Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am proud today to join Senator Santorum from Pennsylvania and a large majority of my colleagues in support of S. 3, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill. Since the amendment has been laid down, I will ask my colleagues to join me in opposing the amendment that has been put forth. My colleague said the procedure is not well defined. Read the bill. Partial-birth abortion is the best description of what we are talking about: allowing a baby to come within a heartbeat of being born and then killing it. I am also fascinated by this term ``viable fetus.'' I think that means a real baby. It is nice to phrase it in some other terms, but if it is viable, that is what we are talking about. The argument is this is about health. No, it is not. This is about life and death, and that is why the bill speaks specifically to life. What we tried to do in framing this argument was to come up with the most definite situation where those who are in favor of abortion are separated from those opposed to abortion. It is pretty much that simple. There will be some efforts to try to bring it back a little more to the middle so people can put a little bit of a spin on their decision, but that is what this is about. That is why a procedure was picked that is not taught any longer; a procedure was picked that the American Medical Association said is not needed anymore. That makes it pretty clear. You can add all the qualifications you want to it, but if you cannot oppose partial-birth abortion, then you must be in favor of abortion. We are debating an issue that has an important bearing on the future of this Nation. Partial-birth abortion is a pivotal issue because it demands we decide whether we as a civilized people are willing to protect the most fundamental of rights: the right to life itself. If we rise to this challenge and safeguard the future of our Nation's unborn, if we make this statement, we will be protecting those whose voices cannot yet be heard by the polls and the surveys and those whose votes cannot be weighed in the political process. If we fail in our duty, we will justly earn the scorn of future generations when they ask why we stood idly by and did nothing in the face of national infanticide. Opponents have argued this procedure is necessary in some circumstances: to save the life of the mother or to protect her health or future fertility. These arguments do not have foundation in fact. First, this bill provides an exception if the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother and no alternative procedure could be used for that purpose. Moreover, leaders in the medical profession, including former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, have stated unequivocally that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility; on the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both. A coalition of over 600 obstetricians, perinatologists, and other medical specialists have similarly concluded there is no sound medical evidence to support the claim that this procedure is ever necessary to protect a woman's future fertility. These arguments are offered as a smokescreen to obscure the fact that this procedure results in taking an innocent life at the moment of birth. The practice of partial-birth abortion has shocked the conscience of our Nation and it must be stopped. Even the American Medical Association has endorsed this legislation. In a letter to the chief sponsor of this bill, Senator Santorum, the American Medical Association explained: Although our general policy is to oppose legislation criminalizing medical practice or procedure, the AMA has supported such legislation where the procedure was narrowly defined and not medically indicated. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act now meets both of these tests. . . . Thank you for the opportunity to work with you towards restricting a procedure that we all agree is not good medicine. I have based my decision on every bill that has come before this body on what effect it will have on those generations still to come. We in the Senate have deliberated about what steps we can take to make the society a better place for our families and the future of our children. We, as Senators, will cast no vote that will more directly affect the future of our families and our children than the vote we cast on this bill. When I ran for office, I promised my constituents I would protect and defend the right to life of unborn babies. The sanctity of human life is a fundamental issue on which we as a nation should find consensus. It is a right that is counted among our unalienable rights in our Nation's Declaration of Independence. We must rise today to challenge what has been laid before us to protect innocent human life. I urge my colleagues to join me in casting a vote for life by supporting the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. All of us in this body have had significant life experiences that have helped to shape our political philosophies. Eight years ago I had a torn heart valve and I was rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery. I had never been in a hospital except to visit sick folks. It was a tragic surprise to me. I am impressed with what they are able to do, but I have also been impressed with what doctors do not know, and that is not a new revelation for me. Thirty-one years ago, my wife and I were expecting our first child. One day early in the sixth month of pregnancy my wife started having some pains and contractions. We were so new to the game we did not even know what that was, but fortunately she had a visit to the doctor scheduled that same day. I took her there and I went back to work. Then I received a call from the doctor who said: You need to come down here, too. That is never good news when the doctor tells you to come to the doctor's office. I went down there and the doctor said: You may have a baby right now. We know it is early, 3 months early, and that does not bode well. We will try to stop it and we can probably stop it. Well, they could not. The baby came that night and weighed just a little over 2 pounds. I wanted to know what the doctor was going to do. The doctor said: Well, we will just have to wait until morning and see if she lives--not exactly the kind of medical technology and knowledge that one wants somebody to have about a baby. He admitted that he did not have any control over it. It was in our hands at that point in time. We sweated through that night. I could not believe that the doctors could not stop a premature birth. Then I could not believe that they could not do something to help the newborn baby. Until someone sees one of these babies, they will not believe what a 6- month-old baby looks like. At the same time my wife gave birth to this 2-pound baby, a friend of ours gave birth to a 10-pound baby. This was a small hospital in Wyoming. They put them side by side. It was a tremendous contrast. Some of the people viewing the babies said: Oh, look at that one. Looks like a piece of rope with some knots in it; too bad. We were watching her gasp and struggle with every breath. We watched the whole night to see if she would live, and we prayed. The next day we were able to take this baby to a hospital that provided excellent care. She was supposed to be flown to Denver where they have the best