Floor Statements

Madam President, I would like to call up amendment 2858.

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

Madam President, I agree with virtually everything the Senator from Ohio has said. Although there are many State laws which do take into consideration a fetus, it is true that the Federal laws, which would impact only those on Federal property, are silent. I am in complete concurrence with everything the Senator has said. I have had the privilege of working with him, so it is a delight for me to be able to discuss and debate this issue with him.

The substitute amendment I have called up is on behalf of Senators Bingaman, Boxer, Corzine, Kennedy and Lautenberg. I would like to make clearer a couple of places in that amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to send a modification to the desk.

I hear the objection. I am rather surprised by the objection. It is generally common courtesy to allow a Senator to amend his or her amendment. However, I believe our amendment is clear on its face.

I would like to point out that since 2000, in the Senate, there has been no hearing on this amendment and no opportunity for the Judiciary Committee to make corrections. This amendment is on the floor as a rule

Mr. President, the substitute amendment, which I have offered, has been crafted to avoid these problems.

Our amendment, the Motherhood Protection Act, will accomplish the same goal as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, but will do so in a way that does not involve us in the debate about abortion or when life begins. In my view, there is no reason to vote against this substitute unless the intention is to establish legally that human life, for the purposes of Federal criminal law, begins at the moment of conception because, ladies and gentlemen, that is exactly what this bill does.

To emphasize the point, let me again turn to the comments of Samuel Casey, executive director and CEO of the Christian Legal Society, who clearly states the intention behind the bill in this quote:

In as many areas as we can, we want to put on the books

that the embryo is a person. . . .That sets the stage for a

jurist to acknowledge that human beings at any stage of

development deserve protection--even protection that would

trump a woman's interest in terminating a pregnancy.

Let there be no doubt about the intent. Anyone who is pro-choice cannot vote for this bill without the expectation that they are creating the first legal bridge to destroy Roe v. Wade.

Now, there is a time and a place to discuss the morality and philosophy of when life begins. This is not that time. Now is the time to change our Federal law to punish criminals who would inflict grievous injuries or death upon pregnant women on Federal lands. So I urge my colleagues to support the substitute amendment.

Exhibit 1

Stanford Law School,

Stanford, CA, July 10, 2003.

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Feinstein: I wish to express my concern about

the current formulation of S. 1019, the Unborn Victims of

Violence Act of 2003. Although I fully endorse the Bill's

ultimate aim of protecting pregnant women from the physical

and psychological trauma of an endangered or lost pregnancy,

I believe that the Bill's current formulation will frustrate

rather than forward this goal.

I write both as a former prosecutor and as a law professor

specializing in criminal law and criminal prosecution. At the

outset of my career, I served as an assistant district

attorney in Middlesex County, Mass., and as an assistant

attorney general in the Massachusetts Attorney General's

office. I then went to Boston College Law School, where I

administered and taught in the criminal prosecution clinic. I

have been at Stanford since 1995 and a tenured professor of

law since 1999; during the next academic year, I will serve

as Academic Associate Dean. In 1996 I founded Stanford's

criminal prosecution clinic and have administered and taught

in the clinic ever since. I have also created a course in

prosecutorial ethics, which I taught at Boston College Law

School and, as a visitor, at Harvard Law School.

My background and interest in criminal prosecution prompt

me to raise three objections to this Bill. All of them focus

on the Bill's use of the expressions ``child in utero'' and

``child, who is in utero,'' and on its definition of these

terms as ``a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage

of development, who is carried in the womb.''

First: The Bill's apparent purpose of influencing the

course of abortion politics will discourage prosecutions

under any future Act.

I do not know what motives gave rise to the Bill's use of

the expressions ``child in utero'' and ``child, who is in

utero,'' but I do know that any vaguely savvy reader will

conclude that these terms and the Bill's definition of

them were intended by the Bill's authors to influence the

course of abortion politics. It is a fair prediction that

when a pro-life President is in office, prosecutions under

this Bill will be more frequent than when a pro-choice

President is in office. That is because the public will

interpret this Bill as suggesting that abortion is a

potentially criminal act and will interpret prosecutions

under the Bill as endorsing this sentiment.

If the authors of the Bill truly seek to protect unborn

life from criminal violence, they will better accomplish this

purpose by avoiding such expressions as ``child in utero.''

Better alternatives would refer to injury or death to a fetus

or damage to or termination of a pregnancy.

Second: The Bill's apparent purpose of influencing the

course of abortion politics will motivate prosecutors to

exclude those prospective jurors who otherwise would be most

sympathetic to the prosecution's case.

If I were prosecuting a case under this Bill, I would hope

to have a jury that includes persons deeply sensitive to the

rights and interests of pregnant women. Such jurors would

regard an attack on a pregnant woman as being a twofold

crime, comprising both the injury directly inflicted on the

mother and the stark emotional and physical trauma resulting

from injury to or loss of her pregnancy.

But such jurors also will be more likely than others to

believe that pregnant women have the right to exercise

autonomy over their bodies and to choose whether to abort a

pregnancy. I predict that many or most judges will bar

prosecutors and defense counsel from questioning prospective

jurors about their views on abortion or about related matters

such as their religion, religious practices, or political

affiliations. Forced to act largely on instinct, prosecutors

may be inclined to exercise peremptory challenges against

those prospective jurors who appear to be most sympathetic to

the rights of pregnant women. This result clearly would

frustrate the Bill's stated purpose of protecting unborn life

from criminal violence.

Third: The Bill's apparent purpose of influencing the

course of abortion politics offends the integrity of the

criminal law.

To anyone who cares deeply about the integrity of the

criminal law, this Bill's apparent attempt to insert an

abortion broadside into the criminal code is greatly

offensive. The power to inflict criminal penalties is, second

only to the power to wage war, the highest trust invested in

our institutions of government. Because the power to make and

enforce criminal laws inherently carries enormous potential

for abuse, those who exercise that power must always do so

with a spirit free of any ulterior political motive. The

American Bar Association's Standards Relating to the

Administration of Criminal Justice provide that ``[i]n making

the decision to prosecute, the prosecutor should give no

weight to the personal or political advantages or

disadvantages which might be involved . . . .'' (Standard

3-3.9(d).) Not all prosecutors conduct themselves with

fidelity to this principle, but we may readily condemn

those who do not. We may likewise condemn other public

actors who abuse the sacred public trust of the criminal

sanction for political ends.

For these reasons, I object to the current formulation of

the Unborn Victims of Violence Bill. As I am confident that

an alternative version of the Bill can fully accomplish its

stated purpose of protecting unborn life from criminal

violence while avoiding each of the difficulties I have

outlined above, I strongly encourage the Senate to modify the

Bill in the ways I have suggested above or in some other

manner that avoids the freighted and frankly politicized

terms, ``child in utero'' and ``child, who is in utero.''

My thanks to you for your consideration of my views.

Sincerely,

George Fisher,

Professor of Law.

Mr. President, how much time have I consumed?

I have 89 minutes remaining?

I thank the Chair.

I know the Senator from New Jersey is on the floor wishing time.

Good. May I ask the Senator how much time he would like?

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

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

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I wish to respond to some of the concerns and complaints of the distinguished Senator from Ohio about our substitute amendment. Let me take on his allegation that this substitute does not provide a punishment for harming a child. In fact, it does. It clearly states that the interruption of the normal course of the pregnancy relates to injury to the fetus. So there is a penalty for harm.

Secondly, he stated my amendment would not provide any penalty for ending a pregnancy; that it was a legal fiction in that sense.

I think this is clearly a misunderstanding of the plain text of our amendment. We explicitly create a separate offense for interrupting or ending a pregnancy, and we explicitly state the penalty for that offense is the same as if the crime had resulted in the injury or death of a mother. That is explicit.

So the intent is clear. I think quibbling about whether the language is perfect, the amendment does exactly what the underlying bill does. I could have cleared that up with a modification, but the Senator would not let me send a modification to the desk, which in terms of just sheer congeniality is rather surprising because that could have been made crystal clear to everyone.

So I firmly believe our amendment does exactly the same thing as the DeWine amendment, but it does not do something his amendment does, and that is create life at the point of conception. His use of the words ``child in utero'' as opposed to the California statute's use of the words ``or fetus'' make a huge difference in the law legally. Once again, I think that is clear.

The bottom line is we believe the intent and the crafting of this bill is very clear. We do not create a child in utero. We try to avoid getting to the point where life is defined.

We say that if the pregnancy is intentionally terminated and specific damages are done to the fetus, it is punished either through manslaughter in a second charge or murder in a second charge. I think the language is very clear. I think it is nitpicking to say it is not.

I can change it, but I am not allowed to change it. We have the modification, but we are not allowed to send the modification to the desk. I believe Members can vote on this amendment and know clearly they are assessing the same penalties for the same crimes as the underlying bill does. The only difference is we do not decide in our bill when life begins.

Let me read a couple of editorials and statements that have come out in recent days. There is one editorial this morning in the Los Angeles Times. I would like just quickly to read one paragraph:

The Senate is likely to vote today on a bill intended

largely to score points in the endless, wearying abortion

debate. The proposed Unborn Victims of Violence Act defines a

child in utero as a member of the species homo sapiens, at

any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. In

other words, the child exists at the moment of conception.

The House passed similar legislation last month. As with

nearly every aspect of the abortion debate, Americans are

deeply divided over when human life begins. However courts in

most States generally accord more rights to a fetus

considered viable outside the womb. DeWine's bill, S. 1019,

offers a sweeping declaration that ignores prevailing

scientific views and the national legal consensus. True, his

bill specifically bars prosecution for abortion, but its

effect, as DeWine intends, would be to give one side a new

legal bullet in the broader abortion wars.

That is clear. I will go on. The Los Angeles Times is not the only editorial page that believes that. I indicated earlier this is true of an editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

It is so easy to see how a federal unborn victims law,

coupled with unborn victims' laws in 29 States, will form the

basis of a new legal challenge to Roe v. Wade, a landmark

case that gives women the right to terminate certain

pregnancies. If a fetus who dies during a crime is a murder

victim, why, then, isn't abortion murder?

From the Buffalo News:

Passage by House Republicans of a bill that treats an

attack on a pregnant woman as separate crimes against her and

her unborn child is at heart an attempt to erode abortion

rights. It's a disingenuous and misguided bill and the Senate

should make sure it goes no further.

That is the Buffalo News.

The New York Times, April 25. This is 2001.

