Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I come to the floor because we were looking at an amendment earlier today that would have stopped the EPA from exercising its obligation to combat global warming pollution. There are those here who would choose to defer taking action to deal with this enormous threat where future generations' lives and well- being would be at risk. But the time for delay is a luxury we don't have. We can't afford to wait any longer and we cannot afford to limit our options. Every day the science makes it more clear we are on a dangerous course. In fact, the scientific community has recently had to revise its own estimates because rising temperatures are destabilizing our planet far faster than originally expected. For instance, 2 years ago, scientists warned us that summers in the Arctic would be completely ice free by 2050. Now they are saying summers in the Arctic will be completely ice free in 3 years. Two years ago they said sea levels would rise less than 2 feet by the end of this century and now it is being said sea levels will rise by 6 feet. The risks of inaction are too great. We have to look also at the national security risks we face by continuing to do nothing about climate change. According to the CIA's National Intelligence Council, if we fail to act, nearly 1 billion people may face water and food shortages in the next 15 years. These shortages will set the stage for conflict and breed conditions for terrorism. At the same time, with 20 percent of the world's population living in coastal zones, rising sea levels and stronger hurricanes could displace more than 150 million people by 2050. When it is expressed in percentages such as that and talking about numbers that are almost beyond the imagination, it sometimes loses its impact. But what we are talking about are people seeking higher-level places to take themselves and their families so they are not overwhelmed by floods. Border pressures created by these mass migrations will increase tensions and lay the groundwork for armed conflict. The U.S. Navy has looked at this problem in the past and issued a report that in the last half of the 21st century we could be looking at a different structure for naval engagements with smaller boats, higher speeds, and so forth to keep people from flooding our shores because they are trying to get away from higher water. Nations will look to us, to the United States, as a first responder in the aftermath of these major natural emergencies and humanitarian disasters. Retired GEN Anthony Zinni put it this way, that if we don't begin reducing carbon emissions now, we will ``pay the price later in military terms and that will involve human lives.'' Delay is not a substitute for confronting this growing problem. It is no surprise that many of those who want to shelve the Clean Air Act and stop EPA from doing its duty are the same ones who close their eyes to the overwhelming scientific evidence that says, Wake up, hear the alarm. They have dismissed the ominous forecasts of life changes for plants, animals, and humans. They called global warming ``the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.'' A hoax is a joke. That is a bad joke. Let's not forget, the EPA's power to curb greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act was recently affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Clean Air Act has been one of the great success stories of our lifetime and it is one of the few tools we have to overcome climate change. For the last 40 years, this law has led to cleaner skies and healthier children. If it weren't for the Clean Air Act, 225,000 Americans would have died prematurely, according to an EPA study. Imagine, we would have lost 225,000 people if it weren't for the Clean Air Act. While the gains have been enormous, the cost to polluters has been minimal. In fact, the total benefits to our economy have been identified as high as $49 trillion, putting the benefit at 100 times greater than the cost for action. Even so, history shows that opponents often dramatically overstate the costs of environmental improvement. The last time we strengthened the Clean Air Act, our adversaries rang the alarm that these changes would cost too much and damage the economy. But as it turned out, the actual costs were less than one- fifth of what these opponents estimated. Today, even though EPA has a proven track record of producing trillions in benefits for our economy and our country under the Clean Air Act, we are hearing the same kinds of warnings. It makes no sense. There is no doubt our opponents prefer to endorse inaction and will reward failure. That is why I urge my colleagues to stand up to the special interests and stand for the public interest. It is time to say from our hearts that we are willing to stand firm against those who claim the overstated cost of change outweighs the risk of disappearing species, poor health, and international unrest. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to discuss with the Senator a serious issue that deserves our attention. White nose syndrome, WNS, is a fungus that is causing an extraordinary number of bat deaths, particularly in the Northeast. This disease has the potential to inflict widespread ecological, agricultural, and economic damage throughout our country. More than 1 million bats have died from New Hampshire to Virginia over the last two winters, and scientists report mortality rates as high as 100 percent in some affected caves. Experts fear that WNS could lead to the extinction of many bat species as the disease spreads across the country. WNS not only has ecological effects, but it also has severe economic and environmental implications. Bats consume vast quantities of insects, protecting crops and reducing pesticide use. A single bat can easily eat more than 3,000 insects a night and an entire colony will consume hundreds of millions of insects per year. Bats prey on mosquitoes, which spread disease, and moths and beetles, which damage agriculture. With the Senator's leadership, the fiscal year 2010 Interior appropriations bill has included $500,000 for research to prevent the spread of WNS, and I thank the Senator for that.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. As the Senator knows, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS, is spearheading efforts to better understand this deadly disease and learn how to control its spread. FWS is working in conjunction with the U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, and U.S. Forest Service and with State and local partners, scientists, and conservation organizations. Due to the high mortality rate and the rapid spread of the disease, time is of the essence.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Experts estimate that much more funding is needed for research on WNS. Accordingly, I filed an important amendment to this bill, amendment No. 2476, to shift $1.4 million in additional funding to WNS research. My amendment would not put any other projects or programs at risk, and it would provide critical resources to fight this disease. I ask for the chairman's assurance that she will work in conference to implement my amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I seek recognition because in front of us we have a proposal I think could be very damaging to our country. An amendment has been proposed that I consider unnecessary and potentially dangerous which is being offered by the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Wicker. What we are finding is that there is a challenge to whether Amtrak can continue to operate after the 1st of October. It has been modified, but initially it would propose a ban put on Amtrak's operations unless guns can be carried in baggage on Amtrak trains. While that is an issue that could be discussed--think about it: Amtrak carries 28 million people in a year, and Amtrak produces far less toxic emissions and is much more energy efficient. We have been delinquent for so many years in investing in good railroading. In this advanced country, in this, the richest country in the world, no matter what our economic condition is, it is incomprehensible for that kind of a choice to be put forward: Either you carry guns in our trains--in your baggage on our trains or else we shut down the railroad. It is preposterous when you think of the services that are offered, not just directly on the Amtrak trains but on the Amtrak tracks where, in many States, it is also used by commuting services. It would cripple the functioning of our country. It is outrageous that, at this point in time, when we have worked so hard to generate funding for Amtrak to improve the service, to bring it up to the 21st century, and it is suggested that maybe we ought to shut it down because we have a disagreement about whether guns can be carried in baggage on railroad cars. This amendment now has moved the time period to discontinuing the service in March. Well, I don't know what the value of that is, very frankly. If that kind of a threat hangs over us, do we continue to invest billions of dollars? Do we try to get private investors to buy Amtrak bonds? I don't think so, not when we face a threat such as that. Last fall, this Chamber voted overwhelmingly, 74 to 24, to reauthorize Amtrak and modernize our Nation's passenger rail system and, oddly enough, the Senator from Mississippi voted for this legislation. Amtrak has made much progress because of that new law, but the amendment on the floor would undo all that. The Wicker amendment, as I said earlier, would completely shut down our Nation's passenger rail service. That is hardly a thing to do when our infrastructure is so severely degraded because of a far greater use than we ever expected. I wish to be clear. This amendment would hardly give Amtrak any time before it might be required to start allowing firearms to be carried on its trains. At this moment, Amtrak will tell you they don't have the means to carry these guns securely and safely. Senator Wicker noted in 2004 Amtrak made a decision to stop transporting guns in the name of security. Why did it happen in 2004? I remind those who can hear that it was September 11, 2001, and the terrorist attacks in Madrid which reminded us that railroad travel organizations are an attractive target for terrorist attacks. Amtrak determined it lacked