Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for making the inquiry. The fact is I need about 10 minutes and the Senator from North Dakota needs 5 minutes. If that could be accommodated on an equal exchange basis, I suggest we ask unanimous consent to do so.

Fifteen.

Right. I appreciate the fact the Senator from Pennsylvania has other obligations, but this is Veterans Day. I want to talk about veterans. I think we have that particular obligation since we are here today and we are not in our home States, able to visit veterans, visit cemeteries, and talk to people about veterans.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, I ask that I be reminded at the 9- minute mark, if I have gotten that far, please, that I have 1 minute remaining.

I was in Newark yesterday, at our cathedral there, attending the funeral of SGT Joel Perez. Sergeant Perez had been deployed to Iraq as part of the Army's 2nd Battalion, 5th Field Artillery Regiment. He died on November 2 when the Chinook helicopter he was in was shot down. An article appeared in the New York Times on Sunday, and it listed the 16 soldiers, including Sergeant Perez, the 16 young people who perished on behalf of our country, our interests, our liberty.

The names of those who died along with Joel Perez when that Chinook helicopter was shot down are: Daniel A. Bader, Ernest G. Bucklew, Steven D. Conover, Anthony D. D'Agostino, Paul F. Fisher, Darius T. Jennings, Karina S. Lau, Keelan L. Moss, Brian H. Penisten, Ross A. Pennanen, Brian D. Slavenas, Bruce A. Smith, Frances M. Vega, Paul Anthony Velazquez, and Joe N. Wilson.

We salute their bravery and their courage and their sacrifice.

Sergeant Perez was on that helicopter because he had been granted leave to come home to celebrate his third wedding anniversary. And now he has come home, in a flag-draped casket. Yesterday was his third anniversary and his funeral. He was 25 years old. He leaves behind his wife Milagros, an infant daughter Jaileen, his mother Luisa and father Edwin, and three brothers, Elvin, Michael, and Leo.

As I said at the funeral yesterday, it is a sobering moment when you see the reality of a life that has passed so quickly. All you have to do is look at the date of his birth--1978--and the date of his death-- 2003--they are much too close together.

Sergeant Perez is the ninth New Jersey resident killed in Iraq. The other eight are: Army SP Simeon Hunte, who was 23 years old, of Newark; Army 2LT Richard Torres, who was 25 years old, of Passaic; Army SFC Gladimir Philippe, who was 37 years old, of Roselle; Army SP Kyle A. Griffin, who was 20, of Emerson; Army SP Narson B. Sullivan, who was 21, of North Brunswick; Army SP Gil Mercado, who was 25, of Paterson, my home town; Army SSG Terry W. Hemingway, who was 39, of Willingboro; and Army SP Michael Edward Curtin, who was 23, of Howell.

I feel a special kinship to these young people because they were from my State. I also feel a special kinship because I am a veteran. I enlisted when I was 18 years old, right out of high school. I served in Europe during World War II.

Today is Veterans Day. It has been nearly 50 years since President Eisenhower signed a bill into law making November 11 Veterans Day.

The history of Veterans Day goes back even further, to 1918, when an armistice between the Allied and Central Powers brought World War I to an end at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month.

On November 11, 1920, the British interred an unidentified British soldier in Westminster Abbey to commemorate the Armistice. The French interred an unidentified French soldier under the Arc de Triomphe in Paris.

In 1921, an American soldier's remains were disinterred in France and sent on the transatlantic voyage to Washington, D.C., where they lay in state in the Capitol Rotunda for three days. Then, at 11:00 a.m. on November 11, the remains of this Unknown Soldier were buried at Arlington National Cemetery beneath a marble block which reads, ``Here rests in honored glory an American soldier known but to God.''

Since the founding of our country, nearly 50 million men and women have answered the call of duty. There are about 25 million veterans alive today.

Right now, we have 130,000 troops in Iraq, another 10,000 in Kuwait, and 10,000 in Afghanistan. Other Americans are serving in South Korea, in Bosnia and Kosovo, and in every other corner of the globe.

We owe our veterans and the brave young men and women who currently serve in our military more than we can calculate. It is very tough duty. I know that from personal experience. That is why I deeply regret that the Senate is in session today. I do not ever recall the Senate being in session on Veterans Day before. Frankly, I think it is disrespectful to veterans across America and to the veterans in this body for the Senate to be in session today.

Why are we doing it? Why are we here? Well, we are told that we have a full agenda and that we have very few days left to get our work done--work that was supposed to be done six weeks ago. But how are we going to spend the precious few days before we hope to adjourn? We are going to take 30 hours of that time to debate a handful of highly controversial judges whose nominations Democrats object to.

I feel compelled to put this chart up on the floor for everyone to see because it is kind of a scorecard that shows the Clinton years and how many nominees were confirmed in those years and the dozens of nominees who were blocked by the Republicans. Then we can see how many of President Bush's nominees have been confirmed and how many have been blocked by Democrats.

Democrats are objecting to a total of four nominees who have neither the experience nor the temperament to be confirmed to lifetime positions in the federal judiciary. Four nominees have been blocked, 2 percent of the total. And we are being told that we cannot afford the time today to be at home with our veterans or go to the cemeteries or go to the veterans hospitals so that we can pay our respects to those who have served or are serving this country. We cannot be with our veterans today because we have to spend 30 hours starting tomorrow to talk about four nominees.

So, in all candor, I have to say that I am upset by our being here. It is not the question of another day's work--we can do the work--but that the majority could not find time to permit Senators to be in their States with their constituents, especially veterans, with the families who have lost loved ones in Iraq or Afghanistan or Beirut or Vietnam or Korea or so many other places.

When I look at the reason why we are here today, it rings hollow, as far as I am concerned. I regret that we are here. This is the day we should meet with veterans groups. This is the day when we remember the sacrifice that so many have made on our behalf. This is the day we ought to be thinking about how we respond to our need for

additional troops in Iraq. This is the day we ought to think about what it is our brave young service men and women should come home to when they have fulfilled their duty: adequate health care and jobs and opportunity.

What kind of a message do we send to our veterans and to those who currently serve in our military? What kind of message do we send to the young men and women we are trying to recruit? Today is a solemn day deliberately set aside to pay tribute to our veterans, and the Senate is in session because we have to spend a day and a half starting tomorrow talking about four judges.

I want the veterans across the country and the young men and women currently in harm's way to know they are appreciated, to know that some of the misery they are going through now is understood. How do you do that? Ideally, you do that by taking the time necessary to go and greet them personally. You do it by making sure veterans' benefits are adequate. You do it by making sure the medical care will be there, and the educational opportunities. That is the appropriate way to show our veterans that we appreciate them. We are not going to show it by working here today when, in fact, the veterans back home would like to see us back home.

Be that as it may, we are stuck here today. So I want to take this opportunity to say in the most heartfelt way possible that I appreciate our veterans. And I salute the brave young men and women who currently serve, especially those who serve in the Reserves and the National Guard. I appreciate the enormous, enormous sacrifice that many of them are making now that we are asking them to serve a year or more at a time, taking them away from their families, their communities, and their jobs. Today reminds us of just how much we have to be thankful for.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time we have to our friend from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I am proud of my colleagues throughout the Senate for the overwhelming support just given on the Syria Accountability Act. I believe this bill sends an unambiguous signal to the administration and to the Syrian regime that the Congress considers Syrian support for terrorism, its occupation of Lebanon, and its pursuit of dangerous weapons all significant threats to the United States and to global security.

I am particularly concerned that this administration has let Syria off the hook. Despite the support the Syria Accountability Act just had, there are waivers that concern me. Syria's record is not one that we can look at with any assurances that they are going to do what they have to.

The administration claimed that al-Assad's regime's support for the global war on terrorism is so valuable that he should not be pressed on other issues, including the failure of the Syrians to secure the Iraqi border, thereby permitting the constant infiltration of foreign terrorists pouring into Iraq.

Apparently, the Syrians must have shared intelligence about al-Qaida, and FBI and CIA officials have reportedly met in Syria with Syrian intelligence officers to discuss terrorism. The Syrians have also helped to capture a top al-Qaida figure, a Syrian-born German citizen who is part of the Hamburg cell that planned the September 11 attack.

