Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on our side?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is my understanding that there is no request for use of time on our side, so I ask unanimous consent that I be able to use all of the remaining time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are in the midst of Health Week. Apparently, during Health Week, we don't pass any of the bills the American people want but, rather, we schedule procedural votes. Why aren't we taking up something such as stem cell research? That is what the American people want to see us do. There is such value in the use of stem cells for research and potential treatment of all types of diseases. Despite all the promises of stem cell research, we are not working on it this week. This week we are simply doing our political stuff: posturing for the next election. There are other important health care issues besides stem cell research that we could be taking up; namely, Medicare. We should be discussing that on the floor of the Senate. We should be passing legislation to extend the Medicare enrollment date past May 15. Right now, under the present Medicare drug plan, if you don't sign up by this coming Monday, you will be penalized permanently for signing up late. Millions of Americans are having serious problems understanding this outrageously complex Medicare plan, but the administration, the President of the United States is saying: Hurry up and make the choice, we are not going to extend the enrollment date. It is insulated from what reality is. It is too bad. In New Jersey, seniors have to choose among 45 plans offered by 19 providers, and we are saying rush, rush, rush. Most people can't get through the language, no less the dates and those requirements. But the administration is saying to my constituents that even though their health is at issue, they have to rush to a decision. It sounds like this is a deadline that nothing can move and, unfortunately, that is the truth coming from this administration. If we want to talk about health initiatives, Republican health initiatives, let's talk about the one that is in place, this horrible new Medicare plan. We have seen the Republican model of health care, and it is not pretty. In fact, many have called it a disaster. One need only pick up the local newspapers to see this disaster play out from Maui to Miami, from Portland, OR, to Portland, ME. The new Medicare drug plan is failing our seniors. We see it demonstrated in this placard in the headlines: The Boston Globe: Many seniors say Medicare drug plan will not help them. Newsday: Medicare guide is in need of Rx. The New York Times: Drug plan enrollment opens amid confusion. It goes through all of these well-known newspapers, showing the opinions they are hearing from their constituents. How did we get there? This Medicare Part D Program is an example of the majority vision for the future of health care in our Nation. One thing that is pretty clear about Medicare Part D is that whoever wrote it was clearly not focusing on the health of our seniors, and if the goal were to help our seniors, there would not be this thing called the donut hole, a gap in coverage. Many Americans have not heard about it or don't know what this coverage gap is. When I explain it to people listening at home, they are not even going to believe it. But it is true because I have heard about it when I address people all across our State. The way the program works is that for many people, in the middle of the year when you have spent $2,250 on drugs, which is not a lot of money considering the drug use for preserving health and for prolonging life, their prescription drug coverage will stop at $2,250. They will not have any coverage, but they will still have to pay the premium. What does that mean? It means that sometime in the summer or fall of this year, millions of Americans will walk into a pharmacy for their medication and the pharmacist is going to ask them for hundreds of dollars in payment. When the person says, Wait a minute, I have Medicare, the pharmacist will say: Yes, but you are in the donut hole, when you don't get any benefit until you reach spending over $5,100; so you will have to pay the full price now. It makes no sense. It is hard to understand, but unfortunately it is true and it is happening. My office has been contacted by constituents who experience this problem, and we are trying to help them, but this is only the beginning. Another senseless component of the Republican Medicare law is the prohibition that prevents Medicare--can you believe this--prevents Medicare from negotiating prices directly with the pharmaceutical companies. The VA permits that and the discounts are significant. But you can't do that in Medicare because the focus is to protect the companies rather than it is to protect the citizens. I come from New Jersey, home of the world's leading drug companies. And I admire these companies. Their discoveries have saved the lives of untold millions of people. To be quite honest, they are often targets of unfair criticism. But I don't see any reason to prohibit Medicare from negotiating prices with these companies. Medicare, the largest health care system in the entire world, is prevented from negotiating with these companies. The Republican Medicare law prohibits Medicare from negotiating for a good price, and there is no valid reason for it. When I talk with my constituents about this new Medicare law, all of them ask the same question: Why is this program so complicated? That is a good question. The program is complicated because the people who wrote it were not focused on helping seniors. Rather, they were focused on promoting ideology. The Republican ideology is now destroying Medicare because it is based on the need to privatize everything, outsource Medicare. If the goal were to help seniors get their prescription drugs, the result would not be so complicated. We can't blame seniors and their families for being confused when we present them with the kind of complex picture they see. The Democrats invented Medicare, and when it comes to serving the American people, running an effective Government, we do know how to do it. I think it is pretty obvious now in the wake of this Medicare mess and the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina that there is little ability to run our Government. It doesn't seem to work. Incompetence runs rampant. Why can't they run a Government? Because they always want to farm out the hard work to the companies--Halliburton, the HMOs, and the list goes on and on. They even want to outsource our air traffic control system. Remember that fight? And that still looms in front of us. I will give you a real-world example of why the Republican insistence on privatizing Medicare is hurting America's seniors. In one of my local papers back in New Jersey, the Bergen Record, there was an article about a pharmacist who has been trying very hard under tough circumstances to help his customers with this new Medicare program. One of the customers needed a 25-milligram version of a drug because her doctor found that the 50- milligram pill was causing too many side effects. When the pharmacist filled the 25-milligram prescription, the Medicare drug plan, run by United Healthcare, said they will not cover the 25-milligram, the smaller milligram, version. It is hard to understand. United Healthcare told the pharmacist to cut the 50-milligram pills in half. The pharmacist correctly told the insurance company that it was a sustained-release drug and cutting it in half would make the pill ineffective. After waiting for some time on hold with United Healthcare, the pharmacist was told the customer would have to go back to her doctor and ask the doctor to file an appeal with United Healthcare, looking for special permission to get the smaller dose of the pill. That is what real seniors are going through every hour, every day under this drug program. I want to talk about United Healthcare in particular. United Healthcare paid its CEO, William McGuire, $124 million last year. That is right. The CEO of United Healthcare made almost $124 million in 2005. Now, if they were making widgets, that would be all right. But they are supplying health care to seniors and having this man walk away with millions of dollars--when the people who need health care are paying for it--it is not right. Those people are paying for that kind of a salary, that kind of an asset base. The seniors in my State are upset, while the real beneficiaries of the Republican Medicare bill are still paid these outrageous salaries. It doesn't make sense. It is a disgrace. The question has been asked: Should we scrap this program and do a real Medicare drug benefit? Maybe. But I would say this to the American