Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to express my approval of this much-delayed 9/11 intelligence reform bill. As a conferee on this important legislation, I am proud of what we produced. The terrible consequences of the 9/11 attack will never be forgotten, but with the passage of this bill future generations will be safer from terrorist attack. On a personal basis, I, like so many from my State of New Jersey and our region, knew people who perished, families who were torn apart, people who still feel the pain of their loss. I want to thank Senators Collins and Lieberman, and Representatives Hoekstra and Harman for their efforts to get a strong bill. This was a roller coaster conference, but well worth the effort. The 9/11 Commissioners also deserve our appreciation for their steady leadership and thoughtful input during this process. Last, and most importantly, I want to salute the 9/11 families for their dedication to getting this legislation done. I especially want to thank the Steering Committee of 9/11 Families and the so-called ``Jersey Girls.'' Had it not been for you 3 years ago, the 9/11 Commission would have never been established. And were it not for you now, this bill would have never passed. Mr. President, we can finally look the 9/11 families in the eye and say: ``We have delivered.'' This 9/11 bill is the most significant piece of intelligence legislation we have passed in 50 years. The last major reform was the National Security Act of 1947, signed into law by President Truman. While the process of compromise resulted in a bill that did not adopt all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, this new law will bring significant improvements in our intelligence system for the better. Mr. President, the 9/11 Commission recognized a need to have one person in charge of our intelligence community, to prevent the kind of miscommunica- tion that occurred before 9/11. This bill addresses this important issue by creating a Director of National Intelligence (DNI) with real authority over America's 15 intelligence-gathering agencies. This bill gives this intelligence director principal authority over the estimated $40 billion intelligence budget and gives that person the power to establish clear priorities for the intelligence community. The bill makes clear: the buck stops with the DNI. This bill also creates a National Counterterrorism Center that will lead our counterterrorism efforts. It will be staffed by terrorism experts from the CIA, FBI, and the Pentagon. The Center will coordinate terrorism intelligence from throughout the government, breaking down the walls that have too frequently prevented agencies from sharing important information in a timely manner. The bill bolsters border security, particularly improving aviation, air cargo, and maritime security. It also strengthens border surveillance, increases the number of border patrol agents and immigration and customs enforcements investigators. This bill also has some provisions to safeguard our civil liberties by establishing a ``Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.'' Although I do not believe that this board has quite the independence and power that I wanted, I am hopeful that the Board will help ensure that new regulations and policies do not violate privacy rights or civil liberties. Mr. President, despite the bipartisan support for this bill, it has faced a difficult road. To be honest, we were ready for a vote on November 20. A strong majority of the conference committee approved this bill and we were ready to go. I signed my name to the conference report at that time. But later that same day, we found out that the House Republican leadership would not move forward on the bill. The reason? Because two Republican Congressmen didn't like the conference report. Mr. President, in my view, the delay in passing this bill was unnecessary and unwise. Every day this bill was dragged out was a day that made our communities less safe. The House Republican leadership nearly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. But thankfully, in the end the families and the 9/11 Commission made their voices heard, and we have reached this milestone today. Mr. President, my home State, New Jersey, lost 700 of its citizens on 9/11. There is little we in Congress can do to heal their pain. But today, at least we can do something to help prevent such a tragedy in the future.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to thank Robert (``Bob'') Kenney, a lawyer with the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, for his significant contributions to my office this year as a Brookings Legislative fellow. We will miss his contributions, experience land knowledge, but it is heartening to know that EPA's rank and file includes dedicated and capable civil servants like Bob. Bob has worked at EPA for over 30 years implementing our clean air, clean water, and toxics laws. This is Bob's second year as a fellow in the Senate. In 1990, he helped draft parts of the Clean Air Act Amendments, the Oil Pollution Act, and Clean Water Act. He ill return later this month to his role as senior counsel at EPA, and I hope his experience in the Senate this year proves helpful to him in his future endeavors. I would like to mention some of the specific contributions Bob made to my office and to our country. Bob took the lead in developing legislation I am introducing today to amend the Oil Pollution Act. Two weeks ago, my home State of New Jersey suffered a devastating oil spill in the Delaware River. The consequences for our natural resources and economy will take some time to assess, but it is clear they will be substantial. In response to that s Dill and to provide incentives to shippers to shift to safer double-hull vessels faster, the Oil Spill Liability Act of 2004 would phase out the liability cap for single-hull tankers. The bill would double the liability limits for double-hull vessels and facilities