Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, this amendment is simple. It says that the parties responsible for the gulf oilspill must reimburse the government for every Federal dollar in this bill that goes to the oilspill response. To me, it is just a statement of pure logic. I thank Senator Murray for joining me in cosponsoring this amendment. It has been 36 days since BP's blown-out well began spewing damage from hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil uncontrollably into the Gulf of Mexico, and there is no end in sight. The spill is causing unimaginable devastation to wetlands, wildlife, and the way of life across the gulf. The prospect of oil entering the Loop Current in Florida, hitting the east coast of Florida, is becoming more likely. Now, President Obama--in addition to the funding provided for the wars in the supplemental and the Haiti disaster--has dispatched the Coast Guard, the Interior Department, the EPA, the Defense Department, and NOAA to the gulf to contain and clean up this disaster. Now we are about to provide millions of dollars in emergency supplemental funding for these efforts. The question for us today is simple: Who should pay for this effort? Should the American taxpayers be asked to pay for it or should big oil, the companies that caused this disaster, pay for it? I say it is the responsibility of these companies. They were unprepared to deal with this catastrophe. It was not our taxpayers. Therefore, the companies should pay all the bills, as expected. In the emergency supplemental, we often provide funds to deal with natural disasters. When a flood, hurricane, or tornado hits, Americans are accustomed to lending a hand to their neighbors, whether in their State or other States. But the oilspill in the gulf is not a natural disaster. It was caused either by neglect, recklessness, or otherwise by BP, Transocean, and Halliburton, all of which worked or had a large part of that drilling effort in the gulf. That is why my amendment requires reimbursements by the oil companies, the parties responsible, for any and all taxpayer funds spent on this response. It allows us to respond in the gulf without delay while making clear that the money in the bill is an advance, not a handout, for the oil companies. The oil companies can afford to pay the taxpayers back. BP made more than a $5 billion profit--more than $5 billion--in the first quarter of this year alone. Although BP first avowed to pay all claims, they then added a modifier, ``legitimate claims,'' and they are the ones who will determine the legitimacy of these claims. Every single day it becomes clearer that BP stands for ``broken promises.'' If the taxpayers are left with the tab for cleaning up BP's, Transocean's, and Halliburton's mess, funds for other vital services will simply dry up. It is common sense: Polluters must pay for their damage, not American taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first, I commend my colleague from New Jersey for developing this approach to make sure these companies pay for the damage they have done. We are going to see today, as we saw the other day, a response from the other side. I hope they have the courage, the guts, to stand and say they are with the ordinary American taxpayers or maybe they will say: We like the other guys better--big oil. Will the Senate stand with the fishing industries and the hard- working men and women who make a living providing sustenance to our Nation or will it continue its stand with big oil? They need all the help. You heard from our colleague from Maryland about their earnings, incredible earnings. BP, in a quarter, had its earnings increased by $3.2 billion--earnings, not revenue. So the choice is an easy one: You can stand with the guys who got so much that they are gouging the public or do you want to stand with the working people? Will the Senate stand with the coastal communities whose families are left jobless, homeless, and hopeless or will it stand steadfast with the big oil companies, as it has done? Last week, we got an answer. Senators Menendez and Nelson and I asked our colleagues to join with us to end big oil bailouts by raising the liability cap for oil companies from a trifling $75 million to $10 billion. Our colleagues stayed true to the big oil companies. They wanted to make sure they blocked any attempt to pass a bill that would raise their liability. So here we are again urging our colleagues to stand for the American taxpayers who are sick and tired of bailouts. We need to hold big oil accountable so the gulf coast communities don't meet the same fate as those families whose lives were ruined by the Exxon Valdez accident over 20 years ago. We have to hold them accountable because the American taxpayers are staring down the barrel of a disaster that is currently said to exceed $1 billion in monetary damage. The fact is, the amount of the monetary damages from the spill in the gulf is on track to surpass those from the Exxon Valdez. As the first Senator to visit Alaska after the Exxon Valdez went ashore, I saw the destruction caused by that oilspill firsthand. But even after issuing a string of apologies, Exxon fought over every penny with the communities and families and the fishermen whose lives were decimated. We had a hearing the other day in the Environment Committee with three executives from BP, Transocean, and Halliburton. I asked the simple question: Is your company responsible for the leak? No, no, no. They were pointing fingers at one another. Nobody was willing to say they had an accident, they did this or that--no, not them. Later on I asked could they guarantee we would not have any more spills if there was drilling in the ocean, and they said they could not do that. Mr. President, they are shamefacedly trying to protect themselves against a legitimate obligation they have. And our friends on the other side are not willing to say to those oil companies: Listen, you did it, you messed it up, pay up. Do what you have to as a corporate citizen and as a company that makes so much money you don't know what to do with it. Once again, I commend my colleague from New Jersey for developing this program. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague for initiation of this bill. It will protect the American taxpayers and say to big oil: You did it, you pay for it; that is the way it goes. I was lucky. I had two lifetime experiences that have stayed with me. One was growing up in a blue-collar family where we worried almost daily about how we would pay our bills. My father was sick for 13 months before he died at age 43 and we owed everybody--the pharmacist, the hospitals, the doctors. No insurance. No protection for the average person. Then I was fortunate enough to be able to be engaged in a business with two other fellows who had success beyond our wildest dreams. The company we started with nothing now has 46,000 employees in 26 countries, headquartered in New Jersey, of course. I learned something in those experiences. I learned that if you fouled up, you were responsible for cleaning up, as mentioned by Senator Menendez. The American people want those responsible for doing dirt to clean up that mess, just as families do in their own lives. But the oil executives and their lobbyists don't see things that way. They want to continue gouging the public whom they have by the tank and by the throat. They want to continue to accrue billion dollar profit gains year after year and leave the American family, the average American family, stretching daily to pay their bills. Look at this. The profits of the big oil companies in the last quarter alone are so astounding they are almost unimaginable. BP had a $5.6 billion profit quarter, a gain of $3.2 billion over last year when America was still in some significant economic problems. Exxon, by way of example, had a $6.3 billion profit quarter. It goes beyond, again, the wildest imagination. We have to draw the line. Our Big Bailout Prevention Act would raise the damage cap for all oilspills from a measly, a pittance, $75 million. My colleagues heard me. We compared it to a $5.2 billion quarter--not a year, a quarter--and they want to hide behind a $75 million cap on damages. Well, fortunately, we are here to say to the average working family: No, we are not going to let them get away with your money. We are not going to let them get away with walking away from this, hiding behind that ridiculous cap. It could be called in the vernacular a spit in the ocean, $75 million. So we can't afford to let those companies bail out, especially when workers' lives are at stake, the gulf environment hangs in the balance, and coastal communities are at risk. I challenge my colleagues, especially those who on the other side of the aisle have had a habit of saying no. If you want to say no to the taxpayers, say it out loud. Say it out loud. But don't try to protect the oil companies that are stuffing profits so much that they are gorging themselves on it. They are like pigs at the trough. The United States has seen too many oil spills, more than any other country in the world. It is time to end the special favors for big oil, get on the side of the American people, and make sure that when a catastrophe occurs, the American taxpayers don't get the bill for the oil companies' carelessness and recklessness. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I think it has been said before, but here we go again. What we have just seen tells us what the American people ought to know. There are fundamental questions being asked of Senators this week, principal of those: Whose side are you on? Whom do you work for? On Monday, Tuesday, and yet again today we got an answer. On the other side of the aisle they made it clear. They stand with the big banks. They do not stand with the infrastructure of everyday people who make this country the great place we have become. They do not stand for opportunities such as the ones that allowed Americans to come together after World War II to get an education, get jobs, become the greatest generation that built our Nation into the greatest on Earth. Instead, our friends across the aisle stand with Wall Street lobbyists who demand that we do not take up this bill. What an outrage. They stand for maintaining a banking system that denies people and businesses the funds they need and sells people mortgages they cannot afford, while lining executives' pockets with billions in compensation. The picture is quite clear. It is very obvious as to what has taken place here. After hearing the demands of the Wall Street lobbyists, the other side of the aisle systematically marches down here and votes no in lockstep, not once, not twice but three times. There is no one bold enough to say: Yes, we ought to do something about this situation that hurt our economy so; that destroyed jobs, lives, and homes. What the Republicans voted against three times this week was simply to start debating the Wall Street reform bill, to make it an even fairer system. The banking lobbyists may not want us to take up this bill, but everyday people do want reform. They do want change. They do want to see capital flowing into small businesses so they can get on with work and planning their families' and their children's future. On behalf of the everyday people, whose side we are on, we will keep voting to take up this bill until the other side understands that is what the American people want and gives them a break. Some say they voted no because they wanted more time to make a deal. The reality is, the American people are fed up with backroom deals that leave them out in the cold. We have carefully listened to testimony that has been developed these days. We are shocked to find out how they think hiding the deals was OK, but they didn't want it to be known to the public. They want us to roll up our sleeves, talk aloud about this bill, tell the public the truth, vote on amendments, and pass a strong Wall Street reform bill. That is what the average person in this country wants. Why don't the banking lobbyists like our bill? There are several reasons: Because it puts an end to giant, taxpayer-funded bailouts by creating a safe, responsible way to liquidate failing firms. They don't like it because it will end the era of too big to fail and stop protecting irresponsible executives who mismanaged their companies and because it will help prevent reckless gambling with investors' money by starting a new consumer protection watchdog. They don't want those things to happen. They don't like it because it moves the derivatives markets from the shadows to the sunlight so these transactions are transparent, so people understand what is going on. Right now across our country, ordinary Americans