Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to discuss a disturbing development that has just come to light. This development questions Vice President Cheney's continuing financial ties to Halliburton, the oil services company he once headed.

This past Sunday, the Vice President made the following statement to Tim Russert on ``Meet the Press.'' I quote from that statement. The Vice President said:

Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's Vice

President, I've severed all of my ties with the company,

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

financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't

had, now, for over three years.

After he made that statement, my curiosity led me to take a look at the Vice President's financial disclosure records. What I saw in those reports was completely at odds with what he said on television Sunday morning. Vice President Cheney's official financial disclosure filings with the Office of Government Ethics reveals that not only does the Vice President continue to have financial ties to Halliburton but also that Halliburton is continuing to provide personal financial benefits to the Vice President.

In the years 2001 and 2002, the Vice President received large ``deferred salary'' payments from Halliburton. In 2001, Halliburton paid Vice President Cheney $205,298 in salary, and in 2002 Halliburton paid Vice President Cheney $162,392 in salary. He is scheduled to receive similar payments this year, 2003, and in 2004 and 2005. That is a pretty strong ``financial tie,'' in my view. If you ask every-day Americans if someone has a financial interest in a company that pays them annual compensation, I am certain the answer would be universally ``yes.''

Deferred salary is not a retirement benefit or a payment from a third-party escrow account but, rather, an ongoing corporate obligation that is paid from company funds. If a company were to go under, the beneficiary could lose the deferred salary.

In an attempt to mitigate the Vice President's continuing financial interest in Halliburton, his financial statement disclosure form says he ``acquired'' an insurance policy ``to ensure that he will receive the equivalence of his remaining deferred compensation account with Halliburton.'' The terms of this insurance policy, its costs, and who paid for it are still unclear.

In addition, Vice President Cheney continues to hold 433,333 unexercised Halliburton stock options. At the end of 2002, Vice President Cheney's financial disclosure form stated he continued to hold these options, although the exercise prices are above the company's current stock market price. Even though these exercise prices are above current values, these options could in the future bring a substantial windfall, if Halliburton's earnings in stock value continue to grow as it benefits from large government contracts.

This morning, I looked at a chart that showed Halliburton's stock value and its growth from October of last year until the current time. It has grown by about 75 percent while the rest of the industry has remained flat over the years.

These options could bring, as I said, a substantial windfall if earnings in stock values continue to grow--I repeat--because of the value I find people have placed on Halliburton stock resulting in some pretty good contracts they have gotten in dealing with issues in Iraq.

The Vice President has signed an agreement, he said, to donate any profits from these stock options to charity, and has pledged not to take any tax deduction for the donation. Alternatively, he doesn't have to pay taxes on the value growth he would have otherwise paid. But should Halliburton stock prices increase over the next few years, the Vice President could exercise the stock options for substantial profits benefiting not only his designated charity but also providing Halliburton with a substantial tax deduction.

The issue is simple. Vice President Cheney claims he has no financial ties to Halliburton, but his own financial disclosure report says otherwise. The American people deserve to know about this relationship with Halliburton. He may argue he has structured deals to minimize his financial windfall from his Halliburton arrangements, but he clearly still has ``financial ties'' to the company.

The fact that Halliburton received an enormous contract without a competitive bid or public disclosure--it was the subject of debate which we had on this floor--it was then agreed that all contracts dealing with Iraq and its reconstruction would be part of the public record.

Back in May, I wrote to the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee requesting hearings on the no-bid contracts awarded to Halliburton in Iraq. I believe these developments now make it even more important for the Senate to hold hearings. I renew my plea to the Governmental Affairs Committee to hold hearings on the administration's initial contracts with Halliburton.

Just this week, we learned that Halliburton's no-bid contract with the Army Corps has increased from $700 million to nearly $1 billion. It is a lot of money.

The American people deserve answers to these serious questions concerning government ethics and accountability.

I also believe it is in the interest of the administration to cooperate so the air can be cleared and the record set straight so we know once and for all whether the Vice President admits publicly that he has a financial tie with Halliburton or continues to deny it, despite the written record filed with the Senate Ethics Committee.

Mr. President, I rise today to formally acknowledge the great accomplishments and recent retirement from the United States Naval Reserve of one of my constituents, Rear Admiral Howard Kirk Unruh, Jr.

Henry Clay said: ``Of all the properties that belong to honorable men, not one is so highly prized as that of character.'' RADM Unruh is, indeed, a man of character and he has shown outstanding character throughout his 33 years of service to the Navy.

Admiral Unruh's naval career began in the Garden State, where he attended Princeton University on a ROTC scholarship. In 1970, upon his graduation from Princeton, Ensign Unruh was commissioned as an officer in the United States Navy.

He reported for duty in Hawaii where he served on the USS Elkhorn AOG-7. As damage control assistant and engineering officer, he accepted a great deal of responsibility for a young man and gained valuable leadership experience. He learned what it meant to serve and what it meant to lead, and he made the Navy an important part of his life.

His work did not go unnoticed, and, after completing a tour of the Western Pacific aboard the Elkhorn, Unruh was selected to participate in Admiral Elmo Zumwalt's Human Resource Management Program in Pearl Harbor.

In 1975, Lieutenant Unruh left active duty, and went on to receive a Masters degree in Education from Harvard University. But the Navy was in his blood. So, while studying in Massachusetts, he accepted a commission in the Naval Reserves and began the second phase of his service.

