Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a critical piece of legislation, the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act.

In the aftermath of the tragic events of 9-11, the Federal Government has reassessed the Nation's vulnerabilities to acts and threats of terrorism.

And in response, the United States Congress gave the Department of Justice expanded powers to detain suspected terrorists, conduct surveillance and obtain confidential information on American citizens. In addition, we have created the new Department of Homeland Security-- the largest reorganization of the Federal Government since the 1940s.

In short, the events of 9-11 required us to reevaluate our safety concerns and the security of the Nation.

Echoing this need, President Bush said before the United Nations on November 10, 2001, that ``we have the responsibility to deny weapons to terrorists and to actively prevent private citizens from providing them.''

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. And I believe the American people want the U.S. Senate to follow through with concrete legislative action.

However, we have failed to address a significant remaining threat: the accessibility to firearms and explosives within our own borders.

How can we truly protect this Nation, if we do not enact legislation which prevents terrorists and potential terrorists from acquiring guns in the United States?

Terrorists have identified the lax gun laws of the United States as a means to advance their evil goal to terrorize and harm the American people.

In December 2001, during the war on terror, we attacked a terrorist training facility south of Kabul. Found among the rubble at that facility was a manual called: ``How I Can Train Myself for Jihad.''

This manual, contains an entire section on ``Firearms Training'' and singles out the United States for its easy availability of firearms. It stipulates that terrorists living in the U.S. should ``obtain an assault weapon legally, preferably AK-47 or variations.'' It also advises would-be terrorsts on how they should conduct themselves in order to avoid arousing suspicion as they amass and transport firearms.

There are other examples where terrorists have sought to take advantage of this nation's lax gun laws.

On the eve of the September 11 terrorist attack, on September 10, 2001, a Federal jury convicted Ali Boumelhem, a known member of the terrorist group Hezbollah on seven counts of weapons charges and conspiracy to ship weapons and ammunition to Lebanon.

And we have seen how firearms can be used to terrorize an entire community.

We are all familiar with the case of John Muhammad and John Malvo, who terrorized the Washington, DC area for more than three weeks as they embarked on a shooting spree with a sniper rifle, shooting 13 innocent people before being caught.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge agrees that there is a dangerous link between guns and terror. During his confirmation hearing before Governmental Affairs Committee on January 17, 2003, in response to a question I asked him about guns and terror, Secretary Ridge said:

[W]hen anyone uses a firearm, whether it's the kind of

terrorism that we are trying to combat with al Qaeda and

these non-state terrorists, or as a former district attorney

involved in the conviction of an individual who used firearms

against innocent citizens--regardless of how we define

terrorism, that individual and that family felt that they

were victims of a terrorist act. Brandishing a firearm in

front of anybody under any set of circumstances is a

terrorist act and needs to be dealt with.

Well, the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act deals with it. The Act deals with this threat that leaves America especially vulnerable to future terrorist attacks.

The Homeland Security Gun Safety Act would enact specific measures that would help prevent terrorists from acquiring firearms within our own borders.

Under current law, there are cases when law enforcement is blocked from conducting an adequate investigation when a terrorist or criminal tries to buy a gun.

Current law says if law enforcement takes over three days to conduct a background check on someone who wants a weapon--just hand over the gun.

That is ludicrous--especially when we are in an elevated state of terrorist threat.

When we are at Code Yellow, the Department of Homeland Security has determined that we are at a significant risk of terrorist attack.

The bill I am introducing today would suspend these loopholes in our gun safety laws when we are at Code Yellow or above in the interest of homeland security.

The three-day limit on law enforcement is nothing more than a loophole in our laws put there by the gun lobby.

And it's a dangerous loophole--a recent study showed that, from December 1998 to June 2001, nearly 10,000 people who should not have been permitted to buy guns, did receive guns because the three-day period passed before law enforcement could finish a background check.

Our bill will also require that the Federal Government retain records of weapons transactions while we are in an elevated state of alert. There is no reason we should handicap law enforcement during such a dangerous time.

This bill will also close a number of loopholes that have allowed rogue gun dealers to skirt the law. These are the same few gun dealers that are now the subject of lawsuits across the country.

These dangerous loopholes that the gun lobby built into our gun laws now pose a major threat to homeland security.

This bill will help shut down those loopholes. The bill would require gun dealers to: immediately report ``missing'' guns or face suspension of their license; and put appropriate security measures in place to prevent theft of their weapons; and check with the FBI's Stolen Gun Registry to make sure that secondhand weapons they purchase are not stolen.

This bill will also step up enforcement of gun dealers: law enforcement would not be restricted in its ability to inspect dealers. Currently, law enforcement is only allowed one unannounced inspection per year.

The bill will also increase the penalties for violations of gun dealer laws to a felony. Right now, the maximum penalty is only a misdemeanor. It has no teeth.

I know the NRA will cry wolf to gun owners about this bill. But this bill will not affect the vast majority of honest, law abiding Americans who want to purchase guns. This bill focuses on preventing weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists and criminals.

Over 75 percent of background checks are performed in mere minutes. However, there are those purchasers who raise red flags that require further investigation.

Those are red flags we can no longer afford to ignore.

When we are at Code Yellow, everyday Americans are prevented from taking a tour of the White House--but a terrorist can buy weapons.

It makes no sense.

This bill offers Congress a clear choice: protect our homeland or protect the gun lobby.

I ask unanimous consent that a summary of my bill, the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise to talk about Child Abuse Prevention Month. Child Abuse Prevention Month was established 20 years ago by Presidential proclamation and since then, this month has been devoted to raising awareness about this tragic problem.

