Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to support the Mikulski- Landrieu amendment. This is a very important amendment. It overturns the newly revised guidelines--known as OMB A-76--for the ``competitive outsourcing'' of government jobs. This A-76 process the administration has proposed isn't about saving money or promoting efficiency. It implements a rabid anti-government ideology by stacking the deck against Federal employees; there's nothing fair about it. As a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, which has had hearings on this issue, I have had an opportunity to hear OMB officials try to justify the new rules. To put it bluntly, they haven't succeeded. This administration's desire to privatize vast swaths of the Federal workforce needs a lot more scrutiny from Congress. Ultimately, the outsourcing of jobs is about people--the people who work for our Government and the people who pay taxes. Civil servants are the backbone of our government and we should remember that the skills, talent, and professionalism of the men and women in the Federal workplace are the best in the world. The overwhelming majority of civil servants are dedicated to their jobs. Many of them could make more money in the private sector but they work in the government because they see public service as a higher calling. Many of us here in Congress strongly disagree with the administration's privatization agenda. For instance, it struck me as ludicrous that we would federalize baggage screening at airports and then turn air traffic control over to the lowest bidder. So I offered an amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill to prevent that. Eleven of my Republican colleagues voted for that amendment, which the Senate adopted, 56-41. People correctly point out that taxpayers are the owners of the Federal Government and deserve the most effective and efficient government possible. I agree, but I would also point out that Federal employees are taxpayers, too, and they have ``invested'' even more than their taxes-- they have invested their working lives. They deserve to be treated fairly and with respect.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a very brief question? My father was 42 when he was stricken with colon cancer and he had his intestine removed to try to save his life. It was an ugly, painful procedure. As I equate this with any painful procedure that is surgically necessary. They tried to save his life but were unsuccessful.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California for her courage to stand up here and take a position when what we are seeing on the other side, with its pictures and statements about how this process is running rampant through America. It is not. We ought to face up to reality. My position is kind of: There they go again. There they go again, wanting to curb people's rights, rights that are abundant and ought to remain in place without us touching them, civil rights such as affirmative action, rights such as the ability to have your day in court to make your case, and not have it snatched away to protect the gun industry from lawsuits no matter how reckless their behavior. We do not hear anything nor have we ever seen a picture here of a gunshot victim who may never be able to walk again. We know Jim Brady will not walk again on his own, because of a gunshot wound. Do we see those kinds of pictures, the horror? Do we see surgical procedures depicted here in the Chamber, pictures of people having their intestines removed or something of that nature? Sure, they are ugly, but the point is that sometimes doctors have to do them to preserve someone's health, and that's a positive purpose. At any rate, the other side wants to take away workers' rights to join unions and get overtime pay. The other side wants to promote judicial nominees who are anti-choice, anti-union, and anti-civil rights. This is an attempt to regulate people's behavior. I have noticed one thing here since this debate has begun: We have not seen one woman talk in favor of the side that says: This procedure ought to be banned. Put the doctors in jail. We have 15 women in the Senate, but not one is here defending the position that says: Take away the doctors' ability to practice medicine as they see fit. Listen. I want to be clear here. And I want everybody to hear my voice: I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. I believe a woman has the right to make a decision, in concert with her doctor, about her health. What happens if she has another sick child or she herself suddenly finds that her health is being ruined, physically or mentally? Does she have a right to make her decision? I think so. I have a child who is now pregnant with my 10th grandchild. We do not talk about abortions. Thank God, my other grandchildren and their mothers have been healthy. But we had their health checked to make sure everything was going to be OK because nothing is more important than having my three daughters and my daughter-in-law available to take care of the children they have and to make sure that their families stay intact. But here, in what I call the ``male-garchy'' that is the United States Senate, we have the men deciding what ought to happen with women who, with their doctor, want to make a decision to protect their health. The Senator from California was eloquent. She said: Provide those exceptions for the health and well-being of a mother. But no, that is not good enough: We don't like the way these women are making these decisions. We don't like it. We don't think they are mature enough to make these decisions. They are mature enough to be a mother, but are they mature enough to make their own decisions about their body? No, not according to the ``Big Boys' Club'' here; they should not be allowed to do that. This is always a very difficult discussion. I don't think my friends who are on the opposite side are evil; they just happen to be wrong, in my view. I do not attribute anything to them except that I want to expose what I think is the truth; and that is, this growing trend to regulate people's behavior in this free, democratic society about which we talk so much. When our young people fight in Iraq, when they fought in Vietnam, or in other wars--I fought in World War II--the fight has been to protect people's freedoms--freedoms. What are we doing trying to take away a right, and threatening doctors who perform a procedure they judge necessary to protect the life and health of the mother? I voted against this bill, and I intend to vote against the conference report. A woman's right to choose is in greater danger now than it has been at any time since the Supreme Court issued its decision in Roe v. Wade 30 years ago. Supporters of this bill use the term ``partial-birth abortion.'' There is no medical term ``partial-birth.'' It is a term deliberately concocted by the anti-choice movement to inflame passions. Make no mistake: the procedure(s) covered by this phony