Floor Statements

Mr. President, all of us in the Senate, and in the Government generally, are terribly upset with the events of these last days and weeks because the shock and awe that we all experienced in the beginning days has been diminished when compared to what we are seeing now.

Now we are seeing the ultimate degradation of human conduct. Unfortunately, some part of it comes from us, from Americans. We are embarrassed, apologetic, humiliated by what we have seen.

I, like all of my colleagues, had a chance to view the pictures the Pentagon sent to Congress yesterday. They were sick, perverted images from the Abu Ghraib prison. Shameful, perverted, degraded images that made Members feel ill. But we could tell from the images there were many soldiers present at these scenes. This was not a soldier or two; there were many. The photographs demonstrated complete disintegration of discipline. Unfortunately, while it would be a lot easier if this were just the case of a few bad apples, it indicates a breakdown in leadership.

I am a World War II veteran. I experienced the stress of being in a combat zone. I understand the psychological wear and tear. I also know it is the responsibility of a soldier's leaders all the way to the top of the chain of command to supervise, to manage as best they can the conduct of the troops.

Regarding the current case of prison abuse, it is premature to rush to court-martial individual soldiers before all of the facts are known. I understand the administration seeks a public, visible court-martial trial to demonstrate the United States commitment to justice, but before we simply lay all the blame on the soldiers at the bottom of the chain of command, we need to understand where the directives were and what they were when they came down from the top. How clear is it now that well-dressed men in charge have let the soldiers in uniform down?

The top civilian leadership at the Pentagon has failed. In my view, replacing Secretary Rumsfeld will change little at the Pentagon if his discredited team of advisers remain in their high-level position. A series of bad decisions by the top civilian leadership at the Pentagon has severely undermined our operations in Iraq. In my view, the Pentagon's trio of civilian leaders needs to be replaced. I am speaking specifically of the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and the Under Secretary for Policy, Douglas Feith. All three of those officials ought to be replaced. They all work very closely together, and I am sure not one, not even the Secretary himself, made all of the decisions. The trio's poor planning and miscalculations have undermined the troops serving on the ground in Iraq.

We are proud of those who have served so generously and nobly. That does not mean we cannot have some bad actors, but it also does not mean those at the top are free of responsibility. Their negligence regarding reports of prisoner abuses which were alleged to take place as early as last October is the last straw in a record of missteps and miscalculations that have compromised the safety and effectiveness of our military operations.

These civilian leaders have dismissed the views of people in uniform numerous times. For example, in early 2003, Four Star General Eric Shinseki disagreed with Secretary Rumsfeld's plans for a light battlefield force for Iraq. He said--and it was a courageous statement--that at least 300,000 troops would be needed during the war, particularly in the aftermath of the war. Now we know that General Shinseki was right. The security situation in Iraq is deteriorating in exactly the way he said it would if there were not enough troops.

So how was General Shinseki handled by the trio of civilian leaders at the Pentagon? He was fired. Fired for telling the truth. It tells us something about the character of those decisionmakers who said, no, no, we can get this done in much easier fashion. He was fired for knowing what he was talking about.

That is just one of the many miscalculations and mistakes made by this trio at the Pentagon. Despite the urging of the Joint Chiefs of Staff not to do so, the Pentagon civilian leadership disbanded the Iraqi army after the invasion. We left 400,000 armed and trained Iraqis unemployed--I am not trying to give them jobs--and resentful, and now these men are contributing significantly to the massive security problems American troops are facing.

The civilian leadership at the Pentagon also ignored postwar plans drawn up by the Army War College and the State Department Future of Iraq Project, which predicted most of the security and infrastructure problems that America faced in the early days of the Iraq occupation.

We have heard plenty of speeches from Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz and Under Secretary Feith. They talk tough about supporting the soldiers, sailors, marines, air men and women, but in reality they fail to provide adequately for our U.S. commanders as they requested in Iraq such things as sufficient interceptor body armor or adequate protection from Humvees.

I learned that on my trip to Iraq last month when I asked a young soldier--a captain, as a matter of fact--what it was he needed to better conduct his soldiers in our Army there. He said: Senator, the flak jacket you are wearing is the latest. It is the most protective. I don't understand, he said to me, why we do not have them when I have seen those in the coalition wearing those vests.

He said to me: You see this rifle? This big, heavy rifle is bigger than the one I carried in World War II; I carried a carbine. He said: There are better weapons out there with better sighting mechanisms, lighter to carry. He said: We do not have them, and I don't understand why, Senator. He said: We have seen those in coalition hands.

Recently, Acting Secretary of the Army Les Brownlee and Army Chief of Staff GEN Peter Schoomaker recently told Congress that the Army currently

only has 2,000 armored Humvees even though it needs at least 5,000 to adequately protect our troops. And the sight of those vehicles burning leaves out what happened to those people who were in those vehicles.

When asked why the Army did not have enough of these vehicles, General Schoomaker said the Pentagon policymakers had not foreseen the need for these standard fighting vehicles.

Despite their academic credentials, Wolfowitz and Feith horribly misjudged the post-invasion situation in Iraq, and it has cost American lives.

Under Secretary Feith dismissed all dissent to his view that U.S. forces would be greeted as liberators and quickly win the lasting gratitude of the Iraqi people. Despite the current quagmire, he continues to cling to his delusional view of the situation.

In addition, before the invasion, these civilian leaders also told the American people that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction through oil revenues. As we now know, not only has that not happened, but U.S. taxpayers are paying virtually all of the costs of the reconstruction of Iraq.

We cannot pass a highway bill in this Congress for America, but we are unloading U.S. taxpayer dollars to rebuild Iraq's highway system. Why do we have to go to our taxpayers over and over again for billions of dollars for Iraq? Why does the President need to take another $25 billion that could be used for Medicare, education, and American highway construction?

The reason is the administration marginalized the international community before the war, and Pentagon civilian leaders refused to cede any control of post-invasion Iraq to the international community. As a result, we have paid more than 80 percent of all of the reconstruction funds in Iraq.

I want to make it perfectly clear, I do not think we can cut and run. I think we have a responsibility there that we have developed through our own decisionmaking and through the fate that war has brought us. So I do not say cut and run. But I do say it would help us an awful lot if we were not, at this point in time, arguing to give people who have been successful in business or in life greater tax breaks when we desperately need the money.

Furthermore, there is little hope that European allies or international donors will cough up the over $30 billion that Iraq still needs for rebuilding, according to World Bank estimates.

U.S. taxpayers will have shelled out almost $200 billion by the end of 2004. As a result of this unilateralism, we barely cobbled together a meager coalition of the willing, but our men and women make up over 87 percent of the troops fighting in Iraq.

Secretary Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, and Under Secretary Feith all have to be replaced. We need new leadership at the Pentagon, leadership that will listen to the military experts, leadership that will not cling to discredited ideologies.

Perhaps the best illustration of the ineptitude of this team was their gross underestimate of the length of the Iraqi operation. They created false hopes for troops and their families, especially the reservists, many of whom are now facing more than a year's worth of duty away from their homes, away from the ability to pay their mortgages, away from the comfort children need from a father. They created the false hopes, especially of the reservists, who expected much shorter battlefield tours of duty.

