Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to honor the magnificent life, and the legacy, of Celia Cruz, and to introduce legislation to award her posthumously our Nation's highest civilian award, the Congressional Gold Medal. This award would be an appropriate tribute to Ms. Cruz's life, given her innumerable accomplishments in the world of entertainment, her work as an ambassador of Latino culture, and her many contributions to American society.

Celia de la Caridad Cruz Alonso was born on October 21 during the 1920's. She died on July 17, 2003, at her home in Fort Lee, NJ.

Over a prolific 50-year career as an entertainer, Celia Cruz, the ``Queen of Salsa,'' recorded more than 50 albums. Each was a showcase of her talent, flair, and the passion she brought to her work. Her collaborative efforts ranged from work with legendary salsa artist Tito Puente, pop star David Byrne, and hip-hop producer Wyclef Jean. Through those cross-cultural efforts, Cruz's music reached over four generations of fans, and helped break down ethnic and cultural barriers.

Celia Cruz's gifts as an entertainer were recognized throughout the world, and she won hundreds of awards, most notably a 1990 Grammy Award and Billboard Magazine's ``Lifetime Achievement Award'' in 1995. In 1994, Ms. Cruz was recognized by President Clinton with a National Endowment of the Arts award.

While best known for her work as an entertainer, Celia Cruz was much more than a singer to her fans, especially to Latinos in America. She touched the lives of millions. The outpouring of sorrow that accompanied the news of her passing underscores that point. More than 100,000 people turned out to pay their respect, and honor the memory of Celia Cruz at her wake in Miami, FL. More than 75,000 people lined the streets of Manhattan--some crying, many singing and fondly recalling Ms. Cruz's life--as her funeral procession made its way from the St. Patrick's Cathedral.

The enormous outpouring of support that accompanied news of the death of Celia Cruz provides some indication about the special nature of this amazing woman. Her story is that of a girl from meager means in Havana, Cuba who eventually grew up to become a ``queen.''

Celia Cruz was one of 14 children raised in Havana's Santa Suarez district. As a child, she could be heard by neighbors as she sung her siblings to sleep. She received her first award in a competition on the talent show La Hora Del Te on Radio Garcia Serra, in which she won first prize.

Her first break came in 1950 when she took over as the lead singer with Cuba's Sonora Matancera. Cruz's first recording was a 78 rpm single released with Sonora Matancera in January 1951, entitled ``Cao Cao Mani Picao''.

On July 15, 1960, Cruz and members of her band fled Cuba for the United States, to escape the regime of Fidel Castro. They were able to get out by convincing Castro's officials that the group was simply going on another tour abroad. Enraged by the singer's choice to pursue freedom, Castro never forgave Cruz for this and refused to let Celia return to Cuba--even as her mother was sick and when her father passed away.

In the 60's, Celia Cruz and Pedro Knight, her husband and a member of the band, decided to make America their permanent home and Celia Cruz became a citizen of the United States.

During that time, Celia Cruz transformed from a gifted, charismatic Cuban-American singer to a woman who would become the ``Queen of Salsa.''

In 1966, she teamed up with the legendary Tito Puente and together they released eight albums. Although her classic style, the origins of salsa, did not immediately appeal to Latin youth during the 1960's, Celia Cruz returned with a vengeance after a stint in the Operetta ``Hommy,'' in the early 1970's.

By 1973, Latin pride had begun to take hold in American cities with large Latino communities--particularly in New York, New Jersey and Florida.

In New York, Latin musicians had begun to mix classical musical styles from Puerto Rico, such as Bomba and Plena, with classical musical styles from Cuba, such as Mambo and Son, combining them with the trombone for a more urban sound. This combination created what is now known as salsa--and Celia Cruz was a pioneer of the genre.

Ms. Cruz signed with Fania Records, one of the major salsa record labels of the time, and in the summer of '74 released Celia & Johnny, the first in a series of collaborations with Johnny Pacheco. Building upon the success of these albums, Cruz then recorded albums with other top leaders on the Fania roster, like Willie Colon, Papo Lucca and Ray Barretto, whose bands each had their own trademark sound. She toured with the Fania until 1988.

While Latin music has historically been predominately dominated by male artists the talent of Celia Cruz could not be ignored. Her flamboyant clothing, charismatic presence, proud voice and her trademark ``Azuuuuuuuuuuuuucar!'' tag line became legendary.

In addition to her lucrative recording career, Cruz also had roles in several American films such as Salsa, the Mambo Kings and the Perez Family. She was a true pioneer.

As I mentioned earlier, Celia Cruz received hundreds of awards as a result of her contributions to music, most notable the Grammy Award and the National Endowment of the Arts Award from President Clinton. Her contributions to society and her contributions to Latino culture have also been well recognized. Among those the Presidential Medal in Arts from the Republic of Colombia and the Hispanic Heritage Award's Lifetime Achievement Award.

Other notable recognitions bestowed upon Ms. Cruz include an honorary Doctorate of Music from Yale, a star on Hollywood's ``Walk of Fame,'' and the keys to the cities of Union City, NJ; Miami, FL; Dallas, TX; and New York City.

Those recognitions are all noteworthy, and the life of Celia Cruz warrants each and every one of them. But of the hundreds of awards won by Celia Cruz, there is one award that she did not receive, but most certainly deserves the Congressional Gold Medal.

This award is considered our Nation's highest civilian honor, and has been

awarded to a rare and esteemed group of individuals. Notable recipients include George Washington, Sir Winston Churchill, Bob Hope, Robert Frost, Joe Louis, Mother Teresa, and most recently Tony Blair.

The standards for considering legislation authorizing Congressional Gold Medal state that, among other things, ``the recipient shall have performed an achievement that has an impact on American history and culture that is likely to be recognized as a major achievement in the recipient's field long after that achievement.''

Celia Cruz, music pioneer and the acknowledged ``Queen of Salsa,'' certainly fits the criteria to receive the Congressional Gold Medal. Celia Cruz, ambassador of Latin culture, impassioned voice of freedom, and American is what the Congressional Gold Medal is about.

This award would properly honor the legacy, and the life, of Celia Cruz. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to honor the magnificent life, and the legacy, of Celia Cruz, and to introduce legislation to award her posthumously our Nation's highest civilian award, the Congressional Gold Medal. This award would be an appropriate tribute to Ms. Cruz's life, given her innumerable accomplishments in the world of entertainment, her work as an ambassador of Latino culture, and her many contributions to American society.

Celia de la Caridad Cruz Alonso was born on October 21 during the 1920's. She died on July 17, 2003, at her home in Fort Lee, NJ.

Over a prolific 50-year career as an entertainer, Celia Cruz, the ``Queen of Salsa,'' recorded more than 50 albums. Each was a showcase of her talent, flair, and the passion she brought to her work. Her collaborative efforts ranged from work with legendary salsa artist Tito Puente, pop star David Byrne, and hip-hop producer Wyclef Jean. Through those cross-cultural efforts, Cruz's music reached over four generations of fans, and helped break down ethnic and cultural barriers.

Celia Cruz's gifts as an entertainer were recognized throughout the world, and she won hundreds of awards, most notably a 1990 Grammy Award and Billboard Magazine's ``Lifetime Achievement Award'' in 1995. In 1994, Ms. Cruz was recognized by President Clinton with a National Endowment of the Arts award.

While best known for her work as an entertainer, Celia Cruz was much more than a singer to her fans, especially to Latinos in America. She touched the lives of millions. The outpouring of sorrow that accompanied the news of her passing underscores that point. More than 100,000 people turned out to pay their respect, and honor the memory of Celia Cruz at her wake in Miami, FL. More than 75,000 people lined the streets of Manhattan--some crying, many singing and fondly recalling Ms. Cruz's life--as her funeral procession made its way from the St. Patrick's Cathedral.

The enormous outpouring of support that accompanied news of the death of Celia Cruz provides some indication about the special nature of this amazing woman. Her story is that of a girl from meager means in Havana, Cuba who eventually grew up to become a ``queen.''

Celia Cruz was one of 14 children raised in Havana's Santa Suarez district. As a child, she could be heard by neighbors as she sung her siblings to sleep. She received her first award in a competition on the talent show La Hora Del Te on Radio Garcia Serra, in which she won first prize.

Her first break came in 1950 when she took over as the lead singer with Cuba's Sonora Matancera. Cruz's first recording was a 78 rpm single released with Sonora Matancera in January 1951, entitled ``Cao Cao Mani Picao''.

On July 15, 1960, Cruz and members of her band fled Cuba for the United States, to escape the regime of Fidel Castro. They were able to get out by convincing Castro's officials that the group was simply going on another tour abroad. Enraged by the singer's choice to pursue freedom, Castro never forgave Cruz for this and refused to let Celia return to Cuba--even as her mother was sick and when her father passed away.