term are not chosen lightly. Does anybody here think that a woman who is 6 or 7 months along in her pregnancy, who falls prey to illness or disease, or discovers for some other reason that the pregnancy must be terminated-- does anybody think that is an easy decision? It absolutely is not. I am the father of 4 and, as I mentioned, the grandfather of 9--Lord willing, 10 soon. But how can such a decision be challenged? How can the woman's decision, made in concert with her doctor, who says, ``I recommend this as a necessary procedure''--be challenged? Well, here in the ``Boys' Club,'' a woman and her doctor won't be allowed to make that decision. In my opinion, that is not right. I think the message the other side is sending to women is: Your behavior is abominable. We don't want you to do it. And here we have these poor people, these poor woman, who are risking their own health, carrying a fetus for 6 or 7 or 8 months-- never a pleasant experience, I assure you. As I said, there is no such medical term as ``partial-birth abortion,'' and that is intentional because this bill is not designed to ban one particular abortion procedure but many safe and legal medical procedures. If S. 3 is ultimately passed, and President Bush signs it into law, as he has promised, he will become the first U.S. President to criminalize safe medical procedures. Nobody is fooled by the real objective here, which is to chip away at a woman's right to choose and, ultimately, to criminalize legal and safe abortion procedures. No. When people know what this bill is really about, they are opposed. An ABC News poll showed that 61 percent of Americans oppose criminalizing abortion procedures if a woman's health is threatened. The bill is deceptive. It is extreme. We already know this bill won't pass the constitutional test. When we debated this bill back in March, many of us who are pro-choice said clearly, directly, that we would accept this bill if the bill's proponents would just make an exception for the life and health of the mother. That is what we were asking for. What is wrong with that? I don't understand the other side's objection to that. Their obstinance shows the true position of those who want to police our conduct and decide how people ought to behave. It is too bad. It is not right. The sponsors of S. 3 have repeatedly resisted reasonable attempts to include a health exception such as the Feinstein substitute, which was defeated. This bill is purely political. Everybody here knows it will be ruled unconstitutional. Five members of the current Supreme Court have struck down a State ban on so-called partial-birth abortions. The same fate awaits this legislation. And in New Jersey, my State, the State Supreme Court overturned a similar ban in 2000. About a month ago we had a very enlightening debate on the Senate floor over an important amendment offered to S. 3 by our colleague, Senator Harkin. The amendment reaffirmed support for the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. The House Republican leadership decided that the Senate did not have the wisdom, and their leadership and their anti-choice friends removed Senator Harkin's language in conference. Striping this bill of the Harkin amendment that reaffirms Roe v. Wade shows us what the President and his anti-choice allies are really after. They want to overturn Roe v. Wade. It has been said many times. Unfortunately, this bill puts them on that path. During the previous debate on this bill, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania characterized the Harkin amendment, a reaffirmation of current law, as extreme. That is absurd. Not being willing to protect a woman's health is extreme. It is extreme, and it is wrong. We know where this administration is headed. We know the true motives of the anti-choice administration and its allies in Congress. Look no further than the recent decision in 2002 made by the Bush administration to amend the State Children's Health Insurance Program to provide coverage for fetuses and embryos rather than for pregnant women. This rabid ideology extends so far that the administration won't allow the United States to participate in international family planning programs. We are so paranoid about this, it is ridiculous. I urge my colleagues to think this whole matter through, to put women's health and access to safe medical care before ideology, not to vote for this thinly veiled attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. I urge that they vote against this unconstitutional bill before us. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in fact, the question is a very good one. It addresses the issue we are discussing. Why is there no agreement to the request of so many of us to go along and outlaw certain procedures altogether, get rid of them, as long as the health and well-being of the mother is taken care of? I endowed initially--and it is still in existence--a cancer research center. It is called the Lautenberg Cancer Research Center, paid for with my own funds and people from whom I have raised money. We focus on breast cancer and other issues. We try to protect the women's health at all costs. We are not as generous here as we are to the fat cats who are going to get those huge tax cuts. Oh, no, they are entitled to theirs. But when it comes to potentially taking care of women's health, a child's health, men's health, all of it--well, it is OK to do that to a point. But to let women make their own decisions is outrageous. There is nothing more tragic than to see a woman unable to take care of herself or her family as a result of continuing with a pregnancy that robbed her of her well-being.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Does the Senator know how much longer his remarks will be? I ask simply because I follow the Senator and I have an airplane to catch. It would be helpful if I could get an estimate.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Not at all. When I served in Normandy, I saw a lot of things the Senator is talking about. It is very interesting.