Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise this evening to call the Senate's attention to a despicable expression of hatred that occurred in Malaysia yesterday. In his address to the opening of the 57-nation summit of Islamic nations, Malaysia's Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, urged Muslims around the world to unite against the Jews who he says rule the world by proxy.

Dr. Mahathir is a man known for his incendiary public condemnations of the United States, Israel, and the western world. Yesterday, his rhetoric escalated, or should I say degenerated, to a new level of hate. Using the foul canards Hitler and other anti-Semites have repeated throughout history, he accused the Jewish people of gaining control of the most powerful countries.

He said ``they, this tiny community, have become a world power,'' and he urged the 1.3 billion Muslims throughout the world to fight this ``enemy.'' That is his definition. How was the speech received? According to today's New York Times, it got a standing ovation from the kings and presidents, sheiks and emirs, including key U.S. allies, gathered in Malaysia's capital, Putrajaya. I believe these comments are likely to encourage violence against Jewish people worldwide, and especially in Israel.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) charter calls for creating a favorable atmosphere for the promotion of cooperation and understanding between member states and other countries. But how can it be so, if the Prime Minister's remarks aptly capture the views of the OIC members? After all, they gave him a standing ovation. One has to wonder if they really want to promote peace between their nations and western democracies.

The Prime Minister of Malaysia, a country with one of the world's biggest Muslim populations, essentially expressed an open invitation for hate crimes and terrorism. Therefore, I am introducing a resolution that puts the Senate on record as repudiating Dr. Mohamad's loathsome remarks to the OIC.

My resolution also asks President Bush, who will be traveling to Southeast Asia next week, to repudiate Dr. Mohamad's vile sentiments when the two participate in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Bangkok, Thailand, on October 20.

I am pleased that Senator Smith, Senator Feinstein, Senator Clinton, Senator Corzine, Senator Boxer, Senator Daschle, Senator Dodd, Senator Schumer, Senator Hatch, Senator Murray, Senator Coleman, Senator Wyden, Senator Brownback, Senator Reid, Senator Leahy, Senator Graham of Florida, Senator Bayh, and Senator Chambliss are all cosponsors of my resolution.

I believe the leaders of the Muslim world should be encouraging mutual tolerance and understanding between people of different faiths. Instead, Dr. Mohamad's anti-Semitic remarks will only serve to undermine the peace and security people of all faiths seek so earnestly.

I send a resolution to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. This resolution has been cleared, as I understand it, on both sides.

I ask unanimous consent the resolution and preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am going to talk about an amendment that I will be sending to the desk, and that is why I sought recognition. However, I also take just a couple of minutes to commend Senator Byrd for his leadership on this issue, for reminding Members we have an obligation to examine the conditions under which we operate to make certain funds that are expended--I served with Senator Byrd in the Appropriations Committee for many years, and he is just as diligent on the floor as he is in the committee--to make sure the funds we expend, our taxpayer funds, are clearly examined and clearly understood before we make the commitment to send those funds on their way.

For the almost 19 years I have served in the Senate, I am always impressed when I hear Senator Byrd stand up and act as the conscience of the Senate, reminding all Members of our responsibilities in such eloquent ways. I am grateful to him for the time he has allowed me to speak today as we discuss the supplemental appropriations bill.

Amendment No. 1868

I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration, and I ask the pending amendment be laid aside to accommodate that.

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

Mr. President, along with Senators Schumer and Corzine, I offer an amendment to this supplemental called the Ethics in Government Contracting Act. We must ensure that taxpayer-funded contracts in Iraq are of the highest ethical standards for contracting that we can achieve.

The question arises as a result of a contract that is now worth over $1.4 billion and was awarded without competitive bidding or public notice. The contract was given to the Halliburton Corporation, a company in which Vice President Cheney maintains a financial interest. The definition of the ``financial interest'' is confirmed by the

Congressional Research Service, which is the nonpartisan research arm we turn to when we have questions. They have a great deal of skill and ability, and they agreed with me that despite the Vice President's claim to the contrary, that he had no financial interest, in fact, the conditions under which he is operating in connection with Halliburton do indicate a financial interest.

Now, there is no accusation here of any wrongdoing. But I have got to ask, Is the taxpayer best served by the award of a lucrative contract to a company formerly headed by the Vice President and from which he still draws compensation?

It is well known that the standard for ethics is not just to avoid wrongdoing but also to avoid the appearance of impropriety because public perception of insider deals can be just as damaging as a wrongdoing itself.

Right now we are looking at a stark example of activity that gives rise to the appearance of impropriety. To put it simply, the largest recipient of reconstruction contracts in Iraq is currently paying a salary directly to the Vice President of the United States. In addition, the Vice President holds hundreds of thousands of unexercised stock options in this company.

We toppled a corrupt dictatorship to instill democratic principles in Iraq, but what does it say to the Iraqi people when the largest recipient of United States reconstruction contracts in Iraq is paying compensation to the second highest official in the U.S. Government? I say it sends the wrong message to the people of Iraq and certainly sends the wrong message to the people in our country.

Also, in an untimely fashion, it sends a message to those who are serving in our military in Iraq. Today's Washington Post, on the front page, has the result of a poll that was taken by the Stars and Stripes, the bible all of us use when we are serving our country, in which there is considerable criticism about the way they are being asked to serve and the conditions under which they do it. Many say they do not plan to reenlist, and that is a terrible condemnation of what is going on.

Now, these are brave souls. These are good, loyal people. And the one thing we are not discussing in this $87 billion supplemental is whether or not the troops are being supported, because outside of the $20 billion that is under discussion now, there is unanimous support, in my view, for just getting those funds out there that can help protect, that can help make our military more efficient, make their living conditions better. No question about that.

So when those who are serving see that it appears there is an inside relationship, that Halliburton got this fantastically fat contract, estimated to be worth a lot less than is now being spent--the American people are already skeptical about the pricetag of this supplemental appropriations bill, and if we are going to spend such a massive amount of their money, we have to help reassure them we are following the highest ethical standards with these funds.

My amendment would make the ethics standards very clear. It says that none of the Iraq reconstruction funds may be used to award a contract with a company that currently pays compensation, including stock options, to the President, Vice President, or any member of the President's Cabinet.

