Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the innocent victims of coalition bombing raids in Afghanistan, and to submit for the record, an article regarding this situation from the Washington Post. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

After many years of armed conflict and internal unrest, Afghans are currently in the process of rebuilding their nation. And, now that the majority of military action in that country is complete, it is clear that many innocent Afghans lost their lives, homes, or family members as a result of coalition attacks. Certainly, I have no doubt that throughout our military actions in Afghanistan, our troops acted with the highest possible level of precision and professionalism in order to avoid civilian injuries or deaths. I applaud their valiant efforts and their excellent performance. We all do. However, in all armed conflicts there are mistakes made, and in this conflict, several hundred Afghans died as a result.

The village of Madoo is a chilling example of this loss of life. An estimated 150 people were killed in this village, which was bombed by coalition forces, along with other villages located near Osama bin Laden's former lair in the mountains at Tora Bora. And, the magnitude of this loss of life is highlighted exponentially when one considers that Madoo was home to only 300 people. In these raids, not only was Madoo reduced to ruins, but half of its population died; half of all its inhabitants lost their lives. These were innocent people, and the ones who remain--like so many others in Afghanistan--are destitute. They did not only lose their friends and family; they lost their homes, possessions, and their livelihoods.

Sadly, it has now been over a year since much of this damage was inflicted, and while some have begun to receive this aid, those injured by coalition bomb attacks are still in desperate need of assistance. With each passing day, there is growing doubt amongst many of the victims as to whether or not American aid will ever arrive. This is a troubling situation, and I hope my colleagues will join me in calling on the administration to ensure that these funds quickly reach all of those in need.

Indeed, Congress has already appropriated funds to assist humanitarian and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the disbursement of these funds to victims of coalition attacks has been hindered for a number of reasons. Ongoing military skirmishes in Southeastern Afghanistan have in many cases prevented aid workers from safely reaching the most war-torn villages. In addition, widespread destruction caused by decades of conflict has spurred some Afghans to falsely attribute their suffering with coalition attacks. Moreover, local rivalries between clans and villages require the United States and the international community to distribute aid equitably, so that no particular group will feel a sense of inequity in the distribution of American aid, which would only serve to heighten tensions.

I also understand the concerns expressed by some members of the administration regarding the complicated policy implications that providing monetary compensation for victims of coalition bombing raids could create. Certainly, the security interests of the United States are in the forefront of the minds of every member of this chamber. However, with our vast resources, as well as American ingenuity and creativity, we should work to develop innovative approaches that will ensure American aid reaches all of those in need, while also protecting regional and global American interests.

I am heartened by recent developments that will allow the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, to begin distributing aid to war-affected communities in Afghanistan. The $1.25 million obligation for this effort is a good start. However, while there are many reasons for the slow distribution of American aid, the reality is that the victims of these attacks are still in great need of assistance.

It is absolutely imperative that the administration now acts with the same swiftness and clarity witnessed in the fight against the Taliban to aid these innocent men, women, and children. We must remind them that our quarrel was not with the Afghan people, but rather the Taliban. Now that we have freed them from the oppressive hand of that brutal regime, we must not leave them alone.

The needs of the Afghan people are immediate. They cannot wait. Indeed, they have already waited too long. If we continue to sit idly by; if we do not help alleviate the suffering that was unintentionally inflicted upon them, then we will be creating an incubator for the same type of anti-American sentiment on which the Taliban and Osama bin Laden thrived. We will be laying the foundations for the very mentality that we are trying to uproot. We will be serving to destroy all that we have worked to achieve.

Exhibit 1

[From the Washington Post, Apr. 28, 2003]

After the Airstrikes, Just Silence; No Compensation, Little Aid for

Afghan Victims of U.S. Raids

(By April Witt)

Madoo, Afghanistan.--There are more graves than houses in

Madoo.

The mosque and many of the roughly 35 homes that once made

up this hamlet in the White Mountains of eastern Afghanistan

lie in rubble. At least 55 men, women and children--or pieces

of them--are buried here, their graves marked by flags that

are whipped by the wind.

Seventeen months after U.S. warplanes bombed this village

and others in the vicinity of Osama bin Laden's cave complex

at Toro Bora, Madoo's survivors say they can tell civilian

victims of U.S. bombing in Iraq what to expect in the way of

help from Washington: nothing.

``Our houses were destroyed,'' said Niaz Mohammad Khan, 30.

``We want to rebuild, but we don't have the money. . . . We

need water for our land. We need everything. People come and

ask us questions, then go away. No one has helped.''

Madoo is one of several enclaves in the region that the

U.S. military bombed over several days in December 2001,

killing an estimated 150 civilians. Once home to 300 people,

Madoo has lost roughly half its population, villagers say. In

addition to the dozens killed by U.S. airstrikes, many others

lost their homes and moved away. The people who remain are

destitute. They live crowded in the few stone and timber

homes they've managed to rebuild on their own. They subsist

on bread and the vegetables they grow. Several children looks

slight and frail.

Half of world away in Washington, finding ways to help

people in such desperate need became an immediate priority

for some policymakers and a dangerous precedent to others.

Congress directed that an unspecified amount of money be

spent to assist innocent victims of U.S. bombing in

Afghanistan, just as it recently called on the Bush

administration to identify and provide ``appropriate

assistance'' to civilian victims in Iraq. But the money

has not yet reached any of the intended recipients, U.S.

officials acknowledged.

``The money is there,'' said Tim Rieser, an aide to Sen.

Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.). ``Mistakes were made. Mistakes are

made in wars. We all know that. But we have yet to see the

administration take action to carry out the law in

Afghanistan.''

The U.S. Agency for International Development, for example,

had $1.25 million in last year's budget to help Afghan

civilians who suffered losses as a result of U.S. military

action, according to the U.S. Embassy in Kabul. But the

agency has not spent any of that money helping Afghans who

had their relatives killed, their children maimed, their

homes leveled or their livestock and livelihoods destroyed by

American bombing, several U.S. officials in Afghanistan

conceded this week.

The biggest obstacle to delivery of the aid, officials say,

has been a prolonged debate over how to assist bombing

victims without compensating them. To policymakers, the

distinction between easing the plight of suffering innocents

and compensating the victims of war is more than semantic.

Both the U.S. military and the State Department are leery of

setting legal precedents for compensation and have declined

to establish programs that either systematically document

civilian losses or give Afghans any opportunity to apply for

reparations.

Short of that, military civil-affairs units in Afghanistan

have, in isolated instances, provided general humanitarian

assistance to communities that happen to have suffered as a

result of U.S. bombing. They are, for example, helping

rebuild Bamian University--but only, officials insist,

because Bamian needs a new university, not because U.S. bombs

destroyed the old one.

``Claims have never been processed for combat losses,''

said Col. Roger King, U.S. military spokesman at Bagram air

base near Kabul, the Afghan capital.

The policy debate has gone on too long, Rieser said. ``It's

tricky,'' he said. ``We don't imagine going around handing

out dollar bills to people. We are sensitive to the issues.

