Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio and I are helping to make a big stride in re-arming our country in the war against drunk driving. Together, we have introduced two pieces of legislation which will help reduce the number of civilian casualties in this war by arming our government safety officials with the weapons they need to keep drunk drivers off of our roads. First, I am proud to be a cosponsor of Senator DeWine's legislation on improving enforcement of drunk driving laws. There are some good drunk driving laws on the books and they should not be ignored. Since September 11, 2001, much of our country's law enforcement focus has been on ensuring the security of citizens from terrorist attack. This legislation will ensure that efforts to reduce drunk driving are not given short shrift. Almost 18,000 people died last year in alcohol- related motor vehicle traffic crashes, and we must not neglect the safety of our highways. This bill provides needed resources for law enforcement and will deter people from drinking and driving to begin with. Second, I am proud to introduce, along with Senator DeWine, legislation targeting higher-risk drivers. This includes repeat offenders and drivers with blood alcohol concentration levels of 0.15 percent or higher. Once these offenders are caught, we need to make sure they don't fall through the cracks in the legal system. These criminals should not be behind the wheel--I believe they are a menace to our society, and we should not tolerate their existence. I have long been interested in making our roads and highways safer. During my previous tenure, I saw to it that the Federal government took responsibility for reducing the number of fatalities due to drunk driving. I authored laws to increase the minimum drinking age for alcoholic beverages from 18 to 21, and to encourage States to establish .08 percent as the blood alcohol concentration standard for drunk driving nationwide. These laws have made our roads and highways safer and my hope is that they have saved many precious lives. I feel that the Federal Government needs to take a strong leadership role to reduce alcohol-impaired driving. States cannot deal with these problems in a comprehensive manner. We have passed legislation encouraging states to establish tougher standards for highways safety and drunk driving, but: 32 States still don't have a primary enforcement safety belt law; 11 States still have not adopted the .08 percent Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) standard; 24 States still don't have an open container law; and 27 States still don't have a repeat offender law for drunk driving offenses. I am particularly disappointed that my home State of New Jersey has not yet adopted the .08 percent BAC standard. At risk are millions of dollars in Federal highway funding that our State desperately needs to repair and improve our roads and bridges. Here in Congress, I fight desperately for this funding. But the State puts this funding at risk rather than make a sensible safety choice and adopt a .08 percent BAC standard. This is why I feel that the Federal Government needs to take a leadership role in setting policies that will save lives by reducing drunk driving. I feel that States need stronger ``encouragement'' to address these important highway safety issues. We have already tried threatening withholding highway construction funds, but if we allow a loophole for States to recover the funds within 4 years; maybe that still is not enough encouragement. Now it is time to take the next step in getting drunk drivers off our roads. I look forward to working with Senator DeWine and the rest of my colleagues in the Senate to reduce the 18,000 alcohol-related traffic fatalities that occur each year. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator DeWine in supporting both of these important pieces of legislation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce, along with my colleagues Senator DeWine and Senator Feinstein, legislation which will make our roads safer and last longer. Anyone who has ever shared the road with a large tractor trailer truck has wondered whether the truck driver is aware of the smaller vehicles around the truck. Anyone who has seen the third trailer on a triple-trailer truck swinging around like the tail end of a snake knows that these trucks are to be avoided. The State of New Jersey sees its share of the Nation's truck traffic, but, incidentally, not its share of federal highway dollars. We are concerned about these 53-foot, 80,000-pound vehicles on our highways and the pressure from other states to increase weight and length limitations to allow bigger trucks to come through our State. This makes truck safety even more important to New Jersey drivers. Twelve years ago, I got a provision into the highway reauthorization bill we call ``ICE-TEA'' to ban triple-trailer trucks and other so- called ``longer combination vehicles'', LCVs, from New Jersey and most other States. At that time and ever since, the trucking industry has fought to defeat and repeal this ban, under the guise of arguments for ``states' rights'' and ``unfair re-distribution of business to railroads.'' But these are not rational arguments for allowing bigger and heavier trucks as well as triple-trailer trucks on our roads. Additionally, the trucking industry's proclaimed hardships have not materialized. In fact, the trucking companies have survived the current laws quite well, and trucks have refined their role in our national freight transportation system. Our bill, the ``Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act, will extend the current limited ban which only applies to our 44,000- mile Interstate Highway System to the entire 156,000-mile National Highway System, NHS. This extension will make more roads safer and will further reduce the wear and tear of our highways and bridges. Bigger trucks are not safe. The U.S. Department of Transportation has determined that multi-trailer trucks are likely to be involved in more fatal crashes--11 percent more--than today's single-trailer trucks. By expanding the limits on triples and other longer combination vehicles to the entire NHS--including more than 2,000 miles of highway in New Jersey--the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Protection Act will save lives and prevent further deterioration of our roads and bridges. Triple-trailers and other LCVs do more damage to our roads and bridges but don't come close to paying associated maintenance and repair costs. The fees, tolls and gasoline taxes paid by the operator of a 100,000-pound truck only covers 40 percent of the cost of the damage that truck does to our roads and bridges. The rest of the taxpayers make up the difference. I believe that motorists should not have to share the road with these dangerous behemoths and pay for the extra damage they cause. I thank my colleagues Senator DeWine and Senator Feinstein for joining me in sponsoring this important legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress to improve the highway safety and increase the remaining life of our country's roads and bridges.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio and I are helping to make a big stride in re-arming our country in the war against drunk driving. Together, we have introduced two pieces of legislation which will help reduce the number of civilian casualties in this war by arming our government safety officials with the weapons they need to keep drunk drivers off of our roads. First, I am proud to be a cosponsor of Senator DeWine's legislation on improving enforcement of drunk driving laws. There are some good drunk driving laws on the books and they should not be ignored. Since September 11, 2001, much of our country's law enforcement focus has been on ensuring the security of citizens from terrorist attack. This legislation will ensure that efforts to reduce drunk driving are not given short shrift. Almost 18,000 people died last year in alcohol- related motor vehicle traffic crashes, and we must not neglect the safety of our highways. This bill provides needed resources for law enforcement and will deter people from drinking and driving to begin with. Second, I am proud to introduce, along with Senator DeWine, legislation targeting higher-risk drivers. This includes repeat offenders and drivers with blood alcohol concentration levels of 0.15 percent or higher. Once these offenders are caught, we need to make sure they don't fall through the cracks in the legal system. These criminals should not be behind the wheel--I believe they are a menace to our society, and we should not tolerate their existence. I have long been interested in making our roads and highways safer. During my previous tenure, I saw to it that the Federal government took responsibility for reducing the number of fatalities due to drunk driving. I authored laws to increase the