Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, tomorrow, shortly after 9 a.m., the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the substitute amendment to the climate change bill.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 750, S. 2482.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate immediately proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Boxer substitute, amendment No. 4825 to S. 3036, the climate change legislation; I further ask that the filing deadline for the second-degree amendments to the Boxer substitute be at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wish to speak in favor of the amendment to the supplemental that focuses on our domestic priorities, which is the first amendment we will be voting on this morning. I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this important package. While President Bush is fixated on trying to get his next check for the Iraq war, we on the Senate Appropriations Committee under the leadership of Chairman Byrd have brought to the floor important priorities for Americans here at home. As our economy continues to struggle, more and more Americans find themselves without work and having trouble paying their bills. In April, the unemployment rate in New Jersey was 5 percent. That is up from 4.8 percent in March of this year and 4.3 percent in April of 2007. Not only are more people out of work, but they are staying unemployed for longer periods of time as they search for new jobs. These unemployed Americans are facing the prospect of losing their homes and fighting to afford the rising costs of food, gasoline, and health care. They need our help, which is why in this amendment we extend unemployment benefits by 13 weeks in all States and an additional 13 weeks in States with the highest unemployment rates. This is the right thing to do, and we must do it now. This amendment also includes a provision that I successfully offered in the Senate Appropriations Committee markup last week to delay a Bush administration policy that threatens the health care of hundreds of thousands of children across the country, including 10,000 in New Jersey. Last year, I supported and the Senate passed, an expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program that would have provided health insurance for an additional 4 million children nationwide. President Bush irresponsibly vetoed that bill twice--and then made matters worse by issuing a new policy that will actually take away health care from children who have it today. This is not only misguided--both the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service found that it violated Federal law. During these tough economic times, the last thing we should be doing is taking away health care from our children. My provision in this amendment would delay this policy until April 1, 2009. As our veterans return home from overseas, we must show our gratitude for their service by improving educational benefits to help them afford to go to college. Our veterans are finding that the current G.I. bill has simply not kept up with the rising costs of college, and they are forced to either forego college entirely or face mounting debt to get a degree. The amendment now on the floor includes a provision based on the Webb-Hagel-Lautenberg-Warner legislation which closes the gap between the current G.I. bill and the costs of college by paying for tuition, books and housing at the most expensive public institution in the veteran's State. This update of the G.I. bill deserves our strong support. The domestic package before us also includes $10 million to conduct oversight of American taxpayer dollars spent in Afghanistan. Our work in Afghanistan is critical to our national security and our fight against terrorism. But right now, we know too little about how billions of U.S. dollars in reconstruction and assistance funding are spent in Afghanistan and whether there is any waste, fraud, and abuse of these funds. In January of this year, President Bush signed into law my legislation to establish a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, SIGAR, to root out waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer money in Afghanistan. The SIGAR funding we would provide today would bring us one step closer to better oversight and accountability, and to the beginning of SIGAR's work to uncover information about any corruption and mismanagement of U.S. assistance to Afghanistan. Finally, we must help our States and local communities recover from and prepare for natural disasters, including floods. This amendment includes more than $8 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers to address the damage caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and other recent natural disasters. We have had our eyes opened to the massive devastation that can occur when we neglect our Nation's flood control infrastructure. In addition to gulf coast recovery, I am pleased that this amendment will also provide funding for emergency infrastructure needs in other areas, including my home State of New Jersey. The Senate has an opportunity with this vote to honor our responsibility to our returning veterans and all those who are struggling in our country today. I implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in supporting this critical amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I wish to pay tribute to Kenneth L. Tyson for his dedication to the health care profession. Ken is a true leader, and his commitment to Newark Beth Israel Medical Center is more than worthy of recognition. Ken began his career at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center in March 1965 as a medical technologist in the laboratory. He worked his way up the ranks and in 1990 was promoted to his current position, senior vice president of operations. Under his direction, Newark Beth Israel Medical Center has enjoyed a consistently prestigious record of contributions to the medical field. It is one of the largest hospitals in New Jersey and provides unique and highly specialized services including heart transplants, kidney transplants, lung transplants, neonatal and pediatric critical care. For over 43 years, Ken has enjoyed a distinguished reputation among his peers within the New Jersey hospital industry, the Saint Barnabas Health Care System and the Newark Beth Israel Medical Center family. Ken Tyson is a 1965 graduate of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, with a bachelor of science in medical technology. He then earned a master's degree in business administration from the Rutgers Graduate School of Business in 1977. Ken also served his alma mater as an adjunct instructor in the medical technology program for 9 years and later taught clinical laboratory sciences at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey for over 19 years. He is currently affiliated with the American College of Health Care Executives and the American Society of Clinical Pathology. Ken has dedicated his long and illustrious career to improving health care services for the residents of New Jersey and beyond. On behalf of my home State, I am honored to express my gratitude and congratulations to Kenneth L. Tyson and extend my best wishes for a long and happy retirement with his wife Ophelia and his two children and four grandchildren.