Floor Statements

Mr. President, this morning on the Senate floor I spoke at length about the importance of the Senate's role in confirming judges for lifetime appointments and talked of the success in the Senate confirming 98 percent of the judges sent to the floor. We have, I remind our colleagues, confirmed 168 judges on the Senate floor. That is pretty impressive. But all the Senate action that is important to occur before the end of the year is now being held up over four judges.

I also talked this morning about the success we had in Washington State using a bipartisan commission to select and confirm qualified judges. This morning I noted that we should be spending our time on much more pressing issues like helping the many unemployed workers who are about to run out of unemployment benefits.

We are wasting 2 days of the Senate's very limited time left in this session on four judges. We certainly have more important things to do. We were supposed to pass 13 appropriations bills by October 1. We did not. Today, more than half the bills that fund the Federal Government are incomplete, waiting for congressional action. We have a lot of work to do that affects millions of families. But instead, we are wasting 30 hours of the Senate, precious hours of time talking about four judges.

What we are not doing is we are not helping laid-off workers in these 30 hours. We are not improving health care. We are not fixing roads across this country. We are not improving the economy. We are not helping our troops. And we are certainly not improving veterans care. We are not doing anything for the millions of Americans who need help today because the other side is tying the Senate in knots so nothing can get done.

What we are doing right now reminds me a little bit of the behavior back in 1995 when the other side did not get exactly what they wanted on the budget, so they shut down Government. Boy, we really heard from people across the country when the Government was shut down. Federal services were shut down, people could not get their Social Security check, agencies were shut down. The needs of every American were set aside at that time so Republicans could complain about a budget with which they disagreed.

The same thing happened here today. The needs of every American are being set aside so Republicans can complain about four judges they want confirmed. Forget the laid-off workers, forget health care, forget education. The other side wants to make a point, and they are shutting down the Senate and the needs of the American people so they can make that point.

Each passing hour on this floor feels more and more like the Government shutdown of 1995. We cannot work on critical needs because the other side is holding things up. After 30 hours of hearing about this, the American people will get it. They will see that we are not working on the things that really do matter to them. I am sure many Americans are scratching their heads, wondering what is going on in the Senate. The answer is, we are not working on jobs. We are not working on education. We are not working on health care because the majority is upset we have confirmed only 98 percent of President Bush's judicial nominees.

As I mentioned this morning, there are much more important things we need to be doing. We do need to extend unemployment benefits for laid- off workers. I tried to bring up the bill to help laid-off workers get unemployment benefits, but when I bring it up the majority says it is not the right time to discuss helping laid-off workers.

I invite the majority to explain to laid-off workers in my State who are going to exhaust their benefits on December 31 why we are talking about judges instead of helping those laid-off workers? These hours that we are wasting on this manufactured crisis could be much better spent on the real crisis facing so many Americans.

Two weeks ago I introduced legislation to extend unemployment benefits to workers who will run out of benefits on December 31, right after Christmas. For millions of Americans who cannot find jobs, the clock is ticking and every day counts. Unless this Congress acts, those families are going to start the new year without a job and without any help paying for the basics like housing and food and medicine.

Two weeks ago I introduced the amendment in the Senate. If the majority wants to vote against helping laid-off workers, that is their choice, but we are going to force them to take a vote because working families should not be punished any more than they already have been in this tough economy.

Congress cannot leave town for the year--and many people are talking about ending next week--we cannot end next week without extending the benefits on which these many families rely. We have extended benefits in past recessions and we need to do it in this recession because the clock is ticking.

In my home State of Washington, we have the third highest unemployment rate in the Nation. It is 7.6 percent. Since President Bush took office, we have lost more than 70,000 jobs in Washington State. Those laid-off workers want jobs. They are eager to work. In King County alone, 10,000 people are on a waiting list for job training. They want to provide for their families, but they are about to get cut off unless the

Congress does the right thing and extends unemployment benefits. If Congress does not extend those benefits, another 124,000 in my home State, Washington State, will exhaust their benefits by December 31. These families are draining their savings accounts just to hang on. Many of them have run out of options. But they still have to pay their mortgage. They still have to pay their medical bills. They still have to pay college tuition. That is why they need these unemployment insurance benefits.

The bill I introduced will do three things. First, it will help families as they try to get back on their feet. These benefits simply will help them buy groceries, pay the mortgage, keep their kids in college. It will give them a little bit of cushion as they try to find work.

Second, extending benefits will help stimulate the economy in every State and every Member wants their economy to be better in their State because when we send the unemployment insurance, people then have the money they need to buy things for every day. That will be a shot in the arm for the hard-hit States, for our hardware stores, for grocery stores, and all of our businesses like that. It means these people will have the money they need to keep those businesses going as well.

Finally, extending benefits will help stimulate our Nation's economy. Every dollar invested in these benefits generates another $1.73 for our economy.

Laid-off workers deserve a vote on this bill. They deserve a debate on this bill. They deserve time in the Senate on this bill. They need our help. We should be using 30 hours of time to talk about the unemployed workers, the difficulties facing them, and how we in this Congress are going to get them back on their feet. That is what we should be spending 30 hours on.

It seems to me at a time when we are spending $1 billion a week in Iraq, the very least we can do is give unemployed Americans a few hundred dollars a week. Congress cannot leave town without providing a life line to laid-off workers. The clock is ticking, time is running out, and we should be helping laid-off workers instead of squandering our limited time on the judges issues.

To understand how serious this is, I will read some letters from the people I represent.

How much time remains on my side?

I ask the Presiding Officer to notify me when I have used 6 minutes.

Let me read a letter from Laura Perry in Battle Ground, WA, a small community in southwest Washington. Laura wrote:

I really need to know what is being done not only in the

State of Washington, but in Congress to acknowledge workers

who have lost their jobs.

Millions of us are going to lose our homes!

Throughout my life, I have done all the right things to

stay current with the job market.

In spite of this fact and having a college degree, I lost

my job after 9/11 when my company closed the northwest branch

office due to the economic downturn.

Now, a year and one-half later, I find that I do not fit in

all the niches for acquiring employment retraining because I

am not on welfare, I haven't been employed by Boeing, I am

not a dislocated homemaker, and I am not a veteran.

Please let me know what is being done to help the

unemployed in this country when the unemployment insurance

runs out.

For the first time in my life, I am also without medical

benefits.

I think Laura Perry deserves 30 hours of time on the Senate floor.

Let me read a letter from Marshall Dunlap of Kent, WA, a suburb out of Seattle. He writes to me:

Please support the upcoming bill to extend unemployment

benefits to those who have lost our jobs.

It doesn't help the economy when millions of us are about

to become homeless.

I would prefer a job but until the economy recovers I am

finding this impossible.

I am a high tech worker and have no other skills.

I am 53 years old and have very few options.

For every job I apply for there are hundreds of other

applicants.

Once the economy comes back, I'm sure I'll be able to

support myself but without help until that happens I will

lose my house.

I know I am not alone so imagine the problem multiplied by

millions.

There are over 97,000 people unemployed in the Puget Sound

are alone. Please help.

That is from Mr. Marshall Dunlap, in Kent, WA.

I think Marshall would prefer we were spending 30 hours talking about how we are going to help him get back into the workforce and able to provide for his family.

Here is a letter from Ronnie Harper of Kingston, WA:

Thank you very much for working to extend UI benefits in

the state of Washington.

I moved here 6 years ago to enter the technology market,

which I did immediately upon my arrival.

Unfortunately, things turned sour at Hasbro last year

because people stopped buying toys, and I was laid off after

5.5 years of exemplary service.

I have been working extremely hard over the past year to

find another job; a job that is in the IT industry with a

competitive compensation package.

My efforts have been practically fruitless, with most

employers even refusing to discuss their reasons for not

considering me for their open positions, and many filling

posted positions internally.

At this point, I am on my last week of unemployment

insurance, and I have mouths to feed. I hope very much that

this bill is successful, please keep us posted!

That is from Ronnie Harper in Kingston, WA.

Unfortunately, I need to add that since he wrote this letter to me, Mr. Harper has now exhausted his benefits. That is why I think this Senate needs to act and why we should be spending 30 hours of debate time talking about how we are going to help Mr. Harper.

Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. President, let me add one final letter before I turn it over to my colleague from South Dakota who has been waiting in the Chamber.

This is a letter from Bill Gilbertson of Sequim, WA. He says to me:

Dear Senator Murray: Thank you for your support of S.1708,

Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act.

Your comments to the Senate, describing the real life

problems of being unemployed will hopefully encourage passage

of this important matter.

Please pass on my comments to your colleagues who don't

know what its like to be jobless.

Life without a job is a demeaning experience; it affects

all aspects of your life.

You have to be very careful with the little money you have,

only necessities can be considered.