minimum drinking age for alcoholic beverages from 18 to 21, and to encourage States to establish .08 percent as the blood alcohol concentration standard for drunk driving nationwide. These laws have made our roads and highways safer and my hope is that they have saved many precious lives. I feel that the Federal Government needs to take a strong leadership role to reduce alcohol-impaired driving. States cannot deal with these problems in a comprehensive manner. We have passed legislation encouraging states to establish tougher standards for highways safety and drunk driving, but: 32 States still don't have a primary enforcement safety belt law; 11 States still have not adopted the .08 percent Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) standard; 24 States still don't have an open container law; and 27 States still don't have a repeat offender law for drunk driving offenses. I am particularly disappointed that my home State of New Jersey has not yet adopted the .08 percent BAC standard. At risk are millions of dollars in Federal highway funding that our State desperately needs to repair and improve our roads and bridges. Here in Congress, I fight desperately for this funding. But the State puts this funding at risk rather than make a sensible safety choice and adopt a .08 percent BAC standard. This is why I feel that the Federal Government needs to take a leadership role in setting policies that will save lives by reducing drunk driving. I feel that States need stronger ``encouragement'' to address these important highway safety issues. We have already tried threatening withholding highway construction funds, but if we allow a loophole for States to recover the funds within 4 years; maybe that still is not enough encouragement. Now it is time to take the next step in getting drunk drivers off our roads. I look forward to working with Senator DeWine and the rest of my colleagues in the Senate to reduce the 18,000 alcohol-related traffic fatalities that occur each year. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator DeWine in supporting both of these important pieces of legislation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 722 which is at the desk. I want to be sure we have an understanding as to the time distribution. I ask the manager of the bill if an agreement has been entered.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the managers. The amendment is cosponsored by Senator Jeffords. I ask unanimous consent also that Senators Akaka and Lieberman be added as cosponsors.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, this bill would exempt the Department of Defense from respecting critical habitat for endangered species on its lands. This provision of the bill is flawed for three reasons. One, it would severely weaken our country's efforts to protect endangered species. There is a lot of effort that has gone into developing legislation in protecting endangered species. Seeing them disappear is a painful recognition. We are now beginning to see species disappear from our oceans, the Atlantic Ocean. The newspapers have been featuring stories about the disappearance of species like cod, halibut, and blue marlin. We have to be careful because each of these affects the rest of the ecology. That could be disastrous. Second, this action is simply not necessary to maintain our military readiness. An example is the dispute over Vieques Island in Puerto Rico, the territory off the mainland of Puerto Rico. Third, it ignores the Defense Department's long record of successfully balancing readiness and conservation. We want to do both. Protecting critical habitat has long been an essential tool that Federal, State, and local jurisdictions have used to protect endangered species. When endangered species have no place to live, they perish. The bill before the Senate would allow the Defense Department to ignore the Endangered Species Act in favor of using something called the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, called INRMP, for threatened and endangered species. INRMPs are not subject to the same strong standards as those under the Endangered Species Act. Under this bill, no area could be designated a critical habitat on DOD property. No matter how threatened the species, no matter what is found on the land, it will not be strongly protected. It is conceivable that the Defense Department could make this decision under that program, even if it is not needed, for them to conduct their exercises or their duties. The species have to be protected. My amendment is a reasonable approach. It adds two protections to reinforce the effectiveness of the INRMP plans. First, the Secretary of the Interior must determine that the plan would conserve a threatened or endangered species, that it has to make sure we try our best to have that species endure. Second, there must be sufficient funding to implement these plans. By applying this two-part standard, DOD could continue to maintain its historical success, balancing conservation and military readiness. This type of approach does work. Only two species have gone extinct after being put on the endangered species list, while over 600 species not on the list have gone extinct during that time. DOD has 25 million acres of land that are home to 300 federally listed, threatened, and endangered species. The Department of Defense has played a crucial role in preventing these species from sliding into extinction. It is not suggested anywhere that they want these things to happen, but we have a disagreement on what it will take to keep the species alive. Camp Pendleton in California is a good example of how the balance has worked on the ground. Of 18 species listed as threatened and endangered on the 125,000 acres, critical habitat has been recommended for only 5 of those threatened species. Yet using the flexibility built into the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service decided to restrict less than 1 percent of all potential training areas from use for training exercises. In his testimony before the Armed Services Committee last March, GEN Nyland, Assistant Commandant for the Marine Corps, agreed that codifying an effectiveness test for the INRMPs would provide DOD with greater certainty in its decisionmaking. That is the purpose of this amendment. The American people have also spoken on this issue. We should listen. According to a recent Zogby poll, 85 percent of registered voters believe the Defense Department should follow the same environmental laws as everyone else. The two-part test in my amendment will help assure that DOD continues to do its part in conserving endangered species. As I said before, I think they really want that to happen. The question is what the approach is going to be. The issue is about balancing national security with our environmental security and the Pentagon has shown in the past that we can do it. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. From our half hour of time, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I see the distinguished majority leader, Senator Frist, and wonder if I could ask him to address a concern I and other Senators have about a provision entitled ``Eligibility for Assistance'' which is located on page 61, line 18 of the bill.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. This provision says that an organization that is otherwise eligible to receive assistance authorized by this Act to prevent, treat, or monitor HIV/AIDS, shall not be required, as a condition of receiving that assistance, to endorse or utilize a multisectoral approach to combating HIV/AIDS, or to endorse, utilize, or participate in a prevention method or treatment program to which the organization has a religious or moral objection. Again, I support this provision, because there are faith-based groups that are playing a crucial role in HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment which do not, for example want to distribute condoms. I understand that. There are other ways that they can be effective, through counseling, treatment, care and other services. They should not have to distribute condoms if they have a religious or moral objection. But there is a problem, which this provision fails to explicitly address. Some of these same groups that object to distributing condoms, have actively sought to discourage people from using condoms. They have told people who have come to them for advice and counseling that condoms are bad, that they should not use them, and, erroneously, that condoms usually fail. This is wrong. It is wrong from a medical point of view and it is wrong from an ethical point of view, because the consequence of providing this type of inaccurate or misleading information can quite possibly be death. Yet this provision does not address this very real, and very serious, problem. I would ask the majority leader how we can be sure that when these organizations, receive Federal funds, any information they provide about approaches to HIV/AIDS prevention is complete and medically accurate, including both the public health benefits and failure rates of the approach involved.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the majority leader. I agree that these assurances are needed and that they should be routinely spelled out in any contract or grant agreement between the U.S. Government and such organization in order to clarify the intent of this provision. Global Epidemic of Tuberculosis

