Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your help addressing a long- standing concern of mine--the need for greater enforcement by USDA of the Federal law regarding animal fighting. Earlier this year, I and many of our colleagues--a bipartisan group of 38 other Senators-- requested $800,000 to enable USDA's Office of Inspector General to focus on strengthening enforcement of the Federal animal fighting law. I am grateful that you were able, in the committee report, to include this $800,000 for the OIG to improve enforcement in this area.

However, I did want to ask the chairman for a bit of clarification on this item, as it was included in the committee report. I noted that the report provides ``an increase of $800,000 for OIG to address violations of the Animal Welfare Act and to coordinate with State and local law enforcement personnel in this effort.'' Would the chairman be willing to clarify that this funding would be used specifically to improve enforcement of Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act, which deals exclusively with animal fighting, rather than having these funds used to enforce the entire Animal Welfare Act? This clarification could be finalized in conference.

Senator Kohl, is it your intention as well that this funding would be used specifically to improve enforcement of Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act?

I'm grateful to both of you for your help and leadership on this issue.

Yes.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Banking Committee and the ranking member for giving me the opportunity to speak on the bill. To accommodate them, if individuals come to the floor willing to offer an amendment, signal me and I will clear the floor and give them an opportunity to offer their amendment. I agree with their goal of getting us out of here quickly and getting the work done. If someone has an amendment, I do not want to hold up the process.

I rise in support of S. 1753, commonly referred to as the National Consumer Credit Reporting System Improvement Act of 2003. I was pleased to support the bill as a member of the Banking Committee, and I am sure it will receive

strong support on the Senate floor as well.

I would like to thank Chairman Shelby and his staff for their hard work. This is a balanced, sensible bill and clearly a product of their willingness to listen to all interested parties. Chairman Shelby compiled an extensive hearing record and provided a comprehensive foundation for crafting this legislation.

He crafted a bill that provides a balanced approach to the concerns expressed during the hearings and provides significant improvement, I believe, to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. I thank him for working so closely with committee members to ensure that our concerns were addressed in this bill.

I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the ranking member, Senator Sarbanes, and his staff. As I mentioned, this bill received strong bipartisan support in committee, and this is certainly due in part to the diligence of Senator Sarbanes. His effort and his support have made this a stronger and better bill.

Reauthorization of the Fair Credit Reporting Act is vital to the functioning of our Nation's credit markets. I think that goes without saying. Without the FCRA, credit would cost more or, in many cases, simply would not be available to consumers.

S. 1753 ensures that the markets will continue functioning smoothly by permanently reauthorizing the Fair Credit Reporting Act. As a former State legislator and a strong champion of States rights, I do not take Federal preemption lightly. In fact, I have a very high threshold for Federal preemption. I believe, though, that FCRA meets the necessary standard. The credit markets truly are national, and a patchwork approach to credit reporting will quickly disintegrate the necessary comprehensive approach we need.

When it comes to credit reports, accuracy is in the best interests of both industry and consumers. I believe this bill will help improve accuracy in credit reports. Consumers will have increased access to their credit information and increased tools to combat identity theft.

The framework provided in the bill provides sufficient flexibility for the act to adapt with time and changes in technology. I am especially pleased that S. 1753 includes a bill I have worked on with Senator Schumer referred to as the Consumer Credit Score Disclosure Act of 2003. This provision would allow consumers applying for a mortgage to receive a copy of their credit score. Credit scores are increasingly being used in deciding whether to extend credit. Yet consumers do not always have access to this information.

What I found out about credit scores and heard in reports back from my constituents about things that affect their credit was that few of them realize that the number of times you apply for a credit card, for example, could impact your credit. It does when you look at the credit score.

I always figure as long as you paid your bills on time or your credit cards on time and the more credit cards you had and paid them on time, it just showed what a better job you were doing in managing your finances and would actually enhance your ability to get loans. That is not true. If you got carried away and decided to apply for every credit card you received in the mail, you could actually adversely impact your credit rating, particularly as it applies through the credit score.

This provision contained in S. 1753 would ensure that consumers would receive the critical information when applying for a mortgage, which is generally the largest purchase a person will make during their lifetime.

In addition to their actual numerical score, the consumer will be entitled to receive information concerning the factors that helped determine their score, as well as ways in which they can improve their score. This provision will empower consumers to shop around and help prevent them from becoming victims of predatory lending.

I believe expanding access to credit scores is an important victory for consumers, and I am pleased it has been included in the bill we are considering today. I am hopeful this will be the first step toward giving consumers even broader access to credit scores.

As chairman of the Housing Subcommittee, I would also like to make a few comments on the impact, the importance of the Fair Credit Reporting Act as part of the home buying process. Because FCRA gives lenders access to more accurate and more complete credit information, they are able to more accurately price risk. This is important because for most people, a home is the largest purchase they will make. The ability to accurately price the risk as reflected in mortgage rates can make the difference of thousands and thousands of dollars over the life of the mortgage.

The availability of credit information stemming from the FCRA has reduced the cost of home ownership for many and opened up previously unavailable opportunities to others. In fact, home ownership rates are currently at record highs. Permanent reauthorization of the Fair Credit Reporting Act will help us continue on that path. This is especially important as we work to expand the minority home ownership rates as minorities are disproportionately impacted when credit becomes less available.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act has been beneficial to consumers, and the improvements contained in S. 1753 will extend those benefits. I am pleased to add my voice to those in support of the bill, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for the National Consumer Credit Reporting System Improvement Act of 2003.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, hospitals in the United States have enormous responsibility. The Nation's hospitals care for patients, perform surgeries, train interns, research cures to diseases, and provide millions of dollars annually for the uninsured. Their services improve Americans' health and lives and better our communities. I laud their service to Colorado and the Nation.

Recently Solucient, a company that provides health care data to improve health care results, published its list of the Nation's 100 top hospitals. Four of Solucient's designees are Colorado hospitals: Saint Joseph Hospital in Denver, Rose Medical Center in Denver, Swedish Medical Center in Englewood, and Lutheran Medical Center in Wheat Ridge. Solucient determines its selection of top hospitals according to hospitals' consistent and superior quality care, financial performance, and efficient delivery of care. According to Solucient, the Top 100 hospitals treat more, and sicker, patients with better survival rates and fewer complications.

I am pleased to acknowledge Solucient's selection of Colorado hospitals for its quality service, dedication, and commitment to providing quality health care for Colorado, the Nation, and the world. First, Solucient has recognized Saint Joe's Hospital in Denver in its studies of orthopedic and intensive care units. According to the hospital, Saint Joe delivers more babies than any other Colorado hospital, serves more patients in gastroenterology, general surgery, pulmonology, cardiac care, nephrology and rheumatology than any other acute care hospital in the Denver metropolitan area, and for the past 5 years the hospital has cared for more cardiology and open heart surgery patients than any other acute care hospital in the metro area.

Second, Exempla Lutheran Medical Center specializes in cardiology, oncology, orthopedic services, and women's health care. Lutheran Medical also provides special care to the community through its community clinics, special programs and services for the elderly, and hospice care. In addition, Lutheran Medical Center's Emergency Department has the second highest patient load in the Denver metropolitan area.

Third, with a mission of commitment to patients, Rose Medical Center in Denver asserts a reputation for high quality health care and quality customer service. Rose Medical Center specializes in women's health services, general surgery, internal medicine, pediatric care, and emergency services. Rose Medical Center also partners with philanthropic organizations to help offer services to the Colorado community. Further, Rose Medical Center is the official health care provider for the Denver Nuggets professional basketball team and the Colorado Avalanche professional hockey team.

Fourth, Solucient recognized a teaching hospital in Englewood, Colorado, Swedish Medical Center, which has six ``Centers of Excellence:'' the Colorado Neurological Institute, adult & pediatric trauma services, advanced radiology capabilities, cardiology services, cancer treatment services, and women's and children's services. In addition, Swedish is a Level I Trauma Center and is a leading referral center for neurotrauma. Swedish also offers services for the elderly, emergency medical service education, and has a Family Medicine Residency Program.

