Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to voice my support for AmeriCorps. The $100 million added in the Appropriations Committee for AmeriCorps is vital to continuing the hard work that so many young people around the country are doing today. Stripping this funding out of the bill would leave thousands of AmeriCorps members in my State, and throughout the country, out in the cold. And it will leave communities without the contributions and hard work of thousands.

There are nearly 8,000 AmeriCorps volunteers in my State, working in 366 program sites. They are in communities from Anaheim to Westminster, helping children read, restoring our environment, and building homes for the needy. Their contributions to the quality of life in our cities and towns are immeasurable. The additional funding in this bill is desperately needed.

Some of my colleagues have argued that bureaucratic blunders by the Corporation for National and Community Service, the agency that runs AmeriCorps, should not be rewarded by giving the program additional funding. We all know, however, that the work of Senators Mikulski and Bond has gone far to correct many of the problems at the corporation. As the accounting reforms continue, AmeriCorps will flourish once again. This $100 million in this bill is a step in that direction.

I hope my colleagues will follow the lead of the distinguished chair and ranking member of the VA-HUD subcommittee, and vote to table this amendment.

Mr. President, it seems that every week we discover additional drinking water sources that have been contaminated with perchlorate. More than 20 million Americans in at least 24 States drink water contaminated with perchlorate, including: Alabama, Arizona, California, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia. In California alone, drinking water sources for up to 10 million people are contaminated with perchlorate. Perchlorate also contaminates much of the lower Colorado River, the main water source for 20 million people across the Southwest, including much of California, Arizona, and Nevada. Millions more eat produce grown with Colorado River water.

We know that perchlorate is the main ingredient in rocket fuel, which accounts for 90 percent of its use. It dissolves readily in many liquids, including water, and moves easily and quickly. There is general agreement that perchlorate is highly toxic and that even at low concentrations perchlorate poses a serious threat to human health, including thyroid cancer and mental and physical retardation. The greatest risks are to pregnant women, newborns, and children.

We also know that the Department of Defense (DOD) has long been not only the primary consumer of perchlorate but also intimately involved in its manufacturing. EPA believes that perchlorate may be present wherever rockets or rocket fuel was made--at least 162 sites in 36 States. The California Department of Health Services has detected perchlorate in 292 public groundwater wells, the majority of which are located near facilities operated by the Department of Defense or its contractors. Additional information provided to the Senate by DOD further confirms that perchlorate contamination is potentially widespread and pervasive at military installations.

The Defense Department has said that it is not willing to start cleanup of perchlorate until there is a national drinking water standard, but the Environmental Protection Agency indicates that it will further delay finalizing the standard for at least another 2 years. Our military has protected the American people for centuries. For this, we are grateful. DOD must reaffirm that this commitment extends to protecting citizens within the United States from threats to their public health that may arise from critical defense activities. DOD must not adopt a delay strategy while private parties and local communities, such as California's Inland Empire, San Gabriel Valley, and the Sacramento area, adopt costly measures to assure the purity of drinking water supplies.

DOD is legally obligated to clean up perchlorate and other hazardous waste contamination at its sites under a variety of State and Federal laws and regulations, including, for example, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (Superfund), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and State hazardous waste cleanup laws. Communities have already spent millions on priority actions to reduce the threat to Americans--and I urge the Defense Department to do so as well.

Perchlorate is a clear and present danger to California's, and the Nation's, public health. We cannot wait any longer to address this threat. DOD needs to get moving and protect our drinking water sooner rather than later.

Yes, I wish to address a couple of questions to my friend, Senator Bingaman.

First, I thank you so much for bringing this amendment to the floor. We have a situation where President Bush

is in Africa. I want to make sure I am right on how I read your amendment. He is there saying he has committed, over a 5-year period, $15 billion. Is that correct?

As I understand my friend, what has happened is that the President's own budget, instead of giving $3 billion for this effort, which would be $3 billion this year and $3 billion each year for 5 years to meet his commitment, has underfunded his own request and has underfunded where the authorizing bill said this ought to be at $3 billion.

Am I correct in saying when the President says he is waiting for Congress to act, essentially his own budget has undercut his commitment?

I just want to make sure I understand that what the Senator is doing today is sending a signal to the people of the United States of America, and to the people who are suffering from AIDS worldwide, that this amendment would bring the amount up to the amount that was promised in the President's own authorizing legislation but that he has underfunded in his own budget and that this bill is underfunding.

What you are doing is keeping the promise made by the President himself, in correcting what was a terrible mistake, it seems to me, in the fact that this bill, as it currently stands, without my colleague's amendment, underfunds that account for AIDS.

Mr. President, I highlight an important provision in the State Department Authorization bill that is now before the Senate. It is a provision that resulted from an amendment I offered in the Senate Foreign Relations committee to insure the inclusion of women in the reconstruction of Iraq.

The Boxer amendment states that it is the policy of the United States to ensure the full and active participation of women in the reconstruction of Iraq. It specifically states that the U.S. should work to promote the involvement of women in all levels of the Government of Iraq and decision-making bodies; the planning and distribution of assistance, including food aid; and job promotion and training programs.

Three years ago, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1325 which reaffirmed the important role of women in peace-building and called attention to the special needs of women during post-conflict resolution. Iraqi women are among the most highly educated in the region and should play a significant role in rebuilding Iraq.

The head of the U.N. Development Fund for Women recently wrote that, ``As groups of Iraqi people meet to prepare for the creation of an interim Iraqi authority, it is essential to know that a way to achieve consensus and compromise, amid the divisive complexities of Iraqi society, is to ensure the extensive participation of women. Indeed, the perspectives of women offer the best promise of meaningful reconstruction and the development of a working democracy.''

My amendment is designed to ensure that the perspectives of women are taken seriously as we work to help Iraq rebuild. I appreciate the support of my colleagues on this issue and hope that this provision is included in the final version of the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous to speak as in morning business to pay tribute to some Californians who were killed in Iraq. It will probably take no more than about 7 minutes.

Madam President, I have been trying to get some time to pay tribute to some of my constituents, military personnel, who were killed in Iraq since the war was officially declared over. I wanted to tie that into my vote for the Biden amendment on the State Department bill, which called for the President to consider asking NATO and the United Nations to share the burden with our troops on the ground. I was hoping it would be a little stronger because I believe that is what ought to happen. I have said that for a very long time now. At least, it is a step in the right direction.

We are losing too many of our people. I want to honor and remember 14 young Americans who were from California, or were based in California, and who have died since the war was declared over by President Bush.

We are losing too many of our people. Today, I want to honor and remember 14 young Americans who were from California or were based in California and who have died since the war officially ended.

Marine PFC Jose F. Gonzalez Rodriguez, age 19, died May 12 in Iraq. He was assigned to the 1st Force Service Support Group, Camp Pendleton, California. He was from Norwalk, California.

Marine CPL Jakub H. Kowalik, age 21, was killed May 12 in Iraq. He was assigned to the 1st Force Service Support Group, Camp Pendleton, California. He was from Schaumburg, Illinois.

Marine CPL Douglas Jose Marencoreyes, age 28, was killed on May 18 in Iraq. He was assigned to the 4th Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, California. He was from Chino, California.

Marine CPT Andrew David Lamont, age 31, was killed on May 19 in a helicopter accident in Iraq. He was stationed at Camp Pendleton, California, and was from Eureka, California.

Marine LCpl Jason William Moore, age 21, was killed on May 19 in a helicopter accident in Iraq. He was assigned to the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, Camp Pendleton, California. He was from San Marcos, California.

Marine 1LT Timothy Louis Ryan, age 30, was killed on May 19 in a helicopter accident in Iraq. He was assigned to the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, Camp Pendleton, California. He was from Aurora, Illinois.

Marine SSgt Aaron Dean White, age 27, was killed on May 19 in a helicopter accident in Iraq. He was assigned to the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, Camp Pendleton, California. He was from Shawnee, Oklahoma.

Marine Sgt Kirk Allen Straseskie, age 23, was killed on May 19 during an attempt to rescue victims of a helicopter accident in Iraq. He was assigned to the 4th Marine Regiment, Camp Pendleton, California. He was from Beaver Dam, Wisconsin.

Marine Sgt Jonathan W. Lambert, age 28, died on June 1 as a result of injuries sustained in an accident on May 26 in southern Iraq. He was assigned to the 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, California. He was from New Site, Mississippi. He is survived by his wife, a 2-year-old daughter, his parents, a sister, and two grandparents.

Army Sgt Atanacio Haro Marin Jr., age 27, was killed by enemy fire on June 3 in Iraq. He was attached to the 16th Field Artillery Regiment at Fort Hood, Texas. He was from Baldwin Park, California. He joined the National Guard after he graduated from high school. Following his service with the National Guard, he transferred to the Army.

Marine PFC Ryan R. Cox, age 19, was killed on June 15 in Iraq. He was stationed at Twenty-nine Palms, California. Hew was from Derby, Kansas.

