Floor Statements

Mr. President, as a former business person and technology executive who has direct experience with class action litigation, I agree with the proponents of this bill that class action cases that impact Americans in every State ought to be litigated in Federal court. American business should be focused on developing innovative technologies, growing and creating jobs, and securing our economic future. American businesses should not be forced to defend themselves simultaneously in the exact same case in as many as seven different States at the same time.

I believe the current consolidation mechanism in Federal court offers both consumers and businesses a fair and efficient means of having their claims heard, and I support allowing more cases to be tried in Federal courts.

Unfortunately, I cannot support the bill before us today. While some positive changes have been made to the bill, the bill would close the State courthouse doors to almost all class action cases and move those cases to Federal court. The bill could overwhelm our Federal court system and cause delay not just in the cases that are being removed, but in the important class action matters that are already in Federal court.

I come from a State that is ranked as having the third best civil justice system in the country, according to the Chamber of Commerce. I recognize the rights of my constituents to have their claims heard in our own State courts and according to our own State laws. In 1993, hundreds of people in my State became critically ill and several died as a result of eating Jack-in-the-Box hamburgers tainted with deadly E- coli bacteria. Five hundred of those victims and family members came together and filed a class action lawsuit in State court for damages as a result of the injuries they sustained. The case was settled for $12 million. This is not frivolous litigation.

In fact, not one of the hundreds of businesses I have talked to about this bill has ever suggested that any abusive or frivolous class action litigation had occurred in Washington State. However, even though most of the plaintiffs in this class action were from Washington, and the case was about personal injury, a claim traditionally heard by State courts, if this lawsuit

were to be filed in the future, this bill would give defendants the right to remove the case to Federal court causing additional expense and grievances for the victims in this case.

I have three concerns about the bill. We need a better balance between cases being heard in State and Federal court. We need better protections for civil rights cases and a time deadline for moving cases to Federal courts.

First, we need to have the proper balance between addressing lawsuits in State and Federal courts. Currently, virtually all class actions are tried in State court. However, by moving virtually all of the lawsuits to Federal courts, this bill does not provide that balance. I support an approach that provides for keeping some cases in State courts and improving the flexibility to try more cases in Federal courts.

I have heard from many of the business leaders in my State who have expressed their concerns about the increasing challenges of defending themselves against the same claims in multiple states. I have heard their frustrations about seeing the claims dismissed in one State only to have them filed in another. I have heard from some of the oldest established businesses in my State to the newest. From Weyerhaeuser to Microsoft to AT&T Wireless, Intel, Amazon, the Madrona Group, Expedia, and Starbucks.

These employers have been forced to defend class action suits that are either dismissed or settled in a manner that provides little benefit to the class but great financial benefit to the lawyers. That isn't right, and that is why I have asked these companies in my State to analyze what the effects would be of removing any case to Federal court in which less than one third of the plaintiffs were from the State where the case was filed. I have committed to each of these businesses that I will continue to work with them to find a way to move more cases to Federal court while keeping cases that primarily affect a group of consumers in a State in that State's court.

While I believe that finding a better balance between class action lawsuits in State and Federal court is critical, I also cannot support this bill in the absence of protections that allow higher portions of settlement awards to be made to those individuals who agree to act as lead plaintiffs in class action cases. In addition, I believe that there needs to be a fixed date for defendants to seek to move a class action case to Federal court. As the bill is written now, a class action case can be proceeded all the way through trial and into jury deliberations--and defendants can still seek to remove it to Federal court even at this late date. I do not believe this serves the interests of justice. This provision should be fixed.

I have communicated my three concerns to supporters of the bill. I am disappointed that these straightforward changes, which are in the interests of both consumers and businesses, were not included in the bill. Absent these improvements to the bill, I cannot vote for the measure before us today.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Burns- Wyden CAN-SPAM Act, which would impose limitations and penalties on the transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic mail via the Internet.

I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Wyden and Burns, for their leadership in tackling this problem which affects so many consumers in my State of Washington. Unsolicited commercial email or ``spam'' is a major irritant to consumers and businesses alike. Spam exposes computer users--often young children--to pornography, sexual predators, fraudulent schemes, and other unwanted or harmful messages. In addition, spam costs American business close to $10 billion each year in lost productivity, additional infrastructure costs, and legal fees--costs that are ultimately borne by consumers. By clogging our computers, spam threatens to deprive us of the tremendous benefits provided by the Internet.

This bill represents a crucial first step in combating the exponential increase in the volume of spam, which today accounts for half of all email messages. Because of the global nature of this problem and the anonymity that the Internet affords spammers, it is impossible for states or individuals alone to take meaningful steps to reduce the impact of this nuisance, and self-regulation is simply not an option. The overwhelming volume of sleazy and fraudulent solicitations originating from criminal organizations demands a tough response that imposes both civil and criminal penalties.

That is precisely why this bill is so necessary. To protect computer users in my State and across the country, we must take immediate steps to stem the mountain of spam hitting email inboxes every day.

The Burns-Wyden bill is a long-awaited step in the right direction. The bill has been carefully negotiated and improved. By allowing enforcement by State attorneys general and by Internet service providers, we have increased the odds of successful enforcement against the worst spammers. By prohibiting harvesting of email addresses, the use of technology to send thousands of spammed messages, and by prohibiting false and misleading message headers, the bill will send a clear message to the most abusive spammers that their practices will no longer be tolerated.

But enforcement will remain a challenge. Spammers have every incentive to increase the volume of their messages because the marginal cost of sending another message is virtually nothing. And because of the anonymity and global nature of the internet, spammers can hide their identity and move their operations offshore.

While the bill before us will finally put in place a Federal approach to the global problem of spam, there is no single solution to this complex problem. I am pleased that the bill will require the Federal Trade Commission to develop legislation to establish a national Do Not Email registry modeled on the Do Not Call registry, but I believe there may come a point at which additional protections are necessary to protect consumers and to protect the growth of the information economy.

I think we all recognize that we have much more work to do to solve this problem, but the Burns-Wyden bill is an excellent first step in addressing the problem, and I am pleased to help pass this important legislation.

Madam. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the conference report to S. 3 the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. This is an unconstitutional piece of legislation that puts women's lives in jeopardy.

Supporters of this bill will argue that this legislation bans only one procedure but this is not the case. Make no mistake about it. This bill puts us on a path outlawing abortion. The language in this bill is vague, and this law could be used to ban other safe and legal procedures. Moreover, this legislation imposes an undue burden on a woman's ability to choose by banning abortion procedures at any stage in a woman's pregnancy. This bill does not only ban post-viability abortions, it unconstitutionally restricts women's rights regardless of where the woman is in her pregnancy.

In 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court found that women have a constitutional right to choose. However, after the point of viability-- the point at which a baby can live outside its mother's body--States may ban abortions as long as they allow exceptions when a woman's life or health is in danger. The bill before us, however, restricts abortions before viability and it does not include a health exception. Let me repeat that. This bill is fundamentally flawed because it does not protect the women when her health is in danger.

In June 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced the importance of this health exception in Stenberg v. Carhart, which determined that a Nebraska law banning the performance of so-called ``partial birth'' abortions was unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade.

