Floor Statements

Unfortunately, your understanding is correct.

Senator Domenici and I will be marking up the Energy and Water Development Act for Fiscal Year 04 next week in both subcommittee and full committee. We recognize the needs of both States for flood mitigation, including stream and river restoration, bank stabilization, infrastructure repair and restoration, water and sewer repairs, and fresh drinking water in some areas. We will do everything we can to address these needs in the Fiscal Year 04 bill.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

If the Senator will yield, the only amendment we know of-- --

As I said earlier today, the work Senator Durbin has done on the legislative appropriations bill is, of course, exemplary, as was Senator Feinstein's, the ranking member of the subcommittee.

As the Senator from Texas knows, last year I made a statement on the floor about the great work these two fine Senators had done on the military construction appropriations bill. My feelings have not changed. I think they have done an excellent job.

I had the honor of also chairing the subcommittee in years past. It is an extremely interesting subcommittee. It does so many important things for the men and women representing this country.

Madam President, I wonder if the Senator from Arizona has looked over the managers' package on this bill including 15 different items.

I am only kidding.

Mr. President, if I may direct a question through the Chair to the distinguished majority whip, what is the pleasure of the majority leader as to what we are going to do on Friday? Is there a determination yet as to whether we are going to have votes on Friday?

I certainly have no prior knowledge about amendments being offered on the very important State Department authorization bill. But I think it will be difficult to finish the bill by tomorrow evening. If that is what the leader wants to do, we will certainly try.

As I indicated, I don't know what amendments will be offered. We will have a better idea before we get on the bill, and we will inform Senator Biden and let him know what amendments there are, so the leader can have an idea as to what the week holds for us in that regard.

Mr. President, if it would be OK, the time, as the Senator from Kentucky has indicated, is evenly divided--the Chair will announce it shortly--until about 11:10; is that true?

One-half hour of the time we are allotted I will yield to the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, to speak on Judge Wolski.

I have been advised by staff that 25 minutes would be adequate because he has 5 minutes prior to the vote. So I will yield 25 minutes to the Senator from New York.

I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would each vote ``nay.''

I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay''.

I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay''.

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

Mr. President, just a few years ago I traveled to Nepal, a country with one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world, certainly in Asia. More than 500 out of every 100,000 women in Nepal die from pregnancy-related complications compared to 7 out of every 100,000 women in the United States. Again, 500 women in Nepal die from pregnancy-related complications compared to 7 in the United States.

Nepal is not the only place where women are at such high risk. Every minute of every day at least one woman somewhere in the world dies from causes related to pregnancy in childbirth. Every minute of every day a woman dies from causes related to pregnancy. That is 600,000 women every year who die from causes related to pregnancy. I repeat for the third time, 600,000 women every year.

Our country offers hope to women around the world. Our support for international family planning programs spells the difference between life or death for women in developing countries. And family planning efforts prevent unintended pregnancies, save the lives of thousands of women and infants every year. Family planning also helps prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

Last summer, I traveled to South Africa: Kenya, Nigeria, and Botswana. The subject of AIDS and the terrible damage it has done to the African people became the focus of this trip. We did not want it to be the focus of the trip, but it became the focus of the trip. It overwhelmed everything that we talked about and saw. Africa has been overwhelmed by the AIDS epidemic. More than 20 million Africans have died from AIDS and more than 5,000 continue to die each day from this disease. It is 7 days a week. It does not matter if it is Thanksgiving, Christmas, or whatever holidays they might have. There are no vacations, no holidays. Seven days a week, every week of the year, more than 5,000 Africans die, and that number is going up, not down. They die from this disease we call AIDS.

In seven southern African countries, 20 percent or more of the adult population is infected with the HIV virus. In Botswana--and I would mention about Botswana, it is a democracy. It is a country that is based on the rule of law. It is really a fine country with great leaders. We stayed for a few days in Botswana. The infection rate is about 40 percent; that is, 4 out of every 10 people who live in Botswana are infected with the HIV virus. In other African countries, the HIV infection rates are higher among women than men.

