Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today, regretfully, to discuss the faltering state of democracy in Russia. I say ``regretfully,'' because during my more than 31 years in the U.S. Senate, I have consistently striven to improve relations between our country and Russia.

For example, a few years ago, despite severe U.S. budgetary constraints and significant foreign policy differences with Moscow, I introduced legislation that when enacted substantially increased funding for Muskie Fellowships for graduate students from Russia.

During my time in the Senate--which has spanned the last decade of Brezhnev, the brief ruling periods of Andropov and Chernenko in the early 1980s, the lengthier and stormy tenures of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, and since 2000 the era of Vladimir Putin--I have always believed that a constructive relationship with Russia is in the best interest of that great country, and is a vital national interest of the United States.

During the Soviet period our ties were based overwhelmingly on strategic considerations. Moscow and Washington had huge, redundant nuclear arsenals that, if ever used, would have ``made the rubble bounce''--that is, would have gone a long way toward destroying life on this earth as we know it.

The focus of our diplomacy, particularly of our arms control negotiations, was to make that ultimate horror scenario impossible.

But we had no illusions about making the Soviet Union a genuine partner in anything more than in that narrow strategic sense. Whether or not one fully concurred with President Reagan's memorable description of the U.S.S.R. as an ``evil empire,'' no one could have asserted that it in any way resembled a democracy, anchored by the rule of law, with civil liberties and human rights for all its citizens.

In fact, after the signing of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975, the United States effectively utilized the so-called ``Basket Three'' of that document to publicly hold the Soviet Union accountable for its violations of human rights and civil liberties.

Great hopes for change accompanied the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991 and Boris Yeltsin's successor government in the Russian Federation. Although the lid did come off of the worst of state repression, Yeltsin's tenure was marred by widespread corruption, which discredited democratic reform in the eyes of many Russians.

Yet Yeltsin, for all his failings, did successfully make the difficult personal transition from communist to democrat. Given time, Russia's political system held--and still holds--the promise of evolving into a genuine democracy.

That potential, unfortunately, has not only not been utilized, it has been systematically stifled by Yeltsin's hand-picked successor, Vladimir Putin.

In his 4\1/2\ years in power, Mr. Putin, an intelligent and street- smart former agent of the KGB, has developed a system known as ``managed democracy.'' Aside from the unintended irony of this oxymoronic construct, in practice it is long on ``managed'' and short on ``democracy.'' In essence, Russians are witnessing a rollback of the civil liberties they enjoyed during the 1990s.

Both the 2003 parliamentary elections and the March 2004 presidential election were described as seriously flawed by international observers.

The Putin government has selectively and ruthlessly utilized its prosecutorial powers to silence incipient rivals and thereby intimidate other potential opponents. The most celebrated case is that of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, former head of Yukos Oil, Russia's most modern, Western- like private company. Mr. Khodorkovsky's principal sin appears to have been his belief that a wealthy man had the right to engage in Russian political life as a potential alternative to Putin by funding independent, non-governmental organizations.

The imprisonment and legal proceedings against Khodorkovsky have violated virtually every canon of fairness and legality. His trial on tax evasion charges, which opened on Wednesday in Moscow, was scheduled to be held in a cramped courtroom in a blatant move to restrict access to outside observers.

In a speech late in May, President Putin delivered an ominous warning to Russian organizations that defend democracy and human rights for allegedly serving ``dubious'' interests and receiving financial support from the West.

Putin has also used financial gimmicks to eliminate the major, independent national television stations in Russia, leaving only a handful with local audiences. Earlier this month the most popular and outspoken surviving Russian television journalist was fired.

As a result of this repressive media policy, Russian viewers have long since been denied objective coverage of world events, especially of the brutal war being waged by their army in Chechnya.

In that context, President Bush's answer last week to a question at a G-8 press conference in Sea Island, GA, is disturbing. The President said that the G-8 leaders were ``united by common values.'' He went on to explain: ``We do agree on a free press. We don't necessarily agree with everything the free press writes, but we agree on a free press.''

The ancient Greeks used irony as a rhetorical device by attributing a positive characteristic to negative reality. The Black Sea was called ``the peaceful sea'' precisely because, in actuality, it was so stormy. We moderns might call it ``the power of wishful thinking.''

I hope that is what President Bush was doing--subtly pushing Putin into behaving like a member of the G-8 club, to which Russia now belongs despite its mid-size economy, which, absent extraneous political criteria, would not qualify it for membership.

For although the Russian newspaper scene is still vibrant, as I have just described, its electronic media are anything but free. And, as in the majority of other countries, most citizens of the Russian Federation get their news from television, not from newspapers.

Some observers fear a crackdown on the print medium and perhaps even on foreign broadcaster journalists based in Russia.

As for supposed overall ``common values,'' the most recent report on Russia in ``Nations in Transit 2004,'' published by Freedom House, shows Russia slipping from poor to very poor during calendar year 2003 in 5 of 6 categories: electoral process; civil society; independent media; governance; and constitutional, legislative, and judicial framework. The only category in which it did not fall was corruption, and there it remained mired at an extremely poor level.

I hope, therefore, that Putin will not misconstrue President Bush's off-the-cuff answer in Sea Island as license to continue his own undemocratic domestic policies.

As several American commentators and newspaper editorials have discussed, Russia's inclusion in the G-8 since the late 1990s is not irreversible. Its economy certainly does not qualify it for membership, and if it persists in violating the ``common values'' to which it pays lip service, the United States and its democratic allies may decide to return to the G-7 format.

I hope it does not come to that.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an incredible woman. There are a number of benefits that flow, as my friend, the Presiding Officer, knows, even from failed Presidential efforts seeking to get the nomination as he and I have both done. We meet some extraordinary people who put their lives on hold for you because they believe in what you are trying to do. There was such a woman who just passed away in Iowa, in Sioux City. Her name is Betty Strong.

Theodore Roosevelt said:

The most practical politics is the politics of decency.

There was none more practical or more decent than Betty Strong, the matriarch of the Democratic politics of Iowa. She was a wonderful woman whose friendship and memory I will always cherish and whose friendship with her husband I still cherish.

Anyone who knows Iowa politics--and I know the Presiding Officer knows Iowa politics at least from the Republican side of the effort-- knows the name Betty Strong. Senator Harkin and I have been reminiscing all day with wonderful stories we have about her. Time will not permit me to speak to all of these, but she was a master political craftsman. She understood grassroots organizational politics better than anyone. She was a community leader in the best sense of the word. She brought people together around the process and around the issues.

