Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I was disappointed to learn that early this week a Federal district judge issued a ruling to delay the October 1 implementation of the national Do Not Call Registry. Sign-up for the national Do Not Call list began June 27. To date, the registry has grown to 50 million Americans who submitted their telephone numbers and unequivocally said they do not want to receive business solicitation calls. There has been near unanimity that the Oklahoma Federal judge simply got it wrong when he found that Congress did not give the Federal Trade Commission the requisite statutory authority to create and implement a nationwide Do Not Call Registry. To clarify the matter once and for all, the pending bill explicitly authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to compile and implement a Do Not Call Registry, pursuant to the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act. The bill also ratifies the relevant provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rules promulgated by the Commission early this year. A nationwide Do Not Call Registry is particularly important to the citizens of New Jersey. Although 27 States already have local do not call lists, some States, such as my home State of New Jersey, have not yet enacted do not call legislation. A New Jersey State law is expected to go into effect next spring, but the residents of New Jersey and the other 23 States deserve the protection that the FTC rule provides. The FTC's rules are reasonable. They require telemarketers to check the Do Not Call list every 3 months to see who does not want to be called. Those who call listed people face fines up to $11,000 for a violation. Consumers would be allowed to file complaints to an automated phone or online system. There are about 166 million residential phone numbers in the United States and an additional 150 million cell-phone numbers. The FTC expects 60 percent of the Nation's households to sign onto the registry. I urge my colleagues to support this bill which ratifies the FTC's Do Not Call Registry, permitting implementation of the registry on October 1.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a disturbing shift in our country's historic support for programs that protect our wildlife refuges, forests and other open spaces. Particularly, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, LWCF. The Bush administration's 2004 funding request represents a significant decrease in support for land acquisition. Yet this direction is the opposite of what then Governor Bush promised during his 2000 campaign. Governor Bush issued a campaign paper on September 13, 2000, that promised to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million. The fund has been enormously effective over the years and is funded, not by taxpayers but from a portion of fees from oil and gas receipts which Congress committed in 1965. Yet despite the President's pledge, 1 year later the Administration diverted $456 million of that fund to other purposes. According to the Congressional Research Service, for Fiscal Year 2004, the administration has proposed to decrease Federal land acquisition funding to $128 million below the FY2003 funding level, which will more than offset proposed increases in State grants. I want to commend by colleagues on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee who have worked very hard under difficult budgetary conditions to develop the best bill they could. But the President is playing a funding ``shell game.'' While he claims to support conservation funding, he once again proposes to use $246 million of the LWCF to pay for non-conservation programs. Only by counting as many as 15 other programs in its annual budget request programs NOT authorized for LWCF funding under the original 1965 law does the President's budget make it appear that the LWCF is well-funded. Turning his back on campaign promises aside, the President's budget would actually cut the fund's core Federal land acquisition programs by 40 percent from FY03 levels, and fully 60 percent below the authorized level of $900 million for both the Federal and stateside portions! This direction reverses years of progress in increasing the funding we need to protect our dwindling natural resources. And unfortunately, the funding levels approved by the House are even more abysmal. Today, there is a $10 billion backlog in needed Federal acquisitions, and billions of dollars in unmet needs at the State and local levels. This is certainly contrary to the spirit of another Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, who during his time in the White House had the vision to protect 230 million acres of land. Today, those lands are enjoyed by hikers, vacationing families, hunters, and many others. Between 1999 and 2000, the Clinton administration increased funding for the LWCF by 35 percent. President Clinton understood how vital these programs are to preserving our American heritage. This year the U.S. Forest Service reported that even with all of our land conservation programs, in one decade between 1990 and 2000--our Nation's urban and suburban areas grew in size by an astonishing 25 percent! This growth has been at the cost of lost forest and farmland all across the Nation and it poses a significant threat to the integrity of these valuable lands. Forest lands that are intact supply timber products, wildlife habitat, soil and watershed protection, and recreation. But when these areas fragment and disappear, so do the benefits they provide. Many local governments work hard to guide development away from the most sensitive areas through zoning and other measures. But in New Jersey, and many other States, these measures are simply not enough to fully protect our forests and open spaces. New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the Nation and we understand that over-development endangers our water supplies and places severe pressure on all our environmental amenities. Forest Legacy and the Land to Parks Program are examples of the Federal Government at its best--working in partnership with States and local governments to protect environmentally sensitive lands. These programs are entirely voluntary. No landowner is required or pressured to participate. Forest Legacy encourages the protection of privately owned forest lands and helps States develop and carry out their own forest conservation plans. Aldo Leopold said, ``Our remnants of wilderness will yield bigger values to the Nation's character and health than they will to its pocketbook, and to destroy them will be to admit that the latter are the only values that interest us.'' I don't believe that is true for Americans, and I don't believe that is true for my colleagues in this body. I urge my colleagues in the Senate and especially those who will represent this body in the conference committee to support the highest levels possible for our land acquisition programs.