Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. That would be wonderful.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask if I may have 1 minute to complete my thoughts.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard School of Public Health survey of non-elderly Americans with private health insurance, one-half reported that they had a problem with their health insurance plans in the previous year. They cited delays and denials of coverage or care as their two most common problems. They also said they worried that if they became sick, their health plans would be more concerned about saving money than providing the best treatment. For those in managed care plans, such as HMOs, over two-thirds had this concern. And they have good reason to be concerned. Let me tell you about two of the many people, who were hurt when HMO decided it needed to save money. Ruby Calad had a hysterectomy and her doctor recommended that she stay in the hospital longer than a day. Cigna, Ruby's insurance company said one day was enough. So Ruby went home, but she was soon in the emergency room because she had developed serious complications. Had Ruby been able to stay in the hospital longer, as recommended by her doctor, this would not have happened. Juan Davila suffers from diabetes and arthritis. His doctor prescribed VIOXX for his arthritis because it had a lower rate of bleeding and ulcers than drugs on the formulary developed by Aetna. But instead of approving the VIOXX, Juan was required to enter a step program and try two other medications before VIOXX could be approved. He was given naprosyn--a cheaper drug--and three weeks later was rushed to the hospital. He had developed bleeding ulcers, which caused a heart attack and internal bleeding. Juan survived but now cannot take any pain medication that is absorbed by the stomach. These examples show why medical decisions should be made by doctors, not HMO bureaucrats, and in 2001, the Senate, in a bipartisan vote of 59-36, passed S. 1052, the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act to make sure that happened. Yet, intransigence from the House leadership and the White House prevented that bill from becoming law. Nearly 3 years later, we still have not acted. So, today, I am introducing the exact same bipartisan bill that passed in the Senate in 2001. This bill provides comprehensive protections to all Americans in all health plans. It says to all Americans who have health insurance, you have rights and protections. It says to HMOs, you have responsibilities and will be held accountable for your wrongful and harmful actions. This bill ensures that patients have the right to have medical decisions made by their doctors and not HMO bureaucrats. Patients will have the right to see a specialist and go to the closest emergency room for treatment. They will be able to keep the same doctor throughout their medical treatment and appeal adverse claim decisions to an independent reviewer. And if they are injured by a decision made by the HMO, they will have the right to hold their HMO accountable in a court. A meaningful patients bill of rights is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard School of Public Health survey of non-elderly Americans with private health insurance, one-half reported that they had a problem with their health insurance plans in the previous year. They cited delays and denials of coverage or care as their two most common problems. They also said they worried that if they became sick, their health plans would be more concerned about saving money than providing the best treatment. For those in managed care plans, such as HMOs, over two-thirds had this concern. And they have good reason to be concerned. Let me tell you about two of the many people, who were hurt when HMO decided it needed to save money. Ruby Calad had a hysterectomy and her doctor recommended that she stay in the hospital longer than a day. Cigna, Ruby's insurance company said one day was enough. So Ruby went home, but she was soon in the emergency room because she had developed serious complications. Had Ruby been able to stay in the hospital longer, as recommended by her doctor, this would not have happened. Juan Davila suffers from diabetes and arthritis. His doctor prescribed VIOXX for his arthritis because it had a lower rate of bleeding and ulcers than drugs on the formulary developed by Aetna. But instead of approving the VIOXX, Juan was required to enter a step program and try two other medications before VIOXX could be approved. He was given naprosyn--a cheaper drug--and three weeks later was rushed to the hospital. He had developed bleeding ulcers, which caused a heart attack and internal bleeding. Juan survived but now cannot take any pain medication that is absorbed by the stomach. These examples show why medical decisions should be made by doctors, not HMO bureaucrats, and in 2001, the Senate, in a bipartisan vote of 59-36, passed S. 1052, the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act to make sure that happened. Yet, intransigence from the House leadership and the White House prevented that bill from becoming law. Nearly 3 years later, we still have not acted. So, today, I am introducing the exact same bipartisan bill that passed in the Senate in 2001. This bill provides comprehensive protections to all Americans in all health plans. It says to all Americans who have health insurance, you have rights and protections. It says to HMOs, you have responsibilities and will be held accountable for your wrongful and harmful actions. This bill ensures that patients have the right to have medical decisions made by their doctors and not HMO bureaucrats. Patients will have the right to see a specialist and go to the closest emergency room for treatment. They will be able to keep the same doctor throughout their medical treatment and appeal adverse claim decisions to an