Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Maine.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I had asked to be yielded to for a question, but if there is no yielding, if the time is charged to me, I do not need consent from anybody. If it is our time, we are going to use it. I thank the Senator from Maine but would say no thank you, and I will take this brief minute because what we are looking at is what has passed through the committee and what is actually on the floor as an appropriations bill. Under the appropriations bill--this is CRS--it very simply says $1.338 billion for the underlying bill creates a shortage for the risk- based of $183.53 million. We can turn the table, we can play with the numbers, but we are looking at an appropriations bill. And if we do not believe CRS, then I do not know to whom we ought to turn for advice and for understanding. When the Senator from Maine suggests that my numbers are incorrect, do not take my numbers, please. Just take CRS and see what they say. It makes it all very clear. It is a 60/40 relationship, far different than that which we intended when the amendment passed the committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana. Today I want to discuss the speech made by the President Tuesday night about Iraq. I think it is encouraging that the President is reaching out to the country and attempting to explain his policy in Iraq. But I think, to be more effective, the President has to be candid and upfront with the American people. Frankly, in my view, the credible speech on this subject should have come from the Oval Office, not from a stage with uniformed service people all around. Apparently, a patriotic backdrop behind the President, and rows of soldiers in dress uniforms, was necessary to speak to the American people about the crisis our country faces in Iraq. It was, I thought, good theater, but not a very informative speech. Maybe that is why the soldiers didn't applaud until the White House staff urged them on. Tuesday night's staged show reminded me of another Hollywood-type event, when President Bush declared ``mission accomplished.'' We all remember this picture very clearly. It was on an aircraft carrier, with signs up--their authorship was denied by lots of people. The Navy personnel were standing there directly behind the President. The speech took place on May 1, 2003, just slightly over 2 years ago, when the President said to the country at large that major combat was over in Iraq. How wrong he was. Before the ``mission accomplished'' speech on May 1, we had lost 139 people and had about 500 of our troops wounded. Since President Bush's ``mission accomplished'' declaration, we have lost 1,594 Americans in Iraq--versus that 139, 2 years ago. Almost 1,600 versus 139; and 12,000 seriously wounded versus 500 at the time, in that 2 years. It has been a terrible 2 years. Despite the gigantic banner and the theatrical presentation on the aircraft carrier 2 years ago, the mission was not accomplished then and it is not accomplished now. In fact, the mission isn't even close to being accomplished, as all of us in America, and I am sure the President is included, would like to see. We are not going to solve our problems in Iraq through spin and photo ops. We will solve these problems only with a tangible plan that gets our troops home and then we will all truly celebrate mission accomplished. Not only are we not seeing a plan, but high level administration officials seem to be in serious disagreement about the status of the insurgency. One day we saw Vice President Cheney say that the insurgency is in its ``last throes.'' Then a few days later we see Secretary Rumsfeld say that the insurgency could last ``12 years.'' This war has turned into a quagmire and Americans want to hear what changes we are making to address our growing difficulties in Iraq, and unfortunately a lot of what we heard from the President Tuesday night was rhetoric. Unfortunately, much of the President's rhetoric focused on September 11. But simply referencing September 11 over and over again does not explain how we are going to move forward in Iraq. In fact, it only serves to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose, and we are all perplexed by the statement made by Mr. Goss, the head of intelligence, that we know where Osama bin Laden is. I don't know why we don't go get him if we know where he is. Nearly 4 years after the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, the leader of the terrorist group that killed almost 3,000 Americans, including 700 of our neighbors and friends from my State of New Jersey, continues to inflame his terrorist network. Al-Qaida cannot be effectively dismantled unless we capture bin Laden, and getting him should be our No. 1 priority, but it seems it has moved its way down on the President's priority list. I urge President Bush not to use September 11 again as a way to support our failures in Iraq. The American people would rather you simply address the problems and fix them. Poor planning for the war in Iraq is causing serious long-term problems for our military. Mainly we are failing to meet our recruiting goals. Yes, I know we had a blip up in the present month, but in May the Army fell about 25 percent short of its recruiting target. That is after they lowered their target. The Army also missed its monthly targets in April and March and February of 2005, each month worse than the one before. In February it fell 27 percent short. In March the gap was 31 percent short. In April it was 42 percent. Things are so bad that the Army is contemplating $40,000 signing bonuses for new recruits. It reminds me of some of the bonuses offered athletes who sign contracts. That may rival what professional ballplayers get. And the Army is perhaps going into a new deal that allows for very short enlistment periods, as low as 15 months of active duty. The National Guard and Reserves are even farther behind in recruiting this year. The Army Reserve met only 82 percent of its May recruitment goal and the Marine Corps Reserve met only 88 percent of its recruiting goal. This raises questions. Even if the President agrees to send more troops to Iraq, where are they going to get them? I don't think it is simply the casualty numbers that are hurting recruiting. It is a sense that this administration does not have a plan for Iraq--and maybe they never did. After all, in March of 2003 Vice President Cheney predicted that the conflict would last ``weeks rather than months.'' Now it is years and, according to Secretary Rumsfeld, it could be over a decade before the country is stabilized. What about those Army service men and women who return to our country and become veterans? Look at how they are being treated by this administration. My Democratic colleagues Senator Murray and Senator Byrd tried three times to increase funding for the VA this year because they understood that veterans returning from Iraq are going to need more help. What happened? Republicans voted those amendments down each time. Why? Because the administration kept saying ``we don't need the money.'' But just this week the VA Secretary, Jim Nicholson, suddenly realized he is facing a $1 billion budget shortfall. Nicholson said it was ``unexpected.'' Unexpected? How could they not expect increased