Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to express my profound disappointment with the very troublesome nomination of Victor Wolski to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

The last time I spoke on the Senate floor about judicial nominations, I whole-heartedly supported and endorsed President Bush's nomination of Mr. Michael Chertoff to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

I commended the administration for selecting Mr. Chertoff because he was a ``consensus nominee.'' I supported Mr. Chertoff and many other judicial nominees because they demonstrated that they were not ideologues beholden to a specific political agenda.

I support nominees who demonstrate moderation, fairness, open- mindedness, and the proper judicial temperament.

Victor Wolski is a self-described political ideologue on a mission to promote extreme right-wing libertarian views.

In his own words, Mr. Wolski told the National Journal that ``every single job I've taken since college has been ideologically oriented, trying to further my principles,'' which he describes as a ``libertarian'' belief in ``property rights'' and ``limited government.''

There is nothing wrong with having convictions and strong beliefs. I respect that. But when a judicial nominee views the world through a limited, ideological prism, that presents a grave danger to our democracy and judicial system.

Such a nominee does not inspire trust or confidence in our judicial system.

Victor Wolski has unabashedly dedicated his career to promoting an extreme right-wing crusade to erode important Federal safeguards protecting workers, human health, and the environment.

For example, he has argued that it was ``far beyond'' Congress's power under the Commerce Clause to protect wetlands that serve as habitat for 55 different species of migratory birds and repeatedly referred to these wetlands as ``puddles.''

Mr. Wolski also lacks the judicial temperament necessary for a Federal judge.

In his testimony to the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Wolski asserted that he ``certainly meant no disrespect'' when he referred to Members of Congress as ``bums'' in a letter he wrote to the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle. I wonder what he did means?

Mr. President, it is entirely permissible for Mr. Wolski--as an advocate--to promote limited government; but he should not be a Federal judge.

And he certainly shouldn't be a judge on the Court of Federal Claims.

This is the court that hears disputes involving the Government arising under the fifth amendment's ``takings'' clause--the very constitutional provision Mr. Wolski has fervently worked to undermine and redefine.

Appointing Victor Wolski to the Court of Federal Claims is akin to putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. It is part of the Bush administration's war against the environment--a war the administration is waging on many fronts--the courts included. His nomination is another example of the Bush administration's zeal to pack the courts with right-wing ideologues despite the President's claim that he is ``a uniter, not a divider.'' How cynical.

The ``bottom line'' is that Victor Wolski is wholly unfit for the position to which he has been nominated. I urge my colleagues to vote against his confirmation.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment which we are calling Justice for the United States Marines. The amendment would make sure that the families of the 241 U.S. marines who were killed by terrorists in 1983 have equal access to assistance from the Federal crime victims fund.

In 1996, I authored a law that enabled terrorism victims' families to receive assistance to file suit against foreign sponsors of terror. This enabled families to receive judgments for those countries that aided terrorists in killing their children.

My amendment makes two small changes in the current Victims of Crime Act that would allow these families the same rights as other terror victims. Right now, technicalities in the current law would deny these rights to Marine families who lost family members in the tragic barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983.

My amendment is simple. First, it changes the date of eligibility in the current law to terrorist acts that occurred ``on or after October 23, 1983''--the day of the vicious attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.

Second, my amendment clarifies an ambiguity in the original law about the type of cases that are eligible for Federal funds.

On October 23, 1983, a suicide bomber affiliated with Hezbollah detonated a truck full of explosives at a U.S. Marine barracks located at the Beirut International Airport. Shortly after this took place, I was there and saw what remained of the building. It was almost totally destroyed. Two-hundred and forty-one U.S. marines were killed that night, and more than 100 were wounded the same day. They were part of a contingent of 1,800 marines who had been sent to Lebanon as a part of a multinational force to help separate warring Lebanese factions.

The loss to those families of these victims was enormous. These marines were killed by terrorists as they slept in their barracks. Terrorists are cowards. The marines didn't even have a chance to fight back.

But now the families of these marines are able to fight back against the sponsors of this terrorist act through our judicial system. On May 30, 2003, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia found Iran liable for the Beirut Marine Corps barracks bombing. The court found that Iran sponsored this terrorist act by Hezbollah, and was, therefore, accountable to these families.

This trial now proceeds to the damages phase. The court wants to use over a dozen ``special masters'' to hear the damage claims of the participating victims' families. Each special master will hear approximately 15 cases.

The court has requested the use of the crime victims fund in order to pay for the cost of employing these special masters. Terror victims are generally permitted to make use of this fund but a technicality in the law is preventing these families from utilizing this resource.

The technicality is that the law now says the crime victims fund can be used to assist victims of terrorist acts occurring on or before December 21, 1988. The problem is that the Marine barracks was bombed on October 23, 1983--approximately 5 years earlier. We need to change the date so the U.S. Marine families can see justice done.

In finding Iran liable for this horrible terrorist act in Beirut, the judge said the following, which I want to read to the Senate. He said:

No order from this Court will restore any of the 241 lives

that were stolen on October 23, 1983. Nor is this Court able

to heal the pain that has become a permanent part of the

lives of their mothers and fathers, their spouses and

siblings, and their sons and daughters. But the Court can

take steps that will punish the men who carried out this

unspeakable attack, and in so doing, try to achieve some

small measure of justice for its survivors, and for the

family members of the 241 Americans who never came home.

I would also like to share with my colleagues the poignant words of one victim's family member after the court's recent ruling. Captain Vincent Smith, from Camp Lejeune's 24th Marine Amphibious Unit, was one of the service members killed in the bombing.

