpa of 9, soon to be 10, we hope and expect. You have served for many years not only in public life but as a leader in business and leader of the community.

We hear from the other side about the need to protect the vulnerable. My friend stands with me as a supporter of the Violence Against Women Act, a supporter of the Violence Against Children Act and the need to do everything we can for the most vulnerable, to protect them from environmental hazards.

I find it interesting that they will talk on the other side and show pictures on the other side of fetuses before

they are born. And the compassion, I don't doubt that for a minute. I have no doubt that my colleagues feel such compassion. Believe me, I do as well. Having given birth to two premature babies, I totally understand the love and compassion you give to the child you are carrying.

But I want to say to my friend, isn't there something missing here from this discussion of compassion? Should we not show compassion for a woman who desperately seeks to have a child and is told in the 7th month, the 6th month, something has gone terribly awry, that the baby's head is so large, the brain perhaps is developing outside of the skull, there are other problems, that the doctor says, to spare this woman a terrible life-threatening illness or to spare her infertility, that he recommends or she recommends that this procedure that is now being outlawed is the only way to, A, spare the woman from these possible health consequences which are serious and long term, could even land her in a wheelchair, render her unable to take care of her other children, and to spare that fetus, if it were born, the worst nightmare of a brief and short life? This happens to women. Does my friend not see the compassion in working with this family in a way that would give the woman dignity, preserve her health, the fetus dignity? I will talk about this because we have pro-life women, very religious, who went through this to spare the indignity to the fetus, to spare the pain to the fetus, to spare their own health. Is there not compassion in that decision and in that choice?

Well, my friend is right. I just hope we recognize, because I know the Supreme Court recognizes it, that if we turn our backs on the women of this country as we are going to do today, first, it will never hold up across the street in the Supreme Court--no way.

Second of all, we are threatening the health of so many women. Before my friend leaves, I want to give him two brief stories. Eileen Sullivan of California--and these women are so courageous to tell the stories-- is a Catholic with 10 brothers and sisters. Eileen had long awaited her first child. She and her husband were devastated to discover, at 26 weeks of pregnancy, that testing revealed overwhelming fatal abnormalities in their son, including an improperly formed brain, a malformed head, no lungs, and a nonfunctioning liver. The severe anomalies were incompatible with life.

I ask unanimous consent for just 1 more minute.

Eileen and her husband sought the advice of medical specialists, but the prognosis grew worse with each additional test. Finally, the Sullivans, religious Catholics, made the decision they thought was most compassionate for their son, safest for Eileen, and most likely to allow them to have a healthy child in the future. Eileen had a D&X abortion in July of 1996.

I will conclude by saying I don't think it is compassionate to take away the choice of a woman such as this who is grappling with her religion, ethics, and making a decision with her family to do what is right for her family and for this unborn child. I think it is such a statement that there is no respect for the people of this country, there is no value given to their values, their souls, their religion, to their way of dealing with tragedy.

I don't understand how my friends from the other side of the aisle, who always talk about Big Brother interfering, could move into this area and turn their backs on the American families.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois. If he needs further time, I agree to an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. President, could you tell us how much time remains on Senator Santorum's side and how much time remains on our side?

Would the Presiding Officer be so kind as to tell me when I have used 20 minutes?

Thank you very much.

Mr. President, you have heard a tragic story here of a woman who had an abortion who really did not want to have one. I have to tell you, that is why I am so proud to be a pro-choice Senator, a pro-choice American, a pro-choice Californian, fighting for that woman's right to never, ever, ever have to have an abortion if she decided she did not want one.

At the same time, I want the other side to understand that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and that at the early stages of a pregnancy Government should stay out of a personal, private, moral, and religious decision. That is exactly what being pro-choice means. It means the woman described by my friend must never be forced to have an abortion, ever, no matter what goes wrong with the pregnancy--no matter what--if she insists on going through with it and wanting to have that child. Regardless of the risk to her health, she has the right to do it. That is what being pro-choice is about. Being anti-choice means that Government will dictate that situation.

What we have here today and why our side has decided we wanted to have another debate on this is because, just as the other side has said, the anti-choice side has said this is a historic day, we agree. This is, indeed, a historic day because, for the first time in history, Congress will be banning a medical procedure that is considered medically necessary by physicians, physicians who know. And we will put those statements in the Record once again.

My colleague, Senator DeWine, very eloquently said this debate is about what kind of a country we are. That is true. What kind of a country would say to half of its population, ``We don't trust you; We think you would choose murder''? What kind of a country would say to its doctors, who take the Hippocratic oath, ``Do no harm. We don't trust you. You are going to jail''? In this bill, they will go to jail if they use this technique and it was not to save the life of a mother.

Imagine the circumstance where a doctor is making this decision: I think my patient might die if I don't use this. My God, I have to read the law. Oh, my God, she might live. How could I be sure? I am not positive. I think she might die.

That woman lying in front of that doctor is in great danger. That is why so many medical organizations and OB/GYNs are saying: Please, Senators, stop playing doctor. When we were kids, we had a doctor's set. We put on the white coat. If we want to do that, we should go get our medical degree. But don't stand here and talk about the fact that we can just make this a better country by outlawing medical procedures without an exception for the health of the woman. What kind of country does that? What kind of country says to half of its population: Yes, you are important, but if you are lying on the table and you could wind up being paralyzed or getting a stroke, you are just not that important. What kind of country says that to women? That is why I am here today. This bill is going to pass overwhelmingly. We know the drill. This President is going to sign it. There is going to be a big signing ceremony. There is going to be an immediate court suit. The bill will be stayed. The debate will occur across the street in the Supreme Court. This bill is the same bill essentially that was declared unconstitutional before because the judges understand--maybe better than my colleagues over here understand--the life and the health of a woman is very important, and it must be protected in accordance with the law.