Ideally, there should not be a need for such an amendment, but over the last few weeks it has become clear we need to draw some very visible ethical lines.

As I mentioned, the most controversial contract in Iraq is the one that was awarded to the Vice President's former company, Halliburton, to repair and maintain oil fields. This contract was negotiated in private, with no competition from other bidders.

Last winter, we heard that this no-bid contract with Halliburton might cost $50 million and was there for the exclusive mission of putting out oil well fires. Then we were told that the contract was for much more than putting out fires; that it would be operating and maintaining oil facilities across Iraq. And now this sole source, no- bid Halliburton contract is growing at an accelerating rate.

Halliburton has been billing taxpayers at a furious pace under this no-bid contract. In September, the amount of money billed by Halliburton under this contract rose to $1.4 billion. That was estimated to be a $50 million contract, done in the dark of night--from $50 million up to $1.4 billion.

If we just look at this chart, we see what has happened. If you go back to January 2003, it was just starting. And these are amounts in millions on the chart. The acceleration, the shape of the curve, tells you just what has happened. Look at where we are on October 1, 2003--10 months after this contract began--and we are up to $1.4 billion. Look at the spike in just September alone. The contract doubled over that 1- month period.

This no-bid, exclusive contract for Halliburton was negotiated in private and not revealed to the public until Members of Congress demanded information. And now the Army Corps has finally agreed to open this contract for competitive bidding, but it is unclear when the new contract will be effective.

Rather than offer reassurance to the American people that the no-bid Halliburton contract was above board, the Vice President raised suspicion with his recent comments. On national television, the Vice President recently said, regarding Halliburton, that he--and I quote-- ``severed all of my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest.''

He went on to say--and I quote again--``I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years.''

The problem is that the Vice President's own financial disclosure reports contradict that claim. His financial disclosures reveal that he has received over $205,000 from Halliburton in deferred salary in 2001--more than his salary as Vice President. In 2002, he received $162,000 in deferred salary from Halliburton. His financial disclosure forms indicate that he expects to receive similar compensation this year, and in 2004 and 2005.

The Vice President's statements regarding his ties to Halliburton were not correct. And I called on him to correct the record. He did not do that.

The Vice President is currently receiving salary payments from Halliburton worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, as this administration doles out billions of dollars in contracts to Halliburton.

In addition, the Vice President holds 433,000 unexercised Halliburton stock options. And even though the exercise price is above the current market price, the options extend to 2009, and any option holder--Mr. President, I come out of the corporate world--has to hope that the stock price surges so the value of the options increase. One way this can happen is to be sure that lucrative contracts keep coming from the U.S. Government.

Halliburton's stock value has increased 75 percent over the last year, even though the rest of the oil services industry has remained relatively flat. And we know that the biggest boost Halliburton has gotten is the multibillion-dollar Government contract in Iraq. This has an unwholesome appearance.

We want to change the environment in which we are presently operating. I offer this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the ethics in government contracting amendment.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I offer this amendment to correct the situation that came about as a result of Vice President Cheney's statement on ``Meet the Press'' a couple of weeks ago. I wish to quickly respond to some things that were said about my amendment and the Vice President's links to Halliburton.

First, Halliburton absolutely had a no-bid contract with the Army Corps for oil-related services in Iraq, and it has billed American taxpayers $1.4 billion so far. No other company was given the opportunity to bid. That contract occasioned a unanimous vote, led by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, that we would not allow that kind of contract to appear again. It is stated on the record by Senator Warner from Virginia.

Halliburton has other contracts that were bid, but the massive oil services contract was not.

Second, I appreciated the reading of the Vice President's comments on ``Meet the Press'' because even CRS agreed that deferred compensation and stock options held by the Vice President are, in fact, financial interests in Halliburton.

Third, the other member of the President's Cabinet who came into service after serving as CEO, John Snow, took his deferred compensation in a lump sum and got rid of his stock options immediately. That is the right thing to do when you are at the top of the executive branch with the direct ability to affect billions of dollars in contracts.

I urge my colleagues to attach some ethical guidelines to the Iraq reconstruction funds. I urge my colleagues to think it through and send a picture out to the American public that says: No, no one is on the inside enough that they can influence what happened and profit from a position that takes us through the reconstruction of Iraq after the war.

Mr. President, I also make a note of the fact that we, too, in New Jersey had two of our citizens perish in that terrible accident that took place yesterday, a Mr. John Healy from Middletown, NJ, and Frank Sullivan, from Red Bank, NJ. We send our sympathies to these families, but we are reminded at the same time that ferries play an important role in our region; that while the Staten Island ferry carries about 70,000 passengers a day, we have 60,000 people going from New Jersey to New York for their business requirements or their jobs on the

New York waterway ferries. It continues to remind us how much of a need we have to make certain that the ferries operate safely, as well as efficiently.

I ask, along with the distinguished Senator from New York who made his remarks a few minutes ago, that the Federal Government do whatever they can to understand what took place, and we understand and know the facts; that we take all the steps we can to make certain it should not happen again.

One of the questions I asked in the committee in which I serve, the Commerce Committee, is take a look and see what the Coast Guard requires by way of licensing for captains of these boats. The ferry that had the accident yesterday can carry as many as 6,000 people. We have to make certain in that travel they are not careless.

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to continue as in morning business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 282, S. 1618, a 6-month extension of the FAA authorization; that the bill be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I reclaim the floor. I am disappointed that my Republican colleagues objected to this request because the future of our aviation system is an extremely important matter.

On Tuesday just past, the authorization for the Federal Aviation Administration expired under its previous authorization, called Air-21, and we are struggling to get something done that can pass both Houses and serve the public, as they should be, in aviation.

My UC request was to pass a 6-month extension of all aviation programs so we can continue this critical airport improvement program without any interruption.

The continuing resolution that the majority brought to the floor last week intentionally omitted funding for certain important airport construction programs under the Airport Improvement Program. It is $3.4 billion for fiscal year 2004. The fiscal year is now 3 days old.

I think it is irresponsible to allow this critical funding to lapse in the current economy. Job loss is at an all-time high, and the preliminary U.S. Census Bureau data shows that transportation construction is down 8.7 percent from this time last year. Withholding any part of the $3.4 billion in construction projects makes this problem even worse.