This year holds particular sadness for those of us from New Jersey. This past January, 7-year-old Faheem Williams was found dead in a Newark, NJ, basement where he and his two brothers had been imprisoned for weeks. He had been starved and beaten. With Faheem were his twin, Raheem, and 4-year-old brother Tyrone, both of whom were found to be malnourished and dehydrated. All of this occurred under the supervision of the State agency that placed these three boys in foster care.

His death marks a tragic failure on the part of our State and country, as do the deaths of thousands of children each year. Mr. President, I was at Faheem's funeral. That day I said that it didn't matter whether his death was due to neglect or direct abuse. We cannot permit another child to go through this ever again.

Across the country last year, 879,000 children were victims of child abuse and neglect, of whom approximately 1,200 died from maltreatment. According to the national organization, Prevent Child Abuse America, three children die every day from abuse or neglect at the hands of those who are supposed to care for them. I don't need

to say that one is too many. Most disturbingly, confirmed reports of child abuse and neglect rose 3 percent in the last year nationwide. This is the second straight year child abuse has increased.

There is no doubt that child abuse and neglect continues to be a significant problem in the United States. Our children are our future, but their health and safety in our society continues to decline. Every one of us has a responsibility to work for the welfare of the Nation's children.

The Department of Health and Human Services runs a National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information, providing research and resources for prevention to individuals and communities. Many nonprofit organizations, State agencies, individual social workers, counselors, teachers, and clergy work tirelessly to determine when children are in danger. We need to support the individuals and groups who advocate for abused children, and the foster families who care for them.

Faheem Williams paid a terrible price for his little life and we must honor his memory and the memories of other victims of abuse by educating the country about the risks and signs of abuse and providing the resources available to stop it.

Mr. President, on April 1, 2003, Henry Schleiff, chairman and CEO of Court TV, was awarded the Cable Television Public Affairs Association, CTPAA, President's Award. CTPAA is a national organization that focuses on public affairs issues within the cable industry. I can think of no better person to be honored with this award considering the efforts Mr. Schleiff has put forth to serve his industry and the public community.

His career has featured an impressive array of both private and public service. Since his career began with HBO, Mr. Schleiff has moved up the ranks of the entertainment industry--from senior vice president of business affairs and administration for HBO and head of HBO Enterprises in the 1980s, to executive producer for Viacom International Inc. and CEO of Viacom's Broadcast and Entertainment Groups in the early 1990s, to executive vice-president for Studios USA in the late 1990s. Mr. Schleiff has been the CEO of Court TV since December 1999 and has been the catalyst for its revival. Under his leadership, Court TV has become one of the most successful basic cable networks in the industry, growing from 30 million subscribers to nearly 80 million in just 4 years.

Equally impressive are Mr. Schleiff's efforts for the public community. He is vice chairman of the board of directors for the International Radio & Television Society Foundation, Inc. IRTS, and he serves on the board of directors of the International Council, The Creative Coalition, and Theatreworks. Court TV's Choices and Consequences education program, already in more than 100,000 schools, encourages children to make responsible decisions and positive contributions to society. The ``Everyday Heroes'' program honors brave and courageous individuals who made personal sacrifices or significant contributions.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Mr. Schleiff's award acceptance speech be printed in the Record.

I would appreciate that. And I will make sure that I do not run longer than that.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague

from North Dakota. I think perhaps my tenure as ranking member was the last time we had a balanced budget. But that is intended to be a joke, and I hope the Parliamentarian so notes it.

Mr. President, the conference report to the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution is a curiosity at best. This piece of legislation, if it is adopted, will likely become as notorious, perhaps, as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930.

When President Bush assumed office in January of 2001, he inherited a 10-year surplus forecast, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, of $5.6 trillion.

Now, if this budget resolution is adopted, instead of a surplus, we are going to wind up with close to a $2.0 trillion deficit, according to CBO.

A Republican President and a Republican Congress are presiding over a 10-year $7.6 trillion reversal of economic fortune. And they are going to blame it on the recession that began in March of 2001, and they are going to blame it on 9/11, and they are going to blame it on the war against terrorism, the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq.

No, no, no. The single biggest contributor--and everybody should listen carefully and look at the numbers to confirm this--the single biggest contributor to that deficit is the 2001 tax cut, which the President wants to make even bigger, even longer.

The administration and its allies in Congress will say that tax cuts are necessary to ``grow'' the economy. The only things growing in our economy are the number of people without jobs, the budget deficits, publicly held debt, and interest payments on that debt.

There is an old saying: When you're in a hole, quit digging. And that is what we ought to do.

One would think that much would be obvious to the administration and its Republican friends in Congress. Hundreds of prominent economists-- literally hundreds--including 11 Nobel prize winners, have come out against these tax cuts.

It sounds like plain, old common sense to me. But the administration and those who control Congress seem immune to that kind of common sense--the kind of common sense that ordinary working families and business leaders from the smallest to the biggest companies use every day: spend less than what you take in.

I will tell you why the administration and the Republicans in Congress seem to be immune to common sense: It is the triumph of a political ideology over good fiscal management. Our Government, paradoxically, is now in the control of people who hate Government.

The tax cuts are not really meant to stimulate the economy; they are deliberately intended to reward well-heeled friends and create a budget crisis that forces us to cut important programs and permits them to turn the jobs of hard-working, loyal Government employees over to private sector contractors who claim they can do things at a cheaper price.

