Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this budget resolution includes a reconciliation instruction to raise the debt limit by $446 billion. That is a lot of money. That is $1,510 for every man, woman, and child in America. I think the Senate ought to have a debate on whether to add $1,500 to the indebtedness of each and every American, and that is why I am offering this amendment. The amendment is to strike the reconciliation instruction. This budget resolution includes a debt limit increase automatically for one reason: that my friends on the other side of the aisle do not want to have a debate about how exploding budget deficits are piling up our national debt. Instead, what we see is an attempt to hide yet another debt limit increase by burying it deep in the budget. We used to have debt limit increase debates on a regular basis, and we made it hard to increase the debt limit because we knew ultimately the deficits would overwhelm us. This record-setting deficit the administration is running will have real consequences for every family. As the Government borrows more money, much of it from foreign central banks, eventually it is going to cause interest rates to go up. It is inevitable. When interest rates go up, it hurts each and every American. Houses cost more. Cars cost more. College certainly costs more. Investment capital for small businesses costs more. We often hear the money our Government spends is the people's money. That is true, but it is also true that the money our Government borrows is the people's debt. We passed a bankruptcy bill that I think is punitive to working Americans who lose their jobs, have a catastrophic illness or an injury, or run up their credit card debt to try to pay their bills. Over and over again, our friends on the other side say people have to pay their debts. Well, is this any different? What I have here is the Bush administration's credit card. We like to use this as a reference. It is issued by the Bank of Our Children's Future. That is what it says. It says the President is over the limit. That is because public debt under this administration has been run up to $7.7 trillion and each American's share of that debt is over $26,000. Hear this: Every American is going to be saddled with a debt amounting to $26,000 as a result of our increasing indebtedness. But $7.7 trillion apparently is not enough, which is where we are. President Bush wants this credit limit increased. When they make that kind of request, it usually needs some scrutiny. The majority party in the Senate wants to give him that increase, but they want to do it without anybody noticing, without any conversation about it. So they bury it in the budget resolution. We need to discuss whether it is a good idea to increase this credit limit because each and every American gets stuck paying the bill, including our children and our grandchildren. We should be talking about paying off the debt on this card, as we did in 1997. I was then the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Let us face up to our responsibility. Let us quit piling debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren. I urge my colleagues, support this amendment, let the debate begin, and let us examine it in the light of day. I ask for the yeas and nays, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, is there a response time available on this?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, yes, we have to pay our bills. We cannot ignore our obligations. But when one borrows money, there is a contract that is signed and it is done with an open mind. Here we are being asked to take on more debt without having any discussion about what it is that would compel us to increase the national debt. The national debt is going to drown us and we now have a chance to examine it in the light of day, and that is what I would like to see us do. That is why we should take it from this budget resolution and discuss it in an open debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I believe my amendment is next in order. I would like to be able to confirm that.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in the last 4 years we have raised the Nation's debt limit three times, from less than $6 trillion to more than $8 trillion. Now we are being asked to add $446 billion of new debt, $1,500 for every man, woman, and child, without debate. My amendment says we ought to have a debate and answer the question after we have discussed it. The issue ought to be debated. Nothing poses a greater threat to our future security. The President said he doesn't think it is right to avoid facing up to tough issues that our children will have to deal with in the future. Let us face up to our responsibilities.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Cantwell amendment to protect America's National Arctic Wildlife Refuge. I traveled to Alaska in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989. What I saw there was terrible. More than 11 million gallons of oil had spewed into the Prince William Sound. I saw animals covered in oil, many of them dead. I saw workers wiping oil off of birds and other wildlife. It was a devastating tragedy, and it made a big impression on me. I thought about my children and grandchildren. I felt that they deserve to inherit the earth in its beautiful natural State not ravaged at the hands of man. In 1990, Exxon released a video claiming that long-term effects of the massive oil spill were minor. That's what Exxon said in 1990. But today, 16 years after the disaster, nature tells a different story. Today, large portions of the Prince William Sound remain contaminated. Several Alaskan families visited my office last year to tell their story. One old fisherman said, ``My grandson will never get to fish for herring. We've been fishing for herring for three generations in my family. But since the spill, there is no more herring.'' Even today, pools of toxic oil can be found just below the surface and sometimes on top the ground. In my office, I have a sample that the Alaskan families left with me when they traveled all the way to Washington to ask for our help. They found rocks drenched in oil just a few inches beneath the surface of the ground. Some might say nothing on such a scale could ever occur in the Arctic Refuge because the oil would be transported by pipeline, not tanker. But nothing built by humans is perfect or accident-proof. And even under a best-case scenario, drilling for oil could ruin the Arctic Refuge. I had the privilege of visiting the Arctic Refuge a few years ago. It is a remarkable place where more than 100 species of birds breed. Caribou migrate 1600 miles to reach the Refuge, where they give birth to their calves. Proponents of drilling in the refuge say it will have a negligible effect, barely noticeable in that vast expanse. I have seen the oil drilling complexes on the North Slope and I would hardly call them negligible. The fact is the exploration for oil in the Arctic Refuge has already marred its pristine beauty. I visited there, I saw the debris of human intrusion, acres of rusting pipes and dilapidated structures. As my plane flew across Deadhorse, near Prudhoe Bay, I saw the tundra littered with refuse, oil rigs and other abandoned equipment. This was left behind by the same oil companies that now promise they will be good stewards of the Arctic Refuge. Why would we risk devastating this national treasure? For what gain? Even under the most optimistic projections, the U.S. Geological Survey says the Arctic Refuge could provide about a million barrels of oil a day for 20 years. Compared to our total energy needs, this is not even a drop in the bucket it is a drop in the barrel. There is a better way. Simply by closing the loophole that exempts large SUVs from our fuel efficiency standards, we can save as much oil as the oil companies could possibly produce in the Arctic Refuge. Mr. President, when President Eisenhower designated this special place as a Wildlife Refuge, our nation made a promise to future generations. We promised that some places on earth would always remain unspoiled by the hand of man. Let's not break that promise. Let's not sell our children's birthright for a few barrels of oil. Instead, let's develop a real energy strategy for the 21st Century--a strategy that uses oil more efficiently, and employs American know-how to harness new sources of energy. Mr. President, the American people know what is at stake. My office has received 15,000 messages this week urging the Senate not to despoil the Arctic Refuge. I will vote for the Cantwell amendment, and I urge all my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a common sense bill that will protect American citizens and law