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the farm bill conference report, which would provide unprecedented amounts of funding for nutrition programs and food stamps. These programs are vital, especially in this time of high food prices and our struggling economy. The farm bill invests nearly $396 billion over 10 years into the Food Stamp Program, which is nearly $10 billion more than current law. In addition, for the first time this farm bill recognizes that the minimum benefits provided through food stamps should be indexed for inflation, so they increase as the cost of living increases. We have a responsibility to help those who are most in need, and this farm bill recognizes that. This farm bill also makes substantial investments in Conservation Program. With the high price of land in New Jersey and the competitive markets facing New Jersey's farmers, there is a great incentive to over-farm and not enough money to implement the best environmental practices. Providing $2.4 billion for programs like the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, EQIP, will help farmers bring their products directly to market while preserving their land for the future and without taking a toll on the environment. This is a dramatic improvement from the Senate-passed bill, which did not include any funding for this program. New Jersey's farmers frequently utilize EQIP to improve the environmental condition of their farms, and the increase of funding in this conference report is critical. This farm bill also recognizes for the first time the importance of fruits and vegetables to our health and to our agricultural economy. New Jersey is the second largest producer of blueberries and the third largest grower of cranberries. These crops are not only nutritious, but they are vital to New Jersey's economy. This farm bill makes major investments for fruit and vegetable growers, as well as purchasers. It provides nearly $500 million to the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, which provides assistance to these farmers--an increase of approximately $200 million over the Senate-passed farm bill. It would also provide over $1 billion for the Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program, which provides healthy, nutritious fruits and vegetables to our schools, so that our children can avoid the health risks of a poor diet. Finally, this farm bill takes incremental steps towards providing the kind of real reform that our Nation's agricultural policy needs. It imposes payment limitations to restrict farmers above certain income levels from being eligible for commodity payments, and it reduces spending for direct payments by over $300 million. These reforms are a significant improvement from the Senate-passed bill, and I thank the bill's managers for responding to the increasing chorus of calls for farm bill reform. I still believe that we need more substantial reform of our agricultural policy and that the FRESH Act that I offered on the Senate floor with Senator Dick Lugar would provide that much needed reform. I will continue to work with Senator Lugar and all of my colleagues in the Senate to replace the current system of subsidies for just a handful of crops and implement a system that benefits all crops. And I will continue to advocate and fight for a policy that provides more incentives for the production of healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables. While the farm bill that has emerged from conference is by no means perfect, it is better than the farm bill the Senate originally passed, and I intend to support it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Preserving Records of Terrorist and Criminal Transactions, or PROTECT Act of 2008. I am proud to be joined by cosponsors Senators Feinstein, Levin, Lieberman, Menendez, Reed, Schumer, and Whitehouse. In 1994, we passed the Brady Law, which requires criminal background checks for all guns sold by licensed firearm dealers. In the 14 years since it was enacted, the Brady law has prevented more than 1.5 million felons and other dangerous individuals from buying guns. I am proud to say that more than 150,000 of those denials have been to convicted domestic abusers because of a law I wrote in 1996. Every time a Brady background check is conducted, the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System--or NICS--creates an audit log. The audit log includes information about the purchaser, the weapon, and the seller. The information could be extremely valuable to the FBI. The agency could use it to help determine whether gun dealers are complying with the background check requirements, to help law enforcement fight crime by figuring out whether a criminal has been able to buy a gun, or even to help prevent terrorist attacks. Yet, despite this information's value in fighting crime and terrorism, the FBI destroys the background check data. In most cases, the audit log is destroyed within 24 hours after the sale is allowed to go through. That's because every year since 2004, a rider has been attached to appropriations bills mandating that the FBI destroy the background check record within 24 hours of allowing the gun sale to proceed. That means that the purchaser's name, social security number, and all other personally identifying information are purged from the system within 24 hours. Once this information is destroyed, the FBI can no longer run searches using a person's name. So if a local law enforcement agency were to call the FBI to see if a criminal on the loose had purchased any guns recently, the FBI would not be able to search its database using the suspect's name if the gun was purchased two months, two weeks, or even two days earlier. This destruction requirement hinders the FBI's ability to help the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives verify that gun dealers are conducting background checks properly. Before the destruction requirement, ATF could compare the NICS records to the paper records that gun dealers are required to keep on file to determine whether the dealers were submitting all the required information. The destruction requirement also prevents the FBI from determining whether a felon, fugitive, or other person who is prohibited from having a gun was able to purchase one in violation of the law, and to retrieve guns from people who are prohibited from having them. The FBI has only three days to conduct background checks, and sometimes receives information after already approving a sale that the purchaser was legally prohibited from having a firearm. But without the background check information at hand, the FBI has no way of retrieving guns from these dangerous people who never should have been allowed to purchase them in the first place. Prior to the 24-hour destruction requirement, the Government Accountability Office found that over a 6-month period the FBI used retained Brady background check records to initiate 235 actions to retrieve illegally possessed guns. According to GAO, 228--97 percent-- of those retrieval actions would not have been possible under a 24-hour destruction policy. Those are hundreds of guns in the hands of felons, fugitives and other dangerous people. We have the power to stop them, and we should use it. Up until now, I have been talking about dangerous people who are prohibited from having guns under current federal law, such as felons, fugitives, and convicted domestic abusers. But there is one category of very dangerous people who are allowed to purchase firearms under current federal law-known and suspected terrorists. It is hard to believe, but nothing in our federal gun laws prevents known and suspected terrorists from purchasing guns. And we know that terrorists exploit this Terror Gap in our gun laws. In a 2005 report that Senator Biden and I requested, GAO found that during a four-month period in 2004, a total of 44 firearm purchase attempts were made by known or suspected terrorists. In 35 of those cases, the FBI authorized the transactions to proceed because FBI field agents were unable to find any disqualifying information within the federally prescribed three-day background check period. I have introduced another bill--the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act S. 1237--to close this Terror Gap, and I urge my colleagues to support that bill as well. Not only do our current laws allow terrorists to buy guns, but the FBI also destroys the background check records from terrorist gun purchases within 90 days. That means that a joint terrorism task force conducting a terror investigation over the course of months or even years cannot call the FBI to find out if the target of the investigation--someone who is on the terror watch list--purchased firearms last year. The PROTECT Act would address both of these record retention problems by preserving records that are critical to effective background checks, law enforcement, and terrorism prevention. Specifically, it would: (1) require the FBI to retain for 10 years all background check records involving a valid match to a terror watch list; and (2) require the FBI to retain for at least 180 days all other background check records. This is a common-sense public safety measure. At a time when 32 people are murdered as a result of gun violence every day in the United States and we are fighting against terrorism, the last thing we should be doing is prematurely destroying a valuable anti-crime and anti- terrorism tool that we have at our fingertips. At a Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee hearing last year, I asked FBI Director Robert Mueller if he thought that background check records should be retained for more than 24 hours. He replied, ``[T]here is a substantial argument in my mind for retaining records for a substantial period of time.'' That's what this bill would do, and I hope my Senate colleagues will join me in passing it swiftly.