the ability to securely transport checked firearms. It is a decision that was not casually made. I wish to be able to work with the Senator from Mississippi and Amtrak to see if we can develop a reasonable plan so that passengers can safely and reasonably transport guns in checked bags on Amtrak train. I don't agree with it, but I am happy to discuss it, in deference to Senator Wicker. When you think of what Amtrak means in our country, I remind you that on September 11, when the World Trade Center came crashing down, taking with it almost 3,000 lives, the only way you could get there on that day, and a couple days thereafter, was by train, by Amtrak. Aviation was shut down across the country and in much of the world. Highways were jammed beyond effective use. But Amtrak was there to help. And to say that our security doesn't raise the issue of whether we can transport guns on Amtrak--that doesn't make sense to me. If Senator Wicker's amendment is adopted, all Amtrak trains across the country, and those that use Amtrak's tracks, could come to a complete halt in a matter of months. It is outrageous to propose something this crippling over an issue that can be resolved. Yet, the Wicker amendment threatens to leave us with no passenger rail service in America. We cannot afford to sabotage our passenger train service to meet this crazy timetable--and I say crazy. When you think about it, for years, we fought to get Amtrak standing as it should be, the principal rail service in a country like ours. Amtrak was created in 1970, taken out of private hands and put into government hands as a quasi-government corporation. We are spending $1.5 billion a year to bring Amtrak up to current standards. The Recovery Act included $8 billion for high-speed rail, plus the President's budget called for a billion dollars annually for 5 years. By comparison, foreign governments--in 2005, France's national railway agency got $8.3 billion in government spending. I said it was $1\1/2\ billion in America, and France spent $8.3 billion. Why? Because it is efficient. It reduces toxic emissions and the dependency on foreign oil. Germany spent about $9 billion annually on passenger rail service. Spain has a plan to spend $150 billion on rail from 2005 to 2020, or an average of $10 billion a year. And we are trying to play catchup now. Since 1971, a total of $33 billion has been spent on Amtrak. That is almost 40 years, averaging less than a billion dollars a year, as we see what other countries have done. Ridership on Amtrak, in 1988, was 21 million. In 2008, it was 28 million. People are turning to Amtrak because they know it is a very respectable way to travel, if it is available to you. So when we look at that and see that the growth of ridership is so substantial, that tells us we ought to figure out ways to do things differently. When we look at the whole picture, frankly, it brings a lot of concern when you think of the demand for Amtrak services. Amtrak, in the last year, had 28 million riders. For instance, New York City, the financial center of the world and the country, is dependent on the functioning of that financial system. We saw what happened when it almost broke down in these last months. In an average day in New York City, more people travel through New York's Penn Station than John F. Kennedy Airport, LaGuardia, and Liberty Airport put together on the same day. Penn Station--more people travel through there than all three of those airports in a day. And unless guns are permitted to be put aboard a train, we should shut down Amtrak? We should punish the American people because we cannot have guns travel on Amtrak trains? This cannot be justified by any stretch of the imagination. Also, we fail to look at something else. When we put people on Amtrak, we free up room in the skyways and on the highways. I cannot tell you how often I often fly between here and New Jersey, my home State, and I have had a pilot say welcome aboard such-and-such airline, and we will be departing soon for a 45-minute flight to Newark Liberty Airport. We get on the plane, the doors close, and they move us away from the gate, and the pilot gets on and says: We just learned that in the New York area we have a 2-hour delay, so we sat there looking at one another crossly. Everybody was angry and upset. If I had taken Amtrak--I came down yesterday in just over 2\1/2\ hours. What a difference. Very often, airplane trips less than 250 miles are the slowest means of travel because of the delays from airport to airport, and because of weather, et cetera. There are hardly any highways that I travel in the country, as my colleagues do--no matter what city you go to, if it is during particular hours, you cannot get there from here. I have been in the Senate now for 25 years. When I first came to Washington, the ride from where I live was about a 12-minute ride. Now, in the evening, I can wait a half an hour while red lights change to green and traffic doesn't move. Go by rail. We see what happens in a reasonable facsimile, when you look at the Metro, a very successful operation here in Washington, DC. People want the convenience, the reliability, and they don't worry about the weather. It makes us feel better about our time spent. We get home with the family, and we get to work on time, and we get to the doctor, and other places you have to go on a regular basis. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will look at this and say it could be an important issue for some people--certainly, for some particular interest. Typically, it is the NRA pushing this interest, but discounting that, people have a right to vote. But I plead with my colleagues, please, don't punish the American people, or the American economy, and don't take the chance for that disruption, and don't diminish our ability for rapid movement if we have to in a moment of threat. I hope the vote will say if you want to have this discussion, let's have it, but don't put a sword hanging over the head of Amtrak. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this corner of the Senate has become a lonely place. I sat next to Ted Kennedy here for a number of years. We miss him. We miss his camaraderie, his humor, his candor, most of all his courage. And though he will not be here to join us in the future, the things he did will last for decades because they were so powerful. He was a constant presence here. It is hard to imagine the Senate without Ted Kennedy's vibrant voice resounding throughout this floor or his roaring laughter spilling out of the cloakroom. Without doubt he was one of the finest legislators ever in this Chamber's history. Throughout his more than 46 years of service, Ted introduced 2,500 bills and shepherded more than 550 of those into law. He was a man of many gifts, but his greatest had to be his remarkable affinity for ordinary people. I saw that gift firsthand in 1982 when I was making my first run for the Senate. A rally was being held for me in Newark, NJ, and it drew a crowd of thousands. I wanted to think that they were there for me, but it was obvious that they were there for Ted Kennedy. The warmth, the affection with which he was received in this city far from the borders of Massachusetts, far from the halls of power in Washington, was amazing to witness. It was fitting that Ted came to Newark to help me campaign because he inspired me to devote myself to public service. He encouraged my entry into the Senate. As soon as I joined the Senate, Ted Kennedy became a source of knowledge, and information, and wisdom. He was a seatmate of mine here in the Senate, and freely offered ideas on creating and moving legislation that I thought of or sponsored. Even though he was born into privilege and was part of a powerful political family, his fight was always for the workers, for justice, and for those often forgotten. He was never shy to chase one down and demand your vote or to call you on the phone and insist on your support. Sometimes he would try to bring you to his side through reason, other times it was through righteous fury. Ted was such a tenacious fighter for a cause in which he believed that he would often put on the gloves no matter who the opponent might be. But he never let disagreement turn into a personal vendetta. No matter how bitter the fight, when it was done, he could walk across the Chamber ready to shake hands with his opponents, and was received with affection and respect. Despite his reputation as a divisive figure, he was at the top of the list of popular Senators beloved by both Republicans and Democrats. He carried a great sense of humor. He liked to play pranks, one of which I saw up close and personal. One Thursday night after a long series of votes, we chartered an airplane to take Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Senator Claiborne Pell, and me north to join our vacationing families in the area. A week later we were here in the Chamber, and Claiborne Pell came over to me, hands shaking, with a letter in his hand. I looked at the letter. It was my stationery. On that stationery it asked for Claiborne Pell, a frugal man, to pay a far greater share of the total than was originally agreed to. I was embarrassed, mortified. I quickly declared that it was wrong and apologized profusely. And then I went to Ted to assure him that if he got a letter such as that, the letter was incorrect. Ted turned belligerent. He reminded me of the help he provided in my first election and asked: How could I nickel and dime him after all of that help. He turned on his heel, walked away red- faced, and then I realized it was part of the creation of a plot to embarrass me. The two of us broke into laughter so loud, so boisterously, that the Presiding Officer demanded that we leave the Chamber. Ted Kennedy's love of life was always obvious in the Senate. Even though he could rise above partisan division, his life's work was deeply personal. It was Ted Kennedy who inherited the family legacy when two brothers were slain by assassins' bullets. He met that challenge by battling the powerful special interests to pass the Gun Control Act of 1968, which made it illegal for criminals and the mentally ill to buy guns. Together Ted and I joined the fight to keep our streets safe from the scourge of gun violence. For decades, he was a force that shaped the national political landscape. He crafted life-changing