I am pleased these Colorado hospitals have been recognized as leaders in quality, efficiency, and financial responsibility in institutional health care. I laud their work and am expectant for their continued high quality of care and progress for Colorado and the Nation.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for yielding.

Today in Colorado we had two fires erupt in the State. One was a grassland fire that probably won't amount to much. The other is a very serious fire that happened north and west of Boulder and Jamestown. We have a school that has been evacuated; 300 people have been evacuated. There is an educational camp in the area that has been evacuated. The reason I bring this to the attention of the Senate at this particular point in time is because Colorado is one of those areas in the western part of the United States where we have a forest/urban interface. That is what the Forest Health Restoration Act is all about, trying to provide a program where we can begin to apply the principles of forest health.

Along the Front Range of Colorado, running all the way from Colorado Springs all the way up into Fort Collins, including Boulder, where this fire has broken out, there are a lot of homes being built into the forest. Of course, if you don't practice good forest health, then they become vulnerable to fires that could erupt.

The significant thing about what is happening today is this is not the fire season for Colorado. The fire season occurs in September, perhaps the first part of September, August, and July. Here we are, just 3 days from the first of November, and we have a fire that is breaking out with serious consequences in Colorado.

This again points out the need for us to move forward with this particular piece of legislation. We need to be addressing this problem immediately in areas such as what we are seeing here in the State of Colorado.

Last year during the peak of the Hayman Fire, the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains was covered in a thick blanket of smoke and ash that blocked visibility and dropped ash on surrounding towns and cities, creating a winter-like scene in the midst of a Colorado June. The Hayman Fire was the largest in Colorado history and cost $40 million and counting. It burned a little over 137,000 acres, destroyed 133 homes, and 466 outbuildings. The fire burned for 30 days. The Colorado State Forest Service has advised that it will take up to 150 years for the forest itself to be reestablished.

Some people ask, Why does it take so long? We are in a semi-arid area. Vegetation does not grow back rapidly. During the Hayman Fire, 142 subdivisions were evacuated along with 85,000 people.

Wildfires present a major cause of pollution, triggering severe asthma-related breathing problems and commonly causing death. Wildfires are also a major source of pollution. If we take 1 day out of the Hayman Fire, on June 10, 2002, the CO2 gas emissions from the Hayman Fire surpassed the CO2 emissions from all passenger cars operating in the United States on that same day. So this problem with a lot of undergrowth in the forests and trees being infested with beetles and a lot of dead and dying timber has made our forests extremely vulnerable in the forest/urban interface area.

Federal land management procedures are very complex. They should not be so complex that they prevent timely action to address ecological crises on public lands. Forest Service officials have estimated that planning an assessment consumes 40 percent of their time at the national forest level, costing more than $250 million per year. Although much of this work is important, the officials estimate that improving administrative procedures may allow agencies to redirect up to $100 million a year from unnecessary planning to actual forest health restoration where it will improve the ecosystem and protect local communities from catastrophic fires which we see erupting today in Boulder County.

The Front Range in Colorado also depends on the mountains to provide drinking water and water for gardens and children. But devastating fires threaten and destroy watersheds that yield this water. Catastrophic blazes consume organic matter in the littler layer of the soil and create a hard pan surface that impedes water penetration.

When water flows over this hydrophobic layer, it carries debris, mud, and causes soil loss, clogging municipal water treatment facilities, affecting water quality, flavoring water with ash, and costing millions to rehabilitate. This is the problem we face today from the Hayman Fire which occurred just a year ago.

In 2002, there were over 88,000 fires that burned 7 million acres. Thousands of structures were burned: 835 primary residences, 46 commercial buildings, and 1,500 outbuildings. The 2002 estimated suppression costs hover somewhere around $1.6 billion. These unnaturally extreme fires are just one consequence of deteriorating forests and range health that now affects more

than 190 million acres of public land, an area twice the size of California.

Wildfires destroyed wildlife and crippled watersheds. The Hayman fire occurred in the Cheesman Reservoir area, a primary source of drinking water for the city of Denver. Costs of the Cheesman reclamation have totaled nearly $5.5 million, with the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service and the EPA reimbursing Denver Water approximately $2.8 million of that amount.

During the Buffalo Creek fire, 600,000 cubic yards of sediment went into Denver Water's Strontia Springs Reservoir.

The fact is, there is too much paperwork and analysis and it is killing our forests. The Forest Service recently testified that it had to go through an 800-step decisionmaking process to complete the Upper South Platte restoration project, which took nearly 3 years to complete, and the fire that we see erupting today in northwest Boulder is in the Platte River drainage basin. Unfortunately, the bureaucratic process wasn't complete until a large wildfire ravaged the landscape set to be treated, plundering homes and an important watershed and forcing a number of endangered species to the edge of regional extinction.

The Healthy Forest Restoration Act is a comprehensive plan focused on giving Federal land managers and their stakeholders and partners the tools to respond to this growing forest health crisis. The legislation directs the timely implementation of scientifically supported management activities to protect the health and vibrancy of Federal forest ecosystems, as well as the communities and private lands that surround them.

This is why I ask Members of the Senate to join me in supporting the Forest Health Restoration Act.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for allowing me to offer this amendment at this time.

There is an amendment I have at the desk, No. 1995. I understand I have the right to modify that. I send the modification to the desk.

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

Mr. President, this amendment, co-sponsored by Senator Gordon Smith, would prohibit International Military Education Training funds for Indonesia. It also gives the President the authority to waive this prohibition for national security reasons. Let me explain why it is important for the Senate to consider and approve this amendment.

Nearly 15 months ago on August 31, 2002, 10 Americans living in Indonesia were brutally attacked less than 6 miles from their homes. Hundreds of rounds of ammunition were fired at them for 45 minutes, leaving two Americans dead and most of the other survivors nursing multiple bullet wounds.

I have had the opportunity to meet with one of the survivors of this horrible tragedy, Mrs. Patsy Spiers, who, along with her husband Rick, was shot multiple times. While Patsy was fortunate enough to survive this ordeal, her husband was not. In January, Mrs. Spiers was brave enough to sit down with me and walk through her painful experience. The next day I contacted President Bush urging him to press the Indonesian government to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the attack.

Immediately after the ambush, an investigation into the ambush was conducted by the Indonesian civil police. The police report implicated the Indonesian military in the attack, but indicated that further investigation into the ambush needed to be done. Shortly after the police report was filed, the Indonesian military exonerated themselves from the attack.

Only after diplomatic pressure from the United States did the Indonesian government decide to continue the investigation into the ambush. The Indonesian government also promised to permit the full participation of the FBI. Despite visiting the country multiple times, the FBI has not received the cooperation it needs to determine who was responsible for these brutal murders.

At this juncture, there are indications that Indonesian military may have had some involvement in this attack. Yet, despite these continued allegations and lack of cooperation, the Indonesian government and its military still receives U.S. assistance through the International Military Education Training fund. I believe that until a full and open investigation has been completed and those responsible are prosecuted, IMET funding for the Indonesians should be denied.

Since my face-to-face meeting with Mrs. Spiers, I have continued to work with the administration, FBI investigators, and colleagues here in the Senate with two distinct goals in mind. The first is to deny the release of funds until the Indonesians have completed the investigation into these murders. The second goal is to ensure that an impartial investigation, with help from the FBI, is conducted into the brutal attack so that those responsible will be brought to justice.

In no way should the United States government provide military assistance to Indonesia until this matter is resolved. What kind of message will we be sending to other governments if we provide this assistance without first determining who was responsible? Just as important, what kind of message do we send to the families of Ted Burgon and Rick Spiers who were murdered in the ambush if we continue this military assistance. Are not the lives of American citizens more important than this military assistance?

I fear that by our inaction we send the wrong message to the world. What kind of precedent will be set for other Americans who travel overseas? We cannot allow the murder of our citizens to be ignored and the Indonesian government should not let those responsible go unpunished.

