Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Feinstein's amendment to strike funding allocations for certain nuclear weapons research and development activities contained in H.R. 2754 the energy and water appropriations bill. Before I discuss the particulars of this amendment, let me explain why it matters so very much in the context of the international environment in coming decades.

Today, the United States is the pre-eminent conventional superpower in the world. We spend more on our Nation's military than the rest of the world combined. As the dazzling display of firepower exhibited by our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrates, our Nation boasts the mightiest military machine in world history.

But none of that means our Nation is secure or can afford to rest on its laurels. As September 11 graphically exhibited, the world is a very dangerous place, if only because our adversaries and rivals are turning to asymmetric warfare to nullify our military advantages and exploit our weaknesses. One key asymmetry lies in the use of weapons of mass destruction. The spread of technology around the world allows a greater number of states and non-state actors to access the knowledge, technology, and infrastructure required to develop and produce nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

Nuclear weapons, in particular, can nullify the overwhelming conventional military strength of the United States. Today no weapons system can defend against the detonation of a nuclear weapon in an American city. National missile defense holds out the prospect one day of preventing the delivery of nuclear weapons via intercontinental ballistic missiles, but the technology is so premature that any effective system is years, if not decades, away. Indeed, a terrorist is unlikely to use an ICBM with a return address. And there is absolutely no system that can prevent a barge from sailing into New York City's harbor and detonating a nuclear explosive on board.

So nuclear proliferation represents the gravest threat today to our national security, a threat from which our overwhelming conventional military strength provides little protection. How do we best respond to this threat? One school calls for the development of new nuclear weapons for possible use in an otherwise nonnuclear conflict. In order to ensure that a North Korea or an Iran cannot secure its chemical and biological weapons or hide its leaders in underground bunkers, some people call for new nuclear weapons capable of penetrating layers of earth and destroying deeply buried targets.

Advocates of new nuclear weapons go off the deep end, however, when they suggest that low-yield weapons could ever destroy deeply buried targets, or that a ``bunker-busting'' weapons would not cause horrific civilian casualties. The laws of physics dictate that a warhead cannot penetrate more than 50 feet of dry rock before gravitational forces cause the warhead to break up. That means that a nuclear weapon big enough to destroy a deeply buried target--even a target 100 feet below ground--cannot be ``low-yield''. Any low-yield weapon would simply lack the explosive power necessary to destroy a target buried at that depth or lower. So the nuclear weapons designers tell us explicitly: A Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator will never be a low-yield weapon.

But what would happen if a low-yield weapon were used against a buried target? According to the physicist Sidney Drell, a one-kiloton nuclear weapon, well below the 5-kiloton threshold below which nuclear weapons are called ``low-yield'', detonating at a depth of 40 feet below the surface would still create a crater larger than the entire World Trade Center impact zone and churn up about 1 million cubic feet of radioactive material into the air. This very small one-kiloton nuclear weapon would wreak tremendous damage, contaminating the surrounding area for miles on end with dangerous gamma rays and other radiation. This reality is vastly different from the image of a surgical weapon promoted so often by its advocates.

Advocates of low-yield nuclear weapons are trying to have it both ways. They want a weapon powerful enough to take out bunkers, neutralizing any stored chemical and biological agents, that are buried deeply below the Earth's surface. At the same time, these weapons must be small enough to minimize civilian casualties and destruction on the surface. Unfortunately, scientists and weapons designers say it just can't be done.

Weapons designers will tell you that the real purpose for low-yield nuclear weapons is not to strike underground targets when all other options have failed. Rather, these weapons could strike regular surface targets like leadership compounds--while reducing the damage that a more regular-sized nuclear weapons would cause. But that resurrects the misguided strategic concept that nuclear weapons are just handy tools, like any other weapon--a bizarre notion that should have expired along with Dr. Strangelove decades ago. Besides, low-yield weapons are nothing new. Every time we developed them, however, the military concluded that they weren't worth the effort.

Any deterrence benefits that new low-yield nuclear weapons would provide are far outweighed by both the risk that they will actually be used and the dangerous signal that they send to other countries-- intentionally or not--that we intend to fight nuclear wars. Low-yield weapons, in particular, blur the traditional firewall between nuclear and conventional war. The sidestep the fact that a nuclear weapon is a weapon of a wholly different order and magnitude from any other weapon in existence today--something that any sane and rational society would only use as a truly last resort. As Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated in 1945, even crude nuclear weapons are city-killers.

Let me point out one final challenge to the possible use of low-yield nuclear weapons to strike deeply buried targets. Any decision to order such a strike must rely upon unimpeachable intelligence, because no rational President will order even a low-yield nuclear weapons like without great confidence in the success of the mission. It is precisely that type of intelligence which is so difficult to obtain when it comes to acquiring information on the location of WMD stockpiles and leadership compounds in rogue states. Just look at what happened during the war on Iraq this spring. Twice, we thought we had Saddam in our sights. Our intelligence folks told the President they had good information that Saddam was in a particular location at a given time-- but in both cases they were wrong. Saddam either was never there or had left before the bombs arrived. And as for taking out Saddam's chemical or biological weapons, ``all the king's horses and all the king's men'' will get back to us later.

I'm not casting blame on our intelligence community--it is an incredible challenge to gain real-time tactical information in the heat of battle. But imagine the international outcry had the United States used a low-yield nuclear weapons to go after Saddam. Not only would we have failed to kill him because he was not in the bunker, we would have caused incalculable civilian casualties, razed a large part of Baghdad, and breached the nuclear threshold.

Is this a price any future Commander in Chief would or should be willing to pay? Our enemies are not stupid--they will increasingly locate valuable targets near or next to civilian sites, such as mosques and hospitals. They may will bury deeply hidden bunkers under these sites. Again, should any President give the OK to use a low-yield nuclear weapon under such circumstances? If not, why incur the fiscal expense, diplomatic costs, and strategic risks of developing these new weapons in the first place? Why give other countries the sense that nuclear weapons are a vital element in our war-fighting plans, when there would still be no rational reason for us to use them except in retaliation?

So what's the right response to the world we live in today, where nuclear

proliferation poses the greatest security threat we face? I wish I could offer you one simple solution that will effectively answer this challenge. Unfortunately, no such magic bullet exists. Instead, we need to rely on a shrewd combination of accurate intelligence, diplomacy, multilateral cooperation, arms control, export controls, interdiction, sanctions, and when appropriate, the threat or use of military force, to deter and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

In those situations where we must target deeply buried targets, conventional weapons offer a promising alternative to introducing nuclear weapons into the conflict. After all, chemical or biological weapons stored in an underground site can do no harm as long as they remain within that bunker. And an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon could spread far more chemical or biological agents than it burned up, unless it landed very precisely on the target. So our military could employ large conventional bombs to seal or destroy the entrance and exit tunnels to underground sites, so that any weapons stockpiles stored in such sites will not be going anywhere for a while.

Other scientists have discussed the feasibility of targeting a series of conventional missiles, one following the other, in order to burrow a ``pilot hole'' toward a deeply buried target. So let's be clear-- nuclear weapons are not the only possible solution for attacking an underground target.

The neoconservative school argues that diplomacy, arms control, and international ``norms' have failed to deter rogue states like Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear weapons programs. There may be some truth to that, but diplomacy has been instrumental in slowing down the progress of these programs and restraining their scope. In addition, nonproliferation regimes and international norms have provided tremendous value in convincing more established states in the international system to remain non-nuclear. For example, it was their desire for international legitimacy which, in part, persuaded Argentina and Brazil to give up their nascent nuclear weapons programs in the 1980's. The same can be said for Japan, Taiwan, the Ukraine, and South Africa, which have all foregone, halted, or voluntarily given up their own nuclear weapons programs.

How does the Feinstein amendment fit into this broader discussion over U.S. nuclear weapons strategy and the battle to combat nuclear proliferation? The energy and water appropriations bill includes the administration's original requests for funding of a series of controversial nuclear weapons activities, including research into advanced nuclear concepts, such as low-yield weapons, and reduction of the time period between when a President makes the decision to resume nuclear testing and when our nuclear weapons complex would be able to carry out a test.

This new funding to enhance our readiness to resume nuclear weapons testing and conduct research on new weapons concepts and designs will lead us to a world where the further proliferation of nuclear weapons is more widely tolerated. While the senior officials in the current administration have disavowed any intent to resume nuclear testing or produce new nuclear weapons, their actions tell a different story.

The Nuclear Posture Review of December 2001 identified not only Russia and China as potential targets in a future nuclear war, but also North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Libya. The latter countries were cited as seeking weapons of mass destruction, but not necessarily nuclear weapons.

More recently, civilian Pentagon leaders ordered a task force to consider possible requirements for new low-yield nuclear weapons, even while assuring the Senate that no formal requirement has yet been established.

A presidential strategy document reportedly stated that the United States might use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state possessing chemical or biological weapons.

Senior officials publicly discuss the possible need to resume underground nuclear testing, either to ensure that existing weapons are safe and reliable or to test new weapons, all the while scorning the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

The Feinstein amendment would strike out the $15 million allocation for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, eliminate the $6 million allocation for Advanced Weapons Concepts Initiative and prohibit the use of any appropriated funds to shorten the time period required to prepare for an underground nuclear test from the current 24 to 36 months to less than 24 months.

It would also prohibit the use of funds for site selection or conceptual design of a Modern Pit Facility, which would produce replacement plutonium triggers for the existing nuclear stockpile. The amendment reallocates the eliminated funding to the paramount goal of deficit reduction.

Let me remind my colleagues that this amendment only proposes to do what the Republican-controlled House largely already did in July, when it adopted its version of the Energy and Water appropriations bill. According to press reports, Representative David Hobson, the Republican chairman of the relevant House Appropriations subcommittee, defended his panel's decision to strike this funding by asserting the U.S. Government should first address the rising costs of managing its existing nuclear stockpile and disposing of its nuclear waste before moving ahead with new nuclear programs. Neither the full House Appropriations Committee nor the House as a whole challenged the subcommittee's mark.

We should all remember the House's actions when our opponents charge that this amendment will jeopardize U.S. national security or represents some extremist, antinuclear weapons agenda. In fact, the opposite is true.

So what's the bottom line here? Today, the United States deploys 6,000 strategic nuclear warheads and possesses in total more than 10,000 deployed or reserve nuclear weapons. As we are the overwhelming conventional military power in the world, it is decidedly against our interest to see others obtain and/or use nuclear weapons. Why on earth, then, are we considering the acquisition of additional and more advanced nuclear weapons?

If we continue on these steps to develop these new weapons, our friends and enemies alike can easily dismiss our future admonitions on why nuclear weapons fail to provide true security. Indeed, our adversaries will take to heart one overriding lesson: Develop your own nuclear weapons to deter a preemptive U.S. strike.

Let me close with a statement by Secretary of State Colin Powell, a man who spent the majority of his career in the uniformed military. In May 2002, Secretary Powell discussed the potential for an India- Pakistan conflict to evolve into a nuclear clash. But his larger point holds true for our debate today:

Nuclear weapons in this day and age may serve some

deterrent effect, and so be it, but to think of using them as

just another weapon in what might start out as a conventional

conflict in this day and age seems to be something that no

side should be contemplating.

The Feinstein amendment enhances U.S. national security by preventing our Nation from sleepwalking into an era when nuclear weapons are considered just another weapon. The United States is the leader of the world. Other nations watch us and they follow our lead. Let's not lead them astray.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a resolution designating October 17, 2003, as ``National Mammography Day''. I am pleased that 52 of my colleagues have endorsed this proposal by agreeing to be original cosponsors. I might note that I have submitted a similar resolution each year since 1993, and on each occasion the Senate has shown its support for the fight against breast cancer by approving the resolution.

Each year, as I prepare to submit this resolution, I review the latest information from the American Cancer Society about breast cancer. For the year 2003, it is estimated that over 211,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and slightly fewer than 40,000 women will die of this disease.

In past years, I have often commented on how gloomy these statistics were. But as I review how these numbers are changing over time, I have come to the realization that it is really more appropriate to be optimistic. The number of deaths from breast cancer is actually stable or falling from year to year. Early detection of breast cancer continues to result in extremely favorable outcomes: 97 percent of women with localized breast cancer will survive 5 years or longer. New digital techniques make the process of mammography much more rapid and precise than before. Government programs will provide free mammograms to those who can't afford them, as well as Medicaid eligibility for treatment if breast cancer is diagnosed. Information about treatment of breast cancer with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy has exploded, reflecting enormous research advances in this disease. So I am feeling quite positive about our battle against breast cancer. A diagnosis of breast cancer is not a death sentence, and I encounter long-term survivors of breast cancer nearly daily.

In recent times, the newspapers have been filled with discussion over whether the scientific evidence actually supports the conclusion that periodic screening mammography saves lives. It seems that much of this controversy relates to new interpretations of old studies, and the relatively few recent studies of this matter have not clarified this issue. Most sources seem to agree that all of the existing scientific studies have some weaknesses, but it is far from clear whether the very large and truly unambiguous study needed to settle this matter definitively can ever be done.

So what is a woman to do? I do not claim any expertise in this highly technical area, so I rely on the experts. The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force all continue to recommend periodic screening mammography, and I endorse the statements of these distinguished bodies.

On the other hand, I recognize that some women who examine these research studies are unconvinced of the need for periodic screening mammography. However, even those scientists who do not support periodic mammography for all women believe that it is appropriate for some groups of women with particular risk factors. In agreement with these experts, I encourage all women who have doubts about the usefulness of screening mammography in general to discuss with their individual physicians whether this test is appropriate in their specific situations.

So my message to women is: have a periodic mammogram, or at the very least discuss this option with your own physician.

I know that some women don't have annual mammograms because of either fear or forgetfulness. It is only human nature for some women to avoid mammograms because they are afraid of what they will find. To those who are fearful, I would say that if you have periodic routine mammograms, and the latest one comes out positive, even before you have any symptoms or have found a lump on self-examination, you have reason to be optimistic, not pessimistic. Such early-detected breast cancers are highly treatable.

Then there is forgetfulness. I certainly understand how difficult it is to remember to do something that only comes around once each year. I would suggest that this is where ``National Mammography Day'' comes in. On that day, let's make sure that each woman we know picks a specific date on which to get a mammogram each year, a date that she won't forget: a child's birthday, an anniversary, perhaps even the day her taxes are due. On National Mammography Day, let's ask our loved ones: pick one of these dates, fix it in your mind along with a picture of your child, your wedding, or another symbol of that date, and promise yourself to get a mammogram on that date every year. Do it for yourself and for the others that love you and want you to be part of their lives for as long as possible.

And to those women who are reluctant to have a mammogram, I say let National Mammography Day serve as a reminder to discuss this question each year with your physician. New scientific studies that are published and new mammography techniques that are developed may affect your decision on this matter from one year to the next. I encourage you to keep an open mind and not to feel that a decision at one point in time commits you irrevocably to a particular course of action for the indefinite future.

I urge my colleagues to join me in the ongoing fight against breast cancer by cosponsoring and voting for this resolution to designate October 17, 2003, as National Mammography Day.

Mr. President, before my friend leaves the floor, and I don't want to keep him waiting while I make my statement, I think he made some interesting points. As he knows, I generally have great respect for him. But some of these things sort of don't pass the smell test. I ask the rhetorical question: Does anybody in here believe this administration is changing work rules in order to be able to pay more people overtime?

Let me say that again. Does anybody believe the Secretary of Labor, and this President of the United States, backed by the Chamber of Commerce and many other decent, honorable business people as their core supporters, is trying to change the law to give more people access to overtime?

