Floor Statements

Mr. President, this non-binding sense of the Senate amendment expresses that the budget resolution before us should accommodate an appropriation of $750 million for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program--SCAAP--for Fiscal Year 2004.

I am pleased that Senators Kyl, Bingaman, McCain, and Schumer have joined me in introducing this important measure.

The bipartisan amendment I offer today with my colleagues would also put the Senate on record as favoring a restoration of fiscal year 2003 funding for this important program, which does so much to help State and county governments deal with the growing costs of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens.

Without adequate funding, this fiscal burden will continue to fall on many of our local law enforcement agencies--including sheriffs, police officers on the beat, anti-gang violence units, and district attorneys offices.

The SCAAP program is based on the principle that when the Federal Government falls short in its efforts to enforce the laws against immigration violations, it must bear the responsibility for the financial and human consequences of this failure.

Thus, the SCAAP program properly vests this burden with the Federal Government when undocumented aliens commit serious crimes within our communities.

It does so by providing Federal reimbursement funding to the States and county governments for the direct costs associated with incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens, who are convicted of felonies or multiple misdemeanors.

Increasingly, State and county governments from all across the country have made use of these funds over the years. In fact, in Fiscal Year 2002, the number of State and local governments seeking SCAAP funding jumped 25 percent from the previous fiscal year.

The combination of this increase, and the fact that all 50 States and the District of Columbia receive some funding from the program, suggests that no State is immune from the fiscal costs associated with crimes committed by illegal aliens.

Today most States are encountering their largest deficits in more than 60 years. Indeed, the fiscal consequences of illegal immigration have contributed to this challenge.

In Fiscal Year 2002, State and county governments incurred more than $13 billion in costs associated with incarcerating criminal illegal aliens. These costs are expected to grow over the next several years, given the new challenges of terrorism and our efforts to enhance security within our Nation's borders.

California's border counties are among the hardest hit in terms of dollars spent on incarceration, prosecution and court costs for those in the United States illegally. I am greatly concerned about the substantial burden these immigration-related costs impose on the criminal justice system on our local communities, especially given the limited tax base and fiscal resources State and local jurisdictions are working with today.

The SCAPP program is not in place to prevent crime, but to fulfill portion of the Federal Government's responsibility, so local governments can use their limited resources for their own responsibilities, such as funding jail enlargement or new homeland security ventures at the local level.

At a time when cash-strapped State and local governments are being asked to do even more to protect our homeland, we cannot afford to eliminate vital funding that already falls far short of what local governments spend to incarcerate undocumented criminal aliens. In previous years, Congress has appropriated between $500 million and $585 million for SCAAP to alleviate some of the fiscal burdens placed on the local criminal justice systems.

In Fiscal Year 2002, Congress appropriated $565 million for this important program. Unfortunately, the prolonged debate over Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations produced budgetary pressures that resulted in a 53- percent drop in SCAAP funding for FY 2003.

SCAAP payments have never matched the true costs to the States dealing with this problem, but they have nevertheless been critical additions to prison and jail budgets. They have also symbolized the Federal Governments obligation to pay for the results of its failed immigration strategies.

These are challenging times in our Nation's history. And, we want, to the best extent possible, our constituents to feel secure in their homes and in their communities.

At a time when the Nation is focused on enhancing security within our borders, our States, and our local communities, a vital program like SCAAP should not be vulnerable to being under-funded or eliminated altogether.

The control of illegal immigration is a Federal obligation and we owe it to our States and local communities to provide them with the crucial Federal assistance they need to continue doing their job.

Again, I wish to emphasize that while this amendment would put the Senate on record as supporting this initiative, the amendment is not binding and therefore, does not require any offsets.

Mr. President, I rise today with America at war against the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, to vote in favor of the concurrent resolution introduced by my colleagues, commending the President and America's Armed Forces.

This is a moment of utmost seriousness and solemnity, without doubt the most critical time of my decade in the Senate.

During this difficult time, America and the world must know that this Chamber stands firmly united behind our men and women in harm's way, men and women willing to make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our liberties and our lives. Our hopes and our prayers are with them and their families.

I would also like to recognize those now engaged in combat from my home State of California.

More than 102,000 Californians have been sent to the gulf from every branch of the military--Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, and Marines, along with 13,000 reservists. This is the largest number of Americans from any State fighting in this war.

And while many people in California are opposed to this war, I would urge all of them to unite behind these courageous men and women and their families here at home.

I have had questions about how we got to this point. I would have done it a different way, and I will have more to say about that at the appropriate time.

But now, as we unite behind our military and our Commander in Chief, the United States must be prepared for the long term. Winning the war will mark but the first step.

Once the shooting stops and the dust clears, we must be equally committed to winning the peace in Iraq, and to see that longstanding ethnic rivalries not be allowed to surface. Failure to do so would, at the very least, negate any military success.

This means, of course, that the United States must take the lead in rebuilding the Iraqi nation, in stabilizing its new government, in providing interim security to prevent the emergence of tribal hostilities, and to see that Iraq is no longer a producer of weapons of mass destruction.

Winning the peace in Iraq is absolutely critical. Indeed, winning the peace means: reducing the likelihood of a possible clash of civilizations, pitting the United States and our allies against the Muslim world; reducing the incidence of renewed terrorist attacks, both here and abroad; increasing the chances of achieving lasting peace in the Middle East--of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis; allowing us to recommit ourselves to the still uncertain future of Afghanistan and the government of Hamid Karzai; and ensuring that the United States will persevere, sooner rather than later, in the overall war on terror.

So, as the courageous men and women of the American military set out to remove Saddam Hussein from power, risking their very lives for us and the liberties we must never take for granted, the focus of our thoughts and our prayers are with them.

We wish them every success and a speedy return home to their families. For those that may fall in battle and pay the highest price, however, their sacrifice must never be forgotten.

And the best way to honor them is by winning the peace in Iraq--by helping the Iraqi people rebuild their lives, and by demonstrating to Muslims everywhere that the United States, while a powerful nation, is also motivated by a sincere desire to one day see the entire world safe, prosperous, and free.

This, after all, is what this conflict is all about, and why we must prevail.

Mr. President, I rise in support of a bipartisan, fiscally responsible budget amendment, which I have sponsored with Senators Tom Carper and Lincoln Chafee.

Our amendment would provide immediate tax relief to every taxpayer in this country, while balancing the budget 4 years earlier than the resolution currently being considered.

Instead of driving the Nation further into debt, our budget would cost $50

billion over 10 years--a fraction of the $1.7 trillion the underlying resolution would add to the deficit over the next decade.

Our budget corrects for the Budget Committee's low discretionary spending limits after 2008 by recognizing the need, at a minimum, to increase domestic discretionary spending with inflation. In contrast, the Budget Committee's mark would increase those limits by an average of only 1.5 percent after 2008, a rate of increase which is simply unrealistic.

Were it not for that needed adjustment to discretionary spending, our budget would actually increase revenue due to a 10-year net surplus on the tax side.

Many members of this Chamber have expressed concerns about pursuing a $726 billion tax cut at a time of massive projected budget deficits and rising uncertainty about the cost of the war with Iraq.

In fact, neither the administration's budget, nor the one currently being considered, nor our budget for that matter, includes funding to cover the cost of a war with Iraq, despite estimates that range from $60 billion to $100 billion or more.

The added cost of this conflict could push our budget deficit this year to over $500 billion, if the surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund is not included. Although no proposed budget accounts for the cost of the war in Iraq, our budget proposal faces the reality of significant new costs head-on by bringing us back to balance quickly.

I share the concerns of many of my colleagues, and I believe our primary responsibility is to pass a budget that meets our nation's long-term needs. And this is what our amendment seeks to do.

Why do I support this amendment? Our budget accepts the discretionary spending limits laid out in President Bush's budget proposal. Despite concerns about the impact of those limits on many critical priorities, I have agreed to those spending limits in an effort to support a realistic compromise which addresses our fiscal needs conservatively.

I believe that without real bipartisan compromise, it will prove impossible to return to a balanced budget.

Therefore, I join with Senators Carper and Chafee today, because we all value fiscal responsibility and recognize the need for balanced budgets.

I must state clearly, however, that this budget does include a $10 billion reserve fund for homeland security in fiscal year 2004, and does not commit to the specific programmatic cuts detailed in the President's Budget.

The Carper/Chafee/Feinstein budget keeps those elements of the President's proposed tax cut that would benefit all Americans and stimulate the economy. It would:

Immediately expand the 10 percent income tax bracket from $6,000 to $7,000; Accelerate cuts to the 27 percent tax bracket from 2004 to 2003; Increase the child tax credit from $600 to $700; and Accelerate marriage penalty relief from 2005 to 2003.

Our budget also includes:

Immediately increase the individual estate tax exemption to $3 million per individual and $6 million per couple--something not included in the budget which was reported out of Committee. This would exempt all but one percent of estates from any tax liability whatsoever.

Increase small business expensing limits from $25,000 to $75,000, allowing them to make needed capital improvements and expand their operations.

All of those cuts are retroactive to January 1, 2003, and would immediately put money in every taxpayer's pocket.

This budget amendment would pay for these tax cuts in part by freezing planned reductions to the top two tax rates--the rates that apply to adjusted gross incomes above $143,500 for individuals.

Yet even those who pay taxes at this rate would receive tax relief-- from the expansion of the 10 percent bracket, marriage penalty reduction, a larger child tax credit, and a cut to the 27 percent bracket.

This budget does not increase taxes for any American, but instead is a balanced blueprint designed to promote fiscal responsibility.

When I came to the Senate in 1992, we faced a record budget deficit of $290 billion, a record which we will almost certainly surpass this year.

After securing commitments from Senate moderates in the Centrist Coalition, we were able to hold the line on new spending and further tax cuts. Those efforts paid off in 1998, when the Federal Government returned to surplus for the first time since the Johnson Administration.