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his cooperation. I am sorry to interrupt. He did just what the order called for and I respect that. I have a couple of things to talk about and I will try not to be too long. One of the things I want to talk about is the very important vote we just had. I was one of a very small group to have voted against the supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq. I want to make sure my vote is clearly understood. I support taking care of our military, making sure their conditions are as comfortable as they can be under difficult circumstances, making sure they have the latest in weaponry, and that they are treated fairly and they receive medical care and their health care is the best we can offer. I was prepared to vote for that $67 billion in a flash, but that was not the only thing we voted on. We also voted on extending $20 billion to Iraq for reconstruction. I think it is a noble effort we are making to show we care about other people, but we also have to care about the people here. We also have to worry about the schools here that are crumbling, schools where it is hard to learn. We also have to understand that when we say Leave No Child Behind, we mean all the children, and we need more funding to do that. That has to be paid for. We do not seem to have the funds for that. Thank goodness we have Social Security surpluses we can borrow from-- money we can take from the senior citizens, those who are here now and those in the future. So we borrow money from one place and then we lend or give that money to another place, to Iraq, to make sure they have schools and garbage trucks. And I do not mean to diminish that. I think it is important to show we care about those people, but we ought to be a little more inventive in the way we do it. We ought to be able to find the kind of support we need, true support, in the United Nations which we scorned so much as we were preparing to go to war. I was a supporter of the war, so I cast a vote I feel very good about. I thought very carefully about it. I wore a uniform, as I said before. I wore it during the ``Big War.'' I enlisted at the end of 1942 and got out in 1946. I am very attached to the military and the responsibility they have. Well, the vote has been cast and shortly, we will be distributing a total of $87 billion for reconstruction aid and for the resources our military men and women need.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent the resolution and preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise this evening to call the Senate's attention to a despicable expression of hatred that occurred in Malaysia yesterday. In his address to the opening of the 57-nation summit of Islamic nations, Malaysia's Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, urged Muslims around the world to unite against the Jews who he says rule the world by proxy. Dr. Mahathir is a man known for his incendiary public condemnations of the United States, Israel, and the western world. Yesterday, his rhetoric escalated, or should I say degenerated, to a new level of hate. Using the foul canards Hitler and other anti-Semites have repeated throughout history, he accused the Jewish people of gaining control of the most powerful countries. He said ``they, this tiny community, have become a world power,'' and he urged the 1.3 billion Muslims throughout the world to fight this ``enemy.'' That is his definition. How was the speech received? According to today's New York Times, it got a standing ovation from the kings and presidents, sheiks and emirs, including key U.S. allies, gathered in Malaysia's capital, Putrajaya. I believe these comments are likely to encourage violence against Jewish people worldwide, and especially in Israel. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) charter calls for creating a favorable atmosphere for the promotion of cooperation and understanding between member states and other countries. But how can it be so, if the Prime Minister's remarks aptly capture the views of the OIC members? After all, they gave him a standing ovation. One has to wonder if they really want to promote peace between their nations and western democracies. The Prime Minister of Malaysia, a country with one of the world's biggest Muslim populations, essentially expressed an open invitation for hate crimes and terrorism. Therefore, I am introducing a resolution that puts the Senate on record as repudiating Dr. Mohamad's loathsome remarks to the OIC. My resolution also asks President Bush, who will be traveling to Southeast Asia next week, to repudiate Dr. Mohamad's vile sentiments when the two participate in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Bangkok, Thailand, on October 20. I am pleased that Senator Smith, Senator Feinstein, Senator Clinton, Senator Corzine, Senator Boxer, Senator Daschle, Senator Dodd, Senator Schumer, Senator Hatch, Senator Murray, Senator Coleman, Senator Wyden, Senator Brownback, Senator Reid, Senator Leahy, Senator Graham of Florida, Senator Bayh, and Senator Chambliss are all cosponsors of my resolution. I believe the leaders of the Muslim world should be encouraging mutual tolerance and understanding between people of different faiths. Instead, Dr. Mohamad's anti-Semitic remarks will only serve to undermine the peace and security people of all faiths seek so earnestly. I send a resolution to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. This resolution has been cleared, as I understand it, on both sides.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am going to talk about an amendment that I will be sending to the desk, and that is why I sought recognition. However, I also take just a couple of minutes to commend Senator Byrd for his leadership on this issue, for reminding Members we have an obligation to examine the conditions under which we operate to make certain funds that are expended--I served with Senator Byrd in the Appropriations Committee for many years, and he is just as diligent on the floor as he is in the committee--to make sure the funds we expend, our taxpayer funds, are clearly examined and clearly understood before we make the commitment to send those funds on their way. For the almost 19 years I have served in the Senate, I am always impressed when I hear Senator Byrd stand up and act as the conscience of the Senate, reminding all Members of our responsibilities in such eloquent ways. I am grateful to him for the time he has allowed me to speak today as we discuss the supplemental appropriations bill. Amendment No. 1868 I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration, and I ask the pending amendment be laid aside to accommodate that.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, along with Senators Schumer and Corzine, I offer an amendment to this supplemental called the Ethics in Government Contracting Act. We must ensure that taxpayer-funded contracts in Iraq are of the highest ethical standards for contracting that we can achieve. The question arises as a result of a contract that is now worth over $1.4 billion and was awarded without competitive bidding or public notice. The contract was given to the Halliburton Corporation, a company in which Vice President Cheney maintains a financial interest. The definition of the ``financial interest'' is confirmed by the Congressional Research Service, which is the nonpartisan research arm we turn to when we have questions. They have a great deal of skill and ability, and they agreed with me that despite the Vice President's claim to the contrary, that he had no financial interest, in fact, the conditions under which he is operating in connection with Halliburton do indicate a financial interest. Now, there is no accusation here of any wrongdoing. But I have got to ask, Is the taxpayer best served by the award of a lucrative contract to a company formerly headed by the Vice