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Preserving Records of Terrorist and Criminal Transactions, or PROTECT Act of 2008. I am proud to be joined by cosponsors Senators Feinstein, Levin, Lieberman, Menendez, Reed, Schumer, and Whitehouse. In 1994, we passed the Brady Law, which requires criminal background checks for all guns sold by licensed firearm dealers. In the 14 years since it was enacted, the Brady law has prevented more than 1.5 million felons and other dangerous individuals from buying guns. I am proud to say that more than 150,000 of those denials have been to convicted domestic abusers because of a law I wrote in 1996. Every time a Brady background check is conducted, the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System--or NICS--creates an audit log. The audit log includes information about the purchaser, the weapon, and the seller. The information could be extremely valuable to the FBI. The agency could use it to help determine whether gun dealers are complying with the background check requirements, to help law enforcement fight crime by figuring out whether a criminal has been able to buy a gun, or even to help prevent terrorist attacks. Yet, despite this information's value in fighting crime and terrorism, the FBI destroys the background check data. In most cases, the audit log is destroyed within 24 hours after the sale is allowed to go through. That's because every year since 2004, a rider has been attached to appropriations bills mandating that the FBI destroy the background check record within 24 hours of allowing the gun sale to proceed. That means that the purchaser's name, social security number, and all other personally identifying information are purged from the system within 24 hours. Once this information is destroyed, the FBI can no longer run searches using a person's name. So if a local law enforcement agency were to call the FBI to see if a criminal on the loose had purchased any guns recently, the FBI would not be able to search its database using the suspect's name if the gun was purchased two months, two weeks, or even two days earlier. This destruction requirement hinders the FBI's ability to help the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives verify that gun dealers are conducting background checks properly. Before the destruction requirement, ATF could compare the NICS records to the paper records that gun dealers are required to keep on file to determine whether the dealers were submitting all the required information. The destruction requirement also prevents the FBI from determining whether a felon, fugitive, or other person who is prohibited from having a gun was able to purchase one in violation of the law, and to retrieve guns from people who are prohibited from having them. The FBI has only three days to conduct background checks, and sometimes receives information after already approving a sale that the purchaser was legally prohibited from having a firearm. But without the background check information at hand, the FBI has no way of retrieving guns from these dangerous people who never should have been allowed to purchase them in the first place. Prior to the 24-hour destruction requirement, the Government Accountability Office found that over a 6-month period the FBI used retained Brady background check records to initiate 235 actions to retrieve illegally possessed guns. According to GAO, 228--97 percent-- of those retrieval actions would not have been possible under a 24-hour destruction policy. Those are hundreds of guns in the hands of felons, fugitives and other dangerous people. We have the power to stop them, and we should use it. Up until now, I have been talking about dangerous people who are prohibited from having guns under current federal law, such as felons, fugitives, and convicted domestic abusers. But there is one category of very dangerous people who are allowed to purchase firearms under current federal law-known and suspected terrorists. It is hard to believe, but nothing in our federal gun laws prevents known and suspected terrorists from purchasing guns. And we know that terrorists exploit this Terror Gap in our gun laws. In a 2005 report that Senator Biden and I requested, GAO found that during a four-month period in 2004, a total of 44 firearm purchase attempts were made by known or suspected terrorists. In 35 of those cases, the FBI authorized the transactions to proceed because FBI field agents were unable to find any disqualifying information within the federally prescribed three-day background check period. I have introduced another bill--the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act S. 1237--to close this Terror Gap, and I urge my colleagues to support that bill as well. Not only do our current laws allow terrorists to buy guns, but the FBI also destroys the background check records from terrorist gun purchases within 90 days. That means that a joint terrorism task force conducting a terror investigation over the course of months or even years cannot call the FBI to find out if the target of the investigation--someone who is on the terror watch list--purchased firearms last year. The PROTECT Act would address both of these record retention problems by preserving records that are critical to effective background checks, law enforcement, and terrorism prevention. Specifically, it would: (1) require the FBI to retain for 10 years all background check records involving a valid match to a terror watch list; and (2) require the FBI to retain for at least 180 days all other background check records. This is a common-sense public safety measure. At a time when 32 people are murdered as a result of gun violence every day in the United States and we are fighting against terrorism, the last thing we should be doing is prematurely destroying a valuable anti-crime and anti- terrorism tool that we have at our fingertips. At a Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee hearing last year, I asked FBI Director Robert Mueller if he thought that background check records should be retained for more than 24 hours. He replied, ``[T]here is a substantial argument in my mind for retaining records for a substantial period of time.'' That's what this bill would do, and I hope my Senate colleagues will join me in passing it swiftly.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in honor of American troops who have lost their lives overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan I wish to make sure their service and sacrifice is forever memorialized in the Congressional Record. Since I last included the names of our fallen troops on February 15, the Pentagon has announced the deaths of 101 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: SSG Shaun J. Whitehead, of Commerce, GA; SSG Ronald C. Blystone, of Springfield, MO; PFC John T. Bishop, of Gaylord, MI; 1stLT Timothy W. Cunningham, of College Station, TX; LCpl Jordan C. Haerter, of Sag Harbor, NY; CPL Jonathan T. Yale, of Burkeville, VA; SGT Guadalupe Cervantes Ramirez, of Fort Irwin, CA; 1stLT Matthew R. Vandergrift, of Littleton, CO; PVT Ronald R. Harrison, of Morris Plains, NJ; SPC Steven J. Christofferson, of Cudahy, WI; SGT Adam J. Kohlhaas, of Perryville, MO; PO1 Cherie L. Morton, of Bakersfield, CA; AA Adrian M. Campos, of El Paso, TX; CPL Benjamin K. Brosh, of Colorado Springs, CO; SPC Lance O. Eakes, of Apex, NC; SSGT Jason L. Brown, of Magnolia, TX; 1stSGT Luke J. Mercardante, of Athens, GA; CPL Kyle W. Wilks, of Rogers, AR; SPC Arturo Huerta-Cruz, of Clearwater, FL; SGT Joseph A. Richard III, of Lafayette, LA; CPL Richard J. Nelson, of Racine, WI; LCpl Dean D. Opicka, of Waukesha, WI; SGT William E. Allmon, of Ardmore, OK; SPC Jacob J. Fairbanks, of Saint Paul, MN; SGT Jesse A. Ault, of Dublin, VA; SGT Shaun P. Tousha, of Hull, TX; TSgt Anthony L. Capra, of