For the next 28 years, Admiral Unruh served wherever and whenever he was needed. He taught naval management and leadership courses; he mentored officers and sea cadets; he spearheaded successful reorganization efforts in reserve centers; and he participated in joint military training exercises in the U.S. and abroad. In short, as he moved up the ranks, he gave the Navy his wholehearted commitment on land and sea.

In 1995, he took an assignment as the Department of the Navy's duty captain at the Pentagon's Navy Command Center. There, he served under Secretary of the Navy and Chief Naval Operations Admiral Mike Borda and was in charge of monitoring military activity around the world. On his first day on duty, human emigres flying civilian aircraft over Cuba were shot down by the Cuban military, which believed that the aircraft were intruding in Cuban air space. Captain Unruh acted quickly and admirably, putting together data to brief the President on the United States on what was happening.

Now Kirk Unruh retires as an Admiral and he has well earned that rank. Over the years, his contributions to the Navy have been duly recognized. He is authorized to wear the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal which he was awarded twice, the Navy Commendation Medal which he was awarded four times, the National Defense Medal with bronze star, and various other Unit and Service ribbons. These decorations attest to the character of the man, the service he has rendered, and the honor with which he has provided that service.

Today I ask that my colleagues join with me in thanking Admiral Unruh for his years of service, for his commitment to this nation and to the United States Navy, and for a job well done. As noted in his Legion of Merit Citation: ``By his outstanding leadership, commendable innovation, and inspiring dedication to duty, RADM Unruh reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.''

Lastly, behind the career of most great Naval officers is a loving family that is asked to endure the hardships of constant travel and periodic separation. Admiral Unruh's family is no exception. His wife Diane has made many sacrifices to support her husband. And, as the wife of an Admiral--whose children, Meredith, Allison, and Chip were all born on naval bases--she has earned her stripes and unofficially outranks him. We all know that without her sacrifice his service to our Nation would not have been possible.

Today, I join with Diane, her children, and all Americans in saluting Admiral Unruh for an outstanding career and a job well done.

Mr. President, I call attention to the fact that I have been on the floor waiting. I will follow the instructions of the Chair.

Mr. President, I commend my colleagues from Virginia for their comments and for the recall of their memories regarding that terrible day.

Today we commemorate the second anniversary of the terrorist attacks we now refer to as 9/11. It is a day heavy with sadness for me personally. Before I became a Senator, I was a commissioner on the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and had offices on the 67th floor in the Trade Tower. The Port Authority lost 84 of its people on 9/11, including 37 brave police officers who gave their lives as they tried to save the lives of others.

Fifty-one of those Port Authority employees lived in the State of New Jersey. I knew many Port Authority employees and others who died on this date 2 years ago. And I know many more families who lost a loved one. One of my oldest daughter's dearest friends perished that day. They had worked together on Wall Street before she went

to Cantor Fitzgerald. That firm lost nearly 700 people out of the 1,000 who worked for it on the morning of 9/11. The husband of my daughter's friend searched hospitals for 3 weeks looking for a sign that perhaps his wife had escaped death in that terrible calamity.

Because of its proximity to New York, my home State of New Jersey suffered catastrophically. Of the 3,025 innocent people who lost their lives on 9/11, nearly a quarter of them--700 in all--came from my home State.

Thirty-seven of them came from a single town, Middletown, NJ. Yesterday, a 2-acre memorial garden next to the train station was dedicated in a private ceremony for the victims' families.

The author Gail Sheehy just published a book entitled ``Middletown, America: One Town's Passage from Trauma to Hope.'' For the past 2 years, she has followed the lives of survivors and widows, of parents who lost children and children who lost parents. She has spoken with the town's religious leaders, with mental health professionals, and others in the community. I have not had a chance yet to read her book, but it is described as a wonderful testament to individual acts of heroism and kindness and to the courage and hope and resilience of people who have suffered a terrible loss and grieve but who, somehow, are soldiering on.

As we remember 9/11, we remember people such as Fire Department Chaplain Mychal Judge, who was killed by falling debris in the lobby of Tower 1. Father Judge was the first official casualty at the World Trade Center and one of 343 New York City Fire Department casualties.

We remember people such as a fellow named Abe Zelmanowitz, a computer programmer who might have been able to escape from the 27th floor of the north tower, where he worked for Blue Cross/Blue Shield, but he refused to abandon his friend, Ed Beyea, a quadriplegic confined to a wheelchair, who could not make it down the stairs. Abe stood by his side until the end came.

We remember people such as Todd Beamer, Tom Burnett, and Jeremy Glick, and the other passengers and crew of United Flight 93, who crashed their airplane in a field near Shanksville, PA, rather than allow the hijackers to crash it in Washington--perhaps into this very building where we now stand.

So 9/11 revealed the very best in people. But, of course, we have to remember what caused it also. And that reveals the very worst in people--19 of whom had the insane belief that their suicidal/homicide actions would send them straight to paradise.

Mr. President, 9/11 did more than that; 9/11 shocked us to our very core. We suffered terrorist attacks before 9/11, including one on the World Trade Center itself. But not since Pearl Harbor has the collective psyche of our country been so shocked out of its complacency.

The results of that shock are plainly visible. Terrorism has scarred America--permanently. People are mourning their loved ones, and they will do that for the rest of their lives. We endure long lines at the airports. Washington looks like a fortress. Our civil liberties have taken a beating reminiscent of the Palmer Raids after World War I, Japanese-American internment during World War II, and McCarthyism during the Cold War. And tens of thousands of our young men and women are in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. President, 9/11 shocked us into learning that our ``invincibility'' had been pierced. We crave the sense of security we enjoyed before 9/11, but deep down we know we are not likely to get it back soon.

