Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator is absolutely correct. Imagine this in response to what the Senator is saying: There were felons turned loose on the streets, there were looters occupying homes or anything to get themselves out of the flood or out of the way and steal anything, and here we give them a present. Not only did they find a roof over their head, they found guns. So someone innocently trying to be of help comes in, such as an ambulance group, a physician, a coastguardsmen--look how gallant the Coast Guard people were--and imagine they try to break their way into a window to rescue someone they know is in there, and some crazy is there with a gun. Everybody knows, despite the fact that the person coming into the house wants to be of help--visualize what is taking place in some of the major cities across our country, where fire trucks responding to a fire are shot at. Here we are going to say: Wait a second, don't take away their guns. Maybe we ought to take away the fire engine, but don't take away their guns. It is the NRA button. It has been pushed by the organization, and they are saying: Hey, don't let them encroach on our weapon ownership, even if the crisis is one that is going to take lives, as we saw in Katrina. Imagine being in that facility, that hall with all those people who were desperate to find some way out of that mess and someone starts an argument. Pistols, guns around? Outrageous. What it means is that our law enforcement community will not be able to, even temporarily, hold weapons to protect other victims of the community at large during this crisis. At the next evacuation center, such as the Louisiana Superdome, we should allow people to roam around that facility with guns and assault weapons? What happens if someone wants to steal something they see one of their neighbors has and an argument ensues? The lawfulness is gone. They will be totally out of control giving somebody a gun like that. I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to write a law that took guns away from domestic abusers of children and spouses. We had a huge fight over it and finally we got it through. It was 1998. Since then, we have had over 100,000 gun permits denied to people who get so enraged that they beat up their kids, their spouse, their wives, their husbands, and the NRA was in there fighting every inch along the way: Oh, no, don't deprive the people of their freedom to beat up their wife, beat up their kids, and maybe if they are drunk enough, they may want to take a couple of shots at members of their household. No, we stopped that. We plead with the Senator from Louisiana: Don't force us to vote on this amendment. Don't do it. Think about the people in Louisiana and think about what it might have been like in New Orleans at that time, with water running over the rooftops in many cases. Now we are asking for the right to prohibit law enforcement from confiscating guns if they knew where they are? Perhaps one of these people who had a gun, been arrested and convicted for domestic abuse still has the gun--let them sit there with a gun and try to enter into a household that is disturbed? It is not right, not fair. The Senate is going to tell law enforcement officials who are trying to control these facilities that they are powerless: Keep your hands off those guns, policemen, FBI agents, FEMA people; keep your hands off those guns. Our police and Federal law enforcement officers are the first line of defense in terrorist attacks and natural disasters, and they have to have some degree of discretion. The International Brotherhood of Police Officers thinks this about the Vitter amendment: The IBPO stands by our brothers and sisters in law enforcement and disapproves of any legislation that may interfere with a police officer's discretion to react as he or she sees fit under extreme emergency circumstances. Furthermore, the IBPO believes that responsible gun owners who act in accordance with Federal, State and local law are unlikely to have their guns confiscated unless they use or possess the guns in a manner or place that would be prohibited or threatening. They are confirming that this is a bad idea. The Vitter amendment would make it almost impossible for officials to set up safe areas during an emergency. It would turn evacuation centers into the Wild West. Take the guns and set them up in a safe area so they are returned to the owners. However, be careful to make sure that the original owner, the person who turned the gun in, isn't really a felon on the loose. Police know that large crowds, confined quarters, and limited amounts of food and water will lead to high tempers and leave people on the edge.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes more.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the chair. Understandably, police don't want guns in those shelters. The police must have the right to make that shelter a gun-free area. So what do they do? They say: Hey, Joe, turn in that gun; turn it in, and as soon as you are settled, we will keep it in safekeeping for you, and we will give you back your gun. But meanwhile, don't permit that gun owner, in a moment of rage, to do damage that is irreparable. The fact is, our law enforcement community has to have the ability to make decisions that it believes will ensure the health and safety of the community at large. There is no valid reason law enforcement agencies should be prevented from doing their job in times of emergency. Let's not make it tougher for them. What do we want to do in times of crisis such as a flood, an earthquake, a hurricane, a tornado? At times like that, do we want to make it tougher for our emergency response people to carry out the duties they volunteer for, typically, and do so efficiently, under dangerous circumstances to themselves? Let the NRA say: Come on, come on, let's let them have their guns. What is the difference? So they may take a shot or two. That is how it sounds to me, and I hope it sounds the same way to others. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for yielding time. What the Senator is attempting to do is make sure we react appropriately to the threats we face. We talk about making sure our citizens are safe. We want to make sure they are safe from terrorist attacks around the world, but it has to be focused on protecting our homeland from yet another terrorist attack. Unfortunately, the amounts dedicated to State and local Homeland Security grants in this bill fall far short of that goal. Senator Clinton's amendment is crucial because it restores $790 million that has been slashed from Homeland Security grant programs over the past 2 years. This amendment will help ensure our high-risk States and cities get what they need to protect their citizens and to defend our country. How can we justify cutting Federal Homeland Security funds at this time? The administration has been warning us about terrorist plots targeting the passenger rail tunnels between New York and New Jersey. They have broken up another plot that targeted the Sears Tower in Chicago, areas that are under considerable risk. How do we justify cutting funds? We are going to spend some $500 billion on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan before this year is out. We should be making sure we protect ourselves from an attack from abroad. But how about attacks within our boundaries? Almost 3,000 people lost their lives on September 11. Nothing could have been worse than to see the consequences of that, as we did from the State of New Jersey. We could see the smoke from the towers. We could see the disappearing World Trade Center facilities. The Clinton amendment restores funding for the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and the urban area security initiative to the fiscal year 2005 levels. New York and New Jersey bore the brunt of the attacks on September 11 and continue to be the most at risk. Just recently, a Lebanese citizen was taken into custody with two other individuals for plotting to bomb the PATH railway tunnels under the Hudson River that connect New Jersey and New York. We have seen terror strikes all over the world. Just yesterday, bombs went off on 7 different trains during rush hour in India, killing 160 people and wounding over 460. We do not yet know who is responsible for that atrocity, but coming on the heels of the London and Madrid transit system bombings and the two attacks on the World Trade Center, it is clear that terrorists strike in places that are vulnerable, where they can maximize the number of innocent civilians who will be killed or wounded. The FBI has identified the 2-mile strip between the Port of Newark and the Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey as the most at risk area in the entire Nation for a terrorist attack. Yet my State's Homeland Security funding was cut by $4.6 million when the fiscal year 2006 grants were allocated. And New Jersey got off relatively well, with an 8 percent cut, compared to New York, which lost 37 percent of its funds, or Texas, which lost 31 percent of its funds. Are we truly protecting our citizens if we keep cutting homeland security funding? No, we are not. Have we already won the war on terror? Has the mission been accomplished? We are fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. We want to make sure our troops on the front lines there have everything they need to do the job. But the other front line is the home front line. We have to make sure our States and our cities and particularly those places most at risk have everything they need to do the job. What are our priorities in the Senate? Reducing inheritance tax for multimillionaires or providing our communities with Homeland Security funds? This is the choice we face on this amendment. We may disagree on whether it is appropriate to have nonrisk-based formulas apply to Homeland Security grants, but we can all agree that cutting overall funding year after year is not making anyone safer. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Clinton's amendment. I proudly support it. We desperately need this restoration of funding for homeland security. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first I commend my colleague, Senator Menendez, for his persistence on this issue. We both come from the northern part of the State of New Jersey, which is the most dense portion of the most densely populated State in the country. Seven hundred of our fellow New Jerseyans lost their lives on September 11, 2001. It would be hard to find people whose lives were not touched by the events of that day--whether immediate neighbors, friends, family, all of us knew someone who was killed or injured on that fateful day. From our part of New Jersey, you could see the smoke rising from the World Trade Center where many of our friends, neighbors, and loved ones worked. The New York-New Jersey region bore the brunt of the attack on 9/11, and to this day it remains the area of our country that is most at risk of another attack. We were reminded of this just last week when authorities disrupted a plot by eight terrorists to blow up commuter train tunnels connecting New Jersey and New York. Each day, nearly 200,000 people travel through these tunnels. Since we don't have unlimited resources for homeland security, homeland security must be targeted to those parts of the country most at risk of another terrorist attack. But that isn't currently the case. Why? Because this Congress is treating homeland security funding as just another pork project rather than sending the resources based solely on risk, as has been recommended by the 9/11 Commission. And in section 25: Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on assessments of risks and vulnerabilities. [F]ederal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. This is by the authors of this Commission report which was adopted wholeheartedly in this place. Because each State gets a minimum guarantee of funding regardless of risk or population density, we take resources from States known as major terrorist targets and give them to low-risk areas. Politics rears its ugly head. I saw the prevailing view on the Homeland Security Committee on which I sit--the committee of jurisdiction. I called the attention of the committee to the report of the 9/11 Commission very specifically and asked the committee to endorse fully the risk-based distribution mechanisms for funding. Perhaps my argument wasn't persuasive, but the vote was 15 to 1 against it, solely basing this distribution of grants on risk. It was painful for me to see that. I want to give you an example. In fiscal year 2006, New Jersey received $1.92 per capita spending for State homeland security and law enforcement terrorism prevention grants. Wyoming received $14.73. New Jersey, the most densely populated State in the country, received $1.92 in per capita spending; and Wyoming--a beautiful State, though I think it is fair to say that their risk of a terrorist attack is substantially different or not even this in terms of what terrorist planning is typically doing--Wyoming, $14.73. Are