needs from the troops coming back from Iraq? We know people are being severely wounded there, and returning and needing a lot of attention. What kind of message does this send to our troops? We forgot to fund your veterans health care needs? I think it is shameful and shows a lack of respect. Only now, because of embarrassment, did we see the other side of the aisle vote for Senator Murray's amendment to increase VA funding. All of a sudden a prominent member of the Republican leadership, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, after repeatedly opposing increases to VA funding, has become an enthusiastic cheerleader. It is interesting how elections motivate people. Our service men and women and their families are getting a raw deal. Because of the administration's lack of planning, military families are stuck with extended tours of duty leading to family problems and serious financial difficulties. A real eye opener is to talk to some of the Reserve and Guard people who have returned from Iraq and find themselves in desperate situations with family problems, upset relationships, financial disaster. It is terrible. The bottom line is we need plain, straight talk coming out of the White House and not staged events such as ``mission accomplished'' in Tuesday night's speech. One of my distinguished Republican colleagues, a combat veteran of the Vietnam war, recently said: The White House is completely disconnected from reality. And it is tragically true. If the President wants to earn back the American people's trust on his Iraqi planning, he needs to start by being truthful and admitting some mistakes. So far that hasn't happened and I plead with the President and this administration: Level with the American people. It is a very discouraging picture out there when we see the casualties mount and the morass thicken. Mr. President, I yield the floor with this plea: Say it like it is.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader for those kind comments. I had hoped he would go on a little longer. (Laughter.) But, in any event, I thank you and all of my colleagues. There are 7,000 votes. If I were asked to recite which of those I liked the best or which of those I disliked the most, I would be hard pressed to remember them. But the fact is, even though we have disagreements on some issues and agreements on others, I speak sincerely when I say I am proud to serve with all of you. I know each of us has a responsibility that carries way outside this Chamber. We make the decisions here. But the desire to be of service and the obligation originates in places that we are all too familiar with. So we have differences. I am going to stick up for my views, and I know others will stick up for theirs. The fact is, we are here to serve. I am proud to serve with each and every one of you. I am grateful for the commentary and thank you all very much. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the Senator's attention a very important project in my home State of New Jersey that I believe should be given strong consideration for funding. The Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority is currently undertaking a project on a grand scale. In 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency directed the authority to expand its wastewater treatment capacity in order to meet wet weather sanitary sewage overflow requirements by 2008. The estimated cost of this large project was $68 million at the time. That estimate proved to be optimistic. The present day cost estimate for the project is $235 million.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The authority, as required by the consent order, has developed a comprehensive strategic plan to comply with the order. A critical component of the plan is the construction of a new gravity relief sewer that will convey combined sanitary sewage overflows for enhanced treatment at the upgraded plant. The authority has focused its request for Federal funding exclusively on this gravity relief sewer facility. The gravity relief sewer facility is estimated to cost $10.9 million in its entirety. Federal funding can play an important role in financing this cost and in facilitating the early construction of this much needed project.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. According to the Forest Service, more than 5,000 acres of forest and farm land in the New York and New Jersey sections of the Highlands have been lost annually to development between 1995 and 2000, and nearly 300,000 acres of land critical to future water supplies remain unprotected. As the demand for new housing and other types of development continues to alter the vast areas of forest and open space in our region, it is important that Congress acts now to provide funding to preserve the high priority open space that remains. I appreciate the consideration by my colleagues from North Dakota and Montana of the importance of protecting the Highlands Region.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I have an amendment, Amendment No. 839, related to altering scientific documents. Would that amendment be germane postcloture?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Community Broadband Act of 2005.'' I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator McCain of Arizona. This legislation will promote economic development, enhance public safety, increase educational opportunities, and improve the lives of citizens in areas of the country that either do not have access to broadband or live in a location where the cost for broadband is simply not affordable. A recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows that the United States has dropped to 12th place worldwide in the percentage of people with broadband connections. Many of the countries ahead of the United States have successfully combined public and private efforts to deploy municipal networks that connect their citizens and businesses with high-speed Internet services. It is in this context that President Bush has called for universal and affordable broadband in the United States by the year 2007. If we are going to meet President Bush's goals, we must not enact barriers to broadband development and access. Unfortunately, fourteen States have passed legislation to prohibit or significantly restrict the ability of local municipalities and communities to offer high-speed Internet to their citizens. More States are considering such legislation. The ``Community Broadband Act'' is in response to those efforts by States to tell local communities that they cannot establish networks for their citizens even in communities that either have no access to broadband or where access is prohibitively expensive. The ``Community Broadband Act'' is a simple bill. It says that no State can prohibit a municipality from offering high-speed Internet to its citizens; and when a municipality is a provider, it cannot abuse its governmental authority as regulator to discriminate against private competitors. Furthermore, a municipality must comply with Federal and state telecommunications laws. Mr. President, this bill will allow communities to make broadband decisions that could: Improve their economy and create jobs by serving as a medium for development, particularly in rural and underserved urban areas; aid public safety and