Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to our friend and colleague from Vermont, Jim Jeffords, who announced on Wednesday that he will not seek re-election to a fourth term in the Senate in 2006. If anyone has earned the right to retire from politics, it is Jim Jeffords. Jim began his public service in 1956, when he was just 22. He joined the Navy and served on active duty until 1959, when he entered Harvard Law School. He was elected to the Vermont State Senate in 1966, nearly 40 years ago. Two years later, he was elected State attorney general, and he served in that capacity until 1973. He was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1974. I think that was a testament to the respect and affection that Vermonters have for Jim. As my colleagues may recall, 1974 was a pretty tough year for Republicans to get elected. Jim served in the House for 14 years, distinguishing himself on the Agriculture Committee and the Education and Labor Committee. He showed his fiercely independent streak in 1981 when he was the lone House Republican to vote against President Reagan's tax cuts that caused budget deficits to explode. In 1988, Jim was elected to the Senate, replacing another esteemed Vermont Republican, former Senator Robert Stafford. In three terms in the Senate, Jim has chaired the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee. It is customary for Members of Congress to focus on a few issues during their career. Jim is unusual because he has significant accomplishments in so many areas. Over the course of his 30-year career in Congress, Jim has had an enormous impact on every education and job training bill, including the elementary and secondary education and the higher education reauthorization bills and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA; every farm bill; the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact; and every environmental protection bill, including the landmark 1990 Clean Air Act amendments that established the ``cap and trade'' program for sulfur dioxide that has done so much to reduce acid rain in our part of the country. Jim has also been one of the staunchest and most effective advocates for the arts, humanities, libraries, and museums. And he has been a tireless champion of the women, infants and children, WIC, nutrition program. Back home in his beloved Vermont, he is known as ``Gentleman Jim.'' And he is a gentleman, one of the most decent and thoughtful Members ever to have served in the Senate. Because he is so soft-spoken and moderate, people underestimate him. Or at least they did, until he decided that President Bush and the Republican majorities in Congress were taking our country in the wrong direction. I know that leaving the Republican Party and becoming an Independent was one of the toughest decisions Jim has ever made. But he believed it was the right thing to do, so he did it, with his characteristic humility and without any rancor. The Senate will be a poorer place without Jim Jeffords' expertise and civility. But as I said a moment ago, if anyone has earned the right to retire, it is Jim Jeffords. I know he wants to get back to Vermont and help his wife Liz battle cancer. Liz lost her sister recently, and their son-in-law will be deployed to Iraq soon. So Jim and Liz and their family are especially in our thoughts and prayers right now. We will miss Jim Jeffords, but history will mark his heroism and his enormous contribution to life in America. For that, we are eternally grateful.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am not sure I heard precisely what the manager was asking. I would help bring this to a close by giving my remarks very quickly. I appreciate the opportunity and thank the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I salute my colleague and friend, the Senator from West Virginia. Senator Byrd is someone I greatly respect and admire. I have now been here a long time, even though, according to the rules, I am a freshman or just above a freshman, maybe a sophomore--I don't think so--but whenever Senator Robert C. Byrd speaks, it is always worth listening. And I find more often than not it is very much worth following the idea that the Senator from West Virginia puts forward. So I am pleased to support the Byrd amendment on propaganda. It is an issue that has disturbed me over time and something I have worked on. The Byrd amendment is an important step toward preventing the Government from delivering messages that are, if I can call them, kind of incognito. They are hidden from identifying as to what they really are. It is a step toward accomplishing a goal that is not clearly defined as being presented as a neutral observer. So we want to stop the spread of covert Government propaganda. By the way, I want it to be understood that this is not brand new. This is not something that has only happened since this administration took over; it happened in years past. I was asked the question at a hearing this morning: Well, then why didn't we talk about it in years past? Because there has been a proliferation of these things. As a consequence, I think for all parties but particularly for the American people, it is a good idea to use this opportunity to clear up the situation. As a result of a request I made with Senator Kennedy, the Government Accountability Office ruled that fake television news stories, produced by the administration, or produced, period, were illegal propaganda. The fake news accounts that were produced, known as ``prepackaged news stories,'' featured a report by Karen Ryan. The news story extolled the benefits of the new Medicare law and ended with a statement: This is Karen Ryan, reporting from Washington. But Karen Ryan is not a reporter. She is a public relations consultant working for a firm hired by the Government. So it is designed to fool people into believing that this news reporter had come on to something really great and wanted to add her view of the efficacy of the program. Now, that fake news story made its way onto local news shows on 40 television stations across the country. Once again, people thought they were watching news. Americans watched Karen Ryan's report and thought they were hearing the real deal, but what they were watching was Government-produced propaganda. Think about that for a second. Our Government is sending out news reports to television stations across the country by satellite. Many of these news stations had no way of knowing that the reports were Government propaganda. News stations across the country have run Government news stories without realizing what they had. This is not aimed at the broadcasters; it is aimed at clarifying the fact that we do not think the Government should be doing this. The stations that had this story and did not realize it was not fresh news included a station in Memphis, TN, WHBQ; KGTV in San Diego; WDRB in Louisville, KY. The list goes on and on about producers who were fooled by the fact that they were getting a propaganda piece and did not recognize that it was not news. If the news stations did not know the story was produced by the Government, how would the viewer ever know that? How would a family, let's say, in Covington, TN, watching WHBQ, know that Karen Ryan, the person in this case, is not a reporter? How would they know the news story they just watched was concocted to sell something, actually Government propaganda? The reality is, they would not know. We had a situation of similar character with a reporter named Armstrong Williams. Mr. Williams had a program, a news program, and he was paid a couple hundred thousand dollars, as I remember the number, to take this story and talk about it as news when, in fact, it was a paid-for story designed to deceive, very frankly. So we have seen it. The GAO said that this practice is not only wrong but illegal. The GAO said the fake news stories were illegal because they did not disclose the fact that the Government was behind it. GAO is right. We cannot allow covert propaganda to be done by our Government, continued by a practice that has been condemned by GAO. The Byrd amendment will give Federal agencies clear direction on this issue. It is a simple proposition: The Government needs to disclose its role. I do not think that is a lot to ask; otherwise, every ad that goes on the air has a disclosure on it. It identifies the product, uses a trademark, all kinds of things. But they make sure people know it is being done for a mission. For whatever reason, the administration has refused to go along with the GAO ruling. They have said so: Yes, we know it. But so what? The Office of Management and Budget recently sent out a memo saying that agencies could continue to produce fake news stories and hide the Government's role. That is their opinion, but I don't agree with it. Certainly, the Byrd amendment challenges that view. We need to be straight with the American people. When we are running ads, it has to say, ad run by the United States Government. We need to reject covert government propaganda. We can do it today with this amendment. The Byrd amendment will make the rules on this matter crystal clear. I hope we can get the support to do this, to say to the American people, when you see a piece of news, don't let it be biased by Government ads that pay for it. Why would the Government pay for it? Once again, when an ad is run, it is to sell someone a bill of goods. That doesn't mean it is a bad piece of goods, but it is designed to sell something. We ought not let that be the product of the United States Government when talking to the people across the country. I hope we will be able to pass this. I commend the Senator from West Virginia for offering it. I hope our colleagues will support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act (ALPhA). I want to thank Senators Corzine and Boxer for cosponsoring this important piece of legislation. This bill is simple. It ensures timely access to contraception and is crucial to protecting a woman's health and autonomy, and to keeping pharmacists and politicians out of personal, private matters. This bill would protect an individual's access to legal contraception by requiring that if a pharmacist has a personal objection to filling a legal prescription for a drug or device, the pharmacy would be required to ensure that the prescription is filled by another pharmacist employed by the pharmacy who does not have a personal objection. I came to the Senate 22 years ago. We've made a lot of progress, in women's health and women's rights since then. But today it seems like we're fighting to keep from sliding backward in some areas. An individual's fundamental right of access to birth control is being attacked. Reports of some pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions have been documented in twelve states. The women that were denied were young and old; married and single; with children and without. Even women who were using birth control for other medical reasons aside from preventing conception have been denied access to the birth control pill. If you told me 10 years ago that a woman's right to use contraception would be in jeopardy, I probably wouldn't have believed it. Today I have to believe it--because it's happening. In Texas last year, a pharmacist refused to fill