Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I found today to be a rather startling day by virtue of the news we have heard about what is happening with our troops in Iraq, what is happening to those who are in battle, those we are asking to carry on the battle for, let me call it, the liberation of Iraq, the opportunity to turn that society into a democratic society. This was brought to me by virtue of a couple of things that happened.

First, I participated with colleagues in the Governmental Affairs Committee markup of intelligence reform. It is a task that I and so many others on the committee, and throughout this body, take very seriously. We are upset about what happened on 9/11. We just commemorated the third anniversary of that horrific day. I went to a community in New Jersey, Middletown, NJ, and spoke to a group that included survivor families of 9/11. Thirty-seven of their residents lost their lives on that terrible day.

I walked around the memorial walk they established and saw pictures placed on granite stones of those who perished, with messages of love and longing for fathers who died, for brothers, for sisters, and for mothers who were killed that day, murdered. It digs further into the searing memory of that fateful day.

It reminds all of us about what our responsibilities are to try and get this country back on an even keel and to stop mourning the loss of young people because though we struggled hard to turn out our bill on intelligence reform this day, we did not complete it. But there is a fair degree of optimism that we will come to at least an initial description of what the intelligence-gathering mechanism might be.

Then this afternoon I heard President Bush say something that I found almost incomprehensible, extremely disturbing about our Nation's intelligence-gathering system. A few hours after the President spoke at the United Nations about why we went it alone in Iraq, President Bush was asked by a reporter about a CIA report that he received last month on the deteriorating situation--as a matter of fact, I believe it was in July--the deteriorating situation in Iraq which could even lead to a full-blown civil war.

The President dismissed the CIA report and said it was ``just guessing.'' Just guessing. Imagine, we are over 1,000 deaths, thousands of injuries, many of them very serious--if one wants to see how serious, go down to Walter Reed Hospital and interview some of those who survived these attacks and see how they feel about what is taking place.

We are just guessing? The CIA is just guessing? If the President thinks our Nation's intelligence system is just guessing, then we are in trouble. The President's comments are a frightening sign that he is not living in reality and that he continues to ignore the truth about what is happening on the ground in Iraq.

I am going to quote what the President said this day, September 21:

The CIA laid out a--several scenarios that said, life could

be lousy, life could be OK, life could be better, and they

were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like.

Talk about casual dismissal of the trauma that family after family across this country faces. Over 33 former residents of New Jersey paid with their lives, all young. When I talk to those families or go to a funeral, there is such distress and grief.

I talked briefly before about these granite markers in a memorial built in Middletown, NJ. All of these granite memorials had legends or quotes from the family like ``Daddy, I miss you''--quotes that were so tender. One said, ``If love could have kept you alive, we would be having a good time right now.'' They are the saddest things.

The reality is that these are not gravestones. These are granite markers done very gracefully throughout a walkway in this park with, again, a marble plate on top, an inscription from a family member, and a picture of the individual. Several men were pictured in tuxedoes. I think the idea was to say that life was so full and so happy for these families.

When we look now at where we are, we see the President suggesting that maybe the CIA is just guessing as to what conditions might be like. President Bush ignored some intelligence reports he did not like before he went to war. Now when intelligence contradicts him, he dismisses the content of the report as mere guessing.

When the Central Intelligence Agency sends the President a report that lays out three scenarios for Iraq with the most rosy, the status quo, an average of 87 attacks a day against our troops, 1,035 dead to date, the President dismisses it as guesses? What an insult to the people in our country and to those families. I would like the President to stand in front of some of those survivors and say: Your son died. It is terrible. We made mistakes. The CIA was just guessing about what might be.

Look at where we are. Look at what is taking place. Today's Washington Post has a story about the comments of a general who defends the pace of the Iraqi training. Army LTG Walter Sharp, speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, also disputed the accuracy of some of the Democratic Presidential nominee's new criticism of the pace of training for Iraqi police.

I had the opportunity to visit in March with several other Senators-- Senator Levin of Michigan; Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia; Senator Reed, who trained very thoroughly in the military at West Point; and Senator Bingaman--and the situation looked grim at that time. It was said that we are going to turn over governing to an interim council of Iraqis, and then we are going to have a vote in January of next year that would determine the more or less permanent structure at least for the next term of leadership in the country. Here we have these boldfaced statements that say he believes that based on what we will be able to do, there will be local control for the majority of the country by the end of December. Control is not just a matter of having Iraqi security forces in place, but also an assessment of the ability of local political leaders to govern and to oversee economic reconstruction efforts.

When I was in Iraq with four of my colleagues and we went to a police academy where they were training those who would soon be police officers, if memory serves me correctly, the pace was that they would train about 80 in 6 weeks. Since they needed over 50,000 more, I did a quick calculation and came up with the conclusion that it would be many years before they filled the full complement of those necessary. Then we find out that a lot of these people are entirely unqualified to take these tests: no driver's license, no capacity to read or write, no understanding of what the assignment is, a lot of washouts. Then they say by January the Iraqis are going to be able to take over? It is not fair. It is not fair to say these things because everybody knows it is not the truth by any stretch of the imagination.

The President has to stop ignoring the crisis our troops face in Iraq. He has to begin to speak in the real world, with real words, where things are not always good, where serious problems need to be addressed.

I find it so offensive that someone who served his country, received three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star--now, I wore a uniform and I know what those medals mean. They mean a lot. I did not earn any, but I tried to do the job I knew best. I served in World War II. I was 18 when I enlisted. I know those medals are only given when the qualifications are attested to by medical officers who look at a wound and say, yes, this wound deserved the recognition of a Purple Heart, three of them. And now we want to talk about, well, how deep was the wound, was there any blood. When someone loses their hearing in battle, maybe there is no blood, but there is no hearing. It is still a wound, and a very serious one.

After going to a funeral of a young man from New Jersey at Arlington Cemetery, I went to Walter Reed afterward to meet with some of those who had survived battle. There was one young man there who was sightless. He was there with his wife, and he said to me: Senator, I will not be able to see my 28 month old daughter again, but I just want to hold her. He said: I am going to try my best to get along in life. It was painful to witness, but imagine how painful it is to be the victim.

It is hypocritical when we compare the service of John Kerry, though he was critical after the war, but he had the decency and the courage and the honor to serve his country when he was called on to do it. He did not question why, he did not question live or die, he said: I will do my duty to the best of my ability. The President's record does not indicate the same interest in serving. As a matter of fact, I saw a reproduction of an application for service in the military that said: I do not choose to serve in combat. He checked it off. That is all right. Everybody has a right to make those choices. But then to blacken someone else's character who did it and try to humiliate that individual so that he looks like he is unpatriotic, that he wants Saddam Hussein in there? It is atrocious. It is not honest. It is scandalous, and that is what is happening.

I offer a plea. Let President Bush and Vice President Cheney talk about what they want to do for the country, talk about when we can see an end. They talk about John Kerry not having a plan for getting us out of Iraq. Has anybody heard President Bush's plan for getting out of Iraq? No one. Smoke and mirrors, the ugliest type. One need only turn on the television, pick up the newspaper, listen to the radio and know things are falling apart in Iraq. We have heard it confirmed by distinguished colleagues from that side of the aisle, people who fought bravely, were in battle, know what it is like to see comrades die or escape with their lives, wounded in the process. They don't think things are going well. Look at the statement of Senator Hagel of a couple of days ago, or Senator McCain's statement. We see they see a gloomy picture ahead.

