Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 1, 2012, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``Oversight of the Cruise Ship Industry: Are Current Regulations Sufficient to Protect Pasengers and the Environment?''

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 1, 2012, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Syria: The Crisis and Its Implications.''

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 1, 2012, at 10 a.m., in SD 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on Saturday, February 11, 2012, New Jersey lost one of its proudest daughters and our country lost one of its brightest stars when Whitney Houston died at the untimely age of 48. Whitney Houston's New Jersey roots run deep. She was born in Newark in 1963. She moved to East Orange at age 4 and attended high school at Mount Saint Dominic Academy in Caldwell. The daughter of noted gospel singer Cissy Houston, Whitney spent her young life singing in the choir of the New Hope Baptist Church in Newark. She never forgot her roots, and even after she became a star, she sometimes returned to New Hope Baptist Church to sing on Easter Sunday. Fittingly, it is at New Hope Baptist Church that Whitney's family and friends will mourn her loss and celebrate her life this Saturday, February 18. Virtually from the moment of the release of her debut album, ``Whitney Houston,'' Whitney was an international superstar. The album spent a record 14 weeks at the top of the Billboard charts, and it was the first album by a female artist to yield three No. 1 hits. One of those hits, ``The Greatest Love of All,'' became an anthem and a symbol of hope. For all of us who work to make a better world for our children and grandchildren, the song's opening line, ``I believe the children are our future,'' is a constant reminder of our mission. Much more than just a great singer and performer, Whitney was a great patriot and humanitarian. Her performance of the ``Star Spangled Banner'' for Super Bowl XXV in 1991--during the first gulf war--has been hailed as the yardstick for other singers performing our national anthem. Whitney donated her proceeds from that performance to the American Red Cross Gulf Crisis Fund. When her rendition was re-released in the wake of the September 11 attacks, Whitney donated those proceeds to firefighters and victims of the attacks. For her many accomplishments, Whitney received numerous awards, including 6 Grammys, 2 Emmys, and 22 American Music Awards. But no achievement meant more to Whitney than the birth of her daughter Bobbi Kristina in 1993. Though her loss will be felt far and wide, Whitney's powerful words-- ``I believe the children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way''--live on in New Jersey, across the country, and around the world.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I come to the floor now as a father and a grandfather. Bonnie and I have five daughters and are grandparents of eight granddaughters. Nothing in our family and nothing in families across this country have anything more critical on their minds than the health of their children and their daughters and our families. Women in this rich country have a right to expect affordable quality health care. But those rights are under attack, and the attack is coming from what I call the ``maleogarchy''. Several years ago, I initiated the name ``maleogarchy'' right here on the Senate floor. A maleogarchy is made up of men in Congress who always decide what they want to do for women, even taking away their rights. These days the maleogarchy has declared war on women's health. We saw it when the Republicans in the House tried to defund Planned Parenthood. Now we are seeing it again this week in the Republican efforts to take away affordable birth control, basic health care for women in our country. Under a historic provision of the health care reform law, health insurance companies will be required to cover contraception with no additional copays or fees. This landmark requirement is scheduled to go into effect this summer. But as women cheer this new law, the maleogarchy is looking to take it away. Here in the Senate, there is a Republican bill to get rid of these benefits for women. Imagine. This body, principally made up of males, wants to take away benefits for women. The top Presidential candidate on the Republican side is Mitt Romney. He just said one of the first things he will do--I heard it, everybody heard it; it was loudly broadcast, it was vividly broadcast on television--he will do as the first thing, if elected, is overturn these new policies making birth control more affordable. Imagine. That is why he wants to be elected. I hope the American public is listening carefully to what is being said. Affordable birth control shouldn't be controversial. I thought we put this question to rest long ago. Back in 1965, the Supreme Court overturned the State of Connecticut's ban on contraception. Today, 99 percent of women either use birth control or have used it at some point during their lives. It has become a critical component of health care for women in our country. But, as so many women know, birth control is also significantly expensive. One-third of all women have struggled to pay for it, and even if you have health insurance it is a struggle. Copays for birth control can be as much as $50 a month, and $50 a month adds up to $600 a year. Yet now the other side wants to take this benefit away. President Obama and many of us in Congress believe that is fundamentally unfair. Mr. President, everyone needs to speak against this attack on women's health, just as they did last week when the Komen Foundation--a foundation that was named after Susan Komen, a young woman who died of breast cancer--allowed a partisan agenda to