Floor Statements

As to the unanimous consent request, for clarification, after the 30 minutes that we have just allocated by unanimous consent, there will be 10 minutes equally divided on the Daschle amendment, after which there will be a rollcall vote. So Members would know that at about 11:20 to 11:25 we will have a vote.

Mr. President, I yield myself up to 4 minutes. I think a lot has been said here about the words of Senator Kennedy. I don't think anyone on the floor has cast aspersions on the Senator. He certainly has a right to say anything he wants to say. But I also think many of us who believe the President is trying very hard to do the right thing for our country have the right to take up for our President, stand up for our President, and talk about the issues.

I think Senator Kennedy would be the first to say he should stand by his words, he must take responsibility for his words. It is my opinion that when you use words such as ``fraud'' and ``bribery'' in talking about the policies of the United States, it is fair game for us to respond to that and say I think it is absolutely wrong to say we are bribing political leaders all over the world by giving them American dollars.

We are giving foreign countries American dollars for a variety of reasons. Is it a bribe that we would make a loan to the country of Turkey after Turkey has just led the command and control of the security forces in Afghanistan, doing a great service for all of the people of the world to try to help keep the peace and security in Afghanistan, which was very costly to a relatively small country? That we would be making loans to Turkey, is that a bribe? I don't think so. Is it a bribe to give money to Russia for part of its economic improvement? I don't think so. I think Russia has shown it can be quite independent. So has Turkey. No one is accusing them of doing everything the United States has asked them to do. But foreign aid is part of American policy and, in most instances, foreign aid goes for buying American products. It gives them the money to buy American products to help our economy.

So I think when people use words, they should be able to take responsibility for those words, and I don't think it casts aspersions on anyone's patriotism.

But if anyone questions my right to stand up for my President who is speaking before the United Nations as we are talking on the floor today, then I think they are wrong. Of course, we are going to stand up for him. Why would that be a surprise? We are in a terrible war on terrorism. We are doing everything we can to support the President as he prosecutes that war. It is not for helping other countries exclusively. It is for helping America. It is for American security that we are in Iraq and Afghanistan--to keep terrorists on their soil so they do not come to American soil again.

The President has not forgotten 9/11. Sometimes I think when I hear people talking that they have forgotten America was attacked.

People are talking about an $87 billion package. It is a big package. Many of us are trying to ask for contributions from other countries to help defray the cost of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan. But let me remind you about the cost of 9/11. The cost of 9/11 is estimated at $300 billion, and that was one incident. What will be the cost if we allow terrorists to come in here because we haven't contained them in Iraq and Afghanistan? What will be the cost to the American people?

We have a right to stand up for our President, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are trying to talk about the policies that are important to our country.

I yield up to 4 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania, after which I will yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak for the resolution that would disapprove the FCC ruling of June 2. In 1996, we passed the Telecommunications Act which said Congress should work toward deregulating the media. We charged the FCC with ensuring the protection of competition, diversity, and localism.

I think the rule that came out does the opposite. It does not protect the localism and the diversity, particularly in the newspaper and television markets. We must turn back the entire rule, even if we agree with part of it, in order to tell the FCC to go back and start again.

I think the FCC could come up with another rule which would have some of the components of its June 2 rule, along with taking out parts that many of us believe actually will hurt localism.

There are 100 Senators in this body. Probably each one has a different view of what would be best in the media. Overall, I think it is important for us to be more cautious rather than less cautious, because what can happen if you lower the number of voices in the media, and companies make investments based on the rules at the time, is later, down the road, if you determine that, in fact, we have lowered the number of voices in the media--and it is to the detriment of the consuming public--then I don't think you should penalize the companies that made decisions based on the rules at the time.

I think stability in regulations is a good business principle. I think if you look at the particular part of the rule that deals with newspaper/television cross-ownership, you have the worst part of the decision and the one that concerns me the most. And we have examples because three companies were grandfathered when the rules were made on cross-ownership. So we have seen what can happen in a local market when a company is allowed to own the only newspaper in town plus the major television station in town, and then perhaps even radio.

I believe radio is pretty diversified. I do not think we have a problem with the number of voices in radio. My concern is ownership of the only newspaper in a market plus a major television station in the market. And we have examples of that.

In Dallas, we have one company that owns the only newspaper in town plus the largest ABC television affiliate, which has the largest market share of viewers for all editions of the news.

In Atlanta, we have one company that has the only newspaper in town that is a regular newspaper. It also owns the major television station in town, one of the Nation's top performing ABC affiliates, and it also happens to own 25 percent of the radio market. So I think that is a pretty alarming amount of concentration.

Maybe they do a good job. But what we are talking about is not Atlanta. We are not talking about Dallas. They do good jobs in many respects. What we are talking about is other cities and allowing this kind of concentration to pop up all over the country--the only newspaper in town plus the major television station.

In the FCC's own poll, it showed that 74 percent of the people in a community get their local news from a combination of television and newspaper--74 percent. If you have one company owning the newspaper and the major television station, you have a concentration that could be unhealthy. If it is unhealthy, it will be too late to go back and retrofit because these companies will make these investments based on the rules of the time.

We should proceed with caution. I think we should overturn this rule, ask the FCC to go back to the drawing board and take more testimony. They had one hearing--one hearing--before they came out with this rule. Two of the members of the Commission were so concerned that they went out across the country and had hearings of their own. But even though there was a lot of testimony, it does not appear that the FCC took that testimony into account when they made this rule of June 2. In fact, those two members voted the other way.

They had heard the people speak, and they were concerned about this kind of concentration.

So whether you agree in part with the FCC or not at all, I hope you will support the turning back of the rule so that we will give the FCC a chance to go back to the drawing board, hear what Congress says, hopefully hear more from the public, and come out with rules particularly in the area of newspaper/television cross-ownership that I think should continue the ban.

Congress passed the law in 1996, giving the responsibility to the FCC. Some people say: Well, why is Congress getting involved? Well, it is Congress's responsibility to get involved with regulators when the regulators do not implement the law that Congress passed when they were given the responsibility to do just that. It would be an abdication of our responsibility if a majority of Congress disagreed with part of the ruling that we would not take control of the decision. We are the elected representatives. The FCC is an appointed body to which we have delegated responsibility to make rules. If we do not agree with the entire rule, it is our responsibility to act, and that is why the Congressional Review Act was passed.