In February 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld said the war ``could last six days, six weeks.'' And he said: ``I doubt [that it could last] six months.''

It is well over a year from the beginning of this war, and now our own generals are publicly questioning whether we can win. We have to win. We have no choice. But in order to win, we have to make sure our troops have the tools to do the job with, and that we have sufficient help from other places. We have to make sure we pursue that mission.

I am not sure the current Pentagon team has the ability to direct our needs now. We need new leadership. Secretary Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, and Under Secretary Feith need to resign. And if they do not do so, then the President would be wise to ask them to go.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to engage several of my colleagues in a colloquy regarding an important provision in the manager's substitute amendment to S. 1637. Section 641 of the manager's amendment was filed by me as an amendment to S. 1637, and it was co- sponsored by Senators Chafee, Dole and Lieberman.

The language of my amendment is based on S. 1936, the Brownfield Revitalization Act of 2003, a bipartisan bill that was introduced last year by Senator Baucus and cosponsored by Senators Inhofe, Dole and Rockefeller. However, the version of my amendment that is included in the manager's substitute contains several modifications which improve it.

My amendment relieves tax-exempt entities that invest in, clean up, and then re-sell certain brownfield properties from an obscure but significant provision in the Internal Revenue Code.

First, what is a ``brownfield?'' There are various definitions of this term. In the Federal Superfund law, a ``brownfield'' is defined as ``real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.''

My own State of New Jersey uses a different definition. It defines a ``brownfield'' as ``any former or current commercial or industrial site that is currently vacant or underutilized and on which there has been, or there is suspected to have been, a discharge of a contaminant.''

Brownfields are not necessarily highly contaminated sites. Often, they are moderately or lightly contaminated industrial and commercial sites that could be productively re-used if they were cleaned up. In fact, the perception of contamination might be the only thing holding back a brownfield site from redevelopment.

Reuse of a brownfield site is desirable because it preserves an open ``greenfield'' and can provide an economic stimulus to an inner city or close-in suburban area.

Our colleague, Senator Dole, is fully aware of how serious the problem of brownfields is across the nation.

In fact, in my own State of New Jersey, the Department of Environmental Protection oversees ten thousand potential brownfield sites, but admits that many more sites may exist in the State that have not yet been identified.

I ask Senator Lieberman if he is aware of any barriers in our Tax Code that may be hindering the remediation of brownfields sites.

This large potential funding source for brownfields remediation is what my amendment will address by removing one barrier to brownfields redevelopment.

My amendment allows tax-exempt entities to invest in brownfield sites without the risk of incurring UBIT liability, provided that certain conditions are met.

First, the appropriate State environmental agency must certify that the property is a brownfield site within the meaning of the Federal Superfund definition.

The amendment does not set up a new certification procedure for this purpose, but rather piggybacks on a process already in place under section 198 of the Tax Code to provide tax incentives for commercial brownfield developers. In fact, another provision of the manager's substitute amendment extends section 198 through the end of 2005.

Second, the remediation effort must be a significant one. It must cost more than $550,000, or 12 percent of the fair market value of the site, determined as if the site were not contaminated. By establishing relatively high thresholds for eligibility, the amendment excludes incidentally contaminated property and focuses new capital investment at sites that are most in need of assistance.

Third, the site must be cleaned up to comply with all environmental laws and regulations.

Finally, after the cleanup the state environmental agency or EPA must certify that the property is no longer a brownfield site. In requesting such a certification, the tax-exempt entity must attest that the anticipated future uses of the property are more economically productive or environmentally beneficial than the previous use of the property. The tax-exempt entity must also attest that it has given public notice of its request for certification.

Senator Jeffords, the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, has been very helpful in developing modifications to this amendment. Could the Senator from Vermont describe the modifications we have made that are designed to prevent abuse?

I thank the Senator for that explanation and for his help in crafting the amendment. As I mentioned earlier, my amendment is based on S. 1936, a bipartisan bill introduced by Senator Baucus last year. That legislation was endorsed by groups as diverse as the Chamber of Commerce, Environmental Defense, the National Taxpayers Union, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. I yield the floor.

energy tax incentives

Mr. President, I congratulate the American Lung Association, ALA, on its 100th anniversary. Since its inception in 1904, as the National Association for the Study and Prevention of Tuberculosis, the American Lung Association has served as a champion for those affected by lung disease.

Lung disease is America's number three killer, responsible for one in seven deaths. Every year, close to 342,000 Americans die of lung diseases. However, lung disease is not only a killer, most lung disease is chronic. More than 35 million Americans are now living with chronic lung disease. I applaud ALA's commitment to fighting lung disease in all its forms, with special emphasis on asthma, tobacco control and environmental health.

One of the main focuses of the American Lung Association is the reduction of tobacco use in order to combat lung disease. Smoking is responsible for 90 percent of all cancer deaths. Four years before the publication of the landmark 1964 Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health the American Lung Association established the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.

As the author of the law banning smoking on airplanes and in all Federal buildings I am tirelessly committed to protecting individuals from deadly secondhand smoke and developing regulations to protect children from the dangers of tobacco use. I am proud to call ALA my partner in this effort.

In addition to the outstanding progress ALA has achieved in its anti- tobacco work the association is also recognized as a leader in the clean air movement. Americans have ALA to thank for developing the crucial health basis for the Nation's clear air standards that led to passage and implementation of the landmark 1970 Clean Air Act and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 and 1990.

I commend the ALA for its outstanding achievements over the past century, and I offer by best wishes for a successful future.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to an organization that has done so much good in our country. I am happy to be able to congratulate the American Legacy Foundation on its 5-year anniversary. Five years ago, the American Legacy Foundation was born out of the Master Settlement Agreement, MSA. As we are all aware, the States' lawsuits against the major cigarette companies explicitly required Sates to spend certain amounts of their settlement payments on tobacco-prevention efforts and to advance public health.

I would like to personally commend those organizations, such as the American Legacy Foundation, who have worked tirelessly for 5 years to reduce smoking in our Nation. Smoking is now at its lowest level in nearly three decades. This did not happen by chance. It happened because States and communities all across this great Nation, led by the American Legacy Foundation, challenged and continue to challenge the tobacco industry.

Whether it is an award-winning youth counter marketing campaign, or ``Great Start,'' an innovative cessation program for pregnant women, there is no denying the fact that programs such as these have successfully convinced teens, pregnant women and older adults that they can quit smoking.

In closing my remarks, I encourage my colleagues to remain committed to the spirit of the Master Settlement Agreement, so that we can eliminate tobacco addiction altogether. By squelching America's smoking habit, it is my hope that we can achieve the vision of a smoke-free society.

Mr. President, I want to now discuss my concerns about the ads we are seeing regarding the new Medicare drug discount card. I think the ads are misleading, and I am getting a lot of inquiries from people at home about is this good for me or not. I think there is a fundamental mistrust about whether this is an idea whose time ought not yet come, because the citizens are saying it is starting in 2006, and this is obviously a lead-in to that. I think it can be described as a placeholder.

