Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be read.

Mr. President, I have a very simple amendment.

As we have seen leading up to this time of war, the United States and our President attempted many diplomatic means to try to make us not go to war. And many people, including myself, feel those diplomatic means were thwarted by some of our traditionally closest allies. And what I mean by thwarted is that the stronger of a hand our President would have had in the negotiations, I believe the better chance we would have had of not going to war.

Gerhard Schroeder, in his election bid, I believe, shamelessly used some anti-American sentiments to narrowly gain his reelection. Now, that may have been a shrewd political move for him to make, but it was certainly not statesmanlike. He started many in the world against the United States in this diplomatic effort that we were engaged in in trying to avoid war with Iraq by getting them to disarm.

After Germany started leading this battle, France joined the battle and has taken it to a new level, much to the dismay of, I believe, most Americans.

We now are engaged in a conflict to change the regime in Iraq. That regime, by all accounts, is a brutal regime and needs to be changed. And we need to disarm that country from weapons of mass destruction, which, as Americans--and I think the rest of the world looking on--we can see what a fabulous job our military is doing in accomplishing their mission.

My amendment today says when the conflict is over and we are going to rebuild Iraq, American taxpayer dollars are not to go, in the rebuilding of Iraq, to French or German companies, to French or German citizens, because of what their governments did in opposing the United States actively. It was not just that they voted against us at the United Nations. They led--especially France led--the world against the United States and, I believe, because of that, made it more difficult in Turkey. If we could have had our ground troops available in Turkey, we could end this war much sooner than when it will be ended.

So this amendment says American tax dollars, in the rebuilding of Iraq, are basically refused from going to any companies and/or citizens from the countries of France or Germany.

Now, if a company from France actually has a subsidiary in the United States that employs people, our amendment allows that company, that subsidiary to bid on the contracts. But in no case can the company that is located in France or located in Germany bid on these contracts and win the contracts from the United States.

Now, in the future, if the United Nations and other countries decide to put together a coalition and fund that coalition with international dollars or

their own dollars, our President, the State Department, and everybody else in the United Nations concerned can give the contracts to whomever they want. But I believe, as an American--and I believe the American people would support this amendment--I believe it would be wrong to have our tax dollars going to companies and individuals within France and within Germany because I believe their behavior leading up to this was really quite despicable.

So, Mr. President, I offer this amendment to the Senate today. I hope it is supported widely across this body. I believe it is the right thing to do. I believe it will send a strong message in the future that when countries are trying to do the right thing, and rid the world of a brutal dictator, they should be supported, and you should not expect a reward afterward, as we are seeing countries now around the world trying to jump on board as the war looks like it is going well. We should not reward those countries who, in the first place, had opposed us.

So, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and look forward to hearing other Senators speak on this amendment.

Mr. President, I believe we will have relationships with France and Germany. We have had many good relationships with both of those countries in the past. I believe we need to have good relations with both of them in the future. But I just think it would be patently wrong for us to use money from this supplemental bill we are doing today in providing for the rebuilding of Iraq, it would be absolutely wrong to use that money for countries that actively tried to get the rest of the world to oppose us in doing what the United States believed was right in the world: To disarm a brutal dictator, to rid his own country of weapons of mass destruction which he has used against his neighbors. When a country stands up and tries to do what is right--not in an arrogant sort of a way but in a way in which it is trying to do something that is right--its closest allies should not lead some of the world opinion against it.

The United States during World War II was the leader with our allies in getting rid of a brutal dictator back then. Today the United States is attempting to do the same thing. Some countries tried to appease Adolf Hitler during World War II. We were hearing up until this a lot of the same arguments, especially from the French, about Saddam Hussein. Well, we will just deal with him. We could just appease him, just keep him going along.

I believe brutal dictators understand force. They understand countries that will stand up to them. The more you try to appease them, the more it emboldens them. I believe that is what France was trying to lead the rest of the world to do, to make Saddam Hussein more dangerous in the future.

President Bush is leading a coalition to disarm Saddam Hussein and to disarm him from weapons of mass destruction. It is the right thing to do. When we are done with it, when we rebuild that country, liberating the Iraqi people is going to take some reconstruction. It always has to happen. A beautiful thing about the United States is, we don't just go over, liberate people, and then walk away. We actually believe there is a responsibility. We want to help rebuild that country. But I think it would be absolutely wrong for American tax dollars to go to countries and companies in those countries that have tried to turn the world against us.

Mr. President, the bill actually reflects sort of the sentiments we are talking about here today, but it is only a sense of the Senate. We actually want to put it in legislative language. Section 506, page 35 says:

It is the sense of the Senate that, to the maximum extent

practicable, contracts (including subcontracts) and grants

for relief and reconstruction in Iraq from funds appropriated

under this chapter should be awarded to United States

companies (particularly small and medium sized businesses)

and organizations, to companies and organizations located in

the Near East region, and to those from countries which have

provided assistance to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Our amendment narrows it. It was said there are countries that have been opposing America around the world, not just France and Germany. I agree. But it is France and Germany that have been leading the fight. That is the reason we targeted those two countries. In World War II, European security was threatened. America came to the rescue. In Kosovo, European security was threatened. America came to the rescue. With Iraq, American security is threatened and Germany and France are AWOL. It would be entirely

inappropriate for the money from an emergency supplemental bill to pay for the war and pay for reconstruction of Iraq, for those moneys to go to countries that have attempted to lead the world against us in protecting our own security, in liberating the Iraqi people, and in ridding the Middle East of one of the most brutal dictators it has ever seen.

It is highly appropriate to have this amendment. I hope we have a very strong vote from this body that shows the American people when countries come against us, we are not going to reward them. We will not reward them by giving them money to help rebuild something.

Mr. President, I am very aware of the role that Germany is playing there. We defended Germany, with those bases, from the Soviet threat during the entire cold war. It is the reason that Germany hasn't had to spend hardly any money on their national defense--because America has been providing that umbrella of defense, and now we are using those bases, obviously, with their permission.

That is something we appreciate, but it doesn't take away the fact of the role they played in trying to turn world opinion against the United States. I still think it is inappropriate to have these funds going toward these other countries. If this nullifies those other contracts, as far as I am concerned, the purse strings are controlled by the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate. That is under the Constitution. We should be able to at least direct--when we feel strongly--where some of those funds could go. I think it would be highly inappropriate for those funds to be going toward companies and persons from Germany and from France.

It has been asked, What should the United States do to repair our relationship with France? My question is, What should France do to repair its relationship with the United States? The United States is attempting to defend itself, to rid the world of a brutal dictator. September 11 changed everything. We all know that. America is vulnerable. America is the only superpower left in the world, which makes us a target.

France is taking advantage of the fact that we are the only superpower and, because of that, there are natural sentiments against one country having that much power--even though the United States doesn't go into countries to occupy them. We are going into Iraq to liberate it and rebuild it and then get out. We want to get out of there as soon as possible. We would love to be able to have a stable, democratically elected government there as quickly as possible; have infrastructure put in place and get out of there. We don't want our troops or our personnel, whatsoever, to be potentially in harm's way for any longer than they have to be.

So France, in its effort to continue to curry favor with the Saddam Hussein regime, and to continue the trade relations they have, I believe has done something that is very wrong. So I believe France has an obligation to America to try to repair the relationship they have with us. I believe it is up to them to make the first step, and they certainly have not done that--at least up to this point.

Are we open to having them do that? Absolutely. But they have not done it up to this point. At least Germany is making some strides, but France hasn't even made strides toward that. If you look at this historically, over the last many years, France has done just the opposite. France didn't even want Turkey to be able to defend itself against weapons or missiles coming in and use NATO to defend Turkey from missiles coming in from Iraq. That is how much France has wanted to keep favorable relations with Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime.