Army SP Paul T. Nakamura, age 21, was killed on June 19 when his ambulance was struck by a grenade in Iraq. He was from Sante Fe Springs, California. He was attached to the 437th Medical Company, based in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Army SP Andrew Chris, age 25, was killed on June 25 in Iraq. He was assigned to Company B, 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia. Before he joined the Army, he lived for several years in California, most of them in the San Diego area. He planned to teach high school history when he completed his military career.

Marine Cpl Travis J. Bradachnall, age 21, was killed on July 2 near the city of Karbala, Iraq. He was assigned to the Combat Service Support Group 11, Camp Pendleton, California. He was from Oregon.

Mr. President, 55 individuals who were from California or based in California have died while serving our country in Iraq.

The people of California, as well as all Americans, mourn their loss. May

these beautiful young Americans rest in peace. I also continue to pray for those who have been wounded in this conflict. I wish them the very best as they recuperate from their injuries.

I hope that all of our brave young women and men serving abroad will return home safely. They deserve to be relieved soon. Many have been there much longer than they anticipated. Their families need them.

They face an extremely dangerous situation. Many say they are more fearful now than they were in the height of the war.

I agree with those who are calling for the peacekeeping troops to be an international force. That would ease the burden on our men and women in uniform and would also make them less of a target.

There is no reason that this shouldn't be done as soon as possible so that I and others do not have to come to the Senate floor for the purpose of delivering painful and heartbreaking eulogies.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to discuss S. 982, the Syria Accountability Act. Senator Santorum and I introduced this legislation on May 1. In just over 2 months, this bill has received 63 cosponsors.

After discussing this issue with Senator Lugar, the chairman of the Senator Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Santorum and I have decided against offering this legislation as an amendment to the State Department authorization bill.

Senator Lugar has agreed to hold a hearing in his committee on the issue of Syria in the near future. I am very grateful for his cooperation. The Syria Accountability Act would expand U.S. diplomatic and economic sanctions against Syria unless a certification can be made that Syria no longer supports terrorism, has withdrawn from Lebanon, and has ended its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.

The legislation does not in any way advocate the use of force against Syria. The goal is to give the President and the Secretary of State the ability to exert economic and political leverage on Syria because of the serious policy concerns we have with the Syrian government.

It is well known that terrorist organizations like Hizballah, Hamas, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine maintain offices, training camps, and other facilities on Syrian territory and in areas of Lebanon occupied by the Syrian armed forces. This bill addresses this issue by confronting the Government of Syria in a diplomatic way that shows the seriousness of our concerns.

The Syria Accountability Act of 2003 would impose various sanctions on Syria, including a prohibition on the export of defense and dual-use items. In addition, the act requires the President to impose two or more of the following sanctions: 1, prohibiting the export of products of the U.S. other than food and medicine to Syria, 2, prohibiting U.S. businesses from investing or operating in Syria, 3, restricting Syrian diplomats in Washington, DC and at the United Nations to travel only within a 25-mile radius of Washington, DC or the United Nations, respectively, 4, reducing U.S. diplomatic contacts with Syria, and 5, blocking transactions in any property in which the Government of Syria has any interest.

The President is authorized to waive any or all of these five sanctions if it is in the national security interest of the United States. It is imperative that we hold all nations that are responsible for the proliferation of international terrorism and regional instability in the Middle East fully accountable for their actions. If we do not, the credibility of our antiterrorism efforts diminishes, along with our chances for victory over terrorism and for truly positive change in the Middle East. I thank the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for his assistance.

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

Madam President, the reason I was happy to have the clerk read the first three findings in this amendment is that I think these words really speak to what the United States is all about, which is free speech, the ability for people to be told the truth, and the ability of medical professionals not to be gagged from telling the truth.

Most unfortunately, what is happening right now, as a result of this administration's policy known as the Mexico City policy, foreign nongovernmental organizations--in other words, nonprofit organizations--that received USAID family planning funding are restricted in how they can help their patients.

Who are these patients? I will go into this later in detail. But they are the poorest of the poorest women in the world. What has happened, I would say because of politics in this country, is we have a very unfortunate worldwide policy now that says to the private, nonprofit organizations that are helping the poorest of the poor people--mostly women--they cannot use their own money to advocate for changes in the abortion laws of their own country.

So if they believe the abortion laws in their own country are, for example, killing women because they are saying there can be no abortion ever, even to save the life of a woman, they cannot use their own funds to advocate for change. Or if they believe the woman who comes before them has decided, of her own free will and her own conscience and with her own religious guidance and with her own family guidance, that she would like to have a legal abortion, these foreign, nonprofit organizations may not use their own money to help that woman. Not only that--this is, to me, the worst of it all--they may not use their own money to provide full and accurate medical information about what options a woman has.

It is hard for me to understand that in a country as free as ours, in a country as great as ours, we would have a policy which we dare not do in our own country because it would be clearly unconstitutional. A domestic gag rule is clearly unconstitutional. Why would we put such a policy forward and tell these little nonprofit organizations, that are struggling to meet the needs of the poorest of the poor, they would jeopardize their USAID funding if they absolutely do nothing more than even tell a patient what her legal options are, what her safe options are?

This is known as the Mexico City policy because it came out of a conference in Mexico City a very long time ago. This policy ended with President Clinton in 1992, when he said he would absolutely uphold the law that we had before this global gag rule which said you cannot use Federal money in any way to promote abortion--that was the law, and he didn't disturb that--but certainly a group could use its own money.

What happened is for 8 years we did not have this regressive policy that turns the clock back on women's rights, and yet when President Bush came in, it was one of the first things he did, to reinstate this Mexico City policy.

I am very proud that cosponsoring my amendment, which would overturn this policy, are Senator Chafee and Senator Snowe. I am very proud to have them as Republican lead cosponsors. I am also very proud to have Senator Mikulski and Senator Murray as cosponsors. I am very happy to say the ranking member of the committee has told me I may add his name and he will be speaking in behalf of this amendment.

Clearly, we have an opportunity to do the right thing today. We have done it before. We have overturned this before. We have taken a stand before. I hope we will do it again.

Again, I wish to say what we are talking about here because there is always confusion. This has nothing to do with Federal funds. Federal funds may not be used in any way related to abortion. This only has to do with the private funds of these little nonprofits that are trying to help women.

What has been the impact of this gag rule? You may say, Senator Boxer, that is very interesting, but what is really happening on the ground?

Here is what is happening on the ground. With the gag rule in place,

these organizations face two choices: They can either refuse U.S. assistance or they can limit their own services. You know how hard that must be for these struggling organizations in these very poor nations.

Madam President, you have seen the world in your capacity as head of the Red Cross. You know some of these places are struggling. You know very much of it is the women who struggle the most, who are the most poor, who have the most health needs. We are seeing organizations saying: OK, I can't take the money. I can't take USAID funding because I cannot limit my ability to help my patients.

I am going to show you a case later that is very emotional and very disturbing as one example of a group that turned back this funding, and I will tell you why.

Imagine the Hobson's choice they face. Here they are, struggling, yet if they take this money, they can literally not tell their patients the truth. They are literally barred from telling their patients what is the most safe procedure for you, what are your options. They may not tell the patient that.

What is happening on the ground--and we will prove it with cases before you--we say women and families are suffering increased misery and even death. They are suffering this because there are clinics that are shutting down because they cannot take the money, and there are clinics that are being gagged, they cannot tell the truth.

Why is family planning assistance important? This is not just about abortion. These are clinics that help women plan their families. We know family planning increases child survival rates. It improves maternal health. It prevents the spread of HIV/AIDS. We have the President of the United States--and it is wonderful that he has decided to visit Africa. I have to say, while he talks about how much he wants to help HIV/AIDS, and I believe he does, he needs to understand, and perhaps he doesn't get the fact, if these clinics close down, we are going to see the spread of HIV/AIDS, we are going to see the spread of other infectious diseases.

International family planning funding helps save lives. On the one hand, to say I am here in Africa to help and on the other hand to have imposed a gag rule on doctors and nurses and clinicians so they cannot tell poor women the truth about their options or they cannot work to change the regressive laws of their country--for example, to say if a child is raped, if a child is the victim of incest, that child ought to be able to get a safe, legal abortion--these clinics cannot even do this under this global gag rule.

As a result of USAID funding, more than 50 million couples in the developing world use family planning. In the last 30 years, the percentage of couples using family planning has risen fivefold. This is something to celebrate. We know fewer than 10 percent of couples used contraception in the 1960s. We are talking about foreign countries that we helped. Now 50 percent of the couples use contraception. So the word is getting through. But the need for family planning assistance continues because of the growth of population.

Why on Earth are we setting in place a vehicle, this global gag rule, which will deprive people of their health care, will deprive women of knowing what their options are? We don't know exactly how many organizations have refused funding because of this gag rule, and we cannot measure exactly how many abortions would have been prevented by family planning. But we know clearly whenever you cut back in family planning services, you see an increase in abortions. We know 78,000 women throughout the world die each year. I want us to think about what that means. Seventy-eight thousand women throughout the world die each year as a result of unsafe abortions. At least one-fourth of those unsafe abortions in the world are girls age 15 to 19.

When we have a policy that results in clinics shutting down, we have a policy that results in illegal abortions because if they take the money, they can't tell a young girl the truth of what her options are. She may run to a back alley in desperation, and she may well die.