independent reviewer. And if they are injured by a decision made by the HMO, they will have the right to hold their HMO accountable in a court. A meaningful patients bill of rights is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that would ban oil and gas drilling in the Los Padres National Forest. Congresswoman Capps is introducing this legislation in the House of Representatives. Despite strong local opposition to drilling in the forest, the Forest Service released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement in October 2001 that recommended opening up additional lands in the forest to oil and gas exploration. By failing to consider the irreparable harm these activities would cause to the forest's resources and the recreational opportunities available to both nearby residents and tourists, the Forest Service's proposal is shortsighted and misguided. The opening of the spectacular, unspoiled lands in Los Padres National Forest to oil and gas drilling threatens one of California's most pristine places. Los Padres National Forest provides habitat for various threatened and endangered wildlife species, including the endangered California condor. Also within the Los Padres National Forest are unexplored archeological sites that contain Native American historical artifacts. These could be damaged or destroyed by oil and gas development. Los Padres National Forest provides a variety of recreational opportunities, such as fishing, hiking, hunting, and backpacking. These activities would be hindered by new oil and gas exploration and development, as streams and trails are contaminated by runoff and sedimentation and as air pollution is increased. This legislation is a critical step toward protecting the irreplaceable natural and cultural resources of the Los Padres National Forest. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that would ban oil and gas drilling in the Los Padres National Forest. Congresswoman Capps is introducing this legislation in the House of Representatives. Despite strong local opposition to drilling in the forest, the Forest Service released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement in October 2001 that recommended opening up additional lands in the forest to oil and gas exploration. By failing to consider the irreparable harm these activities would cause to the forest's resources and the recreational opportunities available to both nearby residents and tourists, the Forest Service's proposal is shortsighted and misguided. The opening of the spectacular, unspoiled lands in Los Padres National Forest to oil and gas drilling threatens one of California's most pristine places. Los Padres National Forest provides habitat for various threatened and endangered wildlife species, including the endangered California condor. Also within the Los Padres National Forest are unexplored archeological sites that contain Native American historical artifacts. These could be damaged or destroyed by oil and gas development. Los Padres National Forest provides a variety of recreational opportunities, such as fishing, hiking, hunting, and backpacking. These activities would be hindered by new oil and gas exploration and development, as streams and trails are contaminated by runoff and sedimentation and as air pollution is increased. This legislation is a critical step toward protecting the irreplaceable natural and cultural resources of the Los Padres National Forest. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, each year on March 2 thousands of schools and millions of children take part in Read Across America, the National Education Association's annual celebration of reading and literacy. The date is no accident: March 2 is the birthday of Theodor Seuss Geisel, better known as Dr. Seuss. As much as anyone in the past century, Dr. Seuss helped children learn to love reading by making it fun and exciting. In my frequent visits to classrooms and afterschool programs, I often read to young children, and I have found that Dr. Seuss is their favorite author. His books are read and treasured everywhere--particularly in California, where he spent most of his adult life. In 1948, he bought an old observation tower in La Jolla, CA. For the rest of his life, The Tower was his residence and workshop. Every morning, Ted Geisel would walk into his studio, lock the door, and become Dr. Seuss. Drawing on his extensive collection of hats--inspired by ``The 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins''--Dr. Seuss would put on a ``thinking cap'' and get to work. The books that came out of The Tower--including ``The Cat in the Hat,'' ``Green Eggs and Ham,'' ``If I Ran the Zoo,'' ``Horton Hears a Who,'' ``And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street,'' ``How the Grinch Stole Christmas,'' and ``Oh, the Places You'll Go!''--are among the best-known and best-loved classics of children's literature. Dr. Seuss inspired Read Across America because he opened the door to literacy for generations of children by engaging them with gentle humor and fantasy. The 2004 Read Across America is extra-special because it is the ``Seussentennial''--Dr. Seuss's 100th birthday. The celebration has already begun in schools and community centers across America, where kids are making giant birthday cards, collecting hats, and, of course, reading lots of good books. As we approach the ``Seussentennial,'' I invite children and grownups everywhere to celebrate the joy of reading by honoring a great American author and educator, Theodor Seuss Geisel.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a question?

