Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to express my disappointment about the outcome of the last vote. I voted not to invoke cloture. I did so with great reluctance. A number of Members called me over the last several days about the class action reform bill that was before us. I appreciate very much the comments of both the majority leader and the minority leader, my good friend from Delaware, Tom Carper, Herb Kohl, and others who have worked very hard on this legislation. I have great respect for what they have tried to do.

I hope the majority leader will take up the offer of the Democratic leader and so we come together and work out what the provisions of this bill ought to be, at least the main provisions of it, and move forward. I am deeply committed to class action reform, but I do not want to move forward under a process where I am being told merely that I have a right to bring up amendments. I have that right anyway.

It seems to me if we are going to try to put a bill like this together, it takes meaningful cooperation, it takes sitting down. It is hard work. We have done it in the past. As the author of the securities litigation reform bill, the uniform standards legislation, terrorism insurance, the Y2K bill--all matters that brought together the trial bar and the business community trying to sort it out--I know that this can be done. It took a lot of work and a lot of hours to do it in the past. I strongly recommend on class action reform, that we make the same sort of effort.

It is not that difficult to get a good bill, but it does take work. Again, it takes meaningful cooperation. We need to have that if we are going to succeed.

I am terribly disappointed, but I must say to those who argued for cloture that there is a way of achieving the right results and the process we just went through this is not the way to go, in my view.

I can say, without invoking the names of my colleagues, there are a number of us who voted no on cloture who believe as strongly as I do about the need for reform and who would like to see a bill passed. So the majority leader and his staff, the staff of the Judiciary Committee and other interested parties--and there are not that many--if they can put something together, we can move forward. We could have another cloture vote, if we need to have one, although I doubt we will need one, with a more cooperative process there would be no need for one. I believe we can and should go forward.

The challenge is whether or not they want to do that. If they just want to have a 59-to-39 vote and move on to another issue, then that may indicate to some of us what the real intentions were here. If they are interested in getting this bill done, then there is a way to do it.

There are those of us who are willing to roll up our sleeves and get it done. In fact, many of the same people have been involved for months now in the asbestos legislation. I have an uneasy feeling we are heading in the same direction with that bill. It takes hard work. Members from both sides have to sit down, bring people together, and put in the hours it takes to finish the job.

If we allow this to sort of wander along without dealing with the intricacies and the complicated questions involved, then one can almost predict with certainty what is going to happen at the end of the day. So the offer is there. I make it to my friends and colleagues on this side of the aisle and the other. I am prepared to be a part of those efforts, if they find it fruitful and worthwhile, or to sit on the sidelines and watch it happen and be supportive of whatever they are able to produce.

Let's move forward and get this done. The American people deserve better. We are not working together as often as we should on critical questions. If we do not do it, then we do a great disservice to the American public.

So I hope the leaders would take up the offers that have been made, sit down and see if we cannot pull this bill together. For those who are interested, we ought to be prepared to start that process today-- this afternoon--if people are so willing.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in memory of Ira Paull, who passed away suddenly on September 28 at the age of 52.

I was very fortunate to work with Ira during the 7 years he spent on Capitol Hill as a staff member on the Senate Banking Committee. He worked on the staff of Senators John Heinz, Jake Garn, and Alfonse D'Amato. Ira was an integral part of virtually every critical piece of legislation that came out of the Banking Committee. His knowledge was vast and his counsel well-respected by Senators on both sides of the aisle. I personally had the privilege of working with Ira in my capacity as chairman of the Securities Subcommittee. In particular, I have fond memories of Ira as he accompanied me, Senator Heinz, and my staff on a congressional delegation to Europe in 1990 looking into European Community Financial Services issues.

Ira's reputation on the Hill was that of a bright and talented lawyer, and also of an individual with a quick wit and a tremendous sense of humor. He became well-known for writing opening statements for committee hearings that were not only well-informed and comprehensive, but would even, on occasion, incorporate rhyme or poetry that would bring a smile to everyone's face.

Though his job on the committee was to provide counsel to Republican Senators, he earned a great deal of respect from Democrats as well. He formed deep and lasting friendships with staff members from both sides of the aisle, including my own staff, who valued his advice and counsel and cherished his friendship.

Ira Paull was a hard worker, a dedicated public servant, and a wonderful person who was taken from us far too soon. He will be greatly missed by everyone who had the opportunity to know him.

I offer my deepest sympathies to his brother Gerson, to his sisters, Susan, Leah, and Linda, and to his entire family.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record statements on Ira's passing submitted by former Senators Garn and D'Amato.

Mr. President, 2 weeks ago the Senate began debate on President Bush's $87 billion emergency funding request for Iraq and Afghanistan. Since that time, many amendments have been considered by this body. Most of them have failed largely along partisan lines. That is unfortunate in my view. After all, we are talking about spending 87 billion American taxpayer dollars, and this during a time when so many of our national priorities remain unaddressed. Our education system, our health care system, and our homeland security priorities are all drastically underfunded. More and more Americans are finding themselves out of work. Certainly we need to continue to support our troops in Iraq and to assist the Iraqi people to rebuild their country. But we can't do this alone and ignore the vital domestic needs that so many Americans are today facing.

About a month ago, I rose in this Chamber to share my thoughts about United States policy toward Iraq. I did so shortly after President Bush's September 7th televised address to the Nation on the same subject. In that speech, the President was candid with the American people about what we should expect in Iraq, namely that it is going to be ``difficult and costly'' to rebuild that country and to bring democracy to a people who have had no tradition of political freedom or self-determination.

This Senator welcomed the President's honest assessment of what we are likely to be facing in Iraq. It was a positive change from the doublespeak and ``non-answers'' that the Congress and the American people have been hearing from some officials in the administration since before the outset of our military engagement in that country.

Of course, what the President told us wasn't news. The difficulty and the cost of our involvement are painfully apparent. More than 150,000 coalition forces remain in Iraq 5 months after the President declared the end to major hostilities. One hundred and thirty thousand of those men and women are Americans. And every day there are reports of yet another American service man or woman being killed.

With the approval of this $87 billion emergency supplemental, the United States will have committed more than 150 billion of American taxpayers' dollars in a matter of months for our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan--the vast majority of those sums for the Iraq mission.

In light of those statistics, who could disagree with the President that our mission in Iraq has become difficult and costly--both monetarily and in human terms. I only question why it took our President so long to come to that realization. In fact, it now appears that estimates of human and monetary costs that were formerly discounted by the Bush administration--statements made by Army General Eric Shinseki and the President's former Chief Economic Advisor Lawrence Lindsey--might not have been so far off the mark.

During his most recent address to the Nation, President Bush also explained, in simple terms, United States policy objectives: destroy terrorists, enlist the support of other nations for a free Iraq, and help Iraqis assume responsibility. He was less clear on how he intends to achieve those objectives, or to mitigate the myriad of costs to the American people.

That is why many of our colleagues who have spoken on the floor have decried the fact that at the very time we are being asked to approve $87 billion in additional money for the military and reconstruction costs of Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration has yet to lay out a clear plan for how any of the objectives mentioned by the President are to be achieved. Perhaps progress is now possible in internationalizing the rebuilding of Iraq. I take note in particular of yesterday's unanimous U.N. Security Council vote in support of the United States- sponsored resolution on Iraq. However, it is important to remember that this resolution is only the first step toward achieving a broad international coalition with additional governments and international organizations willing to share the burden of this difficult and costly occupation.

Our military has done an exemplary job in winning the war. They should be commended. But they also need help winning the peace. Our forces are stretched thin and our troops are tired. Tragically, more than 332 American military personnel have now died in Iraq, 1,511 have been wounded, and 335 have sustained other injuries. One hundred and twenty of those deaths were unrelated to hostile fire dehydration, auto accidents, and other causes.

These deaths have prompted legitimate questions about the adequacy of the equipment our troops have been provided for the hostile environment being encountered. Efforts by the U.S. Army to address some of these equipment shortcomings have not been fully funded in the pending legislation. That is the Army's assessment--not mine.

That is why I offered an amendment on October 2, to transfer $300 million from Iraqi reconstruction funds to U.S. Army accounts for the purchase of equipment vital to the safety of our troops or to reimburse them for equipment they were forced to buy for themselves. In the broader scope of things, I continue to believe that those few hundred million dollars were a mere drop in the bucket. But this drop could have helped protect and provide our troops with hydration and other lifesaving equipment that they need. I was very disappointed that my amendment failed, largely along partisan lines, because I strongly believe that the first and most important priority of this funding bill should be to protect our troops.

