Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of Regina McCarthy, President Obama's nominee to be Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for Air and Radiation. Ms. McCarthy has decades of experience administering environmental programs at the state level under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Her qualifications are unquestionable, and her confirmation will help move our country toward a safer environment and a healthier economy. We are at a critical point in the history of our Nation and indeed our planet. New science appears seemingly every month showing the danger posed by climate change. Already this year, new peer-reviewed studies revealed that the Arctic will likely be ice-free in the summer as early as 2012-- not 2050, as predicted by the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--IPCC--in 2007. Another peer- reviewed study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that global emissions, if they continue at current rates, would increase global temperatures by 12 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. This is on the extreme high end of temperature projections by the IPCC. Finally, two new studies found that ice melt from Antarctica and Greenland will likely raise sea levels by five to six feet by the end of the century, far above the two feet predicted by the IPCC, which did not consider melting from those two sources. Regina McCarthy will be on the front lines of our Nation's battle to stabilize the climate. The office she will manage is responsible for improving air quality and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Congress must act quickly to place strong, science-based limits on emissions, and force polluters to pay to clean up the damage they have done to our environment and our health. We must do so in a way that creates jobs, allows businesses and individuals to save money through efficiency, and pulls the country out of this recession and into a clean energy future. The coal and oil industries are powerful, and are spending billions of dollars fighting the science and fighting any policies that would break their stranglehold on our Nation's energy policy. In the first 3 months of this year alone, the oil and gas industry spent $37.3 million to lobby the Federal Government. That is money that could be going toward cleaning up their operations. Instead it goes toward impeding our progress toward a clean energy jobs bill to stop climate change. Despite those obstacles, the House has reported legislation out of committee and we are working toward a bill in the Environment and Public Works Committee. However, as Congress works toward comprehensive legislation, our planet cannot afford to wait to begin reducing emissions. That's why President Obama's EPA recently found that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act. This will allow the EPA to use existing authority to regulate some of the largest sources of greenhouse gases, such as power plants, refineries, and automobiles. Just as the EPA does not use the Clean Air Act to regulate small sources of air pollution such as residential buildings, churches, or hospitals for pollutants like smog and soot, it will not regulate these sources for greenhouse gases. Our economy grew rapidly as we dramatically reduced emissions of air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and I am certain we can use the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gases while creating clean energy jobs and reviving our economy. Ms. McCarthy is supremely qualified to succeed in that task. Throughout her 25 years of experience at the State level, she has proven to be practical and intelligent in her approach to protecting the environment. She most recently served as the commissioner for the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection--DEP--and was appointed to this post by Republican Governor M. Jodi Rell in December 2004. Prior to serving in this capacity, Ms. McCarthy worked on environmental issues for 20 years at the State and local level in Massachusetts. She served as the deputy secretary of operations for the Massachusetts Office of Commonwealth Development, a ``super Secretariat'' that coordinates policies and programs of that state's environmental, transportation, energy and housing agencies. She was appointed to this position by then-Governor Mitt Romney. Ms. McCarthy is known for her active role as Connecticut DEP commissioner in promoting the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI, a cooperative initiative by 10 Northeastern States, including New Jersey, to implement a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions from powerplants. That experience will serve her well when she is tasked with implementing the climate legislation that Congress must--and will--pass. Our planet cannot wait any longer for lower emissions from cars and power plants, American workers cannot wait any longer for clean energy jobs, and our economy cannot wait any longer for the technological innovations and improved efficiency that will lay the groundwork for lasting, sustainable prosperity. Confirming Regina McCarthy will let her get to work cleaning up our environment, and we in the Senate will begin the work of passing a bill that makes polluters pay, creates clean energy jobs, and revives our economy.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, basic instinct in humankind directs so much attention to the well-being of our children. We do it in various ways. Now you see it creeping into better nutrition. We see it in our attention to environmental conditions, to global climate change. We see it in our attention to deal with violent behavior against children. We do whatever we can to protect our kids, to protect them and do whatever it takes to do what we can to make sure they grow up healthy, they have long lives. One of the ways we can be effective is to protect our kids against addiction. I use the word deliberately. ``Addiction'' immediately conjures up a view of drugs--prescription drugs, prohibited drugs. We are not talking about that addiction. I am talking about a serious addiction, an addiction to tobacco--to tobacco--that has such a devastating effect on the people who smoke and often on those who are around the people who smoke. We heard from Senator Dodd earlier about what happens from smoking. It kills more than 400,000 Americans each and every year. Many of them are of younger ages. In addition to the lethal dose, there is that kind of attack on health that disables people--emphysema, conditions that affect the heart, all kinds of things. We know lung cancer is among the most dangerous. Senator Durbin, who was a Member of the House at the time, and I decided to take up the fight against big tobacco and their powerful special interests more than 20 years ago when we wrote the law banning smoking on airplanes. We stood up to big tobacco because smoking on airplanes was so unhealthful. We learned the dangers of secondhand smoke. Many of the people who were cabin attendants were subjected to terrible respiratory discomfort and danger. As a matter of fact, there was a study that was done, and it said even those who never smoked--people who worked in the cabin of the airplane--would show nicotine in their body fluids weeks after they had worked a trip. That is how pervasive this was. But big tobacco fought back. They fought back ferociously. They unleashed their forces. Money flowed to protect their addicted clientele and to keep them there. They brought phony science and high-paid lobbyists to squash this assault on behalf of public health. They had phony experts testify to Congress, up here on television, saying unashamedly that there was no evidence that secondhand smoke was dangerous, even though they knew in the tobacco companies. In the 1930s they learned that nicotine was so addictive and that it would continue to help them earn enormous profits. We fought back, and we succeeded in banning smoking on airplanes. It was a tough fight because of all of the misinformation that the industry spread. That then started a smoke-free revolution, and it did change the world culture on tobacco. Some years later I authored a law that banned smoking in buildings that provided services to children, any building that had Federal funds. It could have been a library, a clinic, a daycare center; whatever it was, there was no smoking allowed in those buildings, except if it was in a separate room that ventilated directly to the outside. They fought us on that, but the people won. It is as clear to me today as it was then that this industry has not earned the trust to regulate itself. That is a plea they make, but no one believes they mean it. Ten years ago, I was able to gather unpublished, internal