Mrs. BOXER. I would agree with that because otherwise I do not think the American people will trust the commission. If the commission were to be appointed by, say, the majority leader of the Senate--certain Members--and then the Democratic leader of the Senate, that is another example. We could get a couple from the House Democrats, House Republicans, and then the President, and not an artificial date: By the way, you can't come back and talk to us until 2005 after the election. The American people are very wise. So I am really glad the President, as you said, has come around to say we need to take a look at this. But I think the way he is approaching this does not pass the smell test for a lot of my folks back home.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator very much for his clear, as usual, laying out of this issue. I want to pick up on the word ``independent,'' ``independent commission.'' Does my friend agree that to get to an independent commission, all the members should not be appointed by the administration that has just been part of this error?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize Angel Arellano's efforts in raising funds for the Chaffee Zoo in Fresno, CA. On Thanksgiving Day, after listening to a family conversation about the Chaffee Zoo's financial struggles, Angel Arellano, a 9-year-old girl from Fresno, CA, wrote a letter to the editor of the Fresno Bee. Her letter contained $1.00 and urged all Fresno residents to match her donation to help pay for the Chaffee Zoo's much needed repairs. Miss Arellano's letter expressed her anguish at the animals' precarious future. She wrote that the animals deserved food, water, and a warm home. Her plea sparked a movement to save the zoo. Her heartfelt letter caught the attention of past and present Fresno residents, inspiring thousands of individuals to send donations, ranging from $1.00 to $10,000.00. Currently, total pledges and donations have reached nearly $180,000.00 and have come from as far away as Great Britain. Angel Arellano's concern motivated people in Fresno and around the world to help save a Fresno institution. Her letter conjured memories of past visits to the zoo and reminded people of the joy felt by children when visiting with family while spending a Sunday in the sunshine, enjoying one of Fresno's treasures. Angel is a wonderful example of one person making a difference. To her, I say thank you. She has set a great example for all of us.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Secure and Verifiable Electronic Voting Act of 2004. The 2000 presidential election exposed a number of serious problems with the accuracy and fairness of election procedures in this country, as well as the reliability of certain types of voting technology. As a result of these irregularities, many eligible voters were effectively disenfranchised and thus deprived of one of their most fundamental rights. This is not acceptable in a democracy such as ours. Our constituents demanded better and we responded. In 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). This important legislation sets Federal minimum standards for voting systems, including requiring that the equipment used is reliable, accurate, and accessible to all. It encourages the use of direct recording electronic voting systems to replace the outdated punch card and lever machines. It also requires that voting systems provide voters the opportunity to correct errors and that they produce a permanent record with a manual audit capacity. However, HAVA does not go far enough. As we move our voting systems into the 21st century, we need to ensure the greatest level of accountability possible. Voters need to have confidence in the technology that they're using, and they need to be assured that their votes will be counted exactly as they are cast. It is imperative that any voting system certified by the Federal Government provides these assurances. In my home State of California, we are already using touch-screen voting machines in some areas--28 percent of the precincts by the March primary. But, these machines currently do not leave any paper trail and cannot be verified for complete accuracy. We need an electronic voting system that is modern, secure, and verifiable. The State of California is taking these steps. Secretary of State Kevin Shelley has required the use of voter-verified paper audit trails and safety measures, such as manufacturer security, local testing of machines, and random audits of system software. These practices need to be in place nationwide. My bill, the Secure and Verifiable Electronic Voting Act--the SAVE Voting Act would require that a voter-verified paper trail for each vote cast be in place for the November 2004 elections. What that means is this: after an individual votes, he or she will have the opportunity to review the vote on a piece of paper, before it becomes part of the official record. If there is a discrepancy, the voter will have an opportunity to change his or her vote before it is recorded in the official record. This paper record will then be the official permanent record used for any recount or verification. The SAVE Voting Act would also create greater security standards by making sure that access to the software is limited to approved personnel who have had background checks. It would require that any software used is not transmitted over the Internet, that the Election Assistance Commission certifies any and all software used in voting systems, and that the certified code be made available to the public for review. These security measures help to ensure, up front, that the electronic voting systems we use are safeguarded. The SAVE Voting Act would ensure that a permanent paper record is truly, a permanent paper record by banning the use of thermal paper. Thermal paper has many flaws, including the potential to fade or receive unintended marks, making the vote illegible. Finally, recognizing the current cashed-strapped plight of the States, my legislation would provide immediate financial assistance to States to help cover the cost of adding printers to electronic voting systems. In a democracy, the vote of every citizen counts. We must make sure that every