What is the motivation for this? I don't know. Maybe because France and Jacques Chirac helped them build a nuclear reactor that would lead to nuclear bombs, and then once Israel took out their nuclear reactor, he offered to rebuild it. There seems to be some interest that France has with Saddam Hussein that leads to ulterior motives and this whole idea of getting the world against the United States.

So for France to have taken this idea that the United States is a superpower, and if you want to be against the only superpower, come over here and join us, I think to take advantage of those kinds of natural sentiments in the world has been very wrong, when the U.S. is trying to do something that I believe is on the moral high ground. All you have to do is look at how this brutal regime treats prisoners of war--they torture them--or how they treat their own people, who either are afraid to fight--I mean, if you had bombs coming in night after night after night and you see people around you getting blown up in their tanks, you would think that that might be a little unnerving.

When those people try to go back to their homes, they say: You know what. This regime is not worth giving my life for. What do they do? They have checkpoints, and as those people try to leave, they are shooting them. That is the kind of regime with which we are dealing, and that is the kind of regime France was trying to prop up.

Do I want to see our relations in the future improve with Germany and improve with France? Yes, but they have

to come to the table with something for those relations to improve. The United States gives and gives and gives, and it is time for the United States to hold countries accountable that come against us. That is all I believe this is doing. It is saying taxpayer dollars that are earned by the American people and sent to Washington, DC, are not going to be sent to companies and citizens of France and Germany.

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

Madam President, regretfully, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. I also want to briefly say that this is a battle I plan to continue. I believe it was the right thing to do. But we are going to live to fight another day on this particular amendment. We are going to watch what the administration does with the funds for reconstructing Iraq, perhaps even join this fight at a later date. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 488 be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the troops. I am totally amazed when I watch the television reports at the bravery displayed by those who are serving our Nation in harm's way.

There is a saying from the Scriptures that:

A man can have no greater love than to lay down his life

for his friends.

The motto of my home State of Nevada is: All for our country. Nevada has a long and proud history of patriotism and contributing to this Nation's defense in times of peace and in times of conflict. Many brave Nevadans have proudly donned the uniform of our armed services. Unfortunately, some of our finest have lost their lives in service to our Nation.

Nevada has lost several servicemen during the ongoing war on terrorism, and last week we learned of our first casualty in Operation Iraqi Freedom. LT Fred Pokorney was killed during a cowardly ambush on our marines near An Nasiriyah, Iraq. His death has brought the reality of war to families across Nevada. His life and dedication have touched and inspired me.

I wish I had known Fred when he played for the Tonopah High School basketball and football teams. I only had the opportunity to learn about this gentle giant, for that is what he was, since he made the ultimate sacrifice for me, my family, for all Nevadans, and all Americans.

It should not come as a surprise, but when I learn about these brave men and women who risk their lives and sacrifice so much to defend our freedom, I am awed by the caliber of their character, integrity, and dedication. Fred Pokorney is the perfect example.

Nothing was handed to Fred. He overcame challenges that would have been an excuse for others to quit. He was incredibly well liked for his positive attitude and competitive spirit. He joined the Marines right out of high school and graduated with a degree in military science from Oregon State University, also my alma mater. He loved being a marine.

A tremendous void is being felt by those who knew Fred best. Just as it is inspiring to hear about the character of men and women who serve in our military, it is heartening to speak to those left behind and hear the pride they somehow find the strength to share. When I spoke to Fred's wife--she goes by Chelle--it was obvious her husband is a hero to her as he is to us all. She is comforted by the knowledge that she knew what it was to have peace and love.

Now she is charged with raising their 2\1/2\ year old daughter Taylor--and passing Fred's legacy on to her, and Fred's love for country on to us all.

On the telephone last week, Chelle read me the last letter Fred wrote to her and to his daughter Taylor. I would have brought those letters to the floor but, frankly, I could not have read those letters without breaking down because of the emotions that were communicated from one of our soldiers on the battlefield to his family.

Chelle told me Fred's death, though, gave her hope. She feels a responsibility to take Fred's pride, strength, and deep patriotism, and instill it in other Americans. So long as freedom thrives and she can help other Marine families heal, Chelle knows Fred's death will not have been in vain.

What Chelle does not realize is that she, too, is a hero. The families who support our military wait anxiously for word from their loved ones and continue the motions of life while their loved ones are away. They are heroes also. Without their strength and support, our troops could not be the best in the world. I stand here today, grateful for the bravery of Fred Pokorney and inspired by the courage of Chelle Pokorney and others like them.

For Taylor, I pray she grows up to know that her father's death on the battlefield of freedom was not in vain. I pray when she is older, Taylor will know the gratitude of this Nation for her father's sacrifice, and for her sacrifice.

God bless LT Fred Pokorney and God bless his family.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Animal Fighting Enforcement Prohibition Act. I would like to thank my colleagues for their support in this endeavor to protect the welfare of animals. This legislation targets the troubling, widespread, and sometimes underground activities of dogfighting and cockfighting where dogs and birds are bred and trained to fight to the death. This is done for the sheer enjoyment and illegal wagering of the animals' handlers and spectators.

These activities are reprehensible and despicable. Our States' laws reflect this sentiment. All 50 States have prohibited dogfighting. It is considered a felony in 46 states. Cockfighting is illegal in 47 States, and it is a felony in 26 States. In my home State of Nevada, both dogfighting and cockfighting are considered felonies. In fact, it is a felony to even attend a dogfighting or cockfighting match.

Unfortunately, in spite of public opposition to extreme animal suffering, these animals fighting industries thrive. There are 11 underground dogfighting publications and several above-ground cockfighting magazines. These magazines advertise and sell animals and the materials associated with animal fighting. They also seek to legitimize this shocking practice.

During the consideration of the Farm Bill last year, a provision was included that closed loopholes in Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act. Both the House and the Senate increased the maximum jail time for individuals who violate any provision of Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act from one year to two years, making any violation a federal felony. However, during the conference, the jail-time increase was removed.

The legislation that I am introducing today seeks to do three things. First, it restores the jail-time increase to treat the violations as a felony. I am informed by U.S. Attorneys that they are hesitant to pursue animal fighting cases with merely a misdemeanor penalty. To illustrate this, it is important to note that only three cases since 1976 have advanced, even though the USDA has received innumerable tips from informants and requests to assist with State and local prosecutions. Increased penalties will provide a greater incentive for Federal authorities to pursue animal fighting cases.

Second, the bill prohibits the interstate shipment of cockfighting implements, such as razor-sharp knives and gaffs. The specific knives are commonly known as ``slashers.'' The slashers and ice-pick-like gaffs are attached to the legs of birds to make the cockfighting more violent and to induce bleeding of the animals. These weapons are used only in cockfights. Since Congress has restricted shipment of birds for fighting, it should also restrict implements designed specifically for fights.

Finally, the bill updates language regarding the procedures that enforcement agents follow when they seize the animals. This regards the proper care and transportation of the animals that are seized. It also states that the court may order the convicted person to pay for the costs incurred in the housing, care, feeding, and treatment of the animals.

This legislation is timely. Its need is emphasized with the recent outbreaks of Exotic Newcastle disease among poultry in my home state of Nevada. Exotic Newcastle disease is a deadly virus that spreads through migratory birds, vehicles, people's shoes, even across great distances through the air to attack birds of all types. It already has led to the destruction of about three million chickens and other birds in Nevada, California, and Arizona. It is widely suspected that illegal cockfighting contributes to the continuing spread of this disease. Agriculture interests in every state that houses the poultry industry are at risk of destruction by the possible spread of this disease. One of the ways to ensure greater protection against the spread of Exotic Newcastle Disease is to enforce the ban on interstate shipments of birds for the purpose of fighting. Our bill ensures that penalties are in place that will guarantee the enforcement of this ban.

