Floor Statements

Mr. President, just a unanimous consent request: Senator Leahy wishes to speak for 20 minutes, and Senator Kennedy for 30 minutes.

Before the majority leader leaves the floor, I ask to be associated with the remarks he made about General Lenhardt. I add that in the years Senator Daschle has been the Democratic leader--he is starting his eighth year--he has done a lot of very good things for the State of South Dakota, our country, and the Senate. But nothing he has done has been more meaningful than selecting this professional, the first time in the history of our country, the Sergeant at Arms was a professional who had experience.

He was in charge of all the military police in the Army, a general in the United States Army, and was called upon for duty by Senator Daschle. If there were ever anyone with a vision regarding the problems this country faced and this Senate passed, Senator Daschle, in selecting General Lenhardt--because September 11 came during his honeymoon period. He had just gotten here.

We were so well served and have been so well served. I want the Record to reflect not only my great admiration and my friendship for General Lenhardt, I want the record to reflect for all Senator Daschle has done, nothing has been more important in the Senate than his selecting this good man for this most important job.

Mr. President, I, like all of America, was elated last night when we heard the news that the young girl from Utah, Elizabeth Smart, who had been missing for more than 9 months, had been found and reunited with her family. Most of the time, the vast majority of these stories about these girls--mostly girls who are kidnapped, abducted, stolen--end in bad news. This ended in good news.

As a father and grandfather, I really don't know the emotion of a parent who has a child stolen. An abducted child must be the worst nightmare of a parent. But this nightmare ended as I have just related.

The Justice Department says the number of children taken by strangers annually is between 3,000 and 4,000--it varies but thousands of children. Every day children are stolen. These children and their parents deserve the assistance of the American people and the helping hand of the Federal Government.

We stand ready and willing to help. We all feel so helpless when a child is kidnapped. What can we do to help? There is not very much because mostly these stories end, not like Elizabeth Smart's, they end in tragedy. For the past 2 years, Senators Leahy, Hatch, Hutchison, Feinstein, and others have

introduced the National Amber Alert Network Act to aid in the recovery of abducted children. Last year, Committee Chairman Leahy, 1 week after it was introduced, held a hearing on the AMBER plan, and then we passed the bill by unanimous consent in both the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate when it was under the Democrats' control. Such quick and dynamic action on legislation is unheard of around here, but that is proof positive of the overwhelming support that exists for what is really a nonpartisan issue.

Unfortunately, the House of Representatives refused to pass a national AMBER Alert network. They refused to pass this act because they said they didn't like it as a stand-alone bill. They wanted it part of something else--part of something else being part of nothing. It is unknown to me how many children's lives would have been saved if we had had a national AMBER Alert. We know, with the situation we had in California, that it really works.

This year, the Senate again, under the leadership of Senator Hatch, rapidly passed unanimously this bipartisan legislation. But once again the House of Representatives--the leadership of the House of Representatives, Republican leadership of the House of Representatives--is refusing to act quickly on this bipartisan AMBER Alert bill.

I served in the House of Representatives. They could pass this legislation in a matter of hours--not days, hours. Ed Smart, Elizabeth's father, has called upon the House of Representatives to pass this noncontroversial Senate-passed AMBER Alert bill. I agree this is the proper course and the fastest way to protect our children from danger.

In fact, I am confused as to exactly why the House Republican leaders refuse to pass this bill since they agreed to include in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus spending bill $2.5 million for AMBER Alert grants. The House leadership still, however, chooses to ignore the bill that the Senate has twice passed under the bipartisan leadership of Senators Hatch and Leahy, once when Senator Leahy was chairman, once when Senator Hatch was chairman. To include AMBER legislation as a provision in an omnibus bill, standing alone, or in any other capacity, it doesn't matter to us.

I hope the successful recovery of Elizabeth Smart and her father's call for passage of the Senate-passed bill today moves the House Republican leadership to not play politics and promptly let this National AMBER Alert Network Act pass as a stand-alone measure--next week. They could do it tonight. I know how the House works.

The AMBER plan has been credited with the recovery of 49 children nationwide, 49 children who have been reunited happily with their parents. Mr. President, 38 States have a statewide plan. Officials in those States that do not yet have AMBER plans are working toward establishing the AMBER Alert system, and one of the aims of this bill is to help towns, counties, and States all over America to build and support systems to broadcast AMBER Alerts.

Our bipartisan legislation creates a national AMBER Alert coordinator at the Justice Department to work with States, broadcasters, and law enforcement agencies to set up AMBER Alert plans, to serve as a point of contact to supplement existing AMBER plans, and facilitate appropriate regional coordination of AMBER Alerts.

As I was eating dinner last night, watching Larry King, I was so impressed with the enthusiasm, hope, and glee demonstrated by the family of Elizabeth Smart. Of course, we all recognize the father in tears, saying how happy he was, why haven't we passed this legislation. Today, when he has learned the real facts, he is saying: Why hasn't the House passed this legislation?

This legislation also directs the coordinator in the Justice Department to establish voluntary guidelines for minimum standards for AMBER Alerts and their dissemination. As a result, the bill helps kidnap victims while preserving flexibility for the States. Developing and enhancing the AMBER Alert system is a costly endeavor for States to take on alone. So to share the burden, the bill establishes two Federal grant programs managed by the Justice and Transportation Departments for such activities as information dissemination on abducted children and suspected kidnappers, and for necessary AMBER Alert equipment.