Why did we need to consider a continuing resolution for aviation programs at all? The Senate passed a bill reauthorizing FAA programs on June 12 of this year. The House passed it before then. But we cannot get a bill passed because since that time, Republican leaders, at the behest of the President, have decided to wage an ideological battle over privatizing our air traffic control system rather than doing what the public wants and needs.

I suggest the White House leave its ideological debates at the Heritage Foundation. Let us pass an FAA bill. The public wants safe skies--and I agree with them--not cutbacks in safety, not cutbacks in security.

The biggest problem the White House created in the FAA conference report is overprivatizing our air traffic control system. Despite clear language prohibiting this in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, conference leaders ignored the clear mandates and bowed to the will of the ideologues in the White House.

In all of my years of serving in this Chamber, I have never seen such disregard by conference leaders of a clear safety mandate by colleagues in both Chambers. A bipartisan majority in the Senate voted 56 to 41 for an amendment that I offered to prevent privatization of our air traffic control system. We voted to heed the lessons gleaned from the attacks of September 11, the lessons of our Space Shuttle Program, the Shuttle Columbia disaster, and the experiences of our foreign counterparts to avoid making the same mistakes that will end up costing our society more.

September 11, 2001, was a most tragic day, perhaps the most tragic in our history, when America's invincibility was pierced. Almost 3,000 people were killed. In my State of New Jersey, nearly 700 people lost their lives in the terrorist attacks.

As my colleagues know, Transportation Secretary Mineta ordered all aircraft in U.S. airspace grounded that day. It was a massive undertaking in just a few hours. Some 5,000 planes were guided to safe harbor, and our air traffic control system managed that unprecedented effort flawlessly.

I show on this chart what happened on September 11, 2001. At 8:30 in the morning, the skies looked like this to those who were watching the scopes in the towers in the FAA: All of these little green stars, symbols, depict an airplane. The sky was filled. If we look at the northeast corner of our country, including New York and New Jersey, we almost cannot see the black portion of the map because the traffic was so heavy at 8:30 in the morning on that fateful day.

At 9:45, after the attack had begun, we start to see a lessening. There is much more of the map visible.

At 10:45, an hour later, look what happened: Those thousands of airplanes with passengers in every one of them, almost 5,000 airplanes in the sky at that time, and the FAA had to jump in and the controllers had to exercise their best judgment because they had to direct these airplanes to a safe landing place regardless of what their original destination was. We see a totally different picture. There are very few spots where we see airplanes in the sky.

The terrorists crippled our aviation system, and it was the FAA, our heroes, who managed this terrible task that day because they knew what their responsibilities were and they jumped to it. We didn't know whether there were going to be other planes brought down that morning, but the FAA did its job. The Secretary ordered the planes out of the sky, and people were able to touch down in almost every case safely. The cases that did not were those that were suicidally brought down by maniacs.

On September 11, those who operated our Federal air traffic system demonstrated great heroism and dedication. Air traffic controllers across the Nation performed heroically as they guided the thousands of aircraft out of the sky. Technicians who certify and maintain the high- tech equipment kept it operating reliably throughout the crisis, and flight service station controllers talked directly to the pilots to let them know what was happening and to tell them the best places they could look to for a quick, safe landing.

In my home State, from the tower at Newark International Airport, the air traffic controllers could see the World Trade Center burning in front of their eyes. As they worked to return Americans to the ground safely, they knew that people were dying in front of them.

In the aftermath of these tragic events, the American people demanded private baggage screeners becoming Federal employees. But it seems backward to me that the administration, who quickly got on the problem with the baggage handlers because the private side was not handling it well, put them into Government hands--I believe 28,000 was the total number--and they still want to contract out the air traffic control system to the lowest bidder. It is one thing to assure ourselves that the baggage that goes aboard these airplanes is free of explosives and damaging material, I agree with that, but it is worse to ignore the fact that airplanes full of people, perhaps my grandchildren, my children, other people's children and their families, are in those airplanes. Do we not want the best that we can get in safety and protection for our people? I think so.

The risks of privatizing highly technical and complex operations speak for themselves. On February 1 of this year, our country suffered another tragedy. The Space Shuttle Columbia tragically exploded over the skies of Texas, and we lost some of the most courageous Americans on that day. Immediately after that accident, it was our air traffic control system that worked flawlessly to guide aircraft around the falling debris.

Following this disaster, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, led by ADM Harold Gehman, published its findings. The board found that crosscutting and a drive for ever-greater efficiency at NASA--a pioneer in Government privatization--had eroded NASA's ability to assure mission safety.

Now, if safety lapses can lead to the Columbia Shuttle accident and the failure to guarantee the safe return of our brave astronauts from mission STS-107, just how much are we willing to gamble on the safety of the 2 million Americans who travel in our skies every day?

The lessons of privatization are hard learned and should not be ignored. Other countries have tried this already and they have paid the price. Australia, Canada, and Great Britain all have privatized systems that did not live up to the promised benefits of privatization. Just to clear the air, privatization means that these tasks will be handed over to companies whose mission it is to make a profit and who will try to do the job at the cheapest prices.

A member of Parliament of the British House of Commons named Gwyneth Dunwoody said this:

The privatization of the United Kingdom's air traffic

control system was a grave mistake, and one that the United

States can still avoid making. British air traffic

controllers are among the best in the world, and they fought

tooth and nail to keep ATC in the public sector.

The public sector means in government.

They insisted that the sale of the national air traffic

services would lead to a collapse in morale, the unwise

introduction of inadequate and unreliable equipment, and an

increasing danger of catastrophic accidents. The Government

did not listen and went ahead. They were wrong and the air

traffic controllers were right.

Costs have gone up and safety has gone down since Great Britain adopted privatization. Near misses have increased by 50 percent and delays have increased by 20 percent. Do we want to risk near misses in the skies over America? Do we want to take a chance because we can buy security on the cheap? I do not think so, and I am going to do whatever I can to prevent that from happening.

The British Government has already had to bail out the privatized air traffic control company twice. When is this administration going to take off the ideological blinders from its eyes and learn the lessons taught to our British friends?