enforcement officers. The Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act is designed to restore and strengthen the ban on assault weapons that expired on September 13, 2004. The Government Accountability Office recently reported that 47 people on the terrorist watch list legally purchased firearms in this country last year. I personally believe that a person on the terrorist watch list, who isn't allowed to board a commercial airliner, should not be able to purchase any weapon. But they especially shouldn't be able to buy assault weapons, which possess unique, military-bred, anti- personnel design characteristics. These features, taken together, make it easy for a shooter to simply point a weapon--as opposed to taking careful aim--and quickly spray a wide area with a lethal hail of bullets. These features make assault weapons especially attractive to terrorists and criminals, and virtually useless to hunters or sport shooters. Before the previous ban on assault weapons expired last November, some attempted to justify that expiration by saying that it wasn't working as intended. That is true. Some gun manufacturers were exploiting loopholes in the law by selling kits that made it possible to modify legal firearms into assault-style weapons, or by changing a few features of a weapon so it would slip through the legal definition of an assault rifle. The proper response to these abuses was not to let the ban expire, however. Instead, we should have fixed the ban so it really kept assault-style weapons out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. This bill will do that. It improves and simplifies the definition of assault weapons; expands the scope of the ban to include conversion parts kits that can be purchased through the mail and used to build an assault weapon; regulates the transfer of grandfathered assault weapons; clarifies definitions of assault weapon characteristics; and enhances tracing of assault weapons. Keeping assault weapons out of the hands of terrorists and criminals is simply a matter of common sense. Innocent lives are at stake-- including the lives of law enforcement officers who are our last line of defense against terrorists who would attack our communities. Make no mistake--military-style assault weapons are a threat to cops on the street. An analysis of FBI data found that one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons. How many of those officers would be alive today if criminals hadn't been able to get their hands on assault weapons? Hundreds of organizations are on record in support of a ban on assault weapons, including the Anti-Defamation League, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence united with the Million Mom March, Consumer Federation of America, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National League of Cities, and Voices for America's Children. I urge all of my colleagues to support this common-sense measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a common sense bill that will protect American citizens and law enforcement officers. The Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act is designed to restore and strengthen the ban on assault weapons that expired on September 13, 2004. The Government Accountability Office recently reported that 47 people on the terrorist watch list legally purchased firearms in this country last year. I personally believe that a person on the terrorist watch list, who isn't allowed to board a commercial airliner, should not be able to purchase any weapon. But they especially shouldn't be able to buy assault weapons, which possess unique, military-bred, anti- personnel design characteristics. These features, taken together, make it easy for a shooter to simply point a weapon--as opposed to taking careful aim--and quickly spray a wide area with a lethal hail of bullets. These features make assault weapons especially attractive to terrorists and criminals, and virtually useless to hunters or sport shooters. Before the previous ban on assault weapons expired last November, some attempted to justify that expiration by saying that it wasn't working as intended. That is true. Some gun manufacturers were exploiting loopholes in the law by selling kits that made it possible to modify legal firearms into assault-style weapons, or by changing a few features of a weapon so it would slip through the legal definition of an assault rifle. The proper response to these abuses was not to let the ban expire, however. Instead, we should have fixed the ban so it really kept assault-style weapons out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. This bill will do that. It improves and simplifies the definition of assault weapons; expands the scope of the ban to include conversion parts kits that can be purchased through the mail and used to build an assault weapon; regulates the transfer of grandfathered assault weapons; clarifies definitions of assault weapon characteristics; and enhances tracing of assault weapons. Keeping assault weapons out of the hands of terrorists and criminals is simply a matter of common sense. Innocent lives are at stake-- including the lives of law enforcement officers who are our last line of defense against terrorists who would attack our communities. Make no mistake--military-style assault weapons are a threat to cops on the street. An analysis of FBI data found that one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, were killed with assault weapons. How many of those officers would be alive today if criminals hadn't been able to get their hands on assault weapons? Hundreds of organizations are on record in support of a ban on assault weapons, including the Anti-Defamation League, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence united with the Million Mom March, Consumer Federation of America, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National League of Cities, and Voices for America's Children. I urge all of my colleagues to support this common-sense measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, who has long been an advocate and supporter for Amtrak. It is so fitting that he rises at this point in time to say let's face up to this. We need more money. To do anything that would eliminate funding and practically assure bankruptcy, which we have just dealt with in a long debate, for this important national facility--I look at what is being proposed, and it is a surprise, in view of our need for better security, for a balance in the modes of transportation, which we desperately need. In the last couple of weeks I have met with railroad people, freight railroad people. I met with aviation people. We had the heads of these companies, the CEOs in, talking to us about what their needs were and how they needed more money to finance their expansion to keep up with their demand. When it comes to Amtrak, there is not really the support that there ought to be. This is a national facility, call it what you will. We talk about the Northeast corridor, but that is not the whole ball game because the Northeast corridor depends on its operation being part of the whole infrastructure of a rail system. I refer to a piece I authored not too long ago. I start saying: Imagine hundreds of thousands more cars on our crowded highways, more hours stuck in traffic jams, more travelers in our busy airports, more oil imported from the Middle East. One cannot be in one location in this country or another without understanding that traffic jams are more the norm, and we have to do whatever we can to relieve that congestion, to relieve ourselves from the pollution that emits from all that traffic, cars sitting one behind the other. If that is what we want to see, then here we are, looking at the closing of Amtrak. It is a pretty grim future for millions of Americans, under the proposal made by President Bush. This irresponsible plan would stop our Nation's passenger rail system dead in its tracks. The Bush administration wants to eliminate all Federal funding for Amtrak, bankrupt our Nation's national passenger rail system, and shift more of the cost of new service toward cash-strapped States. My colleague, the senior Senator from New Jersey, just talked about that and the impact it would have. The administration wants to eliminate all Federal funding. It would be a disaster. The shortsighted proposal would strand 850,000 commuters who depend on Amtrak and its services to get to work each and every day. It would worsen congestion, as I said, on our roads and in our skies. Anybody who stays abreast of what is happening in our transportation system knows that we have closed the gap, the distances between airplanes, because there are too many out there under the old system. I am not suggesting it is not