The card became available yesterday, but the administration is keeping seniors in the dark about the real benefits and weaknesses of the program. They have produced a television commercial that is hyping the card and are spending $18 billion to show it across the country.

In this ad, there is a group of seniors in line at a pharmacy and the announcer says: ``Good news for those with Medicare. You can get savings on prescriptions.'' They do it in the right mellifluous tone, just for those on Medicare. That is really all the announcer says about the card--``good news . . . you can get savings.'' That's it--all hype and no substance.

The television ad is almost a cruel joke on our Nation's seniors. Instead of providing real, needed information about the drug card, the administration has launched a PR campaign to boost the image of the card.

HHS should have spent less time focusing on hype and more time providing seniors with critical information about the card program.

We have to look at what is missing on the card. I urge the administration to include something else in their mailing. This is called a magnifying glass. Everybody knows what it is. It ought to be sent so you can read what this small type says. It says, ``Scene from the HHS `shine' ad, featuring the `strange, blue, magical glow of light.' ''

It goes further--and we have enlarged the type. The magnifying glass would be a nice accompaniment for seniors who are getting this, because they should read this small type. It says: ``Savings may vary. Enrollment fee, deductibles, and copay may apply.''

And here they say ``certain exclusions apply.''

We need the magnifying glass to see that.

What we are looking at is some fairly deceptive advertising. It is shocking that the administration would once again run ads that leave out these important details, especially in light of the findings by the GAO that earlier Medicare advertisements had a political tone and contained ``notable omissions and other weaknesses.''

Many seniors watching this commercial could reasonably believe the discount card is free. In reality, there is an annual enrollment fee of up to $30.

Many drugs would be excluded from the program. Seniors could be stuck with a Medicare drug card that provides no discount for the prescription drugs they may need. For example, seniors using the Medicare discount card offered by the Pharmacy Care Alliance would get no discount for Celebrex. Celebrex is a common, apparently very effective drug used to treat arthritis. With the card, you can buy the drug for $121.80. But if you don't have the card, you can get the same medication for only $76.99 at drugstore.com, so there is a savings of over $40. The card is useless for this drug.

Another example: Seniors on the Rx Savings Medicare Card Plan would pay $147.01 for Prevacid, a common drug used to treat acid reflux. But there is no discount at all when you consider that you can buy the same drug for $120.99 at drugstore.com without any card. That is a savings of over $25 if you do not use the card. That is a good idea. Don't use the card.

Lipitor is used to treat high cholesterol. If you have the Pharmacy Care Alliance Medicare drug card, it costs you $71.19. But if you want to buy it at drugstore.com, that $71.19 product cost only $62.99. So there is $8 worth of savings right there at drugstore.com without any card. The savings are haphazard at best.

These Health and Human Services television ads do not provide any of these details except, once again, in the tiny type on the bottom of the screen, and you ought to get a magnifying glass if you really want to understand what is taking place.

Look at this placard. It shows actual scenes from HHS's advertisement. I point out as I did before:

Savings may vary. Enrollment fee, deductibles, and co-pay

may apply.

They are saying: Hey, hold on to your pockets because we are not really telling you what the outcome is going to be.

What little substantive information is included can only be found at the bottom of the screen in print so small that you need a magnifying glass to read it. They make sure the type is in a color that is very hard to read. If this was an automobile, people would be hollering that this is flimflam. Only in its barely visible fine print are seniors informed there is an enrollment fee for the discount card.

It also reveals that ``certain exclusions apply.'' That exclusion could very well be the prescription drug you need.

Rather than educating seniors about the drug discount card, HHS is treating the Medicare drug card like dishwashing soap--just make the public think it is a great thing. These are not educational ads. They are propaganda. The GAO already told HHS that its previous Medicare materials were misleading, but rather than clean up its act, the administration continues to hide the fact and trick seniors.

I call on HHS and the administration to stop using taxpayers' dollars to mislead seniors and start providing real needed information to Medicare beneficiaries. One should not have to have a magnifying glass to understand what is being offered.

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

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request that on rollcall vote No. 73, I voted ``yea.'' My intent was to vote ``nay.'' It would not change the outcome. I ask unanimous consent that change be made.

Mr. President, I offer an amendment, No. 3104, to the McCain substitute amendment to S. 150, the Internet Access Tax Moratorium bill. My amendment, if adopted, would require the General Accounting Office, GAO, to conduct a study on the impact of the moratorium and report its findings back to Congress by November 1, 2005.

GAO would be tasked with analyzing the revenue impact of the Internet tax moratorium on State and local governments. GAO would also be tasked with analyzing the effect of the moratorium on the deployment and adoption of broadband technologies for Internet access throughout the United States.

The amendment directs GAO to compare deployment and adoption rates in States that tax broadband Internet access service with States that do not tax such service, and to take into account other factors to determine whether the Internet Tax Freedom Act has had a positive impact on the deployment and adoption of broadband Internet access services.

Having GAO conduct such a study is important because we simply don't know what the real impact of this legislation will be on the tax revenues of State and local government. The way Internet ``access'' is defined in the bill, it could be a giant loophole ripe for exploitation by telecommunications companies, especially with regard to the emerging market of Internet telephony, which is commonly referred to as ``Voice over Internet Protocol'', VoIP. Tax and public utility officials I have spoken with in New Jersey are very worried that S. 150 could cost the State and jurisdictions within the State hundreds of millions of dollars annually. This is revenue they desperately need to provide essential services.

Furthermore, we simply don't know what the real impact of this legislation will be on the telecommunications industry and on future broadband deployment, both of which are so important to our economy. Supporters of the bill claim that the moratorium is essential. But I would note that three economists at the University of Tennessee compared Internet access rates in jurisdictions with Internet taxes and jurisdictions without any such taxes. The access rates were the same. In other words, the moratorium may not be having any beneficial effect. That is something we need to find out.

Mr. President, I understand that my amendment will be adopted and I appreciate Chairman McCain's support for it. I think it is an eminently reasonable amendment, and I hope that it can be protected in the Conference Committee deliberations on this bill.

Mr. President, one of the many strengths of the Senate community is our diverse workforce. It is that diversity that contributes to a more informed and representative government.

The promise of our Nation lies in its promise to every one of its citizens that they will be judged by the quality of their work, the depth of their potential and the strength of their intellect and character. Anything less undermines the very principles of fairness we uphold and it diminishes not just those who are discriminated against, but the professional communities in which they live and work the Senate included.

Recently, several Senate employees announced that they have formed an informal, non-partisan group called Gays, Lesbians and Allies Senate Staff, GLASS, Caucus. The caucus is open to all Senate staff and is the first ever for gay and lesbian Senate staff and their allies. It is designed to raise awareness of issues affecting the gay and lesbian community and increase visibility; and promote the welfare and dignity of gay and lesbian Senate employees by providing a safe environment for social interaction and professional development.

The GLASS caucus held its inaugural reception last night. I was honored to attend and congratulate the members on their organization's formation. This was an historic moment for the Senate and special recognition must be given to four of the founding members of the caucus for a job well done: Mat Young, Lynden Armstrong, John Fossum and Jeffrey Levensaler.