So while Syria might be sharing information on al-Qaida, at the same time it is deliberately thwarting the Palestinian-Israeli peace process.

Syria harbors leaders who order, plan, and finance terror attacks against Israeli citizens. Operatives of the Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which I might add is a terrorist group affiliated with Yasser Arafat's political party FATAH, are regularly receiving training in Syrian camps.

So what is perplexing is why this administration has refused to force the Syrians to stop training Palestinian extremists even as it promotes a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

No Palestinian roadmap to peace, no negotiations will be successful between Palestinians and Israelis as long as Syria continues to occupy Lebanon and to train and churn out suicide bombers.

I am worried that the administration has made a cynical tradeoff, focusing on supposed Syrian support for the hunt for al-Qaida while ignoring the Syrian's deliberate obstruction of the peace process.

Last month, when the Islamic Jihad successfully blew up an Arab-owned seaside restaurant in Haifa, killing 19 Israelis, including 5 Palestinian Israelis, Israel responded by striking one of the Palestinian training camps, choosing a time when it was empty to avoid collateral damage. The Bush administration responded with a bland statement urging both Israel and Syria to avoid actions that heighten tensions or could lead to hostilities.

Despite President Bush's call for Damascus to expel terrorist organizations from Syria and close down its camps, the Syrians have directly refused. They have made a mockery of President Bush's famous claim that you are ``either with us or against us in the war on terrorism.''

We in the Senate have just passed the Syria Accountability Act, but Syria will not be held accountable until the administration decides to end its tradeoffs in the global war on terrorism,

prioritizing the fight against some forms of terror over others.

The message we want to send has to be clear and direct. We will not tolerate any support for terrorism, especially among those who purport to be our friends.

Everyone has seen the Syrian action in Lebanon and we know how treacherous that is. They occupy the country and pretend they want to make peace, but they do not want to. They have not indicated by their actions that they want to.

I yield the floor.

I would say probably less than 10 minutes, but if I am allowed 10, that is fine.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan for permitting me to say a few words at this point.

I rise to speak on language in the Defense authorization conference report that was added by conferees. It waters down two of our environmental laws significantly. There are two sections of this conference report to which I strenuously object. One ignores the will of the Senate with regard to protecting endangered species and the other represents the greatest single rollback of marine mammal protection in the last 30 years.

Last May, the Senate passed an amendment which I developed with Senator Jeffords to protect endangered species on Department of Defense lands. Before my amendment, the Senate bill effectively exempted the Department of Defense from complying with the Endangered Species Act, but my amendment instituted a reasonable two-step approach to protect endangered species without impeding military readiness or ability. That amendment was passed by the Senate. We need these protections and we know they work.

There are only 2 species that have been on the endangered species list that have gone extinct after being put on that list while over 600 species not on the list have gone extinct during that time. Look at the comparison: Two which failed to survive because they were on the list, and 600 which failed to survive because they were not protected.

The American people have spoken on this issue. We ought to listen to them. A Zogby poll earlier this year learned that 85 percent of registered voters believe the Defense Department should follow the same environmental laws as everyone else. Unfortunately, most of the Senate language was stricken by the conferees. What remains will not, in my opinion, provide adequate protection for threatened and endangered species. But what is worse, new language is contained in this report that could have disastrous consequences for populations of whales and other marine mammals off our coasts.

Ironically, in the State of New Jersey, which has a lot of coastline for the size of the State, we have a marine mammal stranding facility. People voluntarily go out into the water, get a dolphin, or they will get even a whale occasionally. They will bring it to shore and figure out a way to nurse it back to health and get it back in the sea. We treasure those, as every one of us should, because they are part of the ecology. Where they go ultimately, I think it is fair to say, the human race goes.

A rider was attached by the conferees that would allow marine mammals to

be casually harassed, injured, and killed by activities ranging from sonar exercises to the testing of underwater explosives. Ironically, it comes just as the committees with jurisdiction and expertise over marine mammals have begun their work on reauthorizing the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Once again, the conferees chose to add language that was not authorized by either House. We are seeing this on a too regular basis-- language that is debated, discussed, and voted upon goes one way. It goes into conference. The conference committee, then composed of Members almost principally, almost exclusively of the majority party, decides they do not want to listen to what was sent over from the Senate or what was sent over from the House. If they disagree with it, they change it and the administration contributes to that. It is outrageous.

I have been part of this body for nearly 20 years and this is not how the Congress used to make law. We cannot look backward. We are where we are, but it is not a good turn of events.

That is what has happened. The conferees add their own language. It extends exemptions to the Marine Mammal Protection Act in the House language to apply not only to military activities but to all Government-funded research--a change that could be easily exploited by industry groups.

Under this act, there will now be no limit to the numbers of marine mammals the Department of Defense could kill or harm and no limit to the range of coastal habitat its activities could impact.

I am very much aware the leadership on the Armed Services Committee, under the chairman from the State of Virginia and the ranking member, our friend from Michigan, also has these same concerns. In particular, Virginia is a coastal State. They worry about what happens on their coasts. They worry about the sea life that is there, as well as the condition of the habitat. Virginia has some fairly strict requirements to make sure there is not a lot of damage done to the sea environment.

The rider that was developed would essentially give the Pentagon a categorical exemption to the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

The Department of Defense receives 38 percent of all permits under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Well over one-third of these permits will now be exempt from efforts made to limit the harm done to marine mammals. I am very disappointed these provisions have been included in the conference report.

I can tell you a few other people who are disappointed. They are my grandchildren and my children. They love the sea, and they love what lives in the sea. I have a child who lives in Florida, a daughter with two kids. They know what the marine mammal life is about. They are very conscious of the fact that people should not hurt them, harm them. I say that because that is the human relationship. It is the human experience.

I saw a picture of one of my granddaughters swimming with a dolphin. I thought I probably wouldn't like to be there seeing her do it, but she had a smile on her face. I think even the dolphin had a smile on its face. But we care about these issues. It is a pity to stand here pleading for a reinstitution of provisions that were in the bills before they got to the conference committee, that either have been eliminated or have been added without the approval of either body.

It is disappointing to see these provisions have been included in the conference report. For decades, DOD has managed to find common ground with its training and its environmental goals. These riders do not honor our military; they do not honor the will of the American people; and they do not honor the living creatures with whom we share our planet.

I yield the floor.

I thank the manager and ranking member of the committee. But I say to my friend from Virginia, sometimes it is just a few words here and there that make all the difference in the way things come out.

I know there is a consciousness between the two distinguished leaders on the Armed Services Committee that the environment could have been and should have been protected as we planned it and as we discussed it. But we are where we are. I hope there will be a time in the not too distant future when we will be able to realize we have done some damage and change that.

Madam President, I ask to speak as if in morning business for no longer than 10 minutes.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss something that struck me as downright chilling when I saw it yesterday in the paper. It was the signing of the so-called partial-birth abortion bill. I want to show a picture as it appeared--as I first saw it in the Washington Post. I challenge anybody: Find a woman in that picture. We even broadened it to a larger picture, and once again I issue the challenge: Find a woman in this picture. There are 10 men, not 1 woman in that picture.

This picture represents the most sweeping attack on women's rights in 30 years. What do we see? We see a group of gleeful men, smiles across their faces. We don't see the picture of the women who are frightened to death about what can happen if they need to make a decision to protect their health, in the company of their doctor.

This gleeful group is watching President Bush sign away women's rights. Look at the image--not a woman on the stage. Does anybody doubt about how the population splits 50-50 between the two genders? But here, in these two pictures, it is all men, and it is downright frightening.

It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. When women across America picked up the paper or watched the news and saw this image, it spoke volumes. This photo says to women: Your right to make choices about your health and your body is being taken back from you.

I am the proud father of three daughters and five granddaughters. I don't want the men in these pictures making decisions for my daughters or my granddaughters when it comes to their health and their well being and their families' well-being. Thank goodness, all of my children have children. They have wonderful families. But they have to take care of those families. If their health is jeopardized by a pregnancy or a disease, I want them to be able to take care of it.