since those limits have not changed since they were established 14 years ago. I thank Bob for his hard work on this important bill. Bob also took the lead on the brownfields tax provision that was successfully added to the JOBS bill which became law this year, Public Law 108-357. We all have so-called brownfields in our States--the long- abandoned manufacturing facilities--and we know how important it is to get these properties cleaned up and put back productive use. My amendment provides developers interested in brownfields with greater access to capital--alleviating what developers say is their number one problem when it comes to investing in these properties and sites. It does this by exempting funds which originate with tax-exempt entities, such as pension funds and university endowments, from being subject to the ``unrelated business income tax'' or UBIT, when those funds are used to clean up and re-sell large brownfield properties. This provision will give developers access to up to $7 trillion in assets. It represents a tremendous opportunity, potentially, for new jobs and a cleaner environment. Based on Bob's research and recommendation, I worked to ensure that fiscal year 2005 funding to control the Asian longhorned beetle, ALB, ended up being more than triple the President's budget request. The ALB is a wood-boring insect native to China and Korea that has invaded New York, Illinois, and New Jersey via shipping containers. The beetle kills a wide variety of hardwood trees, but has a preference for sugar maples. In New Jersey, this insect's lethal damage to our forests is spreading, and these extra funds will help to combat that destruction. I also thank Bob for his work on the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail, a Coastal Restoration bill, a bill to protect captive exotic animals, and many other projects. It has not been an easy year to promote, what I believe, are common sense environmental protections and initiatives, so we did not achieve all the successes we had hoped for during the year. But Bob's impact will last far beyond his stay here in the Senate. It has become fashionable in some quarters to bash Government employees. This is unfortunate and unfair. I have to say that since I became a United States Senator, I have been impressed by the hard work and professionalism of the public servants I have encountered. Bob is no exception. He has tremendous expertise, he is diligent, and he obviously cares for our country. I appreciate his service during the past year he has been a member of my staff, more importantly, I appreciate an entire career spent in selfless service to our Nation. I extend my best wishes to Bob as he returns to EPA and resumes his career there.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Oil Spill Prevention and Liability Act of 2004. This bill encourages the oil industry to speed up the shift to double-hull tankers by phasing out liability caps on oil spills involving single-hull tankers. My bill also updates the liability caps--which haven't changed since 1990--for all other oil-carrying vessels and facilities. I am introducing this bill because on November 26, the Athos I, a foreign-owned, single-hull tanker, leaked up to 473,000 gallons of Venezuelan crude oil into the Delaware River near Philadelphia. It is the Delaware River's worst oil spill in a decade. The effects of this spill are clearly devastating. Eighty-five miles of shoreline have been contaminated. Scores of shorebirds have been killed and hunting and fishing areas have been closed. The spill is approaching inlets used as sources for drinking water. Two nuclear reactors have been shut down because contaminated water could damage cooling systems. The effect on our economy is immense. The Philadelphia/Delaware River ports have more calls by general cargo vessels than any other port system in the country. Now, restrictions have been placed on all ships entering the port, and ships leaving the port have to be decontaminated first. The clean-up effort, headed by the U.S. Coast Guard, is remarkable. I want to thank the men and women who are involved. More than 1,600 people and 145 vessels are working on this response effort. But we are told that it will take months to complete. And because of the type of oil spilled by the ship--raw crude oil-- the ecological impacts of this spill could last for decades. What is so infuriating is that this spill didn't have to happen. So why did it happen? Because the oil industry is dragging its feet when it comes to shifting from single-hull vessels to double-hull vessels-- that is why. They are supposed to be doing that under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, a bill I co-sponsored. I also served on the conference committee on the bill. The 1990 act was our response to the infamous Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, which devastated the pristine Prince William Sound of Alaska with more than 11 million gallons of oil. We all remember the enormous cost of that spill to the community, the environment, and the economy--costs which continue to this day. The 1990 act improved our ability to prevent and respond to oil spills. Since that act was passed, we have not built any single-hull tankers in the United States. That is the good news. But the oil industry is still using old, single-hull vessels, and it is evident that the industry will continue to use them until the last minute, putting private profit over the public good. That is the bad news. As of last year, 14 years after the most catastrophic oil spill in our Nation's history, there were still more single-hull tankers operating out of Valdez, AK, than double-hull tankers. Apparently, the lessons of the Exxon Valdez have been lost on the oil industry. And now we are paying the price on the Delaware River. When we passed the 1990 act, we gave the oil industry plenty of time to phase out single-hull tankers in an orderly fashion. But the industry hasn't acted in