The Supreme Court has stated unequivocally that every abortion restriction, including bans on so-called ``partial-birth abortion,'' must contain a health exception. The Court emphasized that, by failing to provide a health exception, the Nebraska law would place a woman's life in danger. That is exactly what the legislation before us today does as well: it places a woman's life in danger.

Despite the Supreme Court's very clear mandate, this underlying legislation does not provide an exception for the health of the mother. For this reason, this legislation, like the measure that was struck down in Stenberg, is unconstitutional.

I am very disappointed that this conference report does not include language passed by the Senate that abortion has been a legal and constitutionally protected medical procedure throughout the United States since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade; and that the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade established constitutionally based limits on the power of states to restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

Furthermore, the amendment firmly laid out the sense of the Senate that the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right and that the decision should not be overturned.

I fundamentally believe that private medical decisions should be made by women in consultation with their doctors--not politicians. These decisions include the methods by which a physician chooses to treat his or her patients. Why should we decide that here on the Senate floor? Congressional findings cannot possibly make up for medical consultation between a patient and her doctor. This bill, however, would undermine a physician's ability to determine the best course of treatment for a patient.

Physicians must be free to make clinical determinations, in accordance with medical standards of care, that best safeguard a woman's life and health. Women and their families, along with their doctors, are simply better than politicians at making decisions about their medical care. And I don't want to make those decisions for other women.

During the course of this debate we heard painful stories about women who were anxiously awaiting the birth of a child when something went horribly wrong. We heard true stories of women who were devastated when they discovered that their child had severe health problems and would not survive. We heard stories about women who wanted to complete their pregnancy and were told by their physicians that, should they do so, they would put their health at risk. The truth is that this is a

heartbreaking, painful, personal decision that should be made by solely a woman with the advice of her doctor.

I trust the health care providers and organizations like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Medical Women's Association who oppose this ban. These physicians know their patients, they know their stories, and the painful choices that many make, and they know that this ban is wrong. Most importantly, I trust the women in my State and around this country to make the decision that is right for them. During such a difficult, private time, women should be surrounded by those who love and support them. Women should not have to listen to rhetoric that demonizes their heartbreak, but should be able to receive medically accurate information from a trusted health care professional.

Three States, including my home State of Washington, have considered similar bans by referendum. All three failed. We considered this debate in my home State in 1998. The referendum failed decisively--by a vote of 57 to 43 percent.

These so-called ``partial-birth'' abortion bans--whether the proposals that have been before the Senate in the past or the one before us today--are deliberately designed to erode the protections of Roe v. Wade, at the expense of women's health and at the expense of a woman's right to privacy.

The Supreme Court, during the 30 years since it recognized the right to choose, has consistently required that, when a State restricts access to abortion, a woman's health must be the absolute consideration. This legislation does not only disavow the Supreme Court's explicit directive, but the advice of the medical community, and the will of the American people. We must continue to ensure that the women of America have the right to privacy and receive the best medical attention available.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Emergency Reform Act, which will put in place guidelines for the release of LIHEAP contingency funds.

The LIHEAP program, created in 1981, is the primary vehicle by which the Federal Government, through block grants to States, provides energy assistance to low-income families. I applaud the provisions contained in pending energy legislation that will raise the LIHEAP authorization from $2 billion to $3.4 billion for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2006. As in most parts of the country, demand for LIHEAP dollars far outpaces the supply in my home State of Washington, where, even when fully funded under the current authorization, only 19 percent of eligible families receive home energy assistance.

The legislation I'm introducing today, however, deals not with the

block-grant portion of the current program, in which allocations to States are determined via formula. Rather, it applies to the contingency fund, which was also authorized in 1981 ``to meet the additional home energy assistance needs of one or more States arising from a natural disaster or other emergency.'' As my colleagues are aware, this money is not released according to formula but solely at the discretion of the Health and Human Services Secretary.

The LIHEAP Emergency Reform Act does four things, designed to provide clarity to States that are in the unfortunate position of suffering from an emergency, as defined in the LIHEAP statute. My legislation: gives Governors the explicit authority to apply to the HHS Secretary for the release of LIHEAP contingency funds; adds transparency to the release of emergency money by directing HHS, in cooperation with the States and Department of Energy, to put in place procedures for the equitable consideration of these applications; requires HHS to include in these procedures the consideration of regional differences in sources of energy supply for low-income households, relative energy price trends and relevant weather-related factors such as drought; and finally, directs HHS to grant States' applications within 30 days unless the Secretary certifies that an emergency, as defined in the statute, has not been demonstrated.

Since 1990, a total of $2.67 billion in LIHEAP contingency funds have been distributed. And while there is no doubt in my mind that, in all cases, this money has helped meet the needs of low-income families across this Nation, I believe there have also been widely varying eligibility rules leading to instances in which HHS has overlooked very real energy emergencies.

In the Pacific Northwest, for example, we have over the past two years suffered from an unprecedented rise in retail energy rates, the burden of which has fallen disproportionately on low-income families. In fact, today, Washington State families at or below the 50 percent Federal poverty level spend 34 percent or more of their annual income on home energy bills. That is a huge burden, especially in view of our rising unemployment rate and the severe downturn in our economy.

Unfortunately, Northwest States have not received emergency LIHEAP funds consistent with their needs. In part, I believe this is because of the perception that our rates will, notwithstanding any increases we might suffer, always be lower, and because this money has traditionally been used to defray the costs of natural gas and home heating oil in the Midwest and Northeast.

This legislation requires HHS to consider regional factors such as the fact that home heating oil prices are not relevant to Washington State's low-income families, 77 percent of which have homes reliant on electricity.

In addition, it directs HHS to consider regional rather than absolute, price trends. This is a very important point, because, regardless of how low a State's prices might be compared to its neighbor's, a drastic run up in rates has devastating impacts when its manufacturing base, residential homes and truly its entire economy are built upon access to an affordable power supply.

In summary, LIHEAP Emergency Reform Act provides additional certainty to states across the country.

I understand that the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee will soon consider legislation to reauthorize the LIHEAP program. As my colleagues may recall, the provisions of the LIHEAP Emergency Reform Act were originally included in the Senate energy bill, now the subject of conference committee deliberations. During floor debate on that bill, I was pleased that the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the HELP Committee, Senators Gregg and Kennedy, agreed to examine the contingency fund issue during reauthorization of the LIHEAP program. I believe that clear rules for the release of LIHEAP contingency funds will ensure that, in the unfortunate event of an energy emergency, low-income families will receive much-needed assistance in keeping the lights and the heat turned on, which is precisely what Congress intends when it appropriates money to the LIHEAP contingency fund. I believe the LIHEAP Emergency Reform Act will help provide this additional certainty.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Emergency Reform Act, which will put in place guidelines for the release of LIHEAP contingency funds.

The LIHEAP program, created in 1981, is the primary vehicle by which the Federal Government, through block grants to States, provides energy assistance to low-income families. I applaud the provisions contained in pending energy legislation that will raise the LIHEAP authorization from $2 billion to $3.4 billion for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2006. As in most parts of the country, demand for LIHEAP dollars far outpaces the supply in my home State of Washington, where, even when fully funded under the current authorization, only 19 percent of eligible families receive home energy assistance.

