Floor Statements

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 will only take about a minute of the Senate's time to explain this amendment, which I am very happy has been cleared on both sides.

This amendment is based on a bill that Congressman Chris Cox and I wrote, and it is a money raiser. It actually raises, over the 10-year period, in excess of $400 million.

What it does, in essence, is say this: If a parent who is ordered to pay child support fails to pay that child support, and fails to pay at least 50 percent of that child support then that delinquent parent would have to add the amount that he or she was supposed to pay to child support to his or her gross income.

Each year, nearly 60 percent of the 20 million children who are owed child support receive less than the amount they are due, and more than 30 percent receive no payment at all.

This amendment will bring much-needed relief to the millions of families who are not receiving the child support they desperately need.

I thank the Chair.

I am very pleased this amendment has been signed off on by both sides.

Just by voice vote.

Mr. President, I am voting against this bill because I came to the Senate to represent California families and this tax cut for the wealthy elite is not in their interest. It contradicts the basic American values of fairness, responsibility, and opportunity.

We are now in the longest period of continued job losses since the Great Depression. In the first 3 months of this year alone, America lost another half a million jobs. As result, 8.8 million people are unemployed today. That is 2.8 million more than when President Bush took office. Most troubling, 1.9 million of those workers have been out of work for more than a year and a half. But instead of targeting the majority of the benefits to a majority of the people, this bill targets its benefits to the very top.

There is not a single responsible economist I know who thinks this tax package will get us out of the terrible economic condition we are in. In fact, 11 Nobel laureate economists and hundreds of others have published an open letter saying that passing these tax cuts ``will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the Nation's projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the Government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research.''

Those Nobel laureates also added that the tax cuts would generate further inequalities in after-tax income. The reason for that is that this package is skewed to those who do not need it.

That kind of windfall for the wealthy is bad policy. That is why I supported the Democratic alternative and other amendments that would have spread the benefits of the bill to more Americans.

The Democratic Plan for Jobs, Opportunity and Prosperity would put over 1 million people back to work by the end of 2004. The Democratic plan would provide three times more economic boost right now than the Republican plan. At the same time, the Democratic plan would put us back on the path to fiscal responsibility.

The Democratic plan would have cut taxes for every working American, providing an average benefit of $1,630 to a family of four making $50,000 a year. And it would have provided real assistance to the 8.8 million Americans who are currently unemployed. Our plan would have created a new credit for every working American, which will provide $300 for each adult in a family and $300 for the first two children. We wanted to accelerate the refundability of the child tax credit, accelerate the elimination of the marriage penalty, and extend and expand unemployment insurance for those looking for work, including the 1 million people who have already exhausted their benefits.

Also, the Democratic plan would have sparked growth by helping the States sustain vital services during the economic downturn and encouraging small businesses to invest. As part of the Democratic proposal, we proposed a 50 percent tax credit in 2003, worth $8 billion, to help small businesses pay their share of insurance premiums. And very important for California, our plan would have provided $40 billion in immediate aid to State and local governments. We also proposed tripling the amount of investments small businesses can write off immediately from $25,000 to $75,000 in 2003.

I was deeply troubled that my colleagues cared so much for the elite few that they voted against a number of amendments that would have helped working Americans. They rejected an effort to cut taxes on social security benefits for middle-income seniors. They rejected expanding the child tax

credit. They supported raising taxes on Americans working abroad. They fought efforts to increase tax benefits to help families pay for higher education. And they fought every effort to get more meaningful assistance to the States in this time of crisis.

There were two bright spots during the Senate consideration of this legislation. First, the Senate passed the Invest in the USA Act amendment that Senator Ensign and I introduced. It will create a one- time incentive for U.S. companies to bring $140 billion dollars in funds earned abroad back to the U.S. for job creation, investment in plants and equipment, and for other economically stimulative uses.

The Senate also adopted an amendment offered to crack down on delinquent parents who do not pay child support. My amendment, which is based on bipartisan legislation that I introduced, penalizes those who do not pay the child support that they owe.

Despite these two improvements, the bill--and some destructive amendments, such as an expansion of the dividend exclusion--is deeply flawed, unfair, and fiscally dangerous--creating massive deficits, which will hurt economic growth.

I don't need that much time.

Ten minutes.

You said 20 minutes. I need 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I know we are all exhausted and I am really sorry to be here for an extra few minutes. I feel I don't deserve to really be in the Senate because we are talking about global AIDS, which is turning into a weapon of mass destruction. I feel very bad about what we are doing here tonight.