She was a woman of uncanny insight and extraordinary good sense, basic honest judgment, and something that seems altogether too uncommon these days: a depth of good will, unmatched by anyone I have met in politics.

We can find thousands of examples of strong, tough-minded, powerful women in our history who have left their mark, big and small, on our lives, from Helen Keller to Eleanor Roosevelt. All of them inspired a Nation. All of them gave us hope. But few have had as much of a personal impact as Betty Strong of Iowa, who just followed her heart, got involved, did what she wanted to do, and did what she believed was right for the community.

She was tough, strong, and smart. She started in politics in the early 1950s at a time when back rooms were still smoke filled and the sound of a woman's voice was a cause for heads to turn. I can only imagine that Betty did not hesitate to cut through that smoke and speak her mind, even back in the 1950s, and when she did, I imagine she caused those old party bosses to turn their heads on more than one occasion. When she spoke, everyone listened. I know I did.

Margaret Thatcher said:

Success is having a flair for the thing that you are doing,

and knowing that it is not enough, you have to work hard and

have a sense of purpose.

Betty was a success because she worked as hard as anyone I have ever had the pleasure to work with and she had a powerful sense of purpose. She absolutely loved politics as much as she absolutely loved Iowa. She loved the process, and everyone respected her for that.

She was a rare woman who had the depth of an abiding commitment to the rough and tumble of organizational door-to-door politics. Boy, did she know how to work a room. You had to see her work. She could read people. She had, as my mother would say, the sixth sense about how to persuade and bring people to her side, how to convince them she was right. She was, indeed, a very persuasive woman. There was no doubt that when you were with her, you wanted to be on her side.

But I don't think winning was Betty's real goal. It was not what drove her. I think she cared deeply about the fact that people need to be engaged and they contribute to making things better, they find a cause and take a side, they fight for what is in their heart and their gut, and they move the system in the right direction.

For Betty Strong, it was community that mattered most. It was the democratic process she cared about, and she believed that it worked best when you have maximum participation.

That is not to say that she did not have a deeply held set of values and beliefs that drove her politics; she did.

First and foremost, she was a Democrat--a Democrat Democrator, as the folks in Alabama used to say: a Yellow Dog Democrat. She had the hash marks and battle scars of more than 40 years of engagement to prove it.

If I had to categorize her politics, I would say she was an old- fashioned but practical FDR Democrat, an accomplished activist who fought on behalf of organized labor and through the Central Labor Council for the basic dignity of American workers.

I remember how she welcomed my wife Jill and me to her home as she welcomed a host of Democratic candidates over the years. And she did not hesitate to make her opinions known. She did not hesitate to share her love and affection with you.

But partisanship is not a word I think of when I remember Betty Strong. The word I think of is ``democracy.'' To watch her in action was to understand what Teddy Roosevelt meant when he said, ``the politics of decency.'' She was a decent person, as decent as any I have ever met in my public life. She was as engaged as she was engaging, as warm as she was tough, and as wise as she was shrewd.

To see her build a coalition, to watch her rally support, was to realize that all she wanted to do was bring the best out in people.

I first met her in 1987. I stayed in contact with her over the entire time until her death. She was a friend of mine, a friend of Senator Harkin's, and a friend of many of us here.

I only wish we had more like her in both parties. You have them in your party, as I have them in mine. And, God, they are beloved. They are beloved people. But it seems like the generation is passing of the people who made the commitment she made.

She knew all politics was local, but she also knew local politics made up what this Nation is. She was a nation builder. She was a great woman. I miss her. Our sympathies to Darrell and her family.

I thank the Chair and I thank my colleagues for their graciousness. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Senator Kennedy and Senator Feinstein to prohibit the use of funds for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and for the development of new nuclear weapons concepts.

Both the administration's policy of pre-emptive war and the suggestion, reportedly included in the Nuclear Posture Review, that it might use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries undercut U.S. non-proliferation pronouncements. And these policies form the context in which we must evaluate administration proposals for new nuclear weapons research.

Moves to make nuclear weapons just another part of the U.S. arsenal of usable weapons send a strong and unmistakable message to other countries: the only way to deter the United States is to have nuclear weapons of your own.

The President's agenda for a new generation of nuclear weapons is included in the bill before us today, which funds the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, the Advanced Concepts Initiative--which could include low-yield nuclear weapons--and the Modern Pit Facility. Funds for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, known as RNEP, or the bunker buster, are supposed to cover a ``study'' of turning existing nuclear bombs into earth penetrators. But what a robust study this is. The 5-year budget required by Congress and submitted by the Department of Energy funds the ``study'' at $27.6 million

in fiscal year 2005, but the 5-year total balloons to $484.7 million.

Last year, Congress passed amendments that required congressional authorization before later phases and developmental engineering of RNEP could take place. The price tag suggests that the administration sees RNEP as far more than a study; it is clearly looking ahead to the development and fielding of a new nuclear weapon. If so, the Congressional Research Service warns that the 5-year cost is far from the total price tag for this program.

It is impossible to provide an estimate of total program cost because of the difficulty of the task at hand.

The current nuclear earth penetrator, the B61-11, can penetrate only to 20 feet in dry earth. According to physicist Rob Nelson from Princeton University, even an extremely small bunker buster with a yield of one-tenth of a kiloton must penetrate 140 feet underground to be contained. It is hard to imagine the technical feat required to penetrate into hardened targets to the depth necessary to prevent massive fallout from a nuclear weapon with the RNEP's yield, which is said to be far in excess of 5 kilotons. In fact, preventing the spread of fallout from an RNEP is impossible--and tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of casualties could result from the nuclear fallout from such a weapon.

U.S. nuclear tests from the 1960s and 1970s illustrate the point. The 1962 ``Sedan'' test exploded a 100-kiloton weapon 635 feet underground. It produced a gigantic cloud of fallout and left a crater a quarter mile in diameter. To destroy a deeply buried target, an even larger weapon would be needed--and an RNEP would be lucky to penetrate more than 50 feet underground. The fallout would be immense.

The bill before us also includes $9 million for the Advanced Concept Initiative that could lead to the development of new nuclear weapons, including low-yield nuclear weapons.

This program raises further concerns: Will the new weapons require a resumption of nuclear testing, leading others to test as well? Will the new weapons erode the current gap between nuclear and conventional weapons, which helps to make nuclear war ``unthinkable'' and to deter other countries from developing such weapons?