safe or anything of that nature, but the fact is we are putting it into overload. It is hard to get more airplanes up there. The sky, surprising to some, is a finite facility and we cannot keep putting more airplanes up there. The impact in New Jersey and the New York metropolitan area would be devastating, where so much of our financial well-being develops, the marketplace and whatever. The heaviest population in the country is in my home State of New Jersey, and it spreads through the other States nearby, whether it is New York or Connecticut or Pennsylvania. Amtrak carries 4 million passengers a year in the New York metropolitan area, and it is the lifeline of our transportation system. Instead of killing Amtrak, we should help provide the kind of top quality passenger rail system our country needs and deserves. We have never been willing to do that. We have never put the funds in it needed, from the point in time in the early 1970s when Amtrak became a quasi-government organization. We have never put the funding in there to bring this up to the kind of system that should be operating. Go to Brussels, Belgium, where the NATO headquarters exists. Try to get to Paris, about 200 miles away. You cannot get an airplane to take that trip. You get into a train in the middle of town and a hour and 20 minutes later you are in Paris, 200 miles away. If we had that kind of service in some of these heavily crowded corridors, not just the Northeast corridor but from Chicago to St. Louis, for example, from Las Vegas, NV, to Los Angeles, some of these other places--if we could get high-speed rail there we could substantially reduce the number of airplanes that fill our skies. We could save money, save pollution, save congestion, and do ourselves a good service. Since the Federal Government created Amtrak 34 years ago to relieve the private railroads of passenger service, we have invested less than $1 billion a year in infrastructure and operations, not nearly enough for a world-class system. Germany, with its modern high-speed rail system, and where the President recently visited, invested $9 billion in passenger rail service in 2003 alone. Even Estonia spends more than twice per capita than United States on passenger rail. Americans need a world-class rail system and Amtrak has been working hard to provide it. Over the last 2 years, Amtrak has cut its costs significantly, trimmed its staff by 20 percent, increased the number of trains by 20 percent, and launched a multiyear plan to repair long- neglected infrastructure needs. Amtrak ridership, by the way, reached a record 25 million persons in 2004; the equivalent of 125,000 fully booked 757 airplanes. More Americans are taking the train not only out of necessity but because they appreciate the kind of service and comfort that Amtrak can provide. The tragic events of 9/11--I remember the day vividly from the apartment I live in on the Hudson River. It is practically right across from the World Trade Center. When we witnessed this catastrophe taking place, we thought about what the consequences might be; what might happen the next day, the day after or the year after. Aviation, much to our surprise and regrettably, was shut down completely. And Amtrak was the facility that people had to use to get from Washington. A special train was set up to carry people from Congress up to New York to get some idea as to what took place. We were reminded that we couldn't rely exclusively on airlines because this country's commercial aviation system was totally shut down. Amtrak trains kept running and carried many stranded airline passengers back to their families, to their great anxiety and concern. Amtrak provided a spectacular service in those days. Today, everybody knows that when you go to the airport there are long lines because of security searches, making rail travel, or any kind of travel, an increasingly attractive option, but not automobile traffic. On a personal note of experience, the other day I left our office in the Hart Building and headed for Washington's Reagan National Airport. It took us almost an hour to arrive at the airport. Then we got to the security line, and that was over a half-hour long. If we totaled the time, excluding the flight time of the first one I missed and the waiting time for the second one that I had to catch, it would easily have been longer than it would have taken by rail. If we could do for rail what we know is being done in other countries and shorten the ride between here and, let's say, Newark or New York to a 2-hour ride, we would relieve our skies, we would relieve our highways of all kinds of congestion, pollution--you name it--and cost. But we have never made the investment. All transportation infrastructure costs money, including highways and airports, and States cannot bear the cost. But while the Bush administration proposes $50 billion in Federal funds for highways and airports this year--over $50 billion--there is not one dime reserved for inner-city passenger rail infrastructure. It is a crime not to do that. Even though there is no money in the budget, the Bush administration promises to pay half the cost of future rail infrastructure projects. But the Federal Government currently picks up 80 percent of the cost for highways and airport infrastructure. Since 1982, we have spent $696 billion on highways and aviation compared to $21.5 billion on rail. We have to level this playing field to make rail more competitive. It is a vital asset for our country. Even in the more remote communities serviced by rail, I know in conversation with colleagues they appreciate the service they get. We need to help Amtrak improve service on its existing viable routes and expand to other markets where travelers deserve a choice. Instead, the Bush administration wants to leave the passengers stranded with its own version of what the rail passenger asset should look like. In quick summary, we make a terrible mistake to turn our back on something as vital as intercity rail service. I hope we are not going to let it stand as it is presently projected. The Senator from West Virginia has proposed slightly over $1 billion to be added to the $360 million the President has proposed for traffic service that will give us a start on what we have to do to finally put Amtrak in the kind of condition that can develop the technology we see in so many other places, rapid transportation, and avoid having all of us line up at the airports and on the highways and wait anxiously to see when our turn will come to take our seat and start our travel. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are now into our second week of debate on this bill, but in fact, we have been talking about it for 8 years, since it was originally introduced. During that time, personal bankruptcies in our Nation have surged, while the profits of credit card companies have soared. We had an opportunity to pass a good bill that would have curbed real abuses of bankruptcy, while protecting consumers who fall on hard times because of a medical catastrophe, divorce or the loss of a job. Instead, the majority rejected dozens of amendments that would have protected the homes of senior citizens, and required credit card companies to level with consumers about how much they would really pay in interest and penalties. Now we are left with a bill that punishes consumers and lines the pockets of the credit card companies, a bill that protects the mansions of multimillionaires who file for bankruptcy protection but makes it easier for landlords to evict tenants from their homes if they are forced into bankruptcy, and, a bill that makes no distinction between a family struck by catastrophic illness, and a spendthrift who maxes out his credit cards on a shopping spree. I mentioned catastrophic illness because half of all bankruptcies today are the result of medical debts. Most families who are driven into bankruptcy by a medical problem probably think it can never happen to them because they have health insurance. But it can happen to anyone, and it does. Three-fourths of the people who file for bankruptcy because of medical debts have health insurance when the medical problem begins. But eventually their insurance runs out or certain treatments are not covered. And the next thing they know, they are facing financial ruin. Bankruptcy also hits families that have been torn apart by divorce. On Sunday, the Washington Post published a front-page article about this bill. The article described how a woman who was left alone by her husband to raise three children had fallen behind on her credit card payments. Even though she worked a second job and paid $2,000 a month to the credit card companies, her debt continued to pile up because of exorbitant late fees