There's a problem with this scheme. People who depend on the programs will get hurt and on the job front, we just converted a huge baggage screening operation at airports across the country, with 28,000 employees, to the Federal Government because the private sector was handling it so poorly.

Republicans have a name for this ``deliberate deficit'' strategy. They call it ``Starving the beast.'' Don't take my word for it. Listen to the words of two influential Republicans, economist Milton Friedman and activist Grover Norquist.

On January 15, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed piece written by Milton Friedman, entitled, ``What Every American Wants.'' Part of what he wrote reads as follows:

. . . how can we ever cut government down to size? I

believe there is one and only one way: the way parents

control spendthrift children, cutting their allowance. For

government that means cutting taxes.

That's Milton Friedman's interpretation of Congress: spendthrift children.

He went on to say:

. . . Resulting deficits will be an effective--I would go

so far as to say, the only effective--restraint on the

spending propensities of the executive branch and the

legislature.

He concluded by saying:

. . . a major tax cut will be a step toward the smaller

government that I believe most citizens of the U.S. want.

The last part is a pretty breathtaking statement for someone who has never been elected to any public office. But more important, the op-ed piece reveals the utterly cynical strategy of deliberately creating deficits ``as far as the eye can see'' until the public becomes sufficiently alarmed to demand some responsibility out of its elected officials.

I also mentioned Grover Norquist who heads Americans for Tax Reform. On May 21, 2001, Mr. Norquist appeared on National Public Radio's ``Morning Edition'' and said:

I simply want to reduce it [government] to the size where I

can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.

Interestingly, Mr. Norquist, who is another person who has never been elected to any public office, denied making such a statement in a more recent interview with Bill Moyers. But, as the saying goes: You can look it up. I have the transcript.

I simply want to reduce it [government] to the size where I

can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.

So, according to Messrs. Friedman and Norquist, elected officials are nothing more than spendthrift children and government--Social Security and Medicare, environmental protection and Pell Grants, national parks and the Coast Guard, veterans' benefits and disaster relief, the SEC and the FBI and all other hard-working, loyal Federal employees--are all things that should be drowned in the bathtub.

If this budget resolution is adopted, unified deficits will reach record levels in 2003 and 2004 of $347 billion and $350 billion, respectively, and will total more than $1.7 trillion through 2013.

Excluding Social Security, deficits will reach $558 billion in 2004-- that is the coming year--and will exceed $400 billion in every year through 2008, and will total more than $4.5 trillion by 2013.

When the government runs deficits long enough, then Congress has to raise the debt ceiling. That is what happens. If we spend too much or, in this instance, cut revenues too deeply, the government has to go ahead and borrow money to meet its needs.

The majority doesn't have the courage and probably doesn't have the votes to bring up free-standing legislation to increase the debt limit. So they resorted to a ploy: Under House Rule XXVII, adoption of the conference report before us will result in the House being ``deemed'' to have passed a joint resolution increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.

This conference report states that the conferees anticipate that the debt ceiling will be raised from $6.4 trillion to nearly $7 trillion, an increase of $984 billion. That is the single biggest increase in the debt limit in history, surpassing the $915 billion increase the first Bush administration needed in 1990.

The debt ceiling was under $6 trillion when this administration took over, and we were actually moving away from it because we were running budget surpluses. If we adopt the administration's budget blueprint today, the debt ceiling will have to be doubled to $12 trillion by 2013. That is an extra $6 trillion in debt.

The amounts are staggering. It is hard to put them into a format that everybody can understand, but I'll try: this extra $6 trillion amounts to $21,429 worth of debt for every man, woman, and child in America.

This is what is happening while we are at war and with the baby boom generation on the verge of retirement. It would be impossible to mangle things so badly by accident. It can only be done by design.

The triumph of ideology may bring joy to those currently in power; the ideologues in control may think that their ``starve the beast'' strategy will make our country stronger. But the problem with ideologues is that they shape reality to fit their ideology. It should be the other way around.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, ``the trouble with our conservative friends isn't that they are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so.''

Destroying the Government will not stimulate the economy. It will cripple it. Starving the beast will not strengthen our Nation. It will weaken it, immeasurably and perhaps permanently.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this budget resolution conference report that is as cynical as it is reckless.

I yield the floor.

Mental Health Parity Assumption

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``State and Local Reservist First Responders Assistance Act of 2003.'' My bill would reimburse State and local governments for the additional costs they incur when their first responders who also serve in the National Guard or the Reserves are called to active duty for 6 or more months.

I am pleased to have as original cosponsors of my bill Senators Clinton, Corzine, Daschle, Leahy, Mikulski, Sarbanes, and Schumer.

The 1.2 million men and women who serve in the Guard and the Reserves are a crucial component of our military. They account for just 8.3 percent of the Defense budget but give us the capability, if necessary, or nearly doubling our Armed Forces personnel.

Not surprisingly, many police, fire, rescue, emergency medical service, and emergency hazardous material disposal personnel serve in the Guard and the Reserves. More and more of these men and women are being called to active duty for longer and longer tours, especially now because of the war with Iraq.

It's critical that we bolster our military capabilities here and abroad. But we must not do it at the expense of our safety and security at home.

Increasingly, I am hearing from State and local officials who are concerned about the toll that Guard and Reserve call-ups are taking on emergency preparedness.

It can be a major problem in smaller towns where just a few call-ups can decimate a local fire or police department. The Town of Ridgewood, for instance, had a patrolman called up who also headed the EMS, emergency medical services. It is costing the town $200,000 to replace him.