United States liberation of Iraq has not ended the suffering of the Iraqi people. They continue to suffer, and they are frustrated as well. While the decades of fear and brutality perpetrated by the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein are now gone, uncertainty and hardship continue despite the best efforts of U.S. Ambassador Paul Bremer and members of the Coalition Provisional Authority. And this uncertainty and hardship have brought resentment--resentment against U.S. forces, resentment against the U.N. mission headquartered in Baghdad, resentment between and within local communities.

That resentment has brought with it increasing acts of violence.

While I have not yet had an opportunity to make a first-hand assessment of the situation in Iraq, many who have believe that security remains the most immediate and pressing challenge confronting the Provisional Coalition

Authority. It is my hope that the monies contained in this legislation for our troops, coupled with the $5 billion allocated to assemble and train Iraqi police and security forces will improve the security climate so that the road is clear for the equally difficult task of rebuilding the country. I fully support those elements of the supplemental request.

However, I have serious questions about some of the so-called reconstruction priorities that the administration intends to pursue once the emergency supplemental is approved--projects that the administration has identified as high priorities in need of immediate funding. A number of these misplaced priorities have been mentioned during the course of this debate. Let me remind my colleagues of some of these:

No. 1, a $100 million witness protection program for 100 Iraqi families--that is $1 million per family;

No. 2, two maximum security prisons at a total cost of $400 million-- $50,000 per prison bed;

No. 3, $15 million for the purchase of computers, with a price tag of $3,000 per computer;

No. 4, $20 million for 4 weeks of business training classes at $10,000 per student; and

No. 5, $30 million to teach English as a second language to Iraqis.

These are just a few of the questionable spending priorities embedded in the measure before us.

I supported President Bush last year when he sought authority from Congress to use all necessary means to secure Iraq's compliance with U.N. resolutions. But even while doing so I was deeply concerned that absent broad international support for preemptively removing Saddam Hussein, the American taxpayer and our troops would be left holding the bag when the time came to win the peace in Iraq. That concern has proven well placed.

Indeed, I am not only troubled by the so-called emergency programs that I just mentioned; what concerns me even more is that we all know that Iraq is going to need more money--above and beyond this current request. A lot more. Yet despite the recent U.N. Security Council resolution, many doubts remain as to the administration's willingness or ability to ensure that other governments and international organizations will begin to share some of those future costs.

The President did not listen to those of us who cautioned him about the implications of removing Saddam Hussein unilaterally. This debate gives him a second chance to listen to similar concerns being articulated about attempting to unilaterally deliver democracy to Iraq. Without significant and meaningful help from others we risk an even more ``costly and difficult'' engagement in Iraq than the President has contemplated. Equally serious, the President risks losing the support of the American people for his policy. Without that support continued U.S. involvement will not be sustainable.

During consideration of this legislation, Members of this Congress have taken certain steps to press the administration on the issue of burden sharing. These were not partisan efforts because this is not a partisan issue. It is not partisan to insist that the President not have a blank check to pay for all of Iraq's reconstruction. It is sound fiscal policy. Quite simply, we cannot afford to write endless checks for this purpose.

Even before the administration's supplemental request, the Congressional Budget Office had calculated that the annual budget deficit would reach $480 billion--the largest in history. Over the past 3 years, 3.2 million Americans have lost their jobs--44,000 alone in July. So there are clearly pressing needs at home that remain unmet. We could do a lot with an additional $20 billion on the domestic side of the Federal ledger.

We could do a lot in the area of health care: $20 billion could provide health coverage for approximately 1.3 million Americans; current Medicare prescription drug proposals include large gaps in coverage; the $20 billion could be used to close those gaps; and $20 billion would provide Medicaid coverage for an additional 300,000 children, adults, senior citizens, and individuals with disabilities.

We could do a lot in addressing our Nation's education shortfalls: $8.5 billion would fully fund No Child Left Behind; $6.15 billion would fully fund title I programs--programs to help our poorest schools better serve our children; $750 million would bring afterschool programs to their fiscal year 2004 authorized levels; $29 million would restore the Troops to Teachers Programs.

We could also do a lot in supporting important programs for our Nation's children. Twenty billion dollars would: provide 4.4 million more kids with childcare; enable participation of 2.8 million kids in Head Start; fund enrollment of 26.7 million kids in afterschool programs; or 16.6 million more kids covered by health care.

The bottom line is that we are not going to be able to do any of those things if we continue to go it alone in Iraq. Moreover, the huge and unprecedented amounts of national debt that we are incurring are going to cripple our economy for the foreseeable future.

Why do we go through this silly budget exercise of declaring all these projects an emergency? It is so that our budget rules won't apply--so somehow it won't count. Well, Mr. President, it does count. And I think we should agree here and now that this is real money. Other programs, real programs, important programs, won't be funded because of the so-called emergency projects I mentioned earlier. There are trade- offs.

It is now clear that these trade-offs aren't going to be confronted by the President unless the voices of the unilateralists in the Bush administration are silenced, or at least the President stops listening to them. The recent U.N. resolution was an important first step toward that end. Hopefully it has taught this administration an important lesson: that to garner international help in building democracy in-- Iraq help we desperately need--there must be compromise and respect for other points of view.

There is nothing wrong with compromising or with sharing the costs and responsibilities for Iraq's future. In fact, I believe that Congress has a responsibility to see that those costs and responsibilities will be shared. International burden sharing was a condition of congressional support for funding U.S. peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo. This very Congress included a burden sharing requirement in the legislation passed earlier this year authorizing U.S. participation in the Global HIV/AIDS Fund. Why should Iraq be different? Senate adoption last night of the Bayh amendment, which would convert a portion of the reconstruction monies to loans, should be understood as one small step toward more equitable burden sharing in the rebuilding of Iraq.

During consideration of this legislation we have taken some important first steps. But these are only small steps, and much more needs to be done if the $87 billion we are about to approve is to be effectively used. I will reluctantly support final passage of this bill because I believe we have an obligation to support our troops. However, I want to make it clear, here and now, that if this President expects my future support, he is going to have to bring together a much broader international coalition than currently exists--one that will provide significant financial and military support to our efforts.

The recent U.N. resolution holds out the promise that this may be possible, but it is only a promise--it is up to the President to see it become a reality.

We cannot and must not let this administration continue to deny what we all know to be true; namely, that ``multilateralizing'' the reconstruction and democratization of Iraq is the right thing to do. It is the right thing for America. It is the right thing for Iraq. And it is the only way to ensure that we will be able to fulfill our responsibilities to the American people. Let us hope that the administration will use the resources and authorities contained in this bill to accomplish that goal.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky.

Very briefly, I had intended to offer an amendment at an appropriate time, most reluctantly, because it is unrelated to the subject matter at hand. But all my colleagues can relate to this frustration from time to time. When there is something you want to get done and you have few opportunities to get it done, you pick any vehicle coming along which might help you get it done. Recognizing that this was going to be one of the last funding measures to move along this year, I had intended at the appropriate time to offer an amendment that would have provided additional resources for the Help America Vote Act, on which my friend from Kentucky and Senator Bond and many others played a very critical role almost a year ago when it became the law of the Nation. In fact, October 29, 2003, will mark the 1-year anniversary of the day the President signed the legislation into law.

I am hopeful we can get the level of funding up to full in a timely manner. As all my colleagues must know, almost every Secretary of State, local election official, and legislative officer around the country are anxious for Congress to meet our obligations. The states can then get their election administration and technology up and running in the years 2004-2006 in a way that will be in compliance with the efforts made to pass the Help America Vote Act in the first place.

But my colleague from Kentucky, as he has done on numerous occasions, has persuaded me there may be a better opportunity and a better place to get this job done. So I wanted to take a moment out to express my appreciation. I thank him for his willingness to help me try to achieve these results in the coming weeks if at all possible.

To reiterate, I was prepared to offer an amendment to fully fund the Help America Vote Act, HAVA. Senators Corzine, Johnson, and Durbin had asked to cosponsor that amendment.

Why? Because now is the time to make our rhetoric a reality to live up to our promise of just 1 year ago to fully fund the new Federal requirements we imposed on the States for conducting Federal elections.

The President has recognized that Iraq and Afghanistan have many emergency needs, including the ability of those nations to establish democracies by conducting free and fair elections.

