Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this pension bill is a good bill, but it is not a perfect bill. It will make sure companies put real money behind their pension promises, in good times and bad. It will give workers more information about their pension plans so they understand the risks they face. It will create incentives to encourage more workers to save for their retirement. Unfortunately, the bill is not fair to all airlines. The bill gives advantages for some carriers at the expense of others--especially disadvantaging those in New Jersey. As a result of this bill, some airlines will have to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars more to their pensions than others. That isn't fair, and it doesn't create a level competitive playing field. The Senate agreed that this isn't fair, and that is why the Senate's version of airline relief treated all airlines equally. If the House Republican conferees had not hijacked this conference, I believe we wouldn't be in this position. But we have been put in a very difficult place. We are forced to choose between stopping this bill and endangering pensions for hundreds of thousands of workers and accepting an outcome that is blatantly unfair. I hope and expect that when this bill passes, we will be able to work together to fix this problem at the first opportunity.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, recognizing that our colleague from the other side is here, traditionally, we switch sides on recognition. I ask that after our colleague from Wyoming speaks, that I have 20 minutes to make mine.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Presiding Officer. This amendment is to change the bill's title, to call it the ``Lee Raymond Oil Profitability Act.'' I propose that we rename the Energy bill to reflect Mr. Raymond's profitability courtesy of ExxonMobil. It is quite a thing. As we look at the turmoil this country is going through while people struggle at minimum wage jobs and we see the kinds of profits that are being made off the backs of working people, it struck me, as I dug further into the history of the company--it is a pretty well-run company, but it is so profitable because Americans are going to the pump and buying gasoline at over $3 a gallon typically. I have seen it as high as $3.35 a gallon. People who work in these gas stations can't even afford to buy the gas they are pumping. That is how extraordinary this pricing is. I come from the corporate world and I ran a very successful company. The company is called ADP. It has been in business 50 years. I started it with a couple of other fellows, and we watched our profits carefully. So I know how to read a financial statement. When I see this, while people are stuck at minimum wage of $5.15 for 9 years--I am going to detail some of the extraordinary results Mr. Raymond got as a result of his leadership in that company. The profits, I think, are unconscionable. I don't understand where Board of Directors' conscience is, as I read his benefits program. There is no conscience, and there is no soul at all. At the end of 2005, Mr. Lee Raymond retired from the chairmanship and CEO position of ExxonMobil. He was working and got a decent week's pay. I think his salary was running about $500,000 a week. That permits a lot of things to be acquired. But he also then held $151 million in stock options and holdings. His total compensation for 2005, including salaries, stock options, and pension, totaled $140 million. He made $140 million running a gasoline company where prices typically have gone, since January 2002, from $2.24--and any of the audience that sees this should mark it in their mind--it was $2.24 at the beginning of this calendar year; it is now $3. That is the average price. So it has risen some 36 percent I think is what the number works out to be. It is incredible that during this period of time, while the average working person is struggling and things are getting harder and harder, the cost for gasoline, which is a requirement for virtually every family in this country--whether they have a car or are using fuel oil in their homes--it is outrageous that Mr. Raymond, in addition to those things I just mentioned, has seen his package of stock ownership and stock options go from $151 million in this period of time--$151 million he had at the end of 2005--to $250 million now, so it is a $100 million boost. Remember, he made $25 million in salary. But the absurdity of it all and the offensiveness of it all, is that Exxon's board also agreed to pick up Mr. Raymond's country club fees so he could make sure he could buy enough golf balls for a round of golf. Country club fees, use of the company aircraft, and still pay him another $1 million to stay on as a consultant for another year. Where is their conscience? I don't understand it. So that is why my amendment would rename this bill the ``Lee R. Raymond Oil Profitability Act.'' That is what it ought to be called, so everybody knows what is happening in this country of ours. People are struggling for a living with a $5.15 minimum wage, which has been in place for 9 years. Those people are making $206 a week, if they are working at minimum wage, and they haven't had a raise in 9 years. That doesn't matter. Big business is the interest served by this Government and by the Bush administration. It is incredible. When President Bush took over, gas was $1.06 a gallon. That was back at the end of 2000: $1.06. Now it is over $3 a gallon. Two years ago, President Bush threatened that if John Kerry was elected President of the United States, he would tax gasoline. Look at this: From $2.24 up to $3, this year alone. There is no limit. But that doesn't bother the conscience of the board members of ExxonMobil, and it doesn't bother the conscience of Mr. Raymond. If he asks for country club dues to be paid on top of everything else, to have an airplane for his private use, he feels entitled to it. These are company expenses, and because they are company expenses, they are tax deductible. It is shameful, I think, and I hope we will do something about it. I rise to speak against this so-called energy bill. The bill is simply another gift to the oil industry. It is dressed up as some kind of benefit to consumers. I know the media likes to talk about who is winning the debate on this issue or that issue. But you don't see these commentators saying: Let's look back at the effects of legislation after it is passed. So here we are considering a second Republican energy bill. We should ask: What was the effect of the first Republican energy bill? My colleagues across the aisle said of the first energy bill that it would lower gas prices as it goes into effect. Well, here is what we have seen happen in just this year alone: up by 36 percent. A few months after President Bush signed the first Republican energy bill, gas prices started to soar. So now we know what happens when you take care of the oil companies: Tax breaks and subsidies, and everyday Americans get charged more, pay through the nose, as we say, and now we are ready for a repeat performance. Will this bill help get gas prices over $4 a gallon? Think about that, for the average family. Spend 80 bucks to fill up your gas tank. Right now you have to spend over $60 to fill up a 20-gallon tank. We have to do a reality check about who is writing these bills. President Bush and Vice President Cheney are both former oil company executives. They focus on helping their friends in the oil business. Big oil companies want to open up our coastline to oil drilling, to platforms, pipelines, and tankers. Everyone jumps to attention in the Cabinet room there and they say: Yes, sir, as they do here on the Republican side of the aisle. And the oil companies' profits continue to explode. Just this week, BP announced its largest quarterly profit in their history: $7.27 billion. BP is a piker compared to Exxon, which made over $10 billion. This was 30 percent more than the same period a year ago. I remember hearing in the Commerce Committee when we asked about price gouging and so forth, and the oil company executives denied it: Oh, we don't price gouge, no. Well, somebody is making a heck of a lot of money while people who struggle for a living have to pay more than they can afford just to buy gasoline. Other big oil firms continue to enjoy record profits as well. Royal Dutch announced second quarter profits of $7.3 billion, almost $2 billion more than the same quarter a year ago. While Shell's profits increased 40 percent, its total revenue increased less than 1 percent. So look what has happened. Their profits increased 40 percent, but their revenues increased less than 1 percent. I would like to hear an economist or an accountant explain how wonderful their management is, how good management must have been to pull that trick. In other words, sales were relatively constant, but profits jumped significantly. Then there is our favorite, the poster company, ExxonMobil. In 2005 ExxonMobil raked in a record $36 billion in profits. That translates to almost $100 million a day in profit and more than $4 million every hour in profit for one oil company. And while all of these oil companies profit, consumers pay. Now, as this Congress winds down its work for the year, the majority and the administration have proposed nothing that will lower gas prices at any time in the near future. They have nothing to offer in the way of a serious idea or a plan to reduce consumption, to improve efficiency, or to develop renewable sources of energy. Whatever the question, the answer for this administration and the majority in this Congress is always the same: Hand over some more money to their friends in the oil industry, and give them more opportunities to drill and explore in environmentally sensitive areas. What do we get in return? Higher and higher gas prices. And now they want permission to drill in areas that are sensitive, areas where an oil spill could be disastrous. We had an oil spill in the Delaware River that separates Pennsylvania from New Jersey, and it didn't look too bad, but the cost to clean it up was $267 million. So there are a lot of risks with drilling in these areas. Higher prices aren't the only negative consequence of this bill. The bill is going to harm our grandchildren's birthright to enjoy the natural beauty of our coastlines and beaches. I have seen the worst of oil spills. I was sent to Alaska with the Coast Guard 3 days after the Exxon Valdez ran aground. Exxon paid approximately $4 billion in compensatory damages and the punitive award was $5 billion, and that was in 1989. So we are looking at 17 years ago, and Exxon has yet to pay a dime on the punitive damages. The company has smart lawyers, and they have kept it bottled up in court. They say: Don't pay the bill, whatever you do. ExxonMobil makes $10.4 billion in a quarter, and the company is still trying to get out of paying the $5 billion that resulted from the court decision. It is clear the plan is to pass this bill in the Senate, and then combine it with the House bill that opens up the coastal waters of New Jersey, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, California, Oregon, and Washington State to oil and gas drilling. The effects of