care in the world for premature babies, but it was a Wyoming blizzard and we could not fly. So we took a car from Gillette, WY, to the center of the State to Wyoming's biggest hospital to get the best kind of care we could find. We were supposed to be going down in a four-wheel drive ambulance but we wound up going in an Edsel. They thought there might be a bigger medical emergency in the county so they could not get the four-wheel drive. I can say I thought the biggest emergency in the county was my daughter. On the way down, we ran out of oxygen. We noticed a whole bunch of highway patrolmen going the other way. When we got to the hospital, we asked if there had been an accident, and they said, no, that they were looking for a premature baby who should have gotten to the hospital quite awhile ago. I said: Well, that was us. We did receive exceptional care, but the doctor's words when we first talked to him at that hospital were: Well, another 24 hours and we will know something. Another 24 hours before we could do anything. After those 24 hours, there were still several times when we went to the hospital and there would be a shroud around her isolette. We would knock on the window. The nurses would come over and say: It is not looking good. We had to make her breathe again. One time when they said, have you had the baby baptized, that is kind of the ultimate of dropping your heart in your shoes. We had had the baby baptized in the first few minutes after birth using some water in a coffee cup from the kitchen of the hospital. A minister had come over and done that. We did learn from the nurse that they had no records of ever having lost a baby who had been baptized. But that child worked and struggled to live. Feeding was a major procedure. Losing the ability to get blood through the navel was a major procedure. She was 3 months premature, did not have any gristle in her ears. They flopped over. That had to be a part of the procedure yet that would come with growth. We went through 3 months of waiting to get her out of the hospital. Every step of the way the doctor said: Her ability to live is not our duty. It gave me a whole new outlook on life, and now I want to tell everyone the good news. The good news is that the little girl who struggled so hard to live, who would be considered barely viable by most people who perform abortions, is now an outstanding public school principal in Chugwater, WY; population, 256; enrollment, 126 kids, kindergarten through 12th grade. She is doing a marvelous job. She has taught school for several years. That does not mean she came out of this problem free. She was very lucky. There was a hum in that isolette that was sometimes covered up, and that hum wiped out a wide range of tones to her. So she cannot hear the same way that you and I do, but, oh, can she read lips, which in a classroom is really a very good thing for a teacher to be able to do. Even after they know she can read lips, they usually test her with it. This experience has given me an appreciation for all life, and it continues to influence my vote now and on all issues protecting human life. I have come to know what an incredible thing that is as I watch some of life's situations. For instance, death row, how come those people do not want to die? It is not common to life. I watch these young babies. They want to live. They struggle with every fiber of their being to live. It is an incredible struggle--one we do not see in kids who come to term or kids as they grow up--when they have no meat on their bones and lungs that are underdeveloped and fingernails that have not come on yet. It is an incredible struggle that gives a new appreciation of life. It is such a miracle that we have to respect it. We have to work for it every single day in every way that we can. I think this bill will help that effort. I think this bill will bring a little conscience, a little consideration, and a whole lot of thought to this country. It is something we have needed and we do need and we will need for the future of our kids. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair. I am going to address most of my remarks to the bill. I do not think the amendment has been offered yet.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I welcome the members of the Society for Human Resource Management, SHRM, to Washington, D.C. for their 20th Annual Employment Law and Legislative Conference. Today, more than 200 SHRM members will visit Capitol Hill to share their views and experiences with issues such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, health care reform, and pension reform. SHRM is the world's largest association devoted to human resource management. Representing more than 170,000 individual members, the society serves the needs of human resource professionals by providing a comprehensive set of resources. As an influential voice, SHRM also seeks to advance the human resources profession by ensuring that human resources is an essential and effective partner in developing and executing organizational strategy. As a legislator, as a human resources professional, and as a member of SHRM, I want to congratulate SHRM for recognizing the important role individuals can play in affecting the legislative process. Human resources professionals are crucial to the successful operation of our nation's businesses and organizations. Most importantly they understand the positive impact of meeting with their Senators and Representatives to discuss recent workplace trends, their policy implications, and suggested remedies. Citizen participation is a crucial component of the legislative process, allowing legislators and their staff the opportunity to hear constituents explain personal experiences as they live and work within our nation's laws. Finally, legislators gain critical knowledge through these conversations, resulting in legislation that's clearly applicable to the workplace and effective for employees and employers. I sincerely thank the members of SHRM for their commitment to provide value to employees and employers across the United States while contributing an essential component to the political process--practical real world experience.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Senator for all his efforts. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Tennessee on an outstanding and inspiring speech. I feel tremendously more patriotic now than when I came in the Chamber. And there is no way one can come into this Chamber without feeling patriotic. I am just hoping that classrooms across America do not wait for the legislation; that they go ahead, get on the Internet, get a copy of the Senator's speech, get a copy of the materials that accompany it, and get busy on this right away. The Senator is absolutely right. This is a country that began unifying on September 11. It is in a huge process of reunifying, of finding the commonality between the people who have united the American people and made this the kind of country that it is. I congratulate the Senator for his inspired speech and the work he has done on this bill. I have heard the Senator speak on this bill and have seen his passion on it before. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. In the Senator's 27 years serving in this body, has the Senator seen anything that has progressed on a judicial nomination the way this nomination has, and does he have any concern this may be setting a precedent?

