Floor Statements

Madam President, here we are, once again debating this issue. Since we began debating how to criminalize women's health choices yesterday, the Dow Jones has dropped 170 points; we are 1 day closer to a war in Iraq; we have done nothing to stimulate the economy or create any new jobs or provide any more health coverage. But here we are, debating abortion in a time of national crisis.

Since we are debating S. 3, I want to expose this proposal for what it is. It is deceptive, it is extreme, and it is unconstitutional.

First of all, it is deceptive. The other side wants you to think that this just affects one procedure performed in the third trimester, but that is not true. We need to remember what Roe v. Wade clearly spells out. Up to viability, a woman and her doctor make the choice. However, any late-term abortion can only be performed to save the life or health of the woman. But the language in S. 3 is broad. It is so broad as to apply to many procedures, and it would impact women in the second trimester.

That is exactly why the Supreme Court struck down a similar State law in Nebraska. It is deceptive because it would not just be limited to what the other side implies it does.

Partial-birth is a political term. It is not a medical term. Despite all of the hot rhetoric we hear, this bill is neither designed nor written to ban only one procedure. It would also apply well before viability and could ban possibly more than one procedure.

Second, this bill is extreme. It is just the first in a long march to dismantling a constitutionally protected freedom. Don't take my word for it. Listen

to the President of the United States who declared in 1994:

I will do everything in my power to restrict abortion.

On the issue of women's reproductive freedom, the President has kept his word. He and his staff have worked tirelessly to turn back the clock on women's health choices. In only 2 years, the President has issued a rash of executive actions that could severely restrict stem cell research, thus threatening lifesaving medical advances; reimposed the global gag rule on international family planning programs; made a fetus eligible for health insurance but not the pregnant woman who is carrying the fetus; packed the Federal courts with anti-choice judges; and appointed stanch opponents of reproductive choice throughout all levels of the executive branch.

We will hear the Republicans use the most graphic and disturbing descriptions they can find to try to sour the public on something that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court years ago. And it still opens the door to future politicians banning additional safe and legal procedures.

Third, this ban is unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that this very type of restriction violates the Constitution. Last year, in the case of Stenberg vs. Carhart, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a similar law at the State level unconstitutional for two reasons.

First, the language is so broad that it bans other constitutionally protected procedures. The Supreme Court's rulings state:

Even if the statute's basic aim is to ban D&X, its language

makes clear it also covers a much broader category of

procedures.

The bill before us is similarly unconstitutional because it covers too many constitutionally protected procedures.

Second, the Supreme Court found the State law unconstitutional because it did not contain an exception to protect the woman's health. Let me read that part of the ruling.

The governing standard requires an exception where it is

necessary and appropriate medical judgment for the

preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Our cases have repeatedly invalidated statutes that in the

process of regulating the method of abortion impose

significant health risks.

Guess what. The Republican bill before us fails the same constitutional test. It is too broad, and it does not contain an exception to protect the health of the mother. And the Supreme Court has said it is unconstitutional.

We have Republicans offering today a clearly unconstitutional bill on at least two counts. Proponents of the ban will argue that they have addressed the concerns addressed by the Supreme Court. However, a statement of congressional findings is not binding on the Court. The other side is using misleading and deceptive arguments to ram through an extreme and unconstitutional measure.

If the goal of the Republican Senate, the Republican House, and the Republican White House is to have fewer abortions in this country, then let us have an honest attempt to accomplish that goal. To show a real commitment to reducing abortion, my colleagues should support the amendment I will offer. It will help prevent unintended pregnancies and abortions in the first place.

The Murray-Reid amendment which we intend to offer would do three things: It would reduce unintended pregnancies, reduce the number of abortions, and improve the health of low-income women.

I will offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Reid and myself. Senator Reid has been a long-time champion of women's health issues, and especially for access to family planning. I thank Senator Reid for his leadership on the amendment I will offer.

The Murray-Reid amendment would raise awareness about emergency contraceptives and ensure that insurance companies treat contraceptives fairly and ensure that low-income women have access to health care before, during, and after pregnancy.

First of all, the Murray-Reid amendment would reduce the number of abortions in America. I think that is something we can all agree on, and it is something we all would support.

By educating women about the availability of emergency contraception, an emergency contraceptive known as an EC could help prevent a pregnancy when taken within 72 hours. It is sometimes called the morning-after pill. An EC does not induce an abortion. An EC is not RU- 486. It is simply a high dose of conventional birth control taken soon after contraceptive failure, unprotected sex, or rape.

ECs are safe and they are legal. They reduce the number of abortions and unintended pregnancies.

In fact, a study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute found that emergency contraception prevented 51,000 abortions in 2000. Unfortunately, too few women know that they are available. It has been reported that 50 percent of all pregnancies in our country are unintentional. The best way to ensure a healthy child and reduce the infant mortality rate or birth defects is to ensure that the woman is healthy prior to pregnancy. Public awareness campaigns targeting women and health care procedures will help remove many of the barriers to emergency contraception and will help bring this important means of preventing unintentional pregnancies to American women.

My amendment simply improves the awareness about emergency contraceptives.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, only one-third of women of reproductive age know about emergency contraception.

Mr. President, again I will be offering my amendment shortly. One of the provisions will be to improve awareness about emergency contraceptives. As I said, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, only a third of women of reproductive age know about emergency contraception, and only one in five physicians regularly discuss it with their patients.

What the Murray-Reid amendment does is improve awareness about emergency contraceptives by providing $10 million in each of the next 5 years to establish a public education program. It will educate women and medical professionals across the country about the use of emergency contraceptives. It will allow the Department of Health and Human Services to provide grants to groups of providers working on this education campaign.

Not long ago I visited an organization in my State that provides bilingual pamphlets to clinics and providers in eastern Washington on the availability of ECs and how the drug combinations work to prevent pregnancy. I also know that Planned Parenthood of Washington is working to provide education on ECs as part of their overall family planning counseling.

State public health agencies could also apply for a funding grant to further their efforts to educate women on this safe and effective means of preventing pregnancy.

My amendment also makes emergency contraceptives available to victims of rape in the emergency room. When a woman has been raped and is brought to the emergency room, she may not even be aware that there is a safe and legal way to prevent her from becoming pregnant. We know that counseling in many emergency rooms on the availability of safe and effective contraceptives is simply being ignored. Providing emergency contraceptives or even information about them is still, amazingly, not standard protocol for treating a rape victim. Educating women will ensure that women are more aware. The unfortunate truth is that rape victims are not getting the care they need. Our amendment would allow doctors in the emergency room to just simply tell a rape victim about this safe and legal alternative to abortion.

Let me turn to the second part of my amendment, which requires insurance companies to treat contraceptives fairly. Today, amazingly, many insurance companies will cover drugs such as Viagra, but they will not cover contraceptives. We should eliminate this discrimination in insurance and improve women's health.

Today, 20 States, including Washington State, do have some form of contraceptive equity requirement. Recently, a court decision in my home State of Washington affirmed access to contraceptives as a civil rights protection. Most Americans would agree that when you talk about preventing unintentional pregnancies and protecting women's health, you must have contraceptive equity.

The average annual cost of oral contraceptives can range from $400 to $700 a year. Women of reproductive age spend 68 percent more than men on out-of-pocket health care services. While there are several factors that cause this disparity, the lack of contraceptive equity plays a very big role. A recent survey of health plans showed that 49 percent of large group plans do not routinely cover a contraceptive method. Many States, including my own State of Washington, have taken steps to correct this obvious inequity. But without Federal legislation, the change will be slow, and it will lack a comprehensive commitment to protecting women's health.

This debate is not about costly new mandates or even about moral judgments; rather, it is about eliminating economic discrimination and protecting women's health.

Under my amendment, if health insurance plans offer prescription drugs, they would have to cover contraceptives and treat them equally. If we are going to jeopardize women's health by banning certain safe and legal procedures, then we must ensure access to contraceptives and effective family planning services.

Finally, my amendment would increase health coverage for low-income women through all stages of pregnancy. Not long ago, the administration said States should use SCHIP dollars for the care of the unborn fetus, but it did not extend that to the pregnant woman. That is ridiculous. The clinical guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics both indicate that the woman and the fetus should be treated together. It just makes sense.

So my amendment would ensure States can provide medical coverage for pregnant women from the SCHIP fund. That will help reduce infant mortality and ensure that both the woman and the child get the medical care they need.

This part of my amendment comes from a bipartisan bill, the Mothers and Newborns Health Insurance Act, that was introduced by Senators Bingaman, Lincoln, and Corzine, who have been huge champions of this issue.

Before I end this morning, I just want to share a story with my colleagues of a 34-year-old woman named Audrey Eisen. She and her husband Tom desperately wanted to have children. After trying for 2 years, they became pregnant. And after experiencing the sadness of a miscarriage in July of last year, Audrey and Tom were elated to learn they were pregnant. The checkups during the first few months indicated that the embryo was developing normally. At 13 weeks, they planned to have a special ultrasound. Unfortunately, they discovered the fetus was developing an abnormal number of fingers and toes and that the condition could indicate a much more serious complication, trysomy 13.

Trysomy 13 is a chromosomal condition in which there are three, rather than two, of the 13th chromosome. This syndrome is characterized by multiple abnormalities, many of which are not compatible with life beyond a couple of months. Most fetuses with trysomy 13 die in utero. Of those who make it to birth, almost half do not survive past the first month, and roughly three-quarters die within 6 months, and long- term survival is 1 year.

Unfortunately, neither life nor death comes easily for these children. It is a painful existence, marked by periods of breathing cessation and seizures. When Audrey returned for another ultrasound to get a better image of the fetal brain, her worst fears were confirmed. Here is what Audrey wrote:

The first thing my OB examined during the ultrasound was

the fetal brain. He did not say anything. I could tell he was

holding something back and asked that he tell me what he saw.

He said: ``It is not normal.'' The rest of the scan was a

blur as tears ran down my cheeks and those of my mother and

husband who had accompanied me. Following the scan, the

doctor left us alone to compose ourselves, after which we met

with the genetic counselor. I cried with my whole body from

the depths of my soul.

Audrey underwent additional testing in which she found that their fetus had a complete duplication of the 13th chromosome. It also exhibited a failure of the forebrain to properly develop and separate from the rest of the brain, a ventricular septal defect in the heart and a herniation of a portion of the abdominal organs into the umbilical cord.

Audrey's letter continues:

At this point we discussed our options with the genetic

counselor. My husband and I both felt strongly that it was in

both the child's and our best interest to terminate as

quickly as possible. The genetic counselor told us that we

could either have a D&E or be induced. My doctor prescribed

both procedures and we decided that a D&E was clearly best

for me. The procedure was performed four days later on the

first day of my 16th week of pregnancy. I don't think that I

really understood this issue emotionally or intellectually

until I was in the position of having to terminate my much

desired pregnancy. Along with my sadness came a realization

that if such legislation passed, the right to safe second

trimester termination of pregnancies might not remain

available to those women who come after me. In this event, I

don't know how these women will endure. I don't know how I

could have endured.

Audrey Eisen had to make a terrible decision that no mother ever wants to make. But this Senate wants to inject itself between Audrey Eisen and her doctor.

As I mentioned at the start of my remarks, I find it outrageous that as our Nation stands on the brink of war and our citizens struggle with a stagnant economy, the Republican Senate can find no more important topic to debate than criminalizing women's health decisions. When a woman is lying in pain in the operating room and doctors are telling her that her dream of a healthy baby has been replaced by a nightmare of medical complications and that under these harrowing circumstances she must immediately make a life altering decision that could determine whether she lives or dies or whether she can have children ever again, that woman should be able to make that decision with her family, her doctor, and her faith. The Senate should not make that decision for her.