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the Senate is poised to pass H. Con. Res. 235, a measure that pays tribute to a legendary American pioneer and a long-time friend of mine, Larry Doby, who died on June 18. I appreciate the willingness of the majority and minority leaders to expedite Senate consideration of this measure, and I applaud the efforts of Congressman Bill Pascrell of my home State of New Jersey, who introduced it in the House of Representatives. I first met Larry when we were thirteen or fourteen. We went to school together at Eastside High in my hometown, Paterson, NJ. The first time I saw him, he was running track, doing the broad jump. And he was amazing. We stayed in touch over the many years that have passed since then. Larry Doby was an exceptional athlete--one of our very best--and an exciting player to watch on the field. But he was much more than that; he was a great man and he was also a good man. He had so much dignity. Though Larry Doby has died, the path he blazed for African-Americans remains. Few people realize that Larry began his groundbreaking athletic career in 1943--at the age of 18--as the first African-American to play in the American Basketball League for the Paterson Panthers. He then moved on to baseball, playing for the Newark Eagles of the Negro National League. After returning from his service to the Navy for 2 years, Larry hit .414 with 14 home runs in his final season in Newark. It was on July 5, 1947, just 11 weeks after Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in major league baseball, that Larry Doby signed a contract with the Cleveland Indians of the American league. He was the first African-American player in the American League. Larry had no intention or desire to become part of history. When Indians owner Bill Veeck predicted to Larry that he would ``be part of history,'' Larry replied, ``I had no notions about that. I just wanted to play baseball.'' And play baseball he did, and quite well. Larry was an All-Star seven times in his 13-year career. In the 1948 World Series between Cleveland and the Boston Braves, his home run in Game 4 broke a 1-1 tie; Cleveland won 2-1 and went on to win the Series in six games. He hit at least 20 home runs in eight straight seasons and was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1998. Larry became the second African-American manager of a major league team when he took over as skipper of the Chicago White Sox in 1978. He was also the director of community relations for the New Jersey Nets in the late 1970s, encouraging the development of youth programs in urban New Jersey. Larry was a superb athlete, but things didn't come easy for him. When he joined the Indians, he was harassed by opposing players and fans. He was forced to eat in separate restaurants, to sleep in separate hotels. Some of his own teammates wouldn't even shake his hand. But he pressed on, and we're a better country for it. At the memorial service for Larry, Newark Star-Ledger sports columnist Jerry Izenberg recalled the day that Larry entered the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY. The two of them paused in front of a large photo snapped immediately after Game 4 of the 1948 World Series--the game Larry won with his home run. The photo showed Larry and winning pitcher Steve Gromek hugging each other. Larry reminisced that the photo appeared on the front pages of a lot of newspapers the next day and said to Jerry, ``That was the first time you could see a black and white person embrace on the first page of papers.'' ``At the time,'' Jerry said, ``America needed that picture. And Larry was so proud to have played a part in giving America what it needed.'' Larry said it best in a speech he gave after his career had ended. He said, ``We can see that baseball helped make this a better country. We hope baseball has given (children) some idea of what it is to live together and how you can get along, whether you are black or white.'' By this resolution Congress is showing its appreciation on behalf of all Americans to Larry Doby for his role in breaking down racial barriers in baseball and in America. I'll say here what I said at his memorial service: ``When we stand every day for the things we believe in, we'll be standing for Larry Doby.'' His family will miss him. I will miss him. America will miss him.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the bill before us, S. 3. I voted against this bill and I do not intend to support the House position. When the Senate passed this bill, we added an important amendment offered by our colleague Senator Harkin. The amendment reaffirmed support for the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. The only difference between S. 3 as the Senate passed it and then as the House passed it is Senator Harkin's amendment. The House stripped Senator Harkin's amendment from the bill. Since the Harkin amendment was a sense of the Senate and does not have the force of law, I must ask, why did the House remove this language? It does nothing to fix the harmful policy the underlying bill would establish. The Republican leadership and their anti-choice friends would like you to believe that removing the Harkin language is just a procedural motion. Don't be fooled. Stripping S. 3 of the Harkin amendment reaffirming Roe v. Wade shows us what the President and his anti-choice allies are really after. They want to overturn Roe v. Wade; S. 3 puts them on that path. A woman's right to choose is in greater danger now than it has been at any other time since the Supreme Court issued Roe v. Wade 30 years ago. The House's action neatly comports with an overtly anti-choice administration striving to undermine reproductive freedom. I thank Senator Boxer for offering the motion to disagree to the House action so that, at a minimum, we have an opportunity to talk about what is really going on. The underlying bill makes a pretense of protecting women but really, what we have here is a bill that takes away rights while doing nothing to help anyone. There is no such medical term as ``partial-birth'' abortion, and that is intentional. The anti-choice zealots who drafted that term want the bill to be ambiguous so it will have a chilling effect on physicians. If S. 3 is ultimately passed and President Bush signs it into law--he will become the first U.S. President to criminalize safe medical procedures. Nobody is fooled by the real objective of S. 3 to chip away at a woman's right to choose, to criminalize legal and safe abortion procedures. This bill isn't even constitutional. There is no exception for the health of the mother. When we debated this bill back in March those of us who are pro-choice said we will accept this bill if you make an exception for the life and health of the mother. Yet sponsors have repeatedly resisted pro-choice lawmakers' attempts to include a health exception such as the Feinstein substitute, which was defeated. Five members of the current Supreme Court have invoked Roe to invalidate a State ban on so-called partial-birth abortions. During last night's debate, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania characterized the Harkin amendment--a reaffirmation of current law--as extreme. That is absurd. Not being will to protect a woman's health is extreme. It is extreme and it is wrong. Taking away the freedom of women to make choices about their own reproductive health--that sounds like one of the reasons why we kicked the Taliban out of Afghanistan. I urge my colleagues to defeat this ill-disguised attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a disturbing development that has just come to light. This development questions Vice President Cheney's continuing financial ties to Halliburton, the oil services company he once headed. This past Sunday, the Vice President made the following statement to Tim Russert on ``Meet the Press.'' I quote from that statement. The Vice President said: Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's Vice President, I've severed all of my ties with the company, gotten rid of all of my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years. After he made that statement, my curiosity led me to take a look at the Vice President's financial disclosure records. What I saw in those reports was completely at odds with what he said on television Sunday morning. Vice President Cheney's official financial disclosure filings with the Office of Government Ethics reveals that not only does the Vice President continue to have financial ties to Halliburton but also that Halliburton is continuing to provide personal financial benefits to the Vice President. In the years 2001 and 2002, the Vice President received large ``deferred salary'' payments from Halliburton. In 2001, Halliburton paid Vice President Cheney $205,298 in salary, and in 2002 Halliburton paid Vice President Cheney $162,392 in salary. He is scheduled to receive similar payments this year, 2003, and in 2004 and 2005. That is a pretty strong ``financial tie,'' in my view. If you ask every-day Americans if someone has a financial interest in a company that pays them annual compensation, I am certain the answer would be universally ``yes.'' Deferred salary is not a retirement