a legal prescription for the ``morning after'' contraceptive for a woman who had been raped. First she was assaulted and violated--then her rights were violated by a self-righteous pharmacist who didn't want to do his job. In Milwaukee, a married woman in her mid-40s with four children got a prescription from her doctor for a morning-after pill. A pharmacist refused to do his job. He wouldn't fill the prescription. A handful of pharmacists are saying they have a ``right'' to ignore prescriptions written by medical doctors. Well, they do have a right. They have a right to get a new job if they don't want to fill legal prescriptions. But nobody has a right to come between any person and their doctor. Not the government . . . not an insurance company . . . and not a pharmacist. The American Pharmaceutical Association has adopted an ``Oath of Pharmacists.'' The last part of the oath states: I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public. People trust pharmacists to fill the prescriptions that are written by their doctors. If pharmacists are allowed to pick and choose which prescriptions get filled, everyone's health will be at risk. Today they might not fill prescriptions for birth control pills. Tomorrow it could be painkillers for a cancer patient. Next year it could be medicine that prolongs the life of a person with AIDS or some other terminal disease. I'm going to fight to protect all Americans against this radical assault on our rights. I'm proud to introduce a bill that will require pharmacists to do one simple thing: their job. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act (ALPhA). I want to thank Senators Corzine and Boxer for cosponsoring this important piece of legislation. This bill is simple. It ensures timely access to contraception and is crucial to protecting a woman's health and autonomy, and to keeping pharmacists and politicians out of personal, private matters. This bill would protect an individual's access to legal contraception by requiring that if a pharmacist has a personal objection to filling a legal prescription for a drug or device, the pharmacy would be required to ensure that the prescription is filled by another pharmacist employed by the pharmacy who does not have a personal objection. I came to the Senate 22 years ago. We've made a lot of progress, in women's health and women's rights since then. But today it seems like we're fighting to keep from sliding backward in some areas. An individual's fundamental right of access to birth control is being attacked. Reports of some pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions have been documented in twelve states. The women that were denied were young and old; married and single; with children and without. Even women who were using birth control for other medical reasons aside from preventing conception have been denied access to the birth control pill. If you told me 10 years ago that a woman's right to use contraception would be in jeopardy, I probably wouldn't have believed it. Today I have to believe it--because it's happening. In Texas last year, a pharmacist refused to fill a legal prescription for the ``morning after'' contraceptive for a woman who had been raped. First she was assaulted and violated--then her rights were violated by a self-righteous pharmacist who didn't want to do his job. In Milwaukee, a married woman in her mid-40s with four children got a prescription from her doctor for a morning-after pill. A pharmacist refused to do his job. He wouldn't fill the prescription. A handful of pharmacists are saying they have a ``right'' to ignore prescriptions written by medical doctors. Well, they do have a right. They have a right to get a new job if they don't want to fill legal prescriptions. But nobody has a right to come between any person and their doctor. Not the government . . . not an insurance company . . . and not a pharmacist. The American Pharmaceutical Association has adopted an ``Oath of Pharmacists.'' The last part of the oath states: I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public. People trust pharmacists to fill the prescriptions that are written by their doctors. If pharmacists are allowed to pick and choose which prescriptions get filled, everyone's health will be at risk. Today they might not fill prescriptions for birth control pills. Tomorrow it could be painkillers for a cancer patient. Next year it could be medicine that prolongs the life of a person with AIDS or some other terminal disease. I'm going to fight to protect all Americans against this radical assault on our rights. I'm proud to introduce a bill that will require pharmacists to do one simple thing: their job. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is a very welcome moment for me because I have known Rabbi Orenstein personally for many years. Members of my family have worshiped at his synagogue, the Congregation Beth El in South Orange. I have worshiped with him for 35 years. Rabbi Orenstein is going to be retiring from Congregation Beth El very shortly. He and his lovely wife Sylvia are going to be honored for their many years of service, and it is going to be done next month. Rabbi Orenstein is a distinguished scholar. He has a master's degree in Judaica and was ordained as rabbi at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America where he also received a doctorate of divinity. He has completed course work for a Ph.D. in linguistics at New York University. The rabbi has always inspired education and learning in his congregation and has held interesting meetings for the congregation over the years. He traveled to Russia on four separate occasions