Today saw the second day of beheading of two Americans, savagery the likes of which we should never witness--cutting off a man's head.

I know one thing. This vulgar language has to stop. Shame on the President of the United States for belittling the record of someone who served so well and who did what he had to do, as his country requested it. If he had objections, he had objections, but it was after he served. It was after he was wounded three times and after he got the Silver Star for valor and after he got the Bronze Star for valor. It was afterward, but he served. First he did the thing he had to do. That brings a different level of experience than someone who only talks about how soft he is on defense. Patriotism? To suggest he is not a patriot? To suggest he would rather see Saddam Hussein in place? It is outrageous and the American public should not believe it.

I call on veterans, who belong to whatever association, who served in whatever war, whether it was those who are still alive from World War I, World War II, Vietnam, Korea: Veterans, stand up and object. Don't let them say that about our comrade in arms. Don't let them question whether the wound was deep enough. You want to offend 270,000 people who got Purple Hearts in Vietnam? Should we go back and remeasure the depth of those wounds, see how much blood was let because they were hit by enemy fire?

It is not fair. I hope veterans across this country will disavow that kind of talk, that kind of suggestion, that kind of innuendo about someone who fought and disagreed with the policy--who first fought and then disagreed--in this sinister game being played by those who would challenge the heroism in the award of those medals which were certified by John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy, and another by the senior admiral in charge of the fleet in Vietnam. To challenge whether those medals were properly awarded is an outrage.

I think it is time to face up, tell the truth, discuss the issues and stop the name calling. Especially stop the accusation that someone who lost three limbs--as in the case of Max Cleland, who was defeated in his reelection attempt because it was said that he was soft on defense--wasn't patriotic enough. Maybe they were suggesting it is too bad he didn't lose the fourth limb. These are outrageous statements.

No, we cannot conduct ourselves like this. The American people see the hypocrisy. What it says is, if you can dismiss the truth and replace it with lies, replace it with distortion, replace it with insult, that is a way to build character for our young people. I defy that kind of performance, that kind of suggestion. It should not happen.

I am disturbed by the fact that two Americans had their heads cut off, punishment for something we don't understand. They were trying to bring democracy to a country that right now is not prepared for democracy. But we insist that that is what they want. Their country is being destroyed by insurgents. Their lives are being destroyed. However many we have lost, the Iraqis have lost far more.

The insurgents are intimidating those who would serve in the military and the Iraqi force. They are removing the incentive for those who want to be in law enforcement. They are totally intimidating those forces who would stand up and fight. Yet we continue to paint the rosy picture, like the President did a year ago May when he said ``bring them on.'' They brought them on, all right. They brought them on as we never wanted to see them.

We have to stop this character assassination and these attacks. I hope we can muster the courage to do it in this place.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise to voice deep concern about what is happening in our war with Iraq, what is happening within our country, and a lack of direction that is pronounced as far as I am concerned.

We hear the political debate that goes on: What is your plan for getting us out of Iraq? Well, what is yours?

Since our Commander in Chief is in charge, I would think that he would lead the country and lead the direction of the campaign, telling the American people about when it is we are going to be able to expect our troops to come home, when these families will be reunited.

Last week, the 33rd soldier from New Jersey died in Iraq. Our country has now lost a total of 1,018 of our troops in Iraq. Of these deaths, 877 troops have died since the President announced that major combat operations in Iraq were over, finished. He made that announcement during a political appearance on an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003.

If we look at this picture, we see our sailors lined up. I know what they are thinking. I was a veteran, and I remember so vividly when I was on a ship bound for Japan after serving in Europe and the war suddenly ended and how relieved I was. I was concerned for myself, of course, but I was concerned for my brothers and sisters in arms as well. So these sailors are standing at attention, and there were rousing cheers when the President made his statement. And he boldly declared: ``Mission accomplished.''

It turned out to be more theater than reality. The mission accomplished debacle is illustrative of President Bush's failure to execute a coherent plan to win the war in Iraq. Even after reaching a thousand dead, President Bush has not come forward with a plan. We have not heard one word about when those troops are expected to come home. When will the fighting really stop? When can we look at the situation in Iraq and say, good grief, it is finally resolved? Every day more and more people are killed, and many are Americans. But lots of times the structure in Iraq promotes this kind of dispute and violence.

I say to President Bush, stop this killing. Our troops are putting their lives on the line for our country.

The President refuses to show the kind of leadership we need to have in a time of war. Even as the fighting continues, we hear promises that somehow or other it is going to get better, when in fact the situation has worsened.

I ask my colleagues: What are we doing there? What is our plan? What kind of a government do we think we are going to see there? We have sort of turned it over to the Iraqis, but since that turnover has been made the violence and the numbers killed each day has accelerated. I don't know whether anyone here knows what, if any, our plans are. As the killing continues overseas, the President is inviting a new risk to begin here at home.

Madam President, this Senate, the Congress, failed to extend the life of the assault weapons ban. Ultimately, the failure to extend this law falls on the desk of President Bush. He has not done anything--not lifted a finger--to urge the Republican leaders to extend this ban. As a matter of fact, in earlier days, he said he would sign a bill. But he knows very well, and all America knows very well, if he doesn't encourage the Republican leadership to present a bill, there is no bill to sign. So all kinds of boastful comments can be made about how he would sign it, but to my knowledge he never has picked up the phone and called the leadership of the House or Senate and said we need a bill, we don't want these crazy weapons around our country.

Assault weapons are semiautomatic, civilian versions of weapons designed for military use. They are the weapons of choice of criminals and terrorists because they are capable of holding large-capacity magazines that allow a shooter to fire up to 150 shots without having to reload.

These weapons are specifically designed for military use in order to kill greater numbers of people more effectively and quickly.

This placard illustrates some of the new products available at local gun stores, thanks to the President's lack of leadership. We took an action here that said we would like to continue the ban, but it fell when the House refused to deal with it.

We could not find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and we are finding weapons that easily destroy lives right here at home. FBI statistics show that one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty were killed by an assault weapon. That is why police officers across the country are outraged that we did not extend this ban. Why in the world we need these weapons, I cannot figure out. Who do we please when we say let's have these automatic weapons on our streets in New York? For what purpose? Target shooting? Shooting deer? Maybe shooting neighbors. Maybe drug dealers, yes. Maybe policemen. That is who gets shot when these guns are available.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs Association--every one of them want us to extend the assault weapons ban. But our ears were closed.

Madam President, these law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day, and they should not have to face criminals armed with an Uzi pistol or an AK-47 rifle, a Street Sweeper, or a TEC-9 pistol during a drug bust or school shooting. This Nation should never forget the school shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO, where two teenage students, using a TEC-DC9 assault pistol and other weapons, went on a shooting rampage that killed 12 other students and a teacher. Who can ever forget the pictures of the students hanging out the windows begging for mercy, begging for a way to escape the rampage that was taking place?

We should never forget it. But we don't want to do anything about it; that is the tragedy. Nor should the Nation forget another school shooting in Stockton, CA, in 1989, where an AK-47 was used in a schoolyard full of kids, firing over 100 rounds in less than 2 minutes and killing 5 children and wounding 29 others.