I appreciate the efforts by the manager of this bill and his staff for their assistance on this amendment. It is my

hope that we can quickly resolve any concerns with my amendment so it can be accepted. These American families deserve a resolution and justice.

I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member on getting agreement on my amendment.

I need to get the attention of the floor manager, the Senator from Kentucky, if I might.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Vermont working on this most important amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

I rise today to speak about an important vote that will take place a little less than 4 hours from now. At 5:30 this evening, the Members of this body will have an opportunity to invoke cloture on the nomination of Governor Mike Leavitt to become the new Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and to end the months of delay and Presidential politics that have marred his nomination.

Tonight's vote is more than a mere procedural formality. It is more than a simple motion. It is a vote about leadership and the health of our natural surroundings. It is a vote that will show the American people we are serious about protecting the environment, about providing the much-needed leadership the EPA has been missing since the departure of the former Administrator.

Every ship needs a captain. Every plane needs a pilot. As elected officials representing the greatest people in the greatest Nation, we must provide that captain, that pilot for our Nation's chief environmental department. We can begin by voting tonight to invoke cloture. The politics of delay must end tonight. President Bush has nominated a very worthy candidate to take the helm at the Environmental Protection Agency.

I have learned that experience makes a difference. Perhaps no other qualification that Governor Leavitt possesses is as important to me as his experience in the real world. As president and chief executive officer of the Leavitt Group, he has paid taxes and made payroll. Through his business experience, he learned the impact of government regulations on commerce and industry. Moving beyond his time as a private entrepreneur and into the realm of public service, Governor Leavitt is the country's longest serving Governor and has a long history of experience and accomplishments that make him eminently qualified for the position of Administrator. The confirmation of the Administrator must be a top priority for all who care about the environment.

I challenge my colleagues to focus on the achievements of our national environmental policy and not on penalties and politics. We cannot ignore the fact that the air we breathe today is cleaner than it was 4 years ago and that the water our children drink is more safe today than ever before. But there is a danger lurking in the formulation and implementation of our national environmental policy. Extremist measures that impose strict mandates and demand compliance through arbitrary means and unclear science could undermine the very institutes of our democracy and of our market economy.

Governor Leavitt knows that our system of environmental regulations, environmental mandates and administrative and judicial rulings, work together to protect our most precious resources, and have helped spur environmental recovery in many areas. But he is also aware that these same layers of laws have also created tremendous burdens for municipalities, businesses and the ongoing development and maintenance of our public infrastructure.

The evolution of environmental rules and regulations that control so many aspects of life must be realistic goals that are established through a course of open deliberation and sound science. The impact EPA has on individual lives is real, not fictitious. New laws and enforcement decisions cannot be taken lightly.

I am pleased that President Bush's approach has been one of reform-- changing command-and-control mandates to innovative, market-based approaches that utilize cutting edge technology to bolster environmental benefits. I know that this type of strong, principled leadership will continue into the future. We must not simply wipe the slate clean and sweep away basic environmental rules, but we can--we must--develop an environmental agenda that protects private property rights while balancing environmental achievement with the need for continued economic progress.

Governor Leavitt is the one person who has the intellect, the courage, and the right philosophical temperament to get this job done. Governor Leavitt hails from the western United States. Perhaps no other geographic region in the country has felt the heavy hand of environmental regulation more than the public land States of the West-- be it in the form of forthcoming EPA mercury standards or the Department of the Interior's Endangered Species Act.

Many Members of this body do not understand the impact that Federal land ownership has on a State and on its people, and that includes the much publicized battle over RS 2477. At some point today, I have no doubt that opponents may try to attack the Governor on his approach to solving this long standing Federal land issue. As a fellow westerner whose State is also affected by the dispute, I want to clear up the scare tactics and half-truths used by the extremist groups in an attempt to undermine the nominee's credibility.

Governor Leavitt has never been involved in secret deals and behind- closed-doors shenanigans to destroy public lands. Instead, Governor Leavitt believes the public is best served through negotiation rather than litigation. His actions to resolve a 30-year dispute over ownership rights of rural county roads resulted in the enactment of a reliable mechanism that will preserve and promote the interests of the public. This is just plain common sense.

Governor Leavitt understands the complicated web of environmental rules and the impact that they have on health and property. As a Governor, he has worked hard to increase the well-being of the people in his State, and he has worked diligently to improve the state of the environment. Governor Leavitt understands the fundamental need to protect the environment from irresponsible actors. Just as important, though, he understands the need to protect the environment through policies and programs that generate results and that create incentives to improve land, water and air quality, not just penalties and fines. He knows that heavy-handed action is not nearly as important as the results that can be achieved through cooperation and collaboration.

The development of such enlibra principles has received a bipartisan endorsement from the National Governor's Association and deserves a great deal of attention. Governor Leavitt, along with the Governor of Oregon, was one of the pioneers of a concept that they dubbed enlibra. This concept, derived from Latin root words and meaning ``to move toward balance,'' promotes the type of balanced environmental stewardship that I have been talking about and includes eight principles that help on this course. Governor Leavitt has done a great deal to clean up both the air and water and to protect thousands of acres of premier public lands in the State of Utah.

In just one example of how he has worked for cleaner air, Governor Leavitt is a co-chair of the Western Regional Air Partnership, also known as WRAP. WRAP is a partnership of 13 States, 13 tribes and 3 Federal agencies. This organization worked to formulate a regulatory commitment to reduce SOX levels by 50-70 percent by

the year 2040. But, they didn't just formulate regulations. They also put together a plan to help those affected by the regulations, providing guidance on how to reach these aggressive clean air goals. Under Governor Leavitt's leadership, Utah now meets all Federal air quality standards.

But its not just the air that is improved. Seventy-three percent of Utah's streams currently meet Federal water quality standards, compared to 59 percent 10 years ago. This is a remarkable improvement since Governor Leavitt took office.

In what undoubtedly will be a common theme today as other members come to the floor to show their support for Governor Leavitt, I would like to point out that our Nation lives today in a cleaner, healthier environment, far more clean than it was when President Bush first took office. In the last 30 years, water quality has improved and emissions of the six principal air pollutants have been cut 48 percent. This progress comes even as the country has experienced a 164 percent increase in gross domestic product, a 42 percent increase in energy consumption, and a 155 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled. This improvement has occurred over the course of 34 years, 22 of which came under the leadership of Republican administrations.

The environment is not a partisan issue. Success comes through partnership and the desire to take the responsible, common-sense action. As mentioned, the most recent EPA data shows that sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants were 10.2 million tons in 2002, 9 percent lower than in 2000 and 41 percent lower than 1980. NOx emissions from power plants are also lower, measuring 4.5 million tons in 2002. This is a 13 percent reduction from 2000 and a 33 percent decline from 1990 emissions levels. In Colorado, the Bush administration's efforts to clean-up the Shattuck, Vasquez Boulevard and Rocky Flats sites deserve many thanks. The administration continues to prove its commitment to the people of Colorado through responsible stewardship and active protection.

Governor Leavitt's accomplishments are not just in the environmental field, however. His environmental principles are getting the most attention and, given the current debate, rightfully so. However, I believe that Governor Leavitt has had other accomplishments in the State of Utah that I believe speak to the kind of person and leader that he is. In the area of education, funding for public education has increased by $762 million in 10 years between fiscal years 1994 and 2004. The number of teachers in the classrooms has increased, teacher pay has increased, student-to-teacher ratios have decreased and, perhaps at least in part to the three previous factors, teacher retention has increased. Student SAT scores, and student scores on other national tests, have also increased steadily. Initiatives introduced or promoted by Governor Leavitt have increased the number of school options as well. Students wanting to attend Utah public schools now have more options, such as: charter schools, high-tech schools and an electronic high school, to enable them to find the educational method that fits them best.

Utah schools are also second in the Nation in Internet accessibility. Thanks to an initiative called Technology 2000, 99% of Utah's schools have access to the Internet.