to meet and teach refuseniks. Also, during his career, he served as a chaplain at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas and St. Alban's Naval Hospital, and he is now a chaplain for the New Jersey State police. I have a personal message for Rabbi Orenstein, and that is, as he contemplates retirement--I speak as one who knows; I tried retirement, and I did not like it. I am not recommending anything differently for you, but I know with your active mind and your social conscience you are going to be doing lots of things that continue to benefit the community, and I expect you will be spending a lot of time with your six grandchildren. We wish all of you well. The rabbi's daughter Debra is also a rabbi, and she serves at a synagogue in Los Angeles. She has authored a book on Jewish rituals for women. Rabbi Orenstein is justifiably proud of his family, his daughter, and his other two children, one of whom is a professor at the Law School of Indiana, and his son Raphael, who is soon to be a doctor. I know the 575 families at Congregation Beth El will miss Rabbi Orenstein. I make the plea here: Do not take this retirement too seriously. Stay active; be available to the community. We wish you well. It has been my honor and pleasure to know you well for so many years. I look forward to our contact continuing. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I understand the State Department bill has currently been laid aside. When it returns, I intend to offer an amendment, and I wanted to take advantage of the opportunity today to talk about it. My amendment--we are calling it the OPEC Accountability Act--is cosponsored by Senators Durbin and Dorgan. It will bring some sanity and fairness to the world oil markets. It will help provide some relief to our citizens from soaring gas prices that punish American families, businesses, and the entire community. My amendment will direct the U.S. Trade Representative to initiate World Trade Organization proceedings against OPEC nations. Under the rules of the WTO, countries are not permitted to set or maintain export quotas. It is illegal. But that is exactly what OPEC does. OPEC is a cartel. Everybody knows that. The whole point of the organization is to set quotas. Why set quotas? To control prices. The mission is often to have countries beholden to them outside their little orbit, and they then are able to outrageously set prices for commodities that are essential. They collude to set quotas for the export of oil, which cause gas prices to rise. I say to people across America, if you are wondering why gas is so expensive these days, a major part of that answer is OPEC. It is an illegal cartel, plain and simple. And we have allowed this cartel to operate for too long. Now it is time to put a stop to it. Every day American families feel the effects of the OPEC cartel at the gas pump. Look at the spike in the price of gas since 2001. Gas prices have nearly doubled since 2001. I am going to show another chart that more particularly shows the precise prices for gasoline during those periods. In December of 2001, a gallon of gas averaged in price at $1.15. That was 2001. Today a gallon of gas averages $2.30. That is a doubling of the price in just over 4 years. This spike in gasoline prices hurts American families. We hear a lot of talk about tax relief for middle-income families. But whatever tax cuts they received in that middle-income family in the last 4 years are being eaten up by increased gas prices. When you look at the gas price in that period of time and compare it to the Bush tax cut, the tax cut would have been $659. But the cost for gasoline the average family used in that year is $780, far more than the tax cut brought home to families. A middle-income family who uses one tank of gas a week is going to pay an extra $780 a year because of rising gas prices eating up every penny and more that they received from the tax cut of the last 4 years. When Americans drove up to the gas station on December 2001, this is what they saw: Regular gas $1.06 a gallon; the supreme, the high-test gas, $1.25 a gallon. Now after years of administration inaction, what we are looking at is regular is $2.22 compared to $1.06; $2.31 compared to $1.15 for plus gas; and $2.40 for supreme compared to $1.25 just over 4 years ago. It is an outrage. One of the things that always bothers me is when I look at the forecast for inflation and I see what we are paying. I can't think of anything that is cheaper than it used to be, whether it is food, energy, or gasoline, no matter what it is. Here is the pressure. Frankly, I believe it has been administered poorly. I don't think we have tried to figure out a way to keep these costs down. Some of these countries that are members of OPEC are totally dependent on America for their security. Yet they are willing to impair our security, our economic well-being, our job creation, our business function. They don't mind that when they have the weapon that they conveniently use against us. Most people live on a fixed income. They can't stop driving to their job or taking the kids to school or going to the doctor's office or the grocery store. They have to pay the increased price for gas. That means they have to cut back on other things, perhaps air-conditioning or heat or a visit to the doctor or perhaps foregoing a therapy session for an injury. All of these are taken away by this outrageous increase in the cost of gasoline. The soaring price of gas is already taking a toll on American families. If something is not done soon, it could get a lot worse. This also is rattling the prices of stocks on the stock exchange, investments, causing