are facing real tough problems. Many struggle to find a job, meet their monthly bills. Many are struggling to pay for a college education. Far too many of our people are unable to keep their homes from falling into foreclosure. That is why we have been working so hard to reform our financial system, to make big banks accountable, and shine the light on Wall Street--but not on the other side of the aisle. They literally have taken their marching orders directly from Wall Street. We know key Republicans met with Wall Street executives and political consultants about how to attack this bill, about not permitting us to exercise the responsibility we have. But it is not working because we are on the side of everyday people, the people who sent us here. They sent us here with a plea: Help us, help us with our lives, help us take care of our families, help us educate our kids, help us protect ourselves when health care is required. The American people have made it clear they are not fooled by the delaying tactics and secret deals. They want Wall Street reformed. In the last decade, we saw how much power the financial sector has over our entire economy. Irresponsible actions by big banks led to the subprime bubble that led homes to appreciate far beyond their worth and led millions of Americans to take on loans for which they should never have qualified. The results were catastrophic and the collateral damage immense. Many of these people were seduced into taking loans they were advised they could handle. They didn't use good judgment, but they paid a heck of a price for it. Eight million jobs were lost, retirement accounts shriveled, and small businesses shut their doors. The ethical failures of Wall Street almost brought our economy to the brink of a second Great Depression. As a former CEO of a major company, I understand the need for a strong financial sector. But I also come to work every day reminded of the millions of people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Make no mistake, Wall Street reform, Wall Street change is absolutely necessary, and that is why we are going to keep moving forward on this critical bill. We have to continue to take our message to the American people and let the other people, on the other side of the aisle, say: No, no, no. Those on the other side of the aisle may try to disrupt. They may try to distort. They may try to destruct. But we are going to continue the fight for ordinary Americans, for people who wake every morning and play by the rules and work hard. I repeat something I said a moment ago; that is, how can we ignore supporting the infrastructure in our country, the people who make the things happen every day, who are there to do whatever the jobs are that are necessary, and reserve the best and the most for those few at the top? We can't do it that way. We have an infrastructure that is even far more precious than our fiscal infrastructure; that is, our human infrastructure. We are going to continue to tell the American people what is happening so we can make changes necessary to avoid the catastrophe we have had over this last couple years. Thank goodness that through the leadership of President Obama and the administration and the work of colleagues we are making progress, but the progress is not rapid enough nor broad enough. We are going to insist on moving down the road of progress. We are going to insist on doing what is right for our country and for our families and for our future. I hope somebody, someone on the other side of the political aisle, will say: Listen, we are not getting anywhere by just walking down the steps together and saying no and not permitting change to take place that is critical for our society and our world. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise because today marks 11 years since the massacre at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO, occurred. This is a painful recall of a horrible moment in our country that should remind us all of a condition that could easily happen again. I and millions of other Americans watched in horror as young students hung out of windows in that schoolhouse to try to save their lives, while two of their schoolmates went on a rampage and killed 12 students and a teacher. Those images will forever be burned in our memory. But here is what a lot of people do not know: All the firearms used by the shooters were bought by an underage friend at a gun show. That purchase was able to be made because of the gun show loophole. Because of the gun show loophole, they were bought with no questions asked, no background check, no questions about who you are, where you might live. The weapons were bought ``cash and carry,'' without, again, any identifying questions being asked or being supplied. Those 13 people should never have died that day because those teenagers should not have had access to those guns. The young woman who bought the guns for the shooters said she would not have done it if a background check had been required. Our laws require a background check for all gun sales by licensed dealers. But a special exemption allows anyone--including terrorists such as bin Laden, criminals, gun traffickers, and the severely mentally ill--to buy guns without a background check from so-called private sellers, who sell hundreds of guns every year at gun shows, fully exempt from any responsibility for those sales. In 1999, I introduced legislation to close the gun show loophole and to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands. In the aftermath of Columbine, the Senate passed my legislation, with Vice President Al Gore casting the tiebreaking vote. It was a great victory but a short- lived one. The gun lobby stripped my legislation in conference with the House, and in the decade since then we have done absolutely nothing at the national level to close the gun show loophole. No wonder domestic terrorists frequently use gun shows to sell their firearms to fund their illegal activities. Just yesterday, we commemorated the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. It claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6. Timothy McVeigh--the killer responsible for those horrific deeds--frequently set up his own booth. He sold weapons at gun shows. We continue to see the tragic consequences of senseless gun violence fueled by gun show dealers who are not really