After the court's ruling, Captain Smith's sister said:

I think the whole family feels that the ruling gives us a

sense of justice after all of these years. Finally, someone

has been named a guilty party . . . It's a huge sense of

justice to say that the government of Iran is guilty.

My amendment will allow the cases of these U.S. Marine families to move forward so they can hold the sponsors of this terrorist act accountable.

Since September 11, 2001, this Congress has worked hard to provide justice to the families and communities affected by terrorist acts. It is critical that we also devote attention to the losses incurred by many American families in earlier terrorist incidents.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment in order to extend justice to the families of the 241 Marines killed in the Beirut bombing.

We need to teach sponsors of terror that they will be held accountable. A vote for my amendment will help further this lesson by bringing the perpetrators of this 1983 terrorist act to justice.

I yield the floor.

I would like to see the amendment accepted. I would like to have a vote on this amendment, unless, of course, the amendment is acceptable to both sides.

Frankly, I think it is a good amendment. It does justice in some measure to the memory of those who were killed. They were there as a peacekeeping force--1,800 of them. A quarter of the force was killed in that single incident. The crime victims fund is a fund that is there to assist--not to provide damage awards to the people but to help them discover the evidence that is necessary. The fund has a few hundred million dollars which would assist these 15 special masters by providing them per diem so they can travel and get the details from these families, as they must do in order to have a sensible trial for damages.

I have no objection.

I did not hear the request. Was the Senator asking a question of me?

Mr. President, I want to be certain of the order. My amendment is at the desk. What I want to do is in the time allocated to me--which I understand is 15 minutes per side; is that correct?

I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 982

Mr. President, I call up my amendment which is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I rise to talk about my amendment which is designed to change the effective date of this bill.

My amendment is cosponsored by Senators Reed of Rhode Island, Reid of Nevada, Clinton, and Corzine.

My amendment is very simple: Let's give our seniors a prescription drug benefit just as quickly as we can. They need it now. Let's not delay any longer than practicable to get it into place.

Under the current proposal, comprehensive drug coverage does not start until July 2006. Imagine that, 2006. It is not fair to seniors who are expecting a benefit almost immediately. They will have seen President Bush sign a bill with some fanfare and will have seen lots of Members of Congress crowding the stage with him, and everyone will say: We have put a prescription drug benefit into place. When seniors learn that the benefit begins in 2006, they are going to feel deceived, tricked, and angry.

My amendment changes the effective date of the coverage to July 1, 2004. There is not any reason to have our seniors wait any longer for a prescription drug benefit.

The original Medicare plan was signed into law by President Johnson on July 30, 1965, and 11 months later, July 1, 1966, all persons eligible were enrolled. The entire system for Medicare was created in just 11 months.

When we look at this chart, we see what is planned with the Bush/ Senate prescription drug benefit. We are looking at 30 months, and we are looking at the creation of an entire Medicare system which took just 11 months to put in place. That was done without the luxury of today's high-speed computers. It was just President Johnson and his administration getting the entire system in place in 11 months.

My amendment essentially follows the same timetable. If President Johnson was able to create the entire Medicare system in just 11 months, then surely President Bush should be able to add a drug benefit in the same amount of time.

Look at the timeline the President has set for this Medicare drug proposal: 30 months. Why so long? Our clue is, what? Election day. That is illustrated on this chart. Sixteen months from now, this prolonged effective date is conveniently well past election day.

The administration's Medicare agency, CMS, says it needs 30 months. That is very convenient timing for political purposes, but it is terrible timing for America's seniors.

President Johnson, a true Texan, had a can-do attitude, and there is no reason this administration cannot dedicate itself to completing this task in 11 months. We need to give seniors meaningful drug coverage as soon as possible, not 2006.

The reality is that 5.5 million seniors currently on Medicare will not be alive in 2006. If there are insufficient funds in the budget for this amendment, then it is the result of choices made by the President and his party. They chose to provide a massive tax cut to the wealthiest among us, and they chose it at the price of Medicare.

The issue is simple: If we give a prescription drug benefit, why would we want to withhold it? This bill is about fooling the American people about the mission here. It is more about elections than correcting the problems associated with a prescription drug program. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, we have some time remaining. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I know the Senator from Nevada is interested in speaking.

I say to our friend from Iowa, the discount card allows somewhere between 10 and up to 25 percent. With seniors spending an average $2,300 a year on medication, even a 20-percent discount does not provide nearly enough relief. Frankly, it is hard to understand why it has to take 2\1/2\ years to get the program into place. I rather suspect it has less to do with the perfection of the program than it has to do with some other cause. It cannot take that long. We have all of these seniors on record. They are medical enrollees now. Why can't we get this going?

As a matter of fact, my colleague from Minnesota, who is going to say something, thinks it should be done in an even shorter period of time than my amendment provides.

I ask my colleague if he would like to say something. I yield the floor.

Madam President, my amendment is very simple. It says, if you are going to give, then don't take it away. If you are going to give a prescription drug benefit, then, by golly, start it in a timely manner, and start it, let's say, by July of 2004 instead of 2006.

What kind of a benefit is this when 5.5 million of our present living seniors, I am sorry to say, will not be here at that time, 30 months hence. In 11 months, President Lyndon Johnson initiated the idea of Medicare and had it passed and in place--11 months. Why in the world is it going to take 30 months?

I do not believe we ought to be looking at these discount cards, which are available generally in the community today, as the stopover until 30 months have gone by. It is an outrage that this date is chosen, I think not because they want to delay the benefit for seniors but, rather, because it coincides with an election. I do not think we ought to stand for it.