As a result, family planning providers are the best source of HIV prevention information and services. But now, the Mexico City policy threatens our efforts to save the lives of women in Nepal, on the continent of Africa, and all over the world. President Bush reimposed the gag rule because he wants to decrease the number of abortions abroad. That is a worthy goal, but restricting funds to organizations that provide a wide range of safe and effective family planning services can lead only to more, not fewer, abortions.

Cutting funding for family planning diminishes access to the most effective means of reducing abortion. Research shows the only way to reduce the number of abortions is to improve family planning efforts that will decrease the number of unintended pregnancies. Access to contraception reduces the probability of having an abortion by more than 85 percent.

Of course, I do not support the use of a single taxpayer dollar to perform or promote abortions overseas, but that is what the law says. The law has explicitly prohibited such activities for 20 years, from 1973. Instead, I support family planning efforts that reduce both unintended pregnancies and abortions.

The Mexico City policy not only undercuts our country's commitment to women's health, it restricts foreign organizations in a way that would be unconstitutional in the United States. This policy violates a fundamental tenet of our democracy: freedom of speech. That is why my friend from California, the chief sponsor of this amendment, Senator Boxer, calls this a global gag amendment because that is exactly what it is. This policy violates a fundamental tenet of our democracy: freedom of speech.

Exporting a policy that is unconstitutional in the United States is the ultimate act of hypocrisy. Surely, this is not the message we want to send to struggling democracies that look to the United States for inspiration and guidance. My friend, the distinguished Senator from Nevada--from California, Senator Boxer--I wish she were from Nevada. She does a great job for Nevada, along with California and the rest of the country. Senator Boxer's amendment would ensure that U.S. foreign policy is consistent with American values, including free speech and medical ethics.

I support this legislation. I support this amendment and urge my colleagues to support this effort to protect and defend women around the globe.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''

That was just information; it was not a unanimous consent request.

We have been on this bill for just a few hours. I know, having managed a bill or two in my day, how important it is for the two managers of this bill to get their legislation passed.

Everyone has to stop and pause a little bit. The last time this bill came up we spent 2 weeks on it. We are not going to finish this bill in 3 hours. Everyone should understand that. I know there are 20 amendments and 90 percent of them will be agreed to. There may be other amendments that the two managers are not aware of. It is important we move this long and we are certainly not trying to stall this legislation.

However, I apologize to Senator Lautenberg because I thought we were going to do no more tonight. We have a joint function that Senators are to attend tonight and I told Senator Lautenberg we would not be doing any more tonight. So that is my fault. I did not know the manager would try to do other amendments. We have a lot of amendments that people want to offer but I didn't believe tonight that was going to happen.

I told the two leaders I would work during the night to find out some indication of what we would have tomorrow but in the few minutes since I spoke with the distinguished majority leader there are people who want to offer amendments. The vast majority of those amendments are related to this bill; they are not unrelated. Senator Murray has indicated she wants to offer an amendment on unemployment benefits. We want to make sure she has an opportunity to do that.

I don't want to rain on the parade other than to say this bill is not going to be finished early tomorrow.

Mr. President, I understand this bill is very important. The two managers have both talked to me how important they think it is, and I acknowledge it is important. We will try to help them any way we can to get this bill passed.

The good news is Senator Lautenberg has heard us talking and he is on his way back. That is an amendment that will be disposed of tonight. I look forward to working with the two managers tomorrow to see what we can do to help expedite this legislation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask the majority leader if there were not a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on Wolski, would the distinguished majority leader consider allowing several hours this afternoon to debate Wolski? If cloture is invoked, of course, we would have 30 hours. It would seem to me that for the people who have been seeking this vote, we could vitiate the cloture vote and the leader could give us, say, 3 or 4 hours to debate Wolski and then vote.