Our Nation's children, parents, and grandparents deserve our help to stop the disturbing trend of children's abductions--to let everyone know they are helping by their taxpayer dollars going to a national system. Everyone can then say, ``I have done my share.'' I think we have a program here that really helps.

In the State of Israel, which every day faces terrorist threats and activities, 90 percent of the terrorist activities are thwarted as a result of citizens, people of good will, seeing something that doesn't look right and calling law enforcement. If there is something going on next-door, on the block, something in their city that they see, or in their neighborhood, they can complain to authorities, and it helps. That is what happened here.

We had people in Salt Lake City--actually, Sandy, UT--who I am sure said: I don't know if I am doing the right thing, but I think this could be Elizabeth. A little girl with a wig--a little girl? She is a teenager--she has been gone almost a year--with a wig and some kind of mask over her face, a veil, as they call it.

But these people of good will said: You know--I am sure I am thinking what they must have thought--this is going to be humiliating to me, if I stop these people. Maybe they are religious people, maybe this is part of their religious garb and costume. Maybe I'll embarrass them and me. But what if I let them go, walk by, and I haven't done anything about that, and this is Elizabeth?

For whatever reason, they decided to become intervenors. She stepped forward, and said: I think this is Elizabeth. Sure enough, it was. The little girl had a wig on and a veil. She said: I am Elizabeth Smart. As a result of that, she was reunited with her parents.

We don't know. We will never know what that girl has gone through. We don't know all of it. I personally don't know if she was brainwashed, as was Patty Hearst. I don't know anything about it. But I know there are some happy people in Salt Lake City today. Not only the family, not only the family, but all over Salt Lake City, the State of Utah, the neighboring State of Nevada, but the whole country is celebrating a successful conclusion to a kidnapping, an event which doesn't happen that much.

I hope the House of Representatives' conscience will be pricked and they will reach out and do something quickly which they have the capability of doing and allowing the national AMBER Alert program to pass. It should pass not in this congressional session, not this month, but next week, and early in the week. That is my desire. I hope we follow through on it.

Mr. President, last Congress, I introduced the Fair Treatment for Precious Metals Investors Act to correct a flawed capital gains tax definition, which includes precious metals investments as ``collectibles.'' This simple flaw in the tax code has discouraged investments in gold and other precious metals for nearly fifteen years. I rise today to reintroduce the Fair Treatment for Precious Metals Investors Act to correct this problem.

My State, Nevada, is the third largest producer of gold in the world behind Australia and South Africa. Largely because of Nevada's exports, America enjoys a good trade surplus of more than $1 billion. U.S. gold is purchased around the world in financial markets from London to Zurich to Hong Kong.

Historically, precious metals investments derived their value from their rarity. Today, however, precious metals coins and bars are specifically designed and produced by governments to be used as an investment vehicle for those commodities similar to stocks and bonds. My legislation will correct the outdated tax classification of precious metal bullion and apply to precious metals holdings the same capital gains tax treatment as stocks, bonds, and mutual funds.

In 1997 and 1998, The Taxpayer Relief Act and the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act set two basic types of capital gains tax rates: short-term capital gains, which are taxed at between 15 and 39.6 percent, and long-term capital gains which are taxed at a maximum rate of 20 percent. Long-term capital gains attributable to investments defined as ``collectibles'', (vintage wines, rare coins, and the like), however, are taxed at a maximum rate of 28 percent. Although precious metal bullion coins are intended to be used as investments in the precious metals they contain, they are still classified as ``collectibles'', and are taxed at the 28 percent maximum rate. The Taxpayer Relief Act allowed precious metal bullion coins held in IRA accounts to be taxed at the same rate as stocks and other capital assets. The bill I introduce today would treat all precious metal investments with the same tax equity.

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

Mr. President, I rise today for myself and Senator Ensign to reintroduce the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act. Last year the Senate unanimously passed this bill, which will at last release funds the United States has held in trust for the Western Shoshone people for over 24 years. Unfortunately the House was unable to complete its consideration of the bill before the last Congress adjourned.

Historically, the Western Shoshone people have resided on land within the central portion of Nevada and parts of California, Idaho, and Utah. For more than a hundred years, the Western Shoshone have not received a fair compensation for the loss of their tribal land and resources. In 1946 the Indian Claims Commission was established to compensate Indians for lands and resources taken from them by the United States. In 1962 the commission determined that the Western Shoshone land had been taken through ``gradual encroachment.'' In 1977 the commission awarded the tribe in excess of $26 million dollars. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the commission's award. It was not until 1979 that the United States appropriated over $26 million dollars to reimburse the descendents of these tribes for their loss.

The Western Shoshone are not a wealthy people. A third of the tribal members are unemployed; for many of those who do have jobs, it is a struggle to live from paycheck to the next. Wood stoves often provide the only source of heat in their aging homes. Like other American Indians, the Western Shoshone continue to be disproportionately affected by poverty and low educational attainment. The high school completion rate for Indian people between the ages of 20 and 24 is dismally low. American Indians have a drop-out rate that is 12.5 percent higher than the rest of the National. For the Western Shoshone, the money contained in the settlement funds could lead to drastic lifestyle improvements.