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield for a question?

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 10, S. Res. 49.

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, DC, Circuit. We have a great need in our Nation for qualified judges who have the patience, perseverance, and integrity to ensure that the United States continues to be a nation that is ruled by law and not by uncontrolled emotion; by reason and not by political expediency. I am confident that Mr. Estrada is that kind of man and will be that kind of judge. There is no question that Mr. Estrada is qualified. He has proven himself through his education. He has proven himself through his work experience. And he has proven himself through his own perseverance, for he has been forced to wait for almost 2 years--2 years--for the Senate to consider this nomination. He has done this with the kind of patience and integrity that befits a U.S. Federal judge. We often talk about the ideal in our debates in the Senate. We hold up a picture of what things should look like and how things should be done in the hope that someday we can move our Nation forward to the point where the ideal is more than a dream, but is instead a reality. One of those ideals that has been presented is a world where our judges and our courts are more representative of America. Our courts have been accused of being elitist. The Bush administration has been working hard to change that image by making sure our judges are more diverse. By confirming Miguel Estrada to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, we will, for the first time, have a Hispanic judge in the DC Circuit. But I can tell you, Mr. Estrada was not nominated just because he is Hispanic. He was nominated because he graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa with a bachelor's degree from Columbia University in 1993. He was nominated because he also graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1986 where he was also editor of the Law Review. He served as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, as a Federal prosecutor in New York, and as an Assistant Solicitor General for both the Bush and Clinton administrations, and as the leading appellate lawyer at a national law firm. Altogether, he has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court, including one case in which he represented a death row inmate pro bono. One will have to search long and hard to find anyone anywhere more qualified for a position on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and yet in spite of all of his qualifications and personal integrity, Mr. Estrada has had to wait almost 2 years for the Senate to complete his nomination. Why? I must say that as far as I can tell, his confirmation has been delayed for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with his qualifications or integrity as a judge. Instead, they have everything to do with partisan politics and partisan bickering. What is most tragic about this situation is that these delays have not come without a cost. There are victims in this situation who have been denied their rights to a fair and impartial judicial process because there are not enough judges to hear their appeals. The real victims of these delays are not Mr. Estrada or the Bush administration or even the Republican Party. No. The real victims are the people whose rights have been set aside by partisan bickering and whose appeals are forced to wait because we do not have enough judges. There is a saying: Justice delayed is justice denied. There are those in Washington who are willing to deny justice by making people with very real needs and very real issues wait while they try to score a few points in this game of politics. They force people seeking justice to drag out their court costs, their attorney's fees, their restitution and damage payments, all because they want to get one up on the other party. We have a crisis in our courts that we can solve. Mr. Estrada is part of that solution. He was given the highest possible rating of unanimously well qualified by the American Bar Association. He has similar, if not more, experience than five of the eight judges currently serving in the DC Circuit. He has been praised by his colleagues as having those attributes most sought for in a judge; namely, brilliance, compassion, fairness, and a respect for precedence. It is not only my opinion that is changing. I picked up a copy of Roll Call today and found a full-page ad by the Latino Coalition, which is a little bit upset over the delay in getting this nomination approved. They say the only controversy regarding Miguel Estrada is his race. This is an impression that is being given to America. They say Senators have supported non-Hispanic judicial nominees with fewer qualifications and less experience. So the only difference here is that they cannot support an independent-minded and well-qualified Hispanic, an impression that is being put out there to America. Of course, they give the arguments that he is qualified, that the American Bar Association gave him a well-qualified rating, that he does have experience, and that there is a double standard for Hispanics. Five of the eight judges currently serving on the DC Circuit had no previous judicial experience when appointed. That includes two of President Clinton's nominees: Merrick Garland, whose Justice Department record was quite similar to that of Miguel Estrada, and David Tatel. In addition, Judge Harry Edwards had no prior judicial experience when he was nominated by President Carter in 1979, and he was younger and had less experience than Estrada. They go on to talk about whether he has a conservative ideology, and they suggest you tell that to Clinton appointees, prominent Democrats, and they mention a number of them. Again, this is an impression that is out there in the world about what is happening right here and now. They are concerned about the comments they have heard that perhaps he is not Hispanic enough, and they are a little upset with that. They listed a number of organizations that are backing him and are getting the message out that here is a person who is well qualified and that there is a belief that there is some discrimination occurring. I hope we can get this rapidly concluded and get this outstanding man on the bench.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, February 11. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the nomination of Miguel Estrada to be a circuit judge for the DC Circuit. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from the hour of 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party caucuses.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period for morning business.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. For the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate will return to the consideration of the Estrada nomination to the DC Circuit Court. As stated earlier, we are attempting to reach an agreement that would allow us to lock in a final vote on the nomination. It is hoped that an agreement can be reached during tomorrow's session. Votes are possible during tomorrow's session.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now return to legislative session.