If we were to announce some kind of a claims program, every

single person in Afghanistan would sign up. It's just not

feasible.

``But we do know about a lot of these bombing incidents. We

know there is a real need there. Why not start doing

something about it in the context of our overall aid program?

All Congress is saying is, don't leave out the people who

suffered serious losses on account of our mistakes. It should

have happened already.''

There are no official estimates of how many Afghan

civilians have been killed by U.S. bombs. A survey published

last year by the human rights group Global Exchange estimated

the number at more than 800.

A year and a half after the U.S.-led coalition ousted the

Taliban and al Qaeda, bombs are still falling on Afghan

civilians as U.S. forces combat a resurgence of terrorism

aimed at destabilizing the government of President Hamid

Karzai. In eastern Afghanistan this month, a U.S. warplane

mistakenly killed 11 members of one family when a 1,000-pound

laser-guided bomb missed its intended target and landed on a

house.

And Madoo still lies in ruins.

The village, 25 miles south of Jalalabad, is not accessible

by road. It is a short but arduous hike through mountain

gorges from the Pakistan border. On the horizon jut the black

peaks of Tora Bora, home of the cave complex where an

estimated 1,000 of bin Laden's fighters are believed to have

gathered after the defeat of the Taliban last fall.

It was late afternoon on Dec. 1, 2001, when U.S. warplanes

appeared over Madoo. The people of Madoo were observing

Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting.

``It was the time of breaking fast, and we were just

sitting together to have dinner,'' Munir, 12, recalled. ``We

heard the voice of the planes, and we went out to see what

was happening. A bomb landed on our home. There weren't any

Taliban or Arabs with us. For nothing they dropped bombs

here.''

After the first bombers left, Munir's mother and 8-year-old

sister were dead. His infant brother, Abdul Haq, was buried

alive. Relatives spied the boy's foot sticking out of a mound

of dirt and dug him out.

The bombers returned three times, villagers said. In all,

the people of Madoo say they buried at least 55 loved ones.

Many bodies were too damaged to identify. Some of the

dozens of mounds in Madoo's hillside burial ground are marked

with two and three pieces of wood, signifying that the

remains of more than one person are interred there.

The people of Madoo remain puzzled by Americans. A retired

Ohio lawyer, who read about one Madoo boy injured in the

bombings, was so moved that he visited and gave each survivor

about $300. People bought tents and clothes and wheat seeds

to plant. But Madoo's losses outstripped one man's largess.

Munir's youngest brother, now a toddler, coughs frequently

and swipes at his runny nose. His family, whose home and

meager possessions were destroyed in the bombing, lives with

relatives.

``Before, it was good here,'' Munir said. ``The people and

my father worked on the land. Life was better than it is now.

We have lost everything.''

Munir's father, Shingul, 55, who is raising his four

surviving children alone, tried to talk about his late wife

and daughter but could only turn away and weep.

``If we were doing something wrong, I could understand

this,'' he said when he regained his voice. ``But it was

Ramadan and we were breaking the fast. The main problem we

have now is that we have nothing. We would really appreciate

it if someone could help.''

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that is important to America's Federal law enforcement officers and the people they protect across the country. I am joined today by Senator Collins, Senator Clinton, Senator Corzine, Senator Cantwell, Senator Durbin, Senator Grassley, Senator Leahy, Senator Snowe, Senator Reed, Senator Biden, Senator Feinstein, Senator Schumer,

Senator Lieberman, Senator Warner, Senator Johnson, Senator Murray, Senator Carper, Senator Kerry, Senator Baucus, Senator Reid, Senator Sarbanes, and Senator Jeffords.

The legislation that we are offering will amend the Federal Law Enforcement Pay Reform Act of 1990 to ensure that the government treats Federal law enforcement officers fairly. This bill will partially increase the locality pay adjustments paid to Federal agents in certain high cost areas. These areas have pay disparities so high they are negatively affecting our Federal law enforcement officers, since locality pay adjustments have either not been increased since 1990, or have been increased negligibly.

All over America, Federal law enforcement personnel are enduring tremendous stress associated with our Nation's effort to protect citizens from the threat of terrorism. Unfortunately, that stress has been compounded by ongoing pressing concerns among many such personnel about their pay. I have heard from officers who have described long commutes, high personal debts, and in some cases, almost all-consuming concerns about financial insecurity. Many of these problems occur when agents or officers are transferred from low-cost parts of the country to high-cost areas. I have been told that some Federal officers are forced to separate from their families and rent rooms in the cities to which they have been transferred because they cannot afford to rent or buy homes large enough for a family.

Unfortunately, the raise in the cost of living in many cities across America has outstripped our Federal pay system. I recognize that this is a problem for other Federal employees and I am prepared to work with my colleagues to address this larger issue. The cost of living has also had a very negative impact on non-federal employees as well and I have consistently worked to ensure that all working Americans enjoy a truly livable wage. The legislation that we are introducing today in no way suggests that the needs of other workers should be ignored, but it acknowledges that as we continue to ask Federal law enforcement personnel to put in long hours and remain on heightened alert, we must provide them with a salary sufficient to allow them to focus on their vital work without nagging worries about how to provide their families with the essentials of food, clothing, and shelter.

The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, representing more than 19,000 Federal agents, along with the Fraternal Order of Police, National Association of Police Organizations, National Troopers Coalition, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, International Brotherhood of Police, and the Police Executive Research Forum have endorsed this legislative proposal.

In these difficult times, we must remain committed to recruiting, hiring, and retaining law enforcement officers of the highest caliber. However, we must also recognize that the Federal government is in competition with State and Local police departments that often pay more and provide better standards of living.

I urge all of my colleagues to join us in this effort. I hope that we can quickly pass this important legislation because it will improve the lives of the men and women who are dedicated to protecting us. In so doing, it will improve the Nation's domestic security.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that is important to America's Federal law enforcement officers and the people they protect across the country. I am joined today by Senator Collins, Senator Clinton, Senator Corzine, Senator Cantwell, Senator Durbin, Senator Grassley, Senator Leahy, Senator Snowe, Senator Reed, Senator Biden, Senator Feinstein, Senator Schumer,

Senator Lieberman, Senator Warner, Senator Johnson, Senator Murray, Senator Carper, Senator Kerry, Senator Baucus, Senator Reid, Senator Sarbanes, and Senator Jeffords.

The legislation that we are offering will amend the Federal Law Enforcement Pay Reform Act of 1990 to ensure that the government treats Federal law enforcement officers fairly. This bill will partially increase the locality pay adjustments paid to Federal agents in certain high cost areas. These areas have pay disparities so high they are negatively affecting our Federal law enforcement officers, since locality pay adjustments have either not been increased since 1990, or have been increased negligibly.