the people of Wyoming seven times more likely to be the victims of a terrorist attack than the people of New Jersey? I don't think so. The FBI has identified the 2-mile strip between the Port of New York and Newark-Liberty International Airport in New Jersey as the most inviting target in the entire Nation for a terrorist attack because of the huge amount of damage that could be inflicted. It is believed--this isn't secret, it has been published many times in many places--it is believed that a terrorist attack in this area could kill or injure more than 10 million people because of the density of population there and the presence of so many chemical facilities. The way we fund homeland security flies in the face of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We see it on this placard. It is a stark reminder of what we ought to be doing and how much it differs from what we are arguing. Today, nearly 5 years after 9/11, nearly 40 percent of the State Homeland Security Grant Program is given out as ``general revenue sharing'' to each and every State and territory regardless of the danger they face from terrorism. The system is broken. We have to fix it. I have been trying to reform this grant program for several years. In February 2005, I introduced a bill called the Risk-Based Homeland Security Funding Act, which would require that all homeland security grants be based strictly on risk, threat, and vulnerability. My colleague, Senator Menendez, did similarly when he was a Member of the House of Representatives. The amendment offered by my colleague today moves us in that direction. That is why I so strongly support it. Under the Menendez-Lautenberg amendment, the Senate minimums will be reduced from .75 percent of Homeland Security funding to .25 percent. That lower amount, .25 percent, is the same as the allocation President Bush recommends. Even the Bush administration confirms the .75 minimum is inappropriate and puts our security at risk. Secretary Chertoff has consistently advocated Homeland Security funding be risk-based. By reducing these State minimums, we can better protect the Nation by getting more funding to areas that are actually under threat and risk. If Congress will not eliminate State minimums, the best way to proceed is to reduce the State minimums so that as much money as possible is directed toward the highest risk areas. If we review past terrorist attacks, it is clear terrorists want to attack densely populated areas, areas where they can inflict the most damage. We heard my colleague, Senator Menendez, talk about the damage it could do to our national economy if we have a major attack in this very sensitive area. They want to kill as many people as they can, disrupt economic life as it exists. I urge our colleagues to support the Menendez-Lautenberg amendment. A vote for this amendment is a vote in support of the administration's position, the 9/11 Commission position, and plain common sense. I yield the floor and 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. President, I listened with interest to the Senator from Maine, the chairperson of the committee on which we both serve. I am trying to figure out why a name change might be part of the plan to try to make FEMA a more efficient agency. I think we are chasing our tail around the tree because I don't see how we can do it under the present structure. I want to start at the beginning. I don't plan to take all the time that is available. I would like to go back a little bit. When we look at the structure of DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, we see the complications that exist even today with its general functioning: Are the screeners doing an effective job? Do we have too many? They were once publicly owned groups across the country, and they were doing a poor job. Then we brought them into the Government and their performance improved substantially. Now there is talk about whether we ought to put them back into private hands. I think about the task of Secretary Chertoff--and Secretary Chertoff is someone I know very well and for whom I have a great deal of respect--when we look at the assignment--22 Departments, 180,000 people, budgets that are insufficient to start with, and then the squabbling, the arm wrestling that has to take place within the Department to try and get FEMA enough money. It just doesn't make sense to have this Department of Government surrounded by the rest of the structure that is so complicated within DHS. There was a time when FEMA was called upon to act as a result of natural disasters, and they did it very well. James Lee Witt was the head of FEMA. In 1993, we had what was the equivalent of a 100-year flood in Mississippi, and FEMA acted professionally and efficiently and got the job done. Then we had the Northridge earthquake which was one of the worst disasters we have seen. Once again, FEMA stood up to the task and did it efficiently and responded very promptly to get that done. I, for one, believe, as does the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, that FEMA ought to be removed, ought to be independent, and to give it a chance to fight for its own budget, to make its own case, to be able to have direct contact with the President's office. When we think about it, we worry an awful lot about a terrorist attack on our soil, and we should, and we should fight to protect our citizens from the consequences of that kind of an event. But, also, when we look at what happened with natural disasters and the significant--just look at Katrina and see what has happened there. There is a whole sector in our country that has yet to recover. We are going to be at the first anniversary of Katrina in less than 2 months, and there are still people living in unacceptable conditions, still the restoration has not taken place--the theft, the waste, the fraud that has taken place there, and we look and we say: What has happened here? Why isn't it better? It isn't better because the structure doesn't permit it to get better with any degree of ease. In my view, FEMA has to be a separate department, as it once was, to be able to function as it once did under a different kind of leadership. Who can forget the consequences of the first strike of the storm when the President of the United States was busy in California. He didn't visit the scene until a couple of days had passed, and he did that from 30,000 feet in the air and called it a devastating sight and gave congratulations to Mr. Brown: Brownie, heck of a job. Did the President not know what he was saying or did he