This bill is an unconstitutional, extreme measure being sold through misleading arguments. If the proponents truly are interested in reducing unwanted pregnancies and reducing the number of abortions, they should support the Murray-Reid amendment which would also improve health care for low-income women. I urge my colleagues to reject the underlying bill. The Senate should not substitute its judgment for the judgment of a woman in one of the most intensely personal decisions she is ever likely to make. But if the Senate is going to ram through this unconstitutional, extreme measure, the least we can do is temper it with safe, responsible access to emergency contraceptives, fair treatment of contraceptives by insurers, and health care for low-income pregnant women.

Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader for his comments and his timely reminders, and I appreciate his comments at this time.

Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, this would be an easier debate if we were speaking to an issue that only dealt with healthy mothers and healthy fetuses. The fact is, we are not. The Senator from California outlined a number of very difficult, troubling cases of women who have had to make very difficult choices that no one on this floor can comprehend without having gone through.

If we can reduce unintended pregnancies we can go a long way to reducing abortions in this country and not have these kinds of debates in the Senate. That is precisely what the current pending amendment is about that we are discussing at this time. It is an amendment that provides contraceptive equity for women. It provides emergency contraception education. It provides emergency contraceptives in the emergency room and it expands SCHIP and Medicaid to include low-income pregnant women so the mother and the fetus are both covered--unlike the current administrative rule.

My colleagues on the other side have offered a point of order against this amendment. I say to them, no one can hide behind a point of order. If we truly believe we want to reduce the number of abortions in this country, if we reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and allow help for women, as this amendment will do, we will all have made a step in the right direction.

I will have more to say but my colleague from Illinois is here. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator.

I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

How much time do we have remaining?

Off of your time, I would be happy.

Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California.

I yield an additional 3 minutes to the Senator from California.

Madam President, I think this discussion shows exactly why this Senate should agree on the women's health amendment that is now before this body and that we will vote on in a few minutes.

Senator Reid and I have said that the goal of all of us should be to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies so that this issue that is being debated does not have to be debated on the floor of the Senate; that this issue should be decided between a women and her doctor, her family and her faith.

I commend Senator Reid for working with me on this very important amendment, and I yield 8 minutes of my remaining time to Senator Reid.

How much time is remaining on both sides?

Madam President, I state for all of our colleagues that we are going to vote in a few minutes on a very important amendment. We have heard a lot of rhetoric in the last few days saying that people care about women, care about women's health, care about the health of a child. I think what we all can agree on is that if we can help prevent unintended pregnancies and ensure access to health care coverage for low-income women, we have taken a major step forward in this country.

The Murray-Reid amendment we are going to vote on in a few minutes does several really important things. Today, in this country, in too many States, women do not have access to contraceptives simply because they are discriminated against by their insurance company.

What this amendment merely says is that it would prohibit those insurance plans from discriminating against contraception, so that women would not be denied the ability to make their own choices for their own family in their own homes with contraception that they can afford. I think this is something many Members agree on, many Members have supported, and it is a step in the right direction in this country for women's health.

Secondly, it provides emergency contraceptive education. It simply authorizes a $10 million education program to help people know and get information to women and health care providers on the availability and effectiveness of emergency contraceptives--again, preventing unintended pregnancies. It provides emergency contraceptives in the emergency room.

Senator Reid spoke very eloquently this morning about a young woman who was raped, who had no knowledge of what she could do to make sure she would not have an unintended pregnancy as a result of the rape. This simply makes sure that emergency contraceptives are available in our emergency rooms so that victims of sexual assault can get the care they need and be taken care of without having to have an unintended pregnancy that would be devastating. This is something of which everyone in this Chamber can be supportive.

Finally, it expands the SCHIP and Medicaid Program to include low- income pregnant women. As we all know, the administration moved to make the fetus eligible under SCHIP but left out the woman. I find that reprehensible. I do not know how a woman's health can be separated from her fetus and one can say this procedure and this medical condition only applies to the fetus. For all of us who have been pregnant, we know that oftentimes when you are not feeling well, you are not sure why you are not feeling well. You cannot separate a woman from her womb when she is pregnant, and you cannot make that kind of coverage just for the fetus. You have to make sure the woman is healthy. That is what this amendment will do. I think it is something all of us can support.

What we have found this evening is that our colleagues on the other side, who have not spoken against this amendment because they do not want to speak against it, are hiding behind a budget waiver. To me, that is a technicality to hide behind. How can they go home and tell women that they are for women's health; that they are for making sure women have the opportunity to prevent unintended pregnancies so that we do not have these difficult choices on the floor of the Senate, and hide behind a budget waiver?

I tell all of my colleagues, a vote to waive the Budget Act is a vote to help prevent unintended pregnancies. It is a vote for women's health, a vote to make sure that women have access and the ability to make these choices for themselves.

I hope all of my colleagues will vote to waive the Budget Act so that we can put in place a bill that will allow women to make good choices for themselves that will allow them to be healthy and for their children to be healthy. Certainly, that is something on which we can all agree.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

The Senate is about to vote on the Murray-Reid amendment. This is a prevention amendment. It is an amendment that supports women's health. If our colleagues choose to hide behind the technicality, that is their choice, but the American people want us to stand behind women's health. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to waive.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

I yield myself 9 minutes.

Mr. President, I am dismayed and outraged that as we stand on the brink of war, as a quarter million of our finest soldiers gather in the Persian Gulf, the Senate is here this week discussing how to criminalize women's health choices. That is outrageous. I cannot believe the Senate leadership can find no more pressing national issue for the Senate to consider right now than abortion.

I cannot believe my colleagues are so out of touch with what is going on in America and the world that we should be debating this bill, S. 3. For anyone who hasn't had time to read a newspaper or talk to a constituent in the last week, I will read you some of the headlines. It will help demonstrate what else we are not doing right now.

This is from Friday's New York Times. Headline: ``U.S. Payrolls Fall Sharply as Jobless Rate Rises to 5.8 Percent.''

Employers shed more jobs last month at any time since the

immediate aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks,

the Labor Department reported today.

Saturday's Washington Post is even more alarming.

. . . [T]he report showed significant declines in a wide

range of industries, including manufacturing, construction,

retail trade, transportation, and some service.

How about this revelation: ``Chronic Budget Deficits Forecast,'' says the Washington Post.

The Federal Government . . . faces chronic deficits that

only dramatic policy shifts can reverse. . . . Altogether,

the CBO concluded, the President's policies would leave the

Government with $2.7 trillion in debt through 2013, which the

Government would not realize if Bush's proposals were

rejected.

The Associated Press reported on Thursday that the Dow Jones fell to a 5-month low. If it drops 400 more points, it will hit a 5-year low.

On Wednesday, we learned that ``75 million Americans had no health insurance in 2001-02.''

Today, the New York Times reported, ``More Students Line Up at Financial Aid Offices.''

As the economic slump wears on, universities are awash in

financial aid requests that dwarf those of earlier years,

often from students who never thought of asking for help

before and now find themselves scrambling for ways to stay in

school.

On Saturday, the AP reported:

The Air Force Chief of Staff vowed to make the Air Force

Academy safer for female cadets. The Air Force says it has

investigated 54 reports of sexual assault since the academy

began admitting women in 1976. Many of the alleged victims

have said they were afraid to report the attacks because they

feared they would be reprimanded.

Mr. President, this is a terrible situation. I commend Senators Allard and Warner for their leadership in working to address that problem.

Unfortunately, the news overseas is no better than the news at home. The New York Times reported: ``North Korean Fliers Said To Have Sought Hostages.''

The North Korean fighter jets that intercepted an unarmed

American sky plane over the Sea of Japan last weekend were

trying to force the aircraft to land in North Korea and seize

its crew, a senior defense official said today.

Today's Washington Post reports that ``Iran's Nuclear Program Speeds Ahead; Making ``Startling' Progress.''

U.S. officials . . . described Iran's progress last week as

``startling'' and ``eye-opening,'' so much so that

intelligence agencies are being forced to dramatically

shorten estimates for when Iran may acquire nuclear weapons.

But equally striking is the extent to which Iran's

breakthrough caught the United States and others by surprise.

Mr. President, these are the issues that I hear about when I am home in my State at the grocery store on Saturday morning. My constituents are terribly concerned about the economy, their jobs, their health care--or their lack of a job or health care. They ask about the war in Iraq and the threat posed by North Korea. My constituents have a vested interest in resolving the North Korean crisis, as do the Senators from California, since they have read news reports that the Western United States is potentially within range of a North Korean missile.

We are living in very trying times. It is challenges like these that test the strength of a nation and its leaders. But for the good of the country, shouldn't we now, more than ever, put aside the wedge politics and get on with the real business of the American people? That is what they elected us to do. That is why each one of us is here today.

Instead, we find ourselves on the eve of war facing a stagnant economy and the Senate is here debating a woman's right to choose.

Someone just tuning into C-SPAN right now might think this debate is taking place on another planet because it is dangerously out of sync with the real threats that are facing our Nation. It shows that nothing--not war, not the stagnant economy--will stop hardliners in Congress from trying to appease their political base by pushing an unconstitutional, deceptive, extreme agenda on American women.

But do you know what? If the Senate leadership wants to debate abortion on the eve of war, fine, bring it on, because it is time the American people see that they are using deceptive examples and misleading information to impose extreme, unconstitutional restrictions on a woman's health decision.

Throughout this debate, I want to show that the Republican proposal is based on misinformation and is skewed to undermine a woman's legal, constitutionally protected rights.

I am going to go a step further and offer an amendment that would actually reduce the number of abortions in America and ensure that low- income, pregnant women have access to health care that will reduce complications in their pregnancies and ensure healthy outcomes.

Like any debate on a sensitive issue, the debate on this measure is complicated. But it really comes down to one simple question: Who decides what is right for a woman's health? The woman and her doctor, or Senators she has never met? Who decides whether or not a woman will ever be able to have children? The woman herself, or a Senator who knows nothing about her?

When you ask Americans who they believe should be making health care decisions, the answer is overwhelmingly clear: The patient should decide.

We all bristle at the idea that an insurance company or an HMO would stand in the way of a doctor or patient making a decision about a medical test. Yet on this, the most sensitive and private and difficult decision a woman may ever face, the Senate is about to insert itself between a patient, her doctor, her family, and her faith.

This measure would gag a doctor who is about to offer a woman a choice in a potentially life-threatening or health-impairing decision. It would substitute a woman's own judgment about her life and her family for the judgment of the Senate leadership.

With all due respect, the Senate leadership does not know what is best for that woman, and neither do I, nor any other elected official. The Government should not be making a woman's health decisions for her. She should make them for herself, in consultation with her family, her doctor, and her faith.

Mr. President, I will have much more to say about this and the amendment I intend to offer, but again, I have to say that I find it so amazing this Senate would be so out of sync with the fear and the anxiety in this country not because of some late-term abortion bill that is brought out for political reasons, but because our country is on the edge of a war that could change things for a long time to come. We are on the edge of a war where we have thousands of young people standing ready to do what this President asks. We are on the edge of a war where no one knows what the consequences will be, and at the same time, at home, we are facing an economy that is truly becoming one in which many people fear for their job, their health care, their ability to send their kids to school, and the future of this country.

Those are the issues we should be debating tonight, Mr. President, not this issue. But we are here. We will debate it, and we will make the case that it is deceptive, it is extreme, and it is unconstitutional.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. I retain the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, I will make the case that this is deceptive, it is extreme, it is unconstitutional, and I will make that case over the following days.

If the Senator asks me a question, I will be happy to respond.

Mr. President, I answer that I think most Americans do not know the reality of the language of the bill that is being presented to them, and I will make that case.

That does not interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, I would argue with my colleague, and I am happy to have that debate. Senator Reid from Nevada has been adamant about that issue, and I think it

is totally separate from what we are discussing this evening.

Mr. President, in February my State lost one of its great citizens and the father of the Washington State wine industry, Walter Clore.