citizen's vote is counted--and counted accurately and fairly so that the American people have confidence in the results. HAVA was a good first step. The SAVE Voting Act is the next step, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Secure and Verifiable Electronic Voting Act of 2004. The 2000 presidential election exposed a number of serious problems with the accuracy and fairness of election procedures in this country, as well as the reliability of certain types of voting technology. As a result of these irregularities, many eligible voters were effectively disenfranchised and thus deprived of one of their most fundamental rights. This is not acceptable in a democracy such as ours. Our constituents demanded better and we responded. In 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). This important legislation sets Federal minimum standards for voting systems, including requiring that the equipment used is reliable, accurate, and accessible to all. It encourages the use of direct recording electronic voting systems to replace the outdated punch card and lever machines. It also requires that voting systems provide voters the opportunity to correct errors and that they produce a permanent record with a manual audit capacity. However, HAVA does not go far enough. As we move our voting systems into the 21st century, we need to ensure the greatest level of accountability possible. Voters need to have confidence in the technology that they're using, and they need to be assured that their votes will be counted exactly as they are cast. It is imperative that any voting system certified by the Federal Government provides these assurances. In my home State of California, we are already using touch-screen voting machines in some areas--28 percent of the precincts by the March primary. But, these machines currently do not leave any paper trail and cannot be verified for complete accuracy. We need an electronic voting system that is modern, secure, and verifiable. The State of California is taking these steps. Secretary of State Kevin Shelley has required the use of voter-verified paper audit trails and safety measures, such as manufacturer security, local testing of machines, and random audits of system software. These practices need to be in place nationwide. My bill, the Secure and Verifiable Electronic Voting Act--the SAVE Voting Act would require that a voter-verified paper trail for each vote cast be in place for the November 2004 elections. What that means is this: after an individual votes, he or she will have the opportunity to review the vote on a piece of paper, before it becomes part of the official record. If there is a discrepancy, the voter will have an opportunity to change his or her vote before it is recorded in the official record. This paper record will then be the official permanent record used for any recount or verification. The SAVE Voting Act would also create greater security standards by making sure that access to the software is limited to approved personnel who have had background checks. It would require that any software used is not transmitted over the Internet, that the Election Assistance Commission certifies any and all software used in voting systems, and that the certified code be made available to the public for review. These security measures help to ensure, up front, that the electronic voting systems we use are safeguarded. The SAVE Voting Act would ensure that a permanent paper record is truly, a permanent paper record by banning the use of thermal paper. Thermal paper has many flaws, including the potential to fade or receive unintended marks, making the vote illegible. Finally, recognizing the current cashed-strapped plight of the States, my legislation would provide immediate financial assistance to States to help cover the cost of adding printers to electronic voting systems. In a democracy, the vote of every citizen counts. We must make sure that every citizen's vote is counted--and counted accurately and fairly so that the American people have confidence in the results. HAVA was a good first step. The SAVE Voting Act is the next step, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we need to ensure that the retirement benefits Americans have been promised are secure. The bipartisan Pension Funding Equity Act of 2003 is a first step toward improving retirement security for Americans, and I support it. As you know, the legislation will help stabilize the traditional pension plans known as defined benefit plans that cover almost 45 million Americans. These plans are in trouble because historically low interest rates and the last few years of decline in the stock market have combined to leave them underfunded. To help stabilize these plans, the Pension Funding Equity Act provides temporary contribution relief for both single-employer plans and multi-employer plans. Of the 45 million working Americans participating in defined benefit pension plans, 35 million of them are covered by single-employer plans and 9.7 million are covered by multi- employer plans. Defined benefit plans promise workers a monthly retirement benefit that these 45 million workers are counting on. It would be tragic if these funds went bankrupt--or if employers gave them up. Of the millions of workers participating in defined benefit pension plans, 40 percent are in construction, 30 percent are in retail and service industries, and 10 percent are in trucking services. These workers are the backbone of our labor force, and the first step toward ensuring their retirement security depends on passage of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the Pension Funding Equity Act of 2003.