Then there is the issue of terrorism. If anyone thinks for a second that the

expiration of the assault weapons ban will not be noticed by foreign terrorists, then we are hiding our heads in the sand.

Found in the ruble of a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan was a manual. It is entitled, ``How Can I Train Myself for Jihad?''

The placard contains a quote from that manual:

In other countries, e.g., some states of the USA, South

Africa, it is perfectly legal for members of the public to

own certain types of firearms. If you live in such a country,

obtain an assault rifle legally, preferably AK-47 or

variations, learn how to use it properly and go and practice

in the areas allowed for such training.

That is training on how to kill innocent people.

This placard also says:

``How Can I Train Myself for Jihad,'' a guide originally

published on the Azzam.com, a website dedicated to the

worldwide jihad (now shut down). The guide was found in the

ruins of a terrorist training center south of Kabul,

Afghanistan, after it was destroyed by U.S. air strikes in

late 2001.

Those are the people who want to get their hands on these weapons. Those are the people who say that the United States is easy pickings if you want to buy a gun and kill a lot of people.

Terrorists know, they are aware of our weak gun laws. It just became weaker. For all of President Bush's statements on terrorism, he has chosen to stand with the NRA rather than protecting our communities from this brand of terror.

In my view, the President's behavior on the assault weapons ban is one of those things we call a flip-flop. It is when you say one thing and do something else. We saw an angry U.S. Senator on the floor of the convention a couple of weeks ago when he said that the worst thing to do is say something and do nothing. That is his definition of a flip- flop.

This is a flip-flop of the worst order. It endangers our families, our children, and our Nation's law enforcement officers. I wish it were not so, and apparently there is not going to be any going back on the assault weapons ban. I wish there were a way to resurrect it. We are where we are. What we have done is we have encouraged the sale of these weapons. I heard there are gun manufacturers who were preparing for a burst of sales activity when these weapons were available. I ask myself: Who wants to buy these kinds of weapons? What are they going to do with them? They are going to endanger our families and our kids and other innocents. That is what they are going to do.

It is too bad because we are now in the midst of a terrible situation with the war, with the casualties continuing to escalate, and with a situation totally out of control in Iraq. I was there shortly before the government was turned over to an interim group to be followed by an election in January. The fact is that it does not look like there is going to be an election in January. I heard statements from those in leadership in Iraq who suggest an election might be tough to hold. But one thing is for sure, this is not a mission accomplished. This is a mission that is still underway, and the cost is terrible.

I went to visit some wounded from Iraq at Walter Reed a few weeks ago, after a burial at Arlington Cemetery, to meet young people who will never function the way they used to. There was a man who was blinded from an attack who said to me: I will never see my 28-month-old daughter, but I still want to hold her.

That is the condition that continues to develop each and every day: Over 1,000 killed, many more thousands wounded, and we just hope and pray they will recover and we will be able to conclude this effort in Iraq successfully but quickly.

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

Mr. President, I rise to commemorate an important event in this country's history. Today marks the tenth anniversary of the passage of Violence Against Women Act. I am proud that I was an original cosponsor of that bill which has done so much to reduce domestic violence.

The Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, was originally passed in 1994, and reauthorized in 2000, both times by overwhelming bipartisan majorities. It created our current framework for a comprehensive, coordinated response to domestic violence, stalking and sexual assault. Before VAWA, domestic violence was too often considered to be a `family matter' to which the police turned a blind eye. There were no Federal penalties for stalking, domestic violence or violating a protection order. And in sexual assault cases, a victim's past sexual history was considered a legitimate subject for the defense to bring up in the courtroom. All of these basic considerations became law as a result of

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to create a Federal charter for the Pulaski Cadets, Ltd. The purpose of this organization is to perpetuate the history of General Kazimierz Pulaski and military personnel of Polish origin with other nationals who served with the Continental Army of America in the Revolutionary War. Leaders of the Pulaski Cadets work hard devoting time and energy to the memory of a military hero, General Pulaski.

It is fitting that the Pulaski Cadets should be granted a Federal charter to show the appreciation and respect Congress maintains for this organization and the values espoused by its members. I am proud to stand before the Senate and proclaim my admiration for this group and the many soldiers and leaders of Polish origin who have made our country great and continue to protect Americans at home and abroad. Their contribution has been recognized by many in New Jersey, including Mayor Joe Vas, of Perth Amboy, who has been a key supporter in their quest for a charter.

I believe it is vital to study and emulate those leaders who came before us, particularly those who left such an impressive mark on our country's behalf. As such, I ask the United States Senate to support a Federal Charter for the Pulaski Cadets.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to create a Federal charter for the Pulaski Cadets, Ltd. The purpose of this organization is to perpetuate the history of General Kazimierz Pulaski and military personnel of Polish origin with other nationals who served with the Continental Army of America in the Revolutionary War. Leaders of the Pulaski Cadets work hard devoting time and energy to the memory of a military hero, General Pulaski.

It is fitting that the Pulaski Cadets should be granted a Federal charter to show the appreciation and respect Congress maintains for this organization and the values espoused by its members. I am proud to stand before the Senate and proclaim my admiration for this group and the many soldiers and leaders of Polish origin who have made our country great and continue to protect Americans at home and abroad. Their contribution has been recognized by many in New Jersey, including Mayor Joe Vas, of Perth Amboy, who has been a key supporter in their quest for a charter.

I believe it is vital to study and emulate those leaders who came before us, particularly those who left such an impressive mark on our country's behalf. As such, I ask the United States Senate to support a Federal Charter for the Pulaski Cadets.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senator Corzine and me. The amendment simply adds $100 million to ensure that the Coast Guard is going to have adequate funding for its nonhomeland security measures.

It is interesting; we fund Iraq's coast guard, and now the Iraqi Coastal Defense Force is receiving U.S. tax dollars for Chinese-built boats and crew training. If we can find money for Iraq's coast guard, then surely we can adequately fund our own Coast Guard. They perform services that are essential.

We need to add this funding because GAO found that the Coast Guard has to dip into its nonhomeland budget during times of elevated security alert. That means missions such as search and rescue, protecting our fisheries, ice-breaking operations, marine pollution, migrants, drug interdiction, and other law enforcement issues as well.

The amendment is still $150 million less than the amount authorized in the Coast Guard bill signed into law just last month by the President. I urge my colleagues to look at their coastline and decide whether they ought to support the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable sections of the Congressional Budget Act.

Yes.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending business, and I call up amendment No. 3617, which is currently at the desk.

Madam President, I rise to address an amendment that will ensure the Coast Guard will have adequate funding to complete its homeland security missions without sacrificing its traditional duties. In this appropriations bill, the one that is before us, the Senate would provide $5.15 billion in operating expenses for the Coast Guard. That is $250 million less than the amount authorized and $20 million less than the President's request.

This amount is supposed to cover operations for all Coast Guard missions, both nonsecurity and security related. But the General Accountability Office has found that in times of elevated security levels, the Coast Guard has had to delve into the budget for traditional missions that are currently performed by the Coast Guard. This amendment will cover the shortfall by adding $100 million for work on nonhomeland-security-related missions.