Because of the recession that began in March 2001 and the effects of 9-11, State and local governments are financially strapped. We shouldn't leave them ``holding the bag'' when their first responders get called to active duty for months at a time.

My bill would establish a grant program to be administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DHS. State and local units of government could apply for grants to cover the unanticipated costs associated with replacing a first responder called to active duty for 6 months or more.

Reimbursable costs could include the salary and benefits associated with hiring a temporary replacement or the overtime paid to other emergency personnel who ``fill in'' for the first responder called to active duty.

If a jurisdiction does not pay its reservist and uses the savings to hire a temporary replacement or pay others overtime, those ``costs'' would not be reimbursable. Only net additional costs would be reimbursable.

My bill will help communities in my home State of New Jersey and across the country maintain their ability to respond to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other emergencies.

A logical question to ask regarding my bill is, ``How much does it cost?'' The candid answer is, ``I don't know.''

The bill authorizes the appropriation of ``such sums as may be necessary.''

The stipulation in the bill that the first responders must be called to active duty for 6 or more consecutive months is meant to keep the costs of the bill under control and to ensure that the grant program is administratively feasible.

I have tried, so far unsuccessfully, to get a handle on how many first responders have been called to active duty, and for how long. It appears that no one is really keeping track.

The anecdotal evidence of the need for my bill, however, is overwhelming.

According to the Department of Defense, there are a total of 221,186 Reservists and National Guardsmen and women on active duty right now. Many of them, obviously, are first responders.

According to the Police Executive Research Forum, PERF, 452 of 1002 law enforcement agencies and departments across the country surveyed so far have lost personnel to call-ups.

The Democratic Leadership Council, DLC, has determined that 27 of the 44 police departments it has surveyed are experiencing personnel shortfalls caused, in part, by military call-ups.

Of the remaining 17 departments, 15 are in danger of being hurt by call-ups.

According to the DLC, ``About 5 percent of the officers in these departments are reservists or members of the National Guard--and many are already being called up for service in the wars against terrorism, Afghanistan, and Iraq. On average, the activation of only 30 percent of these reserves would cause a personnel shortage in these departments.''

The DLC report, entitled ``Cop Crunch'' and previewed in the March/ April issue of Blueprint, lists the following ten jurisdictions as most vulnerable to military call-ups: 1. Fresno, which has about 100 reservists who make up 14.4 percent of the force; 2. Virginia Beach, which has 90 reservists who make up 12.1 percent of the force; 3. Milwaukee, which has 110 reservists who make up 8.2 percent of the force; 4. Miami, which has 86 reservists who make up 8.0 percent of the force; 5. Memphis, which has 143 reservists who make up 7.5 percent of the force; 6. San Antonio, which has 151 reservists who make up 7.4 percent of the force; 7. Los Angeles, which has 650 reservists who make up 7.3 percent of the force; 8. Oklahoma City, which has 70 reservists who make up 6.8 percent of the force; 9. Wichita, which has 41 reservists who make up 6.7 percent of the force; and 10. New Orleans, which has 109 reservists who make up 6.7 percent of the force.

The DLC report also highlighted Baltimore's police department. The City has lost the equivalent of an entire police district, 150 officers, to active duty call-ups.

So, the need for my bill is obvious. State and local governments desperately need our help. We shouldn't put our own communities, our own citizens, at risk to win the war with Iraq.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``State and Local Reservist First Responders Assistance Act of 2003.'' My bill would reimburse State and local governments for the additional costs they incur when their first responders who also serve in the National Guard or the Reserves are called to active duty for 6 or more months.

I am pleased to have as original cosponsors of my bill Senators Clinton, Corzine, Daschle, Leahy, Mikulski, Sarbanes, and Schumer.

The 1.2 million men and women who serve in the Guard and the Reserves are a crucial component of our military. They account for just 8.3 percent of the Defense budget but give us the capability, if necessary, or nearly doubling our Armed Forces personnel.

Not surprisingly, many police, fire, rescue, emergency medical service, and emergency hazardous material disposal personnel serve in the Guard and the Reserves. More and more of these men and women are being called to active duty for longer and longer tours, especially now because of the war with Iraq.

It's critical that we bolster our military capabilities here and abroad. But we must not do it at the expense of our safety and security at home.

Increasingly, I am hearing from State and local officials who are concerned about the toll that Guard and Reserve call-ups are taking on emergency preparedness.

It can be a major problem in smaller towns where just a few call-ups can decimate a local fire or police department. The Town of Ridgewood, for instance, had a patrolman called up who also headed the EMS, emergency medical services. It is costing the town $200,000 to replace him.

Because of the recession that began in March 2001 and the effects of 9-11, State and local governments are financially strapped. We shouldn't leave them ``holding the bag'' when their first responders get called to active duty for months at a time.

My bill would establish a grant program to be administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DHS. State and local units of government could apply for grants to cover the unanticipated costs associated with replacing a first responder called to active duty for 6 months or more.

Reimbursable costs could include the salary and benefits associated with hiring a temporary replacement or the overtime paid to other emergency personnel who ``fill in'' for the first responder called to active duty.

If a jurisdiction does not pay its reservist and uses the savings to hire a temporary replacement or pay others overtime, those ``costs'' would not be reimbursable. Only net additional costs would be reimbursable.

My bill will help communities in my home State of New Jersey and across the country maintain their ability to respond to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other emergencies.