good faith. The fact is, the only way we are going to get the industry to stop relying on single-hull vessels is to lift the liability caps on their use. That is why my bill phases out the liability cap for single-hull vessels by 2010, the same year the Coast Guard predicts that the Federal Oil Spill Trust Fund will run out of money. The Trust Fund has been used to clean up over 7,500 oil spills in nearly every State of the Nation. Right now, the liability for the owner of the Athos I is capped at $45 million. That may seem like a lot, but the full costs of this spill may continue to accrue for years to come. Why should we cap liability for companies that insist on using old, unsafe single-hull vessels when they are supposed to be upgrading their fleets to newer, safer double-hull vessels? The bill I am introducing today has several other features to help protect our ports and waterways from oil spills: It requires more frequent inspections of older single-hull tankers. Other countries do this; why shouldn't we? Are we getting their rejects? The bill would double liability caps set in the 1990 act for other oil-carrying vessels and facilities. This provision is extremely important since, as I mentioned, the Federal Oil Spill Trust Fund will run out of money by 2010. Also, since many ports simply can't handle an interruption of commerce that could be caused by a major oil spill, the bill would require the Coast Guard to establish procedures for determining what types of vessels and cargo are just too risky for certain ports to handle. I am pleased that Senator Corzine has joined me as a cosponsor of this bill. I urge my other colleagues to support this bill, too. Single-hull oil tankers pose a titanic risk to our oceans, coasts, rivers, lakes, and ports; it is time we got back on the right course when it comes to fighting and cleaning up oil spills. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Oil Spill Prevention and Liability Act of 2004. This bill encourages the oil industry to speed up the shift to double-hull tankers by phasing out liability caps on oil spills involving single-hull tankers. My bill also updates the liability caps--which haven't changed since 1990--for all other oil-carrying vessels and facilities. I am introducing this bill because on November 26, the Athos I, a foreign-owned, single-hull tanker, leaked up to 473,000 gallons of Venezuelan crude oil into the Delaware River near Philadelphia. It is the Delaware River's worst oil spill in a decade. The effects of this spill are clearly devastating. Eighty-five miles of shoreline have been contaminated. Scores of shorebirds have been killed and hunting and fishing areas have been closed. The spill is approaching inlets used as sources for drinking water. Two nuclear reactors have been shut down because contaminated water could damage cooling systems. The effect on our economy is immense. The Philadelphia/Delaware River ports have more calls by general cargo vessels than any other port system in the country. Now, restrictions have been placed on all ships entering the port, and ships leaving the port have to be decontaminated first. The clean-up effort, headed by the U.S. Coast Guard, is remarkable. I want to thank the men and women who are involved. More than 1,600 people and 145 vessels are working on this response effort. But we are told that it will take months to complete. And because of the type of oil spilled by the ship--raw crude oil-- the ecological impacts of this spill could last for decades. What is so infuriating is that this spill didn't have to happen. So why did it happen? Because the oil industry is dragging its feet when it comes to shifting from single-hull vessels to double-hull vessels-- that is why. They are supposed to be doing that under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, a bill I co-sponsored. I also served on the conference committee on the bill. The 1990 act was our response to the infamous Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, which devastated the pristine Prince William Sound of Alaska with more than 11 million gallons of oil. We all remember the enormous cost of that spill to the community, the environment, and the economy--costs which continue to this day. The 1990 act improved our ability to prevent and respond to oil spills. Since that act was passed, we have not built any single-hull tankers in the United States. That is the good news. But the oil industry is still using old, single-hull vessels, and it is evident that the industry will continue to use them until the last minute, putting private profit over the public good. That is the bad news. As of last year, 14 years after the most catastrophic oil spill in our Nation's history, there were still more single-hull tankers operating out of Valdez, AK, than double-hull tankers. Apparently, the lessons of the Exxon Valdez have been lost on the oil industry. And now we are paying the price on the Delaware River. When we passed the 1990 act, we gave the oil industry plenty of time to phase out single-hull tankers in an orderly fashion. But the industry hasn't acted in good faith. The fact is, the only way we are going to get the industry to stop relying on single-hull vessels is to lift the liability caps on their use. That is why my bill phases out the liability cap for single-hull vessels by 2010, the same year the Coast Guard predicts that the Federal Oil Spill Trust Fund will run out of money. The Trust Fund has been used to clean up over 7,500 oil spills in nearly every State of the Nation. Right now, the liability for the owner of the Athos I is capped at $45 million. That may seem like a lot, but the full costs of this spill may continue to accrue for years to come. Why should we cap liability for companies that insist on using old, unsafe single-hull vessels when they are supposed to be upgrading their fleets to newer, safer double-hull vessels? The bill I am introducing today has several other features to help