The legislation I'm introducing today, however, deals not with the

block-grant portion of the current program, in which allocations to States are determined via formula. Rather, it applies to the contingency fund, which was also authorized in 1981 ``to meet the additional home energy assistance needs of one or more States arising from a natural disaster or other emergency.'' As my colleagues are aware, this money is not released according to formula but solely at the discretion of the Health and Human Services Secretary.

The LIHEAP Emergency Reform Act does four things, designed to provide clarity to States that are in the unfortunate position of suffering from an emergency, as defined in the LIHEAP statute. My legislation: gives Governors the explicit authority to apply to the HHS Secretary for the release of LIHEAP contingency funds; adds transparency to the release of emergency money by directing HHS, in cooperation with the States and Department of Energy, to put in place procedures for the equitable consideration of these applications; requires HHS to include in these procedures the consideration of regional differences in sources of energy supply for low-income households, relative energy price trends and relevant weather-related factors such as drought; and finally, directs HHS to grant States' applications within 30 days unless the Secretary certifies that an emergency, as defined in the statute, has not been demonstrated.

Since 1990, a total of $2.67 billion in LIHEAP contingency funds have been distributed. And while there is no doubt in my mind that, in all cases, this money has helped meet the needs of low-income families across this Nation, I believe there have also been widely varying eligibility rules leading to instances in which HHS has overlooked very real energy emergencies.

In the Pacific Northwest, for example, we have over the past two years suffered from an unprecedented rise in retail energy rates, the burden of which has fallen disproportionately on low-income families. In fact, today, Washington State families at or below the 50 percent Federal poverty level spend 34 percent or more of their annual income on home energy bills. That is a huge burden, especially in view of our rising unemployment rate and the severe downturn in our economy.

Unfortunately, Northwest States have not received emergency LIHEAP funds consistent with their needs. In part, I believe this is because of the perception that our rates will, notwithstanding any increases we might suffer, always be lower, and because this money has traditionally been used to defray the costs of natural gas and home heating oil in the Midwest and Northeast.

This legislation requires HHS to consider regional factors such as the fact that home heating oil prices are not relevant to Washington State's low-income families, 77 percent of which have homes reliant on electricity.

In addition, it directs HHS to consider regional rather than absolute, price trends. This is a very important point, because, regardless of how low a State's prices might be compared to its neighbor's, a drastic run up in rates has devastating impacts when its manufacturing base, residential homes and truly its entire economy are built upon access to an affordable power supply.

In summary, LIHEAP Emergency Reform Act provides additional certainty to states across the country.

I understand that the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee will soon consider legislation to reauthorize the LIHEAP program. As my colleagues may recall, the provisions of the LIHEAP Emergency Reform Act were originally included in the Senate energy bill, now the subject of conference committee deliberations. During floor debate on that bill, I was pleased that the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the HELP Committee, Senators Gregg and Kennedy, agreed to examine the contingency fund issue during reauthorization of the LIHEAP program. I believe that clear rules for the release of LIHEAP contingency funds will ensure that, in the unfortunate event of an energy emergency, low-income families will receive much-needed assistance in keeping the lights and the heat turned on, which is precisely what Congress intends when it appropriates money to the LIHEAP contingency fund. I believe the LIHEAP Emergency Reform Act will help provide this additional certainty.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the emergency supplemental spending bill before us that will give our troops the resources they need to do their jobs; hold the President more accountable for his postwar plan; and help the Iraqi people get back on their feet.

I believe that the Iraqi people very much deserve U.S. assistance getting their country back on its feet. It is for this reason that I am supporting funding in this supplemental appropriations bill for Iraqi reconstruction.

However, I am very concerned that the administration does not have a clear, comprehensive and convincing plan to do this.

It is for this reason that I have strongly opposed providing the Bush administration with a blank check in the expenditure of funds in this supplemental.

Instead, this supplemental bill includes a broad set of reports and oversight mechanisms, including:

A permanent inspector general charged with overseeing the Coalition Provisional Authority on its operations and financial transactions.

Audits for the use of reconstruction funds, including how they are solicited, bid and granted.

A monthly report from the Coalition Provisional Authority on its progress in the stated goal of replacing U.S. troops with multinational forces and Iraqi security personnel.

A report on the administration's utilization of National Guard and Reserves, and the impact that this has on our country's homeland security.

A requirement for the President to submit to Congress its projected costs for Iraqi operations through 2008 and any changes to these projections.

Quarterly reports to Congress on the status of the hunt for weapons of mass destruction.

These are important mechanisms that demonstrate clearly that this funding does not come without strings attached. On the contrary, these mechanisms will hold the administration accountable for developing a strategy and ensure transparency in supporting Iraqi reconstruction.

We also need to be clear that the U.S. cannot do this alone. I believe the U.S. must take the leadership role to ensure that Iraq benefits from the legitimacy, cooperation and money that only a broad coalition can guarantee.

That is why I supported a provision in this bill that requires the President to report to Congress on his efforts to increase international donations and to assess how the U.S. can best leverage U.S. taxpayer dollars for international support and international debt forgiveness.

The administration has had some successes in gaining international support, notably yesterday's United Nations Security Council resolution, which was a unanimous statement supporting multilateral efforts to stabilize, reconstruct and support Iraq's transition towards a sovereign democracy.

Also, the administration has taken an important step in engaging foreign countries to commit troops, including the recent agreement from Turkey. The administration has also shown progress in soliciting financial contributions, including the $1.5 billion Japanese commitment.

However, this is really just a start. Foreign troops and foreign contributions remain terribly lower than where they need to be.

The administration needs to be committed to broadening its coalition of support and making the Iraqi reconstruction a global challenge met by the international community.

I believe that it is also very important that the administration speaks with a solid, unified voice regarding its efforts and strategy in Iraq.

It seems that every day we hear a different plan, a different projection, a different statement on needs and demands from one of several agencies and ``spokespeople'' that claim to speak for the administration.

The American people need and deserve accountability and clarity--not only on the challenges that we face, but on the solutions that we are seeking to execute.

This clarity is particularly important for the central questions of how long reconstruction will take, what the U.S. role will be, and, perhaps most importantly, how long our troops will remain in harm's way.

The uniformed men and women of our armed forces have served their country well. Their military efforts have demonstrated historic success, and they continue to sacrifice for our country on a daily basis in securing and stabilizing Iraq.

Washington State is proud to be the home of thousands of troops, sailors and airmen that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan from home bases from such places as Fort Lewis, Fairchild Air Force Base, and Everett Naval Station.

These men and women are meeting the call of duty superbly and we must provide them with the equipment and support that they deserve.

We also owe a particular debt of gratitude for our National Guard and Reserve units, which have been mobilized in historic numbers and for sustained lengths of time--leaving their jobs

and families to serve their countries. In fact, in my state, the 81st Armored Brigade--almost 4,000 citizen-soldiers--were alerted for a possible deployment to Iraq.

Given this important sacrifice made by reservists, I am particularly pleased that this supplemental package includes my bipartisan fair deployment amendment.