reports by the tobacco industry showing that so-called ``light'' and ``low-tar'' cigarettes were a poor disguise of the true harm that these cigarettes brought. The cigarette makers were seducing smokers into thinking that these cigarettes were a healthier choice than those previously generally sold. Real government oversight was essential to protect the public, especially our young, from this deadly product. As we know, since the 1980s, the tobacco industry has continued to engage in one sophisticated marketing campaign after another to get youngsters addicted to nicotine--just get them started and they are yours--even though selling and marketing cigarettes to children is generally against the law. It is our obligation, our responsibility to end the recruitment of kids as the next generation of smokers. If there was ever any doubt about how effective and real this unlawful marketing is, just consider that more than 3 million young people--people who are under the age of 18--in our society are smokers. What is more, currently 3,500 kids every day try smoking. That, for many, is the first step to a life of addiction. When I served in the Army, we were given an emergency pack in case we got in trouble, in case we were isolated from our units, and the emergency pack had some food, including a high-nutrition chocolate bar, but it also had four cigarettes in a little sleeve. Everybody got cigarettes free, even if you didn't use them before. The temptation to use them then was great, and it was right down the addiction alley. The legislation we are talking about now that is being debated in this Chamber would finally grant some supervision and give a Federal agency--the Food and Drug Administration--the authority to regulate the tobacco industry. The bill, very simply, would give the FDA jurisdiction over the content and the marketing of tobacco products, and more explicit warning labels would be required. President Obama supports this effort, and it is now our turn and our obligation to safeguard families and children by passing this critical bill. The legislation would give us more and better information about cigarettes. The fact is that we still don't know a cigarette's exact contents. That means 40 million Americans--the number of people in this country who are addicted to smoking--burn and inhale a product whose real ingredients are a mystery. Think about it. We see evidence of the fact that these people are typically locked in a vice, a vice so embarrassing that they sneak into hallways, they stand outside in a huddle in the rain, or in all kinds of weather conditions, whatever they are, to get the puffs on cigarettes. I know people who work in the Capitol here whom I see frequently going down the hall to get outside in inclement weather. Why? To smoke. So we have a situation we can't deal with. We have to understand what is in these products. The real ingredients are a mystery. To lead so many Americans on a dangerous path to a debilitating disease, and often lethal, is not simply wrong, it is the definition of negligence. If this legislation is successful, the FDA would monitor the content of cigarettes and could call for the reduction or removal of the toxic substances. FDA oversight would also ensure that cigarette makers don't deceive Americans through trick advertising and promotional campaigns. History has proven how untrustworthy the tobacco companies are. Just think: More than 20 percent of twelfth graders said they have smoked in the last 30 days--20 percent of kids in the twelfth grade, typically 16, 17, 18 years old, have had a cigarette in the last 30 days. For years, we have set our sights on getting the FDA to regulate cigarettes. Why? To protect our kids. No other government agency is as qualified to get this job done. In fact, one out of every five products that Americans purchase is regulated by the FDA. They watch over all kinds of things. Now they are looking at chemicals that are in products that very small children have contact with. The agency currently oversees prescription drugs, over-the-counter medicines, and medical devices, and it already regulates a number of well-known nicotine delivery products, such as the Nicorette gum and the patch. For the last 45 years, ever since the Surgeon General's office began issuing warnings about cigarettes, big tobacco has used every tactic imaginable, including sham organizations, influential lobbyists, and powerful lawyers, to avoid public scrutiny. It is time to make big tobacco accountable to the public. It is time to make it accountable so that we can protect our children from the danger that kills more than 400,000 Americans every year. I, too, was a smoker at one time, until over 30 years ago. Many times I thought about quitting, but the temptation to light up was always there and overcame any decision that could persuade me to stop from lighting up and taking a few drags. What happened? One night after dinner my third daughter, who was about 7 or 8--she was in maybe second grade--said, Daddy, why are you smoking? I said, well, because it makes me feel relaxed. It feels good when I am doing it after I have eaten. This little kid looked at me and she said, Daddy, today in school we learned that if you smoke, you get a black box in your throat. She was 7 years old. She said, I love you and I don't want you to have a black box in your throat. That convinced me. Within days I had my last cigarette. I will close with another hideous reminder about the woman who appeared in front of one of my committees. She had already had an operation on her esophagus, I think, but in her throat, she actually had a hole in her throat. She admitted that despite the fact that she had essentially lost her voice box, she still smoked through the hole in her throat. She said her doctor got angry with her when after this serious surgery she was asking for a cigarette. The hold on people is almost unbreakable. But we can do our part here in the Senate if we pass this bill. I ask my colleagues to vote yes on this legislation. It is good for your constituents, it is good for your families, it is good for America's financial well-being. We spend over $100 billion a year as a result of premature death and disability from tobacco use. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I wish to pay tribute to Eric F. Ross who will celebrate his 90th birthday on June 25, 2009. A loving grandfather, great-grandfather, and husband, Eric has been dedicated to educating the public about the Holocaust and is a passionate supporter of educational and cultural institutions in the United States, Germany, and Israel. Born in Dortmund, Germany, Eric fled Nazi Germany and arrived in the United States when he was 20 years old. He courageously returned to Europe in 1942 as a soldier in the U.S. Army and a member of the ``Ritchie Boys,'' a group of young men who escaped Nazi Germany and joined the Army. These men were specially trained to fight the Nazis and because of his service, Eric was awarded a Bronze Star. He went on to become a successful businessman, establishing Alpha Chemical & Plastics in Newark, New Jersey and Mercer Plastics Company, which is based in Florida. Holocaust remembrance and education are extremely important to Eric. In 2003, he was appointed by President George W. Bush to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council and he remains actively involved with the museum. He and his beloved wife Lore, who recently passed away, are the museum's largest individual donors and the museum's Ross Administrative Center is named in memory of his parents, Albert and Regina Rosenberg, who perished during the Holocaust. I am pleased to ask my colleagues to join me in commemorating the 90th birthday of this remarkable man. His passion for education and dedication to philanthropy has touched countless lives and should serve as an example to others. I thank him for his tireless work and would like to extend my warmest wishes on this momentous occasion.