Higher education funding has also increased. Again, between fiscal years 1994 and 2004, higher ed funding increased slightly over 73%, a total of $379 million. Student enrollment has increased, as has the enrollment of students in engineering, math and computer sciences.

Numerous plans to improve the lives and health of families and children have been implemented. Between the years of 1992 and 2001, immunization rates rose by 73 recent, teen smoking rates fell by 32 percent, and teen pregnancy rates fell by 33 percent.

Under HealthPrint, a Leavitt plan to increase the number of State residents who are covered by insurance, the numbers of insured persons increased by 404,000. Of these 72,000 were children. Governor Leavitt was also a leader in the push to get us here in Congress to authorize the Children's Health Insurance plan, or CHIP. The numbers of children covered by CHIP in Utah continue to rise.

These remarkable achievements could only have been accomplished by someone who is thoughtful and deliberative, someone who is able to consider all relevant information and make the decision that will be best for the greatest number of people. The strong mark of success the Governor has built in Utah over the past 11 years bodes well for his success at the helm of EPA--an agency that employs 18,000 people across the country and an agency that needs a leader like Leavitt. The commitment President Bush has made to improving the environment is strong, clear and unquestionable. Mr. Leavitt will ably serve the people of the United States as he fulfills his oath to meet these goals.

I look forward to this evening's vote and to the confirmation of Governor Leavitt. Let's end this hold-up and do just that.

Mr. President, this nomination should move ahead, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for cloture.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be divided proportionally between the two sides.

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

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to Senator Bennett.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, and Senator Frist for their leadership on this particular issue. Both have worked extremely hard. I also commend the Presiding Officer for his leadership for the rights of the unborn.

I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act, which is S. 3. This legislation is designed to help protect unnecessary suffering of the unborn child and also to protect the mother. It prohibits a partial-birth abortion, which is a partial delivery of a living baby, the killing of a baby before complete delivery.

The bill allows partial-birth abortion except for the life of the mother, and in cases where there is endangerment by physical disorder, illness, and injury.

I will go through some of the bill's definitions, which I think say a lot about what this bill is all about.

The term ``partial-birth abortion'' means an abortion which, first, ``the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus.'' That is the way it is defined in the bill. Further, the term ``partial-birth abortion'' means an overt act, other than completion of delivery, that ``kills the partially delivered living fetus with this procedure.''

This type of abortion is called a D&X abortion, which would be prohibited, also referred to as a dilation and extraction abortion. The bill defines ``extraction'' as: ``Extraction from the uterus and into the vagina of all of the body of a fetus except the head, following which the fetus is killed by extracting the contents of the skull.'' After the baby's skull tissue is rooted out, then the remains of the baby are removed.

I emphasize, this bill does not prohibit other abortions. For example, it does not prohibit what is commonly referred to as D&E, or dilation and evacuation, a procedure which includes dismemberment of the baby inside the uterus, induction of preterm labor with the fetus forced from the uterus, and suctioning of the baby out of the uterus. It does not prohibit suction abortion, which involves scraping the fetus apart from the placenta, or suctioning the baby out of the uterus. It does not prohibit all other types of abortion that might be applied, such as a Caesarian section or a hysterotomy.

The bill protects the life and safety of the mother. Partial-birth abortion was never intended to be a procedure to protect the health of the mother. This procedure has become a form of abortion. On the contrary, we need a ban in order to protect the health of the mother. It is a dangerous procedure, it is a fringe procedure, and it is outside the mainstream of routine medicine.

The American Medical Association, for example, which is an organization that is committed to medical excellence on behalf of patients and professionals, opposes this procedure. The AMA has described this procedure as unsafe and dangerous. The American Medical Association has stated it is ``not good medicine,'' ``not medically indicated.''

There are some specific exceptions: If the mother's life is in danger. The bill allows abortion if endangered by physical disorders or illness or injury.

In the bill, again, it says:

Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign

commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and

thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title

or imprisoned not more than 2 years or both. This subsection

does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary

to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a

physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury,

including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or

arising from the pregnancy itself.

I went through a lot of the procedures of the bill just to let the Members of the Senate know how grotesque this procedure is. This bill is necessary and important.

This legislation is designed to protect infants. Testimony in committee indicates there is pain to the baby when this partial-birth abortion procedure is conducted. Professor Robert White, who is director of the Division of Neurosurgery and Brain Research Laboratory at Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, testified before the Constitution Subcommittee in 1995. These are his exact words:

The fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and

beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain. Without

question, all of this is a dreadfully painful experience for

any infant subject to such a surgical procedure.

The procedure should not exist or be permitted, in my view. It is painful, morbid, inhumane, and simply barbaric. A majority of Americans believe we should end this practice and it should be illegal except if necessary to save the life of the mother.

The House and Senate have passed a number of times on this legislation. We passed a partial-birth abortion bill from this body in the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. In the 108th Congress, both the House and the Senate passed this ban--with a vote in the House of 181 for, 142 against. It was a bipartisan vote. Again, we had a bipartisan vote in the Senate, where we had 64 for and 33 against.

It is important that we pass this particular legislation. The President strongly supports S. 3. President Bush, in his State of the Union Address, asked Congress to:

. . . protect infants at the very moment of birth, and end

the practice of partial-birth abortion.

We need to act now. I again thank my colleagues in the Senate who have been such strong advocates of eliminating partial-birth abortion except in situations threatening the life of the mother. I am pleased we are acting now, and I thank my colleagues for their support of this important ban for the Nation's children.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Nickles amendment and in opposition to the Bayh amendment. I believe in truth in lending, and I think there are some Members of the Senate who think somehow if we talk about this loan, it is going to be acceptable to the American people. Frankly, I believe the loan is going to be a grant.

We just need to be upfront with the American people and say that the $20 billion in the President's request is going to be a grant and explain it to the American people. Iraq has a huge debt--from sources I have heard in testimony--of anywhere between $100 billion to $200 billion. We just heard on the news this evening where one of their major pipelines has been blown up so they are not going to have any ability to expect to export oil. The oil they have now will be used for domestic purposes. That is as a result of an attack by terrorists this particular evening as we are debating.

Let's be honest; whether this is couched as a loan or a grant, it is going to be a grant. It is something we are going to have to give to the American

people in order to move forward with the development of the infrastructure in that country, which I happen to believe is essential if we want to get our troops home quickly. We simply have to get that in place along with security forces. The only way that will happen is if we give the full amount of $87 billion available for the reconstruction and for the security in Iraq.

We have heard time and time again about the complications of going the route of a loan. In fact, Ambassador Bremer testified before several committees in the Senate, and he has actually sent a letter to the chairman, the Honorable Ted Stevens. I will read from it. He says:

I understand there are various proposals being offered

which would convert portions of the funding request to a loan

mechanism of some type. Any such proposal would merely add

further debt to the already-huge debt currently owed by the

Iraqis. As you know from my testimony three weeks ago, I am

concerned that, as was the case in the young, fragile

democracy in Weimar, Germany, such a situation could

destabilize the young Iraqi democracy before it even gets off

the ground. Moreover, if the United States makes its

contribution in the form of a loan, we will encourage other

nations to follow that example at the Madrid Donors

Conference next week--further exacerbating Iraq's debt

situation, I might add, complicating the eventual process of

restructuring the country's overall debt burden.

I sat down with a group of people and I visited with Colin Powell. He also urges us, in the strongest terms, to not make this a loan and that we grant these dollars. It gives us an opportunity to maintain control of those dollars.

We have to keep in mind that Iraq has established trade agreements with many of those countries that opposed our presence in Iraq. If this goes to a loan, they will control the money; they will be the ones letting out the contracts. I feel their inclination would be to be to disburse it all over the international community. That means that countries such as France, Germany, and Russia will be looked to also to share in the contracting out of the building of the infrastructure in Iraq.

The other advantage of a grant is it gives us control of the moneys as they are spent in Iraq.