Hanford, CA; SPC Jeremiah C. Hughes, of Jacksonville, FL; SSG Jeffery L. Hartley, of Hempstead, TX; MAJ Mark E. Rosenberg, of Miami Lakes, FL; SGT Timothy M. Smith, of South Lake Tahoe, CA; SPC Jason C. Kazarick, of Oakmont, PA; SGT Michael T. Lilly, of Boise, ID; SSG Jeremiah E. McNeal, of Norfolk, VA; SGT Richard A. Vaughn, of San Diego, CA; COL Stephen K. Scott, of New Market, AL; MAJ Stuart A. Wolfer, of Coral Springs, FL; SSG Emanuel Pickett, of Teachey, NC; CAPT Ulises Burgos-Cruz, of Puerto Rico; SPC Matthew T. Morris, of Cedar Park, TX; PFC Shane D. Penley, of Sauk Village, IL; SGT Nicholas A. Robertson, of Old Town, ME; SPC Charles A. Jankowski, of Panama City, FL; SSGT Travis L. Griffin, of Dover, DE; SGT Dayne D. Dhanoolal, of Brooklyn, NY; SGT Jevon K. Jordan, of Norfolk, VA; MAJ William G. Hall, of Seattle, WA; SPC Durrell L. Bennett, of Spanaway, WA; PFC Patrick J. Miller, of New Port Richey, FL; SGT Terrell W. Gilmore, of Baton Rouge, LA; CPL Steven I. Candelo, of Houston, TX; CPL Joshua A. Molina, of Houston, TX; SPC Gregory B. Rundell, of Ramsey, MN; SSG Joseph D. Gamboa, of Yigo, Guam; PVT George Delgado, of Palmdale, CA; SSG Christopher M. Hake, of Enid, OK; PFC Andrew J. Habsieger, of Festus, MO; CPL Jose A. Rubio Hernandez, of Mission, TX; LCpl Dustin L. Canham, of Lake Stevens, WA; SSG William R. Neil Jr., of Holmdel, NJ; SGT Thomas C. Ray, II, of Weaverville, NC; SGT David S. Stelmat, of Littleton, NH; SGT David B. Williams, of Tarboro, NC; PFC Antione V. Robinson, of Detroit, MI; PFC Tyler J. Smith, of Bethel, ME; TSgt William H. Jefferson, Jr., of Norfolk, VA; SGT Gregory D. Unruh, of Dickinson, TX; SSG Michael D. Elledge, of Brownsburg, IN; SGT Christopher C. Simpson, of Hampton, VA; SPC Lerando J. Brown, of Gulfport, MS; CPL William D. O'Brien, of Rice, TX; SFC Collin J. Bowen, of Millersville, MD; SFC Shawn M. Suzch, of Hilltown, PA; SSG Ernesto G. Cimarrusti, of Douglas, AZ; SSG David D. Julian, of Evanston, WY; CPL Robert T. McDavid, of Starkville, MS; CPL Scott A. McIntosh, of Houston, TX; SSG Juantrea T. Bradley, of Greenville, NC; SPC Dustin C. Jackson, of Arlington, TX; PFC Tenzin L. Samten, of Prescott, AZ; SSG Laurent J. West, of Raleigh, NC; SGT Phillip R. Anderson, of Everett, WA; SPC Donald A. Burkett, of Comanche, TX; CAPT Torre R. Mallard, of OK; CPL Jose A. Paniagua-Morales, of Bell Gardens, CA; SGT Gabriel Guzman, of Hornbrook, CA; SPC Steven R. Koch, of Milltown, NJ; SGT Robert T. Rapp, of Sonora, CA; SSGT Christopher S. Frost, of Waukesha, WI; SPC Orlando A. Perez, of Houston, TX; SPC Micheal E. Phillips, of Ardmore, OK; CPL Kevin S. Mowl, of Pittsford, NY; LCpl Drew W. Weaver, of St. Charles, MO; SPC Keisha M. Morgan, of Washington, DC; CAPT Nathan R. Raudenbush, of PA; SGT Conrad Alvarez, of Big Spring, TX; CPL Albert Bitton, of Chicago, IL; SPC Micheal B. Matlock, Jr., of Glen Burnie, MD; SSG Bryant W. Mackey, of Eureka, KS; CPL Chad D. Groepper, of Kingsley, IA; CPL Luke S. Runyan, of Spring Grove, PA. We cannot forget these men and women and their sacrifice. These brave souls left behind parents and 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.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize April 28, 2008, as the first annual ``Denim Day'' in New Jersey. Each year, Denim Day is observed in communities across the country to raise awareness and educate the public about rape and sexual assault. The observance was created in response to an appalling 1998 decision of the Italian Supreme Court. In that decision, the court overturned a rape conviction because the victim was wearing tight jeans at the time of the attack and must have helped her rapist remove them. Women and men around the world were rightly outraged by the verdict, and wearing jeans on Denim Day has become an international symbol of protest, calling attention to the horrible crime of rape and the destructive attitudes that prevent sexual assault victims from receiving justice. Every 2 minutes, someone in the United States is sexually assaulted. Despite its prevalence, sexual assault is one of the most underreported crimes in the world, meaning many attackers never spend a day in prison for their offenses. Denim Day in New Jersey will send a strong and powerful message that sexual assault is always wrong. I hope this observance will encourage more sexual assault victims to come forward and hold their attacker accountable, as well as provide some comfort to the victims of sexual assault, who will know that they are not alone. Once again, I would like to recognize April 28, 2008, as ``Denim Day'' in New Jersey and reiterate my strong support for observing this important day.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007. I want to thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership on this issue and on so many civil rights issues throughout his Senate career. Earlier this week, we observed Equal Pay Day. Equal Pay Day is the day up until which a woman had to work past the end of 2007 to make as much money as a man made in 2007 alone. That means that a woman has to work almost 16 months to make what a man makes in 12. Every day in this country, women get up and go to work, just like men. Women--who make up nearly 50 percent of the American workforce-- put in 8, 10, 12 or more hours every day. And just like men, women go home each night to families that rely on the money they earn. In the millions of households led by single mothers, these women's paychecks are the only source of income. But there is one day that looks very different for men and women-- payday. A woman makes only 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes. These inequalities cut across educational divides. In my State of New Jersey, a college-educated woman makes only 72 cents for every dollar a college-educated man makes. This wage gap costs working families $200 billion in income every year. And the strain on working families is only getting worse in today's struggling economy, which is hitting women especially hard. In 2007, women's wages fell 3 percent, while men's wages fell one-half of 1 percent. Unemployment for women also rose faster than for men during the past year. Yet last year, the Supreme Court reached a decision that made it even harder for women. After spending almost 20 years working long hours as a supervisor at a Goodyear plant in Alabama, Lilly Ledbetter discovered that she was making 20 percent less than the lowest paid male supervisor. A jury awarded her back pay and damages, but the Supreme Court said that she filed her lawsuit against her employer too late. The Supreme Court said that she could not sue her employer more than 180 days after the discrimination first began. That simply does not make sense. Every time a worker receives a discriminatory paycheck, the employer is discriminating against the worker. So every paycheck should start a new clock for challenging that discrimination. That was the rule in all but four States up until the day that Ledbetter was decided. I am proud to say it was the rule in New Jersey. And it should be the rule again. It is important to recognize that, although Ledbetter involved gender discrimination, its implications are much more far-reaching. The Ledbetter decision will have the same effect on cases brought for discrimination based on race, national origin, religion, disability, and age. In all of these cases, victims of pay discrimination will be without recourse as long as their employers can get away with it for 180 days. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would simply restore the pre- Ledbetter rule that every paycheck is an act of ongoing discrimination. It would not create any new right or remedy. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Senate version of this bill, and I support it wholeheartedly. I hope that my colleagues will join me in voting for this important civil rights law. It is the right thing to do for America's working families.