Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I think current law describes that. We will use that as the standard. Again, there is no intention here to bypass the rules. It is to confirm clearly that if you talk about this, we are not saying you go to jail. We are not saying anything else. But you certainly should no longer have access to classified information.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes. We will certainly try to do that.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2370

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have offered an amendment to ensure that people understand what they are signing up for when the new Medicare drug benefit comes to life and that is beginning in 2006. There is such a mix of things that the recipient beneficiaries, I am sure, will be very confused as to what the cost is going to be on the gap of coverage, whether they have to pay it all out of their pockets. I want to make sure they understand what it is they are applying for and the pitfalls or the advantages thereof. This is very simple. We ask them to sign a note when they apply for the plan so that they are saying they are fully aware of the consequences of their signature. This should be passed, Mr. President, because it helps the senior citizens understand what it is they are getting into.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, pursuant to the relevant sections of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive those sections for consideration of the pending amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what is the distribution of time? I thought we had 15 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Six of our 15? Was that the arrangement, I ask the Senator from Mississippi? I thought we had a clear 15 minutes on our side.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am not hearing the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. But I thought it was clearly understood. I ask unanimous consent we have 30 minutes, except for the time used already, divided in the presentation. This is an important amendment. I ask unanimous consent we be allowed 30 minutes, minus the time the Senator from Mississippi has already used.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. How much time is still available to the proponents of the legislation?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Six minutes 22 seconds.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We have several requests for time to speak on this amendment. I wonder whether it is not possible to give us the opportunity to have those who would speak on behalf of the amendment offset by any opposition, in an equal amount of time, to give us 15 minutes to let the proponents make the case. We will try to be as brief as we can. We will try to be as brief as we can, so we can develop high-speed service for Amtrak and scoot along.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator from Mississippi, I assume, yields time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi and commend him for the development of this amendment. Mr. President, I rise to echo the sentiments of Senator Lott, who serves so ably as chairman of the Commerce Committee's rail subcommittee. Like him, I believe it is critical that we act to improve passenger rail service in our country. One of the lessons we learned on 9/11 was that our Nation cannot afford to rely entirely on one mode of transportation. When our aviation system shut down that day, Amtrak was able to reunite thousands of travelers with their families. We also saw chaotic evacuations during the recent hurricanes, with motorists stuck in traffic for hours, and those without cars left behind. We need rail service to help move our citizens to safety during emergencies. And, of course, congestion isn't just limited to our roads. The DOT has had to cap the number of flights at Chicago's O'Hare airport cutting 37 flights a day because of congestion. Even between here and New York City, ground delays can be as much as an hour, when the flight itself is only 39 minutes of air time. We all know flight delays and cancellations are common. Coupled with long security lines, they make air travel increasingly stressful. If we give people a choice that is viable and reliable, many will choose rail. Amtrak enjoyed record ridership last year--more than 25 million passengers--and about as many travelers ride the train between here and New York City as fly. Other nations understand the importance of rail. Unfortunately, we have been lagging behind. I remember a NATO trip I took from Paris to Brussels. There are 18 trains a day between these two cities. The 210- mile trip takes about 85 minutes. The Europeans aren't any smarter than we are. They simply have made a smart investment in passenger rail. Germany, with its modern, high- speed rail system, invested $9 billion in 2003 alone. And the benefits of their world-class system are obvious to anyone who travels there. We need a similar world-class system in our country. States are in need of Federal leadership to help make improved intercity passenger rail service a reality, but the infrastructure needs are prohibitive. Our amendment authorizes funding for Amtrak's capital needs, as well as State grants for passenger rail. We make a significant Federal investment in roads--$35 billion a year. By comparison, we spend almost