After 24 years the judgment funds still remain in the United States Treasury. The Western Shoshone have not received a single penny of this money which is rightfully theirs. In those twenty-four years, the original trust fund has grown to well over $121 million dollars. It is the past time that this money should be delivered into the hands of its owners. The Western Shoshone Steering Committee has officially requested that Congress enact legislation to affect this distribution. It has become increasingly apparent in recent years that the vast majority of those who qualify to receive these funds support an immediate distribution of their money.

This Act will provide payments to eligible Western Shoshone tribal members and ensure that future generations of Western Shoshone will be able to enjoy the benefit of the distribution in perpetuity. Through the establishment of a tribally controlled grant trust fund, individual members of the Western Shoshone will be able to apply for money for education and other needs within limits set by a self-appointed committee of tribal members. I will continue my ongoing work with the members of the Western Shoshone and the Department of Interior to help resolve any current land issues.

It is clear that the Western Shoshone want the funds from their claim distributed without further delay. They have already voted twice to firmly and decisively voice their interests. Members of the Western Shoshone gathered in Fallon and Elko, NV in May of 1998. They cast a vote overwhelmingly in favor of distributing the funds. 1,230 supported the distribution in the statewide vote; only 53 were opposed. Again on June 2002 they cast a vote overwhelmingly in support of the distribution of the judgment funds at a rate of 100 percent per capita. 1,647 Western Shoshone voted in favor of the distribution of the funds; only 156 opposed. I rise today in support and recognition of their decision. The final distribution of this fund has lingered for more than twenty years. During the 107th Congress, the Indian Affairs Committee approved and the full Senate unanimously passed this bill. It is clear that the best interests of the Tribe will not be served by prolonging their wait. Twenty-four years has been more than long enough. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last Congress, I introduced the Fair Treatment for Precious Metals Investors Act to correct a flawed capital gains tax definition, which includes precious metals investments as ``collectibles.'' This simple flaw in the tax code has discouraged investments in gold and other precious metals for nearly fifteen years. I rise today to reintroduce the Fair Treatment for Precious Metals Investors Act to correct this problem.

My State, Nevada, is the third largest producer of gold in the world behind Australia and South Africa. Largely because of Nevada's exports, America enjoys a good trade surplus of more than $1 billion. U.S. gold is purchased around the world in financial markets from London to Zurich to Hong Kong.

Historically, precious metals investments derived their value from their rarity. Today, however, precious metals coins and bars are specifically designed and produced by governments to be used as an investment vehicle for those commodities similar to stocks and bonds. My legislation will correct the outdated tax classification of precious metal bullion and apply to precious metals holdings the same capital gains tax treatment as stocks, bonds, and mutual funds.

In 1997 and 1998, The Taxpayer Relief Act and the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act set two basic types of capital gains tax rates: short-term capital gains, which are taxed at between 15 and 39.6 percent, and long-term capital gains which are taxed at a maximum rate of 20 percent. Long-term capital gains attributable to investments defined as ``collectibles'', (vintage wines, rare coins, and the like), however, are taxed at a maximum rate of 28 percent. Although precious metal bullion coins are intended to be used as investments in the precious metals they contain, they are still classified as ``collectibles'', and are taxed at the 28 percent maximum rate. The Taxpayer Relief Act allowed precious metal bullion coins held in IRA accounts to be taxed at the same rate as stocks and other capital assets. The bill I introduce today would treat all precious metal investments with the same tax equity.

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

Mr. President, I rise today for myself and Senator Ensign to reintroduce the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act. Last year the Senate unanimously passed this bill, which will at last release funds the United States has held in trust for the Western Shoshone people for over 24 years. Unfortunately the House was unable to complete its consideration of the bill before the last Congress adjourned.

Historically, the Western Shoshone people have resided on land within the central portion of Nevada and parts of California, Idaho, and Utah. For more than a hundred years, the Western Shoshone have not received a fair compensation for the loss of their tribal land and resources. In 1946 the Indian Claims Commission was established to compensate Indians for lands and resources taken from them by the United States. In 1962 the commission determined that the Western Shoshone land had been taken through ``gradual encroachment.'' In 1977 the commission awarded the tribe in excess of $26 million dollars. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the commission's award. It was not until 1979 that the United States appropriated over $26 million dollars to reimburse the descendents of these tribes for their loss.

The Western Shoshone are not a wealthy people. A third of the tribal members are unemployed; for many of those who do have jobs, it is a struggle to live from paycheck to the next. Wood stoves often provide the only source of heat in their aging homes. Like other American Indians, the Western Shoshone continue to be disproportionately affected by poverty and low educational attainment. The high school completion rate for Indian people between the ages of 20 and 24 is dismally low. American Indians have a drop-out rate that is 12.5 percent higher than the rest of the National. For the Western Shoshone, the money contained in the settlement funds could lead to drastic lifestyle improvements.