and interest rates. This woman was almost an indentured servant to her credit card companies, struggling to pay off a debt that could never be satisfied. This is not an isolated incident. The trend in the credit card industry today was described by one expert as a ``fee feeding frenzy.'' Credit card companies collected almost $15 billion in penalty fees last year--nearly 10 times the $1.7 billion they collected in 1996. Penalty fees have become so important to the bottom line that some banks refer to customers who pay their bills on time as ``deadbeats,'' because they cannot be hit with exorbitant penalties. It has become commonplace for credit card companies to jack up the interest rates of customers who are slightly late with their payments-- in some cases, by no more than one day. Credit companies already charge late fees of up to $39 for every late payment. Piling a higher interest rate on top of that late fee is like double jeopardy, and that is not fair to consumers. There are many reasons why a consumer might be a day or two late in making a credit card payment. Maybe a child got sick and had to see a doctor, and his mom was too busy taking him to the hospital to worry about a credit card payment. Maybe a car broke down, and it had to be fixed so a worker could get to their job. Maybe the mail was a little slow that week. Whatever the reason, a consumer should not be unfairly and harshly punished for one late payment. At the very least, credit card companies should give consumers fair warning before hiking their interest rates. If there is a problem, the consumer should have a chance to correct it before their rate can be increased. But the credit card companies are not interested in fairness. In fact, they actually hope customers will be late with a payment so they can be hit with penalty fees. To that end, they engage in ``bait and switch'' tactics to lure consumers with low rates, then automatically jack those rates up the first time a payment is a day late. One example of this is the Capital One Platinum MasterCard. Customers going to the Capital One Web site to apply for a credit card will find the following ad, which touts ``a great low rate''--an ``8.9 percent fixed APR.'' This ad is pretty prominent. As you can see, the type is large and easy to read, and there is a nice picture. On an entirely separate Web page, buried in pages of fine print, Capital One discloses that: All your APRs may increase to a default rate of up to 25.9% ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE if you default under this Card Agreement because you fail to make a payment to us when due, you exceed your credit line or your payment is returned for any reason. Default APRs will be effective . . . immediately. In other words, despite advertising a ``fixed'' rate of 8.9 percent, Capital One can almost triple a customer's rate to a whopping 25.9 percent--just for sending one payment one day late. The cost of this rate hike to a customer with a balance of $5,000 would be as much as $880 in interest payments over the following year. That is simply too harsh of a penalty for sending one payment one day late. This is the dire situation in which many consumers find themselves. Even though they make payments every month, and don't charge any new purchases to their credit card, they fall deeper and deeper into debt. Eventually, seeing no other way out, some of these people declare bankruptcy. Many States have passed laws to protect consumers from unscrupulous penalties and rate increases. Unfortunately, these laws cannot be enforced, as courts have ruled that the banks are bound by the laws of the States where they are located, not where their customers reside. As a result, credit card companies have flocked to States with weak consumer protections, creating a ``race to the bottom.'' With this bill, we had an opportunity to put a stop to that, and end the unscrupulous gouging of consumers. By giving consumers a chance to correct problems before they were hit with higher interest rates, we could have prevented many bankruptcies. Unfortunately, we have squandered that opportunity. This bill does nothing to address the roots of the bankruptcy problem in our country today. And it does nothing to help consumers. For that reason, I must vote against S. 256.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we have the benefit of many resources that provide us with a wealth of information: our dedicated staffs, the agencies of the Federal Government, and the many interested citizens and groups who follow issues. We rely every day on the information we get from all these sources. But we also rely on plain old common sense. I rise today to introduce a bill that is based on common sense. The premise is this: if we think somebody is a terrorist or has ties to terrorism, and that person purchases a deadly weapon, we need to know about it and keep track of it. The bill I am introducing is called the ``Terrorist Apprehension Record Retention (TARR) Act.'' I am introducing it in response to a report that Senator Biden and I requested from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The report examined the practices of the National Instant Criminal Background Checks system (NICS) in conducting background checks of people who are on the Federal terrorist watch list and who try to purchase firearms. The GAO found that from February 3 through June 30 of last year--a period of just five months--a total of 44 known or suspected terrorists attempted to purchase firearms. The GAO Report is available at http:// www.gao.gov/new.items/d05127.pdf. In 35 of these cases, the FBI authorized the transactions to proceed because its field agents were unable to find any disqualifying information, such as felony convictions or illegal immigrant status, within the federally prescribed three business days. FBI officials told GAO investigators that from June through October 2004, the FBI's NICS handled an additional 14 transactions involving known or suspected terrorists. Of these 14 transactions, the FBI allowed 12 to proceed and denied 2 based on prohibiting information. These people who are on the terrorist watch list are not even allowed to board a commercial airliner. Yet most of them were allowed to purchase firearms. Some would say that defies common sense--but it gets worse. After most of the people with suspected terrorist connections were allowed to purchase these deadly weapons, the FBI was forced to destroy the records of the transactions within 24 hours after the FBI had approved the sale. These records were destroyed pursuant to the ``Tiahrt Amendment'' which was implemented last July. The GAO also found that Department of Justice procedures prohibit the NICS from sharing information about gun sales to suspected terrorists with counterterrorism officials. This restriction of information-sharing is based on the belief at DOJ that information gathered by NICS should not be used for law enforcement purposes or to fight the war against terror. This is despite the fact that FBI counterterrorism officials said that it would help them fight the war on terror if they were to routinely receive all available personal identifying information and other details from valid-match background checks of known or suspected terrorists. So, not only are people suspected of having links to terrorism allowed to purchase deadly weapons, but then we don't even tell our counterterrorism agents about it--and we destroy the records! This doesn't seem like common sense to me. In fact, it seems like a policy that not only allows terrorists to acquire weapons, but then helps them cover their tracks. In light of the findings in this report, Senators Corzine, Schumer, Clinton, Feinstein, Mikulski, Reed and Kennedy are joining me in introducing the TARR Act, which would do two very important things. First, the bill would require the Federal Government, specifically the NICS and FBI, to maintain for 10 years all records related to a NICS transaction involving a valid match to the VGTOF terrorist records--a suspected or known terrorist. It is outrageous that one unit of the FBI--NICS--has information that could help us win the war against terrorism, but that information is deleted. Second, the TARR Act would require all information related to the transactions involving a valid match to the VGTOF terrorist records must be shared with all appropriate Federal and State counterterrorism officials. Both FBI counterterrorism agents and State counterterrorism agencies should have access to this potentially valuable information. I encourage my colleagues to support this common sense legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that an article from the March 8, 2005 edition of the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we