legislation year after year, always fighting to shape public opinion toward his causes. He believed public service was a sacred mission and the role of a leader was to make progress. No matter how hard, no matter how long the journey, he persisted. In fact, Ted Kennedy's signature talent was his precise, unmatched ability to get legislation passed. And he did that through the timeless requirements of this profession: preparation, integrity, fairness, patience, hard work, a little bit of table pounding and a profound respect for his colleagues and his constituents. I had the privilege of working with Ted Kennedy on many pieces of groundbreaking legislation. We worked closely on fighting big tobacco and their attempts to seduce children into a lifetime of addiction. We reached the high watermark in that struggle earlier this year, when a law was passed that gives the FDA the power to regulate tobacco. It was something we worked on together for a long time. We stood together on other struggles, from the creation of the Children's Health Insurance Program to the Ryan White Act, to the Family and Medical Leave Act. Think about it: Without Ted Kennedy, nearly 7 million children would not have health insurance. Think about it: Without Ted Kennedy, half a million Americans suffering with HIV would not be receiving vital services to cope with their disease. Think about it: Without Ted Kennedy, more than 60 million workers would not have the right to take time off from their job to care for a baby or a loved one or even receive personal medical treatment. And he did more. He gave people assurance that the government was on their side. Ted Kennedy was the guardian of opportunity. Look at his decades-long campaign to increase the minimum wage. He will forever be remembered as a leader who persevered despite some frailties, who remained a tower of strength despite crippling personal tragedy. Nothing symbolized his fortitude more than his first major speech on the Senate floor, which came on the heels of President Kennedy's assassination. Then, despite all he was facing personally, he fought for passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to outlaw discrimination in employment, education and public accommodations. From there, Ted Kennedy became inextricably tied to the struggle for equal rights. He was the chief sponsor of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Ted Kennedy was also a leader in the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This law abolished literacy tests at the polls and guaranteed the protection of all Americans' right to vote. In 1982, he was the chief sponsor of the Voting Rights Amendments Act which led the way to greater minority representation in Congress and state legislatures. That law, in no small way, made it more likely that Barack Obama would become President of the United States. We are grateful the last Kennedy brother had a chance to see America rise above racism, above prejudice. He had a chance, the last of the Kennedy brothers in office, to see President Obama take that oath. It was a proud moment for him and for all of us. As his life came to an end, Ted said he saw a new wave of change all around us. He promised us that if we kept our compass true, we could reach our destination. In the days and the weeks and the months to come, the years to come, decades to come, we have to keep Ted Kennedy's cause alive. It is the cause of breaking gridlock to get things done. It is the cause of expanding health care as a right and not a privilege. It is the cause of bringing hope and justice and prosperity to all. We are likely never to see the likes of a Ted Kennedy again. But I am confident we can rise to the challenge the people's Senator set for us and carry on for those who remember him, for those, yes, who miss him, for those who loved him, and for those who will always need a champion like Ted Kennedy. Finally, if there was a demonstration of his humanity, the funeral tribute was one of enormous love and respect. It was enunciated particularly, because I road with other Senators on the bus, by the hoards of people standing by the curbside with signs of gratitude for his contribution to the life and well-being of America. We are thankful for that. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his kind remarks and for the leadership he has provided for all of us. I never dreamed I would be here this long. I had 30 years in business before I got to this place. Harry Reid mentioned twice something about wealth. The wealth I acquired by being in this place--by being able to say to my country that I have had a chance to give back for the wonderfully good fortune that has occurred in the lives of myself, my children, my parents--if they could see this. My mother was critical when I ran for the Senate. She expressed a little disappointment. I said, ``Mom, how can that be?'' She said, ``Because I thought you would be running for President.'' In any event, my dad would not have believed it, but he would have encouraged it nevertheless. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the patience sometimes that I exhaust on my friends, and I thank particularly my friend and colleague, Bob Menendez, with whom I had the pleasure of serving while he was in leadership in the House, and especially since he has been here in the Senate, with the important responsibilities we have. It is a good day, and I am glad to be back here to get on with the people's business. I thank you all for your patience and friendship, and particularly our majority leader.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today is an auspicious day. I have had 25 years of service now to the Senate. This is one of those moments when what we do will be recorded in history forever--the opportunity to nominate a distinguished jurist to the highest juridical post in this country. I rise to express my strong support for President Obama's nomination of a distinguished jurist, Sonia Sotomayor, to become a Supreme Court Justice of the United States, confirming the continuity of our duty to the Constitution and to fairness to all the people in our country, and that obedience to the law continues uninterrupted. In Newark, NJ, there exists a venerated courthouse that bears my name. On the entrance to this courthouse there is an inscription that says: The true measure of a democracy is its dispensation of justice. That summarizes my feeling about our beloved country. I authored that quote after considerable thought, and I truly believe it reflects a principal value upon which our Nation was founded. We must scrupulously insist that these values endure throughout our government and our legal system and particularly in our Nation's highest Court. Based on her history, my meeting with Judge Sotomayor, and her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Sotomayor will pursue the fair, wise, and unbiased dispensation of justice. That is why I believe we must confirm Judge Sotomayor's appointment without delay. When I had a private meeting with her, she confirmed her unwavering commitment to the equity of our American justice system, her knowledge of the law, and her recognition of the enormous responsibility she has to fulfill to our country. I conveyed to her the excitement we are hearing in my State of New Jersey that President Obama's nominee grew up in a poor urban environment, in the Bronx--a close neighbor geographically with New Jersey with a similar tradition of a people starting at the bottom and succeeding through determination, education, and hard work. We also discussed a shared admiration for Justice Benjamin Cardozo, who was renowned for his integrity and his diligence in applying precedent. I served for several years on the board of a law school bearing Justice Cardozo's name, where I saw the achievements of renowned legal scholars. I feel so deeply that Sonia Sotomayor will be remembered one day as an outstanding member of the most revered and respected Court in the world. During our meeting, Judge Sotomayor and I came to realize we had a common thread through our personal histories. The phrase ``only in America'' truly applies to Judge Sotomayor, and I can say that with a special understanding. Humble beginnings were the touchstones that enabled each of us to achieve beyond any parent's dream. I grew up in Paterson, NJ, a hardscrabble mill town. My family lacked resources but left an inheritance of values with no valuables. My parents were brought to America by my grandparents seeking an opportunity to be free and to make a living. We were taught that we were obligated, if we had the opportunity, to make sure we gave something back to the community in which we lived. Judge Sotomayor's family moved here from Puerto Rico, and she grew up in a housing project where she saw, up front and close, the struggles of people living in poor areas. Like my father, Judge Sotomayor's dad died at a very young age, and her mother, like mine, became a widow at a very young age. She became a single mother, like mine. Judge Sotomayor's mother had to raise her and her brother in the face of racial, social, and financial adversity. In fact, her mother worked two jobs to support her children. Despite the many difficulties, Judge Sotomayor has reached the highest rung of our society. At Princeton and also at Yale Law School, she achieved academic honors, and then she worked in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. As a district attorney, she prosecuted murder, robbery, and assault cases, among others. From the DA's office she became a corporate litigator and rose to partner at a prestigious New York law firm. While there, she threw herself into her job and became an expert on trademark and intellectual property law. Her career then led her to the bench, where she has been a Federal judge for the last 17 years. That is a pretty good time for testing. The truth is, Judge Sotomayor comes to this nomination process with more judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in a century. Think about it when the detractors try to find ways to sully her reputation. But before she became a judge and long before she appeared before the Judiciary Committee, where she demonstrated a remarkable command of the law and comfort with her knowledge, Judge Sotomayor carved out a reputation as a brilliant legal mind. Yet, in one of the most