I appreciate the strong support of Senators Allard, Cantwell, Dorgan, Hagel, Harkin, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Lugar, Reid, and Wyden in this effort and look forward to the overwhelming support of my other colleagues in the Senate. I also wish to recognize Representative Robert Andrews for his leadership on a House version of this bill. Surely, this is an issue that must be addressed as soon as possible. We cannot allow this barbaric practice to continue in our civilized society.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Animal Fighting Enforcement Prohibition Act. I would like to thank my colleagues for their support in this endeavor to protect the welfare of animals. This legislation targets the troubling, widespread, and sometimes underground activities of dogfighting and cockfighting where dogs and birds are bred and trained to fight to the death. This is done for the sheer enjoyment and illegal wagering of the animals' handlers and spectators.

These activities are reprehensible and despicable. Our States' laws reflect this sentiment. All 50 States have prohibited dogfighting. It is considered a felony in 46 states. Cockfighting is illegal in 47 States, and it is a felony in 26 States. In my home State of Nevada, both dogfighting and cockfighting are considered felonies. In fact, it is a felony to even attend a dogfighting or cockfighting match.

Unfortunately, in spite of public opposition to extreme animal suffering, these animals fighting industries thrive. There are 11 underground dogfighting publications and several above-ground cockfighting magazines. These magazines advertise and sell animals and the materials associated with animal fighting. They also seek to legitimize this shocking practice.

During the consideration of the Farm Bill last year, a provision was included that closed loopholes in Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act. Both the House and the Senate increased the maximum jail time for individuals who violate any provision of Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act from one year to two years, making any violation a federal felony. However, during the conference, the jail-time increase was removed.

The legislation that I am introducing today seeks to do three things. First, it restores the jail-time increase to treat the violations as a felony. I am informed by U.S. Attorneys that they are hesitant to pursue animal fighting cases with merely a misdemeanor penalty. To illustrate this, it is important to note that only three cases since 1976 have advanced, even though the USDA has received innumerable tips from informants and requests to assist with State and local prosecutions. Increased penalties will provide a greater incentive for Federal authorities to pursue animal fighting cases.

Second, the bill prohibits the interstate shipment of cockfighting implements, such as razor-sharp knives and gaffs. The specific knives are commonly known as ``slashers.'' The slashers and ice-pick-like gaffs are attached to the legs of birds to make the cockfighting more violent and to induce bleeding of the animals. These weapons are used only in cockfights. Since Congress has restricted shipment of birds for fighting, it should also restrict implements designed specifically for fights.

Finally, the bill updates language regarding the procedures that enforcement agents follow when they seize the animals. This regards the proper care and transportation of the animals that are seized. It also states that the court may order the convicted person to pay for the costs incurred in the housing, care, feeding, and treatment of the animals.

This legislation is timely. Its need is emphasized with the recent outbreaks of Exotic Newcastle disease among poultry in my home state of Nevada. Exotic Newcastle disease is a deadly virus that spreads through migratory birds, vehicles, people's shoes, even across great distances through the air to attack birds of all types. It already has led to the destruction of about three million chickens and other birds in Nevada, California, and Arizona. It is widely suspected that illegal cockfighting contributes to the continuing spread of this disease. Agriculture interests in every state that houses the poultry industry are at risk of destruction by the possible spread of this disease. One of the ways to ensure greater protection against the spread of Exotic Newcastle Disease is to enforce the ban on interstate shipments of birds for the purpose of fighting. Our bill ensures that penalties are in place that will guarantee the enforcement of this ban.

I appreciate the strong support of Senators Allard, Cantwell, Dorgan, Hagel, Harkin, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Lugar, Reid, and Wyden in this effort and look forward to the overwhelming support of my other colleagues in the Senate. I also wish to recognize Representative Robert Andrews for his leadership on a House version of this bill. Surely, this is an issue that must be addressed as soon as possible. We cannot allow this barbaric practice to continue in our civilized society.

Mr. President, the Democrat substitute increases taxes by $1.24 trillion over 10 years relative to the budget assumptions. It increases total spending by $113 billion in 2004 over the budget assumptions and by $458 billion over the 10 years.

I think there is a clear difference pointed out between our budget and this budget from a philosophical standpoint. There is only $60 billion in a growth package allowed under this budget. I think this budget does not provide for the economic growth we need to get this economy going so there will be jobs for our military people when they get home. Our budget provides for that; their budget does not.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this budget.

Mr. President, the significant budget challenges faced by our Federal Government demand that Congress develop proposals for sound economic growth, while also working to cut wasteful government spending. The Budget resolution before the Senate today goes a long way towards accomplishing that goal.

Even before 9/11, we know now that our current recession began in late 2000.

The attack on America on September 11, the necessary cost of the war on terrorism, and now the threat of a war with Iraq have led to a dramatic deterioration of tax revenues, huge spending increases, and the return to budget deficits.

Over the last 2 years, revenues to the Federal Government have fallen by nearly 9 percent. And spending grew by 12 percent over that same period.

Unfortunately, revenues continue to underperform in 2003.

Congress cannot ignore our struggling economy, and I believe that the resolution before the Senate today addresses many of our economic problems.

The committee-reported budget resolution increases deficits in the near-term in order to invest in the economy and fight the war on terrorism.

The resolution provides over $725 billion during the 10-year period from 2003 to 2013 to the Senate Finance Committee for economic growth and job creation.

This tax relief is designed to let American families keep more of the money they earn. Economic growth is more easily achieved in an atmosphere where more Americans are able to save and invest their money.

Tax relief provides economic growth, and when we draft legislation, we should understand not just the cost of tax relief to the federal budget, but also the benefits that tax relief provides to the economy and the long-term increase in revenues to the Federal Government that tax relief can provide.

The amount provided for this tax relief includes enough to accommodate the President's plans to accelerate the marriage penalty relief, increase the child tax credit, eliminate the double-taxation of dividends, and increase small business expensing limits.

Although I may not agree with all of it, I do believe the President's tax proposal, which we included in this budget, is an overall good plan for solid long-term economic growth.

As you know, Mr. President, the Budget Committee does not dictate tax policy changes. However, the committee resolution does provide enough money for specific growth proposals, but it will ultimately be up to the Fiance Committee to write the policy.

I do agree with those who are concerned about budget deficits. The Budget before the Senate today does include 9 years of deficits. The deficits do grow smaller, and eventually go back to surplus in the out years.

I want to make it clear that I do not excuse the deficits, and I would love to put us immediately into surpluses in this fiscal year. I think it is important that Congress makes the return back to surpluses a top priority. And we are not going to do that by spending.

I also believe we must be realistic in the constraints that the events of the past two years have placed on our ability to balance the budget in the immediate fiscal year.

I have confidence that the fastest way we can get back to surpluses is by fixing the economy through policy changes that encourage economic growth, coupled with a reduction in wasteful government spending. Mr. President, unfortunately, as we all know, in Washington DC we do not actually cut spending.

The best we can hope to do is control the growth of spending.

As Ronald Reagan stated during his State of the Union address on January 25, 1984, ``The problems we're overcoming are not the heritage of one person, party or even one generation. It's just the tendency of government to grow, for practices and programs to become the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth. And there's always that well-intentioned chorus of voices saying, ``With a little more power and a little more money, we could do so much for people.''

President Reagan was right.

Once we establish a federal program, it develops a constituency and then it becomes impossible to cut. And we love to go home to our constituents and tell them about the money we brought home from Washington DC for our home state projects.

If the other side of the aisle is concerned about deficits, as they say they are, then they should join us in cutting out some of the wasteful spending in the Federal Government.

This resolution may not be the perfect blueprint to surpluses, but it makes a good start by providing both sound tax policy for economic growth, as well as a control in federal spending.