Seventy-eight thousand women throughout the world die each year from unsafe abortions. That is not a pro-life policy. I am sorry. That is an anti-life policy to put women at risk.

Seventy-eight thousand women die each year. That is a horrific statistic. That is happening because women cannot avail themselves of the family planning services they need.

What does our amendment do? What does the Boxer-Chafee-Snowe- Mikulski-Murray-Biden amendment do? First, it says foreign nongovernmental organizations cannot be denied funding based on the medical services they provide with their own funds, including counseling and referral services. Withholding medical information, as I have said before, to patients who need it is an intolerable situation. It would be intolerable in this country. We know, because it was tried in this country 20 years ago. There was absolutely an uproar. Doctors would say, excuse me, are you putting a gag over my mouth? Are you saying I cannot tell my patients what their legal options are? The answer came back: This cannot be sustained in a country that believes in freedom of speech. So what we couldn't do here we are doing there.

We say there shall be no gag rule. That is the first part of our amendment.

The second part says in addition to being able to tell the patients the truth about their options, an organization should be able to lobby in any way it wants as long as it doesn't use USAID funds.

We have a win-win situation in this amendment. Doctors and nurses and folks who work in these nongovernmental organizations and these small nonprofits are going to be able to tell the truth to their patients. Here are your options. Treat their patients like adults. I think it is essential to treat a woman like an adult. This is your predicament. These are the things you can do. You can have a child. You need to think about that. You could keep the child. You can give the child up for adoption. That is an option. You can end this pregnancy, if you end it early without complication. But it is your choice. I think women should be treated as adults.

Then if these organizations see that women are dying from illegal abortions because this country, let us say, outlawed legal abortions, they can lobby for this with their own funds. What we are doing is restoring democracy to the USAID program.

Frankly, I can't believe this regressive policy is even here in the 21st century. It is killing women. This is not something that is preventing abortions. Its impact is that women will seek illegal abortions. It is what happened in this country. Hundreds of women in this country died every year because they could not get access to safe, legal abortions until Roe v. Wade. Then we said to women, this is a legal option. It is your call. It is up to you at the early stages of the pregnancy. It is really a very straightforward and fair law.

What we are saying to women abroad now is if you go to a doctor, you should be able to hear your options. If your organization wants to be able to lobby on your behalf for better laws to protect your life, they ought to be able to do that--not with Federal funds, not with USAID funds, but with your own funds.

The global rule is undemocratic. It is a miserable impediment to poor women. It would be unconstitutional if imposed on our own citizens. It is bad foreign policy. I believe our bipartisan amendment ends it and does it in a very good way--in a way everybody can be proud of.

I want to tell you a story and give an example that occurred in Nepal.

I am so proud to serve on the Foreign Relations Committee at this time. I am the only woman, which is a lonely thing. Madam President, you ought to think about coming on with me. It is a great honor and privilege.

I want to say that our chairman, Chairman Lugar, could not be a more fair chairman, could not be a more hard-working chairman, and could not have more respect on both sides of the aisle. It is an honor to be on that committee in the Senate. It is an honor to be serving with the ranking member, Joe Biden. I think our colleagues are very bipartisan. It is a tough time now in our country for bipartisanship. We really work together on that committee.

At the time we were in the majority, we had a series of hearings on this

global gag rule to see what was happening on the ground.

In 2001, I chaired a subcommittee hearing where we had a small nonprofit, nongovernmental organization from Nepal. They were faced with this global gag rule. They had to make that Hobson's choice: Do they take the money and then give up their right to lobby in behalf of their patients or do they turn back the money? This little organization turned back the money. The reason they did it was not some abstract theory but a specific case. They cited how their organization was able to advocate on behalf of the 13-year-old girl whose name was Min Min.

This is a story I want to share with my colleagues. How can we turn our backs on this child and other children like her? How we can turn our backs on the organizations that are out there is beyond my comprehension to understand.

Min Min was raped by a relative. I want to show you her face. She was 13. Her family forced her to have an illegal abortion after the rape. As a result of illegal abortion, she was arrested and she was taken to a central jail in Nepal. In 2001, Nepal put the victim in jail--not the relative who raped her. Look at this child. The girl's relatives were not punished. But Min Min was sentenced to 20 years in jail, and she was abandoned by her family.

In your life, could you even imagine such a thing? A 13-year-old girl jailed for her life after she was raped. That was her crime.

This particular NGO in Nepal had refused to take USAID money because they wanted to advocate to change the laws in Nepal.

You would think we would be on their side. You would think we would be horrified that 13-year-old girls can go to jail for 20 years because they are the victims of rape by a relative. You would think we would say to this nongovernmental organization: We want to help you. But, no, under this global gag rule put into place by this administration this little girl was left that way, without the help of USAID, without the funding of USAID.

This NGO, which turned back the money, went to bat for her and to change the law. After 2 years in prison, this child--2 years in prison, from age 13 to age 15, when a child should be home with her family, getting the guidance and love of her family--after sitting in jail after 2 years, finally, the laws were changed. Because the NGO, the nongovernmental organization, refused to take the money--because they knew they must work to change laws--they were free to go and do it, and they got the law changed and she was released after 2 years in jail--2 years in jail for being a victim of a sexual assault by a relative.

Now, had this NGO taken the money of USAID, they would not have been able to advocate on behalf of this child. We had the leader of this organization come before the Foreign Relations Committee, and this is what he said: ``How can we turn our back on women who die or are injured daily due to unsafe abortion?'' How can we stop organizations from changing the laws?

The happy ending to this terrible tale is that the NGO worked with the government and last year the law was changed. There will no longer be lifetime jail sentences when these young girls are raped. That is the good news.

Let me give you the really terrible news. This NGO has been forced to close clinics in Nepal because of the loss of their USAID money. Now, can anyone stand up here--and I would ask someone. We have a Senator in the Chamber who I know opposes this and may get up and defend what we are doing. But it is pretty clear, my friends. You can put any fancy language and ideology on it. I am not ideological. I just do not want to kill women. I just do not want to have little girls age 13 sitting in prison because they are raped. I just do not want to tie the hands of organizations to rescue girls such as this, to change the laws of their country that wind up killing women, harming women, and making them sit in jail when they are raped.

If you can explain why that is a good law, that is your choice, and I respect that and all, but I cannot understand how we would, in this 21st century, tie the hands of small nonprofit groups that want to help girls and women such as this.

In Zambia, the Family Life Movement of Zambia, a faith-based, antiabortion organization, has been unable to expand programs because the global gag rule has disqualified Planned Parenthood Association of Zambia, a partner organization. The FLMZ promotes abstinence among young people in Zambia and it does not provide contraceptives but they are in partnership with Planned Parenthood. They are a faith-based antiabortion organization.

I told you, I am not ideological on this point. They are in a partnership with Planned Parenthood. This group that believes in abstinence, they cannot get the funding from USAID. Now, you explain to me how that works.

What this organization does is, if they would come across a young person or young people who are sexually active, they would be referred to this Planned Parenthood group or they could receive information about contraception. But the global gag rule has forced Planned Parenthood of Zambia to close three of its nine rural outreach programs and costs them more than $100,000 worth of contraceptives.

So here you see it. You see on the ground what is happening to organizations that are trying to help the most desperate women and girls.

The Family Planning Association of Kenya, which does not provide abortion, has had to cut its outreach staff in half, close three clinics that served 56,000 clients in traditionally underserved communities, and they have had to raise their fees at their remaining clinics because they would not take the money because they did not want to be gagged.

One of the clinics that closed housed a unique well-baby center that provided comprehensive infant and postpartum care, making it easier for women to receive critical followup care. The baby center is now closed.

What is going on? I think there is a misunderstanding in this administration because they are shutting down well-baby clinics. They are shutting down well-baby clinics. They are shutting down organizations that distribute contraception. They are shutting down organizations that are fighting for laws that will save women's lives.

This is a terrible, terrible regulation. It is terrible for the women. It is terrible for the doctors there. It is terrible for the nurses there. It is terrible for the babies there.

I think it is a terrible message from our country that we are so ideological over here that we will not let nongovernmental organizations that are trying to help women and families do their work because of some dispute over abortion in this country. I have some words about that: Get over that dispute. That dispute will be with us for a long time. We are going to have to resolve it in our way. But why make women in foreign countries pay the price, children in foreign countries pay the price, little girls such as Min Min pay the price because we have an argument over here over whether a woman should have the right to choose?

We are doing things to these organizations we cannot do in this country because it is a violation of the Constitution; it is a violation of freedom of speech. We are going around the world trying to bring democracy to countries.

We have soldiers dying for freedom of speech in Iraq right now--every single day. I have another 14 Californians who are dead since the war ``ended.'' Why are they there? They are fighting for freedom and democracy and freedom of speech for the Iraqi people.

But we have a policy that takes away freedom of speech from folks who want to help people get health care. It is a very bizarre twist in our country's history, and one that, believe me, is not lost on other nations.

Recently, the Health Minister of Kenya has suggested that abortion should be made legal as a way to confront the devastation that unsafe abortion has on the women in that country.