protect our ports and waterways from oil spills: It requires more frequent inspections of older single-hull tankers. Other countries do this; why shouldn't we? Are we getting their rejects? The bill would double liability caps set in the 1990 act for other oil-carrying vessels and facilities. This provision is extremely important since, as I mentioned, the Federal Oil Spill Trust Fund will run out of money by 2010. Also, since many ports simply can't handle an interruption of commerce that could be caused by a major oil spill, the bill would require the Coast Guard to establish procedures for determining what types of vessels and cargo are just too risky for certain ports to handle. I am pleased that Senator Corzine has joined me as a cosponsor of this bill. I urge my other colleagues to support this bill, too. Single-hull oil tankers pose a titanic risk to our oceans, coasts, rivers, lakes, and ports; it is time we got back on the right course when it comes to fighting and cleaning up oil spills. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be extended to Bob Kenney, a Brookings Legislative Fellow on loan to my office from the Environmental Protection Agency, for the rest of today's session.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today marks the sixty-third anniversary of the horrific attacks on Pearl Harbor, HI, the first major attack on American soil by a foreign enemy since British troops set fire to the White House and the Capitol Building in the War of 1812. It was 60 years later, September 11, 2001, before the next attack took place on American soil. Pearl Harbor will always be remembered as the first incident to shock the collective psyche of our Nation out of its complacency. Whether it could be classified as a terrorist act or otherwise, the attack on Pearl Harbor claimed the lives of 2,403 American servicemen. This event, perpetrated by a people who have long since reconciled their differences with America and the world, is a reminder to all of us of the sacrifices made by millions of individuals during this time of national peril. Their selfless actions and incredible courage in the face of extreme personal risk helped to ensure that the freedoms which are the bedrock of our country were preserved. We honor the memory of our countrymen who sacrificed their own lives, so others could live, and the families who lost loved ones in the attack. And we honor the survivors of Pearl Harbor, including the roughly 6,000 who are still alive today. We must never forget any of these brave Americans.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute and to recognize a New Jersey organization celebrating its tenth anniversary, the New Jersey Community Development Corporation, NJCDC. I wish to take a moment now to honor NJCDC for the important work it is doing in the State of New Jersey and the accomplishments it has achieved over the past decade. The work of the NJCDC has helped make the dreams of New Jersey residents become a reality for over a decade now. The NJCDC provides hope for a rewarding future through urban revitalization efforts, financial support, education initiatives, and the creation of jobs. The work done by NJCDC has directly transformed the lives of many, especially in the city of Paterson, where I was born. In honor of the accomplishments of this organization, I ask that a proclamation honoring the tenth anniversary of the NJCDC be printed in the Record. The proclamation follows. Whereas, the New Jersey Community development Corporation is a non-profit community development and social service agency based in the City of Paterson, New Jersey; and Whereas, the New Jersey Community Development Corporation and its dedicated staff empowers individuals to transform their lives and offers a variety of programs and services to assist economically disadvantaged individuals, at-risk youth, and people with disabilities; and Whereas, the New Jersey Community Development Corporation helps create jobs, support affordable housing, generate educational initiatives, and support men, women, and children of the community; and Whereas, the New Jersey Community Development Corporation has contributed to the revitalization of the City of Paterson and the Great Falls Historic District, helping to ensure a vibrant future for the City and its residents; and Whereas, now as the New Jersey Community Development Corporation prepares to celebrate its 10th Anniversary, we congratulate the staff and volunteers on this milestone. Therefore, in presenting this citation to the New Jersey Community Development Corporation, I, Frank R. Lautenberg, United States Senator, State of New Jersey, on behalf of the People of the State of New Jersey hereby congratulate the New Jersey Community Development Corporation on its contributions to the community, the City of Paterson, and the State of New Jersey.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. In our State of New Jersey, public hospitals are not allowed to deny abortion services to a woman. What effect will this new Federal law have on those women's rights accorded to them under State constitutions?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Can a doctor who works at a hospital that doesn't provide abortion services be prevented from providing a patient with a simple direction to say we don't do it, I won't do it, but there are places you can go and you ought to check the directory, or check Web sites and see if you can find a place to get this done?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If I may ask the Senator from California, the Senator is saying she has a commitment. Will that be expressed?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator from California yield for a quick question?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Could you see that this information might be used in a political campaign?