After 24 years the judgment funds still remain in the United States Treasury. The Western Shoshone have not received a single penny of this money which is rightfully theirs. In those twenty-four years, the original trust fund has grown to well over $121 million dollars. It is the past time that this money should be delivered into the hands of its owners. The Western Shoshone Steering Committee has officially requested that Congress enact legislation to affect this distribution. It has become increasingly apparent in recent years that the vast majority of those who qualify to receive these funds support an immediate distribution of their money.

This Act will provide payments to eligible Western Shoshone tribal members and ensure that future generations of Western Shoshone will be able to enjoy the benefit of the distribution in perpetuity. Through the establishment of a tribally controlled grant trust fund, individual members of the Western Shoshone will be able to apply for money for education and other needs within limits set by a self-appointed committee of tribal members. I will continue my ongoing work with the members of the Western Shoshone and the Department of Interior to help resolve any current land issues.

It is clear that the Western Shoshone want the funds from their claim distributed without further delay. They have already voted twice to firmly and decisively voice their interests. Members of the Western Shoshone gathered in Fallon and Elko, NV in May of 1998. They cast a vote overwhelmingly in favor of distributing the funds. 1,230 supported the distribution in the statewide vote; only 53 were opposed. Again on June 2002 they cast a vote overwhelmingly in support of the distribution of the judgment funds at a rate of 100 percent per capita. 1,647 Western Shoshone voted in favor of the distribution of the funds; only 156 opposed. I rise today in support and recognition of their decision. The final distribution of this fund has lingered for more than twenty years. During the 107th Congress, the Indian Affairs Committee approved and the full Senate unanimously passed this bill. It is clear that the best interests of the Tribe will not be served by prolonging their wait. Twenty-four years has been more than long enough. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, through the acting majority leader I say to the majority leader, we believe we have the ability to finish this legislation very quickly. Anyone who wants to offer an amendment should get with floor staff forthwith because we are in the process of propounding a unanimous consent request to terminate this legislation. If people have amendments they want to offer, they should advise floor staff forthwith.

Also, we were able to work out yesterday, following the dialog I had with the majority leader on the floor, with Senator Daschle and people on our side to allow one of the circuit court nominees to go forward with debate, with up to 6 hours debate. Hopefully, we can complete that tomorrow also.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, because the Senator from California has requested that the time on her amendment be the full 2 hours, and Senator Santorum and I have taken a little bit of time this morning--I ask that be the order.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Is the Senator from California saying that no matter how one feels on the underlying issue, we would be better off as a Senate if it went back to the full committee for a hearing and they had witnesses come and testify before the committee, those who are in favor of the procedure, those who are against the procedure, and then bring the bill back to the floor? Is that what the Senator is saying should happen?

Will the Senator yield for another question?

The Senator and I came to Washington to serve in Congress at the same time. We were elected the same year, 1982. Is it true that during the Senator's service in the House of Representatives, she sat through hundreds of hearings on a multitude of issues? Is that a fair statement?

What, I say for the people who are watching this, would the Senator say as to why we have those hearings?

Will the Senator yield?

The Senator is asking in this motion filed to recommit this bill to the committee, basically what the chairman of the Budget Committee said last year, that this should be referred back to committee because this bill has not had a committee hearing before it came here, and after the Supreme Court decision, so that people who are involved or have some questions about the legislation can do as Senator Nickles said, try to improve it, have an opportunity to amend it, change it. Win or lose, at least have the opportunity to try.

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

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``no.''

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

Mr. President, I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania.

Order of Procedure

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

As I understand it, we will have the Harkin amendment and the Feinstein amendment and final passage.

Mr. President, I say to my friend, at the end of the first paragraph of the consent request, after the words ``further that''--it is the first long paragraph.

I ask that the words ``if the above amendments are not tabled, if a tabling motion is made, any second-degree amendments'' be inserted and then it would be just as the Senator said it, ``and that they be debatable.''

So I accept that, other than this, Mr. President: The junior Senator from Iowa, the author of this amendment, would like an up-or-down vote on his amendment. I was just informed of that.

Mr. President, I know the Senator from Pennsylvania does not like this, but we have given and taken, for lack of a better description, trying to work our way through this. I very much appreciate his allowing us to go forward. I ask that the consent request be agreed to.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

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

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, if everyone uses all the time, tomorrow will be a long day. We do not know how much time everyone will use, but at least we have completed this very difficult legislation today. We have a circuit judge the leader has been asking for, and we have two more district court judges. So I think we have accomplished quite a bit this week.

Will the Senator yield?

I have said this a couple of times during the past few weeks, and I want to say this again. The leader could have come and filed cloture on this legislation very quickly, but he has obviously made a decision the Senate works best when people are allowed to offer amendments and speak their piece. There is no better example of that than this controversial legislation. All the amendments offered were on our side, and I think it speaks well of the direction that the Senate is going. We still have some obstacles we have to get over, but I again state that the pattern set by the majority leader in allowing debate to take place is good for this body, and I think the debate has been healthy. It has been very adversarial. That is what the Senate is supposed to be. There has been very heated debate on this issue. I think the Senate is better for this.

This issue has been aired. There were procedural efforts made to take it back to committee, and there was a lot of good debate. Again, I direct this to the majority leader--and I speak on behalf of Senator Daschle and the rest of the minority--we appreciate allowing us to act as the Senate should act.

Madam President, I say to the manager of this bill, first, we would probably agree to the judge without a vote. We are trying to run that through to find out if we would agree to the judge without a vote.