cancel its mission to fight breast cancer. Imagine that--this organization named for a young woman who died, and now they want to cut out these examinations for women who wish to see whether breast cancer is ahead for them. Komen tried to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, a trusted provider of lifesaving breast cancer exams for hundreds of thousands of women in our country. Across America, women were offended, hurt, and angry, so they spoke up and spoke out against Komen's narrowminded decision. People were outraged and justifiably so. I was proud to bring together more than two dozen of our Senate colleagues to join the fight. We persuaded Komen to see the error of their ways, and they reversed their decision a few days later. Now the Komen organization and Planned Parenthood are getting back to doing what they do best--protecting women's health. Let's be clear. It would have been wrong to take away resources that could save their lives, just as it is wrong to deny women the right to affordable contraception. So I call on my Republican colleagues to disband the maleogarchy view. Join us and stand up for women in our country. Politics don't belong in our doctors' offices, examination rooms, or in our medical clinics. Politics should never be used to block women's rights to get the care they need for healthier lives. I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to consider what they are doing before they vote to take away those rights. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, late last year we lost Evelyn H. Lauder, a business leader, women's health advocate, refugee of nazism--and a friend. Evelyn was born in Vienna, Austria, in 1936, the only daughter of Ernest and Mimi Hausner. Two years later, after Nazi troops invaded Austria, the Hausners fled to England, where Evelyn's mother was sent to an internment camp on the Isle of Man. In 1940, after Mrs. Hausner's release, the family sailed to the United States. They settled in New York, where Evelyn attended public schools and Hunter College. She then married Leonard Lauder; had two sons, William and Gary; and for a while worked as a schoolteacher in New York. When Evelyn's mother-in-law Estee Lauder invited her to join the family's cosmetics company in 1959, it was a small business with a handful of employees. Evelyn helped build it into an empire. She created the Clinique brand and held a number of positions at the company, including senior corporate vice president. Today, the Estee Lauder Companies employ more than 32,000 people around the world. Although Evelyn was a talented businesswoman, she arguably made her biggest impact outside the business world. In 1989, Evelyn was diagnosed with breast cancer. Instead of allowing her illness to be a setback, Evelyn made it a cause. She helped create the pink ribbon campaign to raise awareness of breast cancer and also founded the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, which has raised more than $350 million and supports more than 180 scientists based in 13 countries. The Breast Center at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center bears her name. In a New York Times profile in 1995, Evelyn stated, ``I feel it's important to make a mark somewhere.'' Madam President, I believe Evelyn achieved this goal. Her leadership in business and philanthropy, along with her passionate advocacy for women's health issues, is virtually unmatched. We are thankful for her and the enduring legacy she left us. I ask to have printed in the Record a copy of the obituary the New York Times published at the time of her passing.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I seek recognition in morning business.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are at a time in the calendar that usually is a time of excellent anticipation. Christmas is coming. The holidays are coming. People are trying to get their families in order, do the shopping, and all the things we have to do. It would seem this is a moment of fairly happy days and the holiday season is here. But these are not happy times for many Americans. Across our country, families are fighting to keep their heads above water. Some parents do not know how they are going to put food on the table tonight, much less presents under the Christmas tree or during the Hanukkah holidays. That is why our side of the aisle is fighting to continue and expand a tax cut that has benefited millions of working families this year. This is a tax cut for people who need it--families who depend on a paycheck. With the payroll tax cut, the typical family in my State, the State of New Jersey, would receive an extra $40 a week, starting next year. That is what a typical household in the Northeast pays for gasoline or health care each week. Mr. President, $40 a week adds up to $2,100 a year. For parents who are struggling--as many are--to make ends meet, an extra $2,100 goes a long way to help buy groceries or pay the electric bill or purchase medicines. It can help pay for childcare, preschool or college tuition--the necessities that help ensure children succeed in life. To make sure all working families continue receiving this much needed relief next year, we are asking America's millionaires--people who earn over $1 million a year--to pay their fair share of what the country needs to get ourselves back into reasonable balance. But the Republicans will not even allow us to vote on a bill that their colleagues in the House approved last night. I wish to just spend a minute here. The House passed a bill last night. It included tax relief for some and we should take it here and consider it. But the Republicans will not even let us bring up the bill that passed in the House last night, and there is a question as to why. Why will they not let us do it? There