We have been told by physicians--we have the statements in the Record--that by banning this procedure, a woman might get a hemorrhage. She might rupture her uterus. She could get very serious blood clots. She could get a stroke, an embolism. She could have damage to nearby organs. She could be paralyzed for life. Do you want to vote that way? You have a chance. If you don't make a health exception, then you are essentially saying women are just not that important.

If you love your mother, don't vote for this bill. If you love your daughter, don't vote for this bill. Because if she finds herself in this horrific circumstance of a pregnancy gone desperately wrong, where the doctor informs her, perhaps, that the baby's brain is outside of the skull, that there would be excruciating pain if the baby is born, that she could lose her fertility, that she could perhaps suffer a stroke, she won't be able to do anything about it. Is that what we want to do here in the Senate?

In many ways this is an exercise in politics, because we believe very strongly this bill will be overturned when it gets across the street. It is not an exercise I take lightly when colleagues think so little of the women of this country, of the mothers of this country, of the daughters of this country that they would pass a bill with no health exception.

I don't think that is what Americans want. When they really understand this, they turn against it. If you hear it without the full explanation, of course we say: Let's not do this procedure. But if you say, but it may be necessary to save the life or health of a woman, people say: OK, then at least allow it in those circumstances.

There isn't a Democrat on this side of the aisle who wouldn't have voted for a health exception along with a life exception, and this procedure would be banned. As a matter of fact, we have proposed--and I have written legislation--banning all late-term abortions except for a health exception and a life exception.

We all come here and say we know what Americans want. It is interesting because, of course, we are trying to determine that. Senator Sessions had a poll that said women in this country no longer want the right to choose. That is what he said. I have a poll that shows everyone in this country believes Roe is a fair balance and should continue. But let me tell you what I think Americans want. Let me tell you what I know Californians want. I don't speak for every Californian. I couldn't. There are 35 million of us. But the vast majority of us--and we have had amazing polls on this point--want American women protected. They want children protected. They want privacy protected. They want women respected. They trust women more than they trust Senators. They want us to do the right thing, and they know what the right thing is.

They understand Roe v. Wade took a very difficult decision and explained it in a way that is a balance between all the rights involved.

Here is what Roe v. Wade essentially says: In the first 3 months after pregnancy, a woman has the right to choose and the Government cannot get involved. After that, the Government can get involved. As a matter of fact, after viability, the Government could ban all abortion, which I support, except for the life or health of a woman. I happen to believe that was a Solomon-like decision. It balanced all the concerns. But the most important thing it did is it respected women for the first time.

This was a struggle. Women died. The Senator from Pennsylvania says it was only 85 women a year who died before Roe. We have evidence and we have articles to put in the Record today that will show you we believe the 5,000-a-year figure is more on the mark, because the 85 is only a report to the CDC from States where abortion was legal and in many States abortion was illegal in those years. Thousands of women died.

As I said before, let's face it, that is what the underlying tension is in the debate, because this particular procedure is done very rarely. What is really at stake here is Roe v. Wade.

How do I know that? I know it because of the language used on the other side over and over again: Killing children, killing children, killing children. My God, as someone who wrote the Violence Against Children Act, I have to hear people talk about the fact that women are out there every day killing children, that doctors are out there killing children.

Roe v. Wade is not about killing children. Roe v. Wade is about respecting women to say this is a moral issue. This is a religious issue. This is a family issue. This is a privacy issue. Government should stay out in the early stages. In the later stages, government can in fact legislate.

If you take the rhetoric used in the Chamber today and you extrapolated it in a logical fashion, it means the other side thinks all abortion is murder from the minute of conception. If there is a murder committed, there is a murderer, and you have to say that is the woman because, if you listen to their rhetoric, that is what it is about. The doctor is an accomplice in this act. Frankly, I would have more, shall we say, legislative respect for my colleagues--I have personal respect for them, but I would have more legislative respect for them--if they just came out and said, call it what it is: Abortion is murder. That is why we threw out the Harkin amendment that was in this bill supporting Roe. We think abortion is murder. We want women in jail. We want doctors in jail. Maybe they even want the death penalty for a woman. I don't know. I haven't probed them on it.

That is really what this debate is about. It is why it is important to take the debate to the American people. The beauty of being pro- choice is you totally respect the woman regardless of her view.

If she is 18 years old, or 17, or 19, and she wants to have that child, a pro-choice American says: What can we do to help you make it easier? But if she doesn't and it is something she wants to deal with very early in the pregnancy, then just the same way, we say it is your choice; we respect that choice.

This debate is a very important one, a very historic debate. It is true that this bill has passed several times. We expect it to pass today. But this is the first President who will ever sign a bill outlawing a medically necessary procedure.

Now, I am going to prove it is a medically necessary procedure because I am going to put in the Record a series of letters. First is the ACOG statement, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. We can play doctor all we want here. These are the folks who are out there birthing our children, out there telling us month after month, as we go back for our checkup when we are pregnant, how important it is to have good nutrition, not to smoke, not to have alcohol, how to protect that fetus and have a healthy baby. These are the people who want healthy babies born. What do they say? They say:

The intervention of legislative bodies into medical

decisionmaking is inappropriate, ill-advised, and dangerous.

I will repeat that. The obstetricians and gynecologists from all over this country told us that:

The intervention of legislative bodies into medical

decisionmaking is inappropriate, ill-advised, and--

The last word is powerful--

dangerous.

This bill, if it is upheld by the Court--which I don't believe it will be--is putting women's lives in danger. Don't ask me; ask the doctors. The testimony of Anne Davis is clear. She is a physician. She is very eloquent on the point. She even says that the life exception in the bill is very narrow, which is something I agree with, but I hope the Court will look at that. She says this procedure that is about to be banned by this bill may well be the safest procedure for women in certain circumstances. She was very clear in her testimony.