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, yesterday was an important and historic day for Afghanistan. President Hamid Karzai signed a new constitution that guarantees the equal rights of all Afghans, including women. Given the terrible hardship women and girls in Afghanistan faced during the years of war, drought and the draconian policies of the Taliban, this new constitution is an important step forward. However, yesterday's victory will be sort-lived if the constitution is not implemented and women continue to suffer from discrimination and violence, and are denied access to health care, education and job training. The biggest challenge facing women today is a lack of basic security. Human Rights Watch reported earlier this month that: women and girls bear some of the worst effects of Afghanistan's insecurity. Conditions are generally better than under the Taliban, but women and girls continue to face severe governmental and social discrimination. Those who organize protests or criticize local rulers face threats and violence. Soldiers and police routinely harass women and girls, even in Kabul city. Many women and girls are afraid to remove the burqa. Because soldiers are targeting women and girls, many are staying indoors, especially in rural areas, making it impossible for them to attend school, go to work, or actively participate in the country's reconstruction. Today, I am introducing legislation that will ensure that women and children are able to thrive in a post-Taliban Afghanistan. This legislation authorizes $300 million each year to provide assistance to Afghan women and children with four specific goals. First, the bill seeks to enhance the political and human rights of women by providing assistance to help them exercise property, inheritance and voting rights and to enforce provisions in the new constitution that ensure equal rights for women. Second, the bill provides funding for health care, including assistance to reduce maternal and infant mortality and to train midwives, nurses and traditional birth attendants. Third, funding is authorized to be used for education and training, including expanding schools for women and girls, technical and vocational training and literacy programs. Finally, the bill addresses the issue of security by providing programs to prevent the trafficking of women and girls, support the return of refugees, and provide general security to prevent violent attacks against schools. The bill also calls for an expansion of international peacekeeping forces throughout the country. We have heard many times that failure is not an option in Afghanistan. Passage of this legislation will go a long way to ensure the success of a democratic and peaceful nation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, yesterday was an important and historic day for Afghanistan. President Hamid Karzai signed a new constitution that guarantees the equal rights of all Afghans, including women. Given the terrible hardship women and girls in Afghanistan faced during the years of war, drought and the draconian policies of the Taliban, this new constitution is an important step forward. However, yesterday's victory will be sort-lived if the constitution is not implemented and women continue to suffer from discrimination and violence, and are denied access to health care, education and job training. The biggest challenge facing women today is a lack of basic security. Human Rights Watch reported earlier this month that: women and girls bear some of the worst effects of Afghanistan's insecurity. Conditions are generally better than under the Taliban, but women and girls continue to face severe governmental and social discrimination. Those who organize protests or criticize local rulers face threats and violence. Soldiers and police routinely harass women and girls, even in Kabul city. Many women and girls are afraid to remove the burqa. Because soldiers are targeting women and girls, many are staying indoors, especially in rural areas, making it impossible for them to attend school, go to work, or actively participate in the country's reconstruction. Today, I am introducing legislation that will ensure that women and children are able to thrive in a post-Taliban Afghanistan. This legislation authorizes $300 million each year to provide assistance to Afghan women and children with four specific goals. First, the bill seeks to enhance the political and human rights of women by providing assistance to help them exercise property, inheritance and voting rights and to enforce provisions in the new constitution that ensure equal rights for women. Second, the bill provides funding for health care, including assistance to reduce maternal and infant mortality and to train midwives, nurses and traditional birth attendants. Third, funding is authorized to be used for education and training, including expanding schools for women and girls, technical and vocational training and literacy programs. Finally, the bill addresses the issue of security by providing programs to prevent the trafficking of women and girls, support the return of refugees, and provide general security to prevent violent attacks against schools. The bill also calls for an expansion of international peacekeeping forces throughout the country. We have heard many times that failure is not an option in Afghanistan. Passage of this legislation will go a long way to ensure the success of a democratic and peaceful nation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the Freedom of Choice Act. Thirty-one years ago, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe v. Wade. It was a monumental day for women because for the first time, a woman's right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy was protected under the constitutional right to privacy. Roe v. Wade has kept women from being forced to continue pregnancies that could endanger their health or render them infertile. And for the past 31 years, countless lives have been saved by getting women out of back alleys and into safe, clean and legally protected facilities. That is why I have been fighting throughout my adult life to