As a result, the administration request for the fiscal year 2004 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq, Afghanistan and the Global War on Terrorism earmarked at least $35 million for voter registration and elections in Afghanistan.

I accept that priority. All countries must have the resources to establish and maintain their democracies and to administer and conduct elections for their citizens. The voice of the people, exercised at the polls, secures the future of any democracy, whether abroad or at home. And while I remain unconvinced that all of the funding in this bill is truly an emergency--such as for $3,000 computers or $50,000 dump trucks--when it comes to election funding, I will agree with the President. Funding to ensure the system by which a nation establishes and preserves a democracy is an emergency.

But if it is an emergency in Afghanistan, it can be no less of an emergency in America. The basic premise of a democracy is that every citizen must have an equal voice in the determination of its government. In this Nation, that voice is expressed through the equal opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted. If America is to be the example for emerging democracies, whether in Afghanistan, or Iraq or any other part of the world, then our system of giving our citizens an equal voice--our system of elections--must meet this test.

But what we learned in the elections of 2000 was that not all American citizens enjoyed an equal voice. In fact,

some citizens were denied a voice at all because of malfunctioning or outdated voting equipment, inaccurate and incomplete voter registration records, and allegations of voter intimidation and fraud.

A bipartisan group of members came together last Congress to change that and on October 29--almost exactly 1 year ago--President Bush signed into law the Help America Vote Act. At the signing ceremony at the White House, the President proclaimed:

[w]hen problems arise in the administration of elections, we

have a responsibility to fix them.

But rhetoric alone will not fix the problems. It will take leadership and funds, and that is what the Help America Vote Act provides--Federal leadership in the form of new minimum requirements that all States must meet in the conduct of Federal elections and $3.8 billion to fund the implementation of these requirements.

Some of these requirements must be in place in time for the Federal elections next year. But Congress has failed to provide the funds to the States to finance them.

All 50 States have begun the process of drafting the required State plans outlining how Federal funds will be used to meet the requirements. Many of the States have begun implementation of the new requirements; but, they require full funding of the promised Federal funds to complete implementation of some requirements by next year and have compliant voting equipment in place by the 2006 Federal elections.

Federal funding is the most critical key to nationwide implementation of this Act and may well govern the success and effectiveness of the new law.

Federal funding is crucial. Since the States are in key planning and implementation stages of HAVA, they are relying on Federal funds to make election reform a reality nationwide.

To help pay for election reforms and avoid an unfunded mandate on the States, HAVA authorizes a total of $3.9 billion over 3 fiscal years: $2.16 billion in fiscal year 2003; $1.04 billion in fiscal year 2004; and $660,000 in fiscal year 2005.

But in fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated only $1.5 billion. Of that amount, $650 million has been distributed to all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa.

I thank my colleagues for their support during the fiscal year 2003 appropriations process. In particular, I thank my two lead co-sponsors of HAVA and both major players in the appropriations process--Senator McConnell who was lead co-sponsor of election reform and Senator Bond who also co-sponsored HAVA and championed the anti-fraud provisions. I also thank Senator Stevens, chair of the Appropriations Committee and Senator Byrd, ranking member on Appropriations.

But the fact is, the fiscal year 2003 appropriation reflects a reality starkly different from our promise. As a result, the States have experienced a shortfall of over $660 million in the first critical year of funding under HAVA. Given the dire financial budget constraints faced by our States and counties, the shortfall in promised Federal support creates an unfunded mandate that is both unfair and unnecessary.

While the fiscal year 2004 Transportation, Treasury appropriations bill has not been completed in the Senate, I note that both the President and Congress has earmarked a mere $500 million for HAVA, a funding level that is half of what was authorized and is both inadequate and unacceptable.

According to the National Governors Association, the current financial health of State and local governments was at its lowest point since World War II last year and has worsened in the past 10 months.

Full Federal funding for HAVA is crucial to ensuring that the reforms that Congress overwhelmingly approved, on a broad bipartisan basis, and the President endorsed with his signature, are implemented. The very integrity of our elections, and consequently our democracy, hangs in the balance.

Surely, it cannot be argued that building ``taj mahal'' Iraqi prisons and market centers for the private sector in Afghanistan are more of an emergency than securing democracy in America.

We can do both. We must do both. But it is unacceptable to chose the reconstruction needs of Iraq and Afghanistan over the needs of our own democracy.

Full funding of HAVA is critical to our national credibility for fairness and accuracy in Federal elections. It is fundamental to the integrity of our democratic process.

The problem of Federal funding for HAVA can be solved by Congress today, now. The problem of Federal funding for HAVA can be solved right here in the context of the fiscal year 2004 Supplemental bill that we debate today.

I seek bipartisan support from my colleagues to help me strengthen democracy both abroad and at home--the same bipartisan support that lead 98 members of this Senate and 357 Members of the House to pass HAVA just 1 year ago; the same bipartisan support, and need, that encouraged President Bush to sign this legislation into law.

In order to make election reform a reality, and to live up to the promise we made to State and local officials to be a full partner in Federal elections, I intend to offer an amendment to this measure which will provide full funding for HAVA in an amount of $1.86 billion. This amount reflects the total authorization for the Federal partnership.

This effort is overwhelmingly supported by a bipartisan and powerful coalition of State and local election officials, in conjunction with all the major civil rights, disability, language minority, and other voter interest groups in the United States.

I thank each and every one of them for their strong support in passing HAVA and their continuing commitment to see that Congress makes good on its promise to be a full partner in Federal elections by fully funding the provisions of HAVA.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter by the coalition, entitled ``Democracy Begins At Home: Fully Fund the Help America Vote Act.''

Any effort to fully fund HAVA is as much of an emergency as the needs presented in the bill before us for Iraq and Afghanistan and I am prepared to ask the Senate to support full funding of HAVA on the same emergency basis.

However, there are sufficient funds in the reconstruction portion of this bill which are of questionable emergency status that can be used to offset the entire cost of fully funding election reform. For example, $450 million from the public safety, national security and justice sector of this bill, including, $400 million in funds to construct 2 maximum security prisons of 4000 beds each at a cost of $50,000 per prison bed; and $50 million for witness protection at a cost of $1 million per Iraqi family.

There is $1.02 billion from the electrical sector, including $1 billion for the development and construct of thermal power stations-- which are more expensive than other forms of power generation and will take up to 3 years to construct; and $20 million for embedded consultants, building repairs and a master plan for the Iraqi Electricity Commission.

There is $37 million from the public works section, including funds for waste management that would pay for a portion of the proposed 2,000 dump trucks, at a cost of $50,000 per truck.

There is $353 million from the private sector development funds, including $200 million for an American-Iraq Enterprise Fund to be run by a private board of directors; $85 million for 5000 computers at a cost of $3000 per computer and basic and specialized computer training and teaching English as a second language to Iraqis; $25 million to modernize equipment and curriculum in vocational institutes; and $43 million subsidy to private employers for on the job training of new employees and the improvement of employment centers.

I close with a quote from the Coalition's letter:

No Civil Right Is More Fundamental to America's Democracy

than the Right to Vote. As Our Nation Spends Billions of

Dollars Helping to Promote Democracies Abroad, Congress

Simply Should Not Allow Doubts about the Legitimacy of Our

Electoral Process to Continue to Linger Here at Home.

I urge my colleagues to fulfill our commitment of last year to ensure the integrity of our Federal elections and

the very foundation of our democracy by fully funding the Help America Vote Act.

I commend Senator McConnell for his commitment to securing additional funds this year, and so I will withhold offering my amendment at this time.

Exhibit 1

Democracy Begins at Home--Fully Fund the ``Help America Vote Act''

September 29, 2003.

Dear Member of Congress: We, the undersigned organizations,

urge you to ensure that full funding for the Help America

Vote Act (P.L. 107-252) (``HAVA'') is included in the

upcoming supplemental appropriations for reconstruction

efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. As you know, the Bush

administration has requested that Congress provide $21.4

billion for these reconstruction efforts. We ask that

Congress provide, at the same time, a mere fraction of that

amount for the purpose of strengthening our own democracy

here at home.

The Help America Vote Act was enacted with overwhelmingly

bipartisan support in order to prevent the many problems of

the 2000 election from ever happening again. Among its many

reforms, it places significant mandates upon states and

localities to replace outdated voting equipment, create

statewide voter registration lists and provide provisional

ballots to ensure that eligible voters are not turned away,

and make it easier for people with disabilities to cast

private, independent ballots.