We have even appropriated money for the Iraqi Coastal Defense Force. With $260 million in the emergency supplemental last year for border enforcement in Iraq, we have gone out and purchased Chinese-built patrol boats shipped by a German company to Iraq, where we are training their crews to perform antismuggling operations, harbor and coastline defense, search and rescue operations, and various other operations in Iraq. If we can find money for the Iraqi Coastal Defense Force, surely we can fully fund our own Coast Guard.

One month ago we enacted the Coast Guard and Marine Transportation Act of 2004 which reauthorizes the Coast Guard for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Due to the leadership of Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Hollings, as well as subcommittee leaders, Chairman Snowe and Ranking Member John Kerry, this important legislation was enacted. This law authorizes some very important work and gives even more responsibility to the Coast Guard, which the occupant of the chair knows, coming from a coastal State like North Carolina. The Coast Guard is always being given more work, more demands, performing with less resources, fewer people, and still doing an outstanding job. But there is a point at which they just can't do that anymore. The work they do, we forget, includes work on oil pollution, marine safety, improved fisheries enforcement, and work finding alternatives to double-hull vessel designs. This authorizes adequate funding. This authorization provided for the additional $100 million in my amendment to ensure that the budgets for traditional missions are not raided. The President signed this act into law 1 month and 1 day ago, so there is an established need for this amendment.

I want to be clear. My amendment does not add back the entire $251 million that was authorized but was left out here. Rather, it recaptures only $100 million out of that. The amendment would not affect the homeland security budget of the Coast Guard.

Last year my staff heard from a New Jersey constituent who is in the Coast Guard. We have Coast Guard training facilities in the State of New Jersey.

He told my staff that due to budget cuts, his unit was forced to share personal equipment like specialized suits and other gear intended to be worn by one individual.

He said that this made it difficult to do his job, but he and his colleagues were making do.

Nonetheless, I find this disturbing.

Because of inadequate budgeting, even the Coast Guard Commandant, Admiral Collins, has been forced to do what I like to call the ``OMB Dance.''

This is the ``Dance'' where agency heads come before Congress and squirm while they tell us that they can ``made do'' with a clearly inadequate budget.

They don't volunteer details about how these funding shortfalls threaten their ability to carry out their missions effectively.

Some of the traditional missions of the Coast Guard include search- and-rescue, marine safety, drug interdiction, aids to navigation, ice breaking operations, living marine resources, migrant interdiction, marine environmental protection, and other law enforcement activities.

In their report, the GAO discovered that ``resource hours'' for many of traditional functions are still well below pre-9/11 levels. For instance, search-and-rescue is down 22 percent. Foreign fishing enforcement is down 16 percent, permitting further abuse of the available supply of fish life. And interdiction of illegal drugs is down 44 percent.

When we send Coast Guard cutters to the Middle East, it affects us at home.

The administration will tell you, and I am sure you will hear during debate, that based on ``performance factors,'' these areas have not been hurt--that they are doing their job more efficiently now, with better intelligence. Once again, you can only squeeze so far.

But how do you measure how many drug shipments were not seized?

How do you measure how many illegal aliens where not intercepted?

Or how many foreign fishing vessels violated international treaties and fished in U.S. waters without getting caught?

Under this bill, some of these functions are now considered ``defense-related,'' but not all of them.

We must provide adequate resources for the Coast Guard to complete all of their missions.

If we continue to treat their non-homeland budget as a security slush fund, we will end up paying for it in other ways.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

We have an understanding that there will be a vote on this amendment on Monday afternoon.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, this morning I rise to talk about something that we heard quite a bit about these days. The subject is flip-flopping.

Flip-flopping is kind of an easy thing to identify. During a recent convention, we heard an irate Senator make an angry speech declaring that it is not what you say but, rather, what you do

that counts. You flip-flop when you make promises and fail to fulfill them.

In my 20 years in Washington, there has not been more flip-flopping in a President's office than we have seen in that of President George W. Bush. He calls others flip-floppers, but President Bush needs to look in the mirror, because on issue after issue he has given a new meaning to flip-flop. The President essentially says: Forget what I said the first time, I may change that very soon.

Let's start with one of the earliest and cruelest flip-flops: education. It is cruel because the victims of the President's broken promises are our Nation's children.

The flip was a bold promise of an education bill called No Child Left Behind, with the expectation that the program would produce more money for kids who deserve a quality education.

In July 2001, I quote President Bush when he said he was dedicated to ``increasing funding for public schools.'' Then came a whopper of a flop when he refused to provide the funding promised in the No Child Left Behind Act. President Bush's 2005 budget underfunds education by $9.5 billion.

The next flip was in March of 2001, when President Bush promised our Nation's seniors not to touch the Social Security surplus. In March 2001, President Bush said:

We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep

the Government from raiding the Social Security surplus.

Flop: He broke that promise and proposed diverting billions in Social Security surpluses to other programs in the budget.

Flip: He promised to create more jobs for our Nation, but he flopped and has done nothing to create jobs. We are now seeing the first President to have actually lost jobs during the course of his administration since the dark days of Herbert Hoover. His administration ran from 1929 to 1933.

Flip: President Bush has repeatedly promised to pressure OPEC to lower gasoline prices. When he was running for President, Governor George W. Bush said:

What I think the President ought to do is he ought to get

on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to

open your spigots. . . . And the President of the United

States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price.

Flop: Over the course of this administration, the average cost of a gallon of gasoline has skyrocketed from $1.47 a gallon to $1.87 a gallon. President Bush's failure to keep prices down is costing families hundreds of extra dollars per year.

Flip: President Bush pledged to push to renew the ban on deadly assault weapons. In April of 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said:

The President supports the current law, and he supports the

reauthorization of the current ban.

So the flip was that President Bush pushed to pledge to renew the ban on the deadly assault weapons. In April 2003, we heard what Scott McClellan said.

Flop: The ban on assault weapons is set to expire in a few days, and President George W. Bush has not lifted a finger to get Republican leaders to pass the bill in Congress. We know that one in five police officers killed in the line of duty are killed with an assault weapon.

We see the promises here on this chart. On this side are the flips, and we see the flops on this side. It is not just domestic issues that the President has flip-flopped on. When it comes to foreign affairs, the defense of our Nation, our Nation's veterans, President Bush has flip-flopped more than he has stayed the course.

One flip was the Department of Homeland Security. That was designed to protect us at home while we sent our troops abroad to protect us from terrorist activities overseas. President Bush strongly opposed creating the Department of Homeland Security in March of 2002. His spokesman said that a Homeland Security Department ``doesn't solve anything.''

Flop: Three months later, the President said he wants a Homeland Security Department, saying it is critical to protecting the American people.

Of course, those of us who follow this game know the President flip- flopped on this issue and it is part of a political scenario.

Flip: President George W. Bush opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission. That is right, he opposed it. In April of 2002, President Bush said he was against the creation of the 9/11 Commission.

Flop: After increased political pressure, the President said he supported creating the 9/11 Commission in September of the same year.

The President even flip-flopped on catching the man who murdered 3,000 Americans, Osama bin Laden. In September of 2001, George Bush said he wanted Osama bin Laden ``dead or alive.'' He said, ``I want justice. There is an old poster out West, I recall, that says `wanted dead or alive,' '' when he was talking in September of 2001. But in March of 2002 he said, ``I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him. . . . I truly am not that concerned about him.''