I hope that my colleagues will support this resolution today, and that we will make an effort to tighten up the purse strings around here, and start to work together during these difficult economic times to bring our budget back into balance.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for talking about our chaplain. Lloyd Ogilvie was very influential in the very short time I knew him these last 2 years. A lot of people around the country don't know him, but he provided a very valuable service to the country by being the spiritual foundation not for just Senators but for the entire Senate family.

Because Lloyd Ogilvie had a television ministry, I was very skeptical about who this Senate chaplain was when I first came here a little over 2 years ago. He leads Bible studies. He leads prayer groups. He leads times to get together for people. Regardless of faith, whether somebody was Muslim, Jewish or a follower of Jesus, Lloyd John Ogilvie was there for us in the truest sense of the word.

He knew what was going on in individual people's lives. If somebody was suffering, he knew about it because people trusted him enough to bring him into their confidence. As we have seen over the last couple years, he was there when the Senate was suffering as a family. He would come and comfort us, and he would lead us from a spiritual sense. I have come to greatly admire this man.

One of his sayings was quoted in an article I read that helped inspire me to run for Congress back in 1994. The saying was: You may only be able to make a small difference, but that does not relieve you of the responsibility to make that small difference.

People say you can't change the world, so why try. That quote by Lloyd John Ogilvie tells us of the responsibility we have. Whatever small difference you can make, that is what you are called to make.

This man, who I believe at the end of his days will come before the Father in heaven, the Father in heaven will put his hand on his head and he will say to Lloyd John Ogilvie: Well done, good and faithful servant.

Each of us in the Senate family look to Lloyd John Ogilvie and say to him: Thank you. He has truly been a good and faithful servant. My prayers go out to him and Mary Jane. She is suffering tremendously. All of us together have been joining in prayer to relieve her suffering. It has been a terrible thing to watch them go through. Even through this terrible suffering, we have seen the strength of Lloyd and Mary Jane. They have been a comfort to us even through this time of trial.

I thank both of them for their service to this country and to the Senate family.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee for yielding time. I appreciate his great service to this country leading that important committee.

I rise today to talk about the situation in Iraq. There are some people to pay tribute to. It is important that we as Senators show our troops what they mean to us. It is important that all Americans show the people in uniform how much we appreciate what they are doing, and also to show their families how much we appreciate what they are doing.

I want to start by sharing a thought about a great leader who has shown what it means, in the face of adversity, to lead our country through a difficult time. That leader is our President, George W. Bush. I am very proud that he is, indeed, our Commander-in-Chief at this time. I have heard from so many service men and women how proud they are right now, not only to be Americans, but proud that he is our Commander-in-Chief during this difficult time--not only for the war on Iraq, but for the global war on terrorism, which we are still engaged in and probably will be for some time.

I also want to say thank you as an American to a great friend; somebody who is defining what it means to be a statesman. That is Tony Blair from Great Britain. Tony Blair obviously leads the equivalent of what would be a different party than mine. But Tony Blair has shown, in the face of incredible public opposition, and especially opposition within his own party, what it means to stand up and be a leader. Leaders are expected to lead, and Tony Blair and George W. Bush are doing exactly that right now.

I also thank and take pride in Nellis Air Force Base and the people stationed there, and the people stationed at Fallon Naval Air Station, and also the Nevada National Guard, all of whom have sent people to the Middle East to engage in this conflict. We as Nevadans say thank you for their service, and take great pride in that they are over there, serving our country and protecting our people.

I also think it is appropriate for us, whenever possible, as Americans, to adopt the families of our service men and women. Back in 1991 my brother-in-law was sent over to the Persian Gulf. He was stationed in Bahrain during the Persian Gulf war. I remember it was a very stressful time for my sister because she could not have any contact with him. She had no idea where he was, what he was doing. It was incredibly difficult for her, as it was for many other families. That is what a lot of families of our service men and women are going through right now, the uncertainty of whether their loved ones are going to be coming home or not. We all in this country need to wrap our arms around them and also lift them up in prayer, when we rise in the morning or go to bed at night, when we get on our knees and look to the Almighty.

There is no question that America has the finest military in the entire world. Nobody's military might is anywhere close to what we have today. But I remind all Americans that no matter how strong our military is, without divine providence--as the entire history of our country has recognized--without divine providence, it doesn't matter how superior your military is. That is not enough to prevail in a war. As Abraham Lincoln said during the Civil War, when asked which side of the conflict God was on, he replied: I don't know. I just want to try to be on God's side.

I think it would be easy for us as Americans to be arrogant and proud and boastful about how great we are and how right we think we are. I think the appropriate approach is for us to go and pray we are right, and look to what the morals are that we stand for and the principles on which this country was founded. If we apply those principles, those principles that I believe were handed down by the Almighty, then we will be on His side.

I believe we are in a just cause. It is time we stand up and support the men and women in uniform and do everything we can as individuals to let them know, while they are there, that they are in our thoughts and our prayers. And then, when they come home, we should never, ever again allow what happened in this country when our troops came home from Vietnam. Whenever our troops come home from now on, they should be celebrated, held high as heroes, because we owe our very freedoms to the sacrifices they are willing to make.

I stand with other Senators today to say to our troops: Thank you. Godspeed. And God bless.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mandatory Prisoner Work and Drug Testing Act of 2003. This legislation is the continuation of work I did while in the House of Representatives to rein in the undeserved privileges that are currently given to Federal prisoners.

Today's criminal justice system is failing, partly because of what happens, or more specifically, doesn't happen, once convicted criminals arrive in prison. What prisoners are doing is watching cable television, getting high on drugs, lifting weights, and learning to be better criminals. What they are not doing is working and paying back their victims. That's not justice.

The purpose of the Mandatory Prisoner Work and Drug Testing Act is to help establish a Federal prison system that provides discipline and rehabilitation for our Nation's prisoners and requires that they make restitution to their victims.

First, this legislation requires that all Federal prison inmates have a 50-hour work week. Job training, educational and life skills preparation study will also be mandated under this provision. Current federal law does not mandate a minimum work week for the 100,000 inmates in the Federal prison system. Sadly, the average workday for a prisoner in the United States is 6.8 hours. This is absolutely unacceptable. American taxpayers should not have to work full-time to provide rest and relaxation for our nation's prisoners.

Federal prisoners would be paid for the work they do, but their pay would be divided and dispersed in the following manner: 25 percent would offset the cost of prisoner incarceration, 25 percent would go to victim restitution, 25 percent would be made available to the inmate for necessary costs of incarceration, 10 percent would be placed in a non-interest bearing account to be paid to the inmate upon release, and the remaining 15 percent would go to states and local jurisdictions that operate correctional facilities which have similar programs.

Second, this legislation requires the Bureau of Prisons to establish a zero-tolerance policy for the use or possession of illegal contraband. A drug-free environment is essential to any hopes of rehabilitation for our federal prison inmates. Under these provisions, inmates would be subject to random searches and inspections for drugs not less than 12 times each year. Federal prisons would be required to offer residential drug treatment for all inmates. And finally, any employee hired to work in a federal prison would undergo a mandatory drug test, and all employees would be subject to random testing at least twice each year.

I understand that many State and local prisons would also be interested in starting programs to get a drug-free prison, and for that reason have included a new grant program. Any State or unit of local government may apply for grants if they meet the same drug-testing requirements that are mandated for federal prisons under this legislation.

Third, the Mandatory Prisoner Work and Drug Treatment Act includes a requirement that all inmates in the Federal prison system participate in a boot camp for not less than four weeks. This boot camp program would include strict discipline, physical training, and hard labor to deter crime and promote successful integration or reintegration of the offender into the prison community. Those prisoners that choose not to participate or are physically unable to participate are required to be confined to their cells for not less than 23 hours per day during the duration that they would otherwise be spending in this program and be allowed only those privileges that are granted under Federal law.