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I pay tribute to Barbara J. Easterling for her tireless dedication to workers' rights. Barbara is a true leader, and her commitment to the Communication Workers of America, CWA, is more than worthy of recognition. Barbara is the first woman ever to serve as CWA's secretary- treasurer--its second-highest office--and she has held the position for the past 16 years. She supervises the budget, finances, and strategic planning of the organization, and is responsible for the union's retiree program. The 700,000 men and women of the CWA have consistently reelected Barbara by acclamation, most recently in 2005. In addition, Barbara has worked to advance the rights of women in the workplace. She serves on the board of the Union Network International, UNI, a 17-million member labor organization, and is president of the UNI World Women's Committee. For her accomplishments, Barbara has received the Women's Equity Action League Award, the International Women's Democracy Center Global Democracy Award, the Midwest Labor Press Association's Eugene V. Debs Award, and the Ellis Island American Legend Award. While Barbara has displayed impressive achievements as secretary- treasurer of CWA, she has also found time to contribute to several other worthy organizations. She is cochair of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, a member of the Spinal Bifida Foundation and the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and serves on the board of directors of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs and the Faith and Politics Institute. Barbara has displayed a commendable ability to advance the goals of each of these organizations and increase their impact. Throughout her long and distinguished career, Barbara has worked to shatter the glass ceiling at the local, national, and international level. I am proud that she was honored last month before a record gathering of union women at the Women in Leadership Development Conference in East Brunswick, NJ. Whether striving to advance the rights of workers, serving as an advocate for women, or volunteering her time on behalf of countless organizations, Barbara has been a strong and effective leader. Barbara embodies the best of the union spirit and I thank her for her service and commitment to the CWA and workers across the country.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, from 1997 to 2000, I served as ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee alongside Chairman Domenici, and I am proud to say that by the end of my tenure, the Federal Government had a budget surplus of $236.4 billion. Today we face a starkly different picture. Our country is more in debt than ever, owing an astounding $9.3 trillion. Under President Bush's watch, the national debt will have almost doubled, and he has sacrificed the stability of our economy in the process. He has effectively taken our Nation from one of economic stability and prosperity to a nation on the brink of recession, and our children and grandchildren will be stuck with the bill for generations to come. Each year, the President has a chance to do the right thing and propose to Congress a responsible budget which addresses the needs of our country and is fair to all Americans. I have been extremely disappointed these last 8 years as President Bush has continually presented us with budget proposals that have resulted in four of the five highest deficits in our country's history, leaving us with a staggering budget deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars. At the same time, his proposals have rewarded the wealthiest members of our society at the expense of the middle class and Americans struggling to earn a living. I am proud to have helped ensure that Congress rejected these Bush proposals. Once again this year, we find ourselves in the same process. In rejecting President Bush's fiscal year 2009 budget proposal, we in the Senate Budget Committee under the leadership of Chairman Conrad have brought forward a budget that is not only fiscally responsible but also morally responsible. As a member of this committee, I was pleased to be able to help shape this budget. This budget focuses on the real problems that Americans face. It includes tax relief for the middle class, makes much needed investments in our economy and our future, and keeps America safe by responsibly funding our homeland security needs. One of the most pressing concerns to New Jerseyans, and all Americans, is tax relief for the middle class. New Jerseyans in particular need relief from the unfair and unintended consequences of the alternative minimum tax, AMT. This tax was first imposed on the richest 155 families to ensure they did not abuse loopholes to avoid paying any taxes at all. But it has grown to ensnare far too many people, even members of the middle class, and has become an unfair and unintended tax. That is why it is so important that our budget includes AMT relief for over 1.4 million New Jerseyans who would otherwise be forced to pay this tax. That is a significant tax cut for the middle class. I am pleased our budget includes this AMT relief, and I will continue to work diligently to help create a lasting solution to provide sufficient tax relief--from the AMT and other Federal taxes--for those who need it in New Jersey and nationwide. I am also proud to be a cosponsor of the Baucus amendment to the budget, which the Senate passed today, to provide further tax relief for America's working families. Our amendment permanently extends a lowered tax rate that benefits every single wage-earning American by keeping the tax rate on the first $7,000 of income earned to only 10 percent. This provision will save taxpayers an average of $498. Our amendment also provides for the permanent extension of marriage penalty relief. According to the latest estimates, this extension will benefit 29.5 million Americans with an average savings of $686 per year. In addition, our amendment extends the refundable child tax credit which will provide an average of $1,025 in tax relief to some 31.3 million families. Important especially to New Jerseyans, this amendment provides new relief from high property taxes. We pay among the highest property taxes in the country, and many in our State need help. While two-thirds of all Americans are homeowners, only one-third of homeowners itemize property tax deductions on their tax returns. That leaves 28.3 million Americans without a property tax deduction benefit, over 451,000 of whom live in New Jersey. Our amendment provides tax relief to those who don't itemize by creating a standard property tax deduction. For single filers, this amendment will provide $500 in property tax relief and for joint filers that number increases to $1000 in property tax relief. Aside from providing middle-class tax relief, our budget prepares for our economy's future by making the necessary investments in critical priorities, such as infrastructure, energy, and education. To keep America moving, we must invest in our transportation infrastructure. Last year, we saw the I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis, MN. Some 25 percent of our bridges are still structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Much of our surface infrastructure is in disrepair, and it will cost billions to improve it. But less than 1 year after the collapse in Minneapolis, President Bush wants to cut funding for high and bridge repair by almost $2 billion. He also wants to fund transit programs at $200 million below the level that Congress authorized. These cuts hurt States like New Jersey that need transit funding the most, and working families who depend on this transportation. All of these programs are vital to commuters and travelers in New Jersey. After all, New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the country and is even more densely populated than the countries of India and Japan. Traffic congestion on our roads costs our country nearly $80 billion a year--twice the Federal budget for highways. Commuters cannot afford to sit in traffic when gas prices are well over $3 a gallon, and our environment cannot afford the greenhouse gas emissions from these idling cars. Our budget restores billions of dollars President Bush proposed in cuts to transportation and provides even more money to rebuild the backbone of our economy--our bridges, highways, skyways, seaports, airports, and transit systems. Our budget is expected to create 475,000 new transportation jobs, 7,900 in New Jersey alone. I was proud to sponsor an amendment to this budget to ensure that infrastructure projects involving rail transportation, including high-speed rail, airports, and seaports are eligible for this new funding. Airline travelers fared no