Fear, low self image, feeling of lack, and despair of the

future are some of the challenges you face when hit by

unemployment.

I have been unemployed now for over a year, it's been

tough, but I won't give up till I get a job.

Extension of S. 1708 would really help me thru this.

That is Bill Gilbertson of Sequim, WA.

We are talking about real people facing real problems. I think it is essential that this Senate deal with this issue now.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1853

Because of that, I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the Senate proceed to legislative session and the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1853, a bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits for displaced workers; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Is there an objection?

I am deeply disturbed to hear that. The Senate is going to be out of session shortly. Everyone wants to finish by Thanksgiving. I am sure the letters I have read from a few of the people in my State reflect a lot of people's concerns that these people are going to be facing Thanksgiving without knowing how they are going to be paying for their mortgage, their food, and their basic necessities.

Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from South Dakota who has been waiting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add five additional minutes on each side.

Mr. President, on this Veterans Day, I want to share a few ideas about the meaning this day holds for my family and for thousands of families throughout Washington State.

Today is a day to honor the sacrifices that generations of Americans have made to defend our country and to support freedom throughout the world. It is a day to reflect on the courage and bravery of our soldiers. And it is made even more special as we think of all our military personnel who are deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and other hostile environments. But it is much more than that.

It is a day to make sure that we are living up to the promise we make to all veterans--a promise that President Lincoln described as:

. . . to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and

for his widow and his orphan.

Today throughout Washington State, people are coming together to honor our veterans at places such as the Tahoma National Cemetery, the Washington Veterans Home, and in communities large and small. Washington State is home to almost 700,000 veterans, and every day I am honored to represent them in the United States Senate.

Growing up, I saw firsthand the many ways that military service can affect both veterans and their families.

My father served in World War II. He was among the first soldiers to land on Okinawa. He came home as a disabled veteran and was awarded the Purple Heart. I should note that, like many soldiers of his generation, my father did not talk about his experiences during the war. In fact, we only really learned about them by reading his journals after he passed away.

And I think that experience offers a larger lesson about veterans in general. They are reluctant to call attention to their service, and they are reluctant to ask for help. That's why we have to publicly recognize their sacrifices and contributions. It is up to use to make sure that they get the recognition they have earned--and not just on Veterans Day. It is one of the reasons why a few years ago I worked to ensure that all veterans could get the military funeral honors. My father had them, and they meant a great deal to our family.

I was proud to introduce legislation and to work with the VA and veterans service organizations to ensure that any family that requests military funeral honors can get them.

In addition to my own family experiences, when I was a senior in college at Washington State University, I spent a semester interning at the Seattle Veterans Hospital, helping to treat young soldiers returning from Vietnam. They were my age at the time. I will never forget the sound of the door locking behind me after walking on to the hospital's psychiatric ward to spend the day with these heroes. While these combat veterans were my age, they had endured experiences most of us could never imagine.

Today, as I see an administration that is considering closing veterans hospitals in Washington State--even as today's veterans have to wait 6 months just to see a doctor, and as the war in Iraq adds to the number of veterans who will need medical care--I get upset, and I fight with everything I have. Our veterans have already fought for our country, they should not have to fight to get the healthcare or benefits they were promised, so we've got to fight on their behalf.

Today we must ask, Are we keeping our promise to America's veterans? Here are some facts to help us answer that question.

Fact: Right now, 80,000 veterans are waiting 6 months or longer for an appointment at VA hospitals.

Fact: For the past 2 years, an average of 14,000 veterans have been waiting more than 15 months for their ``expedited'' disability claims to be finalized.

Fact: Veterans could face new fees and higher co-payments--just to get the healthcare they are already entitled to.

Fact: Each year in Congress there is a debate over how much money we should spend on veterans' healthcare. Too often, our veterans lose out to other budget priorities.

Fact: Disabled veterans pay a high penalty through what is called the ``Disabled Veterans Tax.'' They must give up a dollar of their pension for every dollar of disability pay they receive.

Fact: The VA is looking to ``reconfigure'' veterans' health care and is now studying the closure of two VA facilities in Washington State.

And finally, the war in Iraq--and the tremendous toll it is taking on our soliders--is increasing the number of veterans who will need medical care for years down the road.

Those are all facts. To me, they show that we are coming up short in keeping our promise to America's veterans. So what can we do about it?

Simply put, we need to make veterans services a priority once again. No. 1, to cut down on the long waits that veterans endure; to help expedite claims; and to avoid higher fees and co-payments. We need to increase funding for veterans services.

To end the annual appropriations game, we should make VA healthcare funding mandatory. That is why I support the Veterans' Health Care Funding Guarantee Act. It would make veterans' healthcare an automatic priority for our Nation.

The VFW, AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans and many other veterans groups strongly support this bill.

We must also make sure that the Department of Veterans Affairs does not close critical medical facilities at a time when more are seeking VA healthcare.

In addition, we must end the disabled veterans tax and ensure that veterans are not penalized just because they receive disability pay.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of a plan that would authorize full payment of both retirement pay and disability compensation to half a million disabled military retirees. And unlike other proposals, our plan would take effect immediately, instead of over 10 years.

And finally, we have to do right by today's veterans and by tomorrow's veterans. The brave men and women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today will need our help when they return home. How we treat them will send a signal to a generation of young people who may be considering military service.

We have to keep our promise today and tomorrow.

So while we are currently coming up short, I am going to keep pushing for the solutions that will truly serve our veterans. America's veterans have earned our respect, and they have earned the benefits they were promised when they signed up. They should not have to fight for the care and support they were promised.

On this day--and every day that I am given the honor of representing them--I will stand up and fight for Washington's veterans and the freedom and security they have given us through their sacrifices in war and peace.

I hope we keep our promise.

Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Senator Kohl, in fiscal year 2003, Congress provided $150,000 to the Agriculture Research Service in Prosser, WA, to help with the development of a foundation block of certified ``clean'' rootstock.

The rapid expansion of the Washington wine industry has raised concerns that new vineyards will use non-certified, diseased rootstock that could economically devastate the Washington wine industry.

I recently learned that ARS did not dedicate all of the fiscal year 2003 funding to this project, but other research projects as well.

The fiscal year 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill provides $150,000 to ARS to continue this project. The intent of this project is clear and not subject to interpretation by ARS. I ask that the record reflect that this funding is to develop a wine grape foundation block. In addition, I ask that the conference report accompanying the agriculture bill include language directing ARS to allocate this funding in a manner consistent with congressional intent.

Senator Kohl, do you agree with the intent of this project?

Thank you Senator Kohl for your support on this issue. This project is critical to the long-term health and viability of my State's wine grape growers and vintners.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, last week, we passed an amended version of H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Act.

While this bill is not everything I hoped it would be, it is an improvement over what was proposed by the President and passed by the House. The devastating fires in California and throughout the West over the past few years have added great urgency to the need to remove dangerous fuel loads from many of our forests. We need to treat those hazards now, and this bill is really the only relevant legislation that can pass Congress and be signed into law by the President this year. That is why I voted for the bill on final passage.

During the floor debate, I offered an amendment to strengthen the underlying bill's old-growth protections and I also voted for a number of other amendments. It is unfortunate that these amendments were not accepted because they would have reassured a greater portion of our citizens of the real intent of the legislation and would have made it more effective.

We don't have the funding we need to remove all the dangerous fuel loads in our forests. We should have made more funding available and ensured more resources were focused on the wildland urban interface that presents the greatest risk to property and to the lives of our firefighters and citizens.

While the underlying bill will increase authorization levels for fuel reduction activities, it does not guarantee this money will be made available. We should have passed Senator Bingaman's amendment that would have guaranteed the funding and stopped the raiding of fuel reduction accounts to pay for fire suppression.

Likewise, the Senate bill is an improvement over the House legislation in directing at least 50 percent of the work be conducted in the wildland urban interface, but we should have strengthened this directive by passing Senator Boxer's amendment that would have raised wildland/urban interface work to 70 percent.

Lastly, the underlying bill made an earnest attempt to provide some protection for old-growth stands in our national forests. Unfortunately, the bill leaves a couple of significant loopholes that, if abused by our forest managers, could threaten these ancient trees. That is why I offered an amendment to close these loopholes and better protect old-growth stands. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated.

Now that the Senate has spoken on the overall bill, the House should take up this legislation and pass it unaltered. The President should drop his opposition to the increased spending associated in the bill and urge its quick passage by the House. The President's opposition to increased spending presents a real and tangible risk to every community looking to treat forests surrounding their homes, schools, and businesses.

If this bill is signed into law, the burden will shift to the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to implement the programs in the most responsible and effective manner possible.

Again, they will need to focus on protecting communities. It will be unacceptable to treat forest stands far from human population while any community's wildland/urban interface remains untreated.