is, obviously, a hidden meaning. But what we see is, the Republicans are acting like Scrooges. This picture I have in the Chamber shows a mean-looking guy, as we see. That is what they want to do for Christmas. For GOP Scrooges, this is not the season of giving; it is time to take things away. He said: No payroll tax cut for you this year. They want to take away the tax cut for ordinary working families. The Republican Scrooges want to take away unemployment insurance benefits for 1 million people--imagine, people who are dependent on unemployment insurance at times when they are out of work, to help sustain their families, put food on the table, to try and just keep their heads above water. But that does not matter to our friends on the Republican side. Today in America there is only one job available for every four unemployed people. This is not the time to cut unemployment benefits. Republicans also want to weaken safeguards that keep our air clean-- filling our atmosphere with poisons and endangering the health of our children. They want to weaken those safeguards. To add insult to injury, the Republicans are also trying to ram through a massive pipeline that will carry toxic materials into our country--toxic materials. We are so conscious of what damage the toxic environment can do to our families, to our children. But they want to have a pipeline that will carry toxic materials into our country. They want to make it easier for coal-fired industrial facilities to foul the air, spew toxins into our neighborhoods. It is hard to believe. Instead of gifts, the Republican Scrooges want lumps of coal in the stockings and coal pollution in our lungs. In many families, it is a tradition to teach children to welcome Santa Claus during the holidays. This year, we are going to tell our kids to hide away from the Republican Scrooges. We are not going to alarm our children and tell them things that are difficult may be even more difficult if some tax relief that is proposed for working-class families is not available to them. The Republican priorities are different. They want to raise taxes on middle-class families--families who work for a living--to protect luxuries for millionaires: nice boats, airplanes. I do not mind--they have made the money; it is what they buy with it--but at least carry their fair share of our financial needs in this country. The Republican priorities say they are for lower taxes, but that only goes for the jet set. When it comes to cutting taxes for working families, the Republican mantra is: Hey, we have to take care of the wealthy. We have to watch out for the wealthy, make sure they are OK. Don't ask them to carry more of the load. It is not a good time to deal with them. After all, maybe they will be big contributors to our political campaigns. Let's not kid ourselves. American millionaires do not need help. They do not need the Republicans' help. Since the 1980s, our country's wealthiest 1 percent of the working people have seen their average household income increase by 55 percent. Let me restate that. Since the 1980s, our country's wealthiest 1 percent have seen their average household income increase by 55 percent--enormous--but for the bottom 90 percent average household income has not increased at all. As a matter of fact, it has gone down because the cost of living has gone up much faster than even any raises that come through. Even though incomes are growing for the very wealthy, their tax rates are actually going down. Their taxes are going down. We can also look at the chief executive officers to see how well the wealthy are faring. CEOs at the largest companies are now paid an average salary of $11 million a year. Note that. The largest companies' CEOs are now paid an average salary of $11 million a year. That is 343 times as much as the average worker's salary of $33,000 a year. This comparison is so hard to reconcile. The CEOs of the largest companies have an average salary of $11 million a year, and the average worker's salary is $33,000 a year. Where is the equity in this? When we send the people out to fight, put on the country's uniforms, do the jobs, build the foundations, make sure the country is strong--$33,000 a year. That is tough. Just a few decades ago, the pay gap between CEOs and workers was much more modest. The CEOs--again, the CEO, people at the top of these companies--were paid an average of 42 times as much as the average worker, as we see on this chart. The chart demonstrates that in the 1980s, the CEOs made 42 times the average worker's pay. So the difference was not that obvious or that big. In 2010, CEOs made 343 times the average worker's pay. There is no equity there. I come from the corporate world, and I know what big salaries are. I have seen it in my own company. But the one thing you have to do is at least encourage the people who are working for you to understand that they have a chance in life to provide the things we all talk about for our children--a college education, the prospect of a decent job, the prospect of being able to take care of our own family. The numbers make it clear: Our goal should not be protecting millionaires. They do not need our help. We should be focused on protecting Medicare, food safety, home heating for the poor, and Head Start for little kids who have a first chance to learn--to learn--to understand education, to see how important it is to learn, to start reading books at an early age, to start having conversations with their parents about what is going on in this world. They want to take those children out of the Head Start facility--so many of them, 200,000; it has been proposed in some of the House budgets--take them out of the Head Start school. But our Republican colleagues do not want to hear about that. They continue asking the