protect the right to choose. However, women's reproductive rights are rapidly eroding. And anti- choice advocates make no secret that their ultimate goal is to overturn Roe v. Wade. With just a one-vote margin protecting Roe in the Supreme Court, we cannot afford to take these fundamental rights for granted. The threats we face to our right to choose are real and dangerous. That is why I am introducing new Federal legislation that will protect a woman's right to choose. The Freedom of Choice Act of 2004 would establish a statutory right to choose within the same parameters articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. Under the bill, women would have the absolute right to choose whether to continue or terminate their pregnancies before fetal viability. The bill also supersedes any law, regulation or local ordinance that impinges on a woman's right to choose and prohibits federal and state governments from discriminating against women, who exercise their right to choose. That means a poor woman cannot be denied the use of Medicaid if she chooses to have an abortion. That means that abortions cannot be prohibited at public hospitals, thus giving women more options. That means that we respect a woman's ability to make her own decision and don't force women to attend anti-choice propaganda lectures, which submit women to misleading information, the purpose of which is to discourage abortion. That means that women serving our country in the military overseas would be able to afford safe abortions that can be performed in a military hospital. We need to take steps to secure our right to choose. Anti-choice is anti-woman and anti-equality, and it demonstrates a lack of respect for the intelligence and compassion that women possess. I thank the 10 cosponsors of this legislation--Senators Lautenberg, Corzine, Murray, Clinton, Jeffords, Lieberman, Cantwell, Feinstein, Sarbanes and Mikulski--and I encourage all my colleagues to join this effort to write Roe v. Wade into Federal law.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation, along with my good friend from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, to ensure that American taxpayers are given greater protection when the Defense Department seeks to procure property or services. The United States is spending billions of dollars in its military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and much of this money is going to private companies. The purpose of this legislation is simple. It would ban companies under investigation for procurement abuse and possible criminal conduct from receiving no-bid defense contracts. By closing a loophole in current law, the Department of Defense would no longer be permitted to enter into contracts, through a process that does not ensure full and open competition, with contractors simultaneously being investigated by the Pentagon's Office of Inspector General. The legislation also provides that if the President chooses to waive the prohibition in the interest of national security, he must notify Congress with a full and public explanation. While our men and women in the Armed Services are making extraordinary sacrifices for this country, companies under investigation by the Pentagon's Inspector General should be barred from lining their pockets with money from no-bid contracts.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the Freedom of Choice Act. Thirty-one years ago, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe v. Wade. It was a monumental day for women because for the first time, a woman's right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy was protected under the constitutional right to privacy. Roe v. Wade has kept women from being forced to continue pregnancies that could endanger their health or render them infertile. And for the past 31 years, countless lives have been saved by getting women out of back alleys and into safe, clean and legally protected facilities. That is why I have been fighting throughout my adult life to protect the right to choose. However, women's reproductive rights are rapidly eroding. And anti- choice advocates make no secret that their ultimate goal is to overturn Roe v. Wade. With just a one-vote margin protecting Roe in the Supreme Court, we cannot afford to take these fundamental rights for granted. The threats we face to our right to choose are real and dangerous. That is why I am introducing new Federal legislation that will protect a woman's right to choose. The Freedom of Choice Act of 2004 would establish a statutory right to choose within the same parameters articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. Under the bill, women would have the absolute right to choose whether to continue or terminate their pregnancies before fetal viability. The bill also supersedes any law, regulation or local ordinance that impinges on a woman's right to choose and prohibits federal and state governments from discriminating against women, who exercise their right to choose. That means a poor woman cannot be denied the use of Medicaid if she chooses to have an abortion. That means that abortions cannot be prohibited at public hospitals, thus giving women more options. That means that we respect a woman's ability to make her own decision and don't force women to attend anti-choice propaganda lectures, which submit women to misleading information, the purpose of which is to discourage abortion. That means that women serving our country in the military overseas would be able to afford safe abortions that can be performed in a military hospital. We need to take steps to secure our right to choose. Anti-choice is anti-woman and anti-equality, and it demonstrates a lack of respect for the intelligence and compassion that women possess. I thank the 10 cosponsors of this legislation--Senators Lautenberg, Corzine, Murray, Clinton, Jeffords, Lieberman, Cantwell, Feinstein, Sarbanes and Mikulski--and I encourage all my colleagues to join this effort to write Roe v. Wade into Federal law.