To help pay for these reforms, HAVA authorizes a total of

$3.9 billion over three fiscal years, including $2.16 billion

for FY03 and $1.045 billion for FY04. To date, however, the

actual funding of HAVA has been woefully inadequate. So far,

only $1.5 billion of FY03 funding has been appropriated, and

$830 million of that amount has yet to reach the states

because the President has not nominated and the Senate has

not confirmed the members of the new Election Assistance

Commission. Additionally, only $500 million is currently

included in pending FY04 appropriations; once again, this is

a sum that falls well below what is needed for successful

implementation of HAVA. States and localities were assured by

Congress that this new law would not evolve into a set of

unfunded federal mandates. It is now time for Congress to

honor its commitment to the states and to the American public

at large.

Given the difficult fiscal circumstances facing state and

local governments, immediate and full funding of HAVA is now

needed in order to make essential progress before Election

Day in 2004. Without the strong leadership that HAVA promised

at the federal level, states and local governments simply do

not have the ability to complete implementation of the

important reforms that they are now required to make.

No civil right is more fundamental to America's democracy

than the right to vote. As our nation spends billions of

dollars helping to promote democracies abroad, Congress

simply should not allow doubts about the legitimacy of our

electoral processes to continue to linger here at home.

We thank you for your support of funding for the ``Help

America Vote Act,'' and we look forward to working with you

on this critical issue. Should you have any questions, please

contact Rob Randhava of the Leadership Conference on Civil

Rights at (202) 466-6058, Leslie Reynolds of the National

Association of Secretaries of State at (202) 624-3525, or any

of the individual organizations listed below.

Sincerely,

organizations representing state and local officials

National Association of Secretaries of State.

National Conference of State Legislatures.

Council of State Governments.

National Association of State Election Directors.

National Association of Counties.

National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed

Officials Educational Fund.

National League of Cities.

International City/County Management Association.

International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election

Officials and Treasurers.

National Association of County Recorders, Election

Officials and Clerks.

civil rights organizations

Alliance for Retired Americans.

American Association of People with Disabilities.

American Civil Liberties Union.

American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial

Organizations.

Americans for Democratic Action.

Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Asian Law Alliance.

Asian Law Caucus.

Asian Pacific American Legal Center.

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.

California Council for the Blind.

Center for Governmental Studies.

Center for Voting and Democracy.

Common Cause.

Demos: A Network for Ideas & Action.

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund.

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

League of Women Voters of the United States.

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees.

National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems.

National Council of Churches.

National Council of La Raza.

Neighbor to Neighbor Action Fund.

Organization of Chinese Americans.

People For the American Way.

Project Vote.

Public Citizen.

The Arc of the United States.

United Auto Workers.

United Cerebral Palsy.

U.S. Action Education Fund.

U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

National Spinal Cord Injury Association.

National CURE (Citizens United for Rehabilitation of

Events).

American Foundation for the Blind.

National Industries for the Severely Handicapped.

Association of University Center on Disabilities.

American Council of the Blind.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky. I thank Senator Reid as well, the minority whip, Senator Stevens, and Senator Inouye for interrupting his prepared statement. I thank my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I join my friend and colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, in introducing a resolution declaring next week ``National Character Counts Week.'' Senator Domenici and I have worked together for many years on the issue of character education and hope that by designating a special week to this cause, students and teachers will come together to participate in character building activities in their schools. In 1994, Senator Domenici and I established the Partnerships in Character Education Pilot Project and have worked regularly since then to commemorate National Character Counts Week. I am pleased that we are continuing our efforts today to help expand States' and schools' abilities to make character education a central part of every child's education.

Our schools may be built with the bricks of English, math and science, but character education certainly is the mortar. Character education means teaching students about such qualities as caring, citizenship, fairness, respect, responsibility, trustworthiness, and other qualifies that their community values.

Character education provides students a context within which to learn. If we view education simply as the imparting of knowledge to our children, then we will not only miss an opportunity, but will jeopardize our future. Character education isn't a separate subject, but part of a seamless garment

of learning. Taking this to heart, teachers at Duffy Elementary School in West Hartford, Connecticut, have incorporated the fundamentals of character education into their schoolwide curriculum so that every child has the opportunity to focus on one aspect of character education in each garde. In turn, these learning opportunities have translated into action within the community.

Philip R. Smith Elementary School in South Windsor, Connecticut, was recently named a National School of Character by the Character Education Partnership for demonstrating outstanding character education initiatives that yield positive results in student behavior, school climate and academic performance. Their schoolwide approach has also translated into a number of community wide service projects. Annually, students organize and run a blood drive for the community and sponsor a two-month long clothing and can food drive for the homeless. In response to 9/11, students raised close to $1,500 in change for the Red Cross.

Mr. President, character education programs work. Schools across the country that have adopted strong character education programs report better student performance, fewer discipline problems, and increased student involvement within the community. Children want direction--they want to be taught right from wrong. The American public wants character education in our schools, too. Studies show that about 90 percent of Americans support schools teaching character education.

As all education policy should be, character education is bipartisan. This year we have 28 cosponsors to our resolution, cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. Character education is also actively supported by a number of national education and youth organizations including 4-H, Boys and Girls Clubs of America and the Little League. Character education can and is being incorporated into children's lives in and outside of the classroom.

This measure provides a helping hand to our schools and communities to ensure those children's future are bright and filled with opportunities and success. Character education not only cultivates minds, it nurtures hearts. While our children may be one-quarter of our population, they are 100 percent of our future.

Mr. President, I rise to honor the memory of an outstanding public servant and a dear friend, John Michael Bailey, who passed away on September 23 at the age of 59.

My friendship with Jack Bailey was long and deep. Our families were close friends, and we knew each other as children. We ran against each other for Congress in 1974, and I will always remember his civility during that campaign. We stayed friends during the campaign, and we remained close until his untimely passing.

Jack served as the chief State's attorney in Connecticut for 9 years--the longest tenure of anyone to hold that office. With his cigars, dark suits, and slicked-back hair, he outwardly resembled a figure out of a Hollywood crime drama. But his success as a lawyer, and his integrity as a human being, were no fictions.

He spent 27 years as a criminal prosecutor, and his tireless work earned him the respect of political leaders in both parties. He was tough on crime, but also fair. He was truly a pioneer in law enforcement in Connecticut, leading the fight to get violent offenders off the streets and to crack down on the abuse of senior citizens. A number of his initiatives and methods have been adopted by law enforcement officials across America.

Jack Bailey's influence in Connecticut will be felt for years to come. Not only did he set up units and institutions that will serve as his legacy; he also was a mentor to many of the younger attorneys and officers who are now the new faces of law enforcement in our state.

But for his debilitating illness, Jack Bailey would still be serving the people of Connecticut. As his sister, former Congresswoman Barbara Kennelly, said, ``He thought he had the best job in the world.'' He stayed in his office as long as he could taking two medical leaves of absence--before finally resigning a year ago. The only thing that kept Jack from his job was a terrible disease that has no cure.

I join all of Connecticut's citizens in expressing my deep gratitude to Jack for spending so many years making our lives safer, and better. He served us with dignity, class, and great honor.

My deepest sympathies go out to Jack's wife Dee, to his sons John and Brian, and to all who knew and loved him.

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

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

Mr. President, over the past decade, the science of genetics has developed at an astonishing pace. The mapping of the human genome is undoubtedly one of the greatest scientific achievements of my lifetime. We have not even completely grasped the wide array of potential benefits that may come from our newfound genetic knowledge. Certainly, the impact on our health will be profound. Doctors will be able to read our unique genetic blueprints and predict the likelihood of developing diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's, or Parkinson's. They will also be able to use an individual's genetic information to develop treatments for these same diseases and target individuals with the treatment that will work best for them. This is not science fiction--it is already beginning to happen.

For all the promise of the genetic age, there is also an inherent threat. Science has outpaced the law and Americans are worried, and rightly so, that their genetic information will be used, not to improve their health, but to deny them health insurance or employment. There is no information more personal and private than genetic information and no information more worthy of special protection. Our genetic code is the very blueprint of ourselves. It is with us from birth, and to some extent it determines who we will become. What an incredibly powerful tool, with its vast potential to help us live healthier lives. But the nature of genetic information also makes it dangerous to the individual if used incorrectly.

