Bill Frist

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, 2004 marks the 100th anniversary of the 1904 St. Louis World's Fair--the fair that has come to be recognized as ushering in what today is known as ``The American Century.'' At that fair an unknown gentleman from Lynchburg, TN, rose to world acclaim. That man was Jack Daniel. At the 1904 World's Fair his Old Number 7 Brand Tennessee Whiskey won the Gold Medal as ``the world's best whiskey''. Today, Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey can be found in over 135 countries. In fact, no other Tennessee product is exported to more countries. Further, this year it will become the world's No. 1 selling whiskey, displacing products made by our friends in Scotland for the first time in history. The Tennessee General Assembly recently passed a resolution commemorating Jack Daniel's 1904 Gold Medal. Senator Lamar Alexander and I would like to share the resolution with our colleagues by including it in today's Congressional Record. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRIST. Senator Alexander and I join in congratulating the people of Jack Daniel Distillery on this 100th anniversary and look forward to their continued success at bringing a part of Tennessee's heritage to consumers around the world. On April 1, 2004, in celebration of the 100th anniversary of the 1904 World's Fair Gold Medal, the Tennessee State Society and the Jack Daniel Distillery will hold a celebration of Jack Daniel's Tennessee heritage here in Washington. It will be a very special occasion, so we encourage our colleagues to join us at the celebration.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, why don't we have morning business. I ask unanimous consent that there be a period of morning business with the time divided accordingly until 1:30 today.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today we will be in consideration of H.R. 4, the welfare reauthorization bill. Chairman Grassley will be here shortly and is prepared for Senators to come forward with their amendments to the bill. I previously announced there will be no rollcall votes today and any votes offered today will be delayed until tomorrow, Tuesday. As we begin this important bill, once again I ask Members to refrain from offering unrelated issues to the underlying welfare reauthorization. There are a number of Senators who have welfare- related amendments they will want to have debated and discussed and disposed of. It is my hope we can work through those amendments and not allow extraneous items to delay us and postpone us from making progress on this bill. I thank Members for their consideration as we begin this important bill, a bill that affects millions of Americans today and indeed in the future. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 1 p.m. on Monday, March 29. I further ask, following the prayer and 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 begin consideration of H.R. 4, the welfare reform reauthorization bill as provided under the previous order.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I object to further proceeding, en bloc.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I understand there are three bills at the desk due a second reading. I ask unanimous consent that the clerk read the titles of the bills for a second time en bloc.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, in about 30 minutes or so, we will be closing. Before doing that, I want to spend a few minutes talking about an occurrence and a series of events over the course of the past week stemming from comments and testimony by a former State Department civil servant named Richard Clarke. In a book that is scheduled to be released for sale by the parent company of the CBS network, Mr. Clarke makes the outrageous charge that the Bush administration, in its first 7 months in office, failed to adequately address the threat of Osama bin Laden. There has been a fulminating in the media and by some Senators about this book. I want to take this opportunity to reflect a bit on this, because I am deeply disturbed by the charges that have been made by Mr. Clarke. I am disturbed, in part, by the way it has been handled by some of our colleagues and by the media itself. I am troubled by the charges. I am equally troubled someone would sell a book that trades on their former service as a Government insider with access to classified information, our Nation's most valuable intelligence, in order to profit from the suffering surrounding what this Nation endured on September 11, 2001. I am troubled that Senators on the other side of the aisle are so quick to accept such claims. I am troubled that Mr. Clarke has had a hard time keeping his own story straight. I don't personally know Mr. Clarke--I have met him--although I take it from press accounts that he has been involved in the fight against terrorism for the past decade. As 9/11 demonstrates, that decade was a period of growing peril, a period of unanswered attacks against the United States. It is self- serving, I believe, that Mr. Clarke asserts that the United States could have stopped terrorism if only the three Presidents he served had listened to Mr. Clarke. In fact, when Mr. Clarke was at the height of his influence as the terrorism czar for President Clinton, the United States saw the first attack on the World Trade Center, saw the attack on the U.S. Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia, the attacks on the two U.S. embassies in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole, and the planning and implementation for the 9/11 attacks. The only common denominator throughout those 10 years of unanswered attacks was Mr. Clarke himself, a consideration that is clearly driving his effort to point fingers and to shift blame. He was the only common denominator throughout that period. This pointing fingers, this shifting blame I will come back to because if we look at all the data and all the evidence, it becomes the common theme. While the reasons may be open to debate and discussion, the previous administration's response to these repeated attacks by al-Qaida was clearly inadequate--a few cruise missiles lobbed at some, at best, questionable targets. Al-Qaida could only have been encouraged by their record of success in the absence of a serious and a sustained response by the United States during that period. After 10 years of policies that failed to decisively confront and to eliminate that threat from al-Qaida, Clarke now suggests that those first 7 months of the Bush administration is where the blame should lie. Again, after 10 years of attack after attack with an inadequate response, with Mr. Clarke being the common denominator, to put the blame almost entirely on the first 7 months of the Bush administration to me is shifting blame and finger-pointing. What is interesting is that what we heard this week has not always been Mr. Clarke's view of the events leading up to September 11. This week, a transcript was released of a press interview that Mr. Clarke gave in August of 2002, not that long ago. I will submit for the Record the full transcript, but I do want to cite a portion of this interview reviewing in glowing terms the policies of the Bush administration in fighting terrorism. I will be quoting exactly from the interview: Richard Clarke: Actually, I've got about seven points. Let me just go through them quickly. Again, these are Mr. Clarke's words: The first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. No plan. Mr. Clarke's words: Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office--issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy, changing our policy towards Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years. Mr. Clarke continues, using his exact words: And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent. And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided. So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, decided in principle, in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda. The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies--and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals. I am still reading verbatim through the interview. His words: Over the course of the summer--last point--they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance. And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. This is in fact the time line. Those are the words of Richard Clarke during a series of questions I will make a part of the Record. I will take the final question, in the interest of time, to Mr. Clarke. Question: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making the decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct? Mr. Clarke's answer: All of that's correct. Madam President, I went through the interview in detail like that because you can see clearly how out of sync it is. It is almost just the opposite of what he said this week, and it is important for us to understand, if we are going to look at Mr. Clarke's credibility, this juxtaposition, this contrast, how dissimilar to what comes out of his mouth it actually is. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. FRIST. This is not the only account in which Mr. Clarke changes his story. In lengthy testimony before the congressional joint inquiry that reviewed the events surrounding the September 11 attacks, Mr. Clarke is equally effusive in his praise for his actions of the Bush administration. It is my hope we will be able to get that testimony declassified. That request has been made so all Senators may review it and discuss it as well. But it is effusive praise under oath. I do not know what Mr. Clarke's motive is. I have no earthly idea what his motive for these charges is. Is it personal gain? Is it partisan gain? Is it in some way personal profit? Is it animus because of his failure to win a promotion with the Bush administration? I just do not know. None of us is going to ever know. But one thing is clear, and that is his motive could not possibly be to bring clarity or true understanding of how we avoid future September 11 attacks. There are five points I would like to make, five points that I find absolutely inexplicable about Mr. Clarke's performance this past week. I have waited to come to the floor until the end of the week because I couldn't really believe what Mr. Clarke was saying, based on what we know of his past performance and his participation in the former administration. I wanted to have time, and I will make these five points in a quick fashion. Point No. 1: In an e-mail to the National Security Adviser 4 days after the September 11 attacks, Mr. Clarke expressed alarm that ``when the era of national unity begins to crack'' an effort to assign responsibility for the 9/11 attacks will begin. Mr. Clarke, in the e-mail, then proceeds to lay out in detail a defense of his own personal actions before the attack and those of the entire administration, all of that spelled out in the e-mail. Mr. Clarke clearly, when we look at his e-mail, was consumed by the desire to dodge any blame for the 9/11 attacks; while at the very same moment rescuers were still searching the rubble at the site of the World Trade Center looking for survivors, he was looking for some way to dodge blame for himself. In my mind, this offers some insight, maybe even perfect insight, as to what drove him to write his book. The second point, in August 2002, the interview I read, Mr. Clarke gave a thorough account of the Bush administration's very proactive policy against al-Qaida. When presented with that interview, Mr. Clarke tries to explain away that media performance, the interview itself, by suggesting, well, I just gave the interview in that way as a loyal servant to the administration. A loyal administration official? Does Mr. Clarke understand the gravity