In the 60's, Celia Cruz and Pedro Knight, her husband and a member of the band, decided to make America their permanent home and Celia Cruz became a citizen of the United States.

During that time, Celia Cruz transformed from a gifted, charismatic Cuban-American singer to a woman who would become the ``Queen of Salsa.''

In 1966, she teamed up with the legendary Tito Puente and together they released eight albums. Although her classic style, the origins of salsa, did not immediately appeal to Latin youth during the 1960's, Celia Cruz returned with a vengeance after a stint in the Operetta ``Hommy,'' in the early 1970's.

By 1973, Latin pride had begun to take hold in American cities with large Latino communities--particularly in New York, New Jersey and Florida.

In New York, Latin musicians had begun to mix classical musical styles from Puerto Rico, such as Bomba and Plena, with classical musical styles from Cuba, such as Mambo and Son, combining them with the trombone for a more urban sound. This combination created what is now known as salsa--and Celia Cruz was a pioneer of the genre.

Ms. Cruz signed with Fania Records, one of the major salsa record labels of the time, and in the summer of '74 released Celia & Johnny, the first in a series of collaborations with Johnny Pacheco. Building upon the success of these albums, Cruz then recorded albums with other top leaders on the Fania roster, like Willie Colon, Papo Lucca and Ray Barretto, whose bands each had their own trademark sound. She toured with the Fania until 1988.

While Latin music has historically been predominately dominated by male artists the talent of Celia Cruz could not be ignored. Her flamboyant clothing, charismatic presence, proud voice and her trademark ``Azuuuuuuuuuuuuucar!'' tag line became legendary.

In addition to her lucrative recording career, Cruz also had roles in several American films such as Salsa, the Mambo Kings and the Perez Family. She was a true pioneer.

As I mentioned earlier, Celia Cruz received hundreds of awards as a result of her contributions to music, most notable the Grammy Award and the National Endowment of the Arts Award from President Clinton. Her contributions to society and her contributions to Latino culture have also been well recognized. Among those the Presidential Medal in Arts from the Republic of Colombia and the Hispanic Heritage Award's Lifetime Achievement Award.

Other notable recognitions bestowed upon Ms. Cruz include an honorary Doctorate of Music from Yale, a star on Hollywood's ``Walk of Fame,'' and the keys to the cities of Union City, NJ; Miami, FL; Dallas, TX; and New York City.

Those recognitions are all noteworthy, and the life of Celia Cruz warrants each and every one of them. But of the hundreds of awards won by Celia Cruz, there is one award that she did not receive, but most certainly deserves the Congressional Gold Medal.

This award is considered our Nation's highest civilian honor, and has been

awarded to a rare and esteemed group of individuals. Notable recipients include George Washington, Sir Winston Churchill, Bob Hope, Robert Frost, Joe Louis, Mother Teresa, and most recently Tony Blair.

The standards for considering legislation authorizing Congressional Gold Medal state that, among other things, ``the recipient shall have performed an achievement that has an impact on American history and culture that is likely to be recognized as a major achievement in the recipient's field long after that achievement.''

Celia Cruz, music pioneer and the acknowledged ``Queen of Salsa,'' certainly fits the criteria to receive the Congressional Gold Medal. Celia Cruz, ambassador of Latin culture, impassioned voice of freedom, and American is what the Congressional Gold Medal is about.

This award would properly honor the legacy, and the life, of Celia Cruz. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Edwards, Senator Lautenberg, and others, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this amendment addresses one of the most serious security threats facing the American people. As I will indicate later, this is not an assertion I make alone but an assertion made by a broad range of security experts, including the Secretary of Homeland Security: the threat of a terrorist attack on our Nation's chemical facilities.

There are literally thousands of chemical producers, refineries, and similar facilities throughout the United States where the release of chemicals can kill or injure literally tens of thousands and, in many instances, millions of Americans through exposure to highly toxic gases. That is why these facilities are potentially so attractive to terrorists. That is why security officials indicate that point.

From a practical viewpoint, often these facilities are located in the most densely populated communities across our Nation. The legacies of the great era of American manufacturing were practiced in our urban communities and continue to be in many instances today. New Jersey happens to be one of those communities that is densely populated--it is the most densely populated State in the Nation, and many of these facilities with exposures to over 1 million people are located in my State.

Unfortunately, there are currently no Federal security standards for chemical facilities, none. So the private sector has been left to do as it sees appropriate on a completely voluntary basis. There are some very positive actions by some in the industry to make sure that security and safety at

the plants is attended to. There are good standards being promoted by trade associations. But far too many of the facilities across this country have not stepped up to meet their responsibilities. Far too many continue to be vulnerable to attack.

Time after time we have seen press reports and other indications that our chemical facilities are not properly secure, and there has been very little effort to improve the safety of the processing in many plants. Put literally, millions of Americans are at risk.

A recent report by the conference board, by the way, that confirms this shows there has been a very limited increase in expenditures at publicly held companies in this country. Less than 4 percent at the median, and very little, according to many of the anecdotal pieces of information we have been able to find with regard to chemical plants.

According to the EPA, there are 123 facilities in 24 States where a chemical release could expose more than 1 million people to highly toxic chemicals. There are about 750 facilities in 39 States where a chemical release could expose more than 100,000 people to these chemicals. Thirty-nine States have that kind of exposure.

I have with me a map that shows how many of these facilities are located in each State. This really is a broad-based national issue. There are nearly 3,000 facilities spread across 49 States where a chemical release could expose more than 10,000 people. These are staggering numbers representing a broad vulnerability across America.

The consequences of an attack on a chemical plant are potentially horrific, and it is hard for any of us to even imagine. Think back to 1983 in Bhopal, India, where over 3,000 people died and innumerable injuries and problems in health still linger today. I would argue that our Nation appears to be in denial about this problem. If anything, September 11 taught us that we cannot avoid thinking about the unthinkable. We have to face up to the Nation's most serious vulnerabilities. We have to focus on them and confront them head on. If we look at what has been identified by security experts and the people at the Department of Homeland Security, we will draw that conclusion.

I repeat one of the statistics I mentioned: There are 123 chemical facilities around our Nation that could threaten more than 1 million American lives in their immediate vicinity. To bring this home, there are eight of these facilities in my home State of New Jersey, one that has the potential to expose over 8 million people in the Greater New Jersey-New York region with a toxic cloud. Think about that, 8 million people located smack dab in the middle of one of the most densely populated areas in our country.

These facilities pose a severe threat to public safety. They have serious weapons that could be used against the American people and cause massive injuries and death. Loaded with chemicals such as chlorine, ammonia, and hydrogen fluoride, chemicals that serve an important industrial function, they could be instantly transformed into a weapon of mass destruction at the hands of a terrorist.

I am not arguing that many are not doing what they are supposed to be doing. I see great activity about security and safety in many of the pharmaceutical plants in New Jersey.

There are many who are not stepping up to the plate to make sure the public is protected, and this is not just my opinion. Again, it has been documented by experts in the administration and the like. On March 18, the General Accounting Office issued a new report on this matter. GAO found that chemical facilities may be attractive targets for terrorists because of the extent of harm they could inflict.

If one is trying to find a way to seriously impact broad numbers of the population, this is how GAO says terrorists might actually accomplish that. GAO goes on to say: There are no Federal laws requiring chemical facilities to assess vulnerabilities, to take action, to safeguard against these attacks. GAO recommended that the Department of Homeland Security and the EPA jointly develop a strategy, including legislative proposal, to address the threats of attacks on chemical facilities.

The GAO report was released on March 18 of this year, but only one month earlier the Department of Homeland Security itself sounded the alarm about the threat facing chemical facilities. In the bulletin issued on February 12 of this year, when we moved to code orange, the Department stated:

Al-Qaida operatives also may attempt to launch conventional

attacks against U.S. nuclear/chemical-industrial

infrastructure to cause contamination, disruption and terror.

In our releases to our own people across this country, we identify this as a vulnerability. We ask our local law enforcement to protect the American people.

Based on information, nuclear power plants and industrial

chemical plants remain viable targets.

Now I go back to October 6 of last year. On that day, Homeland Security Secretary Ridge and EPA Administrator Whitman had a letter of theirs published in the Washington Post. In that letter they stated:

The Bush administration is committed to reducing the

vulnerability of America's chemical facilities to terrorist

attack and is working to enact bipartisan legislation that

would require such facilities to address their

vulnerabilities.

That was on October 6 last year. I think this is July 23.

The letter goes on to state:

We applaud the voluntary efforts some in the industry have

undertaken--

By the way, I do as well--

but we believe that every one of the 15,000 chemical

facilities nationwide that contain large quantities of

hazardous chemicals must be required to take the steps the

industry leaders are taking at their facilities: performing

comprehensive vulnerability assessments and then acting to

reduce those vulnerabilities.