Well, congratulations to the Health Minister of Kenya for understanding something that our Supreme Court figured out a long time ago: that abortion should be legal and women should not be made into criminals, nor should doctors who help them as long as that abortion is performed in the early stages of the pregnancy. That is all that Roe says in this country.

The Health Minister in Kenya is looking at the devastation of illegal abortion. He is looking at the devastation of back-alley abortion, just as our

people looked at that in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s and came to the conclusion that we ought to legalize this and keep the Government out of it and let the people decide such an intensely personal, private, difficult, moral, religious issue.

He has come to the conclusion that people know better, not the government, that there should not be a rule that you must be forced in any way on this issue--either to not have an abortion or to have an abortion--and that maybe his people should be trusted. The organizations that have the gag rule in Kenya cannot speak out, when they know what they see and they want to help reduce maternal mortality and morbidity.

I am giving you these examples of various countries because I want my colleagues to understand this is not about ideology. This is about practicality. This is about children like this. This is about women. This is about families. This is about babies. This is about people getting help.

The Family Guidance Association of Ethiopia, the largest reproductive provider in that country, operates 18 clinics, 24 youth service centers, 671 community-based reproductive health care sites, and hundreds of other sites for health care. Still fewer than 20 percent of Ethiopians live within a 2-hour walk of any health provider.

We are talking about countries where people can't jump in a car and drive an hour to get health care. They literally have to walk to their health care. So if even a few of the clinics have to close down because of lack of funding, women are consigned to trouble. They are going to have to go two blocks around the corner, down the street, behind a house and have an illegal abortion and maybe face death or infertility.

A half a million dollars has been turned away by this organization, the Family Guidance Association of Ethiopia, because they will not abide by being gagged. They will not say to their doctors: You can't tell women the truth. They will not say to the nurses: You can't tell women the truth. They will not say to their people: You can't lobby your own government for changes in laws that will help women.

So what has happened? They have had to cut off the supply of contraception. It is a very sad day. Since abortion is illegal in Ethiopia, imagine what is going to happen if people can't have contraception?

You want the world to be perfect. I well remember this discussion when my children were younger. You want your children to listen to you. You want to make sure that every child is a wanted child. You want to make sure that there is abstinence, yes. But it might not happen. And if it doesn't happen that way, the way you want it to happen, to what are we consigning our young people?

In the case of these foreign governments, we are looking at a child in jail, and this one was raped by a family member. What is the policy of our country to be that we are going to tell these young women we are not on their side?

I cannot fathom it. A girl put in jail, served for 2 years because she was raped by a relative, and the nonprofit foreign organization that helped her was punished by America because they wanted to help her, because they wanted to get the laws changed, because they wanted to get her out of jail? What is wrong with us? How can we proudly stand by this gag rule? We should not. We should repeal it today.

As I say, we have bipartisan sponsorship on this bill and we have a chance to overturn it. The President has threatened to veto the bill if we overturn this global gag rule. Can you imagine, the President has said he will veto the bill if we reverse this rule, if we want to help children like Min Min. I want to ask the President: Do you think it is right to put a little girl in prison because she was raped by her family? I am sure he would say: Of course not. It is awful.

Then I would ask him: Do you think it is a good thing for people in that country to come to this little girl's rescue and help her? I am sure he would say: Of course.

My next question would be: Then why are you shutting off the funds to the nonprofit organizations that want to help her cause? He would probably say: Let me get back to you.

Frankly, I don't see how he could answer that without taking a long time to twist it around. This isn't about ideology. This is about real people. This is about the poorest children, the poorest women, the poorest families. This is about imposing a gag rule, which we are not allowed to do in this country because we have a Constitution, on other people. Why? I guess because we can. It is wrong.

It is wrong that the largest family planning organization in Ethiopia--God knows they have enough trouble there; they have droughts and everything else--loses $500,000 because they won't be gagged. And as a result, people cannot get contraception. And as a result, women are going to have to have illegal abortions because abortion is illegal in that country.

We know 78,000 women every year die across the world from illegal abortion. We are the United States of America. We are a good country. We are a kind country. We are a generous country. We are a great country. Why would we do this to the poorest of the poor?

In the case of Ethiopia, 229,000 men and 300,000 women in urban areas are not getting served by this organization because there is some ideological problem that we have here in this country that we should not export elsewhere.

I am coming to the end of my examples. I have one more about Peru. There is a program in Peru that is designed to engage local women from poor communities across the country in identifying the most pressing reproductive health needs. This organization, Manuela Ramos, convenes the discussions and then works with the Ministry of Health to develop specific responses to those needs. In many communities, women identify unsafe abortion as their most pressing problem. The gag rule prohibits this organization from even engaging in discussions about ways to reduce illegal, unsafe abortion.

I am mortified that a decision by this administration is gagging not only the people who receive USAID funds but even the people who go there are not allowed to discuss together how to make life better for the women of Peru, the women of the world.

I am taking a lot of time on this today because I am pleading with my colleagues to stand up and be counted. If it is true that you are not going to vote for this because the President said he will veto the bill, I say: Let's go for it. Maybe he will change his mind. I am happy to sit down and tell him about Min Min, this 13-year-old girl. I am happy to give him the statistics. I will be glad to talk to him about the 78,000 women dying every single year from illegal abortions. I believe I could maybe change his mind.

Maybe he will change his mind--let's give it a chance--if he sees a strong bipartisan vote.

I want to show you a couple of other charts and then I will be finished, until I hear the other side and I will come back to debate.

This is an editorial that appeared in the Washington Post when this global gag rule was put into place. It is headlined ``Divisive on Abortion.''

Making an organization censor its views as a condition of

receiving government money would be unconstitutional on free-

speech grounds in this country; it should have no place in

U.S. foreign policy. Moreover, requiring doctors to withhold

information from patients violates the common conception of

medical ethics. There will be . . . more circulation of the

AIDS virus, more poverty-entrenching high birthrates and more

unwanted pregnancies--meaning more abortions.

I will take a minute to talk about this because this really sums up what I have been saying in a very neat little package.

Making an organization censor its views as a condition of

receiving government money would be unconstitutional on free

speech grounds in this country.

Well, you know that is true. We don't do that. We don't tell every group in this country that receives Federal funds they cannot talk about anything, because this is America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. Free speech is the basis of our country. It is what our soldiers are dying for in Iraq. So we don't tell people in this country that if you get Federal funds, if you get Social Security, you cannot talk about X, Y, or Z. If you get funds through Medicare, you cannot talk about A, B, or C. Try that on the elderly population in this country. You will be out

of office so fast you won't know what hit you. Face it, that is what we are doing here.

They say that kind of condition on receiving money should have no place in U.S. foreign policy. I agree with that. Here we are, a bastion of freedom and democracy and free speech, going around the world telling people about that on the one hand and our soldiers are putting their lives on the line. Yet in this program, we are telling little charitable, nonprofit health care centers they cannot tell their patients the truth. Not only that, if they see a law that is killing their patients, they cannot work to change it. What a shame on our country. They say it should have no place in foreign policy. That is exactly right. That should have no place in foreign policy.

Requiring doctors to withhold information from patients

violates the common conception of medical ethics.

How true is that? When our doctors take the Hippocratic oath, they say they will do no harm, they will do everything to save the life of their patients and give them the best of health care. Imagine going to your doctor and you have a terrible illness and the doctor knows four options for you and he cannot talk about two of them because the Government said he could not. So you hear about two options but not the other two. When you found out that you didn't get the whole story, and something happened to you, your family would be in the courthouse door--and rightly so--saying: How could my doctor not have told my dad that this particular type of surgery would have cured his cancer?

The fact is, we are gagging doctors and health care practitioners in foreign countries from telling patients the truth. Then this editorial says:

There will be . . . more circulation of the AIDS virus,

more poverty-entrenching high birthrates and more unwanted

pregnancies--meaning more abortions.

We have a policy in our country called the global gag rule which I, Senator Chafee, Senator Snowe, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, and Senator Biden are trying to overturn. We hope to get a lot of you with us. We are trying to overturn a policy that is causing illegal, unsafe abortions to take place because, clearly, if you tell a nonprofit organization they cannot tell you the truth, you are going to be desperate.

Seventy-eight thousand women a year die. So you are also going to see more circulation of the AIDS virus. Why? Because a lot of these clinics that are closing down--and it is not just about abortion; it is about family planning, contraception, and learning how to protect yourself from the AIDS virus and other sexually transmitted diseases. And there are going to be ``poverty-entrenching high birthrates.''

Why would this be a policy of the United States of America? It is hurting people, not helping them. It is gagging people, not giving them free speech. It is hurting America's reputation in the world. It turns the clock back on progress.

Let me say very clearly as I close my opening statement that the Washington Post said:

Around the world, more than a half-million die from

pregnancy-related causes annually. A real pro-life policy

would focus on reducing that death toll by providing more

contraception and safer abortions.

That is it in a nutshell. It is not like we are dealing in mysteries. We know certain truths. We know that if women have access to good health advice, they will avoid unwanted pregnancies. We know that if they have access to good health advice, they will have healthy babies and they will be healthy. We know all those things. And we know for that to happen, women have to be educated on their options. We know that.