President and from which he still draws compensation? It is well known that the standard for ethics is not just to avoid wrongdoing but also to avoid the appearance of impropriety because public perception of insider deals can be just as damaging as a wrongdoing itself. Right now we are looking at a stark example of activity that gives rise to the appearance of impropriety. To put it simply, the largest recipient of reconstruction contracts in Iraq is currently paying a salary directly to the Vice President of the United States. In addition, the Vice President holds hundreds of thousands of unexercised stock options in this company. We toppled a corrupt dictatorship to instill democratic principles in Iraq, but what does it say to the Iraqi people when the largest recipient of United States reconstruction contracts in Iraq is paying compensation to the second highest official in the U.S. Government? I say it sends the wrong message to the people of Iraq and certainly sends the wrong message to the people in our country. Also, in an untimely fashion, it sends a message to those who are serving in our military in Iraq. Today's Washington Post, on the front page, has the result of a poll that was taken by the Stars and Stripes, the bible all of us use when we are serving our country, in which there is considerable criticism about the way they are being asked to serve and the conditions under which they do it. Many say they do not plan to reenlist, and that is a terrible condemnation of what is going on. Now, these are brave souls. These are good, loyal people. And the one thing we are not discussing in this $87 billion supplemental is whether or not the troops are being supported, because outside of the $20 billion that is under discussion now, there is unanimous support, in my view, for just getting those funds out there that can help protect, that can help make our military more efficient, make their living conditions better. No question about that. So when those who are serving see that it appears there is an inside relationship, that Halliburton got this fantastically fat contract, estimated to be worth a lot less than is now being spent--the American people are already skeptical about the pricetag of this supplemental appropriations bill, and if we are going to spend such a massive amount of their money, we have to help reassure them we are following the highest ethical standards with these funds. My amendment would make the ethics standards very clear. It says that none of the Iraq reconstruction funds may be used to award a contract with a company that currently pays compensation, including stock options, to the President, Vice President, or any member of the President's Cabinet. Ideally, there should not be a need for such an amendment, but over the last few weeks it has become clear we need to draw some very visible ethical lines. As I mentioned, the most controversial contract in Iraq is the one that was awarded to the Vice President's former company, Halliburton, to repair and maintain oil fields. This contract was negotiated in private, with no competition from other bidders. Last winter, we heard that this no-bid contract with Halliburton might cost $50 million and was there for the exclusive mission of putting out oil well fires. Then we were told that the contract was for much more than putting out fires; that it would be operating and maintaining oil facilities across Iraq. And now this sole source, no- bid Halliburton contract is growing at an accelerating rate. Halliburton has been billing taxpayers at a furious pace under this no-bid contract. In September, the amount of money billed by Halliburton under this contract rose to $1.4 billion. That was estimated to be a $50 million contract, done in the dark of night--from $50 million up to $1.4 billion. If we just look at this chart, we see what has happened. If you go back to January 2003, it was just starting. And these are amounts in millions on the chart. The acceleration, the shape of the curve, tells you just what has happened. Look at where we are on October 1, 2003--10 months after this contract began--and we are up to $1.4 billion. Look at the spike in just September alone. The contract doubled over that 1- month period. This no-bid, exclusive contract for Halliburton was negotiated in private and not revealed to the public until Members of Congress demanded information. And now the Army Corps has finally agreed to open this contract for competitive bidding, but it is unclear when the new contract will be effective. Rather than offer reassurance to the American people that the no-bid Halliburton contract was above board, the Vice President raised suspicion with his recent comments. On national television, the Vice President recently said, regarding Halliburton, that he--and I quote-- ``severed all of my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest.'' He went on to say--and I quote again--``I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years.'' The problem is that the Vice President's own financial disclosure reports contradict that claim. His financial disclosures reveal that he has received over $205,000 from Halliburton in deferred salary in 2001--more than his salary as Vice President. In 2002, he received $162,000 in deferred salary from Halliburton. His financial disclosure forms indicate that he expects to receive similar compensation this year, and in 2004 and 2005. The Vice President's statements regarding his ties to Halliburton were not correct. And I called on him to correct the record. He did not do that. The Vice President is currently receiving salary payments from Halliburton worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, as this administration doles out billions of dollars in contracts to Halliburton. In addition, the Vice President holds 433,000 unexercised Halliburton stock options. And even though the exercise price is above the current market price, the options extend to 2009, and any option holder--Mr. President, I come out of the corporate world--has to hope that the stock price surges so the value of the options increase. One way this can happen is to be sure that lucrative contracts keep coming from the U.S. Government. Halliburton's stock value has increased 75 percent over the last year, even though the rest of the oil services industry has remained relatively flat. And we know that the biggest boost Halliburton has gotten is the multibillion-dollar Government contract in Iraq. This has an unwholesome appearance. We want to change the environment in which we are presently operating. I offer this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the ethics in government contracting amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I offer this amendment to correct the situation that came about as a result of Vice President Cheney's statement on ``Meet the Press'' a couple of weeks ago. I wish to quickly respond to some things that were said about my amendment and the Vice