These boot camps work. In fact, the Federal Bureau of Prisons already supports two such programs, one for men and one for women. These programs place inmates in highly structured, spartan environments where they undergo physical training and labor-intensive work assignments, coupled

with education and vocational training, substance abuse treatment, and life skills programs. They focus on promoting positive changes in inmates' behavior, including responsible decision-making, self- direction and positive self-image. In fact, boot camps have worked so well that over 30 states now have them in place.

Finally, this legislation will further restrict inmates' activities and possessions. Under this legislation inmates would not be allowed to possess or smoke tobacco, view or read pornographic or sexually explicit material, or view cable television that is not educational in nature. Inmates would not be allowed to possess microwave ovens, hot plates, toaster ovens, televisions, or VCRs. They would not be allowed to listen to music that contains lyrics that are violent, vulgar, sexually explicit, glamorize gang membership or activities, demean women, or disrespect law enforcement. We have to remember that these individuals are in Federal prison to be punished for a crime they committed. There is no reason for inmates to be given the same, or better, privileges than law-abiding citizens have. No one can tell me that an inmate has to have cable television when many law-abiding, taxpaying families cannot afford such a perk.

We need to work to ensure that our nation's criminals understand the gravity of the crimes they committed. I understand that many of our nation's jails and prisons use activities like weight lifting as rewards for their inmates. My legislation does not restrict that kind of activity. This legislation simply states that it is no longer acceptable for our nation's inmates to leisurely go about their day instead of working to pay for the crimes they committed. It is time that our government send a clear message to the victims of these crimes that these criminals will pay, and that restitution, to the maximum extent possible, will be made.

Quite simply, we need to stop the revolving doors of our prison system. A study released in June, 2002, by the U.S. Department of Justice found that among nearly 300,000 prisoners released in 15 states in 1994, 67.5 percent were rearrested within three years. It is my hope that if Federal prisoners were required to work and given drug treatment, instead of perks like cable television and weight training time, these individuals would be deterred from committing another crime and returning to prison.

I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation and help me in getting it passed this year.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to instruct the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office to employ dynamic scoring models, alongside static scoring when estimating the fiscal effect of tax policy changes.

For too long, Congress has debated tax changes without considering how those changes might affect the economy.

The current method, static scoring, assumes tax cuts or tax hikes have no effect on how taxpayers work, save and invest their money. Not surprisingly, experience shows this assumption is completely off-base. The idea that tax relief and investment incentives strengthen our economy is not new to the 21st Century.

On April 15, 1986, President Reagan talked about the positive effect of tax relief on economic growth. He stated:

Whatever you want to call it, supply side economics or

incentive economics . . . it's launching the American economy

into a new era of growth and opportunity . . . Our basic

ingredients for a tax package have not changed: tax rate

reductions, thresholds high enough so hard-working Americans

aren't pushed relentlessly into higher brackets, some long-

overdue tax relief for America's families, and investment

incentives for business. . .

What President Reagan stated so eloquently in 1986 holds true today. Economic growth is more easily achieved in an atmosphere where more Americans are able to save and invest their money. Tax relief provides economic growth, and when we draft legislation, we should understand not just the cost of tax relief to the Federal budget, but also the benefits that tax relief provides to the economy and the long-term increase in revenues to the federal government that tax relief can provide.

The current static estimates that we use imply that tax policy changes have no effect on our economy, never produce higher or lower revenues and never cause resources to shift within our federal budget. This is simply incorrect. Tax policy changes can have a huge impact on our economy.

The belief that tax policy changes directly impact our economy is not just a Republican ideal.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy remarked:

It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in

power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an

economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce

enough jobs or enough profits.

Tax relief provides jobs and profits, no matter who is in the White House and no matter who holds the majority in Congress. It is time that Congress looks at the real world implications of our tax policy before we decide the overall cost and how much relief we can afford to give to American families.

The debate on dynamic versus static scoring may sound like an inside- the-Beltway squabble, but as I have said today, the decision on how to estimate revenues does have important real world implications.

For example, better revenue estimating methods would make it easier to implement tax rate reductions. This would put more money into the pockets of taxpayers, which would have a very real positive affect on our economy.

Another example, shifting to a more simple, fair tax code would be less difficult if revenue estimators were allowed to consider the positive impact of tax reform on economic performance. Clearly a simplified tax code would affect each and every tax paying American.

American families face the challenge of paying their tax burden; providing food, clothing and shelter for their children; and must work even harder to have money leftover so they can afford to pay their medical bills, enjoy a family vacation, save for education costs, or put money away for retirement.

We know that when government takes money away from working families, it stifles growth. We also know that when the government gives money back to the working families that earned it, we encourage growth.

I should clarify that this legislation does not negate the Congress' use of the currently used static scoring model. This bill simply directs OMB and the Joint Tax Committee to use both static and dynamic scoring.

This will create a system that will allow Congress a slide-by-slide analysis of both scoring methods. In a Washington Post editorial on January 31, it was suggested that dynamic scoring could be useful as a way to present tax or spending policies as an additional alternative scenario. The editorial states that it would do no harm to the traditional way that CBO goes about its job to set up a dual scoring method. This is not, as some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have suggested, ``fantasyland scoring.''

By using both static and dynamic scoring methods, Mr. President, through time we will all understand which approach is more realistic, and only then, I believe, can we then confidently do away with the antiquated, unrealistic static model we use today.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mandatory Prisoner Work and Drug Testing Act of 2003. This legislation is the continuation of work I did while in the House of Representatives to rein in the undeserved privileges that are currently given to Federal prisoners.

Today's criminal justice system is failing, partly because of what happens, or more specifically, doesn't happen, once convicted criminals arrive in prison. What prisoners are doing is watching cable television, getting high on drugs, lifting weights, and learning to be better criminals. What they are not doing is working and paying back their victims. That's not justice.

The purpose of the Mandatory Prisoner Work and Drug Testing Act is to help establish a Federal prison system that provides discipline and rehabilitation for our Nation's prisoners and requires that they make restitution to their victims.

First, this legislation requires that all Federal prison inmates have a 50-hour work week. Job training, educational and life skills preparation study will also be mandated under this provision. Current federal law does not mandate a minimum work week for the 100,000 inmates in the Federal prison system. Sadly, the average workday for a prisoner in the United States is 6.8 hours. This is absolutely unacceptable. American taxpayers should not have to work full-time to provide rest and relaxation for our nation's prisoners.

Federal prisoners would be paid for the work they do, but their pay would be divided and dispersed in the following manner: 25 percent would offset the cost of prisoner incarceration, 25 percent would go to victim restitution, 25 percent would be made available to the inmate for necessary costs of incarceration, 10 percent would be placed in a non-interest bearing account to be paid to the inmate upon release, and the remaining 15 percent would go to states and local jurisdictions that operate correctional facilities which have similar programs.

Second, this legislation requires the Bureau of Prisons to establish a zero-tolerance policy for the use or possession of illegal contraband. A drug-free environment is essential to any hopes of rehabilitation for our federal prison inmates. Under these provisions, inmates would be subject to random searches and inspections for drugs not less than 12 times each year. Federal prisons would be required to offer residential drug treatment for all inmates. And finally, any employee hired to work in a federal prison would undergo a mandatory drug test, and all employees would be subject to random testing at least twice each year.

I understand that many State and local prisons would also be interested in starting programs to get a drug-free prison, and for that reason have included a new grant program. Any State or unit of local government may apply for grants if they meet the same drug-testing requirements that are mandated for federal prisons under this legislation.