All over America, Federal law enforcement personnel are enduring tremendous stress associated with our Nation's effort to protect citizens from the threat of terrorism. Unfortunately, that stress has been compounded by ongoing pressing concerns among many such personnel about their pay. I have heard from officers who have described long commutes, high personal debts, and in some cases, almost all-consuming concerns about financial insecurity. Many of these problems occur when agents or officers are transferred from low-cost parts of the country to high-cost areas. I have been told that some Federal officers are forced to separate from their families and rent rooms in the cities to which they have been transferred because they cannot afford to rent or buy homes large enough for a family.

Unfortunately, the raise in the cost of living in many cities across America has outstripped our Federal pay system. I recognize that this is a problem for other Federal employees and I am prepared to work with my colleagues to address this larger issue. The cost of living has also had a very negative impact on non-federal employees as well and I have consistently worked to ensure that all working Americans enjoy a truly livable wage. The legislation that we are introducing today in no way suggests that the needs of other workers should be ignored, but it acknowledges that as we continue to ask Federal law enforcement personnel to put in long hours and remain on heightened alert, we must provide them with a salary sufficient to allow them to focus on their vital work without nagging worries about how to provide their families with the essentials of food, clothing, and shelter.

The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, representing more than 19,000 Federal agents, along with the Fraternal Order of Police, National Association of Police Organizations, National Troopers Coalition, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, International Brotherhood of Police, and the Police Executive Research Forum have endorsed this legislative proposal.

In these difficult times, we must remain committed to recruiting, hiring, and retaining law enforcement officers of the highest caliber. However, we must also recognize that the Federal government is in competition with State and Local police departments that often pay more and provide better standards of living.

I urge all of my colleagues to join us in this effort. I hope that we can quickly pass this important legislation because it will improve the lives of the men and women who are dedicated to protecting us. In so doing, it will improve the Nation's domestic security.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to the budget resolution which my colleagues and I will be voting on this afternoon.

First of all, I take serious exception to what has gone on here with respect to this year's budget resolution process. In all my years in Congress I have never seen anything quite like it.

The budget resolution we are voting on today is different than the resolution passed by the House early this morning. This resolution creates an unprecedented ``point of order'' which ties the hands of the Senate by creating competing procedural paths between the House and the Senate for approving the size and nature of these proposed tax cuts.

This is like a business keeping two sets of books. That is shady practice for a business and it is awful policy for this Nation's economy.

But, more importantly, I believe that no matter how you look at this budget resolution it is extraordinarily fiscally irresponsible and will lock our Nation into years of record deficits and a skyrocketing national debt.

I believe this resolution is profoundly unfair--providing hundreds of billions in tax cuts for the most affluent Americans who need them least, while slashing critical services from the American families who need them most.

I believe that this resolution will be fundamentally ineffective in addressing the major challenges our Nation currently faces.

I was in this Chamber in the early 1980s, when we debated the utility of

enormous tax breaks benefitting mostly the wealthiest Americans and richest corporations. I was in this Chamber the last time we heard arguments about how passing large tax breaks and accepting huge deficits now will lead us to economic prosperity down the line.

And I was here to witness what those breaks and deficits wrought on the American people: greater unemployment, lower growth, more homelessness, more poverty.

For many of us, this budget resolution is--to quote Yogi Berra-- ``deja vu all over again.''

President Reagan was a remarkable man, who filled America with a sense of pride and optimism, at a time in our history when such feelings were sorely lacking. But that doesn't mean his fiscal policies were good for America. They were reckless policies that led us down the wrong path.

I was one of a handful of Senators who voted against the Reagan tax cuts in 1981 and 1982. And history shows that the budget policies of the early 1980s were enormously destructive to the fiscal health of our Nation--the shameful legacy of which lasts to this very day.

Our Nation's Federal budget deficit rose from $74 billion in 1980, to $221 billion in 1986, and peaked at nearly $300 billion in 1992.

In 1980, our national debt stood at $712 billion. By 1990 it had reached $2.4 trillion.

Well, ``here we go again.''

Here we are, once again, voting on an extraordinarily reckless budget, based on disproven and discredited economic theories.

The philosopher George Santayana once said, ``Those who fail to remember the past are condemned to repeat it.''

Our collective failure to remember the past, will be, in my view, far worse this time around than the first time we made these mistakes in the 1980s.

This budget resolution locks in the largest deficits in our Nation's history. This year alone, the budget deficit could reach as high as $600 billion. That's more than twice as high as the highest annual deficit ever recorded in American history.

According to the Republicans' own analyses, if these tax cuts are enacted, the deficits over the next 10 years will total as much as $6.7 trillion.

If these tax cuts are enacted, our national debt, which currently stands at a whopping $6.4 trillion--thanks, again, to the budget policies of the 1980s--will rise as high as $12 trillion.

Frankly, I am shocked that we are about to pass a bill that is almost universally recognized as an enormous fiscal mistake.

Even many of the Republican's own hand-picked economic officials concede that the Bush economic package will likely do little to spur growth, and could well stifle it.

This is profoundly unfair--tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while all others are making enormous sacrifices--including some in Iraq who are right now prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice.

During past Congresses and past administrations, the American people have always been called upon to share the burden that is brought about from conflict.

They have done so by buying government bonds and by even paying higher taxes if necessary to support our troops in times of war. Americans made these sacrifices with a sense of pride because they recognized it as their responsibility.

What past administrations and Congresses did not do was consider tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while their troops were in battle, which is what this administration and the majority in Congress are doing.

I believe we missed an enormous opportunity here. I believe that we had an historic obligation and an historic opportunity to set our fiscal house in order this year.

We had an opportunity to take enormous steps toward fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, and economic prosperity. Instead, the agreement that we are voting on today will bring about record-high deficits and will significantly shortchange families across America.

As I said, this resolution is irresponsible, unfair, and ineffective.

It is highly irresponsible in the middle of a war, and in the midst of a severe economic downturn, to have a budget reconciliation bill with more than $1.2 trillion in tax cuts as its centerpiece.

The other centerpiece of this budget resolution is, of course, cutting crucial funding for our national priorities--including homeland security, education, and health care.

And for what? To pay for a tax cut for the wealthy.

While offering tax breaks of up to $90,000 for the most affluent among us, this resolution cuts more than $7 billion over 10 years in services for America's veterans.

As tens of thousands of our young men and women return from the Persian Gulf, we will reward them with cuts to their health care benefits, their education grants, and their opportunities to get ahead.

While assuring the richest of the rich will receive an unprecedented financial windfall this year and over the next 10 years, we are severely shortchanging our children's education--underfunding Title 1 by $5.8 billion, falling short of funding for the ``No Child Left Behind Act'' by roughly $8 billion, and slashing $400 million from after-school programs, which will force nearly 600,000 children out on the street after school.

While making certain the bank accounts of the wealthiest Americans are secure, this budget fails to provide the funding necessary to make certain our homeland is secure.

Money has been slashed for the FIRE grants program--which helps fire departments nationwide obtain the equipment and training they will need to effectively respond to new threats.

And cuts have also been made to the COPS program and other programs critical to our defense against terrorism.