Mr. President, I thank the Republican manager in the Chamber and my colleague, the Democratic whip, for allowing me time to speak as in morning business.

What I want to do is call attention to some incidents that have occurred recently and that were highlighted, in my view, in the New York Times, on the front page, today. I will read from parts of these articles. I want to explain the reason I am so exercised by what I see.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of these two articles be printed in the Record.

The first article from the New York Times is headlined ``After Missile Raid on Convoy, U.S. Hunts for Hussein's

Mr. President, is that reserving the time that was immediately available? I am a little concerned. If the Senator from North Dakota has that, I want to honor that. If not, we might take a little more time than 10 minutes.

I thank my colleague and friend from New Jersey for his enthusiasm. I know he often gets on an airplane no matter what time, as long as our business here is done, and he gets up there, maybe sometimes in the fourth quarter of a game. But he gets there and roots the Nets on.

I am pleased to note the great sports accomplishments of two New Jersey teams in recent weeks. I support this resolution. I congratulate the New Jersey Devils for winning the Stanley Cup and the New Jersey Nets for winning the NBA's Eastern Conference.

I am going to be gracious and extend my congratulations to Senator Hutchison, with whom I had a wager, because the San Antonio Spurs played wonderful basketball, as disappointing as it was to me and other New Jersey Net fans. I paid off that wager with a case of beautiful New Jersey tomatoes for our terrible loss.

Winning the Stanley Cup 3 of the last 9 years proves that the Devils are the most dominant team in hockey. I was thrilled to watch them win game 7 with a shutout by the Devils' exceptional goalie, Martin Brodeur, who recorded 7 shutouts during the playoffs alone. Special congratulations are in order for five players who have been with the team for all three championships: Brodeur, Ken Daneyko, Scott Stevens, Sergei Brylin, and Scott Niedermayer.

As mentioned by Senator Corzine, general manager Lou Lamoriello has established a culture of success in New Jersey by molding winning teams each year around this core of five. The Meadowlands, where the Continental Airlines Arena is located, is no safe haven for opponents. Our Devils were a remarkable 12 and 1 on home ice during the playoffs. That's the most home wins in the history of the Stanley Cup playoffs.

It's nice to congratulate the New Jersey Nets, as well, because New Jersey, after all, is where the first professional basketball game was played, in Trenton, 1898. No, I don't remember it.

The Nets have been Eastern Conference champions and have played in the NBA finals for 2 years in a row. This year they compiled an amazing streak of 10 consecutive wins, sweeping past the Celtics and Detroit Pistons along the way.

Nets coach Byron Scott has led the Nets to the most wins in franchise history. The Nets, led by their superb point guard Jason Kidd, lost a tough 6-game series to the Spurs, who are undoubtedly championship material. But the Nets are in that class, as well. I hope that this team will stay intact and continue on its quest to winning an NBA title.

New Jersey is a haven for great professional sports teams, and on behalf of the whole State of New Jersey, I congratulate the Devils and Nets and wish both teams the best of luck in the future.

Mr. President, I rise in sorrow because baseball lost a legend, African Americans lost a pioneer, and I lost a good friend. I went to high school with Larry Doby at Eastside High School in Paterson, NJ, and watched as he amassed records that were beyond comprehension for most people.

He had four All-State letters. He played basketball, baseball, football, and he ran track well enough to earn an All-State letter in a big State like New Jersey, with that population. He was not only an exciting player to watch on the field, he was a good man. His five children and the whole country will miss him greatly.

Few people realize that Larry began his groundbreaking athletic career in 1943 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 in the Navy for two years, Larry hit .414 with 14 home runs in his final season in Newark, NJ.

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 an important 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 7 times in his 13-year career, and he helped the Indians win the World Series in 1948 with a home run in Game 4. He hit at least 20 home runs in 8 straight seasons.

Larry went on to become the second African-American manager of a major league team taking the helm 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.

It was not easy for Larry, few things this important are. 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 would not even shake his hand. But he pressed on, and we're a better country for it.

Larry said it best in a speech 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 be

black or white.

When historians take note of the great contributions made by citizens of the State of New Jersey, certainly the name of Larry Doby should be included. He is at the top of that long list in my mind.

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

Mr. President, I commend the chairman and the ranking member of the Commerce Committee for moving this reauthorization forward. It is critical. The FAA is an essential part of our travel and aviation system. I encourage its consideration promptly.

A principal issue these days in aviation is security. How do we best protect those who are flying and those who are working in the airplanes, the cockpit crew, the cabin crew? How do we best protect all of those people? Well, we review the passenger lists. We review the baggage. We look at what anybody brings aboard. One of the things that does not always get the attention it deserves is what happens with the FAA. What kind of people are they? Are they up to snuff in their training? Have we a reservoir, a reserve, of people who are trained and ready to take over when we are looking forward to a fairly large retirement possibility for those people who came in after some of the labor problems were resolved?

I send an amendment to the desk to make certain that FAA is going to be able to maintain its integrity, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I rise to offer a critical safety and security amendment to this FAA bill. My amendment would ensure that the air traffic control system and its personnel remain a government function.

There is an attempt underway right now in the executive branch to open up air traffic control to private contractors. I believe we in the Congress must put a stop to this. There are some areas where it makes sense to contract work out to private entities, but air traffic control is not one of them. The safety of our skies should not be put in the hands of the lowest bidder. We should not be looking to buy security on the cheap.