I commend to my colleagues her testimony on March 25, 2003, before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Mr. President, the American Public Health Association writes:

We are opposed to [this bill] because we believe this and

other legislative and judicial restrictions to safe,

medically accepted abortion procedures severely jeopardize

women's health and well-being.

You are going to hear my colleagues on the other side say: This bill doesn't hurt women's health--not a problem, not an issue. This bill doesn't conflict with Roe. Why? Because they wrote in the findings that this bill has nothing to do with the health of a woman. Please. Give women just a little bit of credit here.

So here is the American Public Health Association clearly telling us why they believe this is a jeopardy to women's health and their well- being.

Then we have the American Medical Women's Association in a letter they wrote to us. They strongly oppose this ban, and this is what they say, because I think it is a very important thing they say here:

While the Association has high respect for each member and

their right to hold whatever moral, religious and

philosophical beliefs his or her conscience dictates, as an

organization of 10,000 women physicians and medical students

dedicated to promoting women's health and advancing women in

medicine, we believe [this bill] is unconscionable.

Doctors are telling us this bill is ``dangerous.'' These doctors are telling us that this bill puts women's health ``in jeopardy.'' Doctors are telling us loudly and clearly that this bill is ``unconscionable.'' But it is going to be passed and it will get the signature of the President and, if not overturned, it is going to hurt the women of our country.

They go on to say:

Legislative bans for procedures that use recognized [OB/

GYN] techniques fail to protect the health and safety of

women and their children, nor will it improve the lives of

women and families.

I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Then you have the Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health. They make a very good point--a point we have made over and over again: There is no mention of the term ``partial-birth abortion'' in any medical literature. Physicians are never taught a technique called ``partial-birth abortion'' and cannot even define it, which is one of the things the Court said was too vague a definition. So why do you think my colleagues are banning something called partial-birth abortion when there is no such thing, according to physicians, as partial-birth abortion? I will give you 10 seconds to think it over.

I ask unanimous consent for 10 additional minutes.

I gave you 10 seconds to think about why we are banning something called partial-birth abortion when there is no such medical procedure. The answer is, it is a highly charged bunch of words. There is no such thing as partial-birth abortion in the medical literature; you either have a birth or an abortion. But it charges people up. It gives you a picture that is not accurate.

This is what the Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health tell us:

Physicians need to have all medical options available in

order to provide the best medical care possible. It is

unethical and dangerous--

There is the word again ``dangerous''--

for legislators to dictate the details of specific surgical

procedures. Banning procedures puts women's health at risk.

``Risk,'' ``danger,'' ``jeopardy,'' and ``unconscionable'' are the words that go along with this bill. They are not my words. They are words of physicians who have lived their life to help women have babies. That is what they are about.

Politicians should not legislate decisionmaking by doctors.

They call it medical decisionmaking.

To do so would violate the sanctity and legality of the

physician-patient relationship. To falsify scientific

evidence in an attempt to deny women their right is

unconscionable.

There it is. ``Unconscionable,'' ``dangerous,'' ``jeopardy,'' and ``at risk'' are the words we are being told. But we are going to vote for this bill because it is about politics. It is easy to say I cannot buy this procedure. We could have banned it completely. We could have banned all late-term abortion completely with a life exception, health exception. But, oh, no, I think the other side would rather have an issue than make progress. That is not just me talking, that is very anti-choice people who have said this is going to be overturned across the street in 5 minutes.

I ask unanimous consent to print this letter from Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health in the Record.

Mr. President, I am going to read you the story of Viki Wilson. Viki is a pediatric nurse. She lives in California. Her husband Bill is an emergency room physician. The Wilsons were expecting their third child when they received a devastating diagnosis at 36 weeks of pregnancy.

I hope every colleague will listen to this story and, for a moment, think about this couple and what they faced.

Viki was married to an emergency room physician. They were told after 36 weeks of pregnancy, of looking forward to this baby, that a large portion of the brain was formed outside the skull and most of the baby's tissue was abnormal. They were told by several physicians, including geneticists and perinatologists that their daughter they named Abigail could never survive outside her mother's womb, and that the so-called healthy baby kicks that Viki had thought for sure she was feeling were, in fact, seizures caused by the pressure as the baby's head had lodged in her pelvis.

Think about how you would feel if you were that father, if you were that mother, if you were that grandma, if you were that grandpa, if you were the mother of Viki or the mother-in-law or the father or the father-in-law or you were the brother of Viki or you were the brother- in-law or you were the sister or you were the aunt. They learned this pregnancy was doomed. They learned the baby they wanted so much could never live outside the womb. They learned the risks of this continued pregnancy to Viki, the very severe risks she faced.

They decided this procedure that is being banned today was the safest and best procedure for Viki. They talked about it; they prayed on it; they discussed it with their family; they discussed it among themselves with their physicians. They brought in every specialist one can think about, and they decided this was the best thing for Viki's family and for her children and for her children she hoped to have in the future.

The Wilsons held a funeral for Abigail, and a playground at their children's Catholic school is named in her honor. And then, very soon after, the Wilson family welcomed a baby son, actually through adoption. Is this the kind of person you want to harm? Is this the kind of woman you want to put at risk? Is this the kind of couple to which you are saying: Sorry, even if your doctors say Viki might have a stroke, Viki might be paralyzed, no can do; we can't help you because Senators playing doctor decided this procedure should no longer be a choice, an option for a woman in a severe and tragic circumstance.

I have to tell you, I have looked inside my heart up and down. I do not understand how we move forward as a society, how we move forward as a compassionate country when we do something that can conceivably hurt thousands and thousands of women and thousands and thousands of families. We could have passed this bill in a nanosecond. Just make a health exception. It would have met the objections of the Court with the health exception and a little bit less vagueness on the procedure, and we would have done something that would have been important. But, oh, no, I guess in the end the women of this country just don't matter that much.