Packaged as a crime fighting measure unrelated to abortion,

the bill is actually aimed at fulfilling a long-time goal of

the right-to-life movement. The goal is to enshrine in law

the concept of fetal rights equal to but separate and

distinct from the rights of pregnant women.

Another editorial of the New York Times:

The bill would add to the Federal Criminal Code a separate

new offense to punish individuals who injure or cause

death to a child who is in utero.

The Washington Post, October 2, 1999,

What makes this bill a bad idea is the very aspect of it

that makes it attractive to its supporters, that it treats

the fetus as a person separate from the mother though that

same mother has a constitutional right to terminate her

pregnancy. This is useful rhetorically for the pro-life

world, but it is analytically incoherent.

The Blethen, ME, newspaper:

First considered in 1999, the bill purports to create new

Federal crimes for the intentional harm or death of a fetus

or unborn child. But, no matter how much supporters deny it,

the bill's real intent is to undermine women's reproductive

choices. If the bill is passed and signed into law, it would

weaken

the prudent and pragmatic decision handed down in Roe v.

Wade.

In my remarks, I have tried to show that this is a concerted effort. It need not be so. You can attach the same penalties for the same crimes, as our substitute does, without getting into the debate of where life begins. This bill chooses to get into the debate of where life begins and it defines life beginning at conception. It does so in a Federal criminal statute. It is one step in the building blocks of statutes that will constitute the ability to demolish Roe v. Wade.

I think every Member of this body who is pro-choice should vote against the underlying bill and for this amendment because in this amendment, without creating the separate person at conception, we establish the penalties for interruption or termination of a pregnancy. Those penalties are the same--same for murder, same for manslaughter, same for attempted murder, same for attempted manslaughter.

Again, I point out that in California what the State did 34 years ago was essentially amend the murder statute. By amending the definition in the Penal Code section 187, they provided a new definition of murder which said:

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus

with malice aforethought.

That is the bill under which the Laci Peterson case will be brought to court. It is a different idea because it clearly says that it is a fetus.

Additionally, there is information from those who wish to continue this pursuit to make a fetus a human life, to make an embryo a human life, that this is a concerted strategy aimed at weakening Roe v. Wade.

What we have tried to do is mimic the House bill with respect to the penalties but connect it to the termination of a pregnancy and thereby avoid the distinction of exactly when life begins for the purposes of statute law, in this case criminal statute law, and therefore avoid the problem.

I have indicated, from legal scholars, where they believe this will undermine prosecutions in this situation because they will encourage peremptory challenges of individuals who may have strong beliefs in choice and, therefore, not one likely to recognize that an embryo, or a day pregnancy, or a week pregnancy, or a month pregnancy is, in fact, a living being subject to criminal sanctions if their rights are violated.

It is a complicated issue. But it is a significant issue. It is an important issue.

The more I look at it and see the strategy of the anti-choice movement, the more I see that if you can establish a beachhead of rights in Federal criminal law here, and another statute there, and in a third statute somewhere else, you then begin the march to the Supreme Court in an attack on Roe. Roe sets up a trimester system giving the woman total rights in the first trimester, and then the State the right in the second and third trimester to intervene in certain cases, which has been the case in many State laws that have been passed. You now give the Supreme Court the ability to begin to say: ``It is in law that the embryo has certain rights'' and, therefore, forms the bulwark of the attack on Roe.

You also do something else insidious. I think you very much intervene in stem cell research. Stem cell research, and a good deal of the most auspicious of that research, deals with embryonic stem cells. If you have a law that says an embryo or a zygote is, in fact, a human life, then it is murder if you use that embryo for stem cell research, just as it becomes murder if that embryo is harmed or rejected in the course of an attack on a woman. We avoid all of that.

We simply say termination of a pregnancy, and termination of a pregnancy in the course of a criminal attack creates a second charge, and that second charge carries with it the same penalty as the original charge against the woman herself would carry.

That is the clear intent.

I regret that the Senator would not allow me to modify my amendment. I can never in 12 years remember any Senator being refused the right to modify an amendment, but perhaps we are playing by new rules these days. I know what goes around comes around in this body. I regret that.

But I believe on its face our substitute amendment is clear, it is definitive, it will stand the test of time, and it will prevent what we hope to prevent, which is the first major law which decides when life begins.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I yield as much time as she requires to the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer. She was here a moment ago.

I yield as much time as she may require.

Mr. President, it is extraordinarily difficult to respond to the litany of atrocities the Senator from Kansas has just enumerated. I cannot help but wonder: What kind of animal can do this to a woman who is 7 or 8 or 9 months pregnant? I cannot help but wonder how our society produces men who would do this kind of thing to a woman. I cannot help, as a mother and a grandmother, to share with those for whom this is a life scar that will never, never heal.

And I understand it. I understand the need to want to punish, and understand the need to want to say this child--who is so close to birth, who would be capable of life outside of the womb at that moment--is a victim because, in fact, that child is a victim. I appreciate that and I understand it.

One of the reasons at the beginning of my remarks I said this bill is so controversial is because definitions have different meanings in law. The controversial part in the underlying bill is the definition of ``child in utero'' and ``child, who is in utero'' because the bill language is: ``means a member of the species homo sapiens,'' in other words, a person, ``at any stage of development''--``any stage of development,'' not when the fetus is what they call ``quick,'' which means it is capable of movement; not when it is viable, which means it is capable of life outside the womb; but at ``any stage of development.''

This is what causes the problem in the law once you set it in the law. That is what is so distressing about this bill. Because every Member of this Senate wants to vote yes. Every Member of this Senate wants to say: Throw the book at that animal. Who could be so callous? Who could be without any morality? Who could be so cruel? Who could practice such a heinous crime? Who could punch a 9-month pregnant woman in the stomach to the extent that it causes the killing of her unborn child?

So I am there. I am there entirely. I am there completely. But, again, it is complicated because the definition we are working from gives rights at the point of conception. It does not differentiate. It does not say the 8-month-old baby or the 7-month-old baby, who is capable of life today, is what we are talking about. It says the recently fertilized egg is what we are talking about. That is the difference.

It is so hard, because you stand here and you listen and your heart goes out, and you think of these beautiful women and their beautiful children, and some animal comes at them, and in some cases kills them both, in some cases kills one, and in some cases kills the other. Sure, throw the book at him.

I will go a step further. I would give them a death penalty because they have taken two lives, and I do believe a child at that period of gestation is a life.

The problem is the bill language, which begins this at the point of conception.

Now, every single case presented on this Senate floor this morning is of a child who is viable outside of the womb. But the bill covers children that are not children; that are a day old in the womb, that are at conception. That is the problem we have with this bill. Because once you give an embryo, at the point of conception, all of the legal rights of a human being, and you have said that embryo, then, if it is lost to humankind, is murdered, you have created the legal case to go against Roe v. Wade in Federal law for the first time in history.

Now, California and the Laci Peterson case was mentioned a great deal. The prosecution of Scott Peterson will be conducted under California law, which has amended the definition of the penal code section 187--which is first degree murder--to refer to a fetus. But then other parts of law in California only imposes criminal liability starting at 7 to 8 weeks of gestation. So where the California law effectively covers exactly the situation that the Senator from Kansas is mentioning--all of those situations--it takes into consideration the period prior to 7 to 8 weeks of gestation.

And, in fact, many other State laws do as well.

The problem is this is a much more comprehensive definition that doesn't make any of the distinctions that are made by many of the States with respect to these criminal statutes. Many of them cover when the fetus has quickened, which means the fetus or the child is capable of movement, and many of them cover after viability.

This creates the situation where the embryo has the rights of a person. That is the problem for many of us.

The Senator from Ohio--and I think he knows I respect him; we have worked on so many things--says don't bring in the abortion debate. But I can't help but bring in the abortion debate because the proponents-- not the Senator from Ohio, but other proponents--have said ``this is part of our strategy--this is what we want to achieve.''

Then you get somebody like me and Senator Boxer and other cosponsors who want to protect a woman's right to control her own reproductive system, particularly in those early months, who read this bill and see the definition and say: ``There is the ball game--here we lose big time.''

It is like you say to me, ``gotcha,'' because I want to punish that guy who beat that woman to death, who killed her unborn child, because I know that child is capable of life. You know that child is capable of life. But to give that right to a fertilized egg or an embryo is a different thing. Your bill gives that right to a fertilized egg or an embryo or a zygote.

Then, when I go out and I look at what people have said about the bill, I see these statements, such as the statement of Mr. Casey:

In as many areas as we can, we want to put on the books

that the embryo is a person.

This bill puts on the books that an embryo is a person, a member of the species Homo sapiens, in bill language. This bill establishes exactly what the right-to-life movement wants to establish, that an embryo is a person. That

sets the stage for a jurist to acknowledge that human beings at any stage of development deserve protection. Once you have the embryo being a human being, then that human being at any stage of development deserves protection--meaning deserves rights under the law, which this establishes because it makes that embryo a victim--even protection that would trump a woman's interest in terminating a pregnancy. Think of that, that would trump a woman's interest in terminating a pregnancy.

Now, I am one who believes there should not be abortion if the baby is viable. I agree with Roe because it provides the woman choice in the first 3 months of a pregnancy where there is not viability. I lived and grew up at a time when abortion was illegal in California. I saw a good friend commit suicide because she was pregnant and in college. I saw women pass the plate so someone could go to Tijuana for an illegal abortion. You would say that is not relevant to this debate--``don't discuss it; don't bring it up in the Senate--just think about the mothers and the babies who were killed.''

I want to do that, too. And I think about the mothers and the babies. I want to throw the book at those guys. And the death penalty, too. I don't have a problem with that because I believe by your actions, you can vitiate your own right to live. That has been true for me since 1971, as well. That has been my consistent position.

But once in a statute you create a fertilized egg as a human being with specific rights, the march to eliminate Roe v. Wade is on its way in statute. That is what is happening with this bill. That is what I object to. There is no reference to viability.

I have the list of what all the States do. They all do different things. Many of them recognize it. For example, seven States impose criminal liability starting when a fetus is quick, in other words, capable of movement: Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Washington. Seven States impose criminal liability starting at the point of viability: Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee. So there are many differences. Different States do different things, even when they have this law.

But what this does, what this underlying bill does, is say from the moment of conception there is a baby and that baby is a human being and that baby has rights.