The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and low-yield nuclear weapons are not like regular nuclear weapons. Regular nuclear weapons are designed to deter an adversary; the massive destruction and civilian casualties they cause make nuclear weapons unlike even other weapons of mass destruction, with the possible exception of smallpox. But these nuclear weapons are different. They bridge the gap between conventional weapons and the city-busting weapons of the cold war. They offer the lure of a better way to destroy point targets.

Supporters of new nuclear weapons argue that they, too, could deter an adversary, and that is true. All nuclear weapons have a deterrent function. But the deterrence benefits that low-yield weapons provide are far outweighed by both the risk that they will actually be used and the dangerous signal that they send to other countries--whether intentionally or not--that we intend to fight nuclear wars.

These nuclear weapons blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional war. They begin to make nuclear war more ``thinkable,'' as Herman Kahn might have said. But Herman Kahn's book was ``Thinking About the Unthinkable.'' He understood that nuclear war was unthinkable, even as he demanded that we think about how to fight one if we had to. Looking at the foreign and defense policies of the current administration, I fear that they have failed to understand that vital point. They want to make nuclear war ``thinkable.''

And that failure of understanding could lead to bigger failures: a failure to understand how to keep other countries from developing nuclear weapons; a failure to view nonproliferation as a vital and workable policy objective; and perhaps even a failure to avoid a nuclear war, which would do horrible damage to our country.

Building bunker busters and low-yield nuclear weapons is not a path to non-proliferation. Neither is a program to do R&D on such weapons, while Defense Department officials press our scientists to come up with reasons to build them.

Neither is a program to test those weapons--which would surely be necessary to develop new low-yield weapons; and which would just as surely be the death knell not only of the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, but also of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Consider what the administration has said regarding nuclear weapons: The Nuclear Posture Review of December 2001 spoke of reducing U.S. reliance upon nuclear weapons. But it also reportedly listed not only Russia and China, but also North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya as potential enemies in a nuclear war.

It spoke of possibly needing to develop and test new types of nuclear weapons, gave that as a reason for increasing our nuclear test readiness, and said that nuclear weapons might be used to neutralize chemical or biological agents. And in the run-up to the Iraq war, the administration proclaimed a doctrine of preemption against any potential foe that acquired weapons of mass destruction.

Now, if you were a North Korean leader, or an Iranian or Syrian one, which part of those reports would you act on? The part that reduces reliance on nuclear weapons? Or the part that names you as a possible target for nuclear preemption?

So far, we have one positive answer--from Libya, which is giving up its WMD program.

But from North Korea and Iran, the response is much more disturbing. The Washington Post reported last month that a new National Intelligence Estimate would likely conclude that North Korea has approximately eight nuclear bombs, instead of two; and that its secret uranium enrichment program would be operational by 2007 and produce enough weapons-grade uranium for another six bombs per year. Iran was accelerating its nuclear weapons program, when disclosures and IAEA inspections exposed it and disrupted Iran's efforts. It pursued two means of uranium enrichment--centrifuges and lasers--and experimented with separating plutonium.

Even countries that are our friends and allies worry about--and react to--these U.S. policies. Just last week, Brazil's new Ambassador reiterated his country's intent to limit the access of the International Atomic Energy Agency to Brazil's uranium enrichment plant. One rationale he used was Brazil's unhappiness that the Bush administration would consider using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries.

How shall we stem the spread of nuclear weapons? For a while, it seemed as though the administration's approach would be to declare war on every adversary that dared to go nuclear. But do we really intend to go to war with North Korea, if the price is the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of South Korean civilians? In fact, we appear now to be withdrawing half our ground combat forces from South Korea to send them to Iraq; and there are rumors that those forces will not return to Korea.

Do we intend to go to war with Iran, when we cannot guarantee security in Iraq? The list of countries that we accuse of having weapons of mass destruction is long. Will we take them all on? And what do we do when Indian officials cite our Iraq war arguments as justification for a possible attack on Pakistan that could risk a nuclear war? Is this the world we want?

Nobody ever said that nonproliferation was easy.

I don't have a silver bullet; and I don't expect the President to have one, either. But you have to keep your eye on the ball. When conservatives opposed the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, they said that countries would build nuclear weapons for their own strategic reasons. That is right.

It means that if we want to prevent proliferation, or roll it back, we have to affect those strategic calculations. Nonproliferation policy gives us a framework for those efforts.

The Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty gives us international support, and affects the calculations of countries whose neighbors sign and obey the treaty. The Nuclear Suppliers Group buys more time, by restricting exports of nuclear or dual-use materials and equipment. But in the end, it still comes down to other countries' strategic calculations.

For lasting nonproliferation, we must treat the regional quarrels that

drive countries to seek nuclear weapons. We were able to do that with Argentina and Brazil. As South Africa moved away from apartheid, we were able to do that there, as well. We are making a real effort to help India and Pakistan step back from the brink, and we must continue that effort. But we also have to address security concerns in East Asia, including North Korea's concerns, if we are to keep that whole region from developing nuclear weapons. And we have to pursue peace in the Middle East.

Nor is there really an alternative to working with the international community.

We don't have the ability to inspect sites in Iran; the International Atomic Energy Agency does have that ability. Its inspections have revealed much about the extent of Iran's nuclear program and have made it harder for Iran to pursue that program.

We cannot close down proliferation traffic all by ourselves. The case of North Korea shows how much we need the help of other countries. The cooperation of other countries, especially including Russia and China, is essential. That is why the Proliferation Security Initiative is so important, as is our adherence to international law in implementing that initiative.

Those are the paths to nonproliferation. They are long and difficult paths, and we do not know whether we will succeed. But we can see where we want to go, and we can see how working those issues will help get us there.

Building a new generation of nuclear weapons will only take us on the opposite path. So I urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy-Feinstein amendment to prohibit funding for those counterproductive weapons.

Mr. President, in the early 1950s, at a time when political backrooms were still smoke-filled and the sound of a woman's voice was still a cause for heads to turn, Betty Strong involved herself in politics in her home State of Iowa and did not hesitate to speak her mind. She turned many heads and made folks in Iowa listen in those days and folks have been listening to what she has had to say ever since.

A strong and rare woman, she had a deep and abiding commitment to the rough-and-tumble of the political process and will long stand as an inspiration to all of us, to every American who believes in the great idea of representative democracy, to all those whose values and dreams are represented by a political party and by the process through which we elect our representatives.