Yet in spite of all of these public acknowledgments, comments and statements, we still have not been able to enact chemical security legislation. I introduced a bill back in October of 2001, and did a lot of compromising with a lot of folks on the EPW committee, addressing industry concerns. We reported out a bill 19 to 0. I reintroduced that legislation in this Congress. In April, I offered the bill with further modifications as an amendment to the Defense supplemental appropriations bill. The amendment was defeated on a point of order. In that bill, I actually included additional funds to help facilitate putting in security elements to make sure industry believed we were working as partners to accomplish it.

I will not be offering that legislation on this appropriations bill. I know it would be subject to a point of order. But I simply cannot let this legislation go through without drawing attention to an issue that just lingers and lingers. For the people of the State of New Jersey, and I know in all of these other States that I just talked about, this is a serious risk as we go forward.

In that regard, I want to commend Senator Byrd for recognizing the importance of this issue and including chemical security as a priority in his amendment yesterday. More than any other Senator, the senior Senator from West Virginia has consistently demanded that we do more on homeland security than talk about it. So I thank him for his leadership on homeland security in general, and more specifically for his attention to chemical plant security.

The amendment Senator Edwards and I are offering today is the chemical security portion of Senator Byrd's amendment. It appropriates $80 million for the Department to conduct vulnerability assessments at chemical facilities--simple, with none of the other stuff that is such an onerous problem for the industry. Just get an assessment of what the risks are.

We would not tolerate this with our nuclear plants in this country. We check them out all the time. We have a whole infrastructure to do it. We have these plants located--again, 123 right in the middle of our most vulnerable areas, our most densely populated areas. This $80 million is the amount the Congressional Budget Office has estimated it will cost to conduct vulnerability assessments nationwide.

Some have questioned whether we should legislate this as a priority. They argue that we have funds in the bill that could be used for this purpose and that we should let the Department identify infrastructure priorities as they see fit. That certainly does not jibe with the language I have heard Secretary Ridge, EPA Director Whitman, the GAO, and others talk about,

and I would respond that chemical plants have consistently been identified by every security expert and leader as a top priority. They must be addressed.

Last week, Rand Beers, who until recently was a senior director for combating terrorism on the Bush administration National Security Council, was asked the following question:

When we think about homeland security, what specifically

concerns you?

To which Mr. Beers replied:

We have looked at the chemical industries around the

country and have a very serious concern. There are a number

of these plants in locations around the country where an

explosion would create a catastrophic result which could

approximate the World Trade Center. These are areas where we

need the Federal Government to give the chemical industry the

guidelines that are necessary in order to protect those

plants, because for the plants to simply do it on their own

is going to create a great disadvantage to those who do and

an advantage to those who don't because it will cost money.

So it ought to be evened out across the industry.

I wish I had been as articulate as Mr. Beers. That is exactly what we need to be doing. By the way, it is unfair for those who are actually dealing with the problem relative to those who walk away from their responsibility in their communities.

Chemical plants were the first thing on Mr. Beers' list, and we have done nothing to address this threat. I think it is appropriate that we deal with it and give direction to the Department in this regard. This amendment, which would fund vulnerability assessments, is a positive step. It is one that we ought to take today. I also want to make it clear it is a first step, and we need to do more.

After we appropriate these funds, we will still have the task of passing authorizing legislation to assure appropriate security standards and accountability mechanisms are put in place, as Mr. Beers alluded to in his comments. We just have to get moving on this issue.

Earlier in the year, Senator Inhofe introduced his own bill on chemical plant security. There is much in that bill that I find positive. It does not go far enough, in my view, but it is a good first step. It is a great place to start. We need to get moving on this issue. We have people exposed to vulnerability that almost everyone recognizes and identifies. I think we need to get moving in the Congress, and I think the administration needs to step forward also.

Despite consistent statements in support of the concept of the legislation, it has not been pushed as a priority on the agenda. So I am calling on the President and Secretary Ridge to move on this issue. My goal is to truly develop bipartisan legislation, an effective approach that deals with the real vulnerability that we have; one that can move through this body and the House and be signed into law. For now, as a first step toward securing chemical plants, I urge my colleagues to support this simple amendment which will provide $80 million to the Department of Homeland Security to conduct vulnerability assessments at chemical plants. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act 74, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment.

Mr. President, every department head, including the Director of Homeland Security, Secretary Ridge, has identified this as a priority. They have earmarked it, but we have yet to see the actual dollars flowing to meet the challenge that occurs in this area. Each day that goes by is another day of exposure to literally millions of Americans.

Given it is identified over and over again in the rhetoric and the memoranda to first responders across the country, in times of high tension and vulnerability, it seems to me we ought to single this out in a context that makes this a vulnerability that we will address. That is what my amendment is trying to do.

We have procrastinated long enough on an issue that is very important to the entire Nation with regard to these very serious vulnerabilities--100,000 Americans or more are at risk in 39 States. There are 123 facilities that expose more than 1 million people. That is why I make a point of bringing this up.

I appreciate the comments. I hope, with the dialog we are having, we will encourage the Homeland Security Department to be cognizant of the need to make these vulnerability assessments.

I yield back the floor.

Amendment No. 1351

Mr. President, I will reiterate the strong feeling that we need to address chemical plant security in this Nation. There has not been the attention that is due to the millions and millions of Americans who are exposed to the potential for toxic fumes from a potential terrorist attack.

These plants are identified as one of most vulnerable elements by the Department of Homeland Security. They are cited in each of the notices to move to code orange as requiring the attention of local law enforcement and the providers of safety for communities. I think it is time for Congress to take action to assess these vulnerabilities on a complete basis. I hope we will come back and have some stricter requirements that will also deal with it. But that is the first step.

I appreciate the help of my colleagues and urge support of the amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce along with Senator Lautenberg the Teacher Education for Autistic Children, TEACH, Act of 2003, legislation that will highlight the needs of autistic children by bringing more qualified teachers into the classroom, helping families receive the support and services they need for their children, and helping ensure vocational programs to assist people with autism transition from school to work are functioning as intended.

Autism is a developmental disability characterized by atypical, often repetitive behaviors and deficits in social and communication skills. Though it is difficult to determine an exact number, some researchers believe that an astounding 1 out of 250 of our Nation's children are in some way affected by this disorder.

Perhaps even more alarming is the fact that the number of children diagnosed with some form of autism has increased significantly throughout the country over the past decade. Take my State for example--according to the New Jersey Department of Education in 1991, there were 241 children in our schools who had been diagnosed with autism. By 2001, that figure had risen to 3,984, a staggering increase of 1,548 percent.

While the cause of autism and its cure are unknown, we are aware that the best treatment for these children is early intervention from qualified teachers. The TEACH Act of 2003 would go a long way in improving services for these children by providing teachers with the necessary training and helping school districts in hiring qualified autism teachers.

Specifically, the TEACH Act authorizes $15 million a year for five years to provide education or professional development training for current teachers or students who want to be special education teachers, teachers' aides, or other professionals who work with autistic children.

The TEACH Act also establishes a loan forgiveness program for qualified teachers of autistic children to help them pay off college loans or loans associated with taking continuing education courses related to autism. This incentive of up to $20,000 to help pay off college loans will go a long way in attracting more qualified individuals into special education.

The bill also includes provisions that establish State Autism Ombudsman Offices that would act as clearinghouses for families who are seeking information on services, education, and other resources to help their children achieve the full and happy lives they deserve. It also creates a national Task Force to evaluate and make recommendations regarding best practices for the education of autistic children.

Finally, this legislation requires a joint Department of Labor/ Department of Education study to evaluate existing vocational programs available for people with autism in order to ensure that such individuals have access to quality jobs and their own independence.

The TEACH Act will go a long way to help autistic families by giving their children the opportunity to achieve the highest quality of life. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, which has the power to improve thousands of lives.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce along with Senator Lautenberg the Teacher Education for Autistic Children, TEACH, Act of 2003, legislation that will highlight the needs of autistic children by bringing more qualified teachers into the classroom, helping families receive the support and services they need for their children, and helping ensure vocational programs to assist people with autism transition from school to work are functioning as intended.

Autism is a developmental disability characterized by atypical, often repetitive behaviors and deficits in social and communication skills. Though it is difficult to determine an exact number, some researchers believe that an astounding 1 out of 250 of our Nation's children are in some way affected by this disorder.

Perhaps even more alarming is the fact that the number of children diagnosed with some form of autism has increased significantly throughout the country over the past decade. Take my State for example--according to the New Jersey Department of Education in 1991, there were 241 children in our schools who had been diagnosed with autism. By 2001, that figure had risen to 3,984, a staggering increase of 1,548 percent.