What else do we know? We know that some countries do terrible things. I want to show you again the picture of Min Min, who is 13 years old. She is in prison because a family member raped her. The organization that tried to help her, in order to do that, had to hand back their USAID funding because President Bush said they could not help her. He put the global gag rule in place. He said nobody can help her. That is what it says. If I talked to him one on one, I know he would be shocked at this story, but the fact is that this policy of a global gag rule made it impossible for the organization to help her until they gave back their USAID funding. What a shame on our country--to be associated with such an outcome.

I want to be proud. This is a country I love. I want to be seen as helping, as spreading democracy and freedom of speech and ideas.

So for all those reasons, I hope we will have a good vote that will get rid of this global gag rule. I don't care if there are veto threats. We have to stand up for something here. This is the Senate of the United States of America. This is the year 2003. Little girls such as this should not have to suffer because we have a policy that punishes folks who want to help her.

With that, I yield the floor and I hope we can continue this debate.

Mr. President, if my friend will yield, Senator Reid wants to be here, and I believe Senator Biden. I can get back to the Senator from Indiana in short order with how much time we will need.

I would think that will work, if I can just have a moment to get back to the Senator.

We have spoken with the Senator's staff, and we have made a suggestion. They apparently are working on finding out if it is acceptable. I will, once there is a quorum call in place, explain the details.

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.

Mr. President, I rise to reflect on the proud history of San Pedro High School, which is celebrating its centennial this year. The school has grown considerably since 1904, when the San Pedro community honored its first graduating class at a ceremony at the town hall building. Maude Wayne was the only member of that class, and also served as student body president for the school's other 22 students.

When San Pedro High School first opened, students were taught in a single room on the second floor of 16th

Street Elementary School. Today's campus has existed since 1937, educating athletes Garry Maddox and Alan Ashby, and astronaut Anna Fisher.

San Pedro High School is a fixture in the community, filled with many fond memories. Many alumni have lived in the San Pedro community all their lives, and take pride in the school that educated them, their children and their children's children. San Pedro Pirates young and old have attended many anniversary celebrations and have enjoyed exchanging stories about their high school years. San Pedro High truly plays a significant role in the community.

I would like to extend my congratulations to principal Stephen Walters and all the past principals, as well as current and past teachers, administrators, and students. They have all been a part of the school's success over the years. This is a proud moment for them and for the entire community, and I thank them all for making San Pedro High the best it could be.

The Senator from Kentucky and I agreed to an extra 30 seconds each, so I ask unanimous consent for that.

Mr. President, I want to speak to the hearts and the minds of each and every one of my colleagues and friends, so I will speak straight from the shoulder.

The amendment we just voted for did nothing, not one thing, for cancer patients, except reiterate what is already in the underlying bill.

What my amendment does, and why I hope we will rise to the occasion and support it, is to send a strong message to anyone diagnosed with cancer, and to their families, friends, and loved ones, that if and when they are diagnosed with cancer, they will not face the benefit shutdown that is now in this bill.

I will show my colleagues on this chart that at $4,500 of drug costs, the benefit shuts down. I want my colleagues to think about someone they know with cancer, someone who is battling cancer. Do we want to put this burden on them? They must take their drugs. They cannot cut their pills in half in order to survive.

The Cancer Society tells us that 6 million to 7 million Medicare beneficiaries are battling some form of cancer, and 380,000 of them will die of cancer. Please, let us relieve this burden of them having to pay 100 percent of their drug costs during this benefit shutdown. I beg my colleagues to take a stand. I beg my colleagues to be compassionate. I beg my colleagues to be independent for once on an amendment and support the cancer patients who are counting on us today to at least relieve them of this terrible financial burden that will hit them just when they are the sickest.

I urge an aye vote.

Mr. President, for over 35 years, Medicare has been a savior for our seniors citizens. It has helped pay their doctor bills, their hospital bills, and their home health bills.

But it has not paid for their prescription drug bills, and millions of seniors across the country have been waiting a long time for the day when prescription drug coverage is offered through Medicare. That day is getting closer.

I am supporting--and the Senate will soon pass--a Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Let me tell you why this is important. In California, four million people are enrolled in Medicare. Every day, far too many of them are forced into the difficult choice of paying for their prescriptions or putting food on the table.

I want to tell you a few of their stories.

I recently heard from a California woman who told me she struggles to survive on $950 a month income. She cannot, she says, afford all of her prescription drugs. She is, unfortunately, all too typical.

A constituent from San Marcos, CA told me that her annual costs for prescription drugs this year will top $10,000.

Another constituent from Indio, CA told me that she has made five trips to Mexico over the last several years to purchase her prescriptions. She drives all day long to Mexico in order to purchase affordable heart medication. She wanted me to remind my colleagues that ``thousands of seniors are forced to do this.''

A retired physician from Marina Del Rey told me that a pill he takes for his heart disease has gone up 600 percent from $15 per month to $85.

These seniors--all of our seniors--need and deserve to have Medicare help pay for their prescription drugs. We need to end this situation where seniors are cutting their pills in half or forgoing their medications altogether or skipping meals in order to pay for their prescription drugs. That is unacceptable.

Today, we are making a prescription drug benefit a part of Medicare. And that is why I am supporting this bill--because, at long last, it puts a Medicare prescription drug benefit on the books.

But, this bill is wanting. It has problems. And I have voted for amendment after amendment to fix those problems.

I offered an amendment to close the benefit shutdown. Under this bill, even when seniors have paid and continue to pay premiums, Medicare stops covering prescription drugs, forcing seniors to pay the entire cost. When that failed, I offered an amendment to ensure that seniors with cancer would never have their benefit stopped.

I supported an amendment by Senator Stabenow to ensure that all seniors could get prescription drug coverage from Medicare itself--the tried and proven system--rather than from a private insurance company.

I supported an amendment by Senator Graham to stop charging seniors premiums when they are not getting any benefits.

I supported an amendment by Senator Lautenberg to start this benefit next year not 2 and a half years from now.

I supported an amendment by Senator Dodd to encourage employers not to drop their retiree health coverage so seniors who have good coverage can keep it. And the Levin amendment, which I also supported, would have ensured that if employers did drop such coverage, Medicare would be there to provide prescription drugs.

I supported an amendment by Senator Dorgan to reduce the premiums that beneficiaries must pay each month. And I supported an amendment by Senator Daschle to limit the disparities in premiums so that seniors in different parts of the country are not paying different premiums for the same benefit.

These amendments would have made the Medicare drug benefit a better drug benefit for seniors. Unfortunately, none of them passed.

But we should not--and I will not--stop trying to make it the best benefit it can be.

The good news is that Medicare will soon, for the first time ever, cover prescription drugs. The better news will be when we fix the problems with this bill and improve the coverage for our seniors. I look forward to the day when enough of my colleagues will join me in that effort.

Finally, let me say that I hope the conference report on this bill-- the final version of the bill before it goes to the President--does not come back to the Senate in a way that would provide even less help to seniors or in a way that would undermine the entire Medicare program.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the International Remittances Services Enhancement and Protection Act of 2003.

Remittances are the funds that immigrants send to their families abroad to help those relatives meet their basic needs. In the Latino community, 47 percent of all Latinos born outside the United States regularly send money to their country of origin. But since 43 percent to 58 percent of those who send remittances abroad regularly do not have a bank account, much of their hard earned money is lost in fees paid to check cashing agencies and wire transfer companies. They rely on check cashing services to cash their paychecks at hefty fees and then pay another fee to send some portion of that money through a wire service to their relatives in Latin America and elsewhere at varying exchange rates.

This legislation will increase competition and transparency in the remittances market. It will provide immigrants with access to more choices for sending remittances by allowing credit unions to provide wire transfer and check cashing services to nonmembers. It will also provide immigrants with access to information in more than one language from all money transmitters about the fees and exchange rates that they pay. That information will make it easier for consumers to compare the value of the services they can receive from different service providers.

The larger goal is to provide immigrants with more control over their finances. I believe this bill with encourage financial institutions to develop better services for immigrants and build stronger relationships with immigrant communities.

According to the Multilateral Investment Fund, immigrants living in the United States sent $23 billion to Latin America in 2001. More than $3 billion of that total was consumed in fees paid to money transfer agencies. If current growth rates in remittance transfers are maintained, cumulative remittances to Latin America could reach $300 billion for the 10-year period ending in 2010. We need to work to ensure that competition in the market and modern technology come together to lower the portion of those monies lost in fees and instead are used for productive purposes.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that will strengthen national security, promote commerce, and provide assistance to our dedicated agents at the border.

Thousands of San Diego and Tijuana residents cross the border every day as commuters, shoppers, or visitors. Unfortunately, our border infrastructure has not kept pace with the increasing

traffic volume, and travelers frequently encounter delays and congestion at the border.

The tragic events of September 11 further intensified these challenges along the border. Increased security measures severely over- extended inspection resources and resulted in longer waiting times for crossing the border.

The Secure Electronic Network for Travelers' Rapid Inspection, SENTRI, program was created to help alleviate the congestion at the border.

SENTRI is a dedicated commuter lane program. It allows pre-screened travelers to move quickly through the inspection process at the United States-Mexican border. After participants pass a background check, they can move more quickly through a dedicated lane.