Like many guard and reservists--including the National Guard Association, the Reserve Officers Association, and the National Military Families Association--I was disturbed last month by the administration's sudden change in deployment policy.

My amendment addresses the change by requiring that deployment times for guard and reserves begin as soon as they are activated, we ensure that every day of service counts.

I have long said that we need to be consistent in how we calculate the deployment times for our Guard and Reserve personnel and this will do this by starting the clock ticking when their boots are out of the house.

In addition, this includes resources for health care for reservists and their families, as well as critical funding for our veterans.

First, I was a proud co-sponsor of an amendment that will extend TRICARE coverage to reservists and their families who are not currently covered by health insurance, and provide assistance to those reservists who are called up to duty so that they do not have to cancel their existing health care coverages.

Second, I also proudly cosponsored a Bond-Mikulski amendment that will provide $1.3 billion in funding for veterans health care. This amendment means that Washington State will receive approximately $30 million in new VA health care funding, providing care to approximately 6,000 veterans who would not receive it.

This has been an important, productive and historic debate for the future of Iraq, the Middle East region and, most importantly, in shaping America's role in the world.

This ultimate bill ensures that Congress will retain a major role in overseeing the way this money is spent and I remain committed to ensuring that we give our troops the tools they need to do their jobs; get the international support that we need; and making sure that our mission in Iraq is completed quickly and that our troops can come home.

I have offered an amendment to this bill that will bring predictability and clarity to our deployment of National Guard and Reserve units.

I thank my cosponsors, Senators Bond and Leahy, the cochairs of the Senate National Guard Caucus, as well as Senators Bingaman, Leahy, Johnson, Nelson of Florida, Graham of Florida, Murray, Kennedy, Pryor, Lautenberg, and Kerry, who are joining me in sending a message that we need to be consistent in how we calculate the deployment times for our Guard and Reserve personnel.

This amendment will direct the Pentagon to consider the full activation time for Guard and Reserve personnel in considering its deployment policies and also to establish a program to

more effectively notify troops and their families of changes in deployment policies and/or extensions in deployment periods.

This action will go a long way in ensuring better predictability for our military reservists, their families, and employers--they certainly deserve it.

I am proud to say that it has been endorsed by the National Guard Association of the United States, the Reserve Officers Association and the National Military Families Association.

As many in this Chamber know, over 20,000 troops in Iraq were faced with a rude awakening last month when the administration changed a 50- year standard practice in calculating deployment policies--a change the effectively extended deployments for these troops by several months in many cases.

Prior to last month's decision, the length of deployment was calculated based on the time a reservist was activated--when a member of the Guard and Reserve left home. However, last month, the administration changed the method of calculation to time deployed ``in theater.''

This is not the way to treat our Reserve component. We are asking more and more from them, and they deserve better. The Guard and Reserve are critically important to our national security both at home and abroad.

Since September 11, 2001, the National Guard has mobilized 210,000 of its 350,000 soldiers at one time or another. The Reserve has mobilized 85,000 of its 205,000 in that same time period.

In my own State, with the recent alert of the Army National Guard's 81st Armored Brigade, 41 percent of Washington State's National Guard-- 4,041 troops--are currently alerted and deployed, as well as 2,100 reservists from bases around my State.

These are historic levels of sustained mobilization, and we need to be clear that we are asking a lot from these men and women--and we must do everything we can to ensure that the Guard and Reserve continue to recruit and retain skilled and committed personnel.

It goes without saying that these men and women definitely signed up to serve when their country calls. The reservists in my State do not dispute their commitment; they embrace it.

However, we need to know that we are asking an extraordinary commitment from our Nation's Guard and reservists, their families and their employers and we need to recognize the full commitment.

This is why I was concerned when the Pentagon announced that it will calculate deployment lengths for the over 20,000 Guard and Reserve members in Iraq based on the actual time in the theater of operations-- otherwise known as ``boots on the ground.''

This change altered a long-standing practice dating back to the Korean-war era in which deployment lengths for Guard and Reserve officers were calculated from the moment they were actually activated-- that is, when they are called to leave their jobs and families to begin pre-mobilization preparation time and included post-mobilization time.

This preparation time can sometimes take as much as 3 to 6 months.

As a result, thousands of troops in the theater of operations who were expecting to go home--literally counting the days to return--were just informed that their time would be extended, some by as much as 6 months.

This is just wrong.

As Mark Kimmey, an Army reservist, wrote in the New York Times: ``the message to reservists is unmistakable: the Army no longer takes into account sacrifices made to maintain two career lives.''

We absolutely own it to our Guard and reservists to give them predictability in the process and to fully recognize that the Guard and reservists' lives are serving from the point they are activated.

My amendment will direct the Pentagon to revert back to the standard practice in considering, for the purposes of deployment announcements, mobilization reports and communications, the clock to start ticking from the point of activation--that is, ``boots out of the house.''

If we need our reservists to serve in theater for 1 year and 6 months in preparation time, that's fine. But let's be honest, these troops are being deployed for 18 months--not a year. Troops, families, and employers deserve the respect of our acknowledging the sacrifice.

Let me be absolutely clear--this amendment does not, by any means, seek to limit the operational use of the Guard and Reserve, nor are we seeking to limit the flexibility of their use.

This does absolutely nothing to limit the ability of the Pentagon to mobilize and use our Guard and Reserve units, nor does it limit the length of time that they can be deployed.

Moreover, the amendment's provisions can be waived at any point in the case of dire, unexpected operational needs.

We are simply asking the administration to adopt the standard practice in effect for decades in calculating deployment times so that troops and their families can know when to start their clocks.

Ultimately, this is a very modest amendment. We are asking the Pentagon to be honest, consistent and predictable in the use of our Guard and Reserve. They deserve it; their families deserve it; we owe it to them.

Mr. President, I rise to join my well-meaning colleagues on both sides of this debate in trying too determine the best mechanism for not only our leadership in Iraq and getting the Iraqi people on their feet, but also in getting other countries to help by forgiving Iraqi debt.

It is crucial that we in this Chamber send a strong message to the Iraqi people that we will be the world's most outspoken advocate for Iraqi reconstruction and that the United States will play a leadership role.

Now I don't impugn the motives of other Members who want to qualify our assistance through a loan formula.

I share my colleagues' concerns that the funding for Iraq reconstruction is a serious cost that we need to thoroughly consider and oversee.

However, I think it is critically important to realize that Americans have already been making a serious investment in this region in order to ensure that we are so close to achieving: A stable, peaceful, democratic Iraq.

We spent billions of dollars to expel Hussein out of Kuwait; we spent billions throughout the nineties patrolling a no-fly zone; and we spent billions to liberate Iraq, and we are spending billions to secure and stabilize the country.

We are now the closest we have ever been to achieving the very goal that we have sacrificed lives and spent billions to achieve.

We are very close to taking the Iraqi people off their knees and putting them on their feet. Yet, the right way to do this is by helping them build a strong economy not by saddling the Iraqis with further debt.

Let's consider what we are saying when we ask the Iraqi people to take on this loan. Think about it. Iraq's annual oil revenues may be somewhere around $15 billion, but we are on the verge of adding to an existing debt level of $200 billion--and expecting them to pay with their oil revenues.