A logical question to ask regarding my bill is, ``How much does it cost?'' The candid answer is, ``I don't know.''

The bill authorizes the appropriation of ``such sums as may be necessary.''

The stipulation in the bill that the first responders must be called to active duty for 6 or more consecutive months is meant to keep the costs of the bill under control and to ensure that the grant program is administratively feasible.

I have tried, so far unsuccessfully, to get a handle on how many first responders have been called to active duty, and for how long. It appears that no one is really keeping track.

The anecdotal evidence of the need for my bill, however, is overwhelming.

According to the Department of Defense, there are a total of 221,186 Reservists and National Guardsmen and women on active duty right now. Many of them, obviously, are first responders.

According to the Police Executive Research Forum, PERF, 452 of 1002 law enforcement agencies and departments across the country surveyed so far have lost personnel to call-ups.

The Democratic Leadership Council, DLC, has determined that 27 of the 44 police departments it has surveyed are experiencing personnel shortfalls caused, in part, by military call-ups.

Of the remaining 17 departments, 15 are in danger of being hurt by call-ups.

According to the DLC, ``About 5 percent of the officers in these departments are reservists or members of the National Guard--and many are already being called up for service in the wars against terrorism, Afghanistan, and Iraq. On average, the activation of only 30 percent of these reserves would cause a personnel shortage in these departments.''

The DLC report, entitled ``Cop Crunch'' and previewed in the March/ April issue of Blueprint, lists the following ten jurisdictions as most vulnerable to military call-ups: 1. Fresno, which has about 100 reservists who make up 14.4 percent of the force; 2. Virginia Beach, which has 90 reservists who make up 12.1 percent of the force; 3. Milwaukee, which has 110 reservists who make up 8.2 percent of the force; 4. Miami, which has 86 reservists who make up 8.0 percent of the force; 5. Memphis, which has 143 reservists who make up 7.5 percent of the force; 6. San Antonio, which has 151 reservists who make up 7.4 percent of the force; 7. Los Angeles, which has 650 reservists who make up 7.3 percent of the force; 8. Oklahoma City, which has 70 reservists who make up 6.8 percent of the force; 9. Wichita, which has 41 reservists who make up 6.7 percent of the force; and 10. New Orleans, which has 109 reservists who make up 6.7 percent of the force.

The DLC report also highlighted Baltimore's police department. The City has lost the equivalent of an entire police district, 150 officers, to active duty call-ups.

So, the need for my bill is obvious. State and local governments desperately need our help. We shouldn't put our own communities, our own citizens, at risk to win the war with Iraq.

I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania.

Less than 10 minutes.

Once again, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania. And I assure my friend from North Dakota, although it is not my time to give, I am happy he is going to be recognized.

Mr. President, I want to take just a few minutes to talk about the legislation before us, the CARE Act, and note its timeliness, because I think fundamental to a lot of good ideas is the fact that it is time to encourage participation in the spirit of harmony and unity within our country.

I have been struck by the fact I have not heard a call for either participation or voluntary--call it sacrifice, if you will, although compared to what our young men and women are doing in Iraq, nothing we are going to do here looks like that much of a sacrifice--but it does show good intent. To me, that is important.

So I am pleased the sponsors of this bill, Senators Lieberman and Santorum, have agreed to make this more palatable by removing controversial language that raised some constitutional and civil rights concerns.

The bill contains several very good provisions, including changes to the Tax Code we all hope will increase charitable giving and certainly encourage the spirit of charitable giving, as well as being an incentive.

In addition, the bill increases funding for the social services block grant by over $1 billion. That will restore some of the cuts that have been made in the program over the years. This increase in the social services block grant funding will benefit thousands of Americans who are suffering in this economy, who truly need help.

If the President's faith-based initiative means anything, then, obviously, this dedication of funding for charitable work by religious and secular charities confirms that is an appropriate thing to do; that is, to look to our charitable interests to firm up the fact we do feel some commitment to commemorate the sacrifice that is being made by so many.

If this funding disappears in conference, I think it would be tragic because it would say, OK, if it passes the Senate--and I certainly hope and believe it will--and then suddenly this mystery hole opens up between here and the House of Representatives--and these things often fall in it--then it is left to people who have a curiosity about what happened, as they say, on the way to the other forum, when things just disappear. But it is a convenient sleight of hand for those who really don't want to support it but don't want to be identified with withdrawing their support.

So even though this bill is silent on civil rights issues, the President's overall faith-based initiative contains some disturbing civil rights problems. The President has announced several policies that I think should trouble Americans who care deeply about civil justice and equality.

The President has issued an Executive order that authorizes organizations that receive Federal funding to discriminate in employment--it is based on religion--for Government-funded positions. That is not fair, it is not appropriate, and I certainly don't think it is appropriate for faith-based organizations.

A policy that says ``Catholics need not apply'' should never, ever be funded by the Federal Government. If a religious group wants to restrict employment with their own money, that is their business, but they should not be able to discriminate in staffing up Government programs paid for with public dollars, tax dollars.

The American people agree. A poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 78 percent of Americans oppose allowing religious groups that receive Federal funding to discriminate in employment.

And it is not merely a hypothetical problem. It is a real-life problem.

In Georgia, a man named Alan Yorker sent his resume to a Government- funded faith-based program for troubled youths. The position he sought was paid for with taxpayer dollars. The faith-based group said they were impressed with his resume and called him in for an interview. When Mr. Yorker arrived, he was asked to fill out an application form. The form asked for the name of his church. He wrote in the name of his synagogue. It also asked for the name of his pastor, and he filled in his rabbi's name.

When he sat down for the interview, he was told, straight out, they don't hire Jews. A former employee of the organization later told Mr. Yorker they usually throw resumes with ``Jewish-sounding names'' in the trash, but they did not recognize his last name as Jewish.

This was a taxpayer-funded job to perform social service work pursuant to a Government program. And President Bush thinks maybe it is OK to deny someone employment because they are of a different persuasion.

The administration thinks it is fine for a Government-funded program to tell a Catholic or a Mormon they can't get a taxpayer-funded job simply because of their religion. Well, I disagree. I think it is wrong. And I am going to join my colleagues, Senators Reed and Durbin, in fighting it during this session of Congress.

Again, I commend the sponsors of this legislation. The Senator from Pennsylvania did a very good job, I believe, in developing this legislation, for removing the controversial provisions from the bill before us.

I hope the bill will further the good work that faith-based and secular charities do every day. While this bill moves in the right direction, the administration is on, I believe, the wrong track regarding civil rights. I hope the President will reverse that course.

Mr. President, our faith should bring us together, not divide us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on April 26, 2003, more than 1,200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, DC, to compete in the national finals of the ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution'' program. Administered by the Center for Civic Education and funded by the U.S. Department of Education, this program is designed to educate students about the importance and contemporary relevance of the Constitution. The program provides curricular materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels and incorporates critical thinking and problem-solving activities to complement the information gathered in classrooms, and gleaned from textbooks.

I am proud to announce that the class from East Brunswick High School will represent my home State of New Jersey in this national event. These young scholars have worked conscientiously to reach the national finals by participating at local and statewide competitions. They have earned the honor to come to Washington for the national competition, which is modeled after a congressional hearing and includes oral testimony and questioning before a panel of judges.

It is inspiring to see these young people advocate the ideals and principles of our Government, and I wish these budding constitutional experts from East Brunswick, NJ, the best of luck at the ``We the People'' national finals.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by our colleagues, Senator Schumer, Senator Clinton, and Senator Mikulski.

The amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania, too, is an amendment that has to be considered favorably. This amendment would provide desperately needed funds to State and local governments to bolster their emergency preparedness. I am pleased the amendment sponsors have included my proposal to reimburse State and local governments for additional costs that they are incurring because they have not replaced the first responders called to active duty in the Reserves or National Guard.

Not surprisingly, many local police and fire and rescue and emergency medical service and hazardous material disposal personnel serve in the National Guard and Reserves. More and more, these men and women are being called up for longer and longer tours of active duty, and especially now that the war with Iraq is underway. It is critical that we bolster our military capabilities here and abroad but that we not do it at the expense of our safety and security at home.

I have spoken to a lot of mayors in New Jersey. New Jersey shared the impact of the terrible assault on the Trade Centers with New York, as 700 of our citizens died that day. What perplexes them is the fact that here they are being asked to bolster the defenses at home, to make sure they cover the emergency needs, and, in many instances, it takes people away to serve either in the Reserves or the National Guard, to put them on active duty.

They do not understand--and I agree with them--why it is we cannot take care of our defenses with strength at home as well as abroad.

I am pleased that the amendment sponsors have included my proposal to reimburse State and local governments and Indian tribes for the additional costs they incur replacing their first responders who are called to active duty in the Reserves or National Guard.

The 1.2 million men and women who serve in the National Guard and Reserves are a crucial component of our military. They account for just 8.3 percent of the Defense budget but give us the capability, if necessary, of nearly doubling our armed forces.

Not surprisingly, many local police, fire, rescue, emergency medical service, and emergency hazardous material disposal personnel serve in the National Guard and Reserves. More and more of these men and women are being called up for longer and longer tours of active duty, especially now that the war with Iraq has begun.

It is critical that we bolster our military capabilities here and abroad. But we must not do it at the expense of our safety and security at home.

Our local communities must have the necessary personnel to respond to terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies.

My proposal would reimburse State, local, and tribal governments for the additional costs they incur when their ``first responders'' who serve in the Reserves and the National Guard are called to active duty for 6 or more consecutive months.

Reimbursable costs could include the salary and benefits associated with hiring a replacement or the overtime paid to other emergency personnel who ``fill in'' for the first responder called to active duty.

The effect of my amendment would be to make such reimbursements an authorized use of the $500 million contained in the underlying provision.

Increasingly, I am hearing from State and local officials who are concerned about the toll that active duty call-ups are taking on their emergency preparedness.

According to the Police Executive Research Forum, 452 of 1,002 law enforcement agencies and departments surveyed so far have lost personnel to call-ups.

The problem is worse in rural and smaller jurisdictions where just a few call-ups can decimate a police or fire department.

State and local governments are facing their worst fiscal crisis in over 50 years. We shouldn't leave them ``holding the bag'' when their first responders get called up. And we should not be making our communities less able to respond to terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies.

Again, I thank my colleagues from New York and Senator Mikulski for accommodating my proposal. I think my language makes a good amendment even better and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a brave New Jersey resident, 31 year old Sgt. James Riley, one of the prisoners of war now being held in Iraq. On behalf of the Senate, I would like to express my support for his family and for the families of the other American POWs being held in Iraq.

On March 23, 12 members of the 507th Maintenance Co, part of the 111th Air

Defense Artillery Brigade stationed in Fort Bliss, Texas, took a wrong turn near An Nasiriyah, a key battle ground city on the Euphrates River in southern Iraq. Iraqi forces ambushed their unit. Five soldiers, including Riley, were taken prisoner of war. The remainder were most likely killed, although their deaths have not been confirmed. Subsequently, Iraqi state-run television aired a gruesome videotape of interviews with Sgt. Riley and the other POWs, and displayed chilling shots of four murdered American servicemen and women. This videotape was then broadcast by television networks all over the world, including the influential Qatar-based Al Jazeera.

Sgt. Riley's family, including his parents Athol and Jane Riley, are waiting anxiously for information on their son's condition. The Rileys have experienced a tremendous loss this week; their daughter, age 29, died last Friday after suffering from a rare neurological illness that had left her in a coma since late January. My heart goes out to the Rileys and their friends and family during this painful time.

James Riley moved to New Jersey from New Zealand when he was 10 years old. He attended West Field Friends Grade School and he graduated from the Pennsauken High School in 1990. According to his parents, he had always dreamed of serving in the Army and he enlisted immediately after he graduated from high school.

I am confident that our superior military will find and rescue the American POWs. In the meantime, I pledge my support for all service men and women serving in the Persian Gulf and for their anxious families at home.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a moving story about James Riley printed in the New York Times on April 2, 2003. This story illuminates the quiet courage displayed by the Rileys as they wait for news of their son, as well as the communal support extended to them by their neighbors.

Madam President, I thank our good friend from Arkansas.

Madam President, the floor is open principally to pay our respects to our citizens, our friends, and our neighbors who are serving now in the Iraqi theater to try to right a terrible wrong that has been perpetrated on the world; and that is, to make sure we get rid of the savage regime of Saddam Hussein and the threat he brings not only to the people in that region but to people across the world.

People recognize that were he to continue unfettered in his capacity to develop his military might, it would be quite incredible to witness. The fact is, we are there with so much force and so much skill and so much technology, and still we are facing constant obstacles to our mission of getting rid of the regime and reducing the threat or eliminating the threat that these weapons might bring to that area and to the world at large.

New Jersey is the home of McGuire Air Force Base. That is a base that has had members leaving for conflicts over the years, and particularly with the first gulf war in 1990 and presently, and other conflicts that we have seen, because of the mobility of an air wing that we have there to refuel aircraft in the air, both cargo and fighter craft, as well as carrying cargo of substantial proportion and need to the theater so our troops have facilities with which to take care of their needs personally as well as, unfortunately, those facilities that might be called upon if they are wounded or injured in any way.

At this moment, New Jersey has about 5,000 people deployed from various Reserve and regular Army and Marine units, as well as other branches of the military.

One person, SGT James Riley, was someone we saw on television not very long ago being questioned by his captors, the Iraqis. We have been trying to contact his family to offer our services in whatever way we can, and to see if we can find out something about how he is being treated, to make sure the rules of the Geneva Convention are observed to the letter in the treatment of prisoners. They cannot, under any kind of a rule of civilization or treaties,

manhandle prisoners. It is not permitted. You are not permitted to interview on public media. And you are not permitted to interrogate in public. We want the Iraqis to know there is a price to pay for that kind of action. We demand they observe all the conventions that relate to prisoners and their treatment.

At the same time, I wish to pay tribute to a dear friend who passed away yesterday, Senator forever, Pat Moynihan.

I came to the Senate 6 years after he arrived here, and we served together for 18 years. We left together at the same time in 2001.

I personally will miss him and think fondly of the moments we shared together, but, at the same time, say thank goodness--thank goodness-- that this place and this country had Senator Pat Moynihan.

He was a great man, with a brilliant mind, an incredible wealth of knowledge. He will have left a mark forever on our Government and on our society, even at a time when our culture has exhibited an ephemeral quality.

We can think of the moments we shared with him, all of us who had the good fortune to serve with him. Because New York and New Jersey are neighboring States and have many similar concerns, he and I worked closely on many issues. We served together on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

He will be rightfully remembered as one of the giants who have served in this Senate. He will be able to be compared to the greats at the founding of this country because his half century of contributions to this body and to New York and to the region and to the Nation and to the world are immeasurable.

He, like many who are serving now and have served, was born in modest circumstances and was raised in an area on the west side of New York called Hell's Kitchen, a rough and tumble area. He joined the Navy. He served in World War II. And then he went on to earn degrees at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

In the early 1950s, Pat Moynihan worked for the International Rescue Committee, one of the earliest and most effective human rights organizations. Then he joined the administration of New York Governor Averill Harriman, where he met his beloved wife and someone we all love, Liz.

Pat and Liz came to Washington with the Kennedy administration, and Pat went on to serve in the cabinet or subcabinet of the next three Presidents, two of whom were Republicans. He served as U.S. Ambassador to India and as U.S. Representative to the United Nations.

All the while, he had a busy and prolific career in academia, with teaching positions at Syracuse and Harvard and other universities. It is often said that Pat Moynihan has written more books than most people have read. And those books were on subjects as diverse as ethnicity, welfare policy, secrecy as form of regulation, and international law. His books and essays and op-eds were always erudite and displayed a wit and wisdom and grace few people have. His books were so well received, whenever they were produced.

I doubt anyone else ever entered the United States Senate with a greater breadth of experience or knowledge. Pat Moynihan was made for the Senate, and the Senate was made for men like Pat Moynihan.

Pat was not only a great intellectual; he was a man of principles, deeply held and eloquently expressed. And yet he had that remarkable ability of being able to disagree without being disagreeable. There isn't a single Member of the Senate who served with him who didn't also love and revere him.

We are poorer for Pat's passing, but rather than dwell on that, I would like to express my gratitude that someone with such inestimable talents and energies devoted them to public service. We are definitely richer for that.

We send our sympathy to Liz Moynihan, and to the children, Timothy and Maura and John, and to the grandchildren, Michael Patrick and Zora.

We live in tumultuous and dangerous times. No one understood that better than Pat Moynihan, and we would benefit from his counsel. I will include for the Record a commencement address that Pat delivered at Harvard University about world events and foreign policy, and I commend it to my colleagues.

On a more personal note, my legislative director, Gray Maxwell, was Pat's legislative director from 1995 to 2000. When Pat retired, Gray wrote a tribute that was printed in Long Island Newsday. I will also ask that the tribute be printed in the Record.

In closing, I note that one of Pat's great abiding passions was public works--not just in New York but here in Washington. He authored much of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA, he fought for Amtrak and mass transit, he wrote the guiding principles for federal architecture, he shepherded the Union Station redevelopment and the Thurgood Marshall and Ronald Reagan buildings to completion, and he almost single-handedly transformed Pennsylvania Avenue. I think what was written in St. Paul's Cathedral in London for Sir Christopher Wren would serve as an equally fitting tribute to Pat Moynihan: Si monumentum requiris circumspice [If you would see the man's monument, look about you.].

I ask unanimous consent that his commencement address delivered at Harvard University on June 6, 2002, to which I referred, and an article written by a person on my staff, Gray Maxwell, who was on the Moynihan staff before that, that demonstrates beautifully the character and capability Pat Moynihan brought to his job and to all of us, be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I pay tribute to one of my constituents who is celebrating her retirement from the government of Camden County. Alma Zwick first joined county government in 1978 as a Clerk Typist. On April 1 of this year she will officially retire as a Purchasing Expeditor. For 25 years she has dedicated herself to helping her community be a better place.

Ms. Zwick has also been involved civically in Haddon Township. Throughout the years she has served as Vice-President of the Haddon Township Democrat Club and as a Committeewoman of the township. She has also been a member of the Haddon Township Rent Control Board and treasurer of the Haddonview Tenants' Association.

Just as Alma Zwick has been dedicated to her fellow citizens, she has also been dedicated to her family of three brothers, three sisters and 28 nieces and nephews.

I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Alma Zwick for her 25 years of service to Camden County.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a brave human being. Robert Giorgio is the Fire Chief in the town of Cherry Hill, New Jersey. In April of last year Chief Giorgio put himself in harm's way and performed honorably in the face of danger.

It was April 3, 2002, and Chief Giorgio was in his office when he heard reports of a vehicle that had crashed over a highway overpass on a State highway in Cherry Hill. Although not required to respond to the incident, Chief Giorgio chose to do so.

When Chief Giorgio arrived on the scene he saw that the car was suspended about five feet above the ground, just barely held in place by a small tree. There was also a fire from the engine compartment that was spreading into the interior of the car. The driver, Deborah Trainor, was pinned behind the steering wheel.

Chief Giorgio gave orders to arriving firefighters and directed civilians to use portable fire extinguishers. He quickly realized that the units dispatched by the fire department would not reach the scene by the time the fire reached Ms. Trainor. Understanding the gravity of the situation Chief Giorgio placed himself beneath the vehicle in an attempt to free her. To say that there was a serious chance of the car falling on the Chief is a severe understatement. Though Ms. Trainor was burned by the fire, Chief Giorgio was successful in freeing her from the car.

I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring and saluting this brave American. Chief Robert Giorgio acted with honor and bravery in putting himself in harm's way to save another person's life.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a truly extraordinary citizen of New Jersey and America. Vincent Bove is the region manager for Summit Security Services, Inc. His region covers the New York metropolitan area and his more than 2,000 officers secure sites including NBC Studios, JFK International Airport, and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Prior to September 11, 2001, Summit Security had 300 officers at the World Trade Center, many of whom assisted with the evacuation of the two towers.

Mr. Bove is also a nationally acclaimed expert on school violence in America. Since the Columbine tragedy in 1999, Mr. Bove has given presentations to over 15,000 educators, corporate representatives, and law enforcement officials. He also trained 100 New York Police Department Crime Prevention Specialists in advanced techniques of crime prevention and community policing.

Recently, the American Police Hall of Fame conferred five nationally acclaimed medals to Vincent Bove, including the Medal of Honor for Public Service for outstanding leadership skills in reducing crime and assisting law enforcement throughout the United States; the J. Edgar Hoover Gold Medal for his leadership in police and private security issues as a nationally respected law enforcement instructor; the Knights of Justice Medal for his outstanding service exemplifying the Biblical Act of the Good Samaritan in protecting the community; the Patriotism Medal for promoting faithfulness to the Federal, State, and local laws and for supporting the Constitution and Bill of Rights; and the Civilian Medal of Appreciation for leadership in private security, which assists law enforcement officers.

He was also named the North Jersey Regional Crime Prevention Officers Association Recipient for ``Exceptional Service to Crime Prevention for 2002.'' This award recognizes Mr. Bove for his achievements in the reduction of crime on both a local and national level. The same organization also recognized Mr. Bove with the 2002 ``Presidential Award for Dedicated Service'' for his service to the organization and the community.

Vincent Bove is an amazing individual. He dedicates his life to making his fellow citizens and communities safer and more secure. I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring Vincent Bove for his sense of duty, determination, and dedication in making our country a safer and more secure place to live.