Gay and lesbian Americans want the same civil rights that are extended to other Americans--nothing more, nothing less. We must build a community here in the Senate and across the Nation of mutual respect, tolerance, and freedom. This new staff caucus will make many valuable contributions in that regard.

I wish this group well and hope that it will prove to be a valuable addition to the Senate community.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nevada. Nothing could be more poignant, as we view what has taken place in Iraq, than the bravado that led us into the battle and the boastful statements that were made, such as ``mission accomplished.'' What the mission accomplished was, was to get a picture that could be used in an election campaign. That was the mission that was accomplished.

People thought the President was talking about something else, and he did say the worst is behind us. It is a terrible memory for us to conjure up while people are dying in quantities hardly ever dreamed about, far more casualties in this war where we have 130,000 people in Iraq than when we had 540,000 people in the first gulf war because there were enough of them to protect one another; there were enough of them to get the job done quickly and effectively.

We have some memories, and I couldn't agree more with the Democratic whip, my friend from Nevada, about mistakes made and remembering ``bring them on,'' which I found so offensive.

This week is the anniversary of the photo on the bridge of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. Photo on the bridge--that is the memory that is going to be conveyed out there. This is the photo on the bridge. Here is the aircraft carrier looking very splendid in a display of power, but the timing was so far off and the statements were so empty: ``Mission accomplished.''

Ask the 600 families who have lost children; ask those 22 families of sons and daughters in the State of New Jersey whether they think the mission was accomplished May 1 a year ago. I don't think they would agree.

Yesterday, I had an opportunity to visit the World War II memorial that is going to be open to the public very shortly. I am a veteran of World War II, as are several other Members of the Senate. I came from a working-class family. My 42-year-old father was on his deathbed from cancer when I enlisted. My mother became a 36-year-old widow. I was 18 already. I did not enlist to be a hero. I simply wanted to do whatever I could to help my country. So when I looked at the memorial yesterday, it brought back some very significant memories.

I remember being in uniform. I remember climbing telephone poles and putting up wire. Once again, I did what I was supposed to do because I was in the Signal Corps and responsible in part for getting communications between those who are commanders and those who are in the field.

I had a fairly narrow perspective, but one thing I did respect was those who received medals, those who had a Purple Heart. They were my heroes, and we used to defer to them. Anyone who got a Bronze Star or a Silver Star was thought to be someone special. That was to those of us in uniform who were trying to bring America victory. That is what happened.

When you visit the Vietnam Memorial here in Washington, it pulls at your heartstrings to see 58,235 names on the wall and you are reminded of the gravity and the impact that conflict had on our Nation. But now we are in a different place. I do not believe, I must say, we should judge our politicians based on who served and who did not serve. But when those who did not serve attack the heroism of those who did, I find it particularly offensive, and I hope people across America will put aside that criticism of Senator John Kerry who received three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star, which is a very high commendation for bravery. I find it offensive, and I hope every American and I hope every veteran will say: No, no, you can't talk like that,

pretending this man is soft on defense. He put his neck on the line, almost lost it, and saved someone else's neck in a very heroic deed.

That is what we are talking about: heroism. Max Cleland lost three limbs in Vietnam, and they shamed him so that he was pushed out of office because he was portrayed as weak on defense. Where do they come off with that kind of stuff? I will never know, but I hope the American public understands what is being done.

We now have discovered a return of the chicken hawk. We thought they flew the coop, but in the last week or two, they have returned aplenty. If anyone is curious about what a chicken hawk is, I have a definition right here on this placard. We see the chicken in a uniform with medals. The definition obtained from the Internet goes as follows:

Chickenhawk, n.: A person enthusiastic about war, provided

someone else does the fighting, particularly when that

enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most

emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of

ample opportunity in that person's youth--

I am extending it--to serve their country, unless you had a good excuse, unless you had other priorities.

Chicken hawks shriek like a hawk, but they have the backbone of a chicken. We know who the chicken hawks are. They talk tough on national defense and military issues and cast aspersion on others. When it was their turn to serve, where were they? A-W-O-L, that's where they were.

Now the chicken hawks are cackling about Senator John Kerry. The lead chicken hawk against Senator Kerry is the Vice President of the United States, Vice President Cheney. He was in Missouri this week claiming Senator Kerry is not up to the job of protecting this Nation. What nerve. Where was Dick Cheney when that war was going on where 58,235 young men died and many more wounded and many with wounds that were never visible, but you could see it in their emotional structure and in their psychology? It was a war everyone thinks in retrospect was misguided. But John Kerry volunteered for hazardous duty on a swift boat going up a river with people shooting at him all over the place. Cowardly? What an insult. I plead with veterans across this country. Look at what they are saying about your service. Exemplified: Max Cleland lost three limbs. What a sacrifice he made, and they beat him in the election, beat him in the polls because they characterized him as soft on defense. Now they want to take John Kerry who served nobly and establish that he, too, is soft on defense. I don't know where they get it.

He fought for our country. He still has shrapnel from the battlefield. Vice President Cheney said: At the time he had other priorities in the sixties than military service. He ought to tell that to the parents of those who lost their lives in Vietnam, and ask them what they think.

I heard someone--I think it was Karen Hughes--on the television the other night. Why are they talking about a 35-year-old war? A 35-year- old war? Ask those who served in Vietnam whether they ever think it is a 35-year-old war.

Come on, America, face up to what we are doing here. This is the ultimate disgrace: Risk your life and then be abused by those in the highest office in the country? The chicken hawk has no idea what it means to have the courage to put your life at risk to defend this Nation. They are quick to disparage those who did sacrifice. I do not understand how their conscience permits them to challenge Senator Kerry's commitment to our Nation's defense.

The reality is the chicken hawks in this administration are doing a lousy job of bolstering our Nation's defense and supporting the troops. Case in point: Mission accomplished.

I want to discuss this 1-year anniversary because I think it summarizes this flawed thinking and policy planning of the administration regarding its activities in Iraq after the initial invasion. We are all familiar with the imagery of May 1, 2003. My colleagues can see it on this placard. President Bush is dressed up in a flight suit--well, here he is wearing civilian clothes--playing soldier that day. The theatrics that followed were a production carefully choreographed by the White House political unit. It was nothing more than a staged circus act.

When the President switched to substance, it was almost more disturbing. He declared that ``major combat operations are over.''

He was, unfortunately, wrong. He was certainly wrong over 600 times because people died in that relatively peaceful postwar period of time.

Since the President declared mission accomplished on May 1, 2003, we have lost 585 American troops in Iraq. Before that day we had lost 139. That is a total of 724. In the first gulf war, with over 500,000 troops abroad, we lost a total of 293 troops.

When the President made his speech on the May 1 mission, it was not accomplished. Major combat operations were not over. It was a naive miscalculation. The troops on the ground in Iraq knew trouble was brewing, even though they heard that declaration that the mission was accomplished. They knew trouble was brewing as insurgents were launching more and more attacks.