No.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be charged equally to both sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield?

As I listen to the Senator today--and I am aware of what the Senator talked about yesterday--is the Senator saying he is not opposed to our doing something regarding medical malpractice?

The Senator is absolutely right. In Nevada, the Governor, Republican Gov. Kenny Guinn, called a special session of the Nevada Legislature to address this problem which was created by one insurance company that decided to take a powder when the stock market fell, as the Senator aptly described.

The Senator, who previously served in the House of Representatives, also said during his statements in the Senate that if we are going to move important legislation such as this, there should be committee hearings discussing the legislation. It is true, is it not, that we have had no hearings on this legislation?

It is also true, is it not, I say to the Senator from Illinois, that the two studies of the Weiss and the General Accounting Office are not studies that have been paid for, were involved with or directed by attorneys? Is that a fair statement?

The Senator is aware, is he not, the reason terrorism insurance was held up for so long is that Republicans wanted absolute tort reform, everything involving medical malpractice, slips and falls, rear-end automobile accidents--everything. We said: Why don't we just deal with terrorism insurance? We finally prevailed, and we have done a good job. There is construction going on all over America today, and they are able to go forward because they can get terrorism insurance based upon the legislation we passed.

The Senator, as I understand it--I want to make sure I am correct in this--believes reform is needed?

No. 2, you believe we should do it through the ordinary process, have committee hearings.

Finally, you believe the insurance industry should be involved in this because the McCarran-Ferguson Act, named after Senator Pat McCarran of Nevada, was passed to give a few years of relief to the insurance industry so they could gather together during the Depression and not be involved with the Sherman Antitrust Act, and now, some 70 years later, they are the only business other than major league baseball that is not subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act. So the Senator believes they should be like other businesses in America, subject to the Antitrust Act.

If we did some reform here and we involved the committee structure and we involved the insurance industry, I think we could move the bill pretty quickly. Does the Senator agree?

It is absolutely true. The fact is, if you look around the country, insurance rates have not gone down where these medical malpractice reforms have been initiated.

But another thing it doesn't take into consideration is the tremendous harm done to people who have no ability to move forward when a doctor does something wrong to them.

I think the Senator indicated there are about 100,000 people killed because of medical malpractice in America every year. But that doesn't take into consideration the people who are paralyzed, people who are injured and damaged in many other ways. With this cap, these cases simply do not go forward.

So it is really not fair to analyze what goes on in those States because you don't take into consideration the damage, the harm, the pain and suffering of these people who have no way to recover their expenses as a result of a direct negligent act by a physician.

Mr. President, if I could say one thing--I know the Democratic leader is in the Chamber--I have the highest respect and admiration for my colleague from the State of Nevada, Senator John Ensign, who has introduced this legislation. He is passionately involved with doing something to solve this medical malpractice crisis. As I have indicated, I have supported his efforts to do something about it. He and I tend to disagree on how to do it. But I want the record to be spread with the fact that I have great respect and admiration for his moving forward on this problem.

I only wish there had been full committee hearings on his legislation. I think it would have improved it before it reached the floor. I think he has been shortchanged by not having his legislation brought before the appropriate committee, had hearings, and then brought here. I think with some changes in this legislation it is something we could all support.

Mr. President, I ask that the Senator from Idaho be given whatever time he needs. He is talking about a very important subject.

I ask unanimous consent the Senator have whatever time he needs up to 25 minutes to the hour for this very important statement.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield just for a brief second, it is my understanding the Senator from Arizona has authority to speak up to 15 minutes, followed by a 25-minute speech by the Senator from California. Is that true?

I ask unanimous consent that following the statement of the Senator from California, Senator Cornyn be recognized for 30 minutes, followed by Senator Hollings for 30 minutes, and following Senator Hollings, I ask that Senator Voinovich be recognized for up to 30 minutes, and then he would be followed by a Democrat.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation providing greater protection for workers dealing with nuclear materials and nuclear power. I am pleased to introduce this legislation today with my colleague from Nevada, Senator Ensign.

