Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I believe it is our time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to use Senator Durbin's time. He has 3 minutes left. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to use Senator Durbin's time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, since time is limited, I am going to get down to the nuts and bolts. I come from a State in which asbestos was prominent in manufacturing in many places. As a matter of fact, early in the 1950s, a doctor named Irving Selikoff, who was a researcher as well as a physician, discovered the lethality of asbestos. He is the one who raised the alarm about the dangers of that product. He saw mesothelioma and asbestosis. In my office in New Jersey, I had a man and his wife and his mature son, who was about 30 years old, come in to see me because they all had mesothelioma, but only the father worked in the manufacturing facility, the mill. His wife and child, his son, were made ill as a result of the mother washing her husband's clothes. That is how lethal, how dangerous asbestos is. This bill is an abstract exercise. There are real people involved, people who are going to die as a result of the exposure. I have seen it up front and personal. A friend of mine who was a lawyer, after practicing 20 years, got a call from a member of a union one day that had asbestos workers, and he was told to get a chest x ray. He did. After 20 years of no illness, nothing, suddenly they found that he had a spot on his lung, and it turned into mesothelioma and he was dead soon thereafter. I recently had a World War II vet--I am one as well--come into my office, sick from mesothelioma, from work he did 40 years ago. We have seen so many cases where the gestation period is so long, so that to suddenly close this out and say that is going to be enough money, $140 billion--it sounds like a lot, but it is not a lot when it comes to individuals who need help and who need to be able to continue to conduct their lives and do whatever they can to make life comfortable. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that the fund will need $10 billion more. Other analysts put the figure as high as $300 billion. So it is fairly obvious that I am going to oppose this bill and support the point of order. I urge my colleagues to do the same because what we are doing is dismissing the suffering of people who have been exposed to this, even though the companies knew how dangerous the material was they were working with. They permitted people to work with it and did not do anything about it, except ultimately, in many cases, they went bankrupt as a result of their behavior. I yield the floor, and I hope my colleagues will oppose this bill and support the point of order.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the motion clearly says that taxpayers would have to choose between deducting their sales tax costs or their income tax costs. If a taxpayer lives in a State that chooses to have both a sales tax and an income tax, why should they be penalized? This motion is not fair for the people in my State or many States such as mine that have both sales and income taxes. The Federal Government should not be micromanaging State tax systems. If we have the expense, we ought to allow the deduction. If we are going to allow the deduction of State sales taxes, we should allow it no matter where the taxpayers live. I hope we will oppose this management from the Federal Government of how a State ought to conduct its tax system. I yield the floor and urge opposition to the motion.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the motion is simple. It says the conferees need to come back with a final bill that does not increase the national debt. So if you vote against this, you are saying it is OK to increase the national debt. Lord knows what we have by way of debt. It is drowning us and will be paid for by our children and our grandchildren. It is reckless to charge $50 billion on our Nation's credit card when we have another option. We can pay for these tax cuts by closing the egregious tax loopholes such as the $6 billion for oil companies with record earnings--on the front page of the paper this morning. Whether you voted for or against the bill, we should all agree that we should not stick future generations with the bill. That is what my motion says. It is very simple. On Valentines Day, vote against increasing the national debt.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending motion be set aside, and I send a motion to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to discuss this motion to instruct conferees that I bring to this bill. You see here a display of a credit card. It is drawn on the ``Bank of our Children's Future.'' My amendment is simple. It asks the conferees, please, do not increase our national debt. A lot of what we do around here is hidden and complicated Federal budget rhetoric. But to put matters simply, this bill allows President Bush to charge another $50 billion on the credit card of the United States of America. But when he leaves office, who is going to pay the debt that is left behind? Certainly, it will not be their rich or infamous friends. They are guaranteed to be safe from the bill collector. The reality is that the President is going to leave repayment of this credit card debt to our kids and our grandchildren. I don't want to have that burden on my grandchildren or my children. They work hard and they pay their debts and they pay their taxes--my children, I am talking about; my grandchildren are too young. They are willing to pay their taxes and they are proud of this country of ours. The Democrats want to pay for these tax cuts by ending giveaways to rich special interests. But the Republican side said: No, no, don't persecute millionaires. I had a very successful business career. It happened because I live in America and America responds to ingenuity and hard work. I don't mind paying my taxes. I want to pay my taxes to be sure that America is strong internally, not just on the weapons front but strong in character, strong in mission. My colleagues on the other side, all good folks, will not admit they are passing this burden on to future generations. They claim they are going to cut spending to make up the difference. Are they? As President Bush insists, are they willing to cut Medicare and make health care more expensive for seniors? Are they, as President Bush insists, willing to cut student loans? Isn't tuition expensive enough for the average family in America? Are they, our colleagues on the other side, as President Bush insists, going to eliminate the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program? Are they willing to cut the Head Start Program for children who don't have the benefit of being in a home where they can learn, who don't have the benefit of guidance from parents often? Those children often get their only nutritional meal in a facility that is supported by the Federal Government. We are now only serving 800,000 out of 1.6 million children who would qualify. Even if we do all these things, we are still going to be in the hole with massive deficits because of the President's insistence on irresponsible tax cuts, and I use the word advisedly. I know something about balancing budgets. I was a senior Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee that produced the first balanced budget in 30 years. We did such a good job that when President Bush took the oath of office, he was presented with a rosy financial picture like no President in the history of our country has ever seen. We had budget surpluses as far as the eye could see. In 2000, we had a budget surplus of $236 billion. In 2001, President Bush enjoyed a surplus of $128 billion. We were ready to pay off our national debt by the end of President Bush's last term. We were in the middle of the longest economic expansion in the history of our country. But the Republicans plunged into massive tax breaks for the wealthy and the special interests, tax breaks that will cost $3.4 trillion to make them permanent over the next decade. One-third of that, more than $1 trillion, will go to the richest 1 percent of our population. So here is how the Republican tax cuts translate. If you make $1 million a year, you get an average tax cut of $136,000, but if you make less than $20,000 a year, you get a whopping $19. To what end? Instead of paying off our national credit card bill, President Bush and the Republican majority are set to double our national debt. If we continue on this path, our national debt will be more than $12 trillion by 2011. With this bill, we are being asked to approve another $50 billion charge on our credit card. The most tragic thing is that there is no reason to charge these tax cuts to the national credit card. When we were considering this bill a few weeks ago, our senior colleague on the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, offered a way to pay for these tax cuts by closing corporate loopholes. Closing these loopholes would have shut down abusive foreign tax shelters. I don't understand why we should give cover to abusive foreign tax shelters. It would have made polluters pay to clean up the damage they cause to our environment, it would have required tax withholding on payments to Federal contractors, such as Halliburton, just like every American has on their paycheck. Every Member on this side of the aisle voted for budget discipline, and every Member of the other party voted for budget recklessness. We still have a chance to put a stop to this. We can adopt my motion. It is simple. It says to the conferees: Don't increase our national debt. Is that too much to ask, don't increase our national debt? Of course, we could go ahead and get a second mortgage on the White House or this Capitol Building or the Pentagon. Every day people across America will take a second mortgage in a similar situation. ``Similar situation'' means when your debt exceeds your ability to pay it down. The administration is willing to do that. So if my colleagues think we should saddle our children and grandchildren with more debt, then I suggest they oppose my motion, but if they think it is wrong to run up our Nation's debt so special interests, such as Halliburton and polluters, can get off scot-free, then vote for my motion. Every American's share of the national debt now is $27,529. This bill raises that debt another $170 per adult and child in this country. By voting for my motion, we say no to debt for our kids. I urge my colleagues to support this motion and show that they want some fiscal responsibility put into place. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Montana. I also congratulate our colleague, the Senator from California, for her diligence in pursuing this issue. Senator Boxer has an interest in fairness and equity at all times, and open government. I am so pleased that we can rely on her and her staff to research this matter and to bring it to the public's attention. Everyone knows there is a cloud over Washington these days. It is a cloud of corruption that challenges the fundamental concept of democracy in our great country, one that says the President, under the guise of an act of patriotism, can spy on people, innocent people, invade their privacy totally, and yet withhold records that are vital to the public's confidence in government, withhold data that is required in this scandal we are now witnessing which hangs over Washington. This deep-seated corruption was exposed as part of an investigation into the activities of the lobbyist Jack Abramoff. We now know that he committed despicable acts against his own clients and that he conspired at the same time with certain Members of Congress. His contacts with the White House and his friends are still very much a mystery. Imagine that--contacts with the President of the United States hidden from the public. It is incomprehensible. President Bush refuses to disclose his contacts with Mr. Abramoff for reasons that are unclear. If there is no wrongdoing, there should be nothing to hide. I wish to quote President Bush from a statement he made when running for President in 2000. He said, and I quote him: Americans are tired of investigations, scandals, and the best way to get rid of them is to elect a new President-- We are talking about 2000. --who will bring a new administration, who will restore honor and dignity to the White House. What an empty statement that has proven to be. President Bush pledged to run an ethical White House. Now, as we see, those words seem almost hypocritical. At the very least, in order to keep this pledge, President Bush must release information on contacts between him, his staff, and Mr. Abramoff. What is he ashamed of? Whether he is ashamed of it or not, he ought to release it to clear the air. The public wants these contacts disclosed. The President needs to help the truth come out, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And he should be assisting us in this investigation. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan says President Bush does not know Mr. Abramoff. But there is stark evidence to the contrary. According to Washingtonian magazine, Abramoff said that not only did he know the President but that the President knew the names of Abramoff's children and asked about them during their meeting. There appears to be a long trail of contacts between Mr. Abramoff and the Bush White House. For starters, President Bush put Mr. Abramoff on his 2000 Presidential transition team--a pretty important job. Mr. Abramoff was then able to get his allies appointed to key positions at the Department of the Interior. Why the Department of the Interior? Because it regulates Indian gaming issues that were central to Mr. Abramoff's lobbying business. He was also one of President Bush's top campaign fundraisers, a so- called Pioneer. He raised over $100,000 for President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign. That was the definition of ``Pioneer''--big-time money. According to Time and Newsweek magazines, Mr. Abramoff also sold access to the White House through payments sent to Grover Norquist's front organization, Americans for Tax Reform. Senator Boxer displayed a check which was made out to Indian tribes which paid upwards of $25,000 to Norquist for access to President Bush and his top adviser, Karl Rove. Mr. Abramoff bragged to one his clients, Tyco, that he talked to Karl Rove about their issues. And David Safavian, a White House official now under indictment, funneled confidential information to Abramoff to help Tyco. Mr. Abramoff's own billing records show that his office had almost 200 contacts with the Bush administration in only its first 10 months. The officials listed as contacts included the then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and Vice President Cheney's top advisers. As far back as 1997, there is evidence of contacts between then- Governor Bush and Mr. Abramoff. Abramoff charged his client at the time, the Northern Mariana Islands, to get Governor George W. Bush to write a letter praising the island's education plan. Governor Bush did write such a letter to the island government on July 18, 1997, with a ``cc'' to one of Mr. Abramoff's deputies. The bottom line is that this amendment--once again, I salute my colleague from California for bringing this up, and I intend to support it vigorously--the bottom line is that this amendment urges the President to clear the air. The American people want to know whether the Bush White House was complicit with Mr. Abramoff's schemes. Maybe Mr. Abramoff was exaggerating his contacts with the White House. That is possible. But there is only one way to find out--release the records. We are seeing withholding of information by the White House. I sit on the Committee on Government Accountability. The Republican chairman, Susan Collins, has asked the White House for information related to the Federal Government's response to Hurricane Katrina. We cannot get that. There has been a public display of the requests for that information. Does this suggest this White House is committed to keeping the information--information that belongs to the public--private, within their confines so they can do anything they want and not be challenged with their conduct related to this issue? It looks like a constant pattern. I urge my colleagues to support honest and open government and to vote for the Boxer amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today, I rise to pay tribute to the life of a great American, Coretta Scott King, who passed away last night at the age of 78. Mrs. King, Alabama born, was educated in Ohio and Boston. It was while attending the New England Conservatory of Music that she met a young man from Atlanta, Martin Luther King, Jr. She knew from their first date that Martin Luther King, Jr., was brilliant and exceptional, a born leader. When they were married at her home in Alabama in 1953, Reverend King's father, who was a pastor, performed the ceremony. But at Coretta's request, he omitted the bride's vow to obey her husband. That was pretty bold at that time. It was highly unusual, but it provided a glimpse of the strength and independence Coretta Scott King would demonstrate throughout her life. Coretta Scott King joined her husband in the fight for equality and justice. She believed that was our Nation's promise to every citizen, but it had too long been denied to African Americans. She was Dr. King's constant partner in the struggle for civil rights. She marched alongside him and used her talent as a singer to raise money for their cause while raising their children and keeping their family together in the face of constant threats and a bombing by the Ku Klux Klan. After Dr. King's assassination 38 years ago, Coretta Scott King might have quietly slipped out of public life, but she chose to continue his work. She created the Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Nonviolent Social Change in Atlanta in search of civil rights and equality for everyone in America. Coretta Scott King never lost faith in her husband's dream of peace and mutual respect. I had the honor of being able to identify a courthouse in the city of Newark that was being built as the Martin Luther King, Jr., Courthouse. I called Coretta Scott King to be certain that this was an acceptable item in the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King. We were pleased to do it, and that courthouse stands today as a reminder to everybody who passes in that area, everybody who lives in that region, that Martin Luther King was the great leader that he was, and his wife followed closely in his footsteps. She never wavered from Dr. King's commitment to achieve change through nonviolent means. Dr. King lived long enough to see the passage of landmark