They need to focus on taking out of the forests the materials that truly threaten to generate catastrophic wildfires. We should not see large, fire resistant trees being removed from our forests under the guise of ``healthy forests.'' Any old-growth stands that are treated need to be treated in ways that protect their unique ecosystems.

Finally, in a fiscally responsible manner, the agencies need to maximize the positive economic influence these fuel reduction projects can have on our rural economies. This means not only hiring local workers and companies to conduct the work, but also looking for opportunities to use the resulting material for other economic enterprises.

The bill passed by the Senate has the potential to truly work in a manner nearly everyone can accept. Alteration by the House or poor implementation by the agencies will only threaten our wildfire endangered communities.

I am committed to making this legislation work and stand ready to assist the communities in Washington State protect their families and homes.

Mr. President, I rise to support the Climate Stewardship Act offered by Senators Lieberman and McCain and to cosponsor this aggressive plan to fight global warming.

When President Bush walked away from the Kyoto Protocol negotiations in March 2001, he promised the American people he would come up with an alternative. More than 2 years later, the President has yet to deliver on his promise and we simply cannot wait any longer to start making progress.

Here in the Senate we have a worthy plan that will cut greenhouse gas emissions. I want to applaud Senators Lieberman and McCain for presenting this meaningful and comprehensive plan.

The McCain-Lieberman bill will require mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the United States from broad sectors of our economy. Rather than just aiming to limit industrial emissions--as other plans have done--this legislation will require emissions reductions from four major sectors of the economy: electric utilities; industrial plans; transportation; and large commercial facilities. These four sectors contribute 85 percent of the greenhouse gases produced in America.

The McCain-Lieberman legislation relies on a national ``cap and trade'' system to reduce the air pollutants that contribute to climate change. Many of my colleagues are familiar with this approach. It was first used on a national scale to combat acid rain under Title IV of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990. A cap and trade system establishes an overall total limit on emissions and then allows pollution sources to trade emissions allowances. It gives participants the flexibility of the marketplace, and it works.

In fact, the acid rain program has reduced sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants--and it has done it at less than a quarter of the predicted cost to industry.

The McCain-Lieberman program will mandate that by 2010, the four sectors involved must reduce their emissions to 2000 levels. This is a meaningful and substantial reduction in emissions--a 5 percent reduction over the next 7 years.

Some critics suggest that you can't ``grow the economy'' without emitting more greenhouse gases. We know that is not true. As the acid rain program proved, the cap and trade system works well.

There were nay-sayers in 1990, and they were proven wrong. There are nay-sayers now, and we must prove them wrong again.

This is also an opportunity for American companies to get ahead of trends that we know are coming. We know that the future of energy production lies in renewable energy and in alternatives to fossil fuels. I want American workers to lead the way, and I want American companies to share in the benefits.

It is projected that over the next 20 years, $10-$20 trillion will be spent globally on new energy technologies. This is an enormous market, and much of the investment will take place outside of the U.S., in places such as China. I want American companies to sell the technologies that will be needed and used throughout the world. By passing this legislation, we will give American companies incentives to pursue new, clean energy technologies. And new technologies mean new jobs--especially compared to older energy sources.

Today, for every 1 percent of market share, renewable energy technologies generate 12,500 jobs. By the same measure, the coal industry only generates 3,000 jobs.

So this new technology holds a lot of promise in helping American companies and the American economy.

Let me mention briefly the President's so-called clear skies plan. This administration's approach to global climate change has been to focus on reducing greenhouse gas intensity. That is the ratio of carbon emission to gross domestic product. What most people do not know is greenhouse intensity is already declining. As the economy modernizes, it naturally becomes more efficient in terms of energy use, so when the President says he wants to reduce greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent over the next 10 years with his Clear Skies Initiative, we should ask how much would the intensity decrease over the next 10 years without the Clear Skies Initiative.

The answer is stunning and underscores how little this administration really wants to do to reverse global warming. According to CRS, greenhouse gas intensity is projected to fall by over 14 percent over the next 10 years under current environmental regulations. The President's proposal is nearly as weak as existing law. President Bush thinks the Federal Government's primary climate change goal should be to encourage voluntary measures to reduce greenhouse gas intensity by only 4 percent over the next decade.

That is an utterly irresponsible approach to global warming. Our country should be taking an aggressive lead on reducing pollution. I am confident by using market-oriented strategies and new technologies, American ingenuity can find ways to reduce emissions without harming the economy. As I mentioned earlier, it will help our economy.

The threat of global warming is real. The Pacific Northwest stands to lose much from climate change from increasing severe storms to rising sea levels to negative impacts on our forests, our coasts, our salmon, and our agriculture. Those resources define the quality of life where I live.

In Washington State, increasing temperatures over the next decades could cause salmon in Puget Sound to migrate north. It could cause some crops to shift their natural habitats into Canada.

The western governors understand this. In September, the governors of California, Oregon, and my home State of Washington got together to curb greenhouse gas emissions by promoting tougher emissions standards for new power plants.

Governors and legislatures in the Northeast have taken similar measures.

Soon the Nation will face a patchwork of regional regulations, making it costly and cumbersome for industries to comply.

We in Congress need to take action since this White House has failed to act. It's time for a real policy to reduce our impacts on the global climate.

We know that a clean environment contributes to the health and quality of life for every Washingtonian and for every American. The McCain-Lieberman bill is an important first step.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed a New York Times article that reported on the regional regulations.

Mr. President, I have an amendment, No. 2030, at the desk. I call that amendment up, please.

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

Mr. President, as all of us know, the Senate right now is debating the Healthy Forests bill, and I believe we need to do more in this bill to help protect America's old-growth forests.

Old-growth forests are stands of trees that have tremendous historic and cultural value.

I think we need to work hard to clarify a few parts of this bill so that Federal agencies do not misinterpret congressional intent in protecting historic and ecologically important resources.

This evening I am offering a perfecting amendment that will close two loopholes in this bill to ensure that our old-growth forests get the protection they deserve.

Before I turn to the details of my amendment, I want to comment on the horrible devastation we are seeing in California from wildfires. Like all Americans, I have been watching the shocking news coverage. My thoughts and my prayers are with everyone who has been affected. My brother is a firefighter. So I appreciate the sacrifices that are made by these brave men and women.

In my home State of Washington, we have been touched by terrible losses in recent years, including four young firefighters who died in the Thirtymile Fire on July 10, 2001, at Okanogan County.

It is clear that we have to take smart, responsible steps in this bill to reduce the dangerous fuel loads in our forests.

While it is too soon to draw any final conclusions about the fires in California, I think the fires highlight two challenges that ought to be a part of this debate.

First, it is clear that we don't have enough money in the budget to address our firefighting and fire prevention needs. In fact, today the Forest Service is borrowing from its fuel reduction accounts to pay for firefighting operations; that is, robbing Peter to pay Paul. The money reserved for fuel reduction, if it is used wisely, helps to prevent fires in the first place. The current budget is inadequate, and we are going to pay a greater price down the road if we don't address the resource issue.

Second, because the funds are limited, we have to do a better job of prioritizing how we spend the money that we do have. Specifically, we need to give a higher priority to those vulnerable lands in areas where wildlands and urban lands intersect. Those are spots where people and property are threatened.

If we address the hazards there--and if we educate homeowners--we will have a bigger impact with our limited funds.

I am looking for an aggressive plan to reduce the fuel loads in our forests, especially in the urban/wildland areas where people and property are endangered.

Old-growth forests are important for many reasons.

First of all, they represent ecosystems that are unique in nature. These forests are made up of a complex web of plants and animals, and climate and ecological conditions that are extremely different from what is found in younger or plantation forests. Certain animals and plants only live within these old-growth ecosystems.

If we are going to maintain a diverse species, we have to protect their habitat. Old-growth forests also have the cleanest drinking water, they provide structures for good salmon habitat, and they mitigate the effects of flooding and global warming.

Finally, these forests have great historic, recreational, and spiritual value which is important to all of us.

Hiking through an old-growth forest is truly a remarkable experience. I invite any of my colleagues who have not had that kind of experience to come to my State or to another State with a lot of old growth and have that kind of experience. You will understand why those of us who speak out on this floor are so passionate about this issue. In fact, in our old-growth forests perhaps is the only place where you can feel transported back hundreds of years and see what the very first explorers saw when they encountered these cathedral forests. They are a part of our history, and we cannot afford to lose them. Unfortunately, we have already lost many of these unique lands.

Old growth used to sweep across the Pacific Northwest, but recent studies estimate that old growth makes up between 10 and 18 percent of the lands in the Pacific Northwest and a mere 3 percent of lands nationwide. There is very little left today. We have to do all we can to ensure their survival.