While the cause of autism and its cure are unknown, we are aware that the best treatment for these children is early intervention from qualified teachers. The TEACH Act of 2003 would go a long way in improving services for these children by providing teachers with the necessary training and helping school districts in hiring qualified autism teachers.

Specifically, the TEACH Act authorizes $15 million a year for five years to provide education or professional development training for current teachers or students who want to be special education teachers, teachers' aides, or other professionals who work with autistic children.

The TEACH Act also establishes a loan forgiveness program for qualified teachers of autistic children to help them pay off college loans or loans associated with taking continuing education courses related to autism. This incentive of up to $20,000 to help pay off college loans will go a long way in attracting more qualified individuals into special education.

The bill also includes provisions that establish State Autism Ombudsman Offices that would act as clearinghouses for families who are seeking information on services, education, and other resources to help their children achieve the full and happy lives they deserve. It also creates a national Task Force to evaluate and make recommendations regarding best practices for the education of autistic children.

Finally, this legislation requires a joint Department of Labor/ Department of Education study to evaluate existing vocational programs available for people with autism in order to ensure that such individuals have access to quality jobs and their own independence.

The TEACH Act will go a long way to help autistic families by giving their children the opportunity to achieve the highest quality of life. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, which has the power to improve thousands of lives.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Montana who as always is representing issues that make an enormous difference to the quality of our debates here on the Senate floor but, more important, to how our world works, both here at home and abroad. I appreciate it very much.

Mr. President, I rise today to join in a growing expression of concern by my colleagues and the American people about the possible misrepresentation of intelligence information by the President and the administration in building its case for the war in Iraq. Without a thorough explanation of why many of the administration's statements are in conflict, and have included claims unsubstantiated by the best intelligence, the American people, their representatives, and many of our would-be international partners in post-conflict Iraq, will most certainly begin to lose confidence in the administration's word. Simply, the Nation's credibility, in my view, is at stake.

That credibility is vital as we approach burden-sharing efforts in the reconstruction and democratization of Iraq, the projected cost of which grows each and every day.

There were reports again this morning that another American soldier lost his life in that reconstruction and democratization effort. All told, in New Jersey there have been seven men and women who have lost their lives in Iraq. We are paying a serious toll, not only in terms of financial expense, as recently reported, but, most importantly, in the life and blood of our brave soldiers.

A thorough public review is necessary, in my view, if we are to reestablish the United States' credibility. And once all the facts come to light, we need to hold those responsible accountable. Our leaders need to promptly admit and correct all misstatements, exaggerations, and overreaching interpretations.

On the White House Web site, the pages that relate to the conflict of Iraq are titled ``Denial and Deception.'' The American people can only hope that is not a moniker for the administration's presentation of its case for the war in Iraq.

As we are now all well aware, in this year's State of the Union Address President Bush said:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein

recently sought significant quantities of uranium from

Africa.

The power of the President's allegations in those 16 short words cannot be overstated. The Bush administration, using legalistic language, was leading people to embrace, at least in my view, the view that Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear program. The President didn't say the British were claiming anything. He didn't say they alleged anything. He said they ``learned'' that Saddam was attempting to buy uranium, implicitly accepting the charge as fact.

Although just 16 words long, it was a powerful statement that resonated in the context of debates that had gone on throughout the Nation and the world. Only much later did we the people and the Congress learn this statement was based on information that our own intelligence agency earlier learned was false.

Yesterday morning, Senator Levin, the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, laid out seven questions about claims regarding Iraq and the uranium. Senator Levin argued these should be answered in the context of a bipartisan investigation. I believe that is true, and I could not agree more.

This is not just a concern about the African uranium issue. It is about whether there was a fair and full presentation to the American people. But to the list of the seven questions, I would add an eighth. If the information in the State of the Union Address was technically accurate, as administration officials have lately argued, why was it excluded in Secretary Powell's 90-minute presentation before the United Nations only 8 days later? Why was the intelligence on alleged Iraqi uranium purchases good enough for the State of the Union Address, a 1- hour speech addressing a variety of issues besides Iraq, but not good enough for a U.N. speech laying out the complete case against Iraq in painstaking detail 1 week later?

I would add a ninth question to Senator Levin's list. Why did we learn about the misleading nature of these comments in the State of the Union, not from the administration, but from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the media? If there is no good explanation for the administration's delay in correcting the error, it is hard to escape the conclusion this was not just a series of blunders. Was it a strategy for winning an argument? What was it about? Was there a coverup involved? I think those questions need to be asked.

This is not an academic matter. At stake is nothing less than the credibility of the United States, and that is important for protecting the American people. That credibility gets weakened each day the administration fails to provide a complete and candid explanation of what happened. Who knew? When did they know it? Why did they wait until now to break the conspiracy of silence?

Keep in mind, political leaders around the world, not just here at home, have staked their own reputations on their support of President Bush and the United States. As a consequence, many of our closest allies and their elected officials are facing enormous criticism from their own citizens, and sometimes--and this is quite telling--from their own political parties. We owe it not only to the American people but to all those who stood with us to be straight and to come clean immediately. Otherwise, this episode will only undermine our ability to win support for other critical foreign policy interests in the future, and they are substantial. In fact, without a clear explanation or an admission of fault, we put the American people at risk facing a world where our partners question our credibility on all issues--Iran and Syria, North Korea.

The problem is especially troubling when viewed in the context of a broader pattern of selective information provided by the administration. Last October, for example, during the Iraqi debate-- this is one that is particularly troubling to me--Secretary James Kelly was in Pyongyang, meeting with the North Koreans. At that meeting, a meeting that occurred a full week prior to the Senate vote on the resolution authorizing force in Iraq, the North Koreans admitted to an active nuclear program. Yet despite its importance and relevance to the debate regarding Iraq and America's national security posture generally, the administration waited until after the Congress had voted on the resolution to authorize the use of force before revealing the details of the North Korean disclosure.

To this Senator, that information was both relevant and timely to the Iraqi debate. Apparently, because it might affect the tenor of the debate, the information was withheld from the full Congress until after the vote.

What are our priorities? Where were the dangers and how do we frame this issue, particularly as it relates to the security of the people of the United States? I ask, where is and where was the greater risk to the American people?

As Senator Levin and others have explained, there were many other instances in which the administration selectively, in some form or another, misrepresented or withheld information to support their case for the war in Iraq.

For example, the administration claimed there were linkages between al-Qaida and Iraq. But those claims now seem overstated or exaggerated and apparently were based on scant and circumstantial evidence.

Another widely discussed issue relates to Iraq's purchase of aluminum tubes, where there was considerable debate within the intelligence community about whether the tubes were useful as part of a nuclear program.

When you add up these claims, it becomes clear that the administration certainly was seeking to win an argument--not inform-- and quite obviously it worked.

As John Adams once said, ``Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, or inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.''

We need to ensure that the facts come out. We should do it on a bipartisan basis, and we should do it immediately. The safety and security of the American people are at stake.

We need to hold accountable not only those responsible for providing misleading intelligence but also those responsible for preventing the facts from coming out. The credibility of this President and the future credibility of the United States are at stake. I hope we can deal with this in an expeditious and clear manner. Hopefully, this in turn will set us on a course where we can share the burdens not only in Iraq but of protecting the American people around the globe in the days and years ahead.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

I thank the Chair. Will the Chair inform me as I approach the 20-minute mark?

Madam President, I call up my amendment which is at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

This amendment is premised on a strong view that intelligence and its honest analysis are vital tools in our war on terrorism. To protect the American people, our intelligence must not be shaped to win an argument, but must be used to inform.

This amendment calls for a bipartisan commission to study the use of intelligence related to Iraq. The commission would examine several key issues, including intelligence related to the following questions:

Whether Iraq possessed chemical, biological and/or nuclear weapons;

Whether Iraq had links to Al-Qaida, and;

Whether Iraq attempted to acquire uranium in Africa.

Earlier today I joined in a growing expression of concern by my colleagues and the American people about the representation of intelligence information by the President and the administration in building its case for the war in Iraq. Without a thorough explanation of why many of the administration's statements are in conflict, and have included claims unsubstantiated by the best intelligence, the American people, their representatives, and many of our would-be international partners in post-conflict Iraq, will most certainly begin to lose confidence in the administration's intelligence analysis, if not their word. Simply put, the Nation's credibility, in my view, is at stake.

This credibility is important for the security of the American people who have and continue to bear an enormously high cost, a heavy burden, in both life and treasure, with regard to our presence in Iraq. I know in my home State of New Jersey there have been seven soldiers who have been lost since the beginning of the conflict. It is something that impacts people's daily lives.