legislation that removed legal barriers to equality. His wife lived to see more African Americans and Latino Americans elected as public officials and serving as Secretary of State for the United States, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of the military, and CEOs of companies such as American Express, Kmart, and Time-Warner. Although some of the legal barriers to equality have fallen, economic barriers remain. At the time of his assassination, Dr. King was beginning to focus on economic justice. Today, 38 years later, we still have not achieved his dream of economic justice. That promise rings hollow today for millions of hard-working Americans. It rings hollow for the people who clean the rooms in the big hotels but cannot afford a decent place to live. It rings hollow for garment workers, those who work in the factories over sewing machines and needles and the pressing machines, whose children wear hand-me-down clothes. They work making beautiful clothing, but they cannot afford to clothe their own children in many cases. And farm workers who grow and harvest the crops, they often cannot afford healthy food for their families. Last year, Hurricane Katrina revealed to the whole world the stark poverty that still afflicts our Nation. The greatest majority of the poor people we saw stranded in New Orleans were African Americans. In the past 5 years, the poverty level among African Americans has increased. More than one-third of all Black children in this country live in poverty. That suggests something in the long-term that is not good for them, nor for country. I had the privilege yesterday of going to a school in Patterson, NJ, that I attended many years ago. Patterson, NJ, is a minority city of African Americans and new immigrants. I looked at the faces of those children. We had a demonstration by the band. My wife and I were there. In the faces of those kids you could see hope, and you could see a desire to have a chance at life. It is a terrible condition that prohibits, many times, their opportunity to get an education, to have the kind of nutrition they need to grow healthy bodies and strong minds. The overall poverty rate among African Americans is almost three times as high as non-Hispanic Whites. That is not economic justice, Mr. President. The great promise of America has always been that if you work hard, you can build a better life for your family. Poverty is a national disgrace in this wealthy country we inhabit. Dr. King and Coretta Scott King knew that. They believed America could do better. They loved this country for its promise of liberty and justice for all, and in holding us to that promise, they appealed to the best nature of the American spirit. Mr. President, I find it fitting that on the very day Coretta Scott King passed away, the Smithsonian Institute announced its intention to build a museum of Black history on the National Mall. That is where it belongs; it belongs in the founding elements of our country, to demonstrate the contribution that has been made by African Americans in our society. That museum will be just a few blocks from the Lincoln Memorial, where her husband delivered his famous ``I have a dream'' speech during the 1964 march on Washington. It is an appropriate place--a place where President Abraham Lincoln is remembered for his fight against slavery and the abuse of the people who were kept in this condition. For almost four decades, Coretta Scott King has helped keep that dream alive. Now we must all do the same.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the President's nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to the Supreme Court of the United States. I am pleased to have an opportunity to discuss this and to present reasons why my conclusion is going to be as it is. It is no secret that Judge Alito is from my home State and I was honored to introduce him to the Judiciary Committee. I talked with him privately in my office. He is an accomplished jurist from a distinguished family in New Jersey, and at that hearing our colleague from Pennsylvania, Chairman Arlen Specter, asked me if I was endorsing Judge Alito for this position and I told him I was just presenting evidence to the committee and I will let the record speak for itself. I was not going to make any prejudgments. I wanted to hear from Judge Alito. I wanted to listen to his answers to my colleagues' questions. This nomination, as all are when it comes to the Supreme Court, is an incredibly important moment for our Nation--particularly because Judge Alito has been nominated to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Justice O'Connor, over the past 25 years, has proven she is not an ideologically conservative Justice or a liberal Justice. She has not brought an agenda to the Court. That is why Justice O'Connor has been such an important swing vote--because she always studied the facts and the law and tried to apply them fairly. I did not always agree with her. But, like many Americans, I knew she came at these legal questions fairly and with an open mind. She showed respect for precedent. She put the law above her personal beliefs. In my view, it is critical that we replace Justice O'Connor with someone who shares her openminded approach of looking at the law and the facts with no political agenda. Even the mere threat of legal activism on this Supreme Court threatens the future of this country and the rights of our children, our grandchildren, and other generations. Many legal experts--judges, lawyers, professors--have contacted me regarding this nomination. Some supported him, some opposed him. Many of these experts tried to convince me one way or the other. But when I listened to Judge Alito's hearings in the Judiciary Committee, I listened with the faces of my grandchildren in my mind; with the thoughts of ordinary people who depend on the fairness of our society. I was applying Judge Alito's philosophy to the real problems of everyday people--in New Jersey and across the Nation. I often hear many concerns from my constituents about how powerless they feel in the face of insurance companies that are often indifferent to their plight, or as an employee unfairly treated in the workplace. What rights do everyday Americans have in the face of giant corporations or unchecked Government power? At the hearing, it was clear that Judge Alito almost always lined up against the little guy and with the big corporations and Government. That is the side he came out on. In fact, the Knight-Ridder study of Judge Alito's rulings showed that he ``seldom sided with . . . an employee alleging discrimination or consumers suing big business.'' The Washington Post analysis of all divided opinions on the Third Circuit involving Judge Alito found that he ``has sided against three of every four people who claim to have been victims of discrimination'' and ``routinely . . . defers to government officials and others in a position of government authority.'' I don't think that is what our Founders wanted when they designed the Constitution. I want to give two examples. In Bray v. Marriott, an African-American motel worker in Park Ridge, NJ, alleged discrimination against her employer. The Third Circuit ruled that she deserved her day in court because there was enough evidence of discrimination. But Judge Alito dissented, citing concerns about the cost of trials to employers. Listen to that--citing concerns about the cost of trials to employers. I wonder if the Constitution makes any reference to that or does it say everybody should have equal rights when it comes to hearing their case in the courtroom? The other judges in that case criticized Judge Alito's dissent, saying that if it were law, then the employment discrimination laws would have no real effect. In another case, Sheridan v. Dupont, Judge Alito was the only judge of 11 judges who heard the case to find against a woman's claim of gender discrimination. Judge Alito stated that the alleged victim should not even get a trial. That is absolutely contrary to what our country is about. This is a nation of laws. The other judges were so distressed by Judge Alito's decision that they said ``the judicial system has little to gain by Judge Alito's approach.'' So if he is confirmed to the Supreme Court we ask ourselves the question: Will Judge Alito make it more difficult for the everyday people to protect themselves and their families against the power of big business and unchecked Government? Do they need the help? Is that what we are talking about when we enact laws here? I hope not. Unfortunately, it appears almost certain. Regarding individual rights, there was a very disturbing exchange in the hearing involving the Constitutional right to reproductive choice. Senator Durbin asked Judge Alito if he would agree with Chief Justice Roberts' statement that the right to choose is ``settled law.'' It seems to me that it was a ``no-brainer''--of course it is settled law. It has been on the books for 33 years and upheld 38 times. You don't have to go to law school to figure that one out. But Judge Alito refused to say it was ``settled law.'' To me it was a telling moment in the hearings. I am not a lawyer, but I understand this: The right to choose is settled law. That means that is the law as it is seen by Judge Roberts, Chief Justice. Judge Alito's refusal to acknowledge that the right to choose is settled law indicates to me that, even before he sits on the