half that amount on airports and air traffic control towers. This bipartisan amendment will ultimately provide millions of Americans with more transportation choices. So Mr. President, in the interests of less congestion, lower fuel demands, and an improved environment, I ask my colleagues to support the Lott-Lautenberg amendment. With that, Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time back to my colleague from Mississippi, should he need it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to be as accommodating to the manager of the bill, the Senator from New Hampshire, as I can be, so I relinquish the floor. I relinquish the time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, yesterday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, citing the words of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, said ``Israel must be wiped off the map.'' He then went on to call Israel a ``disgraceful blot.'' He rejected the two-state solution to the Middle East crisis as a defeat for the Islamic world, adding that the ``roadmap'' would be short-lived. He said ``If we put it behind us successfully, God willing, it will pave the way for the destruction and the downfall of the Zionist regime.'' The Iranian President also criticized his neighbors by warning ``Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nations' fury.'' He made these despicable comments to 4,000 students attending a ``World without Zionism'' conference. This was just hours before a Palestinian suicide bomber from Islamic Jihad blew himself up in the small Israeli town of Hadera, killing 5 people and wounding more than 30. It's important to note that Islamic Jihad's murderers are supported and trained by Iran. Given the seriousness of President Ahmadinejad's hateful comments, I am submitting a resolution with Senator Smith asking that this body repudiate them. The resolution also calls on President Bush, on behalf of the United States, to condemn the remarks in the strongest terms possible. This kind of incendiary rhetoric is what we have come to expect from Iran. The Iranian President has been quite open about his views on Israel. He has been clear and consistent, echoing Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini, who called frequently for the destruction of Israel through the 1980s. The words and ideas of the President of Iran are offensive to civilized people around the world. We will not tolerate anti-Israel or anti- Semitic rhetoric. The Iranian President has spoken words that are certain to incite violence against the state of Israel. Too often, that translates into violence against Jews worldwide. But what makes the comments especially chilling is the fact that Iranian officials announced earlier this year that they had completed development of solid fuel technology for missiles, a huge breakthrough that increases missile accuracy. Iran has the Shahab-3 missile, which has a range of 810 miles to more than 1,200 miles. Jerusalem is 970 miles from Tehran. The Shahab-3 is capable of deliverinq a nuclear warhead to Israel and to U.S. forces in the Middle East. So when the Iranian President threatens to ``wipe Israel off the map,'' we can't afford to take such a threat lightly. We have to take note of it and repudiate it. I urge the Senate to adopt this resolution and go on record condemning the hateful words of the Iranian President. And I hope that President Bush himself will speak to this issue. It's that important. I want to thank Senator Smith for co-sponsoring this resolution with me. I urge its adoption.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is a grim moment for America: 2,000 of our young courageous people have perished in Iraq--2,000. From the years 1961 to 1965--those are the years in Vietnam--we got over 2,000 death notices sent to homes across the country. There is a lot of pain across the country, yes, for those who lost loved ones, but across this Nation of ours people are wondering what is it, when do we get to see our people coming back home, because it certainly does not have the appearance of a matter resolved. I have often thought that some memorial should be present in this body as these casualty numbers are reported. But as we were denied the opportunity to have some reminders of this catastrophe displayed in the Rotunda or a busier place, I decided to put a memorial to those lost in Iraq at the front door to my office. I have been overwhelmed by the interest shown by passers-by. We have their pictures up there and their names and the communities they come from. There are more numbers coming. We update the list regularly, the pictures regularly. Every casualty is a life cut short, families torn apart. Outside my office we have this memorial to the fallen heroes. You look at those faces and see how young are the people who died. When I started the Senate memorial I hoped major combat would soon be over and our casualties would be minimal or eliminated, but major combat has dragged on and the memorial display unfortunately has grown and grown. It has gotten to the point where the memorial takes up most of the space outside my office. I encourage my colleagues to visit these memorials. There is one in the Longworth House Office Building in front of the office of Representatives Rahm Emanuel and Walter Jones. I encourage my colleagues to visit these memorials and pay tribute to these troops. As we reach this grim