This is why so many of us, on both sides of the aisle, saw the need several years ago for legally enforceable rules to maximize the potential benefits of genetic information and minimize its potential dangers. The legislation before use represents a culmination of the efforts of many of us to establish such rules. It represents an enormous step forward, and I wish to acknowledge the hard work of everyone who was involved in crafting this legislation.

This bill provides significant new protections against the misuse of genetic information. It ensures that Americans who are genetically predisposed to health conditions will not lose or be denied health insurance, jobs, or promotions based on their genetic makeup. Reaching an agreement on this legislation means that our laws dealing with genetic information can begin to catch up to the reality of our technological capability in the field.

With these protections in place, individuals need not feel reluctant to get the tests that may save or improve their lives. Although the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA, took important steps towards preventing genetic discrimination, this legislation is more specifically tailored to prohibiting its misuse. Health plans and health insurance issuers will not be allowed to underwrite, determine premiums, or decide on eligibility for enrollment based on genetic information. Employers will not be allowed to alter hiring practices based on genetic information. The American public can feel secure in the knowledge that their genetic blueprint will not be used to harm them, that a genetic marker indicating a possible illness later in life will not cause them to lose a job or health insurance.

This is by no means a perfect or complete bill. In particular, while it poses some important limitations on the collection of personal genetic information

by insurance companies, it would allow them to collect this information, without consent, once an individual is enrolled in a health plan. While insurers are expressly prohibited from using this information for the purposes of underwriting, I am concerned that once they have this information, it may be difficult to control how it is used and who has access to it. We all know from experience that the difficulty of protecting information increases exponentially with each additional person who has access to that information.

Let me add that, during negotiations, good faith attempts were made on both sides to address these concerns. Unfortunately, we could not reach an agreement on this issue that made all parties comfortable. As a result, the bill falls short of offering comprehensive privacy protection. Personal genetic information is already widely available, and the risk of abuse is high. Health plans and employers will have legitimate reasons for collecting genetic information. But individuals should be given the power to regulate how such information is distributed, and with whom it is shared. As this bill becomes law, and I sincerely hope it will, I will monitor closely how it is implemented, and the extent to which privacy is protected. We may need to revisit this issue in the future.

Despite this shortcoming, I support this bill, as it represents a vast improvement over current law in many ways. I hope that it will become law in the very near future. We all should feel free to make our health care decisions based on our health care needs, not based on fear. Today, we are close to making that goal a reality.

Mr. President, I rise today to remind my colleagues that October is National Spina Bifida Awareness Month and to pay tribute to the more than 70,000 Americans and their family members who are currently affected by Spina Bifida--the Nation's most common, permanently disabling birth defect.

Spina bifida is a neural tube defect that occurs when the central nervous system does not properly close during the early stages of pregnancy. Spina bifida affects more than 4,000 pregnancies each year, with 1,500 babies born with spina bifida each year. There are three different forms of spina bifida with the most severe being myelomeningocele spina bifida, which causes nerve damage and severe disabilities. This severe form of spina bifida is diagnosed in 96 percent of children born with this condition. Between 70 and 90 percent of the children born with spina bifida are at risk of mental retardation when spinal fluid collects around the brain.

The exact cause of spina bifida is not known, but researchers have concluded that women of childbearing age who take daily folic acid supplements reduce their chances of having a spina bifida pregnancy by up to 75 percent. Progress has been made convincing women of the importance of consuming folic acid supplements and maintaining diets rich in folic acid. However, this public education campaign must be enhanced and broadened to reach segments of the population that have yet to heed this call.

Although folic acid consumption reduces the risk and incidence of spina bifida pregnancies, we will still have babies born with spina bifida who need intensive care and families that need guidance and support in caring for and raising these children. The result of this neural tube defect is that most babies suffer from a host of physical, psychological, and educational challenges, including paralysis, developmental delay, numerous surgeries, and living with a shunt in their skulls in an attempt to ameliorate their condition. Today, approximately 90 percent of all babies diagnosed with this birth defect live into adulthood, approximately 80 percent have normal IQs, and approximately 75 percent participate in sports and other recreational activities. With proper medical care, people who suffer from spina bifida can lead full and productive lives. However, they must learn how to move around using braces, crutches or wheelchairs, and how to function independently. They also must be careful to avoid a host of secondary health problems ranging from depression and learning disabilities to skin problems and latex allergies.

After decades of poor prognosis and short life expectancy, breakthroughs in research combined with improvements in health care and treatment children with spina bifida are now living long enough to become adults with this condition. Yet, with this extended life expectancy people with spina bifida now face new challenges in the fields of education, job training, independent living, health care for secondary conditions, aging concerns, and other related issues.

I am grateful for my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond who, along with myself, sponsored the Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities Prevention Act of 2003, S. 286. This important legislation helps prevent spina bifida as well as meets the current and growing needs of individuals with spina bifida live active, productive, and meaningful lives. Our legislation helps those with spina bifida and their families learn how to treat and prevent secondary health problems which range from learning disabilities and depression to severe allergies, and respiratory and skin problems that make life difficult and at times, fraught with danger that make life difficult for these patients by authorizing the National Spina Bifida Program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC. All of these problems can be treated or prevented, but only if those with spina bifida are properly educated and taught what they need to do to keep themselves healthy. The national program focuses and coordinates the agency's efforts to educate health care providers about the range of spina bifida issues-- including the availability of in utero surgery--as well as help promote the dissemination of information regarding how to prevent the myriad complications of the condition.

Last year, I chaired a hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension's Subcommittee on Children and Families on birth defects, in which Connecticut resident Fred Liguori's testimony provided a parent's

valuable perspective on spina bifida. After losing two pregnancies, the Liguori's were informed their unborn child had spina bifida. After careful consideration and information from the SBAA, the Liguoris elected to proceed with in utero surgery that could reduce the effects of spina bifida. Since the late 1990s, doctors at four U.S. hospitals have been operating before birth on babies diagnosed with spina bifida. By closing the spinal lesion early in pregnancy, these doctors believe they can minimize the damage created by fluid leaking from the spine, as well as by the spinal cord's contact with amniotic fluid. Surgeons have found that closing the hole in the spine in this fashion before birth may correct breathing problems in 15 percent of the children receiving the procedure and may reduce the need for a shunt to drain brain fluid build up by between 33 percent and 50 percent. While the in utero surgery was successful, their three-year-old son still requires extensive therapy and medical attention. Fred Liguori's testimony made it clear that a national spina bifida program is critically needed for the prevention of this condition and to improve the quality of life for those individuals and their families living with spina bifida. Fortunately, in fiscal year 2003, Congress was wise to provide $2 million in funding to establish and support a national spina bifida program and is poised to provide a much-needed increase in funding for fiscal year 2004. The House provided a $500,000 increase while the Senate included a total of $3 million for the program for fiscal year 2004. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Senate allocation as this level of funding is needed to ensure that the CDC has the resources necessary to support and expand its comprehensive efforts to prevent spina bifida, improve quality-of-life for those living with the condition, and to deliver important public health messages to those communities most at-risk for a spina bifida pregnancy.

I want also to recognize the special work of the Spina Bifida Association of America, SBAA, an organization that has helped people with spina bifida and their families for nearly 30 years, working every day--not just in the month of October--to prevent and reduce suffering from this devastating birth defect. The SBAA was founded in 1973 to address the needs of the individuals and families affected by and is currently the only national organization solely dedicated to advocating on behalf of the spina bifida community. As part of its service through 60 chapters in more than 100 communities across the country, the SBAA puts expecting parents in touch with families who have a child with spina bifida. These families answer questions and concerns and help guide expecting parents. The SBAA then works to provide lifelong support and assistance for affected children and their families.

Together the SBAA and the Spina Bifida Association of Connecticut, SBAC, work tirelessly to help families meet the challenges and enjoy the rewards of raising their child. I would like to acknowledge and thank SBAA and the SBAC for all that they have done for the families affected by this birth defect, especially those living in my State. I would also like to commend the leadership of Hal Pote, President of the Spina Bifida Foundation--uncle of Greg Pote who lives with spina bifida, Alex Brodrick, President of the Spina Bifida Association of America, father of Joel Brodrick who lives with spina bifida, and Cindy Brownstein who serves as Chief Executive Officer of the SBAA. The spina bifida community and our Nation owe a tremendous debt to the SBAA for its work over the past three decades.