We now know to take our security more seriously. There are terrorists who glory in the maiming and killing of innocent men, women, and children. They hate everything about us--our families, our country, our way of life--so much that they would deprive their own families of their presence as a beloved son, brother, or father, so they can act on their murderous desire.

9/11 shattered illusions we had about our safety. But being stripped of our illusions, we have the opportunity now to forge ahead truly knowing that the war against terrorism will be long and tough. We have the opportunity now to forge ahead truly knowing that the struggle here at home to preserve our civil liberties, the very things we are defending, will be a challenge.

For the better part of the last century, we fought against fascism and totalitarianism. I had the privilege of serving in Europe during World War II. I was so young that I didn't understand the big picture. But I understood very clearly my obligation and my role.

When the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union was dissolved, many Americans thought the conflict was over; they thought we had won. That was an illusion. The conflict is not over. It has simply shifted to a new front.

We now know we are fighting a new enemy--an utterly ruthless enemy-- that wants to make our home front the front lines, an enemy that deliberately targets noncombatants, and an enemy that has absolutely no sense of propriety or decency while it wages war against innocent people.

It is important to fight this enemy without any illusions if we want to win. That means no premature declaration of ``mission accomplished.'' That means a full accounting of what the cost of the war is going to be. That means an honest acknowledgment of the limits of our power and the humility to enlist our allies in our cause.

What we experienced on 9/11 is a permanent wound on our society. People struggling to face the future will never stop mourning the past. Our daily lives have been forever altered. But we are survivors. It takes courage to survive. Armed with that courage, we endure the pain and look beyond the smoke, rubble, and grief to rebuild--rebuild something that is stronger than what went before.

We will defend ourselves, our country, and our liberties--the things that terrorists despise. Despite the difficulties, despite the casualties, despite the setbacks that we will suffer, this war against terrorism must be fought and is worth the fight.

Even though he wrote in an earlier age, the poet Archibald MacLeish summed up what is at stake when he said:

There are those who will say that the liberation of

humanity, the freedom of man and mind, is nothing but a

dream. They are right. It is the American dream.

America is the last, best hope for mankind. That is the dream. It is up to all of us to make sure it is not an illusion. This is the best way to honor the memory of those who perished 2 years ago and assuage the grief we feel when we reflect on that terrible day.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Harkin amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004.

I proudly support this amendment because it would prevent the administration from implementing any regulation that would take away the overtime pay rights of American workers.

The Bush administration's hostility to this Nation's hard-working men and women is shocking and frankly disappointing.

We all know this administration's performance on job growth: since President Bush assumed office, he has pushed for three separate tax cuts for the wealthy, yet he has not created a single net job.

Rather, the policies of President Bush have produced a loss of 3.1 million private sector jobs. The number of unemployed Americans has risen from 6 million to over 9 million. Just last month, the Nation's payroll lost 93,000 jobs.

Instead of working to put Americans back to work, the administration has decided to ``modernize'' workplace regulations by eliminating overtime pay for million of workers.

The Economic Policy Institute concludes that more than 8 million workers would lose overtime protection. Even the conservative Employment Policy Foundation estimates that 1.16 million workers would lose their overtime pay.

The administration, however, claims that only 644,000 workers would be negatively affected by its proposal.

Regardless of the losses estimated, the proposed regulation would disqualify more workers from overtime protection, and there is simply no justification for stripping any workers of their overtime rights.

Just yesterday, nursing home workers from my home state came to my office and told me that they get paid between $7 and $10 per hour and that they rely on overtime pay as an essential supplemental to their low hourly pay.

The administration opposes an increase in the minimum wage which would help millions of American workers, but it supports a proposal that would decrease the take-home pay of millions of American workers.

Once again this administration has misguided priorities. We should be doing all we can to improve the working conditions and the quality of life of the American worker, not make it worse.

The 40-hour workweek was created in the Fair Labor Standard Act in 1938. We enacted this legislation because workers were being abused and not properly compensated.

The FLSA became the bedrock of worker- and family-friendly legislation because we recognized that after 40-hours of work, 8-hours a day for 5 days, an employee should be paid time and a half for work performed beyond 40 hours.

Today, the workers protected by the 40-hour workweek requirement are the Nation's first responders and first-preventers like police officer, nurses, and firefighters. Other protected workers include the millions of administrative, technical, manufacturing, and restaurant workers who are struggling to make ends meet.

We should protect the American workers. And, I urge my colleagues to support the Harkin amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to offer my overwhelming support for Senator Durbin's amendment on AIDS funding, of which I am a co-sponsor. I urge my colleagues to vote on this matter based on principle rather than politics. This amendment does nothing more than fulfill President Bush's promises to the international community that he made this year in his State of the Union Address.

In January, President Bush called on Congress to increase U.S. funding for global anti-AIDS work to $15 billion. In the spring, he signed a bill authorizing $15 billion over the next 5 years. And he spoke often of this comment during his recent trip to Africa, the continent hardest hit by the AIDS plague.

But while the President signed a bill to authorize this important and critical cause, he failed to appropriate adequate funding for it. While signaling his intent to help deal with the global AIDS crisis, he did not back his intentions with actions.

Senator Durbin's amendment holds the administration's feet to the fire. It will fully fund the $3 billion authorized to combat HIV/AIDS in Fiscal Year 2004. This should be an easy vote for my colleagues, who seemed to support the AIDS authorization bill in May.