Not here. These men will make your choices for you.

I am old enough to remember a time when women were not permitted to make choices, when women couldn't hold certain positions in society. There was a time when women couldn't vote. We have made great strides forward to advance women's rights, and one of those rights is the right to choose. But look at this picture. These fellows are eager to snatch those rights away from women.

The absence of women on the stage says something. Make no mistake. We have more than a dozen women in the Senate. I don't know what the count is in the House. Not one of them stood on this floor during the debate and defended that law that was passed and signed so smugly at the White House. I call this a ``malegarchy'' and this photo captures the essence of the ``malegarchy'' women live under today.

If we keep going backwards, maybe it will be possible our women will live like they do in parts of the Middle East and have to wear burqas. The men will decide.

I think it is shameful. It is embarrassing to see this image in the 21st century in the United States of America. Have we entered a time warp? In some ways we have. Ultra right-wing conservatives who control this Congress and control the White House are more in line with the thinking of the 19th century than the 21st century.

The conservatives today speak of ``traditional family values'' and protecting marriage. Those are their buzz phrases, but you look back in history and what you see here is a repeat of the same themes constantly used to keep women subservient. I couldn't get away with that in my household.

In 1914, during the battle over the women's right to vote, there was a group called the Nebraska Men's Association Opposed to Women's Suffrage--that was the title of the organization. It was organized in 1914. The group published a document expressing its reasons for opposing women's suffrage. The association claimed if we give women the ability to vote, to make electoral choices, then that would lead to ``attempts to change home and marriage.'' Does that sound familiar? It is the same rhetoric we hear today. In this picture, it is the same rhetoric being used at this bill signing.

We also hear about the ``culture of life.'' What about the woman's life? What about her health? This law does not include a health exception. What if a woman's health is in danger? What if her life is ultimately threatened by complications stemming from the pregnancy? And where is the culture of life when that fetus is born? Where is the culture of life for children who have been born?

Earlier in this Congress, the anti-choice conservatives led the fight against the child tax credit for low-income working families. Where are the family values in that? Where is the culture of life in that?

How about nutrition for those children? How about education for those children? How about health care for those children?

We have seen ``no'' vote after ``no'' vote on funding these programs for making our children healthier and brighter and more productive.

I was pleased to see the Federal courts in Nebraska and New York issue injunctions against this unconstitutional abortion law. The vast majority of legal scholars predict this law will be easily overturned, based on Roe v. Wade, and it should.

The famed American suffragette Elizabeth Cady Stanton said ``men want their rights and nothing more, but women want their rights and nothing less.'' As we can see with the signing of this bill, women's rights are still under attack. We must not settle for anything less than full reproductive rights for women in America.

Mr. President, first I thank my colleague from Oregon and my colleague from Virginia for the hard work they did to get us to this point where we have an opportunity to review some of the problems we have seen in the Internet tax area. I had an early opportunity to review and carefully consider S. 150, and I support the stated purpose of this legislation. I agree that the American consumer should be encouraged and not taxed to access the Internet.

I also agree with the stated purpose of this legislation, that the Federal Government should ensure tax-free access to the Internet, irrespective of the technology the consumer uses, whether it is the regular dial-up modem, cable modem, DSL, wireless, or satellite.

My concerns with this legislation don't stem from its stated purposes. My concerns are with the legislation's unstated purposes and unintended consequences which most State, county, and local tax experts believe would jeopardize important revenue streams, such as the gross receipts tax, that were permitted under the first two iterations of the Internet tax moratorium.

The Internet tax moratorium bill was conceived in 1998 as a proconsumer legislative attempt aimed at increasing American access to the Internet. Now that the bill has been rewritten and greatly expanded, it has as a result become another corporate giveaway of potentially enormous and devastating proportions.

According to the Commerce Committee report accompanying S. 150, the original enactment of this legislation in 1998 imposed a temporary moratorium on ``certain taxes that could have a detrimental effect on the continued expansion of Internet use in the United States.''

In 1999, only 26 percent of United States households had Internet access, according to the Department of Commerce. In September 2001, 51 percent of United States households had Internet access. In 2002, according to the Forrester Research firm, 64 percent--quite a jump in a year--of U.S. households had Internet.

The number of households with Internet access has more than doubled in 4 years, from 26 percent in 1998 to 64 percent in 2002. I am sure the rate of Internet access today is even higher.

Many households, however, only have basic dial-up access to the Internet and haven't moved to the faster broadband access services.

Clearly, the supporters of this bill can't blame an access tax that isn't being imposed for the digital divide that exists between people who have Internet access and those who do not, or between households which can afford broadband or wireless Internet access service and those households which still use the narrowband dial-up.

Nevertheless, I would support an extension of the moratorium on Internet access taxes. By temporary, I am talking about a couple of years. But to make the moratorium permanent, as this bill would do, in my view is an abdication of responsibility on our part.

I cannot and will not support a permanent moratorium that is so poorly defined that it won't just apply to access taxes. I cannot and will not support a moratorium that will deprive the States of $4 billion to $9 billion in revenues by the year 2006, according to the Multi-State Tax Commission and the National Governors Association. Based on the language in the bill reported out of the Commerce Committee, my home State of New Jersey by itself stands to lose $833 million in annual revenues. Other States also stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars as well. Maybe some Senators are willing to look the other way and not address the problems with this bill. So be it. But I cannot do that. Even under the managers' amendment, which is a modest improvement, the annual revenue loss for New Jersey is believed to be somewhere around $600 million. My question is: Why are we doing this to States when they are facing the biggest fiscal crisis they have seen since World War II or even the Depression years?

A permanent, poorly crafted moratorium? No way. I cannot in good conscience support something so far reaching.

That is why I support an amendment I believe will be offered by some of my colleagues, Senators Alexander, Carper, and Voinovich, to extend the existing moratorium for only 2 years, and to fix the discrepancy in the way DSL and cable modem are treated for tax purposes.

I realize even if this amendment is offered and agreed to, States such as New Jersey will still lose much-needed revenue, but at least we can and must minimize the impact.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to bring to your attention a renewable energy program for rural communities that I believe should be given strong consideration for funding. There is a program in my state of New Jersey in Gloucester, Burlington, and Hunterdon Counties that will use photovoltaics to generate electricity in remote agriculture locations to power water supply systems for farm animals and ventilation systems in livestock barns.

I am glad the Senator asked that question. The economic pressure of rapid suburbanization is forcing farmers to lower operating costs to preserve their farming operations in New Jersey. Farms with livestock often need remote watering stations, ventilation in barns, and shade in grazing fields. Satisfying these requirements traditionally requires substantial capital investment and increases operating costs. The use of electricity from photovoltaics would offer the lowest cost option for farmers to apply these improvements. Energy Photovoltaics, Inc., based in Lawrenceville, NJ, will provide and monitor this technology.

Mr. President, I thank Senators Lieberman and McCain for developing this amendment. It makes sense. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Lieberman/McCain bill. This bill offers a reasonable, proven, market-based approach to addressing the problem of global warming. It establishes a greenhouse gas ``cap and trade'' system which is modeled on the most successful pollution reduction program ever--enacted the Acid Rain Program.

Since 1980, that program has reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by 40 percent--despite significant economic growth during that period. I say, it's about time.

A few years ago I traveled to Antarctica and I saw the effects of global

warming firsthand. The Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves are melting. Over 1,250 square miles of ice have broken off and melted in just the last few years. Scientists believe these massive ice shelves have stood undisturbed for 12,000 years. Now they are gone. Many of us were dismayed but not surprised by the report last month of the breakup of the Arctic's largest ice shelf.

It is stunning that some of the world's glaciers have lost as much as 70 percent of their ice. Why is all this ice melting? Because, as literally thousands of climate scientists have reported--the earth is heating up! Yes, global warming is real and America should be leading the international community in addressing it--not lagging behind. The scientific discoveries on climate change are nothing short of astonishing. Ice core samples from Greenland and the Antarctica show that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are at their highest level in the last one million years. In the Arctic, the permafrost is melting. The average thickness of the arctic ice shelf has decreased by a staggering 40 percent, just since 1950.