To think that Iraq can pay off a loan by oil revenues when its debt is thirteen times its annual oil revenues is ridiculous. A future Iraq would end up spending half of its oil revenues on interest payments alone.

Is that the message we want to send to the Iraqi people?

Is that the message we want to send to the mayor of Kirkuk who I met?

To the governor of Basra who doesn't have enough electricity to serve his community?

To the members of the Iraqi council, who are not only giving their time to serve their country, but are risking their lives.

To the woman of the Iraqi council who spent 16 years in hiding with other women only to rejoice when she found out that the United States was coming to give them an opportunity to meet and express their opinions in public.

These courageous leaders have stepped out to rebuild this country, and are willing to give their lives to do so.

We need to help these people re-build their country, not pile on additional debt.

Now is not the time for the United States to back away form its leadership role in nurturing Iraq's future.

Make no mistake, I am disappointed like all my colleagues that the American economy isn't recovering as well as it should.

I am disappointed in our terribly low levels of domestic investment.

I have as much concern as anyone over our domestic economy--my home state of Washington is still facing a terribly high 7.5 percent unemployment rate.

But we cannot tell the American people that we are going to solve their problem by somehow holding down the Iraqi people to a future debt that will not let them stand on their feet.

The United States must play a leadership role in Iraq reconstruction.

And it is very hard to play a leadership role when our commitment to Iraq reconstruction is qualified by the conditions of a loan.

We need to say to the rest of the world community that it is time for them to help build Iraq, too.

We need to say that if they are serious in their commitments about rebuilding Iraq, as the U.N. did in its resolution today, then get behind that message and deliver.

But to say that out of the $87 billion that we are talking about, that some-how $10 billion of it ought to be paid back in a loan--only if the other countries are not willing to commit to debt forgiveness-- is not the message of a leader.

A leader who believes in the Iraqi people will stand behind them and give them the ability to get their country on their feet. We must be this leader and get them on their feet and get our troops back home.

Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor, along with my colleagues, Senators Bingaman and Murray of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Study Act.

This bill authorizes a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of developing a national park site at one or more of the facilities that playing a major role in the Manhattan Project--the Federal Government's top-secret effort during World War II to develop nuclear weapons before its opponents, an initiative that changed the course of world history. I believe it is tremendously important for the citizens of our Nation to learn about the important functions the various Manhattan Project sites served in defending our Nation, from World War II through the cold war, and to recognize and understand the complicated and weighty issues arising from the production and use of nuclear weapons, their impact on world history as well as their human and environmental costs.

In January of 1943, Hanford, WA was selected by the War Department to serve as a part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Manhattan Project plan. The site was selected for several reasons: It was remotely located from population centers, which fostered security and safety; the Columbia River provided plenty of water to cool the reactors; and cheap and abundant electricity was available from nearby Federal dams.

The history of this era is a complicated one--as farmers and tribes were displaced, given 30 days to move from their homes in central Washington. By March 1943, construction had started on the site, which covers about 625 square miles. At the time, the priority facility on the Hanford Reservation was the B reactor. Built in just 11 months as American scientists and their allies engaged in what was then perceived as a race with the Germans to develop nuclear capability, B reactor was the world's first large-scale plutonium production reactor.

The need for labor for the project turned Hanford into an atomic boomtown, with the population reaching 50,000 by the summer of 1944. Workers at the sprawling Hanford complex were not even sure of what they were producing, and tales of German rockets used during battles led many workers to believe they were producing rocket fuel. In fact, this secrecy continued even after the atomic bombs were dropped. One worker recalled that many children who lived in the area didn't even know what their parent who worked at Hanford did on the job.

Clearly, the B reactor at Hanford made significant contributions to U.S. defense policies during its production run, from 1944 through 1968. Plutonium from the B reactor was used in the world's first nuclear explosion, called the Trinity Test, in New Mexico on July 16, 1945. B reactor plutonium was also used in the ``Fat Man'' bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan on August 9, 1945. The blast devastated more than two square miles of the city, effectively ending World War II. The B reactor also produced plutonium for the cold war efforts until 1968.

The B reactor is simply a stunning feat of engineering. Built in less than a year, the reactor consisted of a 1,200-ton graphite cylinder lying on its side, which was penetrated through its entire length horizontally by over 2,000 aluminum tubes. Two hundred tons of uranium slugs the size of rolls of quarters went into the tubes. Cooling water from the Columbia River, which first had to be treated, was pumped through the aluminum tubes at 75,000 gallons per minute. Water consumption approached that of a city with a population of 300,000. The B reactor was one of three reactors that had its own auxiliary facilities that included a river pump house, large storage and settling basins, a filtration plant, huge motor-driven pumps for delivering the water, and facilities for emergency cooling in case of a power failure. It was the first of an eventual nine nuclear reactors that remain on the banks of the Columbia River--a potent reminder of both the war effort and the environmental burden with which we must contend.

The people of Washington State, and especially the residents of the tri-cities, are proud of their contributions to the World War II and cold war efforts. We are left with these irreplaceable relics of the Manhattan Project--such as the B reactor--which are incredibly important in understanding the engineering achievements that propelled this country into the nuclear age, with all of the complicated moral issues it poses for the possessors of such technology. As the Department of Energy continues its work to clean up the Hanford site, the country's most contaminated nuclear reservation, it is important that we also honor the achievements of the important work done here, as well as commemorate the tremendous sacrifices made by workers, displaced families and tribes, and this era's environmental legacy.

There is already strong support in the communities that surround Hanford for preserving the history of the Manhattan Project, and I would like to commend the B reactor Museum Association and Bechtel Hanford, Inc. for all this work to date. In recent years, they have worked hard to decontaminate, clean, inventory, and spruce up B reactor's interior so that people can walk in to see three chambers. But more work needs to be done if we want to preserve the reactor for future generations, which must learn about the Manhattan Project and its impact on world history.

One such way to do that is to look into the possibility of adding the B reactor as well as Manhattan Project sites in other parts of the country as a new National Park unit.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure passage of this bill, as the study it authorizes is a much-needed first step in determining the best options for preserving this important piece of American history.

Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor, along with my colleagues, Senators Bingaman and Murray of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Study Act.

This bill authorizes a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of developing a national park site at one or more of the facilities that playing a major role in the Manhattan Project--the Federal Government's top-secret effort during World War II to develop nuclear weapons before its opponents, an initiative that changed the course of world history. I believe it is tremendously important for the citizens of our Nation to learn about the important functions the various Manhattan Project sites served in defending our Nation, from World War II through the cold war, and to recognize and understand the complicated and weighty issues arising from the production and use of nuclear weapons, their impact on world history as well as their human and environmental costs.

In January of 1943, Hanford, WA was selected by the War Department to serve as a part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Manhattan Project plan. The site was selected for several reasons: It was remotely located from population centers, which fostered security and safety; the Columbia River provided plenty of water to cool the reactors; and cheap and abundant electricity was available from nearby Federal dams.