milestone today, it is critical that we examine the situation we are facing in Iraq. The President made a speech today. We heard it on TV. He basically said let's keep on doing what we are doing. We heard the usual rhetoric about spreading freedom. I do not think we need any more slogans. I remember the President's slogan on the aircraft carrier when he said, ``Mission accomplished.'' Mission accomplished? The President declared that major combat operations were over. This was in May 2003. Since then we have lost 1,855 of our people. As the debacle on the aircraft carrier proved, slogans are only as good as the banners they are written on. But we don't need more slogans. We need a plan. We need a plan that will provide relief to our troops so they are not shouldering all of the burdens in Iraq. The President and his team ignored the wise advice of the State Department and alienated our usual allies before the war, and did it with incredible arrogance and ineptitude. Last year, President Bush scolded my colleague Senator Kerry, while debating this issue, alleging that Senator Kerry forgot--I put this in quotes--``forgot Poland.'' But even Poland is pulling out of Iraq now. With the exception of British troops in Basra, we are essentially going it alone across the rest of Iraq. As our troops go it alone, they have to live with President Bush's taunt to our enemies when he said: ``Bring `em on. Bring `em on.'' Mr. President, have they sufficiently brought them on? That was said in July of 2003. What the troops on the ground need is less talk and more of a plan that defines our specific goals. They want to know exactly how many Iraqi troops need to be trained before our soldiers can begin to come home. We hear stories about these trained battalions, trained units that are made up of Iraqi soldiers. But when you get the other side, people who have knowledge from the front, they tell us there are far fewer Iraqis trained than are presented to us from the administration. What we hear from President Bush over and over again is that we need to complete the mission. But we are not told what the mission is. Today, I hope every American will pause and reflect on the price that has been paid by our very brave service people. Their courage is above question--but the administration's policy in Iraq is not. The American people have a right and a duty to demand answers from our Government. Our troops deserve nothing less. Every flag-draped coffin represents a family who will never again share a moment with their spouse, with their child, sibling, friend. It was very telling, early on in this conflict, when the administration banned the photography of flag-draped coffins coming back to our shores from Iraq. Imagine banning that demonstration of honor and tribute--a flag-draped coffin, based upon the fact that it might disturb the privacy of the family while they greet the coffin. Families don't come to Dover, DE, where the coffins are carried off the airplanes. There is a mortuary where remains are often identified and moments of privacy provided for the families. But they banned these tributes to heroes who served our country. The administration argued about the privacy matter. It is a red herring. Of course the funerals are private. But at issue was the return of these caskets to Dover Air Force Base. Why do I talk about it? Because it is an attempt to hide the real pain and sacrifice that is being made in this war in Iraq. They do not want the American people to see flag-draped coffin after flag-draped coffin because it reminds us about what is taking place. Presidents Reagan and Clinton publicly met flag-draped coffins on the tarmac at Dover. But under this President we cannot even take pictures of them. We should honor, not hide, flag-draped coffins. They are a symbol of the respect, honor, and dignity our fallen heroes deserve. Today we honor the 2,000 heroes who sacrificed their lives for our country. I urge the President to pay tribute to their memory by offering this country a concise, realistic plan that will allow us finally to transfer power to Iraqis and bring our troops home. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to take a couple minutes to talk about the amendment to fully fund the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, what we call LIHEAP. Americans have already been slammed by outrageously high gas prices. The average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gas in New Jersey is now $2.65. That is 37 percent higher than a year ago. For an average New Jersey motorist, a tank of gas now costs about $46, which is $12.50 more than a year ago. That extra $12.50 for every tank of gas adds up to a cost of more than $400 a year for the average motorist--a new cost for their transportation needs with their cars. It is affecting our quality of life. Driving to work or taking your children to school is not a luxury, nor is a visit to the doctor, nor is a visit to a shop. These things are all necessities. That is a terrible mistake because we have to make sure we do not misunderstand or misquote the importance of this extra cost to the average family. It is particularly onerous for those who do not have the choice of using transit. Families have sacrificed substantially. They have cut back on lots of things. According to a new survey by AARP, almost 40 percent of Americans over the age of 50 have had to reduce their visits with