I believe those who operate and maintain our air traffic control system are almost like a wing of the military. They keep us safe. They police our skies.

On September 11, 2001, we had a tragic day for all Americans. In my State of New Jersey, nearly 700 people lost their lives. As my colleagues know, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta ordered all aircraft in the U.S. airspace grounded that day. They wanted those airplanes safely out of the sky. It was a massive undertaking.

I have a visual of 9/11 at 12:30 p.m. The assault took place around the 9 hour. This is a picture of the traffic, each one of these denoting an airplane, that was in the sky at 12:30. Many planes had already landed, but there were still thousands in the air, as we can see. The bulk of this traffic was in the East, as it was still early morning on the west coast. My home State of New Jersey is all but covered in air traffic in this picture.

In the next visual, we will see what the skies looked like roughly an hour later, at 1:45. We see some reduction in the cluster, but there are still hundreds, if not thousands, of airplanes in the sky. Planes are being rapidly grounded in the Northeast, and they are headed to the points in the Midwest to try to land safely, to take care of their passengers.

We have the next picture, which is only half an hour later, and look at this. Look at how empty the space, on a relative basis, is compared to where it was. The first one, this is now 3 to 3\1/2\ hours after the terrible assault on our buildings and our people took place. There is a cluster. We cannot even see the ground. But the air traffic controllers went to work, the system went to work, and now at 2:15, an hour and three-quarters later, they have cleared the skies, which is not an insignificant job.

We did not have one accident that day. We had the attacks with the aircraft on the towers, but all other aircraft that were in the sky that day got to the ground safely. People were able to call their families and say: Do not worry about me. I was flying. I am here. I am safe. I am well. I will be home tonight. I will be home this weekend. To the children: Daddy is alive and well, and we will be there.

We can see a massive number of planes were landing in that last half hour. Meanwhile, we can see the clusters of airplanes circling major airports, waiting for clearance to land, making sure the separations were maintained. The airports were at Dallas, Fort Worth, Atlanta, Kansas City, Denver, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Minneapolis-St. Paul. That was the extent of the impact of this attack and the need to disperse the airplanes in the sky. And out west, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, NV, Los Angeles, San Francisco, all of these planes landed safely in an amazingly short amount of time.

Let's look at the picture at 3:45. The sky almost looks clear, and thank goodness. Those were tense moments for everybody, for those who saw the smoke coming out of the Trade Center buildings and noted the absence of these two giant towers that were built, this testimonial to man, gone.

We did what we had to in the rest of the country to make sure those planes got on the ground safely. There were still some government planes in the air. We can see the military aircraft in the blue--they are a little hard to discern--as they patrolled the near empty skies.

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 thousands of aircraft out of the sky.

I wish to point out a bit of a technicality. They think of the air traffic control group sometimes as just the

people in the tower who have the microphones at that moment, but we have specialists who keep this equipment going, and it is a complicated network. We have those flight service people who are on the ground giving advice, watching the separation, making sure that the system is in an orderly condition. It is a package. It is one part of it. It is very obvious that we in this body need lots of people around to make the system work, such as our staff people who are very good. We could not take part of them and have them working for one entity while we worked for another. It would not make sense, especially if there is a moment of need when the owner of the company says we are cutting back on some of the company benefits. It does not work. This is a unified system.

In my home State, from the tower of Newark International Airport, the air traffic controllers looking out the window could see the World Trade Center on fire as they worked to return tens of thousands of Americans to the ground safely. Like many public servants on that day, they were heroes, along with the police and firefighters and other emergency personnel. These public employees gave 110 percent of their ability to secure the safety of the American people.

In the aftermath of these tragic events, our people demanded one thing in particular of their government. They wanted government personnel, not private contracting firms, to perform security screening of baggage at our Nation's airports. If the American people demanded that baggage screeners become Federal employees at substantially increased salaries, this was an enormous cost burden we picked up. We took it out of the hands of the private sector, away from the airlines, to say: You were not buying security appropriately; you were not spending the money needed to keep the people interested, trained, and functioning.

Why in the world, if we wanted the baggage screeners to become Federal employees, would we contract out air traffic control to the lowest bidder? It does not make sense. One bag getting through at the wrong time could be a terrible tragedy. But one airplane in the wrong place at the wrong time would dwarf many of the opportunities others have to attack an airplane with a piece of baggage.

The safety and security of the American people should not be the responsibility of the lowest bidder. It is a core responsibility of our Government. To be able to muster the forces we need for our military endeavors, we have to know the people in the towers and their support system are always on the job, that they are reliable, that there is no dispute between a company or corporate headquarters and the need of the people.

That is why it is so shocking the FAA is being asked to take steps to privatize air traffic control in this country. It makes no sense, especially after September 11. It is the opposite of what the public wants.

I yield.

The Senator from Mississippi is a sincere advocate of safety in our skies and has been very supportive of introductions of technology. The Senator has had a long period of service as chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation. There is mutual respect.

We are including all parts of the FAA, of the controller system, systems specialists, and the safety inspectors. As I tried to demonstrate, it is a whole unit. One thing and is quite apparent. Very often when you have an organization the size of FAA, when functions are parceled out, very often the segment you have taken out--look at railroads where you have different unions that control different parts. If one of those unions has a disagreement with the management or with the operations of the company, they go out and can tie the whole thing up.

Keeping this team together--the nurses in the operating room, the orderlies, all those people, beside the doctor and the guy now who is the person developing the equipment that in many cases now is doing the surgery--is all one thing. Would you think of splitting off parts of that and saying one part ought to be here, one part ought to be there? I think not. We include them all. We say this is one integrated system.