poor, the middle class, the elderly, and our children to bear the entire burden of these tough times. The Republicans now remind me of what accountants are like. They are people who are obsessed, obligated to deal with the bottom line. There is no soul, no humanity, no compassion--not around here--unless it is for the wealthy. They have compassion for themselves. Let's be clear: It does not hurt those of us who have been successful to pay our fair share. I remind those within my voice, who hear me, we have two wars going on. We have people paying a terrible price to serve our country's needs--a terrible price. This is a time for those who are fortunate enough to make above $1 million to say: Hey, I want to help carry this burden. I do not want to ask people who are scratching for a living--just trying to make ends meet--I do not want to ask them to do more without saying I want to do my share. I was lucky. I ran a very big company. I want to do my share. That is why I am here. That is what I am talking about. To those who make more than $1 million a year, I say: Look in the mirror. Ask yourself if you could succeed without help from anyone else or did your country help you achieve your prosperity. Was it people who built the buildings and built the infrastructure and manned the jobs all across the country-- service jobs? They built the foundation upon which those who make $1 million a year build their futures, build their fortunes. That is what happens. But there is not the respect for the hard-working families that we like to see. I ask our Republican colleagues, think about the true meaning of the holidays. It is not Halloween, it is not trick or treat, because otherwise that is what the game looks like. This time of the year is about coming together, caring about your fellow man. This should be a season of giving, not taking away the necessities from our country's most vulnerable. We all remember at the end of a ``Christmas Carol'' when Ebenezer Scrooge opened his heart and became a hero. We need the same kind of miracle here in Congress. We need the Republican scrooges to have a change of heart and work with us to help our fellow Americans this holiday season. We need them to help us continue and expand the tax cuts for working families. We need them to help us continue unemployment insurance benefits for the jobless and clean air safeguards for our children. We need them to help us protect the programs that benefit the people who need them most, whom we need to keep our foundation strong. To our Republican colleagues, we say, come on, let's work together. Let's do this. Let's put the acrimony aside. Let's put the selfishness aside and say, those who work every day for a living and try to keep things together--and we have millions of people who are looking for jobs who cannot find them right now--let's work together to make sure our children and grandchildren inherit an America that is even stronger than the one we inherited. Show the heart of America. That will be the best gift we can ever give them. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are here now deciding what kind of a country America might be in the future--whether it will be a place we can look back at and remember when everybody had a chance at success. It is hard to believe that when we look at the vote we just had. It confirmed where the Republicans are on the issue of whether middle- class families should get a tax break. The Republican answer, was no. The answer they gave on the middle-class families tax break was: Absolutely no. No, no, no. To the struggling single parent who wants to provide for their family, works hard every day, the Republicans said no way. To the recent college graduate trying to start a career but having trouble paying back college loans, paying rent, paying living costs, the Republicans said no. To the working couple, a family with a couple of kids who needs some help in this tough economy, the Republicans said no. No, no, no. The Republicans refuse to help them because their mission is to shield the wealthy from paying their fair share of our country's obligations. Across our country, Americans are watching Republicans in this Congress and wondering what they are going to do to supply encouragement and hope for people who need it. Are we going to be simply a big accounting firm, simply doing the auditing, or are we going to be there to stimulate activity for people, to give them a chance to elevate their living standards for their family, to get their kids educated, and take care of the family necessities? Right now, 14 million Americans are jobless, and they are worried about how they are going to stay in their homes, feed their children, and keep their families warm this winter. But unemployed Americans are not the only people who are struggling. Hard-working Americans from all walks of life are struggling to make ends meet. They are coping with skyrocketing grocery prices, surging health premiums, soaring college tuition. In my home State, 1 in 10 New Jerseyans is on food stamps, the highest level in more than a decade. New Jersey has traditionally been among the top States per capita income in the country, within the top three, often in the first position. On this side of the aisle, we are trying to help struggling families. I learned the hard way about family struggles when I was growing up. My father took ill with cancer when he was 42; I was 18. My mother, when my father died, was 37 years old. We had all kinds of obligations to pay. My mother took over the family leadership. We owed money for the pharmacy, for hospitals, for doctors. We were virtually bankrupt. I had enlisted in the Army. Next week, it will be 69 years ago that I enlisted in the Army, in December of 1942. I know how tough it was and how much aggravation