My colleagues in the Senate may not know a fact that many wine drinkers around the globe have learned the last few years: Washington state produces some of the highest quality wine in the world. In 2001, Wine Enthusiast Magazine named Washington state as ``Wine Region of the Year'' in recognition of its fast emergence as a global leader in producing quality wines.

I am very pleased that Walter Clore lived to see this honor--and so many other honors--bestowed on Washington wine. These honors reflect just how far the Washington wine industry has come. They are also an outstanding tribute to the legacy of Walter Clore and his vision, hard work, and dedication.

I had the great privilege to meet Walter Clore in August 2002. That month, I spent two days traveling through Washington wine country--from Yakima to Prosser to the Tri-Cities to Walla Walla. I toured wineries and vineyards and visited with wine grape growers, vintners, and researchers.

Walter Clore was himself a researcher. He spent 40 years at the Washington State University Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center in Prosser, Washington, an institution that has helped lead Washington agriculture forward in so many ways. During his career, Walter developed and tested wine grape varieties throughout Washington State.

Walter Clore retired in 1976, but he was not content to relax and watch from the sidelines. Using his 40 years of experience and knowledge, he connected emerging vintners with promising varieties and pointed them to ideal sites for growing wine grapes.

I am deeply saddened by the loss of Walter Clore. But I take solace in the fact that he pursued his passion with unrelenting determination and transformed his vision of a vibrant Washington wine industry into a reality. We need more pioneers like Walter Clore.

Today, Washington state's $2.4 billion wine industry is the Nation's second largest producer of premium wines. The industry boasts more than 200 wineries and 300 wine grape growers. More important to consumers than the size of the industry, my State continues to earn respect for its quality, affordable wines.

I believe the best way to pay tribute to Walter Clore is to continue his legacy. As a U.S. Senator, that means funding research through USDA and institutions like Washington State University to keep the industry healthy and on the cutting edge. It means investing in trade promotion initiatives like the Market Access Program so that Washington wine can earn the markets and worldwide recognition it deserves. And it means creating opportunities for Washington wine country to become a destination spot for wine lovers who live in the Pacific Northwest and around the Nation.

As Washingtonians, we are so proud to call Walter Clore our own. On behalf of the Washington wine industry, I want to express my condolences to Walter's family. I also want to let them know that we will continue to build on his great legacy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from Wine Press Northwest about Walter Clore be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Throughout my service in the Senate, we have struggled with judicial nominations. I know we can make the process work.

In Washington State, I worked with a Republican Senator and a Democratic President to nominate and confirm Federal judges, and today, with a Republican President I am working with my Democratic colleague from Washington State on a bipartisan process to recommend judicial candidates.

I have also seen the process work in the Senate. My Democratic Senate colleagues agreed to confirm 100 Federal judges during the period of the 107th Congress when Democrats were in the majority. That is a great accomplishment for a Democratic Senate and a Republican President.

There were also periods during the Clinton administration where the Republican Senate confirmed significant numbers of judges appointed by a Democratic President. It is important to put this standoff in the proper context. We are considering a nominee to the DC Circuit Court which is widely acknowledged as the second highest court in our country.

This court has jurisdiction over a broad array of critical issues involving workers rights, civil liberties, disabilities, and environmental regulations. Judges at the DC Circuit Court are often given serious consideration for service on the United States Supreme Court. This is a lifetime appointment. Neither the President nor the Senate can revisit this nomination once it has been confirmed.

All of these factors--the importance of the DC Circuit, the potential of consideration for the Supreme Court, and the lifetime appointment-- signal Members to proceed with caution. We are not considering a nomination to a commission or an ambassadorship or some other Senate- confirmable position. This is different. This is a lifetime appointment for a Federal judge whose rulings over the next 30 or 40 or more years will have ramifications for every single American.

I respect President Bush's role in nominating Miguel Estrada. I respect the majority's right, working with the President, from the same party, to promptly move judicial appointments. I come to the floor today to ask my colleagues to respect the Senate's constitutional advice and consent responsibilities. As Senators, we are elected to serve our constituents. We are asked to confirm judges whose decisions can change U.S. history and shape the lives of the American people for generations to come. That is a tremendous responsibility. I know all Senators take it very seriously.

Let me say a few words about the nominee now before the Senate. Miguel Estrada, by all accounts, is an accomplished lawyer with a compelling personal history. But I owe it to my constituents to make an informed judgment on his nomination. At this time I

am simply not prepared to move forward with a vote on the nomination of Miguel Estrada because there is too little information for me to make an informed decision. I encourage the majority leader to take this nomination off the floor at this time. We expect Federal judges to provide the proper check in our system of checks and balances outlined in the Constitution. Without it, our system does not function properly.

We must ensure each nominee has sufficient experience to sit in judgment of our fellow citizens, will be fair to all those who come before their court, will be evenhanded in administering justice, and will protect the rights and liberties of all Americans. To determine if a nominee meets those standards, we need to explore their record, ask questions, and weigh their responses. Miguel Estrada and the administration have failed to address these basic issues. And without addressing these basic issues, I cannot assess the nominee's qualifications. From my perspective, the Senate has been asked to confirm a candidate about whom we know very little. I cannot at this time vote to confirm Miguel Estrada for lifetime service on the DC Circuit Court.

As several of my colleagues have done, I need only to invoke the words of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to describe my hesitancy to move forward with the Estrada nomination. Speaking of President Clinton's judicial nominees and the Senate, Senator Hatch said the Senate will have ``to be more diligent and extensive in its questioning of nominees' jurisprudential views.''

Mr. Estrada and the administration have failed to meet the same standard set out by Senator Hatch. Mr. Estrada has failed to provide through his writing, his experience, or through answers to questions at the Judiciary Committee, any meaningful insight into his likely decisionmaking process as a Federal judge. He has very limited scholarly or judicial experience. He did work in the Solicitor General's Office at the Department of Justice during the 1990s. But, unfortunately, the administration has refused to provide the Senate with or characterize any opinions he wrote or had while at DOJ.

Despite repeated requests from Senators, the nominee and the administration have refused to provide information that can help all Senators determine whether Miguel Estrada is deserving of confirmation to a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. Allowing Senators to access the memoranda he wrote while at the Solicitor General's office is particularly important.

Unlike most judicial nominees, he has nothing on paper to give us any indication as to how he would rule on the bench. In fact, Mr. Estrada has not had any published legal writings since he was in law school.

Time and again, we are told by the administration that Miguel Estrada is a brilliant lawyer and more than qualified to serve on the D.C. Circuit Court. Yet, all we have to base a decision on his nomination are the endorsements of others. I appreciate these endorsements, but each of us as Senators must reach our own conclusions based on the facts. I am greatly troubled by the silence we have heard from the nominee himself.

The path to confirmation for a judicial nominee is indeed a difficult one. But in the case of Mr. Estrada, the nominee and the administration went beyond anything we are accustomed to and brought great difficulty upon themselves. At his confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Estrada refused to give Senators straight answers to most of their questions.

Many of our Judiciary Committee colleagues have discussed this nomination at great length here on the floor. I have listened to the statements from both Democrats and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee.

The words of Senator Feinstein stands out as I look at this nomination. Let me share them again with the Senate.

Senator Feinstein said:

I have been reviewing background materials about Miguel

Estrada, talking to those who have concerns about him, and I

have re-read the transcript from Mr. Estrada's hearing.

I must say that throughout this process, I have been struck

by the truly unique lack of information we have about this

nominee, and the lack of answers he has given to the many

questions raised by Members of this Committee.

He, essentially, is a blank slate. And, if confirmed, he

could serve for 30, 40, or even 50 years on one of the

highest courts in the Nation. We has better be right about

this decision.

Mr. President, I agree with that assessment. The Senate must be right about this decision. That is why so many on this side of the aisle have asked the majority leader to help us be right about the Miguel Estrada nomination.

At a minimum, Mr. Estrada should be sent back to the Judiciary Committee for more questioning. In the Committee, he should be more forward in answering the questions of Senators. He should be more willing to release information regarding his opinions about important judicial matters.

Mr. Estrada was asked to name any case in the history of the Supreme Court with which he disagreed. Surely, Mr. Estrada--who served as the editor of the Harvard Law Review--can cite a case that he disagrees with. At his original confirmation hearing, Mr. Estrada could not cite a single case before the Supreme Court he disagreed with. The Senate should give Mr. Estrada another opportunity to answer this question before the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Estrada was asked to name a Supreme Court judge that he admired. When he refused to answer this question, Mr. Estrada was asked to name any Federal judge that he admired. Again, Mr. Estrada refused. The Senate should give Mr. Estrada another opportunity to answer this question before the Judiciary Committee.

Unless the Senate is able to learn more about Miguel Estrada, I am left to conclude that this nominee has no judge he would try to emulate, no judicial philosophy he follows, and no opinion on any important case that has ever come before the Supreme Court.

Without so little information to determine how Mr. Estrada will rule as a Federal judge on important matters of labor rights, rights of privacy, civil rights and environmental regulation, I cannot consent to considering his nomination at this time.

I strongly encourage the majority leader to withdraw this nomination and send it back to the Judiciary Committee. I encourage the President and the nominee to address the many issues raised by Senators.

The ultimate fate of the Miguel Estrada nomination--was well as the Senate's ability to move forward with bipartisan support for judicial nominees--rests with the majority leader and the President of the United States.

Madam President, the Senate is now considering and will soon adopt the omnibus conference report on H.J. Res. 2. I will vote for the conference report. I know from my work on the Appropriations Committee that this bill represents a genuine effort by many in both bodies to finally finish the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill.

I want to begin my remarks by thanking our leader on this side, Senator Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd was the chairman of the Appropriations Committee when the fiscal year 2003 appropriations process began. He steered all 13 appropriations bills through the committee with bipartisan support from every member of the committee. Senator Byrd was instrumental in putting this conference report together. I know the Senator has many concerns about this bill. I share many of his concerns and particularly those regarding the many cuts to homeland security in this bill. The Senator has been a leading voice for homeland security funding and I look forward to working closely with him in the days ahead as this body works on this important issue.

I also want to acknowledge and thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. We are here tonight because of the determined leadership of Senator Ted Stevens. I know many of my colleagues did not want to see the Congress agree to fund the government with a continuing resolution for the rest of the fiscal year. This would have represented a huge failure on the part of the Congress, setting a dangerous precedent for the legislative branch's working relationship with the Executive Branch. Chairman Stevens is a tough but fair chairman. I appreciate the work he has put in to manage and successfully complete this very unusual process.

I appreciate the inclusion of funding for many projects and programs that directly benefit the environment and natural resources in my beautiful home State. The bill includes funding for salmon recovery work from the Elwha River in northwest Washington to the Snake River in southeast Washington and nearly every community between. Funding is also provided to fight the Spartina infestation in Willapa Bay and to acquire important ecological lands around the State. However, while I am very grateful for my colleagues willingness to support my work to secure this funding, I must express my dismay over anti-environmental provisions included in the bill and its failure to adequately fund the conservation trust fund created 3 years ago.

The conference considered many different provisions related to the Tongass National Forest which sought to strip away environmental considerations in the management of the forest. I appreciate the conference removing these provisions, but wish the one remaining provision could have also been deleted.

Also of concern to me is a provision retained in the omnibus that significantly expands the Forest Service's stewardship contracting program. This had been a pilot project intended to see if the stewardship contracts were a constructive tool in addressing forest health issues. The problem with the provision in the bill is that it creates a permanent program before we have received any data from the pilot projects already authorized. There is simply no data yet in upon which to make the decision to provide unlimited expansion of the program. I want to make clear that I support the pilot program and believe stewardship contracting could be a valuable tool in addressing forest health issues, but in order for this to be a valuable tool, it must be one that has the trust of Congress and citizens. There is simply not enough data to have created that trust yet.

There are many great accomplishments in this bill. I am particularly proud of the work we did in the transportation title. The Senate worked very hard to keep my amendment to fund the Community Action Program or CAP at $120 million for the fiscal year. I appreciate the Senate's hard work to stand for this small program that is making a difference all across the country. This bill provides increased funding for a number of education programs. Importantly, education programs like Head Start are exempted from any across the board cuts associated with this bill.