licensed. Just a few weeks ago, a few miles from this Chamber, John Patrick Bedell opened fire on two police officers at the Pentagon Metro station. They were wounded before they returned the fire and killed Bedell. One of his semiautomatic guns was linked directly back to a gun show sale. And it is no surprise that his gun was bought outside the normal stream of commerce because Bedell would have failed a background check. He actually tried to buy a gun from a licensed firearms dealer in California, but because of his diagnosed mental illness, he couldn't pass the check. If that doesn't make it clear that we have to stop guns from falling into the wrong hands, just think of the Virginia Tech shootings. Last Friday, we marked the third anniversary of that horrible day. In that tragedy, a mentally deranged man killed 32 students and faculty in the worst mass shooting in American history. Whether it is Virginia Tech, the recent shootings at the Pentagon, or Columbine, we are reminded over and over that our gun laws are not strong enough. Yet, while gunshots continue to ring out across this country, the silence from this Chamber is deafening. I am a veteran. I served in the military in Europe during wartime, World War II, and I understand the desire to protect one's self and family. But I know how important it is to keep terrorists, convicted criminals, and domestic abusers from having guns. Some would argue that gun owners are against sensible gun laws, including closing the gun show loophole, but that is simply not true. Recent polling has shown that there is overwhelming support for closing the gun show loophole among gun owners. Here we have a placard that shows that gun owners themselves want the loophole closed. Sixty-nine percent of NRA members agree, and 85 percent of other gun owners agree: Shut down that gun show loophole. Republican pollster Frank Luntz recently found that 69 percent of National Rifle Association members and, as pointed out, 85 percent of other gun owners want us to close this loophole. After all, the vast majority of gun owners are law- abiding Americans who pass background checks and use their firearms responsibly. They know their lives and the lives of their children are in danger when a firearm is purchased by an unqualified buyer at a gun show, by someone who could never pass a background check at a neighborhood gun store. It is as easy as ever for criminals to buy guns--easier, in fact, than it is to get a library card. We have an opportunity to save lives, and that is why I call on my colleagues to please join me and pass my bill to close the gun show loophole once and for all. Eleven years ago, we lost 12 students and a teacher to gun violence in Littleton, CO. One of the best ways to honor those who perished and those who have suffered is to make sure a tragedy like Columbine never happens again. We owe that and nothing less to the young people who died 11 years ago and the young people who count on us today. We have to step up to our responsibilities and ask all gun dealers to step up to their responsibilities. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank Senator Baucus for his leadership on this health care reform effort that is underway. This is the most astounding thing. For all these weeks, our friends on the other side have said no, no, no to health care. Not one good word. Not one of them stood and said: Yes, we should cover 32 million people who don't have coverage; yes, we should cover young people who want to join their parents' health insurance policy. They said no to small businesses that need help in providing affordable health coverage to their employees. Many know that recently I was stricken with an illness. Five weeks ago this time, I was in an ambulance on my way to the hospital, bleeding profusely, very sick. I was lucky. I had health care coverage. The doctors were there waiting for me. They were there to give me transfusions. They were there to give me intravenous fluids. They were there to care for me. I had nursing care, and I came through a crisis, as my children stood by, my four children stood by with their fingers crossed, pleading for my health to return. It was because I had health care coverage that I am standing here today on my way to a full cure-- less hair but still willing to fight the fight for the people I represent, for the people across this country who are being denied coverage in any way they can do it. What we see is obstructionism at its worst. I have yet to hear them say: Let our conscience come out here and say we ought to cover these people, that we ought to make sure health care is affordable. The night I was brought into the hospital and was so fortunate enough to have the health care coverage I had, during the days of recovery I thought: What would happen if I was 40 years younger, had two or three kids, had no health care coverage, and I came in, in this kind of critical condition? The chances of my walking out of that hospital would have been very low. So I say to my friends on the other side, they are not bad people, they are just totally wrong. They don't want to say that a young person can join their family's affordable health care insurance. They don't want to encourage people to find insurance that is affordable through the exchanges that are provided. They don't want to permit people who are there without coverage, who would force their way into an emergency room, perhaps, and say: Look, I am very ill. I have no pep. I feel terrible. Take care of me. Yes? Take a number like you do in a supermarket. You are No. 32. We will get to you. Don't worry about it. Well, I worry about it because I know a different kind of America. I know an America that was there for me when I needed an education. I know an America that is there for people. I get letters from them all the time that say thank you for helping us to be able to afford a better education. Thank you for the things you can do. I say to my colleagues on the other side: Open up. Tell the truth. If you don't want to give those people affordable coverage, then throw in the coverage you have. Throw in your policy. When you say no to the 32 million people, say: I mean it when I say no. I am giving up my coverage similar to those people out there. Tell the truth about how you feel about the people who stand there without coverage, worrying every day whether an illness is going to rob them of their jobs, of their opportunity to perform their parental duties or any duties. That is what ought to happen. Stand. Vote no, vote no against anything that improves or might improve this insurance and say: No, I mean it when I say no. I mean it. I am willing to give up the coverage I and my family have. I am talking to the Senators on the other side. Say no and mean no. But mean it for yourselves as well as the people outside who are begging for the coverage. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO, as it marks its 20th anniversary representing our Nation's transportation workers. The TTD is a leader in the effort to ensure that our transportation needs are fully met, and they work to remind us of the critical role that workers serve in this industry. As chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and a member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I have found TTD to be a trusted, valuable resource to help strengthen our infrastructure and expand our skilled, well-trained workforce. We are working together to address our ailing bridges and highways, improve our rail systems and ports, and modernize our air traffic control systems. I am proud to have worked with TTD to guard against those who would put safety, security, and service at risk. TTD and I have fought against risky privatization schemes for Amtrak and air traffic controllers and to rein in air carriers who seek out low-cost, poorly supervised foreign repair facilities. There is absolutely no excuse for cutting corners on safety anywhere in the transportation industry. Our work in transportation is far from done. With our economy mired in a recession and lingering unemployment crisis, we need to rebuild our infrastructure and put Americans back to work. We must do more to modernize rail, transit, and ports, improve safety on our roads, and invest in the technologies that will make air travel safer and more efficient. Transportation workers are a strong partner in these bold steps, and I look forward to continuing to work closely with TTD in pursuit of these shared goals. Twenty years after its inception, the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO, continues to be a leader in a more efficient, productive, and connected nation. I congratulate the organization on this milestone anniversary and wish it continued success in the future.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I regret that the time has been shrunken as it has. I want an opportunity to register my full support to confirm an exceptionally well-qualified district jurist--Judge Joseph Greenaway-- to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. For more than 13 years, Judge Greenaway has served on U.S. District Court in Newark, NJ. On the entrance to that courthouse there is an inscription that reads: The true measure of a democracy is its dispensation of justice. I take pride in authorship of that quote because I firmly believe it reflects the values on which our Nation was founded--values that must endure throughout our government and legal system. While serving as a district judge in that building, Judge Greenaway has demonstrated his unyielding commitment to those values--the same values that will make him a success on the Third Circuit court of appeals. There can be no question that Judge Greenaway is eminently qualified for this position. Let's take a look at his credentials. From humble beginnings, Judge Joseph Greenaway became a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, Assistant U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, Chief of the Narcotics Division, U.S. District Court Judge for New Jersey, was confirmed by the Senate in 1996, presided over more than 4,000 cases, was rated unanimously well-qualified by the ABA and his nomination to the Third Circuit passed unanimously by Senate Judiciary Committee. On top of his outstanding experience and intellect, there has never been a question about Judge Greenaway's ability, character, or commitment to the community. We are so fortunate that we have this outstanding individual. Throughout his career, despite his critical bench responsibilities, Judge Greenaway has always found time to help others aspiring to preserve our just society's obligations--by teaching criminal trial practice classes at Cardozo Law School and courses about the Supreme Court there and at Columbia University. And he has received numerous honors and awards recognizing his work. Among them: Thurgood Marshall College Fund Award of Excellence; Garden State Bar Association Distinguished Jurist Award; Chair Emeritus of the Columbia College Black Alumni Council. In fact, the only question surrounding Judge Greenaway's confirmation is this: What took so long to move him along to this very busy appeals court?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will just take a couple of more minutes. While I welcome a vote that will establish confidence in Judge Greenaway's ability to serve our country, today's vote comes 4 months after his nomination came to the floor of the U.S. Senate because of unnecessary and unreasonable delays. Not one of my Republican colleagues has voiced a single objection to Judge Greenaway along the way or a single reason for this delay. Judge Greenaway and the people of New Jersey are not alone in falling victim to this obstruction. Republican obstructionism last year led to the lowest number of judicial confirmations in more than 50 years. Justice has been delayed while those who refused to let this vote take place had another agenda--purely to score political points. It is shameful and the American people show discouragement. I hope today's vote signals a break in the profuse presence of obstructionism and will permit us to do our work for the American people in a more timely fashion. If they have objections based on character or ability, tell the American people that. Don't hide behind a cloak of procedure. The ABA found Judge Greenaway unanimously well-qualified and the Senate Judiciary Committee was unanimous in supporting this nomination. Today, I urge all my colleagues to once again unanimously support the confirmation of this brilliant legal scholar, Judge Joseph Greenaway, to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I think it is important we respond to the public discourse and concern about what it is we do here to