We must attack head-on the argument that says that this tax cut is essential to our economic recovery. Just saying it is, does not make it so. Contrary to the belief of some on the other side of the aisle, deficits do matter. They lower future economic growth by reducing the level of national savings that can be devoted to productive investments--because more and more of the budget will be used to pay past debts, not to put into productive investments.

They exert upward pressure on interest rates, which will mean higher rates for mortgages, new cars, business loans, and education loans-- which serve as a de-facto tax on our hardest-working families. They raise interest payments on the national debt. And they reduce our fiscal flexibility to deal with the unexpected.

If we do not take action now to bring these growing deficits under control, those who endorse this document, in so doing, help to create the first generation of Americans less well off than their predecessors.

The prosperity we had in the 1990s did not just come about from one day to the next. It came about through wise and tough decisions from the private and public sector. It took decisions to put an end to smoke and mirror accounting and budget gimmicks. It took tough decisions geared toward fiscal discipline and long term prosperity.

Just 2 years ago, when President Bush first came into office, the Congressional Budget Office projected a surplus of $5.6 trillion over 10 years. And now we are projecting record deficits of up to $6.7 trillion over 10 years. That's a $12.3 billion decline in our Nation's budgetary health and economic prospects.

This administration and the majority of this Congress are digging an enormous hole for our national economy. Their solution is more shovels and more digging. This does not strike me to be the wisest or most responsible course of action to take.

I strongly oppose this budget resolution and urge my colleagues to vote against it.

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

Mr. President, it had been my intent earlier in the week to come and share with my colleagues some thoughts on the recent crackdown on human rights activists in Cuba. I was unable to do it, so before we adjourn for the Easter Passover recess, I want to take a few minutes to express my thoughts on the recent events in Cuba, and to express in the strongest terms possible my sense of outrage over what has happened.

Cuban President Fidel Castro recently initiated severe and repressive measures in an attempt to silence prodemocracy activists on the island nation of Cuba. I rise to denounce in the strongest possible terms those actions. The arrests and show trials of these individuals are well beyond acceptable norms of governance today, and they call into question the very legitimacy of the Cuban state. It speaks volumes about that state's legitimacy when its citizens are denied an opportunity to dialog with the Government authorities about the future of their nation, its political institutions, and its practices.

Over the last 40 years, there have been ebbs and flows with respect to the extent of political space granted to human rights activists and independent journalists by Cuban authorities. Last year, in the runup to the visit of former President Jimmy Carter to Havana, there was a perceptible loosening of restrictions on civil society activities. And the Cuban people exhibited a genuine interest in and motivation toward making the most of this newly found political space. When President Carter was in Havana, he was permitted to address the Cuban people, live and uncensored, on Cuban national television. At that time, he rightfully acknowledged the ongoing democratic grassroots activities on the island symbolized by the so-called Varela Project, headed by Oswaldo Paya. This important grassroots organization has already gathered more than 20,000 signatures on petitions in support of democratic reforms.

Thanks to President Jimmy Carter, the activities of Mr. Paya are now known not only to the international community but to the Cuban people as well.

Representatives of the Varela Project presented a petition with over 11,000 signatures to the Cuban National Assembly, calling on the Assembly to act on some vital democratic issues, including free speech and free press, economic liberalization, and the release of political prisoners. While I understand that the National Assembly has responded to the Varela petitioners, it has done so in a narrowly, legalistic manner that misses the larger political issues that deserve serious consideration by Cuban authorities.

It speaks volumes that thousands of ordinary Cubans have been willing to publicly petition their government seeking change. I for one had hoped that the Cuban people's expressed desire for democratic initiatives would prompt further liberalization of the Nation of Cuba. In fact, if the Castro government abided by its own constitution, this might very well be the case.

Instead, over the past several weeks, my colleagues, my fellow Americans, and the global community have witnessed the Castro government's abrupt and repressive retaliation against Cuban grassroots democracy activists, independent journalists, economists, and other dissidents. On trumped up charges of allegedly ``working with a foreign power to undermine the government,'' the Castro government is attempting to undermine the will of its own people, in my view, and about 75 Cuban dissidents have now been arrested and convicted.

Opposition political party leader Hector Palacios has already received 25 years in prison, and his wife, Gisela Delgado was also convicted. Civil rights advocate Oscar Elias Biscet is expected to be sentenced this week. Economist Martha Beatriz Roque, who has been consistently critical of President Castro's handling of the Cuban economy--and rightfully so, I might add--which happens to be in dire straits, received 20 years in prison for merely doing that. Three others met the same fate, including dissident independent journalist Raul Rivero, independent magazine editor Ricardo Gonzales, and economist Oscar

Espinosa Chepe. Indeed, up to this point, there have been 57 convictions, with sentences ranging from 6 to 28 years.

And, I must say that after examining these tragic cases, it comes as no surprise that although Mr. Paya has not yet been arrested, 42 of the 74 people arrested in these crackdowns are participants in the Varela Project.

Even more troubling is that these trials have been and are continuing to be conducted in a Havana courtroom closed to international diplomats and foreign journalists. I strongly believe that this atmosphere of authoritarianism is indicative not only of the lack of substantial evidence against these individuals, but these trials' lack of domestic and international legitimacy.

For many years, I have strongly supported United States engagement of Cuba. I have worked to dismantle the myriad of restrictions on American interaction with that nation, including those on trade and travel. Once again, let me state for the record my belief that our 40-year long isolationist policy towards Cuba has played, unfortunately, a major role I believe in keeping the government of Fidel Castro in power. It has allowed the Castro regime to blame U.S. policies for the lack of food and medicine in Cuba and has created a siege mentality which has allowed repression to flourish under the guise of national sovereignty. For those reasons I continue to believe that U.S. policy needs to change to some degree.

However, my support for United States engagement of Cuba should not be mistaken for support of the Castro Government or for the reprehensible tactics it resorts to in order to suppress popular dissent with its policies

It is a curious thing, indeed, that prior to these recent actions by Cuban authorities, there was growing support in the Congress and in the Cuban American community in particular for more engagement with Cuba. It leads me to speculate whether President Castro's recent persecution of prodemocracy and human rights activists is not designed to chill efforts in the United States to engage more actively with the island.

I call upon the Castro Government to take immediate steps for the release of its political prisoners, to stop the persecution of Cuban dissidents, and to show respect for and abide by the Cuban Constitution and the will of the Cuban people. Fidel Castro has always said that the Cuban Revolution liberated the Cuban people from tyranny and oppression. The events of the last few weeks would indicate just the opposite. Many of the actions that the Castro regime has taken in recent months, particularly against democratic activists and independent journalists make it crystal clear that tyranny is still the order of the day in Havana under Fidel Castro. It is time for Cuban authorities to drastically reverse course and allow the Cuban people to have a voice in their governance. Then and only then will the Cuban people be truly liberated from tyranny.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the CARE Act which is an important piece of legislation that was passed yesterday. The CARE Act will help thousands of charitable organizations across the country perform the important work that they do every day on behalf of people and causes that need and deserve our assistance.

