Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Then you have the Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health. They make a very good point--a point we have made over and over again: There is no mention of the term ``partial-birth abortion'' in any medical literature. Physicians are never taught a technique called ``partial-birth abortion'' and cannot even define it, which is one of the things the Court said was too vague a definition. So why do you think my colleagues are banning something called partial-birth abortion when there is no such thing, according to physicians, as partial-birth abortion? I will give you 10 seconds to think it over.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for 10 additional minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, could you tell us how much time remains on Senator Santorum's side and how much time remains on our side?

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much. Mr. President, you have heard a tragic story here of a woman who had an abortion who really did not want to have one. I have to tell you, that is why I am so proud to be a pro-choice Senator, a pro-choice American, a pro-choice Californian, fighting for that woman's right to never, ever, ever have to have an abortion if she decided she did not want one. At the same time, I want the other side to understand that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and that at the early stages of a pregnancy Government should stay out of a personal, private, moral, and religious decision. That is exactly what being pro-choice means. It means the woman described by my friend must never be forced to have an abortion, ever, no matter what goes wrong with the pregnancy--no matter what--if she insists on going through with it and wanting to have that child. Regardless of the risk to her health, she has the right to do it. That is what being pro-choice is about. Being anti-choice means that Government will dictate that situation. What we have here today and why our side has decided we wanted to have another debate on this is because, just as the other side has said, the anti-choice side has said this is a historic day, we agree. This is, indeed, a historic day because, for the first time in history, Congress will be banning a medical procedure that is considered medically necessary by physicians, physicians who know. And we will put those statements in the Record once again. My colleague, Senator DeWine, very eloquently said this debate is about what kind of a country we are. That is true. What kind of a country would say to half of its population, ``We don't trust you; We think you would choose murder''? What kind of a country would say to its doctors, who take the Hippocratic oath, ``Do no harm. We don't trust you. You are going to jail''? In this bill, they will go to jail if they use this technique and it was not to save the life of a mother. Imagine the circumstance where a doctor is making this decision: I think my patient might die if I don't use this. My God, I have to read the law. Oh, my God, she might live. How could I be sure? I am not positive. I think she might die. That woman lying in front of that doctor is in great danger. That is why so many medical organizations and OB/GYNs are saying: Please, Senators, stop playing doctor. When we were kids, we had a doctor's set. We put on the white coat. If we want to do that, we should go get our medical degree. But don't stand here and talk about the fact that we can just make this a better country by outlawing medical procedures without an exception for the health of the woman. What kind of country does that? What kind of country says to half of its population: Yes, you are important, but if you are lying on the table and you could wind up being paralyzed or getting a stroke, you are just not that important. What kind of country says that to women? That is why I am here today. This bill is going to pass overwhelmingly. We know the drill. This President is going to sign it. There is going to be a big signing ceremony. There is going to be an immediate court suit. The bill will be stayed. The debate will occur across the street in the Supreme Court. This bill is the same bill essentially that was declared unconstitutional before because the judges understand--maybe better than my colleagues over here understand--the life and the health of a woman is very important, and it must be protected in accordance with the law. We have been told by physicians--we have the statements in the Record--that by banning this procedure, a woman might get a hemorrhage. She might rupture her uterus. She could get very serious blood clots. She could get a stroke, an embolism. She could have damage to nearby organs. She could be paralyzed for life. Do you want to vote that way? You have a chance. If you don't make a health exception, then you are essentially saying women are just not that important. If you love your mother, don't vote for this bill. If you love your daughter, don't vote for this bill. Because if she finds herself in this horrific circumstance of a pregnancy gone desperately wrong, where the doctor informs her, perhaps, that the baby's brain is outside of the skull, that there would be excruciating pain if the baby is born, that she could lose her fertility, that she could perhaps suffer a stroke, she won't be able to do anything about it. Is that what we want to do here in the Senate? In many ways this is an exercise in politics, because we believe very strongly this bill will be overturned when it gets across the street. It is not an exercise I take lightly when colleagues think so