Finally, a loan means Iraq is going to have that control. It means it is going to complicate our ability to work with other countries with the loss of control. We ought to be straightforward with the American people. We need to tell them this is going to be a grant and account for it accordingly and move forward with the rapid reconstruction of the infrastructure in Iraq. That is the best policy. It is a straightforward policy.

I believe if we are true and straightforward with the American people, the American people will understand the need to move forward with the full $87 billion the President requested.

Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I understand our side is going to move to table the Leahy amendment, and I do support tabling the Leahy amendment. From what I have been able to observe,

I think things are going well in Iraq. Certainly, I have no qualms with the way the State Department and the Defense Department are working together. I do not think we ought to upset the apple cart when things are moving in the right direction.

I want to take a few moments to talk about the President's supplemental request in total. I ask my colleagues for quick action on the underlying bill. The reasons for quick action are simple. If we want to see a reduction in the number of soldiers in Iraq, we need to fully fund this request. If we want to improve the security in Iraq, we must approve this request. If we want a Democratic Iraq, governed by Iraqis, we must approve this request.

No one in this body on either side of the aisle would deny we need additional operational and procurement funds for our military. We all know that. Yet there is a great controversy over the reconstruction funds which in the long-term could be just as important to the safety of the troops as the additional operation and procurement funds.

Our troops will benefit from the additional operational funds that are requested in the $87 billion. My view is that if we want to see our forces out of Iraq quickly, we need to have those operational funds because they are essential to moving ahead with Iraq becoming self- sufficient, with Iraq being able to defend itself and being able to assume the responsibilities the U.S. military right now is assuming.

My point is that not only are the Iraqis beneficiaries, but our soldiers over in Iraq are beneficiaries, and they are beneficiaries for the reason it is going to be an opportunity for them to move out quicker and get home quicker. That is what we all want to see. Our ability to protect the men and women of the U.S. military is at stake.

Since the beginning of hostilities last February, there have been 19 soldiers from Colorado's Fort Carson and five other Coloradans who have died in Iraq. These men and women have paid the ultimate sacrifice in pursuit of the freedoms we often take for granted. I would be dishonoring the sacrifice these brave Americans have made and failing to protect those who continue to serve in Iraq if I did not support both the military funding portion of the supplemental and the reconstruction funding.

While the $20 billion in reconstruction funds will not end the guerilla attacks on our troops, it will make a difference. Iraq is a dangerous country, and as long as American troops are on the ground there, they will be at risk, as any American who may be in that country. However, the fact remains that the more we repair the old wounds of the Hussein regime, the safer our troops will be in Iraq. Specifically, the money we spend on upgrading the water of Iraq and sanitation services, the oil infrastructure rehabilitation, and the healthcare and education of the Iraqi people will have a direct impact on the safety of our troops.

Improving the social conditions of the Iraqi people will reduce hostility and ease the sense of desperation many Iraqis have felt since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Moreover, this funding will give Iraqis hope and demonstrate our commitment to not only rid Iraq of terrorists, but also improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis.

Freedom cannot be bought on the cheap. And, as Paul Bremer testified last week, the Coalition Provisional Authority's seven-step program towards Iraqi self-governance hinges on the basic needs of the Iraqis being fulfilled. Without it, democracy will fail. This cannot be allowed to happen.

Think back about what has been mentioned before about reconstruction after World War II and how we all realized after World War I that we had troops who were waiting to go home, everybody was excited to go home, but nobody stayed around to help stabilize the countries we defeated during World War I. Consequently, events evolved and we were into World War II. I think we learned our lesson, and that is that there needs to be a reconstruction period. So we had the Marshall plan put into effect. I think we need to not forget that lesson today if we want to see Iraq be a permanent democracy in the Middle East.

Perhaps of most importance to our troops in Iraq is the efforts to reconstitute the Iraqi Army and expand the civil police force. The money in the supplemental would help establish 27 battalions for the Iraqi Army and a police force of about 80,000 in the next 12 to 18 months.

Let me stress how important these efforts are. To have Iraqi patrols policing their own people will allow a safer environment for our soldiers and show the Iraqi people that we are not occupiers, and that Iraq is their country and their responsibility. In fact, the commander of Central Command, General Abizaid, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the most important part of the supplemental is these security funds. I quote General Abizaid:

. . . we can speed up the training of the Iraqi Army--

instead of taking 2 years, take 1, and we can't do that

without more money.

The general goes on to state:

. . . every month that goes by where we don't start those

security projects is a month longer before those guys go out

and potentially can relieve our troops of some of their

duties.

If the combatant commander with responsibility for Iraq believes reconstruction efforts and the security of American soldiers is linked, we should certainly heed his advice.

I think the additional point has been made in many hours of testimony before the Armed Services Committee that our intelligence will improve dramatically the more we are able to incorporate the Iraqi police force and their assistance in maintaining domestic stability in Iraq.

The issue has been also broached about making the reconstruction funds a loan to the already impoverished nation. I object to this idea for two important reasons. First, there are those in the United States, and many more abroad, who protested the idea of going to war with Iraq. A large majority of these critics believed this was a war for oil. They believed our insatiable need for fuel was driving us toward an occupation of Iraq so we could control its oil fields. I am not going to outline why this assumption was flawed in the first place, because you only have to look at the U.N. mandates the Hussein regime ignored and the mass graves of his murdered people. This is an absurd notion but not one we can afford to ignore.

However, if we ask for a loan, where will Iraq come up with the money? Nineteen billion is what has been estimated in their oil fields when they get up in production, and when they have a $20 billion loan, that doesn't even service the interest on that loan. How will it look for the United States when we ask the Iraqis to pump their crude to pay us back for the money we loaned them? Perception is important for us in the Middle East and we cannot afford to have an ``oil motive'' attached to our efforts to bring democracy to the region.

Another concern would be the example set for the other countries of the world that might contribute to the reconstruction effort. Iraq already owes $200 billion to Russia and France and Germany and others. Are we to ask them to forgive their debt and then demand payment for our generosity?

Our negotiators need leverage when they ask for reconstruction funds from the rest of the world. Our leverage would be nullified if the proposed grant to Iraq changes to a loan. Again, perception of asking for help for a burgeoning democracy in the Middle East would be muddied if we have an IOU in our back pocket.

A few weeks ago the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Myers, testified before the Armed Services Committee and remarked that our battle in Afghanistan and Iraq is a battle of wills. He stated:

We are going to win as long as we have the continuing will

of the American people, and for that matter, freedom loving

people everywhere.

This supplemental request is a measure of our will, a measure of our commitment to the Iraqi people. Terrorist organizations such as al- Qaida and state sponsors of terrorism like the former Hussein regime have doubted America's commitment in the past. Are we prepared to risk additional attacks against our troops if we fail to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq? Are we prepared to say to the people of Iraq they are on their own? Are we prepared to stay the course?

We must act quickly, we must act decisively, and we must pass this funding as requested by the President. The

United States must continue to show leadership in the world as we have since our inception. We must not allow our support of democracy and freedom to be compromised.

Last year, more than three-quarters of this body voted to support going to war with Iraq with the understanding we would not stop until we were victorious. We are not finished yet. More needs to be done. I ask my colleagues for quick approval of the supplemental funds for the sake of the security of the Iraqi people and the safety of our troops on the ground.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1802

Mr. President, I rise today on the occasion of the confirmation of Phil Figa to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. I urge my colleagues to vote favorably on Figa's confirmation, a man who represents the very best our legal system has to offer. The Judiciary is a fundamental institution of our democracy; it is given neither force nor will, but merely judgment. Our Constitution dictates that the President shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint judges of the Federal Court. Today we can fulfill this obligation by confirming Mr. Figa. With further commitment to the country's founding principles, we can move toward fulfilling this commitment in regard to all outstanding vacancies. I want to thank Chairman Hatch and Senator Leahy for the great speed with which Mr. Figa's nomination has moved through the Senate. Nominated by the President in June, this vote is a shining example of a process that can work when a spirit of bipartisanship triumphs. Chairman Hatch, your leadership is truly appreciated.