have the benefit of many resources that provide us with a wealth of information: our dedicated staffs, the agencies of the Federal Government, and the many interested citizens and groups who follow issues. We rely every day on the information we get from all these sources. But we also rely on plain old common sense. I rise today to introduce a bill that is based on common sense. The premise is this: if we think somebody is a terrorist or has ties to terrorism, and that person purchases a deadly weapon, we need to know about it and keep track of it. The bill I am introducing is called the ``Terrorist Apprehension Record Retention (TARR) Act.'' I am introducing it in response to a report that Senator Biden and I requested from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The report examined the practices of the National Instant Criminal Background Checks system (NICS) in conducting background checks of people who are on the Federal terrorist watch list and who try to purchase firearms. The GAO found that from February 3 through June 30 of last year--a period of just five months--a total of 44 known or suspected terrorists attempted to purchase firearms. The GAO Report is available at http:// www.gao.gov/new.items/d05127.pdf. In 35 of these cases, the FBI authorized the transactions to proceed because its field agents were unable to find any disqualifying information, such as felony convictions or illegal immigrant status, within the federally prescribed three business days. FBI officials told GAO investigators that from June through October 2004, the FBI's NICS handled an additional 14 transactions involving known or suspected terrorists. Of these 14 transactions, the FBI allowed 12 to proceed and denied 2 based on prohibiting information. These people who are on the terrorist watch list are not even allowed to board a commercial airliner. Yet most of them were allowed to purchase firearms. Some would say that defies common sense--but it gets worse. After most of the people with suspected terrorist connections were allowed to purchase these deadly weapons, the FBI was forced to destroy the records of the transactions within 24 hours after the FBI had approved the sale. These records were destroyed pursuant to the ``Tiahrt Amendment'' which was implemented last July. The GAO also found that Department of Justice procedures prohibit the NICS from sharing information about gun sales to suspected terrorists with counterterrorism officials. This restriction of information-sharing is based on the belief at DOJ that information gathered by NICS should not be used for law enforcement purposes or to fight the war against terror. This is despite the fact that FBI counterterrorism officials said that it would help them fight the war on terror if they were to routinely receive all available personal identifying information and other details from valid-match background checks of known or suspected terrorists. So, not only are people suspected of having links to terrorism allowed to purchase deadly weapons, but then we don't even tell our counterterrorism agents about it--and we destroy the records! This doesn't seem like common sense to me. In fact, it seems like a policy that not only allows terrorists to acquire weapons, but then helps them cover their tracks. In light of the findings in this report, Senators Corzine, Schumer, Clinton, Feinstein, Mikulski, Reed and Kennedy are joining me in introducing the TARR Act, which would do two very important things. First, the bill would require the Federal Government, specifically the NICS and FBI, to maintain for 10 years all records related to a NICS transaction involving a valid match to the VGTOF terrorist records--a suspected or known terrorist. It is outrageous that one unit of the FBI--NICS--has information that could help us win the war against terrorism, but that information is deleted. Second, the TARR Act would require all information related to the transactions involving a valid match to the VGTOF terrorist records must be shared with all appropriate Federal and State counterterrorism officials. Both FBI counterterrorism agents and State counterterrorism agencies should have access to this potentially valuable information. I encourage my colleagues to support this common sense legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that an article from the March 8, 2005 edition of the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to support the Schumer amendment to the bankruptcy legislation presently before the Senate. The amendment provides that debts or judgments arising from acts of violence and threats of violence cannot be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings. While this provision was drafted in previous Congresses to specifically apply to reproductive health service providers and abortion clinics, it has been expanded this year with the help of some of our Republican colleagues. The amendment now addresses violence and intimidation aimed at blocking access to any type of lawful good or service. The Schumer amendment now applies to anyone who threatens, intimidates, or harms another person in the course of a lawful practice in places like houses of worship, the workplace and restaurants. Supporters of the bankruptcy bill argue that this amendment should be defeated because any amendment to so-called compromise bankruptcy legislation would upset the apple cart, causing the House of Representatives to reject it. I cannot understand how this Senate could could fail to pass an amendment that would simply prevent perpetrators of violence from hiding behind our bankruptcy laws. Where is the justice in permitting such a practice? For the past week, supporters of the bankruptcy legislation have consistently talked about personal responsibility and the need to prevent people from abusing the bankruptcy process. In fact, the centerpiece of this legislation is a means test that presumes chapter 7 filers are abusing the bankruptcy laws because their monthly income increases by as little as $100. The Schumer amendment is intended to prevent extremists and fanatics from abusing our bankruptcy laws to shield themselves from paying fines and fees imposed by a court of law after they have endangered someone's livelihood. These attacks are more common that one might imagine. Since 1977, there have been 7 murders, 17 attempted murders, 41 bombings, 171 arsons, 100 butyric acid attacks, and 655 threats targeting abortion providers alone. In total, there have been more than 4,000 cases of stalking, burglaries, kidnappings, assaults, anthrax threats, invasions, attempting bombing and acts of vandalism, perpetrated against people who were performing or offering a legal procedure. And in case after case, after the perpetrators of these acts of intimidation and violence are brought to justice, they hide behind the bankruptcy code to shield themselves from assuming responsibility for their actions. As Senator Schumer has said, this issue is neither pro-choice nor pro-life; it is ``pro-rule-of-law and anti-violence.'' While we have a right to disagree with the law in this country, and a right to try to change the law, no person has the right to take the law into his own hands. I have followed this issue for a long time. The first blockade of an abortion clinic occurred in Cherry Hill, NJ, in 1987. The first murder of an abortion provider occurred 12 years ago, on March 10, 1993, when Dr. David Gunn was slain during an antiabortion protest at a Pensacola, FL clinic. Since then, there have been six more murders. In 1994, responding to a rash of violence against abortion providers around the country, I asked the United States attorney to convene a task force to ensure that all appropriate measures were being taken to protect women and doctors and to prosecute those who threatened them with violence. Later that year, Congress enacted the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, FACE, Act, which established Federal criminal and financial penalties for those who employ violence and intimidation to prevent persons from obtaining or providing reproductive health services. Unfortunately, the perpetrators of violence have used our bankruptcy laws to evade responsibility and escape the financial penalties that were part of the FACE Act. For example, former Operation Rescue president Randall Terry has filed for bankruptcy to avoid paying more than $1.6 million in fines and fees that he owes as a result of his illegal actions. We must not allow those who would take the law into their own hands and commit acts of violence against their fellow citizens to hide behind our laws when it suits their purposes. We must not allow our bankruptcy laws to be abused as a shield for violence. I encourage my