first responders by ensuring access to network services while on the road and in the community; strengthen our country's international competitiveness by giving businesses the means to compete more effectively locally, nationally, and internationally; encourage long-distance education through video conferencing and other means of sharing knowledge and enhancing learning via the Internet; and create incentives for public-private partnerships. A century ago, there were efforts to prevent local governments from offering electricity. Opponents argued that local governments didn't have the expertise to offer something as complex as electricity. They also argued that businesses would suffer if they faced competition from cities and towns. But local community leaders recognized that their economic survival depended on electrifying their communities. They knew that it would take both private investment and public investment to bring electricity to all Americans. We face a similar situation today. Municipal networks can play an essential role in making broadband access universal and affordable. We must not put up barriers to this possibility of municipal involvement in broadband deployment. Some local governments will decide to do this; others will not. Let me be clear this is not going to be the right decision for every municipality. But there are clearly examples of municipalities that need to provide broadband, and those municipalities should have the power to do so. Today's Wall Street Journal notes the small town of Granbury, TX, population 6,400, that initiated a wireless network after waiting years for private industry to take an interest. In Scottsburg, IN, a city and its 6000 residents north of Louisville, KY, could not get broadband from an incumbent telephone company. When two important businesses threatened to leave unless they could obtain broadband connectivity, municipal officials stepped forward to provide wireless broadband throughout the town. The town retained the two businesses and gained much more. There are many Granburys and Scottsburgs across the country. There are also underserved urban areas, where private providers may exist, but many in the community simply cannot afford the high prices. Dianah Neff, Philadelphia's chief information officer, knows this all too well. ``The digital divide is local,'' Neff has said, commenting that while 90 percent Philadelphia's affluent neighborhoods have broadband, just 25 percent in low-income areas have broadband. When the city of Philadelphia announced plans for wireless access, it immediately faced opposition and the Pennsylvania legislature passed legislation to counter this municipal power. Community broadband networks have the potential to create jobs, spur economic development, and bring a 21st century utility to everyone. I hope my colleagues will join Senator McCain and me in our effort to enact the Community Broadband Act of 2005. 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 ``Community Broadband Act of 2005.'' I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator McCain of Arizona. This legislation will promote economic development, enhance public safety, increase educational opportunities, and improve the lives of citizens in areas of the country that either do not have access to broadband or live in a location where the cost for broadband is simply not affordable. A recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows that the United States has dropped to 12th place worldwide in the percentage of people with broadband connections. Many of the countries ahead of the United States have successfully combined public and private efforts to deploy municipal networks that connect their citizens and businesses with high-speed Internet services. It is in this context that President Bush has called for universal and affordable broadband in the United States by the year 2007. If we are going to meet President Bush's goals, we must not enact barriers to broadband development and access. Unfortunately, fourteen States have passed legislation to prohibit or significantly restrict the ability of local municipalities and communities to offer high-speed Internet to their citizens. More States are considering such legislation. The ``Community Broadband Act'' is in response to those efforts by States to tell local communities that they cannot establish networks for their citizens even in communities that either have no access to broadband or where access is prohibitively expensive. The ``Community Broadband Act'' is a simple bill. It says that no State can prohibit a municipality from offering high-speed Internet to its citizens; and when a municipality is a provider, it cannot abuse its governmental authority as regulator to discriminate against private competitors. Furthermore, a municipality must comply with Federal and state telecommunications laws. Mr. President, this bill will allow communities to make broadband decisions that could: Improve their economy and create jobs by serving as a medium for development, particularly in rural and underserved urban areas; aid public safety and first responders by ensuring access to network services while on the road and in the community; strengthen our country's international competitiveness by giving businesses the means to compete more effectively locally, nationally, and internationally; encourage long-distance education through video conferencing and other means of sharing knowledge and enhancing learning via the Internet; and create incentives for public-private partnerships. A century ago, there were efforts to prevent local governments from offering electricity. Opponents argued that local governments didn't have the expertise to offer something as complex as electricity. They also argued that businesses would suffer if they faced competition from cities and towns. But local community leaders recognized that their economic survival depended on electrifying their communities. They knew that it would take both private investment and public investment to bring electricity to all Americans. We face a similar situation today. Municipal networks can play an essential role in making broadband access universal and affordable. We must not put up barriers to this possibility of municipal involvement in broadband deployment. Some local governments will decide to do this; others will not. Let me be clear this is not going to be the right decision for every municipality. But there are clearly examples of municipalities that need to provide broadband, and those municipalities should have the power to do so. Today's Wall Street Journal notes the small town of Granbury, TX, population 6,400, that initiated a wireless network after waiting years for private industry to take an interest. In Scottsburg, IN, a city and its 6000 residents north of Louisville, KY, could not get broadband from an incumbent telephone company. When two important businesses threatened to leave unless they could obtain broadband connectivity, municipal officials stepped forward to provide wireless broadband throughout the town. The town retained the two businesses and gained much more. There are many Granburys and Scottsburgs across the country. There are also underserved urban areas, where private providers may exist, but many in the community simply cannot afford the high prices. Dianah Neff, Philadelphia's chief information officer, knows this all too well. ``The digital divide is local,'' Neff has said, commenting that while 90 percent Philadelphia's affluent neighborhoods have broadband, just 25 percent in low-income areas have broadband. When the city of Philadelphia announced plans for wireless access, it immediately faced opposition and the Pennsylvania legislature passed legislation to counter this municipal power. Community broadband networks have the potential to create jobs, spur economic development, and bring a 21st century utility to everyone. I hope my colleagues will join Senator McCain and me in our effort to enact the Community Broadband Act of 2005. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if we are going to open up an opportunity for additional amendments, I have an amendment that has been sitting here.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 839. I offer this amendment to this bill to protect the integrity of government science and research on global climate change. The amendment is cosponsored by Senators Reid of Nevada, Lieberman, Jeffords, and Corzine. We hear a lot of rhetoric these days by those who challenge climate change and the science that they supposedly use to back up their arguments. But the problem is that much of what they present is not science but, rather, fiction. And what we want to talk about tonight, as has been said many times, is the facts, just the facts, please. When I see what is being presented to us, I want to show this placard. It is called ``the Cooney Triangle.'' It is an alliance between the American Petroleum Institute, the White House, and ExxonMobil. Cooney used to be a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute. Put simply, his job at the White House was to cast doubt on the scientific evidence that our climate is changing. In 2001, Mr. Cooney went to work at the White House's Council on Environmental Quality. His mission at CEQ included editing reports by government scientists on global warming. And he tried to muddy the waters by interjecting uncertainty where, in fact, there is consensus. About 2 weeks ago, Mr. Cooney left the White House to go to work for ExxonMobil, the most outspoken of all the oil companies in its rejection of the scientific evidence that global warming is occurring. I call this unholy alliance between API, the White House, and ExxonMobil the Cooney triangle. What happens in the Cooney triangle is threatening our country. Bouncing from industry to government, back into industry--that is not new in Washington. We have had a revolving door policy for a long time. What is unprecedented is that industry lobbyists, such as Mr. Cooney, are no longer asked just to try to influence policy. Now they are given free rein to tamper with and distort the findings of professional scientists, including the National Academy of Sciences. How it works is displayed in an article in the New York Times printed on June 8, 2005. It provides a graphic example of strikeouts and changes in the wording of a report. While working at the White House, Mr. Cooney, who is not a scientist, edited out entire sections of U.S. reports on climate change. He didn't just alter the words, he altered the meaning of what government scientists had written. An example is included, obviously, in these revisions. Mr. Cooney deleted an entire paragraph, taking out a description of global warming impacts widely accepted by scientists, calling it ``speculative findings,'' ``amusing,'' to use his quotes. In the next example, he adds a made-up sentence about the need for research to reduce the significant remaining uncertainties associated with human-induced climate change. Contrast that heavy-handed editing with what scientists are saying about global warming. In January, Oxford University led a number of world-renowned universities in the largest climate change experiment ever conducted. The researchers found that the threat of global warming appears to be worse than previously thought and that the Earth is warming at twice the rate previously understood. There is a statement here from the National Academy of Sciences issued just 2 weeks ago. They say: The U.S. National Academy of Sciences joined 10 other national science academies today in calling on world leaders, particularly those of the G8 countries meeting the next month in Scotland, to acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing, to address its causes, and to prepare for its consequences. The date is June 7, 2005, not a month ago, put out by the National Academy of Sciences, a fairly respected group. When taxpayers pay for objective scientific studies, they don't want the findings altered. We expect scientists to go where the facts lead them, not to follow predetermined ideologies. Yet the administration has an alarming tendency to disregard or even distort scientific research. We have seen it in these reports. Nowhere is this more evident than when it comes to global warming. The front-page headline in USA Today last week said it all: ``The Debate is Over. The Globe is Warming.'' Our planet is warming up. It is being documented by scientists. But instead of addressing the real problem, the administration wants to edit the problem away by tinkering with scientific reports. My amendment would help protect government reports on global warming and climate change from being altered for any reason, political reasons in particular. Under my amendment, if a government report about climate change is altered by the White House, then a draft of the preedited version has to be made available at the same time that the final report is released. This way people can determine for themselves whether the scientific evidence about global warming is being ignored or disregarded by the administration. The amendment also extends whistleblower protection for government scientists. It is too bad they have to have that, but we want to be sure that they are free to speak up. It is time to make sure everybody knows about this war on science, especially when it comes to global warming. The bottom line is that the oil industry lobbyists should not be rewriting scientific conclusions. My amendment will discourage such tampering in the future. In a national survey last year, two-thirds of the Americans surveyed said government science should be insulated from politics. Nobel laureates, former Federal agency directors, and university presidents have all called for legislative action to restore scientific integrity to Federal policymaking. It is time to smash the Cooney triangle. It is time to demand greater transparency, a hallmark of democracy, on all scientific reports on our planet's climate. As Russell Train, who served as EPA Administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford, put it, the ``interest of the American people lies in having full disclosure of the facts.'' Under my amendment, if the administration wants to fly in the face of peer-reviewed science, it can still do it. But when the administration publishes a bogus report on global warming, my amendment will make it easier for the American people to separate science from fiction. Mr. President, it is fairly obvious, by all kinds of physical evidence, that there is a warming taking place. If we see what happens in Antarctica or in the Arctic, and we see places changing their character, going from glacially covered ice mountains into pools and areas bare of any evidence of winter--the facts are there. They cannot be refuted. Yes, they can be altered. But we just want to know when the facts are changed. When the information is distorted in any way, we say, OK, you want to change them, but let the public know what the change is you are making. I yield the floor, and I ask, how much time is left?