It was no coincidence that the path back to surplus, and the following three years of consecutive surpluses, coincided with the greatest period of economic expansion in American history.

The single biggest impediment to returning to similar rates of economic growth, however, is the tremendous uncertainty facing the United States.

While we now face a war in Iraq and ongoing stand-off in North Korea, we can do a better job in managing our domestic economy.

Pushing through a $726 billion tax cut now would only increase deficits and uncertainty, and would lead to a spike in long-term interest rates as we take on trillions in new debt.

I urge my colleagues to support this budget. It is a compromise which makes sense.

By adopting this budget amendment, we can bring the budget back into balance in six years, stop raiding the Social Security Trust Fund in ten, and forego nearly $2 trillion in new debt by 2013.

The alternative, which does not recognize our current fiscal crisis, will only make future compromises all the more difficult.

Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered

by the Senator from South Carolina to increase funding to our Nation's ports.

This amendment will provide more funding to help all ports prevent a future terrorist attack. It will provide $1 billion annually for the next 2 years--an increase of $2 billion total.

We all know U.S. seaports are a gaping hole in our Nation's system of defense against terrorism. We have beefed up security at our airports, but as our Nation fights a war in Iraq, we are not doing enough to increase the security of our seaports.

Last year, Congress approved legislation, the Maritime Transportation Security Act, sponsored by Senators Fritz Hollings, Bob Graham, and others designed to increase security at our ports.

In my view, this legislation was a good first step, but our ports remain extremely vulnerable to attack. One reason our ports are still vulnerable is that the Federal Government has not provided them with enough money to enable them to increase security.

For example, the Coast Guard has estimated that the present value cost of complying with existing and upcoming international and national security requirements will be about $6 billion over 10 years. The 10- year present value cost for facility security will be $4.4 billion and the cost to comply with section 102 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act alone will be $477 million.

These figures do not account for the funds that will be needed to pay for additional security measures that can and should be taken to protect against a terrorist attack at or through our ports.

Thus, I am very concerned that, apart from some specific projects and earmarks, Congress has appropriated less than $400 million for seaport security grants since September 11, 2001. I was disappointed to see that President Bush has not requested a single dime for seaport security grants in his fiscal year 2004 budget.

We also need to provide greater support to the Federal agencies enforcing our border security laws. Coast Guard, Customs, and TSA need additional funds for port security vessels, new screening and detection equipments, and cargo security programs, and to implement an identification card program.

Port security is a crucial national security issue--like immigration and other border security functions. We need to ensure that more of the money to protect our borders is used to safeguard our ports. We simply cannot leave the Nation's ports in the lurch, forced to pay the bill to protect our citizens from terrorism.

I am particularly concerned that California's ports are not getting enough funds to help prevent a terrorist attack.

For example, California ports have received about $16.405 million from the seaport security grant program established by Congress after the September 11 terrorist attack--about 18 percent of the money available. However, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, California ports handle almost 50 percent of maritime container imports.

In other words, if international terrorists overseas put a ``dirty bomb'' in a container, the odds are 50-50 that this container would pass through a California port. Mr. President, $16 million is simply not enough to stop such an attack--especially now when we are on the brink of war.

I hope the Department of Homeland Security will ensure that California ports receive their fair share of port security grants in future allocations. However, this Congress can and must do more.

I will soon be introducing legislation that takes a comprehensive approach to port security and focuses our limited resources where they are needed most. Among other things, the bill would do the following:

Update our criminal code to ensure that terrorists who strike at us at or through our seaports can be appropriately prosecuted and punished;

Create a container profiling plan that would concentrate on identifying high-risk cargo early in the shipping process; and

Secure the international supply chain by requiring the government to come up with a plan to inspect containers overseas, before they arrive in the United States--once a weapon of mass destruction in a container reaches the United States, it is too late.

Mr. President, I visited two ports last year, Hong Kong and Los Angeles/Long Beach, and I learned firsthand how difficult it is to protect our Nation from an attack through a seaport.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, about 13 million containers, 20-foot equivalent units, came into U.S. ports in 2002. However, only about 2 or 3 percent of these containers are inspected. This translates into millions of tons of cargo moving through our ports with no real scrutiny, any one of which could contain an explosive or weapon of mass destruction.

If attacked, casualties at our ports and surrounding cities could run in the thousands and our Nation's economy could be brought to a standstill. Just imagine if a container holding up to 60,000 pounds of explosives slips undetected into a harbor and is detonated--blowing up a ship, a bridge, or even an entire seaport.

Or worse, picture a nuclear device or radiological ``dirty bomb''--no bigger than a suitcase--installed in a container, shipped to the United States, and exploded at a port or somewhere within the interior of our country.

Beyond the human toll, such an attack would mean that every container in the system would have to be inspected to ensure that there wasn't another bomb out there--grinding our economy to a halt. One estimate suggests that it would take 6 months to screen all of the containers in the system on any given day. So we must do everything in our power to prevent an attack from happening in the first place.

Simply put, more funding is of critical importance when you consider the October 2002 report by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman. The followup Hart-Rudman report points out, ``Only the tiniest percentage of containers, ships, trucks, and trains that enter the United States each day are subject to examination--and a weapon of mass destruction could well be hidden among this cargo.''

The report recommends revising transportation security because ``the vulnerabilities are greater and the stakes are higher in the sea and land modes than in commercial aviation. Systems such as those used in the aviation sector, which start from the assumption that every passenger and every bag of luggage poses an equal risk, must give way to more intelligence-driven and layered security approaches that emphasize prescreening and monitoring based on risk-criteria.''

The bottom line: We must do a better job of profiling and inspecting cargo that could put our Nation and our citizens at risk. This will take time, money, and cooperation from industry--but it is a necessary and critical part of our homeland security effort.

A year and a half has passed since our Nation was struck by terrorists from the sky. We can't afford to wait for a similar--or potentially greater--tragedy to provide adequate funds for port security.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to fund projects within the Irvine Basin.

This bill will authorize up to $19 million in funds in order to cover up to 25 percent of the costs of constructing three water projects in Southern California. Water is an issue of paramount importance in California, and these projects provide innovative examples of ways that we can improve our water quality and increase our water supply.

The first project, called the Natural Treatment System, will build a network of wetlands to filter surface water and urban runoff in the San Diego Creek Watershed and Upper Newport Bay. Based on the performance of a single constructed wetland in the area, we expect the Natural Treatment System to filter out 126,000 pounds of nitrogen and 21,000 pounds of phosphorus from the watershed each year and reduce levels of harmful bacteria such as fecal coliform by as much as 26 percent.

The second project, the Irvine Desalter, will clean brackish groundwater and provide drinking water for between 40,000 and 50,000 people. By allowing the Irvine Basin to access another water source, the desalter will reduce our dependence on imported water and take considerable pressure off of our other water resources.

The final project will construct a regional brine line to dispose of brine directly into the ocean. Like much of California, the Irvine Ranch Water District is a leader in water reclamation and recycling efforts. Buildup of too much salt in the system can hamper these reclamation efforts. The brine line will allow the District to continue its innovative efforts to ensure that water is used more than once while increasing use of brackish water resources.

These projects shows us how California and the West can improve our water situation. Projects like these show us the way forward. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to grant garment imports from Nepal duty free status in the United States for two years. We have an opportunity the help one of the world's most impoverished countries sustain a vital export industry and promote political and economic stability after years of conflict.

My interest in Nepal goes back over 25 years and I have had the pleasure to travel there and visit with friends on many occasions. The warmth and friendliness of the people and the vitality and richness of the culture are only matched by the beauty of the breathtaking landscape.

Nevertheless, Nepal faces some serious challenges in the years ahead as it attempt to build a prosperous economy and raise the living standards of its people.

It ranks as the 12th poorest country in the world, with a per capita income of $240. Approximately 42 percent of the 24 million people live in poverty. Unemployment stands at 47 percent.

On top of this, Nepal has had to confront a Maoist insurgency which has claimed the lives of more than 7,200 people since 1996 with two thirds of the deaths occurring since November 2001. Estimated to include between 5,000 and 10,000 armed soldiers, the Maoists control between one-quarter and one-half of the country.

As a result of the political instability, for the first time in twenty years Nepal's economy contracted in 2002 by 0.6 percent and tourism, one of the main sources of income, fell by 27 percent. The situation became so dire last year that one advisor to Nepal's king noted that ``Nepal is on the verge of becoming a failed state.''

Yet there is reason for hope. On January 29, 2003 the Government of Nepal and the Maoist rebels reached a cease-fire agreement, opening the door for negotiations for a permanent end to the conflict. I am hopeful they will be successful. We now have the opportunity to build on the hopes of a peaceful solution to conflict and really make a difference in the lives of the Nepalese people.

Humanitarian and development assistance should be an important part of that effort. But we should also help the Nepalese help themselves and open the U.S. market to a critical export industry. In the end, economic growth and prosperity can best be achieved when Nepal is given the chance to compete and grow in a free and open global marketplace.

Success in that marketplace will lead to a lesser dependence on foreign aid and encourage Nepal to develop other viable export industries.

Since the mid-1980s, garments have emerged as a key part of Nepal's manufacturing sector. The garment industry in Nepal is entirely export oriented and accounts for 40 percent of the foreign exchange earnings. It employs over 100,000 workers half of them women and sustains the livelihood of over 350,000 people. The United States is the largest market for Nepalese garments and accounts for 80-90 percent of Nepal's total exports every year.

Yet, despite Nepal's poverty and the importance of the garment industry and the U.S. market, Nepalese garments are subject to U.S. tariffs of 17-35 percent. This is simply not acceptable and does harm to a country that can least afford it.

I might point out that this tariff rate is in contrast to the European Union, Canada, and Australia which allow or will soon allow Nepalese garments into their markets duty free.