all kinds of dislocation there. It is led by the increasing demand for oil. Goldman Sachs, a very well known financial firm, one of the biggest in the world, predicts that oil could reach $105 a barrel by the end of this year. It is now in the fifties, almost double the current price. While American families suffer, I don't hear anything coming from the President, the administration, to say anything about it. As a matter of fact, during the last campaign, it was frequently suggested that if John Kerry were President, he would be raising taxes on gasoline. What are we looking at here? However we got here, it is on the watch of the Bush administration. Here are the prices again. Now it is $2.22 for a gallon of gas. It used to be $1.06. That is a lot of money, particularly since the type of vehicle that is frequently driven today is a gas-consuming vehicle. It costs a lot of money now to have that car running and to take care of your family's needs. President Bush has repeatedly said that he would talk to his Saudi friends in the oil business. Talk is cheap, but oil and gasoline isn't. The American people want action. This amendment is a call to action. We have to find a way to escape the grasp of these countries around our economic well-being and our functioning as a society. I have released a report explaining exactly how OPEC nations are violating the rules of the WTO. This report is on my Web site. I invite my colleagues and the public to read it. The report reaches a simple and straightforward conclusion. OPEC manipulates world oil markets by imposing export quotas on oil. You hear them brag about it. These quotas keep the price of oil artificially high. Just think about it. Who is the leader? Which is the country that called on us in 1990, come help us; the Iraqis are headed our way; They want to overtake our country. And we sent 540,000 people in uniform to fight off Iraq's attempt to overtake Saudi Arabia.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I didn't know there was any time limit, but I ask unanimous consent to continue for 10 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, OPEC manipulates world oil markets with their export quotas on oil, which keeps the price artificially high. Without OPEC, market analysts have estimated that the free market price of oil would be around $10 to $15 lower than today's price. So the expectation is that oil would be lower in cost by $10 to $15 than it is today if it wasn't for this conspiracy out there by some so- called friends and avowed enemies. That includes Iraq and former antagonist of the United States, Libya; and it includes other countries. There is no reason to continue to tolerate OPEC's anticompetitive behavior. The administration has been lax in dealing with OPEC. In my view, President Bush's close ties to the Saudis and big oil companies have prevented him from sticking up for the American consumers. Worse yet, high oil prices mean massive profits for countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran--countries that frequently fund terrorism. The administration's inaction is allowing tens of billions of dollars to flow into the hands of the mullahs in Iran--money that finds its way to Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic jihad, and other terrorist organizations that kill innocent Americans. So while Iran, Saudi Arabia, and terrorists reap profits from OPEC's quotas, American families pay a terribly high price. It is time for us in this body to act. When the Senate returns to the State Department bill, I want to be able to see a vote taken on this issue so that we can see whether my colleagues agree with me that the cost of gasoline is to high, the cost of heating a house is too high, the cost of running a vehicle is too high, and it robs us of revenues that could otherwise go into more useful purposes. With that, I hope my colleagues will support the Lautenberg-Durbin- Dorgan amendment when this amendment is presented. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We appreciate the opportunity that the Senator has given us.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to discuss the situation that is developing, questioning the value of the separation of powers, about whether one of the powers has rights that succeed the powers of the other. Particularly, my subject now regards the judiciary and whether it is a free, unencumbered judiciary, as it ought to be.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes, I would be pleased to. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts, why should we be surprised they ask for more protection? We have seen atrocious assaults on members of the bench and their families. What we see is, I think, the beginning of a firestorm, and the problem is that the fuel is being provided by comments made here and in the other body. I start off by reading from article III, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. It says: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. It is pretty clear to me. It says judicial power is vested in our courts, not in the Congress. The Constitution gives the Senate a role in the appointment of judges, and we are supposed to provide advice and consent, not direction. But once a judge is seated on the bench, his or her decisions are not subject to our approval. The Founding Fathers, in their brilliance, set it up that way on purpose. They wanted to make sure that court decisions would be based on legal grounds, not political grounds. But today there is an orchestrated effort to smear the reputation of the judiciary, especially Federal judges. And the effort is being waged by