people: As long as the same group is running this Congress, you are going to see more of the same happening. All we have to do is look at the condition that we find ourselves in over in Iraq, not knowing whether we are going or whether we are staying, and lives are still being lost. The cost for that war is going to be somewhere around half a trillion dollars before this year is over, and we are funding it with supplementals that carry all kinds of pork-laden projects. The management is terrible. Management of the environment is terrible, when we look at what is happening and we see that snowfields in Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa that were there since the beginning of time will no longer be there in a few years, when we see that Glacier National Park will soon not have a glacier there, having had glaciers there since the beginning of time. The glaciers are melting in front of our eyes. If you look at pictures of animals up in Alaska, such as the polar bear, they are scrawny. They don't have the body size they should have when they are not getting sufficient nourishment. There is nothing being done about that. There is nothing being done about global warming as the Earth that we live on gets warmer and as the threats of flooding all over the seacoast States and communities becomes more and more apparent. So there is a question of competency that we have to look at. It is certainly not reflected in this Medicare plan. Although it is late, I wish the President would show some good heartedness and say: You know what, seniors of America, we are going to help you. We know you can't get through this Medicare drug plan in time, so what we are going to do is delay it a few months. What is the big deal? I don't get it. Instead of permitting people to adequately review these plans so they can understand what they are getting into, there is a push to sign up. It is one that I don't understand. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 35th anniversary of Amtrak. When the first Amtrak Clocker train left New York, bound for New Jersey and Philadelphia, on May 1, 1971, it ushered in a new era of passenger rail travel in the United States. Millions of passengers from every corner of America can attest to the fact that Amtrak remains a vital part of our nationwide transportation network, and I firmly believe it's imperative that we not just preserve our nation's passenger rail system, but also develop it. Amtrak's transformation from a tiny initiative with only 25 workers and widespread expectations of failure, to a successful national corporation with 19,700 employees in nearly every state, is one of the great success stories I've witnessed during my many years in the Senate. Every day approximately 68,000 travelers rely on Amtrak as an effective alternative to the hassles and delays of air travel, and the increasingly prohibitive gas costs and traffic congestion associated with highway travel. Amtrak remains enormously important to my home State of New Jersey. Last year, for instance, over 3.4 million people boarded or exited an Amtrak train at the six rail stations in New Jersey, and nearly 1,700 New Jersey residents worked for Amtrak during this same time period. Approximately 110 Amtrak trains travel through my home State every day; this service, combined with the many rail lines that New Jersey Transit, SEPTA, PATH, and PATCO operate, truly makes New Jersey a national leader in passenger rail. I am immensely proud of this distinction--as all New Jerseyans are--and it would not be possible without Amtrak. The benefits of such a system are immense; without rails, our State would suffocate under extreme highway and airport traffic congestion. On Amtrak's Northeast Corridor service between Washington, DC, and Boston, MA, which stops at several points in New Jersey, the trains carry as many people as 75,000 fully loaded Boeing 757 jets each year. By contrast, there are only 102 flights between downtown Washington, DC, and the three New York City-area airports on an average weekday. On December 11, 2000, the first Acela Express service began on the Northeast Corridor. As one of the leading proponents of high-speed rail in the Congress, it has been a marvel to see the success of this train and its example of how high-speed rail can be successful in our country. I am a frequent rider of the Acela Express between New Jersey and Washington, and I appreciate the service for the same reasons that many others do: it is efficient, it is comfortable, it is cost- effective, and it is convenient. Most tellingly, the Acela Express's operations do not require a subsidy, and I expect its ridership to continue to grow as others discover the advantages of this remarkable train. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that despite the great successes of Amtrak, it is necessary for the many defenders of the system myself included to fight for its survival at every turn. There are many within the Bush administration--and within the House and Senate--who would like nothing better than to see Amtrak wither and die, stranding millions of travelers in the process. We cannot let this happen, and as long as I am a member of the Senate, I will not let this happen. I will continue to work with a diverse set of colleagues on both sides of the aisle who realize the advantages of providing options for travelers and having a balanced national transportation system. In short, Mr. President, I salute Amtrak for its achievements, and I extend the railroad and its employees, who are the backbone of the railroad's operation, warmest wishes for continued success through the next 35 years.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the students of East Brunswick High School in New Jersey for winning the 2006 ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution'' competition. The breadth of knowledge displayed about our government should serve as an inspiration to all Americans. The road to the national championship was not an easy one. The students spent months researching different constitutional topics, ranging from the philosophical underpinnings of the Constitution to issues currently being debated on the Senate floor. Participants then participated in mock congressional hearings where they were questioned by state judges, professors, lawyers, and journalists. East Brunswick first won the New Jersey state competition to earn the right to participate in the national finals here in Washington, DC. In three days of intense competition, the students competed against more than 1,500 other students from every State and the District of Columbia. This is East Brunswick's third consecutive win in this prestigious competition. I would like to congratulate each member of the East Brunswick High School team: Brian Boyarksy, David Chu, Nelson Chu, Dana Covit, Megan DeMarco, Ben DeMarzo, Craig Distel, Deborah Elson, Dana Feuchtbaum, Munira Gunja, Melinda Guo, Shelby Highstein, Evan Hoffman, Jayasree Iyer, Ryan Korn, Michael Martelo, Carol Ann Moccio, Jeffrey Myers, Ari Ne'eman, Daniel Nowicki, Aditya Panda, Sherwin Salar, Gil Shefer, Aaron Sin, Lauren Slater, Eric Smith, Merichelle Villapando, Amy Wang, and Jason Yang. Congratulations also to their coaches Barbara Maier and Joyce Lentz, and their teacher Alan Brodman. I am confident the Senate will join me in wishing all the members of this team congratulations and much success in the future.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Biden's amendment to provide that none of the funds being appropriated in this emergency supplemental appropriations bill may be used by the United States to establish permanent military bases in Iraq. If we are serious about finding ways to neutralize the insidious insurgency that has killed over 2,400 American service men and women in Iraq, we must state clearly, unequivocally, and without further delay that we do not intend to remain in Iraq indefinitely. Permanent U.S. military bases are a temptation for terrorists and would be a continuing symbol of U.S. occupation. The U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said on March 24, 2006, that the United States ``has no goal of establishing permanent bases in Iraq.'' Senior-level officials regularly promise that the United States will not establish permanent bases in Iraq. But the facts tell a different story. General John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. troops in the Middle East, testified before Congress earlier this year that he couldn't rule out the possibility of permanent bases in Iraq. And according to the Congressional Research Service, the Bush administration has requested more than $1.1 billion for new military construction in Iraq, nearly double what the United States has spent in Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates combined. This very bill we are considering includes $348 million for more base construction. This begs the question, if the U.S. Government doesn't plan to occupy Iraq for any longer than necessary, why are we spending billions of dollars to add onto and build more bases? At the end of March, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt said, and I agree, that ``we must . . . show that we will not become a permanent force of occupation . . .''