As we conclude the fiscal year 2003 appropriations process, I hope we can move forward on the coming fiscal year with a renewed commitment to finish all 13 appropriations bills on time. We will need the help of our House colleagues and of course, the administration is an important contributor to the appropriations process too. We must avoid a repeat performance of fiscal year 2003.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 25 minutes.

That is correct.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to share a story with my colleagues. It's a true story about a family who happened to live in a neighborhood in Spokane, WA. They could have easily been in Memphis or Minneapolis or Midland as well. But they lived in my State, in Spokane, a typical American city in Eastern Washington.

Mr. President, as part of realizing their American dream, Ralph Busch and his wife Donna bought a house. They were newlyweds, and this was the home they bought after getting married. They soon discovered that it needed roof repairs, and so Ralph spent quite a bit of time in the attic, working on his roof.

The following year they found they had to renovate an addition that was put on the house in the 1950s.

They both had full-time jobs, so they spent many nights and weekends working on their home. They knocked down walls and tore through the old insulation, drywall and wood. They sanded and hammered and spent two entire years fixing up the place.

One morning, Ralph was reading the newspaper. Just by chance, he came across a story about a company that manufactured a household insulation called Zonolite. This insulation, he read, was tainted with deadly asbestos.

Ralph suddenly realized that Zonolite was in his home.

Ralph Busch was stunned as it dawned on him. He had just spent two years in his own home handling Zonolite insulation and he and his wife may have unknowingly been exposed to deadly asbestos.

What would happen from his and his wife's exposure?

How come no one had told him he had asbestos in his attic?

The Zonolite insulation was a product from the little town of Libby, MT. It was produced by the W.R. Grace Company.

W.R. Grace mined vermiculite from the hillside near Libby. The company turned the ore into insulation known as Zonolite by heating vermiculite to expand it into light granules.

The process was similar to popping popcorn. After sorting the popped vermiculite, W.R. Grace poured it into bags and sold it to use as insulation.

The company marketed Zonolite as ``perfectly safe''. . .

But laced throughout the vermiculite in the ground near Libby, another mineral was present: asbestos. W.R. Grace's process to make Zonolite and other products could not, and did not, remove all the asbestos from the end product. Zonolite insulation contains between .5 percent and 8 percent asbestos.

The community of Libby has suffered immensely from decades of mining the deadly vermiculite ore used to make Zonolite insulation and other consumer products.

At least 200 men and women from Libby have died from diseases caused by exposure to asbestos-tainted vermiculite, and hundreds more people from the town are sick.

When inhaled, asbestos can cause deadly diseases, from asbestosis to mesothelioma, a deadly cancer of the lining of the lung that is almost always fatal. In fact, mesothelioma kills at least 2,000 people each year and is caused only by asbestos.

The diseases induced by exposure to asbestos result in horrible deaths and they are nearly always fatal. Treatment is harsh and debilitating.

These diseases can take years to strike. The late Congressman Bruce Vento and the father of the modern Navy, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt both died from asbestos they had been exposed to years earlier.

The asbestos-tainted insulation manufactured by the W.R. Grace Company was used in homes throughout the country for decades.

Vermiculite from Libby first started being sold commercially in 1921, and W.R. Grace bought the mine in 1963. Reviews of invoices indicate that more than 6 million tons of Libby ore was shipped to hundreds of sites nationwide for processing over the decades.

This chart behind me shows more than 300 sites across the Nation, where ore was processed, in many cases to make Zonolite insulation.

In internal memos and e-mails, the Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that as many as 35 million homes, schools and businesses may still contain this insulation. Moreover, W.R. Grace knew the Libby mine contained asbestos when the company purchased it in 1963. But Grace made millions of tons of Zonolite anyway and unabashedly marketed it as ``safe.''

If the manufacturer of this insulation knew it was contaminated with asbestos, why didn't it or the Federal Government make sure that Ralph Busch and millions of others across the country knew to leave it alone?

The answer to the first question is that W.R. Grace still claims its product isn't harmful. The answer to the second question is more complicated.

According to published reports and internal EPA documents, the EPA was preparing to tell the American people about the dangers of Zonolite insulation. But it didn't happen.

An investigation by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Andrew Schneider found that last spring while it was addressing the public health crisis in Libby, MT, the EPA was preparing to tell the American people about the dangers of Zonolite insulation in millions of homes across this country. But first, EPA had to deal with Libby. EPA decided it needed to minimize the exposure of Libby residents to asbestos-contaminated vermiculite, and the agency drafted a press release announcing its decision.

This document said that EPA:

. . . will spend $34 million to remove dangerous asbestos-

contaminated vermiculite insulation from 70 percent of

residential and commercial buildings in Libby.

I am glad that EPA has taken aggressive steps to protect people in that small Montana town.

Senator Baucus deserves tremendous credit for the work he has done to bring Federal resources to Montana to help people in Libby.

And EPA deserves credit for doing the right thing, and going in to remove the insulation from Libby.

But what about the rest of the country? What about the millions of other homes with Zonolite insulation?

Since EPA decided to help Libby, the agency anticipated the logical follow-up question of what about the millions of homes nationwide that contain the same Zonolite insulation as homes in Libby.

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the EPA had drafted news releases, and drawn up lists of public officials to notify. The agency was preparing to embark on an outreach and education campaign to let people know about this hazard in their homes.

But what stopped EPA from following through with its warning?

It may have been the same person or people who blocked another government health agency from warning workers about asbestos exposure.

Last April, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health--NIOSH--was preparing to release new guidance for workers who come into contact with insulation in the course of their daily work.

NIOSH was preparing to alert workers, such as electricians, plumbers and maintenance workers, about how they can better protect themselves from exposure to asbestos in Zonolite insulation.

These materials were prepared last April, but they still have not been released.

Let me read from a ``Pre-Decisional Draft'' of a NIOSH Fact Sheet dated April 11, 2002.

I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record in its entirety.

Mr. President, NIOSH recommended that workers:

. . . should isolate the work area from other areas in

order to avoid spreading fibers, use local exhaust

ventilation to reduce dust exposures, and use appropriate

respiratory protection.

If the employer or worker is concerned about potential

exposure, and if at all possible, the vermiculite should not

be disturbed.

But, astonishingly, this guidance was never released. How many of the construction workers, maintenance people, electricians, plumbers and homeowners across the country know they should ``avoid spreading fibers, use local exhaust ventilation or appropriate respiratory protection?''

I suspect that like Mr. Ralph Busch, thousands of people across the U.S. are not taking these important precautions because they are simply unaware of the danger.

I would like to read to my colleagues another section from the never- released NIOSH Fact Sheet. This was in response to the question about how workers can know if the vermiculite they have is contaminated with asbestos. It says:

As a rule, we believe that any vermiculite that originated

in Libby, Montana, before 1990 should be regarded as

potentially contaminated . . .

It is known that vermiculite from Libby was sold as attic

insulation under the product name Zonolite Attic Insulation

and that this product is still in homes throughout the United

States.

But especially interesting is the next section, which is in parentheses as a comment by the author:

W.R. Grace estimates several million homes contain

``vermiculite attic insulation,'' which is most likely very

conservative.

If we don't wish to provide any indication of the magnitude

of the potential VAI (or vermiculite attic insulation)

exposure in number of homes, we should be clear about the

potential situation to provide a more accurate picture and

warning.

I must ask my colleagues, why wouldn't NIOSH or others in the Administration--when they are taking great pains to do the job right in Libby--want to share with workers and the public an indication of the magnitude of the number of homes with asbestos-tainted vermiculite?

Isn't it our government's job to protect people from risks associated with hazardous substances such as asbestos?

Don't we need to know the scope of the problem in order to help gauge the extent of the potential risks?

Why aren't we warning workers and giving them the new guidance that has already been drafted by NIOSH?

Interestingly enough, on April 10, 2002, the day before the date on this NIOSH Fact Sheet, EPA received a letter from W.R. Grace defending their harmful product.

The letter read:

Zonolite Attic Insulation (ZAI) has been insulating homes

for over 60 years and there is no credible reason to believe

that ZAI has ever caused an asbestos-related disease in

anyone who has used it in his/her home.

How then does Grace explain the fact that the company has settled at least 25 bodily injury claims caused by exposure to Zonolite?

Make no mistake. W.R. Grace is a company with one of the worst public health and environmental records in America. I draw my colleague's attention to a 1998 article by Dr. David Egilman, Wes Wallace and Candace Hom published in the journal Accountability in Research entitled ``Corporate Corruption of Medical Literature: Asbestos Studies Concealed by W.R. Grace & Co.''

I will read briefly from the abstract of this article:

In 1963, W.R. Grace acquired the mine (in Libby) and

employee health problems at the mine became known to W.R.

Grace executives and to Grace's insurance company, Maryland

Casualty.

In 1976, in response to tighter federal regulation of

asbestos and asbestos-containing products, W.R. Grace funded

an animal study of tremolite toxicity.

They hoped to prove that tremolite did not cause

mesothelioma, the cancer uniquely associated with asbestos

exposure. However, the study showed that tremolite did cause

mesothelioma.

W.R. Grace never disclosed the results of this animal

study, nor did they disclose their knowledge of lung disease

in the Libby workers, either to the workers themselves or to

regulatory agencies.

These actions were intentional, and were motivated by

Grace's conscious decision to prioritize corporate profit

over human health.

Given the facts that W.R. Grace has knowingly manufactured and sold an asbestos-tainted product, has suppressed research findings showing that tremolite asbestos causes cancer, and has denied that their product is potentially dangerous, the company is woefully lacking for credibility.

Which brings us to our question: If EPA was planning to warn the American public about the dangers of Zonolite insulation, what stopped EPA from following through with its plan?

Why aren't we warning homeowners nationwide about Zonolite insulation?

Why aren't we warning workers and giving them new safety guidelines?

The answers might lie, not with the EPA, but with the White House Office of Management and Budget, OMB.

An internal e-mail from John F. Wood, the Deputy General Counsel at OMB, to staff at EPA contained details about finalizing the Action Memo for Libby.

Also copied on the e-mail were OMB Deputy Director Nancy Dorn and Associate Director of Natural Resources Programs Marcus Peacock.

Here's what OMB's lawyer wrote to EPA. I ask unanimous consent that this e-mail be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it says:

Thank you for your efforts to alleviate my concerns. Here

are just a few edits, which are necessary to avoid the

problems we discussed earlier. Please be sure to observe the

deletion of the citation of Sect. 104 (a) (4).

What is Section 104 (a) (4)?

It is a clause in the Superfund law, which enables the EPA to declare a public health emergency.

And why did OMB tell the EPA to ``delete the citation'' to Section 104 (a) (4)?

We don't know for sure, but if EPA had issued the public health emergency for Libby under Superfund, then the agency would have had to answer questions about asbestos-tainted insulation from every other homeowner in the country.

Here is what the St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigation concluded:

The Environmental Protection Agency was on the verge of

warning millions of Americans that their attics and walls

might contain asbestos-contaminated insulation. But, at the

last minute, the White House intervened, and the warning has

never been issued.

The Post-Dispatch got reaction from an EPA staffer about OMB's intervention:

It was like a gut shot,'' said one of those senior staffers

involved in the decision. ``It wasn't like they ordered us

not to make the declaration, they just really, really

strongly suggested against it. Really strongly. There was no

choice left.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the St. Louis Post- Dispatch article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, because of OMB's involvement, EPA never conducted the planned outreach to warn people about Zonolite. NIOSH's guidance to workers about how to protect themselves was never finalized.

In response to these shocking reports, on January 3, 2003, I wrote to EPA Administrator Whitman and OMB Director Daniels to get some answers.

Mr. Daniels has not yet responded to the allegations that his office blocked the announcement.