When these attacks on our troops became more frequent, what did the President say last July? I could not believe what I was hearing. He said, ``Bring 'em on,'' in this gesture of bravado, in this gesture of toughness, bring them on. But he was not brought on. He was brought on to the deck of the aircraft carrier but he was not brought on to the battlefield in Vietnam when there was a chance to do something.

I do not think our soldiers are so happy about the President's dangerous comment.

I served in Europe in World War II. The last thing I wanted to hear from my Commander in Chief, or my local commander, is to dare the enemy to launch attacks on us.

The President and his allies are charging Senator Kerry with being a flip-flopper, but is it not a more dangerous flip-flop to tell our enemies to bring it on and invite attacks? Is it not a flip-flop when one says they support the troops and then--I heard it directly on our recent trip to Iraq when a captain in one of the reserve units--no, he was full service--when I asked if there were any complaints, he said, Senator, those flak jackets, the new ones, I have seen them on Spanish coalition members and I have seen them on other coalition members. We do not have them, Senator.

He then pointed to his rifle. He said, You know, there are smaller, more efficient, and better sidings and better sights on smaller, lighter weapons. We do not have those. We need more armored Humvee vehicles.

When I was in Iraq in March, soldiers complained to me they are not receiving the best equipment they could have.

What about the President's flip-flop to military families? He is arbitrarily extending tours of duties despite promises to families that loved ones would be returning home.

No, when it comes to supporting the troops the President is a flip- flopper. He says one thing, does another. Supporting the troops means careful planning of military operations, both pre-and postinvasion.

We know the administration did not want to hear any dissent about the unrealistic assessment of what the Iraqi operation would require. When General Shinseki, a distinguished military leader, said we need more troops, that over 300,000 troops would be required, he got fired. Instead, we have 130,000 troops in Iraq. That is what is favored by Secretary Rumsfeld.

Our excellent troops are fighting a treacherous insurgency launched by both Sunni and Shi'a elements. Combat operations are not over. They are raging. It is obvious the administration miscalculated and misunderstood what would happen after we deposed Saddam. In fact, the administration's beliefs bordered on the delusional. Experts warned them at the time, but they refused to listen.

According to Bob Woodward's account, Secretary Powell was all but excluded from the war planning among the key Cabinet officers. Colin Powell is the only one who ever saw combat in that group and they excluded him.

George McGovern, a friend, a decorated veteran, said this war was clearly planned by people who have never seen a battlefield. Look at what Vice President Cheney said on March 16, 2003:

We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think

it will go relatively quickly . . . (in) weeks rather than

months.

February 23, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said the war ``could last 6 days, 6 weeks. I doubt 6 months.'' Now it is over a year later and the war is still going on. A total of 724 American troops have been killed, 585 of them after President Bush declared major combat operations had ended.

We are in a quagmire that is the result of miscalculations and poor planning by the administration, but for the sake of our troops it is time for the chicken hawks in this administration to end the arrogance and the bravado that has put us in the mess we are in right now.

If we want someone effectively to defend our Nation and support our troops, I say let us look to someone who understands what it really means to answer the call and defend your country.

I yield the floor.

I yield back all the time, yes.

Mr. President, more than 1,200 students from across the United States will descend upon Washington, DC, from May 1- 3, 2004, to compete in the national finals of the ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution'' program. This program, funded by the U.S. Department of Education, instructs our youth about the U.S. Constitution and the importance of civic participation by providing schools with textbooks that offer both historical information and critical-thinking activities.

I am proud to announce that students from East Brunswick High School in East Brunswick, NJ, have won my home State's competition and will represent New Jersey in our Nation's capital next weekend. I wish the following students, and their teacher Alan Brodman, the best of luck in the future and congratulate them on their hard work and inspiring civic advocacy: Kian Barry, Patrick Bell, Kathleen Cammidge, Jessica Castles, Jennifer Chen, Ryan Citron, Jenna Elson, Daniel Gartenberg, Scott Goldschmidt, David Goldstein, Kristen Hamaoui, Marc Mondry, Jason Noah, Eric Nowicki, Nicholas Parais, Greg Parnas, Jessica Rebarber, Joa Roux, Blake Segal, Jody Shaw, Andrew Silver, Jeffrey Smith, Daniel Temkin, Abraham Tran, Arin Tuerk, and Haiwei Wang.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, Senator Corzine, in introducing the Safe Healthcare Reporting (SHARE) Act.

The first rule of the medical profession is ``do no harm.'' Unfortunately, Charles Cullen spent his career doing harm to people in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The overwhelming majority of nurses are excellent practitioners of medicine who save countless lives every day. Nurse Cullen is the exception--not the rule--he was a bad apple of the worst kind.

As many as 40 people died as a result of Charles Cullen's actions. He did it at different hospitals in different States. But no one put the pieces of the puzzle together for decades.

That is why the legislation Senator Corzine and I are introducing is so important. This legislation adds nurses to the centralized, national data bank of medical errors and misconduct. Our bill will require hospitals to notify state nursing boards--and the national data bank-- if they launch an investigation into an employee--something Senator Corzine and I believe is badly needed. The bill also requires hospitals to reference the national database when hiring nurses and other licensed health care professinals.

We must prevent more people like Charles Cullen from becoming nurses in the future. The vast majority of nurses out there are dedicated professionals, but we need a way to track and monitor the few who are using the profession as a means to commit terrible crimes. It makes no sense to allow a medical professional to go from job to job, leaving under suspicious circumstances, with virtually no means of detection.

Cullen's ability to perpetrate such despicable acts against patients highlights serious flaws in our current system. The system let this man slip through the cracks and continue to work as a professional healthcare provider even as investigations of his killings at previous employers were being launched. This is appalling.

Patient safety must always be at the forefront. Our bill will close the holes in this system and make it harder for people like Charles Cullen to commit such horrific crimes in the future.

I look forward to working in a bi-partisan fashion to further this important legislation.

Mr. President, I want to say a few words about our distinguished and beloved colleague, Senator Byrd, whose friendship I have treasured for many years--more than 20 years now. I seek and listen to what he says, to be aware of the knowledge he possesses about so many things, and the memories he carries.

When I first arrived here, I met Senator Robert C. Byrd and extended my wishes that we would have a chance to serve together--this is 20 years ago; and 20 years is a long time, except when it is compared to more than 40 years--and that he would continue to provide the kind of leadership and inspiration that he has for all of us for all these years.

We wish him well. We want to see him continue to provide the example he has shown all of us, with his dignity and intelligence and knowledge and awareness of the rules that govern this body of ours--as fractious as they have become in recent years. We always want to pay attention when Senator Byrd issues a view of the process that is developing, about where we ought to be, about the courtesies we should extend to one another.

I will never forget Senator Byrd, with his rage at one of the Senators who was addressing the President by his first name, saying: Where is he? Where is Bill? Why isn't Bill here? Senator Byrd stood up, with all his stature in front of him, saying: How dare you. How dare you call our President Bill. In all the years I have served with Republican Presidents, never, never would I dream of calling the President Ronald or George or otherwise.

With that little reminder, he brought us all back to a reasonable state of dignity and comity that we need to be reminded about on many occasions.

Very few have the knowledge stored in our being that Senator Robert C. Byrd has.