little of the women of this country, of the mothers of this country, of the daughters of this country that they would pass a bill with no health exception. I don't think that is what Americans want. When they really understand this, they turn against it. If you hear it without the full explanation, of course we say: Let's not do this procedure. But if you say, but it may be necessary to save the life or health of a woman, people say: OK, then at least allow it in those circumstances. There isn't a Democrat on this side of the aisle who wouldn't have voted for a health exception along with a life exception, and this procedure would be banned. As a matter of fact, we have proposed--and I have written legislation--banning all late-term abortions except for a health exception and a life exception. We all come here and say we know what Americans want. It is interesting because, of course, we are trying to determine that. Senator Sessions had a poll that said women in this country no longer want the right to choose. That is what he said. I have a poll that shows everyone in this country believes Roe is a fair balance and should continue. But let me tell you what I think Americans want. Let me tell you what I know Californians want. I don't speak for every Californian. I couldn't. There are 35 million of us. But the vast majority of us--and we have had amazing polls on this point--want American women protected. They want children protected. They want privacy protected. They want women respected. They trust women more than they trust Senators. They want us to do the right thing, and they know what the right thing is. They understand Roe v. Wade took a very difficult decision and explained it in a way that is a balance between all the rights involved. Here is what Roe v. Wade essentially says: In the first 3 months after pregnancy, a woman has the right to choose and the Government cannot get involved. After that, the Government can get involved. As a matter of fact, after viability, the Government could ban all abortion, which I support, except for the life or health of a woman. I happen to believe that was a Solomon-like decision. It balanced all the concerns. But the most important thing it did is it respected women for the first time. This was a struggle. Women died. The Senator from Pennsylvania says it was only 85 women a year who died before Roe. We have evidence and we have articles to put in the Record today that will show you we believe the 5,000-a-year figure is more on the mark, because the 85 is only a report to the CDC from States where abortion was legal and in many States abortion was illegal in those years. Thousands of women died. As I said before, let's face it, that is what the underlying tension is in the debate, because this particular procedure is done very rarely. What is really at stake here is Roe v. Wade. How do I know that? I know it because of the language used on the other side over and over again: Killing children, killing children, killing children. My God, as someone who wrote the Violence Against Children Act, I have to hear people talk about the fact that women are out there every day killing children, that doctors are out there killing children. Roe v. Wade is not about killing children. Roe v. Wade is about respecting women to say this is a moral issue. This is a religious issue. This is a family issue. This is a privacy issue. Government should stay out in the early stages. In the later stages, government can in fact legislate. If you take the rhetoric used in the Chamber today and you extrapolated it in a logical fashion, it means the other side thinks all abortion is murder from the minute of conception. If there is a murder committed, there is a murderer, and you have to say that is the woman because, if you listen to their rhetoric, that is what it is about. The doctor is an accomplice in this act. Frankly, I would have more, shall we say, legislative respect for my colleagues--I have personal respect for them, but I would have more legislative respect for them--if they just came out and said, call it what it is: Abortion is murder. That is why we threw out the Harkin amendment that was in this bill supporting Roe. We think abortion is murder. We want women in jail. We want doctors in jail. Maybe they even want the death penalty for a woman. I don't know. I haven't probed them on it. That is really what this debate is about. It is why it is important to take the debate to the American people. The beauty of being pro- choice is you totally respect the woman regardless of her view. If she is 18 years old, or 17, or 19, and she wants to have that child, a pro-choice American says: What can we do to help you make it easier? But if she doesn't and it is something she wants to deal with very early in the pregnancy, then just the same way, we say it is your choice; we respect that choice. This debate is a very important one, a very historic debate. It is true that this bill has passed several times. We expect it to pass today. But this is the first President who will ever sign a bill outlawing a medically necessary procedure. Now, I am going to prove it is a medically necessary procedure because I am going to put in the Record a series of letters. First is the ACOG statement, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. We can play doctor all we want here. These are the folks who are out there birthing our children, out there telling us month after month, as we go back for our checkup when we are pregnant, how important it is to have good nutrition, not to smoke, not to have alcohol, how to protect that fetus and have a healthy baby. These