Several weeks ago, I chaired a hearing of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee on problems facing the Yucca Mountain project. I was extremely disappointed that two of the witnesses--both current employees of the Department of Energy and one of its contractors-- failed to testify at the hearing.

It was clear to me that these people failed to appear before the committee because they were concerned that their appearance could have negative repercussions on their jobs. That is completely unacceptable.

So today, Senator Ensign and I are introducing legislation to expand the whistleblower protections. The bill we are introducing does two things.

First, the bill would expand whistleblower protection to all Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission employees and their contractors' and subcontractors' employees.

Second, the bill would provide a process for whistleblowers to utilize Federal courts if their cases are not addressed quickly by the Department of Labor.

Our Democracy depends on the ability of citizens and their elected representatives to make informed decisions. That means we need to know the truth about the issues.

These changes are simple fixes that help ensure that Federal employees and other people working for the Federal Government never have to fear they will lose their jobs for simply telling the truth.

I hope the Senate will act quickly on this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation providing greater protection for workers dealing with nuclear materials and nuclear power. I am pleased to introduce this legislation today with my colleague from Nevada, Senator Ensign.

Several weeks ago, I chaired a hearing of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee on problems facing the Yucca Mountain project. I was extremely disappointed that two of the witnesses--both current employees of the Department of Energy and one of its contractors-- failed to testify at the hearing.

It was clear to me that these people failed to appear before the committee because they were concerned that their appearance could have negative repercussions on their jobs. That is completely unacceptable.

So today, Senator Ensign and I are introducing legislation to expand the whistleblower protections. The bill we are introducing does two things.

First, the bill would expand whistleblower protection to all Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission employees and their contractors' and subcontractors' employees.

Second, the bill would provide a process for whistleblowers to utilize Federal courts if their cases are not addressed quickly by the Department of Labor.

Our Democracy depends on the ability of citizens and their elected representatives to make informed decisions. That means we need to know the truth about the issues.

These changes are simple fixes that help ensure that Federal employees and other people working for the Federal Government never have to fear they will lose their jobs for simply telling the truth.

I hope the Senate will act quickly on this important legislation.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``Yea''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be temporarily set aside.

On behalf of the Senator from South Dakota, Senator Johnson, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding that as soon as Senator Kennedy finishes his speech Senators McConnell and Boxer will be recognized for 10 minutes with the time equally divided, and then we go into the series of votes. Is that right?

Mr. President, the Boxer amendment is very simple. It says if a person is receiving cancer drugs and they come to a period of time--as this bill is written--where they run out of the ability to get help from the Medicare Program, that they, in effect, are covered.

We want a cancer patient to have no donut hole, no gap in coverage. That is what the Boxer amendment is all about.

We have at least 4 minutes.

Of course.

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator to withhold the suggestion of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), would vote ``yea.''

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay''.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''

Reserving the right to object, everyone here is working in the best of faith to try to work through

this situation. We don't have the actual document of the Durbin amendment. I have been told what is in that. I related that to the majority and to the two managers of the bill. It is very similar to the Boxer amendment. If it is anything different than that, I will make sure that we vitiate this agreement.

Absolutely.

Mr. President, we have approximately an hour and a half. I would ask, as Senator Dorgan asked earlier, that he and Senator Pryor be given 30 minutes of that hour and a half, and Senator Durbin be given a half hour.

That will be fine. I ask unanimous consent that the agreement give each side an extra 5 minutes, so the vote would occur at 2:40, rather than 2:30, and the time be divided equally.

That is fine on this side.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Dorgan amendment be offered now and the pending amendment be set aside.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea''.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1102, As Modified

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1103 To Amendment No. 1092

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay''.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 5 o'clock be equally divided.

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

unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.