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the Senator from New Mexico would want to yield time, I am happy to yield the remaining time that I have.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We yield back our time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the point I was making just a few minutes ago was that we ought not permit States to opt out of this moratorium, this prohibition against offshore drilling because what happens in a neighboring State, whether it is Delaware or Maryland or New York State or Connecticut or Massachusetts, affects what happens in my State very often. The same is true on the Pacific side of things. The same is true for the Gulf of Mexico. You cannot simply say: Let a State do the drilling. They may be more interested in the income than in the protection of the environment. But we are not. I can't emphasize strongly enough the importance of protecting the sensitive marine areas off the New Jersey coast and other coastal States. For more than two decades, both Democratic and Republican administrations have respected the moratorium on leasing and preleasing activities on the Outer Continental Shelf. But now we are talking about doing away with this protection. It would be foolish and shortsighted. One only needs to look at the list of accidents at sea and see what happened to neighboring States or neighboring communities not at all connected to the place where the accident happened. We just ought not permit it. The Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service estimated in the year 2000 that the waters off New Jersey might hold enough oil to supply the country with 10 days of oil. What does it mean in the scheme of things? Ten days of oil and run the risk of destroying marine life and a culture that is associated with coastal States? It is a part of our lives. Heaven forbid that it changes from being part of our daily lives. Do we want to risk hundreds of thousands of jobs for 10 days? I don't think so. Do we want to risk changing the culture of our society, our coastal society? I don't think so. The people of my State and the residents of all coastal States do not want oil and gas rigs marring their treasured beaches and fishing grounds. The occupant of the Chair, coming from a beautiful coastal State, tiny though it is, but so much dependent on the sound and the ocean, I am sure understands the risks of having oil rigs out there that could damage the culture of the State as well as the marine life and the ecology. We don't want that to happen. I don't mean to speak for the Presiding Officer, but I know that Rhode Island has similar problems to States such as New Jersey. Drilling poses serious threats to our environment and to our economy. Drilling requires onshore infrastructure that can harm sensitive coastal zones. The massive amounts of mud it displaces when drills go down into the earth must be dumped somewhere else. The constant risk of oil spills cannot be minimized. I was chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee of Appropriations about 15 years ago when the Exxon Valdez ran aground. Because I had Coast Guard in my subcommittee, I took the opportunity to get up to the place where the vessel was floundering within 3 days after it ran aground. It was in some way kind of a mystical allure. You could see the sheen on the water, and it spread with all of its color but all of its menace at the same time. I saw brave people from our Department of Interior and Fish and Wildlife getting off on these tiny islands with helicopters and small boats and taking the birds out and fish and trying to clean them up one by one wherever they could. It was devastating. I visited there at that time. I find out that today, 16 years later, that disaster is still taking a toll on the environment. When I take my grandchildren to the beach, I don't want them to discover oil underneath a rock, as one still does in the area where the Exxon Valdez ran aground. I don't want them to see birds or mammals sickened by their inability to breathe properly as a result of a coating of oil. I don't want to hear about the coral destruction that provides the nutritional base for our fish and marine life. The Exxon Valdez spill was one of the largest oil spills we have suffered, and it was only one of many. According to the Department of Interior, 3 million gallons of oil spilled from offshore operations in 73 incidents between 1980 and 1999. It is an average of about four incidents a year, more than 40,000 gallons of oil per spill. That is more than enough oil to ruin a beach town's tourist season for years to come. We cannot afford to damage our shorelines--and we should not be asked to do it--or the marine life that inhabits our coastal waters. Nature has been good to us. It supplies us with the seas and the water and the land and the mountains. We ought to try as much as possible to keep that intact. Ending the moratorium in any State completely undercuts the position our Nation has upheld for many decades. It clearly undercuts the stated wishes of coastal States that would incur the greatest damage. The United States needs new sources of energy. I agree with that. But where have we been in these past years as the consumption of oil increased? Buying it from people who aren't even friends of ours, but who are always asking us to protect them in moments of trouble. And some of those states we know have been accused of and it has been established that they support terrorists who fight against us. Did that cause us to say: Hey, we ought to change things? No. It didn't. We simply said: Get bigger cars and use more gas and let the devil take the high road. It ought not be that way. The United States needs new sources of energy. Fortunately, our Nation has many energy sources that are vastly underutilized. One of those sources for finding our way out of this mess is to continue to invest in alternative methods for producing energy in universities and research institutes. We can bolster our Nation's energy security without drilling offshore. A day at the beach should mean fun, clean water, natural beauty, not oil slicks or drilling rigs. We need to keep the existing prohibition on offshore drilling in place. That is what Senator Corzine and Senator Bill Nelson and other Senators from coastal States and I intend to do. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first let me say to my friend and colleague from New Jersey how much I admire his commitment to our State and to the things that protect our environment and our well-being. I am very proud of Senator Corzine. I have mixed feelings about whether I want him to win the race in New Jersey because it is nice to have a hometown boy around. I join Senator Corzine in this attempt to protect our State from being affected by drilling for oil off our shore line. When I was a boy, I had occasion to spend time at the New Jersey shore. It was, for me, a matter of almost paradisiacal value to be able to get to that shore and never think about whether we were going to step on plastics, needles, oil spills, or anything like that. It was so much a part of our culture that to change it in any way that we do not have to is an act of poor judgment. The top of the list, as far as we are concerned, is the New Jersey shore. We call it ``the shore.'' In the summertime, few things are better than a day at the beach, watching your children or your grandchildren play in the surf or go out on a fishing boat or learn something about marine life. We have seen times when a spill occurs how it spoils an entire area. We are at a time now where in desperation we are searching for ways to make up for our profligate use of oil. We are looking around, trying to find ways to substitute for the bad judgment we used for so many years, for letting it go, for not requiring cars to meet standards for oil consumption or gas consumption. Hurting our environment, having oil ruin our most delicate and precious resources. It is just not right. If one wants to fish or walk along the boardwalk, those from New Jersey go to the shore. If you want an evening's recreation, you go to the shore. It is nearby. It is part of our life. It is part of what we think of as the periphery of our State: 127 miles of shore line, the major economic engine for New Jersey. Tourism, as we heard from my colleague, is a $30-billion industry and supports hundreds of thousands of jobs. Seventy percent of all the State's tourism revenues originate at the shores. Our shores are very important to us. But it goes beyond the economy. It goes beyond all kinds of things that one might think. When you look at the marine ecology, when you see what happens with clam beds or shellfish beds, we cannot fish them any more because of contamination, because of toxins. Those affect our everyday lives. For 35 States in this country, the coast is at our door, the shore is right there for us--for 35 coastal States. Of course, it includes the States in the Great Lakes area. They too have an interest in protecting their waters. So when anyone proposes something that could put our shores at risk, we take it very seriously. Of course, that brings us to the bill we are currently considering. There has been a great deal of discussion about violating our longstanding prohibition against offshore drilling by allowing States to opt out of the moratorium. Now, what would that mean? We recently had a spill in the Delaware River. Did it do more damage to New Jersey than it did to Pennsylvania or Delaware? It damaged all of them. Oceans know no boundaries, unless we put up a seawall that extends beyond the borders of our State way out into the ocean and say: OK, you can drill on that side but not the other. I see the majority leader and Democratic leader looking at me so wistfully, and I wonder if it is in admiration or whether it is something else they had in mind.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield, provided I do not lose the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, on Tuesday--for the record, today is Thursday--President Bush gave a speech in which he complained that Democrats are obstructionists because we are not accepting his entire agenda. The President also said that we say no to everything. I listened to him and I watched him on TV. But look at all the things he says no to. President Bush said no to Tony Blair when the Prime Minister was here to ask for more help for Africa, to help with AIDS, hunger, and loan reduction. He said no. President Bush says no to kids with juvenile diabetes, autism, or other childhood diseases, when they ask to be permitted to do stem cell research to see if we can prevent those diseases from plaguing these youngsters for life. President Bush said no to parents and teachers who want education fully funded. President Bush said no to a real Patients' Bill of Rights. President Bush said no to making polluters pay for Superfund environmental cleanups, a program that has been very successful. I was author of the second iteration of Superfund in 1986. It was a program that needed some time to get going. But now we can look at lots of sites that have been cleaned up and are put to useful purposes that don't threaten children or families who live in the area. President Bush said no to making the polluters pay. He said yes to making the taxpayers pay for the cleanup problems the polluters created. President Bush said no to getting tough with the Saudi Arabians, so we can really bring down oil prices. The Saudis said no to us when we asked for help in keeping oil prices down. Look what has happened to oil prices. I remember so vividly in the last Presidential campaign, when Senator Kerry challenged President Bush. The thing that came out of the White House--the statement most clearly was: If Senator Kerry becomes President, you are going to see taxes on oil prices. If you want to see taxes on oil prices, just look at what happened. The only difference is these taxes are being paid to Saudi Arabia and other places that are not friendly to the United States. But the public is paying for it. Gasoline has gone from $1.20 to, in some places, $2.50, which I paid recently. I don't hear the President saying no to them when they call and say they want help from us. And the President calls us the obstructionists? I find that label very interesting. What it means is, if you oppose any of President Bush's policies, you are an obstructionist. Frankly, in a democratic Nation, that is unacceptable. It is a disastrous line of thinking. In my view, if you don't like challenge, then you don't understand democracy. This is not a nation where we have a dictator. There should not be a time when simply because the President of the United States thinks it is a good idea that we avoid debate or challenge that we should. No, not on your life. That is how we get ideas and how we challenge the public in this country to say something about the programs in which we are engaged. The President says: If you don't like my programs, then you are an obstructionist. Tell that to the people whose pensions are fading in front of their eyes. Tell that to the people who work 25, 30 years for a company and see their jobs ended, without the prospect of coming anywhere near the salary they were earning. No, he doesn't say no to the people he ought to say no to. The President proposed the other day--yesterday--that the tax rate that has done us so much good is something he wants to make permanent--I wish he would say no to that--so that the wealthiest among us don't go ahead and wait for their airplanes to be delivered after 3 years. If you order a private airplane--a $25 million or $30 million airplane--if you want to buy one, sorry, there is a line. If you want large yachts, 100 to 200 feet, you have to wait 2 years. What a pity it is for those rich guys to have to pay their share of taxes. I am one of those who have been so fortunate in America. I created a business that got to be very big, along with two other friends who grew up in the poor neighborhood in which I lived. I am more than willing to pay more taxes because, if I do that, I have more money left. I wish the President