In light of recent terrorist attacks, it is readily apparent that we face a new age of global unrest, a world in which terror has replaced formal declarations of war as the major threat against freedom and democracy. A necessary component of providing justice to those who would do harm to our nation is to maintain an efficient court system--a court equipped with the personnel and resources that enable it to fulfill its role as a pillar of our constitutional system of governance. Swift punishment serves as a warning to tyranny and a deterrent to evil. By filling this vacancy, America continues to show its resolve in justice and law.

Mr. Figa's nomination arose after Judge Richard Matsch, who presided over the Oklahoma City bombing trial, went to senior status. Judge Matsch's departure leaves big shoes to fill. However, after months of background investigations and congressional inquiry, it is obvious that Phil Figa is the right person for the job.

For the past several years. I have had the opportunity to get to know Phil's wonderful family. His wife Candy, and their two children, Ben and Lizzie, were able to watch their father's job interview before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month. I admire the strong family values so apparent in every member of the Figa family--it was their continued support and encouragement that provided the strength and energy he needed in order to stand steadfast in pursuit of this most worthy endeavor. Together, the family enjoys the Colorado outdoors, spending free time hiking and biking in the mountains. According to Criminal defense lawyer Gary Lozow, Figa is a ``thoughtful and bright person who will make a good Federal judge and is mindful of the awesomeness of taking on that responsibility.''

The two major newspapers in my home State of Colorado agree. The Rocky Mountain News noted, Phil has achieved a rare balance in his life of family, law practice and community activities. The Denver Post, in an endorsement earlier this year, noted that Figa is a good, solid choice for the bench. The Post was encouraged by the fact that Figa's background is in civil litigation, which makes up a high percentage of the cases handled by Federal judges.

I am not the only one who believes that his keen intellect and temperament is ideal for the bench. In a letter dated June 10, 2003, Senator Campbell and I wrote to the committee, ``Mr. Figa is highly qualified and will ably serve the people of the United States . . . (he) is well known throughout the Colorado legal community for his credibility, integrity, hard work and firm grasp of the law.'' His supporters hail from across party lines and include a variety of elected officials from

all levels of local, State, and Federal Governments. Of the many gracious comments I have heard about Phil, none characterize him better than a statement made by the managing partner at his firm. ``He's a very gracious fellow . . . a very likable person. He's a gentlemanly character.''

In Federalist Number 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote that Judges are the guardians of the constitution, ``The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise will instead of judgment, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.''

Phil Figa is the guardian we need on the bench of the District Court for the District of Colorado. He will serve our Nation with the utmost of respect to our country and our constitution, and for this, I urge my colleagues to vote favorably on his confirmation.

Phillip Figa is somebody who has been reviewed by his peers in Colorado. He has been reviewed by the American Bar Association. He will be a very good individual for the bench and he has bipartisan support.

I yield the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, Mother Teresa will soon be beatified by Pope John Paul II in Rome, and I would like to take this opportunity to honor the model that she was for the world by promoting love and respect for all.

We in Congress often get overwhelmed with the amount of work and issues that we are faced with each day, but Mother Teresa put into perspective our mission when she said, ``We ourselves feel that what we are doing is just a drop in the ocean, but the ocean would be less because of that missing drop.''

Mother Teresa embodied the ultimate spirit of public service by giving a 100 percent of herself to her constituents: the poor, the hungry, the homeless and, most of all, the unloved. Her determination to make the world a better place has left its mark on history and humanity.

``It is not how much we do, but how much love we put into doing. It is not how much we give, but how much love we put into giving,'' said Mother Teresa. Let us not forget this valuable wisdom as the world honors Mother Teresa next month.

Mr. President, on the occasion of his retirement from the U.S. Air Force, I wish to recognize LTC Timothy W. Coy for his 27 years of dedicated service to our country. In his most recent assignment he served as the Chief, Congressional Inquiry Branch, Congressional Inquiry Division, Secretary of the Air Force Office of Legislative Liaison, where he served as liaison between the Air Force and Congress on their constituent issues.

Lieutenant Colonel Coy was born in 1958 at Bolling AFB, Washington, DC. He graduated from Tabb High School in Yorktown, VA, in 1976. He holds a masters degree in public administration from the University of Wyoming, a bachelor of arts degree from Saint Leo College, and a certificate in legislative studies from Georgetown University. He is also a graduate of Air Command and Staff College, the Armed Forces Staff College, Squadron Officers School, Noncommissioned Officer Leadership School, and the Air Force Legislative Fellowship program.

In August 1976, Lieutenant Colonel Coy enlisted in the Air Force and completed basic training at Lackland AFB, TX, in September 1976, and performed duties as an administrative specialist. During his 7-year enlisted tour, he attained the rank of technical sergeant, and was assigned to headquarters, Tactical Air Command, TAC, where he held positions in the TAC Directorate of Administration and the TAC Command Section. In 1981, he was selected as one of the first members of the 4450th Tactical Group, Nellis, AFB, NV, the unit responsible for the operation of the ten-top secret F-117A ``Stealth Fighter.''

In 1982, following a short stint as noncommissioned officer in charge, NCOIC, of the Tactical Fighter Weapons Center, TFWC Command Section, then-Staff Sergeant Coy was selected for assignment to the USAF ``Thunderbirds'' Aerial Demonstration Team, where he performed duties as NCOIC of Thunderbird administration. After attaining the rank of technical sergeant in 6 years, he received his commission through Officers Training School (OTS) in 1984.

Following OTS graduation, Lieutenant Colonel Coy completed Minuteman III training at Vandenberg AFB, CA, as a ``Top Performer,'' and was assigned to the 320th Strategic Missile Squadron at F.E. Warren, AFB, WY. He performed duties as a standardization and evaluation missileer, and following his upgrade to crew commander, was selected to become the aide-de-camp for then BG Arlen D. Jameson, commander of the 4th Air Division. This job took him back to Vandenberg AFB as aide-de-camp and executive officer for Maj. General Jameson at the 1st Aerospace Division. In January 1990, he was selected as one of Strategic Air Command's top missileers for assignments to the TOP HAND Program. Lieutenant Colonel Coy served as launch director and test manager, and was involved in 20 Minuteman III and Peacekeeper test launches.

In June 1992, he was selected as part of the initial cadre of personnel in the newly established Headquarters Air Combat Command at Langley AFB, VA, where he served in the deputy chief of staff, Plans and Programs as chief of the ICBM Plans Section. When the ICBM mission moved to Colorado Springs, CO, at the Air Force Space Command in June 1993, Lieutenant Colonel Coy became the force applications mission area planner for the Directorate of Plans. In June 1966, he moved to the 21st Space Wing Plans Office where he became the chief of the Future Systems Branch. His office was responsible for SBIRS planning, the Clear Radar Upgrade, and conducted planning in support of National Missile Defense and other programs totaling over $14 billion.

He was then selected for assignment to the Joint Staff J-3 Defense Space Operations Division, DSOD, in December 1997. Lieutenant Colonel Coy assumed his duties in the Theater Missile and Air Defense branch, which included the National Missile Defense program, and participated in development of a common operating picture for the warfighter. He was also a qualified space surveillance officer in the National Military Command Center.

In 1998, Lieutenant Colonel Coy was selected as one of nine Air Force legislative fellows, and served as my Air Force fellow in my Washington, DC office. He worked defense issues, specifically space issues. His insight and knowledge was invaluable as a new member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In November 1999, he returned to the Pentagon as the chief of legislative affairs for the United States Joint Forces Command, where he advocated JFCOM programs on Capitol Hill. In July 2001, Lieutenant Colonel Coy was given the additional responsibilities as the director of the Washington Liaison Office, and U.S. liaison officer to the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic. On November 1, 2002, he assumed his current position as the chief of the Congressional Inquiry Branch.