First, I send my amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I feel very badly about what we are doing tonight. We are passing an inferior bill that was passed by the other body so that the President can hold in his hand a piece of AIDS legislation. How better it would be if it were a fine piece of legislation, if it were a more thoughtful piece of legislation, if it were a more effective piece of legislation.

But the fix is in. All amendments are being voted down because of the President's schedule. Well, I didn't get elected from the largest State in the Union, that has been fighting the AIDS epidemic ever since Senator Feinstein was a mayor and I was on the county board of supervisors, to rush through something like this. I think it is really very sad that we are being governed by the schedule of the executive branch.

I want to tell you very quickly what my amendment does. It restores a focus on AIDS orphans. You cannot think of anything more tragic. AIDS orphans were the focus of the bills that passed the Senate before. They are no longer the focus. More than 10 million children have been orphaned by AIDS. It is estimated that, by the year 2010, there will be over 40 million children left orphaned by this horrendous disease. That is a population so large that it is more than California's 37 million residents. It is 8 Wisconsins or 70 North Dakotas. You get the point. In the vast majority of cases, single women and young girls, 16 years old, 17 years old, 15 years old, are taking responsibility for the care of these orphaned children. Just read about it. It is heartbreaking.

All my amendment says is that a specific plan will be developed by the AIDS coordinator and implemented to provide resources, especially to households headed by an individual who is caring for one or more AIDS orphans.

This bill is silent on this point. We do nothing specific about this. This bill is vague. Even though you have committed to vote against everything, it will take only 2 minutes for the President to call Tom DeLay and say: Help the orphans, vote for this amendment. I hope we will all vote aye.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I want to highlight one critical area of this important legislation, and that is the global epidemic of tuberculosis. While I appreciate the language on TB that was included in this bill at my request, I am disappointed that there is not a specific earmark for TB programs.

The Kerry-Frist bill that passed the Senate last year included specific increases for funding for international tuberculosis programs. That bill authorized $150 million bilaterally for international tuberculosis in fiscal 2003 and $200 million for 2004.

It is critically important that funding for tuberculosis remain a priority. There is a particular need to highlight the need for expanded tuberculosis funds given that the President's 2004 budget request calls for a reduction in funding to combat TB. We must not only protect but significantly expand funds for programs that combat tuberculosis. Here is why:

TB is an immense global killer. Nine million people become sick with active TB every year and 2 million people are killed by the disease. Tuberculosis is medically linked with the global AIDS pandemic. TB is the leading killer worldwide of people with HIV, because those who contract HIV suffer from weakened immune systems and they develop active TB. TB rates have increased five-fold in some African nations in conjunction with AIDS.

But there is hope. Basic TB treatment is incredibly effective and can cure over 90 percent of cases even in resource-poor settings, even in people with HIV/AIDS. This treatment, called DOTS, which stands for Directly Observed Therapy Short-course, uses drugs that cost just $10, for a full 6 months of treatment. Few health interventions are so effective and affordable.

There is even a mechanism for getting high-quality drugs to poor countries, called the Global TB Drug Facility. The TB Drug Facility is a critical part of the global effort to combat TB. The TB Drug Facility needs just $50 million per year in order to reach its goals of averting 25 million TB deaths by 2020, but the U.S. has only contributed a little over $3 million to the Drug Facility so far. The U.S. must contribute more to this important mechanism.

And, the U.S. must do more to help expand access to DOTS treatment for those who are sick with TB. Currently, fewer than one in three people who need basic TB treatment have access to it. And only a fraction of those with drug-resistant TB are receiving needed treatment. The need is clear. We must do everything we can to ensure that access to treatment for tuberculosis is expanded, before drug- resistance and TB's interaction with HIV make this into an unstoppable epidemic.

I want to thank my friend from Oregon, Senator Smith, who has been so helpful in working with me over the past several years to make sure that international TB programs remain a priority.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to share with my colleagues my thoughts on the 40th anniversary of Planned Parenthood: Shasta-Diablo, located in my home State of California.

It is my great honor to recognize the extraordinary contributions of Planned Parenthood: Shasta-Diablo, PPSD, as it celebrates its 40th anniversary. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America was founded in 1916 by visionary social reformer Margaret Sanger. In 1962, PPSD began serving Contra Costa County and now provides essential reproductive health care and public education to more than 100,000 women, men, and teenagers in 13 northern California counties. During these 40 years, PPSD has shown an unwavering commitment to providing the highest quality reproductive health services, regardless of income. For many low-income residents in these 13 counties, PPSD may be their only source of health care.