Secondly, we have a finite list of amendments we have received on our side. We have run that through to the floor staff on the other side. We understand, rightfully so, that Senators want to see the amendments before there is an agreement on whether or not we could proceed on that basis. Yesterday, the majority leader indicated to me and to the Democratic leader that he wanted to finish this bill and could we cooperate and have a finite list of amendments. We have given those to the other side and we hope we can move forward.

We have had a number of our Members who wanted to bring up amendments that are not related to this issue and we have worked to have them not do that. So we hope those amendments could be reviewed quickly. We will try to get all the amendments. The first amendment Senator Murray is going to offer, we hope there will be agreement that there would be no second-degree amendments to that. She is not going to offer it until there is some agreement to that effect. We hope to get that done quickly. We just gave the Senator the amendment. We understand it needs to be looked over.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the time from 11 to 12:30, the time for the Democrats be divided with Daschle, 10 minutes; Leahy, 10 minutes; Kennedy, 10 minutes; Durbin, 5 minutes; Schumer, 5 minutes; and Reid, 5 minutes.

Mr. President, in a great Nation such as ours, we are fortunate to have democratic values and institutions so American citizens can openly and freely voice their opinions and attempt to influence government policies. The abortion debate has been a divisive one for our Nation for many years. People on both sides of this issue feel strongly and have argued, demonstrated, and protested with emotion and passion.

We all recognize that the issue is not going to go away anytime soon. One side will not be able to suddenly convince the other to drop its deeply held beliefs. But there is a need and, I believe, an opportunity for us to find common ground and take steps toward a goal all of us share; that is, reducing the number of unintended pregnancies in America.

I believe it is both possible and necessary for us to come together and enact effective legislation that will prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the number of abortions performed, and address unmet health needs of American women.

We cannot only find common ground, but also commonsense solutions in the women's health amendment that Senator Murray and I have offered this morning. Our amendment will help to reduce the staggering rates of unintended pregnancies and reduce abortions. Our women's health amendment will also improve access to prenatal and postpartum care for pregnant women.

Specifically, our amendment will: No. 1, end insurance discrimination against women. Let me say that this amendment was offered many years ago by Senator Snowe and me. I express my appreciation for her tireless efforts, for working with us in ending insurance discrimination against women. The Senator from Maine has been a stalwart in this regard.

No. 2, our amendment will improve awareness and understanding of emergency contraception and ensure that rape victims have information about and access to emergency contraception.

Lastly, it will promote healthy pregnancies in babies by allowing States to expand coverage for prenatal and postpartum care.

This is really unbelievable, but it is true: About half of all pregnancies in our country are unintended and about half of those will end in abortions. We must work together on this public health problem. It does not have to be this way. Most of these unintended pregnancies and resulting abortions can be prevented.

One of the most important steps we should take to prevent unintended pregnancies is to make sure that American women have access to affordable, effective contraception. I have been in a number of debates on this issue about contraceptive use. I can remember on a national radio program a woman called in from Texas. She said: I am now pregnant with my fourth child. I have diabetes. She went on to outline the many problems she would have having this baby. But she did say that the reason she is pregnant is because she and her husband could not afford prescription contraception. They tried other things that didn't work, and, as a result, she was going through this pregnancy.

What our amendment is all about is allowing women to have the choice to have contraceptives that work. Insurance companies, as the Senator from Washington so well outlined, provide money for all kinds of things. Why not contraceptives? It would be cheaper and certainly save a lot of money and aggravation in the long run.

As a result of medical innovation and pharmaceutical research, there are numerous forms of safe and highly effective contraception that are available by prescription. If used correctly, they would greatly reduce the rate of unintended pregnancies. However, one of the greatest obstacles to the usage of prescription contraception by American women is their cost.

The woman who called in to the national radio show is only one example. There are all kinds of examples of people who have insurance and do not have access to, for example, the pill--which is so effective in preventing women from becoming pregnant.

We know that women, on average, earn less than men. Yet they must pay far more than men for health-related expenses. According to the Women's Research and Education Institute, women of reproductive age pay 68 percent more in out-of-pocket medical expenses than men. Why? A lot of reasons, but one is due to their reproductive health care needs. Because many women cannot afford to pay for the prescription contraceptives they would like to use, many go without it, resulting in unintended pregnancies. Far too often that is the case.

This week is Cover the Uninsured Week--a major effort by a coalition of groups from all over the country to raise awareness to one of the fundamental problems of our society. About 44 million Americans lack health insurance. In addition to the 44 million, many other Americans are underinsured. The number who have no health insurance includes women and children. Most of the families affected are working families.

This is a tragedy that demands our attention. We have tried to get their attention, but we have not done very well. The high cost of prescription contraceptives is not only a problem for the millions of women without health insurance, it is also for millions of women who have health insurance because even having a plan that includes a prescription drug benefit does not

guarantee that the prescription drugs you rely on are included.

Such is the case for a majority of women in this country who are covered by health insurance plans that do not provide coverage for prescription contraceptives. As a result, women are forced to either do without contraceptives or to bear this expense out of pocket. This is unfair to women and unfair to families. It is bad policy that causes additional unintended pregnancies, adversely affecting women's health.