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation, along with my good friend from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, to ensure that American taxpayers are given greater protection when the Defense Department seeks to procure property or services. The United States is spending billions of dollars in its military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and much of this money is going to private companies. The purpose of this legislation is simple. It would ban companies under investigation for procurement abuse and possible criminal conduct from receiving no-bid defense contracts. By closing a loophole in current law, the Department of Defense would no longer be permitted to enter into contracts, through a process that does not ensure full and open competition, with contractors simultaneously being investigated by the Pentagon's Office of Inspector General. The legislation also provides that if the President chooses to waive the prohibition in the interest of national security, he must notify Congress with a full and public explanation. While our men and women in the Armed Services are making extraordinary sacrifices for this country, companies under investigation by the Pentagon's Inspector General should be barred from lining their pockets with money from no-bid contracts.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there are many parts of the Omnibus appropriations bill that I support. There is $225 million in the bill to help prevent fires and erosion in southern California. It provides over $1.5 billion in funding for the COPS program and other local law enforcement assistance. It funds all of our education programs, including $1 billion for afterschool programs, and a $710 million increase in funding to help local schools educate disadvantaged students. It provides a $1 billion increase in funding for health research. It includes a $4.3 billion increase for veterans health care. And it includes many of my requests for funding for California projects. I wish we had a true appropriations bill that contained these things and only these things. I could vote for that. But this bill contains much more than that. Our efforts to increase funding for health research are undermined when this bill leaves us more vulnerable to mad cow disease. Our efforts to fund job programs are undermined when this bill takes away overtime pay from millions of hard-working Americans. Our efforts to fund law enforcement are undermined when this bill makes it harder for law enforcement to track down criminals who use guns. Our efforts to fund election reform measures are undermined when this bill allows media conglomerates to control more of the information the public receives. If the Republicans had just let well enough alone, we would have had a good bill that I could have supported. But, I cannot support this bill. Let me discuss each of these issues. First, this bill allows the administration to take away the overtime rights of millions of workers. Last spring, the administration proposed regulations that strip some workers of their right to overtime protection. Both the Senate and House voted to reject this regulation. But, this bill allows it to go forward. The result is that when President Bush signs this bill, millions of workers including police officers, firefighters, emergency workers, and nurses will lose their overtime pay. Overtime pay now accounts for 25 percent of the income of workers who work overtime. Without that pay-- with this new regulation many working families will be poorer. The new rule will also threaten job creation. Requiring employers to pay a premium for overtime work encourages employers to hire more workers instead of forcing their existing workers to work longer hours. And the longer hours that America's working parents would have to work without overtime protections are hours that the new rule would steal from families. With the stroke of a pen, parents will have to work without overtime pay, and they will be forced to be away from their families. We have to make the economy work for working families. Stripping workers of overtime protections fails that test. This is a travesty against every American who believes in fair pay for work. Second, this bill makes us more vulnerable to mad cow disease. The 2002 farm bill includes a provision requiring that food products be labeled by their country of origin. This not only promotes U.S. agriculture, it enables consumers to know if the food they are buying is safe and healthy. It allows consumers to determine where food is from and to make purchases for their families based on this information. It allows consumers to know which beef in the grocery store was from Canadian cattle and which beef was born, raised, and processed solely in the United States. The Senate passed an amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill endorsing country-of-origin labeling. But this omnibus bill delays its implementation for 2 years. The American people should not have to wait 2 years before they have the right to know that the food they are buying is safe and healthy. They should have that right, right now. Third, the Omnibus appropriations bill would gut the Brady law by requiring the FBI to destroy gun buyer records within 24 hours of the sale of a weapon. Right now, when someone buys a gun, an instant background check is conducted and then the FBI keeps that record for 90 days. Since many guns used in the commission of crimes are purchased soon before the crimes are committed, this 90-day database makes it easier for law enforcement to trace guns used in crimes and to find criminals. This bill eliminates that database and makes it harder for our hard- working law enforcement officers to do their jobs and make our streets safer. Finally, the