Supreme Court, he intends to overturn Roe v. Wade. That is the interpretation I make from that. For everyday New Jerseyans, especially our State's women, that would be the realization of a nightmare. We do not want to turn back the clock on women's rights. Even if abortions become illegal, they will still happen--but largely in unsafe conditions. It's a nightmare that I do not want to risk happening. Then there is the issue of abuse of power and the power of the Presidency. Growing up in New Jersey, it is clear that our state is proud of our role in the American War for Independence. More battles of the Revolutionary War were fought in New Jersey than in any other state. The most famous image of that war is George Washington crossing the Delaware River at Trenton. New Jersey is a state of immigrants. Many New Jerseyans came to America to escape kings, despots and dictators. So we understand why we fought the War of Independence to get rid of King George. America doesn't want a king or an ``imperial President.'' Neither does New Jersey. That's why we have three co-equal branches of government. So when Judge Alito talked about his theory of a ``unitary executive''--a President above the other two branches of government--I found that very troubling. The Father of our Nation, George Washington, warned the American people about allowing a leader to claim too much power. In his farewell address to the nation, Washington indicated his concern about the Presidency becoming too powerful. He said we should avoid allowing: the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. Those are Washington's words. But they have a real resonance today. The current administration claims a power beyond the laws that Congress has set. It is an administration that believes it can spy on Americans without a warrant, despite specific laws to the contrary. These are the kinds of abuses that caused the citizens of New Jersey and the other American colonies to rise up against King George We don't want a King. And we don't want to create a Supreme Court that will crown this President--or any future President--Republican or Democratic. The question before us is not a generic question of whether Judge Alito is qualified for the Supreme Court. The real question is whether Judge Alito is the right person for this seat on the Supreme Court. The seat at issue is Sandra Day O'Connor's seat. It is a seat held by a middle of the road, balanced justice. As I noted during my testimony introducing Judge Alito to the Judiciary Committee: he is a young man. If the Senate confirms him for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, he might serve for three decades--or even longer. His decisions would affect not only our rights, but also the rights of our children, our grandchildren and other future generations. That's why, after careful consideration and deliberation, I have decided to vote no on the confirmation of Judge Alito. He is a good, decent man--an ethical man. I do not think he subscribes to any bigoted views. But I believe there is a grave risk that he carries a legal agenda with him, one that he will bring to the Supreme Court. I don't think this is a black-and-white issue. I think it is a gray issue. If there is a gray issue, if there is doubt about where we are going to come out, I want to decide on protecting women's rights and protecting ordinary people in fairness before a court of law. While there will be law professors and others who will disagree with my analysis, as I said before, I am more concerned about the effect of this nomination on everyday people in New Jersey and across the country. I am proud that there is a Federal courthouse in Newark that carries my name. It was while I was absent from the Senate a while that that was done. But I fought hard to get an inscription placed on the wall of that courthouse. I wrote it. It reads: The true measure of a democracy is its dispensation of justice. This Nation of laws has to continue to be just that, and people have to know that they are treated fairly and that their personal rights are protected and that they can bring courses of action if their rights are damaged. I believe in that quote. It guides me today. For the parents fighting an insurance company for access to health care for their child, for the blue-collar worker facing harassment in the workplace, for women who want government's hands off their bodies, for everyday people, I will oppose this nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Charles F. Cummings, the official historian of Newark, NJ. Mr. Cummings passed away on December 21, 2005, at the age of 68. Mr. Cummings was born in Puerto Rico and raised in Virginia, but it was Newark, NJ, to which he pledged his life's work. With a master's degree in American History from Vanderbilt University, Mr. Cummings arrived in New Jersey in 1963 to begin a job with the Newark Public Library. He adapted quickly to his new home, studying the history and traditions of both the city and the State. Before long, Mr. Cummings was renowned for having an encyclopedic knowledge of all things New Jersey. Not content to keep this information to himself, Mr. Cummings sought to make the State's history public knowledge so that the people of Newark would love his adopted home as much as he did. As an employee of the Newark Public Library for over 40 years, Mr. Cummings took pride in curating public exhibitions that shed light on the history of Newark and brought to life the stories of those who lived there. Mr. Cummings shared the history and accomplishments of Newark with thousands of New Jersey residents by conducting walking tours of the city and writing a regular column for the The Star Ledger of New Jersey called ``Knowing Newark.'' He also served as an affiliate member of the Rutgers University Federated Department of history, where he taught a popular undergraduate course on the history of Newark. There has hardly been a person, past or present, who has cared about the history of Newark the way Mr. Cummings did. He was an indispensable resource for journalists, historians, and citizens alike. While Mr. Cummings will be missed by the people of New Jersey, he will be forever cherished as a loyal friend, a great man, and a true Newark treasure. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Charles F. Cummings and the immeasurable contributions he has made to the city of Newark and the State of New Jersey.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medicare State Reimbursement Act along with my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Schumer, Coleman, Feinstein, Pryor, DeWine, Boxer, Menendez, Collins, Dayton, Reed, Jeffords, Lincoln, Leahy, Wyden, Stabenow, Johnson, Kennedy, Dorgan, Lieberman, Clinton, Chafee and Dodd. There have been many difficulties surrounding implementation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, however, few have experienced the severity of the problems that those who are dually eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid have faced. ``Dual Eligibles'' are the Nation's poorest seniors and the disabled. Many suffer from multiple, chronic, debilitating conditions and on average take between five and ten medications per day. Missing even one dose of medication could result in a life threatening situation. Across America, countless beneficiaries who tried to have their prescriptions filled for the first time under the new system were told that their enrollment could not be verified, their drugs were not covered, or they would be charged larger co-payments or deductibles than they could afford. As a result, many were at risk of not receiving lifesaving prescription drugs. Regardless of how Senators voted on the Medicare Drug bill, I think all Senators can agree on one thing: the flaws in the startup of this program are unacceptable. Fortunately, a number of States including New Jersey have taken actions to help those who have experienced problems with access to medications under the new prescription drug benefit. As of Wednesday this week, New Jersey had already spent $16.6 million dollars. Congress has been asking the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services whether New Jersey and other States will be paid back for its expenditures. The answers we have gotten so far are not satisfactory. That is why we need to legislate on this issue. It must be crystal clear to the Federal Government that it needs to repay these States that are bailing them out. Accordingly, I am introducing emergency legislation today that will reimburse States for the cost they have incurred for filling this unanticipated gap in coverage. Specifically, this legislation would: require the Federal Government to reimburse the states for the cost of prescriptions for low income seniors and people with disabilities (``dual eligibles'') who were eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D, but were improperly denied Federal coverage. Reimburse states through an equivalent reduction in funds owed by each state under the ``claw back'' provision of the new Medicare law. Reimbursement will be at a rate equal to 100 percent of all State costs plus an interest rate equal to the market rate on 3-month Treasury Securities plus 0.1 percent. Directs the Secretary of HHS to recover overpayments by states to private prescription drug plans and return that money to the Medicare Trust Fund. This is not just about access to the Federal entitlement program-- it's about life and death. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation and move for its immediate passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medicare State Reimbursement Act along with my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Schumer, Coleman, Feinstein, Pryor, DeWine, Boxer, Menendez, Collins, Dayton, Reed, Jeffords, Lincoln, Leahy, Wyden, Stabenow, Johnson, Kennedy, Dorgan, Lieberman, Clinton, Chafee and Dodd. There have been many difficulties surrounding implementation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, however, few have experienced the severity of the problems that those who are dually eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid have faced. ``Dual Eligibles'' are the Nation's poorest seniors and the disabled. Many suffer from multiple, chronic, debilitating conditions and on average take between five and ten medications per day. Missing even one dose of medication could result in a life threatening situation. Across America, countless beneficiaries who tried to have their prescriptions filled for the first time under the new system were told that their enrollment could not be verified, their drugs were not covered, or they would be charged larger co-payments or deductibles than they could afford. As a result, many were at risk of not receiving lifesaving prescription drugs. Regardless of how Senators voted on the Medicare Drug bill, I think all Senators can agree on one thing: the flaws in the startup of this program are unacceptable. Fortunately, a number of States including New Jersey have taken actions to help those who have experienced problems with access to medications under the new prescription drug benefit. As of Wednesday this week, New Jersey had already spent $16.6 million dollars. Congress has been asking the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services whether New Jersey and other States will be paid back for its expenditures. The answers we have gotten so far are not satisfactory. That is why we need to legislate on this issue. It must be crystal clear to the Federal Government that it needs to repay these States that are bailing them out. Accordingly, I am introducing emergency legislation today that will reimburse States for the cost they have incurred for filling this unanticipated gap in coverage. Specifically, this legislation would: require the Federal Government to reimburse the states for the cost of prescriptions for low income seniors and people with disabilities (``dual eligibles'') who were eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D, but were improperly denied Federal coverage. Reimburse states through an equivalent reduction in funds owed by each state under the ``claw back'' provision of the new Medicare law. Reimbursement will be at a rate equal to 100 percent of all State costs plus an interest rate equal to the market rate on 3-month Treasury Securities plus 0.1 percent. Directs the Secretary of HHS to recover overpayments by states to private prescription drug plans and return that money to the Medicare Trust Fund. This is not just about access to the Federal entitlement program-- it's about life and death. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation and move for its immediate passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medicare State Reimbursement Act along with my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Schumer, Coleman, Feinstein, Pryor, DeWine, Boxer, Menendez, Collins, Dayton, Reed, Jeffords, Lincoln, Leahy, Wyden, Stabenow, Johnson, Kennedy, Dorgan, Lieberman, Clinton, Chafee and Dodd. There have been many difficulties surrounding implementation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, however, few have experienced the severity of the problems that those who are dually eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid have faced. ``Dual Eligibles'' are the Nation's poorest seniors and the disabled. Many suffer from multiple, chronic, debilitating conditions and on average take between five and ten medications per day. Missing even one dose of medication could result in a life threatening situation. Across America, countless beneficiaries who tried to have their prescriptions filled for the first time under the new system were told that their enrollment could not be verified, their drugs were not covered, or they would be charged larger co-payments or deductibles than they could afford. As a result, many were at risk of not receiving lifesaving prescription drugs. Regardless of how Senators voted on the Medicare Drug bill, I think all Senators can agree on one thing: the flaws in the startup of this program are unacceptable. Fortunately, a number of States including New Jersey have taken actions to help those who have experienced problems with access to medications under the new prescription drug benefit. As of Wednesday this week, New Jersey had already spent $16.6 million dollars. Congress has been asking the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services whether New Jersey and other States will be paid back for its expenditures. The answers we have gotten so far are not satisfactory. That is why we need to legislate on this issue. It must be crystal clear to the Federal Government that it needs to repay these States that are bailing them out. Accordingly, I am introducing emergency legislation today that will reimburse States for the cost they have incurred for filling this unanticipated gap in coverage. Specifically, this legislation would: require the Federal Government to reimburse the states for the cost of prescriptions for low income seniors and people with disabilities (``dual eligibles'') who were eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D, but were improperly denied Federal coverage. Reimburse states through an equivalent reduction in funds owed by each state under the ``claw back'' provision of the new Medicare law. Reimbursement will be at a rate equal to 100 percent of all State costs plus an interest rate equal to the market rate on 3-month Treasury Securities plus 0.1 percent. Directs the Secretary of HHS to recover overpayments by states to private prescription drug plans and return that money to the Medicare Trust Fund. This is not just about access to the Federal entitlement program-- it's about life and death. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation and move for its immediate passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medicare State Reimbursement Act along with my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Schumer, Coleman, Feinstein, Pryor, DeWine, Boxer, Menendez, Collins, Dayton, Reed, Jeffords, Lincoln, Leahy, Wyden, Stabenow, Johnson, Kennedy, Dorgan, Lieberman, Clinton, Chafee and Dodd. There have been many difficulties surrounding implementation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, however, few have experienced the severity of the problems that those who are dually eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid have faced. ``Dual Eligibles'' are the Nation's poorest seniors and the disabled. Many suffer from multiple, chronic, debilitating conditions and on average take between five and ten medications per day. Missing even one dose of medication could result in a life threatening situation. Across America, countless beneficiaries who tried to have their prescriptions filled for the first time under the new system were told that their enrollment could not be verified, their drugs were not covered, or they would be charged larger co-payments or deductibles than they could afford. As a result, many were at risk of not receiving lifesaving prescription drugs. Regardless of how Senators voted on the Medicare Drug bill, I think all Senators can agree on one thing: the flaws in the startup of this program are unacceptable. Fortunately, a number of States including New Jersey have taken actions to help those who have experienced problems with access to medications under the new prescription drug benefit. As of Wednesday this week, New Jersey had already spent $16.6 million dollars. Congress has been asking the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services whether New Jersey and other States will be paid back for its expenditures. The answers we have gotten so far are not satisfactory. That is why we need to legislate on this issue. It must be crystal clear to the Federal Government that it needs to repay these States that are bailing them out. Accordingly, I am introducing emergency legislation today that will reimburse States for the cost they have incurred for filling this unanticipated gap in coverage. Specifically, this legislation would: require the Federal Government to reimburse the states for the cost of prescriptions for low income seniors and people with disabilities (``dual eligibles'') who were eligible for coverage under Medicare Part D, but were improperly denied Federal coverage. Reimburse states through an equivalent reduction in funds owed by each state under the ``claw back'' provision of the new Medicare law. Reimbursement will be at a rate equal to 100 percent of all State costs plus an interest rate equal to the market rate on 3-month Treasury Securities plus 0.1 percent. Directs the Secretary of HHS to recover overpayments by states to private prescription drug plans and return that money to the Medicare Trust Fund. This is not just about access to the Federal entitlement program-- it's about life and death. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation and move for its immediate passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the leadership for according me an opportunity to present my new colleague. All of us are going to be missing Jon Corzine, a dear friend and former colleague who served this body very well but responded to the call of duty when things in New Jersey needed a leading hand. Jon Corzine responded and took up the assignment. In Senator Corzine's place, we are fortunate to be able to have a candidate of the skill and knowledge that Senator Robert Menendez has. Bob Menendez is a typical American story. He was born in America of parents who had immigrated from Cuba. He has worked his way through the system very well. As a very young man--high school age--he challenged the mayor and the leadership of the community in which he lived in New Jersey and fought his way to making certain they were going to be cleaning up some of their bad habits in Union City, such that he had to at times wear a bulletproof vest when he was 17 years old. He, thusly, had a place in the political mainstream as a very young man. He became mayor of Union City, NJ, and then served in our general assembly from 1987 until 1991 and in the New Jersey Senate--he has been through all of the steps to leadership--from 1991 to 1993. He then came to the U.S. Congress and was soon appointed--he worked hard to get it. I should strike the word ``appointed'' and say he worked his way so that he became the third most powerful member on the Democratic side in the House of Representatives. I look forward to working with Bob. Bob comes from Hudson County, one of our most populated counties in the most densely populated State in the country. He worked on the issues of transportation, and education is a particular interest of his. It can be reflected in the fact that his daughter, Alicia Menendez, was the commencement speaker at her graduation from Harvard. I was very impressed at the leadership provided by her family, by her father's interest in public speaking, and in Government. She had to prepare her address in a competition to see who would be the student commencement speaker. Alicia won that competition with a very lengthy speech. She then, contrary to our habits here, was told to put aside her notes, take a microphone, and make the speech verbally to the graduating class of Harvard, I think it was 2 years ago. And she did it wonderfully--again, a reflection of the leadership that Bob Menendez provided to the family. His son Robert is at a university in North Carolina and is also a very accomplished young man. Mr. Menendez and I will be working together on lots of issues that we worked on in the past, I as a Senator and he as a Congressman, particularly, again, focused on transportation, environment, and security. Bob Menendez's county had the biggest loss of those who perished on 9/11--over 700 people from New Jersey. Bob Menendez was there to help provide some warmth, friendship, and leadership to the problems that followed the loss of those loved ones and the impairment that it brought to those families. I am so pleased to have someone who understands New Jersey fully, who has lived the traditional dream from very modest working class parents who escaped Cuba in those very dark days and lifted himself up by his bootstraps. We are going to be working together on issues such as transportation, education, security, and some of the problems we now see with Medicare. My State of New Jersey now has spent $15 million in the last couple of weeks trying to help people get their prescription drugs as a result of the enormous change that took place starting in 2006. They could not get the product, and the State of New Jersey jumped in, as I would gather almost every State in this country has done, and that is to fill in where Medicare dropped off. I look forward to working with Bob Menendez on that issue, and I hope it will be high on the list--on an urgent list--of matters to which we have to attend. Meanwhile, I once again say that Bob Menendez represents not only New Jersey, but he represents the contribution that Latino Americans make to this country. Bob Menendez will be the third person to join this Senate with a Hispanic background--Senator Martinez, Senator Salazar, and now Senator Menendez. It is so appropriate when such a large portion of our population has that cultural background. They are wonderful contributing citizens in our State. We have a very large Latino population, and they are all very proud of Senator Menendez. It is a historic day for the State of New Jersey and for the country that one of our terrific colleagues is now the Governor of the State of New Jersey. I predict he will be looking in the mirror one of these days and questioning the change he decided to make. He has a tough job. There is a lot of debt. We had some unfortunate mistakes in governance over the past few years. We are desperately in need of support for transportation and other programs. I think Jon Corzine, with his leadership training, having been the chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, will make a difference. He left here to take on what he considered a more important, immediate test. We are so pleased that he is replaced by someone such as Robert Menendez, Senator Menendez, who just walked in. I remember the days--my colleague from Virginia is on the floor. We have been around here a long time. So very often the issues of wonderment disappear. We are into the nitty-gritty of issues and we forget sometimes about the excitement of being able to serve in this body. The Presiding Officer knows exactly what I am talking about, having been here only a short time, but also having come from the House of Representatives, and note that change. When I spoke to Bob Menendez and described to him the seat that he would have, which is the furthest away that one can get, he said to me that he is happy to have a seat anywhere in this Chamber. Sometimes we forget that in our daily toil. I wound up sitting right near where the Senator from Virginia is, and I was talking to Scoop Jackson. I said: Nice seat. He said: Don't get used to it, you're not going to keep it. In the next couple of days, I wound up over in the freshman seats. Bob Menendez is a freshman, skilled, able, knowledgeable. We are very excited about him being here. He is going to be a wonderful Member of the Senate. I thank the Chair and thank the leadership for granting me the opportunity to speak today.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, over the weekend the Senate passed my resolution, S. Res. 338, to honor the first 2,152 troops who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan by listing their names and hometowns in the Congressional Record. They deserve this tribute for their valiant support of their military obligations. I appreciate the support of my colleagues on this measure. It is a symbolic way for us to honor each of our fallen heroes individually. But there is another way we can honor their memory. And that is to be honest and truthful about the war in which they fought--Iraq. The President has taken small steps toward candor on Iraq, but the denial of reality is still apparent in his speeches. To make matters worse, the President is still making insulting insinuations about those who criticize his Iraq policy. In his Sunday night address to the nation, President Bush said: Some look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that the war is lost, and not worth another dime or another day. Does this statement suggest that those who disagree with the President would not even spend a trivial amount to protect America's international interests? The President states that the sacrifices in Iraq are made in dimes and days. But what about lives? What about the more than two American lives given each day so far this year in Iraq? The President didn't mention that. I have gone to many memorial services and funerals for brave, young Americans from New Jersey who died in Iraq. Seventy-three soldiers with ties to New Jersey have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have also visited Walter Reed Army Hospital here in Washington several times, and I have been struck by the incredible resilience and dedication to country of those young Americans. While these brave men and women put their lives on the line, this administration bypasses reality. Today we know that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to our national security. We know that there were not weapons of mass destruction. We also learned that Iraq had nothinq to do with 9/11 and actually had an adversarial relationship with al-Qaida. There is no doubt Saddam Hussein was a maniacal dictator who killed, tortured, and suppressed his own people. But President Bush did not call for an invasion of Iraq based on Saddam's treatment of his own people. President Bush called for war with Iraq because he argued that Saddam was a direct threat to the American people. That turned out to be untrue, plain and simple. Now, in the wake of the administration's mishandling of this war, much of Iraq has turned into a magnet for terrorists and extremists. President Bush continues to say that Iraq is a ``central front of the war on terror.'' But the reality is that Iraq has become a terrorist front as a result of President Bush's mistakes. Our 160,000 troops in Iraq