PPSD's dedication and leadership place it at the cutting edge of Planned Parenthood affiliates. PPSD has the distinction of having the largest education department of any Planned Parenthood affiliate in the United States. PPSD has been at the forefront of the fight against the spread of HIV/AIDS because it was the first Planned Parenthood affiliate in the United States to provide HIV testing in 1987. In 1990, PPSD was also one of the first affiliates to begin providing prenatal services. PPSD recognized that it is critically important to the health of a woman and her baby that she receive health care as early as possible in the pregnancy.

In addition to providing services at traditional health centers, PPSD has the largest number of express sites in the United States. At these express sites, PPSD partners with a wide range community groups to provide birth control, including emergency contraception. Through the express sites, PPSD is able to serve high schools and colleges, homeless shelters, social service offices, and rural health departments. Underserved populations are able to get lifesaving services that might not otherwise be available to them. And high-risk youth are well served by PPSD's express sites and teen peer educators who offer advice that youth can really relate to.

Planned Parenthood: Shasta-Diablo would not have reached its 40th anniversary without the outstanding and exemplary leadership of two very special women. It is my pleasure to recognize Rosalie Ross, who served as executive director of PPSD for 10 years, and current president and CEO Heather Saunders Estes. Their dedication, foresight, and compassion are extraordinary and inspirational.

PPSD is ``Celebrating Our Past, Protecting Our Future: 40 Years of Service, 30 Years of Choice'' because this year we also commemorate the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The Roe decision saved countless lives by getting women out of the back alleys and into clean and safe facilities. The Roe decision has kept women from being forced to continue pregnancies that could endanger their health or render them infertile. The 30th anniversary of Roe commemorates not an isolated event, but a long and unending struggle for women's equality.

PPSD is an important part of that struggle. For the past 20 years, I have been fighting in Congress for reproductive rights. PPSD has stood by me, working hand in hands to protect a woman's right to choose. Planned Parenthood: Shasta-Diablo has been there for women, men, and teens for 40 years and I wish them another 40 years of success.

I object.

Mr. President, Senator Hollings asked me if I would be the Democratic manager here. I want to say to Senator Hutchison, thank you so much for all your hard work. I also thank Senator Hollings and Senator Rockefeller, Senator Wyden--frankly, the whole committee. This is one committee that does work on a bipartisan basis and it is very refreshing, I might say.

S. 165 takes needed steps to respond to concerns that have been raised about the status of air cargo security in the U.S., and will act to close a loophole that has left our aviation system vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

Last year, Admiral James Loy, the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security, expressed his concern, in testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee, that air cargo security needed to be strengthened or it would remain a potential backdoor open for terrorists to exploit. These concerns are well-founded as, prior to September 11, 2001, the Department of Transportation Inspector General's--DOT IG--Office had confirmed that it was possible to ship dangerous items on aircraft without ever having the contents of packages screened. Since the terrorist attacks of 9-11, significant changes have occurred to the cargo industry in response to this security loophole, but more must be done. Last year, the Senate passed a comprehensive cargo security bill, but time ran out on the 107th Congress before the House could properly consider it. We need to pass S. 165 now, and make certain the foundation for addressing this matter is put into law.

S. 165 will instruct the Transportation Security Administration-- TSA--to establish an inspection program for all cargo that is transported through the Nation's air transportation system. The bill includes language from the legislation which passed in the Senate last year requiring the creation of an industry-wide database of known shippers of cargo on passenger aircraft and an assessment of the current indirect air carrier program, random inspections of indirect air carrier facilities, and a report to Congress on the random audit system. In addition, S. 165 authorizes the appropriation of necessary sums for TSA to carry out an air cargo security program, and mandates the development of a training program for all air cargo handlers.

We have come close to closing the loopholes in cargo security before, but the process must be completed. This issue is critical to the future of aviation security, air travelers and our economy. Congress should act now to pass this legislation before a tragic, avoidable incident forces our hand.

I close by thanking the committee for adding actually four amendments that we worked on. I thank my staff for working so hard on this as well.

First of all, we have in this bill made sure the cargo pilots have the same opportunity to protect the cockpit as pilots in commercial planes. They are going to be part of this program now. I am very pleased about that.

Second, there is a study in here on the best way to proceed on blast- resistant containers. I have seen Kevlar material which will contain a bomb blast so that it doesn't wreak havoc and cause a horrible tragedy. So we are looking at that.

Third, something that Senator McCain mentioned, we have included a study to look at the best defense for shoulder-fired missiles. During the break, I went to San Diego and I stood on the roof of a parking garage at the airport and, believe me, I felt like I could touch the aircraft as they came in for a landing. I looked around and realized this is a great vulnerability. Many terrorist groups have these shoulder-fired missiles, or they can buy them for as little as $8,000. We have defenses we have on Air Force One, on military planes, with which El Al has their fleet protected. We need to protect our fleet.