The history of this era is a complicated one--as farmers and tribes were displaced, given 30 days to move from their homes in central Washington. By March 1943, construction had started on the site, which covers about 625 square miles. At the time, the priority facility on the Hanford Reservation was the B reactor. Built in just 11 months as American scientists and their allies engaged in what was then perceived as a race with the Germans to develop nuclear capability, B reactor was the world's first large-scale plutonium production reactor.

The need for labor for the project turned Hanford into an atomic boomtown, with the population reaching 50,000 by the summer of 1944. Workers at the sprawling Hanford complex were not even sure of what they were producing, and tales of German rockets used during battles led many workers to believe they were producing rocket fuel. In fact, this secrecy continued even after the atomic bombs were dropped. One worker recalled that many children who lived in the area didn't even know what their parent who worked at Hanford did on the job.

Clearly, the B reactor at Hanford made significant contributions to U.S. defense policies during its production run, from 1944 through 1968. Plutonium from the B reactor was used in the world's first nuclear explosion, called the Trinity Test, in New Mexico on July 16, 1945. B reactor plutonium was also used in the ``Fat Man'' bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan on August 9, 1945. The blast devastated more than two square miles of the city, effectively ending World War II. The B reactor also produced plutonium for the cold war efforts until 1968.

The B reactor is simply a stunning feat of engineering. Built in less than a year, the reactor consisted of a 1,200-ton graphite cylinder lying on its side, which was penetrated through its entire length horizontally by over 2,000 aluminum tubes. Two hundred tons of uranium slugs the size of rolls of quarters went into the tubes. Cooling water from the Columbia River, which first had to be treated, was pumped through the aluminum tubes at 75,000 gallons per minute. Water consumption approached that of a city with a population of 300,000. The B reactor was one of three reactors that had its own auxiliary facilities that included a river pump house, large storage and settling basins, a filtration plant, huge motor-driven pumps for delivering the water, and facilities for emergency cooling in case of a power failure. It was the first of an eventual nine nuclear reactors that remain on the banks of the Columbia River--a potent reminder of both the war effort and the environmental burden with which we must contend.

The people of Washington State, and especially the residents of the tri-cities, are proud of their contributions to the World War II and cold war efforts. We are left with these irreplaceable relics of the Manhattan Project--such as the B reactor--which are incredibly important in understanding the engineering achievements that propelled this country into the nuclear age, with all of the complicated moral issues it poses for the possessors of such technology. As the Department of Energy continues its work to clean up the Hanford site, the country's most contaminated nuclear reservation, it is important that we also honor the achievements of the important work done here, as well as commemorate the tremendous sacrifices made by workers, displaced families and tribes, and this era's environmental legacy.

There is already strong support in the communities that surround Hanford for preserving the history of the Manhattan Project, and I would like to commend the B reactor Museum Association and Bechtel Hanford, Inc. for all this work to date. In recent years, they have worked hard to decontaminate, clean, inventory, and spruce up B reactor's interior so that people can walk in to see three chambers. But more work needs to be done if we want to preserve the reactor for future generations, which must learn about the Manhattan Project and its impact on world history.

One such way to do that is to look into the possibility of adding the B reactor as well as Manhattan Project sites in other parts of the country as a new National Park unit.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure passage of this bill, as the study it authorizes is a much-needed first step in determining the best options for preserving this important piece of American history.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss one of the most important issues facing our country today. How we prepare our students to compete for the jobs that are still in demand today and the jobs that will be in demand tomorrow. In order to address this issue, we must increase our support for the entire education and training continuum--incuding secondary schools, community colleges, 4-year colleges and universities.

Today, I want to focus on one key part of this continuum: community and technical colleges. Nationwide, there are now more than 1,100 of these institutions, which enroll 10.4 million students. For over a century, community colleges have grown and changed with the times. No other segment of higher education is more responsive to its community and workforce needs than the community college. Whether providing academic preparation for a 4-year degree, or technical training for a job requiring a community college credential, 2-year institutions play a very significant role in creating a skilled workforce.

However, transfer rates are low: only about one quarter to one third of those students who intend to transfer to a 4-year institution actually do so. These low transfer rates and the continuing challenges employers face in finding skilled workers mean that we must strengthen the connections between community colleges and 4-year institutions and between community colleges and employers.

I am introducing a bill today that will address these issues. The Community College Partnership Act of 2003 will encourage partnerships between community and technical colleges and 4-year colleges and universities. This bill will provide $70 million for 6 to 12 grants to partnerships between 2- and 4-year institutions to identify and address barriers to staying in school, to transferring to a 4-year institution, and to responding to the demand for skilled workers in high-quality, emerging and established industries.

The fact is employers depend on skilled workers to provide services and produce goods. Even in this time of high unemployment, some employers are having hard times finding skilled workers. For example, according to the American Hospital Association, there are 126,000 nursing positions that are unfilled across the country. In Washington State, there are currently 2,564 nursing vacancies even though our State ranks as one of the highest unemployment States. Why are these jobs going begging? The answer is that we have a lack of trained workers.

From personal experience as both an employee and as an employer, I understand the importance of skills in the private sector. When I changed careers several years ago, I was able to succeed as a software company executive because I had the chance to get a good basic education. I come from a working-class family, but I was able to be the first in my family to get a college degree, thanks to the Federal Pell Grant program.

As an employer in that software company, I realized that because of the fast pace of change we needed to hire a workforce of people who were prepared to respond quickly to changing situations. We also had to hire people who could create new ways of doing business literally overnight. I strongly believe that a good basic education coupled with lifelong training opportunities are key to equiping workers with the types of decision-making abilities necessary to be successful in today's economy.

Yet, we are failing at our job of preparing workers. There is a crisis in our education and training system. Underfunding is a significant issue. Both 2- and 4-year institutions lack the capacity to respond to demand. More State and Federal investment is essential. However, to truly close the skills gap, we must also address the other problems 2- and 4-year institutions face. These problems center on keeping students in the system and advancing them to the next level.

The sad reality is that along the way to a good basic education, students get diverted away from their goals. In high school, they may lack information about the opportunities higher education promises. If they make it into a community college, they may be forced to abandon their education because the opportunity cost of not earning a wage is too high. If they do earn an associate's degree, the transition to a 4- year institution is fraught with challenges.

Agreements between 2- and 4-year institutions to accept students may not exist. Credits may not easily transfer. Community or technical college students may need additional tutoring, mentoring or support to succeed in a 4-year institution. Programs and schedules may be structured to preclude work and study--a growing necessity as college costs rise.

These are significant barriers than can and should be addressed. That is why I am introducing the Community College Partnership Act today. I am proud of this bill and believe that it will go a long way toward closing our skills gap. In addition, however, I remain committed to addressing the significant funding shortfalls that our educational institutions face. Ensuring students get the skills necessary for our new economy is essential. We must meet the needs of employers who have unfilled jobs now, as well as employers in emerging technologies that will provide significant job opportunities in the coming years.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss one of the most important issues facing our country today. How we prepare our students to compete for the jobs that are still in demand today and the jobs that will be in demand tomorrow. In order to address this issue, we must increase our support for the entire education and training continuum--incuding secondary schools, community colleges, 4-year colleges and universities.

