Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are listening to quite a tirade against giving money to the high-threat areas. The question is raised, Why? When you go to a hospital and you have a sick patient, someone who is really in trouble, he or she will be among the first to receive the medication. That is the situation about which we are talking. We lost 3,000 people on September 11, 2001 most of them in New York. This is the focal point for economic activity--probably the most important financial center in the entire world. We look at the cities of Philadelphia and New York and there is New Jersey, right in the middle, with lots of commuters. We lost 700 innocent citizens on that day. We have $29 billion going into homeland security but we need more. I know where to take it from: Take it from the huge tax cut that was given to those who do not need it. For goodness' sake, the first round of emergency response grants had New Jersey and New York among the least compensated on a per capita basis. Our populations are squeezed together. New Jersey has the highest population density of all the States in the country. We have all kinds of important facilities, beside harbors and the financial center, that affect the way our country functions. To say, you got enough money, that's just not right. I repeat: when the Department of Homeland Security gave out the first round of grants, New Jersey and New York were among the States most poorly treated on a per capita basis and yet our two States paid the biggest price on 9-11 when it comes to what constitutes a terrorist threat. We may be threatened here with repercussions because we want money for the ports, we want money for transportation, or otherwise. Threaten all you want, but you cannot idly threaten the citizens of New York and New Jersey and Pennsylvania and other high-threat urban areas, walk away, and say: You got enough money. I hope everyone is listening. What we need to do is recognize our areas of susceptibility and help those areas first. When it comes to toxic air or toxic water, we distribute the funds based on where the problem exists, where there are Superfund sites, and we try to give those areas more money so they can fix their problems. The whole country wept on September 11, 2001. Everyone was weeping. And they all felt susceptible. But some know, many know, there are areas that are more susceptible than others. Those places are Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and other high-density urban areas.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I was not aware of the specifics. I just know that in the areas already hit very hard--New York, New Jersey--a very serious threat remains. There are port facilities that are not protected at all. There are rail facilities. There are all kinds of things that could be destroyed or disrupted in a flash with the right kind of weapon or terrorist plan. Whoever thought the Trade Center would come down--110 stories, just crash to the ground, melted into nothingness? No.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am absolutely aware of that. That is why I am surprised when I hear the distinguished Senator from Alaska, who knows this place better than anybody, who knows how desperately grants are sought and fought for, as he has so many times for his own State of Alaska, as he should, and how many times he has been successful, and how many times grants have been given to Alaska because his constituents needed the help. But what goes around comes around, as they say. Now its New Jersey and New York that need that kind of help and we shouldn't be turned away. With regard to the offsets for this amendment, I would prefer that we not take the money from communications and from science and technology. I would submit that there are other offsets, including the one I suggested a moment ago--one I would be most willing to forego--and that is the tax break that has come along. Take some of that money, the hundreds of millions of dollars that are involved, the billions of dollars over the next several year years, and put that money back where it belongs, to protect our society. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. First, I commend the Senator for this very thoughtful and very important amendment. I wondered whether the Senator was aware that though we have a research facility in Atlantic City in my State, it is primarily focused on aviation. While they do explosive research, I believe the Senator would agree that this is more intent on examining the result of nuclear explosives--the kind of detonation that would really wipe out a whole port or a major facility. Is that what the Senator wants to establish--that it is port specific and maritime specific and that we ought to get on with it to protect our ports?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If there was a manifest that said ``nuclear weapon on its way,'' could you imagine something like that? We have all these containers. These are hidden boxes. You don't know what kind of cargo is in them. To me, it is one of the more susceptible areas for a terrorist attack of major magnitude. Thus, I ask the Senator, do you know from what part of the budget the $70 million you are proposing be used, which is out of $29 billion and is a very small fraction when you consider the risks that might ensue?