make a mistake? The fact is, there was so much confusion with the communications links that it was almost impossible to decipher what was going to happen, who was responsible, who was out to dinner when they were crying for help in the various communities, until someone reached over the top, went past the organizational structure, and got to the President's office. Then things began to happen. And they didn't happen very efficiently, nor did they happen thoroughly. I think if we separated FEMA from the Department of Homeland Security, it would give our new director--who holds high hope, I think, for all of us; he is a competent person. He has experience before he came to FEMA. He has a very positive background for this kind of job. He is new on the job, and I think it would give him a much stronger hand in the annual battle over the agency's budget and appropriations. Obviously, then, it would free FEMA of several layers of bureaucracy at DHS and make it easier for the agency to do its job. We talk so often around here about the bureaucracy and how tough it is to work your way through it. But here we have this critical agency, the agency that has more direct responsibility for our national security within our boundaries, on our land, than any other agency, and we keep it as a part of a total mechanical structure that says: OK, make sure you get A, B, C, and D. I think that is the wrong approach to having FEMA do the job we want it to do. It is obvious that FEMA was weak and ineffective and showed a great deal of incompetence. What we want to do is streamline the agency as much as we can, and this is an opportunity to do just that. We are not going to rely on picking friends--cronies, if I can use the term, political campaign workers--to do this job and expect to have it succeed. That is not the way you take a position like this and have it be able to do its job, the job of jumping in there in the middle of a natural disaster of people searching for relatives, searching for a way out. What do you do to replace a reasonable living condition for them? It is a very tough job. I think FEMA's subservient position inside DHS has contributed to low morale and the loss of qualified professional staff, and it is difficult attracting experienced personnel back to the agency. The agency has lost so much of its former excellent reputation that people are not anxious to go to an agency like that. So I think the way we have to do it is the way Senator Clinton and I and others are supportive of, which is the separation of FEMA from the Department. Separate FEMA. Let it stand on its own two feet. Let it strive for its own budget. Let it hire its personnel under its own structure and give it the responsibilities that it deserves and the resources that it needs. So I hope at this point that people will vote against the amendment Senator Collins has presented and support the Clinton amendment that calls for FEMA to be separated from DHS, stand alone, and let it make its case. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask to be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise now to discuss the tense situation we are witnessing in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinians. It has been said that governing is about choices. Right now, Hamas has to make a choice that can determine the future of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian state. Hamas is, at its roots, a terrorist organization. That has been established in the view of the United States and in the view of the European Union. So we can't kid ourselves about what it is that we see in front of us. They used a strategy to usurp power in the Palestinian territories. First, Hamas offered some social services among the Palestinian people by running social service programs even as it pursued its terrorist objective, to destroy Israel. But now Hamas has a choice. Does it really care about the Palestinian people or is it simply too dedicated to its terrorist ways? If Hamas is really concerned about the Palestinian people, they would release, promptly and safely, the Israeli soldier they now hold hostage. We have seen them brag--crow about the fact that they killed a young settler they abducted, 18 years of age. We see a new tactic being used by terrorists over the last few weeks--by terrorists in general. We saw what happened in Iraq when they kidnapped two of our soldiers, Private Kristian Menchaca and Private Thomas Tucker. They were mutilated and tortured before they were killed. So brutally handled by these terrorists in Iraq. I know our troops are working very hard to find these terrorist killers, and I hope we will. But now Hamas, replicating that kind of terror behavior, has kidnapped an Israeli soldier, a young corporal--Gilad Shallit his name is--and Israel has been on the search to try to rescue him while trying to get the Palestinian people to understand they cannot win this fight for peace with a government composed of terrorism advocates. Hamas shows their hand choosing this confrontation. To make matters worse, they then abducted this young man, 18-year-old Eliyahu Asheri-- they showed pictures of him--and shot him in the head. The events of these past few days are vividly illustrating to the world that Hamas is not a valid governing body. They can't be taken seriously as a civilized leader of its people. That has to be understood by the people in those communities. There is so much to be gained by a peaceful resolution of the differences. No, it is probably true that neither side can fully gain all of its own interests. But Hamas, a terrorist organization, cannot be taken seriously as a civilized leader of its people. It is a terrorist organization masquerading as a government. But now they are faced with a critical choice. If they have decided that the path of violence is the one that they would like to follow, it dooms the Palestinian people to isolation and economic hardship. Or now they can make a humanitarian gesture on behalf of the people they purport to represent. I have had a deep interest in the area. Israel is a very important ally. They provide us with a degree of presence that we otherwise would have to gain ourselves with more ships, more troops, more airplanes. But this democratic society survives in a sea of totalitarianism. It has to be understood that we want to work with the Palestinian people. Believe me, when I see pictures of Iraqi children or Palestinian children, families torn apart, a father or mother lost with a child weeping, sobbing alongside the dead parent, brother or sister, we