That is a problem in the criminal law. As the Stanford law professor pointed out, if a case comes before the court where, let's say, a woman was assaulted and she was 3 days pregnant, and the forensics could establish that she was 3 days pregnant, and you are voir-diring people for a jury and you are telling them that there is a second victim, and it is a fertilized egg that is 3 days old and there is a 20-year charge pending or life imprisonment pending for that 3- or 5-day-old fertilized egg, then this is what the law professor meant when he said: ``You are going to get the very people who are the most interested in protecting the woman being reluctant to go on that jury.''

Not every case under this law is going to be post-viability, going to be like the cases that the Senator from Kansas brought forward, where I would say: ``Give the guy the death penalty.'' I wouldn't have a problem with that. They did terrible things, the acts of an animal. But that is not what this law says. That is the difference.

What we have tried to do is say: If you end a pregnancy, if you harm a pregnancy, the same penalties would apply that apply in the House bill and Senator DeWine's bill.

I wish this could have gone to the Judiciary. I wish it wasn't rule XIV. I wish I had an opportunity in committee, in markup, to make these points.

Let me go over once again, so that everybody is crystal clear on the point of the creation of a separate offense, where a defendant violates any of the enumerated Federal crimes, our bills are identical. On the provision that the separate offense is punished the same as the violation of the enumerated Federal crimes, our bill is identical. On the provision that if the separate offense harms or ends the pregnancy, the punishment is the same as a violation would be for the underlying crime: murder, manslaughter, or assault, as appropriate. Our bills are identical.

With respect to the provision of penalty for death of a fetus is a maximum life sentence, our bills are identical. With respect to the provision of penalty for harm to the fetus is a maximum 20-year sentence, our bills are identical. And both bills do not impose the death penalty. Where our bills are different--and this is important--is the definition of when life begins.

The underlying bill defines life as beginning at conception.

(Mr. ALEXANDER assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, we do not address when life begins. I just read Justice Blackmun's opinion in Roe v. Wade. It is interesting, because he goes back to the Stoics, the Catholic Church, to the Middle Ages, and discusses the difference of opinion of when life begins, the difference of opinions in science. Then he reaches his conclusion that because these differences are so vast, the law generally does not directly enjoin that point of when life begins.

That is the problem we have here. That is the dilemma the Senate faces. This bill is on a fast track. This bill has passed the House. This bill has been subject to a Rule XIV, without a hearing, from the year 2000. You have heard the most poignant, disturbing, heartrending stories on this floor. I respond to them like everybody else does. But I also know if you give a fertilized egg rights in the Federal law, it is going to have repercussions downline. If you declare in this bill you can prove a 1-day-old fertilized egg was a victim and therefore murdered, how do you turn around and say in another law you can proceed with embryonic stem cell research? You have the same 1-day-old fertilized egg. If it is murder here, is it not murder there? What are the repercussions of doing that? They are enormous.

The other side doesn't talk about this. They talk about women who are 7 or 8 or 9 months pregnant. They talk about the most heinous and brutal assaults. But the bill does much more. The bill says a 1-day-old fertilized egg is a member of the species Homo sapiens. Translation: It is a person. Translation: It is a human being.

That is the problem, and this Senate, before it passes out this bill, should understand it and should understand there is an alternative, and the alternative aims to impose the same penalties, but doesn't create that victim fertilized egg, 1 day old--by nobody's stretch a human being--possible of becoming a human being, but not a human being. I have live cells, but they are not capable of producing life.

But once the child, the fetus in the womb, is capable of living, that is a different story. I am the first one to admit that is a different story. But everything in this bill, the underlying bill, goes back to the basic definition of what is being done here, and that is that personhood, life, is being given to a 1-day-old fertilized egg.

Now I have one child biologically, I have three stepdaughters, and I have five grandchildren. I have seen close friends--I know the glory of motherhood. I know the catastrophe that takes place when you lose a child. I have had miscarriages, so I understand that. But then there is the march to turn back the clock to when I was in college and abortion was illegal. Then after college, when I went out into the world, I actually sentenced women convicted of abortion in the State of California in the State prison. I saw the terrible morbidity and the terrible things they did illegally in back-alley abortions. At that point, I said this is so terrible. Then Roe v. Wade passed in 1973, and a woman could control her own reproductive system, particularly in that first trimester. I thought to myself, we should never go back to the way it was.

My concern about the underlying bill is it is the first bridge to take us back to the way it was because of the definition that is in this bill, which gives human rights to a 1-day-old fertilized egg in utero. That is the problem for me. That is the problem for a lot of us in the Senate. Whether it will be enough, I don't know.

I tried to perfect the bill. Remember, this was a rule XIV. We didn't have a chance to mark it up. I tried to perfect it. Unfortunately, I was not granted the usual privilege of being able to send a modified amendment to the

desk. But the intent is clear. I have made it crystal clear in my remarks. We will have the same penalties for the same crimes as the underlying bill. We will avoid one thing, and that is determining when life, for the purpose of law, actually begins.

I yield the floor. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, could you give us the time remaining on both sides, please?

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this is a difficult discussion because I am very fond of both the Senators with whom I am debating. However, I certainly do not agree with the statement the Senator from Ohio just made with respect to the definition that is in the bill.

I will read the definition that is in the bill. The term ``a child who is in utero'' means:

A member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of

development who is carried in the womb.

The one thing neither Senator DeWine nor I know is how fast the egg gets to the womb, but I think it is pretty fast.

I just had a note passed to me by someone more erudite than I. I think we can all put this in our lexicon.

It takes about 7 days for a fertilized egg to get to the womb, but there is also the belief the underlying bill applies at the moment of conception. Let us say the egg gets to the womb in 7 days. The problem those of us on this side of the aisle have with the bill is it gives the status of a human being to that egg as soon as it is in the womb, and that creates for the first time in Federal criminal law a scenario whereby if that egg is hurt, criminal assault charges, criminal manslaughter charges, criminal murder charges can be brought because that egg, at any stage of development--they do not use trimesters, they do not use any way of deciding the development--at any stage of development, that egg in utero is a member of the species Homo sapiens, and that is where this, for criminal purposes, becomes so difficult.

That is why the letter from the professor from Stanford, who runs the criminal prosecution unit at Stanford Law School, becomes so relevant, because let's say I am in a jury pool and a woman has been beaten up and she was 7 days pregnant--at that moment it is a fertilized egg--and she lost the fertilized egg, and I was told the penalty would be an additional 10 years in prison because she lost that egg. Well, I would have to make a decision as to whether I want to be on that jury. So what the professor says is this can actually work contrary to our intent, particularly in these early cases.

He also said he suspects it is dependent on the administration as to whether early cases will be brought to a court or not, but the point is we cannot make that decision. We cannot say this is only going to be used when a mother is 7 months, 8 months, or 9 months, pregnant. In the horrific circumstances described by the Senator from Kansas, which got all of our hearts beating faster, we cannot assume that all cases will be of that type. The legislation clearly says for the purposes of definition the child is defined from the point it is in the womb at any stage of development as a child, as a person, with rights. That is the dilemma and that is why we have tried to craft a bill that does not do that, that says if someone harms or ends a pregnancy, they are subject to the same penalties.

This body is going to have to decide--and it is a very hard question. I think this is one of the most controversial bills we have had. This is probably why this bill has been around for 5 years now. I think it had a hearing in Judiciary in 2000. It has not had a hearing since. It has been rule XIVed to the floor.

Again, I wanted to make some small changes--I was not permitted to do so--by modifying my amendment. I believe, and my chief counsel believes, this bill provides the same penalties. The one difference is the definition is different. We use harm or end pregnancy, rather than that the unborn child becomes a child--well, that a child in utero and child who is in utero means a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. That is the problem and that is where for those of us who want to protect a woman's right to choose and who read the statements that are put out by the far right, we take them at their word that this is where they are going.

I did not make this up. This is a rather well-known statement. It clearly says, ``In as many areas as we can, we went to put on the books,''--this statute on the books--``that the embryo is a person . . . ''

For me, I am also very interested in being able to see that there are prudent regulations and Federal controls that will allow embryonic stem cell research. Well, if it is murder of a 7-day-old fertilized egg, then it is murder if it is used in stem cell research as well. That is where I think this is going.

There are also statements by people who want to ban embryonic stem cell research that also say this is the strategy. So I say, why get into it at all? Why not just say, if someone ends or terminates a pregnancy, the same penalties will apply. That is what we have tried to do. That is the intent of what we are doing.

I think the votes are very close. At this point, I will yield the floor, but I reserve the remainder of my time.

Equally divided.

Mr. President, how much time does the other side have remaining?

Mr. President, I agree that the debate is concluding, and I thank the Senator from Ohio. This is a serious subject and it is a difficult subject and it is a controversial subject. I appreciate the manner in which the debate has been conducted, because I think it has been conducted in the best tradition of the Senate, with the exception of your not letting me modify my amendment. But I will only interpret that as caused by the fact that the other side is worried and doesn't want my amendment to get any better, so they refuse to let me modify it.

We have two different bills here. I think we have expressed the differences. The underlying bill does recognize the unborn at any stage of development, as long as they are in the womb, as a human being, as a victim and with rights.

My bill, rather than enter into where life begins, at what point in this gestation period life actually begins enough to say this is a person with rights--it doesn't get into that. It takes the penalties and does a double charge and says if the predicate crime is present, and you carry out the crime to harm or end the pregnancy, it is a double charge so you are charged accordingly.

The hard part of this is that we all know there has been a march to turn back Roe v. Wade. Every Member of

this Senate knows it. We have had vote after vote after vote. Since 1994, the pro-choice side has lost most of the votes. That is irrevocable fact. We know the march is on.

So those of us who are pro-choice naturally are going to look at laws to see if those laws can constitute, in addition to what they are supposed to do, any kind of bulwark from which to attack Roe.

Because of the definition of a child in utero being, at any stage of development, a member of the species Homo sapiens, we come to a conclusion. We asked the question, first, why do they use that definition? So many States have passed laws and many of them have used different definitions, why do they select that definition?

Answer, because it accomplishes the purpose of determining that once a fertilized egg is in the womb, it becomes a human being. That, then, buttresses statements such as this one on the easel.

This isn't the only statement. I can give another statement by another professor which I used in my opening remarks. It is a statement of a Republican strategist. Professor Charo is at the University of Wisconsin. She made the statement recently:

If you can get enough of these bricks in place, [meaning

laws] draw enough examples from different parts of life and

law where embryos are treated as babies, then how can the

Supreme Court say they are not? This is, without question, a

conscious strategy.