President's links to Halliburton. First, Halliburton absolutely had a no-bid contract with the Army Corps for oil-related services in Iraq, and it has billed American taxpayers $1.4 billion so far. No other company was given the opportunity to bid. That contract occasioned a unanimous vote, led by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, that we would not allow that kind of contract to appear again. It is stated on the record by Senator Warner from Virginia. Halliburton has other contracts that were bid, but the massive oil services contract was not. Second, I appreciated the reading of the Vice President's comments on ``Meet the Press'' because even CRS agreed that deferred compensation and stock options held by the Vice President are, in fact, financial interests in Halliburton. Third, the other member of the President's Cabinet who came into service after serving as CEO, John Snow, took his deferred compensation in a lump sum and got rid of his stock options immediately. That is the right thing to do when you are at the top of the executive branch with the direct ability to affect billions of dollars in contracts. I urge my colleagues to attach some ethical guidelines to the Iraq reconstruction funds. I urge my colleagues to think it through and send a picture out to the American public that says: No, no one is on the inside enough that they can influence what happened and profit from a position that takes us through the reconstruction of Iraq after the war.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I also make a note of the fact that we, too, in New Jersey had two of our citizens perish in that terrible accident that took place yesterday, a Mr. John Healy from Middletown, NJ, and Frank Sullivan, from Red Bank, NJ. We send our sympathies to these families, but we are reminded at the same time that ferries play an important role in our region; that while the Staten Island ferry carries about 70,000 passengers a day, we have 60,000 people going from New Jersey to New York for their business requirements or their jobs on the New York waterway ferries. It continues to remind us how much of a need we have to make certain that the ferries operate safely, as well as efficiently. I ask, along with the distinguished Senator from New York who made his remarks a few minutes ago, that the Federal Government do whatever they can to understand what took place, and we understand and know the facts; that we take all the steps we can to make certain it should not happen again. One of the questions I asked in the committee in which I serve, the Commerce Committee, is take a look and see what the Coast Guard requires by way of licensing for captains of these boats. The ferry that had the accident yesterday can carry as many as 6,000 people. We have to make certain in that travel they are not careless.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to continue as in morning business.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 282, S. 1618, a 6-month extension of the FAA authorization; that the bill be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I reclaim the floor. I am disappointed that my Republican colleagues objected to this request because the future of our aviation system is an extremely important matter. On Tuesday just past, the authorization for the Federal Aviation Administration expired under its previous authorization, called Air-21, and we are struggling to get something done that can pass both Houses and serve the public, as they should be, in aviation. My UC request was to pass a 6-month extension of all aviation programs so we can continue this critical airport improvement program without any interruption. The continuing resolution that the majority brought to the floor last week intentionally omitted funding for certain important airport construction programs under the Airport Improvement Program. It is $3.4 billion for fiscal year 2004. The fiscal year is now 3 days old. I think it is irresponsible to allow this critical funding to lapse in the current economy. Job loss is at an all-time high, and the preliminary U.S. Census Bureau data shows that transportation construction is down 8.7 percent from this time last year. Withholding any part of the $3.4 billion in construction projects makes this problem even worse. Why did we need to consider a continuing resolution for aviation programs at all? The Senate passed a bill reauthorizing FAA programs on June 12 of this year. The House passed it before then. But we cannot get a bill passed because since that time, Republican leaders, at the behest of the President, have decided to wage an ideological battle over privatizing our air traffic control system rather than doing what the public wants and needs. I suggest the White House leave its ideological debates at the Heritage Foundation. Let us pass an FAA bill. The public wants safe skies--and I agree with them--not cutbacks in safety, not cutbacks in security. The biggest problem the White House created in the FAA conference report is overprivatizing our air traffic control system. Despite clear language prohibiting this in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, conference leaders ignored the clear mandates and bowed to the will of the ideologues in the White House. In all of my years of serving in this Chamber, I have never seen such disregard by conference leaders of a clear safety mandate by colleagues in both Chambers. A bipartisan majority in the Senate voted 56 to 41 for an amendment that I offered to prevent privatization of our air traffic control system. We voted to heed the lessons gleaned from the attacks of September 11, the lessons of our Space Shuttle Program, the Shuttle Columbia disaster, and the experiences of our foreign counterparts to avoid making the same mistakes that will end up costing our society more. September 11, 2001, was a most tragic day, perhaps the most tragic in our history, when America's invincibility was pierced. Almost 3,000 people were killed. In my State of New Jersey, nearly 700 people lost their lives in the terrorist attacks. As my colleagues know, Transportation Secretary Mineta ordered all aircraft in U.S. airspace grounded that day. It was a massive undertaking in just a few hours. Some 5,000 planes were guided to safe harbor, and our air traffic control system managed that unprecedented effort flawlessly. I show on this chart what happened on September 11, 2001. At 8:30 in the morning, the skies looked like this to those who were watching the scopes in the towers in the FAA: All of these little green stars, symbols, depict an airplane. The sky was filled. If we look at the northeast corner of our country, including New York and New Jersey, we almost cannot see the black portion of the map because the traffic was so heavy at 8:30 in the morning on that fateful day. At 9:45, after the attack had begun, we start to see a lessening. There is much more of the map visible. At 10:45, an hour later, look what