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from California for the challenges which she placed before us as well as the memories to which she spoke. Today, here in the Senate and the House, in Houston, TX, all across the country, and in places throughout the world, people of all faiths and from all walks of life will take a moment to remember the tragic loss of the crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia this past weekend. As we do, we will put aside our differences and come together as a family to remember those who were lost and the great cause for which they gave their lives. For me, the story of this past weekend's events begins when I was growing up--a Boy Scout who was fascinated by rockets and rocketry. That interest continued to show itself as I became a young man who was fascinated by the two latest creations of the day--television and the start of our space program. As science worked to develop the tools we would need to explore outer space, television gave us all a front row seat so we would see what was happening. Back then, the early successes in rocketry--mostly by Russia--fired our imaginations and steeled our will to win the race to reach the heavens. It was only natural for me and the people of Wyoming to feel so moved. After all, we were the products of the pioneer spirit. Our ancestors had left the comforts of the East behind and headed West looking for a new life and to explore what was then the new frontier. They were pioneers. As television became a more common addition to our homes, it brought the next new frontier--space--into our very living rooms. Each day we could see the latest events of the day that were happening around the world beamed right into our living rooms. We watched in fascination as things that were happening miles and miles away were seen right in the comfort of our own homes. For me, the stars of the sky came in second place in importance only to the stars of the space program. Me and all of my friends, especially those who had been in the Scouts, wanted to be just like them. I still remember the days when we would go to a local field and work on our own experiments in rocketry. Then, as we grew older, when a new flight was announced by NASA, we would grab the first chance we had to watch it as the miracle of television brought the wonders of space flight to our homes and our schools. Competition was with the Russians. But now there is cooperation with the Russians in space and with the space station. Our efforts to explore space and the continuing impact of seeing it all live on television made for a powerful pair as we heard the words of John F. Kennedy as he challenged the Nation to land a man on the moon. His vision led us onward and upward. And it wasn't all that long afterwards that my wife and I--newlyweds--felt a personal stake in what we saw on the television before us. We sat spellbound as we watched Neil Armstrong take his one small step on the Moon that meant so much for all mankind. Neil Armstrong was part of a long line of astronauts who braved the odds to do the impossible as, together as a nation, we reached for greatness. Over the years, there had been disappointments, failures and tragedies, but with each success we felt like we had a grip on the process and that the odds would be forever in our favor. Somewhere along the way in the years that passed, we forgot that space is a cold, unfriendly place and that space flight brings with it great risks and dangers as well as great rewards. We forgot the lesson learned from the early days of the space program--that when we dream great dreams and achieve great successes, we are also courting great danger. We think of the shuttle as an airplane. And we know how safe airplanes are. That danger was brought painfully home when we launched the Space Shuttle Challenger. All at once and without warning, the reliable space machine we had come to trust and take for granted blew up and disintegrated before our eyes. I remember that day so well because it was the day we were to send our first educator into space, Christa McAuliffe. In schools all over the country, children and their teachers watched excitedly as a school teacher prepared to make her voyage into space. When it ended in tragedy, a lot of fathers and mothers sat down that night with their children to talk about what they had seen at school that day. They got a lot of tough questions from little children with sad eyes who wondered why these things have to happen. Mothers and fathers have no answers for those questions and they can only say that sometimes bad things happen to good people. They can only hug and hold and remind their little ones that there is a God and somehow He works all things for His good. Someday we may know what that good is. But for now, all we can do is trust and hope and pray. Now we have felt that pain for a second time. The first brought us an awareness of the risks we take in exploring the unknown. It reminded us that despite the best of planning and preparation sometimes things happen that we could never have possibly prepared for. Now we watch these events unfold for a second time with a different sense--and from a different perspective. We remember the risks of space flight. But, as we mourn those who were lost, we renew our feeling of determination and our resolve to succeed no matter the odds or the obstacles to be overcome. The crews of the Challenger and the Columbia--those modern day pioneers--will be forever linked in our minds, tied together by the same terrible helplessness we felt as we watched both tragedies unfold. Each time we searched for answers that we knew would never come. In the end, each time we found ourselves more determined than ever before to move ahead, and to continue the exploration of space that must never end. And, in the end, that is the important lesson we will take with us. We may experience defeat, but we will never be defeated. In this and all we pursue in life, we will ultimately succeed as long as we hold true to our dreams and follow our star. And the success is far-reaching. I have a heart repair that would not have been possible without the space program. Science moves on, stimulated by the unknown and represented by space. When the crew of the Challenger died, President Reagan comforted the Nation with the words that the crew that had slipped the surly bonds of Earth had reached out and touched the face of God. This past weekend, President Bush assured us that the ``God who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today.'' Then and now, both crews left us with our eyes gazing toward the skies and the heavens above, hopeful and prayerful that if they had to leave us, they had done so in pursuit of a better place as they returned, not to Earth, but to their home in God's holy heaven. This night, and the next, and for many to come, when we go out on our back porch or sit in the backyard and look up at the stars, we will remember the Challenger and the Columbia and their valiant crews. The lights of the sky will remind us of their indomitable spirit and our pledge that as long as there are stars in the skies, we will never stop reaching out to them to explore, to dare and to dream in space and on Earth. That is our life, our legacy and our shared vision as Americans. It is what makes us unique, and it is why our nation will always be known as the land of the free and the home of the brave. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I thank the chairman. Mr. President, the amendment before us is the Workforce Investment Act amendment which appropriates an additional $678 million for programs under title I of the Workforce Investment Act. It has some money for all of the different processes: youth activities, employment and training activities, opportunity grants, and Job Corps. The managers' amendment to the omnibus appropriations bill provides $5.12 billion for training and employment services. That is $144.3 million above the budget request. Of this total amount, the bill provides $1.38 billion for dislocated worker activities. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training, I have been a strong supporter of the Workforce Investment Act. In fact, I have joined with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in efforts to provide sufficient funding for the Workforce Investment Act. Therefore, I have to carefully explain why I am opposing this amendment. Let me be clear, I am not questioning the importance of job training in these difficult economic times, nor am I questioning the importance of the Workforce Investment Act as our Federal workforce development system. However, I am opposing an amendment that increases funding without offsetting such increased amounts. I am opposing an amendment that increases funding by $678 million that is not targeted to the individuals who are most in need of job training and assistance. Of the $678 million increase in funding, only $206.1 million will go to dislocated worker programs, those individuals who are most in need of assistance to get back to work. The President's economic stimulus proposal gives $3.6 billion to fund personal reemployment accounts to individuals who need the most help getting back to work. These accounts can be used for job training, child care, transportation, or other expenses associated with finding a new job. These accounts will be administered through the Workforce Investment Act's One-Stop Career Center. The personal reemployment accounts proposed by the President are both targeted and flexible, unlike the amendment before us. Most importantly, the Workforce Investment Act is up for reauthorization this year. My subcommittee will shortly be commencing hearings on the reauthorization. During the reauthorization process, we will be considering funding issues for the Workforce Investment Act to determine how resources are most effectively used for people who need it most. This is not the time to address these issues. We need to complete our work on fiscal year 2003 appropriations now. The time to address the Workforce Investment Act is during the reauthorization of the bill this coming year which will be one of my priorities as chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and Training. Again, I encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment. It is not offset. It is new money. It is not directed toward the problem, and we will be doing reauthorization. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. ENZI. Yes.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment that was offered by my colleague, the Senator from Maryland. This amendment would prohibit the administration from applying or enforcing any numerical goals for competitive sourcing within agencies, or converting Federal employees doing this work to private sector contractors. This provision would prevent this President and all future Presidents from managing Federal agencies for increased cost- effectiveness and quality. I want to emphasize that again. It would prevent this President and all future Presidents from managing Federal agencies for increased cost-effectiveness and quality. That is what we are trying to do. It is good for Government. Congress passed the first step, which was the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act--the FAIR Act--in 1998. That was the bill that was drafted and sponsored and put through the process by my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Thomas. It requires all Federal agencies to itemize jobs classified as noninherently governmental in nature. These are positions which potentially could be from the private sector, lessening the size of the Federal Government, and creating more opportunities for our economy through private business. This is a tremendous step we have taken. It is one that recognizes we pay Government with taxes to operate, and we provide buildings and space for them--and a lot of other things that are kind of hidden costs. We have said the hidden costs ought to be counted in all of this. There ought to be competition with the private sector in all areas where it is traditionally done. It seems to me like a pretty basic concept. President Bush's Competitive Sourcing Initiative requires Federal agencies to conduct public-private competition on 15 percent of the jobs listed on the FAIR Act inventory--that is, 840,000 jobs in 2001. That is to conduct public-private competition on just 15 percent of these 840,000 jobs that were listed in the inventory as being noninherently governmental in nature. This amendment would prevent the President from setting and enforcing this reasonable goal. If this amendment passes, one of the losers will be the small business community. I host an annual procurement conference in Wyoming to encourage small businesses to seek Federal procurement opportunities. Small businesses, services, and products is one of the treasures we will leave in the ground if this amendment is agreed to. We have a tremendous resource-- the small businesses out there--that can provide services in a very competitive way. We need to make sure they have that opportunity. I was visiting one Federal agency where they were talking about how they were going to check on bills that were coming in for Medicare. They were building their own program to do that. The interesting thing is the private sector already had programs that would do thousands more procedures than they were able to program in their first year of programming. Their agency wasn't designed to program it. But they tried doing it from the ground up. I see that in agency after agency. When I take a look at this Government Performance Results Program, that is another thing that we put on agencies. They are supposed to tell us what they are doing, how we will know when they get it done, and how that relates to the budget. Congress needs to enforce that a little bit more to make sure it is happening because it gives us tremendous insight into all of the agencies and what their job is and the ways they are infringing on the private sector at greater expense than what the private sector would have. It is also resulting in some greater efficiencies in Government. A couple of weeks ago, I visited the mint in Philadelphia. Those people are aware of this particular amendment. They are working like crazy to make sure they are the most competitive agency for being able to perform that work, and I am certain that they will. It is that kind of spirit of American competitiveness that they have at that Government agency. They do outstanding work there. I am sure, as a result, that is the way they will continue to handle it. But it is an awareness that agencies have to have. President Bush's initiative encourages Federal agencies to allow private industry-- including small business--to compete for jobs. Everybody wins because Federal agencies can concentrate on their real goals and private industry is encouraged at the same time. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment, allow the administration to manage Federal agencies, and give small businesses a chance. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Cochran amendment. This package is the result of a concentrated effort to provide speedy and targeted assistance to agricultural producers who have suffered from drought and other disasters. At $3.1 billion, the size of this package is not as large as what I have supported in the past. But the time has come to support and pass assistance in the Senate that our agricultural producers actually receive. The Senate passed drought assistance numerous times in 2001, but each time the provisions were stripped by the House. Today we have an opportunity to pass desperately needed drought assistance that for the first time has a good chance of landing in producers' pockets and not in the trash can across the street. The President has consistently asked that drought assistance be offset and that it be budget neutral. This amendment is budget neutral. The Cochran amendment targets assistance to producers in counties that have been declared primary disaster areas. It uses a mechanism to distribute the assistance that will not burden the FSA with another long sign up period and excessive paperwork. It is an improvement over what is currently in the omnibus bill because it specifies $250 million for the Livestock Assistance Program. The Cochran amendment specifically benefits Wyoming producers in a number of ways. The amendment reimburses producers in my State that grazed their own Conservation Reserve Program acres this fall for the 25 percent reduction in their CRP payment. The amendment also provides $80 million to sugar beet producers who have suffered production losses in the 2002 crop year. Many of those sugar beet producers live in my State. I know they will be grateful for the assistance that will help them maintain a number of sugar beet cooperatives. Wyoming's current drought situation is serious. Because the need is so great, I will support the Cochran amendment. It is better to provide a simple meal to a starving man than promise a feast and not deliver. I urge my colleagues to support the Cochran amendment and responsibly provide drought assistance to the people who have waited so long.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, every time we have the education debate I feel a little bit compelled to come over to the floor and point out to my colleagues the extent of what we are talking about. We are talking today as if the Federal Government solves all education problems. We are the problem. We provide about 8 percent of the funding for education and we provide over 50 percent of the paperwork for education. We have been attacking this accountability thing with papers that have to be turned in to the Department of Education for years. I have a person on my staff who is a former principal. He was a principal and he took a leave of absence to come back to Washington and take a look at what happens to the forms he fills out. He spent a semester at the Department of Education. When he reported back he said: You know, they actually read all of those documents. They make sure that every ``i'' is dotted and every ``t'' is crossed. He said the big disappointment is then there is no use for the paperwork. Nothing happens with it. There is no accountability. There is no support. There is no help to the schools. We need to do something differently. That is what No Child Left Behind is about, taking a different approach to accountability. We have been placing this huge burden on schools for a long time. We have not been providing the money to provide the paperwork. Now we said let's try a different approach; let's let them set up an accountability mechanism; let's give them some money so they can do the accountability; and then let's see if we can hold their feet to the fire with that so it's not just another report going into the garbage can. Actually, they don't go into the garbage can; they go into some file cabinets that we also pay a lot of money for. I am not going to spend a lot of time defending the levels of funding or trying to show who is outbidding whom--and that is what this is, just a bidding war, and we do it every year. Of course, what I would like to ask the other side of the aisle is, if the increases in funding and the funding is so important, why did we have to change majorities before we could even debate it? Why wasn't this appropriations bill done last summer? Why wasn't it done in July or September? We are just debating it now, and 4\1/2\ months of the time has already passed and we are saying this is a crisis and we need to outbid each other. This is a crisis and we need to get it done, but it doesn't have to be a bidding war. We need to get this done so we can get to the next part of the process, which is to do a budget. Remember, we missed having a budget last year, the first time in 32 years that we had not had a budget. That kind of kept us from getting to those appropriations bills. And we did not. Now what we need to do is get this done, get on to the budget, get on to the appropriations, and do it correctly this next year; have the hearings, have the debates on this floor without the time constraints of being 4\1/2\ months late. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for his presentation on the way the Bush administration has increased funding for schools. As the accountant, I am pleased with the charts he has done and the figures he has given on the increases the Bush administration has done for education. Elementary and secondary education funding is growing at a faster rate than enrollment. In 2002, there was a 27 percent increase in elementary and secondary education funding, and that was compared to a 0.3 percent increase in enrollment. Let me say that again. In 2002 we did a 27 percent increase in education funding, and that was compared to a 0.3 percent increase in enrollment. Since much of the new money from 2002 is just reaching the schools for the first time, the massive increase for 2002 began reaching them in last July. It is disingenuous to make the case that the Federal Government isn't doing its share when it comes to dollars for education. Again, I point out the delay in appropriations this year. In fact, a total of $19 billion from 2002 is still sitting over at the Department of Education and has not been drawn down by the schools. That is $19 billion. That is more than we are talking about in any bidding wars we are doing here. But let us not forget that the No Child Left Behind Act is not just about Federal investment in education. It is about getting a return on that investment and improved student achievement for all of our children. That means dedication of the States, too. It is not just an effort to move the burden to the Federal Government. The States have to be involved. I am pleased to say that according to the Washington Post there are two States in the United States that fully fund their education plan. One of those is Wyoming. When we are talking about increases in dollars, we are certainly hoping it can have the flexibility that will go to the kinds of programs to help develop our kids for the kind of jobs there will be in the future so