accompanies a family who just cannot keep their heads above water. Here we are, in a day of some incredible wealth around this country-- around this room--and Republicans are trying to thwart our efforts to extend and expand the payroll tax cut for working families--for people who depend upon their incomes to take care of their family needs; not on their savings, not on their inheritance, on their jobs. Millions of American families have benefitted from this tax cut that we have had this year, but it stands to expire at the end of December. Our side is eager to continue this tax cut and increase the size of that cut to help these families. In my State, this means a typical family would receive a total tax cut of $2,100 next year. For parents who are trying to feed their families, educate their kids, pay their bills, an extra $2,100 goes a long way. To make sure that all working families receive this much needed relief next year, we are asking America's millionaires to pay their fair share, but the Republicans would rather protect their wealthy friends than continue the payroll tax cut for working families. First, the Republicans blocked our side's efforts to cut taxes for the middle class. Then the Republicans offered their own plan. It was a disgrace. Their plan calls for a much smaller middle-class tax break, which they would have paid for by laying off 200,000 middle-class government workers. That is how they would solve the problem--fire people. Don't take it out of your bank account, don't take it out of your salary--even if you make over $1 million a year--fire people. That will make sure they understand we are not as concerned about them as we are about the person who makes over $1 million a year. It was a cynical ploy. It showed the other side's true stripes. The Republicans say they are for lower taxes, but we now see that only goes for the jet set. Their tax-cutting zeal doesn't extend to the middle class. Republican priorities? Raise taxes on middle-class families. Middle-class families do not have it easy in America today. Republicans want to raise their taxes to protect the luxuries for the millionaires. Make no mistake. Working families will suffer if the Republicans continue to block our efforts to extend and expand the payroll tax cut, and so will our economy. Last week, Barclays Bank warned that our GDP will drop 1.5 percent if the payroll tax cut is allowed to expire. The choice is clear. We can continue the payroll tax cut for working families or we can allow the Republicans to continue running their millionaires' protection ring. The fact is, American millionaires are doing just fine. They don't need protection from the Republicans. Since the 1980s, our country's wealthiest 1 percent have seen their average household income increase by 55 percent. But for the bottom 90 percent, average household income has not increased at all. As we see here, even though incomes are growing for the very wealthy, their taxes are actually going down. We can also look at CEOs to see how well the wealthy are faring. CEOs at the largest companies are now paid an average salary of $11 million a year. That is 343 times as much as the average worker's salary of $33,000. It used to be a much more modest comparison. In 1980, CEOs made 42 times the average worker's pay. Just look at that. Just a few decades ago the pay was much more reasonable, and the people who were working in the mills and making products and doing the service jobs and all of that were living significantly better than they are today. Millionaires are making much more money today than they did in those years past. This is something I know something about directly. I was the president of a very large company when I came to the Senate. And you know how I got there: I had a boost from our country. I had enlisted in the Army, and I served in Europe. I got the GI bill. I went to Columbia University. It happened because the country said: Frank, if you can learn we will help you. We will pay your tuition because you served your country. I've done well because my country invested in me, and I'm willing to invest more in my country today to help the next generation. That company I helped start with two other fellows has 45,000 employees today; 45,000 people are working at ADP, the company I helped start, because we had a chance at an education and to learn what we had to do to be in management, what we had to do to be in leadership. Our goal should not be to protect millionaires and billionaires who don't need our help. We should focus on the foundation that our society requires to function. We should be focused on protecting Medicare, food safety, Head Start. Imagine, they want to take seats away from Head Start Programs. I visited a Head Start Program in New Jersey just a few weeks ago, and I saw the children. They were 3, 4, 5 years old. They were interested in learning something. I talked to them, and I wanted--one of the little kids came over and hugged me around the knees. I wanted to pick him up and take him home. He was so beautiful, so nice. I thought: Here is a child, learning. He came from a single-parent family. The people who need help--we should be focusing on protecting them and giving them a chance to grow. We should be about making sure they have proper Medicare, that food safety is taken care of. Head Start, home heating for the poor, and other essential programs--we should be protecting them from reckless cuts. The Republicans who served on the supercommittee refused, before the negotiations were started--refused to ask wealthy Americans to pay their fair share. They practically took an oath that they would demand nothing more of the wealthy, when the country is deeply in debt, starving for a better way to solve our problems. As a result, the poor and the middle class