I come out of the technology business--of course, it was 20 years ago--but there are certain buttons you have to push to connect everything. You have to make sure the equipment is working properly. If one asks the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens--and I take this from recall so I am not giving his statement--he talked about the value of the flight service people in the State of Alaska and remote places. The Senator from Mississippi said it himself; very often they turn into controllers.

It is our intention to keep this package together. If we want to talk about it at another time in the future, certainly I would like to do so.

We are leaving out the contract tower program. We do not touch that at all. Those are special situations, smaller airports where more is demanded from the operation than can be given as part of the FAA. We have no problem with those.

The amendment we offer now is smaller in scope than my original bill. It covers only air traffic control, separation functions, system specialists, and flight service station controllers.

There is a world far larger than that, that could be included which we have not included.

The administration has already changed the designation of air traffic control from ``inherently governmental'' to ``commercial.'' It is more than a technical change. It opens the door to privatizing the air traffic control system.

We currently have the best air traffic control system in the world, with 15,000 dedicated Federal air traffic controllers who guide home safely more than 2 million passengers a day. They are expert professionals who perform under pressure every day to keep our skies safe.

Air traffic controllers play a major role in homeland security. When President Bush gave his State of the Union speech this year, it was the flight service station air traffic controllers who

sent alerts to pilots around here to avoid the expanded no-fly zone around Washington. We wanted to keep the President safe. We wanted the security to be maintained. It takes a certain skill and dedication and experience to make sure it gets done, that it gets done in a timely fashion.

When the Space Shuttle Columbia tragically exploded in the skies over Texas, it was the air traffic controllers who directed the aircraft away from the falling debris field.

These men and women perform a critical function. Our security ought not be up for bid. Some claim privatization will save money, but we have to take a look at other countries' experiments with air traffic control privatization. When you do, you see financial messes and safety hazards. Australia, Canada, and Great Britain have all privatized systems that are now in crisis. Costs have gone up and safety has gone down. Since Great Britain adopted privatization, near misses have increased. That means near misses in the sky. When I told someone this, he said, You mean people missed more flights? I said, No, no, airplanes missing one another. Near misses have increased by 50 percent, and delays have increased by 20 percent. The British government has already had to bail out the privatized air traffic control company twice.

Look at this quote from a Member of the British Parliament.

The privatization of the UK'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. They insisted that the sale of the

National Air Traffic Services--NATS--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.

This is from Gwyneth Dunwoody, a British MP in the House of Commons.

Why should we jeopardize the public's safety in the skies? We have the best system in the world now. Why should we risk making it more dangerous and costly. We should not repeat the mistake other countries have already made.

I want to make clear to my colleagues my amendment does not affect the expansion of the contract tower program. That is one that is contracted out away from the FAA, typically in smaller communities, and that service seems to function very well. It has been in place a long time. That program, which affects the small visual-flight-rules airports, can be expanded to any of the 4,000 airports that are eligible. My amendment only affects FAA towers.

Our luggage is important, important enough to be screened by trained Federal workers. But once you are up in the sky, it seems the administration believes your safety should be in the hands of the lowest bidder. It makes no sense.

My amendment declares air traffic control functions to be ``inherently governmental'' and therefore it means they ought to stay with the Government and they are therefore not eligible for outsourcing.

I want to point out the Member of the British Parliament, Gwyneth Dunwoody, the MP, is the equivalent of our distinguished Senator McCain in this body. So we have a considered opinion from someone who has the responsibility and has been through it.

I urge my colleagues to support safety and security in our skies by voting for the amendment, keeping the FAA as a body in the hands of the Government.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I listened carefully to comments made by our leader, the distinguished colleague from Arizona. I want to say that there are places where the contract tower process can be used. There are some 4,000 airports across the country where the contract tower program might apply. I have no objection to those smaller airports converting to that system. But we are grandfathering those that are presently FAA controlled to continue in that vein to make sure that the system is intact, and that the integrity of the functioning is as planned. If there is a point in time at some future date when we want to look at this, I am more than willing to discuss it. But I want to know exactly what the implications are to the total system, and not simply look at this as a financial gain because in the long run, the financial gains are ephemeral. We saw it in the British experience. We saw it in the Canadian experience.

The Senator from Arizona talked about how nobly the controllers from Canada performed on 9/11. Yes, we give them credit for that. But still in all, their system falls into higher costs all the time, and it is in financial despair, if I can use the terminology. We believe we take care of the issues concerned.

I think we would like to see what our colleagues have to say about that. In due time, I hope we will bring it to a vote.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator from Wyoming yield for a question?

Mr. President, I asked if the Senator from Wyoming would yield for a question.

I ask if the Senator from Wyoming is aware of the fact that some $20 million has already been spent on a survey or a study of this process?

No.

The outcome is one we see that says perhaps we ought to put the security of the FAA out to the cheapest bidder. I am aware that is where it comes out. And can the distinguished Senator from Wyoming explain why it is we took this very comfortable, privately managed sector of our aviation system, the baggage screeners, and brought them into Government at three times the wage they were working? There are 33,000 or 28,000 of those people.

I am delighted--I always enjoy the comments of my friend from Wyoming. We talk the same language in New Jersey.