Third, the Mandatory Prisoner Work and Drug Treatment Act includes a requirement that all inmates in the Federal prison system participate in a boot camp for not less than four weeks. This boot camp program would include strict discipline, physical training, and hard labor to deter crime and promote successful integration or reintegration of the offender into the prison community. Those prisoners that choose not to participate or are physically unable to participate are required to be confined to their cells for not less than 23 hours per day during the duration that they would otherwise be spending in this program and be allowed only those privileges that are granted under Federal law.

These boot camps work. In fact, the Federal Bureau of Prisons already supports two such programs, one for men and one for women. These programs place inmates in highly structured, spartan environments where they undergo physical training and labor-intensive work assignments, coupled

with education and vocational training, substance abuse treatment, and life skills programs. They focus on promoting positive changes in inmates' behavior, including responsible decision-making, self- direction and positive self-image. In fact, boot camps have worked so well that over 30 states now have them in place.

Finally, this legislation will further restrict inmates' activities and possessions. Under this legislation inmates would not be allowed to possess or smoke tobacco, view or read pornographic or sexually explicit material, or view cable television that is not educational in nature. Inmates would not be allowed to possess microwave ovens, hot plates, toaster ovens, televisions, or VCRs. They would not be allowed to listen to music that contains lyrics that are violent, vulgar, sexually explicit, glamorize gang membership or activities, demean women, or disrespect law enforcement. We have to remember that these individuals are in Federal prison to be punished for a crime they committed. There is no reason for inmates to be given the same, or better, privileges than law-abiding citizens have. No one can tell me that an inmate has to have cable television when many law-abiding, taxpaying families cannot afford such a perk.

We need to work to ensure that our nation's criminals understand the gravity of the crimes they committed. I understand that many of our nation's jails and prisons use activities like weight lifting as rewards for their inmates. My legislation does not restrict that kind of activity. This legislation simply states that it is no longer acceptable for our nation's inmates to leisurely go about their day instead of working to pay for the crimes they committed. It is time that our government send a clear message to the victims of these crimes that these criminals will pay, and that restitution, to the maximum extent possible, will be made.

Quite simply, we need to stop the revolving doors of our prison system. A study released in June, 2002, by the U.S. Department of Justice found that among nearly 300,000 prisoners released in 15 states in 1994, 67.5 percent were rearrested within three years. It is my hope that if Federal prisoners were required to work and given drug treatment, instead of perks like cable television and weight training time, these individuals would be deterred from committing another crime and returning to prison.

I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation and help me in getting it passed this year.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to instruct the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office to employ dynamic scoring models, alongside static scoring when estimating the fiscal effect of tax policy changes.

For too long, Congress has debated tax changes without considering how those changes might affect the economy.

The current method, static scoring, assumes tax cuts or tax hikes have no effect on how taxpayers work, save and invest their money. Not surprisingly, experience shows this assumption is completely off-base. The idea that tax relief and investment incentives strengthen our economy is not new to the 21st Century.

On April 15, 1986, President Reagan talked about the positive effect of tax relief on economic growth. He stated:

Whatever you want to call it, supply side economics or

incentive economics . . . it's launching the American economy

into a new era of growth and opportunity . . . Our basic

ingredients for a tax package have not changed: tax rate

reductions, thresholds high enough so hard-working Americans

aren't pushed relentlessly into higher brackets, some long-

overdue tax relief for America's families, and investment

incentives for business. . .

What President Reagan stated so eloquently in 1986 holds true today. Economic growth is more easily achieved in an atmosphere where more Americans are able to save and invest their money. Tax relief provides economic growth, and when we draft legislation, we should understand not just the cost of tax relief to the Federal budget, but also the benefits that tax relief provides to the economy and the long-term increase in revenues to the federal government that tax relief can provide.

The current static estimates that we use imply that tax policy changes have no effect on our economy, never produce higher or lower revenues and never cause resources to shift within our federal budget. This is simply incorrect. Tax policy changes can have a huge impact on our economy.

The belief that tax policy changes directly impact our economy is not just a Republican ideal.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy remarked:

It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in

power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an

economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce

enough jobs or enough profits.

Tax relief provides jobs and profits, no matter who is in the White House and no matter who holds the majority in Congress. It is time that Congress looks at the real world implications of our tax policy before we decide the overall cost and how much relief we can afford to give to American families.

The debate on dynamic versus static scoring may sound like an inside- the-Beltway squabble, but as I have said today, the decision on how to estimate revenues does have important real world implications.

For example, better revenue estimating methods would make it easier to implement tax rate reductions. This would put more money into the pockets of taxpayers, which would have a very real positive affect on our economy.

Another example, shifting to a more simple, fair tax code would be less difficult if revenue estimators were allowed to consider the positive impact of tax reform on economic performance. Clearly a simplified tax code would affect each and every tax paying American.

American families face the challenge of paying their tax burden; providing food, clothing and shelter for their children; and must work even harder to have money leftover so they can afford to pay their medical bills, enjoy a family vacation, save for education costs, or put money away for retirement.

We know that when government takes money away from working families, it stifles growth. We also know that when the government gives money back to the working families that earned it, we encourage growth.

I should clarify that this legislation does not negate the Congress' use of the currently used static scoring model. This bill simply directs OMB and the Joint Tax Committee to use both static and dynamic scoring.

This will create a system that will allow Congress a slide-by-slide analysis of both scoring methods. In a Washington Post editorial on January 31, it was suggested that dynamic scoring could be useful as a way to present tax or spending policies as an additional alternative scenario. The editorial states that it would do no harm to the traditional way that CBO goes about its job to set up a dual scoring method. This is not, as some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have suggested, ``fantasyland scoring.''

By using both static and dynamic scoring methods, Mr. President, through time we will all understand which approach is more realistic, and only then, I believe, can we then confidently do away with the antiquated, unrealistic static model we use today.

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

Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Nevada, my colleague, Mr. Reid, for all of the work he has done in helping us shepherd the nomination of Jay Bybee through this nomination process for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Without his help, with the way things are around here, we know this would not be happening today. That would be a shame because Jay Bybee is incredibly qualified. Everybody who has ever been associated with him understands that.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak to my colleagues about a man of the highest legal distinction, Mr. Jay Bybee. Mr. Bybee's experience and background, and his unquestioned dedication to the fair application of the law, make him an ideal nominee for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

As many of you know, Mr. Bybee appeared before this body in 2001 as a nominee to serve as Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. He was confirmed unanimously by the Senate on October 23, 2001.

As head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jay assists the Attorney General in his role as legal advisor to the President and all the executive branch agencies. The Office is also responsible for providing legal advice to the executive branch on all constitutional questions and reviewing pending legislation for constitutionality.

Though a native of the chairman's home State of Utah, Nevada is proud to claim Jay as one of its own. Before his confirmation in the Senate in 2001, Mr. Bybee joined the founding faculty and served as a Professor of Law at the William Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Mr. Bybee's scholarly interests have focused in the areas of constitutional and administrative law. His dedication to ensuring that young law students learn the highest standards of legal practice resulted in his being named the Professor of the Year in 2000.

Mr. Bybee is known throughout the legal community as one of the foremost constitutional law scholars in the United States. He is regarded as extremely fair minded and adheres to the highest ethical and professional standards. He is admired throughout the legal profession as both a leader and a gentleman. Most importantly, Jay understands the rule of law, and will consistently and carefully consider the arguments on both sides of a legal question with an open mind. Because of Jay's combination of his legal skills along with his commitment to fairness, I have no doubts that he will serve in the best traditions of the federal judiciary.

If confirmed, Mr. Bybee's service will be an invaluable asset to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As you are aware, the Ninth Circuit is facing an overwhelming caseload, and the seat that Mr. Bybee has been nominated is designated as a ``judicial emergency'' by the Judiciary Conference of the United States.