So if you believe it is without question a conscious strategy--and I, based on the history of how the erosion against Roe is being waged, piece by piece, bit by bit, law by law, action by action, I believe it is a conscious strategy. The hard part about it for me is that you feel this terrible empathy for women who have been the victims and who are 7, 8, 9 months pregnant. That has been every case that has been before us today, it has reached that stage of gestation, where you know your child can exist outside of the womb and some animal has taken the child away from you by beating you to the point where they have killed the child and in many of the same cases--the Senator from Kansas illustrated today--killed the mother as well. We want to throw the book at that perpetrator. And we do. We believe our bill is clear, and we believe our bill will stand the test of time.

So we ask the Senate to support the substitute amendment and turn down the underlying bill. I reserve the remainder of my time. I yield.

I yield but I am reserving the remainder of my time. I may have something to say in a minute or so, and I may not.

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

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

Mr. President, I think I have just a short time left. How much time do I have?

Mr. President, for those who might have gotten involved in this late, I would like to use the 5 minutes to say a few things.

The first is that this is one of the most difficult areas in which to legislate because it is filled with so much emotion and so much difference of opinion. It is one of those great cultural problems that exists out there in our real world, as opposed to this world, where human lives are very much affected.

On the one hand, you have the situation the Senator from Kansas, the Senator from Ohio, and the Senator from South Carolina pointed out-- situations where you have women who have terrible things done to them. It is just so hard for us to realize how that can happen, that any man can be that callous to beat to death a woman who is 7, 8, or 9 months pregnant; can use a knife; can cut her fetus when you know that child is capable of life.

I understand what drives this desire. What drives the desire is to see that there is equal punishment for the taking of that life, which I believe is a life because it can sustain life. Its pulmonary functions have cleared out in the last few weeks of pregnancy and those kinds of things. But basically it is a baby, and basically it is viable. I understand all of that.

When you get down to definitions, and when you look at the statute itself, what concerns many of us and makes us understand we are dealing with something much more than just what I have said is the definition of a child in utero who is made by this bill a person, a member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development as long as it is in the womb--that could be 3 days, I am now told, from conception--you are not only creating criminal law for the woman who can produce a child who can live and whose life is taken away but we are creating a sanction for an egg that is fertilized that may be 3 days old. That sanction can be murder and carry with it the full weight of murdering another human being. It is a very heavy sanction. You are giving rights to that newly conceived egg of a full person.

There are many of us who say this is another way of doing this. That is just saying if you harm or end a pregnancy, these full charges will revert.

The reason we do it that way is because it exists all around us. The fact that there is a reason for how this child in utero is defined and the reason is, as I have tried to elucidate--and there are many other cases--``In as many areas as we can, we want to put on the books that the embryo is a person.''

Why do they want to do that? It is simple. They want to do it because if we legislate, and the Federal crime is that if a 3-day-old egg is a person and has rights, then abortion under this same context is murder or manslaughter or assault. Full rights of a person are given.

I think that is a problem when you codify it in statute. This body is then saying: Yes, we agree. Therefore, a case can be brought against abortion of any kind at any time and also against embryonic stem-cell research that some of us believe is the new horizon of medicine, which is capable of finding cures for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, and juvenile diabetes.

Just to sum up, I hope Members of the Senate will vote for the substitute amendment and against the underlying bill.

I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished Senator from Ohio. It has been a very interesting morning.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his leadership on this issue, and I join him wholeheartedly.

Funding for public health programs has never been more critical. The President's budget, for the first time in 10 years, includes a decrease in Function 550. This is the portion of the budget that covers cancer research, AIDS treatments and new discoveries, potential health threats, including anthrax or other biological or chemical attacks--all through the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the Indian Health Service, and others. If we do not adopt this amendment, all of those programs are threatened with cuts. Let me speak about how this amendment works. It increases the budget for discretionary public health programs for fiscal year 2005 by $6 billion. That is a 12-percent increase over the fiscal year 2004 level.

Now, a 12-percent increase in Function 550 is supported by more than 400

health groups. And, this increase is also paid for. It is paid for by a 61-cent increase in the federal tax on tobacco, which will bring in about $8 billion per year. Mr. President, $6 billion of the $8 billion covers the cost of increasing funding for public health, and the remaining $2 billion goes for deficit reduction. It is a prudent step to take at this point in time.

Now, you might say, why? We know tobacco kills. And we know that prevention saves lives. For the first time in my State--California--we have had a drop in lung cancer incidences and death among women because of the tobacco prevention programs that are taking place. So I think an increase in the tobacco tax is an appropriate means to support a 12- percent increase in cancer research.

Let me speak to that for just a moment. We now have seen the mapping of the human genome. This holds tremendous promise for finding cures for diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and cancer, by attacking their genetic roots.

We have seen advances in genomics, in molecular biology, which have made the development of new, targeted cancer therapies such as Gleevec, for chronic myeloid leukemia; Herceptin, for breast cancer; and, most recently, Avastin, for colon cancer.

We now have drugs that are so advanced that they can target just the bad cancer cells and not harm the good cells. These drugs are amazingly effective and are less toxic for the patient.

I have been vice chair of the National Dialogue on Cancer, now called C-Change, for 4 years, and co-chair of the Senate Cancer Coalition for even longer than that. If there ever is a time to continue the march to solve major health problems before this Nation, this is that time.

This amendment allows that to be done, with a 12-percent increase for public health programs. And it is fully offset. It would be funded from an increase in the tobacco tax, a tax that I think is an appropriate measure--about $2 billion for deficit reduction and $6 billion to fund this amendment.

I urge the Senate's approval of this increase in basic health functions across the board.

Mr. President, I yield my remaining time to the Senator from Illinois.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, this is an amendment from myself and Senators Kyl, Bingaman, Hutchison, Kennedy, Cornyn, Boxer, Domenici, Clinton, McCain, Schumer, Graham, Lautenberg, Cantwell, Corzine, Feingold, and Edwards. It has to do with the State criminal assistance program for illegal aliens. We have tried to get floor time and have been unable to do so.

Reserving the right to object. Is the Senator saying I have no right to introduce my amendment?

For the record, it is my understanding that the amendment had been presented to your staff yesterday. We have sought time. I recognize this amendment may not be one of your priorities. It is a huge amendment for many States that have very high costs, and I have presented it in the past. It has been unanimously adopted by this body in the budget bill. I offered a separate amendment which was an authorization for $850 million, which passed the Senate and is now in the House. There is no number from the President in the budget. That is why I am submitting it at this time.

Mr. President, this is amendment No. 2753, on behalf of Senators Hollings, Breaux, Dodd, Corzine, Schumer, Biden, Mikulski, Murray, Graham of Florida, and Collins.

This amendment does not cost. It is a sense of the Senate, and it essentially would allow large ports that need to produce security to do this through multiyear contracting or letters of intent. There is a real problem in going year by year with budget funds for port security. The port of Los Angeles-Long Beach is 15 miles long. They are the second and third largest ports in the Nation. It simply cannot do what is necessary to be done to secure the port unless there is some form of multiyear funding agreement. This amendment would allow that to take place, at least in terms of voicing the Senate's view.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the amendment offered by Senator Lugar and myself to restore the International Affairs function 150 account to the President's requested funding level and add additional resources to the fight against global

The Federal budget deficit will reach a record $477 billion this year, according to figures released in February by the Congressional Budget Office. And, if you believe the President's own numbers, the

budget deficit will come in at $521 billion this year. This is a stunning turnaround from 3 years ago, when the budget was in surplus. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Over the next 10 years, the deficit is projected to grow to $5.5 trillion--another record.

Deficits do matter, and unless we face up to them, they could seriously harm our Nation's economy. Here is why:

First, deficits mean increased spending on interest instead of priorities. In the short term, deficits can help stimulate the economy or pay for emergency spending. But in the long term, they limit our Nation's ability to fund much needed priorities. This means less money for education, less money for environmental protection, and less money for health care. The administration--largely because of the projected deficits--has pledged to limit spending on domestic programs this year to 1 percent growth.

The budget before the Senate today reflects these constraints by: failing to reimburse state and local governments for the federal responsibilities in paying for the incarceration of illegal immigrants; reducing the effectiveness of our police officers by cutting almost $700 million from the COPS program; cutting almost $250 million from firefighter grants; underfunding No Child Left Behind by $8.9 billion; and underfunding Port Security by more than $550 million. These are not frivolous or unimportant programs: these are vital priorities that must be funded.

Last year we spent $318 billion in interest on the national debt alone. Our total non-defense discretionary spending last year was only modestly larger, coming in at $421 billion. Every dollar of that $318 billion was money that could have been available for education, healthcare, defense, infrastructure, job development, homeland security--or to return to the American people as tax cuts, if we had paid down the debt.

Second, deficits lead to interest rate increases. We have been fortunate in recent years; interest rates and inflation have remained low. But as the economy picks up, the downward pressure on interest rates will be relieved and the impact of deficits will be felt. This will add huge expenses to variable home mortgages and auto loans. An increase of just 1 percent would add $2,000 per year to the cost of a $200,000 home mortgage. This is more than the majority of American taxpayers will receive from the President's latest tax cut.

Third, deficits prevent us from addressing the looming Social Security and Medicare crises. This is an issue that is not addressed in this budget resolution. We can not continue to avoid it forever. The retirement of the baby boomers will place a tremendous strain on our social safety net. In fact, if we do not address the problem, the Medicare trust fund will go broke by the year 2030, and the Social Security trust fund by 2040.

Our Nation was poised to deal with these crises at the end of the Clinton administration. In 1998, the 30-year trend of deficit spending had been reversed, and we paid off $448 billion of the Nation's publicly held debt. This opportunity, however, has been lost. Not only have we failed to shore up the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, but we are also tapping the Social Security trust fund to pay our bills--to the tune of $164 billion this year alone.

So what do we do?

One possibility is to simply continue along our current path and pass our problems on to our children and grandchildren. In fact, the budget resolution we are dealing with today raises the federal debt ceiling by $644 billion--essentially borrowing from future generations because we are unable to muster the political will necessary to pay today's obligations today.

So I strongly believe that the time has come to chart a different course, and make the tough choices that the President and this budget resolution avoid making. We must adopt a balanced approach to both taxes and spending and return to a program of fiscal sanity. This is what we did when I first came to the Senate over a decade ago. At that time, a small, bipartisan group of Senators came together to get our fiscal house in order. Democrats worked to bring spending under control. And Republicans pledged not to push for additional tax cuts. Today, we must come together again to address the deficit and restore our Nation's economic security.