I want to recognize my colleagues from Oregon and California who made this bill better by including an old- growth section in title I. As a result, this bill is now much better than what the President and the House first proposed.

But as I read the provisions, I saw two loopholes that we should close.

First of all, the bill lets the Forest Service and the BLM treat dangerous forests, and it provides protection for old-growth stands. Old growth can still be treated. It just has to be treated in a way that protects its unique character.

But if an area has insect infestations or is subject to trees being blown over, then the old-growth stands lose all of their protection. That is a big loophole. Any forest could be subject to strong winds that knock down trees. Any forest could experience insect infestation. Any forest could be subject to disease. Almost any forest could be damaged by an ice storm. It is just one of those things that happen. An old-growth forest could be drastically altered in ways that destroy its unique characteristic.

The underlying bill has a massive loophole in it that threatens old- growth forests and subjects them to unrestrained thinning. My amendment would simply close that loophole by making those lands subject to old- growth protection. My amendment, importantly, allows treatment of old growth. I know that is a concern to other Senators here on the Senate floor. It still allows treatment of old growth. It still must protect characteristics that we all recognize as important.

There is a second loophole that my amendment addresses. This bill has a fine directive to protect the integrity of old-growth stands. That is section 102, subparagraph (e)(2). I think we all can accept that standard. But I am concerned that it won't be carried out because it relies on forest management plans to be implemented.

Here is the problem with that. If the forest has a management plan that is less than 11 years old, that plan will not need to be updated to meet the new standards. That is a big loophole. It could mean that forests with relatively recent management plans don't have to enact the protections we are calling for in the bill. Fortunately, there is an easy way to close that loophole. It involves just changing four words in the bill.

My amendment does two things.

First of all, it ensures that all hazardous fuel reduction projects on Federal lands will protect old-growth forests.

Second, my amendment ensures that the old-growth standard in the bill applies to all Federal forests--not just those with older management plans.

I thank all of my colleagues and their staff who have worked very hard on this legislation.

The chairman and ranking members of the Energy Committee and the Agriculture Committee have been tireless on this bill.

My western colleagues from Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and California have all been looking after the best interests of their States and their constituents. I thank them all, and I appreciate their consideration of my amendment.

Old growth makes up just a fraction of our remaining public lands today. Many of these stands of trees are older than our Union. They are older than the settlement of the West. Some are older than Columbus' arrival in the New World.

We would not be doing our duty here on the floor of the Senate if we didn't do everything we could to protect them for future generations.

The amendment I am offering this evening will strengthen the protection in the underlying bill.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer and Senator Reid of Nevada be added as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I do not want to prolong this debate. I know

the managers have been here all day long and they want to move to a vote on this amendment.

Let me simply respond to my colleagues from the South and tell them that I understand insect infestation is a key concern in national and private forests.

I know my colleagues from the South face significant insect and disease issues. We certainly face them in the Pacific Northwest. However, I strongly believe we do not need to abandon the old-growth protections in this bill. The bill already allows old-growth stands to be treated for hazardous conditions. They simply must be treated in a manner to protect the old-growth characteristics.

Again, I know in most of the Nation 3 percent of the land is old growth. In the Pacific, it is 18 percent. It is a tremendous part of our heritage. It is something of which I think all of us should be very proud.

We need to be careful we do not take steps this evening with this bill that undo the heritage most of us are very proud of in this country.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I know my colleague from Idaho wants to move forward with a vote on this matter.

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

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

Madam President, in just a couple minutes I am going to offer a unanimous consent request to move to consideration of a bill to provide extended unemployment compensation benefits to displaced workers and to those who have exhausted their benefits.

Today there are 9 million Americans who are unemployed, and the percentage of long-term unemployed is at a 20-year high. Our first priority in this Congress should really be to get America back to work. The current unemployment benefit extension, as I think all my colleagues know, expires at the end of December.

Our economy is continuing to create only one job opening for every three unemployed Americans. So it is clear the current Federal program is inadequate to address the needs of out-of-work Americans in today's troubled economy.

Another extension with no additional weeks of benefits will leave far too many of our workers and their families out in the cold. In my home State of Washington, there are 124,000 people who will exhaust their benefits by the end of the year. In addition, more than 1 million Americans have run out of unemployment benefits and remain without work. These Americans have been stretching their savings, refinancing their homes, moving in with other family, and depleting their retirement accounts. Three out of four workers are now running out of benefits before they find a job.

In past recessions, we have included these workers in additional extensions. But so far Republicans have insisted on leaving them out. The Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act, which we are introducing, would help 4.6 million Americans make ends meet while they search for new jobs.

I know we are dealing with a forest health issue today. It is extremely important to many Senators. But we have also thousands of Americans whose extensions are going to run out very shortly. Everyone is working very quickly here to wrap up all the bills. We all want to go home. I know when we go home, we want to make sure the people we go home to are not left out in the cold.

I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1708, a bill to provide for a 6-month extension of unemployment compensation, with additional weeks of benefits, as modified to strike title II and ensure that high unemployment States are not penalized for having high unemployment throughout the recession; that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I heard the objection from my colleague on the other side, and I would like to have him respond, if he would, as to when the Senate will consider this important piece of legislation.

As I said in my remarks, I know we are dealing with an issue that is important to many States, but we have to provide some financial relief to millions of Americans as we approach the holiday season.

I know my colleague understands the current extension ends on December 31. We are all working quickly to go home. I want to know if we can get a commitment that we will go to this bill so we can provide for these workers so they can be at home paying for their food and shelter that is so important to them. Can my colleague tell me when the Senate will consider this legislation?

Madam President, I thank my colleague. I know he is not in a position to speak for his leadership at this time. I would just say to all of my colleagues on the floor, it is critical we allow time as soon as possible. We can take as short as 10 or 15 minutes to get this passed. We have thousands of constituents across the country whose benefits are going to expire. If we wrap up this session and go home without passing this bill, we are going to leave them out in the cold without the ability to put food on the table, pay their rent, pay their mortgage, pay their college tuition bills, and really make it through a very difficult time.

As we all know, the unemployment in this country has risen. We know more people today are unemployed than there were a year ago. The numbers are rising. The extension needs to be passed.

I notify my colleagues I intend to continue to come to this floor on a daily basis to try to bring up this bill until we get a commitment from the Republicans to have a vote on this extension.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Senate amendments to H.R. 2989, the Department of Transportation, Treasury and General Government Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. This is the first time that the Senate will debate an appropriations bill that combines these critically important Government functions.

As my colleagues know, at the beginning of this year, the Appropriations Committee combined the Transportation Subcommittee with the former Treasury, Postal and General Government Subcommittee. We were particularly fortunate to have Senator Shelby as our chairman, especially since he is perhaps the only Senator who has chaired both the Transportation Subcommittee and Treasury Postal Subcommittee at different times.

Ever since the Senate adopted this year's final budget resolution, I have worried that the Appropriations Committee would not have sufficient resources to meet our needs and to make the investments we must make to improve our country. Today it is clear that my concerns were well-founded, not only with this appropriations bill, but with others the Senate has debated this year. However, despite the limited

allocation that was granted to our subcommittee, I think this bill is well-balanced in meeting the needs of many of the competing Government functions that we are required to fund.

I would like to highlight a few elements of the bill, starting with funding for America's highways.

I am especially proud that this bill proposes a highway obligation ceiling of $33.84 billion. That is real progress. It is almost $4.6 billion more than the administration recommended, and it is $2.25 billion more than fiscal year 2003. Just in the area of highway funding, our subcommittee has over the past 3 years has funded the Federal-aid Highway Program at $13 billion more than the levels recommended by the Bush administration. I have always recognized the critical importance of highway funding, and that is why, when I chaired the subcommittee, the bill we reported out restored every penny of the $8.6 billion cut that was proposed in the Bush administration's budget for that year. This year, under Senator Shelby's leadership, we are continuing our progress in addressing America's deteriorating highway infrastructure. Again this year, we propose a historically high level of highway funding of $33.84 billion. In addition, our bill increases funding for highway safety activities at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to try to reverse a disturbing increase in highway fatalities, especially deaths associated with drunk driving.

For the Federal Aviation Administration, the bill proposes appropriations and obligation ceilings of just under $14 billion. That is roughly a half a billion dollar increase over the level approved for fiscal year 2003. I also want to note that our half a billion dollar increase includes a $100 million increase in the airport grants program.

I want to take a moment to make some observations about Amtrak. The bill before us includes $1.346 billion for Amtrak. Let me put that number in context. It is $454 million below the level requested by Amtrak's board of directors and its president, David Gunn. It is $454 million below the level that the Amtrak board says it needed to make progress on the railroad's deferred capital needs while operating the entire national system. And it is $454 million below the level assumed in the Senate-passed budget resolution.