But to say it was a political decision, then it sounds relatively meritoriousless. But I hear people say things are better with the folks working for Government. Of course, we have started to lay off a lot of baggage screeners already. And so, to me, the chances of baggage screening being of the same danger as changing the system that now----

Mr. President, I am sorry. Forgive me. I did not mean to use the time of the Senator from Wyoming. I was just trying to respond to his answer.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, since 1789, every session of the Senate has been opened with prayer. I am proud that the Senate's guest Chaplain today, Rabbi Dr. Bernhard H. Rosenberg, is from my home State of New Jersey. Rabbi Rosenberg is the spiritual leader of Congregation Beth-El in Edison, NJ.

As the only child of Holocaust survivors, the late Jacob and Rachel Rosenberg, Rabbi Rosenberg has spent his life teaching the history and effects of the Holocaust.

In 1933, there were over 9 million Jews living in Europe. Almost 6 million were killed in the next 12 years. ``Holocaust,'' translated from Greek, means ``sacrifice by fire.'' The systematic persecution and genocide of millions of innocent people in Europe was a ``sacrifice'' the civilized world must never forget. I have met with Holocaust survivors, and I have seen the concentration camps. It was a hideous time in our world's history. But it is vital to learn about it, and it is vital to talk about it.

Rabbi Rosenberg serves his community as a leader, teacher, writer, and spiritual adviser. He is an impressively educated man, with multiple degrees in communication and education, and his ordination and doctorate of education from Yeshiva University in New York.

Rabbi Rosenberg teaches Holocaust Studies at the Moshe Aaron Yeshiva High School of Central New Jersey, and has taught at Rutgers University and Yeshiva University. Rabbi Rosenberg has authored four books, with ``Theological and Halachic Reflections on the Holocaust'' now in its second printing.

He is the spiritual leader of Congregation Beth-El and a model citizen in New Jersey.

Rabbi Rosenberg has dedication and commitment that is unparalleled. He is the editor of a Holocaust publication distributed by the Rabbinical Assembly and editor of the New York Board of Rabbis Newsletter. As Interfaith Chairman of the New Jersey State Holocaust Commission, Rabbi Rosenberg is associate editor of the State-mandated curriculum on Holocaust and Genocide.

Rabbi Rosenberg is chairman of the Human Rights Commission and chaplain of the Department of Public Safety, police and fire, of Edison, NJ. He is president and founder of the New Jersey Second Generation Holocaust Survivors' Group.

The work of Rabbi Rosenberg has not gone unnoticed. He recently received the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Humanitarian Award. He also received the Chaplain of the Year Award from the New York Board of Rabbis for his efforts during and following 9/11.

On June 10, 2002, Rabbi Rosenberg was presented with the annual Rabbi Israel Mowshowitz Award by the New York Board of Rabbis.

We are privileged to have Rabbi Rosenberg of Edison, NJ, to lead the Senate in prayer today.

Without losing my opportunity to the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to support S. 1215 and to express my dismay about the current human rights situation in Burma.

On May 30, opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and at least 17 officials of

her party were detained after a violent clash with members of the Union Solidarity Development Association, a government-created organization that has increasingly taken on paramilitary activities.

The military junta that rules Burma has stated that ``only'' four died in the violence.

But the National League for Democracy, Suu Kyi's party, has put the death toll at 75. Furthermore, it is likely the Burmese Government deliberately provoked the clashes to justify cracking down on opposition leaders and closing down universities.

Since May 30, the junta has kept Suu Kyi, who is the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, in an undisclosed location.

We have recently received word from a U.N. envoy that Suu Kyi is safe, and members of the Burmese Government have promised that they will release her expeditiously.

I join with my colleagues in this body, and with the American people, in demanding that the Burmese regime fulfill this promise immediately. The Government must also find those responsible for the violence and hold them accountable.

The bill we have before us today addresses the serious human rights situation in Burma. The recent violence and detainment of opposition leaders exemplify Government repression conducted on a systematic and frequent basis.

S. 1215 would punish Burma's dictators, who have a chokehold on the nation's economic life, by barring the import into the United States of goods manufactured in Burma and by freezing the U.S. assets of the regime's leading generals. These are targeted sanctions that would punish the military dictators in Burma, those who are directly responsible for suppressing human rights there.

Nearly 55 years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and only weeks after fighting a war to liberate 24 million Iraqis, the U.S. Senate must remain steadfast in its resolve to preserve the freedom of peoples throughout the world.

As a strong advocate for human rights and democratic governance in Southeast Asia, I call on this body to stand up to the military junta of Burma by passing this important legislation. 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.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of Senator Graham's amendment.

This amendment, which I cosponsor, would strike language in the Energy Policy Act that would authorize an inventory of the oil and gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf.

This amendment mirrors a bill that Senator Corzine and I introduced last month. It would protect the sensitive marine areas off the coast of New Jersey and of other coastal States.

For over 20 years both Democratic and Republican administrations have respected the moratorium on leasing and preleasing activities on Outer Continental Shelf.

In his 2004 budget request, President Bush also honored the wishes of the coastal States.

His request included the traditional moratorium language--and so should the Energy bill before us.

The people of New Jersey, and the residents of all coastal States, do not want oil and gas rigs marring their treasured beaches and fishing grounds.

Such drilling poses serious threats to our environment and to our economy, and so do the technologies used to gather data.

The seismic surveys authorized in the Energy bill produce explosive pulses which have produced documented organ damage in marine species and have been associated with fatal whale strandings.

Dart core sampling, also authorized in the bill, is known to cause the destruction of fish habitat on the sea floor and to smother seabed marine life with silt.

Is all of this damage and destruction justified--just to gather data? I don't think it is.

Additionally, in New Jersey our economy depends heavily on shoreline tourism.

Tourism in my State is a 10-billion-dollar-a-year industry and provides employment for thousands of people.