I want to talk for a minute about what this is not. I was amazed, because I think very highly of the Wall Street Journal in most respects--in almost every respect--but they had an editorial last Friday that said if we turn back the rule on cross-ownership of newspapers and television, somehow this is going to bring back a review of the fairness doctrine.

I do not support the fairness doctrine. I think radio is quite diversified. I think the voices that are coming into radio are very healthy. I think talk radio has given voice to the silent majority. The last thing this has anything to do with is the fairness doctrine, and yet my friend Rush Limbaugh and the Wall Street Journal somehow tied the fairness doctrine to a newspaper/television cross-ownership issue.

Letting one entity own the only newspaper in town and the major television station in town is lowering the number of voices in the media, not increasing the number. So while some people are more concerned about the 35 to 45 percent, I am focused on the newspaper/ television ownership that I think affects our country.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

I will close by saying that when we are talking about lowering the number of voices in the media, we should proceed with caution. Voting for this resolution of review says to the FCC: You went too far in some respects--not every respect. We may disagree on the areas, but you need to listen more to Congress and to the people who have spoken.

I hope people will vote yes, and I hope the FCC will be responsive.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I think the words of the two leaders of the Senate and the two Senators from Pennsylvania have been poignant reminders of the day, 2 years ago, that rained terror on our country, and the different perspectives, just like the different perspectives all over our country, about that tragedy.

This morning, the Senators who had constituents who were most affected in their States will have priority, speaking on the floor of the Senate, to talk about the effect on their constituents and their States, so the two Senators from Pennsylvania started our day of remembrance in a beautiful way.

It is one of those days that you will always remember where you were and what you were doing. When the bell rang at 9:03, I remembered vividly that I was in my office, getting ready to go into a meeting. Someone told me there had been a plane going into one of the World Trade Center towers, so I turned on the television thinking it must be a pilot in trouble, maybe a small plane, maybe even a pilot in training makes a mistake. And as I watched the recap, I saw the second plane hit the tower, and the realization just chilled me to the bone because it was clear this was intended, which means, of course, that it was a terrorist.

But even in that horrible moment of realization, none of us ever expected that those two towers would eventually crumble under the heat of the fire. None of us would have anticipated the next 5 hours of horror and then, in the thousands of hours following, what

would happen to our country, because in fact 9/11/2001 will forever recall the worst that could happen to our country but, also, the best. The stories of hope and heroism that emerged from the rubble of Ground Zero, the Pentagon, and that Pennsylvania field continue to serve as reminders of all that is good and true in the human spirit.

Mr. President, 9/11 evoked the pride and patriotism we felt as police, firefighters, and airplane passengers gave their lives to save countless others. It inspires us. It drives us. And it continues to guide our actions today.

Our Nation is embroiled right now in a global war on terror, starting with 9/11/2001. We are fighting to ensure that no such attack is again visited on us or any other nation. This war is a direct, decisive response to the attacks that murdered nearly 3,000 innocent people 2 years ago today.

Our mission is clear. We must choke the life out of the terrorist networks that seek to promote extremism and derail democracy. We have taken the battle to the mountains of Afghanistan, the sand dunes of Iraq, and to Main Streets in the United States of America and abroad where terrorists have burrowed in. We know we must destroy them where they breed their hatred before they ever again visit terror on our homeland.

Today, Iraq is the central front in that war. It is in that country where the enemies of freedom are making their stand. They have congregated in Iraq to thwart our efforts to bring a taste of democracy to an oppressed and battered people. They think they can shake the will of the civilized world. They are mistaken. Once again they have underestimated the American people and our allies.

Last month, I visited with our men and women in uniform who are on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. Day in and day out, they battle the enemies of freedom. Danger lurks around every corner, but for every ambush and every threat they face, they also see the liberty that is beginning to take root. They see the hope they are bringing to the Iraqi people.

Our soldiers are committed, determined, and proud. Our country has called them to duty, and they have bravely answered the call. And they know their daily sacrifices are helping to build a safer world and a safer America--an America that is free of tyrants and terrorists. They deserve our unwavering support.

As Congress contemplates the cost of our efforts on the war on terror, we must not be shortsighted. The financial cost of 9/11 has been estimated at a staggering $300 billion. But that pales in comparison to the immeasurable toll of human lives lost that day. This war, our just response to 9/11, has not and will not be fought on a shoestring budget. Failure is not an option. Success in rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan is essential to eliminate terrorism and the threat it poses to our freedom and our way of life.

We cannot do it alone. The nations of the world must join this fight. Their support financially and militarily is critical to eradicating terrorism from our society. This is not an American war. We have led the charge, but the cause of liberty does not benefit us alone. I am committed to working with my colleagues and the President to get the necessary funding up front and secure contributions from other countries that benefit from the campaign to root out terrorism.

The victims of 9/11 from 86 nations around the world deserve no less.

Today, as we honor the memory of those lost on September 11, know that our Nation is indeed more secure. Our vulnerability was exposed, but we responded with a steely resolve that has made us stronger, richer, and better. We will never be the same. But the Americans we have become will be the shining example of liberty and democracy for all the world to see.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request that I be allowed to speak immediately following her?

I ask unanimous consent to be recognized immediately following the remarks of the Senator from California.

Mr. President, I think it is very important that we revamp and talk about what is going on here because we have been trying to pass this Energy bill, really, since May. Our leader, Senator Frist, and the committee chairman, Senator Domenici, have asked people to come forward and offer their amendments time and time and time again. We have not had amendments offered; we have not had time agreements; we have not had the momentum to move forward on this bill.

Senator Frist, as is usual around here, did allow other business to be done in between because we were not able to make headway on this bill. Senator Frist announced at the first of this week that we were going to finish this Energy bill. But time and time again, it has broken down, amendments have not come forward, we have not had time agreements, and we have not been able to move forward.

The bill we are working on is a bill that came out of committee. It was hammered out by the committee under the leadership of the chairman and the ranking member--the two Senators from New Mexico. It came to the floor in relatively good shape. There were certainly amendments in order, and that is the right of every Senator. But it is also the responsibility of a Senator to say what the amendments are, put them forward, make the arguments, and let's move on. That is how you get a bill off the floor. We have been thwarted in those efforts time and time and time again.

We import 56 percent of the energy needs of this country. How can we be so blind when we see what is happening in the Middle East right now? We know the Middle East is volatile, we know it is the largest source of our imported energy. Yet we have been working on this Energy bill for actually 2 years and, if we don't pass an Energy bill, we are not going to become more self-sufficient. How can we miss this opportunity? It is an issue of consumer availability. It is an issue of responsible regulation. It is also an issue of security for our country--that we have the supplies that are sufficient so we will not be beholden to any other country in the world for our energy needs, and so we will have the ability to keep our economy strong and protect the people of our country. At no time was that made more clear than on September 11, 2001.

We need to finish this bill. I think a fair offer has been made. It does close out some amendments. It closes out some amendments on which I was working. I think if we all look at the big picture, we will determine that it is better to pass the bill that we had on the floor last year, which passed 88 to 11, after the Senate wrote the bill on the Senate floor. I didn't like all of it, but it was a good start at making our country more energy self-sufficient. Furthermore, it would have put people to work. Why on earth would we not, in this very hard economic time, realize that we need to put our people back to work? There are many parts of the bill that we are working on that came out of committee. There are many parts of the bill we passed last year that will put people back to work.

This bill is very balanced. It assures that we will have more energy coming from our country in the traditional ways, such as oil and gas exploration and trying to encourage clean coal, because we have an abundance of coal and it can be used in a clean, environmentally safe way if we enact the amendments and the bill from last year that encourage clean coal development. It also encourages new forms of energy--renewable energy, energy that comes from different sources, alternative sources, such as wind and ethanol--different sources even than we know about today--through research.

It is very important that we develop our own sources of energy. Nuclear energy is clean energy. It has been wiped out in our country because of the liability and the extremism that has kept anyone from making an investment in a nuclear powerplant for about the last 15 years. But nuclear energy is a major source in many European countries, and it is very clean and safe if it is done right.

So I think it is very important that we have this bill, or pass last year's bill, and that we stop talking about who is delaying. We have had the bill on the floor for a week and we have not been able to get through all of the stalling. So I think it is time for us to fish or cut bait before we leave. I think a fair offer has been made, and I think it is time for us to go forward and pass an Energy bill for our country.

Let's have the debate, let's vote up or down, and let's try to use the good parts of this bill for the future of our country. It encourages new and marginal well drilling. A lot of people say, well, a 13-barrel-a-day well is not going to make us more energy self- sufficient. But, at one time, before prices got so low that the little guys could not make it, we had 500,000 marginal wells drilling in our country. That provided a lot of jobs, and it also equaled the amount of oil we import from Saudi Arabia every day. But the little guys have very low margins at 13 barrels a day, and they cannot make it when the price of oil falls below $18 a barrel. So if we just have a mechanism by which you get some tax relief if prices fall below $18 or $17 or $16 a barrel, then those people will know they can stay in business; they will go out and find the oil and they will take the time and the expense to drill. They will not take the time to drill if we don't give them some assurances. This bill does that, and so did last year's bill. It is very important to encourage our people to go out and look for oil and gas resources.

The Gulf of Mexico is the second largest capability we have after Alaska. We have been prohibited from drilling in ANWR, and that is not in the bill. But the Gulf of Mexico is available and it is the second largest resource we have in this bill before us, as in last year's bill. We do have incentives that would allow people to go to the great expense of a deep gulf drilling because they will know they will have the capability, if they find oil or gas, to be able to afford to get it out and keep those jobs in our country.

There is a reason for us to stay on this bill. The reason is the national security of our country. That is why our leader, Senator Frist, has said from the beginning of this week that we have already spent 2 weeks on this bill and now is the time for the Senate to act.

There is no reason for us to leave without an Energy bill. We have given it time. If people are sincere about wanting an Energy bill to pass, this is a good bill. Last year's bill is a bill with which we can work. We have already voted on a major amendment, the Bond-Levin CAFE amendment, which will have good science in fuel efficiency standards. The Senate has spoken on that issue.

Why don't we keep going? Why don't we close out the electricity title to this bill? It has been very controversial, but we put all the groups together, we have gone through all the disagreements, and we have come to some terms. Why don't we go forward on this bill?

Yes, a few people would not be able to offer their amendments because they did not come forward all these weeks we have had the bill before the Senate. Some people have, and we have voted on their amendments.

We do not need to be pointing fingers. The majority brought up the bill. Senator Domenici has been working on this bill diligently. Senator Domenici gave up the last 2 years of his chairmanship of the Budget Committee, which he loved, because he was dedicated and committed to getting an Energy bill out of the Senate and to the President's desk. He has not had the cooperation he deserves to do what he has been trying to do all these years.

Senator Domenici put the bill through the committee. He did not bypass the committee as was done last year. He put it through the committee, and he worked with all of the factions and interest groups. He deserves to finish this bill this week as we proposed to do.

We have tax incentives in this bill that will encourage the new kinds of energy that might be what will make the difference in sufficient energy in our country. Maybe it will be the clean coal power initiative that will get us over the hump to gasify coal in an environmentally safe way.

If we continue to put regulatory hurdles in front of our ability to develop new sources of energy in a responsible way, we are going to do two things: We are going to continue the deficit in our ability to provide our own energy for the people of the United States of America, and we are going to send jobs overseas at a time when unemployment is at a high point this year. I do not see the wisdom in that, and that is why we have been pushing all week to get this bill completed.

The United States has the 12th highest proven oil reserves in the world. Sixty-five percent of those reserves are concentrated in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. This bill will help the Gulf of Mexico, and it will help get the resources from Alaska through a pipeline down to the lower 48. This bill does not allow drilling in ANWR, but it does allow us to have a direct pipeline that will take the natural resources--the gas--out of Alaska and bring it down to the lower 48.

This is a huge job creator and a huge benefit for the consumers and the businesses of our country that must have energy to keep their businesses and their manufacturing operations open. I have talked with farmers and small business people about the increasing rates of natural gas and electricity, and it is driving their costs up at a time when they are not able to get higher prices for their products, and that is an alarming hit on our economy.

Why are we still talking about this bill instead of working on the electricity title and getting this bill through the Senate or taking up the offer that was made by the leadership that we take up last year's bill that passed this body 88 to 11, pass it, and go to conference and continue to work on getting a bill to the President of the United States?

Even if everything in this bill or last year's bill is not to my liking, which it is not, it is a major step for energy sufficiency, a major step in conservation, and a major step in job production for our country at a time when we need it.

I hope we will be able to move forward on this bill or on last year's bill with the goal that we will finish this bill this week. That is what we can do if we will stop talking--and I am talking because we do not have an agreement yet, but I will gladly yield to anyone who comes to the Chamber and says, We have an agreement to go forward, because I want an Energy bill this week. That is why Senator Frist laid it before the Senate and why Senator Domenici got it out of committee and why we have been trying to pass this bill since last year, since early this year, since May when it came out of committee and we first tried to pass it. We have seen delay after delay.

I hope we will buckle down in the next hour and start the electricity title again or enter into an agreement that we are going to pass last year's bill, debate it, let everybody have their say, and see if we can move forward, even if it is not 100 percent what people want. I have not seen a bill come out of the Senate very often that is 100 percent of what I want. That is why we have 100 Senators representing 50 States and the required compromises that produce a bill.

I hope we will stop the delays and that we will work with Senator Domenici. He has made every offer that can possibly be made in an effort to move this bill forward. He has offered to keep going through the electricity title. Let's finish that. That would be a major accomplishment. And then let's go on to the tax title. A lot of people could be put back to work with the tax title because it encourages more sources of energy, and we can do that before the end of this week if we will start working and stop the delay we have seen week after week and month after month.

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

I withdraw my request for a quorum call.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to address concerns regarding the operation of charitable foundations.

Well-publicized incidents of abuse by a few foundations have raised legitimate concerns about whether these entities are properly focusing resources on their philanthropic missions. In come cases, excessive amounts have gone toward administrative costs, high executive salaries and expensive travel.

My bill will help to ensure that more money is spent on charitable activities and that those who abuse the system are properly punished.

One proposal I support is included in the House version of the CARE Act, H.R. 7, the Charitable Giving Act of 1003. It would reduce the excise tax on investment income for foundations from two percent to one percent, allowing foundations to keep more money so they can direct it to those in need.

However, we must ensure this money actually goes toward the charitable activities for which it is intended. The House bill tries to do this by preventing any administrative costs from being counted as part of the five percent annual distribution requirement foundations must meet. While the legislation moves in the right direction, the language is too broad and may inadvertently punish some foundations that are acting responsibly.

Many foundations will find it difficult to earn the returns necessary to maintain their underlying endowments and cover the five percent requirement in addition to all administrative costs. This could lead to a diminished ability to fulfill their missions over time, as underlying endowments are eroded as an unintended consequence. Some foundations may try to meet this challenge by reducing important, legitimate spending such as on legal compliance.

The legislation I am introducing will better address these issues. First, I agree we should reduce the excise tax on foundations from two percent to one percent. I also agree we should consider limiting which administrative expenses are counted as distributions. However, I propose doing so in a more defined manner.

My bill would exclude general overhead expenses, management salaries and excessive travel expenses from being counted as distributions. It will allow expenses directly attributable to administering grants and direct charitable giving, as well as expenses related to maintaining legal compliance, to continue to be included.

By focusing these restrictions on the expenses which tend to be the source of abuse, we can deal with the root issues while minimizing unintended consequences.

My bill also goes further than other proposals in penalizing wrongdoers. It will raise the penalty for those who abuse the system by ``self-dealing'' from a five percent to a 25 percent excise tax on the amounts involved.

My bill will lower the net investment tax, tighten the regulations allowing administrative expenses to be counted as distributions, and increase penalties for those abusing the system. It does so with drastic measures that could lead to a decline in foundations in the long-term. Together these measures will instill more discipline on the foundation community and result in more money going to worthy causes.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to address concerns regarding the operation of charitable foundations.

Well-publicized incidents of abuse by a few foundations have raised legitimate concerns about whether these entities are properly focusing resources on their philanthropic missions. In come cases, excessive amounts have gone toward administrative costs, high executive salaries and expensive travel.

My bill will help to ensure that more money is spent on charitable activities and that those who abuse the system are properly punished.

One proposal I support is included in the House version of the CARE Act, H.R. 7, the Charitable Giving Act of 1003. It would reduce the excise tax on investment income for foundations from two percent to one percent, allowing foundations to keep more money so they can direct it to those in need.

However, we must ensure this money actually goes toward the charitable activities for which it is intended. The House bill tries to do this by preventing any administrative costs from being counted as part of the five percent annual distribution requirement foundations must meet. While the legislation moves in the right direction, the language is too broad and may inadvertently punish some foundations that are acting responsibly.

Many foundations will find it difficult to earn the returns necessary to maintain their underlying endowments and cover the five percent requirement in addition to all administrative costs. This could lead to a diminished ability to fulfill their missions over time, as underlying endowments are eroded as an unintended consequence. Some foundations may try to meet this challenge by reducing important, legitimate spending such as on legal compliance.

The legislation I am introducing will better address these issues. First, I agree we should reduce the excise tax on foundations from two percent to one percent. I also agree we should consider limiting which administrative expenses are counted as distributions. However, I propose doing so in a more defined manner.

My bill would exclude general overhead expenses, management salaries and excessive travel expenses from being counted as distributions. It will allow expenses directly attributable to administering grants and direct charitable giving, as well as expenses related to maintaining legal compliance, to continue to be included.

By focusing these restrictions on the expenses which tend to be the source of abuse, we can deal with the root issues while minimizing unintended consequences.

My bill also goes further than other proposals in penalizing wrongdoers. It will raise the penalty for those who abuse the system by ``self-dealing'' from a five percent to a 25 percent excise tax on the amounts involved.

My bill will lower the net investment tax, tighten the regulations allowing administrative expenses to be counted as distributions, and increase penalties for those abusing the system. It does so with drastic measures that could lead to a decline in foundations in the long-term. Together these measures will instill more discipline on the foundation community and result in more money going to worthy causes.

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

The most recent Amtrak board was comprised of governors, mayors and corporate executives, each of whom brought a unique perspective. A geographically diverse board is crucial to establishing a national rail system. I was very pleased when President Bush appointed David Laney of Texas to the board last year. Earlier this month, Mr. Laney was selected by his fellow board members to serve as chairman.

Mr. President, today I would like to pay tribute to a great Texan and a great American, Lance Armstrong. Last weekend, Lance sailed to his fifth consecutive victory in the Tour de France. On the heels of his stunning victory, I am pleased to introduce the Cancer Survivorship Research and Quality of Life Act of 2003.

To some, Lance's victories might begin to seem routine, winning year after year after year. But when you dig beneath the surface, past the hype and drama of the Tour de France, you find that there's nothing routine about Lance Armstrong.

By now, nearly everyone knows that Lance is a cancer survivor. It has become common knowledge, not because Lance uses it as an excuse or to seek sympathy. We know it because Lance has used his megaphone as a sports hero to raise awareness of cancer research and survivorship. He has dedicated himself to helping others and turning his personal devastation into a legacy of hope for those afflicted with cancer. When he was diagnosed, he was given a 40 percent chance of living. His survival and amazing comeback have proved that cancer is not a death sentence.

Sixty-two percent of adults and 77 percent of children diagnosed with cancer this year will be alive 5 years from now. There are more than 9 million cancer survivors living today. These numbers are improving because of advances in detection and early diagnosis, effective treatments, and healthier lifestyles by survivors and those at risk.

We must continue our commitment to research so fewer people will experience cancer.

The bill I am introducing today expands cancer research by authorizing the Office of Cancer Survivorship within the National Cancer Institutes to study the long- and short-term physical psychological, social and economic effects of cancer. Research has shown that cancer survivors are often susceptible to other diseases. Expanding on this research will allow scientists and physicians to improve patients' quality of life and help prevent other diseases and disabilities.

Additionally, the bill expands the Centers for Disease Control programs to improve cancer survivorship. For example, the CDC will track the status of survivors to identify what health risks they face and the successful course of treatment they have utilized. Other programs will demonstrate how to prevent and control cancer, especially in medically underserved populations.

This legislation has the support of CDC and NCI. It also has the support of Lance Armstrong.

I have been privileged to meet with Lance on several occasions. He has never boasted of his athletic feats or touted his ability to master the world's toughest bicycle race. He speaks with passion of the Lance Armstrong Foundation and the work it does on behalf of cancer survivors and their families. When he mounts his bike each summer it is a symbol of hope for cancer survivors the world over.

This year's Tour de France was no exception. Many predicted Lance's defeat and he had to overcome illness, fatigue and crashes to reach the finish line. But he never gave up. The trademark dedication and perseverance that characterize him as an athlete and a survivor kicked in once again. He pedaled to victory over the course of 3 weeks, more than 2,100 miles and 84 hours of cycling, winning with a lead of 1 minute and 1 second.

It was truly a stunning end to a remarkable race.

The record-tying fifth consecutive win places Lance among cycling's elite. Only four others can claim five-time winner of the Tour de France among their accolades. Only one other man has won it consecutively. If Lance wins the yellow jersey next year, it would be a world record. But whether he breaks the record or not, he is a hero to all of us.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Lance Armstrong on a great victory and signing on as co-sponsors to this important legislation to help carry his message of survivorship to the Nation.

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

Mr. President, I support Amtrak and believe we can have a viable national passenger rail system. Unfortunately, we are far from realizing that goal. Outside the Northeast Corridor (NEC), trains seldom run on time, and service is abysmal. Lateness is often measured in days, not hours. Several years ago, when the airlines on-time rate fell below 75 percent it was considered a national emergency. At Amtrak, on-time records under 50 percent are business as usual. Rail critics point to low ridership as the reason why we starve the national system. I contend that starvation is the reason for low ridership.

In the Northeast, a passenger can board a train here at Union Station and reasonably expect to be in New York City, about 225 miles away, in less than three hours. If one of my constituents buy a ticket from Austin to Fort Worth, a trip thirty-eight miles shorter than DC to New York, the best he can expect is that it will take four and one-half hours. Of course, the Texas Eagle makes its schedule only 35 percent of the time, so my constituent will likely waste even more time on this short trip. An Austin businessman may prefer not to deal with airport hassles for such a short flight, and he may want to avoid the traffic on I-35, but the train is not a reasonable option if he has a meeting in fort worth at a time certain.

This inequity cannot continue. Either we commit to building a rail transportation alternative for the entire Nation, or we abandon the pretense of Amtrak and turn it over to the States and private companies. Our motto for Amtrak is ``National or Nothing!''

Improving service on the national system will require creative thinking and innovative financing. We cannot continue to fund Amtrak just enough to keep it going until the next crisis. That is a road map for failure. Private investment, State participation, and the cooperation of the freight railroads are all essential to achieving service upgrades.

In Texas, most passenger trains are forced to operate at less than thirty miles per hour due to track conditions and freight operations. The national system needs at least $38 billion in capital improvements to allow trains to meet a reasonable schedule. Safety improvements alone will cost $13.8 billion. The Northeast Corridor needs roughly $10 billion to avoid an increased risk of accidents and a systemwide slowdown. Postponing these upgrades and repairs will only make them more expensive.

In the 1950s, President Eisenhower convinced the Nation to pay for the construction of the National Highway System. Fiscal realities have changed since then, and we must find a way to creatively finance the rail infrastructure needs of the nation without draining resources from alternative modes of transportation and other federal priorities. Municipal bonding and private investment are necessary components of any plan to restore and improve rail infrastructure.

Making this investment will not only improve passenger service, but also upgrade freight operations throughout the country. Outside the NEC, freight and passenger trains must run on the same tracks. In exchange for an investment in upgrading those tracks, the freight must agree to allow Amtrak to meet its schedule. I realize the critical role played by freight railroads in the American economy, and I know this industry has seen better days. That is why I urge them to work with us to achieve a mutually beneficial agreement. If we cooperate, freight railroads will enjoy capital improvements they could not otherwise hope to afford, as we secure the future of passenger rail in this country. It can be a win-win situation.

I was deeply disappointed to see Amtrak's proposed 5-year capital plan call for $9.1 billion in Federal funding, with more than $8 billion spent in the Northeast Corridor. The national system must receive more than the crumbs left over after the needs of the NEC have been met.

We will never have a better opportunity to accomplish this goal than right now. That is why I am introducing legislation along with Senators Lott, Burns, Snowe and Smith to begin to bring the national system up to Northeast Corridor standards. My bill will strengthen the Federal role by creating a National Passenger Rail Office at DOT, responsible for coordinating with States and the railroads to assure the national system receive the improvements necessary to operate an effective inter-city passenger rail system. The legislation authorizes $12 billion for Amtrak in operating assistance. Amtrak will be required to bring the national system up to an 80 percent on-time arrival rate. Once a route has enjoyed reasonable on-time performance, it can be fairly evaluated from a cost-benefit perspective. 80 percent is a modest goal, but it is not going to be easy to attain. If Amtrak is unable to meet performance requirements on a route, that route should be opened for bidding by other operators.

If we fail to enact real change in this reauthorization bill, we may run out of chances to obtain the elusive intermodal transportation system we profess to seek. We must decide whether we want to create a viable national system, or settle for a single rail corridor providing ever-deteriorating service to only one sector of the country. I will not support any proposal that does not put the national system on par with the Northeast Corridor. Today marks a new beginning, or the beginning of the end. It's national or nothing.

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

Mr. President, today I would like to pay tribute to a great Texan and a great American, Lance Armstrong. Last weekend, Lance sailed to his fifth consecutive victory in the Tour de France. On the heels of his stunning victory, I am pleased to introduce the Cancer Survivorship Research and Quality of Life Act of 2003.

To some, Lance's victories might begin to seem routine, winning year after year after year. But when you dig beneath the surface, past the hype and drama of the Tour de France, you find that there's nothing routine about Lance Armstrong.

By now, nearly everyone knows that Lance is a cancer survivor. It has become common knowledge, not because Lance uses it as an excuse or to seek sympathy. We know it because Lance has used his megaphone as a sports hero to raise awareness of cancer research and survivorship. He has dedicated himself to helping others and turning his personal devastation into a legacy of hope for those afflicted with cancer. When he was diagnosed, he was given a 40 percent chance of living. His survival and amazing comeback have proved that cancer is not a death sentence.

Sixty-two percent of adults and 77 percent of children diagnosed with cancer this year will be alive 5 years from now. There are more than 9 million cancer survivors living today. These numbers are improving because of advances in detection and early diagnosis, effective treatments, and healthier lifestyles by survivors and those at risk.

We must continue our commitment to research so fewer people will experience cancer.

The bill I am introducing today expands cancer research by authorizing the Office of Cancer Survivorship within the National Cancer Institutes to study the long- and short-term physical psychological, social and economic effects of cancer. Research has shown that cancer survivors are often susceptible to other diseases. Expanding on this research will allow scientists and physicians to improve patients' quality of life and help prevent other diseases and disabilities.

Additionally, the bill expands the Centers for Disease Control programs to improve cancer survivorship. For example, the CDC will track the status of survivors to identify what health risks they face and the successful course of treatment they have utilized. Other programs will demonstrate how to prevent and control cancer, especially in medically underserved populations.

This legislation has the support of CDC and NCI. It also has the support of Lance Armstrong.

I have been privileged to meet with Lance on several occasions. He has never boasted of his athletic feats or touted his ability to master the world's toughest bicycle race. He speaks with passion of the Lance Armstrong Foundation and the work it does on behalf of cancer survivors and their families. When he mounts his bike each summer it is a symbol of hope for cancer survivors the world over.

This year's Tour de France was no exception. Many predicted Lance's defeat and he had to overcome illness, fatigue and crashes to reach the finish line. But he never gave up. The trademark dedication and perseverance that characterize him as an athlete and a survivor kicked in once again. He pedaled to victory over the course of 3 weeks, more than 2,100 miles and 84 hours of cycling, winning with a lead of 1 minute and 1 second.

It was truly a stunning end to a remarkable race.

The record-tying fifth consecutive win places Lance among cycling's elite. Only four others can claim five-time winner of the Tour de France among their accolades. Only one other man has won it consecutively. If Lance wins the yellow jersey next year, it would be a world record. But whether he breaks the record or not, he is a hero to all of us.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Lance Armstrong on a great victory and signing on as co-sponsors to this important legislation to help carry his message of survivorship to the Nation.

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

Mr. President, I support Amtrak and believe we can have a viable national passenger rail system. Unfortunately, we are far from realizing that goal. Outside the Northeast Corridor (NEC), trains seldom run on time, and service is abysmal. Lateness is often measured in days, not hours. Several years ago, when the airlines on-time rate fell below 75 percent it was considered a national emergency. At Amtrak, on-time records under 50 percent are business as usual. Rail critics point to low ridership as the reason why we starve the national system. I contend that starvation is the reason for low ridership.

In the Northeast, a passenger can board a train here at Union Station and reasonably expect to be in New York City, about 225 miles away, in less than three hours. If one of my constituents buy a ticket from Austin to Fort Worth, a trip thirty-eight miles shorter than DC to New York, the best he can expect is that it will take four and one-half hours. Of course, the Texas Eagle makes its schedule only 35 percent of the time, so my constituent will likely waste even more time on this short trip. An Austin businessman may prefer not to deal with airport hassles for such a short flight, and he may want to avoid the traffic on I-35, but the train is not a reasonable option if he has a meeting in fort worth at a time certain.

This inequity cannot continue. Either we commit to building a rail transportation alternative for the entire Nation, or we abandon the pretense of Amtrak and turn it over to the States and private companies. Our motto for Amtrak is ``National or Nothing!''

Improving service on the national system will require creative thinking and innovative financing. We cannot continue to fund Amtrak just enough to keep it going until the next crisis. That is a road map for failure. Private investment, State participation, and the cooperation of the freight railroads are all essential to achieving service upgrades.

In Texas, most passenger trains are forced to operate at less than thirty miles per hour due to track conditions and freight operations. The national system needs at least $38 billion in capital improvements to allow trains to meet a reasonable schedule. Safety improvements alone will cost $13.8 billion. The Northeast Corridor needs roughly $10 billion to avoid an increased risk of accidents and a systemwide slowdown. Postponing these upgrades and repairs will only make them more expensive.

In the 1950s, President Eisenhower convinced the Nation to pay for the construction of the National Highway System. Fiscal realities have changed since then, and we must find a way to creatively finance the rail infrastructure needs of the nation without draining resources from alternative modes of transportation and other federal priorities. Municipal bonding and private investment are necessary components of any plan to restore and improve rail infrastructure.

Making this investment will not only improve passenger service, but also upgrade freight operations throughout the country. Outside the NEC, freight and passenger trains must run on the same tracks. In exchange for an investment in upgrading those tracks, the freight must agree to allow Amtrak to meet its schedule. I realize the critical role played by freight railroads in the American economy, and I know this industry has seen better days. That is why I urge them to work with us to achieve a mutually beneficial agreement. If we cooperate, freight railroads will enjoy capital improvements they could not otherwise hope to afford, as we secure the future of passenger rail in this country. It can be a win-win situation.

I was deeply disappointed to see Amtrak's proposed 5-year capital plan call for $9.1 billion in Federal funding, with more than $8 billion spent in the Northeast Corridor. The national system must receive more than the crumbs left over after the needs of the NEC have been met.

We will never have a better opportunity to accomplish this goal than right now. That is why I am introducing legislation along with Senators Lott, Burns, Snowe and Smith to begin to bring the national system up to Northeast Corridor standards. My bill will strengthen the Federal role by creating a National Passenger Rail Office at DOT, responsible for coordinating with States and the railroads to assure the national system receive the improvements necessary to operate an effective inter-city passenger rail system. The legislation authorizes $12 billion for Amtrak in operating assistance. Amtrak will be required to bring the national system up to an 80 percent on-time arrival rate. Once a route has enjoyed reasonable on-time performance, it can be fairly evaluated from a cost-benefit perspective. 80 percent is a modest goal, but it is not going to be easy to attain. If Amtrak is unable to meet performance requirements on a route, that route should be opened for bidding by other operators.

If we fail to enact real change in this reauthorization bill, we may run out of chances to obtain the elusive intermodal transportation system we profess to seek. We must decide whether we want to create a viable national system, or settle for a single rail corridor providing ever-deteriorating service to only one sector of the country. I will not support any proposal that does not put the national system on par with the Northeast Corridor. Today marks a new beginning, or the beginning of the end. It's national or nothing.

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

Mr. President, are we going to have back-to-back votes for Judge Cardone as well as Judge Yeakel, or do we talk about each judge before their individual votes?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I would like to speak on behalf of two Federal judge nominees for Texas. They are both for the Western District. Leroy Yeakel will sit in Austin; Kathleen Cardone will sit in El Paso, TX.

The Western District has the highest caseload of any district on the list of districts where judicial emergencies exist. It has been the No. 1 district in that regard. I am very pleased that we have two nominees to fill two benches in Austin and El Paso because we do need to be able to move these cases expeditiously. People are entitled to have their cases disposed of one way or another.

I am proud to speak for Lee Yeakel who has been nominated for the Austin vacancy. He has served as a justice of the Texas Third Court of Appeals in Austin since 1998. Prior to that, he spent 29 years in private practice in Austin, most recently as a partner with the firm of Clark, Thomas & Winters.

Lee earned his bachelor's degree from the University of Texas at Austin in 1966 and his law degree from the University of Texas in 1969. He earned a master of law degree from the University of Virginia in 2001.

He is also very active in the community. He serves on the boards of the Austin Rotary Club, the West Austin Youth Association, the Austin Choral Union, and the Committee for Wild Basin Wilderness.

I am very proud to know Lee Yeakel. I have known him for years. I have also known his wonderful wife Anne and their family. I am very pleased that the President nominated Lee Yeakel after Senator Cornyn and I recommended him. I know he will be a hard worker, and I know he will be an independent judge, one who looks at the law and decides cases based on the law and not based on his personal opinions. So I am pleased to recommend him to the Senate.

Mr. President, I also recommend Kathleen Cardone for the judgeship in the Western District of Texas. She will be sitting in El Paso. Kathy is a New York native who graduated from the State University of New York at Binghamton and St. Mary's School of Law in San Antonio.

After graduating from law school, Kathy clerked for a U.S. Magistrate for the Southern District of Texas, and then went into private practice.

She has the distinction of serving as the first judge for the 388th Judicial District Court, a new State court created in El Paso in 1999. She developed and founded the El Paso County Domestic Relations Office. This office serves as an intermediary between courts and litigants in family law matters. She also presided over the 383rd Judicial District Court in El Paso.

She has an excellent record of civic involvement. She is a member of the board of directors of the Upper Rio Grande Workforce Development Board and the El Paso Center for Family Violence. She is a past board member of the YWCA and the El Paso Holocaust Museum and Study Center. She has also been on the board of the El Paso Bar Foundation, the El Paso Mexican American Bar Association, and the Child Crisis Center of El Paso.

I think you can see that both of these nominees meet the high standards that we hold for Federal judges, both having been active in their communities and being well regarded by the bar.

I can say that both of these nominees were highly recommended by Democrats and Republicans and by their bar association membership. People who have worked with them recommend them highly, and I am very pleased with our nominations.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for that wonderful speech. He did remind us once again the stakes we have in the war on terrorism. What is happening in Iraq is a high-stakes game. We are committed. America is not going to walk away. We are not going to start a job that we do not finish. The job is to bring peace and stability to the people of Iraq and to the entire Middle East. I thank the Senator from Montana for coming forward with that message.

How much time remains?

Madam President, I will continue on the same subject as the Senator from Montana and talk about what we are doing in Iraq. The meetings we had with Ambassador Bremer brought much more clarity to the progress being made in Iraq. Everyone is stunned and saddened by the loss of life of our soldiers that we see, unfortunately, on a daily basis. This gets worse every day because we are sick about losing these soldiers.

Part of the reason we have not been able to capture these people who are doing these horrible acts to our soldiers--one and two and three at a time--is because Iraqi people do not yet believe we are there to stay until they have a democracy in place. There is widespread belief in Iraq that Saddam Hussein is coming back. When we were able to capture the sons of Saddam Hussein, and they are now dead, that sent a message to the people of Iraq that we are going to capture Saddam Hussein. We are not going to stop until we know he is captured or dead. Two of his sons are dead, the two who would have been heirs to his incredibly cruel regime. They are dead. They are gone.

I applaud the President for saying he is going to show the dead bodies so the people of Iraq will be assured. In our culture, that would be horrifying. We would never show dead bodies in a newspaper in our country, particularly identified dead bodies. However, we have a different problem in Iraq. We have a problem that the people do not believe these people are really dead. Therefore, they fear coming forward and giving information about the people who are killing our soldiers. They fear coming forward and embracing Americans in many parts of Iraq. If that, in their culture, is what is necessary to show that these two sadistic tyrants are dead, that they can no longer cut off arms and legs, put children in shackles in jail, abuse children, abuse women, that they can no longer do these horrific acts, if that is the way we must show the Iraqis that these people are gone, I applaud the President for saying we will do it. I hope the President does.

We must get the trust of the Iraqi people. I do not think we are going to have that trust until they know that Saddam Hussein is dead, they know the sons are dead, and they know we are going to keep our commitment; that we are going to try to make life better for the Iraqi people and put their own people in charge of their own fate. That is what they are looking for. We must show them we are not going to give up because times are tough. Times are tough over there right now.

For people I talk to on the streets, it is incomprehensible they do not appreciate what we have done. We have to understand what they have lived through for the last 25 years in that country. They are used to being abused for no reason. If they look the wrong way, they may be shot at close range. That is what they have lived with. We cannot even imagine that in our country. We must try to win their trust in this slow and methodical way.

Madam President, our administration is making great progress. We are showing we will have the resolve to see this through.

If we can bring a quality of life and of freedom to the people of Iraq, then we do hope this will also stabilize the rest of the Middle East so we can bring a peace between the Palestinians and Israel, the two can live side by side in peace, and have at least the ability to live in peace if not trade together and work together.

That will also send a signal to the people of Iran that they can have freedom once again. It will send a signal to the people of Syria and throughout the Middle East that they, too, do not have to live under dictatorial regimes that allow them no freedom and do not have good education systems. We want the people of the Middle East to know what freedom is, to know what having an education is, so people can have jobs and have an economy and be able to live a life that has a quality of life.

We are bringing quality of life to Iraq through this administration. We are bringing health care services. Madam President, 90 percent of the people in the north have basic health care, 80 percent in the south, 75 percent in Baghdad. We are putting $210 million now into pharmaceuticals and basic health care services. This is an important quality-of-life issue for these people, and one of the first that we have addressed.

We have brought in 1.2 million tons of food since we ceased the hostilities in Iraq on March 30. We now have the ability to purchase local harvests in Iraq, so food will be available from the Iraqi people and for the Iraqi people.

I am very pleased with the progress. Is it enough? No. Is it going to take more time? Yes. Is it going to take patience? Absolutely. But America is not going to walk away when times get tough. We are going to see this through, and the world will be better when we do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in answer to the Senator from Michigan, it is my intention to talk a little bit later in this process about this same formula issue. We have a problem with the formula not fairly representing the needs of the large States. It is my hope--and I do have a commitment from all of those involved--that we will get the authorization bill that will allow us to address this inequity in the formula because right now, the high-risk areas do not include one of my cities that is one of the top 10 largest cities in America, and it is not considered high risk. What are we thinking? So I want to talk about that later.

I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. President, I send amendment No. 1364 to the desk.

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

Mr. President, this is an amendment that would allow the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response--basically the disaster relief part of the homeland defense agency--to provide advance funding for nonprofit entities performing duties they are asked to perform in major disasters.

Organizations such as the Red Cross have been unable to bring their coffers back up because of the many disasters we have had in our country over the last few weeks. It is essential that they be able to be called by the Under Secretary to go to a disaster and to provide immediate help to people. The Red Cross is often first to arrive with real help, such as medical help and help for people because their homes are flooded, or they have been in a hurricane. They went to Guam in the last few months when Guam had this terrible hurricane that wiped out so much of the island, and they spent about $17 million. They were able to recoup some, but not all, of those funds. So their coffers are low.

This amendment allows them to have advance funding when they are called to respond to a disaster and they are not able to provide that funding up front, as you would hope you would be able to do in the future. I think this amendment is acceptable. It will certainly help the Red Cross and other nonprofit agencies that just don't have the capability to run to the bank and borrow, in 24 hours, money for their disaster needs.

Until they can get their coffers built back up, I hope we can help them with this problem because we are asking a lot of them in return. They do a great job, and we want to provide the help for them to do that job for the disasters they are called to serve.

Mr. President, I offer this amendment.

Mr. President, Senator Dole worked very hard with me on this amendment. It was a joint effort. I particularly thank Senator Cochran and Senator Byrd, along with Senator Inhofe and Senator Jeffords and Senator Reid, for helping us work out the language on this bill. A lot of people had jurisdictions and everyone agreed that this was necessary. I appreciate the cooperation of all of the Senators who helped work this out.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will speak for a couple of minutes about the big State formula in the Department of Homeland Security. I am not going to take long. It is very important we address the issue of the formula in the bill just passed.

The formula is not fair to the large States where the greatest risk is. The large States generally have the larger population centers which generally have the highest risk for homeland security. Yet the formula under which we are proceeding is a formula that takes away from our 13 largest States because of a floor put in for the smaller States. I don't think any of the large States want to be totally whole but the large States would like to have more of a fair shake than the formula underlying in this bill.

I hope the Senate will agree to hear the bill that has come out of the Committee on Governmental Affairs which does authorize new formulas and will seek to change the formulas in a way that is more fair. To give a couple of examples, the State of California on a strict population basis would get $216 million; the State of California has a long coastline, they have major cities, they certainly have a high-risk designation. Under the bill, they will get $146 million for a deficit to California of $64 million. Georgia should get $53 million; it would get $46 million for a deficit of $5 million. New York should get $118 million; it will get $86 million for a deficit of $28 million. My home State of Texas should get $134 million; it will get $96 million for a deficit of $34 million.

This does not make sense. It does not pass the fairness test. The large States do not ask for complete parity but we do ask for fairness. There is a formula we used in the State aid package in the most recent tax cut legislation that does not give the big States full parity but it does give them a much more fair formula.

That is what I intended to offer in the bill. It would have been subject to a point of order, so I withheld. But I am serving notice that I, along with Senators Voinovich, Specter, DeWine, Santorum, Warner, Chambliss, Cornyn, and Levin, am going to readdress this issue and hope that everyone will come together, small States and large, for something that is fair to the States that are at the highest risk.

That is a very important component of securing our homeland. If we are going to leave our biggest States and biggest cities vulnerable, that is not protecting the part of our country that is most at risk.

I thank you, Mr. President. I am serving notice we will try to address this issue in the bill. I ask the majority leader and minority leader to please assure that we will address this issue in the bill that has come out of the Governmental Affairs Committee so that we can correct this inequity.

I yield the floor.