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, fifteen years ago today, the most deadly drunk driving accident in our Nation's history occurred. It happened at about 10:55 p.m. EST, when a school bus full of teens and chaperones traveled down Interstate 71 to Radcliff, KY, on the way home from a church outing at a Cincinnati, OH amusement park. At this time, a repeat drunk driving offender with a blood alcohol concentration, BAC, of .24 headed the wrong way down Interstate 71 and slammed his pick-up truck into the bus. In just a few horrific moments, 27 people-- mostly children--were killed; another 34 were injured. Today, I was honored to stand with three brave people whose lives were changed forever by this reckless tragedy: Karolyn Nunnallee, Janey Fair, and Harold Dennis. Karolyn lost her 10-year old daughter, Patty, and Janey lost her 14-year old daughter, Shannon. Harold was riding on the bus on that fateful day. Their perseverance should be a lesson for us all, as we continue to fight the social epidemic of drunk driving. Today we must remember the victims and survivors of that terrible tragedy and sadly commemorate the 15th anniversary of the Kentucky bus crash. It is in their memory that I, along with my colleague Senator Mike DeWine, submit this resolution.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise to talk about the legislation we are scheduled to deal with this week, the debt limit extension bill and the tax cut. The debate over the debt ceiling may seem esoteric to the folks back home, but it is actually a fairly simple issue. The President has decided to borrow more money on our Nation's credit card and now he is asking his credit be enlarged. The President's credit card is very clearly over the limit. He is asking the bankers in this room to approve his credit expansion. So we are going to talk about it because we want to be sure he can afford to take on this much debt based on the fiscal management he is directing. By the end of this month, the President's card will be revoked because his balance will far exceed the credit card limit. What is that limit? The limit the President cannot comply with is $6.4 trillion. That is the amount of indebtedness we are currently permitted to have. Now he is asking us, the bankers in this case, the 100 Senators, to extend his limit by another $984 billion. But the President does not have to pay that back. That debt is going to be deferred to future generations, about $3,400 for every man, woman, and child in America. Right after he gets the extension of the debt limit, the President wants to charge at least another $350 billion on the credit card for a tax cut that goes primarily to the wealthy among us. The best part for the President is that he doesn't have to worry about paying the balance. He will hand the credit card off to someone else in a few years and say: You deal with this. All of us will be stuck with the bill--all of our children, all of our grandchildren. I personally was blessed with the birth of a ninth grandchild last Monday. I did not want to greet him with the news he might be inheriting a debt of $3,400 as he starts life. That will be his part of the deficit we are facing. At the rate President Bush is going, maybe our great grandchildren will participate as well. The flawed economic budget policies have been nothing short of a disaster. It is a disaster of the administration's own making. Now the President wants to make the situation worse with another bloated, irresponsible tax cut. I thought it was common knowledge when trapped in a hole you stop digging. Our President wants us to keep on digging and digging until we are in a budgetary canyon. This chart tells a tale of three administrations and fiscal discipline, between the growing deficits of the two President Bushes, then the Clinton administration. We see the bars go from red deficit to a white surplus in the Clinton administration. And now we are headed back for deep deficits. We see what has been happening with our fiscal conditioning in the last years. Under the first President Bush we had a fairly rapidly growing mass deficit. And then we had a new President come in with a different view of how we ought to manage our financial affairs. In 8 years, we see an amazing change. From 1992-1993 when President Clinton took over, we see it going rapidly into a surplus. As a coauthor of the 1997 balanced budget agreement, I was proud to work with President Clinton to attain that surplus. At the signing of the agreement as the official Senate representative, I escorted President Clinton, along with Vice President Gore and Speaker Gingrich, across the White House lawn to permit the entire country to see this historic agreement put into effect--a balanced budget agreement. We made tough choices and they paid off and we put the country's fiscal health back on track. But shortly after President George W. Bush took over, we saw the downward slide to fiscal irresponsibility. President Bush inherited Bill Clinton's surplus and it was squandered in short order. While there are many factors in such a slide, President Bush's irresponsible 2001 tax cut undid any hope of staying in surplus. Now the President-- and this is just an honest policy disagreement--now the President's answer is to borrow more and more. That is why we are talking about expanding the debt with yet another tax cut. We already passed an irresponsible, bloated tax cut in the last Congress and it has not helped the economy. Circumstances have gotten worse and worse. Just look at the job situation in America: How people earn their living, pay their bills, take care of their families. Those folks get a heck of a tax cut. Half of the taxpayers of middle income get about $100 a year--basically nothing. If they should lose their jobs, heaven forbid, they will be darned lucky to find new work, and this administration is unwilling to expand their unemployment benefits. I recently saw President Bush talking about this tax cut plan in front of a board that had written on it: Jobs, growth, jobs, growth-- all over it. The White House staff made sure those words would be in every television image, every photograph of the President at that event. But simply printing the words ``jobs'' and ``growth'' on a board will not turn the President's irresponsible tax cut plan into a job creation plan. No one seriously believes this program will do anything to create jobs anytime soon. Beyond the slogans, the reality is this administration has, unwittingly or otherwise, been a job eliminator. They have done nothing to stimulate the economy or create jobs. They say, ``Trust us, and if we get more tax cuts, some will surely dribble down to the job market.'' Look at this chart: If You Want to Keep Your Job, Stay Out of the Bushes. Unemployment rate grows rapidly under the Presidents Bush. The higher the bars go, the worse the situation is for thousands of working people. After the high unemployment rates of the first President Bush, we saw President Clinton bring the unemployment rate steadily down, all the way to 4 percent. Virtually no economist thought we could get to 4 percent, but we did. Now we look at how President Bush, George W. Bush, has handled employment. We see unemployment rising again. Just this month we hit 6 percent. The first Bush tax cut was supposed to create jobs, but we haven't seen any. Since January of 2001, the number of unemployed has increased over 45 percent, with 8.8 million Americans out of work. Since the beginning of the Bush administration, 2.7 million private sector jobs have been lost--over 500,000 jobs have been lost in the last 3 months, with 48,000 lost in the month of April just past. On top of that, the administration has indicated it would like to eliminate 850,000 Federal employee jobs. In historical context, President George W. Bush has had a rather grim picture, the worst job growth record since the Great Depression. What is growing is unemployment. Just look at this chart: From the highest job growth to the worst job growth in 58 years. That is terrible. The chart has a certain attractiveness about it. But if you look beyond the colors, you see a very grim picture. All of these people who are presently out of work are struggling--this shows it very graphically--with an almost impossible situation. The chart shows President Truman on the left. We see job growth in