The Bush administration's budget for fiscal year 2004 singled out Amtrak for a 14 percent cut in funding down to the level of $900 million. Amtrak's president has made it quite clear in testimony before several committees that adoption of the administration's proposed level of $900 million will mean certain bankruptcy of the railroad. It will mean the end of service to the thousands of daily Amtrak riders and the ten of thousands of mass transit riders whose commuter rail systems depend on continued Amtrak service. The level of funding recommended by the Appropriations Committee of $1.346 billion will be barely enough to enable Amtrak to operate all of its services for fiscal year 2004. This fact has been confirmed in testimony by the Department of Transportation Inspector General before the Senate Commerce Committee. The increase above last year is directed to accommodate the nondiscretionary cost increases that will burden the railroad in fiscal year 2004, including cost increases associated with mandated pay raises for employees under contract: and, automatic increases in debt service payments associated with debt that the railroad has already taken on.

There is no question that the level of Amtrak funding in the bill is more than some Senators would like and less than other Senators would like. In my view, as the ranking member of this subcommittee, I do not believe that there are other areas in this bill where other Amtrak resources can be found. I believe the level of funding in this bill will allow the authorizing committees to continue to work on reform legislation and hopefully address the long-term financial needs of the railroad, including its sizable backlog of critical capital investments.

I would like to mention a few other funding highlights concerning the IRS and GSA. For the IRS, the bill before us includes $10.35 billion, including very sizable amounts to help the IRS move forward in modernizing its information technology infrastructure. For the General Services Administration, the bill includes appropriations as well funding limitations in excess of $6.4 billion. The subcommittee was able to make progress on the construction on a limited number of new courthouses. We followed the recommendations of the Judicial Conference, even though these courthouses were not funded in the President's budget and were largely unfunded in the House-passed bill.

So, in conclusion, I stand in strong support of this bill. While overall it does not have as many resources as I think are needed to address all of our transportation infrastructure, transportation safety, drug prevention, election reform, and other needs, I think it does an outstanding job addressing these competing needs in a balanced way, under the funded ceiling that was given to the subcommittee due to the budget resolution.

I want to thank Chairman Shelby for the very cooperative and collegial approach that he always brings to this process. When it comes to allocating funds for Members' priority projects, whether it is for highways, mass transit or Federal building construction, Senator Shelby and I work together to meet Senators' highest priority requests. The process was balanced and fair, without regard to political affiliation or geography, and I continue to be indebted to him for the fair- mindedness that he consistently brings to this process.

I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and help our country make important progress in transportation, safety and critical infrastructure.

Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by my friend from North Dakota.

I am a cosponsor of bipartisan legislation that was introduced earlier this year that would allow travel between the United States and Cuba.

Current policy with regard to Cuba, as enforced by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, permits travel to Cuba only with permission in the form of a license from the Treasury office for certain reasons such as to visits relatives, or for journalism, religious, or humanitarian purposes.

According to Treasury documents, between 1996 and 2003, about one- third of Cuba travel cases opened for investigation were referred for civil penalty enforcement action. Typical penalty assessments for unauthorized travel range from $3,000 to $7,500.

For 40 years, the United States has maintained an isolationist position toward Cuba, and the current regime has remained throughout that time. I believe that permitting travel to Cuba would help demonstrate to Cuban citizens what a democracy is all about.

Mr. President, it is time to lift the travel restrictions to Cuba.

I urge the adoption of this amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Corzine

and Senator Edwards be added as cosponsors to the Mikulski amendment.

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

Mr. President, the events of the last Presidential election highlighted the importance of election reform and the need to replace antiquated and faulty voting machines. The Help America Vote Act, HAVA, was enacted last year to address these issues and to establish new minimum requirements that all States must meet in the conduct of Federal elections. My home State of Washington is struggling with implementing and paying for the requirements of HAVA due to our heavy reliance on vote-by-mail ballots.

Last year, the bill included $1.5 billion for election reform, but that funding was not part of the subcommittee's initial allocation. The full committee provided this funding in addition to our subcommittee allocation.

I am in agreement that the $1.5 billion is necessary and should be provided for election reform. But we do not have the available funding for that purpose in our bill, so it will be necessary to waive the Budget Act. During consideration of the budget resolution, I was not able to vote for election reform funding due to the competing needs of the agencies under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. So I am comfortable with the amendment offered by Senator Dodd, which waives the Budget Act for this important purpose.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, if I could have an additional minute.

That is correct.

Mr. President, more than 2 years ago the Senate began a journey to help improve our military readiness by replacing the outdated Air Force asset with 100 new Boeing 767 air refueling tankers. In spite of the best efforts of the Air Force to maintain that tanker fleet, those planes are outdated and cost billions of dollar to maintain.

In the 2 years that have passed since we first began discussing replacing our Nation's tanker fleet, the KC-135s have grown older, more corroded, and less safe. It is a testament to the resourcefulness of the flying men and women of our Air Force that these planes are still flying as well as they are.

Over the past several days, Senator Cantwell and I have engaged in a very productive series of meetings and discussions with Chairman Stevens and Chairman Warner, ranking Members Levin and Inouye. We were here late last night, as Senator Warner indicated, and all day long working with our colleagues on a way to move this forward. I am really pleased we have worked our way through some very big issues. The leaders of our Senate Armed Services Committee agree we do need to provide the Air Force a way to begin to recapitalize its aging tanker fleet with new Boeing 767s. I am proud Senator Warner and Senator Levin agree Boeing airframes will help our air men and women protect our Nation and advance our security around the world.

I had the honor of meeting with a number of people who fly these planes. I am proud we are finally working our way to bring some new planes to these brave young men and women.

These planes are critical. They are the backbone of America's air power capability. The importance of replacing them cannot be overstated. The Warner-Levin proposal is a great step in the right direction. It is finally going to allow Boeing to begin producing state-of-the-art KC-767 aircraft right away with delivery of the first four tankers in 2005.

There are outstanding issues remaining, but it is clear to me today that we have a commitment finally to move forward and the Air Force is going to get the tankers it so desperately needs.

I commend Senator Warner, Senator Stevens, Senator Levin, Senator Inouye, and especially my colleague in Washington, Senator Cantwell, who spent a tremendous amount of time trying to work this issue through with all of the details. I am proud to serve with her in the Senate. She is a testament to the people who are going to be building these planes and her advocacy for them, particularly over the last several days.

I yield to my colleague from Washington.

Mr. President, while we are working through the last couple of amendments, let me say that I appreciate the work of Senator Shelby, all of the staff on the majority and minority side who really have done tremendous work in putting this bill together. I thank all of them for the hard work they have done, as well as my colleague, Senator Shelby, who has really done a good job today of moving this bill through. I thank him for that.

Amendment No. 1963

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the votes by which the previous amendments were agreed to.

The Senator from Wisconsin has highlighted an important nine-State effort regarding high-speed rail and I will do all I can in Conference to accommodate the Senator's concerns.

eastside light rail transit

That is correct.

My distinguished colleagues from California have told me of the importance of this project to their constituents in East Los Angeles, as well as to the LACMTA's expanding rail transit system. I will work with Chairman Shelby to help the committee meet this project's funding needs.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask the Chairman, as you know, late last night a very important amendment regarding funding for Afghan women's programs previously authorized by the Afghanistan Freedom Act of 2002 was accepted in the House version of this bill. The amendment was introduced by Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New York.

I know you share my concerns about the treatment of women in Afghanistan. And as we discussed earlier today, I have agreed not to offer my amendment, which was similar to the one accepted in the House bill, with the understanding that you will support this issue in conference.

I thank the Chairman and Senator Byrd.

usna hurricane isabel damage

Mr. President, it has been a year since the full Senate debated military action in Iraq, and now

the President is asking Congress for $87 billion.

It is time to assess where things stand, to look at the reality facing our troops, and to see if we are on the right track in Iraq.

Unfortunately, it is clear to me that today we are not where we need to be in protecting our troops, gaining international support, or even having a plan to win the peace.

As the daughter of a disabled World War II veteran and the representative for hundreds of thousands of Washington State veterans and military families, I will fight for every dollar our troops need to protect themselves, and to complete their mission successfully, and I am deeply troubled that the President still does not have a plan for success in Iraq.

I have invested a lot of time examining the President's $87 billion request.

I am taking a close look at what is needed and who will foot the bill.

I have attended hearings and briefings where I have questioned administration officials, from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to Ambassador Bremer. And I have heard a great deal from the citizens I represent in Washington State.

Everywhere I go at home, I am approached by people who have a family member who is now serving or a family member who is going to be called up.

As we speak, 3,500 soldiers with the Army's 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team at Fort Lewis are being deployed to Iraq. About 2,100 Washington reservists are serving in Iraq today. About 300 Washington National Guard are already serving in Iraq and another 3,300 are on ``ready alert.''