Ms. Whitman wrote that she is responding on behalf of OMB. I can only ascribe this to OMB's desire to remain unaccountable and to hide the role it played in these decisions.

Ms. Whitman's response was woefully inadequate. She failed to explain the nature or the substance of OMB's involvement. She also wrote that it is not possible to know how many homes contain vermiculite insulation even though HER OWN AGENCY has estimated it may be between 15 and 35 million homes, schools, and businesses.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Administrator Whitman's letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, my colleagues may be curious about why I am so interested in EPA's decisions regarding vermiculite from Libby.

This issue is important to me because residents in my State are being exposed to asbestos from Zonolite.

And, Mr. President, constituents in your state and every other State in America may also have this insulation.

I am deeply concerned that most people with Zonolite in their homes are completely unaware of this problem. I am afraid most will not learn of it until they have already been exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos. And I am most concerned that this administration may be stifling EPA's efforts to warn homeowners, consumers, and workers because of pressure from W.R. Grace.

And I must remind my colleagues: there is no safe known level of exposure to asbestos. Deadly diseases such as asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma can develop decades after just brief exposures to high concentrations of asbestos.

Ultimately, I believe Administrator Whitman wanted to do the right thing by warning homeowners nationwide to be careful if they have Zonolite in their homes when the agency began removing Zonolite from homes in Libby, MT. But she was stopped. The reasons may never be known--the excuse may be buried in ``executive privilege.''

So where do we go from here?

First, I hope my colleagues will support efforts to get to the bottom of what stopped the EPA from warning the public. We have to increase pressure on EPA, NIOSH, and other public health agencies to raise public awareness about Zonolite.

Second, I hope my colleagues will support legislation to ban asbestos in America and to warn people about the potential dangers posed by Zonolite insulation.

I appreciate the support for this legislation I have received from Senators Baucus, Cantwell, Dayton, and our late colleague, Senator Wellstone, who were original cosponsors.

I have been working to raise awareness about the current dangers of asbestos for over 2 years.

In July of 2001, I chaired a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing on asbestos and workplace safety.

In June of 2002, 2 days after introducing the Ban Asbestos in America Act, I testified at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on Libby held by Senator Baucus.

My colleagues may wonder whatever happened to Ralph Busch and his wife Donna.

After reading about Zonolite in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Mr. Busch went to get the asbestos removed from his home. He learned it would cost $32,000 to do so.

When he tried to secure compensation from his homeowners insurance to pay to clean up the contamination, his insurance company rejected the claim.

He got nowhere with the company that had inspected the home before he

purchased it. They hadn't known about Zonolite, either.

When he talked to his realtor about trying to sell his house, Mr. Busch's realtor emphasized that Mr. Busch and his wife would be responsible under the law for disclosing the presence of Zonolite to any potential buyer.

According to Mr. Busch, even his realtor--and I quote--``. . . expressed apprehension over entering the house saying he has young children and was fearful of asbestos exposure without a proper respirator . . . this about a house we were living in every day.''

In the end, having exhausted all of his options, Ralph Busch and his wife Donna sacrificed their home to foreclosure, having lost thousands of dollars and their good credit rating. They didn't feel that it was safe to live there anymore, or to bring other people into their home. Finally, they decided to move out of their ``dream house'' in Spokane. To this day, that home remains vacant.

Apart from the tremendous economic loss, Mr. Busch and his wife are concerned for their health. They are left wondering what long-term negative health effects they may suffer as a result of their exposure to asbestos fibers from the insulation.

Mr. Busch has told me, ``I feel like the poster-child for the unsuspecting homeowner who unknowingly set off a time bomb in the process of remodeling his home.''

To this day, Mr. Busch is haunted by words he read in the Spokesman- Review almost three years ago. The March 12, 2000, article, entitled, ``Zonolite's Effects Outlive Plant,'' said this about mesothelioma.

[The disease] inflicts one of the most torturous deaths

known to humankind. Some people require intravenous morphine

to numb mesothelioma's pain. Some need part of their spinal

cord severed. Some are driven to suicide.

If there is a role for Government in people's lives, then it should include protecting the public health. We have an opportunity to protect the public's health so that Ralph Busch and thousands--perhaps millions--of other Americans won't have to be needlessly exposed to the time bomb sitting in their homes, schools, and businesses.

And meanwhile, if you are planning to do work in your attic, look at your insulation carefully first to see if it is vermiculite. You can see pictures of what this insulation looks like by going to EPA's web site, which is www.epa.gov/asbestos/insulation.html.

If you think you have Zonolite, immediately contact EPA to get additional advice about how to handle it. According to EPA's web site, if you think you have Zonolite insulation, leave it alone and not disturb it. And then contact your Representative in Congress and ask him or her to pass legislation to ban asbestos, something we all should have done decades ago. We can make a difference, but we must act today.

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

Madam President, I join my colleagues in expressing our gratefulness to the seven heroes who were lost on the Space Shuttle Columbia Saturday as they completed a mission of science to benefit the world.

I also share my thoughts and prayers with the families they've left behind.

Over the past few days, we have seen an outpouring of support from people all over the world for these seven remarkable individuals, and the work they carried out so selflessly.

From formal memorial services--like the one held in Houston today--to more spontaneous tributes throughout America, Israel, India and other nations, people around the world have shared their words of loss and appreciation.

Frankly, there is little I can add to the chorus of eloquent voices we have heard over the past few days.

But what I can do--and what I am honored to do on behalf of the people I represent--is to share with the Senate how two members of this amazing crew touched the lives of many in my home State of Washington.

Columbia pilot William McCool was a Commander in the United States Navy. He served two tours at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island in Washington State.

Commander McCool was an EA-6B pilot serving in both the Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron 133 and the Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron 132.

His colleague, Columbia Payload Commander Michael Anderson, was a

Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Air Force. Colonel Anderson had long ties to the Spokane area in Washington State.

Both of these astronauts touched lives in Washington State. Both were accomplished pilots. Both were pillars in their communities. Both were strong family members.

On Saturday afternoon, I called the Commander of the Naval Air Station Whidbey Island. Over the years, I have had an opportunity to work with the fine crews at NAS Whidbey Island. I have shared both good times and bad times with them. When I called on Saturday just a few hours after the disaster, I knew the air crews and the families would be struggling with Commander McCool's death.

I spoke with Captain Steven Black. I had expected to hear stories of Willie McCool's service at NAS Whidbey earlier in his distinguished career. I heard that--and so much more--as Captain Black told me about this man who was so revered by his fellow Naval airmen at Whidbey.

Willie was a role model to young flyers at Whidbey. They all followed his career and his many accomplishments in the Air Force and as an astronaut with NASA.

Captain Black told me about his recent E-mails with Commander McCool.

Just 2 days before, Commander McCool took the time to E-mail his friends and colleagues at Whidbey. Whidbey Island had an effect on Willie McCool. And Willie McCool had an impact on NAS Whidbey Island that lives on in the mission and the talents of the Naval personnel serving there.

As Captain Black told a reporter,

Willie flew the skies of Washington state. He was a

talented pilot. He was very enthusiastic about his work. He

had a contagious sense of awe and wonder at the science

behind the flying he loved.

And Commander McCool touched lives in communities beyond NAS Whidbey.

One of those communities is Anacortes, WA, where he and his family lived and continue to own a home. Anacortes is north of Oak Harbor and NAS Whidbey. It is a small town that took immense pride in having Commander McCool as a neighbor, a parent, and a fellow outdoorsman. Commander McCool's appreciation for Anacortes and the local community was with him on the Columbia mission.

He took with him a Douglas Fir Cone from the Little Cranberry Lake area. That cone represented the seeds of a future generation.

Commander McCool's commitment and service to future generations is now represented on the sign outside of Fidalgo Elementary School. That sign says, ``Fidalgo salutes a legacy of a good friend, Commander William McCool.''

Let me now turn to another Columbia hero with ties to Washington State, Lieutenant Colonel Michael Anderson.

On Sunday morning, parishioners of the Morning Star Missionary Baptist Church in Spokane gathered to worship and pay tribute to him. Michael Anderson and his family are long time members of the congregation.

Speaking of Lieutenant Colonel Anderson, Reverend Freeman Simmons offered words of comfort to friends of the Anderson family.

Reverend Freedom said,

He belonged to more than his family, more than his race,

more than his different affiliations. He belonged to this

age.

Michael Anderson was born in New York State. He and his family came to Spokane, WA, during his father's Air Force service at Fairchild Air Force Base. He graduated from Cheney High School and came across the Cascades to attend the University of Washington. At UW, Anderson earned degrees in both physics and astronomy. He went on to a career in the Air Force as pilot and was selected to join NASA and the space program in 1994.

Lieutenant Colonel Anderson was one of the veterans aboard Columbia. He previously spent 211 hours in space on the 89th shuttle mission in 1998 to the Russian space station MIR. On that mission, Anderson traveled 3.6 million miles in 138 orbits around the Earth aboard the shuttle Endeavor.

Aboard the Columbia, Payload Commander Anderson was responsible for the incredible science being conducted during the mission. His mission was to manage 79 experiments on behalf of several space agencies and school children in many countries.

Michael Anderson considered Spokane his hometown, and Spokane is proud of his service. Today, all across Spokane, the community has posted its respect and admiration for our lost astronauts. One sign on Division Street reads, ``NASA we mourn with you.'' Another reads, ``Remember our Astronauts.''

Lieutenant Colonel Anderson's many contributions to space and science will live as a lasting tribute to an accomplished and heroic American. Let me mention just one.

Following Michael's successful 1998 shuttle mission, he returned to Washington State and the Spokane area. In May 1998, he want back to his alma mater, Cheney High School. He shared his experiences with students and he returned a school pennant which he had taken with him into space on that first mission.

One of the teachers described his appearance at a school assembly saying:

His message to the kids was so upbeat and so positive. ``It

doesn't matter what your dream is. If you are willing to

chart the course, if you are willing to do what it takes, you

can achieve your dreams.'' When that assembly was over, no

one wanted to leave. They all wanted to stay and talk to

Mike.

Both of these men left families. These men were spouses, fathers, community leaders, role models in service to our country. They will be missed by their families and a grateful nation. We will stand with the families as they grieve. We will be with them as the Nation seeks answers to the Columbia tragedy, and we will join them in honoring their loved ones as space exploration and discovery go forward. Willie McCool, Michael Anderson, and all of our Columbia astronauts gave so much of their lives in service and exploration. Our task now is to ensure their spirit continues to deliver the wonders of space that they explored on our behalf.

I continue with the words from Willie McCool in an e-mail message to his colleagues at NAS Whidbey. Commander McCool spoke of seeing the Sun rise and set on the Earth from space and wrote:

The colors are stunning.

In a single view, I see--looking out at the edge of the

earth:

red at the horizon line,

blending to orange and yellow,

followed by a thin white line,

then light blue,

gradually turning to dark blue

and various gradually darker shades of grey

then black and a million stars above.

It's breathtaking.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senator Cantwell in introducing the Children's Health Protection and Eligibility Act. This important legislation will ensure that low income children in Washington State are not denied access to health insurance coverage. The legislation provides a fair and equitable distribution of unobligated State balances in the CHIP program. It ensures that States like Washington that have led the Nation in caring for their children are not denied access to vital CHIP dollars. It rewards Washington state for putting children first.

Washington State is facing the greatest fiscal crisis since World War II. Between June 2001 and November 2002, Washington State lost more than 74,000 non-farm jobs. This economic recession has hit families in Washington state hard.

In 2002, before the recession began, there were 155,000 uninsured children in Washington State. Current estimates place this number even higher. With additional layoffs and more families losing COBRA coverage, the number of uninsured children will only continue to grow. Washington State must have access to its CHIP dollars to prevent more children from losing their health care safety net.