As a Nation, we have accomplished a great deal in our battle against birth defects. However, much more work remains to be done. I urge all of my colleagues and all Americans to endorse the important efforts to prevent spina bifida but also to support those already living with this often debilitating birth defect. Those living with spina bifida and their loved ones deserve our utmost support. It is my hope that by recognizing National Spina Bifida Awareness Month we can move closer to the laudable goal of eventually eliminating the suffering caused by this terrible birth defect.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch, Senator Brownback, and Senator Specter in introducing legislation to advance the use of umbilical cord blood for clinical applications and research. I first became aware of the potential therapeutic benefits of cord blood when my daughter was born 2 years ago. At that time, our doctor informed me and my wife that preserving a small amount of blood from the umbilical cord could prove enormously beneficial later in her life. Should she become ill with a disease requiring bone marrow reconstitution, he told us, her own cord blood stem cells could be used. This would eliminate the need to find a suitable bone marrow donor.

The bill that we are introducing today will begin a new national commitment to the development of this technology--which has the potential to reduce pain and suffering and save the lives of so many Americans afflicted with some of the most debilitating illnesses. Cord blood has already been used successfully in treating a number of diseases, including sickle cell anemia and certain childhood cancers. However, the use of cord blood is still fledgling. Recent developments have suggested that the stem cells derived from cord blood may be useful in treating a much wider range of diseases, such as Parkinson's disease, diabetes, and heart disease.

Like many Americans, I had never heard of cord blood before the birth of my daughter. It is not widely used--at least in this country. In the first 8 months of this year, 95 percent of all bone marrow reconstitutions were done using a bone marrow transplant. Only 5 percent used cord blood. This figure is surprising when we consider the potential benefits of cord blood relative to bone marrow.

First, it can be very difficult to find a suitable bone marrow donor. According to a General Accounting Office, GAO, report, of the 15,231 individuals needing bone marrow transplants between 1997 and 2000 who conducted a preliminary search of the National Bone Marrow Donor Registry, NBMDR, only 4,056 received a transplant--a 27-percent success rate. This number is even lower for minorities. Cord blood would not only produce an additional source of donation, it also does not require as exact a match as bone marrow.

In addition, cord blood is readily available. While it can take months between finding a bone marrow match and actually receiving a transplant, a unit of cord blood can be utilized in a matter of days or weeks. Cord blood also lowers the risk of complications of both the donor and the recipient. The need to extract bone marrow from the donor is eliminated, and the risk of infection or rejection by the recipient is significantly reduced. Finally, research has suggested that cord blood might produce better outcomes than bone marrow in children.

Why then, given all of these benefits, has the use of cord blood not become

much more prevalent in the United States? In Japan, where the use of cord blood in clinical settings is more advanced, nearly half of all transplants now use cord blood rather than bone marrow.

The relatively infrequent use of cord blood in our country is at least partly attributable to the lack of a national infrastructure for the matching and distribution of cord blood units. There are a handful of cord blood banks around the country doing excellent work, but there is a much more developed infrastructure for bone marrow. This is thanks to legislation passed by Congress in 1986 that established a National Registry for bone marrow. By the way, that legislation is due to be reauthorized next year--and I would like to voice my strong support for that reauthorization.

Our bill would create a similar infrastructure for cord blood. Specifically, it would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, acting through the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, to establish a National Cord Blood Stem Cell Bank Network, as well as a registry of available cord blood units. The network and registry would be required to collect a minimum of 150,000 units, which should be sufficient to provide a suitable match for 90 percent of the U.S. population.

Donor banks would also be required to educate the general public about the potential benefits of cord blood, and encourage an ethnically diverse population of cord blood donors. Given the untapped potential of cord blood, at least 10 percent of the available units must also be made available for research. Finally, the legislation authorizes an appropriation of $15 million for fiscal year 2004, and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2005 through 2008.

Mr. President, before finishing today I would like to make it clear that I strongly support the continuation of the excellent work done by the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP). Cord blood should act as a complement to--not a replacement for--bone marrow. In many cases, a bone marrow transplant is still the preferred therapy. Physicians should have the ability to decide on a case-by-case basis which is best for their patients. That is why I am hopeful that the NMDP will have a very active role in designing and supporting the National Cord Blood Stem Cell Network and Registry. Ideally, the two will work together to provide a single resource where doctors can search both cord blood stockpiles and a list of marrow donors for a suitable match for their patients.

I firmly believe that the creation of a national infrastructure for cord blood will, in time, save the lives of thousands of gravely ill Americans. We have a responsibility to encourage use of cord blood where appropriate today, and invest in research to fully tap the potential of this technology. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch, Senator Brownback, and Senator Specter in introducing legislation to advance the use of umbilical cord blood for clinical applications and research. I first became aware of the potential therapeutic benefits of cord blood when my daughter was born 2 years ago. At that time, our doctor informed me and my wife that preserving a small amount of blood from the umbilical cord could prove enormously beneficial later in her life. Should she become ill with a disease requiring bone marrow reconstitution, he told us, her own cord blood stem cells could be used. This would eliminate the need to find a suitable bone marrow donor.

The bill that we are introducing today will begin a new national commitment to the development of this technology--which has the potential to reduce pain and suffering and save the lives of so many Americans afflicted with some of the most debilitating illnesses. Cord blood has already been used successfully in treating a number of diseases, including sickle cell anemia and certain childhood cancers. However, the use of cord blood is still fledgling. Recent developments have suggested that the stem cells derived from cord blood may be useful in treating a much wider range of diseases, such as Parkinson's disease, diabetes, and heart disease.

Like many Americans, I had never heard of cord blood before the birth of my daughter. It is not widely used--at least in this country. In the first 8 months of this year, 95 percent of all bone marrow reconstitutions were done using a bone marrow transplant. Only 5 percent used cord blood. This figure is surprising when we consider the potential benefits of cord blood relative to bone marrow.

First, it can be very difficult to find a suitable bone marrow donor. According to a General Accounting Office, GAO, report, of the 15,231 individuals needing bone marrow transplants between 1997 and 2000 who conducted a preliminary search of the National Bone Marrow Donor Registry, NBMDR, only 4,056 received a transplant--a 27-percent success rate. This number is even lower for minorities. Cord blood would not only produce an additional source of donation, it also does not require as exact a match as bone marrow.

In addition, cord blood is readily available. While it can take months between finding a bone marrow match and actually receiving a transplant, a unit of cord blood can be utilized in a matter of days or weeks. Cord blood also lowers the risk of complications of both the donor and the recipient. The need to extract bone marrow from the donor is eliminated, and the risk of infection or rejection by the recipient is significantly reduced. Finally, research has suggested that cord blood might produce better outcomes than bone marrow in children.

Why then, given all of these benefits, has the use of cord blood not become

much more prevalent in the United States? In Japan, where the use of cord blood in clinical settings is more advanced, nearly half of all transplants now use cord blood rather than bone marrow.

The relatively infrequent use of cord blood in our country is at least partly attributable to the lack of a national infrastructure for the matching and distribution of cord blood units. There are a handful of cord blood banks around the country doing excellent work, but there is a much more developed infrastructure for bone marrow. This is thanks to legislation passed by Congress in 1986 that established a National Registry for bone marrow. By the way, that legislation is due to be reauthorized next year--and I would like to voice my strong support for that reauthorization.

Our bill would create a similar infrastructure for cord blood. Specifically, it would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, acting through the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, to establish a National Cord Blood Stem Cell Bank Network, as well as a registry of available cord blood units. The network and registry would be required to collect a minimum of 150,000 units, which should be sufficient to provide a suitable match for 90 percent of the U.S. population.

Donor banks would also be required to educate the general public about the potential benefits of cord blood, and encourage an ethnically diverse population of cord blood donors. Given the untapped potential of cord blood, at least 10 percent of the available units must also be made available for research. Finally, the legislation authorizes an appropriation of $15 million for fiscal year 2004, and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2005 through 2008.

Mr. President, before finishing today I would like to make it clear that I strongly support the continuation of the excellent work done by the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP). Cord blood should act as a complement to--not a replacement for--bone marrow. In many cases, a bone marrow transplant is still the preferred therapy. Physicians should have the ability to decide on a case-by-case basis which is best for their patients. That is why I am hopeful that the NMDP will have a very active role in designing and supporting the National Cord Blood Stem Cell Network and Registry. Ideally, the two will work together to provide a single resource where doctors can search both cord blood stockpiles and a list of marrow donors for a suitable match for their patients.