We have a study in this particular bill just in case the study that is going on via the supplemental emergency bill gets bogged down. So it is a backup.

Last, I was very concerned to learn fake IDs are very easy to use, when you check into an airport. We have a study here to come up with a plan on how to use high technology to spot a fake ID.

I am very pleased to be here. Again, I thank Senator Hollings for giving me this honor to express my support. I believe we are going to have a voice vote. I am very happy about it and I look forward to seeing this bill become law.

With that, I yield the floor. I know my friend from Texas, the author of this bill, has a good deal to say about this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 10th anniversary of the Los Angeles Revlon Run/Walk, which will occur on May 10, 2003. For the past decade, the Revlon Run/Walk has been taking place in New York and Los Angeles, raising millions of dollars to fight women's cancers.

I am told that the Revlon Run/Walk was launched when a group of people came together with a common vision. The vision was to ``accelerate the research process and honor the courageous spirits that continue to fight this extraordinary fight.'' Now, a decade later, the Run/Walk has raised more than $27 million. This vision has truly become a reality.

Proceeds from the Revlon Run/Walks have helped fund cutting-edge research and assisted organizations in providing education, advocacy and outreach services to those affected by cancer. The organizations benefitting from the Run/Walk include the Revlon/UCLA Women's Cancer Research Program, National Women's Cancer Research Alliance, the Wellness Community, WIN Against Breast Cancer, the Los Angeles Breast Cancer Alliance, the Women of Color Breast Cancer Survivors Support Project, and the Gilda Radner Ovarian and Breast Cancer Detection Program at Cedars Sinai Medical Center.

Each year, the Run/Walk draws thousands of people motivated to participate in support of this cause. The participants include adults and children. These people personify the gracious, generous spirit of the American people--a diverse group united in support of one worthwhile cause.

The Entertainment Industry Foundation, the founders of the Run/Walk, and all those who make this event possible every year deserve to be recognized and commended. They have been extremely successful in the past, and I am confident that with their dedication, leadership, and ability to pull the community together, they will continue to succeed in turning their vision into reality.

I congratulate them on their 10th anniversary.

I thank my friend, Chairman Hatch. When Chairman Hatch and I were debating the Owen nomination, which is not before us, he questioned two statements I made. One was that she did not write a dissenting opinion in Doe and the second was that Judge Gonzales never referred to her as a judicial activist. I ask unanimous consent to have these documents printed in the Record, the dissenting opinion, the first page, which shows that she, in fact, did file a dissenting opinion. Secondly, an article that appeared about a week ago in the New York Times which says that Judge Gonzales said he was referring to Justice Owen when he said she was an activist. He did say it was merely heated language but, in fact, he said he was referring to her.

When I come to speak on the Senate floor, I do my homework. I felt very badly about that, and now I have the documentation. I thank my friend for yielding. I know it does not make him happy, but he was very generous to me to allow this minute to send these documents to the desk.

Will the Senator yield for a question? Just on the matter of timing.

Mr. President, I have a markup at 9:30. I wanted to make a 5-minute statement on the judicial nomination. If we can do that and I will give Senator Hatch that 5 minutes back on his time, would that be acceptable?

Yes, that is what I suggested.

That is very kind. I appreciate it.

Mr. President, I again thank my colleague for allowing me to move forward on this because of a commitment to a markup in the Commerce Committee.

I rise to express my deep concerns regarding the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I have noted there is a lot of politics around this particular nomination, as there is around the Miguel Estrada nomination. I read the Republican Party is planning to run ads against those of us who vote against these nominees, saying we do not want to see diversity on the bench.

Let me say that is extraordinary because as someone who worked so hard to support qualified minorities and women, I have been praised by many in my State for doing just that. But I have to tell you, if you place on the bench a minority or a woman who has animosity toward the goals of minorities and women, you are dealing a great setback to both minorities and women. I will make that point when I have to.

But as for today, I point out I voted for well over 90 percent of the President's appointees up to this point in time, but I cannot support this nomination. This is why.

President Bush pledged to govern from the center. Those were his words. Yet this nominee is so far from the center that she is almost off, to the right. She is barely on that line at all. That differs from the mainstream values of my constituents and I believe of the majority of Americans.

In such important areas as reproductive rights, civil rights, consumer rights, and environmental protection, this nominee has legislated from the bench. She inserted her personal beliefs into the judicial process.

I have to say even members of her own party, and even Mr. Gonzales, who is White House counsel, has criticized her for that.