All that melting ice is steadily raising sea levels. Globally, the sea has risen between 4 and 8 inches. This impact is particularly damaging to flat coastlines like in Texas where the relative sea level has already risen from 8 to 10 inches. From primitive thermometer readings to the analysis of tree rings and coral reefs, the evidence is clear: this last century has been the hottest in the last 1,000 years.

The evidence of profound climactic change continues to mount. A study published last January in Nature--probably the most respected scientific journal in the world--reported some remarkable discoveries. It reported that of 1,700 habitats studied, 370 are moving northward. The habitat of the Red Fox has moved 600 miles to the north in the last 30 years. Frightening disease vectors, such as the mosquito which carries the deadly West Nile Virus, are pushing into North America. Perhaps most ominous of all, night time temperatures are rising. Medical authorities tell us that this lack of relief from elevated temperatures at nighttime is a chief reason that 500 to 700 people died in Chicago during the 1995 heat wave.

While the Federal Government sits fiddling, States are not waiting for Rome to burn. At least 27 States--more than half--have started their own programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to David Danner, the energy adviser for the State of Washington, States are moving ahead to fill the vacuum left by the Federal Government. Danner said, ``We hope to see the problem addressed at the federal level, but we're not waiting around.'' A number of those States have initiated reasonable regulatory programs that will soon begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Federal Government should be leading this effort, but isn't. At the very least, we should start catching up. Surely, none of us here doubt the United States possesses the capacity and the skill to confront global warming? I for one, do not.

Now is the time to harness America's ingenuity and skills and tackle global climate change. I have to ask: What is there about the facts of global warming that makes the administration duck for cover?

We cannot ``spin'' our way out of the impacts of global warming. But that is the strategy the opponents of this bill are pursuing. Look at this chart: Republican pollster Frank Luntz is urging his side to call it ``climate change'' not global warming, because ``climate change'' is ``less frightening.'' The implication here is that people won't demand immediate action on something that is ``less frightening'' and ``more controllable.'' How irresponsible. No matter how much word-smithing that's done, no matter how much faux science the other side uses--that will not change the true, consensus, peer-reviewed science that has accumulated for 30 years.

The ominous impacts of Global Warming affect our health, affect our safety, and effect our economy. These impacts will not simply go away because we turn a blind eye to the facts and pretend the climate is not changing. In 2002, the National Research Council reported on the science of global warming. It said:

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in earth's atmosphere as

a result of human activities. National policy decisions made

now and in the longer-term will influence the extent of the

damage suffered by vulnerable human populations and

ecosystems later in this century.

Clearly, the decisions we make here and now will determine how much ``damage'' is inflicted on our children and our grandchildren. The National Research Council represents the brain trust of the most educated country in the world. If we cannot believe the Council, who can we believe?

Global warming poses a clear and present danger to us all. The global warming bandwagon is getting full--and the President would be smart to get on it. A partial list of those who urge market-based action now, includes: 2,500 eminent economists from MIT, Yale, Harvard, Stanford and other top universities, including eight Nobel Laureates who said, ``a market-based policy could achieve its climatic objectives at minimum cost.''

Major corporations, including the petroleum giant BP--which has already reduced its greenhouse gas emissions 10 percent below its 1990 levels--and saved $600 million in energy costs doing it.

Last night we heard from Senators who were repeating the scare propaganda that is circulating about higher fuel prices. But what is more reliable, guesses about the future or a record of the past? If BP, DuPont and other major corporations can save money by reducing their greenhouse gases--surely they rest of the country can also. Other supporters of a market-based approach include Silicon Valley investors, multi-religion interfaith groups, the world's largest re-insurance company, a bipartisan group of 155 mayors--the list goes on and on.

I urge my colleagues: let's be the leaders we were elected to be. Let's act now and vote for the Lieberman/McCain bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 282, S. 1618, the 6-month extension of the FAA authorization; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, if I can obtain the floor, not to bring up an amendment, but rather to have a few minutes to explain what it is that I would like to do. I ask if the Senator from Mississippi, someone with whom I have worked closely on several issues related to this, will enable me, by unanimous consent, to have up to 10 minutes to talk about the issue.

Mr. President, I had been recognized. I respect the viewpoint of the Senator from Mississippi, but I disagree with it, and I would like to talk about the mission I see in front of us and withdraw my request that the bill be read three times and passed. I want to discuss what we think is coming over soon from the House.

Contrary to the remarks my friend and colleague from Mississippi made, in terms of his objection, I agree totally that we do not want to hold up the funding of this bill. I want to get the money invested. We have to take care of the requirements of our aviation needs. While we want to make sure we get these funds on their way, we want to make sure we don't throw a blanket opportunity out there to terminate 23,000 loyal, hard-working, safety-oriented employees from the FAA control system; that is, those in the towers, those who are service operators, those who are technicians, because we have a system that has been so safe.

We handle over 700 million airline passengers a year. The numbers are incredible. We saw them, when our FAA controllers were called upon on 9/11, bring 5,000 airplanes out of the sky safely. They got everybody on the ground when it looked as if total chaos was raining on our society.

What I propose to do is say let's just have a 6-month extension, not permit the commercialization of the FAA system to take it away from Government hands. I see this as the fifth branch of the military. We are relying on them 24/7. Without a question of doubt, we need those people in their positions.

We are facing a time within the next 10 years when over 10,000 FAA controllers will be retiring; 23,000 jobs are at stake, and we are going to say they are going into commercial hands--Acme Air Service, or whoever it is.

There is something else that is taking place here. We see a vote coming in the House that looks as if it may carry. Do you know how the votes were obtained? Not on substance but on excluding particular airports from going into private hands and securing votes. That means if you happen to live in one of those areas that is not protected by the sale of a vote, your family could be getting onto an airplane and perhaps not have it handled as perfectly as it could. I know I want my kids and my grandchildren protected to the best of our ability. We have seen it done year after year in the United States with our FAA controllers, with our air control system.

I urge we have a chance to vote on whether we can extend this authorization, have time for discussion to permit the funding and the other elements of the bill. But let's have a serious review. This suddenly has come up as a change in the conference report as a result of a decision by the administration to suddenly change the rules. They want to move toward privatizing the U.S. air traffic control system, but 11 Republican Senators joined me and the remainder of the Democrats, and we had 56 votes in favor of keeping the system in Government hands.

We just recently took the baggage screeners from private hands, from commercial hands, and put them into Government hands. We thought it was a good move. That was 28,000 people. We transferred them over to the Government so we can control them. Those people control the baggage that is going aboard. These people control 700 million lives that fly each and every year. We quickly are saying discard that, forget that, we have our deals, we have our airports protected. We have two in Alaska protected. We have others in other States that are protected and we will worry about the safety later. That is wrong.

I hope people across the country recognize what is happening, that we are putting this on the sale block, that it is part of a scheme to have Government privatized--over 850,000 is the mark--and it should not be done on the backs of safety. That is the issue.

I appreciate the Senator from Mississippi, a very knowledgeable and longtime Government servant, a man who has been responsible for lots of good things, but 71 percent of the Americans who were polled who were asked the question about what they think we ought to be doing with the FAA about keeping it in Government hands or going private with it, 71 percent of the people across this country--and I want everybody to hear it--our constituents, agree we ought to keep the FAA in Government hands.

I am not saying we are going to extend it a long time. I am saying, give

us a chance to review it. Let us take it up and have a discussion about it and not simply have something jammed through the House and us be like the second body, here it is, take it or leave it. I would like to see if we can talk to the 11 Senators who voted with us the last time and see if they will vote with us another time. I think it is reasonable in the interest of safety.

I just received a letter dated today. It is signed by a representative of the Consumers Union of the Public Citizens Congress Watch, Consumer Federation of America. It is addressed to me:

Senator Lautenberg: We commend you for your leadership and

strong opposition to the most recent version of the FAA

authorization conference report. The new conference report

does not restore the original House and Senate language

prohibiting privatization of air traffic control services.