The United States can make a real difference now to sustain the garment industry in Nepal and promote economic growth and higher living standards. My bill is simple and straightforward. It grants duty free status to imports of Nepalese garments and textiles for a two year period. This is the same status granted to participating lesser developed countries under the African Growth and Opportunity Act.

For those of my colleagues who are concerned about the impact that duty free status for Nepalese garments and textiles would have on the domestic industry, it is worth noting that Nepalese garments, at their highest level, accounted for 0.1 percent of all garment and textile imports in the United States generating $29.5 million in revenue.

Nepal is, and will continue to be, a small player in the U.S. garment market, but the importance of the garment industry in Nepal compels us to action.

Let us not miss this chance to help Nepal build a better future for its people and demonstrate to them and the rest of the world the desire of the United States to see developing nations rise from poverty to economic prosperity. 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 to introduce legislation to grant garment imports from Nepal duty free status in the United States for two years. We have an opportunity the help one of the world's most impoverished countries sustain a vital export industry and promote political and economic stability after years of conflict.

My interest in Nepal goes back over 25 years and I have had the pleasure to travel there and visit with friends on many occasions. The warmth and friendliness of the people and the vitality and richness of the culture are only matched by the beauty of the breathtaking landscape.

Nevertheless, Nepal faces some serious challenges in the years ahead as it attempt to build a prosperous economy and raise the living standards of its people.

It ranks as the 12th poorest country in the world, with a per capita income of $240. Approximately 42 percent of the 24 million people live in poverty. Unemployment stands at 47 percent.

On top of this, Nepal has had to confront a Maoist insurgency which has claimed the lives of more than 7,200 people since 1996 with two thirds of the deaths occurring since November 2001. Estimated to include between 5,000 and 10,000 armed soldiers, the Maoists control between one-quarter and one-half of the country.

As a result of the political instability, for the first time in twenty years Nepal's economy contracted in 2002 by 0.6 percent and tourism, one of the main sources of income, fell by 27 percent. The situation became so dire last year that one advisor to Nepal's king noted that ``Nepal is on the verge of becoming a failed state.''

Yet there is reason for hope. On January 29, 2003 the Government of Nepal and the Maoist rebels reached a cease-fire agreement, opening the door for negotiations for a permanent end to the conflict. I am hopeful they will be successful. We now have the opportunity to build on the hopes of a peaceful solution to conflict and really make a difference in the lives of the Nepalese people.

Humanitarian and development assistance should be an important part of that effort. But we should also help the Nepalese help themselves and open the U.S. market to a critical export industry. In the end, economic growth and prosperity can best be achieved when Nepal is given the chance to compete and grow in a free and open global marketplace.

Success in that marketplace will lead to a lesser dependence on foreign aid and encourage Nepal to develop other viable export industries.

Since the mid-1980s, garments have emerged as a key part of Nepal's manufacturing sector. The garment industry in Nepal is entirely export oriented and accounts for 40 percent of the foreign exchange earnings. It employs over 100,000 workers half of them women and sustains the livelihood of over 350,000 people. The United States is the largest market for Nepalese garments and accounts for 80-90 percent of Nepal's total exports every year.

Yet, despite Nepal's poverty and the importance of the garment industry and the U.S. market, Nepalese garments are subject to U.S. tariffs of 17-35 percent. This is simply not acceptable and does harm to a country that can least afford it.

I might point out that this tariff rate is in contrast to the European Union, Canada, and Australia which allow or will soon allow Nepalese garments into their markets duty free.

The United States can make a real difference now to sustain the garment industry in Nepal and promote economic growth and higher living standards. My bill is simple and straightforward. It grants duty free status to imports of Nepalese garments and textiles for a two year period. This is the same status granted to participating lesser developed countries under the African Growth and Opportunity Act.

For those of my colleagues who are concerned about the impact that duty free status for Nepalese garments and textiles would have on the domestic industry, it is worth noting that Nepalese garments, at their highest level, accounted for 0.1 percent of all garment and textile imports in the United States generating $29.5 million in revenue.

Nepal is, and will continue to be, a small player in the U.S. garment market, but the importance of the garment industry in Nepal compels us to action.

Let us not miss this chance to help Nepal build a better future for its people and demonstrate to them and the rest of the world the desire of the United States to see developing nations rise from poverty to economic prosperity. 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 in support of Senator Boxer's amendment to strike the budget resolution provision opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

To begin, I do not believe that the ANWR provision should be attached to a budget resolution. ANWR is a prominent national issue, arousing the passions of people of both sides. Regardless of one's view on the issue, the question of whether to open the refuge to drilling warrants an independent debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

We must also remember that a majority of Americans--55 percent according to the latest poll--oppose drilling in the refuge. We should not use backdoor techniques to sneak a drilling provision through on a technicality.

The budget bill is simply not the appropriate forum for the Arctic Refuge debate.

As a member of the Energy Committee, I believe the ANWR debate is better addressed in the context of an energy bill.

Now to discuss the provision itself. Proponents of drilling claim that drilling in ANWR will free us from our dependence on oil from the Middle East. This is simply not the case.

The bottom line is that, according to estimates from the United States Geological Survey, the Arctic Refuge would yield only about 6 months' worth of oil.

Facts are, we would have to get the oil over a longer period but would still receive less than a million barrels of oil per day even at peak production.

Furthermore, the oil would not flow for at least 10 years and would do nothing for our current national security situation.

Even the Energy Information Administration, the most optimistic forecaster of ANWR's oil potential, estimates that drilling in ANWR would reduce our oil imports by only 2 percent by 2020. And for a reduction of 2 percent, we would damage a national treasure.

Proponents of drilling would also have us believe that we can drill in ANWR without significant environmental cost. However, as the recent report by the National Academies shows us, even with the newest technologies, oil exploration and development harm the North Slope's Wildlife, ecosystems, and wilderness qualities.

The report tells us that the effects of previous development on the North Slope will remain for centuries, and we know that the oil is a short term supply.

To quote the report, we face an essential trade-off in assessing ``whether the benefits derived from oil and gas activities justify acceptance of the inevitable accumulated undesirable effects'' that accompany development on the North Slope. My answer to this question is a resounding no, the small benefits are simply not worth the costs.

Development's effects on wildlife warrant more discussion. According to the National Academies' report, oil exploration and development has negatively affected--and will continue to affect--caribou and bowhead whales.

In some developed areas, feeding on garbage has caused population explosions of predators and the local populations of nesting birds can no longer support themselves without immigration from undeveloped areas.

As more and more of the North Slope falls prey to oil development, one has to wonder from where the additional birds will come.

Therefore, while I agree that we are too dependent on foreign oil, and need to reduce that dependence, drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is simply not the answer. Drilling would not give us energy security and would carry huge environmental costs.

Reducing oil consumption and increasing Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE standards, is the better route to energy security.

In contrast to a small, temporary supply available far in the future and including serious environmental consequences, simply raising average fuel economy standards for sport utility vehicles could save us more than a million barrels per day by 2020.

The savings from increasing efficiency would begin sooner than oil from ANWR and, unlike oil from ANWR, the savings would not run out. Raising CAFE standards for all vehicles would save even more oil.

I would like to focus on energy security for a moment. If we truly want to increase our energy independence, it is vital that we understand why we are now so dependent on foreign oil.

The United States contains only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves and only 4 percent of the world population. And yet we consume 25 percent of the oil produced worldwide.

Almost two-thirds of that oil goes to fuel the transportation sector.

Given our current level of consumption in relation to our domestic reserves, it is clear that modest increases in domestic production--as from ANWR--will not solve our energy problems.

Reducing consumption is the key to increasing America's energy security.

Our system of fuel economy standards needs updating. When CAFE standards were created in 1975, the U.S. consumed about 16 million barrels of oil per day and imported a little more than a third of that oil. Today, American consumes about 19 million barrels each day but we now import more than half of that oil.

When fuel economy standards were first implemented, a lower standard was created for light trucks because they were not considered passenger vehicles. At the time, light duty trucks made up a small percentage of vehicles on the road and were primarily used for agriculture and commerce, not as passenger vehicles.

Today, however, SUVs are predominantly passenger vehicles and yet they are still held to a lower fuel economy standard than other cars.

The fuel economy standard for other passenger automobiles has remained constant at 27.5 miles per gallon since 1990, while the standard for SUVs and light trucks has been just 20.7 miles per gallon since 1991. This lower standard is called the ``SUV loophole.''

When there were few SUVs and light trucks on our roads, the SUV loophole did not affect our national oil consumption. However, with SUVs and light duty trucks now making up almost half of all new vehicles sold, overall fuel economy has reached its lowest level in two decades. We have been moving backwards.

Senator Snowe and I have introduced a bill which would require SUVs and light duty trucks, which are used as passenger vehicles, to meet the same fuel economy standards as other passenger vehicles by 2011.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, automakers can meet the higher standard with existing technologies.

The Feinstein-Snowe bill would save 1 million barrels of oil a day, more than we can expect to recover from ANWR, and, again, these benefits would not run out.

Our legislation would increase SUV fuel economy, reduce oil consumption,

and increase energy security. But just closing the SUV loophole is not enough.

The Feinstein-Snowe legislation would also increase the average fuel economy of the Federal Government's fleet of vehicles. With Federal vehicles comprising about one percent of all vehicles sold in the U.S. each year, the Federal Government should set an example and reduce the Federal fleet's fuel consumption.

Increasing fuel economy includes additional benefits. First, increased efficiency will protect consumers from higher gasoline costs. Our bill would save American motorists billions of dollars per year at the pump.

Second, the Feinstein-Snowe bill would fight global warming by preventing about 240 million tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year.

Still, we should also go beyond the Feinstein-Snowe legislation and increase average fuel economy standards for all cars.

Raising average fuel economy standards to 39 miles per gallon, an achievable goal, would save 51 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years, 5 to 10 times more than what is technically recoverable from

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize an outstanding leader of American industry, Kent Kresa, upon his retirement. For the past 13 years, Mr. Kresa has presided over Northrop Grumman Corporation as its chairman and CEO.