all the administrations except one. That administration is the current Bush administration. This administration is in the red. It is not creating jobs. We are losing 74,000 jobs on average each month. Compare this administration with either of the two terms of the Clinton administration. We averaged over 200,000 new jobs throughout the Clinton administration. We are losing jobs in this country. But President Bush's preference is to give more huge tax breaks that go primarily to the wealthiest among us. He is addressing the problem with symbols and signs that suggest a rosier future, but it does not happen, and that adds outrage to neglect. In almost every category, these economic policies are failing. Real GDP growth is another example. Look at this chart. It shows the average annual percent change in real GDP in Clinton's two terms and so far in President Bush's tenure. It is a stark contrast, as you see--the Clinton first and second terms here and the present George W. Bush term. President Clinton had us above 4 percent real GDP growth, and President Bush's average is barely above 1 percent. President Clinton practiced fiscal discipline and it paid off. Under President Clinton, we attained a budget surplus. Under President Bush, we are back in deficits as far as the eye can see. Just as a reminder, when President Clinton left office we were looking at the prospect of a $5 trillion surplus over a 10-year period. Now it is expected we will have a $2.2 trillion deficit. Look at the change--$7.2 trillion in a period of 10 years. Under President Clinton, tremendous job growth; under President Bush, losing jobs at a record pace. President Bush's economic policies are not working the way we would like them. I am sure they are not working the way he would like them to either. Our economy and the Federal budget are in real trouble and it is my hope there will be a reexamination of the tax cut plan in front of us. The first Bush tax cut didn't stimulate anything except the wallets of some of the most wealthy among us. Are we going to make the same mistake twice? It seems as if we are on the verge of doing just that. We should not have to increase our Nation's debt limit. We should not have to pass the irresponsible tax bill we are considering. But the reason we are going to have to increase that debt limit $984 billion is to accommodate another tax cut, a tax cut that will not stimulate the economy, will not reward those who are working hard to make a living, taking care of their families, providing for education and a roof over their heads, health care, all that is essential in this day and age to provide good, responsible leadership for a family. It will not help. It is alleged that the tax cut will produce something like $2,000 for the middle class, but it is untrue. It is more like $100 or $200. When you get rid of or reduce the tax obligation for the wealthiest among us, there is not enough left to do more than $100, on average, for half of the taxpayers in the country. So I hope we will take a second look at what we are doing and curb the expansion of debt that this country is going to have to suffer for many years, maybe decades, to come and not proceed with a tax cut that extends, again, the best benefits to the wealthiest among us, people who need it the least. I have had many conversations with people, and we have heard from distinguished entrepreneurs such as Warren Buffett, who said he would rather not have a tax cut because he knows that if he pays more taxes, he is left with a higher result in his pocket. I think we have to look at it realistically. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today will go down as a remarkable day in the history of world diplomacy. I enthusiastically support the passage of Treaty Document No. 108-04, the Resolution of Ratification to the Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. We are seizing a remarkable opportunity to extend the democratic zone of security, stability, tranquility, and mutual assistance eastward. I welcome the seven aspirant countries, and commend their efforts since the fall of their communist regimes 12 years ago to embrace democratic governance and liberal economic policies. I urge the adoption of the Resolution of Ratification because I believe that NATO expansion will bring positive security benefits to the United States. Sovereign states no longer pose the greatest threats to U.S. national security; transnational actors--terrorists groups and their networks of supporters do. I believe that the war on terrorism will only be won through effective cooperation between the U.S. and our allies around the world. Since 9/11, our NATO allies have helped tremendously in our attempt to thwart terrorist attacks here and abroad. The NATO accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia will solidify the cooperation that already exists bilaterally between the U.S. and these seven countries. I do have one concern that I would like to mention: the rights of the large historic Hungarian minorities in Slovakia and Romania. I urge both countries' governments to continue to work with their Hungarian communities to resolve property restitution disputes and other contentious issues. And I urge the governments of all seven countries to pay continued attention to human rights so that all of their citizens may enjoy the benefits that accession to NATO will bring. I extend a special welcome to the distinguished Foreign Ministers and Ambassadors who have come to the Senate Chamber today from each of the seven countries. I welcome them to a crucial alliance, one that was formed in the wake of World War II to protect freedom and democracy, human rights, and rule of law through the combined strength of western military, intelligence, economic, and political assets. Mr. President, today's vote gives me great optimism about the future of our NATO alliance and about the contributions that these seven newest members will make for our collective peace, stability, freedom, and prosperity.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a critical piece of legislation, the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act. In the aftermath of the tragic events of 9-11, the Federal Government has reassessed the Nation's vulnerabilities to acts and threats of terrorism. And in response, the United States Congress gave the Department of Justice expanded powers to detain suspected terrorists, conduct surveillance and obtain confidential information on American citizens. In addition, we have created the new Department of Homeland Security-- the largest reorganization of the Federal Government since the 1940s. In short, the events of 9-11 required us to reevaluate our safety concerns and the security of the Nation. Echoing this need, President Bush said before the United Nations on November 10, 2001, that ``we have the responsibility to deny weapons to terrorists and to actively prevent private citizens from providing them.'' I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. And I believe the American people want the U.S. Senate to follow through with concrete legislative action. However, we have failed to address a significant remaining threat: the accessibility to firearms and explosives within our own borders. How can we truly protect this Nation, if we do not enact legislation which prevents terrorists and potential terrorists from acquiring guns in the United States? Terrorists have identified the lax gun laws of the United States as a means to advance their evil goal to terrorize and harm the American people. In December 2001, during the war on terror, we attacked a terrorist training facility south of Kabul. Found among the rubble at that facility was a manual called: ``How I Can Train Myself for Jihad.'' This manual, contains an entire section on ``Firearms Training'' and singles out the United States for its easy availability of firearms. It stipulates that terrorists living in the U.S. should ``obtain an assault weapon legally, preferably AK-47 or variations.'' It also advises would-be terrorsts on how they should conduct themselves in order to avoid arousing suspicion as they amass and transport firearms. There are other examples where terrorists have sought to take advantage of this nation's lax gun laws. On the eve of the September 11 terrorist attack, on September 10, 2001, a Federal jury convicted Ali Boumelhem, a known member of the terrorist group Hezbollah on seven counts of weapons charges and conspiracy to ship weapons and ammunition to Lebanon. And we have seen how firearms can be used to terrorize an entire community. We are all familiar with the case of John Muhammad and John Malvo, who terrorized the Washington, DC area for more than three weeks as they embarked on a shooting spree with a sniper rifle, shooting 13 innocent people before being caught. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge agrees that there is a dangerous link between guns and terror. During his confirmation hearing before Governmental Affairs Committee on January 17, 2003, in response to a question I asked him about guns and terror, Secretary Ridge said: [W]hen anyone uses a firearm, whether it's the kind of terrorism that we are trying to combat with al Qaeda and these non-state terrorists, or as a former district attorney involved in the conviction of an individual who used firearms against innocent citizens--regardless of how we define terrorism, that individual and that family felt that they were victims of a terrorist act. Brandishing a firearm in front of anybody under any set of circumstances is a terrorist act and needs to be dealt with. Well, the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act deals with it. The Act deals with this threat that leaves America especially vulnerable to future terrorist attacks. The Homeland Security Gun Safety Act would enact specific measures that would help prevent terrorists from acquiring firearms within our own borders. Under current law, there are cases when law enforcement is blocked from conducting an adequate investigation when a terrorist or criminal tries to buy a gun. Current law says if law enforcement takes over three days to conduct a background check on someone who wants a weapon--just hand over the gun. That is ludicrous--especially when we are in an elevated state of terrorist threat. When we are at Code Yellow, the Department of Homeland Security has determined that we are at a significant risk of terrorist attack. The bill I am introducing today would suspend these loopholes in our gun safety laws when we are at Code Yellow or above in the interest of homeland security. The three-day limit on law enforcement is nothing more than a loophole in our laws put there by the gun lobby. And it's a dangerous loophole--a recent study showed that, from December 1998 to June 2001, nearly 10,000 people who should not have been permitted to buy guns, did receive guns because the three-day period passed before law enforcement could finish a background check. Our bill will also require that the Federal Government retain records of weapons transactions while we are in an elevated state of alert. There is no reason we should handicap law enforcement during such a dangerous time. This bill will also close a number of loopholes that have allowed rogue gun dealers to skirt the law. These are the same few gun dealers that are now the subject of lawsuits across the country. These dangerous loopholes that the gun lobby built into our gun laws now pose a major threat to homeland security. This bill will help shut down those loopholes. The bill would require gun dealers to: immediately report ``missing'' guns or face suspension of their license; and put appropriate security measures in place to prevent theft of their weapons; and check with the FBI's Stolen Gun Registry to make sure that secondhand weapons they purchase are not stolen. This bill will also step up enforcement of gun dealers: law enforcement would not be restricted in its ability to inspect dealers. Currently, law enforcement is only allowed one unannounced inspection per year. The bill will also increase the penalties for violations of gun dealer laws to a felony. Right now, the maximum penalty is only a misdemeanor. It has no teeth. I know the NRA will cry wolf to gun owners about this bill. But this bill will not affect the vast majority of honest, law abiding Americans who want to purchase guns. This bill focuses on preventing weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists and criminals. Over 75 percent of background checks are performed in mere minutes. However, there are those purchasers who raise red flags that require further investigation. Those are red flags we can no longer afford to ignore. When we are at Code Yellow, everyday Americans are prevented from taking a tour of the White House--but a terrorist can buy weapons. It makes no sense. This bill offers Congress a clear choice: protect our homeland or protect the gun lobby. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of my bill, the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a critical piece of legislation, the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act. In the aftermath of the tragic events of 9-11, the Federal Government has reassessed the Nation's vulnerabilities to acts and threats of terrorism. And in response, the United States Congress gave the Department of Justice expanded powers to detain suspected terrorists, conduct surveillance and obtain confidential information on American citizens. In addition, we have created the new Department of Homeland Security-- the largest reorganization of the Federal Government since the 1940s. In short, the events of 9-11 required us to reevaluate our safety concerns and the security of the Nation. Echoing this need, President Bush said before the United Nations on November 10, 2001, that ``we have the responsibility to deny weapons to terrorists and to actively prevent private citizens from providing them.'' I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. And I believe the American people want the U.S. Senate to follow through with concrete legislative action. However, we have failed to address a significant remaining threat: the accessibility to firearms and explosives within our own borders. How can we truly protect this Nation, if we do not enact legislation which prevents terrorists and potential terrorists from acquiring guns in the United States? Terrorists have identified the lax gun laws of the United States as a means to advance their evil goal to terrorize and harm the American people. In December 2001, during the war on terror, we attacked a terrorist training facility south of Kabul. Found among the rubble at that facility was a manual called: ``How I Can Train Myself for Jihad.'' This manual, contains an entire section on ``Firearms Training'' and singles out the United States for its easy availability of firearms. It stipulates that terrorists living in the U.S. should ``obtain an assault weapon legally, preferably AK-47 or variations.'' It also advises would-be terrorsts on how they should conduct themselves in order to avoid arousing suspicion as they amass and transport firearms. There are other examples where terrorists have sought to take advantage of this nation's lax gun laws. On the eve of the September 11 terrorist attack, on September 10, 2001, a Federal jury convicted Ali Boumelhem, a known member of the terrorist group Hezbollah on seven counts of weapons charges and conspiracy to ship weapons and ammunition to Lebanon. And we have seen how firearms can be used to terrorize an entire community. We are all familiar with the case of John Muhammad and John Malvo, who terrorized the Washington, DC area for more than three weeks as they embarked on a shooting spree with a sniper rifle, shooting 13 innocent people before being caught. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge agrees that there is a dangerous link between guns and terror. During his confirmation hearing before Governmental Affairs Committee on January 17, 2003, in response to a question I asked him about guns and terror, Secretary Ridge said: [W]hen anyone uses a firearm, whether it's the kind of terrorism that we are trying to combat with al Qaeda and these non-state terrorists, or as a former district attorney involved in the conviction of an individual who used firearms against innocent citizens--regardless of how we define terrorism, that individual and that family felt that they were victims of a terrorist act. Brandishing a firearm in front of anybody under any set of circumstances is a terrorist act and needs to be dealt with. Well, the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act deals with it. The Act deals with this threat that leaves America especially vulnerable to future terrorist attacks. The Homeland Security Gun Safety Act would enact specific measures that would help prevent terrorists from acquiring firearms within our own borders. Under current law, there are cases when law enforcement is blocked from conducting an adequate investigation when a terrorist or criminal tries to buy a gun. Current law says if law enforcement takes over three days to conduct a background check on someone who wants a weapon--just hand over the gun. That is ludicrous--especially when we are in an elevated state of terrorist threat. When we are at Code Yellow, the Department of Homeland Security has determined that we are at a significant risk of terrorist attack. The bill I am introducing today would suspend these loopholes in our gun safety laws when we are at Code Yellow or above in the interest of homeland security. The three-day limit on law enforcement is nothing more than a loophole in our laws put there by the gun lobby. And it's a dangerous loophole--a recent study showed that, from