have become a tarqet for cowardly insurgents who attack us with roadside bombs and suicide attacks. This is not progress. Despite claims by supporters of the President's Iraq policy we are not making sufficient progress in Iraq. Unfortunately, we may be sinking deeper into a quaqmire. We have not made progress because the President has never put together a coherent plan for postinvasion Iraq. For evidence of this, one need only look at the infamous speech aboard the aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, when President Bush declared ``mission accomplished.'' ``Mission accomplished'' sure sounded like the job was done and our troops can begin to come home. But we now know the mission was not accomplished on May 1, 2003. More recently, over the past few weeks, President Bush has been making speeches about Iraq in an attempt to reshape people's perceptions of the war. The President knows that polls show that a majority of the American people do not believe that the war is being managed properly. President Bush thinks if something is repeated often enough, people will eventually believe it. But the American people will not stand still while we lose more of our courageous young men and women. We all pray that Thursday's Iraqi elections will lead to a viable government that will create stability. It could be a critical first step. But where are the plans if the elections do not lead to success? How long until more lost lives exhaust the patience and will of the American people? In the meantime, supporters of the President point to evidence of significant progress as more satellite dishes appear on Iraqi roofs and cell phones are in Iraqi hands. But while the anxiety and fear existing in thousands of American families continues, Iraqi satellite dishes and cell phones do not suggest relief. It seems possible to get an honest assessment from the administration of any future plans to get our people home. That probably explains why some of President Bush's statements on Iraq have been contradicted by current military leaders. For example, last June President Bush said there were 160,000 Iraqi troops trained and ready to fight. But then, a few months later, Gen. Georqe W. Casey, Jr.--the top U.S. commander in Iraq--said only one Iraqi battalion was able to conduct operations independently of American forces. That means less than a thousand Iraqi soldiers were actually equipped to fight without our help. And we should pay close attention to what the former head of U.S. Central Command--retired Gen. Anthony Zinni--said about this Iraq operation. General Zinni has described the poor planning for the Iraq war as, ``at a minimum true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption.'' General Zinni went on to say, ``And to think that we are going to `stay the course'--the course is headed over Niagra Falls.'' Other generals with vast experience voiced serious doubt to the White House about Iraq, including Norman Schwarzkopf, Wesley Clark, Brent Scowcroft and Eric Shinseki. But the people who wear a suit--not a uniform--in the administration didn't listen. I served in the Army. I have met thousands of soldiers. I know that it takes about 3 months to turn a young American into a trained and dedicated soldier. So why has it taken almost 3 years to train a handful of Iraqis to be able to fight for their country? President Bush also said this war has made us safer. But Iraq is not safe for our troops or the Iraqi people. We had 85 soldiers killed last month--one of the deadliest months since the war began. There have been over 70 suicide bombings in the last 2 months, an average of more than one a day and more than 3,000 concealed bombs either exploded or discovered. President Bush points to last Thursday's parliamentary elections in Iraq as a sign that there is light at the end of the tunnel. Let's hope this is true. But we have heard rosy predictions from this President before, yet the insurgency seemed to only grow each time. Remember: We also heard rosy predictions when the President said ``mission accomplished.'' We heard it when Saddam Hussein was captured. We heard it a year ago after the first election in Iraq. Meanwhile, 2,158 of our best young Americans have been killed. And nearly 16,000 have been wounded--many with injuries that will forever change their lives. No wonder a significant majority of the American people do not believe that President Bush has a plan to end this war. That is why it is time for the President to give the American people a realistic plan for bringing our troops home. What needs to happen? How many Iraqi troops need to be trained? Let us set reliable goals for our mission, with an understanding of what it will take to get the job done and brinq our troops back home to their families. Mr. President, we don't want our leader to deny us the hard facts of war. And we don't want the price of this conflict hidden by prohibiting photographs of the flag-draped coffins that carry heroes back to our shores. We need a leader who recognizes what a majority of the American people see taking place in front of their eyes on television, in our newspapers, in our homes, and in our hearts. President Bush, I ask you to be frank with us about what we are facing in the future in Iraq. Show us how you will work to avoid further loss of life. And while we honor the memories of those who have perished, we must do whatever we can to make life more bearable for their families.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to pay my respects to someone I knew very well, Preston Robert Tisch, who passed away last month of brain cancer. He was a distinguished American who, along with his brother, Laurence, built a giant financial enterprise. Bob was eminently successful at everything he did, particularly in his role as a husband, father and grandfather. I, like all who had contact with Bob Tisch, treasure my times with him. I send my deepest condolences to his wife and family. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement released by the New York Giants organization that so perfectly describes the life and accomplishments of Bob Tisch. He will be long remembered by all who knew him.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to the Newark field office of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on the occasion of its 40th anniversary in my home State of New Jersey. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, administers programs that increase homeownership, provide aid for housing for lower income people, support community development, and increase access to housing free from discrimination. For 40 years, the staff of the Newark field office has embraced this mission and effectively partnered with faith-based and community organizations to help provide housing assistance to the homeless, elderly, people with disabilities, and people living with AIDS. Today, under the leadership of Diane Johnson, the Newark field office is leading the way in helping more low- and moderate-income New Jerseyans realize the American dream of becoming homeowners. For example, in the city of Trenton, the HUD-designated ``Homeownership Zone'' is helping first-time homebuyers and minority families purchase homes. Since its creation in 1992, the HOPE VI Program has helped transform the HUD's approach to housing assistance for the poor. In New Jersey, HOPE VI has successfully generated over $1 billion to revitalize distressed public housing. This investment has changed the housing landscape in towns and cities throughout the State by replacing severely distressed public housing projects, occupied exclusively by poor families, with redesigned mixed-income housing. The Housing Choice Voucher Program has grown into the dominant form of federal housing assistance, helping 65,000 low-income families in New Jersey afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. It is with great respect that I extend my warmest congratulations to the Newark field office on four decades of success and to Diane Johnson who has been a tireless advocate on behalf of HUD's programs and the people who benefit from them.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the departure of Mr. James D.E. Jones from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. A native of Morristown, NJ, Mr. Jones has served with the Port Authority for 20 years, 19 of them in the Washington, DC, office. During this time, he served as liaison with Congress and several administrations on issues involving aviation, surface transportation, economic development, and public finance. I know Mr. Jones primarily for his efforts and expertise on aviation matters. As a former Port Authority commissioner, I can tell you that the Port Authority is the most complex regional transportation agency in the country. It runs three major airports where almost 100 million passengers traveled in and out of last year. It operates the largest seaport on east coast of the United States and the second largest container port in the country. It runs a bistate mass transit system and maintains under its care and responsibility such landmark assets as the Lincoln Tunnel, the Holland Tunnel, the Bayonne Bridge, the George Washington Bridge, and the World Trade Center complex in lower Manhattan. During his service at the Port Authority, Mr. Jones assisted policymakers in Washington as our country debated such ideas as deregulation of the airline industry to responding to the 9/11 terror attacks, which involved a substantial modification of how we provide for aviation security in our country. Previously, Mr. Jones served as a senior staff member in the U.S. Department of Transportation's Office of the Secretary, where he focused on policy development and international agreements. In that capacity, he represented the U.S. Secretary of Transportation in dozens of bilateral international negotiations on aviation, taking him to 20 foreign countries. Mr. Jones completed his undergraduate work at Howard University and received his MBA degree from Harvard University Business School. His accomplishments are evidence that his skills have certainly served him well throughout his career. I am thankful for Mr. Jones' service at the Port Authority. His talents were a great asset to policymakers and lawmakers throughout the Federal Government, and his services helped shape policies for our country that make our aviation system the envy of the world. On behalf of many New Jersey travelers, I thank Mr. Jones, and I wish him continued success.