SENTRI accepts only travelers who pass both an extensive background check to verify their eligibility and a thorough inspection of their vehicle.

Delays at crossing the border were often an hour or more prior to SENTRI But, with the program, the delays for participants are 5 to 15 minutes. Travelers in other lanes also benefit because the prescreened SENTRI crossers move swiftly through the border, reducing the number of motorists using general commuter lanes.

Expediting inspections through SENTRI is actually helping to improve border security, as Customs and Border Patrol agents can focus more attention on nonscreened drivers and passengers.

Unfortunately, SENTRI has become a victim of its own success. SENTRI needs a greater investment of resources to keep up with the current and future demand. Enrollment increased by more than 100 percent after September 11. Currently, prospective applicants must wait approximately 8 months to participate in the program.

For innovative programs, such as SENTRI, to work, we must provide them with the tools and resources they need to succeed. This is why I am introducing the Secure and Fast Entry at the Border Act or SAFE Border Act.

The SAFE Border Act recognizes the contribution of SENTRI to border security and the agents who administer the program. My bill would extend the length of a SENTRI pass from 1 to 2 years--enabling border agents to process more new applicants and reduce the current enrollment wait. The SAFE Border Act also recommends the appointment of dedicated SENTRI staff to expedite application processing, and encourages the creation of a dedicated commuter lane for prescreened, low-risk pedestrian crossers.

In addition, to ensure security at our borders, my legislation bans a person convicted of a felony or under active criminal investigation from participating in the program.

Our agents at the border shoulder an enormous responsibility every day. I believe we owe them the appropriate resources and support they need to carry out their duties.

Our Nation's economic and overall security is heavily linked to smooth and secure border crossings. The SAFE Border Act provides a way for trusted travelers to cross the border securely and quickly.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the International Remittances Services Enhancement and Protection Act of 2003.

Remittances are the funds that immigrants send to their families abroad to help those relatives meet their basic needs. In the Latino community, 47 percent of all Latinos born outside the United States regularly send money to their country of origin. But since 43 percent to 58 percent of those who send remittances abroad regularly do not have a bank account, much of their hard earned money is lost in fees paid to check cashing agencies and wire transfer companies. They rely on check cashing services to cash their paychecks at hefty fees and then pay another fee to send some portion of that money through a wire service to their relatives in Latin America and elsewhere at varying exchange rates.

This legislation will increase competition and transparency in the remittances market. It will provide immigrants with access to more choices for sending remittances by allowing credit unions to provide wire transfer and check cashing services to nonmembers. It will also provide immigrants with access to information in more than one language from all money transmitters about the fees and exchange rates that they pay. That information will make it easier for consumers to compare the value of the services they can receive from different service providers.

The larger goal is to provide immigrants with more control over their finances. I believe this bill with encourage financial institutions to develop better services for immigrants and build stronger relationships with immigrant communities.

According to the Multilateral Investment Fund, immigrants living in the United States sent $23 billion to Latin America in 2001. More than $3 billion of that total was consumed in fees paid to money transfer agencies. If current growth rates in remittance transfers are maintained, cumulative remittances to Latin America could reach $300 billion for the 10-year period ending in 2010. We need to work to ensure that competition in the market and modern technology come together to lower the portion of those monies lost in fees and instead are used for productive purposes.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that will strengthen national security, promote commerce, and provide assistance to our dedicated agents at the border.

Thousands of San Diego and Tijuana residents cross the border every day as commuters, shoppers, or visitors. Unfortunately, our border infrastructure has not kept pace with the increasing

traffic volume, and travelers frequently encounter delays and congestion at the border.

The tragic events of September 11 further intensified these challenges along the border. Increased security measures severely over- extended inspection resources and resulted in longer waiting times for crossing the border.

The Secure Electronic Network for Travelers' Rapid Inspection, SENTRI, program was created to help alleviate the congestion at the border.

SENTRI is a dedicated commuter lane program. It allows pre-screened travelers to move quickly through the inspection process at the United States-Mexican border. After participants pass a background check, they can move more quickly through a dedicated lane.

SENTRI accepts only travelers who pass both an extensive background check to verify their eligibility and a thorough inspection of their vehicle.

Delays at crossing the border were often an hour or more prior to SENTRI But, with the program, the delays for participants are 5 to 15 minutes. Travelers in other lanes also benefit because the prescreened SENTRI crossers move swiftly through the border, reducing the number of motorists using general commuter lanes.

Expediting inspections through SENTRI is actually helping to improve border security, as Customs and Border Patrol agents can focus more attention on nonscreened drivers and passengers.

Unfortunately, SENTRI has become a victim of its own success. SENTRI needs a greater investment of resources to keep up with the current and future demand. Enrollment increased by more than 100 percent after September 11. Currently, prospective applicants must wait approximately 8 months to participate in the program.

For innovative programs, such as SENTRI, to work, we must provide them with the tools and resources they need to succeed. This is why I am introducing the Secure and Fast Entry at the Border Act or SAFE Border Act.

The SAFE Border Act recognizes the contribution of SENTRI to border security and the agents who administer the program. My bill would extend the length of a SENTRI pass from 1 to 2 years--enabling border agents to process more new applicants and reduce the current enrollment wait. The SAFE Border Act also recommends the appointment of dedicated SENTRI staff to expedite application processing, and encourages the creation of a dedicated commuter lane for prescreened, low-risk pedestrian crossers.

In addition, to ensure security at our borders, my legislation bans a person convicted of a felony or under active criminal investigation from participating in the program.

Our agents at the border shoulder an enormous responsibility every day. I believe we owe them the appropriate resources and support they need to carry out their duties.

Our Nation's economic and overall security is heavily linked to smooth and secure border crossings. The SAFE Border Act provides a way for trusted travelers to cross the border securely and quickly.

Mr. President, I take a couple of minutes to explain an amendment we will be voting on later that was introduced on my behalf by Senator Reid and to let my colleagues know I think it is a stunning situation when suddenly, after fighting back all the amendments that we had to try to improve the benefits, that we are giving our seniors-- miraculously there is $12 billion found and it will start a whole new experiment, which may be very interesting and may be just fine. It will push some people out of Medicare and see if it works better in the private sector. I hate to say we have tried it and it hasn't worked but that is fine.

At the same time, we are going to allow Medicare to do more prevention and do more pharmaceutical benefit. We will see what that looks like when it comes to us.

The point I am making, yesterday the Senator from Pennsylvania was railing against some Members who wanted to make this plan better because there was no money. It was so expensive. But they found money to do some experiment.

Today I have an amendment to give people a chance to decide if they want to help people with cancer, if they want to help people who are diagnosed with cancer.

I don't know if you have ever had the experience of having cancer in your family, but surely we all know people who have had that experience. Life in that family comes to a halt. People are reeling from the diagnosis of cancer, whether it is breast cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer, stomach cancer, blood cancer which is leukemia, lymphoma; millions of Americans are touched. And we have a drug benefit that stops at $4,500 and then $1,300 later you start getting help for your medication.

Yesterday, I gave the Senate a chance to close that benefit shutdown, close that coverage gap, and the Senate refused to do it, mostly on a party-line vote.

Today I offer an amendment to let people redeem themselves. What I say is, if you are diagnosed with cancer, you should never have your drug benefit shut down. You are reeling from this diagnosis. You are sick with this disease. And you should not have to worry about whether you can afford your medicine.

Later in the day we are going to have a chance to see if people are willing to have enough compassion in their heart to stop the benefit shutdown for families where there is a cancer diagnosis. Why do I choose cancer? I could have chosen a number of other diseases. I chose that one because it touches so many families. If it passes, I am going to offer one where there is an Alzheimer's diagnosis. If that passes, I will offer one where there is a Parkinson's diagnosis.

There are a couple of good things in this bill. It starts a prescription drug benefit. That is a plus. We are going to have to fix it. It is a mess. It is the only plan in the country I have found that has such a benefit shutdown. The premiums can go up at any time. HMOs and PPOs can drop out of the business and then you do not know what you are going to do. The fact there is a benefit is important. And it is generous to those who are very poor.

But I want it to be fair to those in the middle class and I want it to be fair to those who need their pharmaceutical products the most. So I am going to give my colleagues a chance to end the benefit shutdown for people who have cancer. If you want to vote no, vote no. If you want to tell people you had a chance to make sure they have those pharmaceutical products through a period of their lives when they are frightened, when they are fighting a disease, go ahead. Do it. Do it.

But I ask you to look inside your soul. You are about to vote on a new program of $12 billion. Don't walk away from the people with cancer just to give money to HMOs, because that vote will come back to haunt you. That is how I feel.

I was very disappointed yesterday that we had a straight party-line vote, pretty much, on my amendment to end the benefit shutdown. But around here you have to be held accountable for what you do. So I am going to give people a chance to come back and say, OK, in the case of cancer, people are not going to have their benefits shut down. Just imagine what it is like, going through chemotherapy, taking all kinds of risks so you can live, because chemotherapy, as you know, basically kills a lot of healthy cells, too.