better under President Bush's budget proposal. The Bush administration's failures on aviation have led to one of the worst years ever for flight delays. More than one in four flights was late. Our air traffic control system remains dangerously understaffed, and air traffic controllers are overworked and fatigued. And there is a lack of leadership in preventing runway incidents. One billion airline passengers will be flying each year by 2015. Now is no time to be cutting funding for our Nation's airports and runways by $765 million, as President Bush proposes. Our budget restores these cuts to aviation infrastructure to keep passengers moving. President Bush is also trying once again to bankrupt Amtrak. In a time of record high gas prices and record airport delays, we should not be taking away this popular, energy-efficient, and convenient travel option, which people are using in record numbers. Last October, the Senate passed my legislation with former Senator Trent Lott to provide $11.4 billion for Amtrak to expand passenger rail in the United States, and I am working with my House colleagues to get it taken up and passed into law this year. It is time that America had a world-class passenger rail system. I want to thank Chairman Conrad working with me to ensure Amtrak's operations and capital needs are fully funded in this budget--a total of $1.8 billion, plus an additional $250 million for State passenger rail grants. Another key feature of our budget is tackling the extremely important energy and environmental problems we are facing. Our budget shows real commitment to tackling these challenges. The proposal by President Bush would cut funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which provides much needed assistance for many contending with expensive bills to heat their homes in the winter. President Bush also proposed major cuts to programs that reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and help us combat global warming--the most serious environmental threat we face. At a time when the science of global warming is certain, President Bush attempted to cut the budget for renewable energy by almost 30 percent. This is not a strategy to fight the climate crisis; this is simply the same old, ineffective energy policy. Our budget not only restores these cuts but goes even further and calls for new programs that will reduce our dependency on foreign oil and help us fight global climate change. When it comes to education, our budget addresses the real problems American families face with rising tuition costs. While New Jerseyans and the rest of the Nation have seen average tuition costs go up 52 percent since 2000, President Bush has continued to propose massive cuts in education programs. That is no way to ensure the future of Nation. Not only does our budget reject these proposed cuts but it increases education funding by an additional $5 billion. That is a serious commitment to education. Our budget puts in place policies that will help our children get the education they need to compete in a global society. It increases money for Pell grants and student loan programs so that our students can afford to go to college and achieve their dreams. Our budget also provides increased funding for early education like Head Start and puts additional resources into our public schools. Another issue of importance to all Americans is ever-rising health care costs. Since President Bush took office, health care premiums have risen 40 percent in New Jersey. Our budget restores proposed cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and other important programs to ensure all members of our society get the health care they need. In addition, no responsible budget would be complete without dealing with the continuing threat of terrorism here in the United States. While spending over $3 billion a week on the war in Iraq, President Bush has badly underfunded our homeland security needs, leaving our Nation at greater risk. This risk is very real in New Jersey. The FBI has called the 2-mile stretch between Newark Liberty International Airport and Port Elizabeth, NJ, ``the most dangerous two miles in the country'' for terrorism. Yet President Bush proposed cutting funding for State homeland security grant programs by almost 80 percent. We all know that homeland security begins with hometown security. President Bush inherited a country where crime was going down thanks to successful, proven programs like COPS and Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, Byrne JAG. But after declining for years, violent crime has gone up in each of the past 2 years. And now President Bush wants to eliminate critical funding for local law enforcement under COPS and Byrne JAG. Thankfully, our budget restores funding for these programs and reaffirms our commitment to keeping our communities safe. When it comes to taking care of the men and women of our military, I am very pleased that we have recognized the sacrifices our career military retirees make by rejecting President Bush's proposal for TRICARE enrollment fees and deductibles. This is something I have been working to fix permanently. I also strongly support the 3.4-percent pay raise for military personnel that our Senate budget resolution proposes. I believe our service men and women deserve the best benefits that a grateful nation can provide. Lastly, and perhaps most prudently, this budget provides relief to those being hit hardest by the current downturn of our economy. It is clear that our economy is struggling. In response to that, this budget provides an additional $35 billion for a future stimulus bill to help families and businesses boost the economy. I am hopeful that this stimulus bill will include funding for our States, including increased Medicaid funding and even more infrastructure dollars. I commend Chairman Conrad for his leadership on this budget resolution, and I am proud to be a coauthor. It is a much needed step in the right direction.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is what happens when we get on the floor of the Senate and longtime friends meet. I defer to the distinguished Senator from Virginia.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first, I wish to say how proud I am to be on the floor with my three colleagues who are sponsoring this, with Senator Webb as the lead sponsor on this very important legislation. Senator Warner and I kind of outrank the others in terms of when it is that we served. I point out that we have two commissioned officers here and we have two noncommissioned officers. Senator Hagel, I think, outranked me. I was a corporal. I am so pleased to be here with my colleagues. I got an undeserved credit because it was said I was a combat veteran. Well, I served in the combat theater, and my job was to climb telephone poles while the bombing was going on in Belgium. I would not say there were the same dangers as someone on the line, but people got hurt and worse doing what I was doing. But I want to clear the record because I didn't carry a rifle. I carried a carbine, which is a lot smaller weapon, and, fortunately, I didn't have a chance to fire it. But it wasn't fired at me either. I look at what we are doing here and think about what it means to those who are serving and what it meant to me in my life. My parents were brought to America when they were infants, but they were people who would be classified as blue-collar people--no education but wanted to work hard. Honesty was constantly preached: Be mindful of your responsibility to others, do whatever you can, work as hard as you can. When I got out of high school, I got a job loading milk trucks. Because going to war was imminent, I enlisted when I was 18. I served with 16 million other people in uniform at that time. We used to talk about college around the dinner table, when we had dinner together, and my parents would say you have to get an education. My father took me into the mill he worked in when I was 12 years old. He said: I want you to see what it is like. It was a textile factory in Paterson, NJ, an industrial city. As we walked in the building, he said: Do you hear the noise? The whole building would vibrate. And I said: Yes, Dad. And he took me up to the machine he operated. It was a big old machine with a wheel that converted fibers into fabric. He said: You see how dirty it is