are the people who want healthy babies born. What do they say? They say: The intervention of legislative bodies into medical decisionmaking is inappropriate, ill-advised, and dangerous. I will repeat that. The obstetricians and gynecologists from all over this country told us that: The intervention of legislative bodies into medical decisionmaking is inappropriate, ill-advised, and-- The last word is powerful-- dangerous. This bill, if it is upheld by the Court--which I don't believe it will be--is putting women's lives in danger. Don't ask me; ask the doctors. The testimony of Anne Davis is clear. She is a physician. She is very eloquent on the point. She even says that the life exception in the bill is very narrow, which is something I agree with, but I hope the Court will look at that. She says this procedure that is about to be banned by this bill may well be the safest procedure for women in certain circumstances. She was very clear in her testimony. I commend to my colleagues her testimony on March 25, 2003, before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution. Mr. President, the American Public Health Association writes: We are opposed to [this bill] because we believe this and other legislative and judicial restrictions to safe, medically accepted abortion procedures severely jeopardize women's health and well-being. You are going to hear my colleagues on the other side say: This bill doesn't hurt women's health--not a problem, not an issue. This bill doesn't conflict with Roe. Why? Because they wrote in the findings that this bill has nothing to do with the health of a woman. Please. Give women just a little bit of credit here. So here is the American Public Health Association clearly telling us why they believe this is a jeopardy to women's health and their well- being. Then we have the American Medical Women's Association in a letter they wrote to us. They strongly oppose this ban, and this is what they say, because I think it is a very important thing they say here: While the Association has high respect for each member and their right to hold whatever moral, religious and philosophical beliefs his or her conscience dictates, as an organization of 10,000 women physicians and medical students dedicated to promoting women's health and advancing women in medicine, we believe [this bill] is unconscionable. Doctors are telling us this bill is ``dangerous.'' These doctors are telling us that this bill puts women's health ``in jeopardy.'' Doctors are telling us loudly and clearly that this bill is ``unconscionable.'' But it is going to be passed and it will get the signature of the President and, if not overturned, it is going to hurt the women of our country. They go on to say: Legislative bans for procedures that use recognized [OB/ GYN] techniques fail to protect the health and safety of women and their children, nor will it improve the lives of women and families. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I have a question. That would take Senator Brownback until 11:40 or 11:45?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, do let me know when I have 2 minutes remaining out of my 20 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I stand before my colleagues as a Senator from California but also as a mother who had two complicated pregnancies and two wonderful, fabulous children, and also as a proud grandmother. I stand before you to tell you this is a very sad day for the women of America, a very sad day for the families of America, because what is about to happen here is this Senate is about to pass a piece of legislation that for the first time in history bans a medical procedure without making any exception for the health of a woman. This is a radical thing that is about to happen. Let's clear something up for the record. When the clerk read the bill, she said this is banning something commonly called partial-birth abortion. There is no such term in medicine as partial-birth abortion. There is either a birth or there is an abortion. There is a miscarriage. There is no such thing as partial-birth abortion. It is a made-up term to inflame passions. My friend knows very well, if he was willing to agree to a health exception to protect the health of women, if he would have sat down with us on our side, we are ready to ban all late-term abortion. We are ready to ban all late-term abortion on our side, as long as there is an exception for the life and the health of a woman, which is the centerpiece of Roe v. Wade. If he was willing to do that, we would not be taking the time of the Senate. This would be done. This is more a case of wanting to keep an issue alive out there to make people believe those on the other side are cruel, whether we are mothers or grandmothers or aunts. That is what it is about. It took me a while to figure that out. But once I saw this bill come back to us in this form--clearly unconstitutional, clearly without a health exception, clearly vague, and all those who have discussed this with me tell me it is clearly going to be declared unconstitutional because it is practically identical to other bills that have been declared unconstitutional--I saw what this is about. This is about politics. That is what I believe. Because we could have a bill today, as long as we protected the health of the women of this country. Why would anyone in this Chamber be so callous as to pass a law knowingly keeping out a health exception for women? Well, if you listen to my friend's words and you hear the words he uses, you will understand why this is happening from the other side. My colleague uses the term ``killing the child.'' As