of the issues this body, we in the Congress, the United States, is facing as we review through that 9/11 Commission the gravity of the charges that have been made by him? If in the summer of 2001 he saw the threat from al-Qaida as grave as he now says it was, and if he found the response of the administration so inadequate, as he now says it was, why did he wait until Sunday, March 21 of 2004 to make his concerns known? It simply does not make sense. There is not a single public record of Mr. Clarke making any objection whatsoever in the period leading up to or following the 9/11 attacks. There is nothing in the public record. There is no threat from him to resign. There is no public protest. There is no plea to the President, to the Congress, to the public to heed the advice he now says was ignored. If Mr. Clarke held his tongue because he was loyal, then shame on him for putting policies above principle, but if he is manufacturing these charges for some sort of personal profit or some sort of political gain, he is a shame to this Government. Fortunately, I have not had the opportunity to work with such an individual who would write solicitous and self-defending e-mails to his supervisor, the national security adviser, and then by his own admission lie to the press out of some self-conceived notion of loyalty, to reverse himself on all accounts for the sale of a book, a book which obviously is very popular. It is selling now as I speak. The third point I would like to make is Mr. Clarke told two entirely different stories under oath. In July 2002, in front of the congressional joint inquiry on the September 11 attacks, Mr. Clarke said under oath the administration actively sought to address the threat posed by al-Qaida during its first 7 months in office. It is one thing for Mr. Clarke to dissemble in front of the media, in front of the press, but if he lied under oath to the Congress, it is a far more serious matter. As I mentioned, the Intelligence Committee is seeking to have Mr. Clarke's previous testimony declassified so as to permit an examination of Mr. Clarke on the two differing accounts. Loyalty to any administration will be no defense if it is found he has lied before Congress. Fourth, notwithstanding Mr. Clarke's efforts to use his book first and foremost to redirect, to shift blame, to shift attention from himself, it is also clear Mr. Clarke and his publisher did adjust the release date of his book in order to make maximum gain from the publicity around the 9/11 hearings. Assuming the controversy around this series of events does, in fact, drive the sales of his book, Mr. Clarke will make a lot of money for exactly what he has done. I personally find this to be an appalling act of profiteering, of trading on insider access to highly classified information and capitalizing upon the tragedy that befell this Nation on September 11, 2001. Mr. Clarke must renounce any plan to personally profit from this book. Finally, it is understandable why some of the families who lost loved ones on that tragic and horrible day, September 11, find Mr. Clarke's performance this week appealing. The simple answers to a terrible tragedy, to the very human desire to find an answer of why, to help explain why on that beautiful fall day 2\1/2\ years ago a series of events shattered their lives forever. In his appearance before the 9/11 Commission, Mr. Clarke's theatrical apology on behalf of the Nation was not his right, was not his privilege, and was not his responsibility. In my view, it was not an act of humility but it was an act of arrogance and manipulation. Mr. Clarke can and will answer for his own conduct, but that is all. Regardless of Mr. Clarke's motive or what he says or implies in his new book, the fact remains this terrible attack was not caused by the Government of the United States of America. No administration was responsible for the attack. Our Nation did not invite the attack. The attack on 9/11 was the evil design of a determined and hate-filled few who slipped through the defenses of a nation, a nation that treasures its freedoms, that treasures its openness, that treasures its convenience. That our defenses failed is cause enough to review the sequence of events leading up to that awful day, and we must and will understand how to do better, balancing our determination to protect our Nation with that equal resolve to protect our liberties. The answer to Mr. Clarke's--and I clearly feel they are self- serving--charges is that, in fact, we all bear that responsibility, and we recognize that. Every one of us who served in Government before and at the time of the 9/11 attacks also has the responsibility to do our best to avoid such tragedy in the future. If we are to learn lasting lessons from the examination of the 9/11 attacks, it must be toward this end, not an exercise in finger pointing, not an exercise in blame shifting, not an exercise in political score settling. Exhibit 1 Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in '02 (Washington.--The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.) Richard Clarke. Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush Administration. Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office--issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy--uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years. And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent. And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided. So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to in crease CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five- fold, to go after Al Qaeda. The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies--and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late Mach, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals. Over the course of the summer--last point--they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance. And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline. Question. When was that presented to the president? Clarke. Well, the president was briefed throughout this process. Question. But when was the final September 4 document? (Interrupted.) Was that presented to the president? Clarke. The document went to the president on September 10, I think. Question. What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestion made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the--general animus against the foreign policy? Clarke. I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me. Jim Angle. You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct? Clarke. All of that's correct. Angle. OK. Question. Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested? Clarke. Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues--like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy--that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on. Question. Was all of that from '98 on or was some of it---- Clarke. All of those issues were on the table from '98 on. Angle. When in '98 were those presented? Clarke. In October of '98. Question. In response to the Embassy bombing? Clarke. Right, which was in September. Question. Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to---- Clarke. There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table. Question. So there was nothing that developed, no documents or new plan of any sort? Clarke. There was no new plan. Question. No new strategy--I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics---- Clarke. Plan, strategy--there was no, nothing new. Question. 'Til late December, developing---- Clarke. What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principles committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations. Question. Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000? Clarke. Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably. Angle. What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues? Clarke. Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate? One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions. Angle. And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was---- Clarke. No, that's not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed--began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So that's really how it started. Question. Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had? Clarke. There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that. (Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.) Angle. So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no--one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office? Clarke. You got it. That's right. Question. It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals? Clarke. That's right. Question. I want to add though, that NSPD--the actual work on it began in early April. Clarke. There was a lot of in the first three NSPDs that were being worked in parallel. Angle. Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda--did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something? Clarke. Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away. Question. That actually got into the intelligence budget? Clarke. Yes it did. Question. Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later? Clarke. No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination. Question. Well can you clarify something? I've been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct? Clarke. No, it was March. Question. The elimination of Al Qaeda, get back to ground troops--now we haven't completely done that even with a substantial number of ground troops in Afghanistan. Was there, was the Bush administration contemplating without the provocation of September 11th moving troops into Afghanistan prior to that to go after Al Qaeda? Clarke. I can not try to speculate on that point. I don't know what we would have done. Question. In you judgment, is it possible to eliminate Al Qaeda without putting troops on the ground? Clarke. Uh, yeah, I think it was. If we'd had Pakistani, Uzbek and Northern Alliance assistance.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business to allow Senators to make statements. No rollcall votes will occur today. I do not anticipate a lengthy session of the Senate today. As a reminder, we will begin the welfare reauthorization bill on Monday, and I will be laying out Monday's schedule at the close of today's business. But I would also remind Members that any votes ordered on Monday will be delayed to occur on Tuesday.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will be back a little later this morning, but I do want to take an opportunity, seeing our distinguished President pro tempore in the chair today, to comment on an issue I know he feels strongly about as well as I, and that is the issue of physical activity and nutrition and the growing obesity epidemic in the United States. It is an issue that has, thank goodness, received increasing attention over the last several weeks and months; that is, obesity, the epidemic now in the United States, and its very direct impact on one's overall health, whether it is quality of life or how long one lives. Despite tremendous gains in public health in this country and, indeed, around the world, America remains the most overweight country on the globe. Indeed, it is taking its toll in a way that people are only now beginning to realize. But thank goodness they are. In fact, earlier this year, the CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, released data showing that lack of physical activity and poor nutrition are the second leading causes of death in the United States of America. That is second only to smoking. In fact, if recent trends continue, obesity can soon overtake smoking as the leading cause of death in the United States. Looking at the recent trends, it is very likely that, indeed, will be the