Some of my colleagues have registered concern that we cannot fully appropriate funding this year to the authorized level because the necessary humanitarian and non-governmental organizations would not know how to handle so much money so soon. With all due respect, this is just not accurate.

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, which was established with support by this administration, is inundated with applications for international AIDS/HIV treatment, vaccination, and public education projects that cannot even be read because of the scarcity of funds.

AIDS killed 2.5 million Africans in 2002. Current infection rates in Africa, Asia, Central Europe and elsewhere are staggering. I urge my colleagues to recognize the awesome responsibility they hold to save lives and to support this amendment.

I thank our leader, the Democrat leader, for the kind comments, and my colleagues, some of whom are more accustomed to differing with me than applauding for me, but I respect their views when they register a vote and I am sure the feeling would be returned.

I thank all of my colleagues for their many indulgences and their encouragement and willingness to take me back because here I stand in probably another record, maybe the oldest freshman who ever served in the Senate. I feel fresh, and I am glad to be here. I thank all of my colleagues for their friendship.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute and recognize Women's Equality Day on August 26, 2003. As well as celebrating Women's Equality Day, this day is also a celebration of the 80th anniversary of the Equal Rights Amendment Campaign.

This year's celebration being hosted by the Advisory Boards on the Status of Women of Essex, Bergen, and Union Counties in New Jersey is the 155th observance of Women's Equality Day.

One of the most important people in the fight for women's equality was Alice Paul. Alice Paul was born in Mt. Laurel, NJ, and spent her entire life fighting for women's rights. She believed that men and women should be equal partners in society. She led the final, successful campaign for a women's right to vote. She inspired thousands to join the struggle as she stood up to Congress and the President.

Understanding that securing the right to vote was only the first step, Alice Paul authored the Equal Rights Amendment and drafted and lobbied for gender equality language in the United Nations Charter and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Alice Paul is a great example that one person can make a difference and motivate others to take up a noble cause.

Today, because of Alice Paul and numerous other women who preceded and followed her, we're getting closer to true equality for women.

It is important that we recognize Women's Equality Day. Since the days

of women's suffrage, we have witnessed a wonderful growth in the influence and contributions of women to our politics, our economy, and our culture. Although women are not yet full partners in American society, we will continue the work of Alice Paul and remember her on Women's Equality Day.

Mr. President, I rise to express a personal note of grief and fond remembrance as I pay tribute to one of my dearest friends, Bob Winer, who passed away on July 18.

Bob was born in Brooklyn, NY, moved to New Jersey, and joined the Navy when he was 17 and proudly served in the Pacific during World War

I fully agree with your concern that the Amtrak board of directors must continue to function even while the board is in the process of being restaffed. Terms of two of the board members, specifically Governor Dukakis and Mayor Smith, expired on June 25. I understand that the terms of two other board members, Ms. Rosen and Governor Holton, will expire on September 24. If no new board members are appointed before September 24, the board will be reduced from seven members to only three members.

I am concerned that after September 24, there will be no one on the board from the Northeast corridor, which represents over half of Amtrak's ridership as well as the primary infrastructure owned by the corporation. The board needs to have qualified people who are knowledgeable about the complex operations of the Northeast corridor and its critical importance to the entire region.

Mr. President, I rise to support the Durbin amendment to raise the fuel economy standard and close the SUV loophole. I consider this truly bipartisan because I disagree with Democrats as well as our Republican friends. But I feel compelled to bring a problem to the public with which we have to deal.

I think it is fair to say that this amendment strikes a reasonable note in what is too often a contentious debate.

Today, 18 years after the first Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards were implemented, the standards for cars, trucks, and SUVs remain unchanged.

We are running in place and a major reason is that when CAFE standards were first required in 1975, light trucks made up just 20 percent of the market and were used mostly for work, not for negotiating congested urban streets.

But that was a quarter century ago. Today, light trucks--a category that includes SUVs and minivans--represent half of all vehicles sold.

SUVs produce 48 percent more smogforming exhaust and 44 percent more greenhouse gases than cars.

Today's SUVs are not light trucks. They are passenger vehicles and we should regulate them as such.

The impact of regulating SUVs as passenger vehicles, instead of trucks, would be impressive: we would save more than 40 billion gallons of gasoline by 2010--an average of 6 to 7 billion gallons a year.

By updating our regulations to reflect today's driving realities consumers would also save $7 billion at the pump during that same period, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Another reason to raise CAFE standards is global warming.

The U.S. transportation sector is responsible for nearly one-third of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

Since 1975, the miles traveled by vehicles have skyrocketed by 150 percent.

Higher CAFE standards are essential to cleaning up the air of our Nation's metropolitan areas and in protecting the health of Americans-- especially the health of our young and our elderly who are most vulnerable.

The Durbin amendment provides until 2015 to set the CAFE standard to 40 miles per gallon.

So this amendment is reasonable, it is doable, and it is the right step toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

But there are a few standard myths invoked by opponents of better fuel economy standards that could prevent some of our colleagues from supporting this amendment. I would like to try to straighten that out.

For example, we usually hear that jobs will be lost. Detroit worries that requiring better mileage standards will hurt car sales and lead to job losses.

But I submit that by their insistence on maintaining a decades-old status quo, American car manufacturers are stuck in reverse.

Instead of improving fuel economy, we have just hit a 22-year low.

The Big Three have demonstrated considerable skill in improving everything about American vehicles--except for their fuel economy.

It is that backward thinking that will actually hurt their businesses and lead to job losses.