are going to have to make up the difference. These are the people who need help the most right now. We must act now to protect the vital programs on which they rely. If we fail to act, our country and our economy will continue to suffer--especially Americans who are already struggling. It is just plain heartless to continue asking the poor, the middle class, the elderly, and our children to bear the entire burden of these brutal economic times. It does not hurt any of us who have been successful to pay a fair share. It might cost a few dollars more, but if you are making over $1 million a year, look in the mirror and see if you have done it all by yourself or whether it took the help of your country to get there. There is a whole cadre of people working across America--they go to work every day because they want to make a week's pay and take care of their kids and take care of their obligations. That is the foundation that built America. It is the foundation of the development of something that was called the ``greatest generation.'' That was the generation in the last century who served in World War II. All of us had an opportunity to get a college education when we otherwise would not have been near a college. That built our country. That strengthened our foundation. Now we see people, Republicans, who want to make it tougher for people to make a living, tougher for people to get an education, tougher to provide heat for people who desperately need it in the wintertime, tougher to think ahead and say: You know what. I know my children will do better than I have done in my life. That used to be a truism in our view of life in this country. We don't hear that much anymore because people are unsure, and it does not help to have the Republicans sticking up for the wealthiest among us and turning their backs on working-class families in this country, the middle-class families. It is not right. I hope the people across this country will say: No. We are going to say no to these Republican policies. I hope our Republican colleagues will disband their millionaires' protection game, stop standing in the way, and start standing up for everyday Americans who need our help. Help us continue the payroll tax cut for working families. Help us protect the programs that benefit the people who need them most. Help us, friends on the Republican side, to make America even stronger than it is today. We can do that. Countries are failing all over the globe. America need not to do that. We just have to make sure that while we take care of our expenses, we also make sure we have the revenues to do the job. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the leader for his kind words and the help he has given me to make some of the decisions we labored with. I thank my colleague, the Senator from New Jersey, Bob Menendez, who has worked very hard to do his share in moving legislation and doing the right thing by the people in our State and our country. One of the things that is, to me, pretty important is when I said to my mother in 1982: Mom, I am going to run for the U.S. Senate; I think there is an opportunity there. I was running ADP and in quite good company at the time. So she said: Frank, what do you need it for? I said: Mom, I don't need it. On the night of the election, we were gathered at my house in New Jersey--and my mother was then committed to a wheelchair--and she had tears running down her face. I said: Mom, you asked me why I needed it. I said: Why are you crying? She said: Because I always wanted you to win. The people in New Jersey were very kind over these years, electing me five times to the Senate and giving me the honor and the opportunity to give something back to this country of ours. I came from a family that was a poor family, immigrant family. My parents were young when they were brought by their parents to America. They were hoping that maybe good things could happen as a result of their becoming Americans. So I stand here and I am glad we are not taking a vote on whether I should be commended for this. I might not get all the votes you gave me because you didn't ask for unanimous consent, but nevertheless, it passed, and so I thank all of you, even those with whom I might occasionally disagree. It is shocking, but it does happen here. But I have respect for everybody who is sent here by their constituents from every State in the country and for their point of view. It doesn't mean I agree, but I have respect for the fact that we can say what we want in this free country of ours, say things that sometimes maybe we wish we had not said, but we have a chance to speak out on the things we believe in. I thank all of my colleagues for their service and for the accolades given to me this night. With that, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 1087

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the chairman. As we know, Iran funds Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations. We should not allow American-controlled companies to provide cash to Iran so that they can convert these funds into bullets and bombs to be used against us and our allies. It is inexcusable for American companies to engage in any business practice that provides revenues to terrorists, and we have to stop it. I look forward to working with Chairman Johnson to close this loophole.