case. The good news about that, and I would also say about smoking-- although smoking is such a powerful addiction, it has been shown to be such a challenge--but the good news about the obesity epidemic we are seeing is, through education and a change in lifestyle alone we can prevent this epidemic from occurring. We can prevent this killing. The trend has been over the last 30 years. It is one of these problems that has been around. We have always had obesity for whole different reasons. But for new reasons--lack of activity, poor nutrition, promotion of poor nutrition--we have had this trend of obesity skyrocketing over a 30-year period. I am very hopeful that by doing our part in the Senate, as elected representatives, as leaders, through the hearing process, through education, through serving as direct examples, we can help turn this tide and again reverse it over the next several years. The CDC, the American College of Sports Medicine, and the U.S. Surgeon General have come together to recommend that, for adults, 30 minutes of moderate-intensity activity 5 or more days a week will actually stabilize and reverse the trends we have seen. It is clear that additional physical activity will have even increased benefits on the part of the body that I specialized on, the heart, but also chronic diseases such as diabetes, probably some cancers, clearly lung disease as well. Again, if we can all concentrate on that 30 minutes. In terms of weight gain, it is not clear yet. We can't accurately predict and say this is how much exercise you need to do to prevent weight gain or reverse weight gain because it is such an individual matter. But we all know physical activity plays a very prominent role in reversing weight gain. It is an important aspect of weight control. It helps promote caloric balance. It helps promote general well-being. In fact, it also helps control appetite. I mention all this, and I am delighted you will see a lot of Senators and staff members wearing one of these little pedometers. I happen to have one on now. I am a little embarrassed to open up and read how many steps I have taken today. As of 9:30 this morning I have only taken 625 steps. That is too little because by the end of the day I need to have taken a recommended 8,000 or 10,000 steps. In fact, yesterday I only took about 4,500 steps. So I need to reach my goal of 8,000 to 10,000 over the course of the day. What it does cause me to do is at least think about, instead of taking the elevator right outside the doors, to walk up those two flights of steps, or instead of riding in a car a block or two blocks or three blocks, go ahead and walk on the beautiful day that we have outside. The feedback one gets really helps you think, and then hopefully gives you sort of secondary reinforcement to incorporate that into your lifestyle. The daily step goals can vary. What I encourage people to do is wear these little inexpensive pedometers. All they do is measure your steps. They do that fairly accurately. People's steps are different lengths, but they give you a way to monitor the activity you do each day, but then also how much you can improve by altering your lifestyle just a little bit. That feedback is very important in terms of changing lifestyle. During last week--and we will see how long it lasts; I hope it will be for a while--all of my staff have gone out and gotten these little, tiny plastic devices which they are wearing. This week we are going to be measuring our baselines to see where we are, and then we will see in the future how much improvement there is. In fact, later today we will all go out and take a little jog around The Mall. All of us will try bringing our counts up. We try to do a lot within our own Senate community. I encourage my colleagues to do the same. It is really a matter of raising awareness and changing our lifestyles, which will definitely improve health. I thank the CDC Foundation and the America on the Move organization for supplying us with these devices. I should also mention for those of my colleagues and others who are listening today who wish to find out more about the pedometers and the importance of daily exercise, two Web sites. The one I highly recommend is the CDC Web site. I will give my colleagues both those addresses. The Web site for America on the Move is www.americaonthemove.org. The Web site for the CDC is www.cdc.gov. You don't have to run. You can walk. You can use a pedometer doing that, and you can make great strides toward a healthier lifestyle. A couple of key points: The 30-minute minimum does not have to be done at one time in terms of the official recommendations. You can do it in three 10-minute intervals over the course of the day. You want to be walking at a fast enough intensity where it will make a difference enough to accelerate the heart rate modestly for each of those 10-minute periods. Finally, I will close with the best part of all of this, which is that it is never too late. No matter what age you are, you can actually change your overall health status, your quality of life, and how long you live if you decide today to change your lifestyle. It will make a difference. It doesn't matter how old you are, how unfit your baseline is, or how inactive you are. Current research shows that starting a more active lifestyle through exercise can make you healthier and improve your quality of life. That is my health tip for day. It is a little bit about what we do as physicians, as one who exercises regularly, and as one who believes it can make a difference. I know the distinguished occupant of the Chair, the distinguished President pro tempore, is a religious exerciser. I wanted to make that very brief statement. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST

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

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2241, which was introduced earlier today by Senators Cochran and Harkin.