On taxes, I believe that we must consider rolling back the tax cut on the wealthiest in the Nation, to bring the income tax rate from its current 35 percent back up to 38.6 percent--what it was just last year. This will affect those who earn more than $312,000 per year. And, will impact less than one percent of American taxpayers, but will save nearly $130 billion over the next decade. Making the President's tax cuts permanent, as he called for in his State of the Union Address, represents the height of fiscal irresponsibility. In fact, the Tax Policy Institute estimates the cost of making these tax cuts permanent would cost $1.8 trillion over ten years--$1.8 trillion at just the time that baby boomers will start retiring and Social Security and Medicare need to be stabilized.

The tragedy of our current circumstance is that, given the surpluses he inherited, President Bush should have the resources available to devote additional spending to healthcare, education, and the environment. But the wrong policies, at the wrong time, combined with the war on terror, escalating the 2001 tax cuts, and now moving to make them permanent, plus the recession, have contributed toward the largest budget deficit in history.

And now, the fact of the matter is that we are going to need to tighten our belts and bring spending under control. I have no problem holding the line on spending, but believe that it must be done in the context of a more responsible approach to tax policy.

Finally, we need to take a good, hard look at Social Security and Medicare, and start addressing some of the deeper structural problems with these programs now--before they fall into crisis. These are not easy answers. But holding off on additional tax cuts, bringing spending under control, and dealing with Social Security and Medicare is the only path to long term fiscal order, a balanced budget, and a healthy and vibrant economy.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the resolution submitted by Senator Dodd to express our condolences to the families of the victims of today's Madrid bombings and our strong solidarity with the Spanish people in the fight against terror. This is a sad and tragic day.

This morning, nearly 200 innocent people were killed and 1,000 injured when 10 near-simultaneous explosions hit 3 separate trains at the height of the city's rush hour.

Spanish police found and detonated 3 other bombs. One official described it as the worst terrorist attack in Spain's history.

I condemn in the strongest possible terms this vicious and bloody terrorist attack.

The Madrid bombings appear to be part of an ongoing terror campaign by the Basque separatist group ETA, a group designated by the United States and the European Union as a terrorist organization.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families.

Americans know all too well the pain and destruction caused by terror and we stand shoulder to shoulder with our Spanish friends at this difficult hour just as they stood with us on September 11.

We two peoples share the values of democracy, freedom, and respect for human rights. We have worked and we will continue to work together in the fight against terror and in bringing those responsible for this brutal attack to justice. Terrorists must know that we will not back down in the face of their crimes.

I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Feingold and Senator Lincoln to introduce the ``Bring Our Children Home Act,'' a bill to help the thousands of children who are abducted by family members and taken to a foreign country each year.

Despite an increasingly high level of Congressional and public concern regarding international parental abduction and the wrongful retention of American children abroad, the situation facing American children and their left-behind parents in these cases has not improved and continues to be a serious problem.

The Bring Our Children Home Act would help prevent both domestic and international family abductions. Specifically, the bill would:

Establish a right of action in Federal court for resolution of child custody disputes;

Give law enforcement the authority to detain any child who has been entered into the FBI's National Crime Information Center's database under any category of the Missing Person File for 24 hours or until a disposition can be made;

Amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to require information on each country's efforts to prohibit international child abduction;

Require federally-funded supervised visitation centers to provide services in child custody cases wherein a State court finds that there is a risk of abduction and orders supervised visitation as a preventive measure; and

Most importantly, it would provide a national registry of custody orders which would allow law enforcement the confidence to intervene in situations and aid a custodial parent to be reunited with their child, or to stop an abduction in progress. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is aware of cases in which law enforcement felt unable to intervene because parents represented conflicting orders. Such conflict has lead to international abductions that could have been prevented.

As of May 31, 2003, the U.S. Department of State's Office of Children's Issues was aware of 1060 international abduction cases, 904 open abduction cases and 156 access cases, initiated by U.S.-based parents seeking a child's return or access to a child currently in a foreign country. The actual number of children being kept abroad is higher than this, as these are open cases, not numbers of children. And new cases are reported every week.

As international marriages have increased in recent decades, so have accusations of international child abduction according to Karolina Walkin, a U.S. State Department spokeswoman.

In a 2001 Contra Costa Times article, parents complained that the Justice Department has little interest in their international abduction cases and the State Department was unwilling to disrupt diplomatic relations over abducted children. Written policy directs consular officers to remain neutral, no matter the circumstances.

A 2000 General Accounting Office report noted that the FBI has made limited use of the 1993 International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act. Despite at least 1,000 international parental abductions from the United States annually, the Bureau has prosecuted only 62 cases in 7 years.

The Bring Our Children Home Act requires the Department of Justice and Department of State to report to Congress on International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act warrants and extradition. We must make sure that we are utilizing the tools that we have available to recover abducted children.

The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is an international agreement among 54 nations, including the United States, that established civil procedures to follow when locating, accessing, or returning abducted children.

This legislation would provide additional support for left-behind parents and it would ease their ability to bring resolution to their case and their children home.

For countries that are not party to the Hague Convention, it is a case- and country-specific matter. For example, in Saudi Arabia, a wife or child of a Saudi man may not leave the country without his prior written permission. There have been many cases in which adult female American citizens have been unable to leave Saudi Arabia because they have not been able to obtain the written permission of their male guardian, regardless of their constitutionally guaranteed rights as a U.S. citizen.

This legislation would require that the Department of State report to Congress on their progress in negotiating with countries who are not part of the Hague Convention, such as Saudi Arabia.

The ``Bring Our Children Home Act'' would be an important step in helping these families reunite. It gives law enforcement the tools they need to identify children illegally abducted by family members and return them home.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Feingold and Senator Lincoln to introduce the ``Bring Our Children Home Act,'' a bill to help the thousands of children who are abducted by family members and taken to a foreign country each year.

Despite an increasingly high level of Congressional and public concern regarding international parental abduction and the wrongful retention of American children abroad, the situation facing American children and their left-behind parents in these cases has not improved and continues to be a serious problem.

The Bring Our Children Home Act would help prevent both domestic and international family abductions. Specifically, the bill would:

Establish a right of action in Federal court for resolution of child custody disputes;

Give law enforcement the authority to detain any child who has been entered into the FBI's National Crime Information Center's database under any category of the Missing Person File for 24 hours or until a disposition can be made;

Amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to require information on each country's efforts to prohibit international child abduction;

Require federally-funded supervised visitation centers to provide services in child custody cases wherein a State court finds that there is a risk of abduction and orders supervised visitation as a preventive measure; and

Most importantly, it would provide a national registry of custody orders which would allow law enforcement the confidence to intervene in situations and aid a custodial parent to be reunited with their child, or to stop an abduction in progress. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is aware of cases in which law enforcement felt unable to intervene because parents represented conflicting orders. Such conflict has lead to international abductions that could have been prevented.

As of May 31, 2003, the U.S. Department of State's Office of Children's Issues was aware of 1060 international abduction cases, 904 open abduction cases and 156 access cases, initiated by U.S.-based parents seeking a child's return or access to a child currently in a foreign country. The actual number of children being kept abroad is higher than this, as these are open cases, not numbers of children. And new cases are reported every week.

As international marriages have increased in recent decades, so have accusations of international child abduction according to Karolina Walkin, a U.S. State Department spokeswoman.

In a 2001 Contra Costa Times article, parents complained that the Justice Department has little interest in their international abduction cases and the State Department was unwilling to disrupt diplomatic relations over abducted children. Written policy directs consular officers to remain neutral, no matter the circumstances.

A 2000 General Accounting Office report noted that the FBI has made limited use of the 1993 International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act. Despite at least 1,000 international parental abductions from the United States annually, the Bureau has prosecuted only 62 cases in 7 years.

The Bring Our Children Home Act requires the Department of Justice and Department of State to report to Congress on International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act warrants and extradition. We must make sure that we are utilizing the tools that we have available to recover abducted children.

The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is an international agreement among 54 nations, including the United States, that established civil procedures to follow when locating, accessing, or returning abducted children.

This legislation would provide additional support for left-behind parents and it would ease their ability to bring resolution to their case and their children home.

For countries that are not party to the Hague Convention, it is a case- and country-specific matter. For example, in Saudi Arabia, a wife or child of a Saudi man may not leave the country without his prior written permission. There have been many cases in which adult female American citizens have been unable to leave Saudi Arabia because they have not been able to obtain the written permission of their male guardian, regardless of their constitutionally guaranteed rights as a U.S. citizen.

This legislation would require that the Department of State report to Congress on their progress in negotiating with countries who are not part of the Hague Convention, such as Saudi Arabia.

The ``Bring Our Children Home Act'' would be an important step in helping these families reunite. It gives law enforcement the tools they need to identify children illegally abducted by family members and return them home.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Madam President, I rise today to commemorate the 45th anniversary of the Tibetan Uprising of 1959. I sincerely hope that Chinese and Tibetan leaders will take this opportunity to work together in a spirit of cooperation and dialogue to overcome differences that have plagued relations between China and Tibet for too long.

After the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1949-1950, China and the Tibet Government signed the ``Seventeen Points Agreement'' to make Tibet an autonomous region in the People's Republic of China and grant the Tibetan people the right of autonomy in determining the shape of their religious, cultural, and social institutions.

Nevertheless, in the ensuing years the Chinese Government did not fulfill its commitments, leading to the 1959 Lhasa Uprising and the flight of the Dalai Lama. Forty-five years later, tens of thousands of Tibetan refugees have been forced to flee their homeland in the face of repeated oppression and human rights abuses and those that remain are still unable to practice their religion freely and preserve their cultural autonomy.

Despite this tragedy, the Dalai Lama has consistently stated that his goal is not independence for Tibet but rather cultural and religious autonomy for the Tibetan people and negotiations within the framework enunciated by Deng Xiaoping in 1979.

Last year, in his speech to commemorate the Lhasa Rebellion, the Dalai Lama said:

As far back as the early seventies in consultation with

senior Tibetan officials I made a decision to seek a solution

to the Tibetan problem through a ``Middle Way Approach.''

This framework does not call for independence and separation

of Tibet. At the same time, it provides genuine autonomy for

the six million men and women who consider themselves

Tibetans, to preserve their distinctive identity, to promote

their religious

and cultural heritage that is based on a centuries-old

philosophy which is a benefit even in the 21st century, and

to protect the delicate environment of the Tibetan plateau.