Under his guidance, Northrop Grumman grew from a mid-sized defense company known primarily for aircraft building to a full-spectrum major defense firm. The Northrop Grumman that Mr. Kresa refashioned is home to 120,000 employees located in all 50 States and has operations in 25 foreign countries.

It is my privilege to commend Mr. Kresa for a career that helped modernize our defense industrial base and that significantly bolstered our national security.

Mr. Kresa was born in New York City and raised on Long Island. He received his education at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, earning a bachelor's degree in 1959 and post-graduate degrees in 1961 and 1966, all in aeronautics and astronautics.

Before joining Northrop Grumman, Mr. Kresa served with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, where he was responsible for applied research and development programs in the tactical and strategic defense arena. From 1961-68 he was associated with the Lincoln Laboratory at M.I.T., where he worked on ballistic missile defense research and re- entry technology.

During his distinguished career, Mr. Kresa received many of industry's and the government's most prestigious honors. In January, Forbes Magazine featured him on their cover and named Northrop Grumman the Company of the Year. In 2002, Mr. Kresa was awarded the Ellis Island Medal of Honor for his significant contributions to our nation's heritage. He received the Navy League's Admiral Chester W. Nimitz Award for outstanding support of the U.S. Navy.

Also last year, he was named president for a 1-year term of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. And he was presented the California Institute of Technology's Management Association's Excellence in Management Award for demonstrating extraordinary vision and leadership.

In 2001, BusinessWeek magazine selected Mr. Kresa as one of the Nation's Top 25 managers. That same year he received the Private Sector Council's Leadership Award for his commitment to improving governmental efficiency. In May 2000, the Aerospace Historical Society presented Mr. Kresa with the International von Krmn Wings award for his contributions to the industry. And in March of 2000, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association named Mr. Kresa and Northrop Grumman a Manufacturer of the Century.

Other honors include Honorary Fellow by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics in 1998; California Industrialist of the Year in 1996, by the California Museum of Science and Industry and the California Museum Foundation; the Navy League of New York's Admiral John J. Bergen Leadership Award in 1995; and the Air Force Association's John R. Alison Award for Industrial Leadership in 1994.

During Mr. Kresa's tenure at DARPA, he received the Arthur D. Flemming Award as one of the top 10 people in the U.S. Government in 1975; the Navy's Meritorious Public Service Citation the same year; and Secretary of Defense Meritorious Civilian Service Medal in 1974.

While impressive, this partial list of honors only begins to tell the story of Mr. Kresa's contributions to the defense industry and this country.

After joining Northrop in 1975, he was responsible for innovations in stealth and surveillance aircraft, such as the revolutionary B-2 stealth bomber. He was named president of the company in 1987, and CEO and chairman of the board in 1990.

Within the next few years, he embarked upon a decade-long effort that would not only transform Northrop Grumman but also make the company a major force in changing the nature of the defense business.

He and his staff foresaw that a post-cold war defense establishment would require a very different array of products and services, that America's military of the future would rely on systems and integrated networks to tremendously enhance the capabilities of its platforms. He worked tirelessly to help the Department of Defense achieve this vision of interconnected platforms working together to greatly increase the situational awareness and speed of engagement of our military forces.

To build a company that could better support the new direction of the Department of Defense, Mr. Kresa and his staff acquired 16 other major firms, many of them legends in their own right. These included Grumman, Westinghouse, Logicon, Litton Industries, Newport News Shipbuilding, and, most recently, TRW.

``This Amalgamation of great companies,'' to quote Mr. Kresa, created a corporate structure that has led to new efficiencies and much creative collaboration. Today, for instance, Navy ships can be built from top to bottom as well as networked with other platforms simply through the joint efforts of Northrop Grumman experts in information technology, avionics, satellite communications and other areas.

Mr. Kresa and was also instrumental in developing and gaining Congressional approval for several key platforms that will help form the backbone of our 21st century military. These include the Joint Strike Fighter, the DDX family of destroyers, cruisers and littoral combat ships, and the new generation of Coast Guard ships and aircraft known as the Deepwater project.

As Mr. Kresa moves on to exciting new challenges I wish him, his wife Joyce, and their daughter Kiren, every success and happiness.

For more than 42 years, Mr. Kresa has worked relentlessly in pushing for greater innovation, efficiency and readiness within our great Nation's defense establishment. My office will remember Mr. Kresa for his loyalty, dedicated service, and accomplishments--and we thank him.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 261 and ask for its immediate consideration. It is short, and I would appreciate it being read by the clerk.

Mr. President, this amendment is simple and straightforward. It bans any abortion after viability, except when a doctor has determined that it is necessary to save the life or protect the health of the woman.

I have been a part of the Judiciary Committee now for 10 years and I have seen this bill come up in three Congresses and listened to or read testimony on this bill for three Congresses.

The first time it came up, it became very apparent to me that the definition of partial-birth abortion was too vague. I wondered why it was so vague. It looked like it covered different medical procedures. And now, about 8 years later, I believe I know why it is so vague. I believe it is so vague because it could actually cover all abortions and therefore be a major strike against a woman's right to choose. Eighty percent of the people of this country believe that abortion must be safe and legal to preserve a woman's health. People strongly believe that this is a decision between a woman, her clergy, her doctor, and her family.

I deeply believe politicians should not be in the business of making decisions about women's reproductive rights. In my view, the Santorum legislation, S. 3, is a Trojan horse. It is not what it purports to be. It supposedly bans one procedure, D&X, but actually confuses this procedure with another, D&E, the most commonly used abortion procedure. In fact, its wording is so vague that it could be construed to criminalize all abortions.

Yesterday's Congressional Record shows that Senator Santorum--and I have great respect for my distinguished colleague--stated:

I have not been asking about medical necessity. . . . I

have not asked for someone's opinion on what ought to be or

what could be. What I have asked for is an example. I wanted

a fact circumstance to be provided as to where this would be

the best, this would be appropriate, this would be medically

indicated.

I would like to answer Senator Santorum's question at this time, through a letter. After we heard this question, we called the University of California San Francisco Medical Center, the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, and talked to the chief of that department at San Francisco General Hospital, who is also a full professor. His name is Philip D. Darney. Dr. Darney just sent me this letter, and I would like to read that letter into the Record:

Dear Senator Feinstein: I write to provide examples of the

need for a ``medical exemption'' to the proposed restriction

of use of the so-called ``partial birth abortion'' technique

which is now before the Senate. The medical term for the

technique is ``intact D&E''.

I am Chief of Obstetrics and Gynecology at San Francisco

General Hospital, SFGH, where my department provides about

2,000 abortions yearly to poor women from throughout Northern

California. Patients who are in the second trimester and who

have special medical problems are referred to SFGH for

treatment because our staff has special competence in second

trimester abortion and because we can provide specialized

care for women who are more likely to have a complicated

pregnancy termination. Although I have not reviewed medical

records in order to count the number of times we have

employed intact D&E, I will provide examples of cases in

which the technique was critical to safe conduct of our

surgery:

A 25 year old with two previous vaginal deliveries and

bleeding placenta previa and a clotting disorder at 20 weeks

was referred for termination of pregnancy. After checking her

coagulation parameters and making blood available for

transfusion, we dilated the cervix overnight with Laminaria

and planned uterine evacuation when adequate dilation was

achieved or bleeding became too heavy to replace. Within 12

hours cervical dilation was 3 cm and heavy bleeding had

begun. We removed the placenta quickly and used the ``intact

D&E'' approach to complete the abortion and accomplish quick

control of blood loss. The patient required a transfusion of

two units of whole blood and was discharged the next day in

good health.

A 38 year old with three previous caesarean deliveries and

evidence of placenta accreta was referred for pregnancy

termination at 22 weeks because her risk of massive

hemorrhage and hysterectomy at the time of delivery was

correctly estimated at about 75 percent. After SFGH

sonographic studies confirmed placenta previa and likely

accreta we undertook cervical dilation with laminaria and

made blood available in case transfusion was required. To

reduce the 75 percent probability of emergency hysterectomy

in the situation of disseminated intravascular coagulation

(DIC is quite likely with accreta) we decided to empty the

uterus as quickly as possible with the intact D&E procedure

and treat hemorrhage, if it occurred, with uterine artery

embolization before our patient lost too much blood and

hysterectomy was our only option. This approach succeeded and

she was discharged in good health two days later.

These two patients provide examples from my memory of

situations in which the ``intact D&E'' technique was critical

to providing optimal care. I am certain that a review of our

hospital records would identify cases of sever pre-eclampsia,

for example, in which ``intact D&E'' was the safest technique

of pregnancy termination, I hope the law will not deny our

patients the best treatment we can provide them under life-

threatening circumstances. Sincerely, Philip D. Darney.

This letter is from the chief of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at one of the best hospitals in the country. It answers Senator Santorum's question. It provides two examples of where D&X, or what some also call intact D&E, may well have been necessary to protect the health of the woman.

Heart disease, cancer, and grave fetal abnormalities are among the many conditions that can make pregnancy especially dangerous to a woman's physical health. Under S. 3, these patients would be forced to continue a dangerous pregnancy. That is why I am offering my health exception amendment today.

Indeed, there are many tragic situations that face women today, situations that most could never imagine. There is one thing that has always characterized these debates. That is that everyone looks at them from their own vantage point without taking into consideration the situations of others. If you have not encountered a difficult situation, such as a possibly dangerous pregnancy, it is hard to know what you would do. But women and their families face these situations daily.

That is as good a reason as any why the Senate should not intrude into this area, and why the reproductive choices of women should be left to the women, their clergy, their morality, their families, their doctors, and not to the Senate.