I can tell you that the families of the 700 people from the State of New Jersey who lost their lives thought about Osama bin Laden, and they think about him every day and night--the children who have no father, the spouse who has no mate. That is an outrageous comment.

Of course, then there was the major flip, known as ``mission accomplished.'' If I can interpret that, he said: Rest easy Americans, there will be no more deaths and casualties, no more injuries that will last a lifetime.

The President announced that major combat operations in Iraq were over during a political appearance on an aircraft carrier.

Reality flopped him there--a tragic reality. Since declaring ``mission accomplished'' on May 1, 2003, we have lost 864 people in Iraq. Tell those families that the mission is accomplished. Tell them they have nothing to worry about. What they have is an empty home and an empty heart. Tell those families that the danger is over.

On the war on terror, President Bush flip-flopped again. One day in the same week he said he doesn't think we can win the war on terror. I believe that was a Monday. A day or two later, he flopped and said: Oh, no, we can win the war on terror.

What is it, Mr. President? Can we win or can we not win? Don't disrupt the morale of the people serving over there by discouraging comments such as we cannot win and then boldly say, heck, why did I say that?

He flip-flops on veterans issues as well. Just this month, he told the American Legion:

All our Nation's veterans have made serving America the

highest priority of their lives, and serving our veterans is

one of the highest priorities of my administration.

But what has the President quietly done? His plan for 2006, which is out there already--the budget year--is to cut veterans health care by $910 million after the election. None of this came out publicly before. You have to search to find it. The evidence is in an OMB memo that reveals the President's budget plan for 2006. President Bush has also doubled copays for prescription drugs for many veterans.

I served in a war a long time ago, and I say to my fellow veterans across the country: President Bush is talking the talk, but he doesn't walk the walk. Just as he failed to answer the call to combat during Vietnam, he is failing our veterans as President.

Behind the scenes here in Washington, President Bush is undermining veterans health care, and one thing that particularly enraged me was when I tried to make flag-draped coffins available to be photographed by the news media for those who gave the ultimate sacrifice on the battlefields of Iraq, who deserve a last tribute from their country, a flag on their casket to tell their families they died honorably, President Bush would not allow it. He refuses to allow the public to see the flag-draped coffins arrive on our shores, such as in Dover, DE. That is where the bodies are brought back home.

I will never forget President Reagan's funeral, the deliberate care the honor guard took when they folded the flag crease by crease, and finally the last person in the line put it into a triangle and walked stiffly over to Nancy Reagan and gave her the flag. She was beaming.

I was at Arlington National Cemetery, where a young soldier was being buried. I joined his family. It was the same way: The honor guard folded the

flag crease by crease, and finally gave the triangular-folded flag to the young man's mother. Although she was crying, she was beaming with pride that this last tribute was given to her son. But the White House is saying: No, we do not want the American people to see those flag- draped coffins because it tells the truth about the cost of this war. The administration wants those images hidden because it is not good for reelection.

President Bush uses a lot of broad language and imagery when he speaks. It makes him sound determined and decisive, but when you get behind that facade and look at the actions, you see flip-flop. Make no mistake about it, George W. Bush knows exactly what flip-flopping is. It takes one to know one.

I close with the comment about an election that took place a few years ago in Georgia when a beloved comrade of ours--no legs, one arm left after his tour of duty in Vietnam--lost an election because he was declared to be soft on defense. The words almost were unpatriotic, and he lost an election because he was soft on defense--three limbs left behind in Vietnam, an American tragedy of the worst order.

Now the same thing is happening with our colleague, Senator John Kerry, in trying to paint him as soft on defense, unwilling to support the soldiers, unwilling to buy the material that is needed to protect themselves. It is an insult not just to those veterans but to every American. Those are the actions of a chicken hawk. I had a drawing of a chicken hawk here. A chicken hawk is someone who makes wars for other people to serve.

We know President Bush's record is very hard to come by. It is all obscured with was he there or wasn't he there. We know one thing, he wasn't there more than he was there.

Vice President Cheney had five deferments and said, during that war when Americans across our country were being called on to fight to perhaps sacrifice limb or life, he had other priorities. It is a bad game, but I hope the American people will be aware of what is taking place.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise this morning because issues are brought to mind that somehow or other have slipped into the background. For example, look at this morning's Washington Post and see there is disturbing news about the impending retirement of air traffic controllers. This is a subject I have dealt with, even in my previous terms, and certainly in my current term in the Senate, sounding the alarm that we are going to be woefully short of people to replace retirees. We have to be certain that in the middle of what is an impending crisis because of the lack of skilled professionals in the towers, we do not turn to the subject of commercializing this.

We went through an enormous amount of pain and dislocation when we took the baggage screeners out of commercial hands and put them into Government hands because we knew they would operate more efficiently. Now the conversation goes that we are trying as well to go back with our screeners and put that function into commercial hands.

I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record.

That speaks to the leadership we have. We see a headline that says, ``War Funds Dwindling, GAO Warns.'' That is terrible. We have spent a ton of money.

One thing all of us can agree upon, whether Democrat or Republican, is that we want our troops protected. We want them to be able to conduct their responsibilities in Iraq and Afghanistan with the best equipment they can get. Frankly, I have been looking for some time now at a way to compensate these service people for the 90 days of extended term that has been demanded by this administration. I want to get a $2,000-a-month extra stipend to help them weather the financial storm.

The emotional, family storm is terribly painful. We see an unusual number of suicides--far greater than we have seen in past wars--because of the emotional distress. It is overpowering. Soldiers are away from their families for a year. They are often people with little children. These are people, largely in the Reserve Corps, who are often young, have young families, and are trying to take care of their family and financial needs at the same time--paying the mortgage payments, paying for the normal sustenance of life.

That could not get heard here. It wasn't allowed to be brought up.

There are other things that I consider detrimental to the purported support we want to give our troops. I agree all of us in this body want to do what we can for those who are serving so dutifully and courageously. But we see, no matter what we have allocated, the funds are short. We have a lack of sufficient numbers of service people there, and we are trying to find our way out of that. We now find that a promise made recently that we would go from 130,000 down to 90,000 service people there is now kind of canceled. It has fallen into the background. We are going to maintain 130,000 people there.

I submit that is not enough. We know darned well that is not enough because all we have to do is look at the casualty count and we see now we have finally gone over 900 dead in Iraq.

We see we are miscalculating on all fronts--whether it is financial, whether it is service, whether it is the kind of equipment we should have had early on.

I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the Record.

When I look at the morning paper, I see examples of what the administration has failed to do. Look at the status of things in Washington, DC. I assume it is a representative city of urban centers across the country. We see the DC gap in wealth is growing.

I ask unanimous consent to have that article entitled ``D.C. Gap In Wealth Growing'' printed in the Record.

If you look at the chart and see what has happened in terms of the difference in the wage scales, it is atrocious.

The wage scale gap at the top of the ladder goes up $186,000 and the people at the bottom of the ladder are at $6,000. Once again, we see a failure of responsibility.