family and friends because of high gas prices. I have even spoken to people who run businesses that are not on a transit route or a bus route of any kind. They tell me their business has fallen off substantially. And people who work there--a lot of people with very modest jobs--have been very seriously affected. Forty-one percent of the people the AARP was talking about have cut back on spending. That includes food and medicine. Gas price increases have been a heavy blow, and now we are about to get hit again by higher home heating costs. According to all predictions, heating oil and natural gas prices will increase more than gasoline prices have increased. Now, some people can lower their thermostats by a few degrees; and those who can, should. But heating a family home is not a luxury. It is a necessity, like putting food on the table. It is a level of comfort that is required to be met that cannot be ignored. That is why we have to support LIHEAP. Last week, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said increasing the support for LIHEAP is ``not on the agenda.'' Not on the agenda? That is hard to understand. Maybe someone with a lofty position such as the Secretary can discard it as a noncritical situation. But if a child shivers at home while he or she tries to study or while they sit there with their families to have some conversation--maybe what this Government of ours ought to do is ship out blankets to everybody, or shawls they can wrap around their shoulders. You tell the senior citizen who has to choose between buying medicine or paying the heating bill that the Government is not going to help them through this crisis. Helping families heat their homes should be near the top of our agenda. The Secretary's statement is outrageous. It is a sad commentary on the priorities of this administration. I don't think any Member of this body would walk into a modest-income family home and turn off their heat in the middle of winter. But voting against this amendment is going to have the same effect for thousands of low-income families. We cannot leave American families out in the cold. We have to support the Reed-Collins LIHEAP amendment and give families a helping hand through what some suggest is going to be a fairly cold winter. With weather as erratic as it is, we cannot tell what is going to happen. So, Mr. President, I hope we will be able to adopt this amendment. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to commemorate Hispanic Heritage Month. I was proud to support, along with my Senate colleagues, a resolution recognizing Hispanic Heritage Month and celebrating the vast contributions that Hispanic Americans have made to the strength and culture of our Nation. I would like to take a moment now to honor the contributions of the Latino community in the great State of New Jersey. New Jersey's 1.3 million Hispanic Americans are an integral and vital part of our State, contributing to every aspect of life, from business to culture. Hispanic or Latino Americans represent nearly 15 percent of the population of my State. They are the largest and fastest-growing minority group in the Nation and in New Jersey. As the son of immigrants who came to this country for the opportunities it offers, I am proud of the way our Latino neighbors have worked to make a better life for themselves and for their children. New Jersey is home to more than 50,000 Latino-owned businesses, ranging from big corporations like Goya Foods, which is based in Secaucus, to small mom-and-pop bodegas. Through their energy and talent, these Hispanic businesses in New Jersey generate more than $9 billion in economic activity and support 167,000 jobs. Latinos contribute to our economy, to our culture, and also to our public life. Hispanic Americans serve our Nation and the State of New Jersey at all levels of government--as mayors and municipal council members, county freeholders, and in countless elected and appointed capacities throughout the State. Seven members of the State's current General Assembly are of Hispanic descent, as well as a member of our Congressional delegation, Congressman Robert Menendez. In 2004, Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto became the first Hispanic American to serve on New Jersey's Supreme Court. And just this year, New Jersey's first Latino county prosecutor was appointed. I am honored today to recognize the efforts and contributions of New Jersey's Hispanic Americans and I thank my colleagues for supporting this important resolution.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Food Employment Empowerment and Development Act or FEED Act along with my colleagues Senators Dole and Lincoln. This important, bipartisan legislation will award grants to qualified programs that effectively combat hunger while creating opportunity through food rescue programs and job training. This legislation is inspired by some of the great work that food rescue programs in my State of New Jersey, such as Table to Table in Englewood Cliffs, Elijah's Promise in New Brunswick; the Food Bank of Monmouth and Ocean Counties, in Spring Lake; and the Community Food Bank of New Jersey in Hillside are doing. It is a tragedy that in the United States, a country where food is plentiful, more than 34 million people are either going hungry or living on the edge of hunger. Thirteen million of those are children. While on average New Jersey is one