even one spill off the shore of New Jersey would be devastating. Tourism, a principal business for us, is a $26 billion industry in New Jersey, and it supports 390,000 jobs. My State has already seen how much economic damage can result from threats to our shore. In 1988, a bag of medical waste washed up on the New Jersey shore. The incident was widely reported in the media and we lost a third of our tourism revenues that year--one-third of our tourism revenue. We can be sure of one thing: If we drill for oil, we will spill oil, and New Jersey and other States cannot afford to have oil washing up on their shores or polluting their water. States that depend on beaches and marine recreation and clean water for fishing and other activities can't afford to have oil spills along those shores. Our commercial and recreational fishing industries in New Jersey are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. An economic catastrophe would result from an oil spill that reaches our shores, whether the drill rigs are located in the waters off New Jersey or Massachusetts or Virginia. In short, it is absolutely certain that the current bill can only go from bad to worse. This bill is a Trojan horse and it should be rejected by any Senators who are concerned about protecting their coastlines and their coastal economies. It also should be rejected by Senators who care about developing a long-term, sustainable energy policy, and by any Senator who has a vision for our country which says we owe our children and our grandchildren a clean environment. We owe them relief from what we see now. I have not even discussed fossil fuels and global warming. In the Netherlands last week, they reported the hottest temperature in June--this past June--ever since temperatures have been recorded: 1704, I believe, was the year. The hottest month ever since that time, since 1704. We see evidence of global warming all over the place. I don't hear anybody on the Republican side standing up here and saying: My gosh, we have to find a way to get these temperatures normalized. We have to find a way to reduce the number of hurricanes. We have to find a way to reduce the ferocity of these hurricanes. We don't want any more Hurricane Katrinas. But here we are, big oil companies are soaking the public with $3 per gallon for gasoline. It is not fair. We can do better than ``more of the same.'' I hope my colleagues will hear from their constituents back home and oppose this bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today we heard some interesting news. I would have used the term startling, but based on the news we are seeing from the various war fronts, it is hard to find anything more startling. The reference I make to this news is brought about by a report. I come out of the corporate world, so I am interested in corporate performance in this country. I saw the report. If you watch television or read the papers-- ExxonMobil, I would say, had a pretty good year. Their profit for this quarter was $10.4 billion--for the quarter. That is up from $7.65 billion the same quarter last year. That is pretty stunning news. It is the largest quarterly earnings of any corporation in America, save one. That is in the history of this country. In the history of this country, ExxonMobil, the quarter just ended in June, was the second highest in the history of the country. If they were selling widgets or some product, we would say: OK, that is a pretty good job. But when they are selling a commodity that people are literally begging for by way of availability, it is a different picture. This oil and gas is so much a part of our life that it is almost like the air we breathe or the water we drink. It is incredible. That then spurred my curiosity. I am, going to file an amendment to the Energy bill. I send it to the desk.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am sorry?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am not offering the amendment, Mr. President. I am simply filing it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for getting through the process. It is not unusual for Senators to be permitted to modify their amendments. However, at this point I yield up to 15 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to my colleague from New York State.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, just a quick response to our colleague and friend from Oklahoma. The fact is, there are certainly different views than this well-trained physician offered on the floor of the Senate. Parents all across the country--some 90 percent of the parents of high school students--insist that they would prefer to have comprehensive sex education available for their children. The fact that this country of ours doesn't permit anything except abstinence only until marriage to be taught is outrageous. Where is the fairness? Where is the equity? In New Jersey, we have a different view about people's choice than they do in Oklahoma. That doesn't mean that Oklahoma is totally wrong or that New Jersey is totally right. But the fact is, it is not sinful conduct and we ought to encourage people to give the young women a full understanding about sex education so they know there are alternatives to exposing themselves to an unwanted pregnancy. It is outrageous that we want to close down the minds and opportunities for people to make a choice about what they do with their health and with their families. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4689, which is at the desk, and ask for its consideration.