Every day in America, men and women and sometimes children--working and volunteering under the auspices of countless charitable organizations--feed hungry children, provide hot meals and home visits to senior citizens, clean our parks and lakes and rivers, care for neglected and abused animals, and provide clothes, food, and shelter for the homeless and mentally ill. These activities take place each day despite great costs to workers and volunteers in terms of time and resources.

I would daresay that were this bill not to become law, volunteers and charitable organizations around the country would be no less committed and dedicated to their work. But because we have passed this legislation and because this legislation or a reasonable facsimile thereof will hopefully become law in the near future, it is my belief that the work performed by charitable organizations and volunteers throughout America will be supported, strengthened, and expanded upon for years to come.

One of the most important provisions in this bill will allow those who do not itemize their deductions to receive a tax deduction for their charitable contributions. This deduction will benefit millions of low and middle-income families who are already making significant charitable contributions each year, and it will encourage even more charitable contributions in future years.

This bill also authorizes preferential treatment of gifts made from IRAs. This provision is important to many

major charities and universities throughout our Nation.

I am also very pleased that the CARE Act restores funding for the Social Services Block Grant. The social services block grant pays for critical services for millions of children, families, seniors, and persons with disabilities each year. Congress has been ignoring its responsibility to those in need for too long. Since 1995, annual funding for SSBG has been cut by more than $1 billion, from a high of $2.8 billion to the current level of $1.7 billion. This bill will restore the amount to $2.8 billion in the next fiscal year which is especially important now since we are seeing States across America cut and sometimes even eliminate the very services that SSBG was enacted to support because of the budget deficits they are currently faced with.

I do not believe it is an exaggeration to say that, if you want to know what America is all about, visit one of America's charities. There you will find the American spirit burning brightly. It is a spirit of compassion, selflessness, equal opportunity, and initiative. Those are the values that have made our Nation great. Those are the values that are nurtured each and every day in these organizations. And those are the values that will be given new strength and potency by this legislation.

I commend those of our colleagues who have worked hard to bring this legislation to the floor today. And I look forward to continuing to work with them in the days to come to enact it into law.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, with a sense of parochial pride--although I note the Presiding Officer is from my region of the country, and I presume she may enjoy a sense of regional pride as well--I rise to address the victory last evening of the University of Connecticut women's basketball team in the national championship game. I don't want to take a long time today, but I send my congratulations to the team, the fans, and Coach Geno Auriemma, who is a wonderful friend of mine, his family, his remarkable coaching staff, and the tremendous team, led by Diana Taurasi, who is a junior, along with other underclassmen, who did what no one predicted they would be able to do following last year's national championship victory, and that is to follow on with a record of only one loss this season and to beat a great Tennessee team.

I note the Senator from Tennessee is in the Chamber, but I want my colleagues to know there are a couple of lobsters that are today enjoying life somewhere along the bottom of Long Island Sound because they did not end up on the dinner plate of the majority leader. Last evening at a gathering of friends, I wagered two New England lobsters versus some barbecue from Tennessee. So two lobsters on Long Island Sound are enjoying their freedom tonight; they are obviously pleased as well that the University of Connecticut team did as well as it did.

Congratulations to our State and their fans and the wonderful team. A resolution will be adopted later this evening commending this fine team and the staff of the University of Connecticut.

Madam President, we lost a young man from Connecticut in the Iraq conflict a few days ago. I want to take a few minutes to pay tribute to Marine SSGT Phillip Jordan of Enfield, CT, who was killed in action while on a combat mission in Iraq.

All Americans have been closely following our troops in Iraq since the war began 2 weeks ago. Every day we hear lots of facts and figures about the war, the number of sorties in the air, the number of tanks in the field, and the locations of various divisions throughout Iraq. We must never forget that behind those statistics are people. These people are our constituents, young men and women in uniform from all across this great land of ours, some who are not even citizens of this country but who have green cards and want to demonstrate their commitment to America by serving in the Armed Forces and commit themselves to do a job in the Persian Gulf because they have been asked to by the President.

We must never forget that each and every one of the more than 225,000 brave service men and women fighting in Iraq have family and friends at home to fight for our country overseas. Each of these heroes is making a tremendous contribution, a personal sacrifice, so all of us can be more secure in the United States.

Inevitably, in a conflict such as this, there are those who will make the ultimate sacrifice, some who will never return to their family and friends and communities. I would like to share the story of one of those fine Americans for a few moments this evening.

The individual I want to talk about is SSGT Phillip Jordan who was 42 years of age. He lived in Enfield with his wife Amanda and their 6- year-old son Tyler. His devotion to his country caused him to enlist in the Marines some 15 years ago as a private. Sergeant Jordan quickly advanced in the ranks to become a gunnery sergeant.

In 1991, he served in his first combat mission as a platoon leader in Operation Desert Storm, the first Persian Gulf war. After that conflict, Sergeant Jordan was based at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina before becoming a drill sergeant at Parris Island, SC. For 3 years he taught countless new recruits how to become U.S. marines. Few were better suited for the task--friends, family and his marine colleagues referred to Sergeant Jordan as a ``Marine's Marine'' for his can-do professional attitude. Just before he was shipped out in January to serve in the second Persian Gulf war, Sergeant Jordan was asked how he felt about once again being called to serve in combat. His response was: ``This is what I do. That's my job.''

He did that job with unflinching valor. Phillip Jordan was much more than just a fine marine. He was an incredibly fine, loving husband and remarkable father. Amanda Jordan described her husband as a caring and loving man who would go out of his way to do a favor for anyone at all. Each and every Sunday when he was home, he would make his family a homemade breakfast, right down to the flowers and fresh-squeezed orange juice. While stationed overseas, letters home always included two parts, one that began ``Dear Amanda'' and the other began ``Dear Tyler'' so that Tyler would have a letter of his own. Tyler certainly read those letters. He says he wants to grow up to be a marine some day, just like his father. There would be, perhaps, no more fitting tribute to a man who showed such tremendous dedication and devotion to his family and his Nation.

Phillip Jordan's friends liked to call him ``Gump,'' after the movie 11Forrest Gump,'' for his eternal optimism. Tragically, in times of war, such optimism is not always rewarded. We, as a Nation, can be assured a victory in this conflict and any others which may challenge us down the line, because we know our fighting forces are made up of men and women who share Phillip Jordan's sense of commitment and strength of character. We must always be mindful of the price they and their loved ones have paid for our freedom and our security, especially those like Phillip Jordan who paid the highest price of all.

Phillip Jordan was not the first casualty of this war and regrettably he will not be the last. It is important for all of us at this moment in time to reach out to the many families who have an empty chair at their dinner table because a father or mother, brother, sister, son, or daughter has been called to serve their Nation in a distant land. These families need our support more now than ever.

Young Tyler Jordan was asked the other day about his dad. He said he was confident his father was the best marine in Heaven.

On behalf of the Senate, I thank Phillip Jordan for his service to America, and extend the deepest sympathies, not only of my family but also of all of the Senate, to express our condolences to Amanda and Tyler Jordan and to that family. Our thoughts and prayers are with them.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the outstanding accomplishments of this year's NCAA women's basketball champions--the University of Connecticut Huskies--and offer, along with my colleague Senator Lieberman, a Senate resolution commending the Huskies for another phenomenal season.