don't want any violence to come to any side in these attempts to govern. But Hamas is a terrorist organization. Suggesting that they represent the view of the people there presents a very sad picture. Violence is not helping any cause in the Middle East. But Hamas seems intent on continuing the downward spiral of violence and death. One cannot blame the Israelis for fighting to save their people. That is their responsibility as a government. We have reached out to Iraq, ostensibly, as is said by the administration, to protect our freedoms in this country. We have come face to face with terror, and it has changed life in America. The downing of the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon, the violation of our territorial borders, the violation of life and the pursuit of regularity by our people--it is all different now. I happened to visit a community of Native Americans in New Jersey. One man was complaining that he can't fish in the reservoir anymore. He can't put a boat in there because they are afraid that he might be a terrorist. But they still depend on that for sustenance, hunting animals, fishing. When you see that kind of reach--that is not the most terrible thing that has happened in our world, but it just tells you about the extent that terror can inflict punishment on the free world. So this situation then between Israel and the Palestine territories really exemplifies what can be. They have this young man captive, threatening to kill him. My advice is, return him promptly and safely, and show the real face of the Palestinian people. They are essentially a hard-working, industrious people who ultimately want to have peace for their families and a chance for them to exist with a standard of living that is reasonable. The United States and the European Union already know Hamas is a terrorist organization. The rest of the world now knows it, too. The reach of terror is beyond anything that might have been anticipated, whether it is an attack in a Japanese subway or a train in Great Britain or Spain or wherever; everybody is on guard. We are all looking at how horrible examples of terror are. We are going to see tense days in Israel and Gaza. My hope, and I think the hope of everybody who knows anything about the situation, is that Hamas comes to its senses and quickly releases Corporal Shallit. Some time ago I was with other Senators on a trip to Iraq. On the way we stopped in Israel to meet with Prime Minister Sharon when he was in power. While we were sitting around the table, I and the four other Senators suddenly saw activity, hustle-bustle in the conference room. The Prime Minister, Sharon then, looked like he was suddenly deflated. He slumped in his chair. He said he had bad news. There was a suicide bombing attack in a port just south of Tel Aviv and 10 people were killed and many others wounded. I volunteered for the five of us that we could adjourn the meeting and permit the Prime Minister to go on and conduct his necessary function. He said to me: Senator, when you are the Prime Minister of Israel, you must continue to function no matter what the circumstances are. And we will continue our discussions here. Israel as we know it is going to fight back against terror with every ounce of energy and blood that it can muster. It is not going to let the Palestinians or any other terror come into their country and kill or injure its citizens without paying a terrible price. The price not only is to the people where the perpetrators come from but the tensions that spread throughout the world. Let's hope that Hamas comes to its senses and quickly returns the young soldier they are holding. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 21st anniversary of National Literacy Day, designated on July 2, 1985, by President Ronald Reagan. In 1986, Caryl Mackin-Wagner, the executive director for Focus on Literacy Inc., worked with Congress to establish recognition by a Senate resolution of a National Literacy Day, which Congress has honored each year since. Caryl Mackin-Wagner established Focus on Literacy, Inc., to bring a greater awareness to the problem of illiteracy in our Nation and to promote effective ways to address this problem while improving the reading skills of children and adults in America. Developing one's reading and writing skills is a necessary tool to succeeding in this world today. It is extremely important that Americans continue to advance in order to bring about a more successful nation as a whole. We must not ignore the fact that there are many individuals who are not well educated and who are not contributing to society in ways that they could. What is cause for concern is that with inadequate education, people don't reach their full potential and contribute all that they can to our Nation. On Sunday, July 2, Congress will recognize the significance of improving the literacy of individuals, which further contributes to the growth of our society. Each year, Congress honors National Literacy Day to celebrate literary accomplishments, which have contributed to developing a better and more educated society. As Caryl Mackin-Wagner has said, ``Illiterate individuals are our untapped resource for they possess underutilized talents and abilities.'' Through hard work and a commitment to helping others, Focus on Literacy, Inc. has made remarkable strides in the battle for literacy and I am proud to salute its efforts on National Literacy Day.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield for a question?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is the Senator from Iowa aware of the fact that we have come up with a terrific product, that science has discovered a vaccine which will prevent cervical cancer?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, taking this vaccine can reduce cervical cancer deaths by 70 percent--70 percent. In America, we lose about 4,000 women a year to cervical cancer. Across the world, the numbers are over 230,000 annually. Is the Senator from Iowa aware that there are detractors? The Senator is certainly aware, as he discusses stem cell research and conditions that are so painful for families, such as juvenile diabetes and other autoimmune diseases, that not enough money is going into these programs. But in this case, the chance to stop cervical cancer from killing women has detractors out there who say: If we do that, we will encourage promiscuity. Did you ever hear anything so silly in your life? It is the same as saying: If you give seatbelts to people, they are going to drive more recklessly. It just doesn't make sense. So if the Senator is aware of these things, they will, I am sure, add interest and fervor to his appeal to get on with finding out what is killing people.