. Last month, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice conceded that the Bush administration had probably made ``thousands'' of ``tactical errors'' in Iraq. Let's not compound the problem by establishing permanent bases in Iraq. I say it again: if we are serious about finding ways to neutralize the insidious insurgency in Iraq, we must convince the rest of the world--especially the Muslim world--that we do not intend to remain in Iraq indefinitely. Approving the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Delaware will help us send that message. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Biden amendment to prohibit the United States from building permanent military bases in Iraq. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today, life in America is tough. People are working very hard to make ends meet. In so many cases, families have to earn two incomes to meet their basic needs: mom working one shift, dad working another shift. It is a mystery to me, and I am sure it is to so many people in our country, how it is that the inflation index is so modest when everything costs more, whether it is milk, whether it is electric, whether it is housing, whether it is prescription drugs, whether it is school, whether it is college and university tuition. I am reluctant to talk about my age, but since the days the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and I were in college, the tuitions have become such an expensive proportion of a family's income that it is hard to imagine how working people can get their kids into college and not have them drowning in debt by the time they finish. That is life in America today. No matter where you turn, it costs more. Look at ball game tickets. Look at theater tickets. Look at the pleasant amenities, see how much they cost, and one can understand why few people can afford to take advantage of these things. As a consequence, most Americans agree that this Nation is headed in the wrong direction. Who can blame them? We saw the Government's bungling and ineptitude in response to Hurricane Katrina. The administration's missteps in Iraq are costing Americans dearly in lives and dollars, and gasoline prices are out of control. Gas prices have gone through the roof. This chart shows in December of 2001, President Bush's first year in office, the national average price of gas was $1.06 for regular gas, $1.25 for supreme gas. Now we are at a much different point, $1.06 for regular has gone to $2.92, almost a $1.85 increase in the price. That is almost a 200-percent jump in price from 2001 when supreme was $1.25. Supreme now is $3.07. It is unconscionable. The American people are upset. Members are receiving e-mail messages, phone calls. Our constituents will tell Members what they think of these prices. Gas prices were low in 2001 when two oil men in the White House got together with their friends and the oil industry. They convened a secret task force to develop an energy policy. Then our friends, the Republicans in the Congress, passed the so-called Energy bill which was mostly a bunch of giant tax breaks for big oil and the wealthiest among us. They did not construct that, but that is what happened. What is the result of all this work by the Bush-Cheney administration and the Republican majority in the Congress? The average price of gasoline this week, as I said, is $2.92 for the lowest octane. What is the Republican answer to this problem? How about this: Give everyone a $100 tax rebate. Whoopee. What a celebration, 100 bucks. If you have a 20-gallon tank in your car, you get 2.5 fills before using your $100. In fact, the average family cost in gasoline today is up $1,800. Everyone knows this is a silly idea when they hear it. With gasoline prices at this rate, what is $100 going to do? Practically nothing; $100 is not going to do anything as long as the Republican Party is a subsidiary of big oil. Here is an example. To pay for the $100 rebates, the Republican Party, the Republican majority said they will close tax loopholes that oil companies enjoy. But the oil companies said: Wait a minute, don't get tough with us. So today we hear the Republicans have backed off that plan, holding their heads in wonderment like scolded schoolchildren. We all know about the obscene retirement package that former ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond received. His retirement package--get this-- was almost $400 million. When they recalculated his earnings over the period of time he served, his average income was $145,000 each and every day. How many people in this country earn over $145,000 a year, no less per day? It is incomprehensible. And the public has been justifiably outraged by this outlandish compensation package at the expense of the American people. Listen to what the now-ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson said on the ``Today Show'' this morning. I heard it. He was asked if his company would offer his fellow Americans some relief this summer and discount gasoline prices. His answer was: ``We are in the business to make money.'' He said that was his job. I was CEO of a pretty big company, and I understand the business world. But when you deal in a commodity you have to be cognizant of your ethical and civic responsibilities to your country. Gasoline is not some run-of-the-mill product. It is vital to our entire society. It is critical. ExxonMobil is part of the American community and its neighbors are suffering. Businesses and American families are having real problems just affording gasoline. There are families who may decide not to go to the doctor this week for a sick child. They may postpone it. Small businesses are losing lots of money with higher fuel costs. Big oil needs to recognize the impact their commodity has on everyday Americans' lives. Mr. Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil, needs to understand their special role in our functioning as a society. And the Bush administration needs to stop acting helpless. President Bush and Vice President Cheney often say: There is not much we can do about high gasoline prices. I do not see it that way. There are things they can do. There is something we can do here. We can get tough with the Saudis and get rid of their OPEC cartel. The OPEC oil cartel has one purpose-- to keep oil prices high by restricting exports or output. Their activity is a blatant violation of the GATT agreement, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Not only is the President not getting tough with the Saudis, the administration is pandering to them. A year ago, when gasoline prices had already spiked well past $2 a gallon, the Saudi ruler visited the President at his ranch in Texas. What we saw was not the President getting tough but, instead, being very friendly, strolling through a flower garden with the Saudi leader. It looked like a friendly gathering, not a tough negotiation. Then, last week, President Bush's Energy Secretary traveled to an OPEC nation in the Middle East and praised the oil cartel. And this week, with the Saudi Oil Minister here in DC, the administration is putting down the red carpet and telling the Saudis and OPEC what a great job they do. What the President should do is tell the Saudis, point blank: Disband your OPEC cartel or we will file a complaint against you in the World Trade Organization. Under international law, OPEC is an illegal cartel aimed at keeping oil prices high. We need to force the Saudis and their friends to play by the rules. And that means no cartel. Forget about it. Mr. President, I say this: The next time the Saudis or one of the countries in the cartel has a problem with a belligerent neighbor, they should not dial 911 because there will not be anybody to answer that phone, not if they continue the pattern of behavior they have started. To the President: The American people have had enough. They want a change in leadership in this country. We need leaders who will stand up to the Saudis and the big oil companies. It is one of the only ways we can get oil and gasoline prices under control. We have to hunt for other sources of energy, for other ways to use the energy. We are seeing it now in hybrid cars. We are seeing now that in Brazil almost 75 percent of the people there are using an ethanol mixture, saving substantial--substantial--amounts of oil. And we have to be creative. We have the genius in this country. Why don't we turn it loose and make sure they have the incentives, the economic incentives, the market incentives to do those things that can save oil? I do not hear anybody saying, I do not hear the President of the United States saying--and I have not heard it in a long time--join in the sacrifice. We are at war. Join in conservation. We do not have enough. Help this country get through this crisis. And let the oil companies know the American people are in charge, not they. But that message is not sounded. The alarm is not rung. And that is the way life is here. I make this plea to the President of the United States and colleagues here: Step up to the plate. Really take an action to get that price reduced and not be satisfied with excuses like: Oh, that is the marketplace. Baloney; that is what the American people will tell you. They do not want to drain their limited resources out the window by these outrageous prices for gasoline. We have to work together. But the only way we are going to work together is if there is some concerted leadership that says: Hey, we have to get on to this problem, and not pretend this problem will kind of go away by itself. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I acknowledge three significant days of commemoration that fall around this time each year. Today is the 58th anniversary of David Ben Gurion's declaration of Israel's Independence and the end of the British Mandate in Israel. As a Jewish American, I am proud to be one of the cosponsors of the concurrent resolution the Senate will pass celebrating Yom Haatzmaut, Israel's Independence Day. Yom Haatzmaut is usually observed on the 5th of the Jewish month Iyyar; this year it falls on May 3rd. In Israel, Yom Haatzmaut is always preceded by Yom Hazikaron, Israel's Memorial Day for fallen soldiers. The proximity of the dates is a reminder that Israelis owe their independence to the soldiers who sacrificed their lives for it. The official switch from Yom Hazikaron to Yom Haatzmaut is signaled when the flag is raised from half staff to the top of the pole in a ceremony on Mount Herzl in Jerusalem after sundown. Last week, the Senate commemorated Yom Hashoa, Holocaust Remembrance Day, with S. Res. 445, which I also cosponsored. Yom Hashoa is when the Jewish community solemnly remembers the suffering caused by the Nazi Holocaust led by Adolph Hitler during World War II. During the Holocaust, over six million Jews perished, along with Gypsies, homosexuals, and other victims of Nazi genocide. Yom Hashoa is observed every year on the 27th of Nisan in the Jewish calendar, a week after the seventh day of Passover, and a week before Yom Hazikaron and Yom Haatzmaut. Yom Hashoa became a national holiday in the State of Israel in 1959. Each year, throughout the streets of Israel, the sound of sirens on Yom Hashoa stops traffic and pedestrians for 2 minutes of silent devotion. Mr. President, I am pleased that the U.S. Senate is adopting these important measures.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will take this opportunity to review for a moment that this is an anniversary date of some significance which I believe ought to be recognized. It is 3 years ago this week that President Bush stood on the deck of the USS Lincoln in front of a banner that declared that our mission in Iraq had been accomplished. He told our troops and all Americans that major combat operations in Iraq have ended 3 years ago this week. At the time, we had lost 139 people, 139 troops in Iraq. Today, we have lost more than 2,400 American troops there, and 2,258 have died since ``Mission Accomplished'' was pronounced. In other words, 95 percent of the United States fatalities in Iraq occurred after President Bush said major combat was over, and tens of thousands of young Americans have suffered injuries, including severe head injuries and lost limbs, that will change their lives and the lives of their families forever. One need only visit Walter Reed Hospital and see what the ravages of war have done to so many. The only thing that was accomplished that day was a photo opportunity for the President's reelection campaign. When we look back at that publicity stunt on that aircraft carrier, we realize how wrong the President was. But that was hardly the only major conduct error in the judgment of this war. Recently, a number of retired generals have come forward to say what many in the military have been thinking for years. These officers know that our men and women in uniform have been let down by the miscalculations and the incompetence of the Bush administration. The troops on the battlefield pay with their lives, but nobody in the administration has been held accountable. The generals say we can't move forward without accountability. They say that the Secretary of Defense must go. The generals are right. Secretary Rumsfeld has made too many mistakes to stay in that job. As the old expression says, when you are in a hole, stop digging. Let's recount the miscalculations of the Secretary of Defense. Before the war, he said, ``We know where the weapons of mass destruction are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Bagdhad, and east, west, south and north, somewhat.'' But now we know there was no solid evidence before the war that Iraq had any WMDs. None were found when the United States invaded the country in March, and none have been found since. That was over 3 years ago. Secretary Rumsfeld also said that the Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops and that the Iraqi resistance would be limited. Obviously way off. Not only did Secretary Rumsfeld fail to build coalitions with our allies, he flippantly, arrogantly dismissed them as ``old Europe,'' alienating these allies when he should have been reaching out to them. The result of a failure to build a real coalition is that our troops are bearing the risks and suffering the casualties. There were other serious miscalculations. Secretary Rumsfeld said the war would be short. On February 7, 2003, he said: The war could last 6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months. Secretary Rumsfeld also rejected calls for a larger number of troops. He even pushed out GEN Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, when General Shinseki, a distinguished leader, a military leader, suggested that postwar Iraq would require many more forces than the 100,000 troops we had on the ground. As I remember, he said over 300,000. Secretary Rumsfeld was also way off on the cost of the war. He said it would cost at least $10 billion but no more than $100 billion. We now see the actual costs coming close to $500 billion. Despite all of the funds devoted to the war, Secretary Rumsfeld has failed to equip our troops properly. After more than 3 years, thousands of Army and Marine Corps personnel still do not have adequate body armor or sufficient armor for their humvees. When I was there over 3 years ago, I heard the plea then from soldiers from New Jersey: Give us the flak vest, Senator, that you are wearing, the latest technology. They will protect us. Please let us have that. We know what happened with the humvees and the resulting serious injuries because of inadequate armor for the humvees. In December 2004, in a meeting with U.S. troops in Kuwait, some soldiers raised these concerns with Secretary Rumsfeld. His response was offensive; humiliating for our troops who are serving there. He said, ``As you know, you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.'' I don't know what was meant by that statement but it certainly is a slur in many ways. I must say that what I find incredibly offensive is this administration still will not allow photographs of flag-draped coffins when they return to our shore and come into Dover, DE, which is the repository for the remains. It is such an honor to recognize the sacrifice made by having a flag draped over the coffin. Yet that honor of our fallen troops is shielded from the American people by the order of the President of the United States. It doesn't make sense to me, and I know it doesn't make sense to those families. It isn't just civilians upset by these events. We have now heard eight retired generals call for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation, citing gross mismanagement and profound errors in judgment. Retired Army MG Paul Eaton, in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004, recently wrote in the New York Times that Rumsfeld ``has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically . . . Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.'' Retired Marine GEN Anthony Zinni, an outstanding leader, former head of the U.S. Central Command, which includes the Middle East, last month called for Mr. Rumsfeld to resign. Other military leaders who have called for Secretary Rumsfeld to go include retired Marine LTG Gregory Newbold; retired Army MG John Riggs; retired Marine GEN Paul Van Riper; retired Army MG John Batiste; retired Army MG Charles Swannack, former Commander of the 82nd Airborne in Iraq; and retired U.S. Army GEN Wesley Clark. In addition, we are now seeing people of lower ranks who are upset with the way that campaign has gone and are expressing their dissatisfaction. We see also a phenomenon we haven't seen before; that is, people filling out their obligatory term at the Academy and a third of whom do not stay on. They finish their obligatory terms of 5 years and they are gone. It is a serious problem in many ways. Morally, I think it is a serious problem, but also functionally we don't have the personnel supporting the war in the way we had hoped. Whole branches of services over there are as courageous as can be. It is very dangerous territory, and they serve bravely. We owe them a debt of gratitude. The fact is the Bush administration has made serious mistakes in prosecuting the war in Iraq, and our soldiers have paid the price. Our troops deserve better. On the third anniversary of President Bush's ``Mission Accomplished'' fiasco, I hope that the President finds the strength to make real changes. And those changes need to start at the top. I urge the President to be more specific about what our assignment is. He has already said it will be up to another President to take care of what continues there. Unfortunately, we have to believe that. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. Res 454 honoring a true transportation pioneer, Malcom McLean. His use of the intermodal shipping container--first used successfully in the United States 50 years ago yesterday--streamlined the shipping process and set the stage for our modem globalized economy through containerization. Before the age of containerization, shipping raw materials and consumer goods was an extremely arduous process; to transfer goods from a ship to a train, or from a train to a truck, the merchandise first needed to be unloaded, sorted, and reloaded. As a truck driver in 1937, Malcom McLean realized that the goods could be shipped more cheaply, efficiently, and quickly if they didn't need to be unloaded and re- loaded into different shipping containers on each leg of a trip. He invented a type of container that was durable and versatile enough to be attached to a train, loaded onto a tractor-trailer, and secured to the deck of a ship; the revolutionary idea created efficiencies in the process by making loading and un-loading at each step of the intermodal shipping process obsolete. Mr. President, yesterday marked the 50th anniversary of the Ideal X setting sail from Port Newark, in my home State of New Jersey, and bound for Houston, TX. This historic trip marked the first successful implementation of Malcom McLean's grand idea: it was the first time a ship left U.S. loaded with intermodal containers, 58 in total. Putting these containers on ships allowed for great cost savings in shipping-- as much as 25 percent or more--and the triumphant voyage of the Ideal X signaled that the exciting new method was indeed practical and worthwhile. It is nearly impossible to overstate the importance of his innovation. If you enjoy consumer products imported from overseas, or from distant areas of our own country, you can credit Malcom McLean's revolutionary idea for making them more affordable. If you enjoy fresh produce or baked goods from your local grocery store, thank McLean's innovation for bringing them to market more quickly. Container ization surely has made the world a smaller place by allowing goods from all over the world arrive at their destinations more cheaply and more quickly, and our standard of living in America has improved markedly in the process. Before I was elected to the Senate, I served as commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey from 1978 until 1982. I had the opportunity to get to know Malcom McLean, a singularly focused man, who was successful in nearly all of his pursuits because of his strong work ethic and unmatched talent for innovation. While Mr. McLean passed away in 2001, his legacy lives on through his widow Irena McLean and his family, and through his lasting contributions to industry in New Jersey, the United States, and the entire world. I encourage he Senate to adopt this resolution and honor a great American.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Menendez amendment to adequately fund port and container security. Our ports are vulnerable to a terrorist attack. We know this. We only inspect about 5 percent of the shipping containers that enter our country. Terrorists could smuggle themselves, traditional weapons, and nuclear or chemical weapons into a harbor. From there, they could potentially launch an attack even more devastating than 9/11. In my home State of New Jersey--where we lost some 700 victims on 9/ 11--Federal officials have identified the 2-mile stretch between Port Newark and Newark Liberty International Airport as the most dangerous target in the United States for terrorism. But port security is not just a local concern. Our ports are essential to the flow of goods and commodities in our national economy, and vital to our military; 95 percent of all goods imported into this country arrive by ship. Mr. President, this administration's mishandling of the Dubai Ports deal has highlighted the fact that our ports are still vulnerable. We need a way to ensure that 100 percent of the containers coming into our country are WMD-free. The Bush administration has said that we can't check all containers coming into the U.S. for WMD's. But we check every airline passenger for weapons. We do not just look at an airline passenger's ticket and say ``OK, on paper, this guy looks fine.'' That is the Bush administration's current idea of port security--just a simple look at the paperwork. Mr. President, we need to check containers for WMDs. The amendment of my friend, Senator Menendez, will give us the tools we need to do this. It will adequately protect our ports, our economy and our lives. I urge my colleagues to support the Menendez amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, there has been a fairly lively debate. I ask unanimous consent I have such time as needed to make my remarks, should my remarks run more than 10 minutes, under the morning business rules. I need possibly 15 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, there has been almost a raging debate around here these last couple of days on evaluations of what is taking place in Iraq, where do we stand in this war--almost a war of attrition, as I see it. And included in the reports on deaths, killings, this morning we heard about an explosion, with suicide bombers detonating a bomb in a mosque that killed around 40 people. It is almost a daily thing that we hear and see, the horror of families being torn apart by the loss of a loved one. Children, men, women, it does not matter. It is just universal killing and demolition. It is a terrible act to witness. Now we have some different news that has come about to accompany those stories of horror from Iraq. Everybody now knows that the Vice President's former chief of staff, Scooter Libby, has been indicted as part of the investigation into the leak of classified material from the White House. I remember when this controversy broke. President Bush acted incredulous that anyone would leak classified national security information. In fact, in September 2003, the President said: There's just too many leaks, and if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. But now we find out--I think embarrassingly for the President, embarrassingly for the United States--we now find out that the President himself was ordering a leak of classified material. And he leaked that classified information for political reasons. He was trying to undo some of the political damage caused by the disclosure that the intelligence community did not believe Iraq was trying to purchase uranium. There it was: the reason we went to Iraq in the first place, and substantial doubts. People who supported that view are now challenging the intelligence that led us there, or at least the intelligence reports we got. Now, here we are, still bogged down in Iraq, with no hope in sight to fix the mess we have caused there. Yesterday, there was debate between two of our colleagues. One was Senator Kerry, who served in Vietnam, decorated for that service, the other was the Senator from Colorado, who was harsh in his criticism of Senator Kerry's speech on Iraq. Now, Senator Kerry and I are both veterans. I am a veteran of World War