President Bush himself should be quite familiar with the importance of our air traffic control workforce. Last month, on September 10, the day before the second-year anniversary of the most tragic attack on our soil, the President traveled to a fundraiser in Florida. As Air Force One, the President's airplane, approached for a landing, air traffic controllers noticed an unidentified car on the runway that Air Force One was attempting to land on. Disaster was avoided because of the quick reaction of those air traffic controllers in Jacksonville.

Despite these lessons, the administration has pushed hard to privatize through the contract tower program which has been beneficial to many small airports across the country. Most of these 200 or so small airports would not otherwise have an air traffic control tower.

There are many more. Some 4,000 small airports exist that could use this program, but the administration wants to use the program to privatize some of the busiest airports in the country. Examples of some of the busiest airport towers: They want to privatize the eighth busiest airport in the country, Van Nuys, CA, almost a half a million flight operations in 2002; the 18th most busy, the Denver Centennial Airport in Colorado, over 400,000 flight operations in 2002. In fact, those two airports are busier than Washington Dulles, which was 23rd with 392,000 flight operations in the year 2002. We look at Arizona, the 24th busiest airport, Phoenix/Deer Valley Municipal Airport, 390,000 flight operations in 2002. The list goes on. We are looking at the 50 busiest airports in the country.

Some may notice that two airports were dropped out of the list, both in the State of Alaska. Now, why is Alaska exempted? The chairman of the Transportation Committee in the House of Representatives is Congressman Young. He is chairman of the committee because he has seniority. Well, he made sure that the two Alaskan airports that were listed for privatization were taken off the list. They are smart in Alaska. They know they have to fight to protect themselves. They are a long distance from the mainland, but they are smart enough to exempt themselves from this dangerous privatization scheme.

I do not believe the safety of every other airport in our national aviation system is any less important than the safety at Alaska's airports.

The White House interfered in our process and altered language in the FAA conference bill so they would be explicitly allowed to privatize some of the busiest air traffic control towers in the world. It is for this reason that I and many of my colleagues are not going to agree. We are not going to accept any FAA reauthorization conference report without language prohibiting privatization of our air traffic control system. I am going to fight until the will of the Senate is heeded. Others have pledged to do the same thing.

I want to make clear to my colleagues that we passed legislation to prevent privatization of the air traffic control system. It was bipartisan. There were 11 Republicans and the remainder Democrats who passed that bill.

The system is made up of many important parts, including the air traffic controllers themselves, those who run the towers, the technicians who have the responsibility to certify that the equipment is working, and the flight service station controllers who communicate directly with the pilots as they make their way to their destination.

As FAA conference leaders did not abide by the will of both the Senate and the House to prohibit privatizing our air traffic control systems, my colleague, Senator Rockefeller, the ranking member of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Aviation, and I, introduced S. 1618. It is the Temporary Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2003. This legislation extends funding for reauthorization for all aviation programs, including the AIP program, for 6 months, and it also addresses the immediate safety and security needs while FAA conference leaders work with us to go back and fix the problems they created for themselves in the FAA conference report.

But, unfortunately, my unanimous consent request to pass this extension was objected to by the majority. In the meantime, our Government operates under a continuing resolution that means we couldn't get our work done in time, that as fiscal year 2003 ended we were not prepared, though we knew a year in advance that the new fiscal year was going to start with October 1, 2003. I find it outrageous that the Republican leadership in Congress would effectively punish our economy with further job losses in order to afford the opportunity to the White House to wage their ideological battles.

I am appalled they would intentionally zero out the Airport Improvement Program, again, the program that keeps updating our airports across the country. It is over $3 billion. I am appalled they would intentionally zero that out, zero out the opportunity to put Federal funds in there for airport construction programs, to muscle their plan through the Congress. It is not going to happen.

Our economy cannot stand to lose any more jobs, and using a continuing resolution to cancel a program which will provide $3.4 billion in AIP funding is just irresponsible.

I hope when we get this bill up my colleagues will work with us so we can do the right thing.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to mourn the loss of Althea Gibson, a sports legend in professional tennis and golf and a pioneer for African-Americans in all walks of life. Ms. Gibson passed away in East Orange this past Sunday after suffering from respiratory complications.

Althea Gibson was born on a cotton farm in Silver, SC, in 1927 but spent most of her childhood in Harlem, NY. She eventually moved to New Jersey.

At an early age, Althea Gibson showed great promise in sports. Her favorite was basketball but she excelled at table tennis, too. Musician Buddy Walker noticed her ability and gave her a tennis racket as a gift when she was 14. The harsh reality of racial segregation left her unable to play tennis on public courts while growing up. Fortunately, two prominent African-American doctors had a private tennis court and gave Ms. Gibson the opportunity to play tennis there.

By the early 1940s, Ms. Gibson began her tennis career as an amateur, playing in tournaments organized by the American Tennis Association, ATA, a predominantly African-American organization.

In 1947, she won the first of 10 straight ATA National Championships. Within a few years, Ms. Gibson was ready to compete outside of the ATA.

Her talent and record should have been sufficient for her to compete against white players in tournaments sanctioned by the United States Lawn Tennis Association, USLTA. But it took the help of Alice Marble, a champion tennis player herself, who wrote an article in American Lawn Tennis magazine. Ms. Marble noted that Gibson wasn't invited to participate in the USLTA championships for any reason other than ``bigotry.'' Ms. Marble wrote, ``I think it's time we face a few facts . . . If tennis is a game of ladies and gentlemen, it's time we acted in a gentle manner, not like sanctimonious hypocrites.''

Ms. Gibson finally received an invitation to play in the 1950 National Tennis

Championships and made her historic debut at Forest Hills against Louise Brough, who had just won her third consecutive Ladies' Singles Championship at Wimbledon.

One year later, Ms. Gibson became the first African-American to compete at Wimbledon.

Between 1956 and 1958, she dominated the world of tennis, becoming the first African-American to win major tournaments, including the French Open singles and doubles, the Italian Open singles, Wimbledon singles and doubles, and the U.S. Open singles.

She was selected as the Associated Press Athlete of the Year in 1957 and again in 1958, the first African-American woman to be so honored.