As I indicated earlier, I have been trying since 1997 to remedy this, and we have accomplished a few things. We have been able to get women who work in the Federal sector to have their insurance cover this, but we have been unable to get it for the rest of the country. That is too bad.

Today, as part of our women's health amendment, we are again proposing commonsense legislation that has received bipartisan support in the past. The Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act, or EPICC, as we call it, requires insurance plans that provide coverage for prescription drugs to provide the same coverage for prescription contraceptives.

The woman in Texas--I cannot adequately convey to you the desperation in this woman's voice when she called in saying: I am a sick woman. All I needed was the ability to have a prescription where I would get a contraceptive that would work, but I didn't, and I am pregnant. It is going to affect my health adversely, and I don't know what will happen to the baby. I cannot convey in words the desperation, the concern in this woman's voice.

We are not asking for special treatment of contraceptives--only equitable, fair treatment within the context of an existing prescription drug benefit. This legislation will help increase the playing field a little bit for women. They spend more for their health care costs. This will help a little bit. Making contraception more affordable and available will enable more women to use safe and effective means to prevent unintended pregnancy. I hope that is a goal we all share. I believe it is.

Contraceptive coverage is much cheaper than other services. As the Senator from Washington pointed out, it is certainly cheaper than performing an abortion; it is cheaper than sterilizations and tubal ligations, and most insurance companies routinely cover these.

The Federal Employees Health Benefits Programs, which has provided contraceptive coverage for several years as a result of an amendment we offered on the floor, shows that adding such coverage doesn't make the plan more expensive. In fact, it saves money. Unintended pregnancies cost society money, cost families money.

As I indicated, this was first introduced by Senator Snowe and me 6 years ago. We have been working across party lines and across the ideological spectrum to gain support in the Senate. It had 44 cosponsors last year in the Senate.

This is commonsense, cost-effective legislation that is long overdue. Promoting equity in health insurance coverage for American women, while working to prevent unintended pregnancies and improve women's health care, is the right thing to do. We should also take additional steps that would improve women's health and further reduce unintended pregnancies.

Our amendment would increase the awareness and availability of emergency contraception, an important yet poorly understood form of contraception.

I have never said this publicly, and I will not use her name, but she knows who she is. A very good friend of mine who worked for me for many years--she started off in high school as a runner in my office. She came to me one day, and I knew something was wrong. I said: What is the matter?

She looked at me with tears in her eyes and said: I was jumped last night.

I never heard that term before, but she was driving through a rough neighborhood and they stopped her car and she was raped--a teenager, Mr. President. I didn't know what to do or say. I called my wife's gynecologist/obstetrician, who is a friend of mine, and I said: Doctor, here is the situation . . . will you see her?

He said: Of course, I will see her.

So she went to him. She didn't become pregnant, but that is fortunate. Now, I wished, then, we had the ability to have emergency contraception. It would have relieved everybody's mind and made everybody feel better. I will never forget that. That was a traumatic night in her life, to say the least.

We have made progress since then--scientific progress--to make problems like that one something that can be dealt with. She would not have had to come to someone like me, her employer, and be humiliated by telling some one older than her about the problem. But she was one of the fortunate ones. She had somebody she could come to, and I had the opportunity to send her to my wife's gynecologist.

So, in effect, our amendment would increase the awareness and availability of emergency contraception, an important, yet poorly understood form of contraception. Approved for use by the FDA, emergency contraception pills work to prevent pregnancy, and they cannot interrupt or disrupt an established pregnancy. That is a scientific fact.

A woman could use emergency contraception in an emergency, such as if she had been raped and doesn't want to become pregnant.

The availability of an emergency contraception is particularly important for women who survive sexual assault, like my friend.

It is difficult to imagine the physical, psychological, and emotional pain that a woman who is raped endures. In addition to the violent attack to which these women have been subjected, they must also consider the possibility that in addition to the trauma of the rape, they could become pregnant as a result.

Compassion is a word we have heard a lot from political leaders in recent times. Actions speak louder than words. Surely, I acknowledge-- and I think we should all acknowledge--it would be compassionate to make emergency contraception available to women to prevent them from becoming pregnant by the rapist who brutalized and traumatized them.

It would be compassionate to make emergency contraception available to a woman to prevent her from becoming pregnant by the rapist who brutalized and traumatized her.

I hope we can all agree on this legislation which would require hospitals receiving Federal health dollars to provide information about emergency contraception and make it available to sexual assault survivors when they are being treated in the emergency room.

Simply put, emergency contraception should be made available in every emergency room in America. Women who have been raped should be informed of all their options, including learning about emergency contraception. If they choose emergency contraception, it should be made available to them. It should be a choice.

Women who have been raped should be informed of all their options, including learning about emergency contraception, and if they so choose, it should be made available to them.

EC, emergency contraception, has been studied extensively and has been regarded as a safe and effective method to prevent unintended pregnancies.

Once I was on a radio show talking about my contraceptive coverage legislation. Someone called in and said: I think it is awful, and I am opposed to contraception of any kind. Mr. President, that is a person's right. Some people do not believe in contraception, and that is their right. Nothing in our legislation forces a woman to take any form of contraception. That should be a choice of a woman who has a health plan or a woman who has been raped. That is all we are saying.