I see on television a message that says, ``My name is George W. Bush and I approve of this message.'' We see talk about the number of votes John Kerry has missed but we don't see in the same message what John Kerry did when he was in Vietnam. Even though he disagreed with the war, he went there and served bravely. He got three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star--medals of bravery. One of the instances that got him that medal was pulling out of the water one of his colleagues who was practically drowning as bullets were flying overhead. He stopped that boat he was in command of and pulled his friend and subordinate out of the water. We don't see that. Instead, it says John Kerry missed these votes.

Yes. John Kerry is a man who is always devoted to duty. Right now what he is doing is important. All of us think the votes are very important here, but very often these votes are already predetermined by the numbers in the majority and the numbers in the minority--not that we should miss votes. But he has a more important task. He has a task of changing the leadership in this country and making sure we are paying attention to our responsibilities to the community at large and not just to a particular moment in time but, rather, in the total picture of leadership.

In my view, it is not how one runs government. What we see is a question of leadership in the administration--the question of leadership of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. If you look at their prior leadership positions, you will see similar problems.

For instance, take Vice President Cheney's recent leadership of Halliburton. How did he transform that company?

My experience in the corporate world was a very good experience. I, with two other fellows--all three of us coming from poor homes, two brothers--started a business over 50 years ago. It was a very small business in its beginning days. We had a few dollars of borrowed money--not much. We started a business that never looked like it was

going to mature. It took us 12 years to get to the stage where we could apply computer technology to our business. Today that company we started--three poor kids with no resources to begin with--has over 40,000 employees and the longest growth record of any company in America, a growth of 10 percent each and every year for 42 years in a row. We grew at 10-percent earnings each and every year. It is remarkable.

I give that background not to boast but, rather, to try to make a point, the point being that there is a culture associated with our company--a culture, I am proud to say, has never been challenged in over 50 years of business, a culture that says whatever we do we have to be honest with our customers, honest with our employees, honest with our shareholders, and honest with the public at large. That sets the corporate culture. It tells you how we want that company to operate.

A CEO has an impact on a company that should endure beyond his or her years of service. I want to use that example to reflect on what has happened with Halliburton, one of America's largest companies.

In the wake of early leadership, Halliburton has been associated with bribes, kickbacks, violating terrorist sanctions laws, and sweetheart, no-bid Government deals. It doesn't sound very pretty, and it is not.

To make matters worse, Vice President Cheney still receives salary checks from Halliburton for well over $150,000 each and every year. It has been 4 years now, somewhere around $700,000. He still holds over 400,000 unexercised Halliburton stock options. They are exercisable to 2009. He left the company 4 years ago. If the administration continues its service, he will have 4 more years. That is 2008, by my count. But the options exercise in 2009.

It is unconscionable that he would have a financial association with this company that disgraced corporate leadership in a time of war.

When I was in the Army a long time ago, I enlisted in 1942. I was 18 years old. During that period of time that America was fighting for its life, it was unthinkable that a company could profiteer while a war was going on; unthinkable. It would have been considered traitorous behavior.

But here we are in a session where the Vice President is undermining our Nation's ethical credibility here and abroad.

On September 14, 2003, the Vice President was asked about his relationship with Halliburton and the no-bid contracts on ``Meet the Press.'' This is what triggered my interest. I listened very carefully, because I have respect for the office, and I think Dick Cheney is someone who wants to do the right thing but it has hasn't come out that way. Vice President Cheney told Tim Russert:

I have severed all of my ties with the company, gotten rid

of all of my financial interest. I have no financial interest

in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over 3

years.

There is a problem with that statement. When he said it, he held over 400,000 Halliburton stock options and continued to receive a deferred salary from the company.

In fairness, the Vice President has said, well, this is insured income, took out an insurance policy not dependent on the operating results of Halliburton. I take him at his word. He said he is going to give profits away from the stock option exercise to charitable institutions, philanthropic institutions.

But it is better for him if the company does well. He has these options, and even if he wants to give away the profits, the more profits the better if you look at the institutes he is giving the profits to. But he does hold 433,000 unexercised Halliburton stock options. Even though most of the exercise prices are above the current market price, the majority of the options, as I mentioned earlier, extend to 2009.

Any optionholder has to hope that the stock price will surge relative to the value of the options in excess. One way it can happen is to be sure that lucrative contracts keep coming from whatever source, whoever the customer is. In this case, the customer is the U.S. Government, and it is happening.

In the first quarter of 2004, Halliburton's revenues were up 80 percent from the first quarter of 2003. Why? Wall Street analysts point to one simple factor--the company's massive Government contracts in Iraq.

In addition, as I said, to the stock options, Vice President Cheney continues to receive a deferred salary. Halliburton has paid the Vice President a salary of at least $150,000 a year since he has been Vice President of the United States. I think it is wrong and it ought to stop.

I heard the Vice President's defense: The deal was locked in in 1999; there was no way for him to get out of his deferred salary deal. That is not so. A little checking of the facts shows otherwise. I have obtained the terms of Vice President Cheney's deferred salary contract with Halliburton. The bottom line is that the deferred salary agreement was not set in stone.

In fact, one need only look at the ethics agreement of Treasury Secretary Snow to see what the Vice President should have done in order to avoid taking the salary from a private corporation while in public office. Secretary Snow took six different deferred compensation packages as a lump sum upon taking office. The Vice President is not a victim of Halliburton's generosity. He could have attempted to take the deferred salary as a lump sum.

In the meantime, what has happened to Vice President Cheney's former company? For starters, Halliburton overcharged the Pentagon a $27.4 million fee for meals served to troops abroad. The company billed taxpayers for meals never served to our troops. This is not Senator Lautenberg's concoction. These are the facts printed in news media, printed in contract agreements, printed in Pentagon papers.

Another Pentagon investigation is continuing after an audit found Halliburton overcharged the Army by $61 million for gasoline delivered to Iraq as part of its no-bid contract to operate Iraq's oil industry.

Now whistleblowers, former Halliburton employees, have revealed Halliburton employees would abandon $85,000 trucks because of flat tires--do not bother to fix them, get rid of it--or the need for an oil change. Dump the truck; we can bill the taxpayers. The whistleblowers also said Halliburton spent $45 for 30 canned cases of soda when local Kuwaiti supermarkets charged about $7. Halliburton has a cost-plus contract so they get reimbursed for their spending plus a calculated percentage of profit. That system is being heartily abused and is costing taxpayers a lot of money.

In my view, Halliburton is a company that suffers from failures in leadership, the same type of leadership that continues.

These overcharges are confirmed when the Pentagon, the Department of Defense, is refusing to pay bills of $160 million comprised of the elements I talked about. The auditors at the Pentagon said, Don't pay them; we do not owe that kind of money.

Those are overcharges, Mr. President.

In the meanwhile, we see the attack on Senator Kerry, our colleague. They are saying he has misplaced priorities; he missed votes in the Senate. What they are unwilling to admit is Senator Kerry and all of us are on a critical mission such as those he took on in Vietnam. What he is doing is not purposeless, it is not something to be made fun of. He is working for a safer, stronger America at home and respect for us across the world.

I wish President Bush would talk about the things he did or failed to do and that he would want to correct, such as protecting the purchasing power of working families, eliminating the creation of larger and larger deficits, protecting the solvency of Medicare, now estimated to be insolvent in 2019.

How about the costs of gasoline to the average person in this country since this administration has taken over? And $2.40 a gallon is not unusual for high test; $2.19 for regular gas is not unusual. I don't hear the President saying he wants to correct that problem.