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, another 5 months have passed, and more American troops have lost their lives overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wish to honor their service and sacrifice by including their names in the Record. Since I last included the names of our fallen troops on November 20, 2008, the Pentagon has announced the deaths of 123 troops in Iraq and in Operation Enduring Freedom, which includes Afghanistan. They will not be forgotten and today I submit their names into the Record: LCpl Ray A. Spencer II, of Ridgecrest, CA; PFC Richard A. Dewater, of Topeka, KS; CPL Francisco X. Aguila, of Bayamon, Puerto Rico; SGT Raul Moncada, of Madera, CA; SPC Michael J. Anaya, of Crestview, FL; SSG Gary L. Woods Jr., of Lebanon Junction, KY; SFC Bryan E. Hall, of Elk Grove, CA; SGT Edward W. Forrest Jr., of St. Louis, MO; CPL Jason G. Pautsch, of Davenport, IA; PFC Bryce E. Gautier, of Cypress, CA; A1C Jacob I. Ramsey, of Hesperia, CA; LCpl Blaise A. Oleski, of Holland Patent, NY; LCpl Stephen F. Dearmon, of Crossville, TN; SPC Adam M. Kuligowski, of Arlington, VA; SPC Israel Candelaria Mejias, of San Lorenzo, Puerto Rico; SGT Daniel J. Beard, of Buffalo, NY; TSgt Phillip A Myers, of Hopewell, VA; SGT Devin C. Poche, of Jacksonville, NC; LCpl Nelson M. Lantigua, of Miami, FL; LTJG Francis L. Toner IV, of Narragansett, RI; LT Florence B. Choe, of El Cajon, CA; SSG Raphael A. Futrell, of Anderson, SC; SGT Jose R. Escobedo Jr., of Albuquerque, NM; Cpl Michael W. Ouellette, of Manchester, NH; Cpl Anthony L. Williams, of Oxford, PA; LCpl Daniel J. Geary, of Rome, NY; PFC Adam J. Hardt, of Avondale, AZ; SPC Gary L. Moore, of Del City, OK; SGT Christopher P. Abeyta, of Midlothian, IL; SGT Robert M. Weinger, of Round Lake Beach, IL; SPC Norman L. Cain III, of Oregon, IL; SSgt Archie A. Taylor, of Tomball, TX; SSgt Timothy L. Bowles, of Tucson, AZ; PO1 Theophilus K. Ansong, of Bristow, VA; LCpl Patrick A. Malone, of Ocala, FL; PFC Patrick A. Devoe, II, of Auburn, NY; 1LT Daniel B. Hyde, of Modesto, CA; SPC Jessica Y. Sarandrea, of Miami, FL; SGT Jeffery A. Reed, of Chesterfield, VA; Cpl Donte J. Whitworth, of Nobelsville, IN; SGT Simone A. Robinson, of Dixmoor, IL; CPL Brian M. Connelly, of Union Beach, NJ; CPT Brian M. Bunting, of Potomac, MD; SGT Schuyler B. Patch, of Owasso, OK; SGT Scott B. Stream, of Mattoon, IL; SGT Daniel J. Thompson, of Madison, WI; 1LT William E. Emmert, of Lincoln, TN; CPL Michael L. Mayne, of Burlington Flats, NY; CPL Michael B. Alleman, of Logan, UT; CPL Zachary R. Nordmeyer, of Indianapolis, IN; SSG Mark C. Baum, of Telford, PA; SSG Jeremy E. Bessa, of Woodridge, IL; MSG David L. Hurt, of Tucson, AZ; PFC Cwislyn K. Walter, of Honolulu, HA; SSgt Timothy P. Davis, of Aberdeen, WA; SFC Raymond J. Munden, of Mesquite, TX; SSG Daniel L. Hansen, of Tracy, CA; CPL Stephen S. Thompson, of Tulsa, OK; SSG Sean D. Diamond, of Dublin, CA; SSG Marc J. Small, of Collegeville, PA; LTC Garnet R. Derby, of Missoula, MT; SGT Joshua A. Ward, of Scottsville, KY; SPC Albert R. Jex, of Phoenix, AZ; PFC Jonathan R. Roberge, of Leominster, MA; LCpl Kevin T. Preach, of Bridgewater, MA; SSG Jason E. Burkholder, of Elda, OH; 1LT Jared W. Southworth, of Oakland, IL; SPC Christopher P. Sweet, of Kahului, HI; SGT James M. Dorsey, of Beardstown, IL; SGT Darrell L. Fernandez, of Truth or Consequences, NM; CW4 Milton E. Suggs, of Lockport, LA; CWO Phillip Windorski Jr, of Bovey, MN; CWO Matthew G. Kelley, of Cameron, MO; CWO Joshua M. Tillery, of Beaverton, OR; CWO Benjamin H. Todd, of Colville, WA; Sgt David W. Wallace III, of Sharpsville, PA; Sgt Trevor J. Johnson, of Forsyth, MT; PVT Grant A. Cotting, of Corona, CA; LCpl Julian T. Brennan, of Brooklyn, NY; SGT Kyle J. Harrington, of Swansea, MA; SPC Matthew M. Pollini, of Rockland, MA; SGT Ezra Dawson, of Las Vegas, NV; SSG Carlo M. Robinson, of Lawton, OK; PFC Ricky L. Turner, of Athens, AL; SSG Roberto Andrade Jr., of Chicago, IL; SSG Joshua R. Townsend, of Solvang, CA; SrA Omar J. McKnight, of Marrero, LA; Sgt Marquis R. Porter, of Brighton, MA; LCpl Daniel R. Bennett, of Clifton, VA; PVT Sean P. McCune, of Euless, TX; SGT Joshua L. Rath, of Decatur, AL; SPC Keith E. Essary, of Dyersburg, TN; SSG Justin L. Bauer, of Loveland, CO; MAJ Brian M. Mescall, of Hopkinton, MA; SPC Joseph M. Hernandez, of Hammond, IN; SGT Jason R. Parsons, of Lenoir, NC; LCpl Jessie A. Cassada, of Hendersonville, NC; SSG Anthony D. Davis, of Daytona Beach, FL; LCpl Chadwick A. Gilliam, of Mayking, KY; LCpl Alberto Francesconi, of Bronx, NY; PFC Christopher W. Lotter, of Chester Heights, PA; PFC Benjamin B. Tollefson, of Concord, CA; SPC Tony J. Gonzales, of Newman, CA; LCpl Robert L. Johnson, of Central Point, OR; CPL Charles P. Gaffney Jr., of Phoenix, AZ; MASA Joshua D. Seitz, of Sinking Springs, PA; MAJ John P. Pryor, of Moorestown, NJ; SSG Christopher G. Smith, of Grand Rapids, MI; SPC Stephen M. Okray, of St. Clair Shores, MI; SPC Stephen G. Zapasnik, of Broken Arrow, OK; LCpl Thomas Reilly Jr., of London, KY; PFC Coleman W. Hinkefent, of Coweta, OK; SSG Jonathan W. Dean, of Henagar, AL; PVT Colman J. Meadows III, of Senoia, GA; SSG Solomon T. Sam, of Majuro, Marshall Islands; SGT John J. Savage, of Weatherford, TX; CPT Robert J. Yllescas, of Lincoln, NE; MSG Anthony Davis, of Deerfield, FL; Capt Warren A. Frank, of Cincinnati, OH; 1LT William K. Jernigan, of Doraville, GA; SFC Miguel A. Wilson, of Bonham, TX; PVT Charles Yi Barnett, of Bel Air, MD; GySgt Marcelo R. Velasco, of Miami, FL; We cannot forget these men and women and their sacrifice. These brave souls left behind parents, spouses, children, siblings, and friends. We want them to know the country pledges to preserve the memory of our lost soldiers who gave their lives for our country. Staff Sergeant Gary Lee Woods, Jr.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise because yesterday marks 10 years since the shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO, and on this 10th anniversary, we need to speak about the problems with our Nation's gun laws. Whether it is Columbine, Virginia Tech, Mexican gun trafficking or the recent killings in Pittsburgh, Binghamton, and Oakland we are reminded over and over again that our gun laws are not strong enough, and it is time we said--not another day. Not another day should we allow the gun show loophole to stand. Not another day should we allow gun dealers to sell firearms without conducting a background check. Not another day should we allow terrorists, criminals, gun traffickers and the mentally ill to buy firearms. It is as easy as ever for criminals to buy guns--easier, in fact, than it is to get a library card. What happened at Columbine High School 10 years ago was a tragedy none of us can forget. Two shooters went on a rampage and killed 12 students and 1 teacher. But here is what a lot of people do not realize: all of the firearms used by the shooters were bought at gun shows. That means, because of the gun show loophole, they were bought without a background check, and they were bought ``cash and carry,'' no questions asked. Those 13 people never should have died because those teenagers never should have had those guns. Just think: the young woman who bought the guns for the shooters said she wouldn't have done it had a background check been required. In 1999, I introduced legislation to close the gun show loophole and 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 tie-breaking vote. It was a great victory, but it was short lived. The gun lobby stripped my legislation in conference. Ten years later, this gap in our law still remains. We were reminded of that last Thursday when we marked the second anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings. In that tragedy, a mentally deranged man killed 32 students and faculty in the worst mass shooting in American history. The Virginia Tech shooter was able to obtain his guns from licensed gun dealers because the records of his mental illness were not in the background check database as they were supposed to be. But if a background check stopped him from buying his guns from a gun dealer, he could have walked to a gun show and purchased the guns with no background check. Yesterday we marked the 14th anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing--the Nation's worst domestic terrorist attack. The men responsible for that despicable act frequently bought and sold firearms at gun shows. Gun trafficking to Mexico is another reminder of the dangers of the gun show loophole. We know that as many as 30 percent of the firearms traveling across our border into Mexico originate from gun shows. We have an opportunity to save lives--and that is why I am reintroducing legislation today to close the gun show loophole once and for all. Closing the gun show loophole will not adversely affect licensed gun sellers and it will not place a burden on law-abiding gun owners. It simply ends a dangerous, unnecessary exemption so that the Brady Law is applied equally. But that difference--the difference between buying a gun with a background check and not--is everything. It is the difference between saving lives and putting more at risk, between keeping guns out of the wrong hands and letting terrorists and others have easy access to guns, and the difference between upholding the rule of law or allowing loopholes to undermine it. Specifically, my legislation would take several steps to make gun show transactions safer for all Americans: gun shows are defined to include any event at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale. This