I would be happy to have you answer it.

I am delighted to hear that. I am glad to see the President has had an epiphany. I find it absolutely fascinating. I come from a corporate State. I come from a State where business is a great citizen and they are very active. I have never had one small businessman, I have never had one large businessman, I have never had one come and say: You know what the problem is here, Biden? You Democrats are denying people overtime. We want to expand that contract made in the thirties between labor and management to make sure our workers who are not getting it get overtime.

As they say in the neighborhood I come from, give me a break. Give me a break.

I am going to go to my formal statement in a moment. My friend from New Hampshire made a couple of very important points that are accurate, but draw exactly the wrong conclusion. He said that, in effect--my words--the social contract we entered into 30, 40, 50, 60 years ago with American workers said if you engage in manual labor, you will be rewarded for your efforts. We the American people, we the American Government value manual labor. We value what you have done to build this country. We are going to make sure that you get treated fairly. One of the things they said that related to being treated fairly was that nobody should have to work more than 40 hours. That was a judgment made. In Germany, or in France--I don't know which one it is--they say you only have to work 35 hours, and there is a debate about whether it should be 40 or 50 hours.

We made a deal as a nation. We said: Look, if you work more than 40 hours--those of you who do manual labor--you ought to be compensated time and a half for doing it--just like you work on Sunday. They say that is a day of rest. Most contractors say if you have to work Sunday, we will pay double time. That was the deal we made.

As my friend points out, there are not many manual labor jobs left in America. We have exported them overseas--or the bulk of them overseas. We made it easier for business to take all those manual labor jobs and send them overseas. This is a different world. We have now become a service economy. We have a lot less people doing manual labor. What was the underlying rationale as to why we were going to pay people overtime? We were going to pay overtime not to those who did manual labor. That is what it happened to turn out to be. We said we are going to give people overtime if in fact they are in the workplace and they don't have control over their destiny. They do not get to determine the work rules. They don't get to decide how much longer they will keep the lathes going. They don't decide whether or not they work on Saturday or Sunday. It is about control.

The underlying rationale was we said workers who by and large were manual laborers and do not have a say in their work conditions, do not have a say in how they function, do not have a say in whether they start at 8 or 10 in the morning or 4 in the morning, do not have a say in when the shifts run, and do not have a say in whether or not they get a window outside their work space, we are going to pay those guys something when we ask them to work more than 40 hours.

But for those folks who have a say, and those folks who have some control--theoretically white-collar workers, people who get a room with a view, people who have some say on whether or not the boss starts the shift or opens the door at 8 in the morning or 4 in the morning or 10 in the morning, and those folks who are more like management--they have a say and we are not going to compensate them. Their compensation is in effect because they have a say.

As a former Governor of California used to say, there is psyche remuneration for being white collar.

Just like around here, I get to pick my office. I get to decide whether I have a room with a view. I get to decide to have a more commodious work space. The person who works for me who happens to be answering the mail doesn't get that decision. If I put the mail room in a place where there is no window, as long as it meets OSHA's requirements, they work. Guess what. Hang on everybody. For those of you who ain't management, you ain't going to get overtime anymore when the boss says: By the way, show up. I have an election. You get overtime now. You all get overtime. Get ready.

At any rate, the point is this: It is about control.

My friend said the world has changed. It is a different economy than it was in the 1950s and 1960s. That is right. But if it is based upon the premise of control, which is the underlying rationale for the Fair Labor Standards Act, I would argue my friend from New Hampshire is right. The world has changed. But guess what. White-collar workers don't have control now. As we move to a service economy and white- collar workers, we don't have people digging ditches. We don't have people lifting lumber. We don't have people moving heavy equipment. They are still there, but we have white-collar workers who wear blue collars and who are in high-tech industries and industries that are the service economy--who work in restaurants and work at all these other places--who, in fact, still have no control.

Let me ask you a rhetorical question. Am I missing something here? Every single survey I have read during the last decade asking about satisfaction that American workers derive from their jobs--am I wrong or have all those surveys come back and said there is less satisfaction?

We are not allowed to talk to the galleries. So I am not going to.

But I wonder whether people watching this or sitting in the galleries as I ask a rhetorical question will ask themselves this: Am I satisfied in the workplace? Do I feel my job is rewarding? Do I have any element of control over my job?

The funny thing I have found is whether they are a DuPont engineer or a chemist or an analyst at a brokerage house, they are all afraid they are going to show up one day and find that the company has been sold and they don't have a job. They don't have any control. Guess what. They don't have much.

I agree with my friend. The world has changed. But the values haven't changed. The value we are operating on is that people who do not get much say in how and when and where and under what conditions they work when you ask them to work more than 40 hours should get paid overtime. The fact that there are fewer people wearing sweatshirts and sweating as they perform their jobs is not the issue. How many of those folks in the new service economy have any more control over their jobs than those folks who did manual labor 40 years ago?

That is the first point I want to make.

The second point I want to make to my friend from New Hampshire, who is a very bright guy--I am not being solicitous; he really is.

The second point I make, I agree. He says there is more flexibility in the workforce. I will make a bet. I will make the staffers and my Republican colleagues a bet. I bet if they go out tonight, as they stop in the grocery store or stop to pick up the bottle of milk, or if they are single, stop at the local watering hole to commiserate with their colleagues, ask the following question to whomever they encounter: What does flexibility in the workplace mean to you? Although I have never done this, I make a bet the answer everyone gets is the following: It means my boss can fire me when he wants. It means I have to work part time. It means I am flexible, but they do not have to pay health care. It means I do not have to get benefits I used to get when it was not so flexible.

Flexibility does not translate into control. It does not translate into you being able to determine, in effect, compensation for being asked to stay longer, the environment in which you work or the circumstances in which you work. Flexibility translates to most American workers as flexibility for the boss to tell me I am part time.

My friend did point out part time. I am not going to get into a debate whether it is 8 million or 1.3 million. That is focusing on the trees and not the forests. What is the big picture, folks? The big picture is my Republican colleagues have a very different set of values than I have. They are good people. They are decent people. I am not impugning their motive, but they have a different value set. I think the basic principle is if, in fact, you work in a circumstance where you do not have much control over your environment, and I ask you to work longer than 40 hours, you should have to be paid overtime. That is a basic fundamental value. To me it is simple.

What has this President done? He is a decent, honorable man. What has he done? He has a very different view of American labor and the rights of American labor. Look at his tax structure. All our existence in this last century and the beginning of this century, what was our tax structure designed to do? It was designed to treat the guy and woman who make their living using their hands the same way as the guy who makes his living using his head.

We did not make a distinction in this country based upon whether you pay taxes--until now. What has this administration said now? It depends whether you have--and it is a fancy term--earned income or unearned income. All those listening to me know the difference. Earned income means when you receive a salary, basically. Unearned income is when you have a return on an investment.

What have we done in trying not to tax dividends? We have said, if you sit in your living room, in your home library, in your corner office on the 67th floor, wherever you sit, and you manage your investments, you do your work with your brain alone trying to figure out how to best place the money you have to get a return, if you make money, if you make that week $1,000, then we are not going to tax you. But if you run a piece of heavy equipment, digging out the World Trade Center, and you make $1,000 because of your hourly wage and your overtime, we are going to tax you. Ain't that sweet?

This is the administration--my friend from New Hampshire wants me to believe--that is changing these rules in order that more people will get overtime. That does not pass the laugh test. Look, even the stenographer knows I am telling the truth. It does not pass the laugh test. Let's get real here, OK.

There is a sound philosophic argument for the position of the Republicans based on a different value set than I have, but it is sound. They argue the reason why you shouldn't tax the guy who doesn't break a sweat is because he will provide the liquidity, the pooling of money out there from which people can borrow money, make investments, cap investments, to put guys like my dad to work when he was alive. God love them being so concerned about my dad. But that is a legitimate argument. And what they say is, we value that effort, because it is a more societal consequence, than we value the guy sitting behind a crane or a heavy piece of equipment because we will tax him, but we will not tax the guy who creates something of greater value. He does not break a sweat. He does not put his body at risk. He puts his money at risk.

Now we are creeping into a two-tiered notion of what is the most valuable thing to be compensated in this country. It is a legitimate argument with which I fundamentally disagree. Make no mistake about where those guys are coming from. Don't try to tell me they are trying to help my brother, the laborer. Don't try to convince me they are trying to help the average middle-class guy. Don't try to tell me they are trying to create wealth among those who are raising their kids in split-level homes and trying to pay for tuition. Don't try to tell me that. They are trying to do that indirectly because if you let the big guy have more money, he will take a greater risk and he will invest it and maybe employ that man or woman in the $100,000 split-level home with three bedrooms and four kids. But for God's sake don't tell me that is their major concern.

This is about values. It is obvious this administration does not have the same value set, at least speaking for myself, that I have, or that we have had, or value the social contract in effect that we fought over all during the teens, 1920s, and 1930s, and began to put into place in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.

The nature of the economy has changed, but the nature of those who have control and do not have control has not changed. That has not changed. Those numbers and proportions have not changed. This is not fair. But it is consistent. It goes back to the trickle-down, bubble-up disagreements, a very simplistic way to show the differences between our parties. We think average folks can actually make decisions for themselves. We think they can actually and should be rewarded for what they do. That will generate economic growth. They think, no, let the wealthiest among us make those judgments and that will trickle down and benefit my noncollege-educated father and mother. It is a legitimate argument. But it is different value set. It is a different way of looking at the world.

For Lord's sake, do not try to convince me this administration is seeking to change the overtime work rules so more people get overtime. In the last 3 years, more than 3 million private sector jobs have disappeared. And for each of those 3 million jobs lost, there is a story of a child without health care, a family in crisis without dignity or hope, their dreams lost or at least deferred. A job loss is not just another statistic, it is a real human tragedy.

Paraphrasing President Truman, and I didn't know what he was doing at the time, my grandfather Finnegan from Scranton used to say, Joey, when the guy up in Throop loses his job, it is an economic slowdown; when my brother-in-law loses his job, it is a recession; when I lose my job, it is a depression.

There is a lot of depression for a lot of folks out there. For 3 years now, this administration has told us that tax cuts are the only thing we need to do to get this economy rolling. They said tax cuts were all we needed to create new jobs. You know the talk about creating new jobs. But here we stand today, trillions of dollars in tax cuts later, and we have not added a single--hear me now--a single, not one net new job to the economy in the United States of America--not one. And I will bet the President anything he wishes to bet that at the end of his term--defeated or reelected--on election day 2004, this will be the first administration since Herbert Hoover not to create one single solitary net new job. As they used to say on ``Saturday Night Live,'' ``Ain't that special?''--not one new job.

Not only have we failed to create new jobs, we are losing the ones we have. Tax cuts were the only policy we had, but it is painfully clear they haven't worked, at least in relation to jobs. And now it is clear that tax cuts and deficits are credited for crippling our ability to meet our responsibilities here at home in homeland defense and to shoulder the burdens we face around the world, at exactly the time the President has rightfully called on us to come up with another $87 billion for Iraq.

I think it is time to ask the question: If we are not going to create any new jobs--and the President's Council of Economic Advisers argued, by the way, that last year's tax cuts would produce 5.5 million jobs between now and the end of 2004. With the loss of 93,000 jobs last month, that puts them 437,000 jobs behind their promise already. I challenge them to create one new job during this administration.

The latest official numbers look slightly improved on paper, but that is because nearly 2 million men and women who have been out of work for over half a year know that good jobs are just not there so they have completely given up looking for work.

I know my friend from West Virginia has been through a lot. He could, not figuratively but literally, write a book on this. He has witnessed what has happened to his coal miners. He has witnessed what has happened to the folks in his State. He has been through a depression. He was part of those who worked us out of that. He knows what not having a job means to somebody.

So most of us here--all of us, Democrat and Republican, know that the key to our dignity as human beings is being able to provide for ourselves, and it is also the key to a healthy economy.

A jobless recovery, which we have right now, means nothing to the millions still out of work. And this so-called jobless recovery is in danger of causing the recovery as a whole to sputter out because its foundation is not very solid.

There is little hope for sustained, healthy economic growth without solid, good-paying jobs. Consumer confidence and consumer spending--the keys to our economy--ultimately depend on Americans' confidence that they are going to have a secure job, a job that pays a fair wage for a fair day's labor.

For over half a century, American workers have known what that meant: a 40-hour workweek and time and a half for overtime. You could count on that extra pay in exchange for the extra burden of working more than 40 hours a week.

So I would just ask, what has changed in America that says when you work more than 40 hours a week, you should not get compensated more for it? What is it that has changed that says the premise of overtime pay is no longer sound? What is it? What is it that has changed, that is different from the agreement we made--business and management and labor--that if you

don't control your work environment, you should be compensated monetarily when you are asked to work in that environment beyond 40 hours? What has changed?

What is happening? Have we taken on a new set of basic values or is there something in the marketplace that has changed that demands this?

I will conclude with this. The irony of all of this is that at the very time when people are feeling less secure physically, the very time when people are feeling less secure about their jobs, at the very time when we have lost millions of jobs, and no reasonable prospect of seeing them regained in the near term, why is it they have to pile on now--pile on now--and begin to change that basic contract?

You would think they would at least have the good grace and the courtesy to wait until things have improved a little bit. It just seems to me to be really bad form, just bad form, because you know a lot of those guys and women who are making overtime are helping pay their mother's prescription bill, are making sure that their brother, who lost his job, is able to keep his kids in school.

A lot of that money for overtime is family overtime. And now we want to change that. I think it is getting a little bit greedy. I think it is just a little bit greedy. I think it is bad form. And I sincerely hope I turn out to be wrong. I sincerely hope the economic conservatives in this administration really are attempting to provide a change in the rules to make sure that more people get overtime. I will come to the floor and say: I'm sorry, I misjudged you. I thank you for your concern for working-class people. I thank you for your concern that not enough of them were getting paid overtime, and I appreciate the fact you are now willing to pay more people more overtime. I don't think I will have to make that speech. I hope I am wrong.

Mr. President, last month 93,000 Americans lost their jobs. Over the last 3 years, more than 3 million private sector jobs have disappeared. And for each one of those 3 million lost jobs, there is a story of a child without health care, a family in crisis without dignity or hope, their dreams lost or deferred.

A job loss is not just another statistic, it is a real human tragedy.

For 3 years now this administration told us that tax cuts are the only thing we need to get the economy rolling again. They said tax cuts are all we need to create new jobs. But here we stand today, trillions of dollars in tax cuts later, and we have not added a single new job to this economy.

Not only have we failed to create new jobs, we are losing the ones we used to have. Tax cuts were the only policy they had, but it is painfully clear that they have not worked. And now it is clear that the tax cuts and the deficits they created are crippling our ability to meet our responsibilities here at home and to shoulder the burdens we face around the world--at exactly the time the President has rightfully called on us for $87 billion for Iraq.

It is time to ask the question: Can this administration create just one new private-sector job, one more job than existed when they took office?

The President's Council of Economic Advisors claimed that the last tax cut would produce 5.5 million new jobs between now and the end of 2004. With the loss of 93,000 jobs last month, that puts them 437,000 jobs behind their promises already.

I challenge them to create just one new job during this administration, one new job before the next election.

The latest official unemployment number looks slightly improved on paper, but that is because the nearly 2 million men and women who have been out of work for over half a year know that god jobs are just not there and they have completely given up looking for work.

Jobs are the key to our dignity as human beings. And they are the key to a healthy economy.

A jobless recovery like we have right now means nothing to the millions still out of work. And this so-called jobless recovery is in danger of sputtering out because it lacks a strong foundation.