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I understand that is where the Senator is going with this amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, with this amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill, I want to see if we can improve in some measure the terrorist threat warning system that we have in place and make sure that it is working as it is intended. I believe the current homeland security advisory system--the colorful tiered alert system--does little to reassure the public they are safer as a result of these warnings. Based on reports I get from first responders in my State and experts throughout the country, I believe this advisory system must be reevaluated and improved. The amendment simply calls for a report from the Department of Homeland Security within 90 days of the passage of this bill evaluating how effective the terror advisory system is in meeting its goals. We are all familiar with this program. There are five levels, ranging from low risk to severe risk. You can see on the chart this color- coordinated presentation. The Department has color coded each risk level to make it easy to understand. However, I don't believe this color war against terrorists is working. On four instances over the past year, Secretary Ridge has raised the threat level from yellow, elevated risk, to orange, high risk of terror attacks, based on increased terrorist chatter or other intelligence information. Aside from these instances in which the threat level was at orange, the system has been evaluated at the elevated yellow status since its inception in March 2002. What I want to do now is discuss a series of concerns I have about the color-coded system and its repercussions. First, the system evokes confusion and fear among Americans who want to respond to the elevated risk levels, but the question they raise is, Should they be changing their daily patterns without advanced knowledge about where or when they vacate their homes, offices, schools, factories, et cetera? Some Americans have stopped going to malls, some avoid public transportation, and many cancel trips. These arbitrary behavioral changes can have a serious impact on our already weak economy. These are questions we have to ask: Does work stop? Do classrooms close? Does shopping halt, no matter how essential the goods? Should Americans take precautions? The Department of Homeland Security doesn't tell us. I am not faulting the work they are doing, honestly, at the Department of Homeland Security. This is all still in its formative stages. We don't know quite where it is going to come to rest yet or where it is most effective. DHS tells us to be vigilant. I don't know what that means. I am sure most of the American public doesn't know exactly what being vigilant means. The system presents high costs to local communities. When the threat level is elevated, local first responders are forced to respond by deploying already overworked police and firefighting people and by bolstering other first response systems without added Federal financial assistance. When the DHS raises the alert, they provide almost no specific guidance to State and local governments. It requires State and local authorities to make many of their own decisions, or perhaps all of them, on how they should respond. In my State, like the rest of the country, when the alert is elevated to orange, or high, local officials tighten security on highways, railroads, bridges, bus terminals, Federal buildings, and densely populated areas. And this is an extremely expensive undertaking for State and local governments. Cost alone, while important, is not the only factor. Disruption of normal life is a victory for terrorists without any demonstrable benefit to our society. The U.S. Conference of Mayors recently released new data compiled from a survey of nearly 150 cities nationwide. They estimate that cities throughout the country are spending, on average, nearly $70 million each and every week in additional homeland security costs due to the heightened threat alert level. These costs come in addition to the existing homeland security spending since 9/11, which the mayors estimated to be around $2.6 billion in the first 15 months after the tragedy. However, this only asks the cities about direct costs. There are also indirect economic ramifications of code orange alerts that diminish tourism and other lucrative industries. The mayor of Atlanta, for example, has said the city's hotel occupancy is down 8 percent and 16,000 hotel jobs have been lost. There are also innumerable indirect nonfinancial costs of the current terror alert system. For example, when a police officer who is normally assigned to antigang work, or some other assignment, is reassigned to guard a public building, that is a real serious cost to a city. And also it damages the law and order structure that must be contended with at the same time. My third concern is that the system is not tailored to give warnings on a regional basis. Increased terrorist chatter may suggest that a major New England city is subject to a possible threat. But small towns in the Southwest are also now asked to respond. Other nations that face terrorist threats have a more sophisticated localized system. Experts continue to recommend that the United States establish a threat alert system similar to that in Israel, where intelligence or terrorist chatter is translated into specific warnings about geographical areas that might be more susceptible to a terrorist attack. For example, in Israel, threat warnings are easier to understand. For example, the Israeli Government would issue a terror alert for an area of the country such as Galilee. If we have reference to a targeted region in the U.S., we ought to provide specific information. Is it New Jersey? Is it Los Angeles? Is it Des Moines, IA? Where is it? Is it the port that we were discussing before? We have so many port assets in our country that need to be protected against terrorist attack. So where do you apply the pressure? Where do you spend the money? Four, when the threat level is issued, there is no description of the nature of the threat that can help those expected to respond. We are not going to be naive about this. We are not saying we have information that such-and-such shopping mall is going to be attacked and, therefore, avoid that mall. We cannot be that specific. But we ought to be able to narrow it down from just a general alert across this great country of ours to something that gives people a direction for their actions when they hear the call. Should the Governors call out