Despite her success and fame, she encountered pernicious segregation throughout her career. Oftentimes when she competed at tournaments, she couldn't stay at the hotels the white players used, or join them for meals at restaurants. But her strength of character, her poise, and her determination carried her though such indignities. And she was gracious, too, writing in her autobiography, ``I Always Wanted To Be Somebody'': ``If I made it, it's half because I was game enough to take a lot of punishment along the way and half because there were a lot of people who cared for me.''

In 1958, Ms. Gibson retired from amateur tennis and began a short- lived career in professional basketball for the Harlem Globtrotters. She also pursued a professional career in golf, becoming the first African-American woman on the Ladies Professional Golf Association, LPGA, tour in 1962.

Over the years, Ms. Gibson received many awards and accolades. Some of her most esteemed awards were her induction into the National Lawn Tennis Association Hall of Fame, the International Tennis Hall of Fame, the Black Athletes Hall of Fame, and the International Sports Hall of Fame.

Just a few weeks ago I was eulogizing another New Jerseyan who broke the color barrier, my friend Larry Doby, who played baseball for the Cleveland Indians. What Larry Doby and Jackie Robinson did for baseball, what Jesse Owens did for track and field, Althea Gibson did for tennis. She paved the way for Arthur Ashe, Zina Garrison, and Venus and Serena Williams.

Althea Gibson could have rested on her laurels. But her work wasn't done when she retired from the world of professional sports. She was the New Jersey State Commissioner of Athletics for 10 years (the first African-American woman to hold the post) and served on both the New Jersey State Athletics Control Board and the Governor's Council on Physical Fitness.

The Althea Gibson Foundation, created in her honor and based in Newark, NJ, lives on, helping urban youth develop their tennis and golf skills and improve their lot in life.

It is clear that the life Ms. Gibson led has served as an inspiration for African-Americans and all people. While I am saddened by her death, I am glad that she graced us with her presence. Ms. Gibson taught each of us that ``without struggle there can be no progress.'' She struggled, she succeeded, and we are all better for it.

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate Newark Liberty International Airport's 75th Anniversary. On October 1, 1928, the New York metropolitan region's first major airport was built by the great city of Newark on 68 acres of marshland just 16 miles from midtown Manhattan. Soon those 68 acres became the world's busiest commercial airport. The U.S. Army Air Corps operated the Airport during WWII, and in 1948, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey assumed control of it. The Port Authority has operated this airport ever since.

Today, some 30 million passengers use the airport annually. And international airlines offer direct service to many destinations around the world from Newark Liberty. It is also one of only two truly intermodal air-rail connections in the country. Passengers can take a train from any city on the Northeast corridor and transfer at the airport for a flight. In some cases, they can even book the entire air/ rail trip all at once. This should serve as a shinning example of how our national transportation system can work.

Over 24,000 people are employed at the Newark Liberty International Airport. The airport contributes $11.3 billion in economic activity to the New York/New Jersey metropolitan region, including $3.3 billion in wages for some 110,000 jobs resulting from airport activity. In addition, the original 68 acres of marshland has grown to more than 2,000 acres.

Newark Liberty International Airport's 75th birthday deserves more than just a brief nod. As a former Port Authority Commissioner, I am pleased to point out that the airport has been a leader in aviation technology. Newark, for instance, was the site of our great Nation's first air traffic control tower. The very same airport had the first paved runway, the first runway with lighting, which permitted nighttime operations, and the Nation's first airport weather station.

So, today I congratulate the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Chairman Anthony Coscia, Executive Director Joseph Seymour, Mayor of Newark Sharpe James, Aviation Director Bill DeCota, Airport General Manager Susan Baer, her staff, and all others who have made Newark Liberty International Airport the world class facility it is today, and I look forward to celebrating 75 more years of safe, efficient operations.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a great American and a true military heroine who has honorably served our country for over 22 years in the U.S. Navy Nurse Corps: Commander Elizabeth McDonald Mooring. She was born in Rahway, NJ, and grew up in Bridgewater, NJ. CDR Mooring began her military career as a staff nurse at National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD. She quickly rose through the ranks and served at naval bases throughout the world, including Naval Hospital Newport, RI; Naval Hospital Okinawa, Japan; Branch Medical Clinic, Sewells Point, Norfolk, VA; and varied assignments at the Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, VA. Following in her father's footsteps, Seaman Eugene Bernard McDonald, CDR Mooring and her sister, Patricia, joined the Navy Nurse Corps, while her brother Sean joined the Seabees in the Naval Reserve.

CDR Mooring adeptly served as the medical officer recruiter at the Commander Naval Reserve Force, Philadelphia, PA. For 2 years she consistently achieved her medical recruiting goal for the States of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. For 2 years CDR Mooring served in the Naval Reserve and drilled at Naval Air Station, Willow Grove, NJ. She was one of the first women to serve aboard the USS John F. Kennedy, CV-67, and provided medical support during the rededication of the Statue of Liberty. Because of her clinical excellence and professionalism she was assigned to the presidential support team for President Ronald Reagan.

It is only fitting that for her final assignment, she came home to New Jersey. CDR Mooring served as the Officer in Charge of the Branch Medical Clinic at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst, NJ, and Assistant Officer in Charge at the Branch Medical Clinic, Naval Weapons Station Earle, Colts Neck, NJ. She was integral to the critical medical support mission of the Naval Weapons Station during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, 83 percent of all weapons used, were loaded from the Naval Weapons Station Earle, NJ.

In each assignment, CDR Mooring excelled and met every challenge, and was rewarded with greater responsibilities and opportunities. She is an experienced leader, administrator, clinician, educator, and mentor. Throughout her career she has been instrumental in providing navy medicine with the fine cadre of navy nurses, physicians, Medical Service Corps officers and hospital corpsmen serving today.

Above all, she is a stellar officer and leader who always put the welfare of her staff and patients first. CDR Mooring always went the extra mile to serve her country and her fellow man. Her performance reflects greatly on herself, the U.S. Navy, the Department of Defense, and the United States of America. I extend my deepest appreciation to Commander Elizabeth McDonald Mooring, on behalf of the United States, for her over 22 years of dedicated military service. Congratulations CDR Mooring and let me be one of the first to welcome you home to the State of New Jersey.

Mr. President, I was disappointed to learn that early this week a Federal district judge issued a ruling to delay the October 1 implementation of the national Do Not Call Registry.