colleagues to support the Schumer amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, and call attention to an unseemly lobbying effort to discredit one of our Nation's most revered public safety organizations, the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD, and one of our Nation's largest automakers, General Motors. Each year, General Motors donates money to MADD to support its campaign against drunk driving. In response to this, the alcohol special interest lobby is spending $10 million to finance a lobbying campaign--or as some might call it, a smear campaign. This campaign is aimed at scaring and intimidating corporate donors like GM so they will stop giving money to safety organizations like MADD. Apparently the alcohol lobby thinks it is bad for its business to crack down on drunk driving, which kills 17,000 Americans each year and injures over 500,000. Ten million dollars is not an insignificant amount of money. After all, the Federal Government only spends $30 million each year on public law enforcement campaigns to educate people on drunk driving awareness and prevention. What a shame. Imagine if the alcohol lobby would spend $10 million to educate people and prevent drunk driving, instead of bullying GM. Many of the customers they lose each year to drunk driving crashes could probably be saved, along with thousands of innocent Americans. That sounds like a much better investment than financing a smear campaign that will cost lives. I am one of the most ardent opponents of drunk driving in the Senate, and I see the results of the good work we do here to help save the lives of our constituents from the scourge of drunk driving. Over the years, I have battled against the alcohol lobby to pass effective laws to reduce drunk driving. In 1986 I authored legislation and worked with Senator Elizabeth Dole, who was Secretary of the Department of Transportation at the time, to raise the minimum drinking age from 18 to 21. President Reagan signed my bill into law, and MADD officials were there with us. In 2000 Senator DeWine and I teamed up to get a bill passed establishing .08 blood alcohol concentration level as the nationwide threshold for drunk driving. These are the kind of smart, common-sense initiatives that MADD supports. And these are the kind of initiatives that save lives. Combined, these two measures are estimated to save some 1,500 lives a year. Federal public awareness campaigns against drunk driving are also having a tangible impact. We need to step up these program, which is why Senator DeWine and I will soon introduce a bill to increase funding for this effort. What we don't need is a $10 million misinformation program from the alcohol industry. Drunk driving is no joke. It kills and maims thousands of people in American each year, and costs $9 billion in additional health care and other costs. MADD is trying to stanch the flow of blood on our highways, and they are doing a good job of it. GM, to its credit, supports MADD. They deserve our encouragement, and they deserve for us to stand up against this vicious smear campaign. I intend to work with Senator DeWine to let Americans know the truth about the alcohol lobby's smear campaign, to counter the alcohol lobby's lies with the truth, and to fight for legislation that reduces drunk driving and saves lives across our country.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on Tuesday morning just past, we had our usual Democratic Senate caucus lunch. We discuss lots of things at those lunch meetings. But we were all struck by an appeal from our dearly beloved colleague Senator Robert C. Byrd, whom I consider a dear friend of long standing. I have been here over 20 years. When he rose to encourage all of us to resist subverting existing Senate rules to bypass an important process which permitted the minority in the Senate to challenge the Senate Republican majority to run roughshod over the rights of the minority, to exercise longstanding rules that permitted them a voice, Senator Byrd pleaded with us, not as a Democrat, not as a partisan, but as citizens and Senators, to fight to preserve the rights of a minority by being able to use a tactic called a filibuster as a means of protection for the minority. We have to remember that in the recent elections for President, 57 million people voted for John Kerry, and they were a minority. This Senate decides to ignore those voices and concerns of a minority of that size? The Senators who voted against cloture recently represented 19 million more constituents than the majority. Can that be constructed as a tyranny of the minority when the Senators who were against cloture represented 19 million people more than the majority who wanted cloture? Tyranny of the minority. Outrageous. Senator Byrd pleaded with Members to remind our Republican colleagues that such a rules change could once be at their expense, that their constituents could be deprived of their appropriate rights to a voice in legislative or executive matters. I offer these comments as a prelude to remarks I am about to make. We have seen some ugly personal attacks recently by the Republican Party against our Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid. He was called an obstructionist. He was referred to in sarcastic and insulting terms, as well as our former majority leader, Senator Robert C. Byrd, and Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean. The other side cannot beat us with the strength of their ideas. They are resorting to the same tactics they used against Senator Daschle-- personal attacks on family members and attacks on character. This is shameless behavior. Not too long ago we had an election in Georgia in which Max Cleland, a former Senator, a triple amputee, was portrayed as being soft on defense. He was being portrayed as a coward when it came to defending our country. He lost three limbs, two legs and an arm, in the defense of his Nation. And they succeeded with these shameless tactics. We see a continuation of that. It has to stop. Whenever they are short of ideas, they are long on insults, with shameless name-calling. Yesterday, a group calling itself the Republican Jewish Coalition attacked Senator Byrd over a historical reference he made on Hitler's rise to power in Germany. It was not an anti-Semitic remark. I resent the fact they are raising that kind of an insinuation. I am proud of my America. I am proud of my citizenship and the duty I served my country with when I wore a uniform and that I serve my country with now. I am also proud of my Jewish heritage. I resent it when any group steps up to use the shameless insinuations and challenges and insults being put forward. Senator Byrd is known by everyone in this Chamber and people who have served for many years past as a great historian. He uses lessons from history to teach. On Tuesday just past, Senator Byrd at our luncheon issued a stern warning before we do anything irresponsible such as changing longstanding Senate rules with this notorious nuclear option which says reduce the numbers needed to object to something the majority has proposed. That is the structure of democracy. Minority voices are to be heard. We say it in our Constitution. We say it in our courtrooms. It does not matter where. Senator Byrd's warning came in the form of a lesson of history. He simply said that when you change the rules, you change the laws to suit your convenience, you are engaged in a tyranny. As the saying goes, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Senator Byrd talked about how a threatened filibuster in this Senate defeated FDR's plan to pack the Supreme Court. We are talking about a Democratic President. That was an option that was available according to the rules that the minority could use. Senator Byrd reminded the Senate the other day how in Germany Adolf Hitler twisted the Reichstag to pass his enabling act, the act that removed the obstructions that were blocking Hitler's plans. It was a historical lesson we should pay attention to. But now, Senator Byrd's words are being twisted by this group. To show some of the shameless tactics they are using, look at this picture. It shows masked men, obviously suicide bombers, with a child strapped with explosives and suggesting that Democrats are responsible for this kind of a condition. It is an outrage. We will not stand silent when the Republican National Committee encourages this kind of behavior. That is how they beat Max Cleland, and that is how they beat Senator Daschle. We are not going to let them win without telling the American people this is a shameful kind of tactic. They have no scruples when they do something like this. No one is suggesting the Republicans are a disloyal party or that they have a particular hate design to their association. But when any group associated with the party suggests that suicide bombers are something that Democrats encourage, to trifle with the loss of life that occurred in Israel, and now we see it in Baghdad--how do we feel about our soldiers serving so bravely and gallantly in Iraq, losing their lives? How do we feel about the Iraqis who lost over 100 of their citizens in one day in a suicide bomb attack? We feel terrible. As a consequence, when something like this, something as scurrilous as this is used, we will condemn it. We are proud of Senator Byrd. He has served this country nobly for many years. Did we disagree with him on some things? Absolutely. We disagree with each other on many occasions. That is what our responsibility is, to disagree when we think something is wrong. I hope this group will not continue this insinuation that Democrats are disloyal, that Democrats would stand for suicide bombers who kill not only Israelis, who kill our soldiers. Is that what they want to say about Democrats? Perhaps a look in the mirror by people at the top of the administration to examine their own military service and see if they were there to protect the rights of our people. Use a tactic like this? It cannot work, it shouldn't work, and it won't work.