We stand with our troops. We stand with the mission they are trying to do, to bring about democracy, but we do have a right, and they have a right to have credibility with regard to the intelligence that is presented.

There have been a lot of accusations and allegations circulating in recent days. Some may be trying to politicize this debate. This amendment is an attempt to ensure that this debate does not become a political one, and that we focus in a bipartisan way on getting to the facts.

In my view, in order to preserve the public credibility of the United States, we need a thorough public review, one that is above politics, one with conclusions that will be regarded as credible and definitive, not only in the U.S. but around the world.

As we are now all well aware, in this year's State of the Union Address President Bush said:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein

recently sought significant quantities of uranium from

Africa.

The power of the President's allegations in those 16 short words cannot be overstated. The Bush administration, using legalistic language, was leading people to embrace, at least in the opinion of many, the view that Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear program. The President did not say the British were claiming anything. He did not say they alleged anything. He said they ``learned'' that Saddam was attempting to buy uranium, implicitly accepting the charge as fact.

Although just 16 words long, it was a powerful statement that resonated in the context of debates that had gone on throughout the Nation and the world for nearly 5 months, in every public forum, the floor of the Senate, the halls of the United Nations, and across the airwaves. Only after many months did we the people and the Congress learn this statement was based on information that our own intelligence agency earlier learned was false. In fact, the administration's own spokesperson said the statement was inappropriate for the State of the Union address. And the Director of Central Intelligence has stated that: These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.

Yesterday morning, Senator Levin, the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, raised several areas of particular concern, including: the aluminum tubes; the Iraq-al-Qaida connection; whether Iraq reconstituted nuclear weapons; whether Iraq possesses chemical and biological weapons; allegations of mobile biological warfare labs.

Furthermore, Senator Levin laid out seven questions about claims specifically regarding Iraq and the uranium. He argued that these should be answered in the context of a bipartisan investigation. I believe that is true, and I could not agree more.

This is not just a concern about the African uranium issue. It is about whether there was a fair and full presentation to the American people. But to that list of questions, I would add several others.

For example, if the information in the State of the Union Address was ``technically accurate,'' as administration officials have lately argued, why was it excluded in Secretary Powell's 90-minute presentation before the United Nations only 8 days later?

Also, why did we learn about the misleading nature of these comments, not from the administration, but from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the media?

This is not an academic matter. At stake is nothing less than the credibility of the United States, and that credibility is important for protecting the American people. That credibility gets weakened each day we fail to have a full accounting of the facts about what happened, facts such as who knew that certain information was false? When did they know it? Why was it expunged from one administration speech but not another? And why are we just learning about much of this now?

Keep in mind, political leaders around the world, not just here at home, have staked their own reputations on their support of President Bush and the United States. As a consequence, many of our closest allies and their elected officials are facing enormous criticism from their own citizens, and sometimes--and this is quite telling--from their own political parties. We owe it not only to the American people but to all those who stood with us to be straight and to come clean immediately; otherwise, this episode will only undermine our ability to win support for other critical foreign policy interests in the future, and they are substantial. In fact, without a clear explanation, we put the American people at risk facing a world

where our partners question our credibility on many interconnected concerns: Korea, Iran, Syria, and the road map to peace in the Middle East.

We need to understand whether this is part of a broader pattern of selective release of information or just a series of unfortunate snafus. Last October, for example, during the Iraq debate, Secretary James Kelly was in Pyongyang, meeting with the North Koreans. At that meeting, a meeting that occurred a full week prior to the Senate vote on the resolution authorizing force in Iraq, the North Koreans admitted to an active nuclear program. Yet despite its importance and relevance to the debate regarding Iraq and America's national security posture generally, administration officials waited until after the Congress had voted on the resolution--6 days, by the way--to authorize the use of force before revealing the details of the North Korean disclosure.

To this Senator, that information was both relevant and timely to the Iraq debate. Was this information withheld because it might affect the tenor of the debate, or might impact the Congress's view of the Iraqi threat, or the relative view of the Iraq threat?

As Senator Levin and others have explained, there may have been other instances in which the administration selectively, in some form or another, misrepresented or withheld information to support their case for the war in Iraq.

For example, the administration claimed there were linkages between al-Qaida and Iraq. But many now believe those claims were overstated or exaggerated, and based on scant and circumstantial evidence.

Another widely discussed issue relates to Iraq's purchase of aluminum tubes, where there was considerable debate within the intelligence community about whether the tubes were intended for use as part of a nuclear program.

When these claims are added up, many people have concluded that the administration may have been seeking to win an argument--not inform the American public. And we need to know the truth. We need to be informed to make good decisions, to set priorities, to go forward, to protect the American people. The American people deserve to be informed accurately.

The commission I am proposing would be completely bipartisan. It would neither supplant nor interfere with ongoing Congressional reviews regarding the collection and analysis of intelligence related to Iraq.

So, again, I hope we can support this proposal. We need to ensure that the facts come out. We should do it on a bipartisan basis, and we should do it immediately. The safety and security of the American people are at stake.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss the Grassley- Baucus Medicare prescription drug legislation approved by the Senate late last night.

I supported this legislation, though I did so reluctantly. On balance, I believe the proposal represents a modest step forward toward the goal of a guaranteed prescription drug benefit under Medicare. It is a first step.

From a New Jersey perspective, I am particularly pleased that the managers agreed to my request to include a provision that will protect the ability of nearly 250,000 New Jersey seniors to continue to receive benefits through our State's 27-year-old pharmaceutical benefit program, known as the PAAD program. This program, which enjoys bipartisan support, is uniformly believed to have served our State exceedingly well. Similar long standing programs exist in other States, as well.

Unfortunately, the bill adopted by the Senate also has many shortcomings. I am hopeful that many of those problems will be addressed before the final version of the legislation is sent to the President. The Senate bill is the minimum first step I can support, however. And I will oppose the final conference report if it drops my provision protecting the ability of States to administer long standing prescription drug programs.

As I have traveled New Jersey I've heard from my constituents about their struggle to deal with rising drug prices. Many New Jerseyans fear that the cost of prescription drugs will bankrupt them in their last years. They worry about the burden those costs can impose on their families. And around our country, too many seniors are forced to choose between paying rent and buying their prescription drugs. That's a choice that no American should have to face.

I believe strongly that seniors who have worked hard all their lives, paid taxes and contributed to Medicare should have access to the medicines they need to maintain independent, productive lives. Modern medicine largely is based on pharmaceutical treatment. Providing a prescription drug benefit is the right thing to do for our seniors and their families. But it also serves broader public goals.

After all, we all pay the price if we fail to provide a guaranteed prescription drug benefit. That failure increases the number of hospital admissions and surgical procedures. It also increases costly institutionalization in nursing homes, and deprives seniors of the ability to live independently in their communities.

My own State of New Jersey recognized the value of a prescription drug benefit in 1975 when it created the PAAD program, which serves low- and middle-income seniors. New Jersey's PAAD program is considered the Nation's most generous State administered prescription drug program for the elderly. Together, PAAD and Senior Gold, a more recent program with broader eligibility added under a Republican governor, provide comprehensive prescription drug coverage to nearly 250,000 low-income seniors and disabled people in New Jersey, without deductibles or premiums.

It is absolutely essential that seniors who currently receive higher quality

benefits under state drug programs than they would under the Medicare drug benefit continue to receive the state benefits. Their position should not be diminished by Federal edict. For example, seniors in the New Jersey PAAD program pay only $5 for their prescriptions. They do not pay premiums or deductibles. By contrast, seniors who enroll in this Medicare benefit would pay a substantial premium averaging $35 per month, along with a $275 deductible, and a 50 percent copay. It is unthinkable that we would force these seniors to disenroll in their more generous state program to receive less coverage under Medicare-- particularly those seniors with low and moderate incomes.

I have been making this point to my colleagues on the Finance Committee for a long time, and I am very pleased that a provision to protect my State's seniors has now been included in the bill. I want to thank Senators Grassley and Baucus for their tremendous assistance in addressing this issue. The bill before us not only allows New Jersey to continue to administer the PAAD program, but it contains language I sought to ensure that state payments on behalf of a beneficiary count toward the beneficiary's out of pocket costs, helping that beneficiary reach catastrophic coverage sooner. This will save the state of New Jersey an estimated $105 million annually.

I particularly want to thank Liz Fowler and Andrea Cohen of Senator Baucus' staff for all of their efforts on these issues. They have devoted many hours to these issues and done great work, and I want them to know that I appreciate their assistance.

I would note that giving states the money we would otherwise give private plans to administer benefits would allow states to expand their programs. Rough estimates indicate that the Medicare subsidy for those seniors currently enrolled in New Jersey's PAAD program is at least $300 million. With this new Federal money, the State of New Jersey could expand this successful program to higher income seniors, eliminating gaps and strengthening the program in many ways. This is a win-win for everybody. And, I want to note that the provision is budget neutral: it won't cost the taxpayers one penny. I will work hard with my colleagues in the New Jersey delegation to ensure that this provision will be retained in conference.