benefit or a payment from a third-party escrow account but, rather, an ongoing corporate obligation that is paid from company funds. If a company were to go under, the beneficiary could lose the deferred salary. In an attempt to mitigate the Vice President's continuing financial interest in Halliburton, his financial statement disclosure form says he ``acquired'' an insurance policy ``to ensure that he will receive the equivalence of his remaining deferred compensation account with Halliburton.'' The terms of this insurance policy, its costs, and who paid for it are still unclear. In addition, Vice President Cheney continues to hold 433,333 unexercised Halliburton stock options. At the end of 2002, Vice President Cheney's financial disclosure form stated he continued to hold these options, although the exercise prices are above the company's current stock market price. Even though these exercise prices are above current values, these options could in the future bring a substantial windfall, if Halliburton's earnings in stock value continue to grow as it benefits from large government contracts. This morning, I looked at a chart that showed Halliburton's stock value and its growth from October of last year until the current time. It has grown by about 75 percent while the rest of the industry has remained flat over the years. These options could bring, as I said, a substantial windfall if earnings in stock values continue to grow--I repeat--because of the value I find people have placed on Halliburton stock resulting in some pretty good contracts they have gotten in dealing with issues in Iraq. The Vice President has signed an agreement, he said, to donate any profits from these stock options to charity, and has pledged not to take any tax deduction for the donation. Alternatively, he doesn't have to pay taxes on the value growth he would have otherwise paid. But should Halliburton stock prices increase over the next few years, the Vice President could exercise the stock options for substantial profits benefiting not only his designated charity but also providing Halliburton with a substantial tax deduction. The issue is simple. Vice President Cheney claims he has no financial ties to Halliburton, but his own financial disclosure report says otherwise. The American people deserve to know about this relationship with Halliburton. He may argue he has structured deals to minimize his financial windfall from his Halliburton arrangements, but he clearly still has ``financial ties'' to the company. The fact that Halliburton received an enormous contract without a competitive bid or public disclosure--it was the subject of debate which we had on this floor--it was then agreed that all contracts dealing with Iraq and its reconstruction would be part of the public record. Back in May, I wrote to the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee requesting hearings on the no-bid contracts awarded to Halliburton in Iraq. I believe these developments now make it even more important for the Senate to hold hearings. I renew my plea to the Governmental Affairs Committee to hold hearings on the administration's initial contracts with Halliburton. Just this week, we learned that Halliburton's no-bid contract with the Army Corps has increased from $700 million to nearly $1 billion. It is a lot of money. The American people deserve answers to these serious questions concerning government ethics and accountability. I also believe it is in the interest of the administration to cooperate so the air can be cleared and the record set straight so we know once and for all whether the Vice President admits publicly that he has a financial tie with Halliburton or continues to deny it, despite the written record filed with the Senate Ethics Committee.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 17, the joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to broadcast media ownership. I reviewed the press release the FCC issued on June 2 to announce its changes to the ownership rules. The press release was entitled, ``FCC Sets Limits on Media Concentration.'' The problem with that press release was that the FCC did not set limits; it virtually abolished them. A majority of the FCC commissioners capitulated to an industry they no longer hold at arms' length. I say capitulated because I read that FCC commissioners and other agency officials have taken more than 2,500 trips valued at $2.8 million since 1995, paid for by the industry the FCC is supposed to regulate. How ``arm's length'' is that? As an aside, I am heartened that the FCC reauthorization bill the Commerce Committee report puts an end to industry-sponsored travel for FCC Commissioners and staff. With respect to the ownership rules, it was regrettable that FCC Chairman Michael Powell saw fit to hold one and only one public hearing on the subject. And it was regrettable that Chairman Powell appeared to be willing to talk with industry officials and the press about the proposed rule changes, but not with the Commerce Committee, until the rule was issued. It was regrettable that the FCC officials went to great lengths to point out that the agency received nearly one million comments and constituent post cards on the rule changes, and then chose to disregard the vast majority of them. It is regrettable that the so-called ``diversity index'' cited as justification for further deregulation cannot be used in a petition to determine if companies are violating ownership limits. It is particularly regrettable that three of the five Commissioners apparently feel that news is just another commodity, like shoes or cars. News is not just another commodity, except to the media barons who stand to benefit most from the FCC rule changes. Here is what Lowry Mays, the founder and CEO of Clear Channel, had to say in Fortune magazine recently: We're not in the business of providing news and information . . . We're simply in the business of selling our customers products. Remember, this is the man whose company owns over 1,200 radio stations with some 110 million listeners spread across all 50 States and the District of Columbia. So much for the public interest. Over the years, Congress established media ownership rules to ensure that the public would have access to a wide range of news, information, programming, and political perspectives. Over the years, the courts have repeatedly recognized the public interest goals of diversity, competition, and localism. Consolidating media ownership means that a few large corporations can exercise considerable control over the news. Is it really in the public interest to make it easier for a few companies to dominate the airwaves and determine what news the American people will, or will not hear? As the distinguished jurist Learned Hand remarked in 1942, ``The hand that rules the press, the radio, the screen, and the far-spread magazine rules the country.'' I am the only member of the Commerce Committee from the New York metropolitan area. In my back yard, News Corp. already owns two VHF broadcast stations, a daily newspaper, a broadcast network, a movie studio, a satellite service, and four cable networks. Under the new rules the FCC issued, News Corp. will be able to add another TV station and own a total of eight radio stations. And do not forget: News Corp. is gobbling up DirecTV. That is not diversity. That is not ``fair and balanced.'' At a Commerce Committee hearing on media ownership, Mel Karmazin of Viacom argued that ``Americans are bombarded with media choices via technology never dreamed of even a decade ago, much less 60 years ago.'' That is true, but misleading. Who owns these media? Viacom owns CBS and UPN; 35 television stations that reach 40 percent of the national viewing audience; Paramount Studios; and cable channels such as VH1, MTV, BET, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, and Showtime. Viacom, through Infinity Broadcasting, also owns 185 radio stations and has substantial ownership interests in several Internet properties, including CBS.com and CBSMarketwatch.com. Viacom even owns Blockbuster, so it has a