Again, when I first arrived in the Senate, I had not been in Government before, so it was all very complicated and perplexing. But I wanted to spend some time with Senator Byrd, and he was courteous and he did it. We sat in his office, talking about the background of our society and our country. He talked about the English Kings from the period somewhere maybe about the time of William the Conqueror, the 11th century, and he talked

about how long each succeeding monarch served, the year that person took the office, and the year they left the office, what caused them to leave the office, who died, how they died, by assassination or otherwise, from the 11th century on up to contemporary times. You will hear Senator Byrd often quote from the early days of Roman and Greek civilization. It is remarkable.

I come out of the computer business. I think I can safely say that I have never met a computer the equal of Robert C. Byrd, to have the depth of knowledge that he has and to be able to call upon it at so many times.

I will bet that in the 17,000 votes Robert C. Byrd cast, he knows more about the votes he cast almost than any Senator who has been here just for 100 votes or 200 votes. He understood every one of them. He never cast a vote without thought.

Each of us has had the experience, I am sure, of disagreeing, perhaps, with one another, even with a distinguished leader such as Senator Robert C. Byrd, and have him disagree with knowledge and with experience and say: This is why I think you are wrong. You are my friend, Frank, but I disagree with you on this, and I am going to vote the other way.

It was always with respect and friendship that these exchanges took place.

So we mark a historical moment. No one before has ever cast that many votes. As a matter of fact, very few have cast a number of votes that come anywhere close to the 17,000 mark. This is a record, as I think has been said by others, that will stand probably forever. It took Robert C. Byrd some eight terms to acquire the voting record that he has. When you know that person and you see the devotion and loyalty he brings to his family--he and his wife will celebrate their 67th anniversary, I believe. That is quite a tribute in a period like we now see in our country when the institution of marriage is not what it used to be. So we wish Mrs. Byrd, Erma Byrd, a return to better health--we know she has been having some difficult times these last few years--and for them to share many more good years together and for Robert C. Byrd to stand here as our example of what can be, as an example for children across this country.

If they read the history of Robert C. Byrd, they will see his growth from a poverty stricken, uneducated, simple family, to go on as he did to reach the level of responsibility, of importance that he achieved, and the contributions he made to country in so many ways, reminding us about our responsibility to avoid conflict wherever we can do it, but always sticking up for his State and constituents who sent him here.

I think I hold a voting record also. I think I am the only Senator on the books that ever, as a freshman, cast almost 7,000 votes. That, I think, is fairly remarkable. You have to discount the first 18 years I was here, but a freshman with 7,000 votes, it doesn't compare to Senator Byrd's record, no matter what.

Mr. President, I would like to take a minute to express my outrage and the outrage of Americans across this country in seeing the mutilation and the horrible attack on the Americans who were serving, not in the military but serving their country nevertheless, and the gleeful crowd gathered around.

We have to remember that it was a relatively small group of people. But nevertheless, the deed was so horrendous that it is hard for those of us who live in a democratic environment, as we do, who live with the respect that we have for other human beings, to look at this and in any way understand what is happening.

So we send our condolences to those families who lost someone they cared about, and to lose them in some kind of atrocious assault we hope will serve as a reminder to all of us of what responsibility we took on when we entered Iraq and the things we should have tried to contemplate before we got to the point that we are.

One cannot criticize our military. I was in Iraq a couple weeks ago. Most of my colleagues have been there at one time or another to see the courage and the willingness to serve that we have with our wonderful young people there. I talked to them. I especially met with those service people who come from New Jersey, men and women. I was very impressed with the quality of their thinking, their education, their view of life and country.

I served in World War II. We were some 14 million in uniform. I enlisted when I was 18. I remember the associations and friendships I made in the small unit in which I served in Europe during the war. When I saw the young people who are serving us today, I was truly impressed with the quality of those who wore that uniform.

We now see the situation in Iraq is a very grim one. I am not sure that the turnover on July 1 to a ruling council, a governing counsel, can stem the tide of violence or reduce the volume of our responsibility. But I wish all of our people well and make a pledge here that I would like to carry back the message that I got from my conversations with some soldiers there.

I asked them to be frank with me and tell me what, if anything, they thought they needed. And they were reluctant at first. I asked whether the food was all right, the shelter was OK. Oh, yes.

But one young captain finally felt comfortable enough to speak. And he said: Yes, I will tell you what we could use, Senator.

He said: The flack jacket that is the best available out there is being worn by members of the coalition in some places, and we don't have those. They are lighter, they are more efficient, and I don't understand why we don't have them.

Fair enough. He said: You see this rifle?

I think it was an M-16, but they have changed considerably from the time I carried a weapon in World War II.

He said: I see members of the coalition with lighter, better aiming mechanisms than we have on these guns. They are easier to work with at any time. We don't have them, and I don't understand why.

When he talked about armored vehicles, he said they don't have enough of them. I was almost dumbstruck. I didn't know what to say because I know we have allocated lots and lots of funds. We have placed over $160 billion into the effort in Iraq, and we are about ready to place a lot more with a special allocation, a supplemental allotment. I asked our military leadership to tell us what it is that prevents us from delivering the kinds of tools, protections, and instruments that our people need to conduct their duty there.

I saw something in the paper last week that said much of the material we would like to have there is not sent because we don't have the transportation available. I think we ought to get after that problem. I pledge to do whatever I can to search out the reasons and make sure we expedite the process of getting our courageous service people, who serve us so well, the equipment and the support that is needed.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I have a couple of statements I wish to make. I appreciate the recognition from the Presiding Officer for this purpose.

Earlier today, there were statements made on the floor, echoed by the junior Senator from Colorado, in which he claimed several times President Bush inherited a bad economy. I know my friends on the other side of the aisle genuinely want to believe that, but it is simply not true. That is not the fact.

The official arbiter of when recessions begin and end is the National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER. Despite intense and inappropriate political pressure from the White House, the NBER continues to insist the recession began in March of 2001, nearly 3 months after President Bush took office. Facts are stubborn.

On a related note, the junior Senator from Texas was on the floor some time ago with a poster that read: Most jobs ever. Perhaps he was referring to India. He certainly could not be referring to the United States.

Yesterday, we had another administration official--in this instance Treasury Secretary Snow--talking about how wonderful outsourcing is for our economy. Don't ask the people who are out of work, I can tell you that, and don't ask their families.

This notion the U.S. economy is currently generating record numbers of jobs is thoroughly specious. It would be laughable if it were not so pathetic. The claim is based on data selectively culled from something called the household survey. Economists from Alan Greenspan on down insist the accurate measure of jobs gained and lost is the payroll survey. Even the President's own Council of Economic Advisers relies on that which we call the payroll survey.

This is something I know something about. Before I came to the Senate, I was the chairman and CEO of a company called ADP, Automatic Data Processing. It was a company I started with two other neighborhood friends in the city of Paterson, NJ. The company was named in its earliest days Automatic Payroll. Later on, as we expanded our reach of services, it was changed to Automatic Data Processing, ADP. For the information we are discussing here, it specialized, among other services, in payroll processing--in other words, writing paychecks for client companies that relied on us to compute their payrolls. Now, I know a paycheck when I see one. ADP, the company I helped found and run for many years, pays over 30 million people each and every pay period. Approximately 10 million of them are outside our boundaries in other countries, but more than 20 million work in America and are paid right here. So I know something about payroll structure.