II, and I served in Europe during the war. His, again, distinguished service in Vietnam is well known. So we are both veterans, and we are very interested in the military analysis of the Senator from Colorado. The speech of the Senator from Colorado sounded much like White House talking points: short on facts, long on innuendo and fantasy. While politicians in Washington sometimes wear rose-colored glasses and fantasize about the situation in Iraq, American troops are dying, American troops are wounded. One need only visit Walter Reed Hospital to see how serious some of those wounds are. People have lost limbs. People lose their sight. People suffer very severely from post- traumatic stress, invisible wounds that penetrate, nevertheless, very deeply. I have gone to many memorial services and funerals for young people from New Jersey who died in Iraq. Seventy-three soldiers from my home State of New Jersey have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. As I mentioned, I have visited Walter Reed Army Hospital here in Washington several times, and I have been struck by the incredible resilience and dedication to our country of those young Americans, those who want to be able to pick up arms again so they can do their duty. And while these brave men and women put their lives on the line, the administration is simply ignoring reality. Paul Eaton, a former commanding general of the Coalition Military Assistance and Training Team, wrote in the New York Times on March 19, recently, that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is--and here I quote the Times--``not competent to lead our armed forces.'' Eaton further said that Rumsfeld ``has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.'' This past Sunday on ``Meet The Press,'' retired General Anthony Zinni, who just published a book, repeated the call for Mr. Rumsfeld to resign. General Zinni of the U.S. Marine Corps is a former Commander of the Central Command. He said Secretary Rumsfeld should be held accountable for tactical mistakes in Iraq. I had the opportunity the other night to go to a testimonial for General Shalikashvili and saw films of him done with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, President Clinton--all kinds of testimonials. As I looked at General Shalikashvili, I recalled how splendidly he handled his assignment as the Chief of the joint members of the senior staff and recalled that he said that in Iraq we would need perhaps 300,000 troops or more. He was right. And we never delivered on that commitment. As a consequence, in many military circles it is believed that lack of force is responsible for some of the problems we currently see. Several days after General Zinni spoke, President Bush dismissed calls for Rumsfeld to step down, saying he was ``satisfied'' with his performance. How in the world can the Commander-in-Chief, President Bush, be satisfied with the situation in Iraq? It is chaotic. It is near a civil war. The definition of a ``civil war'' is that people within the same country are fighting one another. My gosh, it could not be clearer. So how can he be satisfied with Secretary Rumsfeld's miscalculations, with his profound errors in judgment, with his stubborn unwillingness to admit mistakes? These mistakes have had tragic consequences--tragic for the nearly 2,400 American men and women who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, tragic for the families they have left behind. To examine the incompetence a little bit further--I have not been in Iraq in the last couple of years. I was there then, and I met with troops, and they were asking for better body armor. They were asking for better Humvee armor. And it took 2 years to loosen up those products to protect our troops. How incompetent must one be for the President not to be up in arms? After my visit, I said I was going to the Defense Department, and did, requesting expedited treatment for these articles that our troops needed to protect themselves and to fight the war fully. We know that most of the claims of the Bush administration in the leadup to war were simply false. The administration claimed there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. Not true. The Bush administration claimed that there were weapons of mass destruction there. Not true. The Bush administration claimed that the war would cost ``in the range of 50 to 60 billion dollars.'' Not true. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the next supplemental to be brought before the Congress in coming weeks, will total a half a trillion dollars, nearly $7 billion a month spent just in Iraq. The Bush administration said before the war the oil revenues from Iraq could bring ``between 50 and 100 billion [dollars] over the course of the next two to three years.'' Not true again. President Bush announced, ``Mission accomplished,'' on May 1, 2003. He lulled the Nation into believing that it was all settled: Families, look forward to your kids coming home. Look forward to families restored. Look forward to fathers and mothers coming back to their children. He told the Nation that major combat in Iraq was over. Not true. Ninety percent of the Americans who have died in Iraq have died since combat operations had supposedly ``ended.'' The Bush administration claimed that the Iraq insurgency was in its ``last throes.'' Not true. We know the insurgency has gained strength. General Abizaid recently said the number of foreign terrorists infiltrating Iraq has increased. Since the last week of February, sectarian violence and death have reached new heights, while electricity production has dropped below prewar levels. Unemployment ranges from 30 to 60 percent. The American people do not want their leader to deny reality. They want to hear the truth. People on the floor of the Senate have heard me say it time and time again: I will never understand why the President of the United States refuses to let journalists, photographers, journalists who do photography, come in and take pictures of flag-draped coffins--flag- draped coffins. It is the country's last sign of honoring its dead. They are unable to take pictures of that because they do not want to tell the American people the truth about what is happening. It is, in my view, insulting to those families whose loved ones sacrificed their lives on the battlefield. Outrageous. They do not want to tell us the truth. What they want to do is tell us untruths. Leaking information is inexcusable, when the penalties for anyone who leaks that information could be jail time. The President of the United States, President Bush, under the guise of releasing the classification of sensitive material, had passed information, with Vice President Cheney apparently being the person who furnished it, according to Libby, who is now fighting for his freedom. So he is saying things that he can prove, I would imagine; otherwise, he would not dare say it. We are sick and tired of this war. I am not saying what the date is that we have to leave there, but I am saying that the date has passed for the truth, for knowing what is really happening there, for knowing what our troops and their families can expect. Last week, I went to a return-home function in New Jersey, people who have come back. They were away, some of them, 18 months--little kids running around who haven't seen their fathers or mothers for that period of time. It is outrageous. We are in a state of confusion that defies imagination, that we, this country, with all of its might and all of its wealth, can't figure out some way to deal with this problem, after having made empty promises about how easy it was going to be-- ``treats and sweets'' was one of the expressions used--totally misunderstanding, not thinking about what it was going to take, not only to fight this war but how do you win it. And winning it means that you go home triumphant. Not so. We see in front of us a situation that reminds us of the sad days of Vietnam, when we wanted to extricate ourselves and couldn't quite do it until the pain was so excruciating that the population could no longer stand it. We need a leader who sees clearly what is really happening and who speaks candidly--we can take bad news; we don't like it, but we can take it--about what is taking place in front of our eyes on television and newspapers in our homes. We can take the news. We will accept it and fight on to rebuild our strength and our moral conviction about what we are doing. But we need to know the truth on how to do that. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Military Retirees' Health Care Protection Act along with my colleagues, Senators Hagel, Kerry, Menendez, Lincoln, and DeWine. This important legislation will keep the Pentagon from dramatically raising health care fees on military retirees. Our bill will limit increases to TRICARE military health insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-payments for those in the National Guard and Reserves who are enrolled in TRICARE. Under this legislation, increases in health care fees cannot exceed the rate of growth in uniformed services beneficiaries' military compensation, thereby protecting beneficiaries from an undue financial burden. In February, officials at the Department of Defense (DOD) announced plans to double fees on senior enlisted retirees and triple them for officer retirees. If enacted this would mean increases of up to $1,000 annually for some military retirees. While the Department of Defense has since temporarily halted plans to raise fees, it still has authority to implement steep increases in the future and may do so. We must pass legislation now that limits the amount of any health care increase and protects beneficiaries from extreme health care fee increases in the future. Senator Hagel and I want to demonstrate our commitment to our troops and future veterans by assuring them that just as they protected us, we will take care of them when their service ends. Just as our men and women in uniform vow never to leave a soldier behind in battle, so should we commit never to leave a veteran behind when he or she needs health care. For three years, Congress has rejected a $250 Veterans Administration health fee increase for non-disabled veterans--doubling and tripling fees for career military is equally inappropriate. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support our troops by supporting this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Military Retirees' Health Care Protection Act along with my colleagues, Senators Hagel, Kerry, Menendez, Lincoln, and DeWine. This important legislation will keep the Pentagon from dramatically raising health care fees on military retirees. Our bill will limit increases to TRICARE military health insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-payments for those in the National Guard and Reserves who are enrolled in TRICARE. Under this legislation, increases in health care fees cannot exceed the rate of growth in uniformed services beneficiaries' military compensation, thereby protecting beneficiaries from an undue financial burden. In February, officials at the Department of Defense (DOD) announced plans to double fees on senior enlisted retirees and triple them for officer retirees. If enacted this would mean increases of up to $1,000 annually for some military retirees. While the Department of Defense has since temporarily halted plans to raise fees, it still has authority to implement steep increases in the future and may do so. We must pass legislation now that limits the amount of any health care increase and protects beneficiaries from extreme health care fee increases in the future. Senator Hagel and I want to demonstrate our commitment to our troops and future veterans by assuring them that just as they protected us, we will take care of them when their service ends. Just as our men and women in uniform vow never to leave a soldier behind in battle, so should we commit never to leave a veteran behind when he or she needs health care. For three years, Congress has rejected a $250 Veterans Administration health fee increase for non-disabled veterans--doubling and tripling fees for career military is equally inappropriate. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support our troops by supporting this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate National Autism Awareness Month and to urge my fellow Senators to continue to back efforts to fight this disorder and support the families affected by it. Autism is a complex developmental disability that is the result of a neurological disorder that affects the normal functions and development of the brain, which affects social and communication skills. Autism is a spectrum disorder, making early diagnosis crucial to minimize the symptoms through specialized intervention programs. Autism and its associated behaviors have been estimated to occur in as many as 2 to 6 in every 1,000 individuals. As many as 1.5 million Americans today are believed to have some form of autism. The Department of Education indicates that autism is growing at a rate of 10 to 17 percent per year. At these rates, the prevalence of autism could reach 4 million Americans in the next decade. The prevalence of autism has increased astronomically in the past decade, and in certain areas of New Jersey, the rates are higher still. We know far too little about this disorder, and the work of the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, and the National Institutes of Health, NIH, is vital to our efforts to learn more about the nature and incidence of autism. I am a proud cosponsor of S. 843, the Combating Autism Act of 2005, which authorizes $860 million over 5 years to combat autism through research, screening, intervention, and education. I urge my fellow Senators to support the passage of this bill so that we can continue efforts to eliminate autism. Congress approved the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, in 1975, requiring States to provide an appropriate education to students with special needs. While it committed to providing 40 percent of the additional costs for educating such students, today the Federal Government funds only 17.8 percent of the cost. In the fiscal year 2006 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill, the Federal Government cut back on its share of the cost of providing special education. This leaves State governments and local school districts to choose between paying the extra cost or cutting programs. It is vital that Congress fund IDEA at the fully authorized level. I urge my fellow Senators to support IDEA and pass S. 2185, the IDEA Full Funding Act. Congress must remain committed to supporting efforts by medical researchers, doctors, schools, State and local governments, and families to learn more about autism and to treat it. This disorder affects too many already. We must do what we can to eliminate future cases while we treat people who currently have autism. I hope we can all join together in this important fight and recognize the importance of National Autism Awareness Month. Bob Newhart

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to submit a concurrent resolution to honor the fallen soldiers we have lost in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). My resolution, which Congressman Rahm Emanuel is introducing in the House of Representatives, directs the Architect of the Capitol to display an exhibit to honor the memory of these brave men and women in the Rotunda of the Capitol building during the period beginning on May 29, 2006, and ending on July 4, 2006. The exhibit will display the name, photograph, and biographical information of each individual member of the United States Armed Forces who has been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Visitors will also have the opportunity to write messages of support and sympathy to the families of the fallen. On March 20, 2006, we observed the third anniversary of the war of Iraq. Since the start of the war, more than 2,500 American soldiers have been killed serving their country. As we continue our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must recognize the ultimate sacrifice made by these troops. This temporary display will show the families of these heroes that they will always be remembered by a grateful nation. I want to thank Senators Clinton, Bingaman, Kennedy, Johnson, Boxer, Menendez, Landrieu, Kerry, and Feinstein for co-sponsoring this important resolution. I hope that the rest of the Senate will support its passage, too.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to submit a concurrent resolution to honor the fallen soldiers we have lost in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). My resolution, which Congressman Rahm Emanuel is introducing in the House of Representatives, directs the Architect of the Capitol to display an exhibit to honor the memory of these brave men and women in the Rotunda of the Capitol building during the period beginning on May 29, 2006, and ending on July 4, 2006. The exhibit will display the name, photograph, and biographical information of each individual member of the United States Armed Forces who has been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Visitors will also have the opportunity to write messages of support and sympathy to the families of the fallen. On March 20, 2006, we observed the third anniversary of the war of Iraq. Since the start of the war, more than 2,500 American soldiers have been killed serving their country. As we continue our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must recognize the ultimate sacrifice made by these troops. This temporary display will show the families of these heroes that they will always be remembered by a grateful nation. I want to thank Senators Clinton, Bingaman, Kennedy, Johnson, Boxer, Menendez, Landrieu, Kerry, and Feinstein for co-sponsoring this important resolution. I hope that the rest of the Senate will support its passage, too.