definition includes not only those events where firearms are the main commodity sold, but also other events where a significant number of guns are sold, such as flea markets or swap meets. Gun show promoters would be required to register with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, ATF, maintain a list of vendors at all gun shows, and ensure that all vendors acknowledge receipt of information about their legal obligations. The bill requires that all firearms sales at gun shows go through a Federal Firearms Licensee, FFL. If a nonlicensed person is selling a weapon, they would use an FFL at the gun show to complete the transaction. The FFL would be responsible for conducting a Brady check on the purchaser and maintaining records of the transaction. FFLs would be required to submit information including the manufacturer/importer, model, and serial number of firearms transferred at gun shows to the ATF's National Tracing Center, NTC. However, no personal information about either the seller or the purchaser would be given to the ATF. Instead, as under current law, FFLs would maintain this information in their files. The NTC would request this personal information from an FFL only in the event that a firearm subsequently becomes the subject of a law enforcement trace request. I am proud to be joined in introducing this legislation by Senators Reed, Whitehouse, Schumer, Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, Levin, Cardin, Gillibrand, Feinstein, and Menendez. Ten years ago we lost 12 students and a teacher to gun violence in Littleton, CO. One of the best ways to honor those we lost 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 10 years ago and the young people who count on us today.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise because yesterday marks 10 years since the shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO, and on this 10th anniversary, we need to speak about the problems with our Nation's gun laws. Whether it is Columbine, Virginia Tech, Mexican gun trafficking or the recent killings in Pittsburgh, Binghamton, and Oakland we are reminded over and over again that our gun laws are not strong enough, and it is time we said--not another day. Not another day should we allow the gun show loophole to stand. Not another day should we allow gun dealers to sell firearms without conducting a background check. Not another day should we allow terrorists, criminals, gun traffickers and the mentally ill to buy firearms. It is as easy as ever for criminals to buy guns--easier, in fact, than it is to get a library card. What happened at Columbine High School 10 years ago was a tragedy none of us can forget. Two shooters went on a rampage and killed 12 students and 1 teacher. But here is what a lot of people do not realize: all of the firearms used by the shooters were bought at gun shows. That means, because of the gun show loophole, they were bought without a background check, and they were bought ``cash and carry,'' no questions asked. Those 13 people never should have died because those teenagers never should have had those guns. Just think: the young woman who bought the guns for the shooters said she wouldn't have done it had a background check been required. In 1999, I introduced legislation to close the gun show loophole and 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 tie-breaking vote. It was a great victory, but it was short lived. The gun lobby stripped my legislation in conference. Ten years later, this gap in our law still remains. We were reminded of that last Thursday when we marked the second anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings. In that tragedy, a mentally deranged man killed 32 students and faculty in the worst mass shooting in American history. The Virginia Tech shooter was able to obtain his guns from licensed gun dealers because the records of his mental illness were not in the background check database as they were supposed to be. But if a background check stopped him from buying his guns from a gun dealer, he could have walked to a gun show and purchased the guns with no background check. Yesterday we marked the 14th anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing--the Nation's worst domestic terrorist attack. The men responsible for that despicable act frequently bought and sold firearms at gun shows. Gun trafficking to Mexico is another reminder of the dangers of the gun show loophole. We know that as many as 30 percent of the firearms traveling across our border into Mexico originate from gun shows. We have an opportunity to save lives--and that is why I am reintroducing legislation today to close the gun show loophole once and for all. Closing the gun show loophole will not adversely affect licensed gun sellers and it will not place a burden on law-abiding gun owners. It simply ends a dangerous, unnecessary exemption so that the Brady Law is applied equally. But that difference--the difference between buying a gun with a background check and not--is everything. It is the difference between saving lives and putting more at risk, between keeping guns out of the wrong hands and letting terrorists and others have easy access to guns, and the difference between upholding the rule of law or allowing loopholes to undermine it. Specifically, my legislation would take several steps to make gun show transactions safer for all Americans: gun shows are defined to include any event at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale. This definition includes not only those events where firearms are the main commodity sold, but also other events where a significant number of guns are sold, such as flea markets or swap meets. Gun show promoters would be required to register with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, ATF, maintain a list of vendors at all gun shows, and ensure that all vendors acknowledge receipt of information about their legal obligations. The bill requires that all firearms sales at gun shows go through a Federal Firearms Licensee, FFL. If a nonlicensed person is selling a weapon, they would use an FFL at the gun show to complete the transaction. The FFL would be responsible for conducting a Brady check on the purchaser and maintaining records of the transaction. FFLs would be required to submit information including the manufacturer/importer, model, and serial number of firearms transferred at gun shows to the ATF's National Tracing Center, NTC. However, no personal information about either the seller or the purchaser would be given to the ATF. Instead, as under current law, FFLs would maintain this information in their files. The NTC would request this personal information from an FFL only in the event that a firearm subsequently becomes the subject of a law enforcement trace request. I am proud to be joined in introducing this legislation by Senators Reed, Whitehouse, Schumer, Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, Levin, Cardin, Gillibrand, Feinstein, and Menendez. Ten years ago we lost 12 students and a teacher to gun violence in Littleton, CO. One of the best ways to honor those we lost 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 10 years ago and the young people who count on us today.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to offer a straightforward amendment that recognizes that investments in our transportation infrastructure system must be a priority for our country. The amendment would simply add transportation, including passenger and freight rail, as an eligible project under the ``Investments in America's Infrastructure'' reserve fund. It is already included in the budget. Our highways and skyways are so congested and crowded that passengers and freight are routinely delayed. The estimates show these problems will only get worse with the growth of freight traffic, expected to double its size by 2025. Railroads are the one mode of transportation that can grow to help alleviate the congestion. Amtrak needs more and better passenger and freight rail service. I ask support for this amendment. I call up the amendment and ask for its immediate consideration, amendment No. 957.