happened: Those thousands of airplanes with passengers in every one of them, almost 5,000 airplanes in the sky at that time, and the FAA had to jump in and the controllers had to exercise their best judgment because they had to direct these airplanes to a safe landing place regardless of what their original destination was. We see a totally different picture. There are very few spots where we see airplanes in the sky. The terrorists crippled our aviation system, and it was the FAA, our heroes, who managed this terrible task that day because they knew what their responsibilities were and they jumped to it. We didn't know whether there were going to be other planes brought down that morning, but the FAA did its job. The Secretary ordered the planes out of the sky, and people were able to touch down in almost every case safely. The cases that did not were those that were suicidally brought down by maniacs. On September 11, those who operated our Federal air traffic system demonstrated great heroism and dedication. Air traffic controllers across the Nation performed heroically as they guided the thousands of aircraft out of the sky. Technicians who certify and maintain the high- tech equipment kept it operating reliably throughout the crisis, and flight service station controllers talked directly to the pilots to let them know what was happening and to tell them the best places they could look to for a quick, safe landing. In my home State, from the tower at Newark International Airport, the air traffic controllers could see the World Trade Center burning in front of their eyes. As they worked to return Americans to the ground safely, they knew that people were dying in front of them. In the aftermath of these tragic events, the American people demanded private baggage screeners becoming Federal employees. But it seems backward to me that the administration, who quickly got on the problem with the baggage handlers because the private side was not handling it well, put them into Government hands--I believe 28,000 was the total number--and they still want to contract out the air traffic control system to the lowest bidder. It is one thing to assure ourselves that the baggage that goes aboard these airplanes is free of explosives and damaging material, I agree with that, but it is worse to ignore the fact that airplanes full of people, perhaps my grandchildren, my children, other people's children and their families, are in those airplanes. Do we not want the best that we can get in safety and protection for our people? I think so. The risks of privatizing highly technical and complex operations speak for themselves. On February 1 of this year, our country suffered another tragedy. The Space Shuttle Columbia tragically exploded over the skies of Texas, and we lost some of the most courageous Americans on that day. Immediately after that accident, it was our air traffic control system that worked flawlessly to guide aircraft around the falling debris. Following this disaster, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, led by ADM Harold Gehman, published its findings. The board found that crosscutting and a drive for ever-greater efficiency at NASA--a pioneer in Government privatization--had eroded NASA's ability to assure mission safety. Now, if safety lapses can lead to the Columbia Shuttle accident and the failure to guarantee the safe return of our brave astronauts from mission STS-107, just how much are we willing to gamble on the safety of the 2 million Americans who travel in our skies every day? The lessons of privatization are hard learned and should not be ignored. Other countries have tried this already and they have paid the price. Australia, Canada, and Great Britain all have privatized systems that did not live up to the promised benefits of privatization. Just to clear the air, privatization means that these tasks will be handed over to companies whose mission it is to make a profit and who will try to do the job at the cheapest prices. A member of Parliament of the British House of Commons named Gwyneth Dunwoody said this: The privatization of the United Kingdom's air traffic control system was a grave mistake, and one that the United States can still avoid making. British air traffic controllers are among the best in the world, and they fought tooth and nail to keep ATC in the public sector. The public sector means in government. They insisted that the sale of the national air traffic services would lead to a collapse in morale, the unwise introduction of inadequate and unreliable equipment, and an increasing danger of catastrophic accidents. The Government did not listen and went ahead. They were wrong and the air traffic controllers were right. Costs have gone up and safety has gone down since Great Britain adopted privatization. Near misses have increased by 50 percent and delays have increased by 20 percent. Do we want to risk near misses in the skies over America? Do we want to take a chance because we can buy security on the cheap? I do not think so, and I am going to do whatever I can to prevent that from happening. The British Government has already had to bail out the privatized air traffic control company twice. When is this administration going to take off the ideological blinders from its eyes and learn the lessons taught to our British friends? President Bush himself should be quite familiar with the importance of our air traffic control workforce. Last month, on September 10, the day before the second-year anniversary of the most tragic attack on our soil, the President traveled to a fundraiser in Florida. As Air Force One, the President's airplane, approached for a landing, air traffic controllers noticed an unidentified car on the runway that Air Force One was attempting to land on. Disaster was avoided because of the quick reaction of those air traffic controllers in Jacksonville. Despite these lessons, the administration has pushed hard to privatize through the contract tower program which has been beneficial to many small airports across the country. Most of these 200 or so small airports would not otherwise have an air traffic control tower. There are many more. Some 4,000 small airports exist that could use this program, but the administration wants to use the program to privatize some of the busiest airports in the country. Examples of some of the busiest airport towers: They want to privatize the eighth busiest airport in the country, Van Nuys, CA, almost a half a million flight operations in 2002; the 18th most busy, the Denver Centennial Airport in Colorado, over 400,000 flight operations in 2002. In fact, those two airports are busier than Washington Dulles, which was 23rd with 392,000 flight operations in the year 2002. We look at Arizona, the 24th busiest airport, Phoenix/Deer Valley Municipal Airport, 390,000 flight operations in 2002. The list goes on. We are looking at the 50 busiest airports in the country. Some may notice that two airports were dropped out of