Interestingly, one of our most distinguished board members was a fellow named Alan Greenspan, the Alan Greenspan who is now the Chairman of the Fed. He was on the ADP board. He was on the ADP board as a very valuable director. He developed a service that was called the ``econometrics'' plan. ADP, my company, the computer service company, would deliver this service--they called it an online service--and we would process the work we did for Alan Greenspan's company as well as for clients, over 500,000 of them today, through cities and towns across America.

When Alan Greenspan, the talented and credible Chairman of the Federal Reserve, says use the payroll survey to get reliable data on how many people have jobs and are getting paid that way, I think it has to be treated with great respect.

According again to the payroll survey--not the household survey. The household survey is done in a different manner. They are both done by BLS, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but the payroll survey is the one that tells the true story--they say the economy has lost more than 2 million jobs since George Bush took office, making him the first President since Herbert Hoover--and I said this before and I mean no disrespect--and the Great Depression to preside over a net job loss during his term in office. Again, I mean no personal disrespect, but the facts ought to be presented accurately.

These are the facts: For every minute George Bush has been President, nearly two Americans have lost their private sector jobs. I know it is difficult for our friends on the other side. The Republicans have an impossible task of trying to convince Americans the economy is better now than it was before George Bush became President. It is a difficult task. They should try to refrain from saying things everyone knows are just plain untrue.

On Monday, I attended a symposium in New York City on the life and career of our dear friend and former colleague Pat Moynihan. As conservative columnist George Will noted, Pat was fond of saying: Everybody is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. I wonder if Members on the other side of the aisle agree with me.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement Alan Greenspan and others have attested to. That statement refers to the household survey versus the payroll survey and it quotes several people. One is Alan Greenspan, who said at the House Budget Committee hearing on February 11, 2004: Everything we have looked at suggests that the payroll data is what has to be followed. Additionally, the establishment survey, the payroll survey, better reflects the state of labor markets. That is from CBO, the Congressional Budget Office. That was done in a report called the Budget and the Economic Outlook, an update, August 2003.

Another statement that the payroll survey is the best indicator of current job trends was made by Kathleen Utgoff, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics--which is the organization that conducts the surveys--at a hearing before the Joint Economic Committee, March of 2004. One final thing is the fact that the 2004 economic report of the President uses the payroll survey to assess the state of the labor market. I do not think there can be any doubt about which one is the more reliable one to use.

I would like to discuss another subject, if I might, and that is something that came about this week that was discussed in my State's largest newspapers about the administration's interference in the FDA's proposed approval of emergency contraception for over-the- counter sales. I believe the administration's activity is another example of their desire to establish a ``maleogarchy'' in this country. ``Maleogarchy'' is a phrase I coined. It talks about men making all the decisions that affect not only themselves but the female population of the country.

We saw that most notably on November 6, 2003, in the Washington Post

when a group of men was standing with the President of the United States gleefully talking when the President signed a bill that restricted a woman's choice, even though it was made ostensibly with her doctor and in the best interest of her health. Yet again President Bush and other male politicians want to take away a woman's right to make decisions about her health and her body.

These are the facts: On December 16, 2003, two separate FDA advisory committees overwhelmingly recommended the emergency contraception known as plan B be made available to women over the counter. The FDA almost always follows the advice of its scientific advisory committees. But then a funny thing got in the way of the science. I will call it rightwing politics. Extremists, anti-choice groups, and their allies in Congress objected to the FDA advisory committee decision. They made their opposition loud and clear. Once again I say, these decisions are made by the FDA after their scientific advisory committees come up with their recommendations. Science first and then the decision.

The effect of this opposition? FDA suddenly announced, after they were ready to clear it, that it was delaying any decision on the approval of the drug. This is no coincidence. The Bush administration is caving to political pressure from ultraconservatives and risking the credibility of FDA's scientific panels.

For an understanding of what has taken place, it is hard to come up with a conclusion that this emergency contraception ought not to be available. These actions they took beg the question about who is running the FDA, scientists or politicians? I think the answer is clear. Science has taken a backseat to politics in this administration. It is disgraceful. Using the FDA to promote a political agenda not only threatens women's health but everyone's health. It threatens the health of our society.

Do we want to resemble what we see in places such as Iraq, where women are subjected to second-class treatment? I was once in Saudi Arabia, in the first Gulf war. I was in the airport. There was a fellow there wearing a turban and a long dress-type suit. At his feet was what I thought was a bag of rags, black rags, because it just looked tumbled together and there it was. The man was standing there smoking a cigarette. But when he moved to another location, the bag of rags turned out to be a lady, small in stature, wearing black over her face and her body, and she followed this man, and as soon as he stopped walking, she sat down again, curled herself up like a bag, covered herself over with the black cloth. I will never forget that. This disdain for a female, for the rights of women is so outrageous that every woman has to cover her face--whether she wants to or not, by the way. That's not an option. It's ``you must.''

In countries such as Saudi Arabia they have morals police who chase these women, embarrass them, and who will hit them. We in this country believe that, regardless of gender, people are appropriately treated as equals.

We see a dangerous trend by this administration. We see the corruption of science. In some ways they are adopting the scientific standards we saw in Afghanistan, allowing religious fundamentalists to trump legitimate science. The Bush administration's intrusions into scientific decisionmaking threaten the future credibility of American science.

Should high school science teachers tell students that the discoveries in their textbooks become null and void if rightwing politicians decide they don't like the results? No, that cannot happen. We are in the 21st century, but in many ways we are still fighting the Scopes trial. In fact, we have seen far right politicians in many States, and even here in Congress, continue to challenge the teaching of evolution in schools. What is next? Will the flat Earth theory make a comeback?

Aside from serious scientific concerns, there are grave consequences for women who are denied this drug. Each year, approximately 25,000 women in the United States become pregnant as a result of rape. An estimated 22,000 of these pregnancies could be prevented if these victims have access to emergency contraception. Increased use of emergency contraception could reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions by half. Reducing abortions is something we would all like to see, but it is not our choice. It is the choice, it should be the choice, of the woman, her conscience, with her doctor and perhaps her entire family. But the choice is not ours to make. It is not for the ``maleogarchy'' to make those decisions.

The FDA advisory committee agreed that emergency contraception meets all of the standards for an over-the-counter drug: It is safe; it is effective; it is simple to use; it is not associated with any serious or harmful side effects; and it is not dangerous to women with particular medical conditions. Leading medical organizations including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Society for Adolescent Medicine, and the American Academy of Pediatrics all support over-the-counter access to emergency contraception. It is time for the administration to stop playing games with women's health and the integrity of American science. The FDA should be allowed to act, free of political interference.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article on the administration's action on emergency contraception from our States largest paper, the Newark Star-Ledger, be printed in the Record, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, I express my gratitude to a member of my staff, Michael A. Hughes, who will be returning to his regular job as a senior inspector in the U.S. Marshals Service after tomorrow. Mike has worked in my office for the past 15 months as a legislative fellow, and my staff and I have been extremely fortunate to have Mike's help. We will miss him.