Sign-up for the national Do Not Call list began June 27. To date, the registry has grown to 50 million Americans who submitted their telephone numbers and unequivocally said they do not want to receive business solicitation calls.

There has been near unanimity that the Oklahoma Federal judge simply got it wrong when he found that Congress did not give the Federal Trade Commission the requisite statutory authority to create and implement a nationwide Do Not Call Registry.

To clarify the matter once and for all, the pending bill explicitly authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to compile and implement a Do Not Call Registry, pursuant to the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act.

The bill also ratifies the relevant provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rules promulgated by the Commission early this year.

A nationwide Do Not Call Registry is particularly important to the citizens of New Jersey. Although 27 States already have local do not call lists, some States, such as my home State of New Jersey, have not yet enacted do not call legislation.

A New Jersey State law is expected to go into effect next spring, but the residents of New Jersey and the other 23 States deserve the protection that the FTC rule provides.

The FTC's rules are reasonable. They require telemarketers to check the Do Not Call list every 3 months to see who does not want to be called. Those who call listed people face fines up to $11,000 for a violation. Consumers would be allowed to file complaints to an automated phone or online system.

There are about 166 million residential phone numbers in the United States and an additional 150 million cell-phone numbers. The FTC expects 60 percent of the Nation's households to sign onto the registry.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill which ratifies the FTC's Do Not Call Registry, permitting implementation of the registry on October 1.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a disturbing shift in our country's historic support for programs that protect our wildlife refuges, forests and other open spaces. Particularly, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, LWCF.

The Bush administration's 2004 funding request represents a significant decrease in support for land acquisition.

Yet this direction is the opposite of what then Governor Bush promised during his 2000 campaign.

Governor Bush issued a campaign paper on September 13, 2000, that promised to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million.

The fund has been enormously effective over the years and is funded, not by taxpayers but from a portion of fees from oil and gas receipts which Congress committed in 1965.

Yet despite the President's pledge, 1 year later the Administration diverted $456 million of that fund to other purposes.

According to the Congressional Research Service, for Fiscal Year 2004, the administration has proposed to decrease Federal land acquisition funding to $128 million below the FY2003 funding level, which will more than offset proposed increases in State grants.

I want to commend by colleagues on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee who have worked very hard under difficult budgetary conditions to develop the best bill they could.

But the President is playing a funding ``shell game.'' While he claims to support conservation funding, he once again proposes to use $246 million of the LWCF to pay for non-conservation programs.

Only by counting as many as 15 other programs in its annual budget request programs NOT authorized for LWCF funding under the original 1965 law does the President's budget make it appear that the LWCF is well-funded.

Turning his back on campaign promises aside, the President's budget would actually cut the fund's core Federal land acquisition programs by 40 percent from FY03 levels, and fully 60 percent below the authorized level of $900 million for both the Federal and stateside portions!

This direction reverses years of progress in increasing the funding we need to protect our dwindling natural resources. And unfortunately, the funding levels approved by the House are even more abysmal.

Today, there is a $10 billion backlog in needed Federal acquisitions, and billions of dollars in unmet needs at the State and local levels.

This is certainly contrary to the spirit of another Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, who during his time in the White House had the vision to protect 230 million acres of land.

Today, those lands are enjoyed by hikers, vacationing families, hunters, and many others.

Between 1999 and 2000, the Clinton administration increased funding for the LWCF by 35 percent. President Clinton understood how vital these programs are to preserving our American heritage.

This year the U.S. Forest Service reported that even with all of our land conservation programs, in one decade between 1990 and 2000--our Nation's urban and suburban areas grew in size by an astonishing 25 percent!

This growth has been at the cost of lost forest and farmland all across the Nation and it poses a significant threat to the integrity of these valuable lands.

Forest lands that are intact supply timber products, wildlife habitat, soil and watershed protection, and recreation. But when these areas fragment and disappear, so do the benefits they provide.

Many local governments work hard to guide development away from the most sensitive areas through zoning and other measures.

But in New Jersey, and many other States, these measures are simply not enough to fully protect our forests and open spaces.

New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the Nation and we understand that over-development endangers our water supplies and places severe pressure on all our environmental amenities.

Forest Legacy and the Land to Parks Program are examples of the Federal Government at its best--working in partnership with States and local governments to protect environmentally sensitive lands.

These programs are entirely voluntary. No landowner is required or pressured to participate.

Forest Legacy encourages the protection of privately owned forest lands and helps States develop and carry out their own forest conservation plans.

Aldo Leopold said, ``Our remnants of wilderness will yield bigger values to the Nation's character and health than they will to its pocketbook, and to destroy them will be to admit that the latter are the only values that interest us.''

I don't believe that is true for Americans, and I don't believe that is true for my colleagues in this body.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate and especially those who will represent this body in the conference committee to support the highest levels possible for our land acquisition programs.

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the bill before us, S. 3. I voted against this bill and I do not intend to support the House position.

When the Senate passed this bill, we added an important amendment offered by our colleague Senator Harkin. The amendment reaffirmed support for the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. The only difference between S. 3 as the Senate passed it and then as the House passed it is Senator Harkin's amendment. The House stripped Senator Harkin's amendment from the bill.

Since the Harkin amendment was a sense of the Senate and does not have the force of law, I must ask, why did the House remove this language? It does nothing to fix the harmful policy the underlying bill would establish.

The Republican leadership and their anti-choice friends would like you to believe that removing the Harkin language is just a procedural motion. Don't be fooled. Stripping S. 3 of the Harkin amendment reaffirming Roe v. Wade shows us what the President and his anti-choice allies are really after. They want to overturn Roe v. Wade; S. 3 puts them on that path.

A woman's right to choose is in greater danger now than it has been at any other time since the Supreme Court issued Roe v. Wade 30 years ago. The House's action neatly comports with an overtly anti-choice administration striving to undermine reproductive freedom.

I thank Senator Boxer for offering the motion to disagree to the House action so that, at a minimum, we have an opportunity to talk about what is really going on.

The underlying bill makes a pretense of protecting women but really, what we have here is a bill that takes away rights while doing nothing to help anyone. There is no such medical term as ``partial-birth'' abortion, and that is intentional. The anti-choice zealots who drafted that term want the bill to be ambiguous so it will have a chilling effect on physicians.