their National Guard troops to protect every chemical plant in the country--and there are hundreds of those-- or transportation centers, or do they bolster rail security in every place? I do not think so. Again, this is not criticism of a system that is developing against a very serious threat to our society. Finally--and I believe this is a key point--the system does not provide adequate instructions for the American people or local authorities. When I talk to the police in my area--and before I came to the Senate, I was a commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. They may get a call about something they ought to be on the lookout for, but the New York State capital is in Albany and the New Jersey State capital is in Trenton. Do they call out their State troopers to cover all of those areas, all those police departments? In New Jersey, we have 567,000 municipalities. Some of them only have two or three policemen. What do they do? We need direction from those who have the knowledge and have the resources to research this. The Homeland Security Department requires Federal agencies to respond to an elevated threat at the Department's own discretion, but does not issue specific guidance to Americans in State and local governments. This lack of guidance can cause a lot of confusion and, in some cases, real panic. I have, through the process of these alerts, had calls--less now than I had in months past: Should I go to New York? My children have to travel to school on the turnpike. Should they be on the turnpike? Should we do this and should we do that? In many cases, people want to know whether they should stay home and guard their household and their families. Lord knows we hope not, and we should take that kind of action. We cannot let the terrorists win by immobilizing our activities. We need to do better. The system has problems that at least ought to be reviewed, and I believe that improvements must be made. I am not saying we should not spend the necessary money to deploy more police officers to malls, nuclear plants, chemical manufacturing or distribution facilities, train stations, or Federal buildings. I am a firm believer in spending whatever we have to spend to protect our security at home. But I am not convinced the homeland security advisory system is the most efficient way of assessing threat and organizing local response. On June 6, shortly after the threat level returned to yellow from a Memorial Day elevation to orange, Secretary Ridge himself acknowledged the color-coded alert system needed readjustment. He said to the Washington Post: We worry about the credibility of the system. We want to continue to refine it because we understand it has caused a kind of anxiety. Anxiety is an understatement. The system causes financial hardships, fear, panic, confusion among Americans and people who want to be conscientious about protecting their families, sometimes exaggerating what they ought to be doing and creating a lot of tension within a family, within a household. Experts warn that with the continuing volleying between orange and yellow alerts there will be a new threat level that we might call fatigue. Secretary Ridge has not offered a time line for revising the system. My amendment will make reviewing this system an important priority for the Department of Homeland Security. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. It will send a message to the Department that the alert system needs to be enhanced to increase its efficiency, its specificity, its overall usefulness to first responders, police, fire, and other emergency personnel. I wish to point out this entails no further expense. A review is common in a situation such as this where such a big change is taking place. I hope everybody will take a serious look at this and think about their constituents back home who have called them, who have written them letters, who asked for advice. Let them ask the mayors in their communities or the Governors in their States what they think. I want to make sure it is understood. I am not leveling broadside criticism at the Department of Homeland Security or Secretary Ridge. I think he is a very capable executive. We all want to do our best with this issue, spend our money most efficiently, but disrupt life as little as possible. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his support on this issue. I am happy to have it accepted. I wish to point out, in the debate we were having about port security, I have served with the Senator from Mississippi for now 18\1/2\ years, and I have never known him not to support our defense or our security needs. I have admired him for his balance in these issues. I continue to do so. That debate was not intended to challenge the Senator from Mississippi who is managing this bill, but to make sure that the situation we are talking about with the ports which we feel are susceptible, especially in the northeast corner of our country where so much is dependent on port activities, that it is clearly understood. I appreciate that. I am happy to have this amendment accepted, and I ask the Senator from Mississippi to make sure it gets discussed at conference and presented. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of Senator Byrd's amendment which I have cosponsored. The Senate worked hard and passed the Global AIDS Initiative back in May. At the President's request, this bipartisan authorization bill calls for $15 billion to help fight the spread of HIV and AIDS in Africa. The bill authorized $3 billion for this fight this year. This money is desperately needed. Approximately 29 million people, including 10 million people between the ages of 15 to 24 and 3 million children under the age of 15, are currently living with HIV/AIDS worldwide. The future spread of this epidemic depends in large measure on whether the world will accurately teach young people how to protect against contracting HIV and AIDS. Yesterday, I learned something very disturbing. The White House sent a letter to Congress asking to limit funding to $2 billion. That is $1 billion short. I don't understand why President Bush, who has talked about his commitment to help fight AIDS in Africa over and over again, would ask for less money. We must back up our promises with real action, not phony rhetoric. Successful, proven programs for prevention, care, and treatment do exist but they are still small in scale, with many programs starved for resources. At least $9.2 billion is needed to mount a response to the AIDS crisis according to UNAIDS. Current global spending to address the crisis is far below this, at about $1 to $2 billion. A fair contribution by the U.S. Government to the global HIV/AIDS response would be between $2.75 and $3 billion given our share of the global economy, close to 30 percent. The United States is spending just over $500 million on global HIV/AIDS this year; and now President Bush is asking Congress to appropriate $1 billion less than it authorized for next year. The tragic impact of the AIDS epidemic is undeniable. One in every three adults in Africa is living with HIV/AIDS. Across the world, each year, 800,000 infants contract HIV before or during birth. Ninety percent of these HIV-infected babies are in sub-Saharan Africa. The global AIDS bill has the power to save lives through a combination of prevention and treatment. But in order to be effective, we must provide the necessary resources. In a speech last week during his trip to Botswana the President pledged that the U.S. would be a partner in the battle against a disease that has already killed more than 17 million in sub-Saharan Africa, and talked of his proposal to spend $15 billion over 5 years to help the hardest-hit African and Caribbean nations battle AIDS. That means Congress should be spending $3 billion a year. Now the President's own person--the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy--is asking for $1 billion less. The message this sends to the world is discouraging. A failure to provide full funding is a setback that will cost lives. I urge the Senate to support Senator Byrd's amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 2330, the Burma Sanctions bill. It is a travesty that today, 55 years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and only weeks after fighting a war to liberate 24 million Iraqis, we watch the military junta in Rangoon violently and ruthlessly suppress the rights of the Burmese people. The bill before us, like S. 1182, will send a strong message to the thugs running Burma that the U.S. Congress will not tolerate their abrogation of the rule of law. The international community needs to follow suit. This is especially true with regard to Burma's neighbors--the countries of the ASEAN group--and the Security Council of the United Nations. I would like to call attention to a July 14 Washington Post editorial that very clearly states the need for a unified, international approach to confronting the military junta in Burma. The editorial asserts that the United Nations must do more to push Burma toward reform and democratization. And it draws attention to the sorry fact that Burma has been elected to provide the vice president of the United Nation's General Assembly for the session beginning in September 2003. It is appalling that one of the world's most oppressive regimes has been chosen by its neighbors for a leadership role at the United Nations. This selection serves only to undermine the credibility of the United Nations and the General Assembly. I support H.R. 2330 because I am a strong advocate for human rights and democratic governance in Southeast Asia and around the world. I call on my colleagues to pass this bill. I also call on administration officials to raise the military junta's suppression of human and political rights--including the illegal arrest of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and at least 17 officials of her party on May 30 when they meet with their ASEAN nation counterparts. Finally, I urge the international community to stand up to the Burmese dictatorship. We must remain steadfast in our resolve to restore the freedom of the Burmese people. We need to send a message to these thugs that their brutal reign of oppression and terror does not go unnoticed and will not last.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to express my profound disappointment with the very troublesome nomination of Victor Wolski to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The last time I spoke on the Senate floor about judicial nominations, I whole-heartedly supported and endorsed President Bush's nomination of Mr. Michael Chertoff to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. I commended the administration for selecting Mr. Chertoff because he was a ``consensus nominee.'' I supported Mr. Chertoff and many other judicial nominees because they demonstrated that they were not ideologues beholden to a specific political agenda. I support nominees who demonstrate moderation, fairness, open- mindedness, and the proper judicial temperament. Victor Wolski is a self-described political ideologue on a mission to promote extreme right-wing libertarian views. In his own words, Mr. Wolski told the National Journal that ``every single job I've taken since college has been ideologically oriented, trying to further my principles,'' which he describes as a ``libertarian'' belief in ``property rights'' and ``limited government.'' There is nothing wrong with having convictions and strong beliefs. I respect that. But when a judicial nominee views the world through a limited, ideological prism, that presents a grave danger to our democracy and judicial system. Such a nominee does not inspire trust or confidence in our judicial system. Victor Wolski has unabashedly dedicated his career to promoting an extreme right-wing crusade to erode important Federal safeguards protecting workers, human health, and the environment. For