EPA's Green Vehicle Guide for 2003 models revealed that out of the top 75 most fuel efficient vehicles, there were only four American models--only four! We can do better than that!

Another claim often heard is that lighter cars will lead to more highway deaths.

I submit this is a disingenuous and specious scare tactic.

In fact, a University of Michigan study found that based on deaths per million vehicles sold, SUVs are more dangerous than most types of cars on the road.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the study went on to say that many small cars have lower total mortality rates than SUVs.

In other words, vehicle weight does not necessarily determine a vehicle's overall safety performance.

The Big Three insist that they are victims of ``consumer choice,'' that they only give American car buyers what they demand.

But while Americans like the convenience of an SUV, they certainly don't like to spend $45 or $50 filling the tank once or twice a week.

Americans want fuel-efficient automobiles which save them money at the pump.

The facts are clear. For the health of Americans, for environmental protection, for our energy security and for our pocketbooks, I urge my colleagues to close the SUV loophole and raise the bar for CAFE standards by voting for the Durbin amendment.

I also not once again the fact that there is a sufficient period of time put out there for these standards to be met.

I yield the floor.

I am reserving the rest of my time.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong support for this high threat urban area amendment, which I have cosponsored. This amendment is of particular interest to me because my State is the most densely populated in the Nation and highly vulnerable to terrorism.

New Jersey lost nearly 700 people on September 11 second only to New York in the number of casualties. Tens of thousands of New Jerseyans could literally see the Towers burning from their homes and offices.

Not only do these memories linger for my constituents, but the threat lingers as well. And part of why I wanted to return to the Senate was to work to reduce these threats and bolster homeland security.

That is why I am disappointed in the funding we have put forward for Homeland Security. I believe this bill provides insufficient funding for our country's vast and diverse homeland security needs.

I know the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee worked extremely hard to put together a solid bill, but I believe the $28.5 billion in this bill does not provide enough resources to protect our local communities this coming fiscal year.

The real problem is that there were not enough funds allocated by the budget resolution earlier this year for our Nation's homeland security needs. While the administration spent much of the winter eagerly planning its tax cuts, the real needs of the American people--and the needs of local firefighters, policemen and women and emergency room staff--have been tragically neglected.

In addition to the overall spending level, I also want to address a truism about homeland security: Whether we like it or not, when it comes to which communities are most endangered by terrorism, all American communities are not equal.

There are some parts of this country that are more in danger of a possible terrorist attack, because of geographical location, population density, number of major transportation hubs, etc. If we ignore this reality, than we are failing to adequately address homeland security.

My state has many densely populated, urban areas that face major threats. In addition, a large percentage of my constituents commute to work in New York City and Philadelphia every work day. My State is traversed by major transit and highway systems that carry not only local traffic, but that also serve as major regional and national thoroughfares.

Each of my State's counties, cities, townships and boroughs need critical resources to enhance the security of their communities. They need first responder equipment and training; resources for hospitals to respond to potential attacks; communications equipment for police, firefighters and EMTs just to name a few of our pressing needs.

I must say, currently, in New Jersey, there is a certain desperation--a panic even--pervading the first responders who know that the communities they are charged to protect might be the next targets.

For example, the Chief of Police in Jersey City, Jim Buonocore said the following about his police department:

We were the lifeline to New York City during the 9/11

attacks. All the food and supplies came from Jersey City in

the days following the attacks. We know what it was like. New

York City suffered, but we lived through it and we suffered

too.

I am aware that smaller, less populated States across our great Nation are also afraid of a possible attack and equally deserving of Federal appropriations to prepare themselves for such an eventuality. Each State deserves some share of the Federal pot. But the reality is that high threat urban centers need a greater percentage, based on their population and based on the likelihood that an attack will indeed occur in their vicinity.

I ask my colleagues to consider what is best for the Nation, and the best approach is to make sure our most vulnerable areas are protected.

I thank Senators Schumer and Specter for their leadership on this issue, and urge support for this amendment.

Mr. President, we are listening to quite a tirade against giving money to the high-threat areas. The question is raised, Why? When you go to a hospital and you have a sick patient, someone who is really in trouble, he or she will be among the first to receive the medication. That is the situation about which we are talking.

We lost 3,000 people on September 11, 2001 most of them in New York. This is the focal point for economic activity--probably the most important financial center in the entire world. We look at the cities of Philadelphia and New York and there is New Jersey, right in the middle, with lots of commuters. We lost 700 innocent citizens on that day.

We have $29 billion going into homeland security but we need more. I know where to take it from: Take it from the huge tax cut that was given to those who do not need it.

For goodness' sake, the first round of emergency response grants had New Jersey and New York among the least compensated on a per capita basis. Our populations are squeezed together. New Jersey has the highest population density of all the States in the country. We have all kinds of important facilities, beside harbors and the financial center, that affect the way our country functions.

To say, you got enough money, that's just not right. I repeat: when the Department of Homeland Security gave out the first round of grants, New Jersey and New York were among the States most poorly treated on a per capita basis and yet our two States paid the biggest price on 9-11 when it comes to what constitutes a terrorist threat.

We may be threatened here with repercussions because we want money for the ports, we want money for transportation, or otherwise. Threaten all you want, but you cannot idly threaten the citizens of New York and New Jersey and Pennsylvania and other high-threat urban areas, walk away, and say: You got enough money.

I hope everyone is listening. What we need to do is recognize our areas of susceptibility and help those areas first. When it comes to toxic air or toxic water, we distribute the funds based on where the problem exists, where there are Superfund sites, and we try to give those areas more money so they can fix their problems.