December 1998 to June 2001, nearly 10,000 people who should not have been permitted to buy guns, did receive guns because the three-day period passed before law enforcement could finish a background check. Our bill will also require that the Federal Government retain records of weapons transactions while we are in an elevated state of alert. There is no reason we should handicap law enforcement during such a dangerous time. This bill will also close a number of loopholes that have allowed rogue gun dealers to skirt the law. These are the same few gun dealers that are now the subject of lawsuits across the country. These dangerous loopholes that the gun lobby built into our gun laws now pose a major threat to homeland security. This bill will help shut down those loopholes. The bill would require gun dealers to: immediately report ``missing'' guns or face suspension of their license; and put appropriate security measures in place to prevent theft of their weapons; and check with the FBI's Stolen Gun Registry to make sure that secondhand weapons they purchase are not stolen. This bill will also step up enforcement of gun dealers: law enforcement would not be restricted in its ability to inspect dealers. Currently, law enforcement is only allowed one unannounced inspection per year. The bill will also increase the penalties for violations of gun dealer laws to a felony. Right now, the maximum penalty is only a misdemeanor. It has no teeth. I know the NRA will cry wolf to gun owners about this bill. But this bill will not affect the vast majority of honest, law abiding Americans who want to purchase guns. This bill focuses on preventing weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists and criminals. Over 75 percent of background checks are performed in mere minutes. However, there are those purchasers who raise red flags that require further investigation. Those are red flags we can no longer afford to ignore. When we are at Code Yellow, everyday Americans are prevented from taking a tour of the White House--but a terrorist can buy weapons. It makes no sense. This bill offers Congress a clear choice: protect our homeland or protect the gun lobby. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of my bill, the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on April 1, 2003, Henry Schleiff, chairman and CEO of Court TV, was awarded the Cable Television Public Affairs Association, CTPAA, President's Award. CTPAA is a national organization that focuses on public affairs issues within the cable industry. I can think of no better person to be honored with this award considering the efforts Mr. Schleiff has put forth to serve his industry and the public community. His career has featured an impressive array of both private and public service. Since his career began with HBO, Mr. Schleiff has moved up the ranks of the entertainment industry--from senior vice president of business affairs and administration for HBO and head of HBO Enterprises in the 1980s, to executive producer for Viacom International Inc. and CEO of Viacom's Broadcast and Entertainment Groups in the early 1990s, to executive vice-president for Studios USA in the late 1990s. Mr. Schleiff has been the CEO of Court TV since December 1999 and has been the catalyst for its revival. Under his leadership, Court TV has become one of the most successful basic cable networks in the industry, growing from 30 million subscribers to nearly 80 million in just 4 years. Equally impressive are Mr. Schleiff's efforts for the public community. He is vice chairman of the board of directors for the International Radio & Television Society Foundation, Inc. IRTS, and he serves on the board of directors of the International Council, The Creative Coalition, and Theatreworks. Court TV's Choices and Consequences education program, already in more than 100,000 schools, encourages children to make responsible decisions and positive contributions to society. The ``Everyday Heroes'' program honors brave and courageous individuals who made personal sacrifices or significant contributions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Mr. Schleiff's award acceptance speech be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I rise to talk about Child Abuse Prevention Month. Child Abuse Prevention Month was established 20 years ago by Presidential proclamation and since then, this month has been devoted to raising awareness about this tragic problem. This year holds particular sadness for those of us from New Jersey. This past January, 7-year-old Faheem Williams was found dead in a Newark, NJ, basement where he and his two brothers had been imprisoned for weeks. He had been starved and beaten. With Faheem were his twin, Raheem, and 4-year-old brother Tyrone, both of whom were found to be malnourished and dehydrated. All of this occurred under the supervision of the State agency that placed these three boys in foster care. His death marks a tragic failure on the part of our State and country, as do the deaths of thousands of children each year. Mr. President, I was at Faheem's funeral. That day I said that it didn't matter whether his death was due to neglect or direct abuse. We cannot permit another child to go through this ever again. Across the country last year, 879,000 children were victims of child abuse and neglect, of whom approximately 1,200 died from maltreatment. According to the national organization, Prevent Child Abuse America, three children die every day from abuse or neglect at the hands of those who are supposed to care for them. I don't need to say that one is too many. Most disturbingly, confirmed reports of child abuse and neglect rose 3 percent in the last year nationwide. This is the second straight year child abuse has increased. There is no doubt that child abuse and neglect continues to be a significant problem in the United States. Our children are our future, but their health and safety in our society continues to decline. Every one of us has a responsibility to work for the welfare of the Nation's children. The Department of Health and Human Services runs a National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information, providing research and resources for prevention to individuals and communities. Many nonprofit organizations, State agencies, individual social workers, counselors, teachers, and clergy work tirelessly to determine when children are in danger. We need to support the individuals and groups who advocate for abused children, and the foster families who care for them. Faheem Williams paid a terrible price for his little life and we must honor his memory and the memories of other victims of abuse by educating the country about the risks and signs of abuse and providing the resources available to stop it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would appreciate that. And I will make sure that I do not run longer than that.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague from North Dakota. I think perhaps my tenure as ranking member was the last time we had a balanced budget. But that is intended to be a joke, and I hope the Parliamentarian so notes it. Mr. President, the conference report to the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution is a curiosity at best. This piece of legislation, if it is adopted, will likely become as notorious, perhaps, as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. When President Bush assumed office in January of 2001, he inherited a 10-year surplus forecast, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, of $5.6 trillion. Now, if this budget resolution is adopted, instead of a surplus, we are going to wind up with close to a $2.0 trillion deficit, according to CBO. A Republican President and a Republican Congress are presiding over a 10-year $7.6 trillion reversal of economic fortune. And they are going to blame it on the recession that began in March of 2001, and they are going to blame it on 9/11, and they are going to blame it on the war against terrorism, the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq. No, no, no. The single biggest contributor--and everybody should listen carefully and look at the numbers to confirm this--the single biggest contributor to that deficit is the 2001 tax cut, which the President wants to make even bigger, even longer. The administration and its allies in Congress will say that tax cuts are necessary to ``grow'' the economy. The only things growing in our economy are the number of people without jobs, the budget deficits, publicly held debt, and interest payments on that debt. There is an old saying: When you're in a hole, quit digging. And that is what we ought to do. One would think that much would be obvious to the administration and its Republican friends in Congress. Hundreds of prominent economists-- literally hundreds--including 11 Nobel prize winners, have come out against these tax cuts. It