of the United States would say no to those people and yes to the people struggling to make a living; yes to the kids who cannot afford to pay for college tuition; yes to those people and don't accuse the Democrats of being obstructionists. Saddam Hussein didn't have to worry about obstructionists in his country. He killed them or jailed them. Mr. President, leaders who are free of obstructionists are also known as dictators. Our constituents elected us to represent them and their viewpoints in the Senate. One thing I knew when I came to this Senate--now over 20 years ago--I wasn't elected by all the Republicans, by a long shot. I am not even sure I was elected by all of the Democrats. But I won. When I stood and took my oath, I never thought once that I don't have to pay attention to those who did not vote for me-- the Republicans, typically. When I won this seat and the responsibility, I accepted the responsibility, and I had an obligation to every citizen in my State and the citizens of this country to listen to them and try to understand their needs. That is what you get in a democracy. You get the opportunity to represent all of the people. It is not just the rubberstamp of the President's initiatives. The Constitution created the Senate as a check on Presidential power. The Founding Fathers created the Senate in order to obstruct the President, when necessary. Mr. President, throughout history, so-called obstructionists have been the champions of democracy. Looking at these photos of people like this who resisted tyranny, are they obstructionists? Are the people who stood up against tyranny in so many other countries obstructionists? Are they people who are fighting for a cause, or are they obstructionists? This picture looks like Boston. Can those people be called obstructionists as they tried to defend their land? I don't think so. If we look further, there were people who disagreed with some of the Founding Fathers' views, who obstructed the King of England with our Declaration of Independence. It was a pretty good idea, one would have to assume. There was another time when an obstructionist stood up with incredible courage; her name was Rosa Parks. She obstructed immoral rules in her State, and in the picture you see her being fingerprinted before she goes to jail. Obstructionist? There was a former Republican Senator, Margaret Chase Smith. She spoke so eloquently in 1950 in the Senate in order to obstruct the tactics of Senator Joe McCarthy, with his bullying, sadistic kind of approach. Is that an obstructionist or is that a heroine? Women fought for the right to vote. The young women who are here tonight cannot think about times like that. Imagine a woman not being allowed to vote. Were they obstructionists? Mr. President, the signs in the picture say, ``How long must women wait for liberty?'' And ``Mr. President, what will you do for woman suffrage, for the right to vote?'' Yes, they obstructed immorality. So obstructionism, per se, is not an evil force if you are on the side of the people. I say here today, in light of our democracy's heritage of productive obstructionism, I will be proud to obstruct some of President Bush's proposals this year. I am happy to obstruct the President's plan to privatize Social Security and throw our retirement security into the stock market. I will be happy to obstruct those. If people want to take a chance, if they want to gamble, they should go to Atlantic City or Las Vegas, but do not do it with your pension because when you need it, it is liable not to be there. A few months ago the President presented an unrealistic and flawed budget to Congress, and I hope to obstruct many items in the President's misguided budget proposal. For example, I hope to obstruct President Bush's plan to cut Medicaid by $60 billion over 10 years. Cuts that hurt the poor and the elderly, our Nation's most vulnerable populations. They need that help for their health and for their families. I am not going to stand by and not obstruct those cuts. President Bush wants to take health care away from lower income families and lower income senior citizens. Is there any compassion there? I do not think so. If we look at Amtrak, the Nation's premier rail service, the President wants to leave it without money, zero fund Amtrak, shut down the system. You better believe I am going to be there to obstruct that plan whenever I can. Shut down the system that took 25 million riders to their destinations last year? The President also wants to slash community development programs. He proposes cutting funding to these programs by more than a third. Nearly $4 billion will be taken out of communities across the country. I want to obstruct that. In regard to protecting our homeland, President Bush has proposed reducing homeland security block grants, cutting them by $253 million. America's soil, America's land, it is a second front in this war against terrorism, and our soldiers are paying a price for their fight there, a terrible price, because the President said no to having enough soldiers to do that job right from the beginning. There are great generals who now reflect on the mission and say: We could have used more soldiers there. One very senior general got fired for suggesting we need over 300,000 troops there. The President said no to them, but he should not say no to having homeland security financed sufficiently to protect our citizens when they go to work, go to school, go to the library, or travel about our country. I hope everyone in this Chamber will obstruct that cut. I would like my colleagues to say no to that. On the issue of airline travel, President Bush wants to increase the airline passenger tax by $3 for each leg of a flight. A family of four traveling with a layover each way could see their taxes increase by up to $64 for their round trip. People are already paying too much in airline passenger taxes. I will obstruct, yes, obstruct President Bush's tax increase. On our environment, President Bush's budget cuts environmental and natural resource programs by $2 billion. With child asthma cases increasing and other environmental dangers increasing across the country, why would we reduce environmental protection? I have a grandson who is 11, and he happens to have asthma. He is the oldest of my 10 grandchildren. He is a very good athlete. But whenever my daughter takes him to compete in a baseball game or a soccer game, she always checks where the nearest emergency clinic is in case he has an asthma attack. Childhood asthma is growing in this country by leaps and bounds, and it is because the air is bad and we are not doing enough to clean it up. Asthma and other environmental dangers are increasing across the country. Why would President Bush say no to environmental protection? President Bush, I do not know why you want to obstruct funding for those programs. Obstructionism is all that separates democracy from dictatorship. Sometimes obstruction is necessary, and in the case of President Bush's agenda, it deserves a healthy amount of obstruction. I hope my colleagues on this floor, regardless of party, will look at each of the President's programs and say: Remember that President Bush obstructed funding for teaching, for schools, for stem cell research, for research on Parkinson's or Alzheimer's. Remember, he obstructed funding for those programs. He took care of the rich, who are only getting richer. If you looked in the New York Times about 2 weeks ago, there was an article about how the richest in this country are leaving the rich behind, about how 90 percent of the people in this country who work to keep their families together own only 10 percent of the assets of the country, and it is just the reverse on the top side. In the case of President Bush's agenda, it deserves a healthy amount of obstruction, and I hope the people in this Chamber have the courage to stand up and say: No, I obstruct those terrible cuts and that mean, unhelpful disposition to make it tougher for hard-working families in this country to be able to support themselves, their children, and their needs.