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering gets to the heart of the issue this bill purportedly means to address; that is, reducing the number of abortions. The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to prevent teen pregnancies in the first place. It is that simple. The amendment I am offering, along with Senators Menendez, Clinton, Schumer, Kennedy, Kerry, and Feinstein, is aimed at dramatically reducing teen pregnancy rates in the United States. This amendment will assist efforts by nonprofit organizations, schools, and public health agencies to reduce teen pregnancy through awareness, education, and abstinence programs. The root problem we are talking about today is not abortion, it is teen pregnancy. If we do nothing about teen pregnancy, yet pass this punitive bill, then it proves that this exercise is only a political charade and not a serious effort to combat the problem. The U.S. teen pregnancy rate is the highest by far among developed countries, and here is some of the evidence we use to prove this. In Germany, the teen pregnancy rate is 16 per 1,000. The U.S. rate is 84 per 1,000. I ask my colleagues to look at this chart which shows several countries teen pregnancy rates compared with the U.S. This is teen pregnancy rate for ages 15 to 19, among developed countries per 1,000 persons. In Sweden, it is 25 young women per 1,000; in France, it is 20 young women per 1,000; in Canada, 46; in Great Britain, 47; and here we are. Are we the winners in this contest? I hardly think so. We have 84 unintended teenage pregnancies per 1,000 persons. I mentioned before that Germany has a teen pregnancy rate of 16 per 1,000, and again, I mention the rate in the United States is 84 per 1,000. So it tells us that there is something terribly wrong about the way we do things here. I look further at Belgium, which has a teen pregnancy rate of 14 per 1,000; the Netherlands, 12 per 1,000; and ours is 84 per 1,000. We cannot continue to ignore facts such as these. We can pass all the abortion restrictions we can think of, but unless there are fewer teen pregnancies, the results will be tragic for thousands of young women. In many cases, teen pregnancies result in abortion, but that is not the extent of the problem. We know that children of teenage mothers typically have lower birth weight deliveries, are more likely to perform poorly in school, and are at greater risk of abuse and neglect than other children. The sons of teen mothers are 13 percent more likely to end up in prison, while teen daughters are 22 percent more likely to become teen mothers themselves. Each year in the United States, approximately 860,000 young women become pregnant before they reach the age of 20. Eighty percent of these pregnancies--80 percent of 860,000. That is over 600,000 young women are unintended, and 81 percent of these young women are unmarried. So what are we doing differently in the United States that is separating us from the rest of the developed world? The answer is simple: the other countries promote full, comprehensive sex education programs, and in the United States--would you believe it--we don't allow funding for comprehensive sex education. I repeat that because some people may think they misheard me. The Federal Government will not fund comprehensive sex education programs despite the fact that 90 percent of parents polled say that in addition to abstinence, sex education should cover contraception and other forms of birth control. But the Federal Government currently will not fund any programs that even mention contraception and restricts all of its funding to abstinence-only programs. I want to be clear, I am not against abstinence programs. In fact, our amendment will also fund abstinence programs. I think they can be effective at times. But the Federal Government's current policy of restricting funding to abstinence-only programs is producing the wrong result. Just look at how poorly our teenage pregnancy rates compare with other nations. We need to dedicate our scarce Federal resources toward medically accurate, age-appropriate education that includes information about contraception as well as abstinence. In many cases, particular types of contraception can help avoid sexually transmitted diseases. Isn't that a good objective as well? We have to be realistic about the hope that each and every teenager is going to abstain from premarital sex. Saying ``Don't do it'' may work at times but not all the time. Look at another problem--youth smoking, for instance. Kids are bombarded with warnings not to smoke. These messages have cut teen smoking rates dramatically, but 1,500 kids a day still start smoking. So it needs intensity of education, comprehensive education. We remember First Lady Nancy Reagan's ``Just Say No to Drugs'' campaign. It worked for some kids but obviously not for others. For those teenagers who already are sexually active or who do become sexually active, we fail them if we don't teach them about contraception. If we are serious about reducing the number of unintended pregnancies, almost half of which tragically end in abortion--we have to implement programs that work so that our teenagers have the knowledge they need to bring about a positive future for themselves with the opportunity to pursue their dreams. We create a huge number of abortions as a result of the ignorance of what the facts are, about sex and young people. This year, the Federal Government will direct $176 million of taxpayers' money to abstinence-only programs. Some of these programs can be effective but often don't get the job done because many teenagers need to understand something about contraception and other aspects of a comprehensive sex education program. Research