The whole country wept on September 11, 2001. Everyone was weeping. And they all felt susceptible. But some know, many know, there are areas that are more susceptible than others. Those places are Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and other high-density urban areas.

I yield.

I was not aware of the specifics. I just know that in the areas already hit very hard--New York, New Jersey--a very serious threat remains. There are port facilities that are not protected at all. There are rail facilities. There are all kinds of things that could be destroyed or disrupted in a flash with the right kind of weapon or terrorist plan.

Whoever thought the Trade Center would come down--110 stories, just crash to the ground, melted into nothingness? No.

I sure will.

I have the floor.

I am absolutely aware of that. That is why I am surprised when I hear the distinguished Senator from Alaska, who knows this place better than anybody, who knows how desperately grants are sought and fought for, as he has so many times for his own State of Alaska, as he should, and how many times he has been successful, and how many times grants have been given to Alaska because his constituents needed the help.

But what goes around comes around, as they say. Now its New Jersey and New York that need that kind of help and we shouldn't be turned away.

With regard to the offsets for this amendment, I would prefer that we not take the money from communications and from science and technology. I would submit that there are other offsets, including the one I suggested a moment ago--one I would be most willing to forego--and that is the tax break that has come along. Take some of that money, the hundreds of millions of dollars that are involved, the billions of dollars over the next several year years, and put that money back where it belongs, to protect our society.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before we vote on this amendment, I am reminded that attacks have been thwarted in three locations. And if attacks have been thwarted, that suggests there is a certain risk attached to those locations. One is the World Trade Center, another is LAX Airport, and the third is the Space Needle in Seattle. As far as I know, there were no attacks threatened in Wyoming and many other places around the country. So when we look at this issue, I think we ought to get focused.

First of all, Secretary Ridge is the arbiter of the discretionary fund. He is the expert. He gives out this additional money. We, the Senate--Democrats and Republicans--nominated him to make these decisions. If the nondiscretionary part of the budget runs about $28 billion, I don't know that these particular accounts are the places where we have to go to get the funding. And we can ask Secretary Ridge to be aware that we are most

concerned because of the high-risk nature of the New York/New Jersey region.

I hope in this case we will take seriously what we talk about so much: That we cannot be secure, no matter how good we are in Afghanistan, no matter how good we are in Iraq--and we have been terrific. Our people have fought valiantly. They have done what is asked of them. There are not enough of them. And when someone suggested there were not enough of them, such as General Shinseki, he was kind of kicked out of the Corps.

So we have to look at this and ask, what constitutes security? It is not having enough bombs and planes. It is making sure that bombs and planes don't come our way, don't come to our soil.

You may have heard the prediction that was leveled by the former Secretary of Defense when he said, within a decade, if things go along as they are, we could be looking at a nuclear explosion on American soil.

I think we ought to step up to the idea and express our interest in preventing any kind of a terrorist attack. We have had a couple, and they were devastating, not only to the lives and families who were hurt but to the morale of this country.

I think we ought to say: Look, these are areas that are constantly under concern for a terrorist attack. Let's put the money there to make sure we are taking special care of them, just as we would a patient who is especially sick and we have a limited amount of medication. We give it to that patient, not to those who might get sick.

That is the situation we face. I hope we will get enough support to carry this through. The message is important. And I leave it to Secretary Ridge to deal with his discretionary responsibility to allocate the funds.

I yield the floor.

First, I commend the Senator for this very thoughtful and very important amendment. I wondered whether the Senator was aware that though we have a research facility in Atlantic City in my State, it is primarily focused on aviation. While they do explosive research, I believe the Senator would agree that this is more intent on examining the result of nuclear explosives--the kind of detonation that would really wipe out a whole port or a major facility.

Is that what the Senator wants to establish--that it is port specific and maritime specific and that we ought to get on with it to protect our ports?

Will the Senator yield for another question?

If there was a manifest that said ``nuclear weapon on its way,'' could you imagine something like that? We have all these containers. These are hidden boxes. You don't know what kind of cargo is in them. To me, it is one of the more susceptible areas for a terrorist attack of major magnitude. Thus, I ask the Senator, do you know from what part of the budget the $70 million you are proposing be used, which is out of $29 billion and is a very small fraction when you consider the risks that might ensue?

I understand that is where the Senator is going with this amendment.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, with this amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill, I want to see if we can improve in some measure the terrorist threat warning system that we have in place and make sure that it is working as it is intended.

I believe the current homeland security advisory system--the colorful tiered alert system--does little to reassure the public they are safer as a result of these warnings. Based on reports I get from first responders in my State and experts throughout the country, I believe this advisory system must be reevaluated and improved.

The amendment simply calls for a report from the Department of Homeland Security within 90 days of the passage of this bill evaluating how effective the terror advisory system is in meeting its goals. We are all familiar with this program. There are five levels, ranging from low risk to severe risk. You can see on the chart this color- coordinated presentation. The Department has color coded each risk level to make it easy to understand.

However, I don't believe this color war against terrorists is working. On four instances over the past year, Secretary Ridge has raised the threat level from yellow, elevated risk, to orange, high risk of terror attacks, based on increased terrorist chatter or other intelligence information. Aside from these instances in which the threat level was at orange, the system has been evaluated at the elevated yellow status since its inception in March 2002.

What I want to do now is discuss a series of concerns I have about the color-coded system and its repercussions.