the list, both in the State of Alaska. Now, why is Alaska exempted? The chairman of the Transportation Committee in the House of Representatives is Congressman Young. He is chairman of the committee because he has seniority. Well, he made sure that the two Alaskan airports that were listed for privatization were taken off the list. They are smart in Alaska. They know they have to fight to protect themselves. They are a long distance from the mainland, but they are smart enough to exempt themselves from this dangerous privatization scheme. I do not believe the safety of every other airport in our national aviation system is any less important than the safety at Alaska's airports. The White House interfered in our process and altered language in the FAA conference bill so they would be explicitly allowed to privatize some of the busiest air traffic control towers in the world. It is for this reason that I and many of my colleagues are not going to agree. We are not going to accept any FAA reauthorization conference report without language prohibiting privatization of our air traffic control system. I am going to fight until the will of the Senate is heeded. Others have pledged to do the same thing. I want to make clear to my colleagues that we passed legislation to prevent privatization of the air traffic control system. It was bipartisan. There were 11 Republicans and the remainder Democrats who passed that bill. The system is made up of many important parts, including the air traffic controllers themselves, those who run the towers, the technicians who have the responsibility to certify that the equipment is working, and the flight service station controllers who communicate directly with the pilots as they make their way to their destination. As FAA conference leaders did not abide by the will of both the Senate and the House to prohibit privatizing our air traffic control systems, my colleague, Senator Rockefeller, the ranking member of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Aviation, and I, introduced S. 1618. It is the Temporary Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2003. This legislation extends funding for reauthorization for all aviation programs, including the AIP program, for 6 months, and it also addresses the immediate safety and security needs while FAA conference leaders work with us to go back and fix the problems they created for themselves in the FAA conference report. But, unfortunately, my unanimous consent request to pass this extension was objected to by the majority. In the meantime, our Government operates under a continuing resolution that means we couldn't get our work done in time, that as fiscal year 2003 ended we were not prepared, though we knew a year in advance that the new fiscal year was going to start with October 1, 2003. I find it outrageous that the Republican leadership in Congress would effectively punish our economy with further job losses in order to afford the opportunity to the White House to wage their ideological battles. I am appalled they would intentionally zero out the Airport Improvement Program, again, the program that keeps updating our airports across the country. It is over $3 billion. I am appalled they would intentionally zero that out, zero out the opportunity to put Federal funds in there for airport construction programs, to muscle their plan through the Congress. It is not going to happen. Our economy cannot stand to lose any more jobs, and using a continuing resolution to cancel a program which will provide $3.4 billion in AIP funding is just irresponsible. I hope when we get this bill up my colleagues will work with us so we can do the right thing. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to mourn the loss of Althea Gibson, a sports legend in professional tennis and golf and a pioneer for African-Americans in all walks of life. Ms. Gibson passed away in East Orange this past Sunday after suffering from respiratory complications. Althea Gibson was born on a cotton farm in Silver, SC, in 1927 but spent most of her childhood in Harlem, NY. She eventually moved to New Jersey. At an early age, Althea Gibson showed great promise in sports. Her favorite was basketball but she excelled at table tennis, too. Musician Buddy Walker noticed her ability and gave her a tennis racket as a gift when she was 14. The harsh reality of racial segregation left her unable to play tennis on public courts while growing up. Fortunately, two prominent African-American doctors had a private tennis court and gave Ms. Gibson the opportunity to play tennis there. By the early 1940s, Ms. Gibson began her tennis career as an amateur, playing in tournaments organized by the American Tennis Association, ATA, a predominantly African-American organization. In 1947, she won the first of 10 straight ATA National Championships. Within a few years, Ms. Gibson was ready to compete outside of the ATA. Her talent and record should have been sufficient for her to compete against white players in tournaments sanctioned by the United States Lawn Tennis Association, USLTA. But it took the help of Alice Marble, a champion tennis player herself, who wrote an article in American Lawn Tennis magazine. Ms. Marble noted that Gibson wasn't invited to participate in the USLTA championships for any reason other than ``bigotry.'' Ms. Marble wrote, ``I think it's time we face a few facts . . . If tennis is a game of ladies and gentlemen, it's time we acted in a gentle manner, not like sanctimonious hypocrites.'' Ms. Gibson finally received an invitation to play in the 1950 National Tennis Championships and made her historic debut at Forest Hills against Louise Brough, who had just won her third consecutive Ladies' Singles Championship at Wimbledon. One year later, Ms. Gibson became the first African-American to compete at Wimbledon. Between 1956 and 1958, she dominated the world of tennis, becoming the first African-American to win major tournaments, including the French Open singles and doubles, the Italian Open singles, Wimbledon singles and doubles, and the U.S. Open singles. She was selected as the Associated Press Athlete of the Year in 1957 and again in 1958, the first African-American woman to be so honored. Despite her success and fame, she encountered pernicious segregation throughout her career. Oftentimes when she competed at tournaments, she couldn't stay at the hotels the white players used, or join them for meals at restaurants. But her strength of character, her poise, and her determination carried her though such indignities. And she was gracious, too, writing in her autobiography, ``I Always Wanted To Be Somebody'': ``If I made it, it's half because I was game enough to take a lot of punishment along the way and half because there were a lot of people who cared for me.'' In 1958, Ms. Gibson retired from amateur tennis and began a short- lived career in professional basketball for the Harlem Globtrotters. She also pursued a professional career in