Because Washington State was so far ahead of the rest of the Nation in 1997, when CHIP was enacted, our state has been unable to use its full allocation. A majority of children who would be eligible for participation in CHIP were already covered in 1997 under the Medicaid program. As a result, Washington State has been unable to count these children as ``CHIP'' The federal share of CHIP is currently 67 percent as opposed to Medicaid, which provides only a 50 percent match for Washington state. If the State was able to provide coverage for some of these low income children under CHIP, it would reduce pressure on our state's Medicaid program. Without this relief, Washington State will face additional Medicaid reductions. Many of the children that currently have coverage will lose this coverage and join the ranks of the uninsured.

Allowing the number of children without insurance to grow is both inhumane for our children and irresponsible for our society. Uninsured children are six times as likely as insured children to go without needed medication. Uninsured children are more likely to be treated in the emergency room than insured children. These children are showing up more and more in the emergency room to get basic primary care. The cost of providing this care only increases as their families are forced to delay care. We all pay when children go without health insurance coverage.

This is not just a question of saving money. Providing comprehensive, prevention-based health insurance to children is a sound investment. Delaying this care only adds to the overall cost of health care, education and our criminal justice system. This legislation that we are introducing puts our kids at the front of the line.

I urge my colleagues to join with us in support of this legislation. Let's send the right message to our States: If you do the right thing, you will no longer be denied your fair allocation. Instead, you will be rewarded for putting children first.

Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senator Cantwell in introducing the Children's Health Protection and Eligibility Act. This important legislation will ensure that low income children in Washington State are not denied access to health insurance coverage. The legislation provides a fair and equitable distribution of unobligated State balances in the CHIP program. It ensures that States like Washington that have led the Nation in caring for their children are not denied access to vital CHIP dollars. It rewards Washington state for putting children first.

Washington State is facing the greatest fiscal crisis since World War II. Between June 2001 and November 2002, Washington State lost more than 74,000 non-farm jobs. This economic recession has hit families in Washington state hard.

In 2002, before the recession began, there were 155,000 uninsured children in Washington State. Current estimates place this number even higher. With additional layoffs and more families losing COBRA coverage, the number of uninsured children will only continue to grow. Washington State must have access to its CHIP dollars to prevent more children from losing their health care safety net.

Because Washington State was so far ahead of the rest of the Nation in 1997, when CHIP was enacted, our state has been unable to use its full allocation. A majority of children who would be eligible for participation in CHIP were already covered in 1997 under the Medicaid program. As a result, Washington State has been unable to count these children as ``CHIP'' The federal share of CHIP is currently 67 percent as opposed to Medicaid, which provides only a 50 percent match for Washington state. If the State was able to provide coverage for some of these low income children under CHIP, it would reduce pressure on our state's Medicaid program. Without this relief, Washington State will face additional Medicaid reductions. Many of the children that currently have coverage will lose this coverage and join the ranks of the uninsured.

Allowing the number of children without insurance to grow is both inhumane for our children and irresponsible for our society. Uninsured children are six times as likely as insured children to go without needed medication. Uninsured children are more likely to be treated in the emergency room than insured children. These children are showing up more and more in the emergency room to get basic primary care. The cost of providing this care only increases as their families are forced to delay care. We all pay when children go without health insurance coverage.

This is not just a question of saving money. Providing comprehensive, prevention-based health insurance to children is a sound investment. Delaying this care only adds to the overall cost of health care, education and our criminal justice system. This legislation that we are introducing puts our kids at the front of the line.

I urge my colleagues to join with us in support of this legislation. Let's send the right message to our States: If you do the right thing, you will no longer be denied your fair allocation. Instead, you will be rewarded for putting children first.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska, and Senators Frist and Gregg and others who worked with us on the Community Access Program.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

I thank my colleague from the North.

If I am correct, Madam President, we are trying to get some amendments on the table. I would be happy to ask unanimous consent to offer my amendment following Senator Specter.

Mr. President, I would like to add my wholehearted support for the amendment offered by my friend from Connecticut.

The passage of IDEA was a watershed event--for children with disabilities and for all Americans.

By opening the doors of our public schools, we enabled millions of talented students to join their peers in becoming productive members of society.

Equally important, we improved education for all students by allowing them to know the strength and richness that diverse people with different experiences, challenges, and abilities bring to our lives.

Finally, we took yet another critical step on our journey to becoming a country that lives out our ideals of democracy, opportunity, and equality.

Because we have not lived up to the commitments made in IDEA, the full promise of this law has yet to be fulfilled.

Having failed to provide the full 40 percent of excess cost that was committed over 25 years ago, we have cheated students of the high- quality education they deserve.

This amendment gives us another chance to right that wrong and move forward on a path to full funding.

Last year during the ESEA debate, this body unanimously adopted an amendment that would have fully funded IDEA over the next 6 years.

The Dodd amendment would add the first increment of the full funding to the appropriations bill.

I hope my colleagues have not changed their minds about the importance of funding special education. I hope this amendment will also be adopted unanimously.

Frankly, given my home State's projected budget shortfall of $2.4 billion, these funds are even more desperately needed to maintain and improve education for children with disabilities.

We have all agreed time and again that it is important to fully fund IDEA. Now we can actually provide the dollars to back up those statements. With this amendment, we have the opportunity to make an important choice for our children's future.

Are we going to make the investment in education that all our children deserve?

Or are we going to offer another false promise?

Cheating children of their education cheats them of their chance to succeed.

This is especially true for children with disabilities, who already face a more challenging future. We must do everything in our power to ensure all children have that chance.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. President, recently I received a note from an educator in my state reminding me what this money could mean for our students.

Northport School District is a small, rural school district nestled between the Idaho panhandle and the border with British Columbia. It serves 202 students in grades K-12.

Mary Swaim is both the special education director and the only special education teacher in Northport, WA. She has one aide, who spends the majority of her day giving physical therapy to six students.

Mary told me that they currently have 15 special needs students with disabilities that range from Autism to

muscular dystrophy and from Down's Syndrome to learning disabilities.

According to Mary, one of these students costs the district $30,000 a year. They have spent a small fortune on therapeutic equipment that includes a Hoyer lift, tables, wheel chairs, walkers and therapy balls.

But Mary's concern is not the cost of educating these children. She is worried that this small school cannot afford the staff to provide the quality education these students deserve.

According to Mary, fully funding IDEA would give Northport the money to hire another special education teacher, and would greatly improve these children's chance to learn and to succeed.

Mary told me:

I've watched your legislation to keep class sizes small in

general education but, in special education, we frequently

have higher numbers than the general education classes and

all of our students have far greater needs. More funding

would mean quality education. Thank you so much for asking my

opinion.

I believe we need to do more than ask Mary's opinion. I believe we need to listen to her valid concerns and act, as we can today, to make a difference for the students about whom she is so rightly concerned.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Mary Swaim be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 39 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself, Senators Kennedy, Reed, Clinton, Bingaman, Dodd, Stabenow, and Cantwell.

The amendment I have called up is very simple. It restores the $120 million to the Community Access Program that was cut in the managers' amendment. This $120 million level is exactly the same level as we appropriated in fiscal year 2002, and it is the same level that was included in the fiscal year 2003 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill which we marked up last year.

The Community Access Program helps increase the capacity and effectiveness of community health care institutions and providers that serve patients regardless of their ability to pay.

It is a community-based program that seeks to coordinate care for the uninsured. It has been very successful, and it enjoys broad bipartisan support.

It is difficult for me to understand why the President's budget eliminates a program that seeks to get care for the uninsured at a time when the ranks of the uninsured continue to grow. Without a coordinated community-based approach to accessing care, the uninsured simply end up in our emergency rooms or go without care, and both of those results add to our growing health care crisis.

I know firsthand how successful this program has been. Washington State has four CAP grantees that have worked to expand access to quality, comprehensive care for those who have no health care safety net. They are

based in Spokane, Wenatchee, Olympia, and Seattle.

As I have met with our CAP grantees, they have shown me a glimpse into what I think is the future of health care.

In October I visited the Odessa Brown Children's Clinic. I saw a doctor, a dentist, and a psychologist in the same room, not just treating body parts but actually treating the whole child in a comprehensive, compassionate way. Today that project is known as ``Kids Get Care,'' and it is connecting more than 3,000 children to comprehensive health care.

These kinds of efforts are making a real difference for low-income families, and they need more investment. Our CAP grantees have worked to ensure that our increased investment in community health centers reaps the greatest benefit possible. They have worked with vulnerable populations to tear down barriers to care and not just economic barriers. They use the small investment to better serve the uninsured. We should be strengthening efforts like this right now, not eliminating them.

Currently in my home State of Washington, one in nine residents is uninsured. And with my State's ongoing economic crisis--and I am sure across the country--demand is going to grow for programs that provide care for the uninsured. We need to meet the immediate needs of these families who today can only get access in the emergency room.

CAP provides the seed money that gives community health care providers the ability to serve those who have nowhere else to go.

As a member of the HELP Committee, I am disappointed that the majority has proposed eliminating this program. The HELP Committee worked in a bipartisan manner, under the leadership of Senators Kennedy, Gregg, and Frist, and secured passage of a 4-year health care safety net authorization bill. Last year that provided an authorization of this CAP program. That legislation was, in fact, unanimously adopted by the Senate in October of 2002 and signed by the President on October 26, 2002.

The purpose of the authorization is spelled out now in Public Law 107-251. I want to read the committee report. The purpose is:

To provide assistance to communities and to consortia of

health care providers, in order to develop or strengthen an

integrated health care delivery system that coordinates

health services for individuals who are uninsured and

individuals who are underinsured and to develop or strengthen

activities related to providing coordinated care for

individuals with chronic conditions.

Those are goals we must achieve. I understand the fiscal pressures facing the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and Chairman Specter, but we are facing a major health care crisis in this country. This is not just a crisis of the uninsured but a crisis of increasing costs. The impact of this will only mean higher Federal expenditures in programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention the human toll on our uninsured citizens.

I applaud the recent comments by the new majority leader in discussing the racial inequities in our health care delivery system, and I look forward to working with him to address this injustice and to ensure greater access to care for all Americans. Fair and just access to care is a civil rights issue.

Being uninsured does not have to mean going without. We can offer a safety net to provide comprehensive care to the uninsured through programs such as CAP and community health centers.

I believe that CAP provides us a model for closing the gaps in health care and eliminating racial inequities. If we truly hope to provide fair and equal access, we must not eliminate CAP in this bill.

CAP is certainly not the only solution, but we all know that in order to address our health care crisis, we have to find innovative solutions that use our resources more effectively, and CAP does just that. It supports innovative community-based programs.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I remind them, it was authorized by the full committee last year, unanimously passed the Senate, and has broad bipartisan support. We need to back our words in that bill with the resources for these communities to provide care for the uninsured and the growing ranks of uninsured across this country. We need to strengthen our fragile health care safety net across this country, and this amendment will help us do that.

I thank the Chair and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I rise to request to enter into a colloquy with

the chairman and the ranking member on the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, the distinguished Senators from Colorado and North Dakota, regarding port security.

Mr. President, on October 31, 2002, the U.S. Customs Service published regulations requiring sea carriers to provide cargo manifests 24 hours prior to the lading of containerized cargo at foreign ports for shipment to the United States. In short, since December 2, 2002, the Customs Service has been asking for a detailed list of all cargo entering a U.S. port and detailed information regarding the shipper. This will allow Customs agents to identify at- risk cargo, thus making our ports safer.

My State of Washington includes the ports of Seattle and Tacoma. These ports combined represent the Nation's third largest intermodal container gateway. So I applaud this initiative, which will allow customs agents the opportunity to identify at risk cargo, while expediting the process for low-risk cargo.