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I object to this disruptive amendment offered by the Senator from Mississippi. He wants to enable the carrying of weapons, guns, in checked baggage. One doesn't have to be very much concerned about what we are doing when they look at the history of attacks on railroads in Spain and the UK and such places. This amendment has no place here interrupting the budgetary procedure. The pending amendment is not germane and, therefore, I raise a point of order that the amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is a very significant day in environmental history in our world, particularly in our country. While the debate goes on about what corporate America has done and what they have not done and how we should treat them in trying to get our economy back on track, we have heard questions raised about corporate behavior. I came out of the corporate world when I came to the Senate. It seems to me that things were different years ago. Over the last few days, we have heard many in these Chambers, here and in the House of Representatives, call on companies to be better corporate citizens. Today I rise to point out what may be the greatest abandonment of corporate citizenship in our Nation's history, and that was displayed by the Exxon Corporation, one of the most profitable companies in American history. Twenty years ago this day, one of their ships ran aground in Alaska. Still Exxon refuses to live up to the obligations it obtained when that ship ran aground, and it damaged the environment substantially. It was 20 years ago today the Exxon Valdez crashed into the Bligh Reef in Alaska's Prince William Sound. That ship spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil, damaging 1,300 miles of shoreline, and ruining the lives of thousands of Americans. Now, as chairman of a subcommittee with appropriations jurisdiction over the Coast Guard, I was taken to Alaska by the Coast Guard and arrived there 3 days after the Exxon Valdez ran aground. To see the damage was horrific. But also during those days there, during that first day, I saw so many of the people who worked for the Government. This is a discussion we often have about Government servants and their obligations--and I would say, having come from the corporate world, there are few who are more mindful of their obligations than those who work for Government. That day I saw from the helicopter in which I was flying so many of our people committed to their responsibilities, dealing with the problem, brave people traveling to tiny islands by helicopter and small boats. Their mission was to save the wildlife. I saw many of them fairly close up taking birds, and mammals--the young mammals, particularly--and fish into their hands and wiping the oil off to try to save the lives of these victims. One by one, wherever they could, they were saving animal lives. It was devastating to see. It was obvious, as one looked at the waters of Prince William Sound, a beautiful place, surrounded by glaciers, that this lure, this almost seductive lure of color and cover that came from the oil was at the same time doling out poisons. There are many portions of Prince William Sound today that remain contaminated. The cannery workers, fishermen, and people whose lives depended on Prince William Sound are still paying a price. The local economy is still reeling. Think about it. So much time has passed since this spill that as many as 6,000 people injured by that disaster have already passed away. These people were never ever fully compensated for their loss. Exxon was responsible for this mess. But the company fought at every step to shirk its responsibilities. And ever since the disaster, Exxon has defaulted on its obligations as a corporate citizen and refused to repair whole communities and innocent lives that have been damaged. Instead, during all of this period, Exxon has fought tooth and nail to deprive the victims of proper compensation, spending as much as $400 million to retain lawyers and keep things bottled up in court. Exxon took its fight all the way to the Supreme Court, and last year, 19 years after the tragedy, the Justices confirmed that Exxon owes punitive damages to the victims, although they and their skillful hordes of lawyers succeeded in a constant effort to reduce the amount of compensation. Still, even today, 20 years later, the company continues to stonewall the victims by trying to avoid paying the interest that fell on these charges. Exxon's actions are the height of corporate irresponsibility. As a former CEO of a major corporation, I understand the drive to succeed. But there is nothing more reprehensible than a company evading its obligations to our country's people just to make a quick buck and to avoid the legitimate responsibility that is a giant factor in our economy and social well being. They have that responsibility. Exxon had record profits last year of $45 billion. Even last quarter, when companies across the country were suffering, this company, Exxon, posted a profit of nearly $8 billion in a single quarter--$8 billion. Now, it would have been a drop in the bucket for this corporation to have fully compensated the victims who were so severely hurt. All the money, energy, and time that Exxon has wasted should have been spent making local communities whole again and helping to fix the environmental and economic damage done to Alaska's Prince William Sound. The truth is, Exxon needs to change its ways, and today, the 20th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez disaster, is a perfect opportunity. On this anniversary, we are also reminded how dangerous transporting oil can be. That is why I have introduced a bill this day that will accelerate the use of double-hulled vessels by shippers. Oil spills are absolutely catastrophic to the environment and seaside communities and influence wide geographic areas beyond those communities. After examining the costs of past spills, we have written a bill to substantially reduce the possibilities of future spills. So I look forward to seeing this bill passed by this Chamber and to working with colleagues to make sure that disasters like the one we saw 20 years ago this day will never happen again.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is a very significant day in environmental history in our world, particularly in our country. While the debate goes on about what corporate America has done and what they have not done and how we should treat them in trying to get our economy back on track, we have heard questions raised about corporate behavior. I came out of the corporate world when I came to the Senate. It seems to me that things were different years ago. Over the last few days, we have heard many in these Chambers, here and in the House of Representatives, call on companies to be better corporate citizens. Today I rise to point out what may be the greatest abandonment of corporate citizenship in our Nation's history, and that was displayed by the Exxon Corporation, one of the most profitable companies in American history. Twenty years ago this day, one of their ships ran aground in Alaska. Still Exxon refuses to live up to the obligations it obtained when that ship ran aground, and it damaged the environment substantially. It was 20 years ago today the Exxon Valdez crashed into the Bligh Reef in Alaska's Prince William Sound. That ship spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil, damaging 1,300 miles of shoreline, and ruining the lives of thousands of Americans. Now, as chairman of a subcommittee with appropriations jurisdiction over the Coast Guard, I was taken to Alaska by the Coast Guard and arrived there 3 days after the Exxon Valdez ran aground. To see the damage was horrific. But also during those days there, during that first day, I saw so many of the people who worked for the Government. This is a discussion we often have about Government servants and their obligations--and I would say, having come from the corporate world, there are few who are more mindful of their obligations than those who work for Government. That day I saw from the helicopter in which I was flying so many of our people committed to their responsibilities, dealing with the problem, brave people traveling to tiny islands by helicopter and small boats. Their mission was to save the wildlife. I saw many of them fairly close up taking birds, and mammals--the young mammals, particularly--and fish into their hands and wiping the oil off to try to save the lives of these victims. One by one, wherever they could, they were saving animal lives. It was devastating to see. It was obvious, as one looked at the waters of Prince William Sound, a beautiful place, surrounded by glaciers, that this lure, this almost seductive lure of color and cover that came from the oil was at the same time doling out poisons. There are many portions of Prince William Sound today that remain contaminated. The cannery workers, fishermen, and people whose lives depended on Prince William Sound are still paying a price. The local economy is still reeling. Think about it. So much time has passed since this spill that as many as 6,000 people injured by that disaster have already passed away. These people were never ever fully compensated for their loss. Exxon was responsible for this mess. But the company fought at every step to shirk its