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. For a lifetime.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the Senator may be aware that I recently sent a letter to the Centers for Disease Control saying: ``Get on with it. Get the vaccine out there. And don't let opponents stand in the way. You are responsible. The product has passed all the tests. It is considered safe and effective.'' So I sent this letter, and another one to the Food and Drug Administration. I don't know whether the Senator is aware of these letters, but I am sure that, knowing his disposition about these things, that he would want to join in this effort and say: `` CDC, don't you dare hold back on this information. Don't you dare.'' Right?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We will do that. I would like to thank the Senator for the compliment on the smoking prohibition in airplanes. It has finally penetrated, after almost 20 years now, into homes, into restaurants, into places where smoking just isn't an acceptable habit anymore. Today's papers have stories about how dangerous secondhand smoke is; you don't have to smoke the cigarette yourself, you just need to be near someone who is. I am sure the Senator is aware of the fact that breathing other people's smoke can be as dangerous to your health as if you engaged in smoking yourself. What a coincidence it is that as we have been talking about the no smoking in airplanes, our colleague from the State of Illinois, Senator Durbin, has joined us on the floor. At the time, he was the House author of the ban and I was the Senate author, so the two of us together were able to put that legislation into effect. Returning to the vaccine, is the Senator aware of the fact that there are detractors out there who, even if you get the good product, will stand in the way of it being made readily available to people who need it?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first, I want to say to our friend from Iowa how much we appreciate his diligence in promoting better health in this country, and more opportunities for all Americans. I think, for instance, of his work on the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because of that bill, people who have a disability and weren't able to get around as easily as some others, now have access to so many more places. We are so grateful to the Senator from Iowa for his work on that landmark legislation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if I may interject one point: is the Senator also aware, as the question of the Senator from Illinois is reviewed, that if we weren't busy giving tax breaks to the very wealthiest among us, to people who don't need the tax breaks and often don't even want them, we would have the funding necessary to do research on all kinds of things? The National Cancer Institute doesn't get the kind of money it deserves in terms of the positive effect it could have on our lives and on the financial condition in this country. The National Institutes of Health don't get the kind of funding they need. We see someone like Warren Buffett stand up and say that he is going to give nearly $40 billion away. That shows you what happens if you work hard in this country. It just shows you. But the administration and the other side want to give Warren Buffett more money. They want to give him more than he has, when he's busy giving it away. They want to give more to Bill Gates, who also is one of our more ennobling figures in this country. Is the Senator aware these are resources which could be used far better elsewhere?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today the Bush administration is taking an action that is almost incomprehensible. Frankly, it is outrageous, when you think about it. The administration is removing Libya from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terror even though Muammar Qadhafi has not fulfilled his commitments to the American victims of Libyan terror. Even though Qadhafi is not keeping his promise to Americans who lost loved ones when agents of his government bombed Pan Am flight 103, the administration is going to give Libya full diplomatic privileges. The President is taking this action even though this Senate recently passed my resolution which said that diplomatic credentials should not be given to Libya until Qadhafi provides all of the restitution promised to the families of the victims of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing and other acts of terror supported by Libya. I know a lot of those families, families from New Jersey and in the area generally, who lost loved ones on that flight. Many of the victims were young college students from Syracuse University. I have a nephew who went there. He was to take that trip but at the last minute had to change his plans. He lost several very good friends. I have been to Lockerbie, Scotland, and know too well what happened that fateful day when 270 people were killed, with the airplane and human remains falling onto that beautiful little community, Lockerbie, in Scotland. I have seen the remnants, the souvenirs that the victims had bought on that trip that was during the Christmas period. I saw Mickey Mouse hats and things that college kids enjoy. Even bottles of wine that survived were then put in a warehouse of things that were collected on the ground but could not be assigned to any single family because they didn't have any sort of identification attached to them. It was a sad moment for mankind, for sanity in our world. Libya ultimately was convicted of providing the resources for those terrorists who brought that airplane down. Libya has not paid all of the claims that were awarded to the families of the victims; Libya has not paid the last installment of compensation due as a condition of being removed from the list of state sponsors of terror. That was the agreement. That was the understanding. No matter how many years pass, these families will never forget their loss, their grief; neither will anyone who knows these families, who knows the pain visited upon these people when they heard that their son or daughter was killed in the downing of that airplane. If Libya has indeed renounced terrorism, that is great news, as is the fact that Libya, which was thought to be engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction, has agreed to stop that pursuit. Still, the