First, the system evokes confusion and fear among Americans who want to respond to the elevated risk levels, but the question they raise is, Should they be changing their daily patterns without advanced knowledge about where or when they vacate their homes, offices, schools, factories, et cetera? Some Americans have stopped going to malls, some avoid public transportation, and many cancel trips. These arbitrary behavioral changes can have a serious impact on our already weak economy.

These are questions we have to ask: Does work stop? Do classrooms close? Does shopping halt, no matter how essential the goods? Should Americans take precautions?

The Department of Homeland Security doesn't tell us. I am not faulting the work they are doing, honestly, at the Department of Homeland Security. This is all still in its formative stages. We don't know quite where it is going to come to rest yet or where it is most effective.

DHS tells us to be vigilant. I don't know what that means. I am sure most of the American public doesn't know exactly what being vigilant means. The system presents high costs to local communities. When the threat level is elevated, local first responders are forced to respond by deploying already overworked police and firefighting people and by bolstering other first response systems without added Federal financial assistance.

When the DHS raises the alert, they provide almost no specific guidance to State and local governments. It requires State and local authorities to make many of their own decisions, or perhaps all of them, on how they should respond. In my State, like the rest of the country, when the alert is elevated to orange, or high, local officials tighten security on highways, railroads, bridges, bus terminals, Federal buildings, and densely populated areas. And this is an extremely expensive undertaking for State and local governments. Cost alone, while important, is not the only factor. Disruption of normal life is a victory for terrorists without any demonstrable benefit to our society.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors recently released new data compiled from a survey of nearly 150 cities nationwide. They estimate that cities throughout the country are spending, on average, nearly $70 million each and every week in additional homeland security costs due to the heightened threat alert level.

These costs come in addition to the existing homeland security spending since 9/11, which the mayors estimated to be around $2.6 billion in the first 15 months after the tragedy. However, this only asks the cities about direct costs. There are also indirect economic ramifications of code orange alerts that diminish tourism and other lucrative industries. The mayor of Atlanta, for example, has said the city's hotel occupancy is down 8 percent and 16,000 hotel jobs have been lost.

There are also innumerable indirect nonfinancial costs of the current terror alert system. For example, when a police officer who is normally assigned to

antigang work, or some other assignment, is reassigned to guard a public building, that is a real serious cost to a city. And also it damages the law and order structure that must be contended with at the same time.

My third concern is that the system is not tailored to give warnings on a regional basis. Increased terrorist chatter may suggest that a major New England city is subject to a possible threat. But small towns in the Southwest are also now asked to respond.

Other nations that face terrorist threats have a more sophisticated localized system. Experts continue to recommend that the United States establish a threat alert system similar to that in Israel, where intelligence or terrorist chatter is translated into specific warnings about geographical areas that might be more susceptible to a terrorist attack. For example, in Israel, threat warnings are easier to understand. For example, the Israeli Government would issue a terror alert for an area of the country such as Galilee. If we have reference to a targeted region in the U.S., we ought to provide specific information. Is it New Jersey? Is it Los Angeles? Is it Des Moines, IA? Where is it? Is it the port that we were discussing before? We have so many port assets in our country that need to be protected against terrorist attack. So where do you apply the pressure? Where do you spend the money?

Four, when the threat level is issued, there is no description of the nature of the threat that can help those expected to respond. We are not going to be naive about this. We are not saying we have information that such-and-such shopping mall is going to be attacked and, therefore, avoid that mall. We cannot be that specific. But we ought to be able to narrow it down from just a general alert across this great country of ours to something that gives people a direction for their actions when they hear the call.

Should the Governors call out their National Guard troops to protect every chemical plant in the country--and there are hundreds of those-- or transportation centers, or do they bolster rail security in every place? I do not think so. Again, this is not criticism of a system that is developing against a very serious threat to our society.

Finally--and I believe this is a key point--the system does not provide adequate instructions for the American people or local authorities. When I talk to the police in my area--and before I came to the Senate, I was a commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. They may get a call about something they ought to be on the lookout for, but the New York State capital is in Albany and the New Jersey State capital is in Trenton.

Do they call out their State troopers to cover all of those areas, all those police departments? In New Jersey, we have 567,000 municipalities. Some of them only have two or three policemen. What do they do? We need direction from those who have the knowledge and have the resources to research this.

The Homeland Security Department requires Federal agencies to respond to an elevated threat at the Department's own discretion, but does not issue specific guidance to Americans in State and local governments.

This lack of guidance can cause a lot of confusion and, in some cases, real panic. I have, through the process of these alerts, had calls--less now than I had in months past: Should I go to New York? My children have to travel to school on the turnpike. Should they be on the turnpike? Should we do this and should we do that? In many cases, people want to know whether they should stay home and guard their household and their families.

Lord knows we hope not, and we should take that kind of action. We cannot let the terrorists win by immobilizing our activities. We need to do better. The system has problems that at least ought to be reviewed, and I believe that improvements must be made.

I am not saying we should not spend the necessary money to deploy more police officers to malls, nuclear plants, chemical manufacturing or distribution facilities, train stations, or Federal buildings. I am a firm believer in spending whatever we have to spend to protect our security at home. But I am not convinced the homeland security advisory system is the most efficient way of assessing threat and organizing local response.

On June 6, shortly after the threat level returned to yellow from a Memorial Day elevation to orange, Secretary Ridge himself acknowledged the color-coded alert system needed readjustment. He said to the Washington Post:

We worry about the credibility of the system. We want to

continue to refine it because we understand it has caused a

kind of anxiety.