golf, becoming the first African-American woman on the Ladies Professional Golf Association, LPGA, tour in 1962. Over the years, Ms. Gibson received many awards and accolades. Some of her most esteemed awards were her induction into the National Lawn Tennis Association Hall of Fame, the International Tennis Hall of Fame, the Black Athletes Hall of Fame, and the International Sports Hall of Fame. Just a few weeks ago I was eulogizing another New Jerseyan who broke the color barrier, my friend Larry Doby, who played baseball for the Cleveland Indians. What Larry Doby and Jackie Robinson did for baseball, what Jesse Owens did for track and field, Althea Gibson did for tennis. She paved the way for Arthur Ashe, Zina Garrison, and Venus and Serena Williams. Althea Gibson could have rested on her laurels. But her work wasn't done when she retired from the world of professional sports. She was the New Jersey State Commissioner of Athletics for 10 years (the first African-American woman to hold the post) and served on both the New Jersey State Athletics Control Board and the Governor's Council on Physical Fitness. The Althea Gibson Foundation, created in her honor and based in Newark, NJ, lives on, helping urban youth develop their tennis and golf skills and improve their lot in life. It is clear that the life Ms. Gibson led has served as an inspiration for African-Americans and all people. While I am saddened by her death, I am glad that she graced us with her presence. Ms. Gibson taught each of us that ``without struggle there can be no progress.'' She struggled, she succeeded, and we are all better for it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate Newark Liberty International Airport's 75th Anniversary. On October 1, 1928, the New York metropolitan region's first major airport was built by the great city of Newark on 68 acres of marshland just 16 miles from midtown Manhattan. Soon those 68 acres became the world's busiest commercial airport. The U.S. Army Air Corps operated the Airport during WWII, and in 1948, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey assumed control of it. The Port Authority has operated this airport ever since. Today, some 30 million passengers use the airport annually. And international airlines offer direct service to many destinations around the world from Newark Liberty. It is also one of only two truly intermodal air-rail connections in the country. Passengers can take a train from any city on the Northeast corridor and transfer at the airport for a flight. In some cases, they can even book the entire air/ rail trip all at once. This should serve as a shinning example of how our national transportation system can work. Over 24,000 people are employed at the Newark Liberty International Airport. The airport contributes $11.3 billion in economic activity to the New York/New Jersey metropolitan region, including $3.3 billion in wages for some 110,000 jobs resulting from airport activity. In addition, the original 68 acres of marshland has grown to more than 2,000 acres. Newark Liberty International Airport's 75th birthday deserves more than just a brief nod. As a former Port Authority Commissioner, I am pleased to point out that the airport has been a leader in aviation technology. Newark, for instance, was the site of our great Nation's first air traffic control tower. The very same airport had the first paved runway, the first runway with lighting, which permitted nighttime operations, and the Nation's first airport weather station. So, today I congratulate the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Chairman Anthony Coscia, Executive Director Joseph Seymour, Mayor of Newark Sharpe James, Aviation Director Bill DeCota, Airport General Manager Susan Baer, her staff, and all others who have made Newark Liberty International Airport the world class facility it is today, and I look forward to celebrating 75 more years of safe, efficient operations.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a great American and a true military heroine who has honorably served our country for over 22 years in the U.S. Navy Nurse Corps: Commander Elizabeth McDonald Mooring. She was born in Rahway, NJ, and grew up in Bridgewater, NJ. CDR Mooring began her military career as a staff nurse at National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD. She quickly rose through the ranks and served at naval bases throughout the world, including Naval Hospital Newport, RI; Naval Hospital Okinawa, Japan; Branch Medical Clinic, Sewells Point, Norfolk, VA; and varied assignments at the Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, VA. Following in her father's footsteps, Seaman Eugene Bernard McDonald, CDR Mooring and her sister, Patricia, joined the Navy Nurse Corps, while her brother Sean joined the Seabees in the Naval Reserve. CDR Mooring adeptly served as the medical officer recruiter at the Commander Naval Reserve Force, Philadelphia, PA. For 2 years she consistently achieved her medical recruiting goal for the States of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. For 2 years CDR Mooring served in the Naval Reserve and drilled at Naval Air Station, Willow Grove, NJ. She was one of the first women to serve aboard the USS John F. Kennedy, CV-67, and provided medical support during the rededication of the Statue of Liberty. Because of her clinical excellence and professionalism she was assigned to the presidential support team for President Ronald Reagan. It is only fitting that for her final assignment, she came home to New Jersey. CDR Mooring served as the Officer in Charge of the Branch Medical Clinic at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst, NJ, and Assistant Officer in Charge at the Branch Medical Clinic, Naval Weapons Station Earle, Colts Neck, NJ. She was integral to the critical medical support mission of the Naval Weapons Station during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, 83 percent of all weapons used, were loaded from the Naval Weapons Station Earle, NJ. In each assignment, CDR Mooring excelled and met every challenge, and was rewarded with greater responsibilities and opportunities. She is an experienced leader, administrator, clinician, educator, and mentor. Throughout her career she has been instrumental in providing navy medicine with the fine cadre of navy nurses, physicians, Medical Service Corps officers and hospital corpsmen serving today. Above all, she is a stellar officer and leader who always put the welfare of her staff and patients first. CDR Mooring always went the extra mile to serve her country and her fellow man. Her performance reflects greatly on herself, the U.S. Navy, the Department of Defense, and the United States of America. I extend my deepest appreciation to Commander Elizabeth McDonald Mooring, on behalf of the United States, for her over 22 years of dedicated military service. Congratulations CDR Mooring and let me be one of the first to welcome you home to the State of New Jersey.