they can stay in Wyoming and so they can compete in the global market. We have recognized the importance of education. We have fully funded education. That isn't enough money. We are also one of those States with a declining enrollment. We aren't even three-fifths of 1 percent in increase in enrollment. Let us keep in mind that, even with limited resources, economic concerns, and many additional important national priorities as a result of our Nation's war on terrorism, the President's 2003 budget and this bill contain significant increases in the areas that most directly affect the neediest children. I could go into some more detail on that. We have a time agreement. I appreciate having a time agreement so we can begin some votes. But I do think we have the capabilities to do the kind of things for which the No Child Left Behind Act is intended. We can do better next year, and we will as we do the process the way it was designed to be done. We know well-prepared teachers lead to a child's success in school. However, millions of children don't have the benefit of a qualified teacher in their classroom. That is why this bill provides almost $3 billion this year to support our Nation's teachers. I am particularly sensitive to that because my oldest daughter is a principal in the Wyoming School System. She was a teacher. She taught English to seventh graders for about 6 years. I think that is one of the challenging places to teach because students have all those hormones and body changes and all of those things. She really enjoys it. She got two masters degrees while she was doing that, and one of them entitled her to be a principal. She was hired principal in a little community called Chugwater. I hope you will try Chugwater chili and the great spices for the chili. It is the community activity and the community business in a town of 256 people. Enrollment in the school, kindergarten through 12th grade, is 130. She found out there are some experiences the education textbooks don't cover. On the the first day of school there was a rattle snake in the building. On the second day, a seventh grader found a black widow spider. Day before yesterday, there was a skunk in the schoolyard. This is 45 miles from anywhere. There are some different problems dealing with a situation such as that. It took 45 minutes for the police to get there to remove the skunk. Teachers are challenged. Principals are challenged. We need to have well-prepared teachers who are qualified to teach. I am blessed to say that in Wyoming that we have met that goal--not completely. We are still working on having better teachers all the time. I remember one fellow running for superintendent in the public schools saying the job of the principal was to make sure good teachers got better and bad teachers got better somewhere else. But I do want to say the President's budget asks for money for increases in teachers and increases for reading programs. I want to close by saying that the combination of the very substantial new funding provided over the past 3 years and the reforms in the No Child Left Behind Act will make a real difference in improving the performance of our schools and the achievement of all students. What I have said today shows the picture in addition to what the Senator from New Hampshire said. He has put in an amendment that does call for an increase in spending and the flexibility that I have been talking about for the Wyoming schools and for other States that have been doing an adequate job of funding their students presently. It gives them the flexibility to spend it on the things they think are needed the worst. I hope you will support the Gregg amendment. I hope you will defeat the Kennedy amendment and provide for a budget and appropriations now. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have heard my colleagues on the Senate floor today talking about drought and the desperate need for drought assistance. Throughout this session, I have been a fervent advocate of drought assistance for producers in Wyoming. I am speaking today because the need for assistance persists. Today's discussion has focused on farmers. They need help. Farmers missed out on the emergency livestock programs provided by the administration. Even with crop insurance, farmers are facing serious difficulties. As this drought has continued for multiple years, crop insurance premiums have increased each time a producer is forced to take a loss. Yield averages, the basis for insurance payments, have been dropping with dismal production each year. Crop yields are so low this year that market prices are actually higher. The farm bill counter cyclical payments that were designed to support prices when markets fell below a certain level have been thwarted by these higher prices. These higher prices are meaningless when the quantities have been so drastically reduced. Therefore, this protection has been rendered useless. Farmers clearly need help, but I also think it is important to remember that our ranchers aren't safe yet either. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Bob and Nancy Tarver. They are a ranching family from near my home of Gillette, WY.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I won't read the entire letter, but I would like to highlight a few points that Bob and Nancy make. They are very thankful for the assistance given through the Livestock Feed Assistance Program and the Livestock Compensation Program. These programs together provide about $41 of assistance per cow. With this assistance, they have purchased additional feed to supply their needs for the winter. The Tarvers point out in their letter, however, that they have lost about $374 per cow in 2002 due to drought. This loss has occurred primarily through reduced forage growth in pastures, increased hay costs and lower cattle weights. The drought assistance provided so far has been short term. If we are going to save our family ranchers, we must do more. The Senate has consistently supported providing real relief to our producers. In September we voted on an emergency agricultural amendment I cosponsored. That amendment would have provided almost $6 billion on both farmers and livestock producers endangered by the drought across America. After it was passed 79-16, the amendment was stalled along with the Interior Appropriations bill. This was not the first time the Senate has shown strong support for disaster relief only to have it snatched away. Senator Baucus and I successfully added an agricultural disaster assistance package to the farm bill with a steady 69-30 vote. The assistance package was removed from the conference report by the House. We are not following through on our promises. The time has come to fulfill our words with action. If we have missed our final opportunity in this Congress, I urge my colleagues to pass emergency agricultural assistance as a top priority when we begin the 108th session. Thank you.