There is little hope for sustained, healthy economic growth without solid good-paying jobs.

Consumer confidence and consumer spending--the keys to our economy-- ultimately depend on Americans' confidence that they have a secure job, a job that pays a fair wage for fair days' work.

For over half a century American workers have known what that meant, a 40-hour work week, and time and a half if you worked overtime. You could count on that extra pay in exchange for the extra burden of working more than 40 hours a week.

Many workers often have no choice about working overtime, it is up to their boss. But they have to work those extra hours, their employer is required to pay them time and a half.

This has been a cornerstone of the social contract between labor and management, between workers and employers.

For other workers, higher overtime pay is often absolutely essential to making ends meet. For those struggling along on the minimum wage or a little more, overtime pay can make all the difference when you are trying to make ends meet.

We know that many workers simply schedule themselves as much overtime as they can physically bear so that they can stay above water financially. But despite the key role of the 40-hour work week, despite the wide-spread reliance on time and half pay for work past those 40 hours, this administration has proposed crippling changes in the regulations governing overtime pay.

That is why I am here as a cosponsor to the Harkin-Kennedy amendment to prohibit funding for those new overtime regulations.

Senator Harkin deserves our thanks, and the thanks of millions of workers, for his leadership on this issue.

On its face, the issue could not be clearer. The administration wants to take away the rights of millions of workers to overtime pay. They want to make it easier for employers to reclassify as many as 8 million hourly workers--who now get overtime pay--to make them ineligible for overtime pay.

Right now, for most workers, if you are not ``white collar'' working in management, your boss has to pay you time and a half for all the work you do over 40 hours a week. The idea is that more highly educated workers, who participate in management, who have significant authority over the workplace, are more properly classified as salaried, not hourly, workers. They get a fixed amount of pay, no matter how many hours they may put in a week.

Hourly workers, on the other hand, who do not manage the conditions under which they work, who have less to say about the work week is organized, must be compensated if they work more than the basic 40 hours.

That has been the definition of a fair day's work for a fair day's pay for more than half a century, and its basic fairness still makes sense today.

America has changed, but not our values. But the administration's new regulations would make it easier--would actually create an incentive for employers to classify workers who have little advanced education and little or no authority--to classify those workers as white collar workers.

Those regulations would lower the amount of education currently required to classify someone as white collar or professional. And they would also loosen the definition of management activities to make it easier to claim that a lot of the basic paperwork many hourly workers currently do actually makes them administrators or executives.

Overnight, with the stroke of a computer key, millions of workers could lose the right to overtime pay. These rules are designed not only to make it easier to reclassify workers, but to make it pay for employers who do so.

Employers will save money, since they will no longer be required to pay workers time and a half for work that they are now guaranteed. There would be no change in the number of hours they could be required to do, no change in their education, no change in their responsibilities, just one change in the regulations in Washington--and they are out overtime pay and out of luck.

Today, when the biggest problem facing our economy is the loss of job, when a well-paying job is so hard to come by, these regulations are the worst thing we could do.

This administration has the worst record of job loss since Herbert Hoover--3.2 million jobs lost. Faced with the obvious fact that his economic

policies have failed to create a single new job, faced with the fact that years into a so-called recovery, we are still losing jobs, the President recently announced a warmed over package of his failed policies and labeled it a job creation plan. I suppose it is a good thing that he finally realizes that he is presiding over the worst job creation of any modern President.

Unfortunately, there is nothing new in his announcement, and absolutely nothing that would create one new well-paying job. If he truly wants to do something for the working men and women of America, I respectfully suggest that the President simply rescind these proposed regulations. That alone would protect the overtime pay on which so many men and women and their families depend today.

Now is not the time for this administration to use its regulatory power to cut the pay of millions of American workers. But if we will not stop this pay cut for millions of Americans, we can do that today here in the Senate. We can vote to prohibit any funds from going to enforce this unfair and wrong-headed change in our basic social contract, in the deal we have struck between millions of workers and their employers.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues and yield to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleague Senator Specter, the ``Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act of 2003.'' About a year ago, the Independent Task Force on Homeland Security Imperatives, co-chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman and sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, released its report in which it concluded that ``America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic attack on U.S. soil.'' The report received considerable media fanfare and inspired eloquent proclamations about the need to strengthen America's domestic security agenda--but sadly, in the ensuing months, we have done little to protect one of the key vulnerabilities identified by the task force, this nation's seaports.

The 361 seaports in the United States serve essential national interests by facilitating the flow of trade and the movement of cruise passengers, as well as supporting the effective and safe deployment of U.S. Armed Forces. Yet, our attention to the security needs of seaport facilities and other marine areas, which cover some 3.5 million square miles of ocean area and 95,000 miles of coastline, has been inadequate--especially when you consider the sheer volume of traffic that moves through our seaports and along our waterways each year.

Annually, U.S. seaports handle more than 141 million ferry and cruise ship passengers and unfathomable amounts of waterborne commerce, more than 2 billion tons of domestic and international freight and 3 billion tons of oil. Each year, millions of truck-size cargo containers are off-loaded onto U.S. docks--yet, as the Hart-Rudman Report noted, ``only the tiniest percentage of [these] containers . . . are subject to examination--and a weapon of mass destruction could well be hidden among this cargo.'' Indeed, only about 2 percent of the nearly 6 million cargo containers that pass through the U.S. are inspected each year--and, according to some expert reports, only 30 percent of that cargo contains material that matches the cargo manifest.

The 2002 Hart-Rudman Report was both timely and important in that it shed new light on these glaring vulnerabilities and, in the process, re-energized the debate surrounding America's national security needs. However, the report's findings were hardly new. Two years earlier, the

Interagency Commission on Crime and Security at U.S. Seaports, a blue- ribbon government panel, had similarly noted that seaports and the ``maritime mode'' were especially vulnerable and that they did ``not exhibit a substantial security or anti-terrorism profile, particularly when compared with the emphasis commercial aviation places on these activities.'' The Interagency Commission concluded that ``terrorism, serious crime and inadequate cargo control are the most obvious threat vectors in seaports today.''

With that in mind, last Congress, Senator Specter and I introduced legislation designed to update Federal law to address critical security issues at U.S. seaports. We have re-tooled and re-focused that legislation, making important improvements and taking account of recent changes in the law. Today, we re-introduce the ``Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act of 2003,'' which addresses all three threats identified by the Interagency Commission--terrorism, serious crime and inadequate cargo control.

Here is a summary of some of the pressing vulnerabilities that the legislation would address directly: First, the Interagency Commission concluded that ``control of access to the seaport or sensitive areas within the seaports'' poses one of the greatest potential threats to port security. Such unauthorized access continues and exposes the nation's seaports, and the communities that surround them, to acts of terrorism, sabotage or theft. In response, the Biden-Specter Bill would double the maximum term of imprisonment for anyone who fraudulently gains access to a seaport or waterfront.

Second, an estimated 95 percent of the cargo shipped to the U.S. from foreign countries, other than Canada and Mexico, arrives through out seaports. Accordingly, the Interagency Commission found that this enormous flow of goods through U.S. ports provides a tempting target for terrorists and others to smuggle illicit cargo into the country, while also making ``our ports potential targets for terrorist attacks,'' In addition, the smuggling of non-dangerous, but illicit, cargo may be used to finance terrorism. Despite the gravity of the threat, we continue to operate in an environment in which terrorists and criminals can evade detection by underreporting and misreporting the content of cargo. In one review by the U.S. Customs Service, nearly 20 percent of the carrier arrivals in the sample were discrepant, i.e., carried more or fewer containers than were listed on the manifest. In an earlier review, Customs found a 53 percent discrepant rate. Even where this improperly-reported cargo is legitimate, it needlessly diverts precious resources and attention away from the job of detecting terrorists and serious criminals. To deter this problem, the Biden- Specter Bill would increase penalties for noncompliance with certain manifest reporting and record-keeping requirements, including information regarding the content of cargo containers and the country from which the shipments originated.

Third, the Coast Guard is the main Federal agency responsible for law enforcement at sea. Yet, its ability to force a vessel to stop or be boarded is limited. While the Coast Guard has the authority to use whatever force is reasonably necessary, a vessel operator's refusal to stop is not currently a crime. The Biden-Specter Bill would make it a crime for a vessel operator to fail to slow or stop a ship once ordered to do so by a federal law enforcement officer; for any person on board a vessel to impede boarding or other law enforcement action authorized by Federal law; or for any person on board a vessel to provide false information to a federal law enforcement officer.

Fourth, The Coast Guard maintains over 50,000 navigational aids on more than 25,000 miles of waterways. These aids, which are relied upon by all commercial, military and recreational mariners, are critical for safe navigation by commercial and military vessels. Accordingly, they are inviting targets for terrorists. The Biden-Specter Bill would make it a crime to endanger the safe navigation of a ship by damaging any maritime navigational aid maintained by the Coast Guard; place in the waters anything which is likely to damage a vessel or its cargo, interfere with a vessel's safe navigation, or interfere with maritime commerce; or dump a hazardous substance into U.S. waters, with the intent to endanger human life or welfare.

Fifth, each year, thousands of ships, including cruise ships, whose numbers have swelled enormously over the last half century, enter and leave the U.S. through seaports, Smugglers and terrorists exploit this massive flow of maritime traffic to transport dangerous materials and dangerous people into this country. The Biden-Specter Bill would make it a crime to use a vessel to smuggle into the United States either a terrorist or any explosive or other dangerous material for use in committing a terrorist act.

Sixth, under current Federal law, it is a crime to destroy an aircraft or aircraft facilities. Incredibly, there are no equivalent Federal prohibitions in the maritime context. Given the magnitude of the threat against America's seaports, we should provide the same protection to seaports that we do for airports. The Biden-Specter Bill would make it a crime to damage or destroy any part of a ship, a maritime facility, or anything used to load or unload cargo and passengers; commit a violent assault on anyone at a maritime facility; or knowingly communicate a hoax in a way which endangers the safety of a vessel.

Seventh, according to the Interagency Commission, ``at many seaports, the carrying of firearms is not restricted, and thus internal conspirators and other criminals are allowed armed access to cargo vessels and cruise line terminals.'' Currently, Federal law prohibits carrying firearms into airports, which is a sensible step to protect against possible terrorist attacks or other criminal activity. We should provide the same protections currently afforded to airports to our seaports and passenger vessels. The Biden-Specter Bill would prohibit the carrying of a dangerous weapon, including a firearm or explosive, at a seaport or on board a vessel.

Eighth, as a consequence of the vast amount of waterborne commerce, cargo theft has become a major problem. Yet, there is no national data collection and reporting system that captures the magnitude of serious crime at seaports. Given the importance of free-flowing commerce to our nation's economy and the reported trafficking and sale of contraband to fiance terrorist activity, it is especially important that we work to assess and correct the problem. The Biden-Specter Bill would require the reporting of cargo theft offenses. It would also instruct the Attorney General to create a database containing the reported information, which would be made available to appropriate governmental officials while respecting important privacy protections. Importantly, organizations like the American Institute of Marine Underwriters and the Inland Marine Underwriters Association have specifically expressed their strong support for this provision.

And, ninth, the Interagency Commission concluded that existing laws are not stiff enough to stop certain crimes, including cargo theft, at seaports. The Biden-Specter Bill would increase the maximum term of imprisonment for low-level thefts of interstate or foreign shipments from 1 year to 3 years and expand the statute to outlaw theft of goods from trailers, cargo containers, warehouses, and similar venues. The American Institute of Marine Underwriters and the Inland Marine Underwriters Association also have expressed strong support for this provision.

This comprehensive anti-crime and anti-terrorism legislation is the product of informal collaborations with ports, industry and labor groups, as well as interested federal agencies. As a result of the contributions by these groups, we believe that we have developed a strong, bipartisan bill that, once passed, will significantly improve federal criminal law; expand the array of tools available to investigators and prosecutors; and ensure that federal resources are appropriately invested.

We are delighted to have the support of organizations, like the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), with special knowledge and expertise in seaport and cargo security. In fact, the AAPA, which represents more than 150 public port authorities in the United States, Canada, the Caribbean and Latin America, has sent me a strong letter endorsing the legislation--a copy of which will appear in the record at the end of my statement.

In closing, in the aftermath of September 11th and given the ongoing and escalating terrorism perpetrated around the globe, surely we recognize that the conclusions contained in the Hart-Rudman Report were not mere hyperbole--but a clarion call for action. Needless to say, a terrorist attack against any one of this Nation's seaports would not only jeopardize human life, but could also bring the otherwise free flow of commerce to a screeching halt--exacting a heft toll on the U.S. economy, world shipping, and international trade. That impact could be both devastating and far-reaching, and that is not even considering the effect of America's military readiness which depends on quick access to certain strategic ports in order to ensure effective mobilization and deployment of U.S. Armed Forces.

Given the threat, we must undertake to do all that we reasonably can to discourage and/or frustrate such an attack. This legislation, while not a cure-all, is an important step in the right direction. I implore my colleagues to join our effort and move quickly to enact this bill into law. America will be better for it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the letter from AAPA be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleague Senator Specter, the ``Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act of 2003.'' About a year ago, the Independent Task Force on Homeland Security Imperatives, co-chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman and sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, released its report in which it concluded that ``America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic attack on U.S. soil.'' The report received considerable media fanfare and inspired eloquent proclamations about the need to strengthen America's domestic security agenda--but sadly, in the ensuing months, we have done little to protect one of the key vulnerabilities identified by the task force, this nation's seaports.

The 361 seaports in the United States serve essential national interests by facilitating the flow of trade and the movement of cruise passengers, as well as supporting the effective and safe deployment of U.S. Armed Forces. Yet, our attention to the security needs of seaport facilities and other marine areas, which cover some 3.5 million square miles of ocean area and 95,000 miles of coastline, has been inadequate--especially when you consider the sheer volume of traffic that moves through our seaports and along our waterways each year.

Annually, U.S. seaports handle more than 141 million ferry and cruise ship passengers and unfathomable amounts of waterborne commerce, more than 2 billion tons of domestic and international freight and 3 billion tons of oil. Each year, millions of truck-size cargo containers are off-loaded onto U.S. docks--yet, as the Hart-Rudman Report noted, ``only the tiniest percentage of [these] containers . . . are subject to examination--and a weapon of mass destruction could well be hidden among this cargo.'' Indeed, only about 2 percent of the nearly 6 million cargo containers that pass through the U.S. are inspected each year--and, according to some expert reports, only 30 percent of that cargo contains material that matches the cargo manifest.

The 2002 Hart-Rudman Report was both timely and important in that it shed new light on these glaring vulnerabilities and, in the process, re-energized the debate surrounding America's national security needs. However, the report's findings were hardly new. Two years earlier, the

Interagency Commission on Crime and Security at U.S. Seaports, a blue- ribbon government panel, had similarly noted that seaports and the ``maritime mode'' were especially vulnerable and that they did ``not exhibit a substantial security or anti-terrorism profile, particularly when compared with the emphasis commercial aviation places on these activities.'' The Interagency Commission concluded that ``terrorism, serious crime and inadequate cargo control are the most obvious threat vectors in seaports today.''

With that in mind, last Congress, Senator Specter and I introduced legislation designed to update Federal law to address critical security issues at U.S. seaports. We have re-tooled and re-focused that legislation, making important improvements and taking account of recent changes in the law. Today, we re-introduce the ``Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act of 2003,'' which addresses all three threats identified by the Interagency Commission--terrorism, serious crime and inadequate cargo control.