Sports and other forms of entertainment have taken a backseat over the past few weeks, and rightfully so, as our full national attention has been focused on our brave service men and women risking--and some losing--their lives in our war with Iraq.

The beginning of this year's NCAA tournament coincided almost to the hour with the beginning of America's war with Iraq. For millions of Americans who eyes were glued to the television watching live coverage of our swift invasion, and whose hearts and prayers remain with our troops overseas, the NCAA tournament offered us all a much needed diversion.

Compared to the stakes in the real battles being fought by our young men and women in cities and towns across Iraq, the stakes in this year's tournament seem very insignificant.

But watching the NCAA tournament reminded us of the simple joy we feel from witnessing America's finest young athletes engage in the heights of competition.

And for thousands of soldiers who watched the games live by satellite in the Persian Gulf, it gave them a little taste of home, where, it is my hope, they will be returning very, very soon.

I would like to take a few moments to commend all the participants in the men's and women's basketball tournament this year. I want to especially congratulate the Syracuse Orangemen for their victory over Kansas on Monday night in the men's championship game.

It was truly a spectacular year for the Big East, which also included St. John's winning the NIT championship.

But most of all, I would like to specifically recognize the UConn Lady Huskies for their tremendous accomplishments this season, culminating with winning the national championship over their arch- rival Tennessee last night, by a score of 73-68.

A casual observer picking up a newspaper today might remark, ``UConn wins. Just like every year.'' And indeed, this marks the second straight year, and the third time in the last four years, that the Lady Huskies have ended the season as champions.

But anyone who has followed UConn knows that this year was not just like any other year--and it certainly wasn't like last year. Last season, an undefeated UConn team, led by four outstanding All-American seniors--Sue Bird, Swin Cash, Tamika Williams, and Asjha Jones--won its games by an average of 35 points.

After these four women graduated--each one moving on to play professionally in the WNBA--many pundits believed that a younger, less experienced UConn team filled with underclassmen, and not a single senior, had little chance to win much of anything this season. To many, this was considered a rebuilding year. Preseason polls had the Huskies ranked as low as 12th in the Nation.

Yet through grit, determination, talent, teamwork--and an exceptional coaching staff led by Geno Auriemma--the Huskies exceeded all expectations. They opened the season with 31 straight wins, extending their record winning streak to 70 games--one of the greatest streaks in the history of team sports.

After moving with relative ease through the first few rounds of the NCAA tournament, they survived a grueling test against Texas in the semifinal game last Sunday night, when they rallied from a 9-point deficit with 12 minutes remaining to win by only two points. And last night, they held off a furious late rally by Tennessee.

As usual, the tremendous play of two-time All-American junior Diana Taurasi sparked the Huskies to victory. This year, Ms. Taurasi sparked the Huskies to victory. This year, Ms. Taurasi rewrote the record books, as she put together one of the most outstanding seasons in the history of women's college basketball. She was recognized as the player of the year by every organization that gives out that honor, and was also named the Most Outstanding Player of the NCAA East Regional and the Final Four.

Her 157 points in the NCAA tournament represented the third highest total in history. And her on and off court leadership was a steadying force for such a young team, prompting one of her teammates to describe her as ``the most amazing leader you could ask for.''

But it was not only Diana Taurasi who won the championship for UConn. In fact, in the final game, despite scoring 28 points, she did not score a single point in the last 6 minutes. Instead, she relied upon her teammates to take center stage. The final free throws that inched the team closer to victory were made by a freshman, Ann Strother, who played one of the best games of her young career. And the steal that clinched the game was made by a sophomore reserve, Defensive Player of the Year, Ashley Battle.

Last night's game showed all of America what we in Connecticut have known for years: that the Lady Huskies are not a collection of individual players, but a team in every sense of the word.

Though the players all played their hearts out this year, UConn's success is also a testimony to their outstanding coach, Geno Auriemma. This year, Coach Auriemma was recognized for the fourth time as the Coach of the Year by the Associated Press and by the United States Basketball Writers Association. In his amazing 18 years as head coach of the Huskies, he has won 501 games and lost only 99.

His success has made him one of the most recognizable figures in the Nutmeg State. Coach Auriemma has taught his players not only how to win, but how to do so with grace.

In an age when sportsmanship has become almost a forgotten word, UConn women stand as a model which all young children can emulate, extending helping hands to fallen opponents and congratulating them after a game's conclusion.

And every single student-athlete brought to UConn by Coach Auriemma has received her undergraduate degree.

The success of the Lady Huskies has extended far beyond their own team. During their recent dynasty, women's basketball, and women's athletics in general, have risen to new prominence. This year, for the first time ever, all 63 games in the women's NCAA tournament were televised nationally. Over 28,000 fans attended last night's title game at the Georgia Dome in Atlanta, and millions more watched on television.

I am proud that the UConn Huskies have contributed to the flourishing of women's sports in America. Anyone who watched last night's game knows why this is so: the athletic ability of these women is truly amazing, matched only by their intensity and enthusiasm. And the caliber of women's basketball will only continue to get better and better as more and more young girls are inspired by these athletes to play sports in elementary and high school.

I would like to recognize every member of the Huskies: players Ashley Valley, Diana Taurasi, Maria Conlon, Stacey Marron, Morgan Valley, Nicole Wolff, Ashley Battle, Willnett Crockett, Jessica Moore, Barbara Turner, Ann Strother, Head Coach Geno Auriemma, Associate Head Coach Chris Dailey, and Assistant Coaches Tonya Cardoza and Jamelle Elliott.

I would also like to congratulate the runners-up, the University of Tennessee Volunteers, and their Head Coach Pat Summitt, for an outstanding season as well. For years, Tennessee has been synonymous with success in women's basketball, and there is no doubt that when the Huskies won last night, they beat the best.

With the great joy and pride that I and all Connecticut residents feel right now, I am almost sorry to see the season end. But with every single member of the team set to return next year. I am already looking forward to another great season. If anyone can top this year's accomplishments, I know the Huskies can.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Arizona, Senator John McCain, to reintroduce legislation that we've sponsored in the past, the ``Blind Empowerment Act of 2003.'' This legislation would restore the 20-year link between blind people and senior citizens with respect to the Social Security earnings limit. It will have a tremendous impact on the lives of many blind people, helping them become more self-sufficient and productive members of society.

Today there are nearly 1.1 million Americans who are blind, with 75,000 more becoming blind each year. With today's technology, blind and visually-impaired individuals can do just about anything. Blind people today are employed as farmers, lawyers, secretaries, nurses, managers, childcare workers, social workers, teachers, librarians, stockbrokers, accountants, and journalists, among many other things. The Federal Government should do all within its power to facilitate and encourage the blind and visually-impaired to enter the workforce. Many public and private initiatives provide the technical advancement necessary to educate and employ the blind at the same level as their sighted peers. For example, the National Federation of the Blind, NFB, has created an institute to utilize technological advancements for the blind in an effort to promote employment of the blind throughout the nation. The NFB helps employers provide adaptive technology, consultation, and training so that they can better accommodate the needs of blind and visually-impaired employees.