Mike is a New Jersey native who was born in Jersey City. He graduated from Montclair University with a degree in political science and criminal justice in 1990. After college, he joined the U.S. Marshals Service--America's oldest federal law enforcement agency--as a deputy marshal and quickly distinguished himself as an outstanding law enforcement official. For instance, Mike was tasked with the responsibility of accompanying crime boss John Gotti to and from his 1992 trial, and then escorting Gotti to the maximum security facility for federal prisoners in Marion, Illinois, after his conviction and sentencing. Mike was also responsible for protecting high-ranking foreign dignitaries who visited the United Nations headquarters in Manhattan.

Mike conducted several criminal and civil investigations and soon became an inspector in the U.S. Marshals Service's Witness Security Program. Later, he became a senior inspector. Never in the 30-year history of the Witness Security Program has a cooperative participant or his or her family been discovered or harmed. We can attribute much of that recent success to Mike's dedication and professionalism.

It has been helpful to me over the past 15 months to have someone with Mike's extensive personal knowledge of guns and law enforcement issues. Since Mike has been a member of my staff, he has worked on S. 1805, the gun immunity bill; S. 1431, my bill to extend the assault weapons ban, and other 2nd Amendment issues. He has also made significant contributions on a number of criminal justice and homeland security matters. Mike is committed to promoting public policies that, if we were to adopt them, would make our country demonstrably safer.

On many occasions, I have remarked that when I moved to the public sector after 30 years in the private sector, I was struck by the dedication, professionalism, and competence of federal employees. I am tired of hearing public sector employees belittled and denigrated in some quarters. I have been impressed by the public servants I have met over the years, and Mike is no exception. He has performed his difficult--and often dangerous--duties with distinction. I think Mike is an outstanding role model for young adults interested in working in our government.

Mr. President, as I thank Mike for his tremendous service and wish him the best of luck in his new endeavors, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank John ``Jay'' McNulty, who serves as chief of the Marshals Service's Office of Congressional Affairs. Jay made it possible for Mike to come and work for me, and I am grateful for that. I have been fortunate to have Mike on my staff; the Nation is fortunate to have him in the U.S. Marshals Service.

I would like to have about 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California and also our distinguished colleague from Ohio.

I rise to express my strong opposition to the underlying bill and support for the amendment by the Senator from California.

I have long supported legislation that combats domestic violence. I was the author of the domestic violence gun ban because abusers should not have access to weapons, to guns. Whether an abuser is terrorizing his wife or his children, let's take away their means to inflict further terror and abuse. So far, my law has prevented nearly 30,000 abusers from obtaining guns.

Because of my long-term commitment to stopping violence against women and children, I take offense at the fact that the backers of this bill are exploiting this issue in order to advance another anti-choice agenda.

We see this regularly around this place. I saw it in a commerce subcommittee meeting that was supposed to discuss science, space, and technology. The witnesses who were at the table were there to talk about their opposition to abortion and their experience after they themselves had abortions. They made their decisions after an action that they took that placed them in that position. Now they wanted to block everybody else from having a chance to make their personal choices.

We have to understand what underlies this issue. Yes, it is worthwhile to protect people and those who are not yet born against violence, but to make it a crime of this magnitude, when there is so much else at stake in the matter of choice, decided many years ago by the Supreme Court--supporters of this bill will tell you this legislation protects women, protects children, and this is a bill about punishing crime. But if you want to know what this bill is really about, you only need listen to what a leading supporter of this bill told CNN when asked about the legislation. I quote him:

They say it undermines abortion rights. It does . . . But

that's irrelevant.

That is the prevailing attitude of those who want to impose yet another restriction on a woman's choice, on the protection of a woman's health. This bill is intended, plainly and simply, to undermine Roe v. Wade. But rather than being direct about the goal, anti-choice advocates want to use tragedies like violence against women as a red herring to move their agenda.

Over and over, we see this body taking up legislation that I believe is part of an attempt to establish what I call a ``male-ogarchy'' in our society. A male-ogarchy is a society in which men are making decisions for and about women. Anti-choice advocates simply don't trust women and their doctors to know what is best for their bodies and their lives. We even encountered this male-ogarchy last year when this body told doctors and their patients that it is Congress, rather than the medical experts, who know best about their health. And when the so- called partial-birth abortion bill was signed, there were all men on the stage with the President of the United States, smiling and gloating as they took away the right of a woman, in consultation with her doctor and her conscience, to make a decision that, though painful, is appropriate for her well-being.

Do we want to decide here whether or not a woman has a right to make a decision about her choice for an abortion? Perhaps she has two, three, four other children at home and her health is in jeopardy. We are saying: It doesn't matter what you think, Madam. We are going to make the decision for you.

That is why there wasn't one woman standing with the President at the White House the day that so-called partial-birth abortion prohibition passed the Senate, when the President signed the bill.

President Bush and his supporters in the Senate say they care about domestic violence and protecting women. But if that is the case, how, then, do we explain the fact that the President's budget cuts funding for the Violence Against Women Act programs by $116 million next year? Is that going to help women? Is that going to make life better for them? No. It is going to make life worse. Those are living people. Those are people who were here. Those are people for whom this male group wants to decide, make decisions.

If Congress wants to get serious about violence against women and children, let's do something real about it. Let's fund programs that provide money to law enforcement to prevent domestic violence and sexual assault. Let's fund battered women's programs and rape crisis centers instead of cutting funding for these often lifesaving services. Let's improve access to shelters, making it easier for abused women and their children to flee that abuse.

If this so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act were actually about violent crime, then the domestic violence community would be in support of it. But they oppose the bill. The National Network to End Domestic Violence, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and the Family Violence Prevention Fund, all oppose this legislation.

Many backers of this bill also support giving a $1 trillion tax break to the wealthiest among us, rather than giving it to the struggling working families who need it to help pay for everyday goods and services, programs such as Head Start for children who don't have a comfortable home life that permits them to engage in the process of learning or of expecting to learn, who often get their only nutritional meal from the program. Three hundred thousand of those children are denied access to these programs because we have taken away the funding to give tax breaks to those who have been fortunate enough to live in this country, to make a lot of money, to succeed.

I am one of those. I had a good business career, as did many here. We don't need this kind of thing. We don't want it. We want our country to be strong. We want the strength to be built in a harmonious society and to lend a hand to those who don't have the ability to help themselves. But now that can't happen. We are focused on giving tax breaks to the wealthy and making them permanent, as we dig ourselves deeper into debt.

Many of my colleagues who support this bill also reject expending health insurance coverage for poor and lower middle-class children and their families. Many who support this bill will tell you they want to simply protect children. I find it ironic that they only want to protect children before they are born, but they don't want to do what they have to after they are born. I see it as hypocrisy.

I challenge supporters of this bill to get serious about protecting women and children and pass meaningful legislation that improves the lives of these women and children, not this undercover move to restrict choice for women.