I think this record is very clear. The physicians who know what they are talking about, who deal with these pregnancies every day don't want us to do this. The women, many of them very religious, who have been faced with this crisis tell us: Please, please make a health exception because if we didn't have this procedure, A, we might have died; B, we might have been paralyzed; C, we might have been made infertile; D, we might have had a stroke or embolism or damaged our nearby organs.

Why are we doing this? There is no such procedure called ``partial- birth abortion.'' It is in every letter from the physicians. There is no such procedure. It is a made-up term to make this debate what it really is not about. It is a very sad day for us that we are banning a procedure that I have proven, by putting into the Record letter after letter from physicians, is necessary sometimes to save the life and health of a woman. We are banning this with no health exception. This is not the right thing to do.

This bill was stripped of the supportive language of Roe v. Wade that this Senate passed twice--not once but twice--saying that Roe v. Wade should remain the law of the land. Oh, no,

they were so radical in that conference committee, they kicked out that very simple statement where most Americans agree that Roe v. Wade, making this decision in the early stages of a pregnancy in private-- Government stay out of it; Senator Boxer, I might think you are really a good gal, but stay out of my private life. They are right. I don't deserve to be in it.

Senator Harkin has just come to the Chamber. He is the one who had that amendment which was adopted by this Senate twice, and how proud I was to stand with him. I wonder if it is OK with my colleagues, since Senator Harkin has arrived, if I give him 10 minutes.

Mr. President, can Senator Harkin take about 10 minutes? Does the Senator want more time?

Fifteen minutes, 20? I yield up to 20 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Fourteen.

Mr. President, I yield 4 additional minutes and retain the remainder of my time.

I understand I have a minute, 51 seconds remaining.

I understand Senator Frist will take some leader time and Senator Daschle has given me 4 minutes of his leadership time, so I will speak for about 6 minutes if that is all right.

Madam President, I, too, thank everyone involved in this debate on both sides because I think it has been a very enlightening debate. I have been on the Senate floor about this bill many times. This particular debate brought out so many issues.

I also thank the many women who experienced this procedure, who were able to come to Washington on many occasions to tell us what their world was like when they found out late in the pregnancy that something had gone horribly wrong and the doctor told them that their baby could never live outside of their womb and the doctor told them if they did not have the procedure that is being banned in this bill, they could suffer a stroke, they could suffer paralysis, they could lose their fertility. These women came out and put a face on this issue, a real, human face; many of them very religious, many anti-choice, who said this was an excruciatingly difficult choice, but they knew it was right for themselves and their baby.

What we are about to do today--and I have no illusions; I know this bill will pass--we are about to ban a procedure that doctors say is needed to save the life and health of a woman. If I went up to you on the street and I said, I know there is a medical procedure that is sometimes necessary to save the life and health of a woman, would you want to ban it or would you be willing to ban it except for those occasions when it is necessary. I think and I know most Americans would do the humane thing and say absolutely, we want to make an exception for life and health. That is not what is done in this bill.

The doctors tell us this is a dangerous piece of legislation. The doctors tell us this is an unconscionable piece of legislation. The doctors tell us that women's lives and health will be put at risk if we pass this. I happen to believe, on issues such as these, we have to turn to the women themselves who have faced this agonizing decision, and to the doctors, the OB/GYMs whose job it is to bring life into the world.

Well, when we have done that, they have told us not to go this route, that if we are going to ban the procedure, always to have an exception, always for the life and health of the woman. Yet this Senate is going to turn its back on the women of this country, turn its collective back on the doctors of this country, and basically outlaw a procedure they say is necessary.

When the President signs this bill--and he will do so--it will be the first time in history any President of either party has banned a medical procedure that is necessary to save the life and health of the people of this country. I think that is a historic moment, and I think the people of this country will understand all of the ramifications. There is no question about that.

To make it clear, I will reiterate what many of my colleagues who are pro-choice have said. We believe Roe v. Wade was rightly decided. We believe it balanced all the interests that were before the Court. We believe when the Court said, in the very early stages of a pregnancy, Senators, Congress people, stay out of this decision, they were right. When the Court said, in the late stages of a pregnancy, the State can control what occurs in an abortion, but always with an exception for the life and health of a woman, we believe that is right.

Now the other side tells us: Oh, well, this bill has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade. It does not in any way challenge Roe v. Wade. Well, that is just untrue on its face. The Court has already ruled in the Nebraska case that when you do not make an exception for health, when you have vague definitions, that is violative of Roe.

What we are doing is passing a piece of legislation that will be signed with great fanfare, and it will be declared unconstitutional across the street. Instead, we could have joined hands across party lines, we could have joined hands across ideological lines, we could have banned every single late-term abortion with an exception for life and health, but the other side refuses to do this--refuses to do this. I do not understand how you can stand here and say you are doing the right thing by the women in this country and not make an exception to protect the health of a mother.

I hope many of us will vote this down. I have no illusions in the final vote, but it has been an excellent debate. I hope America was listening.

I thank you very much.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 2 minutes from Senator Daschle's leader time.

Thank you.

Madam President, I want to reply to what the good Senator has said, with great respect, when he says this procedure is outside the mainstream. I want to point out, I respect his opinion, but I think doctors who have gone into OB/GYN, if that is their field--I do not believe the American College of OB/GYNs--45,000 doctors--are out of the mainstream. I do not believe the American Medical Women's Association-- 10,000 female doctors--are outside the mainstream. Nor do I believe the American Public Health Association--thousands of doctors--are outside the mainstream.

So although I totally respect the opinion of my colleague, and I would fight for his right to have it, and his right to believe what he does, I think it is a bit dismissive of the mainstream OB/GYN doctors in this country, all of whom have told us, please do not pass this ban that they have said is dangerous to women. They have said, to use their words, it is risky to women, and they are very upset about it.