has shown that the most effective programs are the ones that encourage teenagers to delay sexual activity but also provide information on how they can protect themselves. What is more, research shows that teenagers who receive sex education which includes discussion of contraception are more likely to delay sexual activity than those who receive abstinence- only messages. There was an interesting article in this Saturday's Wall Street Journal about a sex education program in Bamberg County, SC. The article said: More than a quarter of the families-- In this county-- live below the poverty line. Nearly half have only one parent living at home . . . If ever there was a place to expect a wave of teen mothers, it would be . . . among the flat farmlands of South Carolina's Allendale and Bamberg Counties. Yet while teen pregnancies are numerous on the Allendale side-- That is the other side of the county line-- adolescent girls on the Bamberg side have one of the lowest pregnancy rates in the State. The county's rate has fallen faster than the rate in most of the U.S. It is a startling revelation because, again, this is a county where so many people are below the poverty line, where typically teenage pregnancies occur, and in the neighboring county, which is better off, they have a far greater number than does Bamberg County. Why does that happen? This is an area which has had historically high teen pregnancy rates, but they decided to take bold action to improve their teen pregnancy prevention efforts. Bamberg County initiated a comprehensive sex education program in 1982. Since that time, the county's teen pregnancy rate has fallen by nearly two-thirds. If our objective here is to reduce abortions, then this is one exceptionally effective way to do it. Adjacent to Bamberg County, as I said, is Allendale County which has similar demographics, but Allendale County has not taken a comprehensive approach. Allendale restricts its programs to abstinence only. What is the result? Allendale County's teen pregnancy rate is more than twice as high as Bamberg's. In 2004, there were 24 pregnancies per 1,000 girls between the ages of 10 and 19 in Bamberg County. In Allendale County, there were 54 pregnancies per 1,000--more than twice the rate. Abortion is a divisive issue, a tough issue, but we should all be able to agree that the best way or an effective way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, especially among unwed teenage girls. And the proven way to reduce the number of teen pregnancies is to provide youth with comprehensive sex education. When it comes to our children, we should do everything within our power to protect them. We can and we must help America's young people to do better, to make better choices and have brighter futures. So what we come down today is that this argument is not exclusively about abortion because if that were the case, then we would be giving comprehensive sex education wherever we have a young audience across the country and not saying as a Government: OK, we will give you the money, but you can't talk about an effective way to stop a pregnancy; we will not fund anything that tells you about contraception, about birth control, about thinking about how you plan your family. We are looking at raw politics here, Mr. President. What we are looking at is a way to compel young people to go through with unwanted pregnancies, and I think the way to stop that is to prevent these pregnancies in the first place. The way to prevent them is through knowledge. I urge my colleagues to think this thing through thoroughly so we can effectively control the number of abortions that are done every year in this society and not only think of the punishment we render by jailing people who assist in helping young women get abortions, about penalizing families, about forcing young women who might have been victims of incest to carry on and find subversive, secret ways to end their pregnancies. That is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to present young people with knowledge about how they do not get themselves in a position where they want to consider an abortion. I hope my colleagues will think this problem through thoroughly as we debate this issue and recognize that the alternative is strictly a punitive one and should not be dictated. I hope they will support this amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how incomprehensible it is that we have a position on the one hand that refuses to acknowledge in this body there are other ways to control teenage pregnancies than abstinence. We are not against abstinence. There are funds provided in the President's budget for 2007 for abstinence--$204 million. This amendment asks for additional funding to supply comprehensive education. We heard from the Senator from South Carolina saying that he describes our values as shared values. But we are not sharing values with the people in South Carolina from Bamberg County who had the lowest rate of teenage pregnancies after they started a program for comprehensive education in South Carolina. The Senator from South Carolina said we had to have shared values on these things. But these are shared values. I hope our colleagues will look at this fairly, and think about the women who are hurting because they are prevented from getting an education and vote ``no'' on this bill and ``yes'' on my amendment.

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