This approach will contribute to the overall stability and

unity of the People's Republic of China.

I have worked on behalf of Tibet and the Tibetan people for over 20 years and I have done everything in my power to bring China and Tibet together to settle their differences peacefully at the negotiating table. I have personally carried messages from the Dalai Lama to China on these issues and there is no doubt in my mind that he is fully prepared to negotiate with China to achieve a just and lasting peace for the Tibetan people.

It is disappointing that another year has gone by and more progress has not been achieved in settling these issues. The road ahead of us is long but we must persevere to ensure that the Tibetan people will one day achieve the freedom and autonomy to shape their own society. It is my sincere hope that China will cooperate with the Dalai Lama in resolving their differences on Tibet.

Mr. President, I rise today, on International Women's Day, to recognize the contributions that women have made to our world. Today, we commemorate the lives of women, the work that women have done, the sacrifices that women have made, and the progress that women have achieved.

The past year was a very important one for advancing the rights of women. In Iraq, American women in the armed services played an integral part to the war effort and Iraqi women have now been given a much greater role in governing their country.

In Afghanistan, women have rights and liberties not experienced for years. Women and girls are returning to schools and colleges and rejoining the workforce.

Unfortunately, for many women around the world, the past year has not improved their ability to control their own lives. In many countries around the world, women earn less than men for performing the same tasks. In some countries, women are prohibited from owning property or from receiving the same education as men. And many women do not have the same access to health care that men have.

On this day, we must reaffirm our dedication to women's rights; we must strive to ensure that all women and girls have every opportunity to improve their lives and to make their own choices.

On this day, I would like to recognize the accomplishments of one woman in particular.

In December of 2003, Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian defense lawyer, became the first Muslim woman to receive a Nobel Peace Prize. She received this honor for her dedication to democracy and human rights.

In 1975, Mrs. Ebadi was the first woman appointed to be a judge in Iran. After the Iranian revolution, she was forced to resign her post on the court. Since that time, she has fought for an interpretation of Islamic law that reflects the importance of human rights and democracy, not just for men, but for all Iranians. I wish to recognize Mrs. Ebadi's work on behalf of human rights and I wish to congratulate her on winning the Nobel Peace Prize. She is truly a great woman and a great human being.

I would also like to take some time today to focus on a number of areas where women have made recent progress and some areas that still require significant change.

The liberation of Iraq has been a great step forward for Iraqi women. Today, the Iraqi Governing Council has agreed on an interim constitution. The constitution, also known as the Transitional Administrative Law, has a number of provisions that protect women's rights. For example, the Transitional Administrative Law requires that no less than 25 percent of the members elected to the Transitional National Assembly be women. The new consititution also states that Iraqis are equal without regard to sex, sect or religion.

To ensure that the rights of women in Iraq are not violated, the Coalition Provisional Authority and USAID worked together to establish a women's rights center. This is the first of five centers that will be established throughout Iraq. The center is open to all women and offers a range of opportunities including literacy classes and English- language training, nutrition and health classes, computer skills training, and courses on living in a democracy. The center will also provide assistance for widowed or impoverished women.

While there has been progress, we must remain vigilant in our defense of women's rights in Iraq.

Since President Bush declared major combat operations over, extremist Muslims have tried to suppress women's rights. In December, a group of Shiite members of the Iraqi Governing Council passed Resolution 137, a resolution that would have required the use of Sharia, or Islamic law that limits the rights and opportunities of women. Fortunately, the Iraqi Governing Council cancelled Resolution 137 on February 27, 2004.

With the fall of the Taliban, many people felt that the situation for women in Afghanistan would improve. While Afghanistan's new constitution contains human rights provisions and mandates better political representation of women, new rules on female education in the Afghan province of Herat prevent men from teaching women or girls. The rules also uphold strict gender segregation in all schools.

Repression of women is still commonplace in Afghanistan. Let me quote from a recent report issued by Human Rights Watch. The report says:

. . . one year after the Taliban's fall, women and girls in

Afghanistan still face severe restrictions and violations of

their human rights, for in many areas Taliban officials have

been replaced by warlords, police officers, and local

officials with similar attitudes toward women. In some parts

of the country, the same officials who administered the anti-

women policies of the Taliban remain in their positions. This

has meant the reimposition of extremely repressive social

codes that typically have a devastating impact on women.'

So much more needs to be done on behalf of women in Afghanistan.

Another year has gone by and the United States still has not yet ratified the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. As Americans, we can no longer afford to ignore this important document and put in jeopardy our status as a leader in advancing human rights for women and girls.

Given that it has been over 20 years since President Carter signed the Convention, one might think that the delay in ratification is due to the fact we are dealing with a treaty that requires years of study and consideration.

Yet the Convention simply requires that participating states take all appropriate steps to eliminate discrimination against women in political and

public life, law, education, employment, health care, commercial transactions, and domestic relations.

The United States is one of the only leading democracies in the world that has yet to ratify this important treaty. In fact, our partners outside the Convention include Iran, North Korea, and Sudan. Are these countries with whom we share the values of democracy, freedom, and respect for human rights? Are those the countries we can count on in the international arena?

Women and girls around the world who turn to the United States for leadership in advancing their rights are mystified that we do not take the simple step of ratifying the Convention. When we do, the sky will not fall, the sun will rise in the morning, and the Constitution will still be the law of the land.

By ratifying the Convention, the United States will reclaim its leadership status as a champion of the rights of women and girls and send a strong signal to those states who abuse those rights.

On International Women's Day, I call on my colleagues in the Senate to move forward and ratify the Convention.

While women have made great strides internationally in recent years, abuse of women remains a global problem. Worldwide, it is estimated that 1 in 3 women is abused or sexually assaulted in her lifetime. And anywhere from 20 to 50 percent of women worldwide have experienced some type of domestic violence. These numbers are astounding.

Even in the United States, certainly a leader in promoting women's rights, a woman is battered every 15 seconds and battering is the leading cause of injury to women between ages 15 and 44. On average, 3 women are murdered by their husbands every day in the United States. And as many as 750,000 women and children have been trafficked into the United States over the last decade. Certainly, we must do more at home to protect women from domestic and sexual abuse.

On International Women's Day, the United States must also reaffirm its commitment to combating HIV/AIDS, an epidemic that has had devastating effects on women and girls.

Transmission of HIV from men to women is twice as likely as transmission from women to men and the International Center for Research on Women has shown that there is a high correlation between violence against women and HIV infection.

The impact that this disease has had on the lives of women is shocking. In 2002, 2 million women were infected with HIV and 1.2 million women died from AIDS-related illnesses. Young women, ages 15- 24, represent 66 percent of people with HIV in the 14 most-afflicted countries designated in the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Teenage women in Sub-Saharan Africa are five or six times more likely to contract HIV than teenage males. This is truly a women's issue that must be addressed.

Mr. President, on this day, we honor women. On International Women's Day, the United States and the international community must take a strong stand and issue a clear warning to those who attempt to rob women of basic rights--the world's governments will no longer ignore these important issues.

Mr. President, on May 1-3, 2004, more than a 1,000 students from across the United States will converge on Washington, DC to compete in the national finals of the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program has a primary goal of promoting civic competence and responsibility among our Nation's elementary and secondary school students. It is the most extensive educational program in the country designed to educate young students about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and since its inception in 1987, more than 26 million students and 86,000 educators have participated.

I am very proud to announce that Amador Valley High School in Pleasanton will represent the State of California in this year's We the People national final. Four years ago I had the honor of recognizing Amador Valley for winning California's contest, and am proud to be able to do so again today. On February 6, this year's class from Amador Valley placed first in California's statewide contest. The school has a rich tradition of excelling in this program, having won California's competition five times from 1992-2000, and even winning the national championship in 1995.

During the national final, the class from Amador Valley will again have to testify as experts before a panel of judges on a wide variety of historical and contemporary constitutional issues. They will also be quizzed by the judges in an effort to illustrate depth of constitutional understanding, and ability to apply that knowledge. The competition is designed to resemble what hearings would be like in the U.S. Congress.

I congratulate the civics class at Amador Valley High School for winning this year's California We the People competition, and wish them best of luck as they conduct research and prepare for the national finals.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to support the Bunning-Stabenow-Feinstein amendment which will immediately implement a manufacturing tax deduction that offers much needed assistance to our ever diminishing manufacturing base in this Nation.

I applaud the leadership of Senators Bunning and Stabenow in reaching out to a bipartisan group of Senators and urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Simply, this amendment would adjust the underlying bill to require an immediate implementation of the new manufacturing deduction and would result in an immediate benefit to our Nation's manufacturers by beginning the process of cutting their tax rate by 3 percentage points.

So if you produce manufactured goods in the United States, you will see a phased-in reduction of your tax rate from 35 percent to 32 percent by 2009.

This provides a competitive incentive for manufacturers to produce jobs by reducing their tax burden immediately.

Critically, this amendment not only includes heavy manufacturing, which is so important to our State and national economies, but also the production of software, film, video, and sound recordings. I do not have to tell anyone in this Chamber how important this is for California and the Nation.

The movie, television and home video industries, which are based in California, are a tremendous economic engine of growth. The industry accounts for nearly 5 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product and is one of the largest employers in the country, having doubled its workforce over the last 25 years to a total workforce today of over 4.7 million workers.

I am working with Senators Grassley and Baucus to make sure that these industries are able to take full advantage of the tax benefits that we are proposing here and I am confident that we will come to an agreement to do that.

But why single out manufacturing? Why not offer a tax cut to all businesses equally? The answer is clear. We have seen a dramatic decrease in our Nation's manufacturing base and a stimulus directed at this sector of our economy is long overdue.

Since January 2001 this Nation has lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs. My home State of California, has lost more than 300,000 manufacturing jobs over that same period. That is a 16 percent decrease in California's manufacturing employment base in just 3 years.

It is time to stop the bleeding and this amendment will give manufacturers important tax relief so they may grow jobs here at home.

As has been pointed out by the National Association of Manufacturing: manufacturing accounts for nearly one fifth of the Nation's GDP; provides 15 million high paying jobs; supports another eight million jobs in other sectors; and is the seedbed of innovation in our economy, accounting for 62 percent of all research and development.

It is far and away our pacesetter in productivity gains, and accounts for the bulk of U.S. exports.

Manufacturing in the State of California contributed more than 26 percent to our State's domestic product--more than one quarter of my State's economic base.