I did not want the Senate to believe these organizations back this bill, because they do not. We have put those letters into the Record.

I thank you very much.

The amendment I have offered would continue the good work of Congressman Bill Young, Senator Stevens, and Senator Graham. It would reimburse our troops, who are injured and in hospital, for the meals they were charged for. What we have done previously, with the help of Senator Stevens, is prospectively say they will not be charged for meals, but those who went into Afghanistan and Iraq are getting hit with $200 and $300 bills. Maybe they lost a leg or an eye and when they come out they go back to their job. One was a sheriff who got hit with a $200 bill. This would completely remove that burden. I would ask that there be a recorded vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Will the Senator yield?

Madam President, I thank Senator Stevens for helping me on this amendment, and I thank Senator Cochran as well.

Senator Schumer and I have been very concerned about the threat of shoulder-fired missiles to American commercial aircraft. What we have found out is that there are a number of planes--about 900 planes--that are also used in the civil reserve air fleet, meaning that many times our military will ask a commercial company, such as United Airlines or USAir, to make planes available for our armed services personnel. We simply say in this amendment that when countermeasures are placed on commercial aircraft, the first priority will be those planes.

To conclude, all we are saying in this amendment is when we do start to make sure that our commercial aircraft are protected from shoulder- fired missiles and we place those defenses on those commercial aircraft, the first priority will be the civil air reserve fleet because, again, that entails protecting our men and women in uniform.

I again thank everyone. Madam President, is this going into the managers' package, I ask Senator Stevens, or do we need a separate vote on it?

Madam President, what is the modification? I thought we had agreed on this amendment.

It is the same one. Absolutely. I just ask that we do this by voice vote and get this done.

Mr. President, during the recent operations in Iraq, and as recently as this June, U.S. commercial airliners, such as Delta and U.S. Airways, flew nearly 2,000 flights carrying

U.S. troops and supplies into Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Bahrain.

Unlike U.S. military transport aircraft, such as the C-17, none of these commercial jets were equipped with defenses against shoulder- fired missiles.

Yet these aircraft, known as the civil reserve air fleet, CRAF, are contractually obligated to support Department of Defense airlift requirements during times of emergency, when the need of airlift exceeds the capability of military aircraft. Civil reserve air fleet carriers must make aircraft available for the start of assigned missions within 24 hours after callup when stages I or II are activated and within 48 hours when stage III is activated.

These constitute our most vulnerable aircraft. They land in areas that are highly volatile, where we know terrorists groups operate, where we know they have shoulder-fired missiles, and where they have attempted to use them.

The bottom line is, it is only a matter of time before terrorist succeed in bringing down a commercial airplane with a shoulder-fired missile. We cannot afford for our luck to run out.

The administration has presented a plan that would fail to equip any aircraft until fiscal year 2006, at the earliest. We need to move faster. Thousands of these weapons are in the hands of terrorists all around the world and are easily available on the black market.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has issued a warning to law enforcement personnel to be alert to the potential use of shoulder- fired missiles against U.S. aircraft given al-Qaida's demonstrated objective to target the U.S. airline industry, its access to U.S. and Russian made systems and its targeting of U.S.-led military forces in Saudi Arabia. In August 2003, a weapons smuggler was arrested after agreeing to sell a Russian SA-18 to an undercover FBI agent posing as a Muslim extremist. At least 19 missiles have been launched against coalition aircraft since the end of major combat operations in Iraq. In November 2002, an Israeli jetliner was fired upon seconds after takeoff in Mombasa, Kenya; al-Qaida is suspected. And, in May 2002, al-Qaida was suspected of firing a shoulder-fired missile at U.S. military aircraft near Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia.

That is why I am pleased that the Senate has accepted my amendment to ensure that when countermeasures are placed on commercial aircraft, the civil reserve air fleet receives first priority. This is a commonsense amendment that will protect our flying public and our military personnel.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, just this past April, I voted for the emergency supplemental appropriations bill authorizing $70 billion for our military operations in Iraq. I felt that funding was necessary at the time. But I expected that the administration would move us toward a multilateral approach, one that would take the burden off our troops and our taxpayers.

Now the President is asking for $87 billion more for Iraq.

While war inevitably carries great costs, both in terms of financial losses and losses in human life, the American people and the families of our troops should not be alone in shouldering those costs and burdens.

We cannot afford to continue down this path without legitimate burden-sharing. Our troops are overstretched, our financial obligations are becoming more taxing by the day, needs at home are going unmet, and the Federal deficit is absolutely soaring.

In Congress we have a responsibility to our constituents to debate and decide upon the path that is best for our country. We should not rubberstamp every proposal the administration puts forward, particularly when lives are being lost.

The American people are not satisfied with the direction of this country. But all that the administration has offered so far is the status quo, another blank check for Congress to sign that offers no plan to genuinely decrease the strain on American resources.

That is why I supported an alternative proposed by Senator Byrd. The Byrd amendment put the needs of our troops first by authorizing 100 percent of the funding requested for military operations, and requiring the administration to gain commitments of funding and manpower from other nations to ease our Nation's incredible burden.

It also would have carefully reviewed the Iraq reconstruction process.

I also supported several worthy amendments that, if passed, would have greatly improved this bill:

The Biden amendment to pay for the cost by reducing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans;

The Dorgan amendment to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq with Iraqi oil revenues;

The Dodd amendment to shift $322 million in funding for new Iraqi prisons to protective gear for our troops;

The Stabenow amendment to provide $5 billion in funding for important American domestic priorities such as veterans health care, education, community health centers, and transportation. This amendment was paid for by delaying $5 billion of Iraq's reconstruction money to 2005.