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 to pay tribute to a fine New Jerseyan and a great friend of my State, James Healy. News of Jim's untimely passing this past Friday at the age of 48 saddened all of us in the New Jersey delegation. His great personality and tremendous work ethic truly made him a pleasure to work with and an asset to his organization, the New Jersey Department of Transportation, NJDOT. For nearly 20 years, Jim held several important posts within the department. Most recently, he served as the NJDOT's Federal liaison. Jim was an expert on Federal legislative, regulatory, and finance issues. He provided my office with valuable expertise and advice concerning subjects of great importance to New Jersey. New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the Union, and the movement of people and goods through its travel corridors is of utmost importance, not just to New Jerseyans, but for the entire regional economy. Jim guided the New Jersey delegation through Federal highway bill authorizations, which took years to accomplish. The most recent one, SAFETEA-LU, took 2 years to complete. Jim also worked closely with New Jersey members on aviation reauthorization bills, including the VISION- 100 legislation passed in 2003. He advocated for the State's priorities, including legislation to help preserve open spaces in New Jersey. My staff and I had the pleasure of working with him many times on these bills and he was always a consummate professional: well-informed, thorough in his work, and always extraordinarily helpful. When a former NJDOT commissioner served as president of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, Jim served as liaison to AASHTO staff, where he helped coordinate and set national transportation policy goals. Jim was an assistant professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University and was a 1979 graduate of William Paterson University, where he earned a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration. He received his law degree in 1983 from Rutgers University in Newark, NJ. Jim is survived by his parents, Philip and Hannah Healy of Wayne, NJ, and his brothers and sisters, Joseph Healy, Mary Jo Ridge, Kathleen Bianco, Teresa Hoey, and Joan Wielenta. My heart goes out to Jim's family during this difficult time. I salute the life and memory of this great son of New Jersey, Jim Healy. May he rest in peace.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of S. 728, the bill to reauthorize the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA. I want to join my colleagues in expressing my sincere appreciation to Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords, and to Senator Bond, who chairs the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Senator Baucus, who serves as the ranking member of the Subcommittee. I also want to commend their dedicated staff for their hard work and consideration on this important legislation. The leaders in our committee and their staff have literally worked for years to bring this bill to the floor for consideration, and they deserve credit for their patience and perseverance. I particularly thank Senator Inhofe and Senator Bond for the New Jersey project authorizations they have included in this bill. As do other States, New Jersey depends on the Army Corps to carry out projects that are vital to our economy. This bill contains authorizations for three important projects in New Jersey. The first is a South River storm damage and ecosystem restoration project. The second is a Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay project at Union Beach which will address hurricane and storm damage and provide for beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the project. The third is a Manasquan to Barnegat Inlets project to address hurricane and storm damage and provide for beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the project. The bill also contains a contingent authorization for a Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project. I also appreciate the bill managers' willingness to accept my language on the shore protection demonstration program. This program will help us learn how to nourish our shore in smarter and cheaper ways. While I supported the Feingold-McCain amendment regarding independent peer review, I hope this won't be construed to take anything away from the underlying bill or the hard work of its managers. The underlying bill is one that I am pleased to support, and I will vote for its final passage.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is one of those debates that makes the American people scratch their heads and ask, what are those people in Washington thinking about? From the perspective of everyday people, this should not even be a debate. Of course we should fully fund research with embryonic stem cells because it has the potential to save lives and alleviate the suffering of millions of Americans. It is common sense. But our President is a captive of ideologs and extremists of his political party. Nearly 5 years ago President Bush enacted a policy that made no scientific contribution, only political fodder for another election. He put a stop to the development of new stem cell lines for research. It was a devastating blow to Americans suffering from diabetes, cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, and other injuries and diseases. For many years, I have met with children stricken with juvenile diabetes. We have established friendships, their parents and I, and the children and I. These children ask their parents, brothers, sisters, and me why the President won't allow research to move forward so their disease can be cured. There is no decent answer I can give them. When I ask them what the worst thing about living with diabetes is, they respond