significant stake in video and DVD rentals. It should be self-evident that consolidating media ownership would make it possible for a few large corporations to exercise considerable control over the news. Media giants also exert enormous control over advertisers. I received a letter last month from Neil Faber, president of NexGen Media, a company that specializes in national and spot broadcasting, print, and outdoor media buys. He wrote: For decades I have been deeply concerned with this direction of increasing concentration of ownership. This concentration limits consumer choice and results in higher advertising rates that, in all probability, have been passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for products or services and tends to constrain diversity of viewpoints. New York Times columnist William Safire summed up the problem and what is at stake in a May 22 column. He wrote: The overwhelming amount of news and entertainment comes via broadcast and print. Putting those outlets in fewer and bigger hands profits the few at the cost of the many. . . The concentration of power--political, corporate, media, cultural--should be anathema to conservatives. The diffusion of power through local control, thereby encouraging individual participation, is the essence of federalism and the greatest expression of democracy. In the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Congress directed the FCC to conduct a biennial review of the rule changes the Act contained. Given the complexity of the issue, a biennial review was overly ambitious. Be that as it may, Chairman Powell said during the biennial review that led up to the rule changes proposed in June, ``Getting it right is more important than just getting it done.'' He said that, but then he did the opposite. The FCC got it done, but did not get it right. Getting it right means serving the public interest, not increasing ownership concentration and boosting profitability for a few companies' share-holders. I hope the Senate will pass this joint resolution to send a strong, unequivocal message to the FCC that it got it wrong on June 2. I ask Unanimous Consent that the letter I received from Neil Faber and the May 22 op-ed by William Safire that appeared in the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to support Senator Feinstein's amendment to remove funding for the development of new nuclear weapons. The administration is seeking $15 million to fund more research on the robust nuclear earth penetrator a nuclear bunker buster and $6 million for research on new nuclear weapons. I must register my shock that the administration has requested this funding, reversing almost 60 years of U.S. nuclear policy. Funding such a request is the first step on a ``slippery slope'' that could irreversibly lead us to testing and maybe even deploying these new nuclear weapons. It is imperative that we nip this mischief in the bud by supporting Senator Feinstein's amendment. Let me remind my colleagues that the administration has consistently identified one distinct threat to U.S. security and reiterated this threat innumerable times in the past year: The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their transfer to terrorists. In the President's speech to the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002, in his address to Congress in October, 2002, in his State of the Union speech this past January, he repeatedly expressed his concern about the proliferation of biological, chemical, and especially nuclear weapons. Many Members of Congress voted to send our young men and women to Iraq to eliminate the threat of Saddam Hussein's supposed nuclear arsenal. We were told that while Saddam had not yet developed nuclear weapons, he was actively intent on doing so and the consequences would be horrific. Meanwhile, during this same year, the administration is looking to create new nuclear weapons. Our diplomats have just returned from six-way talks in Beijing aimed at resolving the North Korean nuclear crisis instigated last fall when Kim Jong IL announced his defiance of the 1994 Agreed Framework. How can our negotiators in good faith reassure the North Koreans and the other participants at these talks of peaceful United States intentions in the region, while at home, in our labs, nuclear scientists are experimenting with new nuclear weapons that will eventually have a yield 70 times that of the bomb dropped at Hiroshima? It is abundantly clear that there is a copycat effect of U.S. military planning. According to former Undersecretary of Energy, Rose Gottemoeller: Other countries watch us like a hawk. They are very, very attentive to what we do in the nuclear arena. I think people abroad will interpret this as an enthusiastic effort by the Bush administration to re-nuclearize. And I think definitely this nuclear funding is going to be an impetus to the development of nuclear weapons around the world. I clearly remember the devastation that the atom bombs wrought not only on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but on all society. As Adlai Stevenson put it, ``Man wrested from nature the power to make the world a desert.'' Since those two unforgettable days in 1945, administration after administration, Republicans and Democrats, have made it clear that nuclear weapons have held a special status within the U.S. arsenal. U.S. policymakers have committed to the international nuclear arms control regime. The research funding in this bill for the nuclear earth penetrator departs from 60 years of nuclear policy. If these weapons are researched, they will be inevitably be tested, which will undermine a 10-year U.S. commitment to a nuclear testing moratorium. I am deeply concerned about the standing of the United States in the international community. As a result of the unilateral approach the Bush administration has taken in Iraq, we have lost friends, trust, respect and admiration in the global community. This new nuclear policy departure will only further erode U.S. leadership and esteem in the world. I urge my colleagues to support this vital amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to formally acknowledge the great accomplishments and recent retirement from the United States Naval Reserve of one of my constituents, Rear Admiral Howard Kirk Unruh, Jr. Henry Clay said: ``Of all the properties that belong to honorable men, not one is so highly prized as that of character.'' RADM Unruh is, indeed, a man of character and he has shown outstanding character throughout his 33 years of service to the Navy. Admiral Unruh's naval career began in the Garden State, where he attended Princeton University on a ROTC scholarship. In 1970, upon his graduation from Princeton, Ensign Unruh was commissioned as an officer in the United States Navy. He reported for duty in Hawaii where he served on the USS Elkhorn AOG-7. As damage control assistant and engineering officer, he accepted a great deal of responsibility for a young man and gained valuable leadership experience. He learned what it meant to serve and what it meant to lead, and he made the Navy an important part of his life. His work did not go unnoticed, and, after completing a tour of the Western Pacific aboard the Elkhorn, Unruh was selected to participate in Admiral Elmo Zumwalt's Human Resource Management Program in Pearl Harbor. In 1975, Lieutenant Unruh left active duty, and went on to receive a Masters degree in Education from Harvard University. But the Navy was in his blood. So, while studying in Massachusetts, he accepted a commission in the Naval Reserves and began the second phase of his service. For the next 28 years, Admiral Unruh served wherever and whenever he was needed. He taught naval management and leadership courses; he mentored officers and sea cadets; he spearheaded successful reorganization efforts in reserve centers; and he participated in joint military training exercises in the U.S. and abroad. In short, as he moved up the ranks, he gave the Navy his wholehearted commitment on land and sea. In 1995, he took an assignment as the Department of the Navy's duty