the author of the Violence Against Women Act and the Violence Against Children Act, I take deep offense at that language--deep offense. Women do not want to kill their child. Women who have had this procedure have come to the Congress, have begged Members of Congress: Do not pass this without a health exception for the mother. If I didn't have this procedure, I would have been made infertile. I am going to go into those stories later in the debate. But here is the situation. If you listen to the language ``killing the child,'' you must come to the conclusion my colleague believes abortion is murder and women are murderers and doctors are accomplices. I thought we moved away from that when Roe v. Wade became the law of the land. Why are we here today? I will be honest with you: because I didn't want this bill to go through, and neither do people who believe women are important. Women deserve to have their health and lives protected and their fertility protected and their organs protected. Women want to take a look at what this debate is all about. I have already told you we were willing to go down the aisle with my friend and ban this, as long as it was not vague and had a clear health exception for women. Forget all this other talk about how cruel we all are. We were ready to do that. But no, my friend and his colleagues had to keep this thing going. It is their way or the highway. Forget about what the Supreme Court has said about vagueness. Forget about what the Supreme Court has stated many times. This is basically a Republican court that has upheld Roe v. Wade. With the next breath my colleague says: This bill is consistent with Roe v. Wade. It doesn't do anything to Roe v. Wade. If that is the case, why in the conference--and I was a conferee along with the Senator from Pennsylvania--did they say--and they run the Senate and the House and the White House--we are taking out the Senate amendment authored by Tom Harkin which simply said: The Congress believes that Roe v. Wade ought to be upheld? There are two things in my friend's verbiage that show exactly what this is about. One, the term, used over and over again, ``killing a child,'' which gives me a very chilling feeling that what this whole thing is about is eventually saying women are murderers and should to go jail, and doctors are their accomplices and they should go to jail. When you listen to verbiage, you hear a lot around here. And then, no problem, this bill, he says, is just in concert with Roe v. Wade, even though there is no health exception because they declared, in writing this bill, that this procedure is never necessary to save the health of a woman, which I will prove to you is made up. The Senators on the other side who are pushing this are not doctors. There is one, but he is not an OB/GYN. I would rather listen to the doctors. I would rather listen to the health organizations rather than my friend from Pennsylvania. I like him. We are friends. That is not the point. We just strongly see this very differently. And we will continue to see this very differently as this issue goes on and on. There we are. We are sitting in a conference committee. Here is where we are. The House and the Senate passed different bills. What was different about our bill, S. 3? Senator Harkin put in language, and the Senate voted on it twice--twice: once was unanimous, once was a majority--to keep Roe v. Wade in the bill, a simple statement of support of Roe. So I come to the conference committee ready, along with Senator Feinstein, and other Congress people, to debate this issue. After all, my friend says here, we don't have any problem with Roe. This has nothing to do with Roe. Fine. Let's keep it in the bill, folks, a sense of the Senate that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned. The Senate voted for it twice. Let me tell you how long it took them to kick that amendment out. It was about 5 minutes. Not even a real discussion, not even a discussion about an amendment that passed this Senate twice, not even a discussion about a law which was a landmark law which passed in 1973, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court over and over and over. That is the kind of attitude you find from the other side when it comes to a woman's right to choose. They threw out Roe v. Wade faster than you could blink an eye. That is what they want the Court to do, and that is what this bill is about. That is why I want to take time here. I know this thing is going to pass. I know exactly that it is going to pass. I have respect for that. I wish my friends would have respect for the fact that Roe passed also and leave it in this bill, so we do not send a confusing signal to the women of this country that their health no longer matters. The Senator from Pennsylvania says, no problem, there is no reason ever to use this procedure. Let's look at what some of the doctors' organizations say. Let's hold up some of our charts on that. I will tell you something; I never dreamed I would be down here with Senators who think they know more than doctors, but that is what happens. Let me read you a statement by the American College of OB/GYNs: Especially for women with particular health conditions, there is medical evidence that D&X [that is the procedure being banned] may be safer than available alternatives. A select panel convened by ACOG concluded that D&X may be ``the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.'' Look at this. You are in the Supreme Court and you are hearing this case, S. 3; this bill is coming before you. They are going to quote Senator Santorum that never is this needed to save the