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the confirmation of Michael Chagares to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. A Federal judge must be fair, impartial, and well-qualified. I strongly believe that if you look at Mr. Chagares' record and his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is obvious that he is the right person for this assignment. Mr. Chagares is currently in private practice, but he served in the U.S. Attorney's office in New Jersey for 14 years. Through hard work and diligence, he rose to become the head of the civil division, where he supervised and managed all civil cases on behalf of the United States Government, its agencies and officials. He oversaw litigation, directed legal positions to be taken in court, and approved settlements. Before he became head of the civil division, Mr. Chagares directed the Affirmative Civil Enforcement Unit of the U.S. Attorney's Office for several years. During his tenure in the U.S. Attorney's office, Mr. Chagares received a number of awards and commendations, including two director's awards for superior performance as an assistant U.S. Attorney. Mr. Chagares is a graduate of Seton Hall Law School in Newark, where he has also taught as an adjunct professor since 1991. His familiarity with the Third Circuit goes back to the late 1980s, when he worked as a law clerk for the honorable Morton Greenberg. The Third Circuit is based in Philadelphia, and it considers appeals from Federal district courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. It is a vitally important court, and his is an important seat, as he will replace Michael Chertoff, who left the court to serve as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I hope my colleagues agree with me that Mr. Chagares is more than qualified for this position, and I hope they will join me in voting for his confirmation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the junior Senator from Oregon in submitting this resolution to raise public awareness about and encourage medical research on psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. This resolution also promotes greater access to care for those suffering from these disorders. It is my hope that Congress will continue to aid efforts in the medical community to diagnose, treat, and eventually cure this disease. Psoriasis is a non-contagious, immune-mediated, lifelong skin disorder that has been diagnosed in more than 5 million men, women, and children in the United States. The source of psoriasis is believed to have a genetic component which triggers a faster growth cycle of skin cells that result in build-up; however, the exact cause is unknown. Psoriatic arthritis is a condition associated with psoriasis. This disease is a chronic inflammatory disease of the joints and connective tissue, which causes stiffness, pain, swelling, and tenderness of the joints and the tissue around them. Without treatment, psoriatic arthritis can be potentially disabling and crippling. Approximately 10 to 30 percent of people with psoriasis develop psoriatic arthritis. The National Institutes of Health, NIH, estimates that 5.8-7.5 million people are living with psoriasis. Each year, the United States spends $4.0 billion to treat psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Furthermore, about 56 million hours of work are lost each year by people who suffer from psoriasis. The National Institute of Mental Health has found that psoriasis can cause as much physical and mental disability as other major diseases. Researchers are still searching for a cure for psoriasis. In the meantime, we must continue to raise awareness, to support research efforts to cure this disease, and to treat those living with it. I thank my colleagues for supporting this effort.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering this Senate resolution, which I submitted with Senator Dole and 23 additional co-sponsors. This resolution honors the National Association of State Veterans Homes, NASVH, and its 119 State homes for their support in caring for our Nation's military veterans. The State veterans' home program has been a successful partnership between the Federal Government and the States. It is responsible for the bulk of VA-supported long-term care services to veterans and their families. The NASVH was first established in 1954 as a volunteer, nonprofit organization. Now, 119 State homes provide nursing home care, domiciliary care, and hospital-type care to over 27,500 veterans in 47 States and Puerto Rico. My State of New Jersey has three Veterans Homes, which serve approximately 1,000 veterans. The NASVH has been vitally important in developing new methods for caring for elderly veterans, such as hospice care, respite care, Alzheimer's care, and adult day health care. The State veterans home program has been remarkably successful. This resolution recognizes the importance of this Federal-State partnership and honors the dedicated men and women of the National Association of State Veterans Homes for caring for our Nation's aging and disabled military heroes. I served in the Army Signal Corps during World War II. Consequently, I am well aware of the sacrifices brave young men and women make on behalf of our country. It's important that our Nation honors its commitment to look after our veterans. That's where organizations like the NASVH come in and do their part. So it's appropriate to honor this group for its commitment to serving our veterans. I thank the Senate for adopting this resolution.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate National Women's History Month. This is an important national observance that reminds us to celebrate the immense accomplishments and everlasting contributions of women. Women have helped shape our society since the first settlers landed on America's shores, and women continue to lead us into the future. It is important that we remember the efforts of women such as Harriet Tubman, Amelia Earhart, Eleanor Roosevelt, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Madeleine Albright, Maya Angelou, Ella Fitzgerald, Betty Friedan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Billie Jean King, Margaret Mead, Sacagawea, and Chien- Shiung Wu. We celebrate the diverse contributions of each of these remarkable women to all facets of American society. The State of New Jersey is home to many commendable women. Alice Paul, Elizabeth Coleman White, Mary Norton, and Mary Roebling are just a few. Alice Paul was as a leader of the women's suffrage movement, founder of the National Women's Party, and author of the equal rights amendment. This longtime activist for women's equality is well known for picketing the White House, which landed her in jail during the summer of 1917 but helped secure women's right to vote. Few have had as great an impact on American history as Alice Paul. Elizabeth Coleman White was born on her family's cranberry farm in New Lisbon, NJ. She partnered with Frederick Coville on her farm to create the first commercial crop of blueberries. Ms. White was also the first person to use a cellophane wrap in fruit shipment. Mary Norton was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1924 and served in Congress for 26 years. She was a member of the famous Petticoat Front in the 80th Congress, which was a bipartisan group of women who fought to gain equal footing with men as legislators. At the time, only seven women served in the Congress. Today, thanks in part to Mary Norton's pioneering efforts, a record 84 women are Members of Congress. Mary Roebling was the first woman to head a major commercial bank, the Trenton Trust Company, and in 1958 she became the first female governor of the New York Stock Exchange. She has proven that women can be just as successful in the business world, and any sector, as men. These four women are only a handful of those who deserve recognition for their contributions to America. In 1981, Congress passed a resolution establishing National Women's History Week, which coincides with International Women's Day. At the request of the National Women's History Project, this was expanded to a month in 1987. I have always been proud to support this effort. I hope that National Women's History Month will continue to help educate Americans about women's accomplishments and inspire more women to reach for the stars.