We simply cannot afford damage to our shorelines, nor to the marine life which inhabits our coastal waters.

What the Energy bill proposes is a step in the wrong direction. What purpose would be served by performing an inventory of oil and natural gas resources along the Outer Continental Shelf, if there is no intention of drilling in these regions?

This provision completely undercuts the language which Congress has approved for years--and it clearly undercuts the stated wishes of the coastal States that would incur the greatest damage.

Our country needs new sources of energy. And there are many energy sources vastly underutilized in America.

We have barely scratched the surface of our country's potential for developing renewable energy.

The enormous energy conservation and efficiency savings that are possible are largely untapped. Too often these measures are voluntary rather than a part of the way we do business.

If we better utilize these untapped sources of domestic energy, perhaps Congress won't be tempted to sweep aside the will of the people of New Jersey and the will of the citizens of other coastal States.

We must continue, as we historically have, to recognize the right of States to govern their own shorelines.

I urge my colleagues to vote for Senator Graham's amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about something that is unrelated to any of the subjects we have been discussing today. I rise to talk about the news we just heard about an explosion in Israel and the killing of 13 to 15 people--and it is going to be more because, in addition to that, there are over 50 who have been seriously injured. We have witnessed an attack like this on innocent civilians by mad men who encourage a son, a daughter, a brother, or a sister to blow themselves to smithereens, and their mission is to simply kill innocents.

For a few moments, let's review a scenario that perhaps would be better understood in our country. Think about a shopping mall or a busy street in New York, Detroit, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, or Louisiana, and think about people who might be on the bus, youngsters going to school, people going to the doctor, people going to work, people carrying on commerce, and imagine that someone came along with a bomb in one of those cities, Washington, DC, and created an explosion that killed 700 people at one shot. That is the equivalent, if we take the size of Israel, about 6 million people--we have 280 million--it is about 45 to 1, so just do the multiplication. We are talking about 700 people who would die in this senseless attack. What would our response be in America? We would call out the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the FBI, the police, every agency that could retaliate, either to capture or gun down the leader of an organization that would seduce a young person to sacrifice their life for such a heinous purpose.

Purportedly this was a response to a tragic accident that took place as the Israelis were pursuing the leader of Hamas, the organization that took credit today for killing those innocent people and that takes credit for lots of attacks on innocent people in Israel. So there was a pursuit by the Israelis of the leader of Hamas because Hamas was an organization that helped take five soldiers' lives in Israel on Sunday night. Unfortunately, the hunt went awry and some innocent people were tragically killed.

When an attack such as that takes place, it is in response, it is in retaliation, to the violence that was visited upon the citizens in Israel. When these attacks take place, there is only one mission. They are not hunting criminals. They are not trying to capture somebody. What they are doing is killing innocent people--young people, old people, it does not matter.

Today's horrible attack on Jerusalem is another illustration of why Hamas has no place in any peace process. Hamas is a terror organization, has always been a terror organization, and desires to continue as a terror organization. I think it is time for the world to recognize that Hamas is in the same league as al-Qaida, and we know what we did when our people were attacked. We did the right thing. We sent our troops out. We were looking to capture the leader of that organization.

We would not stand by 5 minutes and accept it. And Israel should not stand by 5 minutes and accept it. We cannot look at the equal violence on both sides of the issue in Israel and with the Palestinians. They are not the same. Israel's attacks are always in retaliation for violence that was put upon Israelis. The other side delights in recording the fact that a suicide bomber took 8, 10, 12 lives, their count--600 people, or whatever the number is, in equivalence in America.

It is time to understand what is going on there. I strongly believe the peace process has to continue, but it should continue with Palestinian leaders who have demonstrated that they are interested in peace, as is now-Prime Minister Mr. Abbas. I commend the administration for deciding to reengage in the Mideast conflict by introducing and promoting a roadmap, a design, for Middle East peace.

President Bush's recent visit to the region was an important first step in renewing U.S. commitment to this endeavor, and the administration has to remain committed to peace in the area. President Bush must forcefully deliver a message to the Palestinians about their need to reconstitute and consolidate their security agencies in order to fulfill their stated goal to deter and punish terrorists such as Hamas, and he has to tell the Israelis that they have the right to defend themselves. They have made very important overtures, especially when it comes to talk about dismantling some of the settlements.

Mr. Abbas' clear statement that the violence of the intifada was a betrayal of the Palestinian cause is the most important reason that there is hope for progress in the Middle East. I am also encouraged that as a goodwill gesture Israel has opened its borders to Palestinian workers, released about 100 Palestinian prisoners, and has begun to dismantle some outposts. They are important first steps.

Israel and the settlers have to come to terms with the inevitability of dismantling some settlements in order to allow for the eventual creation of a contiguous Palestinian state. I was gratified to hear five Arab leaders--President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah of Jordan, King Hamada of Bahrain, and the new Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas--release a statement last Tuesday, June 3, clearly asserting that they oppose terrorism and will not finance or arm extremist Palestinian groups.

This statement was long overdue. Right now the Arab leaders must translate this statement into action through one central task, and that is strengthening the hand of the new Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas.

This means conferring on Mr. Abbas the authority they once gave Yasser Arafat and condemning violent groups such as Hamas and their rejectionist agendas. Only a united international front critical of terrorists and supportive of Mr. Abbas' plan for the Palestinians' future can facilitate the implementation of the roadmap.

The United States should continue exerting pressure on Syria to shut down its support for Palestinian terrorists, Hezbollah, and other organizations, the organizations that have no function except to disrupt the prospect for peace. They should encourage the withdrawal of the Syrians from occupied Lebanon and stem any production or research on weapons of mass destruction.

Sometimes it is hard to understand why an embattled country like Israel will be so effective, so hard, in its response. It is only hard to understand if you have not been there. This is a country that seeks peace more than any other place on Earth that we can imagine. They have lost thousands of people, perhaps hundreds of thousands in the equivalent American counts. There is a history of the people there that says they are always the subject of some cruelty, some attacks, some injury, some dead, from outsiders.

The last century saw the killing of millions of Jewish people. That sets a tone. That tone says, make peace, make life satisfactory. Do the things you have to to create a society, a country. Do what we can do about fighting disease, research what can be done about turning arid lands into farm lands, do what can be done to make life more livable. Yet, these criminal organizations continue to press their attack on Israel.

I make this suggestion. If the people in Paris or London or Berlin or other capital cities around the world had an attack such as this, we would have a response from the U.N. and everybody else. But when it comes to attacks on Israel, there is a notable silence, except for the only friend that Israel has

in the world, and that is the United States and the American people.

We look with horror and grief at what took place this day. Unfortunately, this is not an unusual occurrence as far as Israel is concerned. We have to say that we in the United States of America will not tolerate this kind of violence, that we are going to let Israel fight back as hard as she has to, to defend herself and force the communities in the Middle East to understand that there will be no peace for anybody. That is very dangerous. That conflict could escalate into a major confrontation in other parts of the world.

We send our sadness and condolences to the people of Israel. We wish them well in the future and hope peace will soon be the only confrontation that takes place, and that would be across the table.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senate is poised to pass H.R. 1625, a bill to designate the United States Post Office located at 1114 Main Avenue in Clifton, NJ, as the ``Robert P. Hammer Post Office Building.''

Robert Hammer was a dedicated public official, working as City Manager of Clifton, NJ, for 7 years before his death last December at the age of 54. Among the many accomplishments during his tenure, Bob Hammer oversaw a nationally recognized recycling program and helped improve town parks and playgrounds.

It is particularly gratifying that the Senate will pass this measure in time for the facility's dedication ceremony this Saturday, June 14. It will mean so much to Bob's family to have this bill passed in time for the dedication.

I also thank Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman for their help in

getting this measure passed so expeditiously.

Mr. President, I thought we were going to be discussing the candidate for office. I am sorry we kind of got off into another discussion. We are not filibustering this appointment. We are happy about this appointment. I want the chance to say that, and take what has happened as an indication of what can happen.

I rise today to support the confirmation of Michael Chertoff, whom I know well, to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

I am pleased that President Bush has selected this distinguished New Jerseyan for this important seat on the court of appeals. I hope that tells us where, in fact, we might be going with future appointments.

Mr. Chertoff is a highly intelligent and competent lawyer who has compiled a long and impressive record of accomplishment in both the public and private sectors.

Mr. President, I ask the Chair, if I could, to remind me if I run past, let's say, 8 minutes so that my colleague, Jon Corzine, has a chance to speak.

Mr. President, Mr. Chertoff was born in Elizabeth, NJ, and distinguished himself academically as an undergraduate and law student at Harvard University. After law school, he served as a law clerk to Judge Murray Gurfein on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

After he clerked on the Second Circuit, Michael Chertoff served as a clerk to a legendary jurist from the great State of New Jersey--U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan.

Justice Brennan was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1956 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he spent 34 years on the Court. He is universally regarded as one of the most influential Justices of the second half of the 20th century.

If Mr. Chertoff follows the legacy of his mentor, the Third Circuit is going to be in great hands.

In 1990, Mr. Chertoff became the U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey. He remained there until 1994. During his able tenure, he aggressively tackled organized crime, public corruption, health care, and bank fraud.

He also played a critical role in helping the New Jersey State Legislature

to investigate racial profiling. ``Driving while Black,'' as they say, should not be a crime in any State in the Nation, and I know Mr. Chertoff agrees. That is why I introduced the first bill in the Senate to ban racial profiling. And I am grateful to Mr. Chertoff for the interest he took in this matter at the State level.

As a result of Michael Chertoff's contribution, I am proud to report that just a couple of months ago New Jersey enacted the strongest antiracial profiling law in the Nation. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals is one of the most impressive courts in the country. Based on his past performance, I am confident Mr. Chertoff will fit right in.

As you know, I have strongly opposed some of the President's judicial nominees. I believe some of them are not appropriate for the Federal bench, not simply because they may not have compiled the kind of record that speaks to fairness and balance on the bench but because of a refusal, let's say, to even discuss the views they hold and what their background might be. I think it is inappropriate.

Again, I did not want to discuss the process. I want to discuss the individual. And that is where I think we ought to go. But in this case, we have a candidate, and I stand here as an American, as a Democrat as well, to fully support the appointment of Michael Chertoff because he has the talent and ability to render justice fairly.

I believe some of the nominees who came up were on a mission to curtail fundamental civil rights laws and protections. Others, as I said, have simply refused to answer important questions that would permit Senators to execute their constitutional duty for advice and consent.

The fact is, there are many highly qualified candidates that the President could nominate to the circuit courts, the appeals courts, who would enjoy broad support in the Senate from both Democrats and Republicans. Mr. Chertoff is one such candidate.

So I enthusiastically support his nomination to the Third Circuit. I urge my fellow Senators to support this consensus nominee who will serve the people of New Jersey and the Third Circuit ably and competently.

I thank you, Mr. President, and yield my remaining time to my colleague from New Jersey.