Libyan government has an obligation it agreed to meet so that it could rejoin the community of nations, to achieve a level of acceptance around the world. Their past behavior cannot be excused. They murdered Americans and they must be held fully accountable. Today, the Bush administration has rejected accountability for Libya. Today, the administration has put other interests ahead of the interests of the American victims of terrorism. What are those interests that prevailed in the end? We will let the investigative journals figure that one out. But when leaders of our country say ``we must never forget the lessons'' of acts of terrorism, I think they should mean it. Libya should fulfill its promise, its commitment to the families of the victims of Pan Am 103 and not let that commitment be forgotten because part of it has been fulfilled but not all of it. We must not forget that Libya has failed to comply entirely with the basic promise to those families. We urge the President and the administration to hold fast and insist that Libya pay its bills. The money will never compensate these families for the loss of their child, brother or sister, father or mother--never. But at least it shows that Libya is serious about honoring it commitments, something that is essential before it can achieve anything approximating the status of nations that follow the rule of law. So we must insist on that. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I stand here proud of my country, proud of our liberties, proud of our flag. I went to Europe as a young man during World War II--the first time I was out of the country--and put on a uniform to defend the honor and freedoms that this country represents. Now we talk about flag desecration by the actions of a few who dare burn our flag. It is a repulsive, ugly act. We never want to see it. But do we take away their right to dissent and do we say America is a country that can't stand dissent? No. One's patriotism may be another person's desecration. Here's a picture--I show this poster not at all to denigrate the President of the United States, but that is the hand of the President of the United States using a magic marker to write on this flag. He never intended to be disrespectful; he loves this country. I differ with him on policy, but is that desecration, I ask you? I think this second poster is another example that represents desecration. Here he is, Kid Rock, with his head through the flag. Is that a desecration? It was such a desecration that he was invited to perform in a concert at the Republican Convention, and they partied with him. They loved him. What constitutes desecration? A lapel pin? We worry about what we do for our soldiers and say that we love the flag so much, but we won't allow news photos of flag-draped coffins coming into Dover? Pictures of those flags are banned? What is going on here? This is politicking at its worst. We should not violate the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is raw politics. It doesn't demonstrate patriotism. I invite everybody to have the courage to vote against this amendment and show their courage and not to be intimidated by wondering what this one will think or wondering what that one will think. We are invited here to think about the freedoms that our country offers and our responsibility, and it is not only protecting the flag, it is protecting our liberties. It is making sure that we protect our veterans, that we give them the right kind of equipment, and that we give them the resources they need. That, to me, is the kind of patriotism that ought to be rewarded--not to say if you write in ink or you tear the flag that we are going to amend the Constitution to get at you. A half dozen or a dozen people have done that to offend everybody. That should not let us be stampeded into amending our Constitution.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I to celebrate the life and work of Evelyn ``Evy'' Dubrow, a longtime champion for working people in our country, who passed away this week at the age of 95. Evy was loved by many Members of Congress, but I think I will miss her more than most. She came from my hometown of Paterson, NJ. Her parents were immigrants, like my own mother and father. And one of her first jobs was as a reporter at the Paterson Morning Call, which was our local newspaper. Evy soon moved into union work, first as a secretary for the textile workers union, and then as an assistant to the president of the New Jersey Congress of Industrial Organizations. In 1956, she came to Washington as a lobbyist for the International Ladies Garment Workers Union. At that time, lobbying was almost exclusively a man's world but although Evy stood just a little bit shy of five feet tall, she never backed down from anyone. Although she eventually became vice president of the ILGWU, and later of the textile workers union UNITE, she continued to fight here on Capitol Hill for issues that affect working people--especially women. She was a lobbyist in the most honorable sense of the profession, because she never tried to browbeat or buy a vote. She simply told you why she felt her position was right--and she always did it with conviction. In 1982, a Washington business newspaper named her one of the town's 10 best lobbyists. In 1999, President Clinton awarded the Medal of Freedom to Evy. It was quite an honor for a daughter of immigrants from Paterson--and it made me proud. Evy never married, but she doted on her nieces and nephews, and five grand-nieces. And workers all across the country thought of her as family. They loved her and trusted her to look out for them. Everyone who cares about working people will miss Evy. We should also give thanks for her long life and the many things she accomplished. And we must honor her memory by carrying on her fight for fair pay, better education and job training, and safer conditions for working people.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, may I claim my full 8 minutes?