Having said that, the amendment I am offering strikes a balance between protecting a woman's health and ensuring the D&X procedure is not abused. This amendment would ban all post-viability abortions unless a doctor determines that these abortions are necessary to protect the life and health of the woman. To ensure compliance with this ban, a doctor who performs a postviability abortion on a woman whose health or life is not at risk could be fined up to $100,000.

What is wrong with S. 3? I will take a moment to explain why I believe Senator Santorum's bill is a bad bill. To begin with, it is unconstitutional because it lacks a health exception. I heard Senator Santorum say a health exception is not necessary. It is necessary. A review of the Supreme Court's abortion decisions and the record makes clear that any ban on D&X--or what supporters of the Santorum bill incorrectly call partial-birth abortion--must include a health exception. My amendment includes such an exception.

In 1973, Roe v. Wade grounded the abortion right in large part on the States' compelling obligation to protect maternal health. In fact, the Court states that the States' interest in preserving the health of a pregnant woman grows more important as a woman's pregnancy progresses. Thus, under Roe, the need for a health exception becomes even stronger with second- or third-term abortion procedures.

In 1992, as my colleagues have stated this many times on the floor, the Supreme Court explicitly reaffirmed Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Then in the year 2000, in Stenberg v. Carhart, the Supreme Court ruled that any ban must have a health exception. I have outlined two specific examples of why such a health exception is necessary. Yet Senator Santorum's bill does not have such an exception.

At the same time, S. 3 attempts to ban a specific medical procedure which it calls partial-birth abortion. But the bill offers no medical definition of partial-birth abortion. Now the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, whose more than 44,000 members represent approximately 95 percent of all board-certified OB/GYNs practicing in the United States, has developed a medical definition of what is a D&X procedure. The American College of OB/GYNs's definition of the procedure is very different from Senator Santorum's.

I have to ask, why? Why wouldn't the proponents of this bill put in a medically acceptable definition so that those physicians who were practicing medicine and may encounter this kind of case would know precisely what is prohibited? I believe I know the answer. The answer is that the bill is calculated to cover more than just one procedure. I think it is calculated to ban all abortions. I believe if the bill becomes law, it would be struck down as unconstitutional.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from the American College of OB/GYNs.

According to the American College of OB/GYNs, any definition of D&X must include all four of the elements I mentioned performed in the proper sequence.

The proponents have refused to use this definition, although the definition has been available for years. Rather, the language in S. 3 is so vague that far from outlawing just one particular abortion procedure, the way this bill is written, it virtually outlaws any abortion procedure. This, I believe, is the true intent of this bill--a major strike, and perhaps a fatal strike, against a woman's right to choose.

Everyone agrees that S. 3 lacks a health exception. It purposefully lacks a health exception. In the Stenberg case, the Supreme Court ruled ``significant medical authority supports the proposition that in some circumstances this procedure would be the safest.'' In her opinion, Justice O'Connor stated:

Because even a post-viability proscription of abortion

would be invalid absent a health exception, Nebraska's ban on

pre-viability partial-birth abortions under the circumstances

presented here must include a health exception, as well. The

statute at issue here only accepts those procedures necessary

to save the life of the mother whose life is in endangered by

a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury.

This lack of a health exception necessarily renders the

statute unconstitutional.

Let me repeat her words.

This lack of a health exception necessarily renders the

statute unconstitutional.

Now, that is not my colleague, Senator Boxer, speaking. That is not the distinguished Senator from New Jersey speaking. That is not the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania speaking. That is not the majority leader, a distinguished physician, speaking. That is the Supreme Court of the United States. That is the law of the land.

This language could not be more clear. However, supporters of the Santorum bill argue that they can ignore this language by throwing into their bill some questionable facts that a health exception is unnecessary. They argue that the so-called findings make irrelevant the Supreme Court's constitutional determination in Carhart that a health exception is necessary.

Now, it is not only Carhart. There are a series of other cases.

One is Richard Medical Center for Women v. Gilmore, in 1999, which was affirmed by the Fourth Circuit Court in 2000. I quote:

The record contains significant evidence that the D&X

procedure is often far safer than other D&E procedures.

Another is Rhode Island Medical Society v. Whithouse, in 1999, affirmed by the First Circuit in 2001:

Defendants claim that a D&X could never be necessary to

save a woman's health, but the evidence at trial failed to

support that contention. Therefore, this court finds that the

D&X could be used to preserve a woman's health and must be

available to physicians and women who want to rely upon it.

If that is not enough, let me mention Hope Clinic v. Ryan, a 1998 decision.

Intact D&E reduces the risk of retained tissue and reduces

the risk of uterine perforation and cervical laceration

because the procedure requires less instrumentation in the

uterus. An intact D&E may also result in less blood loss and

less trauma for some patients and may take less operating

time.

Another example is Women's Medical Professional Corp. v. Voinovich, 1995, affirmed in 1997:

After viewing all of the evidence and hearing all of the

testimony, this court finds that use of the D&X procedure in

the late second trimester appears to pose less of a risk to

maternal health than does the D&E procedure. This court also

finds that the D&X procedure appears to pose less of a risk

to maternal health than the use of induction procedures.

These are all clear district court and appellate court decisions, plus a number of clear Supreme Court decisions, and yet S. 3 flies in the face of all of them. All it offers is 15 pages of weak factual findings.

The Framers of the Constitution did not intend that Congress be able to evade Supreme Court precedent and effectively amend the Constitution by holding a hearing and generating some questionable testimony from hand-picked witnesses. Let me quote former Chief Justice Warren Burger on this point.

A legislature appropriately inquires into and may declare

the reasons impelling legislative action, but the judicial

function commands analysis of whether the specific conduct

charged falls within the reach of the statute and, if so,

whether the legislation is consonant with the Constitution.

The supporters of this bill are effectively trying to overturn binding Supreme Court precedent and to rewrite the Constitution by enacting a bill that openly violates Stenberg v. Carhart and other Supreme Court opinions. This, in my view, clearly oversteps legislative authority.

The Santorum bill also presumes guilt on the part of doctors and forces them to prove that they did not violate the law. This is putting a burden on one group of people, the very people charged with protecting pregnant women from harm. The legislation provides that an accused physician could escape liability only by proving that he or she reasonably believed that the banned procedure--whatever that procedure turns out to be, because it is not defined in the legislation--was necessary to save the woman's life and no other procedure would have sufficed.

It also opens the door to the prosecution of doctors for performing almost any abortion method by forcing them to prove they did not violate a law that can be interpreted in many different ways. Indeed, this bill is a major step toward making all abortions illegal in the United States.

Why does the Federal Government need to be involved in this issue? Why is this legislation even necessary? Roe v. Wade clearly and unequivocally allows States to ban all postviability abortions unless necessary to protect the life and health of the woman. Forty-one States already have bans on the books. So the States have accepted the premise of Roe v. Wade. If they have been concerned about postviability abortions, as most are, they have taken action, as Roe so provides.

The fact is, abortions late in a pregnancy are rare and usually performed under very tragic circumstances. Some States have not seen the need to legislate in this area. Surely anyone who believes in States' rights must question the logic of imposing a new Federal regulation on States in a case such as this, where States have already legislated.

Finally, I say to my colleagues, the Santorum bill is a bad bill. It is clearly unconstitutional. I have cited district court cases. I have cited appellate court cases. I have cited Supreme Court cases. S. 3 fails to provide a straight health exception for the woman, which is necessary to stand the constitutional test. It is not the role of the Federal Government to make medical decisions. It should be up to the doctor and his or her medical judgment.

This bill is bad because it attempts to ban a medical procedure without properly identifying that procedure in medical terms; ergo, it muddies the water and it throws all procedures into risk. It could affect far more than the procedure it seeks to ban. And it presumes guilt on the part of the doctor, something that, in the case of physicians, may be unprecedented in American law.

In our criminal justice system, somebody has to prove you guilty. You are presumed innocent. This bill puts the burden on doctors, and it ignores the vital health interests of women who are often facing tragic complications in their pregnancies.

That is why I am offering this complete substitute to S. 3. This substitute amendment puts medical decisions back in the hands of doctors. If the doctor believes such a procedure is necessary to protect a woman's life or health, then he or she should be able to perform the procedure. I believe it is that simple.

I strongly believe that Congress should be supporting legislation that protects a woman's health. For the sake of all Americans, 80 percent of whom believe they should have the right to choose to protect the woman's health, from all walks of life, present and future, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Madam President, I yield 15 minutes of my time to the Senator from New Jersey.

I have no problem with that.

Madam President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Thank you, Madam President. I ask that 15 minutes go to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Stabenow and Senator Edwards as cosponsors of my amendment.

I yield 2 more minutes to the Senator.

May I ask, first, how much time we have remaining?

I want to make a couple of comments. The first comment is that comparing my amendment with the Dred Scott decision is ridiculous. Having said that, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania is right about one thing. In a sense, this is a codification of Roe.

I have sat on the Judiciary Committee. I ask my colleagues the question: What do you think of Roe v. Wade? Overwhelmingly, most would say it is well-settled law. The States have adapted to it, and Roe v. Wade allows States to restrict abortion severely, if the fetus is viable, that is, can be sustained outside of the uterus. And over 40 States have banned or severely restricted postviability abortions.

S. 3 is duplicitous because it says it does one thing but does another. It says that it bans partial-birth abortion, but it does not adequately define it, and so bans much more than this method. Moreover, the bill does not define D&X in a medical context.

Respectfully, Senator Santorum is not a physician, and, respectfully, he is not going to be carrying out a surgical procedure. But there are hundreds of thousands of physicians out there who are carrying out this medical procedure. And Senator Santorum wants to leave them with an unclear definition in this bill. And the precise, medically accurate definition I read into the Record, the definition of D&X as proposed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, is not the definition in the bill.