What is particularly troubling to me is that I believe in the advice and consent role of Senators in the nomination and the confirmation of judicial nominees of any President, be that President a Democrat or a Republican. As we have heard many times from historians, the selection of judges and the confirmation of judges is a shared responsibility. So it is not a question of whether they are Clinton judges or Carter judges or Bush judges; they are America's judges. As such, there has to be a role for the Senate and for the executive.

This President knew very well that this particular nominee was well off the center. He knew very well there was deep objection to her. She was voted down once before. Yet he comes right back with this nomination.

I have made it a priority of mine in this Senate to stand up for the mainstream values of people of my State. So I cannot possibly support this nomination. I wish to outline a case that illustrates Priscilla Owen's callous attitude toward individuals who are fighting against large corporate interests and their well-paid legal defense teams.

A young man in Texas was paralyzed in a car accident. His injuries were made much worse because of a malfunctioning seatbelt, and his family took the automaker to court. The case made its way to the Texas Supreme Court on appeal.

Judge Owen waited 16 months before issuing a decision in that case, in that Ford Motor case. When she did, she essentially sent the case back and created a substantial roadblock for this paralyzed teenager to receive funds to pay for his medical care. There were 2 years of delay on a procedure issue that was never raised in the case but was raised by her, and this young man died. This young man died. His family couldn't afford around-the-clock monitoring of his ventilator. This is a truly tragic example of delayed justice.

I could go into detail about the fundamental right to choose in which Justice Owen set up a barrier to a young woman who was seeking to end her pregnancy. When she issued her opinion, it dealt with having to seek religious counseling, which was not part of the law. In that case, Judge Gonzales, who as you know is White House counsel to this President, said:

To create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the

words of the statute would be an unconscionable act of

judicial activism.

That is a quote from Mr. Gonzales regarding Judge Priscilla Owen, criticizing her for judicial activism.

I know the issues of judges are very touchy. Senator Hatch, when President Clinton was President, told me--he said it with a twinkle in his eye: Senator, don't send me judges that are outside the mainstream.

You know, I didn't. Senator Hatch helped me. He helped me get these wonderful people confirmed.

Now we have a circumstance where we are not getting our judges from the mainstream. We are getting some. I have supported 90 percent of these judges. But in this case----

I certainly will. I just want to finish my thought.

In this particular case, I think this is a nominee who is outside the mainstream and who was criticized for that by the President's White House counsel.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

I will have printed in the Record my understanding of what actually happened here.

In the case of the 2-year delay, I find that was unconscionable.

The point is this: I will support candidates who are from the mainstream. I want to do that. The chair of the Judiciary Committee has changed his attitude about who is going to get through this Senate. During the Clinton years, you had to have someone from the mainstream. During the Bush years, you can have people from the far right of the spectrum. My constituents do not think that is fair. We had a situation during the Clinton years that two Senators had to sign off on a judge before there would even be a hearing. Oh, no, now the committee has changed its mind. Suddenly, because they have a Republican in the White House, two Senators don't have to sign off and they are pushing forward with hearings.

It is wrong. It is not right. I would say regarding this particular nominee, you have very moderate Members of this Senate saying she is a judicial activist and any words to the contrary can be disproven by her record. I think this is someone who does not come from the center, does not come from the mainstream. I think this is a President who, in this case, has not sought the advice and consent, really, of the Senate. He is essentially saying we don't care that you Democrats--none of you-- vote for her. I should not say none--maybe one. Certainly none on the committee. We are going to go right back and bring her back here.

This is a lifetime appointee. I think when we make these types of appointments, we have to make sure the person who is being nominated is not going to be an activist, make sure the person has demonstrated the types of qualities we want on the bench.

I don't think it is a quality you want on the bench when a woman waits 2 years before she renders a decision in a case of a paralyzed teenager whose parents didn't have the money to keep their teenager on a ventilator. And the record shows otherwise? I know what the record is. We have people combing that record. That is why you are going to see very many women in this Senate take this floor. I will repeat, when you put a woman on the bench who has a

record of not really helping women--I have seen it in this case, and I have seen it with other nominees who will be coming before us. I will take a second seat to no one in the advancement of women. Every time I have sought the support of bipartisan women's groups, I have gotten it because of that. Anyone who says Democratic women coming here speaking up against this nominee are not for women ought to study that record as well.

I think the Federal courts deserve better than this nominee. I think the American people deserve better than this nominee. I could go on and on about the record.

Let me briefly outline a case that illustrates Priscilla Owen's callous attitude towards individuals who are facing large corporate interests and their well-paid legal defense teams.