But, the overhead costs of taxes, health and pension benefits, and rising energy prices add 22 percent to the price of U.S. production relative to our foreign competitors.

The erosion of high paying manufacturing jobs has continued unabated for years and we now see the phenomenon exacerbated by so many other factors, including outsourcing.

This amendment will help on both counts. It will reduce taxes on manufacturers and foster an environment for job growth in this important sector.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and bring an immediate pro-growth stimulus to an important part of our economy.

I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 2637

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

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have 10 minutes to speak on the amendment. I ask the Chair to alert me when 5 minutes have passed. I will then cede time to Senator Warner for 2 minutes and to Senator Schumer for 2 minutes.

Mr. President, this amendment is offered on behalf of Senators Warner, Schumer, DeWine, Levin, Chafee, Dodd, Jeffords, Boxer, Clinton, Reed, Lautenberg, and Mikulski.

This is an ad from this morning's Washington Post. It says:

Senators, if police officers sat in your seats today, do

you think they'd vote to put Uzi's and AK-47's back on the

streets?

That clearly is the question before the Senate this morning.

It is going to be a very close vote. However, that is the issue. That will be the result, if this legislation is not reauthorized for another 10 years.

The legislation has the support of 77 percent of the American people, and 66 percent of gun owners. It does not remove a legal gun owner from his weapon, and it has reduced traces of assault weapons to crimes by two-thirds in the last 10 years. I stand by those figures.

We believe the assault weapons legislation should be reauthorized. It was enacted in 1994 for 10 years. That 10 years is up on September 13.

There is a broad coalition of organizations including every single law enforcement organization in this country supporting it, from the International Chiefs of Police to the Fraternal Order of Police, to virtually every civic group supporting reauthorization of this legislation.

I very much hope the votes are present in the Senate this morning.

Another interesting note is that on the one hand we are accused, well, it is just cosmetic; it doesn't work. If it is just cosmetic and it doesn't work, then why this enormous effort to prevent the bill from being reauthorized?

Additionally, the legislation contains a written exemption by name for 670 weapons. So no one in the United States who legally possessed one of these assault weapons has had those assault weapons taken away. But what we believe is the legislation which stops the manufacture and the sale of semiautomatic assault weapons has been effective. It also stops the domestic manufacture of clips, drums, or strips of more than 10 bullets. No hunter needs more than 10 bullets. No person for defense needs more.

I am very hopeful this morning we will in a sense look to the law enforcement community and sustain a vote to reauthorize the assault weapons legislation for another 10 years.

I now yield 2 minutes of my time to the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. John Warner.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia for his leadership on this issue. We are delighted he is a major sponsor of this bill.

Mr. President, inadvertently the name of the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, was left off the bill as a cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent it be added.

I yield 2 minutes of my time to the distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer.

How much time remains?

I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senators Warner, Schumer, DeWine, Levin, Chafee, Dodd, Jeffords, Boxer, and Clinton, and also Senators Reid and Lautenberg, to offer an amendment which is identical to S. 2109, introduced early last week. This amendment will simply reauthorize the 1994 assault weapons ban. It is a straight reauthorization. There is nothing added to it.

The present legislation sunsets on September 13 of this year. As you and others know, the President has said he will sign a straight reauthorization. This is it.

Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Warner, who I hope will be here shortly to speak for himself. I very much appreciate his cosponsorship of this legislation. When the legislation came before this Senate 10 years ago, Senator Warner didn't support it. Therefore, his reconsideration of that

position is all important. I won't give reasons for it. I believe that is up to him. I believe both he and Senators DeWine and Schumer will be utilizing the hour of our time.

I ask that the Chair inform me when 15 minutes of the hour has passed, if I might.

The issue of assault weapons is near and dear to my heart. It is not about politics or polls or interest groups. In my view, it is about real people and real lives. It is about the ability of working men and women and children to be safe from disgruntled employees or schoolmates who show up one day at a law firm or school or a place of business and fire away until the room becomes filled with dead and wounded colleagues.

Unfortunately, in this society, we are always going to have some people who are prone to grievance killing.

It is my belief the assault weapon, the military-style semiautomatic assault weapon, has become the weapon of choice for grievance killers.

It is about the ability of children to learn, play, and grow without the fear that someone such as Dylan Klebold or Eric Harris would show up at Columbine High School with assault weapons and fire until the school is literally littered with bodies--a dozen students and a teacher murdered, more than two dozen others injured.

It is about making sure our law enforcement officers can safely go about their duties and return home to their families at the end of the day, instead of finding themselves confronted, such as Officer James Guelff found himself in 1994, with assailants wearing body armor and firing from an arsenal of 2,000 rounds of ammunition and a cache of assault weapons.

The officer was gunned down after 10 years of service, and it took 150 police officers to equal the firepower of a gunman clad in Kevlar carrying assault weapons.

I first raised this issue in 1993, when I was a new Senator. I was determined to try to pass the assault weapons legislation as an amendment to the crime bill. Members told me: Forget it; the gun owners around here have too much authority. We would never be able to enact assault weapons legislation. I was told the NRA was simply too strong. Senator Biden, then-chair of the Judiciary Committee, said it would be a good learning experience for me, and, in fact, it was.

It was the will of the American people, it turns out, that was stronger than any lobbying organization, even the National Rifle Association. And today, 77 percent of the American people and 66 percent of gun owners believe this legislation should be reauthorized.

We got the bill passed, and America has been safer for it. In fact, the percentage of assault weapons used in crimes since this bill has passed has diminished by two-thirds. That is the fact. Assault weapons traced to crimes since the passage of this legislation have diminished by two-thirds. That is the good news.

It is interesting, the NRA says: Oh, the ban doesn't work; it is just cosmetic; forget it. But the ban does work, and it was carefully put together. No gun owners have lost their weapon because of this legislation. No gun anywhere in America has been confiscated from a legal owner because of this ban. The sky did not fall. Life went on, but it went on with fewer grievance killings, fewer juveniles using them, fewer driveby shooters having access to the most dangerous of firearms.

I want to talk about just a few of the guns we banned. The bill banned 19 specific assault weapons and then set up a physical characteristics test which, frankly, if given my way, I would toughen now. We have had more experience. We know gun manufacturers get around it. California has toughened the test and, basically, I would like to emulate that legislation. Clearly, the votes are not in this Chamber for it; certainly not in the other Chamber, and we probably would not be able to gain a Presidential signature. I probably used too optimistic a word by using ``probably.'' Let me say we would not be able to gain a Presidential signature.

Let me speak for a moment about perhaps the most notorious assault weapon, the AK-47. This gun, developed in the former Soviet Union, is one of the most widely used military weapons in the world. It is not used to hunt, at least not to hunt animals. It is not well designed for home defense. Its ammunition can easily pierce walls and kill innocent bystanders. I will tell you what it is good for: the rapid killing of other people. How well I remember when an unstable drifter by the name of Patrick Purdy, with an assault weapon modeled after the AK-47, walked into a Stockton schoolyard in northern California. He lay on his belly, and he fired indiscriminately into the schoolyard. He fired 106 rounds of ammunition. By the time he was done, 5 children were dead and 29 were injured--five children dead because a of drifter who could gain one of the most powerful military weapons and use it against children.

Each of these children had families. They had futures. One might have been a doctor one day, another a teacher, maybe even one a Senator, but they never got that chance. Their families did not see them grow up.

Then there is the Uzi. The Uzi was designed for Israeli paratroopers in the 1950s. Again, this is not a weapon designed for hunting or self- defense. This is a weapon of war. It can spray fire rapidly and with some accuracy and is used for raids, firefights, and, to put it simply, the killing of enemy soldiers in close combat.

An easily concealed weapon of war that sprays fire can also be used against civilians, and so it was when James Huberty walked into a McDonald's in San Ysidro, CA. He was able to kill 21 people and wound 15 others. The McDonald's customers were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Had Huberty carried a revolver, who knows how many lives would have been saved. But with an Uzi, there is no ability to escape. With a big clip and a light trigger, nobody can get to you to disarm you before you have emptied the clip. The spray fire begins and the tragedy looms large. Again, a weapon of war falls into the hands of a grievance killer.

The TEC-9. For me, these incidents really came to a head on July 1, 1993, when a man by the name of Gian Luigi Ferri walked into 101 California Street carrying two high-capacity TEC-DC9 assault pistols.

Let me show you what he looked like. He is dead in this picture. Look at this clip on this assault pistol. Look at the additional clips he was carrying in the bag. And look at the weapon in his hand.

Ferri's gun--well, his guns--actually had special spring-loaded hellfire switches that allowed them to be fired, for all practical purposes, as fast as a machine gun. As a result, it did not take long for him to accomplish his task. Within minutes, he murdered eight people and six others were wounded.

I just looked at a shot of a lovely blond woman on the floor in her office with three shots in her back and one in her shoulder. I have spoken to the survivors and families of these victims over the years, and I can tell you it is just plain heartbreaking.

One such survivor was Michelle Scully. I will paraphrase what happened to her that day. Michelle and her husband John Scully--he was a lawyer in the firm--sought refuge in the nearest room, but the door did not have a lock. Michelle and John tried to block the door with a file cabinet, but they could not move it. Finally, he spread his 6- foot-4 body over his wife as a shield as the gunman wordlessly opened the door and fired this gun over and over again.

John was hit six times. His wife once. ``Michelle, I'm sorry,'' John Scully said a few minutes later, ``I am dying.''

No one should have to go through this. No one should have to read about it in a newspaper. Nobody goes to work in the morning or says goodbye to their spouse expecting something like what happened at 101 California Street.

These were not soldiers or law enforcement officers. These were people doing everyday jobs in an everyday place. Because a person who had a bone to pick also had two assault pistols, eight lives were ended before the day was done.

Now, my colleagues can tell me guns do not kill people, that people kill people. Of course, I have to agree with that, but when there is a nut or a man so inflamed that he is going to go out and exact vengeance and a weapon of war designed to kill large numbers in close combat is made available to him,

when our Government enables this to happen, we fall down on the job because we are here to see that there are laws that protect people.

In 1994, a man used a TEC-9 to kill three people in the Washington, DC, police headquarters. Those killed were two FBI agents and a veteran police sergeant. The shooter walked into the crowded building with a concealed weapon, one of the key factors in how dangerous these weapons can be because they either have collapsable shoulder mounts or they are easily concealed. He then proceeded unimpeded directly into a homicide squad office and began firing. This is what the TEC-9 can do. Again, we do not hear stories of TEC-9s being used to hunt deer. We do hear about tragedy after tragedy.