No, he would rather try to say John Kerry deserted his responsibilities, he is soft on defense. He received three Purple Hearts. Citizens do not get Purple Hearts for nothing. They even wanted to challenge the depth of one wound to see whether it was deserving of a Purple Heart.

Look at the cost of prescription drugs. Where are we going with that if drug prices go higher and higher? But

we do not hear any protest. As a matter of fact, we had a Medicare bill that says within its content that Medicare is forbidden to negotiate with the drug companies to try to get a lower price because of the huge volume of purchasing for Medicare beneficiaries. The VA negotiates drug prices and it brings the prices way down, much lower, 20, 30 percent lower than those the Medicare beneficiaries pay.

How about improving the job market? We see what is happening in the stock market. If that is to be a barometer of where we are going, it is a terrible indication. The market has been reeling from shock and in an awesome decline from where it was. This market that was supposed to be making everybody, the pensioners and the mutual funds and the investors, happy is not doing so.

We should be hearing from President Bush about what he is going to do to correct the problems so worrisome to American families today: whether they can afford their mortgage, whether they can afford to educate their kids, whether they can afford to take care of a grandparent, if necessary, whether they could guarantee that someone who can learn can get an education. Those are the things we would like to hear.

Stop this insidious criticism, personal criticism, of Senator John Kerry. Look at John Kerry's record and look at the record of this administration. What a comparison that is. The Nation is tired of hearing this negative stuff. Talk about positive things. Talk about what you are going to do for America, not about what the other guy failed to do. Talk about what you failed to do and are ready to correct.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act of 2004. This Act would prohibit the barbaric and unsporting practice of ``canned hunts.'' I am pleased to be joined by my cosponsors, Senators Biden, Kennedy, Levin, Corzine, Feinstein, Feingold, Kohl, Durbin and Schumer.

Canned hunts take place on private land under circumstances that virtually assure hunters of a kill. Although they advertise under a variety of names, such as hunting preserves or game ranches, canned hunts have two things in common: they charge a fee for killing an animal; and they violate the generally accepted practices of the hunting community, which are based on the concept of ``fair chase.'' Some canned hunts specialize in native species, such as white-tailed deer or elk, while others deal in exotic, non-native, animals that are either bred on-site or bought from dealers or breeders. Exotic animals may include surplus animals bought from wild animal parks, circuses, and petting zoos. Many canned hunts offer both native and exotic species to their customers. The Humane Society of the United States estimates that there are more than 1000 canned hunt operations in at least 25 different States.

Canned hunts cater to persons who lack the time, and sometimes the skill, for normal sports hunting, but who have the money to pay the hefty fees charged for trophy kills. They do not require skill in tracking or shooting. For a price, many canned hunts guarantee a ``hunter'' a kill of the animal of their choice. A wild boar ``kill'' may sell for up to $1000, a water buffalo for $3500, and a red deer for up to $6000.

The ``hunt'' of these tame animals occurs within a fenced enclosure, leaving the animal virtually no chance for escape. Fed and cared for by humans, these animals have often lost their instinctive impulse to flee from hunters who ``stalk'' them. In addition to fencing, canned hunts use other practices to assure their customers a kill. They employ guides who are intimately familiar with their preserve or ranch, including locations where animals like to eat, bed down, and hide, and may use food plots and feeding stations to attract animals and make them easy targets from nearby shooting blinds or stands--all practices which are prohibited by many State game commissions.

Canned hunts are strongly condemned by animal protection groups. The Fund for Animals has launched a national campaign against what it calls a ``cruel, unsporting, and egregious type of hunting.'' The Humane Society says that ``There is no more repugnant hunting practice than shooting tame, exotic mammals in fenced enclosures for a fee in order to obtain a trophy.'' The group believes that federal legislation is needed ``to halt the cruel and unsportsmanlike business of canned hunts.''

Canned hunts violate the principles of the sport of hunting. The Boone and Crockett Club, a hunting organization founded by Teddy Roosevelt, defines ``fair chase'' as the ``ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.'' Surely exotic animals held in canned hunt facilities can in no way be considered ``free-ranging,'' and the hunters at such facilities clearly have an enormous ``improper advantage'' over the animals.

In addition to being unethical, canned hunts may pose a serious health and safety threat to domestic livestock and native wildlife. Accidental escapes of exotic animals from game ranches are not uncommon, posing a danger to nearby livestock and indigenous wildlife. A dire threat to native deer and elk populations in this country is chronic wasting disease, the deer equivalent of mad cow disease. In some States, experts believe that canned hunts, with their fences and high concentrations of animals, are encouraging transmission of this disease.

In recognition of these threats, several states have banned canned hunting of mammals. Unfortunately, most states lack laws to outlaw this practice. Because interstate commerce in exotic animals is common, Federal legislation is essential to control these cruel practices.

My bill is essentially the same as legislation S. 1655, that was reported by the Judiciary Committee late in the 107th Congress and sponsored by Senator Biden. It is similar to legislation that I introduced in the 106th, S. 1345, 105th, S. 995, and 104th, S. 1493, Congresses. The legislation that I am introducing today will target only canned hunt facilities that allow the hunting of exotic, non- native, mammals. It is important to note what the bill does and does not do: (1) The bill does not regulate the hunting of native mammals, such as white-tail deer; (2) the bill does not regulate the hunting of birds, native or exotic, such as doves, pheasants, and mallard ducks; (3) the bill protects only exotic, non-native, mammals that have been confined for the greater part of the animal's life or a year, whichever is shorter; (4) the bill does not cover exotic mammals living as they would in the wild on large preserves where they have an opportunity to avoid hunters, 1000 acres or larger; and (5) the bill regulates the conduct of persons who operate canned hunts or traffic in exotic mammals used in such hunts, not the hunters who patronize canned hunt facilities. In summary, my bill would merely ban the transport and trade of non-native, exotic mammals for the purpose of staged trophy hunts.

The idea of a defenseless animal meeting a violent end as the target of a canned hunt is, at the very least, distasteful to many Americans. In an era when we are seeking to curb violence in our culture, canned hunts are certainly one form of gratuitous brutality that does not belong in our society. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, which will help end this needless practice.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act of 2004. This Act would prohibit the barbaric and unsporting practice of ``canned hunts.'' I am pleased to be joined by my cosponsors, Senators Biden, Kennedy, Levin, Corzine, Feinstein, Feingold, Kohl, Durbin and Schumer.

Canned hunts take place on private land under circumstances that virtually assure hunters of a kill. Although they advertise under a variety of names, such as hunting preserves or game ranches, canned hunts have two things in common: they charge a fee for killing an animal; and they violate the generally accepted practices of the hunting community, which are based on the concept of ``fair chase.'' Some canned hunts specialize in native species, such as white-tailed deer or elk, while others deal in exotic, non-native, animals that are either bred on-site or bought from dealers or breeders. Exotic animals may include surplus animals bought from wild animal parks, circuses, and petting zoos. Many canned hunts offer both native and exotic species to their customers. The Humane Society of the United States estimates that there are more than 1000 canned hunt operations in at least 25 different States.