If S. 3 is ultimately passed and President Bush signs it into law--he will become the first U.S. President to criminalize safe medical procedures.

Nobody is fooled by the real objective of S. 3 to chip away at a woman's right to choose, to criminalize legal and safe abortion procedures.

This bill isn't even constitutional. There is no exception for the health of the mother. When we debated this bill back in March those of us who are pro-choice said we will accept this bill if

you make an exception for the life and health of the mother. Yet sponsors have repeatedly resisted pro-choice lawmakers' attempts to include a health exception such as the Feinstein substitute, which was defeated.

Five members of the current Supreme Court have invoked Roe to invalidate a State ban on so-called partial-birth abortions.

During last night's debate, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania characterized the Harkin amendment--a reaffirmation of current law--as extreme. That is absurd. Not being will to protect a woman's health is extreme. It is extreme and it is wrong.

Taking away the freedom of women to make choices about their own reproductive health--that sounds like one of the reasons why we kicked the Taliban out of Afghanistan.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this ill-disguised attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Mr. President, the Senate is poised to pass H. Con. Res. 235, a measure that pays tribute to a legendary American pioneer and a long-time friend of mine, Larry Doby, who died on June 18. I appreciate the willingness of the majority and minority leaders to expedite Senate consideration of this measure, and I applaud the efforts of Congressman Bill Pascrell of my home State of New Jersey, who introduced it in the House of Representatives.

I first met Larry when we were thirteen or fourteen. We went to school together at Eastside High in my hometown, Paterson, NJ. The first time I saw him, he was running track, doing the broad jump. And he was amazing. We stayed in touch over the many years that have passed since then.

Larry Doby was an exceptional athlete--one of our very best--and an exciting player to watch on the field. But he was much more than that; he was a great man and he was also a good man. He had so much dignity. Though Larry Doby has died, the path he blazed for African-Americans remains.

Few people realize that Larry began his groundbreaking athletic career in 1943--at the age of 18--as the first African-American to play in the American Basketball League for the Paterson Panthers. He then moved on to baseball, playing for the Newark Eagles of the Negro National League. After returning from his service to the Navy for 2 years, Larry hit .414 with 14 home runs in his final season in Newark.

It was on July 5, 1947, just 11 weeks after Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in major league baseball, that Larry Doby signed a contract with the Cleveland Indians of the American league. He was the first African-American player in the American League. Larry had no intention or desire to become part of history. When Indians owner Bill Veeck predicted to Larry that he would ``be part of history,'' Larry replied, ``I had no notions about that. I just wanted to play baseball.''

And play baseball he did, and quite well. Larry was an All-Star seven times in his 13-year career. In the 1948 World Series between Cleveland and the Boston Braves, his home run in Game 4 broke a 1-1 tie; Cleveland won 2-1 and went on to win the Series in six games. He hit at least 20 home runs in eight straight seasons and was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1998.

Larry became the second African-American manager of a major league team when he took over as skipper of the Chicago White Sox in 1978. He was also the director of community relations for the New Jersey Nets in the late 1970s, encouraging the development of youth programs in urban New Jersey.

Larry was a superb athlete, but things didn't come easy for him. When he joined the Indians, he was harassed by opposing players and fans. He was forced to eat in separate restaurants, to sleep in separate hotels. Some of his own teammates wouldn't even shake his hand. But he pressed on, and we're a better country for it.

At the memorial service for Larry, Newark Star-Ledger sports columnist Jerry Izenberg recalled the day that Larry entered the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY. The two of them paused in front of a large photo snapped immediately after Game 4 of the 1948 World Series--the game Larry won with his home run. The photo showed Larry and winning pitcher Steve Gromek hugging each other. Larry reminisced that the photo appeared on the front pages of a lot of newspapers the next day and said to Jerry, ``That was the first time you could see a black and white person embrace on the first page of papers.'' ``At the time,'' Jerry said, ``America needed that picture. And Larry was so proud to have played a part in giving America what it needed.''

Larry said it best in a speech he gave after his career had ended. He said, ``We can see that baseball helped make this a better country. We hope baseball has given (children) some idea of what it is to live together and how you can get along, whether you are black or white.''

By this resolution Congress is showing its appreciation on behalf of all Americans to Larry Doby for his role in breaking down racial barriers in baseball and in America. I'll say here what I said at his memorial service: ``When we stand every day for the things we believe in, we'll be standing for Larry Doby.'' His family will miss him. I will miss him. America will miss him.

Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 17, the joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to broadcast media ownership.

I reviewed the press release the FCC issued on June 2 to announce its changes to the ownership rules. The press release was entitled, ``FCC Sets Limits on Media Concentration.'' The problem with that press release was that the FCC did not set limits; it virtually abolished them. A majority of the FCC commissioners capitulated to an industry they no longer hold at arms' length.

I say capitulated because I read that FCC commissioners and other agency officials have taken more than 2,500 trips valued at $2.8 million since 1995, paid for by the industry the FCC is supposed to regulate. How ``arm's length'' is that?

As an aside, I am heartened that the FCC reauthorization bill the Commerce Committee report puts an end to industry-sponsored travel for FCC Commissioners and staff.

With respect to the ownership rules, it was regrettable that FCC Chairman Michael Powell saw fit to hold one and only one public hearing on the subject.

And it was regrettable that Chairman Powell appeared to be willing to talk with industry officials and the press about the proposed rule changes, but not with the Commerce Committee, until the rule was issued.

It was regrettable that the FCC officials went to great lengths to point out that the agency received nearly one million comments and constituent post cards on the rule changes, and then chose to disregard the vast majority of them.

It is regrettable that the so-called ``diversity index'' cited as justification for further deregulation cannot be used in a petition to determine if companies are violating ownership limits.

It is particularly regrettable that three of the five Commissioners apparently feel that news is just another commodity, like shoes or cars.

News is not just another commodity, except to the media barons who stand to benefit most from the FCC rule changes.

Here is what Lowry Mays, the founder and CEO of Clear Channel, had to say in Fortune magazine recently:

We're not in the business of providing news and information

. . . We're simply in the business of selling our customers

products.

Remember, this is the man whose company owns over 1,200 radio stations with some 110 million listeners spread across all 50 States and the District of Columbia.