A young man in Texas was paralyzed in a car accident. His injuries were made much worse because of a malfunctioning seatbelt. His family took the automaker to court. The case made its way to the Texas Supreme Court on appeal. Justice Owen's unexplained 16-month delay in writing the court's opinion in the Ford Motor Company v. Miles case created a substantial roadblock for this paralyzed teenager to receive funds to pay for his medical care. Priscilla Owen was responsible for two of the five years of delay and finally issued a decision that was based on a procedural issue never raised in the case. All of her colleagues on the court believed she had improperly delayed the case.

The young man died approximately seven years after his accident because his family could no longer afford round-the-clock monitoring of his ventilator. To date, his family has not received any funds. This is truly a tragic example of delayed justice. This is an unprecedented attempt to manipulate the Senate's role in the confirmation process. The Judiciary Committee rejected this nominee last year.

The committee performed its constitutional rule and voted against Justice Owen. However, the White House renominated her to the same position. How could they not have gotten the message the first time?

This process makes a mockery out of the Senate's constitutional ``advice and consent'' role. The blatant disregard of the Senate's constitutional role is leading us into uncharted territory. Let me say this again that Justice Owen was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee--10-9 on September 5, 2002. The long list of concerns about her record that caused the majority of committee members to vote against her last year still exist.

I have made it a priority in my career to stand up for consumers and those who find themselves up against huge corporate interests. The people of California know all too well how difficult it is to take on powerful companies. The playing field is far from balanced.

In other areas, Justice Owen has consistently attempted to chip away at women's fundamental reproductive rights.

In the case of Doe I--2000--Justice Owen argued that a minor must meet a restrictive standard to establish that she is sufficiently well informed about her choice to have an abortion. Among other things, she would have to show that she had received counseling about the religious arguments surrounding abortion, despite the fact that the law in no way involves religious considerations.

The Texas statute states that a minor need not inform her parents before seeking an abortion if the court finds one of three things.

No. 1, that the minor is mature and sufficiently well informed to make a decision; or

No. 2, that parental notifications would not be in her best interest; or

No. 3, that notification may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse.

That is all it says.

I have to go to a markup. But we can try to rewrite the facts all we want. We can rewrite and put another spin on it. We can say, oh, the criticism wasn't toward her, when in essence my belief is that was her point of view that was being espoused. But that is fine. I understand this is a fight. I am willing to take this fight. I was very proud to say that the people in my State want me to stand up in these situations because it goes to the heart of the role of the Senate and it goes to the heart of what kind of country we will have. It goes to the heart of what kind of judges we will have. Will they be compassionate? Will they be fair? Will they stand up for the rights of women? Will they stand up for the little guy against the big corporation? You have to look at this particular record. You are not going to find someone who doesn't.

I thank my colleague, Senator Hatch. I know he strongly disagrees with me. I think that is fine. But he is very kind to allow me to go first so I can go to my hearing for the reauthorization of the FAA.

Thank you very much. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the Democratic time.

Mr. President, I want to respond to my colleague from Utah, Mr. Hatch, regarding Priscilla Owen's dissent in the case In re Doe, 19 S.W.3d 346, Texas 2000.

Let me emphasize the fact that Justice Owen wrote her own dissenting opinion in this case. Justice O'Neill delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Justice Enoch, Justice Baker, Justice Hankinson, and Justice Gonzales and by Chief Justice Phillips as to Parts II and III. Justice Enoch filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Baker. Justice Gonzales filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Enoch.

Three Justices dissented in this case, each filing the own separate opinion. The dissenting opinions were written by Justice Hecht, Justice Owen, and Justice Abbott.

Justices Gonzales, in his concurring opinion, very clearly voices criticism of the dissenting opinions:

The dissenting opinions suggest that the exceptions to the

general rule of notification

should be very rare and require a high standard of proof. I

respectfully submit that these are policy decisions for the

Legislature. . . . Thus, to construe the Parental

Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to

create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words

of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial

activism. As a judge, I hold the rights of parents to protect

and guide the education, safety, health, and development of

their children as one of the most important rights in our

society. But I cannot rewrite the statute to make parental

rights absolute, or virtually absolute, particularly when, as

here, the Legislature has elected not to do so.

The chairman of the Judiciary Committee states that Justice Owen did not write the opinion that Justice Gonzales criticized. I fail to see how Senator Hatch can reach that conclusion. Justice Gonzales clearly refers to ``the dissenting opinions''--plural--and Justice Owen wrote one of those dissenting opinions.

I trust that this resolves any dispute regarding this matter.

Mr. President, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, FASB, issued a tentative decision last week to mandate the expensing of stock options. As a result of this decision, the FASB will develop a mechanism for determining the cost of the options granted to employees and then force firms to deduct that cost from earnings in their financial statements.