Canned hunts cater to persons who lack the time, and sometimes the skill, for normal sports hunting, but who have the money to pay the hefty fees charged for trophy kills. They do not require skill in tracking or shooting. For a price, many canned hunts guarantee a ``hunter'' a kill of the animal of their choice. A wild boar ``kill'' may sell for up to $1000, a water buffalo for $3500, and a red deer for up to $6000.

The ``hunt'' of these tame animals occurs within a fenced enclosure, leaving the animal virtually no chance for escape. Fed and cared for by humans, these animals have often lost their instinctive impulse to flee from hunters who ``stalk'' them. In addition to fencing, canned hunts use other practices to assure their customers a kill. They employ guides who are intimately familiar with their preserve or ranch, including locations where animals like to eat, bed down, and hide, and may use food plots and feeding stations to attract animals and make them easy targets from nearby shooting blinds or stands--all practices which are prohibited by many State game commissions.

Canned hunts are strongly condemned by animal protection groups. The Fund for Animals has launched a national campaign against what it calls a ``cruel, unsporting, and egregious type of hunting.'' The Humane Society says that ``There is no more repugnant hunting practice than shooting tame, exotic mammals in fenced enclosures for a fee in order to obtain a trophy.'' The group believes that federal legislation is needed ``to halt the cruel and unsportsmanlike business of canned hunts.''

Canned hunts violate the principles of the sport of hunting. The Boone and Crockett Club, a hunting organization founded by Teddy Roosevelt, defines ``fair chase'' as the ``ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.'' Surely exotic animals held in canned hunt facilities can in no way be considered ``free-ranging,'' and the hunters at such facilities clearly have an enormous ``improper advantage'' over the animals.

In addition to being unethical, canned hunts may pose a serious health and safety threat to domestic livestock and native wildlife. Accidental escapes of exotic animals from game ranches are not uncommon, posing a danger to nearby livestock and indigenous wildlife. A dire threat to native deer and elk populations in this country is chronic wasting disease, the deer equivalent of mad cow disease. In some States, experts believe that canned hunts, with their fences and high concentrations of animals, are encouraging transmission of this disease.

In recognition of these threats, several states have banned canned hunting of mammals. Unfortunately, most states lack laws to outlaw this practice. Because interstate commerce in exotic animals is common, Federal legislation is essential to control these cruel practices.

My bill is essentially the same as legislation S. 1655, that was reported by the Judiciary Committee late in the 107th Congress and sponsored by Senator Biden. It is similar to legislation that I introduced in the 106th, S. 1345, 105th, S. 995, and 104th, S. 1493, Congresses. The legislation that I am introducing today will target only canned hunt facilities that allow the hunting of exotic, non- native, mammals. It is important to note what the bill does and does not do: (1) The bill does not regulate the hunting of native mammals, such as white-tail deer; (2) the bill does not regulate the hunting of birds, native or exotic, such as doves, pheasants, and mallard ducks; (3) the bill protects only exotic, non-native, mammals that have been confined for the greater part of the animal's life or a year, whichever is shorter; (4) the bill does not cover exotic mammals living as they would in the wild on large preserves where they have an opportunity to avoid hunters, 1000 acres or larger; and (5) the bill regulates the conduct of persons who operate canned hunts or traffic in exotic mammals used in such hunts, not the hunters who patronize canned hunt facilities. In summary, my bill would merely ban the transport and trade of non-native, exotic mammals for the purpose of staged trophy hunts.

The idea of a defenseless animal meeting a violent end as the target of a canned hunt is, at the very least, distasteful to many Americans. In an era when we are seeking to curb violence in our culture, canned hunts are certainly one form of gratuitous brutality that does not belong in our society. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, which will help end this needless practice.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to submit a Senate concurrent resolution which affirms the support of Congress for preserving the image of Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill. Alexander Hamilton is a Founding Father of our Nation. He was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Revolutionary War, a voice in the Continental

Congress, and a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He authored more than 50 of the 85 ``Federalist Papers.'' He organized the Revenue Marines, known today as the Coast Guard, and played a crucial role in the creation of the U.S. Navy. And Alexander Hamilton is the creator of one of America's first industrial and manufacturing centers, in Paterson, NJ.

Alexander Hamilton was also America's first Secretary of the Treasury and the founder of the first United States Bank. He is responsible for the financial system that our country maintains today. He created the first bank, the first tax system, the first budget, and a strong currency. He had a vision for establishing the economic viability of our fledgling country based on banking, investment, manufacturing, industry, and commerce. We are an economic superpower and a model for the rest of the world in large part because of Alexander Hamilton.

When we look to the Founding Fathers who played significant roles in the formation of America, we see that among them, George Washington has a monument in our Nation's Capital, and his image is on the $1 bill and the quarter deservedly so. Thomas Jefferson also has an impressive memorial in Washington, the main building of the Library of Congress is named after him, and his image is on the $2 bill and the nickel--again, deservedly so. Alexander Hamilton's image is on the $10 bill--and it should remain on the $10 bill. There is perhaps no other American more responsible for the fact that we have a $10 bill.

Of course, Washington and Jefferson were our first and third Presidents. Many of our other Presidents have been or will be appropriately memorialized in some fashion. For instance, our 40th President, Ronald Reagan, has had Washington National Airport and the second largest Federal building in the country, only the Pentagon is bigger, named after him. The headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency at Langley, VA, has been named after our 41st President, George H. W. Bush. One of the four office buildings for the U.S. House of Representatives has been named after our 38th President, Gerald Ford. And the Old Executive Office Building--right next to the White House-- has been named after our 34th President, Dwight Eisenhower.

We stand in a Senate Chamber steeped in history; in a country quite conscious and proud of its birth. We revere those individuals such as Washington, Jefferson, and Hamilton who were present at the creation of our great Nation and helped to establish the democracy we enjoy as a birthright. It is our duty to uphold their legacy and preserve their image. Alexander Hamilton played an instrumental role in our triumph in the Revolutionary War, the birth of our democracy, and the establishment of our financial system. His image must, at the very least, remain on the $10 bill. There have been many Presidents, and there will be many more. But there will be no more Founding Fathers.

Mr. President, this Free Trade Agreement should have been easy for me to support.

It is an agreement with a moderate Arab nation, an FTA that will integrate Morocco's economy with that of America. This FTA will aid Morocco's economy, strengthen our ties with the Kingdom, and help to bolster the contention that market economics can lead to a peaceful and prosperous moderate Islam.

What troubles me is the Bush administration's ongoing inattention to the labor and environmental protections in trade agreements, which is inexcusable. This administration has refused to live up to the gold standard on labor and environmental protections, a standard set by the Clinton administration when it negotiated the United States-Jordan Free Trade Agreement.

Instead, President Bush and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick have backtracked, endorsing less stringent protections in agreements with Chile and Singapore. The administration ignored the disapproval of many in Congress of those provisions. Stunningly, the administration did not include Jordan-style provisions in the Morocco agreement, even though Moroccan officials announced they would be willing to accept them.

In short, President Bush settled for weaker protections than he could have gotten, and he did it for what would seem to be no reason other than to antagonize labor groups, environmental groups and some in Congress. I find that deplorable.

Despite the shortcomings of this agreement, however, and because Morocco is making progress on its labor and environmental laws, I will support this FTA to strengthen our ties with a moderate Arab nation that has been a good global citizen.