captain at the Pentagon's Navy Command Center. There, he served under Secretary of the Navy and Chief Naval Operations Admiral Mike Borda and was in charge of monitoring military activity around the world. On his first day on duty, human emigres flying civilian aircraft over Cuba were shot down by the Cuban military, which believed that the aircraft were intruding in Cuban air space. Captain Unruh acted quickly and admirably, putting together data to brief the President on the United States on what was happening. Now Kirk Unruh retires as an Admiral and he has well earned that rank. Over the years, his contributions to the Navy have been duly recognized. He is authorized to wear the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal which he was awarded twice, the Navy Commendation Medal which he was awarded four times, the National Defense Medal with bronze star, and various other Unit and Service ribbons. These decorations attest to the character of the man, the service he has rendered, and the honor with which he has provided that service. Today I ask that my colleagues join with me in thanking Admiral Unruh for his years of service, for his commitment to this nation and to the United States Navy, and for a job well done. As noted in his Legion of Merit Citation: ``By his outstanding leadership, commendable innovation, and inspiring dedication to duty, RADM Unruh reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.'' Lastly, behind the career of most great Naval officers is a loving family that is asked to endure the hardships of constant travel and periodic separation. Admiral Unruh's family is no exception. His wife Diane has made many sacrifices to support her husband. And, as the wife of an Admiral--whose children, Meredith, Allison, and Chip were all born on naval bases--she has earned her stripes and unofficially outranks him. We all know that without her sacrifice his service to our Nation would not have been possible. Today, I join with Diane, her children, and all Americans in saluting Admiral Unruh for an outstanding career and a job well done.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call attention to the fact that I have been on the floor waiting. I will follow the instructions of the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues from Virginia for their comments and for the recall of their memories regarding that terrible day. Today we commemorate the second anniversary of the terrorist attacks we now refer to as 9/11. It is a day heavy with sadness for me personally. Before I became a Senator, I was a commissioner on the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and had offices on the 67th floor in the Trade Tower. The Port Authority lost 84 of its people on 9/11, including 37 brave police officers who gave their lives as they tried to save the lives of others. Fifty-one of those Port Authority employees lived in the State of New Jersey. I knew many Port Authority employees and others who died on this date 2 years ago. And I know many more families who lost a loved one. One of my oldest daughter's dearest friends perished that day. They had worked together on Wall Street before she went to Cantor Fitzgerald. That firm lost nearly 700 people out of the 1,000 who worked for it on the morning of 9/11. The husband of my daughter's friend searched hospitals for 3 weeks looking for a sign that perhaps his wife had escaped death in that terrible calamity. Because of its proximity to New York, my home State of New Jersey suffered catastrophically. Of the 3,025 innocent people who lost their lives on 9/11, nearly a quarter of them--700 in all--came from my home State. Thirty-seven of them came from a single town, Middletown, NJ. Yesterday, a 2-acre memorial garden next to the train station was dedicated in a private ceremony for the victims' families. The author Gail Sheehy just published a book entitled ``Middletown, America: One Town's Passage from Trauma to Hope.'' For the past 2 years, she has followed the lives of survivors and widows, of parents who lost children and children who lost parents. She has spoken with the town's religious leaders, with mental health professionals, and others in the community. I have not had a chance yet to read her book, but it is described as a wonderful testament to individual acts of heroism and kindness and to the courage and hope and resilience of people who have suffered a terrible loss and grieve but who, somehow, are soldiering on. As we remember 9/11, we remember people such as Fire Department Chaplain Mychal Judge, who was killed by falling debris in the lobby of Tower 1. Father Judge was the first official casualty at the World Trade Center and one of 343 New York City Fire Department casualties. We remember people such as a fellow named Abe Zelmanowitz, a computer programmer who might have been able to escape from the 27th floor of the north tower, where he worked for Blue Cross/Blue Shield, but he refused to abandon his friend, Ed Beyea, a quadriplegic confined to a wheelchair, who could not make it down the stairs. Abe stood by his side until the end came. We remember people such as Todd Beamer, Tom Burnett, and Jeremy Glick, and the other passengers and crew of United Flight 93, who crashed their airplane in a field near Shanksville, PA, rather than allow the hijackers to crash it in Washington--perhaps into this very building where we now stand. So 9/11 revealed the very best in people. But, of course, we have to remember what caused it also. And that reveals the very worst in people--19 of whom had the insane belief that their suicidal/homicide actions would send them straight to paradise. Mr. President, 9/11 did more than that; 9/11 shocked us to our very core. We suffered terrorist attacks before 9/11, including one on the World Trade Center itself. But not since Pearl Harbor has the collective psyche of our country been so shocked out of its complacency. The results of that shock are plainly visible. Terrorism has scarred America--permanently. People are mourning their loved ones, and they will do that for the rest of their lives. We endure long lines at the airports. Washington looks like a fortress. Our civil liberties have taken a beating reminiscent of the Palmer Raids after World War I, Japanese-American internment during World War II, and McCarthyism during the Cold War. And tens of thousands of our young men and women are in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. President, 9/11 shocked us into learning that our ``invincibility'' had been pierced. We crave the sense of security we enjoyed before 9/11, but deep down we know we are not likely to get it back soon. We now know to take our security more seriously. There are terrorists who glory in the maiming and killing of innocent men, women, and children. They hate everything about us--our families, our country, our way of life--so much that they would deprive their own families of their presence as a beloved son, brother, or father, so they can act on their murderous desire. 