Like their families, I am very concerned about what they--and all of our troops--will encounter overseas.

Each day in Iraq, our American soldiers face vicious attacks from snipers, car bombs, roadside explosives, and rocket-propelled grenades. These attacks are taking a deadly toll. We learned this morning that four more soldiers were killed in Iraq. Our hearts and prayers go out to their families as we continue to support all of the men and women who are still there.

Five months ago, President Bush stood on an aircraft carrier--under a sign that read ``Mission Accomplished''--and told us that major combat operations had ended. Since that day, however, more than 180 American soldiers have been killed, including four from Washington State. Their families will never be the same. Their communities will never be the same. They--and all of our troops--deserve our thanks and our gratitude. But they deserve much more.

They deserve a plan that will help them complete their mission successfully and return home safely. So far, there is no plan.

Many of the questions I asked on the Senate floor a year ago still have not been answered, but today we must focus on the reality on the ground.

We have about 130,000 troops in Iraq, according to the Defense Department. They are working hard in dire circumstances, and they are facing deadly attacks every day. There is still no plan for winning the peace. There is still no real international support, either in troops or treasure.

Anyone who asks a legitimate question or who talks about what is really happening is criticized. And now the administration wants $87 billion without accountability.

The way to fix this is for the White House to ``swallow some pride,'' face reality, be accountable, and offer a credible plan. But instead of a plan, the administration is offering a public relations campaign.

Today we have complaints about media filters and a lively policy debate within the administration, but we still have no plan.

So as I assess where things stand in Iraq, I see no real international support; no tolerance for important questions; no consistent policy--even within the administration; no accountability as to how money is spent in Iraq; no plan for success; and a PR campaign to ``paper-over'' the failures.

With all due respect, that is not a formula that will help bring our troops home.

We have to deal with the situation as it is and figure out how to make it better.

Sound bites and speeches are not going to help our troops finish their mission and come home. A credible plan, accountability, and international support will. We do not need a PR campaign to make it look like things are going well. We need a plan that will actually help our troops succeed, and the American people are losing patience. That is the context in which we are having this debate.

Now I wish to turn to the specifics of the President's $87 billion request.

Most of it--about $65 billion--would go to military operations. I absolutely support that. Without question, we must provide our military men and women with the resources they need to complete their missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and every corner of the global war on terrorism.

About one-quarter of the $87 billion is being proposed to rebuild Iraq. I am concerned with how the burden for Iraq's reconstruction is being shared with the rest of the world.

The Bush administration is proposing to spend more than $20 billion in Iraq, while the rest of the international community has currently pledged only $3 billion--$20 billion from American taxpayers and $3 billion from the rest of the world. This is far different than the 1991 gulf war.

In 1991, the first President Bush put together a coalition of countries to liberate Kuwait. The cost of that operation was $60 billion. Because that President had won the support of our allies and had secured the support of NATO and the United Nations, America's allies paid 90 percent of the cost of that war. The U.S. paid only $6 billion.

I am also troubled, both as a citizen who cares about my country and as a Senator who will cast a vote on this bill, that Americans were told a lot of things about Iraq before the war which have turned out to be false.

One repeated assertion was that Iraq's vast oil reserves could pay for its own reconstruction. In fact, the Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said:

There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to

be U.S. taxpayer money. We're dealing with a country that can

really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.

Just a few months later, it is clear that the bill to reconstruct Iraq is massive, and that bill is being handed to every American family.

As my Republican colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham, said last night:

It's very hard for me to go home and explain how you give

$20 billion to a country that is sitting on $1 trillion worth

of oil.

The American people were told that Iraq's oil reserves would finance its reconstruction but now we are getting stuck with the bill and I believe the American people deserve an explanation. We all agree that we must help Iraq and Afghanistan get back on their feet quickly, but we should not carry the burden alone while our own schools, hospitals, and communities are in need.

We all understand the importance of helping the Iraqi people, but it need not come at the expense of our needs here at home. Even though the administration says that Iraq should be able to produce $35 billion in oil revenues in a few years, the American taxpayer is still getting stuck with the bill.

Let's remember, there is no guarantee that President Bush will not come back to ask U.S. taxpayers to provide even more money for Iraq's reconstruction. The World Bank says Iraq's reconstruction will cost at least $60 billion.

Today our families and communities are being asked to do more with less. Americans everywhere are sacrificing to make up the difference. American families will feel this $20 billion impact in crowded classrooms, delayed transportation improvements, and less access to health care. One of the reasons American taxpayers are so upset is because we need those kinds of investments here at home. This administration's priorities are wrong.

The people I represent want to see that level of effort and resources put back into our own country. After all, we will only be strong abroad if we are strong here at home.

Let's not forget no matter how much we are sacrificing at home, the burden is always far higher on our soldiers overseas. That is why, while they are fighting for us, we must continue to fight for them. We have to make sure they come back to a country that has

jobs that can support them, health care they can count on, retirement they can look forward to, and education and opportunity for their children.

Before we reach for our wallets again, the American people deserve to know how this money will help bring our troops home as soon as possible. It is clear that our concerns and questions will not be fully addressed before we are forced to vote on this legislation. It is also clear that we cannot afford to fail in Iraq.

We have situations in Iraq and Afghanistan that can go either way. Both Iraq and Afghanistan could become either havens for terrorism or nations that can inch their way toward stability. We have to get it right. We cannot allow Iraq or Afghanistan to descend into chaos.

We have tried to make this proposal better through amendments. I voted to separate the military funding from the reconstruction funding. I voted to make the entire $20 billion a loan. I voted to require a long-term plan for the reconstruction. Unfortunately, those amendments failed, but I am very pleased that last night, the Senate took a positive step to improve the proposal.

The Senate passed an amendment that will ensure the burden of debt is shared and will give the Iraqi people a greater stake in their own reconstruction. The progress last night is a dramatic improvement over the President's proposal and is a good reason to support the modified funding request.

At the end of the day, we cannot afford to fail in Iraq. The reality is that we have got 130,000 troops over there. We cannot fail to give them what they need to protect themselves and complete their mission. Reluctantly, I will vote for this $87 billion request because we cannot deny our troops the resources they need even as we demand that the administration offer a real plan.

To illustrate just how badly our troops need resources and equipment, I want to read an email I received on Wednesday from David Willet of Bellingham, WA, about his son Ian Willett.

David writes:

My son, Specialist Ian Willet, a 2001 graduate of Sehome

High School, was deployed to Iraq on September 5th, his 21st

birthday.

Prior to him leaving he came to me to request money in

order to help him buy combat gear he would need to take with

him to Iraq. This is gear the Army either would not issue him

or was as old and outdated as to be virtually useless. I, of

course, bought the gear that he requested.

After talking with other men who have come home or are on

their way to combat, I have become quite angry that our

government has placed our sons and daughters in combat

without the best equipment in the world. As an example, Ian

spent $50.00 his grandfather gave him for his 21st birthday

on knee pads. The Army-issue knee pads fall down around your

ankles when you run with them on.

Now I read a quarter of the combat troops in Iraq don't

have the right body armor. I am outraged that it has taken

over four years to get this ceramic body armor to our combat

troops, and that our troops would even be sent into combat

without this necessary technology. The reason front line

troops don't have this body armor? Delays in funding,

production and shipping. Small solace to family that has

their loved one killed in combat for lack of the proper vest.

Other stories in the press talk about wounded soldiers

being given bills for food they ate while in the hospital in

the U.S. recovering from combat wounds. The Bush

Administration wants us to focus on the good news coming out

of Iraq.

It is outrageous that we are sending our soldiers to Iraq without the equipment they need, forcing their parents and grandparents to buy things that our government should be providing.

Ian is married and has two children. His family can't wait for him to return home, and the burden of protecting Ian should not fall on his family. It is the job of our Government. I am voting for this amendment so that soldiers like Ian won't have to ask their parents for the equipment they need to protect themselves.

Even as I support this funding, I want to be very clear that this is not over. I am going to watch this administration very closely. I am going to watch how they spend this money; how accountable they are; how our soldiers fare; and how much international support we get.

We will hold this administration's feet to the fire. I will continue to be an aggressive advocate for moving us in the right direction because there is too much at stake to just trust that the President has learned from his failures so far.

America is a strong nation, and Americans are a determined people. In our Nation's history, we have confronted adversity. We have dealt with the challenges that have threatened our democracy. In each case, we had a clear vision and a plan to get there. There were bumps in the road, but at the times of our greatest need, America has come together with resolve and determination. Today is no different.

The American people are ready, and we are waiting for the President to face reality in Iraq and to give us a credible plan to win the war and win the peace.

Mr. President, I intend to speak on the Reid amendment and I would ask what the pending business is.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the amendment offered by Senator Reid that temporarily bars the Department of the Interior from spending any more money on competitive sourcing studies.