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. On Monday, the Senate will begin consideration of the welfare reauthorization bill. It is my expectation that amendments will be offered and debated on Monday, and the chairman and ranking member will be here to begin working through any of those amendments. As I mentioned yesterday, we will not be having rollcall votes on Monday. Thus, any votes that are ordered on Monday will be stacked for Tuesday. With that said, I inform my colleagues we have a lot of work to do over the next 2 weeks prior to the Easter recess, and I encourage Senators who want to speak on the bill or to offer an amendment to come to the floor during Monday's session.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we had a very busy week. The Senate continued consideration of S. 1637, the FSC/ETI bill earlier in the week. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle insisted on offering nongermane amendments to this very important manufacturing bill, this JOBS bill. In an effort to move the bill forward, we did file cloture with respect to the bill earlier in the week. Despite the importance and critical nature of this legislation to our economy, addressing those sanctions imposed by the European Union on us that are in effect now, we were unable to invoke cloture to finish this bill. We turned yesterday to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. In an overwhelming vote of 61 to 38, the Senate passed S. 1637, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. I thank all my colleagues for their handling of the bill. Senator DeWine did a superb job managing the bill, supported by Senator Lindsey Graham. Again, they did a tremendous job ushering this bill through. This legislation does so much to help protect women and their unborn children by establishing, for the first time at the Federal level, a separate crime for the injury or death of a fetus resulting from an attack on the mother. The concept is very simple. If someone attacks a woman who is pregnant, there are two victims and not one. Senator DeWine was able to hold off any amendments which would have changed the underlying legislation. That was important to do. We accomplished that and the bill will be sent shortly to the President for his signature. This week we also passed welfare reform extension. It was S. 2231. It is a 3-month extension of welfare reform programs. We will begin consideration of H.R. 4, the welfare reform reauthorization bill, on Monday. I hope we can consider important and relevant amendments to this bill. I know Members on both sides of the aisle do have amendments to improve the bill. We look forward to addressing those that are germane, that are important to the bill. However, once again, I urge Members to allow us to stay focused on the measure before us and not to slow down the process with political posturing or, what now we have begun to see a lot of, so-called message amendments on the floor of the Senate unrelated to the bill itself. I do respect all Members' rights to amend the bills, but with that we also have a responsibility, and the responsibility is to legislate. Last night I had the privilege of obtaining unanimous consent by which we passed the Organ Donation and Recovery Improvement Act, H.R. 3926. The bill promotes organ donation, promotes organ procurement, recovery, preservation, and transportation, all of which is critically vital if we are to address the fact we have 83,000 people right now as I speak waiting for an organ transplant, yet we have too few organs. The supply is too small, it is too few, because we are not capturing all the potential organs. This addresses that disconnect and that disparity. We also passed the Oceans and Human Health Act this week, S. 1218, reported by Chairman McCain and the Commerce Committee. This particular bill provides for the coordination and support of Federal interagency ocean science programs, including research on the role of oceans in human health. We passed H.R. 2584, the international fisheries reauthorization under Chairman McCain. We also addressed treaties. We ratified two treaties this week, the protocol amending the tax convention with Sri Lanka under Chairman Lugar, the income tax convention with Sri Lanka with Chairman Lugar, and moments ago we passed the Child Nutrition Act extension, introduced today by Chairman Cochran and the ranking member.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, the next vote is the last vote of the week. We will begin consideration of welfare reauthorization on Monday. There will be no rollcall votes on Monday. Any votes ordered will be stacked on Tuesday of next week.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3926, which is at the desk.