In addition to preserving state pharmaceutical assistance programs, we must also work to make this drug benefit better for all Americans. While I plan to support the underlying bill in order to push the legislative process forward, let me be clear: this is not the Medicare prescription drug proposal I would have preferred and it is not the proposal I have advocated with my constituents for the last few years.

The bill before us would require seniors to pay hefty premiums-- premiums that will vary by region, and are likely to be especially burdensome in my State of New Jersey. The bill also won't pay a penny in benefits until seniors pay $275, on top of those premiums. And, even after paying that $275 deductible, the program still will pay only 50 percent of the cost of drugs.

I'm also concerned that the proposal contains what is called a ``doughnut hole''--a gap in coverage that will leave seniors with high drug costs paying premiums but not getting coverage for some time. While the Federal Government would pay 50 percent of a beneficiary's drug costs up to $4,500, a beneficiary with drug costs that exceed that level would have to pay all of their drug costs between $4,500 and $5,800. Those Medicare beneficiaries who require drugs that exceed $4,500 are usually the sickest and most vulnerable seniors. And it is wrong to force them to bear these costs on their own, especially considering that they will be paying premiums at the same time. Some have called this the sickness tax.

In addition, the bill fails to provide equal benefits for low-income Medicare beneficiaries who also qualify for Medicaid, the so-called ``dual eligibles.'' These seniors will not be guaranteed the same benefit, and the burden on states will be increased.

When you add up all the limitations and all the costs that will be imposed on seniors, you end up with a benefit that's a far cry from the comprehensive coverage provided under the traditional Medicare program. In fact, most seniors actually will pay into this program more than they receive. That's not what most seniors were expecting. It's not what many of us have been promising. And, as more older Americans appreciate what this bill is really about, more are getting angry about it, and understandably so.

Compounding matters, even the limited benefit provided in this bill will not go into effect until 2006. There is no good excuse for that. I was pleased to cosponsor an amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, to make the benefit effective in July of next year. That would have given the Administration as long as it took to get the entire Medicare program underway back in the 1960's. Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated.

Another concern of mine is that the bill before us could serve to weaken private insurance coverage, and actually might encourage employers to eliminate prescription drug coverage to their retirees. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Grassley-Baucus bill could lead to a 37 percent reduction in employer-sponsored retiree drug benefits. This is largely because under the Grassley-Baucus plan, retirees with employer sponsored prescription drug coverage would not qualify for catastrophic coverage if their employer plan paid for their drug costs.

This is a major disincentive for employers to offer their retirees prescription drug benefits. Today, approximately 12 million seniors have some form of prescription drug coverage through their former employers. By and large, these employer-based drug benefits are more generous than those provided for in this bill. And it is imperative that the final version of this legislation ensure that all prescription drug costs paid by an employer help the beneficiary achieve catastrophic coverage. Without this critical provision, seniors enrolled in retiree health plans may never trigger their Medicare catastrophic drug coverage.

Today I have noted several problems with the substance of this bill, and many of them are quite serious. There are many others. At the same time, it is important to remember that, for all its problems, the bill provides $400 billion to create a critical new public program for our Nation's seniors. It's a start. And for many seniors, especially those with very low incomes, it will be of tremendous help.

Given that, I hope my colleagues will join me in approving the legislation before us and sending it to conference. And then I hope the conferees will listen more closely to the concerns of America's seniors and improve it. If those concerns are heard, and the conferees respond, we could soon witness an historic achievement that makes a huge difference in the lives of millions of America's seniors.

Mr. President, today, along with my distinguished colleagues Senators Schumer, Akaka, and Boxer, I am introducing ``The Money Wire Improvement and Remittance Enhancement Act'' (The ``Money WIRE Act''), legislation that will protect consumers who send cash remittances through international money wire transmitters by providing them with increased disclosure of the exchange rate and service fees, as well as hidden costs, for those transactions. The legislation also expands access to mainstream money wiring, check cashing, and other important services for millions of the unbanked in America, particularly immigrants, through our Nation's credit unions.

Every year, thirty million Americans send their friends and relatives $40 billion in cash remittances through wire transfers. The majority of these transfers are remittances sent to their native countries by immigrants to the United States. For these individuals, many of whom are in low-to-minimum wage jobs, sending this money only increases their own personal financial burdens--but they do so to aid their families and their loved ones.

Unfortunately, these immigrants increasingly find themselves being preyed upon by the practices of some money wire transfer providers who not only charge consumers with an upfront charge for the money wire transfer service, but also hit them on the back end with hidden costs. Many of these charges are extracted when the dollars sent by the consumer are converted to the foreign currency value that is supposed to be paid out to the friend of the family member.

This exploitation is especially pervasive in Latin American and Caribbean countries, where much of these types of transactions occur. According to the Multilateral Investment Fund and the Inter-American Development Bank, Latin American and Caribbean immigrants sent a record $32 billion to their home countries in 2002--a dramatic increase compared with $23 billion in 2001. Many of these dollars were used to pay for basic needs, such as food, medicine, and schooling, and to alleviate the suffering of loved ones during a difficult economic year.

To bring this amount into even greater perspective, the remittances that flowed into Latin America and the Caribbean last year equaled roughly the amount of direct foreign investment that flowed into the region, and exceeded the amount of development aid to Latin America from all sources. For this decade alone, Latin America and the Caribbean could receive more than $300 billion. And experts believe that number is likely to grow significantly in coming years.

These large cash flows have proven to be a powerful incentive for greed in the case of some wire transfer companies. Customers wiring money to Latin America and elsewhere in the world lose billions of dollars annually to undisclosed ``currency conversion fees,'' and other service costs.

In fact, many large companies aggressively target immigrant communities, often advertising ``low fee'' or ``no fee'' rates for international transfers. But these misleading ads do not always clearly disclose the fees charged when the currency is exchanged.

While large wire service companies typically obtain foreign currencies at bulk rates, they charge a significant currency conversion fee to their U.S. customers. For example, customers wiring money to Mexico are charged an exchange rate that routinely varies from the benchmark by as much as 15 percent. These hidden fees create staggering profits, allowing companies to reap billions of dollars on top of the stated fees they charge for the wire transfer services.

Last year alone, immigrants who sent money to Latin America and the Caribbean paid approximately $4 billion in transaction costs to the money wire transfer companies that dominate this business. In other words, for every $100 that an immigrant sent home, to help their family and loved ones, $12 was siphoned off by these businesses in order to ``service'' that transaction.

That adds up to a $20-$30 average cost, occasionally it can be considerably more, for poor, hard-working folks for whom the typical remittance--around $250 to $300 a month--represents a significant percentage of their monthly income.

Multiplied by millions, these excessive charges constitute a significant major economic force. These millions could have otherwise been used to feed children, house a family, or invest in a small business--all of which markedly improve overall quality of life.

The ``Money WIRE Act'' would require money wire transmitting businesses to disclose to senders, and receivers, of international money wire transfers the exchange rate used in association with the transaction; any surcharges, commissions or fees charged to the customer for the service; and the exact amount of the foreign currency to be received by the recipient in the foreign country.

It also requires that that rate and fee information be prominently displayed at the wire transmitting service location and on all receipts associated with the money wire transaction--and it ensures that those disclosures occur in the same language as that principally used by the business to advertise its money transmitting services, if that language is other than English.

The bill also requires Federal banking regulators and the Department of Treasury to conduct a study, and submit a report to Congress, of the fees and fees disclosure at traditional financial institutions compared to those that occur at money transmitting businesses for money wire transactions.

Finally, the Act includes a provision that expands the ``field of membership'' definition for credit unions to give non-members, particularly unbanked and immigrant communities, access to credit unions for international money transfer, money order, and check cashing services, where the costs for these services are significantly less.

This legislation does more than merely provide better information to consumers--it actually helps them and their families financially. Consumers will see increased competition among wire transfer service providers because they are better-informed and more knowledgeable. That competition will result in lower fees for the wire transfer services that will free up a greater portion of these cash remittances to go to the friends and families that they were originally intended for.

In short, this is sound public policy that empowers those who do their part to help America's economy move forward.

I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, along with my distinguished colleagues Senators Schumer, Akaka, and Boxer, I am introducing ``The Money Wire Improvement and Remittance Enhancement Act'' (The ``Money WIRE Act''), legislation that will protect consumers who send cash remittances through international money wire transmitters by providing them with increased disclosure of the exchange rate and service fees, as well as hidden costs, for those transactions. The legislation also expands access to mainstream money wiring, check cashing, and other important services for millions of the unbanked in America, particularly immigrants, through our Nation's credit unions.