If finalized and enforced, expensing rules would kill broad-based options programs available to rank-and-file workers and punish companies that treat employees as partners in innovation rather than just as simple factors of production. But worst of all, it would misrepresent a firm's earnings because experts have said again and again that stock options cannot be priced accurately in the short term.

The FASB received more than 250 comment letters during the period leading up to its current project on expensing stock options. Those letters presented a range of views on whether stock options constitute a cost that should be deducted from earnings. Many respected economists and accountants stated clearly that options should not be expensed. But expensing seems to be the only mechanism that the FASB is willing to consider for improving investor understanding of a firm's financial condition.

The experts I have worked with believe that better, more detailed disclosure of stock option programs is the best mechanism for informing investors on those programs. And I do not believe that the FASB has adequately considered greater disclosure as an alternative to expensing. Greater disclosure would provide investors with the information they need without discouraging the use of stock option programs at innovative firms. At the very least, greater disclosure should be tried and evaluated prior to imposing a new, disruptive expensing regime.

Stock option programs mean opportunity for workers across gender lines and wage scales in my state. In Silicon Valley, the median home price is $530,000. I know of single women working in Silicon Valley who have only been able to own a home because of the stock options their companies offer them. For small businesses in my state, stock options permit cash-

strapped businesses to attract and retain employees who want to share in the fruits of a growing company. The Woman's High Tech Coalition wrote to me last year:

The education process on stock options needs to be complete

in its understanding of what this opportunity has meant to so

many women, in particular, in terms of their ability to lift

themselves and their children out of a cycle that can affect

several generations.

Unfortunately, the process at the FASB is not designed to consider the broader economic benefits of stock-option programs in its rule- making process. In failing to consider these benefits, the FASB's actions may end up doing more harm than good. And before we allow unaccountable officials to create new rules that effectively eliminate stock option programs, I strongly believe that we should be fully informed about the broader impact on workers and productivity. A recently published book, ``In the Company of Owners: The Truth About Stock Options (And Why Every Employee Should Have Them)'' includes extensive research showing that broad-based stock option plans, over the past 20 years, enhanced productivity, spurred capital formation, and enhanced shareholder value. We should carefully review the implications of any new policy on stock options programs before implementing them and hoping for positive results.

As a result of FASB's decision and the refusal to consider alternatives to expensing, I am joining Senator Ensign in introducing legislation that calls for the Securities and Exchange Commission to undertake a thorough review of stock option programs and an assessment of the value of greater disclosure as an alternative to expensing. The bill sets a 3-year framework for evaluating this alternative to expensing during which the SEC could not enforce any new accounting standard on options that the FASB establishes.

If the SEC's studies indicate that greater disclosure is not getting enough information to investors, then we can revisit the issue. But we should not let unelected, unaccountable FASB officials dictate policy through a rushed accounting standard. We must exercise our oversight function and carefully weigh alternatives that would be better for workers, investors, and the economy as a whole.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation is to ensure that American taxpayers and American businesses are protected when the Federal Government procures property or services.

The purpose of this legislation is to close certain loopholes that allow Federal agencies to enter into contracts through a process that does not ensure full and open competition. Current law provides several exceptions that allow Federal agencies to limit competition or provide a sole-source contract. My legislation does not eliminate any of these exceptions, but it does place a 90-day limitation on the broadest exceptions to ensure that a full and fair bidding process takes place as soon as possible.

This bill does not extend the 90-day limitation on sole-source or limited-source contracts when full and open competition is not practicable. For example, the legislation will continue to allow sole- source or limited-source contracts when there is a threat to the national security of the United States or when the property or service is only available from one party.

But we must take a common-sense approach to shield taxpayers from waste and abuse. This bill does just that. I have heard from people throughout my state who believe that the administration is abusing its authority in providing sole-source and limited-source contacts in Iraq.

One example is the sole-source contract worth up to $7 billion that was awarded earlier this year to Kellogg, Brown and Root--a subsidiary of Halliburton--to extinguish oil fires in Iraq. The exception under Federal law used to provide KBR with the sole-source contract was that a full and open bid process would cause unacceptable delays. While it is understandable that oil fires cannot be allowed to burn while an open bid process takes place, it is not acceptable that the term of this contract was 2 years.

Recently, the administration announced that this contract would be terminated and an open bid process take place. While I applaud this move, I fear it would not have happened without the outcry of the American people. My legislation will ensure that certain sole-source contracts will be limited to 90 days. During the 90-day period, a full and open competition would take place so that the long-term contract is awarded to the qualified low-bidder.