Here is a summary of some of the pressing vulnerabilities that the legislation would address directly: First, the Interagency Commission concluded that ``control of access to the seaport or sensitive areas within the seaports'' poses one of the greatest potential threats to port security. Such unauthorized access continues and exposes the nation's seaports, and the communities that surround them, to acts of terrorism, sabotage or theft. In response, the Biden-Specter Bill would double the maximum term of imprisonment for anyone who fraudulently gains access to a seaport or waterfront.

Second, an estimated 95 percent of the cargo shipped to the U.S. from foreign countries, other than Canada and Mexico, arrives through out seaports. Accordingly, the Interagency Commission found that this enormous flow of goods through U.S. ports provides a tempting target for terrorists and others to smuggle illicit cargo into the country, while also making ``our ports potential targets for terrorist attacks,'' In addition, the smuggling of non-dangerous, but illicit, cargo may be used to finance terrorism. Despite the gravity of the threat, we continue to operate in an environment in which terrorists and criminals can evade detection by underreporting and misreporting the content of cargo. In one review by the U.S. Customs Service, nearly 20 percent of the carrier arrivals in the sample were discrepant, i.e., carried more or fewer containers than were listed on the manifest. In an earlier review, Customs found a 53 percent discrepant rate. Even where this improperly-reported cargo is legitimate, it needlessly diverts precious resources and attention away from the job of detecting terrorists and serious criminals. To deter this problem, the Biden- Specter Bill would increase penalties for noncompliance with certain manifest reporting and record-keeping requirements, including information regarding the content of cargo containers and the country from which the shipments originated.

Third, the Coast Guard is the main Federal agency responsible for law enforcement at sea. Yet, its ability to force a vessel to stop or be boarded is limited. While the Coast Guard has the authority to use whatever force is reasonably necessary, a vessel operator's refusal to stop is not currently a crime. The Biden-Specter Bill would make it a crime for a vessel operator to fail to slow or stop a ship once ordered to do so by a federal law enforcement officer; for any person on board a vessel to impede boarding or other law enforcement action authorized by Federal law; or for any person on board a vessel to provide false information to a federal law enforcement officer.

Fourth, The Coast Guard maintains over 50,000 navigational aids on more than 25,000 miles of waterways. These aids, which are relied upon by all commercial, military and recreational mariners, are critical for safe navigation by commercial and military vessels. Accordingly, they are inviting targets for terrorists. The Biden-Specter Bill would make it a crime to endanger the safe navigation of a ship by damaging any maritime navigational aid maintained by the Coast Guard; place in the waters anything which is likely to damage a vessel or its cargo, interfere with a vessel's safe navigation, or interfere with maritime commerce; or dump a hazardous substance into U.S. waters, with the intent to endanger human life or welfare.

Fifth, each year, thousands of ships, including cruise ships, whose numbers have swelled enormously over the last half century, enter and leave the U.S. through seaports, Smugglers and terrorists exploit this massive flow of maritime traffic to transport dangerous materials and dangerous people into this country. The Biden-Specter Bill would make it a crime to use a vessel to smuggle into the United States either a terrorist or any explosive or other dangerous material for use in committing a terrorist act.

Sixth, under current Federal law, it is a crime to destroy an aircraft or aircraft facilities. Incredibly, there are no equivalent Federal prohibitions in the maritime context. Given the magnitude of the threat against America's seaports, we should provide the same protection to seaports that we do for airports. The Biden-Specter Bill would make it a crime to damage or destroy any part of a ship, a maritime facility, or anything used to load or unload cargo and passengers; commit a violent assault on anyone at a maritime facility; or knowingly communicate a hoax in a way which endangers the safety of a vessel.

Seventh, according to the Interagency Commission, ``at many seaports, the carrying of firearms is not restricted, and thus internal conspirators and other criminals are allowed armed access to cargo vessels and cruise line terminals.'' Currently, Federal law prohibits carrying firearms into airports, which is a sensible step to protect against possible terrorist attacks or other criminal activity. We should provide the same protections currently afforded to airports to our seaports and passenger vessels. The Biden-Specter Bill would prohibit the carrying of a dangerous weapon, including a firearm or explosive, at a seaport or on board a vessel.

Eighth, as a consequence of the vast amount of waterborne commerce, cargo theft has become a major problem. Yet, there is no national data collection and reporting system that captures the magnitude of serious crime at seaports. Given the importance of free-flowing commerce to our nation's economy and the reported trafficking and sale of contraband to fiance terrorist activity, it is especially important that we work to assess and correct the problem. The Biden-Specter Bill would require the reporting of cargo theft offenses. It would also instruct the Attorney General to create a database containing the reported information, which would be made available to appropriate governmental officials while respecting important privacy protections. Importantly, organizations like the American Institute of Marine Underwriters and the Inland Marine Underwriters Association have specifically expressed their strong support for this provision.

And, ninth, the Interagency Commission concluded that existing laws are not stiff enough to stop certain crimes, including cargo theft, at seaports. The Biden-Specter Bill would increase the maximum term of imprisonment for low-level thefts of interstate or foreign shipments from 1 year to 3 years and expand the statute to outlaw theft of goods from trailers, cargo containers, warehouses, and similar venues. The American Institute of Marine Underwriters and the Inland Marine Underwriters Association also have expressed strong support for this provision.

This comprehensive anti-crime and anti-terrorism legislation is the product of informal collaborations with ports, industry and labor groups, as well as interested federal agencies. As a result of the contributions by these groups, we believe that we have developed a strong, bipartisan bill that, once passed, will significantly improve federal criminal law; expand the array of tools available to investigators and prosecutors; and ensure that federal resources are appropriately invested.

We are delighted to have the support of organizations, like the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), with special knowledge and expertise in seaport and cargo security. In fact, the AAPA, which represents more than 150 public port authorities in the United States, Canada, the Caribbean and Latin America, has sent me a strong letter endorsing the legislation--a copy of which will appear in the record at the end of my statement.

In closing, in the aftermath of September 11th and given the ongoing and escalating terrorism perpetrated around the globe, surely we recognize that the conclusions contained in the Hart-Rudman Report were not mere hyperbole--but a clarion call for action. Needless to say, a terrorist attack against any one of this Nation's seaports would not only jeopardize human life, but could also bring the otherwise free flow of commerce to a screeching halt--exacting a heft toll on the U.S. economy, world shipping, and international trade. That impact could be both devastating and far-reaching, and that is not even considering the effect of America's military readiness which depends on quick access to certain strategic ports in order to ensure effective mobilization and deployment of U.S. Armed Forces.

Given the threat, we must undertake to do all that we reasonably can to discourage and/or frustrate such an attack. This legislation, while not a cure-all, is an important step in the right direction. I implore my colleagues to join our effort and move quickly to enact this bill into law. America will be better for it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the letter from AAPA be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, international trade has always been an important part of the American economy. For the past half century and more, the United States has been a leader in expanding international trade, opening markets around the world to our products. I believe that on balance the evidence shows us that trade has supported economic growth here in the United States, and that trade has supported good jobs and good wages for American workers.

On paper, the simple, textbook logic of trade is clear--more open markets around the world mean more customers for our workers and companies, who can compete with anyone in the world. And open markets mean more choices and lower prices for American consumers--it makes their paychecks go further.

Trade complements and reinforces the great strength of the American economy--its ability to seize opportunities.

To lead the world in research, to be the first to develop new products and processes, we depend on our ability to move investments and manpower where they can do most good. Trade is the international face of that process, that has always been the key to the success of the American economy. But in the real world, where people live, things are not that simple.

Economists like to tell us how well markets work--other things being equal. But those ``other things'' are not always equal. Because trade, by reinforcing the basic process of economic growth and change, reinforces the shift of investment and jobs. So trade contributes to severe disruptions, as factories shut down, people lose jobs, communities decline. It may well be true

that the overall result is a more efficient, more productive, even wealthier nation.

But underneath those gains are the costs of economic change, costs that are just as real and just as much a result of trade as the benefits. The costs of coping with economic change are dumped on workers and their families, on the communities they live in. The benefits of trade often go to businesses and workers in other industries, in other parts of the country.

If the benefits of trade really do outweigh their costs, we should have the resources as a Nation to help those on the losing end, the ones who are paying the price so that our economy can become more productive. Recently, two important shifts have occurred in our trade negotiations. First, we are dealing with countries that more often than not lack the political rights and the legal structure to protect their workers and their environment.

Many of these countries don't have our strong tradition of organized labor, fighting and winning protections for wages and working conditions. Many of these countries don't have the organizations or the laws to protect their environment. We didn't, either, as we began to grow into the world's strongest economy over a century ago.

It took us time and a lot of struggle to learn those lessons.

There are still plenty of countries out there who have not learned them yet, countries that do not provide those protections that can raise living standards, standards that they cannot yet afford. Low-wage competition with our workers, with our higher living standards, can force American companies to cut costs wherever they can--and in the end, that often means cutting labor. That means families without breadwinners, communities without jobs.

Second, on top of the fact that we are now doing trade deals with a lot of countries that don't match up with us in terms of economic development, our trade deals now include a different, deeper level of integration.

We have gone beyond lower tariffs, and into areas that implicate a lot more of our own domestic laws--on issues like agricultural policy, intellectual property, even environmental and health regulations. This deeper integration in the international economy touches close to bone in a country like ours.

We want to be sure that we remain in control of those important political issues. This does not mean that we should stop trying to bring the benefits of markets and trade to American workers and consumers. But it does mean that we have to be increasingly careful with every new step we take in trade policy. The easy work is behind us.

Each step from here on has to be taken with a much closer look at the balance between risks and rewards. But these trade deals before us today do not show that kind of care. Chile and Singapore are good allies of ours, and I support more cooperation and exchange among our economies. They are not, in their living standards and level of development, all that different from us. They are not themselves the issue here, at least not for me.

But the trade agreements the Bush administration has negotiated with them are a step back from progress we have made, as recently as just a couple of years ago, in the Jordan Free Trade Agreement. For example, the Jordan agreement subjects any violation of labor protections to ``appropriate and commensurate'' action. And there is no cap on the penalty that could be imposed as a result of a dispute.

But the Chile agreement and the Singapore agreement provide recourse against a country only for a sustained failure to enforce its own labor and environmental laws. In the worst case, a country could chose to lower its labor and environmental protections, making it easier to avoid a dispute or a penalty, because it would make its own standards easier and cheaper to enforce. At the margin, that would put greater pressure on American firms to cut costs--and jobs.

In addition, in these two agreements there is a cap of $15 million a year on penalties for failure to live up to labor and environmental protections. And those fines are simply paid by the offending country to itself, supposedly to strengthen its commitment to the very standards that they have failed to live up to. I have some experience with crime and punishment, Mr. President, and I can't believe that is going to deter much bad behavior. If $15 million is the maximum fine, it is an incentive to commit more than $15 million worth of violations. You can do the math.

Again, Mr. President, it is not that these two nations raise a serious threat to American living standards. Trade with Chile and Singapore combined amounts to a fraction of 1 percent of our economy. Nor do I harbor any concerns that these countries will fail to live up to their end of the deal. The issue before us now is whether these deals--the first agreements accomplished under fast track negotiating authority--set an acceptable pattern for future, more extensive trade agreements, such as the planned Central American Free Trade Agreement or the Free Trade for the Americas.

These trade agreements fail to treat labor and environmental issues as seriously as commercial disputes, as our trade law now requires. This is the first test of what this administration has done with its fast track trade negotiating authority. Now is the time to hold them to the letter and the spirit of the legislation under which we in Congress granted that authority to this administration. Yet another problem with these agreements lies in the changes in immigration law--done without the participation of the Judiciary Committee.

Fast track for the specifics of trade deals is one thing; but trade deals should not undertake, outside of the legislative process, significant changes in immigration or any other policy. Thousands of new visas can be issued under these agreements--without any requirement to show specific skill shortages here in the U.S. Those immigration provisions usurp congressional legislative powers, and undercut jobs for Americans.

I expressed concerns about the future of trade negotiations when I did not support granting the President fast track negotiating authority last year. We need the strongest protection for our workers here at home, the strongest protection for environmental standards abroad. And we need to make sure that gains from more open trade are gains that all Americans share. In the last decade, up until just a few years ago, we had a growing economy, with strong job creation and wage growth. During that period, we accomplished a number of very significant trade negotiations, including NAFTA, and China's entry into the WTO, both of which I supported. Today, things are very different.

Since January of 2001 we are down 3.1 million private sector jobs, and still counting.

A growing national economy, with strong investment in new sectors, strong employment, and growing incomes, helps to protect American families from job shifts that come from technological changes. So do strong protections for workers to organize and earn fair wages. And so do pensions that are safe, health care that is accessible and affordable. And specific protections for workers directly affected by trade. If those things are in place, the benefits of trade can outweigh the costs. But right now, we can take none of those things for granted.

Under this administration, there is a concerted effort to erode pension protections, the 40-hour work week, and other core worker protections. Our economy is struggling through the worst drought in job creation since the Great Depression. To maintain our living standards, and to maintain political support for increased trade, our trade policy must first be based on strong growth and job creation at home. This administration has not demonstrated to me that they have a plan for economic growth and job creation, or a commitment to protect workers rights.

Without that plan, without that commitment, and because of the flaws in the agreements themselves, I cannot vote for them.

For me, Mr. President, the calculation is simple. If this administration can create one new job, if it can dig us out of the hole we are in--over 3 million jobs lost--trade deals might make more sense.

I challenge this administration to create just one new job--just one more

job than we had in January of 2001--before it brings another trade agreement for our approval.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of Karen Tandy's nomination to be Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration. I am pleased that the Senate confirmed her nomination last night.

I had an opportunity to meet with Ms. Tandy a few weeks ago in my office and I was quite impressed by her. With more than a quarter century of experience in drug enforcement, I believe that she is not only well qualified to be the DEA Administrator, but that she will also bring a passion for drug policy to the job.

Both in her work as a prosecutor and in leadership positions at the Justice Department, Ms. Tandy's focus has been on drug trafficking, money laundering and asset forfeiture. She has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Virginia and Washington State, Chief of Litigation in the Asset Forfeiture Office and Deputy Chief of the Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Section at Main Justice. For the past 4 years she has served as Associate Deputy Attorney General and the Director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) program. During that time she has focused the OCDETF program and provided tremendous leadership.

Her nomination has the endorsement of a number of well-respected organizations including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Troopers Association, the Association of Former Narcotics Agents, the National Narcotics Officers' Association Coalition, the Community Anti- Drug Coalitions of America, the County Executives of America, and the International Union of Police Associations.

Ms. Tandy comes to the DEA at a time when both Federal and State resources for drug investigations are shrinking. I believe that she will have a difficult time fighting for scarce resources and keeping the drug issue on the national agenda.

After September 11, the FBI transferred 567 agents from counterdrug investigation to counter-terrorism investigations and the DEA was left to fill in the gap without adequate funding. The President's 2004 budget only provides funding for an additional 233 Special Agents. By shutting down popular programs such as the Mobile and Regional Enforcement Teams, DEA has been able to shuffle around 362 agents, making them look like new agents when they are not.

The magnitude of the gap left by the FBI is quite troubling. According to a recent GAO report, the number of FBI Agents working on drug cases has decreased by more than 62 percent, from 891 to 335, since September 2001. And the number of new FBI drug cases has plummeted from 1,825 in fiscal year 2000 to only 310 in the first half of fiscal year 2003.

It is clear that the DEA will need more resources if it is expected to fill the sizeable void left by the FBI. That is why I joined with twelve other Senators to write to the appropriators urging that they provide more money for the DEA to be able to do its job. I hope that at the end of the day the Congress will be able to give them more money than the President requested.

Another issue which relates closely to the work of the DEA, is the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act, legislation which I authored that became law as part of the PROTECT Act in April. The bill provides Federal prosecutors the tools needed to combat the manufacture, distribution or use of any controlled substance at any venue whose purpose is to engage in illegal narcotics activity. Rather than create a new law, it merely amends a well-established statute to make clear that anyone who knowingly and intentionally uses their property--or allows another person to use their property--for the purpose of distributing or manufacturing or using illegal drugs can be held accountable, regardless of whether the drug use is ongoing or occurs at a single event.

I introduced this legislation after holding a series of hearings regarding the dangers of Ecstasy and the rampant drug promotion associated with some raves. For the past few years Federal prosecutors have been using the so-called ``crack house statute''--a law which makes it illegal for someone to knowingly and intentionally hold an event for the purpose of drug use, distribution or manufacturing--to prosecute rogue rave promoters who profit off of putting kids at risk. My bill simply amended that existing law in two ways. First, it made the ``crack house statute'' apply not just to ongoing drug distribution operations, but to ``single-event'' activities, including an event where the promoter has as his primary purpose the sale of Ecstasy or other illegal drugs. And second, it made the law apply to outdoor as well as indoor activity.

Although this legislation grew out of the problems identified at raves, the criminal and civil penalties in the bill would also apply to people who promoted any type of event for the purpose of illegal drug manufacturing, sale, or use. This said, it is important to recognize that this legislation is not designed in any way, shape or form to hamper the activities of legitimate event promoters. If rave promoters and sponsors operate such events as they are so often advertised--as places for peopled to come dance in a safe, drug-free environment--then they have nothing to fear from this law. In no way is this bill aimed at stifling any type of music or expression--it is only trying to deter illicit drug use and protect kids.

I know that there will always be certain people who will bring drugs into musical or other events and use them without the knowledge or permission of the promoter or club owner. This is not the type of activity that my bill addresses. The purpose of my legislation is not to prosecute legitimate law-abiding managers of stadiums, arenas, performing arts centers, licensed beverage facilities and other venues because of incidental drug use at their events. In fact, when crafting this legislation, I took steps to ensure that it did not capture such cases. My bill would help in the prosecution of rogue promoters who intentionally hold the event for the purpose of illegal drug use or distribution. That is quite a high bar.

I am committed to making sure that this law is enforced properly and have been in close contact with officials from the Drug Enforcement Administration to make sure that the law is properly construed. That is why I was concerned by press reports about a DEA Agent in Billings, Montana who misinterpreted the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act when he approached the manager of the local Eagles Lodge to warn her that she may be violating the new law if the Lodge allowed the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws (NORML) to have a fundraiser at their facility.

I was troubled to hear this because, according to press reports, the Eagles Lodge had no knowledge that there might be drug activity at their location before the DEA approached them. And following the DEA Agent's misguided advice based on an inaccurate understanding of the law, the Lodge decided to cancel the NORML event, leading to an outcry from various groups that the new law has stifled free speech.

As I mentioned, the law only applies to those who ``knowingly and intentionally'' hold an event ``for the purpose of'' drug manufacturing, sale and use. Based upon my understanding of the facts around the NORML fundraising incident, the Eagles Lodge did not come anywhere close to violating that high legal standard.

I had my staff meet with the DEA chief counsel's office to discuss the Eagles Lodge incident and DEA's interpretation of the law. The DEA assured my office that they shared my understanding of the law and that this interpretation of the statute was conveyed to all DEA field offices shortly after the bill was signed into law.

In a June 19, 2003, letter to me from DEA Acting Administrator William B. Simpkins, the DEA acknowledged that the Special Agent ``misinterpreted'' DEA's initial legal guidance on the law and ``incorrectly'' suggested to the Eagles Lodge that the law might apply to the NORML fundraiser. DEA conceded that ``[r]egrettably, the DEA Special Agent's incorrect interpretation of the statute contributed to the decision of the Eagles Lodge to cancel the event.'' In response to this misguided interpretation of the law, the DEA issued on June 17, 2003, supplemental guidance in a memo to all DEA field agents making clear that:

property owners not personally involved in illicit drug

activity would not be violating the Act unless they knowingly

and intentionally permitted on their property an event

primarily for the purpose of drug use. Legitimate property

owners and event promoters would not be violating the Act

simply based upon or just because of illegal patron behavior.

I have expressed clearly to Ms. Tandy my expectation that the law will be applied narrowly and responsibly. Ms. Tandy has confirmed that under her direction the DEA will implement the law as it was intended, targeting only those events whose promoters knowingly and intentionally allow the manufacture, sale or use of illegal drugs. In the DEA's June 19, 2003 letter to me, it noted that its initial May 15, 2003 guidance:

informed [DEA] personnel that [the law's] requirements of

`knowledge' and `intent' were not changed by the [new] Act.

Accordingly, legitimate event promoters, such as bona fide

managers of stadiums, arenas, performing arts centers, and

licensed beverage facilities should not be concerned that

they will be prosecuted simply based upon or just because of

illegal patron activity.

Obviously, DEA's May 15th guidance was not sufficient to prevent the unfortunate Eagles Lodge incident but it reveals the Agency's understanding and intent not to target and prosecute the sorts of legitimate businesses cited above. As this is a new law, Ms. Tandy agrees that DEA must and will redouble its efforts in training its agents on the proper legal interpretation.

Finally, let me conclude by making two final responses to some critics of my law who have claimed; one, that it stretches the law beyond its original intention, and two, that it creates a legal standard that will permit innocent businessmen, concert promoters, even homeowners to be prosecuted for the drug use of those who come to their property. Both charges are wrong, as I will now explain.

First, my law amended section 856 of Title 21, U.S. Code. Section 856 became law in 1986. While section 856 has become known popularly as the ``crack house statute,'' it has always been

available to prosecute any venue--not just crack houses--where the owner knowingly and intentionally made the property available for the purpose of illegal drug activity. This fact has long been recognized by the Federal courts. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals--the most liberal Federal appellate court in the Nation--said: ``There is no reason to believe that [section 856] was intended to apply only to storage facilities and crack houses.'' [United States v. Tamez, 941 F.2d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 1991).] Or, in the words of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals: ``it is highly unlikely that anyone would openly maintain a place for the purpose of manufacturing and distributing cocaine without some sort of `legitimate' cover--as a residence, a nightclub, a retail business, or a storage barn.'' [United States v. Roberts, 913 F.2d 211, (5th Cir. 1990).]

The suggestion by some that my law expanded section 856 to entities other than traditional crack houses is simply untrue. Rather, in the 17 years section 856 has been on the books, it has been used by the Justice Department to prosecute seemingly ``legitimate businesses'' used as a front for drug activity. Specifically, section 856 has been used against motels, bars, restaurants, used car dealerships, apartments, private clubs, and taverns. [See United States v. Chen, 913 F.2d 183 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Bilis, 170 F.3d 88 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Meschack, 225 F.3d 556 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Tamez, 941 F.2d 770 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Roberts, 913 F.2d 211 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Cooper, 966 F.2d 936 (5th Cir. 1992); Huerd v. United States, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 2949 (Feb. 10, 1993, 9th Cir.).] The bottom line is that if a defendant hides behind the front of a legitimate business, or allows a drug dealer to do so on their property, they should be held accountable. Just as the criminal law punishes the defendant who ``aids and abets''--like the getaway driver in a bank robbery ring--section 856 has always punished those who knowingly and intentionally provide a venue for others to engage in illicit drug activity.

The second point I will make is that my law does not--does not-- change the well-established legal standard of section 856 which is required to secure a criminal conviction. Some critics of my law suggest that Congress just created a new, incredibly low legal threshold for prosecution under my law. In fact, it is the exact opposite. For 17 years, section 856 has required a high burden of proof, and my law does not change that standard at all. So let's get our facts straight.

In order to convict a defendant under section 856, the Justice Department needs to prove 2 things beyond a reasonable doubt--the highest legal standard in our justice system. Specifically, the government must prove that the defendant one, ``knowingly and intentionally'' made their property available, and two, ``for the purpose'' of illegal drug distribution, manufacture or use. These are 2 high hurdles the government must first pass before a defendant can be convicted under section 856. Let me briefly discuss both of these legal elements. As will become quite clear, the Federal courts interpreting section 856 have consistently rejected the very broad interpretations of the statute many critics now assert will result from my law.

Federal courts construing the ``knowledge'' and ``intent'' prong of section 856 have consistently held this to be a very high bar. It's not enough for a defendant to simply think, or have reason to believe, that drug use could occur on their property. Actual knowledge of future drug use, coupled with a specific intention that such use occur, is required. One Federal court discussing the knowing and intentional standard put it this way:

an act is done ``knowingly'' if done voluntarily and

intentionally, and not because of mistake or accident or

other innocent reason. The purpose of adding the word

``knowingly'' is to insure that no one will be convicted for

an act done because of mistake or accident, or other innocent

reason. Actual knowledge on the part of the defendant that

she was renting, leasing or making available for use the

[property] for the purpose of unlawfully storing,

distributing, or using a controlled substance is an essential

element of the offense charged. . . . An act is done

``intentionally'' if done voluntarily and purposely with the

intent to do something the law forbids, that is, with the

purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. . . . It

is not sufficient to show that the defendant may have

suspected or thought that the [property] [was] were being

used for [illicit drug activity]. [Chen, 913 F.2d at 187.]

As explained by the Federal courts, then, section 856 means what it says--the law only applies to defendants who have actual knowledge that their property will be used for drug use and who intend that very outcome. As a result, section 856 could never be used--as some critics have irresponsibly suggested--against the promoters of a rock concert whose patrons include some who are suspected of doing drugs during live music performances. In this way, section 856 is very different than other laws proposed which would impose a ``reckless'' standard-- holding, for example, a concert promoter liable where they had reason to believe that drug use might occur.

For example, a bill introduced in the House would create criminal liability for anyone who ``knowingly promotes any rave, dance, music, or other entertainment event, that takes place under circumstances where the promoter knows or reasonably ought to know that a controlled substance will be used or distributed.'' I disagreed with this approach because it would have replaced the high legal standard of section 856, on the books for 17 years, with a much lower standard where a concert promoter could be prosecuted for the illicit drug activity of patrons for which the promoter had no actual knowledge. When I wrote section 856 17 years ago, I and my colleagues required actual knowledge of illicit drug activity. Actual knowledge is still the standard today.

Let me now briefly discuss the second prong under section 856, the requirement that the defendant make their property available ``for the purpose'' of illicit drug activity. Again, courts have interpreted this prong in a way to ensure that section 856 cannot be used against innocent property owners where some incidental drug use occurs on their premises. One Federal court started its discussion of the purpose prong by noting that `` `purpose' is a word of common and ordinary, well understood meaning: it is `that which one sets before him to accomplish; an end, intention, or aim, object, plan, project.' '' [Chen, 913 F.2d at 189.] Thus, Federal courts have noted that

it is strictly incumbent on the government to prove beyond a

reasonable doubt not that a defendant knowingly maintained a

place where controlled substances were used or

distributed, but rather that a defendant knowingly

maintained a place for the specific purpose of

distributing or using a controlled substance. [Id.]

Accordingly, the courts have interpreted that ``purpose prong'' of section 856 to prevent prosecution of defendants who knowingly allowed drug use on their property. In so doing, the courts have recognized that it's not enough to simply know that illicit drug activity is occurring on one's property; the property owner must be maintaining the property for that specific purpose. This is particularly true when section 856 is used against a ``non-traditional crack house,'' such as a residence or business. In fact, a federal appellate court reversed a section 856 conviction against a defendant who had allowed her son to deal drugs out of his bedroom. There was evidence that his mother, the defendant, assisted him in his drug dealing. While the court sustained her conviction under a count of aiding and abetting, it reversed her conviction under section 856, finding that while she knowingly allowed drug dealing on her property, the primary purpose of her apartment was as a residence, not as a venue for illicit drug activity. As the court observed:

manufacturing, distributing, or using drugs must be more than

a mere collateral purpose of the residence. Thus, `the

``casual'' drug user does not run afoul of [section 856]

because he does not maintain his house for the purpose of

using drugs but rather for the purpose of residence, the

consumption of drugs therein being merely incidental to that

purpose.' We think it is fair to say, at least in the

residential context, that the manufacture (or distribution or

use) of drugs must be at least one of the primary or

principal uses to which the house is put. United States v.

Verners, 53 F.3d 291, 296 (10th Cir. 1995).

This analysis makes clear that section 856 cannot be used--as critics of my law claim--against a concert promoter for the incidental drug use of their patrons or against a homeowner for the incidental drug use of a guest at a backyard barbeque. Just as section

856 ``[does not] criminalize simple consumption of drugs in one's home,'' [United States v. Lancaster, 968 F.2d 1250, 1253 (D.C. Cir. 1992)], it cannot be used to prosecute innocent event promoters, venue owners, or other property owners for the incidental drug use of the patrons or guests.

Here is the bottom line: Section 856 has been on the books for 17 years and I'm unaware of it ever being used to go after a concert promoter, a venue owner, or a private citizen for the incidental drug use of their patrons or guests. Why? Because, as the Federal court decisions I have briefly reviewed today show, we wrote into law a high burden of proof to make sure that innocent actors don't get prosecuted. If you don't know for example, that the guy renting your arena plans to sell drugs, you are off the hook. If you don't intend for the guy renting your arena to sell drugs, you are off the hook. And if you don't intend that the guy renting your arena do so for the specific purpose of selling drugs, you are off the hook.

So let's get our facts straight here. It is just not helpful for critics of section 856 to run around screaming that the ``sky is falling,'' when it has not fallen for 17 years and has no reason to start now. As stated earlier, innocent actors have nothing to fear from this statute and I intend to monitor the enforcement of the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act closely to make sure that it is used properly. If someone uses a rave, or any other event, as a pretext to sell ecstasy to kids, they should go to jail, plain and simple. But that sad reality should not prevent responsible event promoters and venue owners around this country from putting on live music shows and other events, just because some of their patrons will inevitably use drugs.

In closing, Asa Hutchinson left some big shoes to fill over at DEA, but I believe that Ms. Tandy is up to the task. And it is wonderful that she will be the first woman to head the DEA. I congratulate her on her confirmation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, known as the Montreal Convention, which was signed by the United States at a negotiating conference in that city in 1999. The convention provides the basic liability framework for international aviation and the air carriage of cargo and baggage. When it enters into force, the convention, for those nations party to it, will replace the current liability system, known as the Warsaw system, which had its origins in a 1929 treaty known as the Warsaw Convention. Since 1929, the Warsaw Convention has been amended numerous times by various protocols. But membership in the convention and the various protocols has not been universal, creating a patchwork quilt of treaty relations between and among nations. The Montreal Convention is designed to provide a clear and uniform system, and it is hoped that there will be widespread adherence to it.

The Warsaw Convention system is antiquated in several respects, particularly with regard to the absurdly low limitations it contains on liability in cases of passenger injury or death. These limits may have made sense in 1929, when the airline industry was in its infancy. But those limits are anachronistic and indefensible. The airline industry matured long ago, and has long been capable of purchasing adequate liability insurance.

To their credit, the major airline carriers agreed, by contract, to waive the limitations for liability for passenger injury or death in 1996 in the ``IATA Inter-Carrier Agreement on Passenger Liability.'' Most of the airlines flying to and from the United States have taken this action, although several smaller airlines have not. The Montreal Convention will codify this inter-carrier agreement. Article 21 provides for payment, in cases of personal injury or death, of up to 100,000 Special Drawing Rights, currently about $140,000, for proven damages. Above that amount, there will be no limit on the amount an injured person or his or her heirs may obtain; the burden, under Article 21(2), will be on the air carrier to prove that it was not negligent or that the damage was solely due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third party.

The Montreal Convention also creates a ``fifth jurisdiction'' in addition to the four jurisdictions provided under the Warsaw system. This additional jurisdiction, set forth in article 33(2), will ensure that, in nearly every case, Americans will be able to bring an action in a U.S. court.

The Montreal Convention contains several other provisions that modernize the liability regime for cargo. These provisions were drawn from those in Montreal Protocol No. 4 (to the Warsaw Convention), which the Senate approved in 1998.

The Montreal Convention is self-executing. No implementing legislation is required to fulfill U.S. obligations under it, and, like the Warsaw Convention, will provide the basis for a private right of action in U.S. courts for cases arising under it. Since the United States joined the Warsaw Convention in 1934, that convention has been the basis for hundreds of lawsuits in U.S. courts. Accordingly, a large body of judicial precedents has developed during these seven decades. The negotiators intended that, to the extent applicable, to preserve these precedents.

A question arises whether the judicial doctrine of forum non convenient applies to cases under the Montreal Convention. The circuit courts of appeals in the United States are divided on this question with regard to the Warsaw Convention. Compare Hosaka v. United Airlines, Inc., 305 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 1284 (2003) with In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, Louisiana on July 9, 1982, 821 F.2d 1147 (5th Cir. 1987) (en banc), vacated and remanded on other grounds sub nom. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Lopez, 490 U.S. 1032 (1989). At the diplomatic conference, the United States delegation offered an amendment to the draft text during a meeting of the ``Friends of the Chairman's Group'' to make clear that the doctrine may be applied if consistent with the country's procedural laws. See 1 International Civil Aviation Organization, International Conference on Air Law, Montreal 10-28 May 1999, at 159 (2001) (Advance Copy of Minutes). This provision was not incorporated in the final text of the Montreal Convention. The Committee on Foreign Relations did not address this issue in its deliberations.

The Senate is also considering the Hague Protocol of 1955, a protocol to the Warsaw Convention. It was first submitted to the Senate in 1959, but then returned to the President in 1967. The circumstances that led to the return of the Protocol related to the unreasonably low liability limits that I described earlier. The Protocol was resubmitted by President Bush in 2002.

The Protocol is still relevant for this reason: even with entry into force of the Montreal Convention, the Warsaw system will remain in force among many nations, probably for several years. The Hague Protocol contains many provisions modernizing the Warsaw's systems rules on cargo shipment, and therefore remains important for shippers and consumers.

In 1998, the Senate approved Montreal Protocol No. 4, a protocol to the Warsaw Convention; the United States became a party to the Protocol in March 1999. At the time, it was presumed that, in doing so, the United States also became bound by the provisions of the Hague Protocol. Article XVII of Montreal Protocol No. 4 states that ``[r]atification of this Protocol by any State which is not a Party to the Warsaw Convention or by any State

which is not a Party to the Warsaw Convention as amended at The Hague, 1955, shall have the effect of accession to the Warsaw Convention as amended at the Hague, 1955, and by Protocol No. 4 of Montreal, 1975.'' Several courts in the United States appear to have assumed as much. E.g., Cortes v. American Airlines, Inc., 177 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1136 (2000; Motorola, Inc. v. Federal Express Corp., 308 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied sub nom., Kuehne & Nagel, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 123 S. Ct. 2213 (2003). In submitting the Montreal Convention to the Senate, the Executive Branch stated that ``[i]n accordance with the provisions of Montreal Protocol No. 4, the United States also became bound by the provisions of The Hague Protocol when it ratified Montreal Protocol No. 4.'' See S. Treaty Doc. 106-45, at ix (2000).

A decision in 2000 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has raised a question about whether the United States has treaty relations under the Hague Protocol with certain states. See Chubb & Son, Inc. v. Asiana Airlines, 214 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 928 (2001). The executive branch elaborated on this issue in its submission of the Hague Protocol in 2002. S. Treaty Doc. 107-14, at viii-ix (2002). Approval of the Hague Protocol at this time will end any uncertainty that may exist about the question of the status of the United States as a party to the Hague Protocol

Mr. President, the Montreal Convention is an important achievement, the culmination of many decades of effort by the United States and many U.S. citizens to remove the unreasonably low liability limits of the Warsaw Convention. I commend the Clinton Administration negotiators for their fine work in 1999, as well as the many officials of the State and Transportation Departments, before and after 1999, who have worked to develop this treaty and present it to the Senate. The Montreal Convention is supported by all the main interests in the private sector--the airlines, passenger groups, cargo firms, and attorneys representing passengers. It deserves the support of the Senate.

I want to thank Chairman Lugar and his staff for bringing this treaty forward at this time, and for ensuring Senate action prior to the August recess. I urge all my colleagues to support the Montreal Convention and the Hague Protocol.

Mr. President, today I have the honor of joining with 54 of my colleagues in submitting a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the week that includes Veterans' Day this year be designated as ``National Veterans Awareness Week.'' This marks the fourth year in a row that I have submitted such a resolution, which has been adopted unanimously by the Senate on all previous occasions.

The purpose of National Veterans Awareness Week is to serve as a focus for educational programs designed to make students in elementary and secondary schools aware of the contributions of veterans and their importance in preserving American peace and prosperity. This goal takes on particular importance and immediacy this year as we find ourselves again with uniformed men and women in harm's way in foreign lands.

Why do we need such an educational effort? In a sense, this action has become necessary because we are victims of our own success with regard to the superior performance of our Armed Forces. The plain fact is that there are just fewer people around now who have had any connection with military service. For example, as a result of tremendous advances in military technology and the resultant productivity increases, our current Armed Forces now operate effectively with a personnel roster that is one-third less in size than just 15 years ago. In addition, the success of the all-volunteer career-oriented force has led to much lower turnover of personnel in today's military than in previous eras when conscription was in place. Finally, the number of veterans who served during previous

conflicts, such as World War II, when our military was many times larger than today, is inevitably declining.

The net result of these changes is that the percentage of the entire population that has served in the Armed Forces is dropping rapidly, a change that can be seen in all segments of society. Whereas during World War II it was extremely uncommon to find a family in America that did not have one of its members on active duty, now there are numerous families that include no military veterans at all. Even though the Iraqi war has been prominently discussed on television and in the newspapers, many of our children are much more preoccupied with the usual concerns of young people than with keeping up with the events of the day. As a consequence, many of our youth still have little or no connection with or knowledge about the important historical and ongoing role of men and women who have served in the military. This omission seems to have persisted despite ongoing educational efforts by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the veterans service organizations.

This lack of understanding about military veterans' important role in our society can have potentially serious repercussions. In our country, civilian control of the Armed Forces is the key tenet of military governance. A citizenry that is oblivious to the capabilities and limitations of the armed forces, and to its critical role throughout our history, can make decisions that have unexpected and unwanted consequences. Even more important, general recognition of the importance of those individual character traits that are essential for military success, such as patriotism, selflessness, sacrifice, and heroism, is vital to maintaining these key aspects of citizenship in the armed forces and even throughout the population at large.

The failure of our children to understand why a military is important, why our society continues to depend on it for ultimate survival, and why a successful military requires integrity and sacrifice, will have predictable consequences as these youngsters become of voting age. Even though military service is a responsibility that is no longer shared by a large segment of the population, as it has been in the past, knowledge of the contributions of those who have served in the Armed Forces is as important as it has ever been. To the extent that many of us will not have the opportunity to serve our country in uniform, we must still remain cognizant of our responsibility as citizens to fulfill the obligations we owe, both tangible and intangible, to those who do serve and who do sacrifice on our behalf.

The importance of this issue was brought home to me three years ago by Samuel I. Cashdollar, who was then a 13-year-old seventh grader at Lewes Middle School in Lewes, DE. Samuel won the Delaware VFW's Youth Essay Contest that year with a powerful presentation titled ``How Should We Honor America's Veterans?'' Samuel's essay pointed out that we have Nurses' Week, Secretaries' Week, and Teachers' Week, to rightly emphasize the importance of these occupations, but the contributions of those in uniform tend to be overlooked. We don't want our children growing up to think that Veterans Day has simply become a synonym for department store sale, and we don't want to become a nation where more high school seniors recognize the name Britney Spears than the name Dwight Eisenhower.

National Veterans Awareness Week complements Veterans Day by focusing on education as well as commemoration, on the contributions of the many in addition to the heroism and service of the individual. National Veterans Awareness Week also presents an opportunity to remind ourselves of the contributions and sacrifices of those who have served in peacetime as well as in conflict; both groups work unending hours and spend long periods away from their families under conditions of great discomfort so that we all can live in a land of freedom and plenty.

Last year, my Resolution designating National Veterans Awareness Week had 55 cosponsors and was approved in the Senate by unanimous consent. Responding to that resolution, President Bush issued a proclamation urging our citizenry to observe National Veterans Awareness Week. I ask my colleagues to continue this trend of support for our veterans by endorsing this resolution again this year. Our children and our children's children will need to be well informed about what veterans have accomplished in order to make appropriate decisions as they confront the numerous worldwide challenges that they are sure to face in the future.

Mr. President, I rise to commend the other body for its prompt action on S. 1280, legislation introduced by Chairman Hatch and myself and passed unanimously by the Senate on July 14. Enactment of S. 1280 will clear the way for the commencement of the Child Safety Pilot Program created by the Protect Act, a program designed to keep our kids safe from pedophiles and other criminals.

S. 1280 builds upon language included in the Protect Act at section 108 which authorized a pilot program to study the feasibility of national criminal history background checks for volunteers with organizations that work with children. In section 108, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is authorized to assist child-serving organizations in evaluating criminal history records to determine whether potential volunteers are fit to work with children.

We need to do all that we can to keep pedophiles and other convicted felons away from our kids. That was the intent of the background check provisions Senator Hatch, Chairman Sensenbrenner, and I worked to include in the Protect Act. Instead of giving volunteer organizations raw criminal history data, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, ``NCMEC'', agreed to review the FBI's data to determine whether it reveals a criminal history rendering someone unfit to work with children.

Under section 108 of the Protect Act, NCMEC will evaluate FBI- provided criminal history records, make a determination whether these records render a potential volunteer unfit to work with children, and pass this resulting fitness determination on to the requesting volunteer organization. Unfortunately, the Protect Act did not limit NCMEC's civil liability in this area. NCMEC volunteered to take on this task, but they indicated they would be unable to make fitness determinations if they are subject to civil suits by aggrieved volunteers. And while the Protect Act provided NCMEC with a shield from civil liability for operating its cyber tip line, so long as NCMEC does so consistent with the purpose of the tip line, no similar protection was provided with respect to NCMEC's activities under the pilot background check program.

S. 1280 extends NCMEC's immunity from civil liability to actions they take pursuant to the pilot program. NCMEC will still be subject to suit for any criminal actions they take, and liable civilly if a plaintiff can show actual malice or intentional misconduct on NCMEC's part. Specifically, S. 1280 immunizes NCMEC for decisions it makes based on the criminal records provided to them by the FBI in any of the following instances: 1. When NCMEC provides a volunteer organization with a fitness determination indicating that a volunteer is not fit to work with children; 2. When NCMEC provides a volunteer organization with a fitness determination that an individual is fit to serve as a volunteer based on incomplete or inaccurate criminal history records provided by the FBI; or 3. When NCMEC provides a volunteer organization with a fitness determination that an individual is fit to serve as a volunteer based on a lack of criminal history records from the FBI. As an author of S. 1280, I understand my interpretation of the legislation is consistent with that of Chairmen Hatch and Sensenbrenner.

Enactment of S. 1280 will permit the pilot programs authorized in the Protect Act to begin on the date called for in the legislation, July 29, 2003. I thank my colleagues in the other body for taking prompt action on S. 1280. I thank Chairman Hatch for his continued devotion to child safety issues, and I look forward to the commencement of the Child Safety Pilot Program next week.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Protection Against Terrorist Hoaxes Act of 2003.'' This bill would amend Title 18 of the United States Code to, make it a Federal crime to knowingly make a hoax report, involving a biological, chemical, nuclear weapon, or other weapon of mass destruction. Likewise, this bill would make it a criminal offense to knowingly send such a hoax weapon to another.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, our Nation has witnessed a number of terror hoax reports. This in turn has triggered an equally large number of reports of suspected biological agents. No part of the Nation has been spared, and my home State of Delaware has had several hundred reports of possible biological agents. The FBI has reported to Congress the staggering statistics involving these bioterrorism hoaxes and other reports of suspected biological agents. Prior to September 11, the FBI had responded to about 100 cases involving potential use of ``weapons of mass destruction,'' 67 of which involved alleged biological weapons. Since mid-September 2001, however, that number has increased by 3,000 percent.

The good news is that most of these reports were either hoaxes or reports made by well-meaning people whose suspicions were raised. The bad news is that any hoax reports were made in the first place, triggering panic on the part of the public, and often forcing the Federal, State, and local governments to waste valuable time and resources responding to them. In one particularly egregious case, it has been reported that an employee of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection falsely reported to security that he had found a yellowish-white powder on his desk with the misspelled label ``ANTHAX.'' The employee, a 48-year-old solid waste management analyst, knew the material was not toxic, it was determined to be coffee creamer, but persisted in the false account. Eight hundred State employees were evacuated from the building for 2 days while law enforcement officials tested the building, at a cost of $1.5 million in lost worker's time, another $40,000 in decontamination costs, and an undisclosed amount of money spent on rescue and law enforcement. The employee is being charged in Federal court--not for the hoax report, but for lying to Federal officials after the fact.

Indeed, the Justice Department reported to Congress that there is a gap in the existing Federal law regarding the prosecution of bioterrorism hoaxes. That is, while it is a crime to threaten to use, for example, anthrax as a weapon against another person, it is not a crime to make a hoax anthrax report. Accordingly, the Justice Department has repeatedly asked Congress to enact legislation which specifically addresses hoaxes which involve purported biological substances, as well as chemical, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Just this month, the Justice Department stated in testimony, ``changes in title 18 to expand the reach of the law to prohibit conduct resulting in such hoaxes would provide prosecutors with an appropriate tool to respond to these situations.''

We should answer the call and act now to give law enforcement the tools they need to combat these despicable crimes. The Federal interest is indisputable, as States and localities are simply not equipped with the expertise or resources to evaluate and respond to these hoaxes. A comprehensive prohibition on such false reports is necessary to preserve scarce and vital Federal resources.

Accordingly, as Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Corrections and Victims' Rights, I introduce a bill today which contains both criminal provisions and civil penalties for the hoax reporting of bioterrorism incidents. My bill simply says that if you knowingly engage in conduct--such as deliberately sending baking powder through the mail to your congressman or calling 911 to falsely report the presence of anthrax in a public building--that is likely to create the false impression concerning the presence of anthrax, or other similar things, that you have committed A Federal offense, punishable by up to 5 years in jail. Moreover, such a person may be fined the greater of either $10,000 or the amount of money expended by the government to respond to the false information. Finally, such a person may also be ordered to reimburse the government if costs were incurred in responding to the false hoax. Let me be clear--this bill will not target innocent mistakes or people who make a report concerning a suspected substance; it is aimed, rather, at deliberate hoax reports by those who know they are spreading false information.

I have said many times on the floor of this body that the terrorist win if they succeed in sowing seeds of panic into our daily lives. We cannot and will not let that happen. Similarly, we will not let these hoaxers get away with words and deeds which have the same effect. I urge my colleagues to support the Protection Against Terrorist Hoaxes Act of 2003.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``The Protection Against Terrorist Hoaxes Act of 2003.'' This bill would amend Title 18 of the United States Code to, make it a Federal crime to knowingly make a hoax report, involving a biological, chemical, nuclear weapon, or other weapon of mass destruction. Likewise, this bill would make it a criminal offense to knowingly send such a hoax weapon to another.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, our Nation has witnessed a number of terror hoax reports. This in turn has triggered an equally large number of reports of suspected biological agents. No part of the Nation has been spared, and my home State of Delaware has had several hundred reports of possible biological agents. The FBI has reported to Congress the staggering statistics involving these bioterrorism hoaxes and other reports of suspected biological agents. Prior to September 11, the FBI had responded to about 100 cases involving potential use of ``weapons of mass destruction,'' 67 of which involved alleged biological weapons. Since mid-September 2001, however, that number has increased by 3,000 percent.

The good news is that most of these reports were either hoaxes or reports made by well-meaning people whose suspicions were raised. The bad news is that any hoax reports were made in the first place, triggering panic on the part of the public, and often forcing the Federal, State, and local governments to waste valuable time and resources responding to them. In one particularly egregious case, it has been reported that an employee of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection falsely reported to security that he had found a yellowish-white powder on his desk with the misspelled label ``ANTHAX.'' The employee, a 48-year-old solid waste management analyst, knew the material was not toxic, it was determined to be coffee creamer, but persisted in the false account. Eight hundred State employees were evacuated from the building for 2 days while law enforcement officials tested the building, at a cost of $1.5 million in lost worker's time, another $40,000 in decontamination costs, and an undisclosed amount of money spent on rescue and law enforcement. The employee is being charged in Federal court--not for the hoax report, but for lying to Federal officials after the fact.

Indeed, the Justice Department reported to Congress that there is a gap in the existing Federal law regarding the prosecution of bioterrorism hoaxes. That is, while it is a crime to threaten to use, for example, anthrax as a weapon against another person, it is not a crime to make a hoax anthrax report. Accordingly, the Justice Department has repeatedly asked Congress to enact legislation which specifically addresses hoaxes which involve purported biological substances, as well as chemical, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Just this month, the Justice Department stated in testimony, ``changes in title 18 to expand the reach of the law to prohibit conduct resulting in such hoaxes would provide prosecutors with an appropriate tool to respond to these situations.''

We should answer the call and act now to give law enforcement the tools they need to combat these despicable crimes. The Federal interest is indisputable, as States and localities are simply not equipped with the expertise or resources to evaluate and respond to these hoaxes. A comprehensive prohibition on such false reports is necessary to preserve scarce and vital Federal resources.

Accordingly, as Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Corrections and Victims' Rights, I introduce a bill today which contains both criminal provisions and civil penalties for the hoax reporting of bioterrorism incidents. My bill simply says that if you knowingly engage in conduct--such as deliberately sending baking powder through the mail to your congressman or calling 911 to falsely report the presence of anthrax in a public building--that is likely to create the false impression concerning the presence of anthrax, or other similar things, that you have committed A Federal offense, punishable by up to 5 years in jail. Moreover, such a person may be fined the greater of either $10,000 or the amount of money expended by the government to respond to the false information. Finally, such a person may also be ordered to reimburse the government if costs were incurred in responding to the false hoax. Let me be clear--this bill will not target innocent mistakes or people who make a report concerning a suspected substance; it is aimed, rather, at deliberate hoax reports by those who know they are spreading false information.

I have said many times on the floor of this body that the terrorist win if they succeed in sowing seeds of panic into our daily lives. We cannot and will not let that happen. Similarly, we will not let these hoaxers get away with words and deeds which have the same effect. I urge my colleagues to support the Protection Against Terrorist Hoaxes Act of 2003.

Mr. President, I rise very briefly to state the obvious and what everyone else has stated. The Prime Minister made a remarkable speech today. We should listen to our friends. I took away much of what others did as well, but I took away one very important message we heard from a friend; that is, don't give up on Europe, that France and Germany are our friends.

By reference, Mr. Kagan and those who believe Europe is an anachronism and is an ``Old Europe'' are dead wrong, and that if Europe and the United States stand together, the world will stand with us. If Europe and the United States are divided, the world will be divided. It is that basic.

I hope everyone listened to not only the rhetoric but to the substance of his message. The substance of his message: The neo- conservative notion that Europe is no longer an asset, that Europe no longer shares our values, will be the very thing that will undo this great country of ours. We are united. We are together. We have to work on it. And if we stand together, the world will stand with us.

For that, I thank the Prime Minister for delivering his message and reminding us, his friends, of how valuable that alliance is. There is none more valuable.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, in the interest of my colleagues, there will be an opportunity next week, and I will not propose my amendment.

Mr. President, along with Senator Mikulski, I offer the following sense of the Senate amendment with respect to condemning violence against women. It states that the United States should continue to:

condemn violence against women and should urge states to

refrain from invoking any custom, tradition or practice in

the name of religion or culture as a means to avoid

obligations regarding the elimination of violence against

women referred to in Article IV of the Declaration on the

Elimination of Violence against Women.

In this year's session of the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women, the United States sided with Iran, Pakistan and Sudan in opposing the above language in the final report of the Commission's session.

We ought to wonder why. The language was important, critical to support, on its merits and furthermore, it was hardly groundbreaking.

The United States supported it in the 1993 U.N. Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women and in the 1995 Beijing Platform of Action.

This year, the U.S. delegate justified the position of not supporting the language on customs and religious practices by claiming that the United States was seeking consensus in the commission, because some other nations perceived the language as casting religion in a negative light.

This is absurd. Violence against women is an outrage. It happens every day, in America and around the world. It is never justified, and the United States should never miss an opportunity, here and abroad, to condemn it.

Therefore, I have offered this amendment to reiterate the need for the United States to continue to take a stand in condemning violence against women in all forms, and under all circumstances.

Amendment No. 1154

Reserving the right to object.

No, I do not object.

I yield. Apparently the Senator from New York has a question.

Yes. I am happy to yield, not that I have the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest that we move out of order to Senator Dodd. The chairman and I have accepted a modified Dodd amendment. Rather than have him wait all this time, I would like to suggest he be recognized to speak and that we move on his amendment.

Amendment No. 1189 to Amendment No. 1136

Mr. President, I, too, thank the Senator from Connecticut for his kind comments. As they say, he uses overly formal language. He is a valued member of their committee. He is more than that. He is more than that. He is one of the engines of the committee. I thank him for his comments. I respect and reflect his comments relative to the chairman.

This is an important bill. As my grandfather used to say: With the grace of God, the good will of the neighbors, and the creek not rising, we may get this finished.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Indiana for his tolerance. I don't usually send to the desk, in the 30-plus years I have been here, sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. But this is a sense- of-the-Congress resolution. I don't send those, either. But I want to explain, before I explain what this resolution does, why I am doing this.

I am of the view--and I am not suggesting the chairman shares my view, or anyone else does--that the President's attitude as to how to proceed on Iraq from this moment on is in play and being influenced by two very important elements of his administration. I am of the view, speaking for myself, that Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld, and others in the administration--who are referred to, not in a negative sense but straightforwardly, as the so-called neoconservatives of the administration in foreign policy--are importuning the President on one course of action.

I am of the view that the Secretary of State--and I do not speak for the Secretary of State; I do not suggest he has represented to me what I am about to say--but I believe the Secretary of State and a lot of the uniformed military are suggesting the President take another course of action, not drastically different but different relative to the issue of post-Saddam Iraq: How do we win the peace?

So it is my hope and my view that this is an appropriate place for the Senate to weigh in on what I believe to be an ongoing debate. I know it is an ongoing debate within the administration on a matter on which I do not believe the President has fully made up his mind. That is not a criticism. That is not meant to be a criticism. It is an observation because a lot of these issues are in play.

Let me illustrate what I mean by that.

The President bought on to a position proffered by the Secretary of Defense, prior to us going into Iraq, that in a post-Saddam Iraq we would have a general, named Garner, who would move in, and along with General Franks, he, General Garner, would put together the political, economic, and reconstructive pieces of this; that he would set up an Iraqi Government very quickly; that there would be in place an infrastructure of a bureaucracy; a significant element of an army that had been beheaded of the Baathist Party elements; and that a police force would be up and standing, once you took out the Baathist elements; and there would be something to work with.

Well, we held hearings, as did my friend, Senator Kennedy, in the Armed Services Committee, and that was not what the experts told us prior to us going into Iraq. But that is what Mr. Rumsfeld, and others, convinced the President would be the case. So right afterwards, Mr. Chalabi landed in southern Iraq. General Garner was in there shortly after that. We started down a course that was based upon that recommendation. It became obvious, almost instantly, that it was not a very well-thought-out or likely-to-succeed initiative. So what happened?

The President, importuned again by others in his administration, immediately corrected course, I think correctly so, and to his credit. He very shortly pulled out General Garner. He came along and put in an ambassador named Bremer, who is a first-class guy, put in a different team, brought in public information officers from the military, and did other things which literally changed the course that was planned.

Now look, again, not a criticism. I am complimenting the President because he realized the first course set out was not likely to succeed and he changed course. That is what good leaders do when faced with an object in their way that is not able to be surmounted by the game plan they have in place.

If anybody thinks I am exaggerating this, remember what Ambassador Bremer had to say: We are not going to hold elections right away. We are not going to move forward and set up an Iraqi Government. We are not going to have Mr. Chalabi running the show, et cetera. I happen to think these were correct decisions.

My point is, the President saw the unlikely prospects of the first course of action succeeding and he changed course. That is good.

Now, there are other things that are now in play--in my view, if he does not change course, we are going to reap the whirlwind in Iraq. We are starting from an incredibly difficult situation. I said in Iraq, when we were last there with the chairman, Senator Lugar--and have said since--that if the Lord Almighty came down and stood in the well of the Senate and said: ``I have told the President the right answers to the next 15 decisions he has to make on Iraq''--we would still only have a 65- or 70-percent chance of getting it right in Iraq because there are another 30 decisions to follow.

This is a complicated problem. This is a country that really isn't a country. This is not a country in a way most Americans think of it. This is the idea of the Brits. After 1919, they put together three desperate elements--two Arab, one Indo-European--into the borders that now constitute Iraq, in a circumstance that is difficult, at best, to make work. The only way it has worked, quote, unquote and been held together since then, is with either an outside power or an authoritarian ruler.

So what are we doing now? The President is saying he wants to establish a democracy there. I, quite frankly, think that is a bridge too far. If we establish a participatory government that is a republic, that takes into consideration in its constitution each of the major elements of that country, in a way that gives them representation but falls short of a liberal democracy, I will be happy. I will be happy. I will consider that a success.

So the point I am making is, this is very difficult.

What are the immediate obstacles we are facing now? I do not have to tell anybody in this Chamber. All my colleagues are well-informed women and men. The first obstacle is, it has proven to be incredibly difficult to stand up the infrastructure of Iraq.

We were there. We did a press conference. I think it was literally about 120 degrees. At another press conference there, it was 114 degrees. That I know for certain. My point is, it is hot there. Guess what. Failure to have refrigeration, failure to have lighting, failure to have air-conditioning ``ain't'' like failing to have it even on a steamy day in Washington.

What happens when it gets to be 95 degrees in Washington, DC, or Wilmington, DE? We send out social service agencies to go out to every area we know of, or people with meals on wheels, to make sure their windows are up and their air-conditioning working, because people die.

I want to put this issue in perspective. Not having air-conditioning, not having lighting, not having electricity in a country where it is not unusual to have 125 degree temperature for a long stretch of time is more than an inconvenience.

Now, we are doing everything possible. The Corps of Engineers is in there. We have private contractors in there. We have let contracts, even contracts I have criticized. Bechtel gets a contract without even a bid. But the point is, we are moving as fast as we can.

But we have a second problem. The second problem is: the expectations of the Iraqi people. They think we are the Second Coming. They cannot believe that we, the United States of America, within roughly 4 weeks were able to topple this guy they thought was invincible.

We were able to take this several-hundred-thousand-person army and decimate it and have it evaporate, to take the thought-to-be-12-foot- tall Republican Guard, and vanquish it. What do they think? They think we can do anything. So they don't believe now, many of them, that their failure to have these amenities is because we can't get it done quickly enough. They believe we don't want to do it because if we did, we could snap our fingers. We are the United States.

There is a third piece here. They don't understand because we are not broadcasting it, in my view, sufficiently well, that when we do stand up

a power grid, the Iraqis, whether it is the fedayeen, whether it is the left over remnants of the Baathist Party, whether it is the Sunni in the so-called Sunni triangle, whether it is the Shia who are angry-- whoever it is--they don't understand that Iraqis are blowing up the grids. We get it done; they go blow it up guerrilla warfare style-- blowing up the oil fields, the pipelines. So what do we do about that? That is our first big problem, a perception and a reality of not sufficiently quick movement.

There is a second big problem we have, among many others, although I am sure the chairman would rather I not be bringing up this sense of the Senate. I will not state where I know he and I agree, and you should not imply we agree; you should not infer from what I say that we agree on this. Many people believe, on both sides of the aisle, that we have to internationalize this effort from the standpoint of the military.

There are two reasons for that. People like me believe we don't have enough firepower there because this is a big country. Let me overstate the point. Let's assume we had 250,000 people there instead of 140,000. We don't have the ability to do that, practically speaking. We would be able to guard more pipelines. We would be able to guard more electric grids. We would be able to have a better chance.

I am not proposing we add American forces. I am proposing we call upon our NATO allies and the coalition of the willing in earnest to provide significant increases in the number of forces we have, allowing us in the near term to draw down some of our forces. We have 10 divisions. Seven of them are tied down in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo. We only have three divisions left.

It seems to me--speaking for myself, but I am confident I speak for a significant number of Republicans and Democrats--this is the time to, as they used to say when my sons were younger, ``get over it.'' Ask NATO. Ask them: Please, come help. Make this a NATO operation with a U.S. commander with a U.S. helmet, with us in charge, but get more firepower in there.

There is a debate about that. Mr. Rumsfeld is saying: We don't need any more. We were over in Iraq. Without identifying their ranks, a number of officers with whom I met--and I suspect the chairman and Senator Hagel and the delegation from the Armed Services Committee that went over had similar experiences--all thought, we have to change the board here. And the rumors were rife, including on an Air National Guard plane that took us into Iraq that happened to be the Delaware Air National Guard.

Those guys were saying: The rumors are, we are going to get down to 30,000 forces over here by January.

That is foolish. That is absolutely beyond comprehension unless we are saying we are just pulling out; we are just giving up on what we say our objectives were.

I found fascinating--it is almost on point--Secretary Rumsfeld's testimony yesterday about the number of troops needed and whether or not NATO has been asked to participate. Again, I defer to my friend from Massachusetts who was at that hearing. I wasn't at the hearing. But this is actually a news report of it:

When first asked whether the administration had asked France and Germany, whose leaders vigorously opposed the invasion of Iraq, to contribute to postwar peacekeeping, Rumsfeld said, ``I'll have to ask.'' After checking during the break in the hearing, he said that they been asked at least once, last December, which was before the French and German opposition to the war became a major disruption in transatlantic relations. And when asked if a request had been made since then, he said, ``I have no idea.''

This is the Secretary of Defense.

``I'd be happy to run around and try to find out the answer to that.''

As they say in my neighborhood: Give me a break. The Secretary of Defense doesn't know whether or not on his watch, NATO, the French, the Germans have been asked to contribute.

On the same trip only 10 days ago or thereabouts, we started off at a conference, appropriately, at the Dead Sea in Jordan. It was sponsored by the World Economic Forum. I met with a guy we all know well, a guy who has been my friend and acquaintance for almost 20 years, the head of NATO, the Secretary General, Lord Robertson. I pulled him aside. I said: Let me ask you a question: Has NATO been asked to make a significant contribution, other than providing logistical support for the Polish forces going in? Would they go in?

He said: Joe, you have to ask.

Here is the Secretary of Defense who says he doesn't know whether we have asked NATO. And the Secretary General of NATO is saying: You have to ask.

What happens if I ask, George?

He said: They will go.

So the reason I give you that background is, the President, I am confident, is being told by some in his administration: Don't ask the French and don't ask the Germans. They weren't with us in the first place. Don't ask.

I am confident some are further saying: Don't make this a NATO operation. With us, remember, we run the show in NATO, in practical terms and, on the ground, in specific terms.

I am also positive there are other high-ranking administration officials saying: Ask. Ask. Get NATO involved.

So why am I doing this sense of the Congress? I want Congress to go on record weighing in on the side of the administration and saying: Ask.

Is the President still in play? To the best of my knowledge--and I am not a confidant of the President, although he is kind enough to speak to me whenever I ask to speak to him, and occasionally he asks to speak to me when I don't ask--it is my impression that the President is in play on this. He has not made up his mind, in my view--maybe he has-- which course to take. I think it is a profoundly important decision he has to make, not only in terms of relieving pressure on American military fighting women and men and providing additional military capacity, but for a second reason. I know my friend agrees with this because he and I started talking about it separately and collectively back in September of last year: It makes a difference whether we are viewed as occupiers or liberators, whether we are the only guys in town. It is kind of hard for extremists to make the case in the Arab world that we are occupiers if there is truly a genuine multinational force headed by Americans as opposed to an American force with a few multinational people helping out.

Remember, we were told that 40 nations were a part of this war effort. Well, maybe a couple sent observers, but there were really only four nations involved--England, Australia, the U.S., and Poland. There were another 36 or so nations that said they supported us, and if they allowed an overflight of American forces, then they were part of the war effort.

That is not what I am looking for. I want, when Iraqis go down the street, to see not just an American soldier at the checkpoint. This is going to sound tough and maybe even unfair, but I don't want every kid that is blown up at a checkpoint being an American soldier. This is the world's problem, not just ours. I want to give the French--as mad as the administration might be at them--the honor and the opportunity to do the same thing as our young men do. I said before this war began-- and I supported this war and I voted for it and I helped shape the resolution that allowed it--if we did not internationalize this rapidly, somewhere between 2 and 10 body bags a week would come home for the indefinite future. Unfortunately, it is one of the prophesies I made on this floor and in other places that I wish had never turned out to be correct.

The fact is, we will get a lot more support from the Iraqis who will be a lot less suspect of us if we are not the only game in town. That is the second reason to internationalize.

There is a third piece of this resolution that says it is in the national interest of the United States to remain engaged in Iraq in order to assure a peaceful, stable, and unified Iraq with a representative government.

Look folks, I believe the President has been missing in action in explaining to the American people why it is important that we stay in Iraq. He needs to go on national television just as definitively as he did in making the case to go into Iraq, and explain why it is critically important that we stay in Iraq until it is stable, unified, and has

a representative government. The President must explain that to the American people.

The reason he must is the fear that a number of our military had in Qatar when I visited them with Senator Hagel in November or December before the war. We had over 100 generals in one room. When I was asked by General Franks if I would speak to them, I asked why. He said just answer their questions. They wanted to know whether or not the American public would be supporting them--not during the war or immediately in the aftermath, but whether they would stick with them in the long haul. These are smart men and women. They knew they were going to be locked down there for a long time.

My answer to them then was very straightforward. I said the one thing I hope we have all learned from the Vietnam experience--whether you were for or against the war and you went to Canada--there is only one thing I know everybody agrees on: a foreign policy, no matter how well thought out, will not and cannot be sustained without the informed consent of the American people before it is initiated. There has been no informed consent. By ``informed,'' I mean the people are not even, to this moment, being told what the administration knows to be true: One, we are going to be there for a long time. We are going to be there with tens of thousands of troops for a long time. Johnny and Jane are not going to come marching home from Iraq any time soon. That is not a criticism on my part, that is the reality. We knew that before we went in. But we did not tell the American people.

The second thing the American people have not been told since the war ended is why it is important to stay in Iraq. I am assuming the reason the President won't go on television and say that is because, if he does, he has to say, prior to that, that we are going to stay in Iraq and have a lot of people stay in Iraq. The chairman called a hearing just after the war. We had expert testimony from the White House that said it costs $2 billion a month to maintain troops there. We had a second hearing and they said it is going to cost $3 billion a month. This is a matter of a week.

At the third hearing, yesterday, they said $3.9 billion. I have been agreeing with the chairman that we should hold more hearings, but I am not sure we should because it may go up to $5 billion. I am not sure I want to hear the answer.

But the truth is that the American people still think Iraqi oil revenues are going to pay for this. Not a shot. Not a shot. When we were in Iraq, we met with a first-rate oil man who was picked by the administration to come over and handle the oil interests of Iraq for the Iraqi people and to get it up and running. He sat with us in the only air-conditioned room I am aware of in probably all of Baghdad. By the way, our people don't work in air-conditioning either. He said: Look, if everything goes well and things don't get sabotaged, Iraq may generate $5 billion worth of profit--in effect, revenues--in 2003. Next year, if everything goes swimmingly well, that number will be $14 billion. Hear that? From now through the whole next calendar year, the next year and a half, there may be, if all goes well, about $19 billion in revenue to reconstruct Iraq. It is going to cost us almost $4 billion a month just to keep American forces in Iraq at the present levels.

I have heard administration witnesses before us. The last administration witness before the Foreign Relations Committee got his skin ripped off by our good friend Senator Hagel when asked how many folks are going to be needed. He said, ``I have no idea.'' No idea? Everybody has an idea. The idea is that General Shinseki was a heck of a lot smarter than Secretary Rumsfeld and a heck of a lot closer to what the number is likely to be. So at $4 billion a month, we are going to be spending about $70 or $80 billion in the next year and a half just to keep American troops there. Just putting this into perspective, there will be--maybe--$19 billion worth of Iraqi oil reserves in that period.

By the way, we are not going to spend a penny of that to maintain American forces. That is the Iraqi people's money the President said, and rightly so. The World Bank is coming in, and others, to give an estimate of the cost of reconstructing Iraq. But I would bet my life it is going to be more than $19 billion.

Again, why do I mention this? The President has to come forward because I do not want to be on this floor and be one of only several people, along with the chairman and others, who continue to vote whatever is needed to get the job done with my constituents back home saying: What are you doing that for? Why aren't you putting more money in education? Why aren't you putting more money in tax cuts? Why aren't you putting more money in taking care of my roads? Why aren't you putting more money in--whatever. Because the President does not have the political vision and the willingness to go before the American people and say straightforwardly: This is going to cost us tens of billions of dollars beyond what we are spending now. It is going to take tens of thousands of forces, which I support. This is not a cry to pull forces out. It is a cry to say: Please, Mr. President, level with the American people.

The third part of this resolution--I won't go on much longer and I note this is the only time I have spoken on this bill--is also a sense of the Congress:

The President should call on the United Nations to urge its member states to provide military forces and civilian police to promote stability and security in Iraq and resources to help rebuild and administer Iraq.

There are two pieces I have not spoken to yet. I think there is continuing debate within the administration and I would like the Congress to weigh in to try to persuade the President the right way and to reject the suggestions being made by those who have been operating the policy in post-conflict Iraq so far. I do not mean the people in Iraq, I mean here in Washington.

We sat out at a police training academy. I think I have made a dozen visits over 10 years to Bosnia and Kosovo. I believe I have spent more time in those two countries before, during, and after those wars than any Member of Congress. I could be wrong, but I think I have. My son, who is at the Justice Department, got sent over to Bosnia to be the Justice Department coordinator in a Republican administration, not by me, and over to Kosovo to help them set up a criminal justice system and a police force.

We have learned a lot from our experience in setting up and maintaining public order in Bosnia, and we improved it in Kosovo and in Afghanistan. The people who are over there now, appointed by President Bush, are top notch--such as former New York City Police Commissioner Kerik who is respected by everyone. His top people have extensive experience in both Bosnia and Kosovo and we should be proud of the team we have. I just wish the folks in Washington would listen to them.

We spent more than an hour, I believe, at the police academy. And we were told by these first-rate pros that it is going to take at least 1 year to recruit and train a police force of 40,000 people, which they argue would provide only minimal police functions, and 5 years to build a force back up to 75,000 people.

I asked a guy who has extensive experience, in front of my colleagues and in front of all the military there: Who is in charge of the prison system? He said: There is no prison now. There is not a prison in all of Iraq that we would call a prison--maybe the equivalent of a dungeon, but not a prison.

I turned to him and said: If you had all the resources you needed, all the help you wanted, and all the personnel you needed, how long would it take you to set up a prison system in Iraq from this day on? He said 3 years.

It is going to take 3 years minimum to set up, with all the resources, a prison system. It is going to take, according to our own administration experts on the ground, a year to minimally train 40,000 police, and 5 years to build a force up to 75,000.

Then came the kicker. What do you need? They said: We need right away, in addition to the MPs we have, which are stretched beyond limit--because most of the MPs are reserve officers and can you ask Reserves who have been there 6 months to stay another year, year and a half?--we need 5,500 trained, hardnosed European police officers, carabinieri, now to take over

these functions and help us train the Iraqi police force.

I might add parenthetically, our intelligence was abysmal on this point. The 78,000 police officers and the 10,000 or 20,000 member quasi-military--they weren't trained by what we call a trained police officer. An example was given: If there was murder in an apartment building, the police did not go to the apartment building to investigate the murder. They sent a notice to the apartment, and everybody emptied out of the apartment building and went down to the police station.

There is no police force as we think of it. There were none as we think of them in Iraq. So the fact that somebody in the intelligence community did not tell the President that their police force is not our idea of a police force that could help maintain order is an abysmal failure. We have to deal with it.

The third part of this resolution, to promote stability and security, is to have a civilian police force and to ask for the use of diplomacy with our French friends, our German friends, our Spanish friends, our Italian friends who are already sending some police there: Help us now.

There is more to say. If we continue to comprise 80 to 90 percent of our forces on the ground, be sure we will get at least 80 or 90 percent of the blame for everything that happens in Iraq. If it is an American police officer, an American MP, an American soldier who is the one attempting to settle whatever the dispute is, just remember, we are going to take the blame. I would like to share the responsibility a little bit beyond what we have now.

All I have suggested is not prescriptive in the literal sense. It does not require the President to actually find 5,500 police. It does not require him to do anything. But this is for us to weigh in on the side of the voices within the administration that say: We have to get smarter about how we are doing this.

The last point I will make is, we now, in a physical sense, control Iraqi television. We are told by those with whom we visited--and two senior staff members, one Republican and one Democrat, who stayed behind for another week or so in Iraq confirmed this--that what we basically have 4 hours of television a day with Americans talking on it. They're trying to explain our position on television and, though they do not mean it to be, it sounds as if it is propaganda.

With Al-Jazeera in Iraq, with Iranian television flooding in, with all the slant that these guys have, why we do not have the Board of International Broadcasting, why we do not have USI, why we do not have somebody in there setting up that television quickly, finding Iraqi newspeople, Iraqi personalities, explaining what happened, why the lights are not on, why the group of Iraqis under Saddam's former sway have blown up a pipeline or the reason why the grid went out in southern Baghdad is beyond me.

Granted, it is hard to get all of this going, and I end by saying the very prescriptions I have offered, the very proposals or the direction I think we should be going may very well change. It is a fluid situation. One thing I am confident of right now, we do not have enough police to stand up a real force to restore order within the time we need.

We are going to lose the support of the Iraqi people to the extent we have it but, more importantly, and what worries me more, we are going to lose the support of the American people. The American people are going to start to say to us, and maybe even some people who are watching this right now in person or on television are going to say, why is Biden saying we should stay there? We had two more kids killed today, nine kids killed yesterday and four kids the day before--not kids but soldiers, warriors. I do not want to stay there. Bring them home.

The President has to go on the air and say if we bring them home, we will inherent the wind, because if the American people understand why it is critical to stay there, they will be prepared to come up with the money, the time, and the risk to stay there.

The President has to ask them. He has to ask the American people. He has to ask the French, the Germans, NATO. I hope those who are counseling him not to are not doing it out of false pride.

My dad, who passed away a little while ago, used to say, only a big man can bend a considerable distance. We are the big man. We should act like it. Not in terms of taunts, bring them on, but in terms of saying, come on, help us, it is in your interest as much as it is ours.

The President is very popular. He has done some very good things. In my humble opinion, he should use some of that stored-up popularity to make what I acknowledge is an unpopular case: My fellow Americans, we must stay in Iraq because if we do not the following will happen, and if we stay in Iraq, it means this is what I am going to be asking of you, this is the sacrifice I am going to be asking of you, and, by the way, I am asking the rest of the world in a real sense to help us.

I am waiting for that speech. I am waiting for that to happen. If it does not happen, I fear we will lose support in Iraq very quickly, we will lose it at home very shortly, and we will lose it in fact in the near term. That is not why I voted to go into Iraq. That is not why I voted to go into Iraq.

By the way, I sent this amendment up on behalf of myself, Senator Levin, and Senator Daschle. I now ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, as I said, this is a sense-of-the-Congress resolution. It is meant, quite frankly, as the only way I know how to weigh in on the debate that is going on at the White House; to add another collective voice from another branch of the Government as to how we should proceed. It is not meant as a criticism of the President. It is not meant as a criticism of his policy. It is an observation. Just as he stated his initial game plan was not workable and he changed it, I respectfully suggest that unless we change the game plan here, we are going to be in for some real trouble.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1190, as Modified

Quite frankly, I am much less wedded to the particular verbiage of this resolution than I am to staying bipartisan, because that is what the chairman and I have been trying to do throughout. So I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified on page 2, paragraph 2, to say that ``the President should consider requesting,'' adding the word ``consider,'' and I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment to say ``the President should consider calling on the United Nations.''

Mr. President, I ask my friend whether or not he would object, because a number of people on my side, including the major sponsor who helped on this, Senator Levin, wanted to have a rollcall vote. Does he have an objection to a rollcall vote on this?

Mr. President, if my colleague will yield, if he would permit me to go into a quorum call for 3 minutes to confer with the major sponsor of this amendment, I would like to do that and see if we can resolve this quickly. Is that appropriate?

I am with you there. I promise this quorum call will not be as long as the vote.

I agree.

I tell my colleagues I will be back asking for the quorum call to be lifted within 5 minutes.

Surely.

Amendment No. 1192 to Amendment No. 1136

I say to my friend from Indiana, I don't have anyone else on this side who wishes to speak to the amendment. I have checked with my leadership, giving people an opportunity to know we will have a vote. I ask unanimous consent we move to a vote on this at 20 minutes of so people have a little bit of notice there will be a vote, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask unanimous consent the vote on the Biden-Levin amendment begin at 20 minutes to 5 p.m. with no second-degree amendments.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1135

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment, which I believe is the Lautenberg amendment No. 1135, be agreed to.

I move to reconsider the vote.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I will briefly explain the amendment. It provides for $3 million for a Palestinian scholarship program referred to as the Clinton Scholarship Program. Inadvertently, it was dropped from the bill. I believe there is no objection on the part of the chairman. I urge its immediate adoption.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.