So much for the public interest.

Over the years, Congress established media ownership rules to ensure that the public would have access to a wide range of news, information, programming, and political perspectives. Over the years, the courts have repeatedly recognized the public interest goals of diversity, competition, and localism.

Consolidating media ownership means that a few large corporations can exercise considerable control over the news.

Is it really in the public interest to make it easier for a few companies to dominate the airwaves and determine what news the American people will, or will not hear?

As the distinguished jurist Learned Hand remarked in 1942, ``The hand that rules the press, the radio, the screen, and the far-spread magazine rules the country.''

I am the only member of the Commerce Committee from the New York metropolitan area. In my back yard, News Corp. already owns two VHF broadcast stations, a daily newspaper, a broadcast network, a movie studio, a satellite service, and four cable networks. Under the new rules the FCC issued, News Corp. will be able to add another TV station and own a total of eight radio stations. And do not forget: News Corp. is gobbling up DirecTV.

That is not diversity. That is not ``fair and balanced.''

At a Commerce Committee hearing on media ownership, Mel Karmazin of Viacom argued that ``Americans are bombarded with media choices via technology never dreamed of even a decade ago, much less 60 years ago.''

That is true, but misleading. Who owns these media? Viacom owns CBS and UPN; 35 television stations that reach 40 percent of the national viewing audience; Paramount Studios; and cable channels such as VH1, MTV, BET, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, and Showtime.

Viacom, through Infinity Broadcasting, also owns 185 radio stations and has substantial ownership interests in several Internet properties, including CBS.com and CBSMarketwatch.com. Viacom even owns Blockbuster, so it has a significant stake in video and DVD rentals.

It should be self-evident that consolidating media ownership would make it possible for a few large corporations to exercise considerable control over the news.

Media giants also exert enormous control over advertisers. I received a letter last month from Neil Faber, president of NexGen Media, a company that specializes in national and spot broadcasting, print, and outdoor media buys. He wrote:

For decades I have been deeply concerned with this

direction of increasing concentration of ownership. This

concentration limits consumer choice and results in higher

advertising rates that, in all probability, have been passed

on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for products

or services and tends to constrain diversity of viewpoints.

New York Times columnist William Safire summed up the problem and what is at stake in a May 22 column. He wrote:

The overwhelming amount of news and entertainment comes via

broadcast and print. Putting those outlets in fewer and

bigger hands profits the few at the cost of the many. . . The

concentration of power--political, corporate, media,

cultural--should be anathema to conservatives. The diffusion

of power through local control, thereby encouraging

individual participation, is the essence of federalism and

the greatest expression of democracy.

In the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Congress directed the FCC to conduct a biennial review of the rule changes the Act contained. Given the complexity of the issue, a biennial review was overly ambitious.

Be that as it may, Chairman Powell said during the biennial review that led up to the rule changes proposed in June, ``Getting it right is more important than just getting it done.'' He said that, but then he did the opposite. The FCC got it done, but did not get it right.

Getting it right means serving the public interest, not increasing ownership concentration and boosting profitability for a few companies' share-holders.

I hope the Senate will pass this joint resolution to send a strong, unequivocal message to the FCC that it got it wrong on June 2.

I ask Unanimous Consent that the letter I received from Neil Faber and the May 22 op-ed by William Safire that appeared in the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to support Senator Feinstein's amendment to remove funding for the development of new nuclear weapons. The administration is seeking $15 million to fund more research on the robust nuclear earth penetrator a nuclear bunker buster and $6 million for research on new nuclear weapons.

I must register my shock that the administration has requested this funding, reversing almost 60 years of U.S. nuclear policy. Funding such a request is the first step on a ``slippery slope'' that could irreversibly lead us to testing and maybe even deploying these new nuclear weapons.

It is imperative that we nip this mischief in the bud by supporting Senator Feinstein's amendment.

Let me remind my colleagues that the administration has consistently identified one distinct threat to U.S. security and reiterated this threat innumerable times in the past year: The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their transfer to terrorists.

In the President's speech to the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002, in his address to Congress in October, 2002, in his State of the Union speech this past January, he repeatedly expressed his concern about the proliferation of biological, chemical, and especially nuclear weapons.

Many Members of Congress voted to send our young men and women to Iraq to eliminate the threat of Saddam Hussein's supposed nuclear arsenal. We were told that while Saddam had not yet developed nuclear weapons, he was actively intent on doing so and the consequences would be horrific.

Meanwhile, during this same year, the administration is looking to create new nuclear weapons.

Our diplomats have just returned from six-way talks in Beijing aimed at resolving the North Korean nuclear crisis instigated last fall when Kim Jong IL announced his defiance of the 1994 Agreed Framework. How can our negotiators in good faith reassure the North Koreans and the other participants at these talks of peaceful United States intentions in the region, while at home, in our labs, nuclear scientists are experimenting with new nuclear weapons that will eventually have a yield 70 times that of the bomb dropped at Hiroshima?

It is abundantly clear that there is a copycat effect of U.S. military planning. According to former Undersecretary of Energy, Rose Gottemoeller:

Other countries watch us like a hawk. They are very, very

attentive to what we do in the nuclear arena. I think people

abroad will interpret this as an enthusiastic effort by the

Bush administration to re-nuclearize. And I think definitely

this nuclear funding is going to be an impetus to the

development of nuclear weapons around the world.

I clearly remember the devastation that the atom bombs wrought not only on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but on all society. As Adlai Stevenson put it, ``Man wrested from nature the power to make the world a desert.''

Since those two unforgettable days in 1945, administration after administration, Republicans and Democrats, have made it clear that nuclear weapons have held a special status within the U.S. arsenal. U.S. policymakers have committed to the international nuclear arms control regime.

The research funding in this bill for the nuclear earth penetrator departs from 60 years of nuclear policy. If these weapons are researched, they will be inevitably be tested, which will undermine a 10-year U.S. commitment to a nuclear testing moratorium.

I am deeply concerned about the standing of the United States in the international community.

As a result of the unilateral approach the Bush administration has taken in Iraq, we have lost friends, trust, respect and admiration in the global community. This new nuclear policy departure will only further erode U.S. leadership and esteem in the world.

I urge my colleagues to support this vital amendment.

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

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