What I have done is tried to write a simple, straightforward bill that essentially sustains Roe v. Wade. So those who believe in Roe v. Wade should vote for my amendment. It says that any abortion is illegal once the fetus is viable, once the doctor determines that the fetus can sustain itself outside of the womb, unless the life and the health of the woman are in jeopardy. That is Roe v. Wade. The amendment is also consistent with a whole host of federal court decisions which I read and in the Supreme Court's decision in Stenberg v. Carhart where Justice Breyer, Justice O'Connor, and three other justices very clearly said that a Nebraska statute very similar to S. 3 falls because there is no exception for the health of the woman.

The Senator has talked about the liberty clause. And Roe v. Wade, yes, did come from the liberty clause of the due process clause of the 14th amendment and other parts of the Constitution. Roe helped establish a basic right of privacy for women.

I get so annoyed when men constantly strive to take away hard-won rights from women. Respectfully, I don't want Senator Santorum taking away my reproductive rights. I respect his views. I respect his rights. I respect his moral code, his religion, his conversations with his physician. Why can't those who happen to be pro-choice receive the same respect, particularly when a fetus is not viable, when a fetus cannot sustain life outside the womb? That is what this is all about.

Make no mistake, if you believe in choice, you will support my amendment. If you do not, you will support S. 3. That is the clear division of the house on this. If there were a clear medically accurate definition in S. 3, I would not be saying what I am saying. I would say: Members, you are voting on a particular medical procedure; you are prohibiting a particular medical procedure. But if you are voting for S. 3, you are voting to prohibit much more than just the medical procedure that has been put on this floor. You are also prohibiting D&E abortions as well. That has been the finding not of me but of obstetricians and gynecologists, some of them from the finest medical schools in our country, and numerous federal courts, including the Supreme Court.

S. 3's infringement on women's right to choose reminds me of another woman's right. It was not until 1920 that we got the vote. And when this Nation was founded and we go back to our days of--for some--glory, women could not

get a higher education, women could not own property, women could not inherit. Every single right we have won has been fought for. And the right to choose has been fought for as well.

There are probably few people in this body who have seen a young woman ready to commit suicide from an unwanted pregnancy. I have. I went to college when abortion was illegal in the United States. I saw what happened. I saw the back-alley abortionist set up and do business. And then later I set sentences for women who had been convicted of felonies for having illegal abortions. I did that for 6 years. And I saw the tragedy they caused. We cannot go back to those days.

This is a step--let there be no doubt about it--back to those days. We have before us an imprecise piece of legislation, not just banning D&X but covering many more abortion methods than the S.3's supporters have said they aim to cover. A vote for my amendment will be a vote with the 80 percent of the population who believe in a women's right to choose to protect their health because my amendment is, Senator Santorum is correct, in essence a codification of Roe v. Wade.

I am hopeful that those who voted for the Harkin Roe v. Wade amendment will also vote yes on this amendment.

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

I would like to respond in this way, if I may. The distinguished Senator said that if you vote for my amendment, you don't specifically ban D&X. That is true. You ban all postviability abortions, including all use of D&X postviability.

Let me also reiterate that S. 3 does not specifically ban D&X either. In fact, D&X procedure isn't defined in Senator Santorum's bill. The most knowledgeable people in the country have looked at S. 3, the nation's leading obstetricians and gynecologists, and what they tell me is that S. 3 will affect much more than D&X because S. 3's definition is incomplete and flawed. It is not me saying this, it is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. I have entered their letter into the Record.

The Senator could have used that definition in the bill, and then we would know what we were voting on. But he did not. I believe that, from the beginning, it has been intentional not to include a specific medically accurate definition in the bill. The bill is a Trojan horse. It could impact D&E abortions, the most common abortion method used, but the Senator refuses to admit it. The bill violates Roe and other Supreme Court opinions because it doesn't protect the health of the woman.

So what Senator Stabenow, Senator Edwards, and I have done in this amendment is say that any abortion after the point of a fetus' viability, as determined by the physician, is illegal--except to protect the health or life of the woman.

My amendment follows the Constitution. It is constitutional.

We just had 52 votes supporting Roe v. Wade. If those 52 votes are real, then

the same senators will vote for my amendment because both Senator Santorum and I agree that this codifies Roe v. Wade.

I have listened to the debate over D&X as a member of the Judiciary Committee now in three Congresses. In every Congress I have asked: Why don't you put in the medical definition? And in every Congress the other side refuses to put in the medical definition. It makes you suspicious. Why wouldn't their bill use the generally accepted medical definition, unless it truly is a Trojan horse? Unless they are truly trying to mask what they are trying to do, which is to strike at the heart of a woman's right to choose.

I think I will now close off this debate. I urge those who voted on the Harkin amendment to please sustain that vote, to vote consistently, and to vote for the Feinstein-Stabenow-Edwards amendment.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about charges that the ongoing filibuster against Miguel Estrada is somehow unconstitutional, as some have claimed.

I take this job very seriously, and it is not often that I support preventing an up or down vote on any issue. In fact, this is the only time I have ever supported a filibuster against a judicial nominee, and I do so for very specific reasons, as do so many of my Democratic colleagues.

Contrary to the charges we have been hearing over the last few days, I believe this filibuster is precisely what the Founders of this Nation had in mind when they created a three-branched system of government with checks, balances, advice and consent.

This filibuster is not about preventing a conservative nominee from getting onto the court. Rather, this filibuster is about a failure of this administration to adequately seek the advice and participation of the U.S. Senate in the judicial nominations process, particularly with regard to this nominee.

I have spoken several times about Mr. Estrada specifically, and each time I have been clear, as have my colleagues--this is a nominee about whom we know very, very little, and he and this administration have simply not done enough to give us the kind of information we need to properly perform our constitutional duty of advice and consent. Because we are prevented from performing this constitutional duty, we have been forced to resort to a procedure, well within the Senate rules and by no means unprecedented, to enforce those rights.

The filibuster is one of the key devices throughout our nation's history that has protected the right of the minority party, or even of one Senator. Without a filibuster right on nominations, there might never be advice and consent at all. And that would turn the Constitution on its head.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have attempted to make much of the fact that the Constitution does not provide for a ``super- majority'' vote on nominations, unlike constitutional amendments or treaties. This is true--the Constitution is silent on the issue of how many votes a nomination should take.

But the Constitution is equally silent about how many votes it would take to proceed to other measures as well--a patient's bill of rights, for example. Or a ban on human cloning. Or the assault weapons ban. Or education bills. Or even major civil rights legislation. Yet nobody argues that it would be unconstitutional for one or more Senators to filibuster these bills. Unwise, perhaps. Subject to public outcry, maybe. A legitimate subject of reasoned debate, absolutely. But unconstitutional? No.

Now let me address the issue of whether this filibuster is ``unprecedented,'' as some have charged. If we look at the facts, we soon see that the only really unprecedented aspect of this filibuster may be its success. Many have tried, but few have succeeded. And this may be a good indication of how strongly we feel about enforcing our constitutional role of advice and consent to this and other nominations now before us.

The majority now argues that any filibuster of a judicial nominee is unconstitutional because it essentially establishes a new, 60-vote threshold for judicial nominees. But this 60-vote threshold has long been in place for

controversial nominees facing objections from one or more Senators.

Again, the only real difference between the situation with Miguel Estrada and the situations where cloture votes were required on other nominees is that here, today, there are not enough votes to meet that 60-vote threshold.

The procedure is the same--a cloture vote.

The debate is the same--over a nomination to the federal judiciary.

Only the outcome is different, and I don't see how the outcome can determine the constitutionality of the process.

Let me list some other filibusters and cloture votes throughout recent history.

In 1968, Abe Fortas was actually prevented from becoming Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by filibuster. The other side may argue that this was a bipartisan filibuster, and they are right--but this is not the point. The point is, a filibuster was used as a tool, and the nomination failed.

In 1980, Stephen Breyer had to go through two cloture motions to obtain a seat on the First Circuit--to debate, Miguel Estrada has only had one cloture vote.

In 1994, a cloture vote finally stopped a filibuster against Rosemary Barkett, a nominee to the 11th Circuit.

In 1994, H. Lee Sarokin's nomination to the Third Circuit required a cloture vote before it could proceed.

In 2000, the nominations of both Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals--nominations which had been stopped dead in their tracks literally for years by that time--underwent cloture votes. Richard Paez had waited for more than 1,500 days before he was given that cloture vote.

To be perfectly frank, hearing these charges from the other side of the aisle is surprising given how many other Clinton nominees were stopped cold by secret holds and other parliamentary tactics, both in committee and on the floor.

For instance, Elena Kagan was a Clinton nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals--the same circuit to which Miguel Estrada is now nominated. In fact, Ms. Kagan was Miguel Estrada's supervising editor on the Harvard law review, yet Republicans stopped her nomination cold without even getting to the point of a filibuster, or a public accounting of who was for, and who was against, that nominee.

Elena Kagan was never filibustered on the floor, but she was effectively ``filibustered'' in committee by one or two Senators who prevented a hearing or a committee vote.

Other nominees to the circuit courts who were denied hearings or committee votes include Helene White for the Sixth Circuit, Jorge Rangel for the Fifth Circuit, Bonnie Campbell for the Eighth Circuit, and the list goes on and on. In fact, dozens of Clinton nominees were blocked in committee by anonymous holds or other obstructionist tactics, so there was no need for a filibuster on the floor.

It is most surprising to hear these charges of unconstitutionality from the other side of the aisle, given that many of my Republican colleagues actually participated in filibusters against Clinton nominees.

Richard Paez, for example, was one of President Clinton's Hispanic nominees to the circuit court, and he could not move on the floor until a cloture petition was filed. When the vote finally came to end the filibuster, the majority of the Senate voted to do so and Richard Paez is now a federal judge.

But many of my Republican colleagues voted to continue that filibuster, just three short years ago. Indeed, almost exactly three years ago, on March 8, 2000, fourteen Republican Senators voted to continue the filibuster against Richard Paez, including some of those who now argue that filibusters themselves are unconstitutional.