scurrilous campaigns against a judicial nominee I have ever witnessed, the partisan attack mills begin to churn out piles of distortions and half-truths about Judge Sotomayor right after the President picked her to be his nominee. They had their gunsights settled on whoever it might be. But in this instance, we have one of the more distinguished scholars of the law to be able to be honored and to honor us at the same time. They tried to paint her as a radical. They even tried to paint her as a bully. They even tried to paint her as lacking intelligence. But there was absolutely no place in her judicial record to use anything serious against her. They went down the path of personal destruction; it has become a habit around here. They picked through her speeches. They zeroed in on one sentence here and another there to try to discredit her as nothing more than an affirmative-action choice. I want to get one thing straight. Judge Sotomayor represents the best this country has to offer. She is a role model for all Americans, and she is, deservedly so, a source of great pride for the Latino community. By any standard, Judge Sotomayor is exceptionally well qualified to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. With 17 years of judicial experience and 12 of those on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, she is well equipped for the task of Supreme Court Justice. If confirmed, she will be the only member of the Supreme Court who has previously worn a trial judge robe. The experience should not be overlooked. Right now, Justice Souter, whom Judge Sotomayor would replace on the Court, is the only Justice with a trial court background. Earlier this year, before Justice Souter had even announced his retirement, Chief Justice Roberts said that the Court's dearth of trial bench knowledge was, here I quote, ``an unfortunate circumstance'' and a ``flaw.'' Trial court judges handle civil and criminal cases and they see firsthand the impact of the law on ordinary Americans. While on the trial bench, Judge Sotomayor handled 450 cases. Put directly, her experience is varied, multifaceted. What is more, she was appointed to the bench by both Democratic and Republican Presidents. Did they have bad judgment? I think not. I think not. Her record proved that. On any fair examination of her judicial record, including more than 400 published opinions as a Federal appellate court judge, it shows she is balanced in her approach, takes in all the facts, and follows precedent. Her legal reasoning has been consistently admired for applying the law fairly, and her opinions reveal nothing more than a strict adherence to the rule of law. The American Bar Association has given her its highest rating, calling her ``well qualified.'' That is a distinction of significant importance. This nomination is an incredibly important moment for our country. The Supreme Court makes decisions that determine the very contours of our country's future. It has a direct say on the rights or lack of rights that our children and grandchildren will have. The Court decides whether big corporations have a stronger claim to justice than the little guy. The Court sets the table for government power, whether it goes unchecked or is responsible to the people. That is the domain. Critical. The rulings of the Court affect everyday people from New Jersey and everyday Americans. The Framers of the Constitution created a system of checks and balances with three coequal branches. No one understands that better than Judge Sotomayor, who said during her confirmation hearings, ``The task of a judge is not to make law, it is to apply the law.'' After consideration, careful consideration, I conclude that I must vote ``yes'' on the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor. Judge Sotomayor has consistently shown judicial restraint and she will prove to be a strong and independent voice on that Court. Like many Americans, I am sure I will not always agree with every decision she makes. But I have the comfort of knowing, of believing, that she will resolve legal questions with an open mind, will put the rule of law above any personal beliefs. Her judicial record is unparalleled. Her professional and academic credentials are impeccable, and her story is inspiring. I watched and listened carefully to what she had to say during her confirmation hearings and when we met in person. Her life has been one of breaking down barriers. I look forward to seeing her break one more. For those reasons I am honored to support Judge Sotomayor's breakthrough nomination. I hope my colleagues will step up and vote their conscience and vote their beliefs and not inject any of the insignificant things we have seen discussed all over the place until this. I hope they will confirm her in an overwhelming majority, which is what she and the country deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jennifer Mock, a member of the staff of the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley, be granted the privilege of the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the managers' amendment to S. 685, the Oil Spill Prevention Act, will eliminate the authorization of appropriations from the international seafarer protection provision, reduce a biannual Coast Guard reporting requirement to an annual reporting requirement, and remove an annual Coast Guard reporting requirement that is no longer necessary or appropriate. These modifications to the committee-reported bill render it revenue neutral.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on June 8, 2009, a brilliant physician, humanitarian, intellectual and caring person passed away. I knew Ken Gorelick and his extended family for almost 50 years and fully believe that more physicians like him would make health care more effective for many. With all of his intelligence he had a unique belief that his principal responsibility was to devote as much energy as he could muster to help those who needed professional care recover from their illnesses. He was daring in his choices of treatment for his patients always searching to reach beyond conventional methodology for the best outcome. To commemorate his life I ask that a eulogy which was prepared for his funeral be printed in the Record. It so fully describes the unusual character of this great human being who will be missed by all who had the privilege of knowing him. The eulogy follows: Kenneth Paul Gorelick, M.D. Psychiatrist, essayist, poet, and leading poetry therapist Dr. Kenneth Paul ``Joshua'' Gorelick has left us and this world, after two years of valiant efforts to overcome brain cancer. He was 67. When recently asked why he had chosen psychiatry as a career and life pursuit, Ken responded that he had been fascinated by psychology's promise of a ``way to understand the invisible parts of life'' and ``to understand life stories.'' This great fascination was driven by Ken's intrinsic love of life and people and the human narrative, which, in turn, propelled him on the lifelong journey of an insatiable learner, an inspired teacher, and a caring doctor. He read widely and avidly; he relished the arts and supported them; he wrote extensively, both prose and poetry; he instructed and lectured; he ministered to those in need and healed those he could. Ken possessed that rare Renaissance mind that brought a rich and textured approach to his daily life, his practice as a psychiatrist, and his teaching of psychiatry at St. Elizabeth's Hospital and George Washington University (GWU), where he was awarded Professor Emeritus status, and numerous national and international conferences. Yet, throughout his life of great academic and professional pursuits and accomplishments, he never stopped his joyful appreciation and examination of human behavior and the human condition, and he never stopped attempting to improve that condition through is work and his daily interactions with others. Born and raised in Paterson, New Jersey, the son of Russian Jewish immigrant parents, Ken was inspired to become a doctor early on. When he was four, his father had a heart attack and the daily doctor visits left an indelible impression. A favorite story of his recalls the compliment he received early in his training from a medical school professor for conducting a skillful psychiatric interview. He explained that he had asked just what he had learned to ask customers during his childhood in Gorelick's Bakery, ``How may I help you?'' Ken's academic life testified to his fervent desire for learning and understanding. He was first in his class at Montclair Academy (New Jersey) and at Rutgers College. He was awarded the Phi Beta Kappa Prize, as well as General Electric, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Henry Rutgers scholarships, and he graduated summa cum laude. Accepted at Columbia, Yale and Harvard Medical Schools, Ken chose instead to accept a Fulbright scholarship to Bordeaux in order to research French literature and study French language, continuing what had by then become a lifelong passion for the beauty and power of the written and sounded word. Again applying to Harvard, Ken was accepted, and he then graduated in 1967. After his medical internship at Mount Zion Hospital and Medical Center in San Francisco, he returned to Harvard in 1968, completing his residence in 1971 at the Massachusetts Mental Health Center. During this period, he also served on the Harvard University faculty as Clinical Instructor in psychiatry. At St. Elizabeth's, the first Federal mental health facility, Ken was an expert in the Hospital's history. He gave numerous lectures and keynoted the St. Elizabeth's 150th Anniversary celebration in 2005. He was a founder of the Historical Museum. Ken was deeply moved and inspired by founder Dorothea Dix's commitment to ``the most humane care and enlightened curative treatment.'' Ken brought this commitment to his private practice and hospital work, encouraged a patient enterprise program, and led DC Council members and others on a visit to Bethel, Germany to see model humane treatment of patients. Ken was a noted pioneer and widely respected leader in the use of literature in the field of psychotherapy, particularly poetry therapy, serving on the executive boards of the National Federation for Biblio/Poetry Therapy, as president of the National Association for Poetry Therapy, and on