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, before the people of New Jersey elected me to the Senate 23 years ago, I worked in the corporate world. I helped start a company from scratch, and when I left, we had about 20 thousand employees. I learned a few things about hiring people. I learned that a person might be an intelligent human being. They might be proficient at many things. They might have a lot of interesting ideas. But if they don't fit the description for the position you need to fill, they are not the right person for the job. If you need a carpenter, you don't hire someone who can't use a hammer, even if they know a lot about houses. If you need help with your taxes, you hire an accountant, not a music teacher. And if you need someone to represent the United States to the other countries of the world, you hire a diplomat, not an ideologue. We are talking about the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. This is not an entry level position. This job calls for an experienced diplomat. What does that entail? Webster's Dictionary defines ``diplomacy'' as: the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations for the attainment of mutually satisfactory terms; the procedures, methods and forms employed in conducting such negotiations; the skillful or successful settlement of differences between peoples; and, adroitness or artfulness in securing advantages without arousing hostility. That definition does not sound like the Mr. Bolton we have heard about. If we send Mr. Bolton to the United Nations, we would be sending a go-it-alone ideologue with open disdain for the U.N., exactly what our country does not need. Around the world today, polls show that even citizens of our strongest allies have a generally unfavorable view of the United States. I realize that many Americans say, ``why should we care what other nations think?'' And the answer is, the attitudes of other nations affect our national security. We recently celebrated VE Day. It was a day I will never forget, because I was serving in the Army in Europe. I celebrated the end of the war with my Army buddies, as well as British soldiers who were our allies. As much as we might like to think that we don't need anything from any other country, it certainly was good to have allies in World War II. And wouldn't it be good today if more nations would send troops to Iraq, so some of our soldiers could come home, and so American taxpayers wouldn't have to bear most of the cost of that war? Whether we like it or not, world opinion matters. The fact is, none of the major challenges our Nation faces today can be conquered by us alone. In order to win the war on terror, curb global warming or succeed in the international economy, we need our allies and international institutions. Failing to engage these indispensable partners will make U.S. efforts less effective, and jeopardize the stability, security, prosperity, and health of Americans. John Bolton is the wrong man to forge the alliances we need to address these vital challenges. Instead of reaching out to the rest of the world, his nomination would push other nations away and isolate America. Yesterday my friend from Indiana complained that we were putting Mr. Bolton's career ``under a microscope.'' Well, when I was in the private sector and my company was evaluating a potential new hire for a key position, that's exactly what we did-- and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Mr. Bolton's track record at the State Department does not withstand close scrutiny. As Undersecretary at State, he did nothing to resolve the potentially explosive situations in North Korea and Iran. Instead, he inflamed them. He has blocked international arrangements including treaties limiting nuclear weapons testing, landmines, child soldiers, missile defense, and small arms trade. He dismantled the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and blocked a verification clause to the bio-weapons treaty. And he was a leading opponent against the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Mr. Bolton does not have the credibility or the diplomatic skill to represent U.S. interests globally. A smart businessman not only considers the work experience of a potential employee--you also look at his character and ability to get along with other people. In this regard, Mr. Bolton also falls short. For example, in 2002, he sought to exaggerate assessments of Syria's nuclear weapons capability and Cuba's biological weapons activities and support for terrorism beyond what U.S. intelligence believed to be true. Dr. Robert Hutchings, former chair of the National Intelligence Council, described Mr. Bolton's efforts as ``cherry-picking of little factoids and little isolated bits that were drawn out to present the starkest possible case.'' Mr. Bolton bullied and tried to remove analysts whose work did not reflect his own biases. As if all this were not enough, it appears now that Mr. Bolton was not truthful in his testimony before our Foreign Relations Committee on April 11. Among John Bolton's misstatements: He said he did not try to get a State Department employee fired. He said he did not threaten any employees because of their views. He said he did not act against those officials because of differing views. He said the U.S. Ambassador to South Korea approved of his July 2003 speech, when we now in fact know that Ambassador Hubbard got in touch with the Foreign Relations Committee to ``correct the record.'' Just this month, 102 retired diplomats signed a letter to Senators Lugar and Biden urging the Senate to reject the nomination of John Bolton to be our Nation's Ambassador to the United Nations. These former diplomats have served in both Democratic and Republican administrations. They all agree that John Bolton is the wrong man for the job. I have heard Mr. Bolton compared to one of our former colleagues, my good friend and neighbor, Senator Pat Moynihan. That is nonsense. Mr. Moynihan was not afraid to criticize the status quo, but as his daughter pointed out in a recent newspaper column, he appreciated the importance of the United Nations. Pat Moynihan would never say, as John Bolton said, that, ``if the United Nations lost 10 stories it wouldn't make a bit of difference.'' This is an important position. We owe it to our country to fill it with the best person available. As my friend the Senator from Ohio said yesterday, ``The United States can do better than John Bolton.'' Mr. President, not only can we do better, for the good of the country, we must.