EC has been studied extensively and regarded as a safe and effective method to prevent unintended pregnancies, I say again. Its use has been recommended by leading American authorities, including the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and it has been approved by the Federal Food and Drug Administration.

It is believed this would prevent hundreds of thousands of pregnancies and likely hundreds of thousands of abortions in America each year. Unfortunately, however, emergency contraception remains, for the most part, a well-kept secret. Most of the women who would benefit from it and would use it

in an emergency to prevent an unintended pregnancy are unaware of its existence or do not know where to get it, where it is available. Even many health care providers do not understand what it is, how it works, and who could use it.

To reduce unintended pregnancy by raising awareness of emergency contraception, Senator Murray and I are proposing in this amendment to authorize $10 million in funding for the Centers for Disease Control and the Health Resources and Services Administration to develop and distribute information about emergency contraception to public health organizations, health care providers, and the public. This would prevent hundreds of thousands of unintended pregnancies and, of course, abortions.

These are just some of the simple, but I think necessary, steps we can and should take to prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce abortions.

To further improve the health of women and children, we should give States the option of covering pregnant women in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, called SCHIP, for the full range of their health needs, including prenatal, delivery, and postpartum care.

A number of years ago, a couple of neonatologists came to visit me. They were Nevadans. One was with a public hospital in southern Nevada. They had a number of messages. They wanted to see if we could get money to build a neonatal unit there. We have done that at the University Medical Center in southern Nevada. It is wonderful to go there and see those babies being saved because of modern technology.

Another message they wanted to deliver to me is that children are having children, and many of these children having children come to the emergency room--and they have never seen a doctor--to deliver the baby. They have never seen a doctor. It happens all the time. They were saying: We need to do something to allow these children to have a place they can go to get the care. Why don't they get care? There are a lot of reasons, but mainly it is a money situation.

I think this amendment is wonderful, and I like this part of our amendment very much, but I personally believe every woman in America, whether it is the wife of a billionaire or a woman who is on welfare and has nothing, and is 12 years old or 14 years old, should all be able to have free prenatal care. Every woman in America should be able to have free prenatal care. It would save this country so much money.

These doctors told me when they came to visit me that there are many million-dollar babies who, because of lack of prenatal care, are born with all kinds of problems. Had they had some prenatal care--some of these girls do not realize they should not smoke or take dope. They do not know. These are kids. If they had a place to go for prenatal care-- there are grown women who need advice and counseling as to what should and should not be done during pregnancy.

I really believe all women should have free prenatal care. There should not be means testing. I think every woman should have free prenatal care in our country. We would save so much money as a society by doing that. That is another battle down the road some other day.

This amendment would give States the option of covering women in the State Children's Health Insurance Program for the full range of their health needs, including prenatal delivery and postpartum care. The mortality rates for infants and for mothers remain alarmingly high in the United States. We can, we should, and we must reduce these rates by extending coverage for prenatal care and pregnancy-related services. Unfortunately, the administration imposed a regulation last year that allows the fetus to be insured through SCHIP but excludes--excludes-- the mother from coverage. Let me say that again. Through an administrative fiat, regulation, order, mandate, this administration imposed a regulation last year that allows a fetus to be insured through SCHIP, but excludes the mother of that fetus from coverage. Try to logically figure that one out. This is illogical, I think it is shameful, and I think it is absurd.

It, in effect, punishes women and certainly does not improve their health care. In any case, how can one claim to care about the health of an unborn child and not provide for the health and needs of his or her mother? The administration's policy means pregnant women are not covered during their pregnancy for medical emergencies, accidents, broken bones, mental illness, cancer, or even lifesaving surgery. Only procedures considered medically necessary for the fetus are covered. No postpartum care, of course, is included.

Remarkably, Health and Human Services Secretary Thompson tried to defend this policy by suggesting--listen to this--that the regulation which explicitly denies postpartum care is more comprehensive than legislation which provides full coverage including postpartum care. That is what he said. Do not try to figure out what it means because I cannot. This strains the credulity of anyone reading this and studying this situation. It flies in the face of common sense. We cannot have healthy babies if we ignore the health of the expectant mother. So States should be able to provide pregnant women with a full range of health services through SCHIP.

We should embrace these measures to protect the health of women and babies, prevent unintended pregnancies, and reduce abortions.

I am very happy to work with the distinguished Senator from the State of Washington, who is always on the cutting edge of things that relate to being compassionate and caring about people. It is an honor to join with her in helping us find common ground, commonsense solutions and show some compassion.

Let us find common ground. Let us agree on commonsense solutions and let us show compassion. There are four elements of this amendment. I hope we will move on and pass this unanimously. I do not know how anyone could oppose these commonsense amendments, but time will only tell.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Let me say, through the Chair, to the Senator from Pennsylvania, the manager of this bill, the majority leader asked Senator Daschle and I to try to do something to move this legislation along. In good faith, we have narrowed the number of amendments to seven or eight that we have offered. The reason Senator Murray and I did this amendment is we thought we would get all the prevention issues out of the way quickly.

The point I am trying to make to my friend is that we are going to offer these together or separately. We are going to have votes on these amendments one way or the other. That is why we have asked that there be no second-degree amendments. Everyone should understand that we will come back and reoffer these.