9/11 shattered illusions we had about our safety. But being stripped of our illusions, we have the opportunity now to forge ahead truly knowing that the war against terrorism will be long and tough. We have the opportunity now to forge ahead truly knowing that the struggle here at home to preserve our civil liberties, the very things we are defending, will be a challenge. For the better part of the last century, we fought against fascism and totalitarianism. I had the privilege of serving in Europe during World War II. I was so young that I didn't understand the big picture. But I understood very clearly my obligation and my role. When the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union was dissolved, many Americans thought the conflict was over; they thought we had won. That was an illusion. The conflict is not over. It has simply shifted to a new front. We now know we are fighting a new enemy--an utterly ruthless enemy-- that wants to make our home front the front lines, an enemy that deliberately targets noncombatants, and an enemy that has absolutely no sense of propriety or decency while it wages war against innocent people. It is important to fight this enemy without any illusions if we want to win. That means no premature declaration of ``mission accomplished.'' That means a full accounting of what the cost of the war is going to be. That means an honest acknowledgment of the limits of our power and the humility to enlist our allies in our cause. What we experienced on 9/11 is a permanent wound on our society. People struggling to face the future will never stop mourning the past. Our daily lives have been forever altered. But we are survivors. It takes courage to survive. Armed with that courage, we endure the pain and look beyond the smoke, rubble, and grief to rebuild--rebuild something that is stronger than what went before. We will defend ourselves, our country, and our liberties--the things that terrorists despise. Despite the difficulties, despite the casualties, despite the setbacks that we will suffer, this war against terrorism must be fought and is worth the fight. Even though he wrote in an earlier age, the poet Archibald MacLeish summed up what is at stake when he said: There are those who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind, is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American dream. America is the last, best hope for mankind. That is the dream. It is up to all of us to make sure it is not an illusion. This is the best way to honor the memory of those who perished 2 years ago and assuage the grief we feel when we reflect on that terrible day. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Harkin amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. I proudly support this amendment because it would prevent the administration from implementing any regulation that would take away the overtime pay rights of American workers. The Bush administration's hostility to this Nation's hard-working men and women is shocking and frankly disappointing. We all know this administration's performance on job growth: since President Bush assumed office, he has pushed for three separate tax cuts for the wealthy, yet he has not created a single net job. Rather, the policies of President Bush have produced a loss of 3.1 million private sector jobs. The number of unemployed Americans has risen from 6 million to over 9 million. Just last month, the Nation's payroll lost 93,000 jobs. Instead of working to put Americans back to work, the administration has decided to ``modernize'' workplace regulations by eliminating overtime pay for million of workers. The Economic Policy Institute concludes that more than 8 million workers would lose overtime protection. Even the conservative Employment Policy Foundation estimates that 1.16 million workers would lose their overtime pay. The administration, however, claims that only 644,000 workers would be negatively affected by its proposal. Regardless of the losses estimated, the proposed regulation would disqualify more workers from overtime protection, and there is simply no justification for stripping any workers of their overtime rights. Just yesterday, nursing home workers from my home state came to my office and told me that they get paid between $7 and $10 per hour and that they rely on overtime pay as an essential supplemental to their low hourly pay. The administration opposes an increase in the minimum wage which would help millions of American workers, but it supports a proposal that would decrease the take-home pay of millions of American workers. Once again this administration has misguided priorities. We should be doing all we can to improve the working conditions and the quality of life of the American worker, not make it worse. The 40-hour workweek was created in the Fair Labor Standard Act in 1938. We enacted this legislation because workers were being abused and not properly compensated. The FLSA became the bedrock of worker- and family-friendly legislation because we recognized that after 40-hours of work, 8-hours a day for 5 days, an employee should be paid time and a half for work performed beyond 40 hours. Today, the workers protected by the 40-hour workweek requirement are the Nation's first responders and first-preventers like police officer, nurses, and firefighters. Other protected workers include the millions of administrative, technical, manufacturing, and restaurant workers who are struggling to make ends meet. We should protect the American workers. And, I urge my colleagues to support the Harkin amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to offer my overwhelming support for Senator Durbin's amendment on AIDS funding, of which I am a co-sponsor. I urge my colleagues to vote on this matter based on principle rather than politics. This amendment does nothing more than fulfill President Bush's promises to the international community that he made this year in his State of the Union Address. In January, President Bush called on Congress to increase U.S. funding for global anti-AIDS work to $15 billion. In the spring, he signed a bill authorizing $15 billion over the next 5 years. And he spoke often of this comment during his recent trip to Africa, the continent hardest hit by the AIDS plague. But while the President signed a bill to authorize this important and critical cause, he failed to appropriate adequate funding for it. While signaling his intent to help deal with the global AIDS crisis, he did not back his intentions with actions. Senator Durbin's amendment holds the administration's feet to the fire. It will fully fund the $3 billion authorized to combat HIV/AIDS in Fiscal Year 2004. This should be an easy vote for my colleagues, who seemed to support the AIDS authorization bill in May. Some of my colleagues have registered concern that we cannot fully appropriate funding this year to the authorized level because the necessary humanitarian and non-governmental organizations would not know how to handle so much money so soon. With all due respect, this is just not accurate. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, which was established with support by this administration, is inundated with applications for international AIDS/HIV treatment, vaccination, and public education projects that cannot even be read because of the scarcity of funds. AIDS killed 2.5 million Africans in 2002. Current infection rates in Africa, Asia, Central Europe and elsewhere are staggering. I urge my colleagues to recognize the awesome responsibility they hold to save lives and to support this amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank our leader, the Democrat leader, for the kind comments, and my colleagues, some of whom are more accustomed to differing with me than applauding for me, but I respect their views when they register a vote and I am sure the feeling would be returned. I thank all of my colleagues for their many indulgences and their encouragement and willingness to take me back because here I stand in probably another record, maybe the oldest freshman who ever served in the Senate. I feel fresh, and I am glad to be here. I thank all of my colleagues for their friendship.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute and recognize Women's Equality Day on August 26, 2003. As well as celebrating Women's Equality Day, this day is also a celebration of the 80th anniversary of the Equal Rights Amendment Campaign. This year's celebration being hosted by the Advisory Boards on the Status of Women of Essex, Bergen, and Union Counties in New Jersey is the 155th observance of Women's Equality Day. One of the most important people in the fight for women's equality was Alice Paul. Alice Paul was born in Mt. Laurel, NJ, and spent her entire life fighting for women's rights. She believed that men and women should be equal partners in society. She led the final, successful campaign for a women's right to vote. She inspired thousands to join the struggle as she stood up to Congress and the President. Understanding that securing the right to vote was only the first step, Alice Paul authored the Equal Rights Amendment and drafted and lobbied for gender equality language in the United Nations Charter and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Alice Paul is a great example that one person can make a difference and motivate others to take up a noble cause. Today, because of Alice Paul and numerous other women who preceded and followed her, we're getting closer to true equality for women. It is important that we recognize Women's Equality Day. Since the days of women's suffrage, we have witnessed a wonderful growth in the influence and contributions of women to our politics, our economy, and our culture. Although women are not yet full partners in American society, we will continue the work of Alice Paul and remember her on Women's Equality Day.