the National Council of Creative Therapies. In recognition of his many contributions to the field, he received the Outstanding Achievement Award and the Morris Morrison Education Award in 2004. With colleague Arleen Hynes, he established the first standardized training curriculum for poetry therapy, founded the Bibliotherapy Training Program at St. Elizabeths, and served as its co-director and clinical supervisor, training hospital staff and community mental health professionals in the use of poetry and other literature in the treatment of hospitalized patients with severe and persistent mental illness. From 1993 to 2007, he co-directed the Wordsworth Center for Poetry Therapy Training. A much sought-after speaker and workshop leader, Ken presented workshops, seminars, and Grand Rounds lectures nationally and internationally at hospitals, universities, and organizational meetings. His articles on mental health, psychopathology, and literature were published in the American Journal of Social Psychiatry, Arts in Psychotherapy, Journal of Poetry Therapy, and Expressive Therapies, to name just a few of the many publications he contributed to over his lifetime. In fact, Ken's contributions as a speaker, writer, organizer, editor, advisor, and leader were extremely numerous and a testament to a man who had amazing erudition and energy. Ken was also an exceptionally generous mentor and colleague and friend, who readily shared his resources, ideas, time, and energy to educate and empower. He had a superb sense of humor and a laugh that was unrestrained and utterly gleeful, and he had the endearing ability to bring smiles and laughter to other people, no matter how difficult their circumstances. His voice's melodic, pleasant lilt communicated a special combination of maturity and caring and welcome that immediately put people at ease, disarming them, and opening them up to the possibilities of life. He possessed deep wisdom and insight into human nature, and he showed exceptional levels of kindness, compassion, and gentleness toward those who are most vulnerable and in need of care. And, despite his intellectual brilliance and considerable professional accomplishments, he had that rare gift to make all those he encountered feel respected and worthy. Never once did Ken Gorelick lose his appreciation of what is essential: each single day, each single person. In an article after a childhood of fear-defying, successful scuba- diving experience, he wrote: ``This day, like every day, has had something to celebrate. And to be grateful for,'' and he went on to quote William Stafford's lines, ``Will you ever bring a better gift for the world/than the breathing respect that you carry/wherever you go right now?'' He valued each moment and each person around him. In his touching eulogy for his beloved friend and mentor, Arleen Hynes, Ken praised what he deemed as her superb talent of ``finding the dazzling part of each person, and letting that person know she saw it.'' Ken, too, had that talent and used it to its fullest. There can be no greater example of Ken's sacred, lifelong commitment to serve humanity and his immeasurable generosity of spirit than how he used his own life-threatening brain cancer diagnosis as a powerful means to teach his students, future doctors, the power of human empathy. He openly shared with them how this diagnosis feels to a patient, allowing them to question, sharing his story of how he was treated by doctors, and, through this intimate personal revelation, he taught them how necessary it is to have genuine empathy and what this means to the patient. He taught them the great power of the simple words, ``I'm sorry.'' In Leslie Milk's interview with Ken which is transcribed in her article ``The Doctor as Patient,'' Washingtonian, May 2009, Ken disclosed his story of coping with his brain cancer diagnosis, his awareness of its typical course, his experience with the medical community and the limited status of research, and, so typical of Ken, his determination to enjoy life's riches. He again underscored the value of a doctor's simple ``I'm sorry.'' Ken continued, to the very last, to teach medical students and residents to use the power of literature, the words that tell the story of humanity, in their endeavors to help others. He believed in the connection of all people through all time and how that connection can be accessed in the stories, great and small, of each and every person. And, in the end, he even offered the story of his own experience with terminal illness to encourage them to always make the human connection. A poem--written after the first surgery to remove the brain tumor--shares some of his deepest reflections: ``I feel my life has been right . . . I put into each act more thought and mindfulness . . . The trees have been challenged by dryness and lack of cold/ Out of this dearth has come such beauty/ Still clinging with all its tenacity.'' Ken's immense joy of being alive and his savoring of each moment of life are reflected in his verses and are echoed by two of his favorite poets, Stanley Kunitz and Mary Oliver. Kunitz wrote in his poem ``The Round'': ``I can scarcely wait till tomorrow/ when a new life begins for me,/ as it does each day,/ as it does each day.'' And Oliver wrote in her poem ``Peonies'': ``Do you love this world?/ Do you cherish your humble and silky life?/ Do you adore the green grass, with its terror beneath?'' Ken's answer, our answer with him, is ``Yes! Forever!'' Ken's passing is a great sad event which is for us a time to feel not only the deep loss of a man who gave so much to all, but also the joyful celebration that he lived, a man whose spirit and actions will continue to influence the many people he touched during his time on earth. Dr. Gorelick is survived by his beloved wife, Cheryl Opacinch Gorelick, a retired international policy analyst; a sister and brother-in-law, Arlene and Joseph Taub of New Jersey; a niece and nephew, Michelle Taub Tesser and Scott Tesser; and Marc Taub and Karen Taub, great-nieces and great- nephews, other relatives, friends and colleagues. Looking back I feel my life has been right No second-guessing that this or that might have been better, No ache that I might have climbed higher mountains. I am in a generous leisurely mood with myself Filled with gratitude and awe for what has been, The gifts, the luck, the love. My hunger now is different. I put into each act more thought and mindfulness. Eventually the true cliches come to pass: like ``living in the moment.'' Time has slowed to a crawl. That is a good thing. Every grain counts as it drops My being, my spirit are pulled by gravity. And they soar. Moment to moment I try to solve, ignore, or transcend the frustrations My big eye on the big picture. And that picture is beautiful. This fall foliage has not been spectacular. But here, at my back door, there is a city forest No flaming colors Yet the palette is subtle and exquisite A harmony of golds, greens, rusts. The trees have been challenged by dryness And lack of cold Out of this dearth has come such beauty Still clinging with all its tenacity --Ken Gorelick 11/14/07

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment that is being offered, because it would override our safety laws, gun safety laws in my State and other States across the country. The Thune amendment is an outright violation of States rights. The fact is this vote is not about the Second Amendment, it is not about gun rights, this is about respecting local communities and letting them make their own decisions about how to keep their streets, their homes, and their businesses safe. As this dangerous amendment gets pushed to a vote, we are seeing opposition grow across this country. In addition to newspaper editorials, we are seeing Governors and mayors and local law enforcement calling on the Senate to vote against this amendment. This placard shows the wide-ranging groups opposing this amendment, groups opposed to the Thune amendment: Over 450 mayors, people who have responsibility for those in their community, Major Cities Chiefs Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, State Legislators Against Illegal Guns, National Network to End Domestic Violence. In a letter to the Senate, the International Association of Chiefs of Police implored Congress to: Act quickly and take all necessary steps to defeat this dangerous and unacceptable legislation. That is from the International Association of Chiefs of Police. They know what to do about concealed guns, and they will decide within their own communities. But the Thune amendment does not just steal States of their right to create their own laws, it abolishes State laws that are on the books right now. The Thune amendment throws State laws out the window. For the 35 States that have chosen to keep criminals with misdemeanor convictions from carrying concealed weapons, this amendment abolishes their laws. For the 31 States that have chosen to keep alcohol abusers from carrying concealed weapons, this amendment abolishes their laws. The Thune amendment would force States to accept the weakest standard in the country and brings about a race to the bottom. Many of us represent States that do not want lax standards on who can walk around our communities with a weapon hidden in their garments. To make matters worse, the Thune amendment not only overrides a State's concealed weapons laws, it could also override a State's assault weapons ban. That means if we have a ban in my State and someone gets a concealed weapons permit, they could bring an assault weapon into our State. This means even if a State has a ban on assault weapons, under this amendment, someone could legally enter that State with a hidden Uzi or assault weapon and travel around with it. Think about it. If a State's residents are not permitted to carry a particular weapon, someone can come into that State with a weapon that now is prohibited in that State. That is one of the reasons more than 450 mayors across the country have expressed alarm about the Thune amendment. As these mayors explained in a letter to the Congress: Each state ought to have the ability to decide whether to accept concealed carry permits issued in other states. I don't want it in New Jersey, and I think Members across this Chamber will say: No, I don't want it in my State as well. Supporters of this amendment like