Instead, the report leaves the door open for future

privatization attempts going against the will of the American

people and jeopardizing the safety of our skies.

The letter goes on. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

I hope we can test the will of the Senate and test the determination of the American people to have it done in a way that satisfies them and their families.

A reference was made by the distinguished Senator about what might happen if there was an accident, a crash, as a result of not having facilities up to snuff because of the bill not being passed.

I will say if we look at the record in the U.K. and Canada about what happened after they turned those operations to business hands, to private hands, we will see that the number of near-misses went up substantially in the U.K. That means near-misses in the air.

Many times I sit in the second seat on a small airplane and I want to tell my colleagues something, to find out where another airplane is at the last moment is a life-remembering event.

In Great Britain, since privatization, near-misses of crashes or other problems have increased by 50 percent.

There is something new of which I think we ought to be fully aware, and that is that the space between airplanes is being narrowed in the interest of taking more airplanes into the sky. This is no time to be saying, turn over our safety function, the maintenance function, to private hands, to Acme Air Service.

I do not ask for a lot, but I ask for it on behalf of the American people, 71 percent of whom said they want to keep these services in Government hands because they know Government can manage it best. I want to be able to bring up an amendment and have it voted upon. I am asking for a 6-month extension, and that is it. Give us a chance to reason in a more comfortable time frame. Right now, there is enormous pressure to conclude our business so we can go home, but I do not want to go home in an airplane that I do not think is the safest place I can possibly be, or my kids flying with me on a vacation or my grandchildren flying with me on a vacation over the Christmas holiday not feeling like we had the best possible people in the towers watching us in our flight.

I hope we will reconsider where we are and have a chance to discuss this at length.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I ask for no more than 5 minutes to conclude my remarks in response to the Senator from Mississippi.

I thank the Senator from Idaho.

What I want to ask the Senator from Mississippi--he said: People know when things get in government hands, they are in worse shape. What are we doing with the baggage screeners? We transferred 28,000 of those folks, took them off the line, gave them a raise in pay, took them away from the private handlers and said, No, we want to know our baggage is being thoroughly inspected.

I also remind the Senator in the CR which looms directly in front of us, there is no provision for increased funding for the aviation bill.

When we see what is happening in southern California, our hearts go out to them. The air is full of smog. There is smoke all over the place. You need people on the ground who know exactly how to direct those flights to make sure they travel at appropriate intervals.

When we had the hurricane on the east coast, we had to make sure we were conscious of the fact that weather changes were looming in front of us. This is a different world than we used to know. What a time it would be to turn all of this over to private hands.

Security on the cheap? I know the Senator from Mississippi doesn't really think that is a good idea. But, on the other hand, that is what is going to be happening.

I thank the Senator from Idaho, who is very kind, and my good friend from New Mexico, for their indulgence for these last few remarks.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. I will use most of the 20 minutes I have available, and perhaps all of it. But first, I thank the majority leader and the minority leader for accommodating my desire to speak on the nomination of Utah Gov. Michael Leavitt to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency prior to the vote to confirm him.

I was, unfortunately, not able to be here last night. So I appreciate that I have a chance to make some remarks this morning.

A few weeks ago, I placed a ``hold'' on Governor Leavitt's nomination because of serious concerns many of his constituents have raised about his record of enforcing our national environmental laws.

The President has the right to nominate people of his choosing to serve in his Cabinet. That, however, does not obligate anyone to vote for each and every one of them.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not impugning Governor Leavitt's character. He has been a public servant for many years and has been credited with many significant accomplishments.

I will vote against confirming Governor Leavitt because I have not had sufficient time to investigate the serious allegations that have been brought to my attention.

In fairness to Governor Leavitt, I asked the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to review and assess the allegations. In a few more days, CRS staff would have been able to get back to me. Unfortunately, the majority has seen fit to force a vote on this nominee today.

Governor Leavitt has waited 2 months. When former President Clinton nominated Katie McGinty to be chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, Republicans delayed her confirmation for more than a year.

Unfortunately, the majority did not honor the holds placed on this nominee, so the process of vetting him properly has been short- circuited. Consequently, we are being asked to vote to confirm an individual nominated to be the nation's highest-ranking environmental regulator--without the benefit of having some answers to some very important questions.

The current ``tide'' of environmental protection in America is at low ebb under the current administration. I don't have enough time here to enumerate the hundreds of rollbacks and dilutions of our environmental laws that President Bush and his administration have foisted on the American people. Given such a state of affairs, I think it would be wise to determine if the nominee shares the same careless disregard for clean water, clean air, land conservation, and global warming as the President.

I had planned to ask Governor Leavitt many questions based on information provided to me by the southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and other Utah conservation and citizens' groups. They have cast serious doubt on the Governor's commitment to enforcing our laws to protect human health and the environment.

In 1998, Governor Leavitt was quoted as saying:

The national government should establish standards. Local

governments must figure out how best to meet them . . .

governments must focus on outcomes, not programs.

I agree with the Governor's sentiment that outcomes are what count. The important questions are: Are our rivers getting cleaner? Is the air healthier? Are toxic sites being decontaminated?

On that score, our environmental laws and programs have a proven track record. Even this White House has grudgingly acknowledged as much.

The Office of Management and Budget issued a report recently which concludes that the health and social benefits of enforcing tough clean air regulations during the past decade have been 5 to 7 times greater in economic terms than the costs of complying with the regulations.

When compared to the 1950s and 1960s, before most of our major environmental laws were enacted, we have made outstanding progress. Rivers like the Cuyahoga no longer catch on fire. Air pollution inversions no longer kill 20 people and sicken 4000 more in one fell swoop, like an incident in Donora, PA, in 1948.

These achievements have resulted from the careful implementation of congressional laws. But those laws can only be effective if they are voluntarily obeyed or enforced by EPA and the States. Regulations won't do any good if they are not enforced.

We can be proud of the progress we have made over the past few decades but there is so much more to be done to protect human health and the environment. We can't stop now, but that is what President Bush is trying to do, and I am concerned that is what Governor Leavitt will try to do, too, if he is confirmed. Despite his commentary about ``balance'' and ``stewardship,'' Governor Leavitt's record portrays a dramatically different approach to the environment. His record reveals a disturbing tendency to place the short-sighted economic interests of regulated industries above protecting the long-term health of the public.

I will highlight just a few of more than a dozen examples which illustrate this pattern. As I mentioned before, much of the information that follows has come from citizens of Utah who visited my Senate office here in Washington to complain about problems they saw with respect to Governor Leavitt's willingness to protect their environment. I might add that I know the State very well. I spend a lot of time in Utah. I love it. I love the terrain. I love the Wasatch Mountains all of that of which Utah residents are so proud.

Governor Leavitt has strongly supported something called the ``Legacy Highway'' project. This highway was set to cut through highly significant wetlands next to the Great Salt Lake that provide the breeding ground for 500 American Bald Eagles.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last fall that the Environmental Impact Statement the Governor's staff prepared was invalid because it ignored obvious harmful impacts. To top that, the alternative they chose would have violated the Clean Water Act.

In another instance, the Governor made a secret deal to remove 2.6 million acres from possible designation as ``wilderness''.

Utah's Sierra Club issued a statement that said:

Governor Mike Leavitt's environmental track record, which

includes working behind closed doors with Interior Secretary

Gale Norton to open up Utah's wildlands to polluting

industries, suggests that he will be a good fit for the Bush

administration, but a disappointing choice for Americans

concerned with environmental protection. . . .

Earlier this year, EPA released a report on the States' record of enforcing the Clean Water Act. Utah received one of the lowest scores for enforcement.

Governor Leavitt's ``hands-off'' approach is a recurring theme. He has argued in favor of downsizing and even dismantling agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency. It is not hard to imagine the demoralizing impact it could have on EPA staff if the next Administrator is on record saying that EPA should be dismantled. This viewpoint reveals the importance Governor Leavitt places on protecting our air, water, and land.

Do we really want to return to the days before the EPA was established, when rivers caught on fire and people literally keeled over from air pollution? I, for one, do not relish the results of confirming a ``rollback'' Governor as the guardian of our Nation's environment under a ``rollback'' administration!