responsibilities. And ever since the disaster, Exxon has defaulted on its obligations as a corporate citizen and refused to repair whole communities and innocent lives that have been damaged. Instead, during all of this period, Exxon has fought tooth and nail to deprive the victims of proper compensation, spending as much as $400 million to retain lawyers and keep things bottled up in court. Exxon took its fight all the way to the Supreme Court, and last year, 19 years after the tragedy, the Justices confirmed that Exxon owes punitive damages to the victims, although they and their skillful hordes of lawyers succeeded in a constant effort to reduce the amount of compensation. Still, even today, 20 years later, the company continues to stonewall the victims by trying to avoid paying the interest that fell on these charges. Exxon's actions are the height of corporate irresponsibility. As a former CEO of a major corporation, I understand the drive to succeed. But there is nothing more reprehensible than a company evading its obligations to our country's people just to make a quick buck and to avoid the legitimate responsibility that is a giant factor in our economy and social well being. They have that responsibility. Exxon had record profits last year of $45 billion. Even last quarter, when companies across the country were suffering, this company, Exxon, posted a profit of nearly $8 billion in a single quarter--$8 billion. Now, it would have been a drop in the bucket for this corporation to have fully compensated the victims who were so severely hurt. All the money, energy, and time that Exxon has wasted should have been spent making local communities whole again and helping to fix the environmental and economic damage done to Alaska's Prince William Sound. The truth is, Exxon needs to change its ways, and today, the 20th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez disaster, is a perfect opportunity. On this anniversary, we are also reminded how dangerous transporting oil can be. That is why I have introduced a bill this day that will accelerate the use of double-hulled vessels by shippers. Oil spills are absolutely catastrophic to the environment and seaside communities and influence wide geographic areas beyond those communities. After examining the costs of past spills, we have written a bill to substantially reduce the possibilities of future spills. So I look forward to seeing this bill passed by this Chamber and to working with colleagues to make sure that disasters like the one we saw 20 years ago this day will never happen again.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to express my strenuous objection to the amendment that is being offered by the Senator from Arizona. The amendment has a purpose, no doubt, but it is particularly and solely political. Let there be no doubt, we have to stop companies from doing business with Iran. Iran's nuclear technology program grows stronger every day, and it represents a serious threat to our country, to Israel, and to mankind. It is known that Iran also funds terrorist organizations, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. That is why we have to deal with this threat seriously whenever we can do so. Over the last few years, I have offered three amendments to block American companies from helping Iran to develop its nuclear technology and promote terrorist actions. But when the chips were down, my Republican colleagues voted against three amendments. My amendment would have closed the loophole in our laws that allows American-owned companies to use sham offshore subsidiaries to do business with Iran. Three times I brought amendments for a vote on the Senate floor to shut down this loophole. But each and every time, the Republican Members of the Senate voted against commonsense legislation. They voted to keep Iran open for business. They voted to allow American companies to help the regime in Tehran, as the Senator said, to produce oil, to produce revenues they sent to Iraq to help those guys kill our troops. So I ask, why now are these Members so interested in stopping companies from doing business with Iran? We know why. Raw political showmanship. But we have to stop Iran's serious nuclear threat from continuing to try to wipe Israel off the map and to attack the United States and other democratic nations. Our national security is at stake, and we should have a serious debate on how to block Iran's nuclear program. That is why we have to object to Senator Kyl's amendment. There is another problem with his amendment. My legislation would have closed the ``business with terrorists'' loophole, and this amendment does not. I checked with the Congressional Research Service. CRS says this amendment will not have any effect on present sanctions. It will have little or no influence on the mad stream of threats and the ugly hatred that comes from Iran. If the Senator wants us to work together to get a decent approach to get at this problem, I would be happy to work with him on it in the days ahead. But this amendment before us does nothing to stop their mad dash to build a nuclear threat to humankind. I hope we can work together to come up with a strong piece of legislation to end this practice once and for all. The amendment simply is a gimmick to attack the omnibus bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield a minute to my friend from Connecticut, Senator Dodd.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 638, withdrawn

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. Presdient, I rise to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP. I strongly support the NAACP and I am proud to be a lifelong member. Today, I wish to recognize this organization and the tremendous work it has done fighting for political, educational, social and economic equality for all. America would be a less equal and less just nation without the work and lasting influence of the NAACP. One hundred years ago on the centennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth, a distinguished group of Americans came together to fight racial hatred and racial discrimination through nonviolence. In the intervening years, the NAACP has become one of the most respected civil rights organizations in the United States, having fought some of country's greatest civil rights battles. Since its inception, the NAACP has been on the frontlines fighting for racial equality in all areas of life. A team of NAACP lawyers, led by Thurgood Marshall, fought successfully for the desegregation of public schools in the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. The NAACP also played a key role in ensuring the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, laws that are essential to guaranteeing all Americans' full participation in our democracy. Whether it is combating racial profiling, reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, or fighting hate crimes and pay discrimination, I have been proud to stand side by side with the NAACP throughout my Senate career. There is no better way to honor the NAACP's work than to continue its fight for justice and equal opportunity. This fight starts with getting the Nation's economy moving again, and giving every child access to quality education and every family access to affordable health care. I look forward to working with the NAACP and with all my Senate colleagues to make these goals a reality.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Sybil Moses, a judge and pioneer who for 21 years brought to New Jersey her commitment to the rule of law and passion for the administration of justice. Sybil passed away on January 23, 2009, and is survived by her husband of 48 years, her son, her daughter, and her five beautiful grandchildren. She will be sorely missed by her family and by my home State of New Jersey. Sybil opened up new opportunities for women by virtue of her hard work, and she created a path that many will follow in the future. After proving herself as a prosecutor and a judge, Sybil was appointed the State's first female assignment judge in 1997. Sybil understood not only the law, but also the needs of residents who came in contact with the court. While serving at the courthouse, for example, she created a free day care center, so that anyone attending a court matter could bring their child with them, rather than having to make other arrangements. Sybil served as an assignment judge until her retirement in October. Even retirement, however, could not stop Sybil, who accepted two Supreme Court committee assignments so that she could continue her work improving New Jersey's judiciary system. Sybil attended Rutgers Law School in the early 1970s after the birth of her two children. Women were a rarity on campus, and she became part of a group of women who called themselves ``The Band of Mothers.'' Throughout her life, Sybil exhibited an unwavering strength and commitment to succeed, no matter the circumstances. New Jersey was blessed to have such an enthusiastic, dedicated civil servant administering the rule of law for the past 21 years. Sybil blazed a path that made it easier for women everywhere to accomplish their goals. For that, she will be missed and will serve as a role model for future generations.