to claim that only law-abiding citizens get their hands on concealed weapons permits. But that is not true. In Alaska, for example, criminals who have repeatedly committed violent misdemeanors are permitted to carry concealed weapons. In Alaska, criminals who have repeatedly committed sex offenses are permitted to carry concealed weapons. According to a new study, during the 2-year period between May 2007 and April 2009, people holding concealed handgun permits killed at least 7 police officers and 44 other innocent people across the country. Recently we have seen several gruesome examples of senseless murders committed by people holding concealed weapons permits. A few months ago, a 28-year-old concealed weapons permit holder went on a murderous rampage in Alabama. First he shot and killed his mother. Then he gunned down 10 others, including 2 young mothers and a father and an 18-month- old girl. A few weeks later, another concealed weapons permit holder went on a killing spree in Binghamton, NY. This gunman drove a car up to a citizenship services center and barricaded the back door with his car so the innocent people who were inside would be trapped as he proceeded to kill those who were in his sights. The gunman sprayed gunfire throughout the center, killed 13 people, and wounded several more before taking his own life. The next day another concealed carry permit holder destroyed more lives. In Pittsburgh, two police officers arrived at a house to quell a domestic conflict. The two officers were ambushed and killed by the gunman who held a concealed weapons permit. Minutes later, the gunman shot and killed a third officer who arrived at the scene. The special interest gun lobby is hanging its hopes on the prospect that this Chamber will abandon common sense and pass the Thune amendment. But this gun lobby's dream is a nightmare for our country. It violates States rights and it will make it easier for gun traffickers to move firearms. If the Thune amendment becomes law, traffickers could now load up a car and take guns across State lines legally, as long as the driver has a concealed weapons permit in any State. History will record that this Senate was asked to decide whether to put families further in danger or keep them safe, whether to savage State laws or honor them, and whether to usurp States rights or preserve them. I hope my colleagues will do the right thing. I urge them to vote no, no, no, on the Thune amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I commend the Secretary from Texas for her commemoration of this spectacular day when Americas went to the Moon. One of them was a fellow named Buzz Aldrin, who lived in the town of Montclair, NJ, the town that I inhabited for many years.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. It looked as though it were a fairly simple mission. Now as we study it more thoroughly and realize what conditions were like there--the dust was threatening to the people, to the machinery, to the ship that took them there, to the spaceship that took them there--it was a remarkable event. I join the distinguished Senator from Texas in her tribute.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, this past Friday, five policemen from a city in New Jersey, Jersey City, were shot by a single gunman. On the previous Wednesday, only a few hundred feet from the steps of this Senate, a gunman fired an assault weapon at Capitol policemen. Despite this point in time, after all of that mayhem last week, we have seen the prospect for more gun violence offered by the Senator from South Dakota. He has offered an amendment that would gut State public safety laws and make it easier to carry concealed weapons across State lines, regardless of the laws of that State. Currently 48 States do allow some sort of concealed carried weapons. The standards vary from State to State based on each State's law enforcement needs and challenges. But under this new idea, this amendment would permit a concealed carry permit from one State to simply override the rules in other States. If I get a permit in State A, I can go to State B, C, D, any one I choose, with a weapon on my back, on my hip, wherever I want it. And I don't think it matters how many guns one carries. Understand this thoroughly, that despite a State's laws on availability of concealed guns, Congress would override them. The State says no. Congress would say: No, we want the Federal Government to be able to tell you what to do. That is unusual, because I think the offeror of this amendment is more often a States rights person. But now he wishes Congress to override State laws and make one's own State follow this mandate. It would deprive one's State from making its own decisions on the issue. One's constituents would not be able to say they don't want this to happen. In fact, this amendment would allow some people to carry concealed assault weapons, multifiring, multishell firing weapons in States where those assault weapons are not even permitted. The amendment before us is more about the right of States to make their own decisions about how they keep families in their States safe from gun violence. This amendment would allow almost anyone anywhere to carry a concealed firearm regardless of that State's law. Strangers coming into town carrying a hidden weapon have an open sesame opportunity to go anywhere they darn please--into town, into a school, into a sporting event, into a shopping mall, anywhere they wish to go regardless of what that State's laws are. Because under this amendment it is clear: If you have a license for a permit from a State in the Far West and you want to carry it to the eastern part of our country, you can do so. Just take away the public safety laws in that State and essentially erase the fact that they are now in the laws. The amendment declares to State governments that they don't know how to take care of themselves. The gun lobby in Washington is the best place to go to find out what you should or can do. We can't tolerate such an insult. Here are some of the State concealed weapon requirements that would be wiped out by the amendment. Eighteen States prohibit alcohol abusers from receiving carry permits, including South Dakota. Under the Thune amendment, these 18 States would have to allow alcohol abusers from other States to carry a weapon into their State. Twenty-four States prohibit those convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes, including Pennsylvania, which does not allow those convicted of impersonating a police officer, to carry concealed weapons. Under this amendment, those prohibitions would be violated. Nineteen States require those seeking concealed carry permits to complete gun safety programs. Under this amendment, those States would have to allow untrained, untested gun users from other States to carry concealed firearms. It is an outrage. The proponents of this amendment claim they are respecting each State's concealed carry laws. That is simply not true. Not only does the Thune amendment override a State's concealed weapons law, it also overrides State laws restricting the type of guns that can be possessed in that State, such as assault weapons. Think about that; the type of guns that are restricted in the State, that rule would be obviated, and you would have to permit the licensed gun owner from a far different State to come in. I have a letter from 400 mayors opposed to the Thune amendment. Over 400 mayors wrote to the Congress and said: Vote no on the Thune amendment, including 106 from Pennsylvania, 51 from Florida, 50 from Ohio, 13 from Wisconsin--the list goes on--from Louisiana, from Missouri, from South Carolina, from almost every State in the country that has its own gun laws. They have written and said: Don't do this. As these mayors explained in their letter: Each state ought to have the ability to decide whether to accept concealed carry permits issued in other states. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. As the mayors make clear, the Thune amendment savages the rights of States to enact their own laws. Unfortunately, this dangerous amendment doesn't end there. It would unleash total havoc by suddenly letting dangerous and unstable people carry weapons into other States and across State lines. Supporters of this amendment claim that only ``law-abiding citizens'' get their hands on concealed weapons permits. That is not true. Over the 2-year period from May 2007 to April 2009, concealed carry permit holders killed seven law enforcement officers with guns. In fact, the Florida Sun Sentinel did an investigation of concealed carry permit holders in Florida and found that Florida granted concealed carry weapons to more than 1,400 people who pled guilty or no contest to a felony; 216 people with outstanding warrants were allowed to carry a gun; 120 people with active domestic violence injunctions; and 6 registered sex offenders. I worked very hard some years ago--going back to 1996--to get a rule on issuing guns that would say to those convicted of misdemeanor spousal abuse should be unable to get guns. It was scoffed at by some who were here at that time who said: This isn't a gun matter. It is nothing too serious and why bother. I am pleased to tell the Senate that with Supreme Court affirmation about 6 months ago, saying that the law prohibiting gun permits to spousal abusers stood, 150,000 of these people were denied guns. When I look at these things, it raises a question. While a State such as Florida works to correct these problems, should every other State be forced to allow felons, domestic abusers, and sex offenders to carry guns within their States? I don't want it in my State. This is a reckless amendment that would force States from coast to coast to comply with the weakest conceal carry laws. A few months ago in Alabama, a person holding a concealed carry license went on a murderous rampage that lasted almost a full hour and spanned two communities. First he shot and killed his mother in Coffee County, AL. He then put on a vest loaded with firearms and ammunition, got into his car and drove into town. Once there he shot and murdered 10 innocent people--we can't forget that--including two young mothers, a father, and an 18-month-old child. It was later discovered that this killer had qualified and been issued a concealed weapons permit from the Coffee County sheriff's