Mr. FRIST

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

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in a few minutes we will be closing for the evening, but over the next several minutes I would like to comment on a couple of events from today, and then, in closing, we will talk a bit about what to expect over the next several days and next week.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I, first, would like to comment on the way my day began. It happened to begin with the distinguished Presiding officer, the Senator from Minnesota, early this morning, as we engaged in a project that many people around the country have participated in. For those who have not, I hope they do participate in it; and that is, to build--I was not going to say a house--but, indeed, a home as part of Habitat for Humanity. Not too far from here--about 15 minutes from our Nation's Capitol-- there is a plot of land. We have been blessed in many ways because, right now, we have been part of a group of people who put up several houses. We did not put them all up today, but eventually that whole site--and it is probably a couple-acre site; actually, it must be larger than that--will have 50 different houses with individual homeowners, families who will call those houses their homes. Many of those people have no homes today, but they have devoted a fair amount of planning, with their sweat and their equity and their spirit, in helping to construct these houses through Habitat for Humanity. We were there with a number of House Members and Senate Members. It was bipartisan, bicameral. It was part of what is called ``Congress Building America.'' Today was called: ``Congress Building America National Build.'' It was a great celebration this morning. Millard Fuller was there. Millard Fuller is the man who had the vision and the heart to first think of and then lay out and then implement Habitat for Humanity International. His commitment reflects a merging, a coming together of faith, a call to service. He has professional training. He has been a very successful attorney. We had an opportunity to congratulate him, but also to spend most of the morning working side by side with him. Millard is a fascinating individual. He travels around the world both promoting and educating people about Habitat for Humanity. I talked to him a bit this morning about recent trips I have had the opportunity to make, again, one with the Presiding Officer to Africa, where, to me, we have a great opportunity, but also there is great hope, as we look at that continent today. This morning there were teams of five or six people who worked together, with a leader in that team. I was not the leader for those 3 to 4 hours. We had a young woman by the name of Dawn, who is part of the AmeriCorps affiliation with Habitat for Humanity, who walked us through the construction of this house that was nothing but a slab of concrete, but by the time we left, it had the walls up around it. But part of my team was also Charlissa Tomlinson. Charlissa is the owner of the home, who began, about 2 years ago, with this dream, and now, with her three children there today, participated in the construction of that very house. As we put up that last wall, and there was a window there, and we looked out the window, I asked: Whose bedroom is this going to be? She very quickly told me which child's bedroom it was going to be. She has been very active in her church, very active in her community. The realization of her family's dream shows us how powerful volunteers can be, how the very best of the public sector, Government, which funds, in part, Habitat for Humanity, and the 10 or 15 sponsors, organizations, companies that invest, and invest heavily, in support of Habitat for Humanity can come together. I thank my colleagues because this is the first year we have had broad bipartisan, bicameral participation. A number of Senators have gone out and participated before, but today we broke all records in terms of Senate participation in this wonderful, wonderful project. We were there to demonstrate our commitment, as elected leaders. I should also add that the spouses of the Senators were there as well throughout the morning. They even stayed into the afternoon. But we really were there to demonstrate our commitment, our deep, personal commitment to affordable home ownership for low-income American families. We were also there to show our appreciation for faith-based groups and other nonprofits such as Habitat for Humanity that do provide these critical services to individuals and families in need across America. Home ownership is such an essential part of our lives, of our social investments, of our economic investments. It is empowering to families. It is empowering to communities. It contributes economic vitality to areas and regions in communities where these beautiful new homes arise. So it was an exciting project this morning. We have done a lot. As we were there and looking around, we saw the AmeriCorps volunteers. There was a group of college students from Cornell who, instead of going where 99.9 percent of the college students go--to vacation, which I guess is Florida or the west coast or to warmer weather--dedicated their spring vacation to being there and hammering nails, and spending their 8 days away from Cornell--again, colleges all over the country are doing this, but they were with us today, and the volunteers from the community, working with the corporate executives, working with the Members of the Senate. It was really, really gratifying. The Congress participates and works with the administration. We provided $27 million this year for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program, SHOP. Under this grant program, homeowners contribute significant amounts of their own volunteer labor to the construction or to the rehabilitation of a property. President Bush requested $67 million next year for this particular program, SHOP, Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program. The 108th Congress passed and President Bush signed the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003. That is going to help over 40,000 families a year with their downpayment and closing costs and further strengthen our housing market all over the country. Seeing the Senate in action, as we hammered and nailed and put the siding up, made me realize how much this body does do and cares in terms of eliminating poverty housing in America. I hope that demonstrates our commitment to that goal and our continued commitment for affordable housing throughout America but in particular for low-income American families.