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the amendment we have before us is of critical importance. By adopting this infrastructure amendment, we will improve this package by increasing its focus on repairing and upgrading our Nation's infrastructure. The fact is, our Nation's highways, bridges, and transit and water systems are just not keeping pace with our country's needs. For our economy, our workers, and our future, we have to rebuild America. This amendment will instantly translate into construction projects in communities across our country and send a quick jolt through our economy. In all, this amendment will create 655,000 new jobs. We cannot forget that unemployment in construction is higher than in any other sector. We know transportation investments are one of the most effective ways to grow our economy. For every dollar we invest in transportation, we get an immediate $1.59 in return. But make no mistake--this amendment is not just a short-term fix. It is a long-term investment that will pay off for our entire Nation. The truth is, as a Nation, we have neglected our pressing infrastructure needs. More than 25 percent of our Nation's bridges are deficient. Let us not forget the catastrophic bridge collapse in Minneapolis just a year and a half ago. Gridlock on our highways means each commuter spends an average of 38 hours a year sitting in traffic, burning 26 gallons of gas while going nowhere. And travelers in many parts of our country are stuck in their cars simply because they don't have the option to board a train. Our economy--the largest in the world--still doesn't have a world-class passenger rail system. This amendment will allow States to invest in highways, bridges, transit systems and expanded rail service. And it will put people back to work. Right now, families across our country are suffering. Every day more and more people join the unemployment line, a line that is right now 11 million people long. We have a tremendous opportunity before us to rebuild our infrastructure, reinvigorate our economy, and create jobs. We have a lot to do in the next week, and I hope we will meet our obligations and get the job done.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will take a minute to salute the leadership of the Senator from Montana on the Finance Committee. He has done a masterful job trying to keep things together as we get ourselves back to a more stable economy. I congratulate him for the work done and ask him to continue to exert the effort and leadership he has thus far. Mr. President, I come to the floor to protect the well-being of more than 3,000 children in New Jersey. Amendment No. 74 A particular focus as we seek to stimulate an economic revival is to preserve and protect the Children's Health Insurance Program which has helped millions of kids get to a doctor for regular checkups to keep them well and get them the medicines or treatment they need. However, instead of continuing that safety net or strengthening it, the Senator from Kentucky is targeting 3,000 children in my State, putting their coverage at risk. It is an assault on equity in our diverse country. Incomes vary and certainly costs of living differ and Federal assistance to States reflects their subsistence needs. This amendment will deprive children of essential health care. These children are from working families who are producing income--modest as it may be--not enough to take care of all their needs but, nevertheless, essential in their family circumstance. I wish to note that while our economy is going deeper and deeper into a recession, there is an attack on children's well-being by a Senator whose State in 2005 was the ninth largest recipient of Federal assistance. His State--Kentucky--receives 90 cents more for every dollar they pay to the Federal Government than New Jersey does. With the way my Republican colleagues are talking, one might think too many children in New Jersey are receiving health insurance. While this assault is taking place, it is important to plead our case in the Senate. Right now, the number of children in New Jersey without health coverage is far above the national average. In fact, more than a quarter of a million kids in my State do not have health insurance, and now the Bunning amendment would put more children in my State at risk of losing their health insurance. One of the other serious problems with this amendment is it intimates that costs among States are identical in each case. The Federal poverty level cannot be applied, for instance, equally in New Jersey and Kentucky. In New Jersey, we have the twin problems of very high costs of living and very high health insurance costs. The cost of living in the State of New Jersey is 30 percent higher than the national average. In fact, only two other States have a higher cost of living than New Jersey. Nearly all the families who rely on this program to get medical care for their children still have to pay copays, monthly premiums, and other out-of-pocket expenses. This amendment is a bomb intended to disrupt the process the entire country desperately wants to see accomplished--and that is protecting children's health. Given New Jersey's contribution when it comes to filling other States' needs, I find it particularly offensive. We know other States have different needs than we do, and we join in supporting these needs. If there is a natural disaster in a particular State, for example, the other 49 chip in. That is what our Republic demands. Time and time again, New Jersey's taxpayers are asked to shoulder the burden to help other areas of the country that are in need, and for every dollar New Jersey gives to the Federal Government, we only receive 61 cents back. As a matter of fact, we are last in the list of States. Compare that with Kentucky. For every dollar Kentucky pays to the Treasury, it gets back $1.51. Whether it is the Universal Service Fund for phone service, Essential Air Service in aviation or other programs, New Jersey gives far more than it gets back. The Bunning amendment is contrary to everything we are trying to accomplish on the floor this week. More than 3,000 children in New Jersey are depending upon us now to protect their health. Whether it is illness, disease, violence, toxic pollution, terrorism or other threats, it is our job to protect our children, particularly when they are holding out their hands in need. Children in New Jersey are depending on the Members of this institution to oppose the Bunning amendment. Two years ago, on a bipartisan vote, the Senate rejected a similar amendment that was offered by the Senator from Kentucky. It is an assault he continues with. I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment once again. Do it with a flourish, and do it with emphasis, because we have to stop States picking on other States in our moments of great need. Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the events that are in front of us and their significance. We are presently sharing in the excitement that surrounds this Capitol and our country at the prospect that President Obama will be taking office and leading this country in a positive fashion. There is a lot of work to do and a lot of concerns have been brought to our attention. We are reminded by President-elect Obama that people are losing their jobs, and we cannot stand still and let it happen. Prospects are that maybe 500,000 new people a month will be out of work. The economy is fragile and there is not the capital around to get businesses started or to reverse the course we are on. And health care is of great concern to people who are uninsured and struggling. At the same time that we are concerned about these things now in our own country, we have international responsibilities that we cannot ignore. Even as excitement surrounds us here, inspired by the new President, we have to look away from our shores and see what is happening in the Middle East where there is fighting raging between Israel and Hamas. And even while we face domestic problems, we cannot step back from what is happening in the Middle East and the responsibility of America as the leading Nation on our globe. Although I bring this up with some degree of reluctance, we must discuss the situation that we face. We know that governing is about