And, if that is not enough, you are going to have to deal with the accountants with their eyeshades in the HMOs, who will say, What have you done? You really didn't get to $4,500. Why are you shutting down my benefit? You will be begging them not to shut you out because your doctor says if you miss this medicine you could reverse the progress you are making on this disease.

I am going to stop discussing this amendment. I think it is pretty clear. Senators will have a chance to help people with cancer. If you do not want to do it, then you have to live with that vote.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and I look forward to this vote on my amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be set aside.

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

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

Mr. President, I offer this amendment in the true spirit of making this bill work, making it a bill that isn't confusing for our seniors, a bill that doesn't cause a hardship, as the existing bill does, for those who are the sickest.

In this amendment I have the support not only of several colleagues but of the AARP, which very strongly supports it. As you know, they have been choosing their amendments very carefully. Also we are supported by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. So we have both the largest senior citizen organizations backing this amendment.

I was proud to give the national Democratic radio address on Saturday. I did it on this particular issue. The issue I will be addressing through this amendment is ending the benefit shutdown that occurs in this bill just at a point in time when seniors need their benefit the most. I will explain it because it isn't that complicated once you explain it.

Let me take a step back and say the best thing about the bill before us is it starts a Medicare benefit prescription drug benefit for our seniors. We have been talking about this for years. We have been pushing it for years. Since Medicare was created 38 years ago, seniors have been waiting for a prescription drug benefit. I must say, the older I get the more I realize the revolution we have seen in medicine, one that is now one of prevention. If one takes a high blood pressure medicine, if one can't control it any other way, it becomes absolutely a lifesaving benefit. If one doesn't do that or one can't afford to do that, the chances of stroke or heart disease go up immeasurably. So the best thing about the bill before us is that it begins something so many of us have fought for so long.

Unfortunately, the plan is wanting. The plan needs to be improved. It is very complicated. I have read this from a Senator on the Republican side. I heard from a Senator on the Democratic side:

No one really understands this.

That was a reference to Senators. I have a handle on what this bill does. I have had to work; I have had my staff work. I am fortunate to have a good staff. I have talked to my colleagues. But if it took me so long to figure this out, what will it do to our people.

One of the improvements we should make is this amendment I offer. I want to explain exactly what I mean when I say a benefit shutdown. It has been called a number of things--a coverage gap, a donut hole. But a benefit shutdown really explains it because here is what happens. You are going about your business. You are paying your premium. You are getting your 50-percent benefit after you pay your deductible. And bingo, you hit a certain point and what happens? No more benefit.

I have studied 100 different plans that offer a benefit. Ninety-nine of them don't have any of this. One of them has this, but it is a very rich plan and the benefit shutdown is very small. So this is the only plan I have ever seen in existence that has this ridiculous benefit shutdown. I don't understand why it happened, but I guess the bill was a compromise so that is why we have it.

Let me explain what it means. I will show a couple of charts to you. After a senior pays $275 in a deductible, they start getting 50 percent of the cost of the drug reimbursed. So it is a 50-percent benefit, once you have paid your deductible. By the way, every month you have at least a $35 premium.

Now all of a sudden, you get to $4,500 worth of drugs and your benefit shuts down and the next $1,300 you have to pay out of your own pocket. I know the State of the Presiding Officer is not much different from mine in the sense that our seniors are mostly low income. Many of them are living on their Social Security checks, maybe a little more, but since the market went down, many of them are relying on their Social Security checks. For them to have to pay $1,300 right in the middle of a year is absolutely outrageous. That is why AARP is supporting my amendment. They sent out a letter on my amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to print the letter in the Record.

I will read it. That is why they said I could mention on the national radio address that they support my amendment--a $1,300 cost after you hit $4,500.

Let's take the case of someone who has $7,000 a year in drug costs-- and many people do. Their estimated annual premium? At least $420, maybe a little more. Their deductible? $275. They pay 50 percent of the cost of their medication, $2,113, until they get to $4,500. Now comes the benefit shutdown where they have to pay 100 percent of the cost between $4,500 and $5,812. It is actually $1,312. Then they get a good catastrophic benefit where they pay 10 percent. Look at what the senior is paying for this benefit: $4,239 out of a $7,000 bill.

The point is, because of this benefit shutdown and the huge penalty, a lot of our senior citizens would get a better drug benefit if they went to Canada and bought their drugs. This is a fact. They would be better off if they went to Canada and bought their drugs. But we can fix it today. We can end this benefit shutdown, and then the benefit will be far better.

Another way to look at the benefit shutdown is to see how unfair it is to our beneficiaries. You are paying your monthly premium every single month; $35 is what we are suggesting. But it could go up. We haven't reined in what they could charge you. Anyone who has dealt with insurance companies and HMOs knows that costs go up. Even Medicare has had to raise its costs a little bit. But by the way, because Medicare administrative costs are so low, at 3 percent, compared to these companies which could be as high as 25 percent, Medicare keeps the costs down. But under this bill, you only get Medicare if you can't get a private company. So I am telling you, we are going to have seniors maybe facing increases in their premiums. But let's give it a shot. Let's say it is only $35. It is $35 a month every single month. And guess what happens in October, if you have this kind of $500-a-month expense--just to use that as an example--you do not get that benefit for almost 3 months out of the year.

What kind of plan is this? Fortunately, it is voluntary so people have to think long and hard if it makes sense for them to do it. And I will give credit where credit is due. For our lowest income people, it may be a decent deal. But for your average recipient, to have to explain why they get no benefit for 3 months puts us in a terrible situation. It harkens back to the days when we did a catastrophic benefit and seniors took it. Then when they realized what it was, they were so angry, they were just throwing themselves on legislators' automobiles to protest. I am not kidding. This happened.

I don't want to see that happen. I want to see us do a good bill, one that is really straightforward, not confusing. So we have a real problem for our vulnerable citizens.

The last chart I am going to show is this chart because I said I would read to you from AARP's letter that they sent me. I hope colleagues will listen to what they say:

AARP members find the notion of a gap in coverage to be a

major barrier to enrolling in a Medicare drug benefit. They

tell us that they are unaware of similar features in any of

the insurance products they routinely purchase. Our members

do not understand why coverage would cease at a time when

their drug expenses increase. The continued existence of this

benefit gap threatens the workability of the benefit by

jeopardizing adequate enrollment, and thus the program's

ability to spread risk. Therefore, we urge the Senate to

eliminate this coverage gap.

Mr. President, that is exactly what my amendment does. Let me go through this one argument at a time.

AARP members find the notion of a gap in coverage to be a

major barrier to enrolling in a Medicare drug benefit.

Well, clearly, Mr. Novelli and the AARP understand the fact that you have a barrier when you know that perhaps for 3 months, even though you are paying your premium, you get no benefit. Again, we have studied all the plans. Virtually no plan in America has a benefit shutdown. So let's make this bill better.

Let's see the next thing AARP says:

They tell us that they are unaware of similar features in

any of the insurance products they routinely purchase.

Absolutely. Only in the Congress could somebody come up with this way to save money. It is ridiculous. You are penalized if you are really sick. You are penalized if you are really sick because if someone gets cancer and has to buy very expensive drugs, or a family member gets Alzheimer's and they are trying to treat the disease in a way so they can have their loved one around longer, that is when they get hit with a benefit shutdown. How unfair is that?

Our members do not understand why coverage would cease at a

time when their drug expenses increase. The continued

existence of this benefit gap threatens the workability of

the benefit by jeopardizing adequate enrollment, and thus the

program's ability to spread risk.

What does that mean? It means that as seniors learn what this program is about, they may well come to the conclusion, depending on the size of their drug bill, that they are better off making a trip to Canada. They will save more than going through all the rigmarole--Senator Clinton showed on a chart the rigmarole you have to be involved in, and because the way the bill has tried to really privatize this benefit, you are at the risk of the marketplace. The risk of the marketplace is OK when you are buying a car; it is OK if you are buying a dishwasher. You are at the risk of the marketplace. Yes, if it was a year when people held back and didn't produce a new product, OK, you are disadvantaged; OK, that is the risk. But to put seniors at the risk of the marketplace for drugs is a very bad idea indeed.

Therefore, we urge the Senate to eliminate this coverage

gap.

This letter is signed by William Novelli, executive director and CEO of AARP. It is a nonpartisan organization that supports this amendment strongly. We want to close this gap. We want to stop this benefit shutdown. Again, a very graphic way to show what happens to you is to say that seniors will pay half of their annual drug cost from $276 to $4,500--that is their 50 percent benefit--and then they face a $1,300 benefit shutdown, just at the time they need their medicine the most. It makes no sense.

You know, $1,300 may not sound like a lot to some of our Senators here. We get good pay and, by the way, we have a pharmaceutical benefit in our health plan. It is a very good one. It is an excellent one. You know what. It doesn't stop when you hit a certain level. Our pharmaceutical benefit just keeps on going. It just keeps on coming, as do pharmaceutical benefits in practically all the plans in America today.

Just think about the administrative overhead to figure this one out. You are going along and, all of a sudden, this red arrow kicks in: Stop. I want to know how much it is costing us to administer this kind of deal. You can imagine, you get a note in the mail. Your benefit stops. You have paid $4,500. You go back and check your records. No, I didn't, I have only paid $4,200. You call up the administrator: You have made a mistake. Well, no, I didn't. Well, yes, you did.