Having said that, I am concerned that if this rule is not adopted by the Customs authorities in countries with whom we share a border, we could actually make our borders even less secure. There is a substantial flow of overseas containerized goods coming over the Canadian and Mexican borders, especially the Canadian border, into the U.S. annually. If those goods are not subject to the 24-hour rule, as overseas containerized goods coming through U.S. ports are, we have defeated the intent of the rule. In addition, we are actually providing an incentive for shippers to use the Canadian or Mexican gateways instead of bringing their goods through U.S. ports. This scenario hurts us in two ways. First, it diminishes the security at our borders if the same rules do not apply to overseas containerized goods coming through Canada or Mexico, and second, if shipping lines flock to ports located in our northern and southern neighbors to bring goods into the U.S. due to the ``hassle factor,'' it takes jobs and the potential for economic growth from our communities.

For this reason, I am gratified to learn that the Canadian government is in the process of considering port security regulations of its own. U.S. Customs has thus far been able to work successfully with Canadian Customs on programs such as the Smart Border Accord, the Container Security Initiative, and the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism effort.

So I am asking the distinguished Senators from Colorado and North Dakota regardless of whether the Canadian Government does or does not implement a similar advanced manifest information requirement, to with me to see our Government require the same manifest information on all container traffic that is destined to the United States on a through- bill-of-lading via a Canadian or Mexican port.

I simply ask for 1 minute, or 2, I say to the distinguished Senator.

Mr. President, I came to the floor last night to give extensive remarks about the tremendous importance of the amendment that has been offered by Senator Byrd in the area of transportation for port security, airport security, and transit security. I have been listening to the debate this morning.

I wanted to come to the floor to refute a critical misstatement that has been made about the amendment that has been offered by Senator Byrd. It was argued by my friends on the other side of the aisle that the funds in this bill are all over and above the funding requested by President Bush. I need to tell my colleagues that in the area of transportation that is just simply not true. In the underlying bill, the funding level for the Transportation Security Administration is some $460 million short of what is needed to fully fund all of the congressionally directed initiatives, as well as fully fund the security requests of the Bush administration. It is a simple mathematical fact. This amendment that has been offered by Senator Byrd provides $460 million for the TSA needs to fully fund what President Bush has requested for the Transportation Security Administration. Without the amendment offered by Senator Byrd--if we enact this without that--the TSA will have to cut $460 million to make way for the congressional mandates that all of us have worked on, supported, passed, and told our constituents are coming. The only way to fully fund what President Bush has requested for screening passengers at our airports and purchasing the explosive-detecting machines is by providing the funding for the Byrd amendment.

I thank the Senator from West Virginia for yielding me a minute to clarify this critical point--that we need to have this amendment to fully fund President Bush's request, particularly in the area of transportation security.

I thank the President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I also come to the floor to support the extremely important amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, which is offered to ensure that all students get the educational resources they deserve.

This amendment funds title I at the level we agreed to when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act and increases Pell grants so we can help more low-income students afford college. This is the minimum investment we need to make if we truly are going to leave no child behind.

Leaving no child behind is a noble goal, one that we all endorse. But it is a travesty to use the mantra of the Children's Defense Fund as a cover for policies and budgets that hurt rather than help American students. Make no mistake, the bill before us, based on the President's budget, will leave students behind.

I find it particularly incredible that at the same time the President and his friends in Congress are pushing for a $674 billion tax cut, they are insisting that we provide less money for the education of our children.

Look at title I. Title I pays for things such as books, teachers, tutoring, and preschool for our most needy students. The President and his party are saying that we can no longer afford the $1.5 billion increase slated for title I last year, yet we can afford to give $20 billion to 226,000 millionaires.

One year ago, when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, we agreed on new sweeping requirements and mandates. We also agreed that title I would need to be funded at $16 billion this year for schools to meet those requirements. America's students and their parents have entrusted us with their future. We cannot turn our backs on them and say we have done our part by setting high standards and creating tough accountability, and the rest is up to you--even if you are trying to learn in overcrowded classrooms or from unqualified teachers or you are coping with crumbling school buildings. That is what they are really saying.

Last week, the President celebrated the 1-year anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act by calling it the most meaningful education reform probably ever. But that reform had two parts. On the one hand, it called for higher standards and accountability, and on the other hand it promised more investment so schools could make progress.

My good friend, Senator Paul Wellstone, spent many hours on this floor reminding all of us that the so-called No Child Left Behind Act would, at best, be a sham and, at worst, a serious blow to the public school students of our country if it was funded on a tin cup budget. I fear this appropriations bill will prove him right.

By providing only an inflationary increase in education funding while significantly raising the demands on our schools, we have reduced America's students to begging for the Government's spare change to finance their future.

Setting a high bar is important, but setting a high bar and failing to give kids the resources to succeed is just setting them up for failure.

The appropriations bill before us offers the smallest increase in education funding in 7 years. It freezes the State grants that reduced class size and improved teacher quality and, as a result, no new teachers will be hired and fewer teachers will get professional development.

This bill does not fully fund our share of special education costs, failing yet again to fulfill that commitment to our communities, our schools, and our disabled students. And it falls far short of title I funding we included in the No Child Left Behind Act because we knew it was necessary to help our students succeed.

We know what the needs are. We know what works to help our children succeed. And we also know that making college affordable is critical to helping students succeed and to helping our economy grow. Senate Democrats have worked to increase funding for Pell grants. In fiscal year 2002, while the Bush administration proposed no increase in Pell grants, Senate Democrats increased the top limit from $3,750 per year to $4,000 per year.

Again this year, the President proposed no increase in Pell grants. It is a good step that this bill includes a small increase for Pell grants, but it is not nearly enough to meet the rapidly rising needs. In my home State of Washington, our legislature cut $1.6 billion out of their budget last year. This year they are suffering from even deeper economic stress, and they need to cut an additional $2.5 billion. A result of that is tuition at our public colleges and universities increased 12 to 16 percent this year, and we could be looking at similar increases next year. I am really worried that students will look at that increase in tuition, see no significant increase in Federal aid, and decide they cannot afford to go to college.

One of the most important things we can do to ensure a safe and secure future is to help educate our young people. We know a college degree means on average an additional $20,000 a year for men and an additional $15,000 a year for women. Given today's global-based economy, the gap in earnings between those Americans who have a college degree and those who only have a high school degree is likely to grow. Ensuring that our young people have the resources to go to college is a critical national priority.

Putting America's future first means putting our children's education first. But the sad truth is that this appropriations bill shortchanges all of America's students. We have spent so much time talking about how we can hold teachers, administrators, and parents accountable for doing their jobs well. I think we ought to focus on how well we are doing our job, and that means making good choices for our children and investing in their futures.

At a time when we are and should be demanding more than ever from our schools, we must not slow down the Federal investments in our schools. We must not abandon our commitment to help reduce class sizes and provide quality teachers. We must not continue to shirk our responsibility to disadvantaged students.

The Republican bill freezes our progress. That is why we have offered this amendment. That is why Senator Kennedy has offered this amendment: To provide the resources that parents, teachers, and students need.

This amendment will ensure more children start school ready to learn. It can help children learn in smaller, well disciplined classes by hiring 50,000 fully qualified teachers so we can reduce the size of classes. It will help our local districts that are badly in need of help right now to ensure there is a high quality teacher in every classroom. It could allow communities to offer more afterschool programs to keep 1 million additional latchkey children safe and learning, and it would help more Americans afford college at this critical time.

I will be happy to yield.

The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely correct.

On his point on the Pell grants, I remind us again that our States are suffering severe budget crises. Some people estimate as much as a $100 billion shortfall in our State legislative budget this year. Those State legislatures are going to have to look toward increasing revenue in their States at this difficult time because they have to balance their budget. Many of those States will do as my State has done--raise college tuition. At the same time, if we do not have Pell grants available to students under this appropriations bill presented to us, we are going to have kids say: I cannot afford to go to college. That is the wrong message for our students at this time in our Nation's history.

I will be happy to yield.

The Senator is correct. Many State legislatures are looking to cut back the school week because of lack of resources for education at this time because of the effects of the economy.

The Senator from Maryland makes an absolutely critical point. He knows as well as I do that we sincerely miss Senator Paul Wellstone who I know would be sitting next to Senator Ted Kennedy-- actually, he would be roaming up and down this aisle saying: I told all of you this No Child Left Behind hype is a sham if we do not provide the resources. Providing accountability on one hand and not providing resources on the other hand says we only did half what we promised.

The Senator from Maryland is absolutely correct. The President is asking for a $674 billion tax cut that essentially means we can no longer afford the $1.5 billion increase to title I funds that we promised in No Child Left Behind at the same time he is giving 226,000 millionaires a $20 billion tax cut.

The Senator from Massachusetts is correct, and I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Maryland. I think we should ask the millionaires in this country whether they want the tax cut or whether they would prefer to see no child left behind. My guess is many of them would prefer to make sure that the generation that follows them has the same opportunities they have had in this country.

I thank the Senator from Maryland for his comments because I think they are essential to this debate. I also thank the Senator from Massachusetts.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for that statement as well.

As I finish my statement, and I know the Senator from Iowa also wants to speak, I think we have to ask ourselves are we going to let our kids go to school in overcrowded classrooms in crumbling school buildings with underpaid and inadequately prepared teachers or are we going to rise to the occasion and make the choices to invest in our children's futures?

We know what the needs are out there. We know what helps our kids succeed. We need Members of Congress to stand up and put the money where their mouths are.

Parents, teachers, students, and community leaders are saying do not just talk about the importance of education funding, make the tough choices to show the American public that education is truly a priority, and that means giving our local school districts the resources they need to provide a first-rate education to every student in this country by supporting this amendment.

I urge the millionaires in this country who are looking at a tax cut to let this Congress know that the education of the next generation, the possibility of creating future millionaires, is far more important than the tax cut they have been promised by this administration. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this extremely important amendment that will benefit our children and grandchildren and their future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I am very pleased to rise, along with the ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, and my other colleagues who are in the Chamber tonight, to offer this amendment to boost funding for Amtrak to a level that was included in our Transportation appropriations bill that was reported back in July of last year.

Six months ago, the Appropriations Committee unanimously reported a bill that funded Amtrak at the level of $1.2 billion. That is the same level that was requested of us by the Amtrak board of directors.

Some people seem to believe that the funding level of $1.2 billion represents a massive funding increase for Amtrak. As all Members know, the appropriations bills that we approved last year have now been rewritten by the majority to reflect their priorities, and those new bills are now before us. For Amtrak, that means a cut of $374 million below the level we provided back in July. It also means a $318 million cut, or a 27-percent cut, below the level the railroad received in fiscal year 2002.

I am not familiar with the funding level proposed for every single program that is funded in this massive bill, but I suspect there are very few, if any, other programs that have been singled out for a 27- percent cut below last year's level.

There is no question that at this funding level Amtrak is heading straight for bankruptcy. That is not a debatable point. That representation is simply not true.

We have a letter from Amtrak's new president and chief executive officer, Mr. David Gunn, that makes it clear that Amtrak will be insolvent by spring should this funding level become law.

I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues that this is not one of those situations where we can just make everything OK in conference. My colleagues need to know that while the House of Representatives never passed a transportation bill for the current fiscal year, the House Appropriations Committee did report a bill to the floor, and it included only $762 million for Amtrak. So if we do not restore the funding needed to keep Amtrak alive today, Members should not expect this will be rescued later.

For those of my colleagues who don't want to accept the word of Amtrak's president or even my word on what will happen to Amtrak without this funding, they can look to the words of the Department of Transportation Inspector General. The DOT IG's office conducts an annual audit of Amtrak's finances. They are as familiar with Amtrak's books as anyone in this country.

The DOT IG's office was asked to review every element of Amtrak's request for $1.2 billion. What they concluded, after an extensive review, was that the budget request was indeed flawed. The Inspector General concluded the budget request was $12 million too low.

One thing we know for sure is that Amtrak is not going to get its final appropriation level until almost half the fiscal year has been completed. No observer of Amtrak's financial situation--not the Secretary of Transportation, not the Federal Railroad Administrator, not the DOT IG, no one on the Amtrak board of directors, including the three Republican appointees on that board--no one has put forward a credible argument that Amtrak can absorb a funding cut of this size in the

middle of the fiscal year and do anything other than declare bankruptcy.