In good faith, we are trying to move this legislation along. There is no effort to stall or to delay in any way. In good faith, we are trying to work this out with the other side. I only say this because the Senator said the committees wanted to look this over. Senator Murray and I are going to get a vote on these four issues. We would like to do it all at once. That would be the best way to do this. I want to make sure the leader hears from us what we are trying to do.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that the Senate's extended debate over Mr. Estrada's nomination is somehow unconstitutional. This is, at the very least, curious. They say Senate rule XXII, which allows for cloture on judicial nominations, is unconstitutional. Very curious. That rule provides that a vote of 60 Members of this body may end debate.

They point to the Constitution which provides several examples where a supermajority is required to approve a measure. Since nominations are not mentioned, they argue, only a simple majority should be required.

But the majority's focus on the vote count misses the point. If cloture had

not been extended to nominations, among other things, in 1949, what would be the result? Well, maybe a single Senator could engage in unlimited debate. There would be no provision whatsoever to cut off that debate. There would be no provision to get to a vote--whether it be a supermajority or a majority vote.

Surely my colleagues do not argue that extended debate in the world's greatest deliberative body is unconstitutional.

We will continue to exercise our right to debate this nominee until he answers the Judiciary Committee's questions and provides the committee with his memoranda.

The vigorous debate we continue to have on the Estrada nomination reflects our fidelity to our constitutional obligations to advise and consent to Presidential judicial nominees.

It is that role that is the proper subject of a constitutional debate.

What did the Founding Fathers have in mind when they made that provision? In the Federalist Paper No. 47, James Madison, quoting Montesquieu, stated:

There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive

powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.

In Federalist No. 76, Alexander Hamilton was more specific when he explained that the Senate's role:

[w]ould be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism

in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the

appointment of unfit characters [while serving as an]

efficacious source of stability in the Administration.

In a lecture at the Heritage Foundation in 1993, David Forte said, in Federalist No. 10 and 51, Madison proposed division within the central government into a complex separation of powers. Forte said:

The liberties of the people would therefore be protected,

first by the residuum of sovereignty left to the states, and

secondly, by tying different constituencies to separate parts

of the federal government--House of Representatives, Senate,

Executive, and Judiciary--and giving each branch some part of

each other's powers in order to defend itself against any

branch's aggrandizement of its own powers.

As Justice Brandeis said in Myers v. United States:

The doctrine of separation of powers was adopted by the

Convention of 1787 not to promote efficiency, but to preclude

the exercise of arbitrary power.

Justice Brandeis went on to say:

The purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the

inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the

governmental powers among three departments, to save the

people from autocracy.

Indeed, this is the heart of the Estrada debate. The administration has advised this nominee not to answer our questions. It refuses to turn over documents which have been provided in the past and which would help evaluate this nominee.

The administration has made it impossible for the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty. The White House seeks to wield unchecked power over the appointment of lifetime Federal judges, but that is not what the Founders of our country had in mind or what the Constitution provides. The Constitution divides power over nominations between the President and the Senate.

In an article in the Emory Law Journal, Professor Carl Tobias discussed how that intent of the Constitution's drafters has been carried out:

The Senate has actively participated in naming judges since

the chamber's creation because members of this body have a

significant stake in affecting . . . appointments.

He continued:

There has also been a venerable tradition in the senatorial

involvement in the choice of nominees. . . . The state's

senators or senior elected officials who are members of the

President's political party have ordinarily recommended

candidates whom the Chief Executive in turn has nominated.

In short, judicial selection has been a shared

responsibility of the President and the Senate. . . .

I would add that this is as the Founders intended.

The Cato Institute's ``Handbook for Congress'' puts it quite nicely:

More important than knowing a nominee's ``judicial

philosophy'' is knowing his philosophy of the Constitution.

For the Constitution, in the end, is what defines us as a

nation.

The Constitution defines the role of the President and the role of the Senate--

Mr. President, Senator Kennedy used all his time. I ask for an additional minute.

Continuing with the quote:

More important than knowing a nominee's ``judicial

philosophy'' is knowing his philosophy of the Constitution.

For the Constitution, in the end, is what defines us as a

nation.

The Constitution defines the role of the President and the role of the Senate in the process of selecting lifetime Federal judges. It is a shared responsibility. This administration and this nominee seek to exercise near total power over that process. If there is something unconstitutional afoot in the consideration of Mr. Estrada's nomination, it is that the President seeks to prevent the Senate from exercising its constitutional duty.

Will the Senator from Virginia yield so we can enter into a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent debate on this matter be extended until the hour of 12:50 with the time equally divided between both sides.

Will the leader allow me to respond? Otherwise, I will use leader time.

I appreciate that since being chosen majority leader the Senator from Tennessee has gone out of his way to make sure we have ample debate. He has used the cloture motion rarely, and we appreciate that very much. But I say, regarding the Estrada matter, we have been very consistent in our requests. No. 1 is that he answer questions. The Senator said he would try to satisfy that. But until he supplies the memoranda from the Solicitor's office, it is not going to change the position of the people on this side of the aisle. So if he makes the unanimous consent request, we will simply renew our unanimous consent request, as we have done on other occasions.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.