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the tragic attacks of September 11, 2001 reminded us that police are heroes who risk their lives to protect us. That's why it's so outrageous that a gun manufacturer would design and market a ``cop killer'' weapon. Today on the streets of our cities there is a handgun, called the Five-SeveN, that was specifically designed to pierce bulletproof vests like the ones worn by police. The web site for this gun actually brags that it can pierce protective armor--that it is a potential cop killer. One of these weapons was recently confiscated by police officer in Camden, NJ, from a suspect charged with trafficking in large amounts of narcotics. If there had been a gunfight, the police would have been outgunned. Who knows how many cop-killer guns are on the streets of my State--or yours? Police across the nation are alarmed by this weapon. The police chief of Jersey City, Robert Troy, recently pleaded with Congress to ban this gun. That's why I have introduced the Protect Law Enforcement Armor (PLEA) Act to take ``cop-killer guns'' off the streets. And, I am pleased Senators Corzine, Schumer and Clinton are co-sponsors of this legislation. There might be a place for this gun on a battlefield . . . but not near a playground. Not on our streets. The cop-killer gun isn't good for hunting. The last time I checked, deer didn't wear bulletproof vests. It isn't for target shooting. It isn't even a practical weapon for protection against home intruders. The cop-killer gun was designed for one thing--piercing the protective armor worn by police officers. This is a weapon a terrorist or criminal would love: light and easily concealed, yet so powerful that it can penetrate a bullet-proof vest from a distance of more than two football fields. Armor-piercing bullets are already illegal, but the cop-killer gun has slipped through a loophole in the law. Simply put, this gun skirts the law by delivering ammunition with unusual velocity, turning otherwise legal bullets into ``cop killers.'' We can't sit by. We must protect our police. We must ban the cop-killer gun and close the loophole on cop-killer bullets. Our police officers risk their lives to protect us . . . but we should reduce that risk as much as possible. Let's get cop-killer guns off our streets. Let's pass the PLEA Act. The PLEA Act is simple. It would ban the Five-seven assault pistol, ban the special armor piecing FN 5.7 x 28mm S 192 ammunition, expand the federal definition of armor piercing ammunition, and require the Attorney General to test any ammunition that is capable of penetrating body armor. The PLEA Act does not apply to the military and law enforcement. In fact, it specifically exempts sale of armor piercing ammunition to the military and law enforcement. I encourage my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the tragic attacks of September 11, 2001 reminded us that police are heroes who risk their lives to protect us. That's why it's so outrageous that a gun manufacturer would design and market a ``cop killer'' weapon. Today on the streets of our cities there is a handgun, called the Five-SeveN, that was specifically designed to pierce bulletproof vests like the ones worn by police. The web site for this gun actually brags that it can pierce protective armor--that it is a potential cop killer. One of these weapons was recently confiscated by police officer in Camden, NJ, from a suspect charged with trafficking in large amounts of narcotics. If there had been a gunfight, the police would have been outgunned. Who knows how many cop-killer guns are on the streets of my State--or yours? Police across the nation are alarmed by this weapon. The police chief of Jersey City, Robert Troy, recently pleaded with Congress to ban this gun. That's why I have introduced the Protect Law Enforcement Armor (PLEA) Act to take ``cop-killer guns'' off the streets. And, I am pleased Senators Corzine, Schumer and Clinton are co-sponsors of this legislation. There might be a place for this gun on a battlefield . . . but not near a playground. Not on our streets. The cop-killer gun isn't good for hunting. The last time I checked, deer didn't wear bulletproof vests. It isn't for target shooting. It isn't even a practical weapon for protection against home intruders. The cop-killer gun was designed for one thing--piercing the protective armor worn by police officers. This is a weapon a terrorist or criminal would love: light and easily concealed, yet so powerful that it can penetrate a bullet-proof vest from a distance of more than two football fields. Armor-piercing bullets are already illegal, but the cop-killer gun has slipped through a loophole in the law. Simply put, this gun skirts the law by delivering ammunition with unusual velocity, turning otherwise legal bullets into ``cop killers.'' We can't sit by. We must protect our police. We must ban the cop-killer gun and close the loophole on cop-killer bullets. Our police officers risk their lives to protect us . . . but we should reduce that risk as much as possible. Let's get cop-killer guns off our streets. Let's pass the PLEA Act. The PLEA Act is simple. It would ban the Five-seven assault pistol, ban the special armor piecing FN 5.7 x 28mm S 192 ammunition, expand the federal definition of armor piercing ammunition, and require the Attorney General to test any ammunition that is capable of penetrating body armor. The PLEA Act does not apply to the military and law enforcement. In fact, it specifically exempts sale of armor piercing ammunition to the military and law enforcement. I encourage my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Benjamin W. Timberman, a community leader, educator and humanitarian from New Jersey. Mr. Timberman's career began as a mathematics teacher at Monroe Township Junior High School in Williamstown, NJ. He served in that capacity for 2 years when he was drafted for a 2-year tour of duty in the U.S. Army. Upon his return, he continued his teaching until 1961 when he became vice principal. In 1963, Mr. Timberman was appointed as elementary supervisor for the Monroe Township School District, where he served for 12 years. In 1975, Mr. Timberman reached the penultimate position when he was appointed superintendent of schools, where he served another dozen years. During his 33 years of service to the children of Monroe Township, Mr. Timberman was also the first president of the Monroe Township Education Association. Mr. Timberman also demonstrated his commitment to his community through his service as an elected official. Like his education career, Mr. Timberman's government career began in 1954 when he was elected to the Elmer Borough Council. He served in that capacity for 7 years before being elected mayor of Elmer in 1963. In 1971, Mr. Timberman was elected to the Salem County Board of Chosen Freeholders where he served for 24 years. With his education background, Mr. Timberman used his position on the Freeholder Board to provide educational opportunities to Salem County residents. Mr. Timberman championed the passage of the bond issue for construction of the Vo-Tech Career Center and advocated for the establishment of the Salem Community College as a degree granting institution. Despite his retirement from education and government, Mr. Timberman and his wife Mary Lou continue to work in the community as volunteers for Meals-on-Wheels and on visits to a local nursing home to lead residents in a monthly sing-a-long. It is my honor to recognize Benjamin W. Timberman for his hard work and commitment to make his community a better place. I urge my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this wonderful human being.