The House has already inserted this language into its Interior spending bill, and I hope the Senate will do the same.

This amendment is critical so we can assure the people who visit our already overstressed national parks that they will not be subjected to even fewer services. ``Competitive sourcing'' is a new term that has been created to describe the opening up of public sector jobs to private sector competition. Now, we have all been told that competitive sourcing is not the same as outsourcing, but I think it is pretty safe to say it is not a whole lot different.

As all of us know, one of the primary goals of this current administration is to privatize large numbers of Federal workers. This administration, under its initial outsourcing policy, mandated that each Federal agency review for privatization no less than 15 percent of its commercial activities by the end of fiscal year 2003. Unfortunately, this onerous and apparently arbitrary privatization quota did not take into account the different agencies' unique conditions.

After a lot of pressure from Federal workers, environmentalists, and labor groups, the White House finally abandoned its original blanket competitive sourcing scheme. But now the initial plan has been replaced by a new plan that actually pushes for more outsourcing, not less.

Although there is no concrete timeline, this new incentive-based plan encourages Federal agencies to outsource 50 percent or more of their commercial activities. So while we in Congress are trying to slow down this outsourcing drive, the administration is now working to speed it up.

So what does that mean for an agency such as the National Park Service? I am very concerned that the President's outsourcing policy may well cause critically needed maintenance funds in our parks to be spent, instead, on further studies for competitive sourcing.

In my home State of Washington, we are very concerned about the reports that Mount Rainier National Park, for instance, could possibly have to divert up to 40 percent of its repair budget due to this outsourcing and antiterrorism requirements. So when they were faced with this possibility, the National Park Service director at Mount Rainier promised that at Mount Rainier no more outsourcing studies would be conducted using 2003 and 2004 dollars. This comes as a great relief to the users of Mount Rainier National Park and the surrounding communities, but now everyone is asking, What about Olympic National Park? What about Cascade National Park? Those are national treasures that are in my home State. And what about all the other national parks across the country that remain vulnerable to this proposal?

Outsourcing is by no means a new policy for the Department of Interior, especially in the National Park Service. The Park Service, in fact, currently outsources nearly $2 billion in services, including over $800 million in concessions and over $1 billion for contractors.

Those contractors currently provide functions such as janitorial services, tree work, garbage pickup, construction, and management consulting--things like that. So when the Department of Interior is now told to outsource up to 50 percent of its commercial responsibilities, we are very concerned that some of the National Park Service's key functions are going to be threatened.

The Park Service, as we all know, was initially created to preserve the natural and cultural resources of the Park System and to provide recreational opportunities for generations of Americans. The last thing we should be doing is lessening the agency's ability to do just that.

The amendment now before the Senate, that was offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, will not completely stop all outsourcing efforts. It will simply slow them down. I believe that is the right thing to do.

So far, in the case of the Department of Interior, OMB's outsourcing initiative has been on the fast track. The Reid amendment will simply prevent funds from this year from being used to initiate any new studies for competitive sourcing. It will, however, still allow the studies initiated with money from the last 2 years to be completed. I think that is the right course to take.

Slowing down this outsourcing initiative will allow us in Congress to have the time to analyze the costs and implications of this administration's proposal--I believe something we should have done in the first place.

The National Park Service is truly a mission-driven organization. Its core responsibilities include promoting the highest level of environmental stewardship, and, in turn, providing the best possible service to each and every park visitor.

So far, as we all know, the Park Service has done a tremendous job of doing just that. Consistently, 97 percent of our national park visitors have indicated they are ``satisfied'' or ``very satisfied'' with their national park experience. A lot of this public regard is attributed to the high quality and high morale of our Park Service employees.

Historically, National Park Service workers have maintained an extremely high level of camaraderie and positive spirit. Often these wonderful employees of ours are called upon to perform multiple duties that fall outside any one particular job title. It is not uncommon, in our national parks, for a maintenance worker to give interpretive talks on the weekends, or a park geologist to perform first aid, when it is necessary, or for a visitor assistant to help in fighting forest fires.

This kind of overlap of job duties is possible because of the way in which Park Service employees are currently cross-trained and because of the workers' extraordinary commitment to their jobs. In my opinion, having these kinds of outcomes with 9-to-5 contract workers would be very unlikely.

All of the implications of the President's policy of outsourcing in the National Park Service are not yet known or understood by those who use the parks or by Members of Congress who are passing this legislation. I think Congress has yet to carefully consider the consequences of this policy, especially when it comes to the services we expect for our families when they visit our national parks.

I am on the floor of the Senate today to thank Senator Reid for putting this amendment forward, and I urge the Members of the Senate to follow the House and slow down the President's outsourcing policy to protect the core mission of the National Park Service by voting for the Reid amendment, and then thoroughly taking the time to analyze and understand how this will impact our incredible heritage at our national parks before we move forward.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator from Nevada yield for a question?

Mr. President, if I heard the Senator from Nevada correctly, am I to understand there is going to be a second-degree amendment to his amendment that I just spoke about that will essentially allow the outsourcing to continue while we move forward in the appropriations process this year? If that is the case, I ask the Senator from Nevada, if you are a park employee in one of our beautiful parks--and you referenced the Cascades; we have Olympia National Park, Mt. Rainier. I invite all of our colleagues to come and see--if you were an employee and you knew Congress was going to continue to move forward with this proposal or some type of variation, would you not be worried that you would not continue to do the same good job that our employees do right now because really your future is up in the air and you would be looking for something else?

I would like to enter into a coloquy with Chairman Burns and Senator Dorgan. The Indian Health Service and the University of Washington have been conducting research into Fetal Alcohol Syndrome with funds provided in the Interior Appropriations bill. I want to thank the Chairman and Senator Dorgan for the Subcommittee's continued support for these research efforts. I hope to work with the Senators in conference related to this on-going research.

I thank Chairman Burns and Senator Dorgan.

USGS binational groundwater study

I ask unanimous consent to have the time until Senator Boxer returns.

I am pleased to join with Senators Boxer and Harkin in the debate to reaffirm the protections guaranteed to women in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

Let's be clear: The Republican leadership is trying to do something extraordinary on the Senate floor, something everyone who cares about the Constitution and women's rights should pay attention to. They have already done it in the House. The Senate, now, is the last line of defense.

It is helpful if we look at the history of this debate to see why the Republican approach is a threat to women's constitutionally protected rights. Earlier this year, the Senate debated the so-called partial- birth abortion ban. I joined with many of my colleagues in speaking against that proposal. I noted the bill was unconstitutional based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart. In that case, the Supreme Court struck down a similar law in Nebraska because it was too broad and because it did not include an exception for women's health.

We made that case in the Senate, but we were repeatedly turned back. We also offered reasonable amendments to make sure this legislation would not threaten the lives or the health of women and to reduce the number of abortions in America. Opponents rejected almost all of our amendments. That showed me their real goal was not to reduce the number of abortions or to protect women but to use the power in Congress to overturn Roe v. Wade.

As the debate continued in the Senate, my suspicion was confirmed. For example, I introduced a prevention amendment to reduce the number of abortions. My amendment would have provided contraceptive equity in health plans, expanded education about emergency contraceptives, made emergency contraceptives available in the emergency rooms for victims of rape, and would have offered CHIP health insurance coverage to protect women. My amendment was defeated on a budget point of order.

Senator Feinstein offered an amendment to protect the health of a woman. That amendment was defeated as well. That brings us now to the Harkin-Boxer amendment and the reason we are having a debate today. That amendment reaffirmed the Senate's support for the Roe v. Wade decision. It passed the Senate with a bipartisan vote of 52 to 46. The Senate was firmly on the record supporting the Roe decision. Eventually, that so-called partial-birth abortion bill passed the Senate, including the language supporting Roe.

Then something happened, something completely undermined the will of this Senate. The Republican leadership tried to bring up the House version of the bill and send it to conference. Many Members objected. That is why we are here today, to completely disregard the will of the Senate. To disregard the fundamental rights afforded

all women in this country by the United States Supreme Court is unacceptable.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion and send the amendment back to conference. The Senate needs to send the right message to the Supreme Court and to women across this country--that their inherent right of privacy and their right to make reproductive health care decisions will not be jeopardized. This is another attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling in the Stenberg v. Carhart case. The authors of this bill tried to get around the law of the land by inserting a section of congressional findings in their unconstitutional bill. These findings dispute the basis for the Supreme Court's decision, and they state that Congress finds the partial-birth abortion ban legislation to be constitutional.

The authors of this legislation claim that congressional findings are all that is necessary to ensure a law is constitutional. That is a bit optimistic on their part, and it ignores past congressional findings that were ignored by the Court.