Every year, thirty million Americans send their friends and relatives $40 billion in cash remittances through wire transfers. The majority of these transfers are remittances sent to their native countries by immigrants to the United States. For these individuals, many of whom are in low-to-minimum wage jobs, sending this money only increases their own personal financial burdens--but they do so to aid their families and their loved ones.

Unfortunately, these immigrants increasingly find themselves being preyed upon by the practices of some money wire transfer providers who not only charge consumers with an upfront charge for the money wire transfer service, but also hit them on the back end with hidden costs. Many of these charges are extracted when the dollars sent by the consumer are converted to the foreign currency value that is supposed to be paid out to the friend of the family member.

This exploitation is especially pervasive in Latin American and Caribbean countries, where much of these types of transactions occur. According to the Multilateral Investment Fund and the Inter-American Development Bank, Latin American and Caribbean immigrants sent a record $32 billion to their home countries in 2002--a dramatic increase compared with $23 billion in 2001. Many of these dollars were used to pay for basic needs, such as food, medicine, and schooling, and to alleviate the suffering of loved ones during a difficult economic year.

To bring this amount into even greater perspective, the remittances that flowed into Latin America and the Caribbean last year equaled roughly the amount of direct foreign investment that flowed into the region, and exceeded the amount of development aid to Latin America from all sources. For this decade alone, Latin America and the Caribbean could receive more than $300 billion. And experts believe that number is likely to grow significantly in coming years.

These large cash flows have proven to be a powerful incentive for greed in the case of some wire transfer companies. Customers wiring money to Latin America and elsewhere in the world lose billions of dollars annually to undisclosed ``currency conversion fees,'' and other service costs.

In fact, many large companies aggressively target immigrant communities, often advertising ``low fee'' or ``no fee'' rates for international transfers. But these misleading ads do not always clearly disclose the fees charged when the currency is exchanged.

While large wire service companies typically obtain foreign currencies at bulk rates, they charge a significant currency conversion fee to their U.S. customers. For example, customers wiring money to Mexico are charged an exchange rate that routinely varies from the benchmark by as much as 15 percent. These hidden fees create staggering profits, allowing companies to reap billions of dollars on top of the stated fees they charge for the wire transfer services.

Last year alone, immigrants who sent money to Latin America and the Caribbean paid approximately $4 billion in transaction costs to the money wire transfer companies that dominate this business. In other words, for every $100 that an immigrant sent home, to help their family and loved ones, $12 was siphoned off by these businesses in order to ``service'' that transaction.

That adds up to a $20-$30 average cost, occasionally it can be considerably more, for poor, hard-working folks for whom the typical remittance--around $250 to $300 a month--represents a significant percentage of their monthly income.

Multiplied by millions, these excessive charges constitute a significant major economic force. These millions could have otherwise been used to feed children, house a family, or invest in a small business--all of which markedly improve overall quality of life.

The ``Money WIRE Act'' would require money wire transmitting businesses to disclose to senders, and receivers, of international money wire transfers the exchange rate used in association with the transaction; any surcharges, commissions or fees charged to the customer for the service; and the exact amount of the foreign currency to be received by the recipient in the foreign country.

It also requires that that rate and fee information be prominently displayed at the wire transmitting service location and on all receipts associated with the money wire transaction--and it ensures that those disclosures occur in the same language as that principally used by the business to advertise its money transmitting services, if that language is other than English.

The bill also requires Federal banking regulators and the Department of Treasury to conduct a study, and submit a report to Congress, of the fees and fees disclosure at traditional financial institutions compared to those that occur at money transmitting businesses for money wire transactions.

Finally, the Act includes a provision that expands the ``field of membership'' definition for credit unions to give non-members, particularly unbanked and immigrant communities, access to credit unions for international money transfer, money order, and check cashing services, where the costs for these services are significantly less.

This legislation does more than merely provide better information to consumers--it actually helps them and their families financially. Consumers will see increased competition among wire transfer service providers because they are better-informed and more knowledgeable. That competition will result in lower fees for the wire transfer services that will free up a greater portion of these cash remittances to go to the friends and families that they were originally intended for.

In short, this is sound public policy that empowers those who do their part to help America's economy move forward.

I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to submit a concurrent resolution calling on the United States Postal Service to issue a commemorative postage stamp honoring an extraordinary American hero: Gunnery Sergeant John Basilone. Basilone is the only person in American history to be awarded both the Congressional Medal of Honor and the Navy Cross. Only one USPS stamp has ever commemorated an individual Marine, a stamp featuring John Phillip Sousa; it bears noting that although Sousa was a Marine, he was not selected for his service on the battlefield. It is time to remember the tremendous sacrifice of at least one individual Marine, John Basilone, an American Patriot.

John Basilone was raised in Raritan, NJ, one of ten children in a large Italian-American family. Soon after he turned 18, Basilone heeded the patriotic call and enlisted in the U.S. Army. Basilone was immediately sent to the Philippines where he earned a nickname that would stick with him for the rest of his career: ``Manila John.''

Following his tour of duty in 1937, Basilone returned to Raritan. But he wouldn't stay there long. In July 1940--with much of Europe at war and the United States on the brink--``Manila John'' left New Jersey, enlisting in the military once again, this time joining the United States Marine Corps.

On October 24, 1942, Basilone earned his Congressional Medal of Honor. He was sent to a position on the Tenaru River at Guadalcanal and placed in command of two sections of heavy machine guns. Sergeant Basilone and his men were charged with defending Henderson Airfield, an important American foothold on the island. Although the Marine contingent was vastly outnumbered and without needed support,

Basilone and his men successfully repelled a Japanese assault. Other survivors reported that their success can be attributed to one man: ``Manila John.'' He crossed enemy lines to replenish a dangerously low stockpile of ammunition, repaired artillery pieces, and steadied his troops in the midst of torrential rain. He went several days and nights without food or sleep, and the U.S. military was able to carry the day. His exploits became Marine lore, and served as a patriotic inspiration to others facing daunting challenges in the midst of war.

For his courage under fire and profound patriotism, Basilone was the first enlisted Marine to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. When he returned to the United States, he was heralded as a hero and quickly sent on tour around the country to help finance the war through the sale of war bonds. The Marine Corps offered to commission Basilone as an officer and station him far away from the frontlines.

But Basilone was not interested in riding out the war in Washington, DC. He was quoted as saying, ``I ain't no officer, and I ain't no museum piece. I belong back with my outfit.'' In December 1944, he got his wish and returned to the frontlines.

General Douglas MacArthur called him ``a one-man army,'' and on February 19, 1945 at Iwo Jima, Basilone once again lived up to that reputation. Basilone destroyed an enemy stronghold, a blockhouse on that small Japanese island and commanded his young troops to move the heavy guns off the beach. Unfortunately, less than two hours into the assault on that fateful day in February, Basilone and four of his fellow Marines were killed when an enemy mortar shell exploded nearby.

When Gunnery Sergeant John Basilone died he was only 27, but he had already earned the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Navy Cross, the Purple Heart, and the appreciation of his Nation. Basilone is a true American patriot whose legacy should be preserved.

Now more than ever, the United States needs to honor and praise the courageous efforts put forth by the men and women of our military. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution as an important message to our soldiers that we appreciate and admire all of their efforts in the war on terrorism.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the Harriet Tubman Historical Society and the National Underground Railroad Family Reunion Festival. The William Still Underground Railroad Foundation, Inc. sponsors this national festival. Celebrating the rich history of those that sought their freedom and the freedom of others by following the North Star, the festival reunites families from throughout the country--particularly descendants of the many men and women who bravely constituted the Underground Railroad.

Descendants of William Still, who is considered by many to be the father of the Underground Railroad, have gathered to preserve their family's legacy for the past 133 years. They unite in celebration and in honor of Still and other pioneering gentlemen and gentlewomen who fought against the oppressive forces of slavery. William Still was a freeborn black who became a prominent abolitionist, writer, and businessman. Working tirelessly to free the enslaved and to destroy the very institution of slavery, William Still led perhaps the most dramatic system of protest our young Nation had ever seen.

As the birthplace of William Still and other notable abolitionists, New Jersey played a significant role in the success of the Underground Railroad. Offering an excellent cover of dense forests and heavy wilderness, our State provided various routes for Underground conductors. After crossing the Delaware River under the cloak of darkness, escaping slaves would travel from Camden to Burlington, and then on to Bordentown. Runaways also came to Bordentown through the towns of Swedesboro and Woodbury. This path to freedom then ran north through the woodlands of Princeton and on to New Brunswick, a hub in the railroad that also received fugitives traveling from Trenton. Conductors then bore their travelers across the Raritan River--a perilous but pivotal crossing. From Rahway these exhausted and terrified slaves and their devoted guides traveled to Jersey City and into New York. These newly emancipated men, women, and children then continued their journey north, to Canada and to freedom. The Underground Railroad carried the hopes and dreams of hundreds of thousands. Many Americans risked their own lives and the lives of their loved ones in order to defend the beliefs that all are created equal and that liberty is a universal right.