accomplish what is in the public interest. We know that for some time now there has been obstructionism to moving ahead with the people's business, that the price obtained for obstructionism is political gain. But, like any other transaction, when you do that--when we take the time and the energy devoted toward trying to move ahead and do not move ahead--the price that is paid for this by the American public. It is apparent that our friends on the other side have decided they would rather sacrifice the people's need for action on critical issues for their party's political gain. We have seen delay, diversion, parliamentary gimmicks, wasted time, and a throwaway of huge resources to distort and distract us from accomplishing better lives for American families. Republicans have used stalling tactics such as the filibuster over 100 times since the start of this Congress just over 1 year ago. The problem is, the victims of these delay-and-destroy tactics are people who need to get back to work, have affordable health care, better education, and other essentials for decent living. The victims are also well-qualified nominees for high government positions who seek to serve in order to carry America forward--nominees to fill an appeals court position, such as Judge Joseph Greenaway from my State of New Jersey. Joseph Greenaway is a well-qualified judge who has served on the Federal bench in New Jersey for over a decade. He has been nominated by President Obama for a seat on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. He brings exceptional credentials and experience that are second to none. But his nomination has been blocked without any criticism of his education, experience, or merit. This wonderful example of America at its best came from a modest- income family. He has great academic credentials, excelling at Columbia University and Harvard Law School. He brings a rare blend of experience, clerking for a Federal judge, serving as an assistant U.S. attorney in Newark in 1985, and then working in private practice. He distinguished himself prosecuting bank fraud and white-collar criminals before rising through the ranks to become chief of the Narcotics Division. He moved on to serve as a U.S. district court judge in New Jersey. In that position, he has built up a wealth of experience, presiding over more than 4,000 cases in his courtroom. He has received numerous honors and awards recognizing his work, among them, the Earl Warren Legal Scholar, Thurgood Marshall College Fund Award of Excellence, Garden State Bar Association Distinguished Jurist Award--the list goes on--Columbia University Medal of Excellence, chair emeritus of the Columbia College Black Alumni Council. Judge Greenaway has spent his career protecting the people of the State of New Jersey. Despite his critical bench responsibilities, he has always found time to give back to the community. He teaches criminal trial practice classes at Cardozo Law School and courses about the Supreme Court there and at Columbia University. Judge Greenaway will be an outstanding addition to the bench. The American Bar Association rated him ``unanimously well qualified'' for this position. That is why he was passed unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee. Not one Republican on that committee dissented. There was not one vote against him. Yet Judge Greenaway has been sidelined for over 4 months, waiting for a vote on the Senate floor, despite the need to fill that position. Every time we try to schedule a vote, Republicans have objected. I am pleased to note there has been consent to go to a vote on Monday evening. The wait has been long. It has been tortuous. There can't be any understanding of why. With all the wonderful accolades Judge Greenaway has had for his work, his experiences, his climb to the position he has had, what could be objected to? I say, if he is not acceptable in our colleagues' eyes, speak up. Vote against him. Show the American people why this educated, brilliant legal scholar is not fit to serve. Obstructionism last year led to the lowest number of judicial confirmations in more than 50 years. It is time for this to end, and it doesn't end with a vote on Judge Greenaway. There are lots of positions that have yet to be filled. I wish to say to those who hear this or understand otherwise what is going on, this man, people like him, and our country deserve better. When a confirmation is blocked, it is not just one judge who suffers. The whole system suffers under the weight of vacancies in the judiciary. The American people suffer with longer waits for justice in overburdened courts. The Third Circuit Court has a vacancy that needs to be filled. It is time for our friends--Republican Senators who I know love their country--to stop obstructing things, when we have well-qualified nominees, and allow the Senate to confirm them without further delay. When we have objections that are purposeful, come to the floor, explain why, and explain it honestly and frankly in front of the American people. But to hide behind objections reminds me of what we used to call people who refused to serve: conscientious objectors. That says something in that phrase. I heard it often in America when I was in uniform as a soldier. Conscientious objectors, people who objected because they have a conscience. If that is the case, and if we relate that to the current condition here, then let people who want to object come up and explain why exactly it is they don't want to vote. But, again, I am pleased our Republican colleagues have seen there was no longer any purpose in delay. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would say about 10 minutes. Ten minutes would be more than adequate.