Caseloads in the entire federal court system, including in the Ninth Circuit, continue to grow dramatically. Filings in the federal appeals court reached an all time high again last year. The Chief Justice recently warned that the alarming number of vacancies, combined with the rising number of caseloads, threatens the proper functioning of the federal courts. The American Bar Association has called the situation an ``emergency.''

There are currently four vacancies in the 28-judge court of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, with one more vacancy already announced effective in November 2003. The Judicial Conference has asked for two new permanent and three temporary seats on the Ninth Circuit, just to cope with the caseload. That brings the total to 33 judges that are needed just to handle the caseload on the Ninth Circuit. Today there are only 24 judges doing the job of 33. This situation has to change.

That is why it is extremely important that the Senate approve the nomination of Jay Bybee today, and that the Senate continue to consider each one of the President's judicial nominations as quickly as possible.

I would like to thank the chairman and the entire Judiciary Committee and their staff for their hard work in shepherding this nominee through the process. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote in support of Jay Bybee's appointment to the Ninth Circuit today.

Mr. President, I first met Jay Bybee a few years ago. I had previously heard some great things from people in the community of southern Nevada about this legal scholar out at the new UNLV Boyd School of Law. I wanted to sit down and meet with him, to talk to him, and just pick his brain about the Constitution.

I am a veterinarian by profession, so I am not a lawyer and did not attend law school as many of our colleagues have. I thought, the more I could learn from scholars such as Jay Bybee, the educated I would be and therefore the better Senator I would be.

We sat down for over an hour. I could have stayed there all day. He has a fascinating mind. He has incredible knowledge of the Constitution, of this nation's history and of case law.

When I first was elected to the Senate, because President Bush had been elected I knew it would come upon me to recommend judges for the State of Nevada. I didn't have many ties in the legal community, so I had to look to Nevadans on whom I could count on for advice. One of the people I went to was Jay Bybee. He helped me tremendously in the interview process.

I actually felt sorry for the people who were coming before us because of the difficulty and depth of the questions Jay Bybee would ask them. It was because of that experience, when this process came forward, that I sent his name to the White House.

When the White House began to consider Jay Bybee, they realized immediately what a talent he is. That is why the Attorney General's Office took him away from the Boyd School of Law, to the position he is now in, in the Attorney General's Office. He advises the Attorney General on constitutional matters. That is how much they think of his constitutional expertise.

At the Boyd School of Law, and in the legal community in Nevada, there is nobody more highly thought of as a constitutional expert than Jay Bybee--both liberals and conservatives. They understand his expertise and the way he looks at law. Literally, I have talked to students from the far left end of the political spectrum to the far right end of the political spectrum, and they all talk about him with glowing remarks. It is truly amazing. I think it tells a lot to his character and a lot to his intellect.

I think he has the right tools intellectually, the right temperament and the right character to serve on the 9th Circuit. He has all the qualifications we want for someone to be on the Ninth Circuit--and especially the Ninth Circuit, the most controversial circuit we have in the United States. As you know, this is the circuit that just ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, and this body voted unanimously to condemn that and say we do not agree with that interpretation.

The Ninth Circuit needs help. We need qualified judges to give that help. Jay Bybee is exactly the kind of person we need to the 9th Circuit. There are currently four vacancies on the Ninth Circuit, and soon to be a fifth. The Judicial Conference recently also requested two new permanent judges and three temporary judges. They have a huge crisis on the Ninth Circuit because there are so many backlogged cases. It has been said on this floor: Justice delayed is justice denied. That is what is happening in the Ninth Circuit.

So it is important to approve Jay Bybee's nomination today, and to begin our work to appoint other judges to fill those vacancies I mentioned. It is my hope that we can get the new judgeships approved through this body so the Ninth Circuit can catch up on their caseload.

So enthusiastically, Mr. President, I recommend that we vote to confirm this outstanding nominee, Jay Bybee. He is a great family man. He will make a great judge. And he will be there for a long time, God willing, having a positive influence on the Ninth Circuit.

With that, I once again thank the senior Senator from Nevada. I also thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his work in getting Jay Bybee's nomination to the floor. We appreciate all the indulgences. I know the Chairman has to constantly answer to each individual Senator, and we can be kind of a pain sometimes, but we sure appreciate the work done in getting Jay Bybee's nomination to this day when we can finally get him confirmed.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I will spend a little time today talking about the amendment. But I also want to talk about the underlying bill.

This is an incredibly emotional issue for people across America. It is an incredibly emotional issue for people in this body. There truly are good people on both sides of this issue.

I believe the people who support abortion are wrong. Those who support abortion look at myself and others on this side of the issue, and think that we are wrong. But I do not look at the other side, and think that the people are evil or that they have evil intentions. I just think that they are not seeing the truth about what abortion truly is.

To talk about the bill itself: it has been described--it cannot be described too often, what a so-called partial-birth abortion really is; a D&X procedure--whatever you want to call it. So let me describe that.

I am a veterinarian by profession, so I understand a little bit about surgery and medical procedures. When I read through this particular procedure, it is amazing to me, as a health care worker, how any physician or any nurse could participate in this procedure and not be horrified.

What happens is a woman goes in the first day, and she has some local anesthetic put on her cervix. Then she has some clips put on that will help her dilate. She comes in the next day; same procedure; it helps her dilate some more. The third day she comes in, she is treated with some medication, including pitocin, which is something to help--just like when a woman is having trouble delivering--it helps to stimulate the birthing process, to put it in the simplest of terms.

While the woman is on that drug, they use an ultrasound to look at the woman's abdomen; to look inside the uterus. Looking at the ultrasound picture, the doctor can insert a clamp--basically some forceps--to grab one of the legs of the baby. The baby is in there, moving around. This ultrasound allows them to grip one of the baby's legs and not grab part of the uterus, because obviously that would be very dangerous to the woman.

As he or she grabs that leg, they then pull it down into the birth canal. That one leg then comes out of the cervix. The physician then takes one of his other fingers and grabs the other leg and brings them, both of the legs, down. Once into the birth canal, the doctor kind of wriggles them down a little bit and gets them to where (this would be the back of the baby) everything except the head--the head is still inside what is called the cervical os, and at that point the head is usually too large to come down.

That is the point where the physician puts his fingers around this little--I will call it what it is. They call it a fetus, but it is a little human being, whether you call it a fetus or baby or whatever you call it. It is a little human being.

This little human being is alive. You can feel it. You can feel the heart beating. You can feel movement in the legs. There is no question that the person who is performing this procedure can feel life in their hands.

As he puts his fingers around there, he brings usually a pair of Metzenbaum scissors, a kind of curved scissor, around the back and has to make sure he doesn't cut the cervix, so he has to elevate the cervix away from the baby's skull. Then right at the back of the baby's skull he inserts some kind of a forceps, usually the scissors, and makes an opening right at the back of the skull; then he will slide an instrument in that will suck the baby's brains out.

Try to imagine this. You have this little baby in your hands, and you are going to suck that brain out. As you do, you will feel the life go out of that little baby. Anybody who can listen to what is done in this procedure and say that as a civilized country we should allow this to go on--it boggles my mind. At that point, the skull collapses and the baby is allowed to be delivered.

In our society, under our current laws, if for some reason that cervix dilated a little more and this baby, while it was being brought down, slipped out, came fully out, this doctor who performed that same procedure, now, this much farther down--that would be considered murder under our laws. So this procedure really is a question of distance. We are 3 inches away from murder by our own laws.

If the baby is 3 inches up the birth canal, it is just an abortion. Three inches down, it is considered murder. This procedure is infanticide. A civilized society should never allow this kind of thing to go on. That is why we need to ban it.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reports that--we have heard the exception for the health of the mother. For the life of the mother, we all agree. If it is the life of the mother, you can't have them both live, so you have to choose. But at 15 to 16 weeks of gestation, that is the point at which an abortion becomes more dangerous than childbirth. Partial-birth abortion generally happens after 20 weeks of gestation.