Families and communities throughout New Jersey were vital to the liberation of countless slaves. The National Family Reunion Festival, sponsored by the Still family, seeks to provide a forum for generations, not only to preserve their due sense of pride, but to pass on the stories of their forebears' bravery to younger generations. The Still family boasts a proud American heritage that dates back 360 years. Fittingly, the Stills have spearheaded this year's 3-day festival. It is the first of its kind--a unique blend of history and culture, the past and the present, a commemoration of the historical fight against the enslavement of men and women and finally a celebration of the unity we seek and strive to create in our Nation every day. The National Underground Railroad Family Reunion Festival will bring together descendants of conductors, abolitionists, stationmasters, and fugitives along with those who joyously recognize the incredible courage with which the railroad ran and the invaluable justice for which it ran.

Mr. President, I invite you and my colleagues to join me in commending The William Still Underground Railroad Foundation, Inc. and the Harriet Tubman Historical Society for their spectacular efforts that honor the valorous deeds of abolitionists and keep the history and legacies of our great Nation alive.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Restrict and Eliminate the Delivery of Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail, REDUCE, Spam Act, to curb the influx of unwanted junk e-mail, or ``spam,'' that is clogging our inboxes and wasting the time and money of American consumers and businesses.

The flood of spam is growing so fast that it will soon account for more than half of all e-mail sent in the United States. Spam already accounts for nearly 40 percent of e-mail traffic, and costs U.S. businesses $10 billion annually in lost productivity and additional equipment, software and manpower costs necessary to manage this burden. Microsoft Inc. estimates that more than 80 percent of the more than 2.5 billion e-mail messages sent each day to Hotmail users are spam. And data suggests that the problem is only growing.

The problem of spam goes well beyond inconvenience and cost. The Federal Trade Commission examined a random sample of 1000 spam messages and, in a report issued on April 30, 2003, found staggering evidence of fraud. According to the report, 33 percent of the messages sampled contained false routing information; 22 percent contained false information in the subject line; 40 percent contained false statements in the text; and a full 66 percent contained false information of some sort. Most alarmingly, in the case of spam touting business or investment opportunities, 96 percent contained some sort of fraudulent information.

In addition, pornographic spam is a growing problem for parents trying to shield their children from such images. The FTC report found that 17 percent of spam advertising pornographic websites included adult images in the body of the message. This is not acceptable when our children are using email more and more each day.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to track down those who send spam. Often, spammers use multiple e-mail addresses or disguise routing information to avoid being identified. Finding spammers can take not just real expertise, but persistence, time, energy and commitment.

To attack the problem of spam, my proposal adopts a two-prong approach championed by the leading thinker about cyberlaw, Professor Lawrence Lessig of Stanford Law School. Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren also has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives. The approach is simple: first, anyone sending bulk unsolicited commercial e-mail would have to include on each e-mail a simple prefix--either ADV: or ADV:ADLT. Second, anyone who finds a spam-source who has failed to properly label unsolicited commercial e-mail would be eligible for a monetary reward from the FTC.

The first part of this proposal would enable Internet Service Providers, ISPs, employers and individual users to filter spam from business and personal email. This would give people the ability to tell their Internet service provider to block ADV e-mail, or they could automatically filter such e-mail into a spam folder on their own computer. This approach would enable far more effective filtering than currently possible.

The second part of my proposal would require the FTC to pay a bounty to anyone who tracks down a spammer who has failed properly to label unsolicited commercial e-mail. The proposal would invite anyone across the world who uses the Internet to hunt down these law-violating spammers. The FTC would then fine them and pay a portion of that fine as a reward to the bounty hunter who found them. The FTC could use the remainder of the fine to track down and prosecute other spammers.

Creating incentives for private individuals to help track down spammers is likely to substantially strengthen the enforcement of anti- spam laws. And with proper enforcement, spammers would soon learn that neglecting to label spam does not pay. In the end, that will mean that more spammers will label their spam or give up and stop spamming altogether. Either way, we will have fixed, or at least started to fix, the problem.

Professor Lessig is so convinced that this approach will substantially reduce spam that he has pledged to resign from his job at Stanford if it does not. While I will not hold him to that warranty, I do share his enthusiasm about this innovative approach, which is likely to be much more effective than relying exclusively on government investigators to identify spammers.

Having said that, I recognize that any domestic anti-spam legislation potentially is subject to evasion by spammers who relocate overseas in order to continue sending spam. To respond to that possibility, my bill also orders the Administration to study the possibility of an international agreement to reduce spam. This is an issue that affects us globally, and, in my view, we should consider a coordinated response.

In addition to these primary provisions, my bill would require marketers to establish a valid return e-mail address to which an e-mail recipient can write to ``opt-out'' of receiving further e-mails, and would prohibit marketers from sending any further e-mails after a person opts-out. The bill also would prohibit spam with false or misleading routing information or deceptive subject headings, and would authorize the Federal Trade Commission to collect civil fines against marketers who violate these requirements. Furthermore, my proposal would give Internet Service Providers the right to bring civil actions against marketers who violate these requirements and disrupt their networks, and, finally, the proposal would establish criminal penalties for fraudulent spam.

I know that the Commerce Committee recently ordered reported legislation to deal with the problem of spam, and I am hopeful that bill will come before the full Senate before long. When it does, it is my intention to work with my colleagues to see if some of the concepts in the REDUCE Spam Act, such as the establishment of individual rewards for bounty hunters, and a report on a possible international agreement on spam, can be incorporated into the broader package, to ensure that any legislation sent to the President will actually be effective in reducing spam.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the

Record at this point, along with a related article by Professor Lawrence Lessig.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution No. 176, introduced by myself and Senator Lautenberg.

I rise today with my distinguished colleague from New Jersey, my friend and longstanding representative of our great State, Senator Lautenberg, to discuss a resolution honoring the New Jersey Devils and the New Jersey Nets, their accomplishments in postseason of the respective leagues.

The past 2 weeks have seen the Devils host the Stanley Cup after defeating the Anaheim Mighty Ducks and the Nets reached the NBA finals. For the second year in a row, the Nets have been in the finals of the NBA, this year against a very talented group from Texas, the San Antonio Spurs. These accomplishments have made the constituents of my State very proud, and deservedly so.

Over the last 9 years, the New Jersey Devils have won the NHL Stanley cup three times--as much as my team in hockey. During that time, a stifling defense led by Scott Stevens, the playmaking abilities Patrik Elias and Scott Gomez, and the superb goaltending of Martin Brodeur have become the standards of excellence in the National Hockey League.

At the same time, the New Jersey Nets have become one of the most successful teams in the NBA, winning the Eastern Conference Championship each of the last 2 years, led by the outstanding play of Jason Kidd, in my view the best pointguard in the NBA.

The Devils and the Nets both play at the Continental Airline Arena in East Rutherford, NJ, a town of about 10,000 folks. Many think it is the nexus of the sporting universe. We would like to see some of the Olympics in 2012. That is right, even though some of my colleagues from Texas might dispute some of that view.

It is a great organization that happens to own both teams, the Devils and the Nets. They go beyond their supporting crowds. Both teams are actively involved in the community and give a tremendous amount back to it. Patrik Elias helps support Transplant Speakers International, an organization that raises funds and awareness for organ transplants. Dikembe Mutombo helped dedicate the Nets Reading and Learning Center at the Hudson County Boys and Girls Club in Jersey City. Over and over again the players have helped in our disadvantaged schools and communities. They are terrific.

I mention one individual who sets a standard for excellence in business and in sports. That is the general manager--surprisingly, of both teams--Lou Lamoriello, whose dual role is unique in the sporting world. Quite frankly, I think he is the best in the business because he sets a standard not only on the basketball court and hockey wing but in how he operates in the communities, giving back and expecting people to behave and operate in a class way.

This is a terrific credit to an organization, to the teams, and most particularly to fans who have supported them. New Jersey sometimes does not get the kind of recognition it needs. These two organizations have done that through dedication, teamwork, and sportsmanship. They have achieved great success. I congratulate them.

I yield to my colleague from New Jersey.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, let me congratulate my colleague from New Jersey for bringing up this discussion of Larry Doby, who is really a national hero. I commend anyone to read the reports in today's newspapers about his career and the evolution of how African Americans ascended to the role they rightfully should have received in American baseball and American life in general. He was a hero to all of us. I am thankful he was remembered by my senior colleague.