In 1996, Congress passed the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act, which broke the longstanding linkage between the treatment of blind people and seniors under Social Security. This allowed the earnings limit to be raised for seniors, but not for the blind. As a result, blind people do not have the opportunity to increase their earnings without jeopardizing their Social Security benefits. In 2002, that limit was at $14,800. If a blind individual earns more than that, his or her Social Security benefits are not protected.

The purpose of the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act was to allow seniors to continue contributing to society as productive workers while still receiving social security benefits. Historically, the earnings test treatment of seniors and blind people has been identical under Title II of the Social Security Act. With this legislation, we must do the same for the blind population of America as we have done for the seniors. We must provide blind people the same opportunity to be productive and contribute to their own stability. We must not discourage these individuals from working.

The current earnings test provides a disincentive for the blind population, many of whom are working age and capable of productive work. Work provides one of the fundamental ways individuals express their talents and allow them to make a contribution to society and to their loved ones. Blind individuals face constant hurdles when it comes to employment. Parents,

teachers, or counselors may tell them they can't do it. Employers sometimes don't even give them the opportunity to try. But blind people and others with severe visual impairments take great pride in being able to work, just like the rest of us. They are likely to respond favorably to an increase in the earnings test because they want to work. We don't want to create yet another hurdle to employment for blind individuals with the Social Security earnings test. By allowing those with visual impairments to work more without penalty, we would increase both their tax contribution and their purchasing power. By doing so we would also bring additional funds into the Social Security trust fund and the Federal Treasury.

I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this important legislation to restore the fair and equal treatment for the blind citizens of America. The ``Blind Empowerment Act of 2003'' will provide the blind population with the same freedom and opportunities as our Nation's seniors and the rest of the citizens of this nation.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Arizona, Senator John McCain, to reintroduce legislation that we've sponsored in the past, the ``Blind Empowerment Act of 2003.'' This legislation would restore the 20-year link between blind people and senior citizens with respect to the Social Security earnings limit. It will have a tremendous impact on the lives of many blind people, helping them become more self-sufficient and productive members of society.

Today there are nearly 1.1 million Americans who are blind, with 75,000 more becoming blind each year. With today's technology, blind and visually-impaired individuals can do just about anything. Blind people today are employed as farmers, lawyers, secretaries, nurses, managers, childcare workers, social workers, teachers, librarians, stockbrokers, accountants, and journalists, among many other things. The Federal Government should do all within its power to facilitate and encourage the blind and visually-impaired to enter the workforce. Many public and private initiatives provide the technical advancement necessary to educate and employ the blind at the same level as their sighted peers. For example, the National Federation of the Blind, NFB, has created an institute to utilize technological advancements for the blind in an effort to promote employment of the blind throughout the nation. The NFB helps employers provide adaptive technology, consultation, and training so that they can better accommodate the needs of blind and visually-impaired employees.

In 1996, Congress passed the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act, which broke the longstanding linkage between the treatment of blind people and seniors under Social Security. This allowed the earnings limit to be raised for seniors, but not for the blind. As a result, blind people do not have the opportunity to increase their earnings without jeopardizing their Social Security benefits. In 2002, that limit was at $14,800. If a blind individual earns more than that, his or her Social Security benefits are not protected.

The purpose of the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act was to allow seniors to continue contributing to society as productive workers while still receiving social security benefits. Historically, the earnings test treatment of seniors and blind people has been identical under Title II of the Social Security Act. With this legislation, we must do the same for the blind population of America as we have done for the seniors. We must provide blind people the same opportunity to be productive and contribute to their own stability. We must not discourage these individuals from working.

The current earnings test provides a disincentive for the blind population, many of whom are working age and capable of productive work. Work provides one of the fundamental ways individuals express their talents and allow them to make a contribution to society and to their loved ones. Blind individuals face constant hurdles when it comes to employment. Parents,

teachers, or counselors may tell them they can't do it. Employers sometimes don't even give them the opportunity to try. But blind people and others with severe visual impairments take great pride in being able to work, just like the rest of us. They are likely to respond favorably to an increase in the earnings test because they want to work. We don't want to create yet another hurdle to employment for blind individuals with the Social Security earnings test. By allowing those with visual impairments to work more without penalty, we would increase both their tax contribution and their purchasing power. By doing so we would also bring additional funds into the Social Security trust fund and the Federal Treasury.

I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this important legislation to restore the fair and equal treatment for the blind citizens of America. The ``Blind Empowerment Act of 2003'' will provide the blind population with the same freedom and opportunities as our Nation's seniors and the rest of the citizens of this nation.

Mr. President, let me first of all commend both of our colleagues from New York, Senators Schumer and Clinton, for their very eloquent remarks about our former colleague and dear friend, Pat Moynihan. I know not only the Moynihan family but the people of New York and others around this great country who have had the privilege of knowing and spending time with Pat Moynihan deeply appreciate their comments and their words. I join in expressing my deep sense of loss of a towering figure of American life, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, whom we all know passed away yesterday. My heart certainly goes out to Senator Moynihan's family at this most difficult time, his remarkable wife Liz and their three children, Timothy, Maura, and John, as well as the entire Moynihan family.

All of us, every single American, even those who may never have heard his name or are unaware of his contribution, lost a member of the family in a sense with the death of Pat Moynihan. That is because for more than half a century, Pat Moynihan served the American people as a soldier, a teacher, as an author, an assistant to four American Presidents, an Ambassador to India and the United Nations and, of course, a Member of this Chamber for 24 years, from 1976 to the year 2000.

Pat Moynihan, to those of us who knew him so well, was an intellectual giant who never lost sight of what makes America tick, in its most fundamental way our nation's people and our nation's families. He had a deep appreciation and abiding of America's families as the backbone of our nation's social and economic structure that has provided us with stability and growth and success for more than two centuries.

And he was, of course, an unparalleled leader in pointing out weaknesses in America's families and ways in which we might strengthen them.

Generations of Americans, many of whom will never have known or possibly even have heard of Pat Moynihan, will reap the benefits of this most compassionate and thoughtful leader among leaders.

A true American success story by any calculation, Pat Moynihan rose from the rough neighborhood of New York City's Hell's Kitchen to become one of America's leading intellectuals. He earned a bachelor's degree, two masters degrees, a law degree, and a PhD as well as teaching appointments at Harvard, MIT, and Syracuse University.

Pat Moynihan was much more than simply a man of letters. He, above all else, combined his intellectual capacity with a strong sense of action; of getting things done.

Pat Moynihan brought life to the notion that ideas serve as the engine of democracy. Many of the most thoughtful and progressive legislative programs that have improved the lives of his beloved New York and all around our Nation and across the globe for the past 40 years originated in the brilliant mind of Pat Moynihan. From protecting underprivileged children, to passionately defending the Social Security system, to questioning America's role in the world at pivotal moments in our history, Pat Moynihan's intellectual agility was only matched by his desire to make America a better nation, a fairer nation, and a more successful one.