We have heard that we need to have exceptions for the mother's health. Abortionists say that if the language that was proposed earlier is passed, they would be able to use that language ``health of the mother'' to be able to perform an abortion any time, any place, at any month of pregnancy, and use this procedure. It would be allowed. That is why the health of the mother exception we keep hearing about is such a bogus argument. It is healthier for the mother to allow it, the baby, to reach full gestation.

In the terrible case of what is called an anencephalic baby, one which is born with not enough neural tissue to develop, we know they are going to die a very short period of time after they are born; it is safer for the mother to have that child. I would even argue that it is safer for them from a mental

health standpoint. It is part of the grieving process we need to go through when we lose a child, just holding that child.

To just dismember it, or suck out its little neuro tissue, and deliver it that way can be worse for the mental health of the mother than actually allowing it to go full term, and then to go through the normal grieving process. All the mental health professionals tell us that denying mental grieving processes can actually be worse for people.

I think the health arguments are really not very good arguments. I think they are weak on their merits. It is just impossible to justify the type of things that go on with this procedure. We really should be banning it.

I appreciate the sponsor of the bill for the work he has done on this, and leading this country, I believe, in the right direction.

I want to make a couple of other comments on the underlying amendment, which is an amendment talking about Roe v. Wade.

Once again, really good people disagree on this issue. They look at it differently. I am the father of three. Actually, with my third child, the doctor didn't get there on time, and I, along with the nurse, delivered our third child. We could see him on the ultrasound throughout the process. Just being through the miracle of childbirth when every one of my children was born, I cried like a little baby. I didn't know which one was crying harder, the baby when it came out, or the father.

Appreciation for life is so important, I believe, in society. I think the whole idea of abortion has degraded the value of life in our society. We need to get back to valuing life. Life is so precious. We cannot take it for granted.

While I don't want to say anything against somebody else who feels or believes differently on the other side; if you really believe it is a baby, then we shouldn't be taking that innocent life. We should value it instead. I believe it is a baby from the time of conception. I believe that what we should be protecting are the babies, as human beings.

If you know anything about embryology--obviously veterinarians study a lot of embryology. Physicians study it, nurses, and any health care professional studies embryology. When a human being is conceived, it is not going to be anything but a human being. When you see the embryological picture, they may look like something else early on, but they are fully human. The full human chromosome complement is there from the time of conception. It isn't something that is added later. It is just in a different stage of development. It is very analogous to how my 5-year-old is at a different stage of development than that of my 11-year-old. They are both fully human, but they are at a different stage of development. A 1-month-old baby is not capable of taking care of itself. It is in a different stage of development than an adult. An 18-week or 16-week or 14-week human being in the womb is just at a different stage of development.

If we learn to protect and value human life, I would submit we would be better off as a country.

I think this debate gets too personal because we don't give credit to each side for having legitimate feelings on this issue sometimes. I respect people on the other side of this issue. I disagree with them, but I respect them. I hope more and more people will form relationships with people on both sides of this issue so that more and more dialog can happen and we can sit down together and try to look at this issue for what it really is. I believe that if we start seeing ourselves as children of God, that we, in the long run, will value human life, and some day we will stop abortion from happening in America.

I thank the author of this bill. I thank him for all of his great work on this. I consider him a great friend and a great American for doing this.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. President. I rise today with my colleagues Senator Boxer, Senator Smith, Senator Allen, Senator Enzi and Senator Bayh to introduce The Invest in the U.S.A. Act of 2003 to stimulate job growth and investment in the American economy.

Under current tax law, American companies doing business overseas are discouraged from bringing their earnings back home because those earnings are subject to up to a 35-percent rate of taxation. Specifically, our government imposes taxes on American companies when its foreign subsidiary earnings are brought back to the United States, to the extent of any shortfall in the tax paid abroad and the 35- percent U.S. tax rate. Therefore, many businesses do the math and conclude that it would be more beneficial to invest 100 percent of those earnings abroad than it would be to bring the funds home to be reinvested in the American economy.

Our proposal is a sensible, fiscally responsible way to provide immediate investment in the American economy. Specifically, the Invest in the U.S.A. Act bill will allow domestic corporations doing business abroad to bring their foreign earnings home by imposing a 5.25-percent toll tax on dividends in excess of normal distributions for only one year. Companies must reinvest these funds in the United States in an approved investment plan to take advantage of the lowered rate. Finally, domestic shareholders would permanently surrender the right to claim foreign tax credits for 85 percent of foreign income taxes associated with dividends subject to the 5.25-percent tax, as well as exclude 85 percent of income subject to the 5.25-percent tax from the calculation of the foreign tax credit limitation ensuring that no American company will be taxed less than 5.25 percent.

Lowering the tax burden on foreign subsidiary income for a limited time will open the floodgates for privately held foreign funds to be brought back into the American economy to provide immediate economic stimulus. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Invest in the U.S.A. Act will not only increase receipts to the U.S. Treasury in the first year by $4.1 billion but also inject an additional $135 billion of privately held funds into the U.S. economy that will be an immediate stimulus to our economy at a cost of only $3.9 billion over 10 years--less than 3 percent of the overall gain this legislation will have to the American economy.

These funds can be used to create more jobs for American workers, solidify corporate pension and retirement funds, invest in manufacturing equipment and research and development, and reduce domestic debt loads thereby increasing employee and shareholder dividends. American jobs depend on American companies, and this proposal will accomplish that objective. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President. I rise today with my colleagues Senator Boxer, Senator Smith, Senator Allen, Senator Enzi and Senator Bayh to introduce The Invest in the U.S.A. Act of 2003 to stimulate job growth and investment in the American economy.

Under current tax law, American companies doing business overseas are discouraged from bringing their earnings back home because those earnings are subject to up to a 35-percent rate of taxation. Specifically, our government imposes taxes on American companies when its foreign subsidiary earnings are brought back to the United States, to the extent of any shortfall in the tax paid abroad and the 35- percent U.S. tax rate. Therefore, many businesses do the math and conclude that it would be more beneficial to invest 100 percent of those earnings abroad than it would be to bring the funds home to be reinvested in the American economy.

Our proposal is a sensible, fiscally responsible way to provide immediate investment in the American economy. Specifically, the Invest in the U.S.A. Act bill will allow domestic corporations doing business abroad to bring their foreign earnings home by imposing a 5.25-percent toll tax on dividends in excess of normal distributions for only one year. Companies must reinvest these funds in the United States in an approved investment plan to take advantage of the lowered rate. Finally, domestic shareholders would permanently surrender the right to claim foreign tax credits for 85 percent of foreign income taxes associated with dividends subject to the 5.25-percent tax, as well as exclude 85 percent of income subject to the 5.25-percent tax from the calculation of the foreign tax credit limitation ensuring that no American company will be taxed less than 5.25 percent.

Lowering the tax burden on foreign subsidiary income for a limited time will open the floodgates for privately held foreign funds to be brought back into the American economy to provide immediate economic stimulus. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Invest in the U.S.A. Act will not only increase receipts to the U.S. Treasury in the first year by $4.1 billion but also inject an additional $135 billion of privately held funds into the U.S. economy that will be an immediate stimulus to our economy at a cost of only $3.9 billion over 10 years--less than 3 percent of the overall gain this legislation will have to the American economy.

These funds can be used to create more jobs for American workers, solidify corporate pension and retirement funds, invest in manufacturing equipment and research and development, and reduce domestic debt loads thereby increasing employee and shareholder dividends. American jobs depend on American companies, and this proposal will accomplish that objective. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.