She held firm her deep beliefs. She was, first and foremost, a Democrat. In fact, Betty Strong was the grande-dame of Democrats in Iowa. She was an organizer who knew how to bring people together for a cause, a woman who understood the issues, knew the process better than almost anyone, and felt with every fiber of her being that she had not only the right but the duty as a citizen to fight for what she believed was right and fair and just. She fought on behalf of organized Labor and through the Central Labor Council for the basic dignity of the American worker, and for a host of causes in her community, and did not hesitate to make her opinion known, did not waver when it came to bringing about the changes necessary to elect those who agreed with her. But partisanship was not what we should remember when we remember Betty Strong today.

To watch her in action was to understand what America is all about. To see her build a coalition, to rally support, to bring out the best in her community to rise to an issue, to support a candidate, to lay out a platform, to build consensus, was truly a lesson in the best of the American political dynamic. And, every four years without fail, she was in the vanguard of the unique process we have come to understand as the Iowa Caucuses.

I first met her in 1987 when I entered the Iowa Caucuses, and I can say without hesitation or equivocation: I will never forget Betty Strong. She was with me then and her memory will remain with me always. I wrote her a letter in 1988 thanking her for her help and for her lifelong service, and I am honored to know that the letter hung on her living room wall all these years. I will long be beholden to Betty for her commitment, for her support, for her help, for the extraordinary grace she showed me and the dignity with which she lived her life and fought for the causes to which she was so committed.

Iowa has lost a great woman and I would ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the lasting contribution that Betty Strong made to that fundamental Tip O'Neill-notion that all politics is local. Today we mourn her loss and offer to her family and all of her friends in Iowa and across America, the thanks of a grateful Nation.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a mayor of Wilmington, DE, who created a revolutionary government and was beloved by all.

Mayor John E. Babiarz Sr. was a legend in his native city of Wilmington. He was first elected to office in 1948, then served as president of city council before being elected to Mayor in 1960. His reign was made all the more remarkable because he was the city's leader throughout the turbulent 1960s. He was a voice of calm and reason when Delaware's Governor ordered the National Guard to patrol the streets of Wilmington in 1968 after Martin Luther King Jr.'s death.

Despite the troubled times in which he served as mayor, he will be forever remembered and credited with creating a revolution toward a modern form of government for Delaware's largest city and corporate hub. He changed the old commission form of government into a modern, merit political system.

On a personal note, I owe my start in politics to the integrity, guidance, and friendship of Mayor Babiarz. He was a confidant and a friend.

Mayor Babiarz' best friend in life was his wife of 65 years, Adele. She and their two sons, John Jr. and Francis, were the joys of his life.

Wilmington has truly lost one of its greatest native sons.

Mr. President, I joined 56 of my Senate colleagues and over 200 in the House of Representatives in writing the President asking that he work with the Congress toward a policy that will enable important medical research to proceed utilizing stem cells from frozen embryos that were created to treat infertility problems and which are now slated to be discarded. Continued studies using stem cell technology offer hope for a better future for millions of people afflicted with a wide range of illnesses and conditions, including Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, cancer and others.

Presently there are estimated to be more than 400,000 in vitro fertilized embryos that were developed to enable couples to have children, but that are now not needed for that purpose. These frozen embryos are likely to be destroyed. The President could hasten the progress of this important research by modifying his present policy to permit these embryos to be donated, with the consent of the couple, for stem cell research. I look forward to working with the President toward this goal.

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Democratic side be given an additional 10 minutes of morning business, with the time equally divided between Senator Carper and myself. Before the Chair acts on this request, I am told it has been cleared by the Republican side.

Madam President, Delaware is a small State and everyone seems to know everyone else. We know just about everyone in the State. You can't go to the grocery store, church, synagogue, or mosque without running into people you know. We go to each other's events. It is a little like Alaska--small. Alaska is gigantic, but the population is small. We go to each other's gatherings, and we are affected by each other's achievements and each other's milestones, and we are affected by each other's losses. Sometimes the closeness gets us in trouble, but I would not change it for the world.

It has been an honor and a pleasure to represent my State and to have the pleasure over the years to invite several members of our clergy to come and be guest Chaplains.

Rabbi Ellen Bernhardt is our guest Chaplain today. As Senator Carper said, she is finishing her 11th year at the Albert Einstein Academy in Wilmington, not far from where I live. The academy is open to all students, although it is the only Jewish day school in our State.

It has been a pleasure visiting the school on a number of occasions. Over the years, we have spent a fair amount of time in fundraising events together, sharing the dais, and attempting to see to it that the school remains vibrant. That has been going on, actually, before the rabbi was running the school. But the fact is, her dedication, talent, faith, and deep abiding commitment to her students and her work in my State has touched many people in our community. For that, we are all very grateful.

I believe I speak for all my colleagues when I say thank you for your thoughtful, inspirational invocation this morning. We need it badly at this moment in the United States. We are honored to welcome you to the floor of the Senate.

I arrived here almost 32 years ago and I feel the same amount of pride today that I felt then as I walk out on this floor. I know that sounds corny, but I really do. I am incredibly proud of this institution. I remember the first time I walked on the floor; my temporary desk was the second from the end over there. I realized I was standing next to the desk where Daniel Webster sat. I thought to myself, it is the only time I actually thought, my God, what am I doing here? In the last 31 years, some in my constituency have said: My God, what is he doing there? I have become accustomed to it. My impression at that time--and I don't know the rabbi's impression--was how small this Chamber is. There is a closeness to it. It is a comfort. Anyway, I am proud we are able to share the floor with the rabbi today.

Let me say, my relationship and personal connection with the rabbi is a quintessential example of the nature of the State of Delaware.

I happen to know that the rabbi grew up over her father's drugstore in Belfonte, which I frequented a lot. I went to St. Helena, a Catholic grade school in Claymont. Everybody knew your father's drugstore. Everybody hung out in your father's drugstore. I am considerably older than the rabbi. So we basically come from the same small neck of the woods, the same small neighborhood.

The rabbi's father was a heck of a guy, by the way. As a kid and a member of the Congregation Ades Kodesh Shel Emeth, Ellen would study after school with her rabbi, Rabbi Leonard Gewirtz--a man I always affectionately referred to as literally ``my rabbi.'' He introduced me frequently. He became my first tutor--literally, not figuratively-- because of my interest in theology and the Holocaust. I remember speaking up at a college, a rabbinical school in Philadelphia. I remember those big old thick shoes he used to wear, the kind that laced up the side and squeaked on a linoleum floor. I was speaking in this room that was not very commodious for speaking; it was long and with low ceilings, and the podium was in the middle. It was a shoal, actually. He came late and wanted to hear me speak. He opened the door and the congregation was seated and the door smacked against a pew. He walked in and, as you know, he walked right up to the front and sat down. It was kind of a tense moment. Everybody wondered who is this guy walking in. I said, ``My rabbi has arrived.''