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, and I congratulate him for having cast 10,000 votes. We all know Senator Specter so well, and we know that 10,000 votes cast by him represents 10,000 thoughtful decisions. He is a lawyer of distinction. He came to the Senate and was accorded respect for his views. We have often listened to debates where Senator Specter participated and his views were always respected by others and carried much weight. He and I have gotten along over the years very well. I was pleased to see him have the courage to switch parties because of his beliefs in how this body ought to function, and we congratulate him for that as well. The only disagreement we have is whether the Philadelphia football team, the Eagles, is more loved by people in the southern part of our State, New Jersey, or whether their loyalty is better appreciated by those from Pennsylvania. It depends, with me, on what their record is. I am sorry, excuse me. But it is a pleasure to serve with Senator Specter. I am somewhat behind him for the number of votes cast, but it is easy and particularly when I am asked: Well, what was the vote 8,003 that you cast? I say: Well, I will have to check the Record. Thousands of votes are a lot of votes. They require a lot of decisionmaking. Once again, I congratulate Senator Specter for his good decisionmaking.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, tonight I wish to highlight what my colleague, Senator Menendez, talked about in getting on with the business of the Senate and defining what takes place in this body, this place of the people, where some say we shouldn't move quickly--we shouldn't move, period--on decisions that matter because, politically, our colleagues on the other side are determined to do whatever they can to bring down this administration's ability to function, including the majority's ability to function. I rise to talk about a target that our Republican friends have in their sight and that is Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr., of New Jersey. He exemplifies the dreams so many have about what can be accomplished in life. He is the son of a nurse and a carpenter. He rose from humble beginnings to attend Columbia University and Harvard Law School. Joseph Greenaway is a well-qualified judge. He served on our district court for over a decade with distinction. His credentials and qualifications are beyond reproach, and there is no opposition to his nomination to the Third Circuit Court. Yet the Republicans blocked a vote--not cast a vote but blocked a vote--on his confirmation tonight. It is unconscionable. Let the Senate make its decision. Those on the other side who don't want to vote for him, let them say so. Let them say it with a vote. But, no, they insist on tying things up, which has been the manner of things here for some time now, since President Obama has taken office. This man and our country deserve better than what we are seeing. Some of us in this Chamber came to Congress to move the country forward because we are so grateful to this Nation of ours that we want to make sure--and I speak for myself, but I am sure I speak for others--that we are so grateful for the opportunities that befell us and our families. I speak from personal experience. I come from parents who were brought here as immigrants when they were infants and had the opportunity to do well in business for a number of years after coming and being here for 25 years. I want to do this job because I wish to help people. I know what it is like to be deprived of resources. It is painful. I saw it through my entire childhood. My father died when he was 43, without any insurance, without any help from the government to help my mother carry on while I was in the Army. Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues have a different agenda. They are focused on bringing this Chamber to a standstill. They are focused on delay and stopping progress on nearly every issue. The filibuster used to be reserved for only the most controversial issues and was meant to allow enough time for debate. Now it is being abused, hijacked by Republicans who are more interested in political and procedural games than in legislating. We have seen it in the health care bill, when one of our colleagues on the other side said that if they can defeat the health care bill President Obama produced with the Congress, they will have presented the Waterloo to President Obama's career. It is terrible to have that kind of an attitude. Serve the people. Forget about stopping things. Talk about them and come out here on the floor and say why don't you want to help people. That is what we are talking about. Today we see an example in the simplest form. Republicans have used the filibuster over 100 times since the start of this Congress. They have used it to block health care reform, funding for our troops, and even help for our veterans. They are using it to block well-qualified judges from serving on the Federal bench. Republican obstructionism last year led to the lowest number of judicial confirmations in more than 50 years. Republicans sit on their hands and block the Senate from considering qualified nominees for months on end. Last week, we finally had a vote on the confirmation of Beverly Martin to serve on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She was unanimously supported in the Judiciary Committee and then forced to wait over 4 months on the Senate calendar for no good reason, except to chalk up another victory over progress. What was the final vote on her confirmation? It was 97 to 0. They would not let us vote, but there was a willingness to have everyone in the Chamber vote for her. No opposition, not a single dissenter. Once again, we are witnessing a judge being caught in the crosshairs of the party of no. Judge Greenaway was nominated to serve on the Third Circuit and voted unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee. Yet his nomination has languished for nearly 4 months. This is unreasonable. Judge Greenaway is an exceptional public servant and will be an excellent addition to the bench. Judge Greenaway started in public service as an assistant U.S. attorney in Newark in 1985. He distinguished himself prosecuting bank fraud and white-collar crime cases before being picked to head the narcotics division in the U.S. Attorney's office. Since 1996, he has served on the U.S. District Court in Newark. In his tenure, he has demonstrated his firm commitment to the values we want to see in our judges--fairness, equity, and justice. These are the same values that will make him a success on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Greenaway has spent his career protecting New Jerseyans and their rights. That is why the American Bar Association--his peers-- rated him ``unanimously well qualified'' for this position. That is why it is so incomprehensible to understand why they insist on not permitting us a vote. Let us vote. Maybe he won't be accepted by the Senate. Let us vote, by gosh. We ought to confirm him without further delay. The Third Circuit Court has a vacancy that needs to be filled. This is a noncontroversial, well-qualified judge waiting and anxious to serve. I call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, stop your obstructionism and let this vote move forward. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I offer time to my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez--up to 11 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 1 more minute to the Senator.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3156--it is at the desk--and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today because one thing we have to do as we progress with this health care reform bill is to make sure prescription medicine in our country is safe and affordable. I thank my colleague from New Jersey for his excellent review of the conditions that cause us to add this amendment to Senator Dorgan's amendment that would allow potentially unsafe prescription drugs to be shipped across our borders and directly into the medicine cabinets of homes throughout America. I want to be clear, the effect of this plan Senator Dorgan has offered could be catastrophic. That is why President Obama's administration has written to the Congress expressing its serious concerns with the Dorgan amendment. I appreciate the efforts to try to lower prescription drug prices. After all, that is what we are doing with the whole health reform review--trying to get costs reduced so everyone can have safe and affordable health care. We want to make sure people do not harm their health with any shortcuts. We all want Americans to stay healthy and still have some money left in their pockets. But as much as we want to cut costs for consumers, we cannot afford to cut corners and risk exposing Americans to drugs that are ineffective or unsafe. The fact is, this is a matter of life and death. The European Commission just discovered that counterfeit drugs in Europe are worse than they feared. In just 2 months--and I know Senator Menendez made reference to this as well--the EU seized 34 million fake tablets, including antibiotics, cancer treatments, and anticholesterol medicine. As the industry commissioner of the EU said: Every faked drug is a potential massacre. Even when a medicine only contains an ineffective substance, this can lead to people dying because they think they are fighting their illnesses with a real drug. Americans buy medicine to lower their cholesterol, fight cancer, and prevent heart disease. Imagine what would happen to a mother or a child if they start relying on medicine imported from another country only to find out years later that the drug was a fake. Imagine the heartbreak that might ensue if the medicine Americans were taking was found to be harmful. The fact is that drugs from other countries have dangerously high counterfeit rates and importation could expose Americans to those drugs. Under the Dorgan amendment, drugs would be imported from former Soviet Union countries where the World Health Organization estimates that over 20 percent of the drugs are counterfeit. Under the Dorgan amendment, drugs that originate in China could find their way into our homes. We know that China has been the source of many dangerous products in recent years, from toys laced with lead to toothpaste made with antifreeze. If we are going to trust drugs from other countries, we need to be absolutely certain we are not putting Americans' lives at risk. That is why the Food and Drug Administration went on record to express its concerns with the Dorgan amendment. They say: There are significant safety concerns related to allowing the importation of non-bioequivalent products, and safety issues related to confusion in distribution and labeling of foreign products and the domestic product that remain to be fully addressed in the amendment. That is from the FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg. There are problems associated with the possibility of drugs coming to this country that are way different than that which is expected to be used in the treatment of sickness. President Obama's FDA Commissioner also wrote and said that importing drugs presents a risk to patients because the drug may not be safe and effective, may not have been made in a facility with good manufacturing practices, and may not be the drug it claims to be. In light of the serious concerns raised by the Obama administration, I am offering an amendment to require that the Department of Health and Human Services certify that the drugs are safe and will reduce costs before they are imported. My amendment is a commonsense bipartisan alternative to the Dorgan amendment. In fact, it is the exact same language as the Dorgan importation amendment, but with the certification requirement that is so important to ensure safety. If we are going to allow the importation of drugs from other countries, we have to be certain they are safe and affordable. With this amendment, I would be in support of the Dorgan amendment. Only certification by health experts will provide that assurance. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and oppose the Dorgan amendment. We have no way of knowing what the working conditions might be like in a plant or a facility, or the sanitary conditions, in other countries, or whether in the process of packing and shipping temperatures might not be appropriate for the product to arrive without deterioration. Thusly, again, I stress--bring in what you want, just make sure it is safe for the people. There is no moment in the discussion we have had about the health care reform bill that says, Look, you can save money by taking a chance on a shortcut here or a shortcut there. Absolutely not. We wouldn't think of proposing anything such as that, and we ought not to be proposing it here now. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from North Carolina.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. No objection.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I believe my colleague from North Dakota intends to make further remarks. How much time do we have on our side, please?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thirteen minutes. Mr. President, if Senator Dorgan is here, then we are trying to accommodate a colleague who wishes to speak on this. How much time is left on the Dorgan side?