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to thank a dedicated public servant for his service to the people of New Jersey. Mr. Paul H. Bea, Jr., has been Washington representative for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for over 25 years, serving as a voice of the Port Authority here in Washington, DC. As a former Port Authority Commissioner, I can tell you that this agency is the most complex regional transportation agency in the country. It runs three major airports that handled almost 100 million passengers last year. It operates the largest seaport on the east coast of the United States and the second largest container gateway in the country. It runs a bi-state mass transit system and maintains under its care and responsibility such landmark assets as the Lincoln Tunnel, the Holland Tunnel, the Bayonne Bridge, the George Washington Bridge, and the World Trade Center complex in lower Manhattan. Mr. Bea has provided lawmakers and policy makers advice and information on a variety of topics including the Federal budget, aviation, surface transportation, tax, and trade issues, but he has developed a particular expertise in the field of maritime, port security, and environmental matters. Through Paul's work with the New Jersey and New York congressional delegations on behalf of the Port of New York-New Jersey, he has contributed to the improvement of both the underwater infrastructure and the Hudson-Raritan estuary. In 2002, Paul became chairman of the Coastwise Coalition, a public- private sector partnership that works to educate policy makers on the potential of domestic waterborne transportation to enhance the capacity of the national transportation system. In 2004, he was invited by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, Norman Y. Mineta serve on the Maritime Transportation System National Advisory Council. His principal efforts on that panel involve coastwise shipping, intermodal freight transportation, and waterway issues. Mr. Bea's experience in Washington dates back to 1970, when he arrived to work on the staff of the late Congressman Edward J. Patten from New Jersey. He was responsible for Federal budget, appropriations, energy, environment, transportation and other issue areas. In 1978, Mr. Bea went to work as a Washington representative for New Jersey Governor Brendan T. Byrne on environmental and energy concerns, which were a focus of President Carter's administration at the time. I am very grateful for Mr. Bea's service at the Port Authority. His capable representation has helped the Federal Government navigate through some very tumultuous times for our country, including the 9/11 terror attack on the World Trade Center, and the bombings at the same location in 1993. On behalf of the people of New Jersey, I thank Mr. Bea for all he has done and will continue to do to make our country a safer, more secure, and efficient place to live and conduct business, and I wish him well.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wasn't here when Jon Corzine arrived in the Senate 5 years ago in fact, he actually took my place at the time. We met to share ideas on an agenda for New Jersey and America and I followed his progress closely. I was impressed by what I saw in Jon's service in the Senate, where he has earned respect and affection. Jon came from great success in the world of finance and industry, but he is able to communicate with ordinary people, as well. Some people arrive here and immediately head for the headlines. But that isn't Jon Corzine's style. Jon is a committed ``workhorse,'' who works long hours with high intensity. He doesn't have a lot of flash, but he is very effective. He came to Washington for one reason: to serve the people of New Jersey. Now, with some sorrow on my part, he is leaving us here for the same reason: to help New Jersey even more directly. Even before the terrorist attacks on 9/11, work had been done to strengthen security at our chemical plants. Jon recognized the importance of that issue long before most people, so when he arrived here in the Senate, he took the ball and ran with it. Jon introduced a plan to overhaul security at chemical plants, and many people were surprised when he got it unanimously approved in committee. But those who know Jon Corzine weren't surprised. Even when that bill was blocked by lobbyists, Jon didn't give up. He has continued to fight to make our chemical plants safer. He has raised awareness of the problem, which I will take up once again, because we are at risk across this Nation from the most horrible devastation to our people and communities. Jon Corzine carried an agenda here that was so appropriate for New Jersey that he established a place for himself in the history of the State even before he becomes Governor. I wasn't a Member of the Senate on that fateful day of September 11, 2001, when my State lost almost 700 people. But I knew we would have a strong advocate in Jon Corzine. And we did. Jon listened to the families who had lost loved ones, and he knew they deserved answers. So he fought to establish the 9/11 Commission. I honestly don't think it ever would have come to pass without his efforts. He has been a great ally in my fight to make New Jersey and our Nation safer by directing homeland security resources to where they are most needed. By the time I returned to the Senate almost 3 years ago, Jon had earned a reputation as a hard worker who cares more about getting results than getting credit. People had learned that when you talk to Jon Corzine, he really listens. They had learned that he isn't in love with the sound of his own voice. And they had learned that when Jon Corzine does speak, he has something to say. Three years ago our Nation was rocked by the Enron scandal, and by other incidents that undermined public confidence in the integrity of major corporations. With his background as the CEO of one of the largest financial services firms in the country, Jon realized the importance of restoring public trust and confidence. Even though he worked mostly behind the scenes on the Sarbanes-Oxley bill the most far-reaching corporate reform law since the Great Depression he was recognized by the New York Times as the bill's ``primary architect.'' Sarbanes-Oxley improved business accounting standards, helped restore investor confidence, and protected the savings of millions of Americans. Jon's name isn't on that bill, but his influence is. Jon has been a great teammate for me, working for New Jersey day in and day out. He has also worked with many of you, on both sides of the aisle. I know how hard he has worked with Senator Brownback, for instance, to stop genocide in the Darfur region of the Sudan. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Jon offered the first Senate resolution to classify this horrific situation as ``genocide.'' The passage of this bipartisan resolution, coupled with other efforts to increase awareness of atrocities in Darfur, prompted then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to declare that genocide was in fact occurring. After traveling to Sudan personally, Senator Corzine championed a successful bipartisan effort to provide $75 million for African Union peacekeeping troops. He also introduced a bill establishing sanctions against Sudan, which the Senate passed. Jon served in the Marine Corps Reserves, and he understands the burdens on our men and women in uniform especially the National Guard and Reserves, who have provided so many of the troops in Iraq. After I served in World War II, I went to college on the G.I. bill. Jon Corzine has worked to update the G.I. bill for the 21st century, to meet rising education costs. He has fought for better health care for veterans and military families. And he sponsored a bill that will help 90,000 vets buy their own homes. For these reasons and many more, the Veterans of Foreign Wars gave Jon their Congressional Award in 2004. Over the past 3 years I have been proud to call Jon Corzine my friend and my colleague. Today, I am equally proud to call him the next Governor of my home State of New Jersey. I will miss him here in the Senate. But I will take comfort in knowing that he will be leading New Jersey in the right direction. I hope all of my colleagues will join me today in wishing Senator Corzine a fond farewell and great success in the future. I yield the floor.