choices. When we look at the Middle East right now, the choice for Israel is whether Israel steps aside and ignores the attacks on her people that come daily, without provocation. We have all heard the opinion around the world about how awful the situation in the Middle East is. It is awful. It is terrible. When I see children hurt, when I see them killed, when I see families distressed as their economy worsens, it is a terrible sight. I was in the Gaza Strip some years ago, bringing good news and financial assistance to the people of the Gaza as they opened a new airport. It was during the time that Arafat was President. There was hope springing up all around that maybe they could get out of the misery that existed in the Gaza Strip and develop an orderly society. Israel is a democracy in an area of many nations that are less than democratic. When these economies flourish the wealth falls into a few hands, who build their buildings, take their resources, and buy bigger yachts and bigger airplanes for themselves and not for their countries. But there was hope that maybe the Gaza Strip would become a place of opportunity for its people. That is why I was so pleased to be there and to bring the promise of aid upon which we had agreed. There was no Hamas there at that time. Now, Hamas is there making determinations about its future and the future of the people of the Gaza. Apparently the choice of Hamas is to continue the assault on Israel and to not let discussions take place. I am one of those people who support a two-state commitment there, knowing full well that Israel is a place that could share its knowledge and experience with the people of Gaza. But Hamas refuses to do that. It is a terrorist organization. I remember a trip I took with several colleagues when we went to Iraq and on the way we stopped in Jordan and Syria, and we spoke to the President of Syria and I asked him to try to curb the activities of Hamas by securing the borders. I said: Why are you encouraging Hamas to find refuge here, have their headquarters here along with Hezbollah? President Asad said: They are a social service organization. Social service--Mr. President, that is no more a social service organization than the people who attacked us on 9/11; than the people who attacked the British train system; than those who attack innocent people in various countries and cities. Terrorism is at our throat. We have to be wary. It has changed the way our society functions. Look at all the inspections you go through if you want to catch an airplane or go into public buildings--always with an ID card. We know the results of terrorism. It is to destroy democratic society, take away the choices people have in their lives. It says women have to conduct themselves in a certain way satisfactory and not have rights to participate in financial opportunities for themselves and their families. And so we look at Hamas and have to ask: Does it really care about the people of Gaza or is it simply dedicated to its terrorist ways? For the answer we can review how Hamas conducts itself. Once again, I, as a human being, as a person who cares about life and family, I am distressed to see the loss of life that is taking place in Gaza and in Israel. People are injured and frightened to go out of their homes--and yet even their home can be a place where misery prevails. But Hamas has attacked Israel, firing rockets, and even now, when it is perhaps possible to get a cease-fire, they insist on continuing rocket firing. We have seen the opinions of countries around the world as they look at this situation. Instead of just criticizing Israel, why isn't it said that Hamas is a terrorist organization that wants to take away people's rights, that wants to permit their innocent citizens to be used as decoys--in schools and mosques and other places--to try to hide the militants who are firing rockets into Israel? Hamas starts by saying they don't recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist, but Israel has that right and shall defend that right. She has built a society from the sands, a society that flourishes, not just on the economic side, but on the scientific and research side. They have figured out how to grow crops in areas that were arid, and how to develop the technology that Israel is known for. The practice of medicine is another thing that Israel is known for. There is a facility in Israel that I helped fund, in memory of my father who died as a very young man--43 years old--from cancer. There is a scientist who lived in New Jersey and was a professor at our principal institution, Rutgers University. And he asked if I would help fund a laboratory and a facility there that did cancer research. I said yes. That was some time ago. I know they have Arab students there and they have Arab professors there and they all cooperate in helping people maintain good health. We have all seen stories in the paper about the young Arab child who came to Israel, brought by her father, to have a heart transplant. In this way Israeli science reaches out to people of all nations and all religions. Israel has a right to exist, and a right to exist in peace, and would be more than willing to bring in the countries surrounding Israel to participate in programs for peace as it has with medicine. But there cannot be real peace without security. Israel is taking appropriate action to ensure the security of its people, and to ask them to do less is unfair. It is impossible to say to them that if we had rockets falling on Boston, we would not respond or if we had rockets falling on Newark, NJ, we would not respond. I can tell you, as a resident of New Jersey where we have a 2-mile strip that is said by the FBI to be the most dangerous 2-mile strip in the country for a terrorist attack, we are constantly on the alert. We have boats there, we have guards all over the place, and we make sure we are ready to defend ourselves. Not only is Israel defending itself, as we would, against deadly aggression, it is also putting a stop to the psychological warfare that has become a daily part of life for the people in southern Israel. Innocent civilians live with constant fear that a rocket might kill them, their children, or destroy their home. Israel, like the United States, is determined to protect and safeguard its people. After 9/11, America sought to eliminate threats to our country from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Now Israel is seeking to eliminate threats from ongoing terrorist attacks. We cannot kid ourselves about the strategy that Hamas used to gain power in Gaza. Hamas built up its image among the Palestinian people by painting itself as a social service provider. But if they really cared about the Palestinian people, they would not use them as human shields, and they would not use the rooftops of homes to launch rocket attacks. The events of the past few weeks illustrate to the world that terrorist groups cannot be permitted to go on menacing the free world with terror attacks and there are no countries that are safe from this kind of assault. Hamas has shown that it cares more about destruction than about improving the lives of the people of Gaza. Hamas leaders have chosen to ignore the fact that their people are suffering in poverty and instead have focused exclusively on hurting Israel. So we ask Hamas: Stand up; show that you do care about your people and stop attacking Israel's citizens. There will be tense days ahead in Israel and Gaza, and I am deeply concerned about the loss of innocent life, the pain of losing a family member, and injuries that may last for a lifetime. To put a stop to the loss of innocent life, Hamas must come to its senses and pursue a cease-fire that is sustainable and durable. Israel should be joined by nations around the world in pursuing a cease-fire because terror is ultimately possible in their own states and their own communities, whether it is in India, whether it is in France, whether it is in Spain, whether it is in the UK, or whether it is in America as we saw on 9/11. There is only one way to bring real peace and real security to the Middle East: stop the rockets and get the people to the bargaining table. Negotiations are being attempted with Egypt's active participation. We have to encourage these negotiations. And it has to be very clear to Hamas and other terrorist organizations that they are not going to win by killing people or by discouraging free thought and democratic values.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 60 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the manager of the bill was unable to reach an agreement to consider amendments today. As a result of this impasse, the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the bill at 10:30 tomorrow.