And when the cloture vote came on that same day for Marsha Berzon, another Clinton nominee who waited years for a hearing and up or down vote, thirteen Republican Senators voted to continue that filibuster as well.

How can these Senators now argue that this filibuster is unconstitutional? Is it only unconstitutional when Democrats filibuster a nominee, but constitutional for Republicans to do the same? Is it only unconstitutional if the filibuster succeeds?

The fact is, this filibuster is very constitutional, and in fact it may even be necessary to enforce the constitution's other provisions, such as the advice and consent power granted to the U.S. Senate.

I do not relish where we find ourselves today, nor do any of my colleagues--on either side of the aisle.

We stand poised to enter a war against Iraq, and under the constant threat of international terrorism. Our budgets are running at record deficits, the economy is still in trouble, and we recently reorganized our entire homeland security apparatus. All of these issues require the attention in this body.

The nominations debate is clearly very important to the future of our judiciary and to the rule of law for decades to come, and there is no question that this issue should not, can not, and will not, be ignored.

But we should be concentrating our efforts, and our limited resources in terms of time, staff and attention, on these other important issues as well.

It is clear now that Miguel Estrada will not become a federal judge unless our requests are met. Any further debate on this nominee is really a distraction from the many other important issues we should address.

I appreciate the attendance of the distinguished Vice President of the United States here today, and I appreciate the gravity of this debate.

But I urge the Republican leader and my colleagues to move beyond this debate so we can resolve these other, very important issues.

Mr. President, in the mid-1960s, during the height of the Vietnam War, the Department of Defense commissioned a study to determine the feasibility and advisability of the use of tactical nuclear weapons in that conflict. A copy of that 1967 study, ``Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Southeast Asia'', has just been declassified, and lays out in terrifying detail what might have happened if the United States had used tactical nuclear weapons during the Vietnam war.

The bottom line of the study is that the use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam--to block the Ho Chi Minh trail, kill large numbers of enemy soldiers, or destroy North Vietnamese air bases and seaports--would have offered no decisive military advantages to the United States but would have had grave repercussions for US soldiers in the field and US interests around the world.

The study was prepared by four physicists associated with the Jason Division of the Institute of Defense Analyses, a group of scientists who met frequently to provide classified advice to defense officials. The study's conclusions were presented to then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara.

``The political effects of US first use of TNW (tactical nuclear weapons) in Vietnam would be uniformly bad and could be catastrophic,'' the scientists wrote.

They warned that US first-use of tactical nuclear weapons could lead China or the Soviet Union to provide similar weapons to the Viet Cong and North Vietnam, raising the possibility that US forces in Vietnam ``would be essentially annihilated'' in retaliatory raids by nuclear- armed guerrilla forces.

If that happened, they wrote, ``insurgent groups everywhere in the world would take note and would try by all available means to acquire TNW for themselves.'' First-use of nuclear weapons in Southeast Asia, the scientists warned, was ``likely to result in greatly increased long-term risk of nuclear guerrilla operations in other parts of the world,'' including attacks on the Panama Canal, oil pipelines and storage facilities in Venezuela and the Israeli capital of Tel Aviv.

``US security would be gravely endangered if the use of TNW by guerrilla forces should become widespread,'' they concluded.

Thirty-six years later some American officials are, according to press reports, once again contemplating the use of nuclear weapons, and seeking to repeal US prohibitions on the developments of smaller nuclear weapons, including so-called ``low-yield'' bombs and deep- penetration ``bunker-busters.''

Writing recently in the Los Angeles Times, military analyst William Arkin disclosed the US Strategic Command in Omaha and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are secretly drawing up nuclear target lists for Iraq. ``Target lists are being scrutinized, options are being pondered and procedures are being tested to give nuclear armaments a role in the new U.S. doctrine of `preemption,' '' Arkin reported.

There have also been reports that tactical nuclear weapons, particularly ``bunker busters,'' have been considered by Pentagon planners in the context of the escalating nuclear crisis with North Korea. Moreover, many US analysts believe there is a great danger that North Korea, if its survival was at stake, would be willing to sell its nuclear arsenal to the highest bidder.

North Korea itself apparently believes the United States may be planning nuclear strikes of its own, and on March 1 warned that a war on the Korean peninsula would quickly ``escalate into a nuclear war.''

I sincerely believe that any first use of nuclear weapons by the United States cannot and should not be sanctioned. As the Jason scientists argued in the 1960s, U.S. nuclear planning could serve as a pretext for other countries and, worse, terrorist groups such as al- Qaida, to build or acquire their own bombs. If we are not careful, our own nuclear posture could provoke the very nuclear-proliferation activities we are seeking to prevent.

This study, ``Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Southeast Asia'', was released this past weekend by the Nautilus Institute of Berkeley, CA, and I would urge those with an interest in reading it in full to contact them directly.

The conclusions of the Jason report are as valid, realistic and frightening today as they were in 1967. As we contemplate the future course of our nation's national security policy, I believe that it is important to look at past events, to learn from them, and to benefit from the counsel of history.

Mr. President, today commemorates the forty-fourth anniversary of the 1959 ``Lhasa Uprising.''

I offer my comments today in the sincere hope that it will promote a constructive dialogue between Chinese and Tibetan leaders, and with the goal of ending the bitter divisiveness now plaguing relations between China and Tibet.

When, following the Chinese invasion in 1949-1950, Tibet was established as an autonomous region in the People's Republic of China, the Tibetan people were granted the right of autonomy in determining the shape of their religious, cultural and social institutions. China's leadership is on record as agreeing to this principle.

Unfortunately, between 1951 and 1959 the government of the People's Republic of China did not uphold these guarantees of autonomy, leading to the 1959 Lhasa Uprising and the flight of the Dalai Lama from Tibet. During the past 44 years, tens of thousands of Tibetans have been forced to flee their homeland in the face of continued Chinese repression and violation of their right to religious and cultural autonomy. I find this a tragedy.

Nonetheless, the Dalai Lama, in seeking to engage with China's leadership to discuss the future of the Tibetan people, has specifically cited that he is not seeking independence for Tibet, that he is willing to confine his discussions to achieving cultural and religious autonomy for his people, and that he is willing to negotiate within the framework enunciated by Deng Xiaoping in 1979.

Indeed, in his statement today on the ``44th Anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising,'' the Dalai Lama stated that ``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 on 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.''

Over the past 12 years I have made every effort to encourage rapprochement between China and Tibet, including helping to pass messages from His Holiness, the Dalai Lama to China. I believe the Dalai Lama is absolutely sincere in his desire to negotiate a peaceful solution to what has been a great tragedy for the Tibetan people.

This past September the Chinese government made it possible for two envoys of the Dalai Lama to visit Beijing to re-establish direct contact with the Chinese leadership, and to visit Tibet to meet with local Tibetan officials. This trip was, in my view, very significant, very encouraging, and very meaningful.

Nonetheless, much remains to be done if the people of Tibet are to achieve freedom and autonomy in determining the shape of their society. It is my sincere hope that China's new leadership will extend the hand of cooperation in resolving differences with Tibet.

Mr. President, no one can deny the contributions women and children have made to this country and the world. In government, business, education, medicine, the arts, and athletics, women have met and exceeded the great challenges placed before them. It is altogether fitting, then, that we set aside one day every year to pay tribute and acknowledge these accomplishments: March 8, 2003 is International Women's Day.

On this day, we celebrate the progress women and girls have made over the years, but we also renew our commitment to create a better world and bestow a better future to women and girls in every country. We must not rest on our laurels until all women and girls enjoy basic human rights and have the opportunity to fulfill their life dreams.

Rarely does a day go by when we do not hear the news of a woman fighting for those rights and those dreams, whether it be a girl struggling to get an education in Afghanistan, a mother desperately seeking to provide for her children in sub-Saharan Africa, or a woman expressing her views in the streets of Venezuela. We who enjoy the blessings of liberty and democracy have an obligation to raise our voice on behalf of these women and girls to let them know that they are not alone and we are fighting for them.

All over the world, women and girls are looking to the United States for leadership and I would like to take this time to address several critical issues that I believe are vital to their lives: international family planning assistance, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, CEDAW, rape as an instrument of war, and the plight of women in Afghanistan.

Honest differences of opinion exist on this issue, but I believe that those of us in Congress who support a robust package of U.S. assistance to international family planning organizations must not back down. I was dismayed when on July 22, 2002 Secretary of State Colin Powell decided to withhold the $34 million U.S. contribution to the United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA--an amount allocated to it by law and after months of negotiation and with bipartisan support--because he determined that UNFPA participated in coercive family planning programs in China. The administration's decision to withhold the funds and withhold $25 million for Fiscal Year 2003 runs counter to common sense and counter to the findings of its own investigative team.

Just over a month earlier a three member State Department team investigated UNFPA programs in China and concluded quite clearly that there was no evidence that UNFPA supported or participated in coercive family planning programs and recommended that it receive the full U.S. $34 million contribution. Nevertheless, the Administration chose to ignore these findings and, in doing so, struck a terrible blow to U.S. leadership in combating overpopulation.

One can not underestimate the importance of family planning assistance, especially for the poor. The United Nations estimates that the world's population will double to 12 billion by the year 2050. Most of this growth will occur in countries least able to sustain it and educational and medical services will suffer greatly as a result. In the age of global terrorism where groups such al-Qaida find new recruits among the poor, the sick, and the uneducated, this is especially troubling.

No woman should be prevented from receiving the assistance she deserves to plan and care for healthy families. When we help them, we reduce poverty, improve health, and raise living standards.

Each and every dollar the United States spend on international family planning assistance--none of which, I might add, is spent on international abortion--is one less dollar we will have to spend on costlier interventions in the future.

So many of my colleagues share my view and together we must work harder to ensure that the United States reclaims its leadership role on international family planning and reproductive issues. On International Women's Day, I urge my colleagues to support full funding for the UNFPA and other international family planning programs.