Today, I want to focus on one key part of this continuum: community and technical colleges. Nationwide, there are now more than 1,100 of these institutions, which enroll 10.4 million students. For over a century, community colleges have grown and changed with the times. No other segment of higher education is more responsive to its community and workforce needs than the community college. Whether providing academic preparation for a 4-year degree, or technical training for a job requiring a community college credential, 2-year institutions play a very significant role in creating a skilled workforce.

However, transfer rates are low: only about one quarter to one third of those students who intend to transfer to a 4-year institution actually do so. These low transfer rates and the continuing challenges employers face in finding skilled workers mean that we must strengthen the connections between community colleges and 4-year institutions and between community colleges and employers.

I am introducing a bill today that will address these issues. The Community College Partnership Act of 2003 will encourage partnerships between community and technical colleges and 4-year colleges and universities. This bill will provide $70 million for 6 to 12 grants to partnerships between 2- and 4-year institutions to identify and address barriers to staying in school, to transferring to a 4-year institution, and to responding to the demand for skilled workers in high-quality, emerging and established industries.

The fact is employers depend on skilled workers to provide services and produce goods. Even in this time of high unemployment, some employers are having hard times finding skilled workers. For example, according to the American Hospital Association, there are 126,000 nursing positions that are unfilled across the country. In Washington State, there are currently 2,564 nursing vacancies even though our State ranks as one of the highest unemployment States. Why are these jobs going begging? The answer is that we have a lack of trained workers.

From personal experience as both an employee and as an employer, I understand the importance of skills in the private sector. When I changed careers several years ago, I was able to succeed as a software company executive because I had the chance to get a good basic education. I come from a working-class family, but I was able to be the first in my family to get a college degree, thanks to the Federal Pell Grant program.

As an employer in that software company, I realized that because of the fast pace of change we needed to hire a workforce of people who were prepared to respond quickly to changing situations. We also had to hire people who could create new ways of doing business literally overnight. I strongly believe that a good basic education coupled with lifelong training opportunities are key to equiping workers with the types of decision-making abilities necessary to be successful in today's economy.

Yet, we are failing at our job of preparing workers. There is a crisis in our education and training system. Underfunding is a significant issue. Both 2- and 4-year institutions lack the capacity to respond to demand. More State and Federal investment is essential. However, to truly close the skills gap, we must also address the other problems 2- and 4-year institutions face. These problems center on keeping students in the system and advancing them to the next level.

The sad reality is that along the way to a good basic education, students get diverted away from their goals. In high school, they may lack information about the opportunities higher education promises. If they make it into a community college, they may be forced to abandon their education because the opportunity cost of not earning a wage is too high. If they do earn an associate's degree, the transition to a 4- year institution is fraught with challenges.

Agreements between 2- and 4-year institutions to accept students may not exist. Credits may not easily transfer. Community or technical college students may need additional tutoring, mentoring or support to succeed in a 4-year institution. Programs and schedules may be structured to preclude work and study--a growing necessity as college costs rise.

These are significant barriers than can and should be addressed. That is why I am introducing the Community College Partnership Act today. I am proud of this bill and believe that it will go a long way toward closing our skills gap. In addition, however, I remain committed to addressing the significant funding shortfalls that our educational institutions face. Ensuring students get the skills necessary for our new economy is essential. We must meet the needs of employers who have unfilled jobs now, as well as employers in emerging technologies that will provide significant job opportunities in the coming years.

Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Reid. This amendment is important and it's fitting that we discuss this measure this week, just days after the 10th anniversary of National Public Lands Day.

On Saturday, thousands of Americans around the country contributed their time and labor to help improve our shared national lands. In my home State of Washington, volunteers restored trails, planted trees, and improved oyster habitat, to name a few

projects. I commend everyone who was involved in this effort for their commitment to protecting and preserving our public lands.

Today's debate is about the many thousands of federal employees who dedicate themselves to this important cause every day. In our national parks, national forests, national wildlife refuges, and other public lands, these men and women work every day of the year to protect and preserve these national treasures.

An article by Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist, Joel Connelly, quoted Stewart Udall, the Interior Department boss under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson as saying ``These are the best people in the government . . . It's extraordinary they would pick on this Teddy Roosevelt agency.''

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has proposed a rule change that would radically alter the management of our public lands. The President has proposed ``outsourcing'' important stewardship roles to for-profit contractors. Under his proposal, private contractors could fill more than 800,000 jobs, including posts in the National Park Service like at Olympic National Park, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Geological Survey, among other agencies. In my home State of Washington, this proposal could affect 10,000 government-wide jobs, including 348 national park biologists, educators, and maintenance staff.

I believe this is the wrong approach. When it comes to our public lands, our first concern should be protecting our national treasures by ensuring the highest level of natural resource stewardship.

There are many legitimate questions as to whether this outsourcing scheme would even save any money. In June, the General Accounting Office concluded a comprehensive 2-year study on outsourcing and found that ``competitions took longer than projects, costs and resources required for competitions were underestimated, [and] determining and maintaining reliable estimates of savings was difficult.''

Even though the long term ``savings'' are suspect, we know for sure that outsourcing is hurting our national parks. Park Service Director Mainella estimated that the first round of competitive sourcing would cost $3 million, much of which will have to come out of maintenance. Even though Mount Rainier was taken off the list of parks subject to outsourcing this year, Park Superintendent Dave Uberuaga had to set aside $335,000 of badly needed money for park maintenance to pay for a privatization study. The cost of simply studying these Park Service positions is estimated to begin at $3,000 and go up from there.

The Federal workers entrusted with the preservation of our public lands can't simply be replaced by private workers. They are dedicated professionals who know the parks and public lands better than anyone, and they are not beholden to private interests who seek to exploit our public lands.

Don't just take my word for it. Listen to what 145 former National Park Service employees--including four former directors--said in a recent letter to President Bush decrying his proposal:

While publicizing glossy reports to convince the public that your Administration cares about this country's national treasures, you are strangling the very core of park stewardship, sidestepping the important issues that are facing the parks and ignoring the operational budgets of the parks. We are seeing evidence at every turn that when private for-profit interests vie with resources of the park, the private interests, and not principle, governs.

Even the current Director of the National Park Service, Fran Mainella, disagrees with the administration's approach. Earlier this year, in an intra-departmental memo, she expressed her concerns about the President's initiative. She noted that because the administration did not seek funding to cover the costs of the thousands of competitive sourcing studies it has mandated, those costs must be absorbed by reductions in park operations and other worthy activities, which will result in reduced visitor services and the deferment of essential park maintenance.

Losing current National Park Service employees will also cause our national parks to lose a great deal of institutional knowledge to individuals who may not have training in these fields. National Park Service employees, who often live in rural communities surrounding the parks, are dedicated public servants committed to preserving our parks for all Americans' enjoyment and benefit now and in the future. They are also versatile and provide irreplaceable services during emergencies. The same employee that helps maintain park infrastructure, is also one of the first firefighters on the scene, providing invaluable information about the parks' terrain.

Without this amendment, the Park Service could also lose tens of thousands of volunteers. These are dedicated citizens who contribute their time to help out in some of the most beautiful parts of the country. I have heard from a number of my constituents that they volunteer because they feel they are sharing their love of the outdoors with others and maintaining our public lands for future generations. But they warned me they would feel very different about giving their time to help support some for-profit contractor.