of the wealthiest States in the Nation, nearly 12 percent of all New Jersey households experience either hunger, food insecurity or both. Low wages, unstable employment and the high cost of living in the State leave many people in need. Senior adults in particular, faced with high housing costs, rising taxes and significant medical expenses miss meals to help make ends meet. That is why we believe the FEED Act is so important. The FEED Act would provide eligible entities with a maximum grant of $200,000 per year to carry out food rescue and job training activities. Food rescue programs collect food from restaurants and businesses and turn it into nutritional meals for seniors, children, and low-income families. In turn, these meals can be distributed and served to hungry people at homeless shelters, community and youth centers, children's after-school programs, and senior citizen programs. Such programs have proven to be very successful, encouraging partnerships between existing social service programs like welfare-to- work, meals-on-wheels, the school lunch program, and after school programs with the preparation of nutritious meals for people in need. Food rescue programs often maximize use of existing school, community, or private food service facilities and resources to run programs. But just addressing the immediate problem of hunger by providing food is half the battle. Hunger and poverty are closely related. With hunger on the rise in America, we need to go further and address the root causes of hunger by encouraging self sufficiency and responsibility. We need to focus on opportunities that will provide for a living wage through job training and education. Programs supported by FEED are designed to provide long-term hunger relief by helping participants find employment in the food service industry. In the food service industry, the average wage for starting jobs is $8.81--over three dollars higher than the Federal minimum wage. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. Together we can make progress by finding innovative, cost-effective ways to use food to feed the hungry while working to break the cycle of poverty by training the homeless and unemployed in food service preparation and delivery. 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 Food Employment Empowerment and Development Act or FEED Act along with my colleagues Senators Dole and Lincoln. This important, bipartisan legislation will award grants to qualified programs that effectively combat hunger while creating opportunity through food rescue programs and job training. This legislation is inspired by some of the great work that food rescue programs in my State of New Jersey, such as Table to Table in Englewood Cliffs, Elijah's Promise in New Brunswick; the Food Bank of Monmouth and Ocean Counties, in Spring Lake; and the Community Food Bank of New Jersey in Hillside are doing. It is a tragedy that in the United States, a country where food is plentiful, more than 34 million people are either going hungry or living on the edge of hunger. Thirteen million of those are children. While on average New Jersey is one of the wealthiest States in the Nation, nearly 12 percent of all New Jersey households experience either hunger, food insecurity or both. Low wages, unstable employment and the high cost of living in the State leave many people in need. Senior adults in particular, faced with high housing costs, rising taxes and significant medical expenses miss meals to help make ends meet. That is why we believe the FEED Act is so important. The FEED Act would provide eligible entities with a maximum grant of $200,000 per year to carry out food rescue and job training activities. Food rescue programs collect food from restaurants and businesses and turn it into nutritional meals for seniors, children, and low-income families. In turn, these meals can be distributed and served to hungry people at homeless shelters, community and youth centers, children's after-school programs, and senior citizen programs. Such programs have proven to be very successful, encouraging partnerships between existing social service programs like welfare-to- work, meals-on-wheels, the school lunch program, and after school programs with the preparation of nutritious meals for people in need. Food rescue programs often maximize use of existing school, community, or private food service facilities and resources to run programs. But just addressing the immediate problem of hunger by providing food is half the battle. Hunger and poverty are closely related. With hunger on the rise in America, we need to go further and address the root causes of hunger by encouraging self sufficiency and responsibility. We need to focus on opportunities that will provide for a living wage through job training and education. Programs supported by FEED are designed to provide long-term hunger relief by helping participants find employment in the food service industry. In the food service industry, the average wage for starting jobs is $8.81--over three dollars higher than the Federal minimum wage. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. Together we can make progress by finding innovative, cost-effective ways to use food to feed the hungry while working to break the cycle of poverty by training the homeless and unemployed in food service preparation and delivery. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, each year at about this time, three dozen or so scientists descend on Capitol Hill looking to work for Members of Congress or congressional committees. They come to us offering their expertise and service free of charge, courtesy of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS. For over 30 years now, AAAS and its constituent professional societies have provided science fellows, and Congress and the Nation are better for it. Science and technology dominate our lives and yet there are relatively few scientists and engineers engaged in formulating public policy, either as Members of Congress or as congressional staff. As Carl Sagan said, ``We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.'' That is why the AAAS science fellows are so important. Scientific expertise has never been more important than it is right now. The Bush administration and its allies in and out of government are pursuing policies that seem to depend on repudiating science on everything from the environment to biomedical research to education. Whether we are talking about global warming or stem cell research or teaching evolution, this administration and the majority here in Congress too often ignore or dispute the solid consensus that exists in scientific communities with regard to these and other crucial issues. For the past year, I have been fortunate to have Dr. Jana Davis work in my office as a AAAS science fellow. Her tenure has come to an end and she will soon start a new job with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, NOAA, so I would like to take this opportunity to thank her for her service here in the Senate and to congratulate her on her new job. Jana is a New Jersey native who went to Yale University for her undergraduate degree in environmental biology. She received her Ph.D. in oceanography from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. After that, she served as a postdoctoral fellow and biologist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. She has held various teaching jobs and has a lengthy list of scholarly publications to her credit. In her short time here, Jana worked on a number of bills and became a trusted adviser on a range of scientific issues, especially those which fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment & Public Works and the Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation--two of the three committees I serve on. For instance, Jana was the principal author of several measures I have introduced, including S. 1645, an ocean and coastal science literacy and education bill; S. 1635, a bill to protect deep sea coral habitat; S. 1619, a bill to reduce pesticide use in schools; and S. Res. 99, a resolution urging the U.S. delegation to the International Whaling Commission to press for an end to dolphin slaughter. Jana also drafted the ``Save Climate SCIENCE''--Scientific Credibility, Integrity, Ethics, Non-partisanship, Consistency, and Excellence--amendment I offered to H.R. 6, the Energy bill. And she served as my representative in Commerce Committee staff negotiations on reauthorizing the Coastal Zone Management Act, ballast water exchange legislation, and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Jana has done a superb job during her fellowship. I have relied on her scientific expertise and she has shown a great aptitude for public policy. I am grateful for her service and value her numerous substantive contributions. I regret that she is moving on but our loss here in the Senate is NOAA's gain. She will do a superb job at NOAA. I want to thank the American Geophysical Union for sponsoring Jana and the AAAS for sponsoring the science fellows program. The program is invaluable because it brings talented, energetic, and idealistic scientists like Jana Davis to Capitol Hill. We need more people like that here in Congress.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the Constitution grants the Senate the power and responsibility to advise and consent on the President's judicial nominations. And there is no more important judicial nomination than Chief Justice of the United States. The President and Congress share responsibility for the makeup of the third branch. The President nominates a candidate to be a Federal judge, and the Senate is required to give its advice and consent for that nominee to be placed on the bench. It is a shared function; the Senate is not merely a rubber stamp for a President's nominee. To evaluate a nominee, Congress must be informed about that nominee. We are not supposed to consent first and be informed later. In the case of Judge Roberts, we cannot make an informed judgment because he was so evasive at his hearing. During his confirmation hearing, Judge Roberts declined to answer questions more than 90 times. The Senate and the American people deserve to know more about an individual who will lead our Nation's judiciary for decades to come. Despite numerous efforts by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Bush administration was not forthcoming. Not a single document from the years when Roberts was deputy Solicitor General was made available. To be deprived of important information left me unable to give informed consent. The Constitution requires the Senate to advise and consent on these lifetime appointments, not to consent first and advise later. However, there are some things we do know about John Roberts. We know