plaintively, begging for help, so they can stop drawing blood from their finger six times a day. They are pleading to live their lives like other kids. One child said he is forbidden something so simple--to sleep at other friends' houses--because of the fear that he will go into insulin shock. I promised these kids I would do everything I possibly could to get the message to the President of the United States, to help us find the cure for them. Today we have an opportunity, finally, to help these children. It has been over 1 year since the House passed this bill. Why the delay? There is no comprehensible reason. All we know is that people wanted to obstruct this discussion today. We can only wonder how many people have had their hopes dashed and their spirits broken during that wasted year. Americans in large majorities support stem cell research. I don't understand this ``fiddling while Rome burns'' policy. Seventy-two percent of Americans register support for embryonic cell research, a 3- to-1 margin over opposition. One of the most outspoken supporters of stem cell research is former First Lady Nancy Reagan. She spent 10 years watching her husband's memory fade from life, probably not even recognizing her. I have friends whose parents do not know who they are. Virtually every major medical, scientific, and patient group supports embryonic stem cell research. In my home State of New Jersey, support for stem cell research is overwhelming. We were the second State after California to authorize embryonic stem cell research. Unfortunately, President Bush has cut off Federal funding for those projects. My colleague Senator Menendez and I recently visited the Coriell Institute in Camden, NJ. They are not well known, but they were founded in 1953 and hold the world's largest collection of human cells for research. Coriell has everything in place to find cures and help millions of people. But there is one problem: President Bush is undermining their efforts with his irrational policy on stem cell research. Because of the scarcity of embryonic stem cell lines caused by his Executive Order, the Coriell Institute in New Jersey had to go overseas to the Technion Institute in Israel to get access to an embryonic stem cell line so they could continue their research. The President denies hope to millions of people based on his standard of ``ethics and morality.'' But what is ethical about denying a cure to children suffering from diabetes? What is moral about denying paralyzed people the chance to walk again? Any real, ethical issues are addressed by this bill. New stem cell lines will come from embryos donated by fertility parents under strict guidelines. There will not be embryos created for research. What we are talking about in this bill are embryos that would otherwise be disposed of--thrown away. I believe compassion and common sense must prevail over rigid ideology If we pass this bill, I understand that the President intends to veto it. That would be a terrible and tragic mistake. President Bush has never vetoed a bill. In the nearly 6 years of his Presidency--not one veto. What would it saw to the American people if his first veto was of a bill that could save millions of lives? And I say to the American people: don't be fooled by the sleight of hand we are seeing today. There are three bills being considered but only one of them matters. The other two bills are part of a shell game. They are there to give President Bush something to sign. But will those two bills do much to help the American with a shaky hand from being cured of Parkinson's disease? Will those two bills make real strides toward relieving a child with diabetes from the constant shots of insulin? I don't think so. Only one bill can do that--the House stem cell bill. Let's vote to approve it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I hope our colleagues will look in the faces of their children and their grandchildren and say: We do not want them to be sick. And if they get sick, we want to help them. I hope this bill will pass overwhelmingly.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa. I ask I be notified when 4 minutes 30 seconds has passed.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Reserving the right to object, I am not sure if I had the full context of the Senator's request regarding the time remaining here. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the amendment offered by my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez. I want to make sure there is a clear understanding about what we are discussing. It has been said before--it is worthy of repetition--that 700 of the almost 3,000 people who lost their lives on 9/11 came from the State of New Jersey. The largest remaining share came from the State of New York. The region is connected by all kinds of interests and conditions. When we look at the region and see what happened with our State and the State of New York, in terms of resources from grants by Homeland Security, it is hard to understand. We don't have sufficient resources for homeland security. I heard my colleague say that earlier. We don't. However, whatever we do have should be targeted to those parts of the country most at risk of another terrorist attack. Here we see, once again, that our friends in the Congress, our friends in the Senate are treating homeland security as another opportunity for additional resources. We are all resource starved, every State. Why? The reasons are obvious. We are giving tax breaks to people who don't deserve and, in many cases, don't want them, billions and billions of dollars to the wealthiest among us. We have