sounds like plain, old common sense to me. But the administration and those who control Congress seem immune to that kind of common sense--the kind of common sense that ordinary working families and business leaders from the smallest to the biggest companies use every day: spend less than what you take in. I will tell you why the administration and the Republicans in Congress seem to be immune to common sense: It is the triumph of a political ideology over good fiscal management. Our Government, paradoxically, is now in the control of people who hate Government. The tax cuts are not really meant to stimulate the economy; they are deliberately intended to reward well-heeled friends and create a budget crisis that forces us to cut important programs and permits them to turn the jobs of hard-working, loyal Government employees over to private sector contractors who claim they can do things at a cheaper price. There's a problem with this scheme. People who depend on the programs will get hurt and on the job front, we just converted a huge baggage screening operation at airports across the country, with 28,000 employees, to the Federal Government because the private sector was handling it so poorly. Republicans have a name for this ``deliberate deficit'' strategy. They call it ``Starving the beast.'' Don't take my word for it. Listen to the words of two influential Republicans, economist Milton Friedman and activist Grover Norquist. On January 15, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed piece written by Milton Friedman, entitled, ``What Every American Wants.'' Part of what he wrote reads as follows: . . . how can we ever cut government down to size? I believe there is one and only one way: the way parents control spendthrift children, cutting their allowance. For government that means cutting taxes. That's Milton Friedman's interpretation of Congress: spendthrift children. He went on to say: . . . Resulting deficits will be an effective--I would go so far as to say, the only effective--restraint on the spending propensities of the executive branch and the legislature. He concluded by saying: . . . a major tax cut will be a step toward the smaller government that I believe most citizens of the U.S. want. The last part is a pretty breathtaking statement for someone who has never been elected to any public office. But more important, the op-ed piece reveals the utterly cynical strategy of deliberately creating deficits ``as far as the eye can see'' until the public becomes sufficiently alarmed to demand some responsibility out of its elected officials. I also mentioned Grover Norquist who heads Americans for Tax Reform. On May 21, 2001, Mr. Norquist appeared on National Public Radio's ``Morning Edition'' and said: I simply want to reduce it [government] to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub. Interestingly, Mr. Norquist, who is another person who has never been elected to any public office, denied making such a statement in a more recent interview with Bill Moyers. But, as the saying goes: You can look it up. I have the transcript. I simply want to reduce it [government] to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub. So, according to Messrs. Friedman and Norquist, elected officials are nothing more than spendthrift children and government--Social Security and Medicare, environmental protection and Pell Grants, national parks and the Coast Guard, veterans' benefits and disaster relief, the SEC and the FBI and all other hard-working, loyal Federal employees--are all things that should be drowned in the bathtub. If this budget resolution is adopted, unified deficits will reach record levels in 2003 and 2004 of $347 billion and $350 billion, respectively, and will total more than $1.7 trillion through 2013. Excluding Social Security, deficits will reach $558 billion in 2004-- that is the coming year--and will exceed $400 billion in every year through 2008, and will total more than $4.5 trillion by 2013. When the government runs deficits long enough, then Congress has to raise the debt ceiling. That is what happens. If we spend too much or, in this instance, cut revenues too deeply, the government has to go ahead and borrow money to meet its needs. The majority doesn't have the courage and probably doesn't have the votes to bring up free-standing legislation to increase the debt limit. So they resorted to a ploy: Under House Rule XXVII, adoption of the conference report before us will result in the House being ``deemed'' to have passed a joint resolution increasing the statutory limit on the public debt. This conference report states that the conferees anticipate that the debt ceiling will be raised from $6.4 trillion to nearly $7 trillion, an increase of $984 billion. That is the single biggest increase in the debt limit in history, surpassing the $915 billion increase the first Bush administration needed in 1990. The debt ceiling was under $6 trillion when this administration took over, and we were actually moving away from it because we were running budget surpluses. If we adopt the administration's budget blueprint today, the debt ceiling will have to be doubled to $12 trillion by 2013. That is an extra $6 trillion in debt. The amounts are staggering. It is hard to put them into a format that everybody can understand, but I'll try: this extra $6 trillion amounts to $21,429 worth of debt for every man, woman, and child in America. This is what is happening while we are at war and with the baby boom generation on the verge of retirement. It would be impossible to mangle things so badly by accident. It can only be done by design. The triumph of ideology may bring joy to those currently in power; the ideologues in control may think that their ``starve the beast'' strategy will make our country stronger. But the problem with ideologues is that they shape reality to fit their ideology. It should be the other way around. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, ``the trouble with our conservative friends isn't that they are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so.'' Destroying the Government will not stimulate the economy. It will cripple it. Starving the beast will not strengthen our Nation. It will weaken it, immeasurably and perhaps permanently. I urge my colleagues to vote against this budget resolution conference report that is as cynical as it is reckless. I yield the floor. Mental Health Parity Assumption

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``State and Local Reservist First Responders Assistance Act of 2003.'' My bill would reimburse State and local governments for the additional costs they incur when their first responders who also serve in the National Guard or the Reserves are called to active duty for 6 or more months. I am pleased to have as original cosponsors of my bill Senators Clinton, Corzine, Daschle, Leahy, Mikulski, Sarbanes, and Schumer. The 1.2 million men and women who serve in the Guard and the Reserves are a crucial component of our military. They account for just 8.3 percent of the Defense budget but give us the capability, if necessary, or nearly doubling our Armed Forces personnel. Not surprisingly, many police, fire, rescue, emergency medical service, and emergency hazardous material disposal personnel serve in the Guard and the Reserves. More and more of these men and women are being called to active duty for longer and longer tours, especially now because of the war with Iraq. It's critical that we bolster our military capabilities here and abroad. But we must not do it at the expense of our safety and security at home. Increasingly, I am hearing from State and local officials who are concerned about the toll that Guard and Reserve call-ups are taking on emergency preparedness. It can be a major problem in smaller towns where just a few call-ups can decimate a local fire or police department. The Town of Ridgewood, for instance, had a patrolman called up who also headed the EMS, emergency medical services. It is costing the town $200,000 to replace him. Because of the recession that began in March 2001 and the effects of 9-11, State and local governments are financially strapped. We shouldn't leave them ``holding the bag'' when their first responders get called to active duty for months at a time. My bill would establish a grant program to be administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DHS. State and local units of government could apply for grants to cover the unanticipated costs associated with replacing a first responder called to active duty for 6 months or more. Reimbursable costs could include the salary and benefits associated with hiring a temporary replacement or the overtime paid to other emergency personnel who ``fill in'' for the first responder called to active duty. If a jurisdiction does not pay its reservist and uses the savings to hire a temporary replacement or pay others