life--though he will not say that--of a woman. It is not a problem. Are you going to believe Senators or the doctors who deal with this every day of their working lives? Common sense tells me, when I want to go to the doctor, I don't go to the Senator from Pennsylvania. We might have a nice chat about things, a good political talk, but I don't want him telling me or my daughter; I want a doctor who knows what they are talking about. The doctors tell us this is necessary. Let's look at some other statements. This is a very important letter from the University of California-San Francisco, Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy. This is a very important letter signed by a very important physician. What does she tell us. This print is too small to read, so let's get the large one that lists the problems women can face. What Dr. Stewart tells us in very clear terms is there are serious health consequences of banning safe procedures, which she considers the procedure that is being banned in this bill to be, a safe procedure: hemorrhage, uterine rupture, blood clots, embolism, stroke, damage to nearby organs, and paralysis. This is a partial list of what doctors tell us could happen to a woman if this procedure that is being banned is no longer an option. Who do you think the Supreme Court will listen to? Senators with no degree in OB/GYN or doctors who are telling us this is what could happen to a woman? Do you think we are doing the right thing by banning a procedure without which a woman could face damage to a nearby organ, paralysis, or a blood clot? What is it about this bill that makes it so sacrosanct that you cannot add an exception for the health of the mother? We tried everything. The straight health exception is the one that is the most constitutional. Others around here said serious adverse health consequences. Oh, no, that wasn't good enough. There wasn't anything we could say on behalf of the women in this country that the other side would not shoot down. I don't understand it. I do not understand that kind of mentality. Don't we love our wives and our daughters and our aunts and all the women in our lives? How could we pass a bill that would say even if a woman's health is threatened, this procedure cannot be used, when we could have walked down the aisle together and passed a bill with a health exception? So when I come before the Senate this morning, it is with a very heavy heart. But it is also with the knowledge that I think this Court is going to throw out this bill, regardless of whether colleagues say in the beginning there is no problem, no relation to a woman's health, because doctors have told us the serious health consequences of banning this procedure include all these horrible things. By the way, what is not listed here is infertility. Later today I will show you the cases of women who were spared that problem because this procedure was used on a very complicated, difficult, emergency abortion where the brain was outside the baby's head, where the child would have suffered. I am telling you that I don't know where the compassion is, when we would have agreed to do this with a health exception. I don't know where the compassion is on the other side. My friend talked about a civilized society. I want a civilized society. That means you care about the women of this country. That means you care about their pregnancies. That means you want to help them through the most difficult times. That means you don't play doctor here because you are not a doctor. We are about to play doctor in a big way. Fortunately, across the street in the Supreme Court they will see right through it. So there are many things I could tell you about this bill. I will show you some others. Let's see what the Supreme Court said about why we believe this bill is unconstitutional. There was a case called Stenberg v. Carhart. The Supreme Court found their ban of this procedure in this State--it was Nebraska, I believe--was unconstitutional. They said it put an undue burden on women because the definition is vague. Now the other side said they fixed that problem. We don't think they did. That will be decided. The second reason it was thrown out is there is no exception to protect women's health. I have to tell you that on both of these counts S. 3 failed the Supreme Court test. It failed it. Even some of the most anti-choice people out there have written letters criticizing the other side because they said why don't you do something that matters. This is going to be overturned in the Supreme Court. So why are we going through this, seeing these pictures? Once I was on the Senate floor and a colleague wanted a 5-year-old to sit up there and look at these pictures. I objected to that. That is inflaming passions. I can show pictures of what it looks like when a woman gets a blood clot or when a woman is in a wheelchair and paralyzed, but I would not do that because this is not about sensationalizing anything. It is about doing the right thing. I will yield the floor at this time. I see the Senator from Alabama here. I will return to continue this debate.

Mrs. BOXER. I will not yield at this time. I will continue my statement. I do not want to lose my trend of thought because we are about to do something today that, although hailed by the other side, is the first time in history that the Senate is going to ban a medical procedure that is considered by many doctors--and we have put it in the Record, pages and scores, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record--doctors and nurses have told us this procedure is often essential to protect the life and health of a woman.