a war, about which there is considerable question, that is costing us hundreds of billions of dollars. And by the end of this year, we will probably be at the level of $500 billion, a half a trillion dollars. That funnel keeps on taking money away from what we need at home. Yes, we have to protect ourselves against terrorism from any part of the world against American citizens. But we have a reason to believe that on these shores of ours, within the boundaries of the United States, we could lose lots more of our people and have our lives disrupted much more than they have been. It is very uncomfortable. We spend a fortune in security funding. If you go to the airports, you see it every minute. If you go into large public buildings, you see it there. Wherever you go, our lives have been inhibited in some way. Our freedoms are curtailed by the threat of terrorism. So we hear that our enemy has their guns loaded. What would happen if we knew that there was going to be an assault coming from abroad on the New York Harbor? Would we say: Don't defend that harbor; don't defend those areas, New Jersey and New York, where they are at the highest risk of terrorism facilities in the country? No, don't defend them? Even though the armada is on its way to New York Harbor, let's make sure that we take care of Wyoming and Nebraska and other States? No slight intended; they are all great States. But let's make sure we give them money now because we are going to distribute funds for defending ourselves. Seven hundred people from our State--neighbors, friends, even family. My oldest daughter's best friend died in the World Trade Center, leaving three children behind. Her husband searched hospitals for 2 weeks, refusing to accept the fact that she would no longer be in their lives, hoping against hope she would be discovered alive. Those stories were repeated all over the area. The FBI has declared the 2-mile stretch that goes from Newark Liberty Airport to the harbor as the most inviting place for a terrorist attack in the country. Why? It is a very densely populated area, with large chemical facilities that could endanger the lives or well-being of more than 12 million people. To suggest that each State should be guaranteed a minimum I find hard to believe. I commend my colleague for saying: OK. Recognizing that if we want to get this passed, that we desperately need to raise the funds for those places most at risk, as mandated by the 9/11 Commission, then we have to understand reality. It is politics. Every State wants to get a little bit of the distribution. So let's reduce it from three- quarters of 1 percent to one-quarter of a percent as a minimum and allow more funds to be distributed among the States most at risk. It makes eminent sense to me. When we look out west and we see Wyoming, beautiful State that it is, getting seven times more resources, more funding per capita than New Jersey, seven times more, if there is a risk in Wyoming, it sure can't be comprehended by seven times more distribution. I recall, once again, for emphasis purposes, recommendation 25 of the 9/11 Commission report: Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. Federal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. Listen to that. Pay attention to this report. It was skillfully done, headed by the former Governor of New Jersey, a brilliant public servant who said that this is the way the program should be divided. Let's do it that way. Let's do it. Let's put the money where the risk is. That is what this ought to be about, nothing more. We have tried to arrive at a compromise position. I hope the Senate will support that position. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue because, frankly, it is so hard to comprehend that it needs clarification. What are we talking about? We are saying if people have guns, and they are caught up in the chaos of a natural disaster, with people being chased out of their homes, people being rescued from rooftops, people begging for assistance, hanging out of windows, and so forth, if you have the wrong person who is hollering for help, and you are a first responder and you go into that house, you could get shot. What is the sense of this? We are not saying you are being deprived of a privilege at that point. What is the privilege? To maybe kill a neighbor? Mr. President, if there are 30,000 people in a place that cannot accommodate that number, and in the middle of that confusion, in the middle of that frustration, in the middle of the anger and the rage that has to follow because you have been taken out of your home, or maybe don't know where your children are or where your spouse is, and the mental attitude that could exist in that situation, and they are making sure you have your pet pistol handy? It is outrageous, and it should not be allowed. We have to vote against the Vitter amendment because what it attempts to do is to make sure there is protection. The protection, however, is for the NRA. National Rifle Association really means ``No Records Available'' and that is ridiculous that we don't want to have lethal weapons controlled in times of crisis. I am sure the Senator from Louisiana is reacting to a situation. To put it bluntly, I think the Vitter amendment would put the lives of police officers, National Guard troops, rescuers, and victims of a disaster in far greater danger. The Vitter amendment would prevent law enforcement officials and rescuers, first responders from collecting firearms from individuals, even temporarily, during an emergency or major disaster.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will be pleased to yield.