Another widely reported matter of concern has to do with a fish hatchery the Governor and his family have owned. The family was served with 33 indictments for illegal fish transfers that helped to spread a severe fish disease known as ``whirling disease.'' This is a serious matter, but pales in comparison to the actions taken by Mr. Leavitt once he became Governor. According to the Salt Lake Tribune and other Utah papers, after being elected Governor, Mr. Leavitt had officials in his administration transfer, demote, or fire as many as 70 State employees who had worked on the fish hatchery indictments.

This whole affair definitely has a nasty smell, and it is not just due to the dead fish!

Utah's Kennecott copper mine is reportedly the world's largest open- pit mine. The ore extracted from this mine has brought enormous wealth to its owners, but has been paid for by the public in the form of extensive environmental damage. Acid mine drainage and the careless dumping of waste rock have contaminated surface waters and groundwater on an unprecedented scale. For at least 10 miles along the Oquirrhs mountain face, clean water is all but impossible to find by the local wildlife. Cyanide leach pads, acid mine drainage, and other forms of dangerous contamination have spread across 20,000 acres of land. Metallic contamination has reached Utah's Great Salt Lake and Jordan River.

Mining has always come with a high environmental price tag, and I will grant that some improvements have been made at Kennecott in reducing its toxic air emissions. But what I find especially noteworthy is that for nearly 20 years conservation and citizens' groups have clamored for a clean-up plan for Kennecott. Yet conveniently, this long-sought-after clean-up plan didn't make any headway until this year, right after the Governor's August 11 nomination to become EPA's Administrator. What a coincidence of timing. He has been Governor for many years now. What accounts for this ``Road to Damascus'' conversion? Is it political expediency?

Utah's U.S. Magnesium Corporation also illustrates Governor Leavitt's environmental ``credentials'' for the job as EPA Administrator. MagCorp, as it is called, is listed No. 1 on EPA's list of toxic polluters. Some years, it falls to No. 2. At a minimum, it is one of the nation's worst toxic polluters.

According to EPA's Toxic release Inventory, MagCorp accounted for more than 90 percent of total chlorine releases in the United States from 1998 to 2000. Since 2000, MagCorp's chlorine emissions have decreased and it now accounts for only 80 percent of the Nation's chlorine releases. But this slight decrease has not resulted from any enforcement action taken by Governor Leavitt's administration. Rather, the reductions are attributable to actions taken by the EPA.

My question is, Why did the EPA have to step in to enforce the law? Tests of the company's waste-water ditches have revealed dioxin contamination at 170 parts per billion. That is 170 times higher than EPA's ``action level'' for clean-up. EPA eventually had to step in where the State had failed to do so. That strikes me as a serious lapse in enforcement responsibilities.

Remember that Governor Leavitt has said, ``The national government should establish standards. Local governments must figure out how best to meet them.'' But in case after case of significant environmental damage, we find that the Governor appears to believe that ``he who enforces least enforces best.'' What good are environmental health standards, if they are being ignored, year after year? Those standards exist for sound scientific reasons and are developed only after years of extensive research and independent peer review.

The plain fact is this: toxic pollution is dangerous to our health, especially to the health of our children and grandchildren. We may not immediately see the lowered I.Q. scores, cancer ``clusters,'' or autoimmune diseases, but make no mistake, they are

among the tragic results when polluters are allowed to flaunt with the law with impunity. Failure to enforce our environmental laws portrays either a sad ignorance of the health costs or, even worse, a knowing disregard for them. In recent years, scientific analysis of the highest caliber has shown that, if anything, our environmental health standards may be too lax.

We have learned, for instance, that children under 2 are 10 times more likely to develop cancer when exposed to the same toxic concentration as adults. An article that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine last April reported that the concentration of lead in the blood which can lower a child's I.Q. is lower than previously believed. In the latest study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers report that at blood-lead levels allowed under the current health standard, children's I.Q. scores declined by an average of 7.4 points.

We will not be well served by an EPA Administrator who continues, or even accelerates, the pace at which President Bush is dismantling our fundamental environmental protections. The last person we need as Administrator is someone whose philosophy on key environmental issues is less regulation, no matter what the cost to public health and the environment.

I would add that it is not just the Sierra Club and the Southern Utah Wilderness Association who have voiced opposition to this nomination. Rocky Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, who opposed the Governor's ``Legacy Highway'' project, said:

On environmental issues governor Leavitt and I differ

greatly. He's had some great opportunities to provide real

leadership, but I think he has been unwilling to spend the

political capital to make the important changes. We have

serious air quality issues that are simply going to get worse

without strong leadership.

The last 3 years have been the ``darkest hour'' of our Nation's commitment to environmental protection since EPA was created. This White House has repeatedly foisted its penchant for secrecy and cover- up on the Environmental Protection Agency. It held back the Children's Environmental Health Report for 9 months. It has hidden and misrepresented the impacts of its New Source Review rule. And for the first time ever, White House officials insisted that the global warming chapter be deleted from EPA's Air Quality Trends Report. You do not have to be an atmospheric scientist or professor to know what is happening because of global warming. We see the trend all over, and we see the consequences of that trend. But the administration will have none of that.

Earlier this year, the administration tried to prevent the release of a report on EPA's abysmal enforcement record. I am thankful the report was leaked to the press. Now we have some of the facts regarding EPA's enforcement record under President Bush:

Enforcement actions against some of the worst environmental violators have been cut by at least 45 percent;

Half of the facilities that violate their toxic limits do so by 100 percent;

13 percent violate their limits by a staggering 1,000 percent; and

80 percent of Clean Water Act violators never receive a formal enforcement action.

This is a total disregard for the law. I think it's time to end the disregard, the secrecy, the obfuscation, and the wholesale abdication of responsibility for protecting two of the Nation's most precious resources: human health and our environment.

My fear is that this abdication won't end with the nominee the Senate is poised to confirm; it will get worse. Therefore, I must vote ``No.'' And I hope many others will vote no to show that we are opposed to this degradation of our environment and to this willful ignorance of the costs that degradation will impose on our society.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have offered an amendment to this foreign operations bill cosponsored by Senators Brownback, Kennedy, and Leahy that will help persecuted refugees across the world.

I think this amendment will enhance our Nation's commitment to humanitarian principles.

In 1990, Congress passed what has become known as the ``Lautenberg amendment,'' a provision that has allowed nearly 700,000 persecuted religious minorities to come to the United States.

These individuals have qualified for refugee status based on their membership in an ethnic, religious, or national minority facing a credible threat of state-enforced persecution.

In 1998, I traveled to the Balkans to visit ethnic Albanians Kosovars who had fled their homes in the face of the brutal rampage of Slobodan Milosovic. Many of these refugees eventually came to the United States, and I was proud to greet them at Fort Dix in New Jersey.

Today, I continue to believe that the United States, as a prosperous global leader, has a special responsibility to those who have been displaced because of political conflict or those who are threatened by ethnic, racial, or religious persecution.

The amendment we included in this bill today reflects our serious concern about the low number of refugees currently gaining entrance to the U.S.

Each year, the President designates a maximum number of refugees to be admitted under the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program. It is then up to various Government agencies to find and process those refugees who are eligible and to help them gain admission to the U.S.

However, in the past few years, the annual number of admitted refugees has been dramatically lower than ceiling set by the President. In fiscal year 2003, for example, the U.S. admitted only 28,419 refugees, though the limit had been set at 70,000.

With 13 million refugees worldwide, it is unconscionable that the U.S. cannot offer admission to the full number of individuals legally authorized.

There are various reasons for the shortfall in refugees admitted to the U.S. It is extremely demanding on our foreign service officers abroad to find and process each refugee applicant. The amendment agreed to today attempts to improve this process by directing the Department of State to reach out to international non-profit organizations and private voluntary organizations to help identify refugee applicants.

Our amendment also urges the Secretary of State to prioritize those refugees who are most in need, so we can ensure that humanitarian considerations not political ones determine the order of the waiting list for entry.