overtime, those ``costs'' would not be reimbursable. Only net additional costs would be reimbursable. My bill will help communities in my home State of New Jersey and across the country maintain their ability to respond to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other emergencies. A logical question to ask regarding my bill is, ``How much does it cost?'' The candid answer is, ``I don't know.'' The bill authorizes the appropriation of ``such sums as may be necessary.'' The stipulation in the bill that the first responders must be called to active duty for 6 or more consecutive months is meant to keep the costs of the bill under control and to ensure that the grant program is administratively feasible. I have tried, so far unsuccessfully, to get a handle on how many first responders have been called to active duty, and for how long. It appears that no one is really keeping track. The anecdotal evidence of the need for my bill, however, is overwhelming. According to the Department of Defense, there are a total of 221,186 Reservists and National Guardsmen and women on active duty right now. Many of them, obviously, are first responders. According to the Police Executive Research Forum, PERF, 452 of 1002 law enforcement agencies and departments across the country surveyed so far have lost personnel to call-ups. The Democratic Leadership Council, DLC, has determined that 27 of the 44 police departments it has surveyed are experiencing personnel shortfalls caused, in part, by military call-ups. Of the remaining 17 departments, 15 are in danger of being hurt by call-ups. According to the DLC, ``About 5 percent of the officers in these departments are reservists or members of the National Guard--and many are already being called up for service in the wars against terrorism, Afghanistan, and Iraq. On average, the activation of only 30 percent of these reserves would cause a personnel shortage in these departments.'' The DLC report, entitled ``Cop Crunch'' and previewed in the March/ April issue of Blueprint, lists the following ten jurisdictions as most vulnerable to military call-ups: 1. Fresno, which has about 100 reservists who make up 14.4 percent of the force; 2. Virginia Beach, which has 90 reservists who make up 12.1 percent of the force; 3. Milwaukee, which has 110 reservists who make up 8.2 percent of the force; 4. Miami, which has 86 reservists who make up 8.0 percent of the force; 5. Memphis, which has 143 reservists who make up 7.5 percent of the force; 6. San Antonio, which has 151 reservists who make up 7.4 percent of the force; 7. Los Angeles, which has 650 reservists who make up 7.3 percent of the force; 8. Oklahoma City, which has 70 reservists who make up 6.8 percent of the force; 9. Wichita, which has 41 reservists who make up 6.7 percent of the force; and 10. New Orleans, which has 109 reservists who make up 6.7 percent of the force. The DLC report also highlighted Baltimore's police department. The City has lost the equivalent of an entire police district, 150 officers, to active duty call-ups. So, the need for my bill is obvious. State and local governments desperately need our help. We shouldn't put our own communities, our own citizens, at risk to win the war with Iraq.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``State and Local Reservist First Responders Assistance Act of 2003.'' My bill would reimburse State and local governments for the additional costs they incur when their first responders who also serve in the National Guard or the Reserves are called to active duty for 6 or more months. I am pleased to have as original cosponsors of my bill Senators Clinton, Corzine, Daschle, Leahy, Mikulski, Sarbanes, and Schumer. The 1.2 million men and women who serve in the Guard and the Reserves are a crucial component of our military. They account for just 8.3 percent of the Defense budget but give us the capability, if necessary, or nearly doubling our Armed Forces personnel. Not surprisingly, many police, fire, rescue, emergency medical service, and emergency hazardous material disposal personnel serve in the Guard and the Reserves. More and more of these men and women are being called to active duty for longer and longer tours, especially now because of the war with Iraq. It's critical that we bolster our military capabilities here and abroad. But we must not do it at the expense of our safety and security at home. Increasingly, I am hearing from State and local officials who are concerned about the toll that Guard and Reserve call-ups are taking on emergency preparedness. It can be a major problem in smaller towns where just a few call-ups can decimate a local fire or police department. The Town of Ridgewood, for instance, had a patrolman called up who also headed the EMS, emergency medical services. It is costing the town $200,000 to replace him. Because of the recession that began in March 2001 and the effects of 9-11, State and local governments are financially strapped. We shouldn't leave them ``holding the bag'' when their first responders get called to active duty for months at a time. My bill would establish a grant program to be administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DHS. State and local units of government could apply for grants to cover the unanticipated costs associated with replacing a first responder called to active duty for 6 months or more. Reimbursable costs could include the salary and benefits associated with hiring a temporary replacement or the overtime paid to other emergency personnel who ``fill in'' for the first responder called to active duty. If a jurisdiction does not pay its reservist and uses the savings to hire a temporary replacement or pay others overtime, those ``costs'' would not be reimbursable. Only net additional costs would be reimbursable. My bill will help communities in my home State of New Jersey and across the country maintain their ability to respond to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other emergencies. A logical question to ask regarding my bill is, ``How much does it cost?'' The candid answer is, ``I don't know.'' The bill authorizes the appropriation of ``such sums as may be necessary.'' The stipulation in the bill that the first responders must be called to active duty for 6 or more consecutive months is meant to keep the costs of the bill under control and to ensure that the grant program is administratively feasible. I have tried, so far unsuccessfully, to get a handle on how many first responders have been called to active duty, and for how long. It appears that no one is really keeping track. The anecdotal evidence of the need for my bill, however, is overwhelming. According to the Department of Defense, there are a total of 221,186 Reservists and National Guardsmen and women on active duty right now. Many of them, obviously, are first responders. According to the Police Executive Research Forum, PERF, 452 of 1002 law enforcement agencies and departments across the country surveyed so far have lost personnel to call-ups. The Democratic Leadership Council, DLC, has determined that 27 of the 44 police departments it has surveyed are experiencing personnel shortfalls caused, in part, by military call-ups. Of the remaining 17 departments, 15 are in danger of being hurt by call-ups. According to the DLC, ``About 5 percent of the officers in these departments are reservists or members of the National Guard--and many are already being called up for service in the wars against terrorism, Afghanistan, and Iraq. On average, the activation of only 30 percent of these reserves would cause a personnel shortage in these departments.'' The DLC report, entitled ``Cop Crunch'' and previewed in the March/ April issue of Blueprint, lists the following ten jurisdictions as most vulnerable to military call-ups: 1. Fresno, which has about 100 reservists who make up 14.4 percent of the force; 2. Virginia Beach, which has 90 reservists who make up 12.1 percent of the force; 3. Milwaukee, which has 110 reservists who make up 8.2 percent of the force; 4. Miami, which has 86 reservists who make up 8.0 percent of the force; 5. Memphis, which has 143 reservists who make up 7.5 percent of the force; 6. San Antonio, which has 151 reservists who make up 7.4 percent of the force; 7. Los Angeles, which has 650 reservists who make up 7.3 percent of the force; 8. Oklahoma City, which has 70 reservists who make up 6.8 percent of the force; 9. Wichita, which has 41 reservists who make up 6.7 percent of the force; and 10. New Orleans, which has 109 reservists who make up 6.7 percent of the force. The DLC report also highlighted Baltimore's police department. The City has lost the equivalent of an entire police district, 150 officers, to active duty call-ups. So, the need for my bill is obvious. State and local governments desperately need our help. We shouldn't put our own communities, our own citizens, at risk to win the war with Iraq.