Anxiety is an understatement. The system causes financial hardships, fear, panic, confusion among Americans and people who want to be conscientious about protecting their families, sometimes exaggerating what they ought to be doing and creating a lot of tension within a family, within a household.

Experts warn that with the continuing volleying between orange and yellow alerts there will be a new threat level that we might call fatigue. Secretary Ridge has not offered a time line for revising the system. My amendment will make reviewing this system an important priority for the Department of Homeland Security.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. It will send a message to the Department that the alert system needs to be enhanced to increase its efficiency, its specificity, its overall usefulness to first responders, police, fire, and other emergency personnel.

I wish to point out this entails no further expense. A review is common in a situation such as this where such a big change is taking place. I hope everybody will take a serious look at this and think about their constituents back home who have called them, who have written them letters, who asked for advice. Let them ask the mayors in their communities or the Governors in their States what they think.

I want to make sure it is understood. I am not leveling broadside criticism at the Department of Homeland Security or Secretary Ridge. I think he is a very capable executive. We all want to do our best with this issue, spend our money most efficiently, but disrupt life as little as possible.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his support on this issue. I am happy to have it accepted. I wish to point out, in the debate we were having about port security, I have served with the Senator from Mississippi for now 18\1/2\ years, and I have never known him not to support our defense or our security needs. I have admired him for his balance in these issues. I continue to do so.

That debate was not intended to challenge the Senator from Mississippi who is managing this bill, but to make sure that the situation we are talking about with the ports which we feel are susceptible, especially in the northeast corner of our country where so much is dependent on port activities, that it is clearly understood. I appreciate that. I am happy to have this amendment accepted, and I ask the Senator from Mississippi to make sure it gets discussed at conference and presented.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of Senator Byrd's amendment which I have cosponsored.

The Senate worked hard and passed the Global AIDS Initiative back in May. At the President's request, this bipartisan authorization bill calls for $15 billion to help fight the spread of HIV and AIDS in Africa. The bill authorized $3 billion for this fight this year. This money is desperately needed.

Approximately 29 million people, including 10 million people between the ages of 15 to 24 and 3 million children under the age of 15, are currently living with HIV/AIDS worldwide. The future spread of this epidemic depends in large measure on whether the world will accurately teach young people how to protect against contracting HIV and AIDS.

Yesterday, I learned something very disturbing. The White House sent a letter to Congress asking to limit funding to $2 billion. That is $1 billion short.

I don't understand why President Bush, who has talked about his commitment to help fight AIDS in Africa over and over again, would ask for less money.

We must back up our promises with real action, not phony rhetoric.

Successful, proven programs for prevention, care, and treatment do exist but they are still small in scale, with many programs starved for resources. At least $9.2 billion is needed to mount a response to the AIDS crisis according to UNAIDS.

Current global spending to address the crisis is far below this, at about $1 to $2 billion.

A fair contribution by the U.S. Government to the global HIV/AIDS response would be between $2.75 and $3 billion given our share of the global economy, close to 30 percent. The United States is spending just over $500 million on global HIV/AIDS this year; and now President Bush is asking Congress to appropriate $1 billion less than it authorized for next year.

The tragic impact of the AIDS epidemic is undeniable. One in every three adults in Africa is living with HIV/AIDS. Across the world, each year, 800,000 infants contract HIV before or during birth. Ninety percent of these HIV-infected babies are in sub-Saharan Africa.

The global AIDS bill has the power to save lives through a combination of prevention and treatment. But in order to be effective, we must provide the necessary resources.

In a speech last week during his trip to Botswana the President pledged that the U.S. would be a partner in the battle against a disease that has already killed more than 17 million in sub-Saharan Africa, and talked of his proposal to spend $15 billion over 5 years to help the hardest-hit African and Caribbean nations battle AIDS. That means Congress should be spending $3 billion a year. Now the President's own person--the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy--is asking for $1 billion less. The message this sends to the world is discouraging.

A failure to provide full funding is a setback that will cost lives. I urge the Senate to support Senator Byrd's amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 2330, the Burma Sanctions bill.

It is a travesty that today, 55 years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and only weeks after fighting a war to liberate 24 million Iraqis, we watch the military junta in Rangoon violently and ruthlessly suppress the rights of the Burmese people.

The bill before us, like S. 1182, will send a strong message to the thugs running Burma that the U.S. Congress will not tolerate their abrogation of the rule of law.

The international community needs to follow suit. This is especially true with regard to Burma's neighbors--the countries of the ASEAN group--and the Security Council of the United Nations.

I would like to call attention to a July 14 Washington Post editorial that very clearly states the need for a unified, international approach to confronting the military junta in Burma. The editorial asserts that the United Nations must do more to push Burma toward reform and democratization. And it draws attention to the sorry fact that Burma has been elected to provide the vice president of the United Nation's General Assembly for the session beginning in September 2003.

It is appalling that one of the world's most oppressive regimes has been chosen by its neighbors for a leadership role at the United Nations. This selection serves only to undermine the credibility of the United Nations and the General Assembly.

I support H.R. 2330 because I am a strong advocate for human rights and democratic governance in Southeast Asia and around the world. I call on my colleagues to pass this bill.

I also call on administration officials to raise the military junta's suppression of human and political rights--including the illegal arrest of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and at least 17 officials of her party on May 30 when they meet with their ASEAN nation counterparts.

Finally, I urge the international community to stand up to the Burmese dictatorship. We must remain steadfast in our resolve to restore the freedom of the Burmese people. We need to send a message to these thugs that their brutal reign of oppression and terror does not go unnoticed and will not last.