department. A few weeks after Mr. Mclendon's murderous rampage in Alabama, there was a premeditated shooting spree in upstate New York. The gunman drove his car up to a citizenship services center in Binghamton, NY, barricaded the backdoor with his car, and then burst through the front entrance with two handguns and a bag full of ammunition. In what would become the worst mass shooting since the tragic assault at Virginia Tech, the assailant opened fire, killing one receptionist and wounding another. He then entered a classroom where he sprayed gunfire, killing 12 more innocent people and wounding 7 others. The gunman then committed suicide. The killer was no stranger to guns. He was a firearms enthusiast and even though he had been convicted of a misdemeanor, he held a license to carry concealed weapons. The day after the city of Binghamton was terrorized by a gunman, two police officers arrived at a house in Pittsburgh to quell a domestic conflict between a man and his mother. When the two officers entered, they were ambushed and killed. The assailant was carrying three firearms and wearing a bulletproof vest and murdered the policemen with an AK-47. Minutes later, the gunman shot and killed a third officer who arrived at the scene. The attacker held the police at bay for 4 hours before surrendering. It was later learned the killer had been arrested for domestic abuse against his girlfriend but held a concealed weapons permit. We have to face up to this. This amendment would let more brutal people carry concealed weapons legally-- and not just in their own town or in their own State but in other States and across State lines. This amendment would also open the floodgates for gun trafficking. A gun dealer who sells firearms to criminals would be free to travel across the country with a car full of loaded weapons as long as the driver had a concealed weapons permit from some other State. The fact is, if the police were to discover the pile of guns in the trafficker's trunk, the police could do nothing about it. The prospect of this scenario is no exaggeration. Last year, a report showed that one-third of firearms sold on the black market came from States with weak gun safety laws. The Thune amendment would simply exacerbate this problem and make it easier for gun traffickers to supply known criminals--including terrorists--with weapons. The scourge of gun violence and gun deaths is a menace this Chamber must take seriously. Think about it. All of us here represent a State-- all of us, two per State--and we are being told by one of our Members that what we ought to do is let the Federal Government decide how we care for our people: decide, the Federal Government, how safe our streets ought to be; decide, the Federal Government, to ignore or obviate laws we have on our books, and say: We are going to override your books. We know best what is good for you. Well, those in other States--whether Illinois or San Francisco, CA, or Houston, TX--do not know better about what we ought to do in New Jersey than we do about them, and we should not allow this to take place. Just look at the toll gun violence takes on our most innocent and defenseless in our country. Every single day, 8 children die because of gun violence, while another 48 kids are shot. They, however, manage to survive their gun injuries. Think about it: over 50 kids shot each and every day. It is a tragedy in America. The Thune amendment would place our communities in danger in further danger than we already have. That is why law enforcement leaders--the very people who put their lives on the line to combat criminals and keep families safe--are against the Thune amendment. I have a letter from the International Association of Chiefs of Police opposing this amendment. As the letter explains, the police chiefs urge Congress to ``act quickly and take all necessary steps to defeat this dangerous and unacceptable legislation.'' The Association of Chiefs of Police--if anybody ought to know what is good for their communities, it should be the chiefs of police. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record directly following my remarks.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is no wonder that when police departments are in charge of issuing concealed weapons permits, they are very conservative about whom they allow to have these permits. Nevertheless, the amendment from Senator Thune would defer to the weakest--think this through--would defer to the weakest concealed permit laws. So now untrained, amateur gun owners will be free to carry a hidden firearm in other States and across State lines. Do we want to completely disregard State law enforcement officers' decisions or do we want criminals wandering our streets with pistols in their backpacks or carrying them on their sides or do we want unstable drivers stuck in rush hour with guns in the front seats of their cars? I do not. These are critical questions, and they should not be resolved by an amendment tacked onto a Defense authorization bill--defense. We have our soldiers, and the toll keeps rising in Afghanistan. By no means is Iraq a safe place to be. They should not have to be further jeopardized or have their health threatened. We see what conditions are like. We see the reports from the war front. This bill ought to be moved along just on the Defense authorization. On Thursday, the Judiciary Committee is going to hold hearings on Senator Thune's proposal. That hearing will give everyone a fair opportunity to get all the facts, hear from both sides of the issue, and learn from the testimony of experts. The hearing will include law enforcement officers testifying against this legislation. They deserve to have their voices heard. We should not shortcut the legislative process and the vital work of the Judiciary Committee. Before I close, I wish to make one thing crystal clear: This amendment has nothing to do with individuals' rights to protect themselves in their own homes. A concealed weapons permit is a separate and special privilege that lets gun owners hide their firearms in a jacket or a bag as they travel in the community and go out in public. Whether they are riding in a bus or a car or walking down the street, they can have that weapon. Why in our world is it necessary to make sure those who want to carry a concealed weapon can go anyplace they want with this weapon? You know what happens. We read about fights occurring in cafes all the time. To just allow people to come in there with weapons and see what happens after alcohol or too much celebration? Bad idea, and we should not allow it. States and local communities must be allowed to choose who has earned this privilege, based on what is in the best interest of that particular State or community. Unfortunately, this amendment takes the power away from the local community, away from the State capitals, and leaves the decision about what is in the public interest to the gun lobby and the politicians here in town--lobbyists in many cases. The Thune amendment poses extreme danger to our country, and it blatantly nullifies State laws and State rights in favor of a radical agenda. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on the Thune amendment. I recently was traveling with my wife out West, and we were interested in seeing a particular baseball team play. We know the owners of the team. The hotel had a gun show. By the way, I carried a gun. It was not concealed. I did it in a uniform during a war, and I loved that weapon. But it had a mission. It had a mission to kill somebody else before they killed me. That is not what we typically see with concealed weapons. In this case, we were at this hotel gun show, and people were buying ammunition for their purpose. There was lots of activity. Lots of ammunition was being put in the back of cars. The State, though, in that case permitted it. There could not be any objection. The State decided what was best for its citizens and its communities, and they did just that. I do not agree with that, but I cannot object. If that State wants to do it that way, they are entitled to do it that way, and who am I, from the State of New Jersey, to tell them how they should conduct themselves in those moments? I have no right to do that. So here we are. We are faced with an amendment that says nobody in the State knows what is better for their people than does the gun lobby, the NRA, the gun manufacturers. We disagree with that, and I hope we will show the American people we care enough about them and respect their intelligence--respect the fact they have their own structure in their States to take care of their needs as they see them. We do not want to see intruders carrying guns coming into those States--not mine, not yours, not anybody's--who do not pass the test that is required within that State's jurisdiction before they go around town with their weapons. Exhibit 1 International Association of Chiefs of Police, Alexandria, VA, July 17, 2009. Hon. Harry Reid, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Majority Leader Reid: On behalf of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), I am writing to express our strong opposition to S. 845, the Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009. This bill would weaken existing state laws by allowing an individual to carry concealed firearms when visiting another state or the District of Columbia as long as the individual was entitled to carry concealed firearms pursuant to the laws of his or her home state. It is the IACP's belief that S. 845 would severely undermine state concealed carry licensing systems by allowing out of state visitors to carry concealed firearms even if those visitors have not met the standards for carrying a concealed weapon in the state they are visiting. For example, some states require a person to show that they know how to use a firearm or meet minimum training standards before obtaining a concealed carry license. These states would be forced to allow out of state visitors to carry concealed weapons even if they do not meet that state's concealed licensing standards. It is the IACP's belief that states and localities should have the right to determine who is eligible to carry firearms in their communities. It is essential that state, local and tribal governments maintain the ability to legislate concealed carry laws that best fit the needs of their communities--private citizens as well as active and former law enforcement personnel. The IACP urges you to act quickly and take all necessary steps to defeat this dangerous and unacceptable legislation. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please let me know how we can be of assistance. Sincerely, Russell B. Laine, President.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today we are being asked to defend the very core of our American democracy; that is, the right of people to live freely, to move freely, to do what they would like to do as long as they do not bring harm to others. People want to be free from violence, free from fear, free from intimidation. And all too often we hear of crimes committed against innocent people based almost solely on bigotry and hatred. This Senate needs to send a message, a message that this is unacceptable conduct in our society, that these crimes are especially heinous, that these crimes must be severely punished, because it tears at the basic fiber of being freedom-loving Americans. An example of the horror that accompanies this kind of hatred is that on a day last month, someone turned killer because of religious hatred. This individual walked through the doors of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which was then filled with visitors from all around the world, many of them children. His name: James Von Brunn. He raised a rifle and opened fire, killing Steven Johns, a security guard who was simply doing his duty, and wounding others before the individual was shot and subdued. Not only did Mr. Von Brunn take a man's life and terrorize bystanders, but he wanted to destroy this vivid reminder of how vicious man's hatred and bias could be against an entire group of people. Over 6 million Jews died as a result of the Holocaust. Millions of others died also as a result of the Holocaust, stemmed primarily by prejudice and hate. The tragic fact is that our history is replete with examples of terrible hate crimes. In October of 1998, two men attacked and savagely beat Matthew Shepard, a student who was gay and was there at the University of Wyoming. Shepard died of his wounds a few days later, simply because he was a gay person. In June of the same year, who can forget that a Black man, James Byrd, Jr., was chained to a pickup truck, dragged along a Texas road, and was killed by declared racists. More recently, we have seen vulgar acts committed in the wake of a historic happening in America. President Barack Obama, an African American, won the Presidential election. In my home State of New Jersey, after the November election, a cross was placed and set afire on the front lawn of a couple, Alina and Gary Grewal. The cross was wrapped in a homemade banner that the Grewals had hung outside their home that simply read ``President Obama, Victory '08''--pride filled, honoring this incredible accomplishment that took place within America. At a time when our Nation should be celebrating the progress we have made, we must bring the full weight of the law to bear on those who commit such atrocious crimes. Unfortunately, existing Federal law hampers prosecutors from trying hate crimes effectively. Right now, current Federal hate crimes law applies only when a victim is involved in particular activities, such as serving on a jury or attending a public school. This legislation would protect victims of hate crimes in all situations, not just when a victim is involved in certain federally protected ones. This amendment would also finally expand Federal hate crimes protection to those victimized based on sexual orientation or disability. Some 15 percent of all reported hate crimes are linked to sexual orientation. Gay Americans should not be afraid to walk about freely, and violent individuals should know that the Federal Government will prosecute you if you commit a crime with hatred as the principal motivator. Hate crimes are the ultimate expression of ignorance and hate, and we must strengthen our Federal laws to protect people against them. Senator Kennedy first introduced this legislation in 1997, a year before Matthew Shepard and James Byrd were killed because of bigotry. It is time to pass this critical amendment and stand up for Americans who are victims of vulgar and senseless acts of violence that should not be happening in America without severe punishment, without the reminder that we are a nation comprised of many different ethnicities, different religions, different habits. It should not go without severe penalty if someone is attacked because their habit, their face, their color, their religion is different from the ones most popular. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to Joseph Mastrangelo during consideration of S. 1390, the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise today because there is a reckless amendment on the floor of the Senate to strip this country of an important infrastructure element to protect us against terrorism. This amendment is intended to strip the State of New Jersey of critical antiterrorism programs. In poll after poll, the people across our country are still deeply concerned about what might happen in the event of a terrorist attack. Everyone knows we have people fighting against terror in other countries, but we also have a huge assignment here. Just today, we saw that an attempt to smuggle bomb parts into some government buildings was successful. My God, what do we have to do to say to people in this place: Our primary function is to protect our citizens, and New Jersey is one of the 50 States in this country; that if it is a dangerous event that occurs, whether it is a natural disaster or whether it is a terrorist attack, we have an obligation to see that these States have the tools to protect themselves. Eliminating funding for these programs will make families in New Jersey more vulnerable to terrorist attacks and natural disasters. I point out that this area we are particularly focused on--9/11, the largest catastrophe that happened on American soil--is one area, which I will describe in just a minute, that is one of the most densely populated in the country, and the risks are very high. Eliminating funds for these programs makes families in New Jersey more vulnerable, and we are concerned about it. Without these investments, when a terrorist strikes or a hurricane hits, there is a good chance that emergency generators might not go on, firetrucks will not arrive on time, and medical crews might not know where to go. Let's be absolutely clear. New Jersey is no stranger to terrorism. We lost 700 New Jersey residents on 9/11, and dozens more still retain illnesses that developed as a result of their attempt to protect the citizens who survived. New Jersey is home to what has been labeled by the FBI as the most dangerous 2-mile stretch in America for terrorism--that 2-mile distance between the Port of Newark and Newark Airport. And New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the Nation. In the area around this 2- mile stretch terrorists could injure or kill almost 12 million people. Because of the real possibility of an attack, cities and counties throughout New Jersey have created local emergency operations centers. What else could we ask for? What have the States where there are droughts or hurricanes or earthquakes or volcanic eruptions in this country had the right to ask for? They have a right to ask for help. But why only provide the help after something has happened if we can prevent things from taking place? Because of the real possibility of an attack, we have these local emergency operations centers in New Jersey. These centers coordinate information during an attack and manage the immediate response to cataclysmic emergencies. Both the 9/11 Commission report and the Department of Homeland Security have identified these centers as imperative to people's safety and security when a community crisis occurs. In fact, according to the 9/11 Commission's senior counsel, if there had been a functional emergency operations center after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, lives would have been saved that day. Here is what will happen if the amendment being offered by Senators McCain and Feingold is passed: The emergency operations center in Union County, in my State, will not have an interoperable communications network that connects fire, police, and medical officers. The emergency operations center in South Orange--one of our cities--will not have a working emergency generator. We can't afford to be without this infrastructure of emergency equipment as well as services. And the emergency operations center in Hackensack will not be able to properly train police officers and firefighters. Make no mistake, emergency operations centers save lives. That is preventive. That is its purpose. The amendment being offered by Senators McCain and Feingold defies common sense. By jeopardizing emergency operations centers in my State and other States across the country, this amendment would make us less secure, and I hope my colleagues will say: No, we can't permit that. We can't permit it in New Jersey and we can't permit it in other places in the country. We have to, as the Boy Scouts say, be prepared. It is the simplest lesson we could learn. Prevention is far better than cure. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, recent attempts by the tobacco industry to sell and market candy-flavored cigarettes are a real threat to our Nation's children. With flavors such as cherry, grape, and strawberry, these cigarettes are intended to get our children addicted to a deadly product that kills more than 400,000 people a year. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act section 907 prohibits the use in cigarettes of flavors, herbs, spices, such as strawberry grape, orange, clove and cinnamon, when used as a ``characterizing flavor'' of the tobacco product or smoke. I applaud you along with Senator Kennedy for prohibiting these products.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. However, it is my understanding that the language in section 907 is not meant to prohibit the use of any specific ingredient that does not produce a ``characterizing flavor'' in a cigarette or its smoke; is that correct?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator for this clarification.