A master space and missile operator, Lieutenant Colonel Coy's decorations include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, five Meritorious Service Medals, the Air Force Achievement Medal with two oak leaf clusters, the Joint Service Commendation Medal, and the Air Force Commendation Medal with four oak leaf clusters. Additionally, he was awarded the Colorado Meritorious Service Medal by the Adjutant General, Colorado National Guard.

Tim was married for 20 years to the late Barbara L. Suiter and has two children; Brian, a sophomore at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, VA, and Laura, a senior at Woodbridge Senior High School. He has proven himself to be a top officer, loving husband, and a caring father. I am very proud to call Tim ``one of my own'' and wish him the best as he moves on to his next journey.

Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to introduce today a

bill to provide a tax credit for apprenticeship training programs for various construction trades recognized by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), including masonry, electrical contract work, plumbing and heating and a host of other important vocations.

There are several reasons why I believe this legislation is necessary for apprenticeship training in these trades. First and foremost, these are highly skilled trades requiring many years of training. Second, there is a significant shortage of workers in these trades; in fact it is my understanding that many contractors often have to look outside the country to find a craftsman trained in one of these particular fields. Third, the average age of some of the workers in these crafts is over 50 and we must make every effort to ensure that we retain and recruit the most capable people in these jobs. And finally, many of these industries are very capital intensive and it makes sense to me to offer small businesses a short term tax credit to encourage productivity and stimulate economic growth and job creation.

During the last Congress a similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Foley of Florida. Regrettably the bill was not met with a great deal of enthusiasm, primarily due to the price tag attached to it. The legislation I am introducing, the Apprenticeship Training and Education Act of 2003, has been modified to address budgetary concerns as well as the concerns of those in some of the building trades that the apprenticeship training programs were indeed legitimate ones that would ultimately produce certified craftsmen. I greatly appreciate the assistance of the Mason Contractors Association of America and the Independent Electrical Contractors in crafting a bill that is fiscally responsible and credible.

I believe this tax credit will go a long way toward encouraging companies with a certified apprenticeship program to hire and train new workers. As the population of these workers continues to age and decline, it is absolutely essential that we look for ways to attract more, younger workers to what I believe to be excellent, high-paying and high skilled jobs in these construction trades.

Under my bill, a tax credit of up to $10,000 per year for the first 2 years of a 4-year program would be provided and companies could hire three new apprentices each year. The normal business deduction taken for this expense would be offset by the amount of the tax credit. The bill also specifically targets trades in the construction industry recognized by the BLS and only those programs certified by a State's or the Federal Department of Labor would qualify for the credit.

In my view there are many companies across the country that would benefit tremendously from this tax credit. I commend this legislation to my colleagues and urge them to cosponsor it with me. These are jobs and trades to be proud of and I encourage other Members of this body to promote the skills and education necessary to keep them viable in the United States.

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

Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to introduce today a

bill to provide a tax credit for apprenticeship training programs for various construction trades recognized by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), including masonry, electrical contract work, plumbing and heating and a host of other important vocations.

There are several reasons why I believe this legislation is necessary for apprenticeship training in these trades. First and foremost, these are highly skilled trades requiring many years of training. Second, there is a significant shortage of workers in these trades; in fact it is my understanding that many contractors often have to look outside the country to find a craftsman trained in one of these particular fields. Third, the average age of some of the workers in these crafts is over 50 and we must make every effort to ensure that we retain and recruit the most capable people in these jobs. And finally, many of these industries are very capital intensive and it makes sense to me to offer small businesses a short term tax credit to encourage productivity and stimulate economic growth and job creation.

During the last Congress a similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Foley of Florida. Regrettably the bill was not met with a great deal of enthusiasm, primarily due to the price tag attached to it. The legislation I am introducing, the Apprenticeship Training and Education Act of 2003, has been modified to address budgetary concerns as well as the concerns of those in some of the building trades that the apprenticeship training programs were indeed legitimate ones that would ultimately produce certified craftsmen. I greatly appreciate the assistance of the Mason Contractors Association of America and the Independent Electrical Contractors in crafting a bill that is fiscally responsible and credible.

I believe this tax credit will go a long way toward encouraging companies with a certified apprenticeship program to hire and train new workers. As the population of these workers continues to age and decline, it is absolutely essential that we look for ways to attract more, younger workers to what I believe to be excellent, high-paying and high skilled jobs in these construction trades.

Under my bill, a tax credit of up to $10,000 per year for the first 2 years of a 4-year program would be provided and companies could hire three new apprentices each year. The normal business deduction taken for this expense would be offset by the amount of the tax credit. The bill also specifically targets trades in the construction industry recognized by the BLS and only those programs certified by a State's or the Federal Department of Labor would qualify for the credit.

In my view there are many companies across the country that would benefit tremendously from this tax credit. I commend this legislation to my colleagues and urge them to cosponsor it with me. These are jobs and trades to be proud of and I encourage other Members of this body to promote the skills and education necessary to keep them viable in the United States.

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

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment. I thought I would comment in three areas.

First of all, I have had an opportunity to visit our laboratories in the United States. I will talk a little bit about that. Then I would like to review where we are in the overall aspect as far as our nuclear weapons are concerned. Finally, I will talk a little bit about what is in the authorization bill we passed in the Senate earlier on in the year, and talk a little bit about the fact that we have considered most of these amendments already. I don't understand why we are bringing them up for reconsideration, because the Senate has spoken.

I had an opportunity earlier this year to go around and visit the laboratories. I began to understand how important it is--that we need to study our nuclear weapons and we need to understand where we are in regard to the strategic nuclear stockpile.

Not long ago, several years back, the hope for the strategic nuclear stockpile was that it would work, but there was skepticism in the scientific community. But going around the laboratories earlier this year, those scientists, very capable scientists, very dedicated employees we have in our laboratories--and they want to see world peace and they don't necessarily want to see the proliferation of nuclear weapons--understand the need for us to know what is happening as far as our own strategic stockpile is concerned; that we need to continue to evaluate the threats from our enemies or potential enemies and where we stand in relation to that threat.

I was convinced that we need to do studies; we need to do some design thought; we need to bring it up for discussion. Nobody is out here saying we need to go into a nuclear arms race. I think that is overstated. But I think there is a lot of science that needs to be known, still, as far as nuclear weapons. We are going through a period of time where our stockpile is aging. Because it is aging, there are some phenomena that we perhaps do not understand. We want to make sure we understand. We want to make sure we have a safe environment and, from a safety aspect, that we understand what happens with aging.

The administration's budget request for fiscal year 2004 included several initiatives to advance their agenda as spelled out in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review. The Nuclear Posture Review laid out a plan to reduce the nuclear threshold by making advances in conventional munitions and missile defense capabilities, and in revitalizing our nuclear weapons infrastructure, while at the same time reducing the number of nuclear weapons--reducing the number of nuclear weapons in our stockpile from around 6,000 to between around 1,700 and 2,200 operationally deployed nuclear warheads.

One focus of the Nuclear Posture Review is to make advances in our nuclear weapons capabilities to deter future threats instead of maintaining a nuclear weapons stockpile which was designed to deter past threats.

This bill includes funding to support the administration's initiatives. Specifically, the Senate bill provides $6 million for advanced concepts, $15 million to continue a 3-year feasibility study on the robust nuclear earth penetrator, which is commonly referred to as RNEP, and $25 million to enhance our test readiness capabilities at the Nevada Test Site. That was mentioned in previous comments on the Senate floor, how important it is in order to meet our 18-month response requirement that this needs to be met. There needs to be money to meet that requirement. And there is $23 million to continue conceptual design efforts for a modern pit facility. Each of these individual facilities will enhance our Nation's readiness and capabilities in support of the Nuclear Posture Review.

I think the Members of the Senate need to know the Nuclear Posture Review was analyzed by those people in the know, those people who understand what is happening in other countries, people who understand the science and understand where we are in this country.