Sadly, 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.

We are alone among the leading democracies in our failure to ratify. In fact, our partners outside the Convention include Iran, North Korea, and Sudan. Are these the countries with whom we share our values of democracy, freedom, and respect for human rights? Are these 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 of warning 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.

The use of rape as an instrument of war is a gross violation of the basic human rights of women and girls and I have worked hard over the years to raise awareness about this issue. The United States must work closely with our friends and allies in the international community to eliminate this practice once and for all.

We have seen far too often in recent years how soldiers have used rape in an organized, systematic, and sustained manner to intimidate, spread fear, and ethnically cleanse entire communities. In Bosnia, Rwanda, and East Timor, women were kidnaped, interned in camps and houses, forced to do labor and subjected to frequent rape and sexual assault.

Those who committed these crimes did not believe that anyone was watching. They were wrong.

On February 22, 2001, the international tribunal in the Hague sentenced three Bosnian Serbs to prison for rape during the Bosnian war. Judge Florence Mumba of Zambia stated, ``Lawless opportunists should expect no mercy, no matter how low their position in the chain of command.''

Last year, in response to a report co-authored by the Shan Women's Action Network and the Shan Human Rights Foundation, I and 31 other Senators wrote to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to urge him to investigate rape cases by Burmese soldiers between 1996 and 2001 involving 625 women and girls.

The report was based on interviews with refugees on the Thai-Burmese border. It found that the rapes were committed mostly by officers in front of their troops and that 61 percent were gang rapes and 25 percent ended in the murder of the victims. The victims included girls as young as 5 years old.

The Burmese junta did not make a serious effort to investigate the cases. It called the report ``totally false and unjust'' and sought to discredit the authors.

Those who committed these heinous crimes in Burma must be brought to justice. The United States and the international community must continue to put pressure on the Burmese regime to come clean and take substantive action to punish those responsible.

I commend the victims who overcame their fears to report what happened in Burma. I am hopeful more women and girls who have suffered the same crime will come forward and speak up. On International Women's Day, I urge the administration and our friends and allies to join me in continuing the fight to end the practice of rape as an instrument of war.

The situation for most women and girls in Afghanistan has improved since the fall of the Taliban. Nevertheless, there is still a great deal of work to be done and I am concerned that the administration is not paying enough attention to the reconstruction of Afghanistan in general and the condition of women and girls in particular.

The United States Congress made a strong statement in support of the women and girls of Afghanistan by passing the ``Afghan Women and Children Relief Act of 2001'' and the ``Afghan Freedom Support Act of 2002''. Now we must follow up with sufficient funding. I was proud to co-sponsor an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2003 Omnibus appropriations bill that directed $8 million of the money appropriated for humanitarian aid to Afghanistan towards programs that support women's development: $5 million to the Ministry of Women's Affairs, $1.5 million to the Human Rights Commission, and the rest to USAID.

The future for women and girls in Afghanistan is by no means assured. There are credible reports that in Herat, the local governor Ismail Khan has censored women's groups, intimidated women leaders, and removed women from his administration. In all parts of Afghanistan, women still fear abuse from authorities, avoid attending school, and face undue harsh restrictions.

I am particularly concerned to learn of reports that police in Herat are detaining women and girls caught with unrelated men and forcing them to undergo medical examinations to determine if they recently had sexual intercourse. I and my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, wrote to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell urging them to put pressure on Ismail Khan to stop these practices and do more to protect the rights of women and girls.

Our victory in Afghanistan will be lost if women and girls are not afforded basic human rights. On International Women's Day, let us reaffirm our commitment to them for a better future and let us let them know that we will not turn our backs on them again.

We must debate and ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. We must rededicate ourselves and our resources to international family planning programs. We must not ignore the use of rape as an instrument of war. We must help the women and girls of Afghanistan realize their hopes and dreams.

We cannot afford to remain silent. We cannot afford to place women's rights on a second tier of concern of U.S. foreign policy. 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 that the world's governments will no longer ignore these abuses, or allow them to continue without repercussion.

I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators Leahy, Wyden, Harkin, and myself.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer this amendment. I recognize that the leadership is not accepting amendments. I accept that. I am a supporter of the treaty, and I am happy to cast my vote for it.

But there is one significant omission from this treaty, and I want to point out that omission. That omission is that we have literally thousands of nuclear missiles on hair trigger alert. The Russian Federation has thousands of nuclear missiles on hair trigger alert. This treaty does not take that into consideration and does not urge or does not certify a reduction of the alert status of these missiles. I believe if we fail to address this issue, we risk the lives of millions of people over what may turn out to be a simple miscalculation.

People hearing me might say, how can that possibly happen? I would like to explain how it can happen.

On the morning of January 25, 1995, the Russian military initially interpreted the launch of a U.S. weather rocket from Norway as a possible nuclear attack on the Russian Federation. That is just 8 years ago. Thankfully, the true nature of the launch became known and a catastrophic mistake was averted. Nevertheless, then-President Yeltsin and his advisers had only minutes to decide whether the launch of a weather rocket was a surprise attack because Russia, like the United States, maintained and continues to maintain thousands of nuclear weapons on high alert status, ready to be launched at a moment's notice.

This was not the only instance in which both countries have come close to the unthinkable. On at least two occasions in the United States and at least one occasion in Russia, false alarms could have led to the accidental launch of nuclear weapons.

Today, Russia and the United States are entering into a new era of relations. We do so with the advent of this treaty. A deliberate nuclear strike by either side is unthinkable. In fact, the administration states the brevity of the Moscow Treaty and the lack of verification, timetables, and a list of specific weapons to be destroyed, is due to the fact that Russia and the United States are no longer strategic competitors but today we are strategic allies. So fear and suspicion have been replaced by trust, cooperation, and friendship.

It is surprising, then, that the United States and Russia continue to maintain their nuclear arsenals on this high

alert status. It is surprising the Moscow Treaty, a symbol of the new relationship, in the words of the administration, does not address this issue. In the past, President Bush has recognized the dangers of high alert status and the need to reevaluate our nuclear weapons. As a candidate, he stated in a speech on May 23, 2000:

Keeping so many weapons on high alert may create

unacceptable risks of accidental or unauthorized launch.

Experts on nuclear weapons issues have expressed similar concerns. In his testimony on the Moscow Treaty before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former Senator Sam Nunn stated that the alert status:

. . . may well be more important to stability and security

than the actual number of nuclear weapons.

He likened the issue to two families who have agreed to reduce the number of high-powered automatic weapons aimed at each other in several years' time but in the meantime decide to keep the weapons loaded with a finger on the trigger.

Former Secretary of Defense William Perry testified that the Moscow Treaty's failure to address the alert status of the United States and Russia's nuclear weapons represented a significant missed opportunity. He concurred with retired Air Force GEN Eugene Habiger, former commander in chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, who recommended that the United States take a first step by immediately standing down all nuclear weapons systems that will not be operationally deployed under the Moscow Treaty.

If you will note, the amendment I have sent to the desk does not say this should be unilateral, on our part only; it says a bilateral reduction of alert status of operational nuclear weapons deployed today.

I believe we should take the words of the general, of the very respected Senator Nunn, and former Defense Secretary Bill Perry and take some action. A miscalculation, in Senator Nunn's scenario, would result in the loss of a few lives from these automatic weapons in a family feud situation, but a miscalculation between Russia and the United States could result in the loss of millions of lives. De- alerting will give the leaders of the United States and Russia sufficient time to evaluate fully a situation before making a decision on a nuclear response in a matter of minutes or seconds, and it would greatly reduce the possibility of an accidental nuclear launch due to false alarm and miscalculation.

The amendment I sent to the desk encourages the President, within 180 days of exchange of instruments and ratification, to initiate in a safe and verifiable manner a stand-down from alert status of all nuclear and Russian nuclear weapons systems that will not be operationally deployed under the treaty.

In other words, the treaty calls for removing the operational deployment. But in the meantime all these missiles remain on high alert status--hair trigger alert status.

The amendment would urge the President to call on the Russian Federation to reciprocate in kind, and the amendment asks that a representative of the executive branch of the Government offer regular briefings to the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate on three specific topics: First, the alert status of the nuclear forces of the United States and Russia; second, any determination of the President to order a standdown of the alert status on the U.S. nuclear forces; third, any progress in establishing cooperative measures with Russia to effect a standdown of Russia's nuclear forces.

There is a precedent for de-alerting our nuclear weapons and prompting the Russians to do likewise. In 1991, as the Soviet Union began to crumble, then-President Bush ordered a unilateral standdown of the U.S. strategic bombers and de-alerted some missiles scheduled for deactivation under the START treaty. Soviet President Gorbachev at that time reciprocated with similar measures, and the world breathed a little easier during those turbulent times. So there is precedent for their de-alerting missiles. And I believe that this Moscow Treaty, which is based on friendship, trust, and cooperation, necessitates an increased de-alerting status of the literally thousands of nuclear weapons that remain in their silos on a hair trigger alert.

The amendment is simple and straightforward. We can take it very easily. I very much regret that we are in a no-amendment scenario. What I hope to do and my cosponsors hope to do is enter into a colloquy in the Record indicating support for this measure and, second, we will draft a letter and try to get as many signatures from other Senators as we can.

I believe this treaty, which should be ratified by this Senate today, has this significant oversight. I believe that to leave these missiles on hair trigger alert status when we enter into this treaty really downgrades the treaty. If we truly trust, if we truly want to be cooperative, and if we truly are friends, friends don't aim loaded guns at each other with the triggers pulled back.

I am hopeful that the administration would respond and begin a discussion between President Putin and President Bush to see if we cannot reach a bilateral de-alerting of the literally--probably more than--10,000 missiles that will remain with nuclear warheads on hair trigger alert.

Amendment No. 251 Withdrawn

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.

I yield the floor.

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