I firmly believe that the creation of a national infrastructure for cord blood will, in time, save the lives of thousands of gravely ill Americans. We have a responsibility to encourage use of cord blood where appropriate today, and invest in research to fully tap the potential of this technology. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

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

I apologize to my colleagues. I know it is a late hour. This is an important amendment, and I hope my colleagues can support it.

I rise to propose this amendment to the emergency supplemental spending bill to ensure that Congress and the administration keep sight of what I believe must remain our number one priority for the conduct of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the protection of our American troops.

According to the U.S. Army, the President's supplemental bill falls short of over $200 million for critical gear for our soldiers slated to rotate in Iraq and Afghanistan in the months ahead. This amendment was designed specifically to see to it that those U.S. troops coming into Iraq, into a theater of war, would receive important equipment they need to perform their missions effectively. This equipment includes important high-tech body armor, bullet-proof helmets, special water packs to keep soldiers hydrated, and other survival gear.

I don't need to make the case about what is happening in Iraq on a daily basis, nor do I need to stress the importance of this kind of equipment. My colleagues are well aware of this situation.

As it stands now, the supplemental bill before the Senate only covers expenses for soldiers' personal equipment up to the first 3 months of 2004 and does not take into account very soon a considerable number of men and women who will be entering the theater to relieve soldiers who are there now.

In an $87 billion emergency spending package for 2004, one would think we could find enough money to meet the pressing equipment needs of our young men and women in uniform. That is why I was surprised to find an official list from the U.S. Army Comptroller's Office dated September 26 detailing several important items that remain unfunded in this supplemental. Above all else, it is a requirement that thousands of our soldiers, particularly those in the Reserves and the National Guard, be equipped with the most effective personal equipment available. Our troops need this gear to improve their performance in combat and to enhance their safety under intense conditions.

As my colleagues know, every day our men and women in uniform have been ordered into harm's way, sent into extreme heat--exceeding 120 degrees in some cases--with strenuous missions in different settings throughout Iraq and Afghanistan.

My chart shows what a foot soldier wears on his shoulders in Iraq: 60 pounds of body armor, tactical equipment, in hot desert heat, carrying high-tech night vision equipment, special framed backpacks, and other survival gear. In 120 degrees, carrying all this equipment becomes quite burdensome, so they have special hydration systems necessary for troops to safely survive the desert heat. These water pack systems, called camelbaks, are attached to the soldier's backpack to allow easy access to water when they are in motion.

Unfortunately, with the shortage of funds, the Army could not afford to equip all soldiers with this equipment, so many soldiers are using bulky canteens that quickly heat up in the desert sun. Most of the canteens do not have adequate capacity to carry the water they need in Iraq's intense heat.

This information comes from the U.S. Army. I am not making this up from news reports. This is what our military is telling us and where a shortfall exists in this supplemental.

In other cases, the soldiers are paying hundreds of dollars out of their own pockets to buy the equipment themselves, everything ranging from the camelbaks to gun scopes, because in spite of the Army's stated priorities, the administration did not procure enough personnel equipment for these men and women. I think we can do better than that.

The 2003 Defense Appropriations Act included language demanding answers to why the very men and women we send into combat are being forced to spend upwards of $300 per person. Our own Congress made this point: They are spending up to $300 per person on equipment to outfit themselves for combat in Iraq. The Army has yet to report on this issue and has established a rapid fielding initiative designed to outfit our soldiers with the most modern equipment available so they do not have to spend their own money on the latest body armor hydration systems.

Out of $324.5 million needed to fund this program in Iraq and Afghanistan, only $122.5 million was to be available in this supplemental budget bill. That means if our soldiers, many of whom are less than 21 years of age, making under $20,000 a year, want the right gear for their mission, they are going to have to dig into their own pockets to buy their own hydration equipment, radios, weapon sights, combat helmets, and individual body armor.

Let me cite an article that appeared in yesterday's Washington Post called ``The Children Of War,'' section C, page 16. There was an interview with the children whose parents are fighting in the Persian Gulf. One young person points out that her father has been buying other supplies already--a portable hammock, special water pouches, et cetera.

That is from a child talking about her parent having to buy his own equipment. I don't know of anyone who believes that ought to persist.

Now, in response to the Army's request, the committee added $300 million to the present supplemental request which could be used for either this additional equipment or the clearance of weapons and mines still lingering on Iraqi battlefields. It says it right here, in the Congressional Record, dated October 1, 2003, when the Supplemental Appropriations bill's accompanying report was printed. On page S12222, there is a chart detailing expenditures in the Army Operations and Maintenance account. $300 million is to be allocated for ``SAPI body armor/Rapid Fielding Initiative or battlefield cleanup.''

But the Army says it needs an additional $420 million just to handle the Iraqi battlefield clearance. As the pending legislation stands now, there is still not enough money in the bill to do both, and both items--more safety equipment and Iraqi battlefield clearance--are top Army priorities.

I think we need to address both of these issues. For those reasons, I have asked my colleagues to support this amendment to allocate an additional $322 million for the critical equipment of our troops and adequate resources for battlefield clearance to fully meet the Army's current requirements.

The funding in my amendment is fully offset by reductions in some of these reconstruction accounts called emergencies. I want to draw my colleagues' attention to them.

Looking at this next chart. I have reprinted items submitted to us by the Administration in their request, entitled ``Coalition Provisional Authority Request to Rehabilitate and Reconstruct Iraq,'' dated September 2003. It lists in this supposed emergency budget proposal, among other things, $15

million to procure 3,000 computers. That means we are providing computers at $5,000 a piece. This does not seem reasonable, when you could find a perfectly reasonable computer for $750. I have a lot of respect for what the Iraqis are going through, but I do not know, for the life of me, why you are going to spend around $3,000 to $5,000 per computer, and $40 million to train them under this so-called emergency budget.

You can go down even further on this list, and there are additional points to make. I will not go through all these items because of the time constraints. But my bill takes the money from two or three areas to come up with this $250 million to make up the difference between the $300 million in the bill and this additional amount to cover both battlefield clearance and the equipment they need.

Out of the money the administration has proposed to fund the construction of two 4,000-bed maximum security prisons, at a cost of $400 million--$50,000 per bed in an Iraqi prison--these moneys would be in addition to the $99 million also included in that account for the refurbishing and construction of 26 prisons and detention centers that existed under the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Even without spending one penny of the $400 million--by the way, we recommend taking $200 million of this, not all the $400 million. Even without spending one penny of the $400 million for the maximum security prisons, the prison capacity in Iraq will be nearly doubled from the 11,200 to 19,700, thanks to our efforts.

The question I would ask--anyone ought to ask--is, Do we really believe, in a democratic Iraq, there will be a need to imprison three times more Iraqi citizens than were kept behind bars under Saddam Hussein?

We would be transferring $200 million out of this account, cutting it in half--not eliminating all of it. We would also like to take $50 million out of the $100 million fund for the Iraqi witness protection program. That is right, there is $100 million listed in the Administration's budget justification materials for the emergency supplemental for witness protection. By the way, that is $100 million for 100 families.

Now, the average Iraqi makes $2,200 a year. I don't know what anyone is thinking here. And I do not understand how we can provide $1 million per family, when we are at the same time not meeting the requirements that our men and women in uniform are lacking.

The offsets for my amendment therefore include $50 million from the witness protection program as well as $70 million from the proposals for computers, computer training and even English classes proposed in this so-called emergency budget.

There are a lot of emergencies that need to be met, but you are going to be hard pressed to convince the American public that doubling the capacity of prisons is an emergency, or providing witness protection at $1 million per family, or buying computers at $3,000 each--when we are being told we cannot provide the necessary resources for our men and women in uniform.

In sum, I want to make the point that the Administration's supplemental budget request has simply not been scrubbed sufficiently. I do not believe any of my colleagues, if they were sitting down going over this in detail, would make a case that in $20 billion of construction money for Iraq, that a $100 million witness protection program, $400 million to double or triple the prison cells at $50,000 a bed in their prisons, and that $3,000 for computers--and $40 million, by the way, is to provide computer training--I would like to see someone get a $40 million appropriation to provide computer training for anyone else in this country, let alone to do it over in Iraq.

So these are the areas that we would take money from to provide for the $322 million to provide for the men and women in uniform who need these resources.

I mentioned earlier the kind of equipment. I will come back and just identify this for my colleagues. Again, this is not my assessment. This is the U.S. Army saying what they need. They need adequate provisions for clean water, additional high-tech backpacks, advanced combat helmets and body armor, additional radios, machine gun sights and tripods, M-16 ammunition, high-tech GPS compass equipment, additional desert boots, sun and wind dust goggles and gloves, grappling hooks, door ramming kits, sniper rifles, binoculars, and special night vision goggles.