So let me remind my colleagues that we are not talking about a bankruptcy like we are experiencing with some of our airlines, such as USAirways and United. Amtrak will not keep operating with the benefit of bankruptcy protection. It will stop the trains, and they will shut their doors.

Members will recall last summer when we faced an Amtrak crisis. The railroad was days away from running out of cash, and we were still working on a supplemental appropriations bill, a bill that would eventually provide $205 million in additional cash for Amtrak to continue operations.

It was not just Amtrak service that was at risk; it was not just the tens of thousands of Amtrak passengers that were going to be left standing on the platform; there were hundreds of thousands of daily transit riders utilizing commuter rail systems from Boston to San Diego, from suburban Virginia to Seattle, WA--systems that depend on Amtrak remaining a viable entity in order to continue their daily operations.

Thankfully, due to the enactment of the supplemental appropriations bill, and a $100 million temporary loan that was extended by the Bush administration, we avoided an Amtrak catastrophe last summer. However, if we enact the bill currently before us without getting the additional $374 million called for under the amendment that is pending, we will once again face that crisis in just a few months' time.

Some of my colleagues in the Senate continue to press their position that Amtrak needs to tighten their belt. Well, Amtrak has been tightening their belt. Since David Gunn took control of the company 8 months ago, hundreds of employees have been let go, certain trains have been eliminated, and dramatic efforts have been initiated to rid the corporation of unnecessary costs. But we need to recognize that the funding level included in the underlying bill for Amtrak is not an exercise in tightening the company's belt. It is a death sentence.

Those who would impose these cuts on the Amtrak budget may have forgotten the experience of September 11, 2001, when our aviation system was brought to a halt for almost a week and travelers flocked to Amtrak trains in order to get to their destinations.

The Senate needs to have a meaningful debate about Amtrak. We need to have a debate that is based on facts. We need to focus on the fact that Amtrak is burdened with a huge debt. We need to focus on the fact that Amtrak has billions of dollars in capital needs on the Northeast corridor and no way to pay for them.

We need to focus on the fact that terminating Amtrak's long distance trains effectively saves the railroad almost no money. We need to have that fact-based debate without the distraction of another Amtrak funding crisis every few months due to congressional budgetary shenanigans.

I was hopeful last year we were going to have that debate. Last year the Senate Commerce Committee, by a vote of 20 to 3, reported an authorization bill for Amtrak calling for funding of just under $4 billion in fiscal year 2003. Not only a majority of Democrats on the Commerce Committee but also a majority of the Republicans on the Commerce Committee supported that bill.

The returning chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, did not support that bill. However, he did introduce his own Amtrak authorization bill calling for Amtrak funding in fiscal year 2003 to be at the level of $1.3 billion. My amendment would not succeed in providing that level of funding. It would only succeed in providing $1.2 billion.

There is a widely held myth that the principal financial drag on Amtrak's finances is the long distance trains that travel across this country. One of those trains is the Empire Builder which originates in Chicago but provides service between eastern and western Washington, as well.

The fact is, the long distance trains pose a comparatively little cost to Amtrak each year because they carry with them extremely small capital costs. These trains run over tracks that are owned and maintained by the Nation's freight railroads. By comparison, the Northeast corridor between Boston and Washington, DC, is owned by Amtrak and burdens Amtrak with hundreds of millions of dollars in capital costs every year.

Using generally accepted accounting principles, Amtrak's Northeast corridor has not yielded profits, as some are fond of saying. It never has and it never will. In fact, just last year, Amtrak's Northeast corridor lost a total of $367 million.

It is also estimated that the Northeast corridor has a critical maintenance backlog of between $5 and $6 billion. Even the Bush administration concedes that fact.

During a hearing I held on Amtrak's finances last year with the administration and the DOT Inspector General, I asked them about the comparative financial burden of the long distance trains versus the Northeast corridor. DOT Inspector General Ken Mead made the following statement:

Some have suggested that Amtrak's financial woes would go

away if you would cut out the trains outside the Northeast

corridor. That is not true. In fact, the annual net operating subsidy that is required to continue Amtrak's most unprofitable trains is less than one-third of the annual capital subsidy that is required to operate the most profitable trains in the Northeast Corridor.

To those who would say that Amtrak just needs to eliminate its long distance trains to get its finances in order, I tell them to look at the numbers.

Amtrak's own financial analysis of savings associated with eliminating 18 of the long distance trains--those are 18 trains that are considered the worst performers in the national system--would effectively yield zero savings in the first year.

In the second year, the net savings of eliminating all 18 of those trains would only be about $18 million. Only after 5 years would the elimination of those trains yield savings that exceed $200 million.

Let me say that again. If we eliminated all of Amtrak's 18 long distance trains, the railroad would eventually yield savings of $200 million--only after 5 years.

However, the underlying appropriations bill would call on Amtrak to absorb a cut of some $400 million right now, today, with only 9 months left in this fiscal year.

These are the unpleasant facts that no one wants to face.

So I encourage all Members to support this amendment. I would love to tell my colleagues there is an easy way to make significant savings in the Amtrak budget--such as the company could absorb funding reductions this year and next year--but the fact is there is not.

So I ask that we provide stability for Amtrak while we debate the larger issues regarding the company's future. I ask that we provide some surety to the millions of Amtrak riders and commuter rail passengers across the country who depend on a solvent Amtrak. I ask that we provide sufficient funding so Amtrak can approach the level of funding it received in total in fiscal year 2002.

Mr. President, I know there are a number of colleagues who wish to discuss this amendment as well. I thank Senator McCain, chairman of the Commerce Committee, for agreeing to accept this amendment at this time. I understand his need to have a reauthorization. I look forward to working with him on that.

I yield to the Senator from South Carolina such time as he may need.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I will yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey and 5 minutes to the Senator from Vermont, and I ask the Senator from Arizona if he wants to use time before us since he has not had time on his side.

I yield 1 additional minute.

How much time do I have remaining on my side?

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Jeffords be listed as a cosponsor on the amendment.

How much time does Senator Carper need?

Five or less, and the Senator from Illinois would like 3 minutes. And I believe that is all we have.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Delaware and 3 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

How much time remains?

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New York be given 2 minutes of my remaining time and the Senator from Delaware be given 3 minutes.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, the people of my home State of Washington are hurting in every corner of my State. Families are concerned about what the future will bring. In the last 2 years alone in my home State of Washington, we have faced an earthquake, an energy crisis, the bursting of the high tech bubble, the departure of Boeing, the loss of thousands of jobs, and now we face a State budget deficit of $2.5 billion which could easily translate into major cuts in education, health care, and infrastructure.

For much of the last 2 years, Washington State was ranked either first or second in the nation in unemployment rates. We have lost a staggering 74,000 jobs in the last 18 months. These are sobering numbers. Behind every one of these statistics is a man or a woman who is trying to support their family, keep food on the table and a roof over their head.

Throughout our country the economic picture is just as bleak. The United States has lost 2.1 million private sector jobs since January of 2001. Despite the President's mammoth $1.7 trillion tax cut last year, the economy is continuing to sputter and Americans are continuing to lose their jobs. When the President signed that tax cut he said it would ``provide an important boost at an important time for our economy.''

That was 20 months ago, May 16, 2001. What are the results? In December alone, 101,000 more Americans lost their jobs through no fault of their own. These fellow citizens are now out of work and many now are without health care. Health care is the unmentioned but painful reality of job loss for many. Since most Americans get their health insurance through their only employer, many Americans have also lost their health care coverage. In Washington State alone, 156,000 families have lost their health care in the last 2 years. That is an increase of 27.4 percent. Today, a staggering figure of Washingtonians are without health insurance. The glimmer of hope should be that we are providing good schools and learning opportunities to educate our young people for jobs in the future. Unfortunately, the President has proposed cutting funds for education at a time when these investments are now more important than ever. Everyone in my State would agree we need to get this economy back on track. We need to do it right.

Today, despite the fact that the President's last tax cut has yet to create any net new jobs, the administration is pushing another massive tax cut under the claim of stimulus.

Except this time, the Nation is back in deficit spending. According to private economists quoted in Friday's Washington Post, the U.S. could be facing deficits as high as $350 billion next year. We haven't seen deficits that high since the first Bush Administration posted a $290 billion deficit in 1992.

On top of that, we have incredible security needs at home and abroad.

We have increased needs in spending for defense, for homeland security, for border security and health care.

But this week the White House has proposed an economic plan that will blow a hole in the national debt, costing more than $6709 billion over 10 years. And the interest costs will add billions more.

I am deeply concerned that the President's plan is a disaster for the Federal budget and for our long-term responsibilities to our country to promote national security, homeland security, and economic security.

I thought the Bush plan was billed as an economic stimulus plan to get our economy moving. But when I look at this proposed plan I see it is heavily titled toward the wealthiest Americans.

While giving very little to average Americans, the plan give a $90,000 tax break to every millionaire, and these are the people least likely to need to spend an additional dollar of income and stimulate the economy.

I just don't see how the Bush plan will work. Eliminating the tax on dividends won't stimulate the economy in the short term. The total cost of the cuts is $670 billion, but less than $100 billion comes in the first year--which is when the economy needs it most.

It overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest investors while providing little for most people in my State who are hurting. And it will do long-term fiscal damage with its $670 billion dollar price tag.

As I see it, the only thing this plan will stimulate is our deficit. It will add to the mountain of debt that we are forcing on our children to pay back later. It is a trickle-down plan that our President's father once called ``Voodoo Economics.''

I believe that if Congress is going to pass a tax cut, then it should be a plan that actually helps the economy and should do four things:

First, it should actually help the economy get moving again. I agree with Senator Baucus's proposals to increase the amount of money small businesses can deduct for investment in new equipment, and to enhance the bonus depreciation provision in last year's stimulus bill. This will actually help businesses create new jobs.

Second, it should address unemployment benefits. The President and his allies finally reversed themselves last week and gave in to the urgent need to provide some relief to the folks who need help the most. This will help thousands in my State to keep paying the bills until jobs are available again.

Third, it should help Washington State--and all States--deal with huge budget problems. The States do not have the luxury of deficit spending even if they are hit by what the President calls the trifecta of war, recession and national emergency.

Our States are having to deal with $70 billion in deficits by cutting funding for education, health care, transportation and other critical needs.

The people in my State need a safety net now to help get them back on their feet, and that safety net relies on states having adequate funding. We need to help the States get through this critical time.

Last, it should not blow an even larger hole in the Federal budget. Keeping our military strong, tracking down terrorists, defending our homeland, giving our young people a good education, making health care more affordable, and building infrastructure are the types of priorities that the Bush plan will crowd out.

I hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle and at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue will listen to the hardworking Americans outside the beltway. I hope that they will work with us to get a real, responsible and effective stimulus plan to get America's economy moving again.

When my father was called upon during the Second World War, he was proud to serve his country. He earned the Purple Heart as one of the first G.I.'s to land at Okinawa.

Today we are engaged in a war on terrorism and on the brink of another. But rather than being asked to sacrifice, we are asked how much we want our taxes cut.

I visited Fort Lewis, McChord Air Force Base, and Everett Naval Station during the recent break. These young men and women are serving our country are working so hard to protect our security. Their families are being asked to sacrifice, as these men and women prepare to deploy.

It is amazing that at the very time we are asking these troops to leave their families and head overseas to respond to a foreign crisis, we are asking for a tax cut at home that puts our budget in crisis.

It is hard for me to imagine how a private first class making $16,000 a year is going to benefit from this tax cut. Yet he--or she--is prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect America's national security.

America's defense needs, our homeland security needs, our education and health care needs will be jeopardized by the massive new Bush tax cut.

What America needs now is not a plan to stimulate the deficit, but a real plan to stimulate our economy and put Americans back to work.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator.