Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, is the Senator aware that the exemption in his amendment would make it almost impossible to hold a U.S. company liable for doing business with Iran through a foreign subsidiary?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have another question, if I may, and that is, would the Senator be willing to move the vote back, if we can do it, so we can discuss the language?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be the pending business.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I send a modification to the amendment to the desk.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I wish to now discuss my amendment, which is fair and simple. It prohibits increases in the pharmacy copayments of our military families and military retirees they purchase at retail pharmacies. These families are part of the military's health insurance program called TRICARE. The price of everything going up so rapidly now hardly seems the time to ask the people who have sacrificed for our country--many who have been in harms way--to pay more for their prescription drugs. It is incomprehensible. My amendment, cosponsored by Senators Stabenow, Bingaman, Harkin, Lincoln, Menendez, Mikulski, Landrieu, Lieberman, Kerry, and Murray, is very simply a prohibition on increasing, at this point in time, the copayments that veterans and active duty families have to pay for prescription drugs. The amendment is very simple. It says no, n-o, at increase on pharmacy copays through the end of fiscal year 2007. We ask military our families to make enormous sacrifices for our country, and now we want to saddle them with higher health care costs? It doesn't make sense. The administration is proposing to increase the cost of TRICARE prescription drug copayments from $9 to $15 for brand- name drugs. This is, indeed, a hardship. It means that over a 5-year period, prescription drug prices will rise by 70 percent for military families--far outstripping the 24-percent increase in military pay or the 14-percent increase in retirement pay over the same period. If we don't stop this increase we will have taken away those increases that they worked so hard to get. If you can go to a military base to purchase your prescriptions you don't need to pay a copayment, but in the real world that is always not possible. Too many veterans and military families don't live on or near a base, particularly when it comes to the National Guard and Reserve. In New Jersey, for instance, there are seven military installations, but only three have pharmacies and none of these facilities are in the northern part of the State. Driving long distances, especially with gas costing $3 a gallon or more, is not the solution. Families and veterans have the option of getting prescription drugs at no cost by mail order. But many times people can't wait for a week or two to fill a prescription. If you have a sick child at home who needs an antibiotic right away, who will wait for mail delivery. Also, many people, especially older veterans, prefer to get their prescription drugs from the local pharmacy where they can also get consultations with pharmacists and other services. TRICARE beneficiaries deserve the ability to choose where they want to go to get their prescriptions. Retail pharmacies account for about 43 percent of the prescription drugs purchased through TRICARE. One large pharmacy chain estimated that it fills more than 7 million TRICARE prescriptions every year. Close to 9 million individuals are enrolled in the TRICARE program. The increases proposed by the administration would affect a large number of military families and veterans. We know how the Guard and Reserves have been disproportionately affected by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. To raise their health care costs, I think that is unconscionable. John F. Kennedy said: To govern is to choose. Last Thursday, all but two Republican Senators voted to repeal the inheritance tax permanently, a move that would cost $989 billion over 10 years. Remember that fewer than one-half of 1 percent of all estates incur tax liability. We are talking about a tax break for the wealthiest Americans, the very people presumably who benefit the most from the freedom that our men and women in uniform protect. Now we are being told that we cannot afford to freeze these copayments that these men and women have to make and their families have to pay for the medicines they need. It is really unbelievable. CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, says my amendment will cost $290 million in fiscal year 2007. In good conscience can we repeal the inheritance tax on the super- rich while imposing a pharmacy tax on our men and women in uniform, our veterans, and their families. American's appreciate so much the sacrifices asked of our Nation's military families and veterans. I'm certain they would be willing to cover the cost of my amendment. This amendment freezes pharmacy copayments at their current levels. It will send a message to our military men and women. It will tell them that just as they protected us, we are concerned about them and their families. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I appreciate that and am pleased that we are going to make a statement here that we don't want those people who are on TRICARE, to have to pay more at this time. It just would be the wrong thing to do. I am not surprised that the Senator from Virginia, with a sound military record and having been involved in Government for many years in terms of military affairs, stands up and delivers that agreement. I thank him very much, and I thank my colleague from Michigan also, for the opportunity to introduce this amendment. Without further ado, I assume that it will now be accepted.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a significant event that took place yesterday in the U.S. Senate, and that is the fact that we have now a new longest serving U.S. Senator in the history of our country. Senator Byrd nears the end of his eighth term here in the Senate but holding more than just another significant record. His contribution to our country has been almost beyond compare. He already holds Senate records for the most leadership positions held and for the most rollcall votes cast, over 17,600 and still counting. Starting in 1946, Senator Byrd has run in 14 elections for the West Virginia House of Delegates, the State Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate. He inspires the envy of all of us because he has won all of these races, and I have no doubt that voters in West Virginia will reelect him to a ninth Senate term this fall. That is going to enable him in December of 2009 to pass the record that Carl Hayden has as the longest serving Member of Congress in United States history. But Bob Byrd is not here merely to set and break records. He is here to serve the people of West Virginia and all Americans, and he has done so admirably. Senator Byrd is a testament to the values of hard work and perseverance. Almost from the start, he has had a hard life, but he has triumphed. His mother died from the 1918 flu pandemic, when Senator Byrd was just an infant. His aunt and uncle raised him in the hardscrabble coalfields of West Virginia during the Great Depression. He was the valedictorian of his high school class, but he couldn't afford to go to college. After high school, Senator Byrd went to work. He pumped gas, sold produce, became a meat cutter and welder. During World War II, he helped to build Liberty and Victory ships in the Baltimore and Tampa shipyards. Following the war, he began his career as an elected official, winning a seat in the House of Delegates in West Virginia. In 1952, he was elected to the first of three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1958, he was elected to the U.S. Senate. In his races since then, he has carried all 55 of West Virginia's counties. In the year 2000, he won all but seven of West Virginia's 1,970 precincts. What a record. It is hard to find one that compares in any way to the allegiance that he has had from the constituents in West Virginia who not only send him back here but love him as their representative at the same time. It just wasn't winning elections. Senator Byrd could have rested on his laurels, but that is not his style. His life and career have been a relentless pursuit of self-improvement. In 1963, after 10 years of taking classes at night, Senator Byrd earned his law degree cum laude from American University. He didn't have to do that because he wasn't going to become a lawyer, but he thought it would make him a better person and a better Senator. Senator Byrd is a great example to all of us, but he is especially interesting for America's young people for three reasons. First, he is truly a self-made man. Nothing has been handed to him. He has earned it all. He knows what it is like to be poor, and he knows what it is like to do hard manual labor. That is why he has always been the working man's champion. Second, he is always striving to learn more and do more. No other Senator can match his extensive knowledge on so many subjects or can recite so many passages from the Bible or from Roman history or from Shakespeare and other playwrights and poets. Senator Byrd isn't content merely to memorize what others have written. He literally wrote the book on the history of the U.S. Senate. No one can match his knowledge of Senate rules, precedents, and parliamentary procedure. Finally, Senator Byrd is a shining example to all of us because of his steadfast commitment to principle, especially with regard to the role of a U.S. Senator. He has never wavered in his defense of our institution. All Americans are deeply indebted to him for that dedication and loyalty. At a time when the current administration is intent on usurping powers that the Founding Fathers reserved for Congress, we need Senator Byrd more than ever, his reminders to all of us about what is appropriate in terms of obeying the rules and the procedures we have adopted, but more importantly, the honor that this institution has developed over more than 200 years. Senator Byrd has demonstrated that fearlessly standing on principle, even when it is unpopular, is the key to a successful political career and in life generally. His concern for his State and his constituents, and his ability to deliver for them, are legendary. But above all, Senator Byrd has stood up for the Constitution. He is what we refer to as a Senator's Senator. We are truly fortunate to have him here, and we are truly privileged to serve with him. He is also a wonderful colleague. He never forgets a birthday or other important occasion, never fails to remind us of the beauty of the seasons. Yesterday his service here in the Senate reached 17,327 days, a record for which he can be appropriately proud. I know that day was bittersweet because it also marked the birthday of his beloved wife, Erma Ora James, his high school sweetheart, and a coal miner's daughter. We were all so sad when Erma passed away this past March, just 2 months shy of their 69th wedding anniversary. Their love for each other, their respect for each other, was an inspiration to every one of us. Senator Byrd's record-setting day yesterday was tinged with some sorrow and reflection, but I hope he can take comfort in knowing that so many people here in the Senate and all across America hold him in such high regard. I would like to borrow a page from Senator Byrd by quoting Shakespeare, who in ``Twelfth Night'' wrote: Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. Senator Byrd has achieved greatness in the U.S. Senate. He achieved it through his tireless service to the people of West Virginia and his fearless defense of the Constitution of the United States of America. The Senate and the Nation are far better for his efforts. We wish him well, a continued ability to serve, and look forward to hearing from him when he talks about subjects that are so familiar to him and yet are so far removed from the typical daily thought that we run into. Senator Byrd, when I first came here, invited me into his office. He delivered a treatise on the former rulers of Great Britain, the Kings of England. From memory, he recalled the length of their term, how they died, who succeeded each and every one of them. I sat there feeling like I was back in the university or even earlier than that, because he had this incredible and has this incredible memory of so many things, and he can relate them wonderfully. I come out of the computer business. Until I got here and got to know Bob Byrd, I didn't realize that there is someone who has the knowledge, the database, the information that is very difficult to find in other than very large capacity computers.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am sure it is not going to be a surprise to anyone here that I am opposed to the repeal of the inheritance tax. Now, I don't believe people ought to be taxed beyond what is normal by increasing taxes here or there, but I do have a problem with figuring out ways to reduce taxes, inheritance taxes, on the wealthiest among us. We are talking about wealth that staggers the imagination, that is so vast that the average American can't even comprehend it. We are talking now about making it easier for the wealthiest among us to pass along the fortunes that some of them worked hard for, a lot of them inherited, and for the next generation who is waiting for dad or mom to pass away so they can make sure they can keep up with the yachts and the airplanes and the things of that nature. I don't say that everybody who is wealthy is spoiled or has bad values, but I think we have to look very carefully at what we are doing in the circumstances in which this country is living. To give an example, this is like saying, if you are in debt, deeply in debt, the best way to solve your problems is to go out and borrow more money to pay off the old debt. It sounds foolish, doesn't it? But that is what we are about to do if we chip away at the taxes that are now--the revenue that is now collected through inheritance taxes. At first glance, it sounds like a good idea to get rid of the inheritance tax. When you look below the surface, you learn that repealing it is a bad deal for the vast majority of Americans. There is a lot of misinformation being passed around about who pays this tax. We have even given it a name that makes it so repulsive that as soon as you hear it, you say: Wow, what is this, a death tax? Do you mean you have to pay a tax for dying? No. You have to pay a tax for making so much money that life can forever be comfortable. Not a bad thought, but at what cost? That is the thing that we are concerned about. Here is the truth: One-half of 1 percent of the estates this year will be subject to tax. I don't know how many people who make $45,000 a year can understand what happens with one-half of 1 percent of the estates in this country of ours. What it says is that 99.5 percent of the estates left are not subject to any tax. To be even considered for this tax, an estate must be worth at least $2 million. For any of you who hear my voice or look at the figures you see in the paper, remember, when someone says to you: You don't want that death tax out there, do you? It doesn't affect you unless you are worth at least $2 million. Then, on top of that, there are all kinds of tax shelters and exemptions. So very few people pay the tax. As a matter of fact, the average rate that estates pay is somewhere in the high teens, and rarely ever approaches the 55 percent marginal rate, which is the highest of them all. So I think some of my colleagues have to understand the history of the inheritance tax. I was very lucky in my lifetime. My father died very young and left my mother a widow when she was 37 years old, and I was already in the Army. I had enlisted in the Army just over--well, over 62 years ago. My mother was this young, struggling widow, deep in debt because my father, who was a very healthy man, got sick on the job, and it took a year to rob him of his strength and his energy, so that there was nothing left except grief and debts my mother had to pay. I was the beneficiary, as a result of my military service, to get something called the GI Bill. The GI Bill said to those who serve: We are going to help you make up for some of the years that we took for you to protect our country and protect our ideals, and we are going to provide funds for you to improve your lot, to get an education, to make up for the time lost, for building a career. The GI Bill sent me to college. I never would have been able to go. It would never have been available to me. When I graduated high school, I had a job loading trucks. That is what my life was like. But good fortune struck me, and the opportunities that America gives were mine in abundance. I went to Columbia University. I went to the business school there. I sit on that school's board now. I look back in amazement at what good fortune that I had. I created a company with two other fellows named ADP, Automatic Data Processing. Automatic Data Processing is a company that today employs 44,000 people in 26 countries in which we serve. Three guys from factory-working fathers, two of them are brothers, and my father, all worked in the same kinds of factories in Patterson, NJ. So life was good. We presented a new idea in America, those years when we started. It was called outsourcing. It was the opportunity for companies to render specialized services so that the companies who hired us could devote themselves to making their product better and selling it cheaper and being more efficient totally. So as a consequence of that--why is this story relevant? It is because as a consequence of creating a company-- my old company before I came to the Senate over 20 years ago--that company had the longest growth record of any company in America at over 10 percent, each and every year, growth and income. Every year for 42 years in a row we had the longest growth record in America, and I take modest pride in knowing I was part of that development. As a consequence, of course, I made some money, a lot of money by most standards, and I brought my four kids up to understand that they were also lucky, and not just because their father was successful, and each one of them has worked very hard to make their own lives. I tell that story because what I want to be understood is that I would be a beneficiary, or my kids would be beneficiaries, of a no-tax estate if it was left to them. But what would that do for my children as a result? It wouldn't do anything for them, in my view, in the long run. Give them more money? No. I would rather give them a safe country. I would rather give them a chance to fight against childhood diseases. My oldest grandchild has asthma, and my daughter, when she takes them out to play sports anyplace, the first place she looks for is an emergency clinic to make sure if he has an attack, they can get there in a hurry. That is the most important thing in my life, to make sure that my children are safe and that we know that if, heaven forbid, they are the one-third of the children in America who are going to get diabetes in their juvenile years, that we will be able to fight against it. I meet with those families. I talk to them. I talk to the children, and I ask them about the terrible inconvenience that it is to deal with sticking their fingers day and night and making sure they feel good throughout their schoolday. So when I think of what legacy I might give my children, it is not more money in the bank. It is a safer country, it is air that they can breathe, it is water that they can drink, it is assistance, if they need it, to get through school, the same thing that every grandparent wants for their grandchildren. Now, to say, OK, Frank, you have been lucky. You did well. You provided a lot of people with very good jobs. But now what we are going to do is reward you on top of the rewards you have already gotten by giving you more money, by making sure that your kids can live comfortably. I have a list of people who are lobbying against the estate tax. When you see the size of some of these estates, it blows your mind, to use a common expression. I want to take a look at the chart that shows what happens if we cut estate taxes for the wealthiest. This is interesting. There is a company called Halliburton, a company that used to be run by the Vice President of the United States, and who still gets an income from them, almost as large as his income from the U.S. Government. This is the Vice President of the United States who gets an income from a private company that does all kinds of defense business that has been charged with overcharging us for work they did in Iraq, that got a no-bid contract that ran over $2 billion. The Cheney family--and listen, we respect success, but Vice President Cheney still has options, tens of thousands of options that are not yet exercised in Halliburton, whose value depends on their ability to do better. That is the price of the stock. So if we want to reward Vice President Cheney and Halliburton for their questionable work and their questionable morality when they still do business with Iraq through sham corporations, Iran who gives money to terrorists, who go to Iraq to kill our kids--Halliburton, that is the company. Vice President Cheney was the CEO of the company. I am not suggesting there is a connection anymore, but I will tell you this: If you want to go to ADP and sell them something, you tell them you know Frank Lautenberg--I was the chairman and CEO of the company--it does make it a notch easier to get some business. We are going to give them a $12 million tax cut-- $12.6 million. That is what happens if we repeal the estate tax, as is suggested. A famous name here, it is not the Hilton Hotel, but it is Paris Hilton, and she will get $14 million in tax cuts if we go ahead and eliminate the estate tax as suggested. The chairman of Exxon made a lot of money. He made $145,000 a day--$145,000 each and every day--and the average wage in this country is $45,000 a year, the average wage. The number of people who make $145,000 a year is very small. Senators in the United States Senate make a little more than $145,000. In fact, they make $165,000. But here, Mr. Raymond made $145,000 a day. So we are going to be nice to him because he made so little: $145,000 a day. We want to give him a $164 million tax cut, give his heirs $164 million. It is obscene, Mr. President. That is what it is. It is really funny. When you ask for the origins--when did the inheritance tax come into play--people forget that it was originally pushed by President Roosevelt. President Roosevelt, people say? Yes, but not Franklin Roosevelt. It was developed by a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt. He believed that an inheritance tax should not be aimed at the average citizen or even citizens of above average wealth. President Theodore Roosevelt said the inheritance tax should ``be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits.'' This is what the current estate tax does. It affects only the hereditary elite, those who inherit estates of more than $2 million. I repeat: 99.5 percent of American families will not be affected by the estate tax. They won't have to pay a penny out of their legacy. So when I look at where we stand now, deep in debt because in America we increased the debt limit so we could splurge some more and spend and borrow up to $9 trillion--not earn, borrow to get us up to $9 trillion, and it is rumored that soon we will be looking at the possibility of raising the debt limit again. And repealing the inheritance tax will only further balloon our Nation's debt. So in order to increase the inheritance of the richest people in the country, we are going to pass more debt to everyone else's children and grandchildren. I would like someone to explain why that is a good idea. In 2009, the estate tax exemption will be $3.5 million--but that is not good enough for most Senate Republicans. Here's what that means in real life: You could have a $1.9 million mansion, a 44-foot motor yacht, a beautiful summer beach house, his and hers Porsches, and a $600,000 investment portfolio--and still--still--you would not pay a penny of estate tax. The people who need a break are not the wealthiest one-half of 1 percent. It's everyday people who deserve a break. They deserve a break from high gas prices, rising college tuition and health care costs. But instead of trying to help everyday people, the Republicans in the Senate are clamoring to help the richest families in America. Forget gas prices--Congress needs to make sure Paris Hilton gets a few more million dollars in inheritance. We have to make sure that the heirs to the former CEO of ExxonMobil don't miss out. Some of the wealthiest Americans in the country have actually spoken out against this madness. Billionaire investor Warren Buffett said that the estate tax has played a ``critical role'' in promoting American economic growth by creating a society in which success is based on merit rather than inheritance. Buffett said that repealing the estate tax ``would be a terrible mistake'' and would be the equivalent of ``choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics.'' Mr. President, if we repeal this inheritance tax, what would be the effect on everyday people and the Federal budget? For starters, it would cost our Nation $73 billion every year by the middle of the next decade. What could we do with that much money? We could provide health insurance for every uninsured child in America, and have enough left over to give them full college scholarships. We could give every family in America a $500 tax cut. We could eliminate 75 percent of the Social Security shortfall. We could provide clean food and water to the 800 million people in the world who lack it. We could provide the funds necessary to pay for the war in Iraq for the next 10 years. So that is our choice. We can help everyday people, or we can give a big gift to the richest people in America. I have heard my colleagues on the other side say they hear stories every week about farmers or small business people having to sell their businesses to pay the estate tax. But they have not been able to cite a single example of this actually happening. In fact, in 2001, the American Farm Bureau could not find even one family farm that had to be sold to pay the estate tax. The estate tax mostly does not hit small business people and family farms. The vast majority of assets affected by the estate tax, more than 70 percent, were in liquid assets like stocks, bonds, and cash. In an attempt to do away with this ``small business'' and ``family farm'' fiction once and for all, in 2002, Democrats proposed to completely and permanently exempt all family farms and all family-owned businesses from the estate tax. But those on the other side of the aisle voted against it. It was an illustration that they are interested in protecting the wealthy, pure and simple. Mr. President, this week has really showcased how backwards the priorities of this Senate are. Instead of tackling gas prices or dealing with the war in Iraq, we tried to pass a constitutional amendment on gay marriage. Now, instead of helping families afford college or get better access to health care, we are looking to help the richest families in the country get richer. This is indeed the twilight zone Senate. In my view, it is time to cancel this show. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in light of the recent announcement to remove Libya from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terror, I rise today to submit a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the Libyan Government should meet the terms of its financial commitment to the families of the victims of the Pan Am flight 103 bombing and other acts of terror supported by Libya before the President accepts credentials of any representative of the Government of Libya. I am pleased that Senators Graham, Menendez, Clinton, Kennedy, Biden, Lieberman, Levin, Kerry, Stabenow, Mikulski, Schumer, Boxer, Dodd, Bingaman, Allen, Collins, Burr, Salazar, DeMint, Lincoln, Dorgan, Reed, DeWine, Kohl, Reid, and Santorum have agreed to cosponsor my resolution. In May 2002, Libya made an unequivocal commitment to compensate the families who lost loved ones in the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people, including 189 Americans. To date, Libya has not resolved these claims in full, particularly the last installment of compensation that is to be paid to each family upon Libya's removal from the list of state sponsors of terror. Now that the Secretary of State has announced Libya's removal from the list, the U.S. must ensure that Libya honors its commitment. Before the U.S. normalizes its relationship with the Government of Libya, it is crucial that we underscore our expectation that Libya will fully honor its commitment to all these American families. The resolution also exhorts the President to press the Government of Libya to make a good faith effort to resolve other outstanding cases involving U.S. victims of its state-sponsored terrorism, including the 1986 bombing of the La Belle Discotheque in Berlin, Germany, that killed two American soldiers and wounded dozens of others. I am pleased that the Senate is considering this important resolution and urge its immediate adoption. S. Res. 504 Whereas there has not been a resolution of the claims of members of the United States Armed Forces and other United States citizens who were injured in the April 6, 1986, bombing of the LaBelle Discotheque in Berlin, Germany, and the claims of family members of the service men and women killed in that bombing or the resolution of other outstanding cases of United States victims of terror sponsored or supported by Libya; Whereas, on December 21, 1988, terrorists from Libya bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people, including 189 Americans; Whereas, on May 29, 2002, the Government of Libya offered to pay up to $2,700,000,000 to settle claims by the families of the 270 people killed aboard Pan Am Flight 103, representing $10,000,000 for each victim of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing; Whereas, on August 15, 2003, Libya's Ambassador to the United Nations, Ahmed Own, submitted a letter to the United Nations Security Council formally accepting ``responsibility for the action of its officials'' in relation to the Lockerbie bombing; Whereas, on September 12, 2003, the United Nations lifted sanctions against Libya, thereby enabling the first trigger of the agreement between the Government of Libya and the families of the victims of the attack on Pan Am Flight 103 for a payment of $4,000,000 per victim that has been paid to the victims' families; Whereas, on September 24, 2004, the United States lifted most economic sanctions against Libya, thereby enabling the second trigger of the agreement between the Government of Libya and the families of the victims of the attack on Pan Am Flight 103 for an additional payment of $4,000,000 per victim that has been paid to the victims' families; Whereas, on May 15, 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the determination of President George W. Bush to rescind the designation of Libya on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, thereby enabling the third trigger of the agreement between the Government of Libya and the families of the victims of the attack on Pan Am Flight 103 for a final payment of $2,000,000 per victim; Whereas, on May 15, 2006, Secretary of State Rice announced the reestablishment of full diplomatic relations with the Government of Libya, ending 26 years of isolation; and Whereas the agreement between the Government of Libya and the families of the victims of the attack on Pan Am Flight 103 incorporated a timeline for payment of the full $2,700,000,000 that has not been met even though all of the other conditions for such payment have been satisfied. Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that-- (1) it remains an important priority for further improvement in the relations between the United States and Libya that the Government of Libya make a good faith effort to resolve all outstanding claims of United States victims of terrorism sponsored or supported by Libya; (2) it is in the best interests of the long-term relationship between the United States and Libya that final payment be made to the families of the victims of the attack on Pan Am Flight 103; and (3) the President should not accept the credentials of any representative of the Government of Libya without the expressed understanding that the Government of Libya will continue to work in good faith to resolve outstanding cases of United States victims of terrorism sponsored or supported by Libya, including the settlement of cases arising from the Pan Am Flight 103 and LaBelle Discotheque bombings.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to express my pleasure and support for the confirmation of Ms. Renee Bumb to the U.S. District Court of New Jersey. Ms. Bumb is one of four accomplished individuals from New Jersey who have been nominated to vacancies on the district court. Just before we left for the Memorial Day recess, the Senate unanimously confirmed Judge Susan Wigenton for the district court. Judge Wigenton has been a Federal magistrate judge since 1997. She also worked at a law firm, served as a public defender in Asbury Park, NJ. She has been a first-rate magistrate judge. She will be an excellent district court judge. She served the public well. We are pleased to have her join the bench in New Jersey. Now we discuss today's nominee, Renee Bumb. She is exceptionally well qualified and will be an excellent addition to the court. She is currently attorney in charge of the Camden--our southernmost city--U.S. Attorney's Office. She is a gifted prosecutor and has handled cases ranging from drug trafficking to white-collar crime. For 6 years, Miss Bumb has supervised all of the attorneys in the Camden U.S. Attorney's Office. At the same time, she has tried cases herself, especially those dealing with public corruption. Ms. Bumb is from south Jersey. We are pleased she will be sitting as a Federal judge in Camden. There have been openings there for some time. The people of south Jersey deserve judges who understand that area of the State and the unique communities therein. Ms. Bumb fits that bill. When people look at tiny New Jersey on the map, they envision a small State but they are wrong. While we are relatively small geographically, we have the 10th largest population in the country. New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the country. While physical distance between north and south Jersey is not significant, there are differences between the two areas politically, economically, and culturally. The Federal Government needs to respect these distinctions. Thus, we have Renee Bumb, who is a judge from South Jersey. She will dispense justice with the unique character her community brings--not having the large cities, and with the population density much less than the north. They also lack some of the services immediately available in the northern part of our State. Ms. Bumb will represent the Federal Government and represent the Judiciary extremely well. At the same time, we have two other excellent nominees for vacancies on the U.S. District Court for New Jersey. One is Noel Hillman, another is Peter Sheridan. These nominees have been approved by the Judiciary Committee. They are ready to go. We should not delay the confirmation of these nominations past this week. I offer thanks to Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy for moving these nominees so efficiently through the process. I am confident these four individuals will serve the people of New Jersey extremely well on the Federal bench. They will bring distinction to the court. We urge their quick confirmation in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I start off with a question. The question is, Why are we spending time on the floor of the Senate discussing this issue at this time? Is there anyone here unaware of the fact that Americans are bleeding in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why aren't we talking about that war?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will not at this point accept a question. I want to make my remarks just as the Senator from Oklahoma had a chance to make his remarks. Perhaps when we are finished I will be able to accommodate the Senator. Why are we not focused on soaring gasoline prices and the toll it takes on family budgets? People who plan their lives in my area, New Jersey--a very crowded area--have had to buy their houses some distance from their jobs because they couldn't afford the housing. They calculated the fact they would have to drive an hour each way--not unusual--10 hours a week behind the wheel of the car. Now, with gas prices as they are, the advantage they had by buying a home at a distance is evaporating in front of them. Why aren't we talking about that? Why aren't we talking about 46 million Americans without health insurance, every one of them worried about whether the next sickness is going to deprive them of their job, deprive them of their ability to feed and clothe their children and take care of them? Why aren't we talking about those things? Why aren't we talking about extending stem cell research? I don't know whether other Senators have had the same experience that I have. Families come in with children who are sick with juvenile diabetes. If you ask those children what they want out of life, they say: I want to stop having to stick my finger all the time with a needle. I want to be able to do things just like other children. I had a group of families with children with diabetes. I seated them around a table. By the way, the faces on these children are so beautiful. In their expressions they say: We would love you if you can help us. That is what they say. That is how I respond. I am a professional grandfather. I have 10 grandchildren, the oldest of whom is 12 and the youngest of whom is 2. What do I want? My whole life is focused on what I can do for those kids as they grow and develop. When I look at those children, I ask the parents: Why are their faces so beautiful? They say: Because they are faces of want and need in a child, expressing that in that kind of face. It tells you something about what we ought to be talking about and not spending our time on depriving somebody of an option that they are free to choose in this life. Why aren't we debating a measure to make sure the Government is ready for the next Katrina? They are worried about levees in California. They are worried about levees in other low- land States where they have some exposure. We are not talking about that. Who can forget the picture of the people on the roofs of their houses begging for someone to do something to save them? No, we are not talking about that. We do not want to talk about that. Why aren't we preparing for a possible bird flu epidemic? We know that is a very serious topic. Forget those topics, we are told. President Bush and the Republican leadership want Congress to drop everything to debate gay marriage. I have lots of visitors in my offices in New Jersey and here. Not one of them came to talk to me about gay marriage. They came to talk to me about health insurance. They came to talk to me about their pensions disappearing. They talk to me about their inability to afford their children's education when they want to prepare for a career. They talk about the burden of gas prices. That is what they want us to do something about. They are not discussing gay marriage. They are not in there discussing opening up the Constitution to amendment. If we pass this amendment, history will record for the first time ever that we wrote discrimination into the United States Constitution. Think about that, the first time we have ever put discrimination against anyone in our Constitution. In the Bill of Rights, every amendment is written to expand individual rights. That is what our Constitution is about. It is a wonder, the thinking of our forefathers. The Bill of Rights was first signed in New Jersey. If you look at all the amendments to the Constitution, only once did we restrict rights. That was Prohibition. And it did not take long to repeal that. The American people were not going to obey the law. They violated it in every way. Why create laws that cannot mean anything to people? President Bush held an event on Monday night with supporters of this amendment. At that event, the President did something totally irresponsible. It is hard to believe a President of the United States said what he said. He rallied his right-wing audience against our Nation's court system. Now, we talk here about separation of powers and how important it is that the three legs of Government are able to exercise their obligations. The President went so far as to say that the American courts are ``imposing their arbitrary will on the people.'' How about when the Court imposed its arbitrary will on the election of a President? What was said then? To suddenly say that the courts have no jurisdiction of their own, free of criticism from the President of the United States, is the President saying our courts do not follow the law? Could people quote the President to justify ignoring a court decision, just to score political points with a narrow interest group? The President chooses to undermine our Nation's system of courts and laws. It is a dangerous form of political pandering. This constitutional amendment would not just ban same-sex marriages. It also threatens civil unions, domestic partnership laws, laws passed by States to recognize relationships and conferring legal rights between partners. Is our goal to strip all of these relationships of their dignity? Once the Federal Government starts regulating marriage, what is next? What is going to stop Congress from acting as the morality police and prohibit people from getting married unless they pledge to have children or unless they pledge to restrict the number of children they have? What is going to stop this body from outlawing divorce? I don't think the actual motive for this amendment is morality. The motive, as I see in this amendment, is pure raw politics. Republicans have their backs against the wall. So look what the people think of the President of the United States and the job he is doing. They think poorly of him. If they had the right, they would fire him. When I was running a company, before I was running for the Senate, if I thought so poorly of someone, I would fire him. I would not keep him. No, this is a salvage operation for the Republican Party. We are debating this amendment now because it is an election year. That is why. Why did we have this debate in 2004 and this year but not in 2005? Let's defer this until 2007. I am willing to do that. We can discuss it in a year, when there is not an election in the offing. This is simply political gay-bashing. That is the mission, try to ``husband'' the resources you have, the support you have, and pick on a group of people. The backers of this amendment want to drum up hysteria where none currently exists. They want to change the subject away from the issues such as Iraq and gas prices. It is a shameful attempt to divide the American people for political gain. Today, the 6th of June, is the anniversary of D-Day. On June 6, 1944, Americans from every corner of our country fought to protect our values and our families. Today, we are tarnishing the memory of D-Day by working to amend our Constitution to restrict individual freedoms. I was wearing a uniform that day. I was overseas. I was not on the combat line, but I knew what I was doing was good for my country. Sixteen million of us served in the military in World War II. I had visitors just last Thursday night at my office in New Jersey, about 10 people. One person lost their son. This woman was angry. I had spoken to her when his death was announced over a year ago. She was angry. He was a second lieutenant. His assignment that day was to diffuse bombs. She said: My son was trained to man a gun in the artillery. That is what his mission was. He was diffusing a bomb and he lost his life: The country that sent my son overseas is a country that helped my son die. There was a woman with tears running down her face: Our son has been wounded once; they say he is ready to go back to combat. He has a Purple Heart. I don't want him to go back. Crying bitterly, in front of me. There was a couple whose son is due for a second tour of duty. People in this unit were lost in the first tour. Why, now, they ask, is he going back to this war that does not do anything for America? No, we do not want to discuss that in the Senate. That is too serious. That brings home the toll and the anguish that exists with our time in Iraq. We ought to be talking about what we do to get out of there safely and quickly. That is what we ought to do. But, no, we are talking about gay marriage. I can just see the people in arms across this country saying, The first thing I want you to do is make sure there is no gay marriage in this country. The devil with my kids education, the devil with my need for health care, the devil with our ability to be able to afford to live now in the country. Two people working so many jobs, just about keeping their heads above water. Every Senator in this Senate values the institution of marriage. In my view, the way to honor marriage is to provide families with economic opportunity, good schooling for their children, a clean environment to live in, health care they can afford and funding for medical research that can help fight the diseases that plague children, such as juvenile diabetes, autism, or asthma. There are so many problems we could help prevent. The amendment before the Senate today is not about protecting marriage. It is about directing people's lives, about making sure you behave in a particular way. Those of us who are talking against this do not necessarily support gay marriage. What we support is freedom, freedom to choose your lifestyle. That is what we are talking about. In State after State they are writing their own laws, what they think is appropriate for the people in their State--not to restrict them but to open their opportunity. I hope my colleagues will reject this divisive amendment. Let's get on with far more pressing issues facing our Nation that can improve our national health, can improve our national will, can improve our national morale. Those are the things I would like to do instead of looking and seeing what people really think about all of us in this place, all of us, from the White House, to the Senate, to the House. What do the American people think about the work we are doing? They do not think a heck of a lot of good is coming out of here. Frankly, we give them good cause because what we are paying attention to is what matters least to most Americans. What matters most in these Chambers, unfortunately, at this time is politics and elections. Too bad, America. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the young men and women who competed in the 79th annual Scripps National Spelling Bee last week. I would like to extend special praise to Miss Katharine ``Kerry'' Close for winning this demanding competition. Miss Close is an eighth grade student at the H.W. Mountz School in Spring Lake, NJ, and was sponsored by the Asbury Park Press and the Home News Tribune. Other New Jersey participants included Serenity Fung of Faith Hope Love Academy in Somerset, Joseph Reed of Deerfield Township Elementary School in Rosenhayn, Austin Tamutus of MacFarland Junior School in Bordentown, Tianqi Wang of Ramapo Ridge Middle School in Mahwah, and Nisha Sadanand Naik of St. Anne's Parish School in Jersey City. I am proud of all of them. Miss Close--showing true grace under pressure--won in the 20th round by correctly spelling ``ursprache,'' which is defined as ``a parent language, especially one reconstructed from the evidence of later languages.'' Miss Close is a five-time veteran of the National Spelling Bee, first competing when she was 9. She tied for seventh place last year. Over the past 5 years, Miss Close has spent between 1 and 2 hours each day looking up words and their origins in order to prepare for the contests. Her dedication should serve as an inspiration to all of us. The 2006 Scripps National Spelling Bee, which is administered by the E.W. Scripps Company and 268 local sponsors, is the largest and longest running educational promotion in the United States. This competition began with 275 competitors from across the United States, American Samoa, the Bahamas, Canada, Europe, Guam, Jamaica, New Zealand, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands who qualified for the contest by winning locally sponsored spelling bees. I hope that my colleagues will join me in congratulating Miss Close and the other 274 competitors in this year's Scripps National Spelling Bee.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the position we are voting on, Secretary of the Interior Department, holds great importance for our country. The Department determines the fate of many of our public lands, including national parks and wildlife refuges. Of great importance to New Jersey, the Secretary of Interior determines what activities can take place on the Outer Continental Shelf. The Secretary of Interior implements critical laws like the Endangered Species Act, and administers some of our most important conservation programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It should be a job for somebody who believes in protecting our nation's great natural heritage, not selling it off to the highest bidder. I served in the Senate with Governor Kempthorne, and we were members of the Environment and Public Works Committee at the same time. He is a skilled legislator and a congenial person, and I will vote to invoke cloture on his nomination, and for his confirmation. But I do want to take this opportunity to express some concerns about Governor Kempthorne's record on the environment, and about the Bush administration's record, as well. The League of Conservation Voters has given Governor Kempthorne a lifetime score of 1 percent, meaning he voted against the environment as judged by LCV 99 percent of the time. That does not give me great confidence on how he will address issues of preserving wilderness, protecting wildlife, or defending our coastal waters. Of course, these are areas where the administration has already compiled a poor record. I am also concerned about whether Governor Kempthorne will continue the pattern of pressuring scientists to alter their views to suit ill- advised Bush administration policies. Last year, we learned that an administration official named Philip Cooney--an oil lobbyist before and after his White House stint--had altered scientific documents to change their conclusions about global warming. This year, we have seen numerous reports of Bush administration political appointees trying to intimidate and muzzle climate scientists at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Similar concerns have been raised at Interior-based agencies. Twenty percent of Interior scientists who answered a survey by the Union of Concerned Scientists responded that they had been ``directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from a scientific document.'' Moreover, 44 percent of the respondents said that they have been ``directed, for non-scientific reasons, to refrain from making findings that are protective of species.'' The Fish & Wildlife Service fired a whistleblower who exposed the Bush administration's use of flawed science to favor development projects over protecting habitat for the Florida Panther. This administration's contempt for science is deeply disturbing, and it would be a great disappointment if Governor Kempthorne were to continue to pursue policies based on ignoring, suppressing, or intimidating scientists. Our country is blessed with countless national treasures from coast to coast and, in my view, the Interior Secretary's most important job is to restore and preserve those treasures. Despite the serious reservations I have raised here, I will support this nomination in the hope that Governor Kempthorne will shift this administration's unwise policy emphasis on development over preservation, and I urge him to respect unfettered scientific inquiry in the agencies he will oversee.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this week we are in a rush to finish our business so we can head home for the Memorial Day Recess. Memorial Day signals the beginning of summer, when children are out of school and families get to spend time together. It's a time for vacations and trips to the shore, and backyard barbecues. But most important of all, Memorial Day is also the time when we remember the brave soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. This year there are almost a thousand more names on that list than last Memorial Day. In total 2,750 troops have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan: 2,455 in Iraq and 295 in Afghanistan. Almost 18,000 more have been seriously wounded. I keep a gallery of the pictures of the fallen outside my office in the Hart building. More and more people come to visit it, and I encourage my colleagues, their staff and our constiuent guests to view it and honor the memories of these heroes. New Jersey families have lost 71 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last year, near Memorial Day, I read the names of New Jersey's fallen troops into the Congressional Record, where they would be enshrined for all time. Fifteen more New Jerseyans have died since then. Today, with your indulgence, I would like to read their names and hometowns into the Record: SSG Jeremy A. Brown, whose mother lives in West Orange; SPC Armer N. Burkart, Blairstown; PFC Ryan D. Christensen, whose mother lives in Brick; LTC Terrence K. Crowe, member of the U.S. Army Reserve in Lodi, NJ; SFC Michael Egan, his mother resides in Pennsauken; SGT Clarence L. Floyd, his mother resides in Newark; CPT James M. Gurbisz, Eatontown; SSG Edward Karolasz, Kearny; SPC Gennaro Pellegrini, Jr., whose father resides in Wildwood; CPT Charles D. Robinson, Haddon Heights; LCpl Edward A. Schroeder, South Orange; SSG Stephen J. Sutherland, West Deptford; 2LT Dennis W. Zilinski, Howell; SSG Christian Longsworth, Newark; and SGT Matthew Fenton, Little Ferry. On this Memorial Day, I hope every American will pause to give thanks for the brave soldiers who gave their lives for our country.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I commemorate the 21st annual New Jersey Law Enforcement Memorial Service held this week in Ocean Grove, NJ. This ceremony, which is hosted by the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police, NJSACP, honors the sacrifice made by law enforcement officers who have given their lives in the line of duty. Its participants represent the entire New Jersey law enforcement community, including State and local police agencies as well as prosecutors and federal agents based in New Jersey. Events such as the New Jersey Law Enforcement Memorial Service and last week's commemoration of National Police Week are the least we can do to express our gratitude to the brave men and women who risk their lives every day in service to our communities, States, and Nation. Our Nation lost 155 law enforcement officers in 2005. Their ultimate sacrifice and the important work they did every day must never be forgotten. I am proud that my State of New Jersey honors these heroes in the oldest statewide law enforcement memorial service in the country, and I ask that the Senate join me in commending the NJSACP for hosting this important event.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is poised to pass this resolution today honoring the invention of the charge-coupled device, or CCD, which has greatly improved our level of imaging technology. In 1969, Dr. Willard S. Boyle and Dr. George E. Smith worked together at Bell Labs in Murray Hill, NJ, and created a basic design for a silicon-memory chip, known as a CCD. This breakthrough technology was crucial to advancing digital imaging technology and can be found in most imaging devices, including digital cameras and video recorders, space-based telescopes and satellites, and medical imaging devices. A CCD contains a light-sensitive chip that is able to store small amounts of charges in capacitors. A group of these capacitors create a pixel, which can be combined with other pixels to generate an image. The first CCD had just six pixels while the average camera now contains four to six million pixels. It is a credit to Dr. Boyle and Dr. Smith's innovation that this technology has been developed into the high resolution images we use in our every day lives. Each year, the National Academy of Engineering honors an engineer or engineers whose accomplishments have significantly bettered society by improving our quality of life, providing the ability to live freely and comfortably, and/or easing access to information. This year, the Academy has chosen to honor Dr. Boyle and Dr. Smith with the prestigious Charles Stark Draper Prize for their innovation in imaging technology and invention of the CCD. The National Inventors Hall of Fame has also chosen to commemorate Dr. Boyle and Dr. Smith's contributions to society by inducting them into their Hall of Fame. The National Inventors Hall of Fame was founded in 1973 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the National Council of Intellectual Property Law Associations. I hope that my colleagues will join me in commemorating the contributions to our society and standard of living that CCD technology has made and congratulating Dr. Willard S. Boyle and Dr. George E. Smith for their justly deserved awards.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wish to call attention to a saying that is kicked around here quite often: When you are in a hole, quit digging. We are approaching $10 trillion in debt, and the majority--and I respond to my friend and colleague for whom I have great respect, the Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the Finance Committee--is not dealing in a typically bipartisan fashion when conferences are held without the minority being invited to participate. There is, in case no one noticed, a Republican majority Senate, a Republican majority House, and the White House is occupied by a Republican President. It is fair to say that what we see happening reflects directly the will of the majority. As we look at approaching $10 trillion in debt--and we just approved it; it is going up to $9 trillion--the majority wants to continue the lifespan of the Bush tax cuts to add another $70 billion to our debt. I find it incredible. None of us have an exclusivity of knowledge--none of us. One can argue about whether an additional tax cut has value in increasing revenues, about where that money is spent when it gets into the hands of those who get the largest part of it. There is another side to this that I think deserves examination, and that is we have done the tax cut thing, and where are we? We are deeper in debt. There is a song that goes: The harder I work, what do I get? I get deeper in debt. When I see that we just increased the debt limit and we are about to push up against it pretty closely, we now want to add another $70 billion to our debt, I think it is a subject for fair debate, whether it is good for business or isn't. I come from the business world, and I ran a very successful company. The company I started with two other friends now employs 40,000. We have ideas that have been thought out, and I think this is a fair place to express them. I know the other side of the aisle likes to say these are tax cuts to help everyday people, but I want to do a reality check. Those who earn over $1 million a year get 22 percent of the tax breaks in this bill. That is a very small percentage of the wage earners in this country. Millionaires get an average tax cut of almost $42 thousand--41,977, to be precise--while those earning from $40,000 to $50,000--I want to point this out, millionaires get an average tax cut of about $42,000, while those earning from $40,000 to $50,000 a year get an average tax cut of $46. I got some gas the other day and one tankful cost over $60. When you get an average tax cut of $46, my advice to those who get it is: Don't spend it all in one place; $46, distribute it around; maybe buy a little boat or something so you have some fun with it. The last time we complained about unfair tax cuts such as this, one of our Republican colleagues actually accused us of ``persecuting millionaires.'' Alas, what a pity, that we should be so biased in our statements. If Republicans were more concerned about helping the middle class in this country, we would all be better off--all of us. The best idea we have seen from the majority recently was to give everyone $100 to help with soaring gasoline costs. Maybe that ought to be accompanied by a statement that says if you go to Las Vegas or buy a lottery ticket, perhaps you can really hit it big. Mr. President, $100, how do you use that? We now know how little $100 is, and the offer is offensive, so offensive that it was quickly withdrawn when people said: This doesn't make any sense. What do we do for people? Giving them a $100 gift certificate, if I can call it that. Gas prices are out of control, wages are stagnant, more and more working people are losing their health insurance, and the Republican side of the aisle is admonishing us about persecuting millionaires. I know some people who made money in their lifetime. I know if you want to buy a particular airplane, a G-5, that you have to wait 2 to 3 years to get it delivered. It costs $30 million. If you want to add some amenities, it can get up to $40 million. But there are so many people wanting to buy them, you have to wait years to get delivery. Yachts that are over 150 feet, that is a 2-year wait. It looks like there is plenty of use for that $42,000 tax break. President Bush and the Republican majority in Congress have lost all sense of fiscal discipline. When the President took office in 2001, he inherited a rosy fiscal picture, a better one almost than any President in history. We had a $236 billion budget surplus. We thought we would pay off the entire national debt by the end of President Bush's first term. But now we are on a track to double our national debt by 2011. President Bush holds the Nation's credit card. We are the bank, and he keeps asking us to raise his credit limit, also commonly called the debt ceiling. In 2002, Republicans raised the debt ceiling by $450 billion, and in 2003, they raised the debt ceiling again by a record $984 billion. And despite the earlier admonition, in 2004, they dug the hole deeper by adding another $800 billion to the debt ceiling. When will this stop? Then just 2 months ago, they squeezed through another $781 billion increase in the debt ceiling. So now we will owe the Chinese and other countries this money as we beg them to buy our bonds. These numbers are so large that it is hard to relate to them. I think that is exactly what President Bush and Republican colleagues are counting on. By adding nearly $4 trillion to our debt, we add a bill to every American of over $13,000 that has to be paid off in the future. Your kids, my kids, everyone's kids will have to pay it back with interest. It is time to get serious about fixing our Nation's financial condition. We can't continue to run record-setting budget deficits year after year, and we can't keep increasing our debt like it doesn't have to be paid off by future families and wage earners. President Bush and the majority in Congress are doing long-term harm to our economy, to our standing in the world just by throwing more money at people who don't need it or, in many cases, don't even want it. We have to stop conducting ourselves like the proverbial drunken sailor, like the guy in Las Vegas who is about to bet the family farm on the turn of a wheel. We should not be passing our endless debt on to our children and as the legacy for our grandchildren. I hope we will see votes against this irresponsible tax bill. I hope people on the other side of the aisle--and we can agree that maybe we ought to take a deep breath, step back, and not just casually increase the debt limit while we fight to give the millionaires an average $42,000 tax break. It is really something when we think about it. Tax cuts for millionaires. We could send 1.9 million children to preschool. This tax cut that is designated to go to the millionaires could be used to give health care to 8.7 million uninsured children. Is that a better thing to do, I ask you, than to give those who make over $1 million a year another $46,000? I would rather give the health care to 8.7 million uninsured children. I can tell you one thing: There are no children of those who stand here who are without health care--not one. But there are hundreds of thousands of children--millions, I should say--who are uninsured; 8.3 million uninsured children. Tax cuts for millionaires could send 2.8 million young people to college. Tax breaks for big oil, as we have given to them, could keep college tuition tax deductible for 6.4 million students and their families. We give tax cuts for millionaire investors instead of tax credits to help poor people save. I hope we will stop passing along endless debt to our children and our grandchildren. Our legacy would best be shown as an indication that we want this country to be stronger domestically. We want our country to be stronger when it comes to military engagements, and we are failing that--failing that. If you read the papers--contrary to what I heard from our Secretary of Defense the other day about how everything is OK and we have enough people to do what we want to do--recruiting is way down and under pressure. So I think it would be a good idea if we got together at this point and said: OK, let's agree that our legacy to our children is going to be eliminating or reducing the debt that we are placing on their shoulders. And instead saying: If you want to go to college, you don't have to end your college career with a debt of $50,000 or $60,000 or, in some cases, much more. If we want to leave a real legacy, something of value to our children, then we have to say we want an Earth that is free of contaminants in the air that our kids breathe. We want to stop global warming. Some on the other side say it is a hoax, global warming. Ice floes are coming off of Antarctica. I was there and visited Antarctica and the South Pole. You can find there chunks of ice floating that are bigger than some States. Kilimanjaro is about to see the last of the snow that has been there since time immemorial. Glacier Park is soon to be without glaciers. What does it take? Those are the items of legacy that we ought to be talking about. We want the air to be better so that when children are growing up, they are free from asthma attacks on their respiratory system. If we want to give our kids something to be grateful for, let's clean up the waters that surround us and make sure that we are not going to be overflooding lands across this globe, with global warming creating melting seas. I hope we will be able to muster the courage to say: Don't increase this national debt any more than we already have done, and don't give tax breaks to millionaires who don't need or want the money--$42,000 in tax breaks if you have a $1 million income. That is a pretty sizable bite. I don't think it is fair to say that Democrats are too stupid to see the advantage of these tax breaks. Mr. President, I yield the floor.