That is their list. Yet they are being told: Either spend money to clear Iraqi battlefields of mines and other dangerous materials or receive effective safety gear. This seems unacceptable. The Army needs money for both of these line items.

And I think we ought to do both. I am saying do both. Do not add to the deficit, just take the $20 billion that we have for the reconstruction and go after some of these items that I do not think anyone--regardless of where you come out politically.

Let us take care of our men and women in uniform going over to Iraq. I do not think any of us want to read a story where one of our young troops has to go out and buy their own equipment to protect themselves. This is the 21st century. And in this day and age, the sole superpower in the world should not have to tell its military personnel to fend for themselves.

So for those reasons, I urge the adoption of the amendment. I apologize to my colleagues for taking time tonight, but I thought they ought to understand what was at stake and why I thought this amendment was particularly important.

For those reasons, I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, the Army did not come to me. This is an official briefing provided by the United States Army Comptroller to both the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees. I am just reading what they said. They didn't make an attempt to get in touch with me. Their briefing materials speak for them. They say that there is a requirement for $420 million to fund the ordnance disposal on the battlefields still out there, and, in addition, there is a shortfall in Army equipment. That is it plain and simple.

What the committee has said is: You can only do one or the other, but you will not have enough money to do both.

I am suggesting you ought to be able to do both. To provide the $300 million, that is great, that helps. But the $300 million doesn't cover the $420 million for the battlefield clearance and for the shortfalls that occurred in this equipment. This is not about allowing service members to go out and buy shirts and gloves simply that they like. This is about equipping our soldiers with the most effective gear available to protect them from hostile fire as well as from the intense desert climate. I am not arbitrarily making up figures. The suggestion here is we come up with an additional $322 million to cover both circumstances--that is, the battlefield clearance as well as the equipment--and pay for it, by the way, not by readjusting moneys within the defense needs but in the reconstruction side of this supplemental request, that you can do away or at least delay, if you want, the idea of buying computers at $3,000 a copy, a witness protection program at $50 million for 50 families, and whether or not you can cut down prison construction from $400 million to $200 million. With my amendment, there is still plenty of funding to implement the reconstruction plans of the Coalition Provisional Authority.

I don't know why this is so controversial. Why don't we just accept this amendment? If I did it by not going into these reconstruction accounts, they might take it. But because I am talking about a witness protection program and ridiculously high-priced computers and going after excessive prison construction, which I think is hardly an emergency, all of a sudden this is a bad amendment and I am a dreadful guy for making folks come back and miss a plane.

I don't want a soldier out there getting hurt because they don't have the right equipment. I didn't make this up. The Army didn't come to me specifically. They made this case on September 26, the source was a briefing provided to Congress' defense committees by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller, entitled, ``FY04 Supplemental Request for the Global War on Terrorism: The Army At War.'' That is where it comes from. I appreciate what the committee did with $300 million. But the committee report says you have to make a choice: Clearing up the battlefield or provide funding for soldiers' equipment. And I don't think the Army ought to be put in that position. I don't think you ought to ask them to have to make that choice. That is the reason for the amendment.

Again, I am sorry people have to come back and vote. That is not my intention. But I, in good conscience, believe this is a responsible amendment. I would have thought it might be accepted instead of making a lot more out of this than has to be the case. We all agree they ought to get the equipment. Why not just agree to the amendment? If you want to table the amendment, put people on record saying they would rather spend money on a witness protection program at $1 million a family in Iraq when the average family makes $2,200 a year, you explain that to the American taxpayer, why an Iraqi family would get $1 million in witness protection. That is ridiculous.

Spending $3,000 for a computer and $400 million to create new prison operations over there is not an emergency need. You make the choice whether or not you think that is more important than seeing these young people get what they need. I stand by the amendment. It is the right thing to do.

I yield back the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to speak in memory of U.S. Army Sgt Travis Friedrich, of Naugatuck, CT, who was killed fighting for his country in Iraq on Saturday, September 20. He was 26 years old.

Like so many of our brave men and women who are serving overseas today, Sgt Friedrich was a reservist. He was a graduate student at the University of New Haven, working on his degree in forensic science, and was also working full-time as a laboratory technician in Waterbury.

When he was summoned to active duty in January, he left behind family and friends who loved him, and a promising education and career. But Sgt Friedrich answered his country's call and he did so in exemplary fashion.

Sgt Friedrich grew up in Hammond, NY, and was a shining star in both academics and athletics. He graduated from Brockport State College, majoring in chemistry and criminal justice, and came to Connecticut 3 years ago with dreams of becoming an investigator in law enforcement. Tragically, it was a dream he would not live to fulfill.

Everyone who knew Travis Friedrich said that he represented the best of the American armed forces and, indeed, the best of America. His friends remembered his sense of humor, and his leadership as co-captain of his college crew team. He also had a tremendous work ethic whether he was on the field of battle, in a classroom, or on the job. And he loved his family and friends, just as he loved his country.

When people like Travis Friedrich make the decision to enlist in our armed forces, they do so knowing that one day, they could be called upon to make profound sacrifices--and possibly the ultimate sacrifice-- for this nation, and the values and freedoms that we represent.

That's not an easy decision to make, but for an individual with the courage and the integrity of Travis Friedrich, it was a natural one. ``Wherever I go,'' Sergeant Friedrich once said, ``I want to do my share.'' He did his share, and much, much more.

I salute Travis Friedrich for his bravery, his heroism, and his service to his country. I offer my most sincere condolences to his parents, David and Elizabeth, and to all of his friends and family.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help address a growing problem in America--our ability to provide safe and affordable housing that meets the needs of older Americans. Currently there are 35 million Americans over 65 years old. That number will double within the next 30 years. By 2030, 20 percent of the U.S. population will be over 65 years old.

Nearly one third of all public housing units are occupied by senior citizens. This figure has been steadily growing in recent years and will undoubtedly continue to grow in the future. It is critically important that we remain committed to providing low-income seniors with safe and affordable housing.

The bill I am introducing will promote the development of assisted living programs to provide a wide range of services, including medical assistance, housekeeping services, hygiene and grooming, and meals preparation. Providing these services will in turn give older Americans greater opportunities to decide for themselves where they live and how they exercise their independence.

The Elderly Housing Plus Supportive Health Support Demonstration Act, will provide Federal grants to allow public housing authorities around the country to develop new strategies for providing better housing for senior citizens. The bill will give public housing authorities the tools they need to improve our public housing stock so our seniors will not be prematurely forced out of their homes. The bill authorizes competitive grants through the Department of Housing and Urban Development to upgrade and reconfigure elderly buildings, and buildings with elderly and non-elderly disabled residents. The bill will also provide funding for service coordinators and/or congregate services programs.

Unfortunately, as we examine the public housing stock across the country from the perspective of older Americans, we find a bleak situation. Over 66 percent of existing public housing units are more than 30 years old and most are not designed to meet the needs of older Americans. For example, too few of our housing units are equipped to facilitate mobility for those in wheelchairs. Even such simple things as having a kitchen counter top that can be reached from a wheelchair may make the difference between a senior being able to stay in his or her home or having to leave, often to be sent to an institution where seniors have less independence and control over their lives.

Because most public housing seniors are Medicaid-eligible, the bill will also open a path to reducing Medicaid costs, 42 percent of which goes to housing elders in costly nursing homes. The cost to the Medicaid program of a beneficiary living in public housing converted to assisted living has been shown to be as much as one-third that paid to a nursing home on a long-term per capita basis.

The scarceness of affordable assisted living units has other social costs that we must consider as we set national housing policies for the future. Often, the cost of taking care of an aging family member can be devastating to American families. Too often, working men and women are torn between the need to maintain their jobs and the desire to provide the best possible care to their aging family members.

Advances in medicine are allowing us to live longer, healthier lives. Longevity is a great blessing, but it also poses significant challenges for individuals, families, and society as whole. One of the greatest challenges we will face in the decades ahead is the challenge of developing new kinds of housing that respond to the needs of our growing elderly population.

It is my hope that this bill will generate earnest discussion on these important matters and will ultimately lead to action to ensure that every American senior can live in security and dignity.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Elderly Housing Plus Health Support Demonstration Act be printed in the Record.