It is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that these contracts are awarded in a competitive manner whenever possible. This legislation is a step in the right direction.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Syria Accountability Act, a bill that aims to end Syrian support for terrorism by diplomatic and economic means.

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. We must address this issue not with saber rattling but by confronting the Government of Syria in a diplomatic way that shows the seriousness of our concerns.

The Syria Accountability Act works to achieve our foreign policy goals by expanding economic and diplomatic sanctions against Syria until the President certifies that Syria has ended its support of terrorism, withdrawn from Lebanon, ceased its chemical and biological weapons program, and no longer illegally imports Iraqi oil. The bill provides flexibility to the President by allowing him to choose from a variety of sanctions, as well as the authority to waive sanctions if it is in the interest of United States national security.

I hope this legislation will receive the support of the Administration and Congress because it provides the President with the flexibility to target specific sanctions against Syria, but in no way threatens or condones the use of military force against Syria.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation is to ensure that American taxpayers and American businesses are protected when the Federal Government procures property or services.

The purpose of this legislation is to close certain loopholes that allow Federal agencies to enter into contracts through a process that does not ensure full and open competition. Current law provides several exceptions that allow Federal agencies to limit competition or provide a sole-source contract. My legislation does not eliminate any of these exceptions, but it does place a 90-day limitation on the broadest exceptions to ensure that a full and fair bidding process takes place as soon as possible.

This bill does not extend the 90-day limitation on sole-source or limited-source contracts when full and open competition is not practicable. For example, the legislation will continue to allow sole- source or limited-source contracts when there is a threat to the national security of the United States or when the property or service is only available from one party.

But we must take a common-sense approach to shield taxpayers from waste and abuse. This bill does just that. I have heard from people throughout my state who believe that the administration is abusing its authority in providing sole-source and limited-source contacts in Iraq.

One example is the sole-source contract worth up to $7 billion that was awarded earlier this year to Kellogg, Brown and Root--a subsidiary of Halliburton--to extinguish oil fires in Iraq. The exception under Federal law used to provide KBR with the sole-source contract was that a full and open bid process would cause unacceptable delays. While it is understandable that oil fires cannot be allowed to burn while an open bid process takes place, it is not acceptable that the term of this contract was 2 years.

Recently, the administration announced that this contract would be terminated and an open bid process take place. While I applaud this move, I fear it would not have happened without the outcry of the American people. My legislation will ensure that certain sole-source contracts will be limited to 90 days. During the 90-day period, a full and open competition would take place so that the long-term contract is awarded to the qualified low-bidder.

It is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that these contracts are awarded in a competitive manner whenever possible. This legislation is a step in the right direction.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Syria Accountability Act, a bill that aims to end Syrian support for terrorism by diplomatic and economic means.

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. We must address this issue not with saber rattling but by confronting the Government of Syria in a diplomatic way that shows the seriousness of our concerns.

The Syria Accountability Act works to achieve our foreign policy goals by expanding economic and diplomatic sanctions against Syria until the President certifies that Syria has ended its support of terrorism, withdrawn from Lebanon, ceased its chemical and biological weapons program, and no longer illegally imports Iraqi oil. The bill provides flexibility to the President by allowing him to choose from a variety of sanctions, as well as the authority to waive sanctions if it is in the interest of United States national security.

I hope this legislation will receive the support of the Administration and Congress because it provides the President with the flexibility to target specific sanctions against Syria, but in no way threatens or condones the use of military force against Syria.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the ``Flight Attendant Certification Act.''

Since September 11, flight attendants have become a last line of defense against terrorist attacks. As we all know, the terrorists hijacked four commercial jets--all of which were heading to California. That day forever changed air travel in this country, and in turn forever changed the security functions of flight attendants.

No one can forget that it was a flight attendant who discovered that Richard Reid was trying to ignite a bomb on his shoe. If not for the aware flight attendant, the bomb could have gone off over the Atlantic and all the passengers and crew would have been lost.

Today, I can say with certainty that air travel is more secure than it was a year and a half ago. But that does not mean that more should not be done. We must continue to take the appropriate steps to ensure that we are doing everything in our power to prevent terrorist attacks and protect the American people. That is why I am proud to offer this legislation.

This bill would make American air travel safer by requiring that flight attendants be certified by the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA. Currently, flight attendants are not required to receive formal certification even though they have the responsibility for safety, security, and emergency response.

In addition, the legislation would close the growing gap in the quality and content of training programs between airlines by creating a single training standard across the industry. This bill would require uniform training standards and establish a central approval process for certification of flight attendants at the FAA.

The FAA already recognizes the training of other airline personnel by issuing certification to pilots, mechanics, air-traffic controllers and others. Flight attendants deserve the same recognition and certification.