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to express a personal note of grief and fond remembrance as I pay tribute to one of my dearest friends, Bob Winer, who passed away on July 18. Bob was born in Brooklyn, NY, moved to New Jersey, and joined the Navy when he was 17 and proudly served in the Pacific during World War II. After the war, he joined his two brothers in a clothing manufacturing business begun by their father many years earlier. The company, Winer Industries, was located in Paterson, NJ, where I was born. I first met Bob when I called upon him to use my company--ADP--to handle his payroll and other data processing needs. He became a client and a good friend almost immediately; our friendship grew and grew over the next 40 years. Bob truly was larger than life. We shared common interests like skiing, boating, and feasting. Bob had a zest for living that few could match. He traveled extensively. He enjoyed spear-fishing, often surrounded by sharks and barracuda, and taught his children and his friends to be comfortable in that environment. He owned airplanes and was a great pilot with thousands of hours to his credit, and I spent many hours as his co-pilot. He suggested that I take flying lessons, asking me what I might do if he suddenly ``slumped over the wheel.'' My response was that if that were to happen, I would slump over the wheel, too! He seemed indestructible. The best thing about Bob's zeal for living was his insistence on sharing it with lots of family and friends. He let his 8-year-old nephew land a twin-engine plane--at night. That might strike some people as foolhardy but the thing about Bob was that he had so much confidence, so much skill, and so much courage, he inspired it in others. Bob did well in life. He lived in Morristown, NJ, and had homes in Nantucket, Vermont, and Florida, and lots of friends in many places. Yet, he was about as unassuming as someone can be. But more important, Bob did so much good in life, too. When Bob's brother and sister-in-law were killed in a plane crash, Bob and his wonderful wife Elaine, with their three daughters--Trisha, Laurie, and Jill--helped raise his brother's children, Jeannie, Ken, and Larry, as their own. I think we grow or shrink in direct proportion to our generosity. Bob was the most generous person I have ever met and everyone who knew him would say that it was apparent in everything he did. It was a rare privilege to know him and I was proud to call him my friend. Bob was devoted to his family and friends, his business and community, and our country. He was a veteran, a philanthropist, and an adventurer. Above all, he was an extraordinary human being. In 1899, Robert Ingerson, a known essayist who lost a brother, wrote these words which I think provide a fitting tribute to Bob, who was like a brother to me: He added to the sum of human joy; and were everyone to whom he did some loving service to bring a blossom to his grave, he would sleep tonight beneath a wilderness of flowers. Few people on this earth have done more than Bob Winer to ``add to the sum of human joy.'' So, while we grieve his death and hold him and his family in our prayers, it's also appropriate to celebrate his life, a life so richly lived. He will be sorely missed by family and friends, and in my life, a tear will fall every time I think of him. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I fully agree with your concern that the Amtrak board of directors must continue to function even while the board is in the process of being restaffed. Terms of two of the board members, specifically Governor Dukakis and Mayor Smith, expired on June 25. I understand that the terms of two other board members, Ms. Rosen and Governor Holton, will expire on September 24. If no new board members are appointed before September 24, the board will be reduced from seven members to only three members.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am concerned that after September 24, there will be no one on the board from the Northeast corridor, which represents over half of Amtrak's ridership as well as the primary infrastructure owned by the corporation. The board needs to have qualified people who are knowledgeable about the complex operations of the Northeast corridor and its critical importance to the entire region.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am reserving the rest of my time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to support the Durbin amendment to raise the fuel economy standard and close the SUV loophole. I consider this truly bipartisan because I disagree with Democrats as well as our Republican friends. But I feel compelled to bring a problem to the public with which we have to deal. I think it is fair to say that this amendment strikes a reasonable note in what is too often a contentious debate. Today, 18 years after the first Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards were implemented, the standards for cars, trucks, and SUVs remain unchanged. We are running in place and a major reason is that when CAFE standards were first required in 1975, light trucks made up just 20 percent of the market and were used mostly for work, not for negotiating congested urban streets. But that was a quarter century ago. Today, light trucks--a category that includes SUVs and minivans--represent half of all vehicles sold. SUVs produce 48 percent more smogforming exhaust and 44 percent more greenhouse gases than cars. Today's SUVs are not light trucks. They are passenger vehicles and we should regulate them as such. The impact of regulating SUVs as passenger vehicles, instead of trucks, would be impressive: we would save more than 40 billion gallons of gasoline by 2010--an average of 6 to 7 billion gallons a year. By updating our regulations to reflect today's driving realities consumers would also save $7 billion at the pump during that same period, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. Another reason to raise CAFE standards is global warming. The U.S. transportation sector is responsible for nearly one-third of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Since 1975, the miles traveled by vehicles have skyrocketed by 150 percent. Higher CAFE standards are essential to cleaning up the air of our Nation's metropolitan areas and in protecting the health of Americans-- especially the health of our young and our elderly who are most vulnerable. The Durbin amendment provides until 2015 to set the CAFE standard to 40 miles per gallon. So this amendment is reasonable, it is doable, and it is the right step toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil. But there are a few standard myths invoked by opponents of better fuel economy standards that could prevent some of our colleagues from supporting this amendment. I would like to try to straighten that out. For example, we usually hear that jobs will be lost. Detroit worries that requiring better mileage standards will hurt car sales and lead to job losses. But I submit that by their insistence on maintaining a decades-old status quo, American car manufacturers are stuck in reverse. Instead of improving fuel economy, we have just hit a 22-year low. The Big Three have demonstrated considerable skill in improving everything about American vehicles--except for their fuel economy. It is that backward thinking that will actually hurt their businesses and lead to job losses. EPA's Green Vehicle Guide for 2003 models revealed that out of the top 75 most fuel efficient vehicles, there were only four American models--only four! We can do better than that! Another claim often heard is that lighter cars will lead to more highway deaths. I submit this is a disingenuous and specious scare tactic. In fact, a University of Michigan study found that based on deaths per million vehicles sold, SUVs are more dangerous than most types of cars on the road. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the study went on to say that many small cars have lower total mortality rates than SUVs. In other words, vehicle weight does not necessarily determine a vehicle's overall safety performance. The Big Three insist that they are victims of ``consumer choice,'' that they only give American car buyers what they demand. But while Americans like the convenience of an SUV, they certainly don't like to spend $45 or $50 filling the tank once or twice a week. Americans want fuel-efficient automobiles which save them money at the pump. The facts are clear. For the health of Americans, for environmental protection, for our energy security and for our pocketbooks, I urge my colleagues to close the SUV loophole and raise the bar for CAFE standards by voting for the Durbin amendment. I also not once again the fact that there is a sufficient period of time put out there for these standards to be met. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong support for this high threat urban area amendment, which I have cosponsored. This amendment is of particular interest to me because my State is the most densely populated in the Nation and highly vulnerable to terrorism. New Jersey lost nearly 700 people on September 11 second only to New York in the number of casualties. Tens of thousands of New Jerseyans could literally see the Towers burning from their homes and offices. Not only do these memories linger for my constituents, but the threat lingers as well. And part of why I wanted to return to the Senate was to work to reduce these threats and bolster homeland security. That is why I am disappointed in the funding we have put forward for Homeland Security. I believe this bill provides insufficient funding for our country's vast and diverse homeland security needs. I know the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee worked extremely hard to put together a solid bill, but I believe the $28.5 billion in this bill does not provide enough resources to protect our local communities this coming fiscal year. The real problem is that there were not enough funds allocated by the budget resolution earlier this year for our Nation's homeland security needs. While the administration spent much of the winter eagerly planning its tax cuts, the real needs of the American people--and the needs of local firefighters, policemen and women and emergency room staff--have been tragically neglected. In addition to the overall spending level, I also want to address a truism about homeland security: Whether we like it or not, when it comes to which communities are most endangered by terrorism, all American communities are not equal. There are some parts of this country that are more in danger of a possible terrorist attack, because of geographical location, population density, number of major transportation hubs, etc. If we ignore this reality, than we are failing to adequately address homeland security. My state has many densely populated, urban areas that face major threats. In addition, a large percentage of my constituents commute to work in New York City and Philadelphia every work day. My State is traversed by major transit and highway systems that carry not only local traffic, but that also serve as major regional and national thoroughfares. Each of my State's counties, cities, townships and boroughs need critical resources to enhance the security of their communities. They need first responder equipment and training; resources for hospitals to respond to potential attacks; communications equipment for police, firefighters and EMTs just to name a few of our pressing needs. I must say, currently, in New Jersey, there is a certain desperation--a panic even--pervading the first responders who know that the communities they are charged to protect might be the next targets. For example, the Chief of Police in Jersey City, Jim Buonocore said the following about his police department: We were the lifeline to New York City during the 9/11 attacks. All the food and supplies came from Jersey City in the days following the attacks. We know what it was like. New York City suffered, but we lived through it and we suffered too. I am aware that smaller, less populated States across our great Nation are also afraid of a possible attack and equally deserving of Federal appropriations to prepare themselves for such an eventuality. Each State deserves some share of the Federal pot. But the reality is that high threat urban centers need a greater percentage, based on their population and based on the likelihood that an attack will indeed occur in their vicinity. I ask my colleagues to consider what is best for the Nation, and the best approach is to make sure our most vulnerable areas are protected. I thank Senators Schumer and Specter for their leadership on this issue, and urge support for this amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I sure will.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, before we vote on this amendment, I am reminded that attacks have been thwarted in three locations. And if attacks have been thwarted, that suggests there is a certain risk attached to those locations. One is the World Trade Center, another is LAX Airport, and the third is the Space Needle in Seattle. As far as I know, there were no attacks threatened in Wyoming and many other places around the country. So when we look at this issue, I think we ought to get focused. First of all, Secretary Ridge is the arbiter of the discretionary fund. He is the expert. He gives out this additional money. We, the Senate--Democrats and Republicans--nominated him to make these decisions. If the nondiscretionary part of the budget runs about $28 billion, I don't know that these particular accounts are the places where we have to go to get the funding. And we can ask Secretary Ridge to be aware that we are most concerned because of the high-risk nature of the New York/New Jersey region. I hope in this case we will take seriously what we talk about so much: That we cannot be secure, no matter how good we are in Afghanistan, no matter how good we are in Iraq--and we have been terrific. Our people have fought valiantly. They have done what is asked of them. There are not enough of them. And when someone suggested there were not enough of them, such as General Shinseki, he was kind of kicked out of the Corps. So we have to look at this and ask, what constitutes security? It is not having enough bombs and planes. It is making sure that bombs and planes don't come our way, don't come to our soil. You may have heard the prediction that was leveled by the former Secretary of Defense when he said, within a decade, if things go along as they are, we could be looking at a nuclear explosion on American soil. I think we ought to step up to the idea and express our interest in preventing any kind of a terrorist attack. We have had a couple, and they were devastating, not only to the lives and families who were hurt but to the morale of this country. I think we ought to say: Look, these are areas that are constantly under concern for a terrorist attack. Let's put the money there to make sure we are taking special care of them, just as we would a patient who is especially sick and we have a limited amount of medication. We give it to that patient, not to those who might get sick. That is the situation we face. I hope we will get enough support to carry this through. The message is important. And I leave it to Secretary Ridge to deal with his discretionary responsibility to allocate the funds. I yield the floor.