There is a refugee crisis in the world, and this nation must play a role in trying to solve this crisis. On the African continent alone, some 45 countries host over 3.3 million refugees. These numbers are growing as the accelerating violence in West Africa continues to uproot thousands from their homes.

Current civil conflicts in Liberia, the Congo and elsewhere suggest that the number of refugees will increase in the coming months.

I thank my colleagues for remaining committed to helping victims of oppression, war and persecution across the world. As a child of immigrants, I believe that our country's history and values instruct us to continue welcoming in the ``tired, the poor, and the huddled masses.''

I thank my colleagues for supporting this amendment.

Amendment No. 1989

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

Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to a friend and former colleague, Paul Wellstone. I know we have just heard from the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, and I listened carefully to his message. He conveyed so much of what we all feel.

The Senator from Minnesota had the privilege of knowing Paul Wellstone very well, and that was indeed a privilege because everybody with whom he worked knew what an unusual and--I will use a trite word-- fantastic fellow he was as a person.

It hardly seems possible that a year has passed since we received the terrible news that Paul and Sheila, his beloved wife--they were a great team--their daughter Marcia, and loyal staff members Tom Lapic, Mary McEvoy, and Will McLaughlin were also lost in that tragic plane crash. The crash also claimed the lives of the two pilots, Richard Conry and Michael Guess.

This weekend marks the first anniversary of this immeasurable loss to our country, and we pause for a moment to honor the memory of these extraordinary individuals. Our thoughts and prayers go out to their families and their loved ones.

Paul and Sheila Wellstone devoted their lives to giving a voice to the voiceless. He saw his mission in the Senate and his life as comforting the afflicted and, when necessary, afflicting the comfortable. That was Paul Wellstone in a nutshell. In social justice circles, it is called speaking truth to power.

Everyone admired Paul for the fact that he spoke from his heart. He cast his votes in this Chamber based on his deep beliefs. He had a strong moral compass, unwavering in his convictions, never changing his message to please any particular audience. One of his favorite expressions in that connection was an old Jewish proverb that you cannot dance at two weddings at the same time. He was always answering to the mission that he believed could mean something to most people.

He conformed his style somewhat after coming to the Senate, but he never sold out. He always had that kind of impish look, a half smile on his face, but often at the same time with a deeply furrowed brow. He never joined the establishment. He just had diplomatic relations with it.

During his time in the Senate, Paul led legislative battles to make health care more accessible, protect seniors' pensions from corporate raiders, and authored historic ethics and lobbying reform legislation that is now the law of the land. He has forever changed how we do business here on Capitol Hill.

He and Sheila were leaders in combating the scourge of domestic violence. Sheila was a working member of Paul's office and became a respected national voice in her own right as she traveled the country, dedicating herself to this important cause. In the year 2000, Paul teamed with his colleagues on the other side of the aisle to pass historic bipartisan legislation to prevent the international sex trafficking of women and girls, establishing the first ever penalty for those so despicable as to enslave and traffic in other people.

He teamed with our colleague, Senator Domenici, to require health insurance companies to provide more equitable coverage and benefits to people suffering from mental illness. It was the right thing to do, it was the fair thing to do, and he prevailed.

It is my hope that before the end of this Congress we are going to honor Paul Wellstone's fighting, fair-minded spirit by passing the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Parity Act into law. It would also be the right thing to do.

Paul Wellstone deeply loved his country and, speaking from my view of Paul Wellstone, his country loved him. Many people who did not know him as we had the privilege of doing, would so much respect him from hearing his

fiery oration about what was right. And he stood up to anybody. He was willing to be the odd person out when it came to issues of significance. He wanted them always to be right.

He demanded that we be the best that we can be and was never more passionate than when he was trying to right a wrong, holding up a mirror to a government that has not always kept its promises-- especially to its veterans. Paul worked tirelessly on behalf of veterans, helping to pass legislation to aid homeless veterans and to secure compensation for atomic veterans suffering from cancers due to radiation exposure during their military service.

In Paul's words:

I am very proud that atomic veterans and their families

will finally get the VA benefits and compensation they

deserve, and also the recognition of the terrible personal

sacrifices that they made on behalf of the nation, so long

denied to them.

He continued:

This has been a long fight, but one that was well worth it.

This was a victory, not only for atomic veterans, it was a

victory for justice, and for all of our Nation's citizen-

soldiers. America is a safer place because of it.

One of the last votes Paul cast in this Chamber was for a multilateral approach to our situation in Iraq. During the debate, he argued as follows:

Acting now on our own might be a sign of our power. Acting

sensibly and in a measured way, in concert with our allies,

with bipartisan congressional support, would be a sign of our

strength.

Paul Wellstone will long be remembered for his strength: for his strength of mind, strength of spirit, and the steely tenacity and strength of his convictions. What gifts he gave to us all. He will forever be missed.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to support the Mikulski- Landrieu amendment. This is a very important amendment. It overturns the newly revised guidelines--known as OMB A-76--for the ``competitive outsourcing'' of government jobs.

This A-76 process the administration has proposed isn't about saving money or promoting efficiency. It implements a rabid anti-government ideology by stacking the deck against Federal employees; there's nothing fair about it.

As a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, which has had hearings on this issue, I have had an opportunity to hear OMB officials try to justify the new rules. To put it bluntly, they haven't succeeded.

This administration's desire to privatize vast swaths of the Federal workforce needs a lot more scrutiny from Congress.

Ultimately, the outsourcing of jobs is about people--the people who work for our Government and the people who pay taxes.

Civil servants are the backbone of our government and we should remember that the skills, talent, and professionalism of the men and women in the Federal workplace are the best in the world.

The overwhelming majority of civil servants are dedicated to their jobs. Many of them could make more money in the private sector but they work in the government because they see public service as a higher calling.

Many of us here in Congress strongly disagree with the administration's privatization agenda. For instance, it struck me as ludicrous that we would federalize baggage screening at airports and then turn air traffic control over to the lowest bidder. So I offered an amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill to prevent that. Eleven of my Republican colleagues voted for that amendment, which the Senate adopted, 56-41.

People correctly point out that taxpayers are the owners of the Federal Government and deserve the most effective and efficient government possible.

I agree, but I would also point out that Federal employees are taxpayers, too, and they have ``invested'' even more than their taxes-- they have invested their working lives. They deserve to be treated fairly and with respect.

Yes.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California for her courage to stand up here and take a position when what we are seeing on the other side, with its pictures and statements about how this process is running rampant through America. It is not. We ought to face up to reality.

My position is kind of: There they go again. There they go again, wanting to curb people's rights, rights that are abundant and ought to remain in place without us touching them, civil rights such as affirmative action, rights such as the ability to have your day in court to make your case, and not have it snatched away to protect the gun industry from lawsuits no matter how reckless their behavior.

We do not hear anything nor have we ever seen a picture here of a gunshot victim who may never be able to walk again. We know Jim Brady will not walk again on his own, because of a gunshot wound. Do we see those kinds of pictures, the horror? Do we see surgical procedures depicted here in the Chamber, pictures of people having their intestines removed or something of that nature? Sure, they are ugly, but the point is that sometimes doctors have to do them to preserve someone's health, and that's a positive purpose.

At any rate, the other side wants to take away workers' rights to join unions and get overtime pay. The other side wants to promote judicial nominees who are anti-choice, anti-union, and anti-civil rights.

This is an attempt to regulate people's behavior.

I have noticed one thing here since this debate has begun: We have not seen one woman talk in favor of the side that says: This procedure ought to be banned. Put the doctors in jail. We have 15 women in the Senate, but not one is here defending the position that says: Take away the doctors' ability to practice medicine as they see fit.

Listen. I want to be clear here. And I want everybody to hear my voice: I am

not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. I believe a woman has the right to make a decision, in concert with her doctor, about her health.

What happens if she has another sick child or she herself suddenly finds that her health is being ruined, physically or mentally? Does she have a right to make her decision? I think so.

I have a child who is now pregnant with my 10th grandchild. We do not talk about abortions. Thank God, my other grandchildren and their mothers have been healthy. But we had their health checked to make sure everything was going to be OK because nothing is more important than having my three daughters and my daughter-in-law available to take care of the children they have and to make sure that their families stay intact.