Republicans in Congress as a prelude to an attempt to change the rules for confirming judicial nominations. In order to justify this nuclear option, they are trying to paint judges as ``activists'' and ``out of control.'' In reality, it is the leadership of this Congress that is out of control and endangering the future of a fair court system. In this Chamber on Monday, one of our colleagues said Americans are becoming frustrated by the rulings of the judges--so be it; that is all right, you can be frustrated as much as you want--but then he accused the judges of making ``raw political or ideological decisions.'' That was in the quote from our colleague's statement. He went on to say: I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public . . . that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where-- Listen to this-- where some people engage in violence. These are comments made by a Senator. The remarks are almost unbelievable. Yet they echo the words last week of the House majority leader. Speaking of the judges in the Schiavo case, the House majority leader said: The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior. What does that imply? These are inflammatory words. They ignore the fact that our Founding Fathers wanted judges to be insulated from political pressure, and they are words that could easily incite violence against judges. On this past Sunday, a columnist in the hometown newspaper of the House majority leader, the Houston Chronicle, wrote: It is time for him to stop sputtering ill-tempered threats, not only at the judiciary but also at the U.S. Constitution, which he repeatedly has sworn to uphold. There were two matters that made things worse, two recent episodes to which the Senator from Massachusetts made reference involving violence against judges and their families. In Chicago, a man fatally shot the husband and the mother of a Federal judge who had ruled against him in a medical malpractice suit. And in Atlanta last month, a man broke away from a deputy, killed four people, including the judge presiding over his rape trial. Is that what these people see? Is that what our colleagues saw? Is that what the House majority leader saw, an opportunity to take revenge on judges who make decisions with which they disagree? What are we, some lawless nation where if you do not like it, you kill the person who did it? Were these judges who suffered terribly while performing their official duties activists? Were they out of control? The message being sent to the American people by the other side of the aisle is not only irresponsible, but downright dangerous to our Nation's judges. Like the nuclear option, the goal here is to have judges make political decisions rather than legal decisions. They are trying to intimidate sitting judges, and they are trying to change Senate rules to get bad judges on the bench. I vow to fight this nuclear option, as well as these irresponsible threatening statements. I do that for my family and for American families across this country. In my view, the true measure of democracy is how it dispenses justice. In this country, any attempt to intimidate judges not only threatens our courts but our fundamental democracy as well. I note that a letter was sent out most recently by the distinguished majority leader. It is dated March 31, 2005. He invites colleagues--it says: ``Get a Fresh Perspective on Our Nation's''--this is on the majority leader's stationery--``Get a Fresh Perspective on Our Nation's Religious Heritage with a Special Tour of the U.S. Capitol'': Dear Colleague: I am writing to invite you and your family to a private tour of the U.S. Capitol Building with WallBuilders' President, David Barton, on Monday, April 11, 2005. The walking tour will commence at my office-- And he identifies the location of his office and the time, and then adds: David Barton is the founder and President of WallBuilders, a national pro-family organization which distributes historical, legal, and statistical information, and helps citizens become active in their local schools and communities. He is an historian noted for his detailed research into the studied the religious heritage of our nation. Among some of the interesting facts made by Mr. Barton: The U.S. Capitol served as a church building for decades. The first English-language Bible in America was printed and endorsed by the United States Congress. The original Supreme Court--composed of numerous signers of the Constitution--began their sessions with ministers coming in and praying for the Court, the jury, and their deliberations. The majority leader goes on to say: You will also learn inspiring stories behind the faces, paintings, and statues in the U.S. Capitol Building and view original documents from George Washington and others . . . which are depicted in artwork. . . . I have read something of Mr. Barton's biography: Mr. Barton intends to prove that the separation of church and state is a myth, and that America's Founders intended for the United States to be a Christian nation. Does that mean those of us who are not Christian--whether Muslim, Jewish, or some other religion--are not part of this great nation? The majority leader is the one making this suggestion. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I quote from this report: Now Barton appears to be angling for a spot on the national stage. He is touring the nation again, this time with financial support from the Republican National Committee as part of what is described as a larger get-out-the-vote effort. As he tours the country, Barton leads pastors in sessions examining the role Christianity played in America's founding and puts forth his usual shaky thesis. But Barton doesn't stop there. Barton's not-so-subtle message is that America's Christian heritage is at risk--and only voting Republican can save it. I want those who hear me across America to pay attention: ``Christian heritage is at risk.'' That means that all the outsiders, all of those who approach God differently but are people who believe in a supreme being; people who behave and live peacefully with their neighbors and their friends. No, this is being put forward as an attempt--a not too subtle attempt--to make sure people understand that America is a Christian country. Therefore, we ought to take the time the majority leader offers us, as Members of the Senate, for a chance to learn more about how invalid the principle of separation between church and state is. I hope the American public sees this plan as the spurious attempt it is. I ask my colleagues if they want to go to a Christian-only spokesman who will tell us about how insignificant the separation between church and state is. The question is fundamental to the Constitution. Are we a country of laws? If we are, then we must respect the law and we must hold the law free from threats. How does it feel when one looks at the Federal judge in Chicago who had her husband and her mother murdered because someone disagreed with her legal decision? How do we feel about seeing this guy break loose in Atlanta and kill the judge and a deputy? Senator Kennedy just mentioned the fact that there was a $12 million request for security for judges and courtrooms. I do not blame them. This is not some lawless country where if a judge makes a decision he better run for his life; nor is it Iraq, where those who are upholding the law are getting killed because other people disagree with them. We should not stand for this. I ask the majority leader to withdraw that invitation to tour the U.S. Capitol with this man who says that this should be a Christian- only country. How can he dare undermine the principles that are in our brilliant Constitution that was written so many years ago? We are entering a dangerous period, in my view.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to submit a resolution to condemn the inhumane and unnecessary slaughter of dolphins, porpoises, and small whales that occurs in certain nations around the world. This resolution would send the U.S. delegation to this year's International Whaling Commission meeting with the message that the slaughter of these marine mammals must be stopped, and that the commission must protect them. I am pleased to be joined by my cosponsors, Senators Levin, Sarbanes, and Lieberman. Each year, more than 20,000 dolphins, porpoises, and small whales, which are collectively called small cetaceans, are slaughtered by methods that are beyond inhumane. These mammals are intelligent, they live in family groups, and they feel pain. In many cases, they are herded together into small coves, where they are confined with nets. Once they are trapped, the slaughter begins. The first step is often to slice their throats with knives, causing them to bleed to death. This slow and painful method is used because cetaceans are hard to kill, due to their natural protective layer of blubber. Very often, processing of these mammals begins before they are even dead. They are wrenched from the water with cranes, loaded while in a state of shock into trucks, and taken to warehouses where their flesh is removed to be sold as meat. All of this can occur while the animals are still alive. Dolphins, porpoises, and small whales are some of the most advanced animals in the world, on land or at sea. They can feel pain the same way and to the same extent humans can. I find this treatment of these remarkable animals abhorrent and inhumane. However, the process I have described is also objectionable for several other reasons. The meat of these animals is sold as food, often mislabeled as ``whale meat,'' which to many people suggests open-ocean large whales that are still hunted by several nations despite a worldwide moratorium. However, the meat of small cetaceans is not large whale meat. Small cetacean meat can be very unhealthy. These small animals are more likely than large whales to live along the coast, and they are higher up in the food chain, so their bodies are often contaminated with mercury and other pollutants. Levels of contaminants in some of this meat are often much higher than what is recommended by the nations where it is sold. Another problem is that many of these small cetacean populations are being threatened by the loss of large numbers of animals. Over- exploitation of small cetaceans has resulted in the serious decline and even the commercial extinction of some populations. Unfortunately, it is difficult to track the take and the populations of these animals, as the people who slaughter them don't allow full, and in some cases any, documentation of the killing. Their failure to keep accurate information indicates that they lack a commitment to maintaining sustainable populations. The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has passed at least 5 resolutions condemning these types of small cetacean slaughters. Our resolution will send the United States delegation to the next IWC meeting with the message that this issue is not forgotten. It will also ensure that the U.S. delegation works to clarify the IWC's mission to manage and protect small cetaceans.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I call up amendment No. 187 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Schumer be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 187.