here? Yes, Dad. He said: Do you see how dark it is? Yes, Dad. And he took my hand and he rubbed it across the silk fibers he was working on, and it left a film. He said: You see that? That is bad for you. My father, when he did that with me, was 37 years old. Six years later, he was dead. Cancer that developed occupationally. My grandfather worked in the same place. And not unlike those who worked in the coal mine or some other place, my grandfather was 56 when he died. So for me, being in the military was a responsibility that I willingly took on. My friends, my neighbors, we all did it. The future was not particularly bright. But then, when all of that was finished, I had a chance to go to a university. And Senator Warner, with his usual grace, he said that you could go to any school you wanted. I don't know that it wasn't just the recognition that we needed financial help, but I think there might have been a little give also on the standards that you had to meet. I don't know that in today's world we would have fared quite as well. I was lucky enough to go to Columbia University. They welcomed me. And I stood there in amazement when I graduated because none other than GEN Dwight Eisenhower handed me my diploma. He was then the President of Columbia University. I was a little upset that he didn't recognize me. We had both served in Europe. I didn't understand why he didn't say: Hello, Frank. It was exciting to be in a university--exciting to know that somehow or other I was not only going to be able to help myself, I was going to be able to help my widowed mother and my kid sister and be something different than still loading milk trucks in Clifton, NJ. I was excited because not only did I learn subjects--statistics and finance and the kinds of things one learns at business school, in particular--but also I learned there was a different way of life; that there was something you could do besides standing with my folks when they had to buy a store because the mills closed. I learned you didn't have to live in cramped quarters and that maybe there was something else out there you could do. So when I look at what we are talking about today, I am particularly motivated to see that with the leadership of Senator Webb and with the help of the three of us, that we get this legislation through. We know when there is a debate here and it gets to veterans' support, usually that quiets the troubled waters and we talk to one another, almost civilly at times, and we gather support from one another and are encouraged. We might feel differently about which programs ought to get more funding, but we are all concerned about the medical care, the post-service conditions that come up like post- traumatic stress disorder. And when we read stories about service people who get so distraught that they destroy their lives, that is often a sign of the kind of stress and the kind of trauma that people have been left with after they serve. So when we look at this legislation's opportunity, it is consistent with our need to show our respect and gratitude to the people who serve and who served in a war that is far longer and more vicious than anyone ever dreamed it might be. Because in previous wars, and the war that Senator Warner and I served in, it was not the case that your enemy wanted to give their life and thusly would not be frightened off by anything you do. Their principle was to destroy the enemy. In the current war, the enemy is willing to destroy itself to destroy us. So the kind of violence that has been exhibited in this war is different than in any other war. Vietnam was the place where it was learned that people would die for a cause, but it was not like this war where people want to die. So conditions are different. So here it is, very simply put: There are scholarship assistance programs like the Montgomery bill which provides 38,000 dollars' worth of support for education, for the cost of maintaining one's self, as well as room and board. But the average cost of a public education today is $51,000. Well, it still is significant when someone graduates college with huge debt, and typically they are relatively young, wanting to start a family, wanting to get going in life. So it is simple math. Many of our veterans just cannot make up the difference and thusly are denied a college education. So this has real consequences. People with a college degree earn nearly double the salary of those who do not have one. We have got to close the gap between the current cost of college and the amount that the GI bill pays for. Remember, America built something that was called and supported as the ``greatest generation.'' Now, why, with all the technology, with all of the richness this country has, with all of the talent this country has, can we not create another ``greatest generation''? We should move on that. There is only one way to get there, and that is to provide the ladder up to that success. You have got to take the first step. The first step is to make sure you get as much education as your mind and your body and your will can handle. So when we look at what we owe to or can do for these veterans, to me, this is the ideal thing. I would hope that whatever party, however high the seniority is, that we all get together on this one and say: Veterans, we appreciate those of you who served, who left your families, in service. I was at Fort Dix, a major base in the State of New Jersey, for people who were going to deploy or be deployed back in Iraq. Many of them have served months already. These were not people who were living on a base where there was a culture to accompany their families, where there was a clinic, where there were schools, where there were libraries. They were in towns, they were paying their expenses, they have mortgages to deal with. This is a time to say: We owe you something. We owe you something big. We are going to make it up to you. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation. Join us in giving something back to our veterans that really stands out, that shows a lasting bit of gratitude for the valiant service that all of them have put in to serve their country. I congratulate my colleagues for their effort, and Senator Webb for his leadership. And I hope we will see success. Honoring our Armed Forces petty officer third class jeffrey l. wiener

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5264, which was received from the House.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times 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, what time remains for our side of the aisle?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to talk about Iraq and Senator Feingold's legislation to start bringing our troops home from Iraq. But as I stand here on this floor, I listen to one of our colleagues speak of a group out West who may have said something disrespectful and offensive about our troops and that this group may have learned it here on this floor and I feel I must respond. That is an insult to all of us who are part of this body. It is outrageous to say this group learned that here. No one here disrespects our troops. No one here wants anything but the best for them. We ought not to start off that way, as we discuss the Feingold legislation. I wish to begin my remarks with President Bush's now infamous declaration almost 5 years ago when he announced ``mission accomplished.'' We sadly remember that day, when the President landed on the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln like a conquering hero, standing before a huge banner, which we see here portrayed. We remember watching as President Bush declared that day to be the end. It turned out to be a stunningly casual statement, not unlike another remark the President made when he said, talking about the enemy, ``bring them on.'' I served in Europe during World War II, and I never heard a commander invite more of the enemy to come to fight. When the President stood there that day, the insinuation was that it was the end of major combat operations, the end of America's casualties, the end of America's role as the major player in Iraq's future. But many of us remember fearing that it was not the end. Today, as we look at the terrible costs to our troops, to their families, to our priorities here at home, to the war against the terrorists who attacked us, and to America's standing, we