that as an attorney for the Reagan and first Bush administrations, his writings on many issues relating to women's rights were disturbing for those concerned about such matters. In an official memo to the Attorney General, Roberts wrote about the ``so-called right to privacy.'' In the Supreme Court case Rust v. Sullivan, Roberts co-authored a brief that declared Roe v. Wade was ``wrongly decided'' and should be overturned. At his hearings, Mr. Roberts refused to clarify whether he still would vote to overturn Roe. Roberts also wrote of a ``perceived'' gender bias in the workplace. A ``perceived'' bias? I know that Roberts admitted in his confirmation hearings that there has been discrimination against women in the past. He had to say that. But did he really once believe such a bias was merely ``perceived,'' and could he still believe that today? Let me tell my colleague, about gender bias that was not perceived. When my father died at an early age, my mother was left a young widow. I watched her struggle to make her way in the workplace. She never got the same opportunities for advancement as men. She was very successful as an insurance sales person, but she was told that after the war, the company she worked for would be unable to continue her employment. Her manager told her, ``You know, we don't hire women for these jobs,'' and thus she was terminated. The views of John Roberts portray a judge who could also undermine important protections for the environment and minorities. In his 2 years as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, for instance, Mr. Roberts did not support congressional powers to use the commerce clause of our Constitution to pass clean air and clean water regulations. While working for President Reagan, Roberts opposed a bill in Congress that would have strengthened the protections of the Voting Rights Act. Memos from the 1980s also show that Roberts supported the Reagan administration's opposition to measures initiated to redress past racial discrimination. John Roberts has said that when writing many of these memos in Republican administrations, he was merely a staff attorney, just doing his job, advocating the position of his client. He claims that these memos do not necessarily reflect his views. Yet, when the Judiciary Committee gave him ample opportunities to clarify exactly which memos expressed his views and which ones did not, he declined to answer. So, even though Mr. Roberts had ample opportunity to answer the questions of the Judiciary Committee, we are still uncertain what he really believes. I believe the risk is too great to support the confirmation of a Chief Justice to the United States Supreme Court, the highest-ranking leader in the judicial branch of our Government. The fact that he is an intelligent and experienced fellow isn't enough. That is not enough for me to be able to reassure the people of New Jersey that he would preserve and protect their rights. I don't know some things that I need to know and some of the things that I do know are disconcerting. I will therefore oppose his confirmation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, very quickly, we are about to vote on an issue that really has to touch every one of us in some form or fashion, if one is a parent or one is a grandparent or if one has any contact with children, as to the kind of issue we are discussing. I will start off by seeking unanimous consent that letters and other material in support of this resolution from environmental, sportsmen, fishing, and religious groups be printed in the Record following my remarks. The list is long. They talk about the health community having grave concerns about the threat of mercury pollution to the public health, about potent neurotoxins that can affect the brain, heart, and immune system. There are almost 40 organizations cited in this one letter. They include organizations such as the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Association on Mental Retardation. A lot of these groups are focused on the thought process--Cure Autism Now, Learning Disabilities Association, the National Autism Association, the Society of Pediatric Nurses, and United Cerebral Palsy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these materials be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suspect most Americans are going to be shocked to learn the administration wants to allow more poisonous mercury into the environment. But that is exactly what they are trying to do. We should not permit this vote to take place as it is. I hear the arguments that are being made that reducing toxic emissions from coal-fired plants may in fact increase the cost of energy, that it would be terrible. People are being shocked by the cost of fuel and energy generally. But if you want to look at a bunch of children and say, ``No, we are going to risk these children having learning disabilities and to not be able to function properly, not be able to be an integral part of their school body as would be planned,'' as opposed to perhaps--perhaps--the energy we use costing a couple more cents, there cannot be any justification for this resolution not to pass. I hope our colleagues in the Senate will look very closely at the decision they are making, between children and a little extra cost for energy. July 27, 2005. Exhibit 1 Dear Senator: As leading national health organizations, we are writing to ask that you vote to protect the public's health, especially children's health, from the threat of mercury pollution. The upcoming vote on the Collins-Leahy joint resolution to stop EPA from implementing its new Mercury Clean Air Rule is an opportunity to put children's health first. Since EPA unfortunately ignored the calls from health professionals, scientists, a number of states, our organizations and the public when it finalized the mercury rule earlier this year, we now turn to Congress to ask for your intervention. The health community has grave concerns about the threat of mercury pollution to public health. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can affect the brain, heart, and immune system. Developing fetuses and children are especially at risk; even low-level exposure to mercury can cause learning disabilities, developmental delays, lowered IQ, and problems with attention and memory. EPA scientists estimate that one in six women of child-bearing age has enough mercury in her body to put her child at risk should she become pregnant. Mounting evidence also indicates that mercury increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases in adult men. As organizations representing medical, nursing and public health professionals, women, and advocates of children and families, we are concerned that the American public is not adequately protected from exposure to mercury in the environment. Many of our members (most notably physicians, nurses, and health scientists) contributed their clinical and research expertise in commenting on the EPA's rule; nearly 700,000 comments, including the attached mercury health consensus statement, were submitted to the EPA docket in overwhelming opposition to this flawed proposal. Of particular note: The EPA's own Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) advised the Agency that the rule ``does not go as far as is feasible to reduce mercury emissions from power plants and thereby does not sufficiently protect our nation's children,'' writing four letters to the Agency raising significant children's health concerns about the rule; Important new research that EPA failed to consider from the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis and the Mount Sinai School of Medicine reinforces the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) determination that methylmercury exacts serious, adverse effects on public health, and provides new evidence that mercury pollution inflicts neurocognitive impacts on developing children that affect our nation's economic productivity; Both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and EPA's own Inspector General documented widespread discounting of scientific and public health evidence as EPA developed and finalized the mercury rule. As a nation we can do better. EPA articulated a sound scientific basis for its decision in 2000 to list mercury emissions from power plants as a ``hazardous air pollutant,'' ensuring regulation under the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) section of the Clear Air Act. The scientific evidence of harm has only grown in the last 5 years, adding significant additional weight to EPA's earlier determination. Moreover, substantial evidence exists that power plants can affordably install the necessary technologies by 2008. Yet remarkably, the mercury rule finalized in March 2005 is even weaker than the rule initially proposed by EPA in 2003. We urge you to protect women and children from toxic mercury by supporting the joint resolution, sponsored by Senators Patrick Leahy and Susan Collins under the Congressional Review Act (S.J. Res. 20), to disallow the EPA's flawed mercury rule. In some important respects, mercury pollution is the lead of our generation and it deserves to be treated as a serious threat to public health. We strongly urge you to protect Americans from mercury pollution by supporting the Leahy-Collins resolution. Sincerely, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. American Academy of Pediatrics. American Association on Mental Retardation. American College of Nurse-Midwives. American College of Preventive Medicine. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. American Nurses Association. American Psychiatric Association. American Public Health Association. Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. Association of Universities on Disabilities. Breast Cancer Fund. Center for Children's Health and the Environment, Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Children's Environmental Health Network. Commonweal. Cure Autism Now. Easter Seals. Families USA. Healthcare Without Harm. Institute for Children's Environmental Health. Learning Disabilities Association. March of Dimes. National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health. National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners. National Association of School Nurses. National Autism Association. National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health. Natonal Organization of Nurse Practitioner Faculties. National Partnership for Women and Families. National Research Center for Women & Families. NoMercury. Parents for Nontoxic Alternatives. Physicians for Social Responsibility. SafeMinds. Saratoga Foundation for Women WorldWide, Inc. Science and Environmental Health Network. Society of Pediatric Nurses. The Arc of the United States. United Cerebral Palsy.