After speaking to this all-Jewish congregation, a group of ladies my mom's age, who were in an atrium that connected the shoal to the university, the school--as I walked out, they were arguing. I could hear them saying: Yes, he is. No, he isn't. Yes, he is. A lady grabbed me by the coat and said: You said ``your rabbi. He had a similar influence on me--though much more profound to you but no less significant to me.'' He was a great man.

He was famous for his passionate sermons from the pulpit, his love for Jewish education, his love for Israel and the community he served.

Rabbi Gewirtz was truly a spiritual leader and, as Ellen will tell you, is the reason she decided to become a rabbi. We truly miss him, but his spirit is with her today. I know he is looking down and is very proud. He was also proud of this place, proud of this country, proud of the Senate. To have you here, I am sure, he is smiling.

There are a lot of other things I could and would like to say about Ellen. As I said, we are very similar in the sense that we are truly products of our parents' upbringing and, knowing her story, it is no surprise to me that she has devoted her life to Jewish education, community service, and to her family.

Her grandparents came to this country by way of Ellis Island. Her entire mother's side of the family chose to remain in Eastern Europe and were tragically killed in the Nazi Holocaust.

Her extended family was conspicuously absent from her life. As one can imagine, this had a profound effect on Rabbi Bernhardt and her family's life, priorities, and values.

Her father, Herman Gordon, was one of the many heroic members of the Armed Forces who chose to enlist in the Army Air Corps at the outset of World War II. Mr. Gordon served as a waist gunner on the Flying Fortress B-17 bomber.

Based in England, his unit performed missions over France and Germany, clearing the way for our troops to land on the beaches of Normandy. On his 24th mission, his plane was shot down over Germany. As a Jew, he became a prisoner of war in Germany for 9 months. The latter 3 months of his imprisonment was spent marching at gunpoint on the infamous ``death march''--a desperate move by the Nazis to relocate their POWs straight into the heart of Germany, out of the hands of the Allied forces which were closing in, which I always thought was a metaphor for the insanity, the lust of Hitler and Nazi Germany. This nightmare all came to an end when Mr. Gordon's camp was liberated by General Patton's army.

It is quite a story, quite a heritage, and quite a family. As my dad, who passed away about a year and a half ago, would say: Girl, you have good blood; you have real good blood.

I only hope our children and grandchildren develop an appreciation for the sacrifices of so many Americans, such as Ellen's father, and the thousands of soldiers who are currently serving abroad have done for this country.

One of the reasons I am telling this story is to give my colleagues and constituents back home an insight into what motivates our guest Chaplain this morning to energize her students, family, and friends to better the Delaware

community and to uphold our American values with the same patriotic zeal exemplified by her father.

Last year, for the fourth consecutive year, I submitted a resolution in the Senate to designate the week of Veterans Day as ``National Veterans Awareness Week.'' It explicitly underscores the need for our schools to develop educational programs to highlight the contributions of veterans in our country.

This past year, Ellen held a very moving ceremony. The school invited every friend, relative, or neighbor of a student who served in our military to come and speak at the ceremony in front of the entire school and faculty about their experiences.

Madam President, included in the list of speakers was the mother of LT Scott Travis, a Wilmington native, a graduate of Brandywine High School and West Point, who is currently serving in Iraq.

The ceremony brought real people with real stories into the classroom and gave the kids a tangible sense of what it meant and what it means to sacrifice for one's country. The climax was when students pinned medals on the veterans in attendance as a way to personally thank them for their service.

That is the kind of school Ellen runs. That is the kind of person Ellen is.

By the way, for the record, let me say that in my 31st year in the Senate, Rabbi Bernhardt is only the fifth guest Chaplain I have invited from Delaware, following in the footsteps of Father Jim Trainer from St. Patrick's Church, Rabbi Kenneth S. Cohen from Congregation Beth Shalom, and Father Robert Balducci from St. Anthony's Parish.

From where I sit, you are in good company and so are they.

I thank Rabbi Bernhardt for being here this morning. By the way, you should be very proud of your son sitting behind me who is a relatively new member of my staff. He is already having an impact in the conduct of business around here.

Again, I know I speak for all my colleagues when I welcome you and your family here today. Thank you for the sacrifices you have made for this country, and thank you for the values you are imprinting on the young men and women of my community.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I say to the Senator, I do not want to interfere. I want to speak for about 10 minutes regarding Ahmed Chalabi. I do not have to do it now.

Madam President, I would like to do whatever accommodates the Senate.

Madam President, I thank my friend from Florida who knows much more about what I am going to mention today. He and I worked on what I am going to talk about for some time. And that is--there are reports coming in that the home and offices of Ahmed Chalabi were raided today in Baghdad.

I do not have clear evidence yet as to whether they were raided by the Iraqi government or by the CPA, but both the Senator and I have been incredible skeptics of this administration's reliance on this fellow, Ahmed Chalabi, who has been indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced in Jordan.

For the last 2 years--although I have nothing personal against Mr. Ahmed Chalabi--I have been urging this administration, particularly the Secretary of Defense, the Vice President, and Mr. Wolfowitz: Do not put our eggs into Mr. Chalabi's basket.

Mr. Chalabi is the President of the Iraqi National Congress. I was so concerned about this that my friend from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, and I were literally smuggled into northern Iraq about a month before the war began because we wanted to meet with the Barzani and Talibani clients in northern Iraq to determine what their attitude was, first, toward our invasion with Iraq--would they be with us? There were reports that they would have been, but we wanted to find out firsthand.

And B, we wanted to find out whether Ahmed Chalabi spoke for them. The leaders of both those clans said: We want to make it clear that the INC does not speak for us. We did form the INC with him, but he is out for himself, not us.

I could never quite understand the incredible preoccupation of the administration with Mr. Chalabi. I think that reliance has done us great damage in terms of establishing legitimacy.

Today's raid comes on the heels of an announcement earlier this week that the Defense Department belatedly, after well over a year, has cut off the $340,000 monthly payment to the INC, headed by Mr. Chalabi.

Last month, I wrote to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense asking them to explain why we continue to pay Mr. Chalabi a monthly stipend. The action was seen as sort of putting our thumb on the scale--we say we want the Iraqis to decide their outcome, and here we are pouring into one man, an outfit, $340,000 a month.

It is no secret Mr. Chalabi has long been the favorite of the Pentagon civilians and the Vice President, although the CIA, the uniformed military, and the State Department have been adamantly opposed to him.

We recently had a meeting with the Secretary of Defense in a closed session, but I am allowed to say this in public, and I raised the question of funds to Chalabi and the phrase--well, I guess I cannot quote exactly what the phrase was. I cannot quote the Secretary. But the point is there has been a real difficulty in pushing back.

It has been clear for some time our close association with Mr. Chalabi has damaged American interests in Iraq. Chalabi is the best known figure in the Iraqi Governing Council, according to a poll taken. We appointed him. By the way, a poll taken a couple of months ago in Iraq shows that he is not only the best known member of the Governing Council, but he is also the least popular, with a negative rating of over 60 percent.

Chalabi, as my colleagues will recall, was flown in to southern Iraq literally days before the statue of Saddam fell. It was actually during the war; he was flown in to a portion of southern Iraq we had already conquered and passed. He had been flown in without the knowledge of the State Department and other senior officials. I guess he was going to be the triumphant Shi'a

who was going to march through the Shi'a territories heading up to Baghdad, except one thing, nobody liked him and nobody followed him.

I do not know what it took to get the message to this administration that this guy was not helpful but this guy was hurting our legitimacy. At that time, I rose in the Senate and said, what are we doing here? I think my friend from Florida as well, if not here in the Senate, I know in our hearings, said, what are we doing this for? How are we saying we are liberating the Iraqis, we are going to let them choose their government and we are flying in a handpicked guy?

Well, that sort of went south, figuratively speaking. It was clear we were attempting to put him in a place to take over the reins of Baghdad. Toward the end of that year, he organized the militia, which was implicated in instances of looting in Baghdad. The U.S. military wisely ordered the militia to disband, but there were some supporters here saying it is okay for him to set up a militia.

We are trying to disband militias, and we wonder why we have so little legitimacy. This is not Monday-morning quarter-backing. If need be, for the record, I will come back and lay out all the statements we made 2 years ago about Mr. Chalabi, a year ago, 8 months ago, 10 months ago, as recently as a hearing 2 days ago in the Senate.

It has done us serious damage. High-ranking civilians in the Defense Department continue to back Mr. Chalabi, despite numerous warnings about his past dealings.

The King of Jordan made known his country's distaste for Mr. Chalabi. They did not hide it. The Foreign Minister of Jordan came to me personally and said, for God's sake, do not deal with this guy; do you not understand he is going to hurt you?

Mr. Chalabi has been convicted on fraud charges stemming from a failure of the Petra Bank which Chalabi headed. In recent months, Chalabi has been moving closer and closer to the religious elements in Iraq, apparently belying his claims to be a secular leader. His close association with hardliners in Iran, including Ayatollah Khamenei, has been a matter of mystery and some suspicion, but we continued to support him.

The reason for today's raid is not yet clear, although there were reports earlier this week that one of Chalabi's associates, the finance minister, is being investigated by Iraqi police for a scam involving government vehicles. There have been other reports of corruption allegations as well.

I am not making a judgment on that at this moment. We will wait to see. But I am making a judgment, did make a judgment, and will continue to make the judgment that Mr. Chalabi is hurting us, not helping us.

One other point; Mr. Chalabi's guys got in and got hold of a whole lot of intelligence data that was Saddam Hussein's. He refuses to give it to us. He refuses to turn it over to the U.S. military. He will let us see it but not keep it. And this is our guy. It is like our guy in Havana. You know, our guy?

I do not know what it takes. It is like taking a wombat and banging it up the side of the heads of some of these guys and the civilians in the Defense Department.

This guy is bad news for the United States, whether the reason for the raiding of his headquarters and his home relates to corruption or not. We have tarnished our reputation by our association with this man. It is time to begin recouping it by ending our efforts to foist an unpopular leader on Iraqis and supporting a process which will produce more legitimate leaders.

The bottom line is it is a long time in coming. I hope this means we have listened to the sounds of voices in this administration. I say to my friend, we both know this: We have both tried to help this administration, but it is as though there is a San Andreas fault that runs down the middle of this administration, with two very different views of the world. One is held by Mr. Powell, the State Department, and the uniformed military, and the other being the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and Mr. Wolfowitz, who are all fine, honorable, and decent men who have a very different view of the world.

The view of their world which they have been promoting has turned out not to be so accurate. I hope this is evidence of the fact the President is starting to listen to saner voices.

I facetiously said--nobody asked--if you had a baseball team and you had somebody who batted zero and it came time to put in a pinch-hitter, are you going to look at the batting averages? It is time to look at the batting averages, Mr. President. Listen to those folks in your administration. There are some very good ones who have better batting averages, and I hope this is beginning that recognition.

Clearly we are not. That is not to suggest you are suggesting it is not good Saddam is gone. I think we are, in a marginal sense, safer because he is gone. But I think the effect of what we have allowed to happen, or what has happened in the rest of the world, has literally put us in more jeopardy.

Mr. President, I say to my friend--I will make two points here. One is, it was not only the Senator from Delaware and Florida, but also the Senator from Indiana, the Republican chairman, who pointed out we made a mistake by dismissing the policy of engagement of the last administration. Even the Secretary of State of the United States of America, Mr. Powell, when Kim Dae Jong of South Korea

came, said we were going to continue engaging the North as Mr. Kim wanted us to and thought we should, as our Japanese friends thought we should, and the President summarily stopped that. I think that was another mistake.

I make another point about Iran. The neoconservative view of why we should have gone into Iraq alone is it would teach a lesson to the other malcontents in the world such as the Iranians. They were going to say, My God, look at the unilateral use of force; we better behave. I point out what my friend knows well and we talked about. Prior to our invasion of Iraq, Iran had a genuine democratic movement--not prowestern, democratic movement. It was the Majlis, their parliament, 195 people. There was a genuine movement.

You had the mullahs and the apparatus and the clerics who controlled security and controlled the intelligence apparatus, afraid of world opinion if they crushed that democratic movement.

What did they do? If, in fact, the neocons are correct, and having 140,000 troops in Iraq was going to teach Iran a lesson, in the midst of our greatest show of force in Iraq, the clerics in Tehran would have been afraid to touch the democratic movement, for fear of world reaction.

Obviously they were not frightened by our show of force. There is no democratic movement left. For instead the clerics crushed it. They disbanded it.

So that is another example of the two most dangerous states for the United States of America today if they spiral out of control--Iran and North Korea. Both present a greater threat to America today than they did 3 years ago.

As we both know, the details of that are classified, but we are allowed to say, and I give you my opinion, and I believe it would be the consensus of the intelligence community: No. We are not safer.

No, we are not. But we could be if the President is willing to not stay the course but change the course. There is an opportunity, if the President begins to listen to the correct voices in his administration, to internationalize this, to bring in the major powers, to actually leave Iraq in December of 2005 with a representative government which will have a positive impact on the region over time. It is still possible, but the President must quickly call a summit meeting of the major powers; quickly get them to agree to sign off on Mr. Brahimi's plan of a new government; quickly get NATO to agree to have a NATO-led multinational force, sanctioned by the United Nations; and quickly, quickly demonstrate he understands the breadth and depth of the damage done by the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, bulldoze that prison down, build a hospital in its place, release those prisoners who should not be there and keep the others in a different environment and open it up. He still can do this. But my friend knows, we can't do it. Only one man, because of the majesty of his office, can do it: the President of the United States. He can do it. I hope he does not squander this last opportunity. I am hopeful he will not.

I believe he understands more now. I hope he begins to listen to the uniform military and Mr. Powell, what they have been counseling along with you and I and Senators Lugar, Hagel, McCain, and others all along here. There is still time. But I believe this is the last serious chance he has to get it right by June 30.

I thank my friend.

First of all, I thank the Senator for his compliments that are excessive and not accurate, but I thank him nonetheless. But let me say in a second, I took the time 4 years ago to ask my senior staff to go back and get every major work written by the Straussians, the neocons, I mean it sincerely, and Tony Blinken, former National Security Agency, my chief guy, got together 11 or 12 books, the most seminal volumes written in the last decade by the neoconservatives. These are honorable, bright, serious people--patriotic Americans.

If you read what they say, they mean what they say. What they say is the value of America----

The bottom line is the neoconservatives believe our power is enhanced by leveraging power. Meaning if we go alone without any help, the malcontents of the world go: Oh, my God, look at them, they don't even listen to the rest of the world. They have this awesome power. We should listen to them.

It might work if we had an army of 12 million and a surplus of $500 billion a year instead of an army that is one-twelfth and a deficit of $500 billion a year. It doesn't work.

Now ideology has run head on into reality. For ideologues, like all honorable people, it is difficult to change. It is a little like me as a practicing Roman Catholic denying the Trinity. You can't deny the Trinity and be a Catholic. It is not possible. They cannot acknowledge they need the international community and stick to a thesis that has been theirs for the last 12 years. That is as quickly, succinctly, and as accurately as I can state it. As Samuel Clemens said: All generalities are false, including this one. I made a bit of a generalization, but I believe an accurate one.

Mr. President, I honor the life of an award-winning columnist, reporter and author. My friend, Bill Fiset, lived a long, distinguished life of 73 years, serving his country in World War II. In addition to his honorable career, he was a devoted husband, father, and grandfather.

Bill Fiset was born March 15, 1921 in Seattle, WA and attended Queen Anne High School and the University of Washington, where he was a member of the Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity and a member of the golf team. At 21, he was a reporter and wrote a column called ``Strolling Around the Town'' for the Seattle Times.

At 22, Fiset saw foreign service in Africa as an ambulance driver in the American Field Service, an organization giving medical aid to the Allies before the U.S. entered the war. He resigned the Field Service in Egypt in April 1942, and enlisted with the Royal Armored Service Corps. As a second lieutenant in the British 8th Army in North Africa, he served as a machine gunner on an armored lorry defending convoys from Italian bombers between Tobruk and Suez. Fiset also filed field reports as a war correspondent.

Then America entered WWII. With refugees flooding African transports, Fiset luckily used his recent gunnery experience to sign on with an American freighter as a member of the gun crew, reaching the U.S. 3 months later.

In October, 1942, he joined the Navy. He did his preflight training at St. Mary's College in Moraga, CA, and served as a blimp pilot in Airship Squadron 32 on a coastal submarine patrol stationed out of Moffet Field, California.

After the war, Fiset worked as a reporter for the Oakland Post Enquirer from 1946 to 1950 and joined the San Francisco Call Bulletin as a staff reporter from 1950 to 1952.

Fiset then wrote for the Oakland Tribune from March 1952 to 1955 as a general assignment reporter covering such infamous murder and kidnap trials as Burton Abbott, Carl Chessman; and Barbara Graham, Jack Santo and Emmett Perkins of the so-called Mountain Murder Mob. He also witnessed and reported on their executions at San Quentin Prison.

In 1956 he wrote the Tribune's first television column where he became internationally syndicated and was invited to do walk-on acting parts in ``Route 66'' and ``Tales of Wells Fargo.'' He began a general column for the Tribune in 1962. That same year, he was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize and won many awards for his writing. His award-winning public service booklets ``This Is Sherry'' and ``Want To Be Smart,'' written by Fiset and illustrated by artist Ray Marta were discreetly designed to warn children and parents about the dangers of kidnapping and child sex offenders. Over a million copies were distributed free worldwide and locally by the Tribune, the Bay Area Board of Education, and local police departments. The efforts earned a commendation by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover as, ``a graphic message which may mean the difference between life and death for countless

youngsters,'' and was requested by police departments throughout the United States, Canada, and Europe.

From time to time Fiset continued to file news reports. He wrote about the airlift of Vietnamese-American children out of Vietnam by Ed Daly, a friend and the flamboyant owner of World Airways. In 1973, Fiset was one of the first to file an eyewitness report on the crash of the Soviet SST TU-144 crash at the Paris Air Show.

An avid golfer, Fiset participated in many civic groups and fund raisers. He taught news writing and reporting at the College of Alameda and for many years was a board member for JACKIE, an agency that finds foster homes for children.

He was married for almost 60 years and is survived by his wife, Marian Fiset of Walnut Creek, his sons Rick Fiset of Danville, Gary Fiset of Alamo, daughter Michele Fiset Rice of Bryn Mawr, PA, and his eight grandchildren. Bill Fiset died peacefully on Sunday, May 2, in Concord, CA.

Mr. President, I am proud to co-sponsor the amendment offered by my colleagues, Senator Domenici and Senator Feinstein, which authorizes a program to accelerate U.S. efforts to remove, secure, store, or destroy fissile and radiological material that might otherwise be accessible to rogue states or terrorists.

There could hardly be a higher priority--it is clear that terrorists seek to acquire materials to make a nuclear bomb. Many experts believe that terrorists would be capable of creating a nuclear weapon if they took possession of fissile material. Even the simpler, gun-type design, the type of bomb exploded at Hiroshima, could kill from tens of thousands to a million people if detonated in a large city.

Terrorists are also known to be interested in radiological material for a so-called ``dirty bomb,'' also known as a radiological dispersion device. While an attack with a dirty bomb would not cause many fatalities, it could render large areas uninhabitable and cause long- term economic devastation and psychological damage.

I thank Senator Domenici, and Senator Feinstein for their work and leadership on this issue. Senator Domenici, in his role as Chairman of the Appropriations Energy and Water Subcommittee, has done much to shape the nuclear non-proliferation programs at the Department of Energy. Senator Feinstein, also a member of that subcommittee, introduced legislation to facilitate the removal of nuclear material from vulnerable sites around the world. They have worked together to craft the bipartisan amendment before us today.

While many raised the alarm about the possibility of terrorists using weapons of mass destruction before September 11, 2001, the events of that day made clear to all what devastation could have been wrought had the terrorists attacked with weapons of mass destruction.

Witnesses at a hearing I chaired before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 6, 2002, emphasized the need for multiple layers of defense against nuclear terrorism and said that the very first priority must be controlling fissile and radioactive material in the United States and abroad.

Since that time, there has been progress in securing, storing and destroying fissile and radiological material. But much more needs to be done.

The Department of Energy's International Materials Protection, Control, and Cooperation Program and its Radiological Dispersion Devices Program seek to secure nuclear weapons, weapons-usable nuclear materials, and radiological sources by upgrading security and consolidating these materials.

From fiscal year 1993 through this fiscal year, 2004, Congress has appropriated $1.58 billion for these Department of Energy programs, mostly to secure nuclear weapons and nuclear material in Russia. Because of them, and the related Cooperative Threat Reduction programs at the Department of Defense, hundreds of tons of bomb material is more secure and the nuclear material that could have been made into thousands of nuclear weapons has been destroyed.

Why, when so much has been accomplished, is this amendment necessary?

One answer is that while much has indeed been accomplished in Russia, highly enriched uranium, or HEU, and plutonium exist in many countries and in both military and civilian sites. There are 345 operational or shut research reactors that used HEU in 58 countries. Many of these countries have inadequate resources to operate or clean up these reactors. Few of them can afford to convert their HEU-fueled reactors, or their HEU targets used to produce medical isotopes, without outside assistance.

Another answer is that even in Russia, only a fraction of its highly enriched uranium has been destroyed. Many experts, including those involved with the Project on Managing the Atom at Harvard University, have urged that efforts be accelerated to ``blend down'' highly enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium, which is usable for nuclear power, but not readily for weapons. At current rates, it could take decades to blend down Russia's excess HEU. The urgency of the potential threat from the tons of HEU in Russia argues for a more robust program that would blend down HEU in years, not decades. The amendment before us today wisely authorizes an acceleration of our HEU blend-down programs.

In addition to authorizing accelerated HEU recovery and blend-down programs, this amendment would accelerate our efforts to help move nuclear facilities away from the use of HEU in nuclear reactor fuel and medical isotope production. It will also encourage increased efforts to recover and secure plutonium and radiological sources that might otherwise be accessible to terrorists.

The Domenici-Feinstein amendment provides for a comprehensive program to: securely ship at-risk fissile and radiological materials; raise processing and packing standards; provide interim security upgrades and improve management of vulnerable sites; manage materials at secure facilities; provide technical assistance to the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as to countries; and provide assistance in the closure of risky sites.

This amendment will also improve our efforts to convert risky sites to, and place displaced nuclear workers in, activities that do not represent a proliferation threat. Both the Department of Energy and the Department of State have programs to help displaced workers, but there many worthy projects in this area go unfunded each year. We can and we must do more to ensure that nuclear weapons scientists and technical personnel are not left prey to the lures of contracts in rogue states or sales to terrorists.

The Domenici-Feinstein amendment will not solve all the problems that our non-proliferation programs face. We also need sustained attention by the President to removing roadblocks that have hindered our existing programs in Russia. Whether the question is access to sites, or immunity from taxation, or immunity from liability for U.S. persons involved in these programs, we need effective intervention at the highest level to solve those problems. It would be ironic, indeed, if our authorization of accelerated efforts were to be undone by the inability of President Bush and Putin to work out the implementation of those programs.

This amendment must do more than spur the Department of Energy to put more resources into our non-proliferation programs. It must galvanize the government at the highest levels to do more and do it quickly, before some terrorist group gains access to fissile our radiological material and uses it against us.

I commend Senators Domenici and Feinstein for their important amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, as was announced yesterday, I was not able to be here for the vote on the amendment offered by Senator Hutchison, No. 3152, which includes service academy cadets and midshipmen in the military's disability discharge and retirement system and allows ROTC cadets to use TRICARE supplemental health care programs when they are injured during training. This amendment makes an important improvement to the health care of our future military leaders, and I would like the record to reflect that, had I been here, I would have voted for that amendment which passed unanimously.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the 145 law enforcement officers who gave their lives in service to their communities last year. They are true heroes, and their families are owed our gratitude.

This is National Police Week. Tonight, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund will host the 16th Annual Candlelight Vigil on the grounds of the National Law Enforcement Memorial here in Washington. Three hundred and sixty-two names will be added to the memorial tonight--145 officers who were killed in 2003, and 217 who were lost in prior years. Saturday, the Fraternal Order of Police will host the National Peace Officers' Memorial Day Service on the West Front of the Capitol. Together, these two events, along with other events throughout the city this week, should make us all pause and give thanks to police officers throughout the Nation who protect our communities against crime and terrorism.

We lost fewer officers in the line of duty last year than we have in years past, and the total is well below the 230 officers killed in 2001, when we lost 72 officers on September 11 alone. But the numbers of lost officers is still far too high. On average, one out of every 9 officers is assaulted per year, one out of every 25 is injured, and one out of every 4,400 is killed in the line of duty annually. Police risk their own lives in our service each and every day, and we should keep these sobering statistics in mind every week, not just during police week.

Law enforcement is an inherently dangerous undertaking, and police officers have become our front lines in the war on terror. I fear we are underfunding their efforts as we reorient Federal assistance to local law enforcement post 9/11, but that is a conversation for another day. Today, and this entire week, we give police officers our thanks, we remember those that paid the ultimate price while serving our communities, and we give comfort to the loved ones they have left behind.