I thank the Chair. I appreciate that.

In 1999, even after the assault weapons ban had been law for almost 5 years, Dylan Klebold fired 55 shots from a TEC-DC9 at Columbine. The TEC-DC9, a gun manufactured before the ban took effect and thus grandfathered and legal, was obtained from a gun show and then used to kill his fellow students.

It is my hope that over time and the way the bill is structured, the availability of these guns will dry up because what the legislation does is prohibit the manufacture and the sale of these weapons, not the possession. When they do dry up, the Dylan Klebolds of the world can no longer have access to them.

The supply of these guns is not going to dry up, however, if the assault weapons ban sunsets in September. We would be giving Intratec and other such companies a renewed license to manufacture these military guns and market them elsewhere across the Nation.

We specifically exempted 670 rifles and shotguns from the legislation so anybody who said, oh, my gun is going to be taken, could be reassured and we could show them we did not, in fact, take their gun.

Although it may be difficult to read, this is the listing of the hunting guns and other recreational weapons protected in the legislation. It goes on and on. The Weatherby Mark V Sport Rifle, the Savage Model 111BC heavy barrel varmint rifle, and all centerfire rifles that are single shot, drillings, combination guns; shotguns-auto loaders; shotguns-slide actions; shotguns-over/unders; centerfire rifles-auto loaders; centerfire rifles-lever and slide; centerfire rifles-bolt action; shotguns-side by sides, shotguns-bolt actions and single shots. Total, 670 hunting weapons.

The reason I did this is I approached some Members of the Senate and said, what do they need to support legislation? And they said they needed assurance that hunting weapons are not covered. We provided that assurance. That assurance has worked and no one has lost a single weapon on this list.

The list includes every conceivable weapon: shotgun, rifle, et cetera. It is designed to protect the ability of innocent gunowners to keep their hunting weapons and to keep their guns for self-defense. The list of protected guns and the 9 years of accounting of history behind the ban show that the National Rifle Association's hysterical claims of gun confiscation are simply not true.

I will speak about support for this legislation. As my colleagues can see from the list behind me, countless organizations, civic and law enforcement, are asking that this assault weapons legislation be reauthorized. At the top of the list we have the largest law enforcement organization in the Nation, the Fraternal Order of Police. We have the National League of Cities, the United States Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Education Association the NAACP, and the list goes on.

By latest poll, more than three-fourths of the American people, even two-thirds of gunowners, support reauthorizing the assault weapons legislation. So the will of the people could not be more clear. The American people know that these guns should not, once again, be manufactured and imported into the United States.

We saw in the Columbine shooting, the Long Island Railroad shooting, and so many others that high-capacity assault weapons can make those who wield them temporarily invincible because it is so difficult to get close to them to disarm them. So the fate of this bill is in this Senate.

In April of last year Presidential White House spokesman Scott McClellan said of the assault weapons legislation:

The President supports the current law, and he supports

reauthorization of the current law.

That is what we are doing with this legislation, reauthorizing the current law, period.

Now, I realize the President has expressed concern about amendments to the gun immunity bill that might delay its passage beyond this year, but the assault weapons legislation expires in less than 7 months and we cannot delay this bill beyond this year, either. I am hopeful that as people look back and they look at this terrible litany of events all across this Nation, in schoolyards, in businesses, in factories, in print shops, in law offices, wherever people congregate, they recognize that it is prudent to keep assault weapons off the streets of our American cities.

As gangs move guns across State lines, they move assault weapons. So the ability to dry up this supply over time, the ability to prohibit their manufacture and their sale is what this legislation does.

It has always puzzled me because the NRA says it is only cosmetic, it does not work, and I wonder, if it is only cosmetic why do they get so exercised about it? But it does work, because assault weapon gun traces to crimes have declined by two-thirds since this bill has passed. That is the proof. It has had an effect. That is why the NRA is calling offices today. That is why the NRA is asking Members not to vote for this: Because it has worked.

I reserve the remainder of our time. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent the time that is running be equally divided between both sides.

Just this one.

There is a reason for it. We were told this would be later, at 3 o'clock, and then learned it would be 1 o'clock, and then it was noon. I was here so I could come down. Senator Warner, I believe, has not yet arrived, and would like to speak, as would Senator DeWine and Senator Schumer. It is a Monday. The time has essentially changed. So I would like to leave them time to be able to speak.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, I hope I will have an opportunity to rebut the distinguished Senator's comments. I find it very interesting that suddenly gun trace information is not acceptable information, but we can go out and do a survey of criminals, and that is an acceptable way of evaluating the success or failure of the assault weapons legislation. I don't buy it. In my view, tracing guns to crime is an appropriate way.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the executive summary of a new report out on ``Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Civil Assaults Weapons Legislation.''

Mr. President, I would like to recognize the presence of the Senator from Ohio and cede 10 minutes of time to him.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his comments and for his support. I very much appreciate it.

One of the issues is that those States that have big cities see how these weapons are used, and in the big cities they are used by gangs. So the argument of the collector versus the argument of the majority who wants to be protected from these weapons is what we are talking about today.

The distinguished Senator from Idaho referred to them as just semiautomatic firearms, really no different from other firearms. I do not see it that way at all. Many of these come with collapsable stocks. They come with 20-round clips. Two 30-round clips can be put together, and two banana clips, and have 60 rounds. The trigger can be adjusted so that with some of these weapons one can fire as many as, believe it or not, 30 bullets in 3 seconds. That cannot be done with a revolver and with most rifles.

So these are different weapons, and those of us who support this legislation essentially believe they do not belong on our streets. No collector is stopped from collecting one of these weapons. A collector can still buy one of these weapons. What is stopped is the manufacture and sale of new weapons. The existing stock is still around.

I yield the remainder of my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the quorum call the remaining time be equally divided between the two sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Anjali Chaturvedi, a detailee in my office, be allowed floor privileges for the duration of the debate on the gun immunity legislation today.

Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Cantwell's amendment to reinstate the temporary emergency unemployment compensation program.

The amendment will reinstate the 13-week Federal unemployment insurance program, extend it for 6 months and ensure that ``high unemployment'' States continue to be covered.

Given all of the pressures that workers face today--outsourcing, a political environment that is hostile to organized labor, and a lack of high-paying jobs--there is no more pressing issue facing our nation's workforce. And yet although Senate Democrats have asked more than a dozen times to unanimously pass the unemployment extension--each time Senate Republicans have said no. It is time that the Senate stop putting partisanship ahead of what nearly everyone agrees is smart policy.

On February 4, the House of Representatives voted to reinstate unemployment benefits by a vote of 227 to 179, with 39 Republicans defying their leadership and voting in favor of the benefits.

But until the Senate acts, hundreds of thousands of workers will be in the impossible position of trying to feed, clothe, and house their families with no work and no benefits.

These are people who are persistently trying to re-enter the workforce, and yet must contend with an economy that has less than one job opening for every three workers.

Today we can change this. This amendment provides crucial temporary assistance to those who have been hardest hit by the recent economic downturn, and provides them a chance to support themselves and their families while they look for work.

Although the amendment would not provide more than 13 weeks of additional benefits to California, since my State's unemployment rate is 6.4 percent, not high enough to meet the 6.5 percent unemployment rate trigger in the amendment, it provides a meaningful extension for Californians by allowing unemployed Californians who were previously unqualified for unemployment benefits to collect 13 weeks of benefits as they look for new work.

As of today, 2.3 million Americans have lost their jobs since President Bush took office in January 2001.

In total, nearly 15 million Americans are out of work, including discouraged and underemployed workers.

Historically, job loss during a recession is about 50 percent temporary and 50 percent permanent. Today, nearly 80 percent of the job loss is permanent. As a result, many of the unemployed will not return to work soon.

In his Annual Economic Report, President Bush said that the outsourcing of jobs was the inevitable byproduct of an improving economy.

The White House says the ``benefits'' of exporting American jobs ``eventually will outweigh the costs as Americans are able to buy cheaper goods and services and new jobs are created in growing sectors of the economy.''

How are people without jobs supposed to buy all these goods and services? How do you keep a consumer economy going when you export all the jobs?

The chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, the office that wrote the report, says the ``government should try to salve the short-term disruption by helping displaced workers obtain the training they need to enter new fields, such as health care.''

As Senator Daschle pointed out, that sounds like a cruel joke. The President's proposed budget for next year cuts money for Federal job training programs. And how do they know that the jobs they are training for will not be the next jobs targeted to be shipped overseas? It certainly will not be because the President is fighting to keep them here.

It seems to me that the jury is in on the course we must take. I think it is wrong to move to a protectionist stance by raising tariffs or promoting a weak U.S. currency. Historically, such strategies have led to more problems than they have solved.

U.S. companies should not be rewarded through our tax code for moving jobs offshore and then be allowed to bring foreign earned profits back into the U.S. at a tax rate that is a fraction of what they pay on their U.S. earned profits--just 5 percent, as compared to 38 percent in some cases.

You and I pay more than five times that in personal income taxes.

We should be encouraging firms to keep jobs here by producing the best trained, best educated workforce in the world.

And, we must help those who are displaced by outsourcing by providing emergency unemployment insurance.

This amendment provides just such a safety net for those who are temporarily displaced by the economic changes that are engulfing us.

I ask President Bush to put his weight behind this effort to get unemployment benefits extended to those who have been looking for a job more than 13 weeks.

If you are the President, you should be cheerleader number one for the American worker. And you should be supporting workers when they find themselves overcome by economic circumstances beyond their control.

When the national economy was booming 4 years ago, California was particularly blessed. California's economy grew at double-digit rates, and California became the fifth-largest economy in the world.

Billions of dollars of investment flowed into our State, and thousands of talented workers moved to California to take advantage of opportunities in Silicon Valley and other growth engines of the New Economy. Now that picture is dramatically different.

After dropping to a decade-long low of 4.7 percent in December of 2000, the unemployment rate in California is back up to 6.4 percent as of the end of 2003.

During this period of economic hardship, we have a duty to give people the chance to get back onto their feet. This is an obligation that we have met in the past, most recently when faced with an economic downturn during the first Bush Administration. The Senate voted in 1991 to extend temporary unemployment insurance on five separate occasions. Each time such extensions were approved by overwhelming bipartisan majorities.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and those Americans who have fallen on hard times.