Mrs. BOXER. Let me reiterate who is being compassionate. Our side of the aisle, down to every person, and the pro-choice side of the aisle. On the other side we have a few. We agree to this ban if there is an exception for the health and life of a woman. The other side said no. And the clear fact is, when the other side says there will not be an exception for the health of the woman, the other side is not being compassionate. Let me tell you, when a woman is told--and we will take out what could happen to a woman if this is not available--some of the health consequences, when a woman is told she could have a stroke, that she could wind up paralyzed, that she could wind up hurting or harming other organs, we are talking about a major problem to women. To say you are being compassionate and you are being caring to the most vulnerable when you turn your back away from the fact that a woman could have a hemorrhage, she could have her uterus ruptured, she could be made infertile, she could have blood clots, embolism, a stroke, damage to nearby organs, or paralysis if this particular procedure is not available to her--if you have no compassion, if you smile when you look at this, if you do not feel what it is like for a woman to face this, if you put this in the back of your mind, I am sorry, in my view you are not for the most vulnerable at all. We could have banned this procedure if we had added a health exception. But the other side is so demagogic on this, they will not walk down the bipartisan aisle with us. That is a very sad commentary. They said the health exception is too broad. They do not trust women. Face it, they think a woman is going to make something up? We said, OK, add ``serious adverse health consequences.'' No, they would not do that either. The Supreme Court decided a very similar ban was unconstitutional. What the Supreme Court said about the fact that there was no health exception in the Stenberg v. Carhart case, that came out of Nebraska law, that had no health exception and was vague--first, they said the bill bans more than one procedure: Even if the statute's basic aim is to ban D&X, its language makes clear that it also covers a much broader category of procedures. Some would say that is the intent of the other side, to take away a woman's right to choose. So they say they are banning one procedure when, in fact, it is so vague that maybe they are banning more. I would have more respect and admiration for my friends on the other side if they just said, let's just ban abortion, just call it killing, put away the women into jail who have an abortion, send the doctors to jail. That is what is in their heart. But no, they do not want to do that. My colleague from Alabama talked about a poll. I have other polls that did not track that which I will print in the Record. The polls I have do not go along with those polls.

Mrs. BOXER. I will take 3 more minutes before I yield as much time as he may consume to my colleague from New Jersey. The poll I have is very difficult. We have a majority of 56 percent believing abortion should be legal in all or most cases. That is a very recent poll. It has a margin of error of 1 to 3 points; 55 percent believe the Government should not be involved in this private medical decision. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. BOXER. It is the same one. Absolutely. I just ask that we do this by voice vote and get this done.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, what is the modification? I thought we had agreed on this amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank Senator Stevens for helping me on this amendment, and I thank Senator Cochran as well. Senator Schumer and I have been very concerned about the threat of shoulder-fired missiles to American commercial aircraft. What we have found out is that there are a number of planes--about 900 planes--that are also used in the civil reserve air fleet, meaning that many times our military will ask a commercial company, such as United Airlines or USAir, to make planes available for our armed services personnel. We simply say in this amendment that when countermeasures are placed on commercial aircraft, the first priority will be those planes. To conclude, all we are saying in this amendment is when we do start to make sure that our commercial aircraft are protected from shoulder- fired missiles and we place those defenses on those commercial aircraft, the first priority will be the civil air reserve fleet because, again, that entails protecting our men and women in uniform. I again thank everyone. Madam President, is this going into the managers' package, I ask Senator Stevens, or do we need a separate vote on it?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, during the recent operations in Iraq, and as recently as this June, U.S. commercial airliners, such as Delta and U.S. Airways, flew nearly 2,000 flights carrying U.S. troops and supplies into Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Bahrain. Unlike U.S. military transport aircraft, such as the C-17, none of these commercial jets were equipped with defenses against shoulder- fired missiles. Yet these aircraft, known as the civil reserve air fleet, CRAF, are contractually obligated to support Department of Defense airlift requirements during times of emergency, when the need of airlift exceeds the capability of military aircraft. Civil reserve air fleet carriers must make aircraft available for the start of assigned missions within 24 hours after callup when stages I or II are activated and within 48 hours when stage III is activated. These constitute our most vulnerable aircraft. They land in areas that are highly volatile, where we know terrorists groups operate, where we know they have shoulder-fired missiles, and where they have attempted to use them. The bottom line is, it is only a matter of time before terrorist succeed in bringing down a commercial airplane with a shoulder-fired missile. We cannot afford for our luck to run out. The administration has presented a plan that would fail to equip any aircraft until fiscal year 2006, at the earliest. We need to move faster. Thousands of these weapons are in the hands of terrorists all around the world and are easily available on the black market. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has issued a warning to law enforcement personnel to be alert to the potential use of shoulder- fired missiles against U.S. aircraft given al-Qaida's demonstrated objective to target the U.S. airline industry, its access to U.S. and Russian made systems and its targeting of U.S.-led military forces in Saudi Arabia. In August 2003, a weapons smuggler was arrested after agreeing to sell a Russian SA-18 to an undercover FBI agent posing as a Muslim extremist. At least 19 missiles have been launched against coalition aircraft since the end of major combat operations in Iraq. In November 2002, an Israeli jetliner was fired upon seconds after takeoff in Mombasa, Kenya; al-Qaida is suspected. And, in May 2002, al-Qaida was suspected of firing a shoulder-fired missile at U.S. military aircraft near Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. That is why I am pleased that the Senate has accepted my amendment to ensure that when countermeasures are placed on commercial aircraft, the civil reserve air fleet receives first priority. This is a commonsense amendment that will protect our flying public and our military personnel.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, just this past April, I voted for the emergency supplemental appropriations bill authorizing $70 billion for our military operations in Iraq. I felt that funding was necessary at the time. But I expected that the administration would move us toward a multilateral approach, one that would take the burden off our troops and our taxpayers. Now the President is asking for $87 billion more for Iraq. While war inevitably carries great costs, both in terms of financial losses and losses in human life, the American people and the families of our troops should not be alone in shouldering those costs and burdens. We cannot afford to continue down this path without legitimate burden-sharing. Our troops are overstretched, our financial obligations are becoming more taxing by the day, needs at home are going unmet, and the Federal deficit is absolutely soaring. In Congress we have a responsibility to our constituents to debate and decide upon the path that is best for our country. We should not rubberstamp every proposal the administration puts forward, particularly when lives are being lost. The American people are not satisfied with the direction of this country. But all that the administration has offered so far is the status quo, another blank check for Congress to sign that offers no plan to genuinely decrease the strain on American resources. That is why I supported an alternative proposed by Senator Byrd. The Byrd amendment put the needs of our troops first by authorizing 100 percent of the funding requested for military operations, and requiring the administration to gain commitments of funding and manpower from other nations to ease our Nation's incredible burden. It also would have carefully reviewed the Iraq reconstruction process. I also supported several worthy amendments that, if passed, would have greatly improved this bill: The Biden amendment to pay for the cost by reducing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans; The Dorgan amendment to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq with Iraqi oil revenues; The Dodd amendment to shift $322 million in funding for new Iraqi prisons to protective gear for our troops; The Stabenow amendment to provide $5 billion in funding for important American domestic priorities such as veterans health care, education, community health centers, and transportation. This amendment was paid for by delaying $5 billion of Iraq's reconstruction money to 2005. Compared to this $87 billion that will be spent abroad, we are spending annually, $23.9 billion on veterans health care, $23.4 billion on higher education, and $31.8 billion in total highway spending. Our domestic priorities are going unmet. I am pleased that my amendment to reimburse wounded soldiers for hospital meals was successful, as well as my amendment to call attention to the need to protect commercial aircraft from shoulder- fired missiles. But basically, we are left with one huge $87 billion check which will be used to continue a policy that has led to 194 American postwar deaths and 903 Americans wounded in action to date. Administration officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, repeatedly, and perhaps even deliberately, downplayed the cost of reconstructing Iraq. They claimed that we would pay for this war with Iraqi oil revenues and with support from the other nations. They told us this would be easy. No one is suggesting that we abandon our efforts in Iraq. The Byrd alternative responsibly addressed the situation in Iraq by proposing a road map for success. It would have put an end to this blank check policy and established a realistic and responsible plan for the future. My decision to vote no on the $87 billion request and for the Byrd amendment is a stand against the status quo and for a change in this administration's go-it-alone, pay-it-alone strategy.

Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. BOXER. The amendment I have offered would continue the good work of Congressman Bill Young, Senator Stevens, and Senator Graham. It would reimburse our troops, who are injured and in hospital, for the meals they were charged for. What we have done previously, with the help of Senator Stevens, is prospectively say they will not be charged for meals, but those who went into Afghanistan and Iraq are getting hit with $200 and $300 bills. Maybe they lost a leg or an eye and when they come out they go back to their job. One was a sheriff who got hit with a $200 bill. This would completely remove that burden. I would ask that there be a recorded vote.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. As long as I am clear on that, I am very happy. I thank everyone.

Mrs. BOXER. And it will happen.

Mrs. BOXER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am offering an amendment that will help service members who have been hospitalized after being wounded or becoming ill during combat or other operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and during the war on terror since September 11, 2001. Right now, when one of our soldiers is wounded, they are evacuated to a military hospital. When whey are discharged from the hospital, they receive a bill for their hospital food. The current daily rate for those charges is $8.10. I want to thank my good friend and colleague from Florida, Senator Bob Graham, for offering leadership on this issue. Accepted as part of the manager's package, his amendment exempts service members who are hospitalized from combat injuries and other conditions from having to pay for their meals. His amendment addresses the problem prospectively--in the future. My amendment supplements his--by closing the loop. It will require the Department of Defense to reimburse troops who paid for meals while hospitalized as a result of either injury or illness while in combat or training for combat since September 11, 2001. I recently learned about a Marine staff sergeant who was injured when an Iraqi dropped a grenade in the HUMVEE he was driving. As a result of the explosion, he lost part of his food, and spent 26 days in the hospital recovering. He was then discharged to return home and to his job as a sheriff's deputy. At the same time, he was handed a bill for $210.60 for his food. Mr. President, $210.60 may not seem like a lot of money to some of us. But to an enlisted person with a family making under $20,000 a year--this is a serious financial burden. When service members are discharged, we should express our gratitude for their profound personal sacrifice, not hand them a bill for their hospital food. My amendment is simple and corrects this stunning injustice. It shows our strong support for the courageous men and women who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq and have returned, wounded, ill, missing limbs, too often permanently disabled. The price to the Government for correcting this serious affront to our service members is very, very small indeed. This amendment costs just $1.5 million, with the offset found in the account to create new zip codes in Iraq, which the House eliminated in their bill last week. I understand the Department of Defense has recouped only $1.5 million this year for hospital meals from all hospitalized service members world-wide. We are talking about just $1.5 million from over 2 million active and reserve forces across the globe. What I am proposing is much more limited in scope. It would only reimburse service members who have been wounded or become ill due to combat or training for combat since September 11, 2001. According to the Defense Department, approximately 2,000 service members have been injured or wounded in action in Iraq. Considerably less were injured in our operations in Afghanistan. The Defense Department says the total for both conflicts may be roughly 3,500 people. I am talking about giving back a small amount to our troops for their extraordinary sacrifice. It would mean a great deal to the service members and military families who face extended separations, financial hardship, and sometimes serious injury. We were very fortunate that Representative Bill Young from Florida discovered that our service men and women who are in hospitals were being asked to pay for meals as they checked out of the hospital. Some of them had horrible injuries and some lost limbs. Congressman Young fixed the problem, and Senator Graham, working with Senator Stevens and others, fixed the problem. But the fix has only been for the future. It has not been fixed for those who actually went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq and are getting hit with these bills. I recently learned about a marine staff sergeant who was injured when an Iraqi dropped a grenade on a Humvee he was driving, and he lost part of his foot. He spent 26 days in a hospital. When he was discharged to return home as a sheriff's deputy, he was handed a $210.60 bill for his food. That may not seem like a lot to some, but when you are earning approximately $20,000 a year, it is a serious financial burden. I know we all want to fix this. What we have done in the amendment is very simple. We pay back those who served in Afghanistan and in Iraq who wound up in hospitals and were billed for their food, and we pay for it with an offset. The amendment will cost $1.5 million. We pay for it in an offset found in the account for a new ZIP Code in Iraq. I think it is very important for us to do this. It is much more important than new ZIP Codes in Iraq. I am very hopeful that tomorrow we will have an overwhelming vote in favor of this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

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