Compared to this $87 billion that will be spent abroad, we are spending annually, $23.9 billion on veterans health care, $23.4 billion on higher education, and $31.8 billion in total highway spending. Our domestic priorities are going unmet.

I am pleased that my amendment to reimburse wounded soldiers for hospital meals was successful, as well as my amendment to call attention to the need to protect commercial aircraft from shoulder- fired missiles.

But basically, we are left with one huge $87 billion check which will be used to continue a policy that has led to 194 American postwar deaths and 903 Americans wounded in action to date.

Administration officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, repeatedly, and perhaps even deliberately, downplayed the cost of reconstructing Iraq. They claimed that we would pay for this war with Iraqi oil revenues and with support from the other nations. They told us this would be easy.

No one is suggesting that we abandon our efforts in Iraq. The Byrd alternative responsibly addressed the situation in Iraq by proposing a road map for success. It would have put an end to this blank check policy and established a realistic and responsible plan for the future.

My decision to vote no on the $87 billion request and for the Byrd amendment is a stand against the status quo and for a change in this administration's go-it-alone, pay-it-alone strategy.

Reserving the right to object.

I urge my friend to please not put such severe time limits on this because for some of us this is an extremely important amendment that goes to the heart of how we feel about the issue. I know my friend vehemently objects. Just the way he vehemently objects, I vehemently support

the Senator. I have not spoken much in this debate thus far and feel that it is extremely important to my constituents, who do not want the status quo, who want a change, to hear my views.

I ask my friend if he could withhold a particular time. My own view is I probably need about 15, 20 minutes, max, but I do not know for sure.

I object to the 10 minutes.

For myself, I would like to speak up to 20 minutes. I may only take 15.

I assure the Senator from Alaska my remarks are really not as long as 20 minutes. I certainly will try to get my points across in short order.

Mr. President, I am very proud to stand with the senior Democratic Senator on the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, and support his amendment to require the administration to develop a plan for Iraq, to share the burden of Iraqi reconstruction and security, and provide Congress with the information it deserves to have, not only as a coequal branch of Government but in behalf of our constituents.

I view this amendment as a very strong alternative to the underlying bill, an alternative that is better for our troops, that is better for our taxpayers, and will finally give us a plan and an exit strategy we should have had a long time ago.

The Byrd amendment withholds half of the money requested for reconstruction until the President certifies and reports to Congress that the U.N. Security Council has adopted a new resolution authorizing a multinational force under U.S. leadership. That would result in more funding and more troops from other nations to relieve our heavy burden. And the burden is, indeed, heavy.

I am very happy the U.N. Security Council just passed a resolution. But, if I might say, what that resolution does--and I am glad they passed it--is it essentially puts them on record as recognizing the United States as the transition power in Iraq. But it does not give one dollar toward the effort of reconstruction. It does not give even one soldier more from another country.

So we have a long way to go. I think in many ways the Senator from West Virginia was prescient, because he put in his amendment not just that the U.N. pass any old resolution, but that the U.N. pass a resolution that will in fact relieve the burden on our troops and on our taxpayers.

Senator Byrd and those of us supporting his amendment also say the administration must certify and report to Congress that our reconstruction efforts are being carried out in accordance with a detailed plan that includes

significant financial assistance from other nations. In short, the Byrd amendment requires leadership from this administration--leadership from this administration--and the American people deserve no less. It is time for leadership.

In addition, the Byrd amendment requires reports to the Congress on efforts to protect our troops. I made a visit to Walter Reed Hospital yesterday. It was a very emotional visit. Our troops are extraordinary. They are incredibly optimistic young people. Each one of them I visited said had they been in a different type of vehicle, they wouldn't have lost their limbs, they wouldn't have lost colleagues. Because, as we have said many times, after the President landed on the aircraft carrier and he said the major hostilities were over, we did not have a plan in place and a lot of our people have paid the price of that.

So we are essentially demanding, asking, requesting, that the President report to the Congress on efforts to protect our troops. We asked for an estimate of the duration and cost of the military mission in Iraq. I might say, for many of us who supported the Levin resolution, we have been asking for that since day one and we really never had it.

Why do you think the American people took a deep breath when they heard $87 billion for Iraq? They don't even realize, most of them, because it slipped through here with a unanimous vote--and at that time I think rightly so--we already gave $70 billion for Iraq in an emergency supplemental. So there was $70 billion, now there is $87 billion, and if anyone thinks this is the last of it you are mistaken. If we do not get a grip on this, this is a policy that is not in anybody's control. They don't even know who is in control over at the White House. They sent out a press release that Condi Rice was in charge of reconstruction. Then Rumsfeld got mad. Then she came out and said, Well, gee, no, that really wasn't so.

I think Senator Byrd, with all his many years here, his many years living, and his many years witnessing other administrations, has done us all a favor by putting together this very important amendment. Many of us helped put the finishing touches on it. I am very proud of this amendment.

So we ask the President to send a report to Congress on efforts to protect our troops, an estimate of the duration and cost of the military mission in Iraq, an estimated long-term schedule for the withdrawal of U.S. and foreign troops, and a schedule with timetables and costs for the establishment of a fully trained and equipped Iraqi security force.

Why is the Byrd amendment an alternative to be strongly supported? To me it is clear. It is time to end a blank-check policy. It is time to end a blank-check policy. Again, we gave $70 billion with absolutely no strings attached. We didn't stop it. We didn't say anything. We expected the President at that point would use those dollars and use the trust the Congress placed in him with that $70 billion to come up with a plan. We still don't have it.

So clearly we should support this very important amendment as an alternative to the underlying bill.

Let me give you other reasons. We were misled about post-Saddam Iraq. There is not one person who is civilized and has a heart and a pulse that beat who isn't glad Saddam is out of the picture. That has never been the issue. That has never been the question. The question is, did we have the right policy so that in the future that part of the world will be more secure, that we will not have a vacuum where terrorists move in, and where the United States is not the only country that is bearing the cost of a post-Saddam Iraq?