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank all of the conferees for the long hours and late nights they here worked to complete this bill. I know this has been a difficult process and a long year. Unfortunately, now I kind myself in a very difficult position. I find myself forced to oppose this legislation even though it is a Presidential priority and even though I support the underlying goals. It was a little over a year ago that Senators Sarbanes, Gramm, Dodd, and I announced an agreement for terrorism risk insurance legislation. That agreement outlined the parameters that we thought were a reasonable response to disruptions occurring in the marketplace as a result of the lack of reinsurance. This agreement outlined very limited and specific liability protections that would protect both the taxpayer's pocketbook and businesses which may themselves be victim's of terrorism from frivolous lawsuits after future terrorist attack. These limited protections were: First, suits filed as a result of a terrorist attack would be consolidated into a Federal district court; second, punitive damages would not be allowed; and third, the Secretary of the Treasury was given the ability to agree to out-of-court settlements. Now, in this new conference report, two out of these three protections have been eliminated. The new program in this conference report will allow frivolous lawsuits to be filed against businesses that may be victims of the terrorist act themselves. Think about a business located in the World Trade Center on 9/11. This business was destroyed and likely lost a number of its employees. The next thing that happens is while attempting to rebuild, the business gets slapped with a frivolous lawsuit by a greedy trial lawyer. It is ridiculous to believe that a business could have prevented an attack of this kind. Yet this legislation will subject them to the will of the trial bar. This conference report keeps America's businesses and the taxpayer subject to punitive damages. I have a Statement of Administration Policy from the executive Office of the President's Office of Management and Budget. In the second paragraph of the letter dated June 13, 2002, it states ``the Administration cannot support enactment of any terrorism insurance bill that leaves the Nation's economy and victims of terrorist acts subject to predatory lawsuits and punitive damages.''' Also from the administration, I have a letter signed by Treasury Secretary O'Neill, OMB Director Daniels, Director of the National Economic Council Lindsey, and Director of the Council of Economic Advisors Glenn Hubbard dated June 10, 2002. This letter states ``the victims of terrorism should not have to pay punitive damages. Punitive damages are designed to punish criminal or near-criminal worngdoing.'' It goes on the say ``the availability of punitive damages in terrorism cases would in inequitable relief for injured parties, threaten bankruptcies for American companies and a loss of jobs for American workers.'' I could not agree more with the administration's position from just a few months ago that this legislation could lead to the bankruptcies of American companies who were victims of terrorist acts themselves. In addition, this conference report does not include a provision which allows the Secretary of the treasury to agree to out-of-court settlements. This legislation has the American taxpayer pay potentially 90 percent of property and casualty costs after a terrorist attack. I can think of no other instance where the group liable for paying 90 percent of a lawsuit is unable to agree to an out-of-court settlement. If another catastrophic terrorist attack occurs, every trial lawyer in America will file a lawsuit because they know that the insurance company, which only pays 10 percent of the settlement, will agree immediately. The mansions of the trial lawyers will be built with the dollars of the American taxpayer. I do not consider the inclusion of these protections to be extreme measures and I do not think that most of the members of this chamber believe them to be unreasonable. They are very simple and reasonable protections that basically say the trial bar should not take advantage of tragedies caused by terrorists. The President invited Senate Republican conferees to the White House a few weeks ago where concerns were raised regarding the lack of these specific taxpayer protections. Unfortunately, these protections were not reintroduced into the legislation and now this conference report comes to the floor of the Senate without a single Senate Republican conferee's signature. For these reasons, I am unable to support passage of this legislation. I support the program and understand the possible economic problems by not passing the legislation. I cannot in good faith subject the hard-working taxpayers of Wyoming to the potential losses they might incur because of the self-serving and unjustified lawsuits which may result. However, even though I cannot support this bill because of the lack of taxpayer protections, I would like to commend those who have worked so diligently on the legislation for over a year now. Senator Dodd, in particular, has given more time and effort to this project than probably anyone. He and his staff, Alex Sternhell, have remained committed to seeing the passage of this legislation and have done remarkable work to bring the issues that relate to the structure of the program to a compromise. I have to say that I agree with Senator Dodd's position on the structure of the program and always felt confident in the manner which he negotiated these provisions. Mr. President, my position on this legislation has not changed since the very beginning. I believe we need a Federal backstop and I believe at one point we had a bill that did just that. I am sorry the trial bar was able to derail the bill for over a year now. I can only hope that the trial lawyers of America will stop to realize that subjecting Americans to lawsuits to line their pockets after the devastation of a terrorist attack is simply the wrong thing to do . Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I won't read the entire letter, but I would like to highlight a few points that Bob and Nancy make. They are very thankful for the assistance given through the Livestock Feed Assistance Program and the Livestock Compensation Program. These programs together provide about $41 of assistance per cow. With this assistance, they have purchased additional feed to supply their needs for the winter. The Tarvers point out in their letter, however, that they have lost about $374 per cow in 2002 due to drought. This loss has occurred primarily through reduced forage growth in pastures, increased hay costs and lower cattle weights. The drought assistance provided so far has been short term. If we are going to save our family ranchers, we must do more. The Senate has consistently supported providing real relief to our producers. In September we voted on an emergency agricultural amendment I cosponsored. That amendment would have provided almost $6 billion on both farmers and livestock producers endangered by the drought across America. After it was passed 79-16, the amendment was stalled along with the Interior Appropriations bill. This was not the first time the Senate has shown strong support for disaster relief only to have it snatched away. Senator Baucus and I successfully added an agricultural disaster assistance package to the farm bill with a steady 69-30 vote. The assistance package was removed from the conference report by the House. We are not following through on our promises. The time has come to fulfill our words with action. If we have missed our final opportunity in this Congress, I urge my colleagues to pass emergency agricultural assistance as a top priority when we begin the 108th session. Thank you.