The description ``renaissance figure'' is too liberally applied to people who don't deserve it, in my view. That is not the case with Pat Moynihan. He truly was a renaissance figure, a person who could breeze easily and expertly from issue to issue. He would expound upon what is needed to improve mass transit systems nationwide one moment, explain what is needed to achieve excellence in our public education system in the next, and finish off with his latest idea to bring majesty to the architecture along Pennsylvania Avenue, all in a very seamless way.

I have heard the remarks of many of our colleagues and others over the last 24 hours in sharing their grief over the loss of our friend. As I have read and heard these remarks, in newspapers and public accounts, it struck me that the words describing Pat Moynihan that are being most repeated over and over again are courageous, compassionate, principled, thoughtful, brilliant, and the like.

Few individuals have been so universally revered by so many here in Washington and across the Nation for their determination to make a difference in helping to steer our Nation in the right direction over a half century. That is because for decades Pat Moynihan embodied the highest ideals and values of our Nation since its founding. This was recognized by Democratic Presidents and Republican ones alike. He served for both of them, and he served well. It was recognized by every one of his Senate colleagues, regardless of party or ideology, who had the great fortune to have worked with him in this Chamber.

Frederick Douglass once said:

The life of a nation is secure only while the nation is

honest, truthful, and virtuous.

For 40 years Pat Moynihan lent those characteristics to the heart of the U.S. Government. Pat Moynihan's death leaves a void in this Chamber, and in this country, that will not soon, if ever, be filled

I would like to think that there will be more Pat Moynihan's coming down the pike, to serve in this Chamber, and in other important capacities nationwide. I would like to think that there will be more individuals with the style, and wit, and substance of Pat Moynihan to help guide our nation through the multitude of complex issues we confront now and into the future.

I would like to think so, but the truth is Pat Moynihan was one of a kind. We will have to make due without him. I only count my blessings that I had a chance to serve with him in the United States Senate, and to have been able to call him a friend.

I conclude my remarks by expressing my deep sense of loss to Liz and the rest of the Moynihan family. This country has lost a remarkable individual, a person who made significant contributions to the health and well-being of this Nation. But to those of us who had the joy of serving with this delightful man from Ireland, we have lost a wonderful friend, someone we will miss with a great sense of loss for the rest of our lives.

I express my gratitude and those of my family to the Moynihan family, the people of New York, and to our colleagues and staffs and others who worked with him during those four decades of public service.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on March 20, President Bush ordered U.S. forces to begin attacking Iraqi installations. There are currently 225,000 American service men and women in the Persian Gulf region. Two hundred thousand members of the Reserves and National Guard have been called to active duty. Several thousand Connecticut residents are doing their part--1,500 members of Connecticut's National Guard; 750 deployed to the Middle East and another 750 activated to participate in homeland security related responsibilities. There are also 2,778 of Connecticut's sons and daughters serving in the Navy--active members and reservists, 532 in the Army, and 310 in the Air Force. Dozens of Connecticut's police officers and firefighters have been called up for active duty. I thank each and every one of them. And say to them that I am proud and honored to represent them in the United States Senate.

As is always the case, these young men and women stand ready to obey the orders of the Commander in Chief--the President of the United States--to take up arms and risk their lives in defense of all Americans and the values of freedom, liberty, and democracy. I greatly admire the courage and professionalism of our service men and women who are now engaged in this dangerous conflict far away from home and loved ones. Americans stand as one in support of these brave individuals. I also want to express my gratitude to the family members of our soldiers. They more than anyone understand the sacrifices involved in the service of our country. War is a treacherous endeavor, and we will all pray for their safe return. I am confident that in the days and weeks to come, America and the U.S. Congress will continue to provide our service men and women with all the support they need and deserve.

Over the last several months, my colleagues and I have engaged in an ongoing dialog about when and under what circumstances the U.S. should commence military action in Iraq. I have been a participant in these important debates, as have many others in this Chamber. And across the country, in cities and towns, Americans have also been discussing these issues with their families and neighbors. Many have voiced strong opinions. It is right and appropriate that this has occurred--that is what living in a free country is all about.

Last Fall, I supported President Bush's decision to go the United Nations and seek the support of U.N. members to resolve the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. I supported the deployment of U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq to verify its peaceful disarmament. As much as anyone, I wanted those diplomatic efforts to succeed. I believe that President Bush did as well. Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein obviously did not.

While there may have been differing opinions on some aspects of our policy toward Iraq, there has been no disagreement that Saddam Hussein is anything but a cruel and murderous tyrant. At every critical juncture, Saddam Hussein chose to impede the work of the inspectors. At every fork in the road, he chose to squander opportunities for peaceful disarmament presented to him by the international community. Finally time has run out.

And now, Saddam Hussein must bear full responsibility for what is about to befall him. He brought it upon himself. I have no sympathy for his plight. The real tragedy is that others may have to suffer for his sins--although I am confident that American soldiers will make every effort, use every means of intelligence, and employ all available technology to minimize civilian casualties.

Would that Saddam Hussein had shown the same regard for his people that our forces will. His record has been the opposite. This murderous tyrant has routinely had his own people tortured, raped, beaten, and executed. In 1988, he ordered the use of chemical weapons against the Iraqi people, killing 5,000 men, women, and children in a single day. Now, he may be ordering his elite troops to use the city of Baghdad as a fortress--a human fortress--endangering the lives of countless Iraqi civilians.

It is my hope that United States military action will not only free the world of the dangers posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, but provide an opportunity for the Iraqi people to free themselves from 30 years of tyranny and oppression, to begin a new chapter in the history of their country.

The current military action may only last a few days or a few weeks. But in the end, I have not doubt that our American service men and women will prevail in this conflict. However, after we emerge successfully from our military conflict with Saddam Hussein, another challenge will face us--the task of establishing a free and stable Iraq. In many ways this is an even more important battle then the one currently ongoing in the deserts of Iraq. And it is a battle that we should not ``wage'' alone. An international coalition of friends, allies, and U.N. humanitarian organizations must be mobilized to share the costs and responsibility for providing humanitarian relief to the Iraqi people, and the larger and more complex reconstruction of Iraqi society.

The United States is not the only nation that has a stake in rebuilding Iraq. The entire world has a huge stake in getting this right. For only an Iraq that is strong, free, and democratic--only an Iraq that respects the rights of all its citizens--only an Iraq that respects the territorial integrity of its neighbors--can be counted on to contribute to building a Middle East that is stable and prosperous. That is why I

am confident that whatever our past differences may have been, our friends and allies at the United Nations will join with us in this effort.

Once again let me express my thanks to the American men and women who have put themselves at risk for each one of us. Let me also thank the service members from other nations who have joined with our forces in this endeavor. And let me offer one more prayer for their swift and safe return home once their mission is complete.