The American people--I know I speak for the people of California who have spoken with me about this and, by the way, I have had well over 1,000 calls on this and it is heavily against the $87 billion--feel for the Iraqi people, and they want to do their share--underline ``share.'' But they were told the postwar situation would be quite different from what we are seeing.

Let me quote President Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, who was press secretary up until recently. This is what he said about reconstruction:

Well, the reconstruction costs remain . . . an issue for

the future, and Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy

country.

I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle and my friends on this side of the aisle that the spokesperson for the President of the United States said:

. . . unlike Afghanistan, Iraq is a rather wealthy country.

Still quoting, he said:

Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi

people, and so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to

be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own

reconstruction.

My friends, that was this year. Ari Fleischer was speaking for the President of the United States who is now putting pressure on us not to see this reconstruction money become loans. Ari Fleischer said:

. . . Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden

for their own reconstruction.

What did Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz say? I sit on the Foreign Relations Committee. Let us hear what he said. He said:

There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to

be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the

Iraqi people . . . and on a rough recollection, the oil

revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100

billion over the course of the next two or three years.

Going on, Mr. Wolfowitz, No. 1 in the Defense Department, said:

We're dealing with a country that can really finance its

own reconstruction, and relatively soon.

What are we being told by the manager of this amendment, Senator Stevens? He is saying the Byrd amendment is awful; it is terrible; it is going to stop everything; it is a terrible thing. If you think the Byrd amendment is destructive, why not call Paul Wolfowitz and find out why on March 27, 2003 he said, ``We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon''?

Why not call up Ari Fleischer, who spoke to the President and said, `` . . . unlike Afghanistan, Iraq can pay for its own reconstruction''?

But it doesn't stop there. There is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. I am quoting him.

I don't believe that the United States has the

responsibility for reconstruction.

My colleagues, I want to reiterate this. Donald Rumsfeld, No. 1 in the Department of Defense, said in March of this year:

I don't believe the United States has the responsibility

for reconstruction.

He said:

[Reconstruction] funds can come from . . . frozen assets,

oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil

for Food, which has very substantial number of billions of

dollars in it.

I could have quoted 10 other people from this administration, but from Secretary Rumsfeld who is a key member of this administration, to Ari Fleischer who spoke for the President, to Paul Wolfowitz, second in command at the Department of Defense, they all told us and they told the American people Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction.

I think the underlying bill is very much another blank check based on more statements and promises from an administration that led a brilliant military campaign but was wrong on the weapons of mass destruction, wrong on what would happen after the war, wrong on what the rebuilding would cost, wrong on how many troops would be needed, wrong on oil revenues, and wrong on how much other countries would contribute. That is just a partial list.

My constituents are very leery of another blank check, given this history and given the need here at home.

I could not believe this U.S. Senate couldn't walk down the aisle together, Republicans and Democrats, and take a month's worth of money for Iraq and spend it in this country of ours. We weren't asking for much. The Senator from Michigan wrote a brilliant amendment. In it, she said, All right, we are spending $5 billion in Iraq. The World Bank tells us they can't really absorb all the money we are budgeting now. Let us take just 1 month and let us keep our promises to our veterans. Let us take just 1 month. That is all--$5 billion. We can take care of our veterans' health. We can take care of our school construction needs. We can help some people who need health care here in the United States of America.

No. That went down in flames. We can't do that. We can't afford that. We can't afford it. After all, we have a deficit. We had a deficit only after this

President took office. We had a surplus before he took office. Now this body won't even pay for this war. They won't even pay for this war. They make ringing speeches about America, the greatest leader in the world. And I agree with every speech. But every time America led the world, we didn't tell the wealthiest few that we will give you more tax breaks so our sons and daughters can go off.

This amendment says to me everything that needs to be said. It puts an end to a blank-check mentality. We can't afford another blank check. We have these pressing needs at home with a deficit that is racing out of control.

I thank Senator Byrd for his leadership. I have enjoyed working with him and with his staff, as well as the staff of Senators Leahy and Kennedy, to put forward an alternative that puts our troops and our taxpayers ahead of a blank-check policy. I hope we will have a strong vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I believe this is open for debate. I want to express myself tonight. I have not said this before, but I have to tell you that the Senator from Nevada has been working so diligently with his colleagues on the other side to move along the business of this body.

He suggested that four of us who have very brief amendments be allowed to go forward--not in advance of the other side. I don't have any problem with a few people going first or alternating back and forth. But I have to say, I feel very bad about this, and I am not going to be cooperating tonight if we are not going to allow this to take on some kind of comity at this late hour where we hear from Senator Hutchison, who has a very good amendment, and then we go to our side, and back and forth.

I want to speak just as one Senator to say I feel bad about the way things are deteriorating tonight and I am not going to cooperate.

Yes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending amendment aside, and I call up my amendment which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, today, I am offering an amendment that will help service members who have been hospitalized after being wounded or becoming ill during combat or other operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and during the war on terror since September 11, 2001.

Right now, when one of our soldiers is wounded, they are evacuated to a military hospital. When whey are discharged from the hospital, they receive a bill for their hospital food. The current daily rate for those charges is $8.10.

I want to thank my good friend and colleague from Florida, Senator Bob Graham, for offering leadership on this issue. Accepted as part of the manager's package, his amendment exempts service members who are hospitalized from combat injuries and other conditions from having to pay for their meals. His amendment addresses the problem prospectively--in the future.

My amendment supplements his--by closing the loop. It will require the Department of Defense to reimburse troops who paid for meals while hospitalized as a result of either injury or illness while in combat or training for combat since September 11, 2001.