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, regarding U.S. companies that continue to do business with Iran. I know the chairman shares my concern about Iran's continued violations of international norms. As the International Atomic Energy Agency's recent report starkly highlights, Iran continues to work to build a nuclear weapon despite the current sanctions in place. While we have made great strides in strengthening sanctions on Iran, more work clearly needs to be done to place pressure on Iran to change its behavior. For the past 7 years, I have been working to close a loophole in current law that allows foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies to continue doing business with Iran without facing the same penalties that would be placed on the parent company. I have now filed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 currently under consideration to try and close this loophole once again. Although I am not going to call for a vote on this amendment at this time, it is time we work to close this loophole once and for all.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. My amendment would have applied the same penalties that can be imposed on U.S. companies that violate the U.S. trade ban with Iran to foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies. Does the chairman agree that this loophole remains an issue that must be addressed?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, with all of the important issues we constantly face in life, none compares to our concern for the health of our children. But the health of our children depends not only on us but what others might be doing--such as poisoning our air with secondhand smoke or deliberately fouling the air our kids breathe. Few would stand by while a smoker puffs away where your child is inhaling. That is why we worked so hard to prohibit smoking on airplanes--to keep someone else's smoke out of our children's lungs. Yet when emissions from a powerplant in one State threaten people in a neighboring State, too often nothing is done about it. Make no mistake, pollution doesn't recognize State boundaries. Communities across our country are being forced to bear the consequence of another community's polluters, and this is happening in my State of New Jersey, where people are suffering because dirty air is blowing into our communities from out-of-State smokestacks. Look at this horrible picture. Anything more threatening would be hard to imagine. The toxins coming out of smokestacks like these don't disappear. They typically wind up polluting playgrounds and school yards in New Jersey, and other eastern States. In fact, a single powerplant in eastern Pennsylvania is responsible for more sulfur pollution in New Jersey than all our State powerplants combined. This year the Environmental Protection Agency took a major step toward protecting children from out-of-State emissions when it adopted the cross-State air pollution rule. This commonsense safeguard requires polluters to reduce the levels of dangerous soot and smog that they release into the air. The rule sends a clear message to powerplants in upwind States that they can no longer dump their dirty air on States that lie downwind. Unfortunately, one of our Republican colleagues has proposed a resolution to block the EPA's efforts. This misguided message would put polluters' profits before the health of our families and children, and the consequences would be devastating. Air pollution can cause asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes, and cancer. Long-term exposure can also damage the immune, neurological, and reproductive systems. Nationally, almost 1 in 10 children now suffer from asthma. That is according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In some parts of New Jersey, one out of every four residents has asthma. We should be working to make skies cleaner for these children--not dirtier. Some on the other side say we cannot afford to worry about the health of our children and our communities right now. They claim the new rule will kill jobs. This is not about killing jobs, it is about saving lives, and we should not allow ourselves to be misled. According to EPA, the new rule will prevent 34,000 premature deaths and 15,000 heart attacks from taking place. The new standard would also prevent as many as 400,000 asthma attacks, improving life for children such as my own grandson who suffers from asthma. My daughter makes sure she finds an emergency clinic before my grandson plays ball or indulges in a sport because if he starts to wheeze, he has problems. My sister, who was on the board of education in a city in New York State, was at a board of education meeting when she began to start to wheeze. In her car she kept a small device, a little respirator, and she ran for the parking lot. She didn't make it. She collapsed in the parking lot and died 3 days later. For those who insist we cannot have both clean air and a strong economy, I say we cannot have a strong economy without clean air. Simply put, if you cannot breathe, you cannot work. The fact is, many powerplants, factories, and other companies are ready to work with the EPA to reduce their impact on the environment. Take the example of Public Service Electric and Gas, which is New Jersey's largest utility. PSEG has already invested resources to reduce soot, smog, and mercury pollution by more than 90 percent. In the process the company has created over 1,600 construction jobs. That is why PSEG supports the EPA rule. Ralph Izzo, the president of the company, said: Our experience shows that it is possible to clean the air, create jobs, and power the economy at the same time. The bottom line is, this rule will protect the health of our economy, our workers, and our children. I urge my colleagues to reject this dangerous amendment and protect every American's right to breathe clean air. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, this amendment increases funding for disaster relief grants at the Economic Development Administration. Forty-eight States have received a Federal disaster declaration this year and may be eligible for this relief. EDA funds rebuild sewers and drinking water systems, coordinate response and recovery plans, and help businesses to recover. This year alone, we have experienced a record 10 natural disasters costing more than $1 billion each. Hurricane Irene caused more than $7 billion in damage alone. In 2008, we gave EDA $500 million to respond to disasters in the South and the Midwest. This amendment would give EDA the same amount this year. The amendment complies with the disaster relief provision in the Budget Control Act and is not offset with cuts from other programs. Senators Sanders, Menendez, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, and Leahy are cosponsors, and Chairman Mikulski supports it as well.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 836.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment would increase funding for disaster relief grants at the Economic Development Administration. We all know that this has been a record year for natural disasters. Our country has already experienced a record 10 natural disasters that cost more than $1 billion each time. Hurricane Irene alone caused more than $7 billion in damages on the East Coast. In my home State of New Jersey, 11 people lost their lives as a result of the hurricane. While President Obama came to my hometown of Paterson, NJ, to see the damage firsthand, I must point out that we are still, almost across the country, in the wake of huge storms that demand attention and will require substantial funding. In my hometown of Paterson, NJ, we witnessed unforgettable images. The streets and sidewalks were covered in mud. In some homes, the second floor was also covered with mud. But New Jersey is not alone. As I said, there have been extremely severe storms across the country, and flooding and tornadoes have devastated the Midwest and the South. As a result, FEMA has declared Federal disasters in all but two States this year. In the wake of these disasters, we have seen the American people pulling together, neighbor helping neighbor to put their lives back together; furniture out on the lawn; memorabilia that was so water soaked that it is valueless in terms of recalling memories. It is painful to witness. When you see families standing together holding hands, wondering what is going to happen to them, we look to our country and they say help us recover from this disaster. Perhaps we will never quite get over it, but we can use the help desperately. The Federal Government has to do its part, and I am pleased the Commerce, Justice, and Science bill we are considering includes emergency funding for disaster relief grants at the Economic Development Administration. I thank Senator Mikulski for her good work as chairman on this bill, but the needs all across the country are overwhelming and more disaster assistance is needed. This amendment increases the funding for EDA disaster relief grants by $365 million to a total of $500 million of availability. I point out that many of these disasters themselves have $1 billion worth of damage. My amendment is cosponsored by Senator Sanders, Menendez, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, and Leahy, and I thank them for their support. Any area that received a Federal disaster declaration this year would be eligible to compete for this disaster relief, including areas in 48 States so far this year. I want to be clear. Natural disasters devastate local economies, causing damages that can linger for years. FEMA reimburses local governments' homeowners for repairs in the immediate aftermath of a storm, but EDA grants are needed to help communities get back on track for recovery and economic revitalization in the wake of a major disaster. Communities use these disaster relief funds to repair damaged public infrastructure, such as sewer and drinking water systems, and States use the EDA grants to create and coordinate efficient disaster response and recovery plans. Additionally, local governments and nonprofits can lend EDA disaster relief funds to businesses to help our private sector to rebuild and to grow. Congress has recognized the value of this program in the past. During the past 5 years, we have provided more than $550 million in EDA emergency disaster relief funds. This includes $500 million in emergency supplemental funding for EDA in 2008 to respond to the hurricanes that devastated the South and the heavy rains that caused massive flooding throughout the Midwest. When these areas were in need, Congress came together and extended a helping hand. Unfortunately, we have to do so again now. The funding in my amendment complies with the disaster relief provisions included in the Budget Control Act and is not offset with cuts from other programs in the bill. When disaster strikes, victims don't want us to reach for the budget ax, they want us to help them rebuild and recover. We all recognize our country faces serious fiscal challenges, but we cannot put a price on human lives. Nothing is more important than protecting our communities, our families, and our economy. Hurricane Irene and many other natural disasters hit our country this year, causing widespread damage that is going to require a massive rebuilding effort. The American people are looking to us, to the Federal Government, to lend a helping hand. I point again to the picture of what a disaster such as this can do, where water is virtually up to the second floors, and this was repeated across the State of New Jersey and in many other States as a result of hurricane Irene. With that, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Although there are squabbles about funding for various programs, at no time is the help more urgently needed than now--again, right after these storms have hit, leaving terrible devastation and people urging and pleading with us to give them the help. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.