example, he has argued that it was ``far beyond'' Congress's power under the Commerce Clause to protect wetlands that serve as habitat for 55 different species of migratory birds and repeatedly referred to these wetlands as ``puddles.'' Mr. Wolski also lacks the judicial temperament necessary for a Federal judge. In his testimony to the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Wolski asserted that he ``certainly meant no disrespect'' when he referred to Members of Congress as ``bums'' in a letter he wrote to the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle. I wonder what he did means? Mr. President, it is entirely permissible for Mr. Wolski--as an advocate--to promote limited government; but he should not be a Federal judge. And he certainly shouldn't be a judge on the Court of Federal Claims. This is the court that hears disputes involving the Government arising under the fifth amendment's ``takings'' clause--the very constitutional provision Mr. Wolski has fervently worked to undermine and redefine. Appointing Victor Wolski to the Court of Federal Claims is akin to putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. It is part of the Bush administration's war against the environment--a war the administration is waging on many fronts--the courts included. His nomination is another example of the Bush administration's zeal to pack the courts with right-wing ideologues despite the President's claim that he is ``a uniter, not a divider.'' How cynical. The ``bottom line'' is that Victor Wolski is wholly unfit for the position to which he has been nominated. I urge my colleagues to vote against his confirmation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment which we are calling Justice for the United States Marines. The amendment would make sure that the families of the 241 U.S. marines who were killed by terrorists in 1983 have equal access to assistance from the Federal crime victims fund. In 1996, I authored a law that enabled terrorism victims' families to receive assistance to file suit against foreign sponsors of terror. This enabled families to receive judgments for those countries that aided terrorists in killing their children. My amendment makes two small changes in the current Victims of Crime Act that would allow these families the same rights as other terror victims. Right now, technicalities in the current law would deny these rights to Marine families who lost family members in the tragic barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983. My amendment is simple. First, it changes the date of eligibility in the current law to terrorist acts that occurred ``on or after October 23, 1983''--the day of the vicious attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. Second, my amendment clarifies an ambiguity in the original law about the type of cases that are eligible for Federal funds. On October 23, 1983, a suicide bomber affiliated with Hezbollah detonated a truck full of explosives at a U.S. Marine barracks located at the Beirut International Airport. Shortly after this took place, I was there and saw what remained of the building. It was almost totally destroyed. Two-hundred and forty-one U.S. marines were killed that night, and more than 100 were wounded the same day. They were part of a contingent of 1,800 marines who had been sent to Lebanon as a part of a multinational force to help separate warring Lebanese factions. The loss to those families of these victims was enormous. These marines were killed by terrorists as they slept in their barracks. Terrorists are cowards. The marines didn't even have a chance to fight back. But now the families of these marines are able to fight back against the sponsors of this terrorist act through our judicial system. On May 30, 2003, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia found Iran liable for the Beirut Marine Corps barracks bombing. The court found that Iran sponsored this terrorist act by Hezbollah, and was, therefore, accountable to these families. This trial now proceeds to the damages phase. The court wants to use over a dozen ``special masters'' to hear the damage claims of the participating victims' families. Each special master will hear approximately 15 cases. The court has requested the use of the crime victims fund in order to pay for the cost of employing these special masters. Terror victims are generally permitted to make use of this fund but a technicality in the law is preventing these families from utilizing this resource. The technicality is that the law now says the crime victims fund can be used to assist victims of terrorist acts occurring on or before December 21, 1988. The problem is that the Marine barracks was bombed on October 23, 1983--approximately 5 years earlier. We need to change the date so the U.S. Marine families can see justice done. In finding Iran liable for this horrible terrorist act in Beirut, the judge said the following, which I want to read to the Senate. He said: No order from this Court will restore any of the 241 lives that were stolen on October 23, 1983. Nor is this Court able to heal the pain that has become a permanent part of the lives of their mothers and fathers, their spouses and siblings, and their sons and daughters. But the Court can take steps that will punish the men who carried out this unspeakable attack, and in so doing, try to achieve some small measure of justice for its survivors, and for the family members of the 241 Americans who never came home. I would also like to share with my colleagues the poignant words of one victim's family member after the court's recent ruling. Captain Vincent Smith, from Camp Lejeune's 24th Marine Amphibious Unit, was one of the service members killed in the bombing. After the court's ruling, Captain Smith's sister said: I think the whole family feels that the ruling gives us a sense of justice after all of these years. Finally, someone has been named a guilty party . . . It's a huge sense of justice to say that the government of Iran is guilty. My amendment will allow the cases of these U.S. Marine families to move forward so they can hold the sponsors of this terrorist act accountable. Since September 11, 2001, this Congress has worked hard to provide justice to the families and communities affected by terrorist acts. It is critical that we also devote attention to the losses incurred by many American families in earlier terrorist incidents. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment in order to extend justice to the families of the 241 Marines killed in the Beirut bombing. We need to teach sponsors of terror that they will be held accountable. A vote for my amendment will help further this lesson by bringing the perpetrators of this 1983 terrorist act to justice. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to see the amendment accepted. I would like to have a vote on this amendment, unless, of course, the amendment is acceptable to both sides. Frankly, I think it is a good amendment. It does justice in some measure to the memory of those who were killed. They were there as a peacekeeping force--1,800 of them. A quarter of the force was killed in that single incident. The crime victims fund is a fund that is there to assist--not to provide damage awards to the people but to help them discover the evidence that is necessary. The fund has a few hundred million dollars which would assist these 15 special masters by providing them per diem so they can travel and get the details from these families, as they must do in order to have a sensible trial for damages.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have no objection.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr.President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to talk about my amendment which is designed to change the effective date of this bill. My amendment is cosponsored by Senators Reed of Rhode Island, Reid of Nevada, Clinton, and Corzine. My amendment is very simple: Let's give our seniors a prescription drug benefit just as quickly as we can. They need it now. Let's not delay any longer than practicable to get it into place. Under the current proposal, comprehensive drug coverage does not start until July 2006. Imagine that, 2006. It is not fair to seniors who are expecting a benefit almost immediately. They will have seen President Bush sign a bill with some fanfare and will have seen lots of Members of Congress crowding the stage with him, and everyone will say: We have put a prescription drug benefit into place. When seniors learn that the benefit begins in 2006, they are going to feel deceived, tricked, and angry. My amendment changes the effective date of the coverage to July 1, 2004. There is not any reason to have our seniors wait any longer for a prescription drug benefit. The original Medicare plan was signed into law by President Johnson on July 30, 1965, and 11 months later, July 1, 1966, all persons eligible were enrolled. The entire system for Medicare was created in just 11 months. When we look at this chart, we see what is planned with the Bush/ Senate prescription drug benefit. We are looking at 30 months, and we are looking at the creation of an entire Medicare system which took just 11 months to put in place. That was done without the luxury of today's high-speed computers. It was just President Johnson and his administration getting the entire system in place in 11 months. My amendment essentially follows the same timetable. If President Johnson was able to create the entire Medicare system in just 11 months, then surely President Bush should be able to add a drug benefit in the same amount of time. Look at the timeline the President has set for this Medicare drug proposal: 30 months. Why so long? Our clue is, what? Election day. That is illustrated on this chart. Sixteen months from now, this prolonged effective date is conveniently well past election day. The administration's Medicare agency, CMS, says it needs 30 months. That is very convenient timing for political purposes, but it is terrible timing for America's seniors. President Johnson, a true Texan, had a can-do attitude, and there is no reason this administration cannot dedicate itself to completing this task in 11 months. We need to give seniors meaningful drug coverage as soon as possible, not 2006. The reality is that 5.5 million seniors currently on Medicare will not be alive in 2006. If there are insufficient funds in the budget for this amendment, then it is the result of choices made by the President and his party. They chose to provide a massive tax cut to the wealthiest among us, and they chose it at the price of Medicare. The issue is simple: If we give a prescription drug benefit, why would we want to withhold it? This bill is about fooling the American people about the mission here. It is more about elections than correcting the problems associated with a prescription drug program. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, we have some time remaining. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I know the Senator from Nevada is interested in speaking.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I say to our friend from Iowa, the discount card allows somewhere between 10 and up to 25 percent. With seniors spending an average $2,300 a year on medication, even a 20-percent discount does not provide nearly enough relief. Frankly, it is hard to understand why it has to take 2\1/2\ years to get the program into place. I rather suspect it has less to do with the perfection of the program than it has to do with some other cause. It cannot take that long. We have all of these seniors on record. They are medical enrollees now. Why can't we get this going? As a matter of fact, my colleague from Minnesota, who is going to say something, thinks it should be done in an even shorter period of time than my amendment provides. I ask my colleague if he would like to say something. I yield the floor.