But here, in what I call the ``male-garchy'' that is the United States Senate, we have the men deciding what ought to happen with women who, with their doctor, want to make a decision to protect their health.

The Senator from California was eloquent. She said: Provide those exceptions for the health and well-being of a mother. But no, that is not good enough: We don't like the way these women are making these decisions. We don't like it. We don't think they are mature enough to make these decisions. They are mature enough to be a mother, but are they mature enough to make their own decisions about their body? No, not according to the ``Big Boys' Club'' here; they should not be allowed to do that.

This is always a very difficult discussion. I don't think my friends who are on the opposite side are evil; they just happen to be wrong, in my view. I do not attribute anything to them except that I want to expose what I think is the truth; and that is, this growing trend to regulate people's behavior in this free, democratic society about which we talk so much.

When our young people fight in Iraq, when they fought in Vietnam, or in other wars--I fought in World War II--the fight has been to protect people's freedoms--freedoms. What are we doing trying to take away a right, and threatening doctors who perform a procedure they judge necessary to protect the life and health of the mother?

I voted against this bill, and I intend to vote against the conference report. A woman's right to choose is in greater danger now than it has been at any time since the Supreme Court issued its decision in Roe v. Wade 30 years ago.

Supporters of this bill use the term ``partial-birth abortion.'' There is no medical term ``partial-birth.'' It is a term deliberately concocted by the anti-choice movement to inflame passions. Make no mistake: the procedure(s) covered by this phony term are not chosen lightly. Does anybody here think that a woman who is 6 or 7 months along in her pregnancy, who falls prey to illness or disease, or discovers for some other reason that the pregnancy must be terminated-- does anybody think that is an easy decision? It absolutely is not.

I am the father of 4 and, as I mentioned, the grandfather of 9--Lord willing, 10 soon.

But how can such a decision be challenged? How can the woman's decision, made in concert with her doctor, who says, ``I recommend this as a necessary procedure''--be challenged? Well, here in the ``Boys' Club,'' a woman and her doctor won't be allowed to make that decision. In my opinion, that is not right. I think the message the other side is sending to women is: Your behavior is abominable. We don't want you to do it. And here we have these poor people, these poor woman, who are risking their own health, carrying a fetus for 6 or 7 or 8 months-- never a pleasant experience, I assure you.

As I said, there is no such medical term as ``partial-birth abortion,'' and that is intentional because this bill is not designed to ban one particular abortion procedure but many safe and legal medical procedures. If S. 3 is ultimately passed, and President Bush signs it into law, as he has promised, he will become the first U.S. President to criminalize safe medical procedures.

Nobody is fooled by the real objective here, which is to chip away at a woman's right to choose and, ultimately, to criminalize legal and safe abortion procedures.

No. When people know what this bill is really about, they are opposed. An ABC News poll showed that 61 percent of Americans oppose criminalizing abortion procedures if a woman's health is threatened.

The bill is deceptive. It is extreme. We already know this bill won't pass the constitutional test. When we debated this bill back in March, many of us who are pro-choice said clearly, directly, that we would accept this bill if the bill's proponents would just make an exception for the life and health of the mother. That is what we were asking for. What is wrong with that? I don't understand the other side's objection to that.

Their obstinance shows the true position of those who want to police our conduct and decide how people ought to behave. It is too bad. It is not right.

The sponsors of S. 3 have repeatedly resisted reasonable attempts to include a health exception such as the Feinstein substitute, which was defeated. This bill is purely political. Everybody here knows it will be ruled unconstitutional. Five members of the current Supreme Court have struck down a State ban on so-called partial-birth abortions. The same fate awaits this legislation. And in New Jersey, my State, the State Supreme Court overturned a similar ban in 2000.

About a month ago we had a very enlightening debate on the Senate floor over an important amendment offered to S. 3 by our colleague, Senator Harkin. The amendment reaffirmed support for the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. The House Republican leadership decided that the Senate did not have the wisdom, and their leadership and their anti-choice friends removed Senator Harkin's language in conference. Striping this bill of the Harkin amendment that reaffirms Roe v. Wade shows us what the President and his anti-choice allies are really after. They want to overturn Roe v. Wade. It has been said many times. Unfortunately, this bill puts them on that path.

During the previous debate on this bill, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania characterized the Harkin amendment, a reaffirmation of current law, as extreme. That is absurd. Not being willing to protect a woman's health is extreme. It is extreme, and it is wrong.

We know where this administration is headed. We know the true motives of the anti-choice administration and its allies in Congress. Look no further than the recent decision in 2002 made by the Bush administration to amend the State Children's Health Insurance Program to provide coverage for fetuses and embryos rather than for pregnant women.

This rabid ideology extends so far that the administration won't allow the United States to participate in international family planning programs. We are so paranoid about this, it is ridiculous.

I urge my colleagues to think this whole matter through, to put women's health and access to safe medical care before ideology, not to vote for this thinly veiled attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. I urge that they vote against this unconstitutional bill before us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in fact, the question is a very good one. It addresses the issue we are discussing. Why is there no agreement to the request of so many of us to go along and outlaw certain procedures altogether, get rid of them, as long as the health and well-being of the mother is taken care of?

I endowed initially--and it is still in existence--a cancer research center. It is called the Lautenberg Cancer Research Center, paid for with my own funds and people from whom I have raised money. We focus on breast cancer and other issues. We try to protect the women's health at all costs. We are not as generous here as we are to the fat cats who are going to get those huge tax cuts. Oh, no, they are entitled to theirs. But when it comes to potentially taking care of women's health, a child's health, men's health, all of it--well, it is OK to do that to a point. But to let women make their own decisions is outrageous.

There is nothing more tragic than to see a woman unable to take care of herself or her family as a result of continuing with a pregnancy that robbed her of her well-being.

Will the Senator yield?

Will the Senator yield for a very brief question? My father was 42 when he was stricken with colon cancer and he had his intestine removed to try to save his life. It was an ugly, painful procedure. As I equate this with any painful procedure that is surgically necessary. They tried to save his life but were unsuccessful.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Does the Senator know how much longer his remarks will be? I ask simply because I follow the Senator and I have an airplane to catch. It would be helpful if I could get an estimate.

Not at all. When I served in Normandy, I saw a lot of things the Senator is talking about. It is very interesting.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his cooperation. I am sorry to interrupt. He did just what the order called for and I respect that.

I have a couple of things to talk about and I will try not to be too long. One of the things I want to talk about is the very important vote we just had. I was one of a very small group to have voted against the supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq. I want to make sure my vote is clearly understood. I support taking care of our military, making sure their conditions are as comfortable as they can be under difficult circumstances, making sure they have the latest in weaponry, and that they are treated fairly and they receive medical care and their health care is the best we can offer. I was prepared to vote for that $67 billion in a flash, but that was not the only thing we voted on. We also voted on extending $20 billion to Iraq for reconstruction.

I think it is a noble effort we are making to show we care about other people, but we also have to care about the people here. We also have to worry about the schools here that are crumbling, schools where it is hard to learn. We also have to understand that when we say Leave No Child Behind, we mean all the children, and we need more funding to do that. That has to be paid for. We do not seem to have the funds for that.

Thank goodness we have Social Security surpluses we can borrow from-- money we can take from the senior citizens, those who are here now and those in the future. So we borrow money from one place and then we lend or give that money to another place, to Iraq, to make sure they have schools and garbage trucks. And I do not mean to diminish that. I think it is important to show we care about those people, but we ought to be a little more inventive in the way we do it. We ought to be able to find the kind of support we need, true support, in the United Nations which we scorned so much as we were preparing to go to war.

I was a supporter of the war, so I cast a vote I feel very good about. I thought very carefully about it. I wore a uniform, as I said before. I wore it during the ``Big War.'' I enlisted at the end of 1942 and got out in 1946. I am very attached to the military and the responsibility they have.

Well, the vote has been cast and shortly, we will be distributing a total of $87 billion for reconstruction aid and for the resources our military men and women need.