Conservation and protection of our public lands is not a partisan issue. The majestic herd of Roosevelt Elk in my home State's Olympic National Park is a fitting reminder that throughout the past century, Republicans and Democrats have been able to come together to preserve our Nation's public lands.

In that spirit, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment, and vote to prevent the ``outsourcing'' of the stewardship of our natural treasures.

I ask unanimous consent to print the above-referenced article in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the issue of protecting a woman's right to choose. I am here to reiterate what the majority of us in the Senate clearly expressed this spring on behalf of women when we voted on an amendment to S. 3, sponsored by the good Senator from Iowa, my colleague Senator Harkin.

That amendment--in no uncertain terms--reaffirmed the sense of the Senate that No. 1, abortion has been a legal and constitutionally protected medical procedure throughout the United States since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade; and No. 2, the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade established constitutionally based limits on the power of States to restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

Furthermore, the amendment firmly laid out the sense of the Senate that the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right and that the decision should not be overturned.

Let me repeat that. A majority of my colleagues voted for the Senator Harkin amendment. That the House remove the amendment from S. 3 is a travesty and I must vehemently disagree with that action. It is incumbent upon the majority of those of us in this chamber who affirm the constitutional right to choose to send a clear message to the House as the bill goes to conference that Roe is still--and will continue to be--the supreme law of the land. My colleague from the State of California, Senator Boxer, has been a true champion on this issue. She is an unwavering and tireless advocate for women, the country--and the world over. On Monday, she revisited how we found ourselves in the position we are now. As Senator Boxer explained, the House returned S. 3 to the Senate without the Harkin amendment affirming Roe.

Because S. 3 is at the heart of this issue, I would like to spend some of my time speaking to this underlying bill, which is undoubtedly and unfortunately going to end up on the President's desk and which the President will most assuredly sign.

If the President signs S. 3, he will be signing an unconstitutional measure into law. As I have said before, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, Roe v. Wade held that women have a constitutional right to choose. However, after the point of viability--the point at which a baby can live outside its mother's body--States may ban abortion as long as they allow exceptions when a woman's life or health is in danger. Yet the legislation that comes before us and will go to the President lacks that important health exception and, therefore, fails to provide for a woman when her health or her life is in danger.

In June 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced the importance of this health exception in Stanberg v. Carhart, which determined that a Nebraska law banning the performance of

so-called ``partial birth'' abortions violated the Roe ruling by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has stated unequivocally that every abortion restriction, including bans on so-called ``partial birth abortion,'' must contain a health exception. The Court emphasized that, by failing to provide a health exception, the Nebraska law would place a woman's life in danger.

That is exactly what the legislation before us today does as well: It places a woman's life in danger.

Despite the Supreme Court's very clear mandate, this underlying legislation does not provide an exception for the health of the mother. For this reason, this legislation, like the measure that was struck down in Stenberg, is unconstitutional.

Moreover, this legislation imposes an undue burden on a woman's ability to choose by banning abortion procedures at any stage in a woman's pregnancy. This bill does not only ban post-viability abortions, it unconstitutionally restricts women's rights regardless of where the woman is in her pregnancy.

I fundamentally believe that private medical decision should be made by women in consultation with their doctors--not politicians. These decisions include the methods by which a physician chooses to treat his or her patients. Why should we decide that here on the Senate floor? Congressional findings cannot possibly make up for medical consultation between a patient and her doctor, but this will would undermine a physician's ability to determine the best course of treatment for a patient.

Physicians must be free to make clinical determinations, in accordance with medical standards of care, that best safeguard a woman's life and health. Women and their families, along with their doctors, are simply better than politicians at making decisions about their medical care. And I don't want to make those decisions for other women.

Three States, including my home State of Washington, have considered similar bans by referendum. All three failed. We considered this debate in my home State in 1998. The referendum failed decisively--by a vote of 57 to 43 percent.

These so-called ``partial birth'' abortion bans--whether the proposals that have been before the Senate in the past or the one before us today--are deliberately designed to erode the protections of Roe v. Wade, at the expense of women's health and at the expense of a woman's right to privacy.

The Supreme Court, during the 30 years since it recognized the right to choose, has consistently required that when a State restricts access to abortion, a woman's health must be the absolute consideration. This legislation does not only disavow the Supreme Court's explicit directive, but the advice of the medical community, and the will of the American people. We must continue to ensure that the woman of America have the right to privacy and receive the best medical attention available.

I urge my colleagues to disagree with the actions of the House and demand that the amendment expressing the Sense of the Senate that Roe v. Wade was rightly decided be included in S. 3.

Mr. President, earlier this year, the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, issued rules making changes to long- standing limits on the types and amounts of media outlets that can be owned and controlled by a single company. These rule changes drastically increase the ability of a few companies to control access to information in this country. The rule changes undermine the public interest and do nothing to ensure diversity of viewpoints, ``localism,'' coverage of events in local communities by people who are a part of that community, or to ensure that healthy competition exists amongst media outlets.

The American people know these changes are not in the public interest, and that is why I have heard directly from more than 1,650 of my constituents urging Congress to overturn the FCC's actions.

Specifically, the rule changes adopted by the FCC earlier this year would allow a single company to control television stations with access to almost half of the American broadcast audience. How that can be billed as increasing competition or diversity of viewpoint is a mystery. Given that these rules were written with only one public hearing and without opportunity for public comment, it is not surprising that they fail to reflect the public interest.

It is important to recognize that overturning these rules is not just about preventing additional domination of the airwaves. It is about ensuring the survival of local newspapers that genuinely know and are a part of the community.

The rule changes would allow the sole or dominant newspaper in a city to merge with the top broadcaster in 200 of the 210 media markets in the country! That would mean 98 percent of the American public could effectively lose an independent voice in their community. Already, since 1975, two thirds of independent newspaper owners have ceased to exist, leaving only 290 independent newspapers in a country of 292 million people.

If these rules are allowed to take effect, it will mean fewer reporters on the ground chasing stories in our local communities, and less local investigative journalism. It would make it possible for individual markets to be dominated by a single newspaper/TV conglomerate which could control well over half the news audience and two-thirds of the reporters in a given local market.

Inevitably, the merging of broadcasters and newspapers reduces the number of voices in individual markets and threatens to place too much control over local news and information in the hands of too few companies. Repackaging and repeating stories produced in other venues is not the same as real reporting of local news.

One of the most common refrains that we hear to justify this tremendous change is that new outlets for news and information are now available. While I firmly believe that we are only at the cusp of an information age that will drastically change how we receive information, it makes no difference if the new access points are controlled by fewer people.

The reaction to these rules has been quick and sure. I have heard from over 1,650 of my constituents directly, an additional 10,000 through the Move On petition. The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee have taken action to reverse the increase in the cap on broadcast audience in the appropriations process, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has temporarily halted implementation of these rules. But the clearest way to send a message to the FCC that these rules cannot stand is to pass this resolution disapproving the rule changes. We expect the FCC to be a watchdog not a lapdog.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution as a first step in reinvigorating competition and preserving local control in mass media.

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