How many hours will a senior who is confused and upset have to spend on the phone? How many hours will an administrator have to spend working on the details of this? Too long, I can tell you that.

This plan, as it is before us, if this amendment doesn't pass, pulls the rug out from underneath the people who are going to need the help the most. So if we are in this in order to offer a plan that people will utilize, then let's support this amendment. It is as simple as that.

Many seniors take medicines to manage chronic health problems. I discussed that at the beginning. How wonderful is it that today we can avoid horrible outcomes by taking pills that will help keep our blood pressure down, regulate our heart rate, keep our insulin in check--I could go on and on and on. Some of our seniors are cutting their pills in half because they cannot afford it. How tragic would it be if, after they think they are going to have this great benefit, they find out they could do better going up to Canada and buying the pills because maybe it comes out to 25 percent when all is said and done, when you put in the benefit shutdown, the premiums cost, and the deductible. It just may not add up. How sad it would be if, after all the hoopla we are associating with this bill, the bill itself is inadequate.

I received a letter from a constituent in San Marcos, CA. She has an annual prescription drug cost that will top $10,000. Well, she will be hit with this benefit shutdown.

Another constituent from Indio, CA, told me she has made five trips to Mexico over the last several years to purchase her prescriptions. This senior drives all day long to Mexico in order to purchase affordable heart medicine that she needs to survive, that she needs so that she can wake up every day and see her grandchildren, and take a walk, and have a quality of life. She is awaiting a benefit that will make it easy for her to go down to her corner pharmacy and say: Here is my card; I am ready to go. But this particular senior is going to be shocked to find out that if she is in the category of the benefit shutdown, it is going to cost her $1,300, plus at least $35 a month, plus a deductible.

A retired physician from Marina del Rey told me that a pill he takes for heart disease went up 600 percent--from $15 to $85. So for seniors who have to take an assortment of medicine to manage chronic diseases, the cost really starts to add up.

I have 4 million senior citizens who are part of the Medicare Program in my State. If you take the population of Delaware, that is five Delawares. That is how many senior citizens I have, and they deserve a break.

Unfortunately, this bill gives them a break, a break in coverage. Let's close that break in coverage. Let's close that gap, stop the benefit shutdown, and let's have a bill of which we all can be proud.

Again, this benefit shutdown is unheard of if we look at all the plans. It would not happen to you, Mr. President, if you have FEHBP. It will not happen to your wife, your kids, or you. It does not happen to me. I do not walk in and they say: Oh, Senator, sorry, you are in that time of the year; gee, just for these 3 months, you do not get any benefit at all. I guarantee you, if our plan did that, there would be shouting at the caucus lunches: What kind of plan do we have that we walk in, in the middle of the year, and somebody tells us we do not have coverage? We are paying our premium.

We would not stand for it.

Why are we giving a plan to the seniors we represent that is far worse than the plan we have? Because we want to give tax breaks for the wealthy few, and so we cannot afford to do this?

This is not a costly fix. CBO is telling us it is $60 billion out of a $400 billion bill. Let's figure out a way to pay for it. It is easy. I can tell you right now the administrative costs in this bill range from 15 percent to 25 percent. That is $100 billion. Why are the administrative costs so high? The private sector is doing it, not Medicare. Medicare has a 3-percent overhead. The private sector has a 10- to 20-percent overhead. Let's take the bill back and figure it out and close this benefit shutdown.

I do not want to be the Senator who stands up and votes for this with a smile on my face and then have a senior stand up and say: Senator, I walked into my pharmacy in October. I have $500-a-month drug expenses, and guess what, I have no benefit. I had to pay $1,300 out of my own pocket just when I needed the drugs the most. Why are you doing this to me? Why don't you do it to yourself?

That is what I hope they say.

I am so happy we are discussing a Medicare drug benefit, believe me. I share the views of a lot of my colleagues that it is time we have one, but to have this plan, the only plan in the country virtually that has a benefit shutdown, is an embarrassment to me. We do not have it in the Senate plan. They do not have it over in the House, I assure you of that.

We should not have a benefit that starts and stops. What is really frosting Senator Graham is that seniors even have to pay a premium during this benefit shutdown. So he has an amendment--we have not voted on it yet--that says at least for October, November, and December, do not charge seniors a premium.

It is the same as if someone walked in a store and said: I want to buy a TV set, here is my money; I am going to pay it off over 3 months, here is my money. And they say, thank you very much; you are not getting a TV set; we will deliver it in 3 months. But you advertised it. No, you have to pay me 3 months, and then I will send you your TV set.

In a free market economy, this is a very sick idea. This does not make any sense. In our society, if you put money down, you pay for a benefit, you pay for a product, you get it.

I think Bob Graham has a good idea: If you are going to do this to seniors, then do not make them pay their premium. At least show some regard for the person.

You are a senior; you are on several drugs; you are feeling good; the medicine really helps you; you have signed up for the plan; you have paid your deductible; you start getting your 50 percent benefit; and, boom, it is over, when you reach $4,500. Your benefit shuts down.

I cannot say it enough. It is unheard of to pay a $1,300 penalty for sickness. I cannot say it enough.

You have signed up. A few months go by, and you add the costs up in your head trying to figure out how much your medicine is costing. You realize you are going to hit the $4,500 benefit shutdown. Your doctor says you need to keep taking the medicine because you are worse, and he knows you are worried about entering the benefit shutdown. You are going to be hit with the full cost of those drugs for that period. What are you going to do?

You sit down and you crunch the numbers. You ask: How can I cut costs? You may well skip your medicine; you may well cut the pills in half; and you may well threaten your health and your life.

The benefit shutdown is wrong. It goes against everything we do in this country. Nobody else does this. It is not that expensive to fix. You are going to need a calculator every time you try to figure out what you have to save. You are going to need a good accountant.

A shutdown is going to cause trouble with the administration of this benefit. People will be calculating: Gee, Mr. Thomas has used $3,925. Let's get him on the watchlist. Mrs. Boxer over there, she has used $4,000. Then suddenly you are cut off. You call up and you do not understand it. It is going to take hours to explain it to a senior citizen.

In closing my discussion of this amendment--and I will be asking for the yeas and nays on this amendment--the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and the AARP, the two biggest senior citizen organizations in this country, endorse this amendment.

I am to again read from Mr. Novelli's letter because this says it all in a very clear way, and I hope my presentation has demonstrated that everything Mr. Novelli, the CEO of AARP, has stated is true:

AARP members find the notion of a gap in coverage--

That is benefit shutdown--

to be a major barrier to enrolling in a Medicare drug

benefit. They tell us that they are unaware of similar

features in any of the insurance products they routinely

purchase. Our members do not understand why coverage would

cease at a time when their drug expenses increase. The

continued existence of this benefit gap threatens the

workability of the benefit by jeopardizing adequate

enrollment and thus the program's ability to spread risk.

Therefore, we urge the Senate to eliminate this coverage gap.

Signed William Novelli, AARP.

I thank the AARP because I know they are calling colleagues and explaining this. Just remember, do unto others as you would like them to do unto you. Do my colleagues want to have their drug benefit changed so that just when they need their pharmaceutical product the most, they tell you it is not covered for you; it is not covered for your wife; it is not covered for your husband; it is not covered for your children? Mr. President, you do not want that. Why are we doing it to the seniors? At least give them a break and close down this benefit shutdown because if we do not, if we do not vote for this amendment, people are going to be at our doors because they are not going to understand it.

If my colleagues vote for this amendment and we fix this, we can truly say we have made this a far better plan, a plan more like our own, a plan more like the other 100 plans I have looked at.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I renew my request for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Will my friend yield?

I want to ask a couple questions. The Senator used the term ``donut hole.'' I used the phrase ``benefit shutdown.'' It's all the same. But on the chart, between the yellow and the red, is a big white space. That means that between $4,500 and $5,800 essentially there is no benefit. This is a cost.

My friend is right. All we had to do is tighten up a little bit on what our colleagues wanted to do for the people who earn $1 million a year. It would not have taken that much. The cost of this, after the $400 billion, is $60 billion. We got that from CBO, a $60 billion cost.

My question is basically this: Does he not believe, when you really take a look at this, the administrative costs of making this work are going to be quite large? Think about the accounting that has to go into it, to track everybody's benefit. You have to do it

twice. Once between $4,500 and $5,800, and then it goes to 90 percent. I am convinced, I say to my friend, there will be some administrative savings here.

Also I would make the point that because this bill--I know he agrees with me on this--relies too much on the private sector, the administrative costs are sky high. Medicare runs a 3 percent administrative cost. The private sector runs between 15 and 25 percent. As a matter of fact, in the House bill they are saying it is a 25 percent cost of the entire bill.

So I say to my friend, this particular amendment is not that large a cost when you really look at administrative costs going in.

The reason I do not offset it, I say to my friend, is because I think our smart Senators and their smart staffs can sit down and figure out a way to pay for this thing where you can take a lot out of administration. I just wonder if my friend agrees that the complication involved here is worth removing.