The advanced concepts initiative will support preconceptual and concept definition studies and feasibility and cost studies approved by the Nuclear Weapons Council. With advanced concepts, we are beginning to challenge our scientists, designers, and engineers to consider what is within the art of the possible. They will be challenged to think, discover, create, and innovate. By supporting the administration's request for the advanced concepts initiative, we will ensure there is an active advanced development program to assess the capabilities of our adversaries, conceptualizing innovative methods for countering those threats, developing weapon system requirements in response to our adversaries, and prototyping and evaluating the concepts.

The advanced concepts initiative will also help our experts to design enhanced safety and security aspects for our nuclear weapons, particularly the aging nuclear weapons that we possess.

The Feinstein amendment would strike this funding for advanced concepts.

The RNEP study is not a new issue for the Congress to consider. Last year, Congress authorized and appropriated $15 million for the first of the 3-year feasibility studies on the robust nuclear earth penetrator. This bill provides funding for the continuation of the feasibility study. It does not authorize the production or deployment of such a capability. The RNEP feasibility study will determine if one of two existing nuclear weapons can be modified to penetrate into hard rock in order to destroy a deeply buried target that could be hiding weapons of mass destruction or command and control assets.

The Department of Energy has modified nuclear weapons in the past to modernize their safety, security, and reliability aspects. We also modify existing nuclear weapons to meet new military requirements. The B61-11, one of the weapons being considered for the RNEP feasibility study, was already modified once before to serve as an earth penetrator to hold specific targets at risk. At that time, the modification was to assure the B61 could penetrate frozen soils. The RNEP feasibility study is an attempt to determine whether the same B61 or another weapon, the B83, could be modified to penetrate hard rock or reinforced underground facilities.

Funding research on options, both nuclear and conventional, for attacking such targets is a responsible step for our country to take.

Admiral James Ellis, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, confirmed in testimony before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee on April 8, 2003, that not all hardened and deeply buried targets can be destroyed by conventional weapons. Many nations are increasingly developing hardened and deeply buried targets to protect command and communications and weapons of mass destruction production and storage assets. It is prudent to support the study

of potential capabilities to address this growing category of threat.

What the Senate bill provides funding for is simply the second year of the 3-year feasibility study, nothing more. Should the National Nuclear Security Administration determine through this study that the robust nuclear earth penetrator can meet the requirements to hold a hardened and deeply buried target at risk, NNSA still could not proceed to full-scale weapon production development or deployment without an authorization and appropriation from Congress.

We should allow our weapons experts to determine if the robust nuclear earth penetrator could destroy hardened and deeply buried targets and to assess what would be the collateral damage associated with such capability. Then Congress would have the information it needs to decide whether development of such weapons is appropriate and necessary to maintain our Nation's security.

The Feinstein amendment would strike funding to continue the ANEP feasibility study.

The enhanced test readiness initiative has also been closely considered by the Congress and the administration. The House and the Senate Armed Services Committees required the Department of Energy, in consultation with the Department of Defense, to do a study to determine the optimum readiness posture for the Nevada Test Site. After a thorough review, the optimal test readiness posture chosen by the Department of Energy was 18 months.

Against the thoughtful consideration of both the Congress and the administration, the Feinstein amendment would strike the funding to allow our Nation's readiness to be enhanced at the Nevada Test Site.

Another important initiative is the continuing efforts to design and construct a modern pit facility to ensure the United States can, once again, manufacture plutonium pits for our existing nuclear weapons stockpile and for future weapons design, if necessary. The United States is the only nuclear power which does not have the current ability to mass produce plutonium pits.

Let me restate that. The United States is the only nuclear power that does not have the current ability to mass produce plutonium pits.

Although we have limited capabilities to produce a few pits at the Los Alamos National Laboratory since the shutdown of Rocky Flats in my home State of Colorado, the United States has not produced plutonium pits. That is a problem for our aging nuclear weapons stockpile since the pits and those weapons are aging beyond their design life, and as a radioactive material, plutonium continues to deteriorate until the pits can no longer be usable. The Feinstein amendment would strike funding for the modern pit facility.

All of the administration's nuclear weapons initiatives are designed to make sure the United States has the best and the brightest scientists and engineers prepared to innovate, create, test, and even manufacture, if necessary, to make sure any adversary is deterred from conducting harmful actions against the United States or its allies.

There are protections in the National Defense Authorization Act which provide that, at a minimum, no engineering design work can occur on the robust nuclear penetrator without specific authorization from Congress. We maintain our ability to control any mass production of those nuclear weapons.

We already had that debate. We should allow these initiatives to continue. Therefore, I am urging my colleagues to join me in voting against the Feinstein amendment.

There are a couple more issues I would like to cover. First, I ask unanimous consent that an op-ed by the Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, from the Washington Post on Monday, July 21, 2003, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to briefly point out some of the things we had in the Defense authorization bill as it applied to a number of areas affecting nuclear weapons. The section that dealt with the developing low-yield nuclear weapon--section 3131 of the Defense authorization bill--repeals the ban on research and development of low- yield nuclear weapons. But that same section also includes a provision which states that nothing in this repeal should be ``construed as authorizing the testing, acquisition, or deployment of a low-yield nuclear weapon.''

Also included in that same provision is a section that limits DOE from beginning phase 3. Phase 3 is the full-scale engineering development or any subsequent phase of a low-yield nuclear weapon ``unless specifically authorized by the Congress.''

Finally, also in that same section 3131, a report is to be submitted to determine if the repeal of the ban on research and development of low-yield

nuclear weapons will affect the ability of the United States to achieve its nonproliferation objectives.

On that section of the Defense Authorization Act, we had a number of amendments that we considered on the floor which we have already voted on. Again, one was the Feinstein amendment. Senator Feinstein offered an amendment to strike the repeal of the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons research. The motion to table was agreed to by a vote of 51 to 43. That was the Senate's position supporting the language of the Senate authorization bill on Armed Services.

The Reed-Levin amendment was also brought up in that section. They offered an amendment which retains the ban on low-yield nuclear weapon research. This amendment would retain the ban on phase 3 and subsequent phases but allow research on phases 1, 2, and 2A. This amendment was very similar to a House-Senate Armed Services Committee provision.

Chairman Warner offered an amendment in the form of a substitute which struck the Reed-Levin amendment and added a limitation which required a specific authorization from the Congress before the Secretary of Energy can proceed with phase 3--which again is engineering development--or any subsequent phases of low-yield nuclear weapons. The Warner substitute passed by a vote of 59 to 38. The Reed- Levin amendment, as amended by the Warner substitute, passed by a vote of 96 to 0.

In another section in the Senate Armed Services Committee authorization bill dealing with the robust nuclear earth-penetrator-- commonly referred to as RNEP--there was an authorization for $15 million for RNEP, which was the amount of the request we had in the budget proposal. That was section 1050.

Section 3135 also requires DOE to receive a specific authorization from Congress before commencing with phase 3 or any subsequent phase of the RNEP.

Time and time again, the Senate has spoken--that there will not be any further procedure on nuclear weapons development and advanced engineering unless there is specific authorization from the Senate.

Under the RNEP, there were a couple of Senate floor amendments that we considered. For example, Senator Dorgan offered an amendment to prohibit the use of funds for the nuclear earth-penetrator weapon, and the motion to table was agreed to by a vote of 56 to 41.

There was a Nelson amendment on RNEP. That amendment limited the DOE from beginning phase 3--full-scale development--or any subsequent phase of the robust nuclear earth-penetrator without a specific authorization from Congress.

Chairman Warner prepared a very similar amendment, and the Nelson amendment was agreed to by a voice vote.

We have debated this issue thoroughly. The Senate has spoken on these amendments and on these provisions. The appropriators have language supporting what we have already voted on and what has been passed by this body. I think it is time to move forward.

I think it is important that we move forward with the appropriations bill in light of our energy needs in this country. We shouldn't delay.

I rise in support of the bill, and I rise in opposition to the Feinstein amendment and ask my colleagues to join me.

I yield the floor.