The Court struck down the Nebraska law for one reason. It did not contain any consideration for the health of the woman as prescribed in the original Roe decision.

Telling the Court that Congress does not find women's health to be important does not meet the constitutional test.

It is somewhat surprising that opponents of this motion would now argue that talking about Roe or the constitution protections provided in Roe is not relevant.

One of the reasons I opposed S. 3, the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Act, was because I know this legislation is unconstitutional. It simply does not meet the constitutional test that requires providing some consideration for the health of the woman.

The Court has been extremely clear on this point.

We are voting to ban a legal, safe medical procedure that is used to save the life and health of women. Proponents of this legislation will argue that S. 3 does not undermine Roe, that it does not jeopardize a woman's life or health, and that it simply bans one procedure. I think we all know the true objective here. It is to overturn Roe piece by piece.

The other side claims they are not seeking to overturn Roe but, rather, to protect women and the unborn. If they really believe this and they are not concerned with a constitutional challenge, they should support the Harkin-Boxer amendment. This amendment should be part of any final legislation.

I think it is important to discuss what Roe did and did not say.

I often hear that Roe allows for abortion on demand at any stage of the pregnancy. That is simply not true. The Justices worked very hard to achieve a balance between the privacy of the woman and the interests of the state. They found this balance by distinguishing between pre- and post-viability. The underlying issue in Roe was privacy.

The Roe case built on the precedent established in Griswold v. Connecticut, which outlawed State laws that criminalized or hindered the use of contraception because they violated the right to privacy.

In the Roe decision, the Supreme Court used this same right of privacy to prohibit laws that banned abortions performed before viability. After viability, the Court did rule that the State does have a prevailing interest to restrict abortion, which is why so few abortions are performed late in pregnancy. Eighty-eight percent of abortions are performed before the end of the first trimester of pregnancy, and 98 percent occur during the first 20 weeks.

What the Court said regarding post-viability is that the State could restrict access, but the law must include a health and life exception. The Supreme Court found that the State's right to restrict or regulate abortion could not--and let me repeat, could not--jeopardize the life or health of the woman.

It is disheartening to me that efforts to overturn or restrict the rights afforded in the Roe decision often exclude any consideration for the life or health of the woman.

I have heard supporters of S. 3 claim that so-called partial-birth abortions jeopardize a woman's health and are never necessary to protect the health of the woman. If anyone doubts that Roe was not important for the life and health of a woman, they should consider the world before Roe.

In 1973, abortion, except to save a woman's life, was banned in nearly two-thirds of our States. An estimated 1.2 million women each year were forced to resort to illegal abortion, despite the risks associated with unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, and hemorrhage.

Because the procedure was illegal, there is no exact figure on the number of deaths caused by illegal abortions in the U.S. One estimate that was made before 1973 attributed 5,000 deaths a year to illegal abortions.

According to a 1967 study, induced abortion was the most common single cause of maternal mortality in California. The number of deaths per 100,000 legal abortion procedures declined from 4.1 percent to 0.6 percent between 1973 and 1997. The choices women had prior to 1973 were often the choice between life and death.

The Roe decision, coupled with the Griswald decision that gave women the right to contraceptives, finally gave women full and just reproductive choice.

But again the Roe decision does not allow for abortion on demand. The decision placed the appropriate restrictions on late-term abortions without forcing women into the back alleys.

Currently, 41 States have laws that restrict or ban post-viability abortions, except to save the life and health of the woman. This is consistent with Roe. Clearly, Roe did not result in abortion on demand at any stage in the pregnancy.

today we are ready to turn back much of what was achieved in Roe by banning a safe medical procedure at any stage of the pregnancy regardless of the threat to the woman. S. 3 removes any consideration of the health of the woman. Personally, I believe the Court will strike down this misguided legislation when it passes. However, we should send the right message to the Court that the U.S. Congress supports the Roe decision and believes that the right of privacy is an important protection for all Americans.

I am fortunate to represent a State that has twice voted to reaffirm Roe and to protect a woman's right to reproductive choice. In fact, in 1998, a similar effort to ban a safe and legal abortion procedure was defeated in Washington State. People in Washington State understand the need to provide for the health and the life of a woman.

In fact, a recent ABC News poll shows a majority of Americans support a health exception for the woman for late-term abortion. The poll-- which was just conducted in July--asked, if a late-term abortion would prevent a serious threat to the woman, should it be legal? Twenty percent said it should be legal in all cases, 41 percent said it should be legal if health is threatened--a total of 61 percent. This poll shows what many of us believe, that a woman's health is an important factor and consideration.

This motion will give Members the chance to cast their vote either in support of Roe or in support of overturning this landmark decision. If you believe that women in this country should be afforded full reproductive choice, then you must vote to ensure that the Harkin-Boxer amendment remain part of any final conference agreement on S. 3. If you oppose this amendment, you are saying that you do not believe that the Constitution provides women with the right of privacy and that there should be no consideration for the health and life of the woman.

I hope we don't turn back the clock on the floor of the Senate and place women in this country at risk again.

Mr. President, like many Americans, I was disappointed by the Federal Communications Commission's recent order on media ownership. As my colleagues know, on June 2 the FCC voted to relax the rules on media ownership. That order could reduce local news coverage and could hinder the diversity of views presented in the news media.

I rise in support of the bipartisan resolution offered by Senators Dorgan and Lott to invalidate the FCC's media ownership order. Passage of this resolution will help ensure that the marketplace of ideas is not dominated by a few corporate conglomerates at the expense of our citizens and our democracy.

Since its founding, our Nation has always recognized the importance of a free press in helping citizens make informed decisions on critical public issues. Over the past few years, we have seen massive mergers take place in many industries, but Americans recognize that the news media are different. They don't just produce a product to make a profit. They also provide a vital public service that could be undermined if just a few mega-corporations control what we can read, see and hear. That is why the FCC's order has provoked such a large public backlash.

By a 3-2 vote, the FCC made two major changes. First, it lifted a restriction that prevents mergers between newspaper and television stations in the same market. This is known as the cross-ownership rule. Until now, that restriction has ensured that one company does not control both newspaper

and television coverage in an area. That helps ensure that consumers have access to diverse sources of information.

By eliminating this cross-ownership rule, however, consumers could end up with fewer voices and perspectives on the public airwaves and in the newspaper. The number one television station in a market could be owned by the dominant newspaper or even the only newspaper in that same market. We are not talking about something that could happen in just one or two cities. This could happen all over the country. Down the road, the order could encourage just a handful of powerful corporations to own nearly every media outlet. That could hinder diverse and alternative viewpoints. It could also mean fewer reporters and resources for covering local and community events.

The newspaper market is already much less diverse than it was 25 years ago. Since 1975, two-thirds of independent newspaper owners have disappeared. The FCC's first order sets the stage for a further reduction in independent newspaper ownership.

The FCC's second order would allow broadcast networks to own more stations across the country. Currently, one broadcast network cannot own stations that reach more than 35 percent of the public. The FCC just raised that limit to 45 percent. This order threatens to reduce the amount of local news coverage available to citizens. Just look at what has happened in the radio industry. National radio networks have gobbled up local stations. Many have consolidated their news operations to the detriment of local consumers. Getting rid of local news coverage is not good for our local communities and their residents. This change could be especially troubling in rural areas.

I have been working on this issue for several months, and I believe we have reached a critical juncture that calls for Senate action.

On April 9, nearly 2 months before the ruling, I sent a letter to FCC Chairman Michael Powell along with 14 other U.S. Senators from both political parties. We asked the FCC to let the Congress and the public review and comment on the proposed changes before they were enacted.

When the order came out in June, I expressed my concerns.

A couple of weeks ago in the Appropriations Committee, I echoed the comments of Senators Dorgan and Hutchison on the need to either fix or eliminate this order through action on the Senate floor, and that is why I'm here today in support of this resolution.

The rule was scheduled to take effect on September 4, but was postponed when the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay. This stay could be lifted if the FCC meets the court's requirements, so the Senate needs to act quickly.

One option before the Senate is to pass a law invalidating the FCC's order. Unfortunately, that approach would still leave the door open for the FCC to simply rewrite the rule and do an ``end run'' around Congress. A better way to invalidate the rule is to use the Congressional Review Act, CRA. It would stop the rule and would also prevent the FCC from re-imposing it later under a different name.

In the Appropriations Committee, we included a provision that would lower the media cap back to 35 percent. That mirrored a similar provision in the House's Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations bill. We must finish the job today by using the CRA to invalidate the whole rule.

Mr. President, 80 percent of Americans get their news from local TV and newspapers. We cannot allow a handful of corporations to dictate what all Americans can see, hear, and read as they make decisions on critical public issues. I urge my colleagues to vote for diverse media ownership by supporting this resolution.