realize that day in 2003 was only a beginning. When the President stood on the deck of that carrier, America had lost 139 of our troops in Iraq. As we stand here today, we have lost almost 4,000. To be exact, 3,968 Americans have died in Iraq; 102 of those troops had ties to my home State of New Jersey; 95 percent of the mothers, fathers, sons and daughters we have lost were killed in action after President Bush said ``mission accomplished.'' That mission was not accomplished. President Bush's war has left children growing up without parents and parents to grow old with no children. His war has caused nearly 29,000 troops to leave the combat theater with their wounds. Nearly 700 of them lost limbs, and many more have left with wounds to their minds. Our troops are returning home from the Iraqi desert with traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder, making it so difficult for them to return to their families, their jobs, and their lives. Instead of spending $3 billion each week to wage war on education or childhood disease in America, the President is spending $3 billion a week to wage war in Iraq. Amazingly, I found someone who doesn't know that sad fact--the President's own Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mr. Nussle. I recently asked him how much we were spending each week in Iraq, in a budget hearing. Director Nussle said he didn't know. Almost everybody in America besides him knows very well--$3 billion each and every week. It is unacceptable. It is an insult to the American people who are funding this war and an insult to our troops who are still fighting it. The President will claim we are making military progress in Iraq and that the surge is working. But let's tell the American people the truth. America lost 901 mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers in the year 2007 alone; 2007 was the deadliest year for America since the start of the Iraq war. More than 3,300 members of New Jersey's Army Reserves and National Guard are scheduled to deploy to Iraq this year. Just a couple of weeks ago, I went to Fort Dix, a major military base in New Jersey. I talked to people who already served there on extended tours, and they were weary. They were willing to do their duty. They respected their obligation. But their families were not happy. The people I saw, the spouses, the children were not happy about their wife or husband, or mother or father going away again. Some of them are going to get hurt, and some of them may never come home. As they do their duty with honor and bravery, they count on us to do ours. Their deployment is a reminder that the President's surge is fundamentally flawed. His solution is built on military strength, when a political and diplomatic solution is what is needed in Iraq. Iraq, not America, needs to accomplish these goals, and we want them to do it. We want them to make it possible for us to start bringing our troops home as soon as possible. They have to do it. It is their responsibility. It is their country, and we want to end our presence there. The surge is also a distraction from the war President Bush started in response to 9/11 but never finished. That was the war on terror. When the President spoke to our country after September 11, he said: I will never forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. But it appears that he has forgotten. He has forgotten about Osama bin Laden, the man who inflicted those terrible wounds on the victims, their families, and this country. He has forgotten that the war against al-Qaida and the hunt for Osama bin Laden began and continues outside Iraq. And because we have lost our focus, Afghanistan is now spinning back toward violence and chaos. After the U.S.-led invasion of 2001, the Taliban was down and wounded. Now it seems the Taliban is growing stronger. Over the past 2 years, southern Afghanistan has seen the worst violence since the Taliban was dismantled. Last year was the deadliest year for troops in Afghanistan since 2001. Today, al-Qaida has also found sanctuary in remote areas of Pakistan, and the Afghani-Pakistani border is so porous that terrorists flow through it like wind. If all of this were not bad enough, just look at what the President's war has done to America's standing and prestige in the world. There used to be a time when people saw America as the moral leader, and Americans were proud of this country's standing in the world. In World War II, for example, we had strength because most of the free world was with us. Now is not one of those times. Now much of the world is against us. More than 70 percent of Iraqis disapprove of American presence in their country, and 67 percent of citizens across the globe believe American forces should leave Iraq within a year. Countries that were our allies when we first invaded Iraq, such as Italy, Poland, Spain, and Denmark, have left us in the desert. And Great Britain, one of America's greatest historical allies, sent its troops from Iraq into Afghanistan. President Bush, why are we not so wise? To date, the President has spent more than $526 billion on the war in Iraq. That is more than half a trillion dollars on a war that continues to take American youth, empower our rivals, turn our friends against us, and let our enemies remain on the loose. If that cost were not unbelievable enough, the President had the audacity to ask the American people to spend even more. He has a pending request of $105 billion for the rest of 2008, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates has estimated that Iraq will cost another $170 billion for 2009. Every dime we spend on Iraq is a dime we cannot spend on our home--on homeland security for our cities, police for our streets, education for our children, and health care for our families. In fact, the President has requested just now a cut of $800 million from a critical homeland security grant program, leaving Americans more exposed to dangers at home. It is time for us to realize it is never going to be enough money. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld used to say we would stand down when the Iraqis stood up. No one says that anymore. So let me stand up and make it clear: It is time for the troops to start coming home. They have earned the right to get back to their loved ones, their kids, their spouses, and their country. I hope we will see that day in the not too distant future. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, sadly, I wish to pay tribute to Diane Wolf, who died January 10 at the age of 53. Diane was someone many of us in the Senate knew well. She was unabashed in her interest in government and worked tirelessly to improve the world in which we live. She was willing at all times to use her personal resources to make issues clearly understood and actively supported. She considered it an obligation of our democracy to express herself on the importance of matters under consideration by the Congress. Diane served on countless committees ranging from the arts to government. In addition to her role as a benefactor of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, Diane Wolf was active in the cultural atmosphere in our nation's Capital. There, she worked on the boards of trustees for the U.S. Senate Preservation Board, the Foundation for the National Archives, and the Washington National Opera, as well as holding board positions on the Library of Congress Madison Council, Smithsonian Council of American Art, and the Kennedy Center National Committee, among others. In 1985, she was appointed by President Reagan to the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, and Diane had an immediate impact in this new role. She worked to change the design on U.S. coins and allow creativity and American history to serve as the basis for their design. While her effort to revolutionize our coinage did not materialize, Diane displayed the tenacity and commitment that characterized everything she undertook. Diane Wolf was blessed with a loving family who took pleasure in every aspect of her life and her interests. Though she was taken from them far too early in her life, memories of her being will be the greatest of family treasures. As we look to the future, let us pause and remember Diane Wolf, an outstanding, caring human being who dedicated her life to helping others. She will be missed by all who knew her.