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Federal Election Integrity Act on behalf of myself and Senators Kerry, Boxer and Clinton. This bill creates a direct prohibition on chief State election officials from taking part in political campaigns by amending the Federal Campaign Act of 1971. Legislation is very much needed to eliminate an inherent conflict of interest that exists when a State's chief election administration official--the Secretary of State, the State Attorney General, or the Lieutenant Governor--is responsible for monitoring, supervising and certifying the results of a Federal election, while actively involved in the campaign of one of the candidates in that election. I know that this is a practice engaged in by both Democratic and Republican State officials on behalf of Federal candidates, but those officials in charge of certifying Federal elections must not allowed to serve two masters--the voters and the Federal candidate. It is not right and it undermines the faith and confidence that Americans in this Nation's election system, and impugns the integrity of the State election official and the Federal candidate. The will of voters must come before the personal partisan politics. In 2000 and again in 2004, we have witnessed two Secretaries of State capturing national press attention because of their involvement in elections where, literally, every single vote mattered. In the 2004 presidential election, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell was co-chairman of President Bush's re-election campaign in Ohio. On December 6th, 2004, Secretary of State Blackwell certified President Bush as the winner in Ohio with an 118,775-vote lead--closer than unofficial election night results, but not close enough to trigger a mandatory recount. Recount advocates have cited numerous Election Day problems in Ohio, including long lines, a shortage of voting machines in predominantly minority neighborhoods, and suspicious vote totals for candidates in scattered precincts. In the 2000 election, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris served as co-chair of President Bush's Florida campaign. President Bush's narrow victory in Florida gave him the State's 25 electoral votes necessary to win the presidency. A recount of thousands of Florida ballots and resulting court battles held up a resolution to the election for five weeks. There were reports of improprieties by Secretary of State Harris, including ballot tampering and the tampering of office computer files with Bush talking points and other supportive material. Just recently, California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley--a Democrat--resigned due to allegations that he improperly used Federal election funds for partisan activities. In all these cases, I am sure that the Secretaries of State were honorable public servants who made some very unpopular, difficult decisions under intense public scrutiny. But as far as the voters are considered, the Secretaries engaged in partisan political activity that tainted the results of the elections. This legislation fixes that. Secretaries of State and other State election officials with supervisory authority over the administration of Federal elections should not be actively involved in the political campaign or management of a candidate running for Federal office in their State. The Secretary of State is the primary election administration official in 39 States; despite that, history has shown numerous Secretaries of State chairing the political campaigns of Federal candidates in their State. There is a direct conflict of interest when an election official charged with supervising the administration of Federal elections and ensuring the fairness and accuracy of the results of Federal elections has a direct role in a Federal candidate's campaign. Again, this is not an issue of Democrats versus Republicans. Rather, this is an issue of preserving the American people's faith and confidence in the election process. Simply put, election officials responsible for ensuring fair and accurate Federal elections should not be actively cheering for and aiding a candidate in those elections. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the ``Federal Election Integrity Act'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Federal Election Integrity Act on behalf of myself and Senators Kerry, Boxer and Clinton. This bill creates a direct prohibition on chief State election officials from taking part in political campaigns by amending the Federal Campaign Act of 1971. Legislation is very much needed to eliminate an inherent conflict of interest that exists when a State's chief election administration official--the Secretary of State, the State Attorney General, or the Lieutenant Governor--is responsible for monitoring, supervising and certifying the results of a Federal election, while actively involved in the campaign of one of the candidates in that election. I know that this is a practice engaged in by both Democratic and Republican State officials on behalf of Federal candidates, but those officials in charge of certifying Federal elections must not allowed to serve two masters--the voters and the Federal candidate. It is not right and it undermines the faith and confidence that Americans in this Nation's election system, and impugns the integrity of the State election official and the Federal candidate. The will of voters must come before the personal partisan politics. In 2000 and again in 2004, we have witnessed two Secretaries of State capturing national press attention because of their involvement in elections where, literally, every single vote mattered. In the 2004 presidential election, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell was co-chairman of President Bush's re-election campaign in Ohio. On December 6th, 2004, Secretary of State Blackwell certified President Bush as the winner in Ohio with an 118,775-vote lead--closer than unofficial election night results, but not close enough to trigger a mandatory recount. Recount advocates have cited numerous Election Day problems in Ohio, including long lines, a shortage of voting machines in predominantly minority neighborhoods, and suspicious vote totals for candidates in scattered precincts. In the 2000 election, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris served as co-chair of President Bush's Florida campaign. President Bush's narrow victory in Florida gave him the State's 25 electoral votes necessary to win the presidency. A recount of thousands of Florida ballots and resulting court battles held up a resolution to the election for five weeks. There were reports of improprieties by Secretary of State Harris, including ballot tampering and the tampering of office computer files with Bush talking points and other supportive material. Just recently, California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley--a Democrat--resigned due to allegations that he improperly used Federal election funds for partisan activities. In all these cases, I am sure that the Secretaries of State were honorable public servants who made some very unpopular, difficult decisions under intense public scrutiny. But as far as the voters are considered, the Secretaries engaged in partisan political activity that tainted the results of the elections. This legislation fixes that. Secretaries of State and other State election officials with supervisory authority over the administration of Federal elections should not be actively involved in the political campaign or management of a candidate running for Federal office in their State. The Secretary of State is the primary election administration official in 39 States; despite that, history has shown numerous Secretaries of State chairing the political campaigns of Federal candidates in their State. There is a direct conflict of interest when an election official charged with supervising the administration of Federal elections and ensuring the fairness and accuracy of the results of Federal elections has a direct role in a Federal candidate's campaign. Again, this is not an issue of Democrats versus Republicans. Rather, this is an issue of preserving the American people's faith and confidence in the election process. Simply put, election officials responsible for ensuring fair and accurate Federal elections should not be actively cheering for and aiding a candidate in those elections. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the ``Federal Election Integrity Act'' be printed in the Record.