omnibus bill allows a single company to own TV stations that reach 39 percent of the country. This comes after both the House and Senate voted to leave the limit where it is now at 35 percent. In addition, this bill would permit more mergers between newspapers and TV stations in the same local markets. This means that the door is opened to massive consolidation of the most important news outlets in local media markets. And that means few voices instead of many voices. It means that even fewer people--a handful of gigantic media companies--will be in control of the information the American public receives. Groups as diverse as the National Rifle Association, the National Organization for Women, the National Council of Churches, Parents Television Council, Consumers Union, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights oppose changing the rules. In fact, the Senate and House voted not to change the rules. But the Omnibus appropriations bill defies the will of the Senate and House and provides a belated holiday gift to big corporations. We can do better. We must do better. Until we do better, we should defeat this bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I yield myself 1 minute, Mr. President. President Bush is supporting this bill that will be before us. He is going to sign it. I want to speak to my colleagues and any and all who are watching this debate. Understand with that signature 8 million Americans will lose their guarantee to overtime pay. Eight million Americans--those earning roughly over $24,000 a year in my State--just like that, with President Bush's signature, people will lose their overtime pay. What does that mean? It means that an employer can work you harder and you don't get any more money; you are pulled away from your family and not getting fair pay. You could be spending more time with them, at a minimum. This is a harmful bill. Not only does it do this, but it turns the clock back in many other areas. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, throughout California and across America, millions of people gathered yesterday to celebrate the 75th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birth. Each year, thanks to a 1983 Federal law that I was proud to vote for, we take the third Monday of January to commemorate Dr. King's birthday. In his immortal ``I Have a Dream'' speech, Dr. King shared his vision of a land where people of every religion, race, and creed could realize the American dream of freedom and opportunity. In the words of his wife, Coretta Scott King, we honor Dr. King's dream of ``a vibrant, multiracial nation that has a place at the table for children of every race and room at the inn for every needy child.'' On Martin Luther King Day, we take this opportunity to reflect on the dream of an inclusive society in which all people are truly created equal. On this day and all year long, Americans share in Dr. King's extraordinary commitment to improving the lives of others. We remember his dream and take an active role in making it a reality. Throughout our Nation, people help those in need: they feed the hungry, house the poor, heal the sick, and offer a guiding hand to at-risk youth. This week, as we mark the national celebration of Dr. King's birthday, let us not merely reflect on his work, let us live his legacy. On this Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, I ask you to join me in vowing to make Dr. King's dream a reality. Let us come together to take positive--yes, affirmative--action to give every American a real shot at the dream.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, on November 23, the San Jose Earthquakes became only the second team in Major League Soccer, MLS, history to win the MLS Cup more than once, beating the Chicago Fire 4-2 in a well- fought match. In the championship game against Chicago, San Jose delighted a capacity crowd in Carson, CA by scoring four goals and saving one penalty kick. The game matched the excitement of the Western Conference final game, in which Landon Donovan--the two-time recipient of the U.S. National Team Player of the Year award--secured the Earthquakes' place in the Championship by netting a dramatic golden goal in the 117th minute. Californians should take great pride in this impressive accomplishment by the San Jose Earthquakes. The Earthquakes' success on the field was earned through the hard work of their outstanding athletes and coaches, and the encouragement of their fans. I congratulate them on their win and their second MLS Cup.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the ``Small Business State Mandated Health Insurance Assistance Act.'' The legislation would provide a tax credit to small businesses in states where the law mandates that they provide health insurance to their employees. The credit would be for 50 percent of the amount the employer spends providing health insurance for his or her employees. In California 6.4 million people are uninsured. That's more than 18 percent of the state. To deal with the issue, the state legislature recently passed a law mandating that employers provide their workers with health insurance. Many smaller businesses have told me that they do not object to the law itself, but that they will have a hard time financially complying with the mandate--especially in these tough economic times. Furthermore, there is concern that neighboring States without such a mandate will recruit our small businesses entrepreneurs to move to their states where they would not have to provide insurance for their workers. While businesses can currently deduct from federal taxes, as costs of doing businesses, the costs of the health insurance provided to their employees, this assistance is simply not large enough to provide the help that small businesses truly need. That is why I am introducing this bill today. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort.