Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act of 2003. This legislation would address a serious flaw in our Nation's regional fisheries management system by adding Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), which currently consists of representatives from New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.

The MAFMC manages the following 13 species, all of which are landed in Rhode Island: Illex squid, loligo squid, Atlantic mackerel, black sea bass, bluefish, butterfish, monkfish, scup, spiny dogfish, summer flounder, surfclam, ocean quahog, and tilefish.

In 2001, the most recent year for which final data are available, Rhode Island fishermen brought in over 21 percent of MAFMC landings by weight--more than any of the MAFMC member States except New Jersey, which is responsible for about 56 percent of total MAFMC landings. In fact, with the exception of New Jersey, Rhode Island's total 2001 MAFMC landings, 44.1 million pounds, nearly equaled those of all other MAFMC member States combined, 45.9 million pounds.

If Rhode Island fishermen are responsible for a large percentage of overall MAFMC landings, these species make up an even larger proportion of landings within Rhode Island every year. Between 1995 and 2002, MAFMC species represented between 29 percent and 58 percent of all finfish landed in Rhode Island annually, for an average of 43 percent of total landings by weight. In eight of the years between 1990 and 2002, squid, Illex and loligo, was the number one finfish landed in Rhode Island, with a value of between $13 million and $20 million annually.

Yet Rhode Island has no voice in the management of these species.

Following council tradition and Federal fisheries law, the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act would create two seats on the MAFMC for Rhode Island: one seat nominated by the Governor of Rhode Island and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, and a second seat filled by Rhode Island's principal State official with marine fishery management responsibility. The MAFMC would increase in size from 21 voting members to 23.

There is a precedent for this proposed legislation. In 1996, North Carolina's representatives in Congress succeeded in adding that State to the MAFMC through an amendment to the Sustainable Fisheries Act. Like Rhode Island, a significant proportion of North Carolina's landed fish species were managed by the MAFMC, yet the State had no vote on the council. Today, Rhode Island's share of total landings for species managed by the MAFMC is more than six times greater than that of North Carolina.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to restore a measure of equity to the fisheries management process by passing the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act of 2003. This legislation would address a serious flaw in our Nation's regional fisheries management system by adding Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), which currently consists of representatives from New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.

The MAFMC manages the following 13 species, all of which are landed in Rhode Island: Illex squid, loligo squid, Atlantic mackerel, black sea bass, bluefish, butterfish, monkfish, scup, spiny dogfish, summer flounder, surfclam, ocean quahog, and tilefish.

In 2001, the most recent year for which final data are available, Rhode Island fishermen brought in over 21 percent of MAFMC landings by weight--more than any of the MAFMC member States except New Jersey, which is responsible for about 56 percent of total MAFMC landings. In fact, with the exception of New Jersey, Rhode Island's total 2001 MAFMC landings, 44.1 million pounds, nearly equaled those of all other MAFMC member States combined, 45.9 million pounds.

If Rhode Island fishermen are responsible for a large percentage of overall MAFMC landings, these species make up an even larger proportion of landings within Rhode Island every year. Between 1995 and 2002, MAFMC species represented between 29 percent and 58 percent of all finfish landed in Rhode Island annually, for an average of 43 percent of total landings by weight. In eight of the years between 1990 and 2002, squid, Illex and loligo, was the number one finfish landed in Rhode Island, with a value of between $13 million and $20 million annually.

Yet Rhode Island has no voice in the management of these species.

Following council tradition and Federal fisheries law, the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act would create two seats on the MAFMC for Rhode Island: one seat nominated by the Governor of Rhode Island and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, and a second seat filled by Rhode Island's principal State official with marine fishery management responsibility. The MAFMC would increase in size from 21 voting members to 23.

There is a precedent for this proposed legislation. In 1996, North Carolina's representatives in Congress succeeded in adding that State to the MAFMC through an amendment to the Sustainable Fisheries Act. Like Rhode Island, a significant proportion of North Carolina's landed fish species were managed by the MAFMC, yet the State had no vote on the council. Today, Rhode Island's share of total landings for species managed by the MAFMC is more than six times greater than that of North Carolina.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to restore a measure of equity to the fisheries management process by passing the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

I have my amendment.

Mr. President, I send amendment No. 1659 to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Nelson of Florida be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, I am disappointed the Feinstein-Kennedy amendment did not pass because I believe that amendment really responded to the issues of the moment. We are in a dangerous time because we see around the globe where there are nations aspiring to become nuclear powers, where proliferation is one of the most dangerous threats this Nation faces, particularly proliferation that would provide fissile material to terrorists, which is the great fear of all of us.

In order to resist the growth of nuclear powers around the globe, we have to be faithful to our commitment to arms control and our sense that further development of nuclear weapons--and, I would argue, weapons without military requirements--is really not so much an exercise in protecting the United States but it is an exercise that will lead us down a path that could see our country exposed to even more dangers. So I am very much concerned that the Feinstein-Kennedy amendment failed.

Therefore, I am proposing an amendment that I hope will essentially put restraints upon the use of these dollars in the development of nuclear weapons, and I will explain it in more detail later. It would constrain the expenditure of funds to the the research phase. It would preclude monies to be used to engineer a weapon, to test a weapon, and to deploy a weapon. It is language that is consistent with the language included in the Defense Authorization Act which we passed several months ago.

We are at a difficult moment in our history, as I mentioned.

I would be happy to yield for a question to my cosponsor, Senator Nelson.

That is absolutely correct. It reflects the value of the contribution the Senator from Florida made in the Defense authorization debate.

There are some who have criticized any attempts at arms control as futile, as failures. That, I think, is a dangerous idea. I hope arms controls work because history seems to show that, without controlling arms, eventually they wind up being used, and when it comes to the issue of nuclear weapons, that is a great nightmare that has haunted all mankind since 1945.

Since that date, we have been successful in containing the use of nuclear weapons. It is because we took prudent steps to try to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the development of nuclear weapons. And at this juncture in history, to stand up and say arms control does not work not only misreads history but misses the point entirely. We have to make it work. Indeed, arms control has provided us at least some respite, some bit of breathing space, from the horrors of Hiroshima. That in itself is a success.

Today, particularly when we look at North Korea, I think we had all better hope fervently that arms control can work because without some type of arms control there, we will be in an extraordinarily precarious situation.

If we look at the situation in Iran, where the international arms control agency is trying to work with the Iranians, trying to get them to cooperate with the world community, that is an example of arms control in action. I hope--and I am sure I speak for everyone else-- that that effort succeeds.

Time and again, when we have had serious situations, we have been able to use the norms established by international arms control agreements as leverage in a particular crisis. Arms control is not perfect, but without it we would be in a much more dangerous and much more devastating world environment.

This administration, however, has effectively turned its back on so many different initiatives: The repeal of the ABM Treaty, the failure to follow up the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty by sending it again to the Senate for a vote. This and so many other examples suggest that the administration has not effectively read the lessons of history. I believe they have the mistaken view that arms control will never work rather than trying to make it work, understanding it is not perfect but it is essential to our national security strategy.

My colleague and friend John Spratt stated it very well in an article in the March 2003 edition of Arms Control Today. In his words:

My greatest concern is that some in the administration and

in the Congress seem to think that the United States can move

the world in one direction while Washington moves in another,

that we can continue to prevail on other countries not to

develop nuclear weapons while we develop new tactical

applications for such weapons and possibly resume nuclear

testing.

Congressman Spratt was very clear. In life, one really cannot have it both ways. I think this is an example of that. At one time, you cannot be trying to persuade, convince, and cajole other nations to abandon the development of nuclear weapons while you are blatantly going ahead and developing them yourself. The approach of the administration has been to attempt to get it both ways. It will be doomed to failure.

I would argue that rather than declaring the arms control movement dead, we have to give it renewed life. Indeed, we can point to successes in the past that should give us some comfort to know that if we work hard, if we work in a disciplined and dedicated way, we can use arms control to enhance our security--not exclusively depend, certainly, on arms control, but it has to be an important part of our repertoire.

In the early 1960s, when there were a few nuclear powers--the United States, Soviet Union, Britain, France, and China--there was a fear that within a decade or more, as President Kennedy expressed it, there would be at least 25 countries that developed nuclear weapons. What was feared did not come to pass because of effective, meaningful arms control exemplified in many respects by the nonproliferation treaty and other initiatives.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has cited this record, indicating his support for continued efforts at arms control. In his words:

[I]nstead of the 25 or so countries that President Kennedy

once predicted, only a handful of nations possess nuclear

weapons. Of course we suspect many more countries have

chemical or biological weapons, but still short of the scores

that had been predicted in the past. We have reached this

state of affairs in no small part through the concerted

effort of many nations. Agreements, such as the nuclear

nonproliferation treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention,

organizations such as the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers

Group--these constitute a global security architecture that

has served us satisfactorily and kept us safe.

But critics of arms control fail to acknowledge that Argentina and Brazil and South Korea and Taiwan ceased

their suspected nuclear programs in part because of the international norms represented by the nonproliferation treaty. Without these norms and without the United States exemplifying these norms, I don't think we would have the success we have had in these cases that I have cited.

Similarly, when the Soviet Union dissolved and the Newly Independent States of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine found themselves with nuclear weapons, they voluntarily turned them in as a result of the norms established by the international arms control regimes. South Africa has also given up their nuclear weapons.

This is an example, not of perfect success but of success. If we begin to abide by our commitment to the nonproliferation treaty, to our commitments to reducing nuclear weapons rather than building new ones, we might be able to provide more leverage on countries such as India and Pakistan so that they would join the nonproliferation treaty and the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty. That is the kind of leadership we need at the moment. I hope we can get it.

As I mentioned before, we also are facing very serious problems with North Korea and Iran. I hope they can be resolved peacefully. But that peaceful resolution implies extending arms control agreements to these countries. So disparaging arms control is doing a great disservice to our national security and to our strategy.

The Bush administration has seemed bound since their first days in office to reverse 50 years of arms control activities, both by Republican and Democratic administrations. In December 2001, they published their Nuclear Posture Review.

This review was troubling in many respects. For the first time in history, this review suggested that we would use weapons, nuclear weapons, not simply to deter another nuclear power but to engage a nonnuclear power. The report essentially said that we would consider for the first time and be prepared to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear nations that were nonaligned with a nuclear power--a tremendous reversal in our strategic outlook, blurring the distinction between conventional weapons and nuclear weapons, a distinction that since Hiroshima we on both sides of the aisle have endeavored mightily to maintain crystal clear. This blurring, this suggestion that we would use nuclear weapons in a first strike against nonnuclear powers, set the tone for other administration pronouncements.

Last November, a memo from then-Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Pete Aldridge, became public. The memo directed nuclear weapons laboratories to:

. . . assess the technical risks associated with maintaining

the U.S. arsenal without nuclear testing . . . [and suggested

the] U.S. take another look at conducting small nuclear

tests.

Following up to this memo, the President's budget for fiscal year 2004 included $24 million to reduce the time needed to prepare to conduct a nuclear weapons test from 2-3 years at present to 18 months-- once again, a very sobering and ominous suggestion that we would begin to test nuclear weapons again; that we would abandon our efforts to assure the quality of our stockpile through nontesting means and that we would conduct tests.

If the United States of America begins again to conduct nuclear tests, I think that would be an open invitation to other countries, such as India and Pakistan, and perhaps powers undeclared as yet, to begin a nuclear testing program. It certainly would be good cover internationally.

The President's budget in 2004 also went on to request $22.8 million to accelerate the design and select a site for a new modern pit facility.

Plutonium pits are necessary components of nuclear weapons. We have not had the ability to build such pits since 1988. We do need a pit facility. But the proposal of the administration goes far beyond any conceivable needs, given the current situation. They want to create a facility that is capable of producing up to 500 pits per year. That would be 500 nuclear weapons per year. That is a rate that rivals anything in the cold war, and according to the administration, the cold war is over--except, I guess, when it comes to nuclear policy or at least nuclear design and production policy.

Then in addition to this development, the administration has been vigorously pressing for the design of a robust nuclear earth-penetrator to be used against hard and deeply buried targets. The RNEP would be a modification of an existing nuclear device, necessarily a very large nuclear device. It has been deemed a bunker buster. But, frankly, the kilotonnage or the tonnage of this RNEP is so large it would be a city buster, not a bunker buster. The kilotons of the weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 14 and 21 kilotons, respectively, and this RNEP could be 71 times larger than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. That is not a bunker buster. That is not a discrete weapon that could take the place of precision conventional weapons. Yet the administration is pressing forward.

Then this year the administration requested the repeal of the 1993 statutory ban on the research, development, and production of low-yield nuclear weapons and $6 million for funding for advanced nuclear weapons concepts.

Current law prohibits work, design, research with respect to weapons below 5 kilotons. The administration seeks to repeal this ban--strike it out--even though there is no military requirement for these small sized nuclear weapons.

When asked about this proposal, Ambassador Linton Brooks, the Acting Director of the National Nuclear Security Administration, stated before the Armed Services Committee:

I have a bias in favor of something that is the minimum

destruction. . . .that means I have a bias in favor of things

that might be usable.

Here we have it. A history of 5 decades of trying to create a nuclear policy that dissuades the world from using nuclear weapons and we are trying to develop small nuclear weapons, which the scientists at this time say--the lab leaders say--are designed to be used. We have crossed a huge space between our policy of 5 decades and this newly emerging policy. We have moved from being the leader in arms control to being someone who treats arms control casually, if not flippantly. The irony, of course, is we stand to suffer the most. I hope we could reverse this trend.

I had hoped very much that the Feinstein-Kennedy amendment would be agreed to because I think that would have sent a strong signal and be a practical and pragmatic step. But now we have the opportunity to constrain the funds that are being expended for those preliminary research aspects of nuclear weapons development. As my colleague, Senator Nelson, said, it will give Congress a chance to decide, after more information, more debate, and more justification, whether it is in our national interest to proceed with the development, engineering, and deployment of a new class of nuclear weapons.

The amendment I offer today will allow the Department of Energy to use $22 million in funding that the President requested for advanced nuclear weapons concepts for research alone. The amendment would not allow money to be used for developing, testing, or deploying new nuclear weapons, or RNEP, which is a modification of an existing weapon.

This amendment would assure that the appropriations bill is consistent with the language that is included in the fiscal year 2004 Defense authorization bill. During that debate, an amendment that would require the Department of Energy to seek specific authorization and appropriations before proceeding with phases beyond research passed this body by a vote of 96 to 0. The Senate has clearly spoken on this issue. The amendment I offer today will ensure that the Department of Energy will comply with the wishes of Congress by returning to the Congress before beginning development, testing, production, and deployment of a new nuclear weapon or the RNEP.

I believe we should retain the prohibition on any research or development of low-yield nuclear weapons. But if that must change--if we must eliminate the threat-first amendment--I believe the research is all that is necessary at this time and that there should be a full and complete debate on any development funding for a system of nuclear weapons or the RNEP based upon research first.

The primary reason that the administration says it needs this money for advanced nuclear concepts is to, in their terms, ``train the next generation of nuclear weapons scientists and engineers.''

Ambassador Brooks, Director of the National Nuclear Security Administration, stated that research must be funded to ``remove the chilling effect on scientific inquiry that could hamper our ability to maintain and exercise our intellectual capabilities to respond to needs that one day might be articulated by the President.''

In July, Energy Secretary Abraham said: ``We are not planning any nuclear weapons at all.'' If research is the reason, if research is the justification, if we are planning no nuclear weapons, then this amendment provides the funding and the authority for the research.

This amendment is very clear about what is allowed. There are very distinct phases in the development of nuclear weapons. Since 1953, the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy have worked in a very formalized weapons development process. Indeed, the Atomic Energy Commission was one of the predecessors of the effort. And the Atomic Energy Commission was also involved in the formulation of the process.

My amendment would prohibit ``development engineering,'' which is the third phase. This is for new weapons development.

All of these phases would be authorized, and the funds could be expended for concept definition, feasibility study, design definition, and cost study. But you could not go into phase 3, development definition. It is clear and precise--allowing the research and allowing all that is necessary, according to both the rationale to train our scientists and also the affirmation by the Secretary of Energy that we were not planning to develop new nuclear weapons.

I am happy to yield.

I did not. In the next few minutes I will complete my comments on the amendment.

The amendment has been offered. I think Senator Levin wants to speak. But the Senator's concurrence will be invited as soon as I conclude.

Mr. President, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his kindness in accepting the amendment. The policy is included in the Defense authorization bill. But there is a debate ongoing about what the precise policy is. We want to at least set this limit with respect to the policy.

The chairman suggesting that it will be accepted will prompt me to quickly conclude my comments.

I note that my colleague from Michigan is here also seeking recognition.

We brought this measure to the Defense authorization debate. As was indicated in my discussion with Chairman Domenici, the Senate passed this provision overwhelmingly. This is now included in this appropriations bill. It is going to be an interesting conference because our colleagues in the House have stricken the money; that is the preference that I would suggest is the best approach. But short of that, this at least constrains the spending of the funds to the first three phases of research, which apparently, at least in my view, directly responds to the professed need for the funds, and it will also again support the statement of the Secretary of Energy that there is no plan to develop nuclear weapons.

In a letter to the Armed Services Committee, Admiral Ellis, the Commander of the Strategic Command, which command is responsible for all nuclear weapons, stated that:

U.S. Strategic Command is interested in conducting rigorous

studies of all new technologies examining the merits of

precision, increased penetration, and reduced yields for our

nuclear weapons.

Once again, this proposal corresponds to the request from our military leaders in what they are looking for today.

I hope that not only this amendment will be incorporated into this pending appropriations bill but that in conference we at least maintain this.

I again urge my colleagues to think hard again about the Kennedy- Feinstein proposal and the proposal that is already included in the House provisions. But today is an opportunity at least to slow down a rush to develop nuclear weapons which have no, or very limited, military requirements, and it would give us an opportunity as a Congress to debate the wisdom of our course of action.

Let me conclude by saying we have changed course dramatically. After 50 years of being the leading nation in the world arguing for arms control, arguing for sensible constraints in the development of nuclear weapons and limits on nuclear weapons, we have become a nation that is casual about our commitment to arms control, that denigrates it too often, and that course has left us with the only other option which is I think less appropriate. As I said initially, if there are no arms control, then there is a higher probability of arms usage. With nuclear weapons, that is a thought that no one wants to contemplate.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to James D. Bennett, Jr., an outstanding public servant who is retiring after a distinguished career spanning more than 34 years as a firefighter in the capital city of Providence, RI.

James Bennett began his career as a Providence firefighter in August of 1968, quickly rising through the ranks becoming lieutenant in December of 1977, captain in February of 1984, and ultimately he was promoted to the coveted rank of battalion chief in April of 1986.

Chief Bennett's illustrious career has been marked with a special dedication to his brethren firefighters, and to seeking out leadership opportunities and specialized training for himself and the department. He completed numerous Federal, State, municipal and professional association training programs, courses and workshops on fire and safety issues. A member of the Fire Department Safety Officers Association and International Association of Fire Chiefs, he served from 1977 to 1982 as president Providence Local 99 of the International Brotherhood of Firefighters.

As a community and as a Nation, it is most fitting that we pause to reflect upon the contribution of those in our society from whom we ask so much. With selflessness, dedication and great personal sacrifice firefighters answer the call each and every day, putting themselves in harm's way to protect

and defend lives and property of our citizens. With courage, compassion and devotion to duty they epitomize the phrase ``public servant.'' Indeed, I am honored to humbly recognize this noble profession and this outstanding individual, Chief James Bennett, on the occasion of his retirement.

I ask that you join me in paying tribute to Chief Bennett on this milestone and ask that you also recognize his devoted wife Kaiji who this June retired from her own career as an elementary school secretary after many years of loyal service. As a grateful community we recognize the immense contributions made by people like James and Kaija Bennett to the cherished quality of life in this great Nation. Please join me and the Bennett's wonderful daughters, Kerrie and Stacie, their many friends and colleagues in this much deserved retirement celebration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Cantwell, Murray, and Dodd as cosponsors of my amendment.

Mr. President, I join Senator Collins in urging the adoption of an amendment that would add $300 million to the LIHEAP contingency fund. This fund will be available in cases of severe weather or severe economic circumstances during this heating season and next year's cooling season. We already know that residential natural gas prices are scheduled to rise at least 15 percent. We also understand poor economic times may force more people into requirements to need this program. This is a vital program. This contingency fund would be necessary so that States could meet the needs of heating for seniors, for a whole range of people who need heat and need cooling in the summertime in a hot climate. I urge all my colleagues to support the amendment. The underlying bill does have $2 billion for the basic grant program, but without this contingency funding, we will not have the flexibility to respond to spikes in heating costs or in economic downturns in different parts of the country.

I yield my remaining time to the Senator from Maine.

Is there any remaining time on my side?

Mr. President, this amendment is fully offset. And even with the $2 billion, not all qualified individuals will receive the funds.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors: Senators Lautenberg, Kerry, Clinton, and Kennedy.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, this amendment would add $50 million for the CDC immunization program under section 317 of the Public Health Service Act. My amendment is offset by using the same mechanism that the chairman and ranking member utilized on $2.2 billion of the underlying bill.

Immunization of children is one of the great hallmarks of our public health system of the United States. It has had remarkable success. Diseases such as polio that were terrifying America when I was a child have been eradicated. We have to keep up this effort. This $50 million will add to that effort to be sure we do not lose ground and that we continue to immunize all our children. It is fully offset, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be added as a cosponsor, and also Senator Durbin.

Mr. President, I ask that Senator Daschle and Senator Stabenow be added as cosponsors.

Mr. President, this amendment would add funding for our libraries and museums. We all understand in every part of this country the vital role that libraries and museums play in education and culture and in community spirit.

Many times President Bush is criticized by Members of Congress for not living up to his expectations in terms of funding. But here is an example where I am proposing to increase funding to the levels President Bush requested in his fiscal year 2004 budget proposal to the Senate.

For the Improving Literacy Through School Libraries program my amendment would add $15.081 million to bring it up to the total of $27.5 million that President Bush requested. For the Library Services and Technology Act I request an additional $24.1 million to bring it up to $171.48 million, the Bush total plus an additional $1.8 million needed to double the minimum state allotment. For the Museum Services Act I ask for $5.18 million to bring it up to the total suggested by the President.

I believe we should support the President on this one and agree to this amendment. It is fully offset.

Yes, unfortunately, the General Accounting Office report confirmed that a pause in production for safety reasons could happen again and would have a critical and devastating impact on the ability to vaccinate children and adults. That is why I appreciated the administration's announced commitment to provide funds in the 2004 Budget for a vaccine stockpile. Senator Clinton, how much funding does the administration plan to provide in Fiscal Year 2004 for a stockpile?

Mr. President, I also wish to express my appreciation to the chairman and ranking member for their longstanding commitment to HRSA Title VII Health Professions programs. I had planned to offer an amendment to increase funding for these critical programs to the House level. I will not offer this amendment with the understanding that this will be worked out in conference. I thank the managers of the bill and the Senate majority leader and look forward to working with them as this bill proceeds.

comprehensive cancer account survivorship programs

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1595 with respect to

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

Mr. President, first let me start off by commending Chairman Specter for his efforts to meet the needs that are so evident in this appropriations bill in a very difficult budgetary climate.

The amendment I offer this evening, together with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, would be to increase funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Program to $2.3 billion for fiscal year 2004.

I thank my other colleagues and cosponsors--Senators Kennedy, Leahy, Rockefeller, Voinovich, Jeffords, Kerry, Lieberman, Schumer, Corzine, Sarbanes, Bingaman, Lincoln, Levin, Harkin, Clinton, Durbin, and Snowe--for cosponsoring this amendment.

The amendment Senator Collins and I are offering will provide $300 million for the LIHEAP contingency fund. This money is available under certain specified conditions: a significant home energy supply shortage or disruption, a significant increase in the cost of home energy, a significant increase in home energy disconnections, a significant increase in participation in a public benefit program, or a significant increase in unemployment.

Contingency money for LIHEAP is very important to ensure that these resources can be quickly dispensed and targeted to those areas of the country and those populations that are experiencing either severe weather or severe economic distress.

Today, on September 9, it is a balmy day in Washington, DC, but no one can forecast the weather that will take place throughout the course of this winter on the east coast, in the Northeast, or on the west coast, nor can we forecast hot weather that could occur in the summertime. So this contingency fund is absolutely essential.

What we need to do is to ensure that this funding is there in sufficient quantity so there will be no disruption in meeting the needs of people who are facing crises, either economic distress or severe weather.

I particularly thank Senators Specter, Harkin, Stevens, and Byrd for their commitment to the basic program. This appropriations bill contains $2 billion for the LIHEAP State grant program. It is the first time we have had $2 billion for the basic LIHEAP program since 1986, and it is a testament to the commitment and effort of Senators Specter and Harkin and their colleagues. It is the absolute minimum we need for the state grant program. Any lower amount represents a real cut in dollars. But we also need something else, and that is the contingency funds. If we don't have those contingency funds, I don't think we can respond to the needs many of us foresee taking place this winter.

Last year, States provided LIHEAP assistance to over 4 million families. Yet this is only about 15 percent of the 30 million households who were eligible for LIHEAP assistance. So 85 percent of eligible Americans could not be helped because of constrained funding in LIHEAP.

My colleague, Senator Bingaman, is going to offer an amendment later which would try to increase the basic State grant by $1 billion up to $3 billion. This is a goal Senator Collins and I have aspired to for many years. We annually send a letter asking for state grant funding of $3 billion. I certainly support that proposal. But I readily understand, given the constrained budget, where this is a very difficult judgment to be made by the committee and by the Senate. Nevertheless, I do believe--and that is why I offer, with Senator Collins, this amendment--we need, for operational efficiencies and for the ability to respond, the $300 million in contingency funds. I hope on a bipartisan basis we can support this $300 million contingency fund.

My colleague is here. I know she wishes to speak on this issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 504(b)(2) of the concurrent resolution on the budget, I move to waive section 504 of that concurrent resolution and ask for the yeas and nays.

I believe we have concluded our discussions on this amendment. I ask unanimous consent to lay aside this amendment.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1592.

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

Mr. President, once again, I have to commend Senator Specter and Senator Harkin for trying their best to meet extraordinary demands with very limited resources. In this case, it is with respect to childhood immunization. This is an issue that is too often taken for granted because it has been such a success throughout many decades in American public health. They have tried extremely hard to maintain these funds. They did not accept the President's proposal for a $28 million decrease from the previous year's funding.

Nevertheless, the CDC, the principal Federal agency for immunization policy and implementation, after enjoying several years of increases, will only receive a $5 million increase over last year's funding for global vaccine activities. Regrettably, it is not sufficient to continue meeting the challenge of vaccinating all of our children and truly protect children from diseases that are preventable through immunization.

States and public health authorities throughout the country are facing difficult issues of increased prices for vaccines and increased demands for services. These factors argue very strongly for increased funding, not level funding.

Right here in the District of Columbia, school began last week and the school department is struggling to contend with thousands of children who are not up to date with respect to their vaccinations.

The amendment I offer today, in conjunction with Senators Murray, Durbin, and Cantwell, would increase funding for the CDC National Immunization Program by $50 million. This additional funding will ensure that State and local immunization programs can maintain their commitment to protecting the health and well-being of our children.

One of our greatest successes in the area of public health has been the campaign to have all children properly immunized by the age of two. During this century, substantial progress has been made toward eliminating and controlling many vaccine-preventable diseases. Simply level funding this effort will not allow us to stay ahead of the problem but to actually lose ground in this public health campaign. That is why I am proposing this amendment.

Immunization initiatives have a proven track record of success. They are terribly cost efficient. Our efforts today have resulted in high levels of coverage around the country and record low numbers of outbreaks of diseases. In fact, by looking at this chart, you can see the success we have enjoyed with immunizations for vaccine-preventable diseases, including diphtheria, measles, mumps, polio, and rubella. These diseases struck fear in the hearts of Americans many years ago.

Today, we see a record of success in which diphtheria, for example, has been reduced by over 99 percent on an annual basis; measles has been reduced by 99 percent; polio, which when I was a young child was the most dreaded disease one could imagine, has been eliminated in the United States. This is a testament to the success of immunizations. We have to do more than what we were doing last year just to maintain current services.

Now, the other factor that we have seen in terms of the success of immunization is the direct and indirect savings when it comes to health care costs. For example, for every dollar invested in the hepatitis B vaccine for infants at birth to 2 months of age, that dollar saves $14.50 in direct and indirect costs. The mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine saves about $23, or approximately $9 billion each year. This is an incredibly cost-effective program as well as a very necessary program. We cannot rest on our laurels. We have achieved this success, but if we relent and do not continue to put in the effort, we will find ourselves with fewer children immunized and higher incidence of disease outbreaks.

There is another factor, and that is at the time we are funding these immunization programs, we are discovering that science is making great breakthroughs and creating new vaccines, but these vaccines add to the cost of the program.

This chart illustrates the recommended immunization schedule in the year 2003--hepatitis shots, diphtheria shots, polio shots, et cetera. All

of these are multiple dosages over a number of months. All of them are expensive or getting more expensive. So what we have here is an increased demand not only in terms of children but also in terms of the vaccines and the immunizations they must receive.

The CDC is at the heart of our efforts. This chart depicts the six stages or elements of a good immunization program: community assessment; outreach and education; delivery of the recommended vaccines by providers; followup; tracking; maintenance of coverage rates and outbreak control. On all of these efforts, CDC is using their resources by giving grants to States, by making vaccines available under their programs.

This is an involved, intricate, and, frankly, expensive program that we must support. To do otherwise would risk what I fear would be a lack of progress in the days ahead with respect to the protection of our children in particular.

Now, the next chart illustrates one other aspect of the dilemma that is facing public health authorities--many more vaccines to be delivered, and also the cost of vaccines are going up, particularly the latest vaccine added to the inventory, the pneumococcal vaccine. The diagram describes the recommended vaccines in 1985. Back then, it was diphtheria, polio, and 1-2 MMR, or measles, mumps and rubella. Also, notice that the cost per child was very low, relatively speaking. Today, in 2003, with additional vaccination requirements, that cost has shot up significantly. So the range is almost $450 compared to $50. That is putting a greater burden on States, causing an additional need for Federal resources.

One of the things that is happening because of the clash of demand and limited Federal resources is that, in some cases, we are seeing a two-tier immunization system. Now, 32 States have implemented the new pneumococcal vaccine using Section 317 funds; 19 States have not done it. So in many respects, these 32 States are on the leading edge of providing total protection--or as much as we can ensure today for children--and yet 19 States are lagging behind. The principal reason for that is the inability to finance these new vaccines. Another very important reason we must, I believe, increase the appropriation this year for our immunization program.

You can see by these charts that we are beginning to lose a little bit of ground. This was 2001. The blue figures are the highest levels of vaccination, ranging from 80 to 89 percent. The yellow are the passing, if you will, 70 to 79 percent. The red is 60 to 69 percent of coverage.

Back in 2001, there was one State, Louisiana; and in 2002, because of strained resources, we are seeing many more red States show up. They are Louisiana, Oklahoma, Colorado, New Mexico, and other States are on the decline in terms of coverage. This is another reason why we have to insist--at least I feel it is important enough to insist--that we increase funding for this very important program. We all, as I said initially, sometimes take for granted that our vaccine programs are working, that polio and rubella and measles are something of the past.

You can just look around the country at some of the headlines we are seeing in local newspapers: ``Whooping Cough Rates Soar in Three Oregon Counties.'' This one says ``Tetanus Continues to Pop Up in the U.S.'' ``Officials Warn of Pertussis Outbreak.'' ``Whooping Cough Cases Could Double.'' There are other examples.

It reminds us that we cannot take immunization for granted. I know the chairman has tried valiantly to put more resources into this program. I urge my colleagues to do what they can to support this amendment so we can increase funding for this very worthwhile and very efficient program.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to waive section 904(c) of the concurrent resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2004 for purposes of the pending amendment, and request the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1596 with respect to museums and libraries.

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

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, once again, I rise to offer my final amendment of the evening, and I again commend Chairman Specter and Senator Harkin for their efforts.

My amendment is designed to increase funding for libraries and museums. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kennedy, Bingaman, Corzine, Levin, Lautenberg, Sarbanes, Boxer, Schumer, Johnson, and Feinstein in offering this critical amendment.

The appropriations bill before us essentially levels or cuts the funds in the library and museum accounts for this fiscal year.

The Federal Government has a long history of supporting our Nation's libraries and museums. The Federal Government started providing direct assistance to public libraries in 1956 and funding to museums in 1976. So this is a function we have taken on for many decades.

We all understand that museums and libraries are rich sources of culture and learning. They are part of the fabric of our intellectual and civic life in every community, small and large, throughout America. Libraries have been the foundation of education for years. They are vital sources of literacy training, of community activities, and so many things that are important to the quality of life in every community in America. Our museums bring into the lives of our people great art, scientific discoveries--indeed a host of discoveries and amazing items that educate, inform, and, inspire the people of this country. These institutions are more important now than ever because we must recall our past to deal with a very difficult present and a challenging future.

These facilities are also in great demand. If you speak to librarians and museum directors, they would like to stay open longer and offer additional programs and services because the demand is there, but the funds are not there.

We are facing these issues and facing this appropriations bill just a few weeks after we passed the Museum and Library Services Act of 2003. This body passed it with strong, bipartisan support. It would reauthorize these Federal programs for the next 6 years.

Among the many aspects of the bill that passed was providing for a doubling of the minimum allocation to each State, which is very important to smaller states like Rhode Island. Also, it established a reservation of 1.75 percent for museum services for Native Americans, to match the reservation currently provided for library services.

We are charting down a new reauthorization path but, unfortunately, we have not been able to, in this appropriations bill, match the design for that authorization. Indeed, this is one of those situations in which the President's budget is much more robust with respect to funding than the Appropriations Committee's proposal to the Senate. The President sometimes gets criticized for not following through, and then we have to do more. This is a case where the President's proposals have been strong with respect to museums and libraries.

For example, in the No Child Left Behind Act, we authorized a program called Improving Literacy through School Libraries. This program is designed to provide library resources to schools throughout this country, a central part of learning. The bill before us would fund that at $12.4 million. The President requested $27.5 million because I believe both the President and the First Lady recognize the importance of school libraries and books and materials for those libraries.

I was the principal author of this legislation in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and I feel very strongly that we must make a greater commitment to our nation's school libraries. Too often when you go to a school library, you find books that are out of date--vastly out of date--or books that are insufficient in number or quality for students to truly learn.

Indeed, in an ideal world, every young American should have two libraries to call upon: A good school library and a good neighborhood public library. This will allow them to learn, to explore, and to understand that education is not just the hours in school, but it is every opportunity they have to read and to explore on their own.

I hope we could raise our efforts to increase the level of funding to $27.5 million, the President's proposal, and not the funding level contained in the bill. Indeed, the President, in his statement of administration policy on this bill, said:

The administration also urges the Senate to provide the

full request for . . . Literacy Through School Libraries.

My amendment will also increase funding for the Library Services and Technology Act by $24.1 million to bring the new total to $171.48 million. This increase in funding for the Library Services and Technology Act would reach the President's funding request of $169.6 million for library State grants plus provide an additional $1.6 million needed to double the minimum State allotment which is a key reform in the recently passed Museum and Library Services Act of 2003.

If we do not follow through with this funding, we are going to inhibit the ability of libraries to serve their neighborhoods. We are going to inhibit the ability of libraries to take part in literacy programs which is one of the centerpieces of the President's overall educational policy. We see it every day in our hometowns and across our States, where libraries cut back hours, cut back access, cut back collections and, indeed, as many States face fiscal crises, one of the first areas that is cut in State budgets is libraries and museums.

I believe we should be able to, hopefully, step into the breach and help a bit more.

My amendment would also boost funding for the Museum Services Act by $5.18 million to again reach the President's funding request. Our museums are key partners not only of our educational programs but also of our culture and our national memory. I hope we can increase funding in this regard.

This is a modest amendment, in total increasing resources by $43.36 million that will directly help our museums and libraries throughout the country.

I reiterate that I understand the difficult challenge both Senator Specter and Senator Harkin face in trying to fund all of these programs. I think they would be the first to point out how valuable they are. I feel very moved to point out how I believe we can do better. In this case, simply matching the President's request would do much better.

My amendment is fully offset for fiscal year 2004. It achieves this by rescinding fiscal year 2004 advance appropriations and reappropriating those funds in fiscal year 2003. This is the same mechanism Chairman Stevens and Chairman Specter used to add $2.2 billion to the underlying appropriations bill.

I urge my colleagues to support museums, libraries, and the Reed amendment.

I yield the floor.

I move to waive the Budget Act under Section 504 for purposes of the pending amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of Senator Harkin to preclude and prevent the Bush administration from eliminating overtime pay for millions of hard-working Americans.

We just celebrated Labor Day. As is the custom, the President was out addressing labor in Ohio, talking to working men and women. The reality is that many of those families depend on overtime pay to make ends meet. He did not announce to them that buried in the bowels of the Federal Register is a provision that would severely restrict access to overtime pay for millions of American workers.

He talked about creating a position of economic czar to spur manufacturing, but, frankly, I think if that audience understood that as he spoke he was also proposing and working to deny many of them access to overtime pay, they would have been shocked and amazed--as I am shocked and amazed.

At a time when our economy is searching for ways to rebound from the longest recession we have experienced in many years and from the most severe loss of employment of any administration since Herbert Hoover, the idea that we should prevent people from getting overtime pay seems ludicrous, but that is precisely what the administration is proposing.

Indeed, if the administration were serious about ways in which we could stimulate the economy, one way is to reward the effort of working Americans when they work beyond 40 hours, give them access to traditional overtime pay, and let them go ahead and use

those resources for the family, for investment in America.

Frankly, it is a shock to me that the President is conducting this campaign to surreptitiously and quietly remove overtime protection that has been the law for the country since 1938 which every American takes for granted. In the 1930s, there was a great debate about labor laws, and a compromise was struck. Some industrial nations absolutely have a prohibition on working beyond so many hours a week, and I think rightfully so, but that is too inflexible--but certainly at some level, and the level decided on was 40 hours. After that, it would be appropriate--in fact required--that a worker would be compensated for at least time and half for his wages.

We are here today because Senator Harkin, I think quite rightly, has proposed that we step to the plate publicly--not surreptitiously--and vote on this measure, vote whether we are going to deny overtime pay to millions of Americans or continue a practice, a tradition, and a law that has served this Nation well for almost 70 years.

About 79 percent of today's workers qualify for overtime pay. It accounts for about 25 percent of their income. Just think, if working Americans--79 percent of them--lost 25 percent of their income or, even a fraction of that, 10 percent of their income. They would be in desperate straits with their mortgage responsibilities, their tuition responsibilities, and their health care responsibilities.

All of us know because we spent the last month back in our home States visiting with families who are working hard. Both spouses are working hard just to make ends meet--not saving up for a fancy vacation or for a fancy anything but just to make sure the bills are paid. As I said, in 1938 we struck a balance. We set a clear line. We said essentially that if you work beyond 40 hours a week, then you get time and a half. It gives families an option. In fact, we all know some families look forward to the opportunity for overtime work because that is what gives them the margin to get by in a very competitive environment, and a very expensive one.

In 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act recognized that there has to be some flexibility in legislation. It says there are certain white-collar workers who are professionals--highly paid executives, highly compensated workers who do not need the protection because of the nature of the marketplace and who could be exempt from the requirement to pay overtime. They established several salary tests--a ``salary- level'' test, a ``salary-basis'' test, and the ``duties test.'' But essentially, as I view it, it was a narrow exemption. The rule was that if you worked more than 40 hours, you would qualify for overtime pay. But there is a narrow exemption for white-collar duties. Again, because of the nature of the marketplace, these individuals, because of their skills and because of their abilities, are quite capable of negotiating their own arrangements and their own terms. That was, a reasoned and principled balance. Today, that balance is being upset by the proposal by the Bush administration.

First, let's briefly discuss what the rules are today. If you earn less than $8,840 per year, you cannot be exempt from the requirement to pay overtime. That is sensible. Of course, $8,840 a year is trivial in some respects in terms of buying for a family in the United States in the year 2003. The administration recognizes that the proposal is artificially low. They proposed to raise the figure to the total of $22,100. But they are not going to index this figure. So this figure could be locked in concrete for years. More importantly, even this figure of $22,100 is basically the poverty level for a family of five. In fact, the Department of Labor's own lower living standard income level--when they do predictions--suggests that a family of four requires about $31,750 to avoid poverty. Yet we are saying there is a range of people earning $22,000 and beyond who could lose their overtime pay even though they are desperately close to poverty. It doesn't make any sense to me. I think we should raise the level. We should raise it to a level that is consistent with keeping a family out of poverty before we take away their automatic rights for overtime beyond 40 hours a week.

But the biggest change the administration is proposing is to basically broaden the category dramatically for who is white-collar or executive. What it means is that before we considered a professional-- according to the definition, it is someone who has had a prolonged course of intellectual studies: lawyers, doctors, obviously academics, civil engineers with qualifications and certificates. But now the administration wants to go ahead and say, no, this is really just someone who, through experience, has gained the title of ``professional.''

This means we are opening up this possibility of losing overtime pay for draftsmen, engineering technicians, paralegals, emergency medical technicians, licensed practical nurses. And I can tell you that licensed practical nurses in a hospital are professionals but they are certainly not paid like a doctor is paid. This rule would put them on that level. She is a professional. I don't think that makes any sense. Lab technicians, dental hygienists, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, lab technicians, and some registered nurses will be denied overtime pay because they are now ``professionals.''

There is a broadening of the definition of ``executives.'' When this legislation was passed almost 60 years ago, those executives had a narrowly construed exemption. They were someone who exercised significant authority over a significant number of people. Now they are talking about someone in a minimal supervisory responsibility who could be classified as an executive. Some restaurant workers who happen to be the head of a shift of other waiters are now suddenly executives. That is news to a lot of the people I know who work in the hospitality industry. Certainly, they would be executives in terms of base pay. But in terms of overtime pay, they are not.

Again, to me, that is something that strikes against the whole spirit of people working beyond 40 hours a week. They should qualify for overtime with these narrow exemptions. Exceptions now are being broadened beyond that definition. I think this rule, as a result, is very questionable.

The effect may be that families will lose out. The average American working puts in more hours than in any other country in the world-- almost 1,900 hours a year. That is how long the average American worker works.

As I said, more and more families rely on not just the income of a primary breadwinner but both spouses are working. We are the hardest working nation in the world. We pat ourselves on the back for our industry, for our dedication, and for our determination. And here the administration is not rewarding that effort but effectively punishing people, saying: Well, you might be compelled to work overtime but you won't be paid for that. That doesn't make any sense.

This has a particular impact on health care workers, I suggest, because it is so easy in that context to talk about supervisory responsibilities and professional qualifications. There is just enough pay so they will go over the threshold. My home State of Rhode Island has 68,000 health care workers. Thousands of them count on overtime pay to just make it through the month. If they lose that pay, they are going to be in a serious predicament, along with their families and our whole economy.

The Department of Labor estimates that the proposal will only affect about 644,000 Americans. Frankly, that is a gross underestimate. Probably millions will be affected by it because of the ambiguity of these new classifications because the incentives, if you will, are for employers to find ways to deny individual workers the right to overtime compensation.

In fact, the Economic Policy Institute studied just 78 of the 257 proposed ``white-collar'' occupations and estimated that 2.5 million salaried employees would lose their right to overtime if these proposals were adopted. I don't believe we should weaken the exception in this economy.

We have just today seen another report of unemployment. Unemployment is hovering at 6.1 percent at recessionary levels.

In fact, we saw a dramatic fall in payrolls, the number of people actually in nonfarm occupations working. We have seen productivity increases which are good, but they have not been balanced by gains in employment.

Fewer people are working. Since the administration took office, 9 million people have lost their job. Today, in addition to that, we are telling the people who are still hanging on to employment: ``Don't count on overtime''? That is not fair and it is not good for our economy.

I would hope we could vote on this amendment and that we could send a very strong message that what has worked for 60 years, what most people believe is deeply ingrained in the fabric of the American market and workplace--the simple notion that if you work more than 40 hours a week you qualify for overtime--can be maintained as it has been. I hope we can do that.

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

Mr. President, on August 5, 2003, an icon in my home State of Rhode Island celebrated his 85th birthday. Walter ``Salty'' Brine was hired by WPRO-AM in 1942 and took over as morning host in 1943 where he stayed for 50 years.

Salty entertained Rhode Islanders on radio and television with his enthusiasm, family friendly programming and his love for Rhode Island and its coastline. In fact, it is his love for the water which earned him the nickname ``Salty.'' But, Salty's contribution to Rhode Island has been more than just entertainment. He has been a consistent supporter of charitable organizations and an inspiration for the disabled.

Brine has been a role model for Rhode Islanders and has been named a member of the National Commission for the March of Dimes, National Commission on Muscular Dystrophy, and both the President's and Rhode Island's committees on the employment of the handicapped. He has been a supporter of the Meeting Street School for Crippled Children and the Rhode Island Association for Retarded Children. Brine was named the recipient of the 1999 Nellie A. Greenwood Humanitarian Award and numerous other honors have been bestowed on Salty by organizations such as the Cranston Jaycees, Rhode Island Big Brother, Veterans of Foreign Wars and American Legion.

Brine lent his support to the Lt. Governor's Rhode Island Fights Back Program that asked the public to help support local businesses that suffered after September 11.

Brine's love for the water has led to his involvement in the preservation of State beaches and waterways. He is on the Board of Trustees of Save the Bay and in 1990, a State beach was named in his honor.

As an on air personality it was Salty's folksy, contagious enthusiasm that endeared him to the Rhode Island public. Almost every lifelong Rhode Islander, young and old, can remember Brine's winter storm school closings announcements, highlighted by a line that has become a unique part of Rhode Island culture, ``No school Foster-Glocester!''

Brine dominated morning radio on WPRO for decades and he remained a ratings winner until he left WPRO in 1993, though he continued to make the famous school closing announcements from home during snowy Rhode Island winters. WPRO's broadcast center is now named after him.

I first glimpsed Salty back in the 1950s when he came to visit his son, Wally, at St. Matthew's School in Cranston. Wally and I were grade school classmates. Salty was the first ``celebrity'' I ever saw in person. Almost 50 years later, he's still the best as well as the first.

In the early days of television Brine developed ``Salty Brine's Shack,'' a children's show that ran on Channel 12 from 1958 to 1968. Many still remember Brine closing the show telling kids to ``Brush your teeth and say your prayers.''

Rhode Island has certainly been lucky to have Salty Brine and in an interview with the Providence Journal Brine expressed a mutual love, ``I've been very lucky,'' he said. ``I've had the most wonderful association with the State of Rhode Island anyone could ever have.''

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to speak about the economy, an issue that is of increasing concern to so many families across the country. Measured in terms of employment alone, this has been a very difficult and demanding time for Americans across the Nation. At the President's urging, Congress has passed three major tax cuts in what is becoming an annual ritual. I call it a ritual, because it is based on an ideological belief that tax cuts are a one-size-fits- all fix to all of our Nation's economic woes.

Regardless of the specifics of our economic situation, regardless of the growing number of unemployed Americans, and regardless of our record budget deficits, the Administration has pushed on with its misguided, one-track approach.

Mr. President, I do not think anyone would invest a dollar in a project if they only expected to receive 10 cents back. But that is essentially what has happened under the trickle-down economic approach of the Administration. A March 2003 report by the Democratic staff of the Joint Economic Committee estimated that in the best case scenario, the first year return of the 2003 tax cuts would be less than 10 cents on the dollar.

What this means is the American people massively overpaid, committing ourselves to transferring hundreds of billions of dollars to the Nation's wealthiest individuals for a pittance of economic stimulus.

We have all become extremely anxious and hopeful to hear anything positive about the economy. At first blush, the recent data coming from the Department of Commerce offers a suggestion of hope. But after considering the reports at longer length, and in the context of all the participants in our economy, I am convinced the reports about our gross domestic product are something of a letdown.

As Senator Conrad has stated, 70 percent of the growth in this quarter's GDP estimate is caused by increased defense spending, without which the economy would have grown at less than 1 percent. This 1 percent growth would be the slowest economic growth of any administration in half a century. So what we are seeing is one of those issues in which one sector, for obvious reasons--because of our buildup in Iraq and our subsequent operations there--is generating a disproportionate share. One can ask the question fairly, how long can that continue?

The National Bureau of Economic Research announced last month that the recession ended 20 months ago. But this announcement simply confirms what many have long suspected--that we are in the midst of a ``jobless recovery.'' The economy is in as much trouble as it was in the early 1990s, if not worse. More than 3.2 million private sector jobs have been lost during this Administration, with 1.2 million jobs lost even after the so-called end of the recession 20 months ago. And 6.2 percent of the civilian labor force was unemployed, which is down slightly from the previous numbers of 6.4 percent. But the July decline is instructive because it doesn't represent a growth in jobs, it represents the fact that there is a drop in the number of people looking for jobs. The way we measure unemployment is by looking up the number of people actively pursuing employment, that is the basis of the calculation. What we are seeing is people giving up hope, becoming disheartened, understanding that it is hard to find jobs and therefore dropping out of the search for jobs.

Indeed, if you look at the ratio of employment to population, total number of people working versus the population of the U.S., we have seen that ratio decline. Nine million workers were unemployed in July across the country.

But for the current President Bush, this is not his father's jobless recovery. By this period in the 1991 economic recovery, private nonfarm payrolls were rising again. Not only are private sector jobs failing to rise again, they are continuing to fall at an even faster rate. Corporate layoffs are continuing. For Americans who have suffered the most from the recession, this is not an economic recovery because there are simply no jobs.

In my State, we received notice that a major department store is closing, a flagship store in one of our prominent malls, Lord & Taylor, which will lay off workers. We are seeing other retail operations close. For the families of Rhode Island and the Nation, the news they are getting is of more job losses.

Persistent unemployment is only one piece of evidence that passing tax cuts does not fix the Nation's economy. The next place to look is the budget.

This week, for the first time, President Bush acknowledged the role the tax cuts played in mortgaging our Nation's economic future by turning budget surpluses into record budget deficits. In the Rose Garden, the President said: ``And so part of the deficit, no question, was caused by taxes; about 25 percent of the deficit.'' That is according to the President. But according to economists, these figures are conservative at best.

The administration's Midsession Review reveals that the budget deficit for fiscal year 2003 is expected to be an astonishing $455 billion. This is the largest budget deficit in our history. This deficit is placed into stark relief by the Bush administration's forecast upon coming into office of a $334 billion surplus for 2003. So in just 2 years, we have seen a swing of more than three-quarters of a trillion dollars and that is just for this fiscal year.

The causes of the deficit are plain to see if you look at what is happening to revenues as a share of GDP--they have gone into a freefall. According to the Midsession Review, revenues in 2003 will equal 16.3 percent of gross domestic product, the lowest level relative to the size of the economy since 1959. The administration would like the public to believe this is some sort of natural decline due to recession and war. But we have been in recession before and we have seen war before, without getting into such a low level of revenue.

In fact, we can look at where revenues relative to GDP were in 1990 and 1991 and see that for President Bush, this is not his father's tax policy either. The truth is the administration's tax cuts actually account for 36 percent of the $7.6 trillion reversal in what was the 10-year budget outlook for fiscal years 2002-2011.

This is not even taking into account the administration's soaking up of Social Security surpluses, thereby reneging on a campaign promise not to raid Social Security. Moreover, the tax cuts take away resources necessary to ensure both Social Security and Medicare long-term solvency.

We need to save for the retirement of the baby boomers, and we are now less than a decade away from that wave of retirement. We don't have time to ``grow out'' of the deficits as we might once have back in the 1980s. That makes these efforts even more pernicious to the economy.

The administration has leveled the claim that the deficits would only be temporary. The first chart appearing in the Administration's Midsession Review shows that deficits as a share of GDP will be cut by more than half by 2006. As Senator Conrad has pointed out, cutting a deficit in half after you have quadrupled or tripled it isn't exactly impressive management. Yet, I don't believe this Administration will even accomplish that reduction of the deficit. The deficits in the latter half of their 6-year window are not going to be as small as they claim they will be.

There are many reasons why we should be skeptical of the administration's predictions of much smaller deficits in the future years. First, the budget projections don't include lots of things that will surely increase the deficit; for example, the continuing costs of the Iraqi occupation--estimated today at $4 billion a month--and the continuing cost of military operations in Afghanistan, estimated today at $1 billion a month.

Secondly, the administration's tax cuts are unlikely to boost GDP-- and tax revenue relative to GDP--as much as the administration thinks. Their forecast for the years 2005 through 2008 is simply too optimistic. The Midsession Review shows an increase in revenue relative to GDP of more than 2 percentage points in just 3 years, 2004 through 2007. But this sharp increase is unprecedented. It didn't even happen during the ``revenue surprises'' of the 1990s when revenues seemed to explode.

Such dramatic growth in revenues is much less likely now, because the administration's tax cuts have reduced the mechanisms that were the main drivers of the 1990s revenue surprises--capital gains taxes and the progressivity of the individual income tax system.

Then there is the other administration response to the deficit issue--that it simply doesn't matter.

Federal Chairman Allan Greenspan repeatedly has emphasized that higher deficits do, in fact, lead to higher interest rates. As the Fed's monetary report to Congress stated, deficits have already led to a downswing in national saving, and ``if not reversed over the longer haul, such low levels of national saving could eventually impinge on the formation of private capital that contributed to the improved productivity performance of the past half-decade.'' At last month's Banking Committee hearing, Chairman Greenspan clearly stated that he would oppose the continuation of large deficits in the face of full employment. Yet the administration's own overly-optimistic forecast shows deficits persisting after the economy is back to full employment and robust economic growth.

By choosing tax cuts over less costly and more immediate stimulus for the past several years, the President has allowed the manufacturing sector, a hallmark of our country's economy, to fall into a spiraling decline. This neglect for a vital sector of the economy has especially hurt the Northeast and the Midwest.

Just this week, the Wall Street Journal stated:

While hundreds of factories close in any given year,

something historic and fundamentally different is occurring

now . . . Most of these basic and low skilled factory jobs

aren't liable to come back when the economy recovers or when

excess capacity around the world dissolves.

The manufacturing industry cut 56,000 more jobs in June alone, the 35th consecutive monthly decline. From manufacturing to information technology, midcareer workers have been especially hard hit, and with many of these jobs lost forever to other countries, there is even more reason to act fairly and pass additional assistance for the long-term unemployed and to provide them with new skills through job retraining programs when you consider the record of job loss.

We should not limit unemployment and job retraining assistance to those laid off from manufacturing jobs, however. With so many Americans out of work for far too long and the persistence of job losses, there is an incredibly pressing need to extend benefits to those workers who have exhausted all of their unemployment benefits and yet still found no work. It is not their fault that jobs are not being created for them to fill.

Finally, there is no question that state fiscal crises are also restraining the economic recovery. These crises are predicated in no small part on insufficient Federal grant-in-aid to the States, along with decreased state tax revenues that are tied to reduced Federal tax rates.

Indeed, what we have here is a push-and-pull phenomenon. As the administration claims they are cutting taxes to stimulate the economy, State and localities are forced to raise taxes and cut expenses under their rules and their budgets, thus creating a situation in which our effect is counteracted by their necessary actions.

The official labeling of an ``economic recovery'' by the National Bureau of Economic Research sadly does not mean an end to the economic suffering that too many Americans feel. I think we should all be deeply concerned about the state of our economy--the persistent unemployment, and the huge budget deficits that are only likely to grow worse as the administration continues to push its tax-cutting agenda. Contrary to the administration's claims that its tax-cutting agenda is necessary to get the economic growth to bring surpluses back, those tax cuts will reduce our economic capacity for many, many years to come. We have already seen clear evidence of that, even in the administration's own estimates.

Just this week, a trio of Cabinet Secretaries has been traveling across the country on a so-called Jobs and Growth Tour Bus. But there have been no jobs, very limited growth.

And this tour is less of a victory lap than a further underscoring of the serious economic issues that face American families.

It appears that for some, the problem of working families struggling to get by merely serves as an excuse to pass massive, ineffective, irresponsible, and untargeted tax cuts. We must stay focused and pass measures that make sense and will put our economy on the right course both now and into the future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the accomplishment of Major Anthony W. Hamel of the Rhode Island Air National Guard. MAJ Hamel was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious achievement while serving as Executive Officer and Director of Staff of the 376th Expeditionary Wing at Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan from 6 November 2002 to 6 May 2003 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Major Hamel was recognized by the United States Air Force for ``outstanding leadership . . . essential to the effective prosecution of operation Enduring Freedom and the fight against global terrorism.'' As Director of Staff, he ``acted as a catalyst in virtually every aspect of the wing's day-to-day operations resulting in efficient and seamless coordination among the eight-nation coalition.'' His leadership as Wing Executive Officer enabled the Wing Commander to focus his time on combat sorties and the successful delivery of weapons on target in Afghanistan. He is cited for ``exemplary leadership, personal endeavor, and devotion to duty'' which reflects ``great credit upon himself and the United States Air Force.''

Major Hamel's accomplishments also show great credit to the Rhode Island Air National Guard and the state of Rhode Island. His selfless service to Rhode Island and the nation is an example of all the men and women from my state who volunteer to help keep our nation safe from threats around the world.

I echo the praise of the United States Air Force in recognizing Major Hamel with the award of the Bronze Star Medal. I ask my colleagues to join with me today in thanking Major Hamel on behalf of a grateful nation for his unselfish service to our country.

Mr. President, I rise today to strongly support passage of the Museum and Library Services Act of 2003.

I thank the Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Gregg, and the Ranking Member, Senator Kennedy, for working closely with me on this bill and for getting us to this point. This has been a long time in coming, and I am glad that we have worked out a bill with the other body that we can be proud to support. Indeed, the bill before us today is essentially the bill we approved in Committee on June 26th.

Last year, during the hearing I chaired on the Museum and Library Services Act, we heard directly from the museum and library communities about the recommendations for updating this law so its meets the future needs of museum and library users. I also extend my thanks to the museum and library communities for their efforts in this process.

Like S. 238, the legislation I introduced earlier this year, and S. 888, which I joined Senator Gregg in introducing, this bill doubles the minimum state allotment under the Library Services and Technology Act, which will enable smaller States like Rhode to benefit and implement the valuable services and programs that larger States have been able to put in place.

It also ensures that library activities are coordinated with the school library program I authored, which is now part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

The bill includes an increase in the indemnity limits under the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act to ensure continued support for American museums as they facilitate international cultural exchanges through touring exhibitions here in the U.S. and loans of American art around the world.

The bill also establishes a reservation of 1.75 percent of funds for museum services for Native Americans, to match the reservation currently provided for library services under the Library Services and Technology subtitle.

The bill updates the uses of funds for library and museum programs and increases the authorization levels for the Library Services and Technology Act and the Museum Services Act.

We should meet these funding levels in the appropriations process due to this bill's strong bipartisan support. I personally believe that our libraries and museums should be more robustly funded, particularly as these institutions play increasingly important roles in our lives.

Again, I congratulate and thank my colleagues, in particular, Senators Gregg, Kennedy, Frist, and Enzi, on passage of this important legislation. I look forward to working with them to get this bill to the President's desk in September so that the bill's increase in the minimum state allotment will take effect in Fiscal Year 2004, as well as on ensuring increased funding for our Nation's libraries and museums.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to discuss the issues involving our ongoing conflict in Iraq. I will discuss the issues of intelligence, planning, and the challenges ahead.

These topics are critically important in their own right. But, they take on even more profound and consequential aspects when you recognize that failures and missteps in Iraq could play out again as we face future threats, the most alarming of which is the deepening crisis over North Korea.

Today, I find myself expressing many of the concerns that I initially stated last October when I opposed a unilateral approach to confronting the Saddam Hussein regime. But the obligation to review our activities in Iraq is less about the past and much more about the demanding present, both within Iraq and around the globe.

With each passing day, the struggle in Iraq claims additional American lives. These losses are the most tangible and poignant symbols of the increasingly difficult burden that we have chosen to bear. Our stunning military success in the first phase of the war gave us the hope that our conventional victory would lead quickly to a decisive and final cessation of hostilities. Our hopes are periodically renewed when our forces are able to capture or kill another prominent member of the regime. Most recently, the 101st Airborne routed Saddam's sons, Qusay and Uday, from their hiding place and killed them in a fierce firefight. We even seem to be closing in upon Saddam himself. Yet still the attacks against our troops go on. Our military leaders have wisely cautioned us that we can expect more attacks and more casualties. The situation in Iraq will likely get worse before it gets better, and our military presence will be of long duration.

But, also, with each passing day, several important aspects of the preemptive attack on Iraq become clearer.

The intelligence used by the administration to justify the war was selectively shaped to support their preconceived views of the threat posed by

Saddam. Their declarations of the presence of weapons of mass destruction posing an imminent threat to the United States and their statements linking the Iraqi regime to terrorists associated with al- Qaida were questionable when uttered and, to date, have been unsubstantiated. These distortions were deliberate and calculated to sway opinion rather than to properly inform it.

Planning for occupation activities was woefully lacking. The administration appeared to believe its own oversimplified view of Iraq; namely, that it was a country that would welcome us with open arms once we removed Saddam. This was the line advanced by Iraqi exiles who had for many years been the proteges or associates of numerous administration officials. Apparently, the view of Iraq from Paris or London was just as distorted as the view from Washington think tanks. Complicating this unrealistic view of Iraq was a power struggle between the Department of Defense and the Department of State over responsibility for post-hostility planning. The Department of Defense won and the planning process lost. Expertise was sacrificed for enthusiasm and loyalty. Then, with the avalanche of pressing details concerning the pending attack, post-attack planning took a predictable back seat.

Today, American forces are engaged in suppressing a well-armed and well-financed insurgency. Iraq is awash in weapons. The coalition provisional authority acknowledged the obvious when it authorized each homeowner to retain an AK-47. Even so, it is amazing to read on a daily basis of the seizure of hundreds of RPG's and hundreds and hundreds of pounds of explosives. And, there appears to be a lot more that has yet to be discovered. More serious, of course, is the daily casualties among our troops caused by these weapons. Also, the insurgents to date appear to have an ample supply of cash. Another amazing revelation of my recent trip to Iraq was the frequency that our forces turned up sizable quantities of cash and valuables as they rounded up even low ranking members of the Saddam regime.

The insurgency in Iraq has not been transformed into a popular movement to attack American forces and to eject us from Iraq. That is good news. But we are in a frantic race to improve security, reinvigorate a devastated economy and establish an Iraqi government deemed legitimate by the people of Iraq before popular frustration and incipient nationalism are ignited by those who do wish to attack and eject us from the ground.

One of the more thoughtful and even-handed military analysts, Anthony Cordesman at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has accurately summarized the record of the administration's intelligence activities leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

[T]here are many indications that the U.S. intelligence

community came under pressure to accept reporting by Iraqi

opposition forces with limited credibility and, in some

cases, a history of actively lying to either exaggerate their

own importance or push the U.S. towards a war to overthrow

Saddam Hussein. In what bore a striking resemblance to

similar worst case interpretations of the global threat from

the proliferation of ballistic missiles under the Rumsfeld

Commission, U.S. policymakers not only seem to have pushed

for the interpretation that would best justify military

action, but to have focused on this case as if it were a

reality, rather than a possibility. In the U.S., this

pressure seems to have come primarily from the Office of

the Vice President and the Office of the Secretary of

Defense, but it seems clear that the Bush Administration

as a whole sought intelligence that would support its case

in going to war, and this had a significant impact on the

intelligence community from 2002-onwards.

The administration did not use intelligence to help make a difficult decision. It used intelligence to sell a preconceived notion. The long- term, fixed view of the administration held that deterrence and international inspectors were inherently incapable of containing Saddam. Only the elimination of the regime could suffice. Moreover, regime change could have the added benefit of precipitating a transformation of the entire region.

In January of 1998, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Wolfowitz and other prominent neo-conservatives wrote to President Clinton urging him to use military force to remove Saddam.

In their words:

The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the

possibility that Iraq will be able to use weapons of mass

destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to

undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In

the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his

regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of

American foreign policy.

This letter predated the attack on Iraq by 5 years. Indeed, it predated September 11 by more than 3 years. This last point is instructive. Recently, Secretary Rumsfeld has been defending his judgment regarding the military campaign against Iraq as simply seeing intelligence in light of September 11. But it seems clear that he reached his conclusion about Iraq well before September 11, and September 11 certainly did not change his mind.

September 11 did, however, horrifically foreshadow the gravest threat facing the Nation: sophisticated terrorist cells armed with nuclear weapons. And, in so doing, gave the administration the template for its arguments. The President's assertion, that Iraq was actively seeking uranium from Niger, was false and known to be false at the highest levels of the administration, but it provided an irresistible element in the case the administration wanted to make against Iraq. Similarly, Secretary Rumsfeld made claims that he had ``bulletproof'' evidence of active collaboration between the Saddam Hussein regime and al-Qaida. In the weeks since the fall of the regime, no evidence has emerged to validate this claim.

These distortions and exaggerations are a dangerous disservice. They undermine confidence in the information that the public and decision makers must rely upon to make difficult judgments. Moreover, they suggest that the administration is not interested in understanding the world, but simply changing it along lines agreed to in policy seminars years ago.

Despite warnings of the difficulties inherent in stabilizing Iraq after the defeat of Saddam Hussein, planning for post-hostilities was an afterthought. The Defense Department wrested control of the process from State and insulated the planners from broad-based collaboration. Then it went on to bet that Iraqi gratitude, together with an exile government, would provide for a cheap and easy exit strategy.

Defense officials point out that they planned for many events that did not take place and executed a military plan that minimized potential humanitarian, economic and environmental problems. In fact, the military plan executed by CENTCOM was brilliant and did seek to minimize collateral damage through judicious targeting as well as actively seizing key installations, particularly oil facilities, to avoid sabotage.

But, the further one moves away from formal military plans into the province of policing, civil administration and economic development the clearer it becomes that the post war planning was grossly inadequate.

The first overt sign of planning inadequacies was the initial indifference to large scale looting. The collapse of the Iraqi police was not compensated for by aggressive action by our military. The systematic looting went unchecked for a prolonged period and undermined an already fragile and antiquated infrastructure.

The failure to incorporate experts on Iraq from the State Department and other agencies led to reliance on an ad-hoc group of retired military and administration operatives to try to organize a political and economic response. Initial efforts were disappointing and led to General Garner's early departure. Ambassador Bremer has filled the leadership void with more of a presence, but the realization is taking hold that this will be a long and expensive process with a still uncertain outcome.

The United States faces serious challenges in Iraq.

The preeminent challenge is security. Our forces are facing increasingly sophisticated attacks. In the first few days of the occupation, our troops were engaged with small arms on an opportunistic basis. The attacks have stepped up with more organization and more lethal weapons like RPGs. Lately, the insurgent's use of remotely detonated landmines and explosives demonstrates an increasing sophistication in training and planning.

A disturbing escalation in potential lethality of these attacks came with the recent report of a man-portable

antiaircraft missile attack on an aircraft over Baghdad International Airport. This attack begs the question of the number of these MANPADS in Iraq and whether any have been removed from Iraq for use elsewhere. One or more successful attacks on aircraft would have a serious impact on both the security climate and the closely related efforts to restore a sense of predictability for economic investment and development.

Our military forces are aggressively attempting to preempt these attacks. The key to any successful counter-insurgency is intelligence, and we have begun an all-out effort to target the middle range of former Iraqi security officials to identify the insurgents and their support mechanisms. Nevertheless, the number of desperate and determined regime diehards with access to weapons and knowledge of the terrain and our dispositions indicates that these attacks will continue. In addition, it is reasonable to assume that infiltration of foreign terrorists will take place. This development could add an even more lethal, sophisticated and longer-term element to the battle. Our forces will likely face successive waves of violence over many months.

The next military challenge is to sustain our forces in Iraq. We cannot do so over the next year without additional international support or by activation of additional National Guard and Reserve forces. Our quest for international support was compromised from the beginning by the administration's insistence on an essentially unilateral approach to Iraq. Unless the administration is able to recruit an additional international division, the current rotation plan will have a huge gap next February when the 101st Airborne Division is scheduled to return. Since the administration has yet to ask NATO for support and major European countries like France and Germany remain estranged on this issue, likely candidates are Turkey and, perhaps, Pakistan. Each of these countries would demand significant financial and logistical support. And, the introduction of the Turks could cause problems within Iraq. The introduction of Pakistani forces could further incite domestic criticism of Musharraf at home.

The need to activate reserve forces is becoming more pressing with each passing day. I support General Barry McCaffrey's recommendation that we immediately activate nine National Guard Brigades, not just the two currently planned to be activated. Such a decision cannot be deferred much longer since these brigades must receive intensive training before they are deployed. Given the indefinite nature of our mission in Iraq and the potential for additional crises around the globe, these brigades should be made part of our active force structure and replenished through active duty recruitment.

The security challenge is matched by the need to create a functioning government that is legitimate in the eyes of the Iraqi people. We have begun this process through some arduous efforts in Baghdad. However, even more difficult and controversial actions lie ahead. The selection of a Governing Council was a start, but also revealed the problems that we face.

First, we are still saddling ourselves with Chalabi and the exiles. My initial instincts, that I shared with Ambassador Bremer in Baghdad, questioned the wisdom of placing these individuals in positions of power. Since that time, the first credible survey of Iraqi opinion conducted by the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs has been published. Among its conclusions is the finding that there exists ``[c]ynicism about leaders, especially acute regarding some exiled leaders who were objects [of] vilification campaigns led by the previous regime. . . .''

Second, we have necessarily put off the most divisive political decision. Who will be the ``face of Iraq''? The Council represents a broad spectrum of Iraq, but it has yet to produce a personality that will be that Iraqi face. The ``executive'' of the Council is a nine member body dominated by the exiles. One member rotates as the ``Executive'' each month. Eventually, a personality will emerge. Will that emergence set off a political crisis when disgruntled factions realize that they will not lead Iraq? I believe that there is a substantial likelihood of such a development and that would further complicate our presence.

Finally, our political tasks in Iraq must be accomplished with greater speed and a more deliberate and effective strategy to explain our actions. After the Saddam regime, the people of Iraq are steeped in misinformation and cynicism. According to the NDI survey, ``antipathy for the United States and Britain is not overcome by the fact that these two countries are responsible for the country's liberation from the tyrant they despise.'' Moreover, ``virtually no one, excepting some Kurds in the north, believes the United States intervention in Iraq is motivated by a desire to help the Iraqi people. Usually people say the U.S. `is acting in its own interest'--which is often viewed in terms of access to Iraq's oil reserves.''

The political situation in Iraq is not without some encouragement. According to the NDI Survey, there is no widespread support for the attacks against our forces. However, Iraqis do want foreign military forces to depart. There is a strong commitment to the integrity of the Iraqi state. Nevertheless, continued security problems, economic difficulties and political controversies can quickly sap these encouraging signs.

The serious consequences of selective intelligence and poor planning are playing themselves out today in Iraq. But, of equal or even greater concern, is the effect of the administration's operating style in other areas and issues of concern. The most notable and, to my mind, the most dangerous of these issues is North Korea's rush to develop significant quantities of fissile material and nuclear weapons.

In North Korea, we have, according to their demonstrated conduct and their public declarations, the type of threat that the administration claimed required a preemptive military attack in Iraq. Nowhere in the world do the lines of sophisticated terrorists and nuclear material come closer to intersecting than in the conduct of the North Koreans. By all accounts, North Korea is one of the most persistent and prodigious proliferators in the world. They sell military products to the highest bidder. With plutonium, they will likely get offers from terrorists.

The administration's response has been slow to develop and characterized by many of the pitfalls found in the prologue to Iraq with one other major factor. Our commitment to Iraq has seriously strained the capacity of the Administration to deal with North Korea and other problem areas.

The stress on our land forces inhibits a diplomatic strategy complemented by unquestioned military power. The public preoccupation with the turmoil in Iraq makes it very difficult to marshal the necessary popular support to engage in another high profile international confrontation at this time. The amount of energy and time that is devoted to Iraq crowds out the agendas of decision makers.

Thus, the administration is in a holding pattern. It is promoting a multinational, diplomatic approach that is laudable but not productive. It appears that just below the surface, some of the Beltway battles that preceded our operations in Iraq are being fought to a standstill. Once again, it seems that dogma is clashing with diplomacy. The doctrine of regime change is pitted against a diplomatic approach that requires as a prerequisite the tacit recognition, at least, of non- aggression against the North Korean regime as part of an overall, verifiable agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons.

The effect of all of this is that crucial time is being squandered. As former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry declared, the situation in North Korea--

was manageable six months ago if we did the right things. But

we haven't done the right things.

The President has to address this issue now by settling the debate within his Administration in favor of diplomacy and not dogma. He has to take steps now to bolster our military forces to complement a diplomatic approach.

It would be tragic if our efforts in Iraq allowed a more ominous situation to develop in North Korea.

I yield the floor and the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, we often don't think about how important water is to our everyday lives, for our health and for our economy. As Americans, we take for granted that when we turn on the tap that clean and safe water will flow from the faucet.

Over the last three decades, the United States has made substantial progress in reducing the pollution flowing into our waters and safeguarding drinking water supplies for our communities. Despite our progress, we still face many challenges.

Population growth is increasing demand for water, and pollution from point and nonpoint sources threaten the quality and quantity of water available to us. According to EPA, the overwhelming majority of the population of the United States--218 million people--live within 10 miles of a polluted river, lake, or coastal water. Nearly 40 percent of these waters are not safe for fishing, swimming, boating, drinking water, or other needs. And while overall water pollution levels decreased dramatically over the last 30 years, recent data may be revealing a disturbing trend. Indeed, EPA's most recent National Water Quality Inventory found that the number of polluted rivers and estuaries increased between 1998 and 2000. Water pollution represents a real and daily threat to public health and to the wildlife that depend on clean water.

This year, we are celebrating the Year of Clean Water. To honor our national commitment to reduce the pollution flowing into our waters and provide safe drinking water for our communities, I am introducing the National Clean and Safe Water Fund Act of 2003. The legislation, cosponsored by Senators Voinovich, Sarbanes, Snowe, Jeffords, Levin and Harkin will create a fund to carry out projects to promote water quality and protect watersheds and aquifers. It would establish a fund whose sole purpose is to advance the restoration of U.S. waters, particularly in the watersheds where these violations occurred. The bill is supported by a wide variety of organizations, including: the Narragansett Bay Commission, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, American Rivers, Environmental Integrity Project, Friends of the Earth, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Ocean Conservancy and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. I asked unanimous consent that the bill and letters of support be included in the record following my statement.

Last year, the Federal Government collected $52 million in civil and criminal penalties from violations of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Acts. The money was deposited in the Treasury with no guarantee that the fines collected would be used to correct the water pollution for which the penalties were levied. Our legislation would make these funds available to local communities, tribes, States and non-profit organizations to protect and preserve watersheds and aquifers and to improve water quality.

This legislation would target this money to worthy projects, such as wetland protection and stream buffers to help filter out pathogens and pollutants that contaminate drinking water; land acquisition and conservation easements to protect watershed and aquifers; best management practices to prevent pollution in the first place; and, treatment works to control combined sewer or sanitary sewer overflows. Our legislation will continue progress to reduce the number of impaired waterways in our Nation, and to reduce, or better yet, prevent contamination of groundwater and drinking water sources.

It is imperative that we increase Federal investment in clean water and drinking water infrastructure and devote greater resources and attention to protecting and improving our watersheds and aquifers.

The Congressional Budget Office released a report that estimated the spending gap for clean water needs could reach as high as $388 billion and the spending gap for drinking water needs could reach $362 billion over 20 years. The CBO concluded the current funding from all levels of government and current revenue generated from ratepayers will not be sufficient to meet the Nation's future demand for water infrastructure. Yet, despite these grim statistics, the Federal Government is investing only $1.35 billion in Clean Water infrastructure each year and $850 million in Drinking Water infrastructure. And unfortunately, the President's budget proposes to cut this funding by $500 million this year.

Given the tremendous need in our communities, and the importance of water infrastructure to our economy, it is vital that the Federal Government maintain a strong partnership with States and local governments to avert this massive funding gap. We need to find new funding sources for watershed and aquifer protection. Clean, safe and abundant drinking water can no longer be taken for granted.

The costs of building new reservoirs and treatment facilities threaten to overrun our ability to pay, especially during the current fiscal crisis. Technology also has limitations in its ability to treat polluted water. Many water agencies are focusing on protecting watersheds and aquifers and conserving valuable clean water resources. In my State, the Providence Water Supply Board collects 1 cent per 100 gallons in a water usage tax to fund watershed acquisition. This may be our best and cheapest way to guarantee water quality and quantity.

Congress needs to increase support for efforts to protect our water resources. Polluted runoff from urban and agricultural land is now the most significant source of water pollution in the nation and the greatest threat to our drinking water. Our greatest future gains in pollution control will, therefore, come from reducing non-point source pollution.

There are cost-effective and environmentally sound projects that could help reduce this pollution, but currently, many non-point source projects cannot participate in the State revolving loan programs since they often do not have a guaranteed source of revenue. Also, without making new Federal resources available it is unlikely we will be able support increased investment in green infrastructure projects such as wetland conservation and stream buffers. The legislation that we are introducing today will make greater funding available for water quality projects.

I hope that my colleagues will join Senators Voinovich, Sarbanes, Snowe, Jeffords, Levin, Harkin and me in supporting this legislation. Creating this fund will help further the Nation's goals of providing safe and clean water for our communities and restoring water quality for wildlife.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we often don't think about how important water is to our everyday lives, for our health and for our economy. As Americans, we take for granted that when we turn on the tap that clean and safe water will flow from the faucet.

Over the last three decades, the United States has made substantial progress in reducing the pollution flowing into our waters and safeguarding drinking water supplies for our communities. Despite our progress, we still face many challenges.

Population growth is increasing demand for water, and pollution from point and nonpoint sources threaten the quality and quantity of water available to us. According to EPA, the overwhelming majority of the population of the United States--218 million people--live within 10 miles of a polluted river, lake, or coastal water. Nearly 40 percent of these waters are not safe for fishing, swimming, boating, drinking water, or other needs. And while overall water pollution levels decreased dramatically over the last 30 years, recent data may be revealing a disturbing trend. Indeed, EPA's most recent National Water Quality Inventory found that the number of polluted rivers and estuaries increased between 1998 and 2000. Water pollution represents a real and daily threat to public health and to the wildlife that depend on clean water.

This year, we are celebrating the Year of Clean Water. To honor our national commitment to reduce the pollution flowing into our waters and provide safe drinking water for our communities, I am introducing the National Clean and Safe Water Fund Act of 2003. The legislation, cosponsored by Senators Voinovich, Sarbanes, Snowe, Jeffords, Levin and Harkin will create a fund to carry out projects to promote water quality and protect watersheds and aquifers. It would establish a fund whose sole purpose is to advance the restoration of U.S. waters, particularly in the watersheds where these violations occurred. The bill is supported by a wide variety of organizations, including: the Narragansett Bay Commission, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, American Rivers, Environmental Integrity Project, Friends of the Earth, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Ocean Conservancy and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. I asked unanimous consent that the bill and letters of support be included in the record following my statement.

Last year, the Federal Government collected $52 million in civil and criminal penalties from violations of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Acts. The money was deposited in the Treasury with no guarantee that the fines collected would be used to correct the water pollution for which the penalties were levied. Our legislation would make these funds available to local communities, tribes, States and non-profit organizations to protect and preserve watersheds and aquifers and to improve water quality.

This legislation would target this money to worthy projects, such as wetland protection and stream buffers to help filter out pathogens and pollutants that contaminate drinking water; land acquisition and conservation easements to protect watershed and aquifers; best management practices to prevent pollution in the first place; and, treatment works to control combined sewer or sanitary sewer overflows. Our legislation will continue progress to reduce the number of impaired waterways in our Nation, and to reduce, or better yet, prevent contamination of groundwater and drinking water sources.

It is imperative that we increase Federal investment in clean water and drinking water infrastructure and devote greater resources and attention to protecting and improving our watersheds and aquifers.

The Congressional Budget Office released a report that estimated the spending gap for clean water needs could reach as high as $388 billion and the spending gap for drinking water needs could reach $362 billion over 20 years. The CBO concluded the current funding from all levels of government and current revenue generated from ratepayers will not be sufficient to meet the Nation's future demand for water infrastructure. Yet, despite these grim statistics, the Federal Government is investing only $1.35 billion in Clean Water infrastructure each year and $850 million in Drinking Water infrastructure. And unfortunately, the President's budget proposes to cut this funding by $500 million this year.

Given the tremendous need in our communities, and the importance of water infrastructure to our economy, it is vital that the Federal Government maintain a strong partnership with States and local governments to avert this massive funding gap. We need to find new funding sources for watershed and aquifer protection. Clean, safe and abundant drinking water can no longer be taken for granted.

The costs of building new reservoirs and treatment facilities threaten to overrun our ability to pay, especially during the current fiscal crisis. Technology also has limitations in its ability to treat polluted water. Many water agencies are focusing on protecting watersheds and aquifers and conserving valuable clean water resources. In my State, the Providence Water Supply Board collects 1 cent per 100 gallons in a water usage tax to fund watershed acquisition. This may be our best and cheapest way to guarantee water quality and quantity.

Congress needs to increase support for efforts to protect our water resources. Polluted runoff from urban and agricultural land is now the most significant source of water pollution in the nation and the greatest threat to our drinking water. Our greatest future gains in pollution control will, therefore, come from reducing non-point source pollution.

There are cost-effective and environmentally sound projects that could help reduce this pollution, but currently, many non-point source projects cannot participate in the State revolving loan programs since they often do not have a guaranteed source of revenue. Also, without making new Federal resources available it is unlikely we will be able support increased investment in green infrastructure projects such as wetland conservation and stream buffers. The legislation that we are introducing today will make greater funding available for water quality projects.

I hope that my colleagues will join Senators Voinovich, Sarbanes, Snowe, Jeffords, Levin, Harkin and me in supporting this legislation. Creating this fund will help further the Nation's goals of providing safe and clean water for our communities and restoring water quality for wildlife.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.