I recently learned about a Marine staff sergeant who was injured when an Iraqi dropped a grenade in the HUMVEE he was driving. As a result of the explosion, he lost part of his food, and spent 26 days in the hospital recovering. He was then discharged to return home and to his job as a sheriff's deputy. At the same time, he was handed a bill for $210.60 for his food.

Mr. President, $210.60 may not seem like a lot of money to some of us. But to an enlisted person with a family making under $20,000 a year--this is a serious financial burden.

When service members are discharged, we should express our gratitude for their profound personal sacrifice, not hand them a bill for their hospital food.

My amendment is simple and corrects this stunning injustice. It shows our strong support for the courageous men and women who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq and have returned, wounded, ill, missing limbs, too often permanently disabled.

The price to the Government for correcting this serious affront to our service members is very, very small indeed. This amendment costs just $1.5 million, with the offset found in the account to create new zip codes in Iraq, which the House eliminated in their bill last week.

I understand the Department of Defense has recouped only $1.5 million this year for hospital meals from all hospitalized service members world-wide. We are talking about just $1.5 million from over 2 million active and reserve forces across the globe.

What I am proposing is much more limited in scope. It would only reimburse service members who have been wounded or become ill due to combat or training for combat since September 11, 2001. According to the Defense Department, approximately 2,000 service members have been injured or wounded in action in Iraq. Considerably less were injured in our operations in Afghanistan. The Defense Department says the total for both conflicts may be roughly 3,500 people.

I am talking about giving back a small amount to our troops for their extraordinary sacrifice. It would mean a great deal to the service members and military families who face extended separations, financial hardship, and sometimes serious injury.

We were very fortunate that Representative Bill Young from Florida discovered that our service men and women who are in hospitals were being asked to pay for meals as they checked out of the hospital. Some of them had horrible injuries and some lost limbs. Congressman Young fixed the problem, and Senator Graham, working with Senator Stevens and others, fixed the problem. But the fix has only been for the future. It has not been fixed for those who actually went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq and are getting hit with these bills.

I recently learned about a marine staff sergeant who was injured when an Iraqi dropped a grenade on a Humvee he was driving, and he lost part of his foot. He spent 26 days in a hospital. When he was discharged to return home as a sheriff's deputy, he was handed a $210.60 bill for his food. That may not seem like a lot to some, but

when you are earning approximately $20,000 a year, it is a serious financial burden.

I know we all want to fix this. What we have done in the amendment is very simple. We pay back those who served in Afghanistan and in Iraq who wound up in hospitals and were billed for their food, and we pay for it with an offset. The amendment will cost $1.5 million. We pay for it in an offset found in the account for a new ZIP Code in Iraq. I think it is very important for us to do this. It is much more important than new ZIP Codes in Iraq.

I am very hopeful that tomorrow we will have an overwhelming vote in favor of this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. President, I wonder if I could ask the Senator from Alaska this question. We will not have an offset. I have agreed not to have an offset. Is it the chairman's understanding that the $1.5 million will come from----

And it will happen.

This is retroactive. We took care of it prospectively. This is to actually write checks to people.

As long as I am clear on that, I am very happy. I thank everyone.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action National Memorial Act of 2003. This bill would designate the POW/MIA memorial currently being built at Riverside National Cemetery in California as the National POW/MIA Memorial. This monument would be a memorial to all members of the Armed Forces who have been held as prisoners of war or listed as missing in action.

We should always remember and pay tribute to the men and women who are fighting for our Nation now and have fought for our Nation in the past, including those who have never returned home. Over 89,000 members of the Armed Forces have been listed as missing since the American Revolution.

The families of these missing men and women have had to try to go on with their lives without ever knowing what happened. Many of them have been unable to grieve for their loved ones as they typically would, and many of them have been unable to have a proper burial. The families of our missing in action across the country should know that their nation remembers their loved one, and honors them by dedicating this national memorial in Riverside, CA.

In addition to the missing soldiers, airmen, sailors, and others, there have been over 586,000 members of the Armed Forces who have been taken

prisoner since the American Revolution. In the 20th Century alone, there were over 142,000 Americans taken as prisoners of war.

I would like to thank Congressman Ken Calvert, who introduced the House version of this bill in May. I commend him for his leadership in honoring Americans missing in action and taken as prisoners of war.

There is no national memorial for both POWs and MIAs; there is not even a statue dedicated to their memory. It is time that the United States recognize the sacrifice that these American POWs and MIAs have made, and designate the memorial at the Riverside National Cemetery as the National POW/MIA Memorial.

I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action National Memorial Act of 2003. This bill would designate the POW/MIA memorial currently being built at Riverside National Cemetery in California as the National POW/MIA Memorial. This monument would be a memorial to all members of the Armed Forces who have been held as prisoners of war or listed as missing in action.

We should always remember and pay tribute to the men and women who are fighting for our Nation now and have fought for our Nation in the past, including those who have never returned home. Over 89,000 members of the Armed Forces have been listed as missing since the American Revolution.

The families of these missing men and women have had to try to go on with their lives without ever knowing what happened. Many of them have been unable to grieve for their loved ones as they typically would, and many of them have been unable to have a proper burial. The families of our missing in action across the country should know that their nation remembers their loved one, and honors them by dedicating this national memorial in Riverside, CA.

In addition to the missing soldiers, airmen, sailors, and others, there have been over 586,000 members of the Armed Forces who have been taken

prisoner since the American Revolution. In the 20th Century alone, there were over 142,000 Americans taken as prisoners of war.

I would like to thank Congressman Ken Calvert, who introduced the House version of this bill in May. I commend him for his leadership in honoring Americans missing in action and taken as prisoners of war.

There is no national memorial for both POWs and MIAs; there is not even a statue dedicated to their memory. It is time that the United States recognize the sacrifice that these American POWs and MIAs have made, and designate the memorial at the Riverside National Cemetery as the National POW/MIA Memorial.

I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.