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the resolution put forward by the senior Senator from Michigan. I appreciate the fact that he has framed the debate on the war in Iraq both for the Senate and for the American people. Last week the American death toll in Iraq passed 2,500. It is a tragic milestone and the American people are not happy about it, because our President has yet to articulate exactly what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq. I maintain a gallery of pictures of U.S. servicepeople who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan outside the front door of my office. It reminds me and all who visit my office about the loss of young lives and the terrible cost of this war. As a war veteran, I know what these troops and their families are going through. I heard the Bush administration say that some Iraqis are worried about us leaving. But I say this: The American people are worried about us staying. What more can we do for the Iraqi people? We have spent over $300 billion of U.S. taxpayer funds there. We have helped them hold three elections. We have trained and armed their police and their military. I say it is time for them to take control of their country. I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that we would bring dishonor to those who lost their lives if we begin to leave Iraq. But ask the families with loved ones over there how they feel. I met with a group in my Newark office with loved ones in Iraq, including a mother who lost her son there. As far as they were concerned, it would bring dishonor to other families if we just stay there with no plans for the future. So why are we having so much trouble securing Iraq? The answer is clear: The administration has no plan in place to do it. When they tried, we saw misstep after misstep by the civilian leaders in the Pentagon. And the leadership problems at the Pentagon start at the top. This administration went to war on the cheap: Not enough troops, not enough body armor, not enough help from our allies. I think we are down to a coalition that has very little coalescence attached to it. No help. And our troops have paid the price for these mistakes. There were so many mistakes and miscalculations by the Bush administration that it is hard to believe it at all. Secretary Rumsfeld said the Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops and that the Iraqi resistance would be limited. He was obviously wrong. He also failed to build coalitions with our allies. One of the few major allies that did join the coalition was Poland, which sent about 1,600 troops. But they began withdrawing early this year. Half are already gone, and by the end of the year, Poland will have all of its troops out of Iraq. Just this week, the Japanese announced they will withdraw their troops. We ask, when are we going to start withdrawing our troops? So far, 16 nations who have provided some assistance in Iraq have withdrawn their troops. The administration's failure to build a real coalition has caused our troops to bear the vast majority of the risk and suffer the casualties.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. No, I will not yield. I don't have enough time, I am sorry to say. Perhaps afterwards, the Senator from Oklahoma can use his own time to have an exchange. Secretary Rumsfeld said the war would be short. He said, ``I doubt 6 months.'' More than 3 years later, we know how tragically wrong that assessment was. Additionally, Secretary Rumsfeld was also way off on the cost of the war. He said it would cost no more than $100 billion. But the staggering reality is that it has cost $320 billion thus far, and we expect it will get close to half a trillion dollars before this year is over. Now we are experiencing a crisis in military recruiting. But about that, Secretary Rumsfeld is in denial. Whether in public or in private, he claims that recruiting is fine. Well, it is not. Here is the reality: The Army National Guard and Reserve are falling well short of their goals, and the only reason other branches are meeting goals is because the Pentagon has reduced the target numbers. Eight retired generals have come forward to say what many in the military have been thinking for years, and that is: It is time for a change at the top as well as the recovery of our people back home. One of the generals, General Eaton, who served in Iraq, said the following about Secretary Rumsfeld: In sum, he has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally, and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down. But instead of taking a stand like the generals, we have heard our colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply repeating talking points that were handed to them by the Bush administration: ``Cut and run''--disgusting words when you look at the reflection of what is intended there. We know this because the Secretary of Defense sent a Republican briefing booklet to Democrats by mistake last week. This briefing book is a three-ring binder of spin. It contains the same spin that we hear today from the other side of the Chamber. Instead of developing talking points and spin for Republican Senators, we should concentrate on putting together a plan for our troops in Iraq: For our troops to come home. I think my Republican colleagues should have stamped that briefing book ``Return to Sender'' and told the administration that they will think for themselves. That is what I would hope my colleagues across the aisle would do. I know that they want to protect our troops and I know that they care as much about loss of life. But we have a different approach on it. We need a fresh start, honest leadership, and we are not going to get either one as long as those in charge maintain their positions. In sum, I think it is time for Secretary Rumsfeld to go, and it is time for our troops to start to go home. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will try to be quick. I listened with interest to the Senator from Pennsylvania and his presentation. I also looked at the amendment he has produced. In that amendment, we are going to administer sanctions against companies doing business with Iran. Now, the surprise here is that three times before, when I had an amendment, the Senator from Pennsylvania voted against it, would not include it, didn't want to discriminate against firms that do business with Iran and that provide revenues that kill our kids in Iraq. And now we have a flimsy aspect. We say we are going to impose sanctions; however, it will be out of reach of American jurisdiction. It, therefore, will not apply to the company that owns it--in this case it happens to be a Halliburton--that has a sham corporation operating in Dubai based originally in the Cayman Islands. That should not be allowed, that the grasp of the U.S. Government cannot reach these perpetrators of the kind of indecency that places our soldiers at risk because they are doing business with an avowed enemy of the United States that is providing funds that are lethal to our troops over there. I hope everybody will take a good close look at this amendment and vote ``no.''