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to this sweeping gag rule with which we have become familiar. It is against women's health. It has just been slipped into the omnibus spending bill. Even though most of this country is pro-choice, the House Republicans have inserted radical anti-choice language into this legislation. One thing I have learned in my time in politics is that if one of the parties is shameless, the other party cannot afford to be spineless. I am pleased that my colleagues have caught on to what is going on here and are trying to make sure we all understand what is in this huge bill we are looking at. It deserves a thorough examination. I think the Senator from Maryland indicated that if you recognize some mistakes in this pile of paper, one thing you know is that there are many others that lurk in the voluminous bill before us. So the effect of this Republican provision to allow doctors to be gagged from even discussing abortion with their patients is outrageous. This morning, I heard our majority leader, Senator Frist, say that the Senate should focus on ``putting the doctor-patient relationship first.'' But here the Republican majority is inserting language that would block doctors from even talking to their patients about legal medical procedures. Under current law, if a doctor's religious beliefs prevent him or her from providing abortion procedures, then he or she cannot be forced to perform the procedure or even discuss it. That is called the conscience clause, and I think it makes sense. But what is in this omnibus bill goes way beyond the conscience clause. It is a gag rule that allows a hospital or an HMO to order its doctors not to perform, discuss, or even provide basic information on abortion, and that certainly is not putting the doctor-patient relationship first. That is putting politics first. Even if a doctor believes that the information on abortion would be critical to saving the life of the mother, this new provision could be used to prohibit that doctor from providing such lifesaving information. To put it simply, this is an outrageous attack on women's health and women's rights. In addition, this Republican provision overrides State laws. I asked the Senator from California a question as she was making her remarks: Would this eliminate the possibility that even though in the State of New Jersey, my State, for example, if we allowed under our State constitution the right for a woman to have an abortion, that it could be overridden by Federal law if this becomes law. And the answer is yes--state's would not be able to enforce their own constitutional protections. I guess the Republican Party suddenly wants to preempt State or local law from ensuring a woman's access because it does not suit their agenda. My State of New Jersey has such a law, but now our law would be overridden by this Federal gag rule, and that is totally unacceptable. The provision goes so far as to say that any State or local government that attempts to enforce its own laws or policies in the area of abortion could have all of its Federal labor health and education funding canceled--cancel the funding for those essential services. My only complaint is this is not States rights, it is State bullying. One year ago, President Bush--how well I remember it, and I am sure most of my colleagues do--signed an anti-choice bill into law. It was an extraordinary event not just because of the terrible bill that he was signing into law, but also it was quite an image that appeared in newspapers across the country. This is the image. Look at the image again: Smiling faces of all men--all men. Not one woman Republican or Democrat stood with them when the President signed that bill. They are all men, and it is downright frightening. I call this photo a ``male-a-garchy.'' This photo says to women: Your right to make choices about your health and your body is being taken back from you, and these men are doing it, right here, with smiling faces, and the President, with pen in hand, is signing the bill. This trend is going to continue to be enforced by this bill today. The bill before us takes away the decision-making power from women and doctors, and puts it into the hands of men who lead hospitals, insurance companies, and HMOs. Supporters of this gag rule claim this policy change is necessary to make sure that health care providers are not forced to perform abortions. I want to make it crystal clear that under current law, no doctor or nurse in this country is required to provide or discuss abortions against their will. Unlike the conscience clause, this gag rule does not protect doctors' rights, it takes doctors' rights away. Doctors have a duty to ensure that patients have access to accurate information so that they can make the medical decisions that are best for them. This bill would gag them from providing that information and denies women the right to understand all of their medical options. Women have the right to access to medical information about all of their options, not just those that the ``male-a-garchy'' wants them to hear. So I say to women across this country: Be aware, the right to choose is in dire jeopardy. This bill today is yet another attempt to chip away at the right to reproductive choice. Look at the size of the bill that we have just received. It is thousands of pages. Hidden within these pages is the attack on a woman's right to choose. It is wrong to take away people's rights by slipping it into a giant spending bill without any debate, without any discussion, and concealing it in such a way that if we were not lucky and did not catch it, even though it was suggested we are studying all of these bills-- believe me, when there is that much paper and it arrives so late, one does not have time to do it, and it is just luck when it is found. To put it bluntly, it is not becoming of a democracy. I am pleased the Senators from California have secured an ironclad agreement from the majority leader to take up this issue before the end of April of next year. We look forward to that debate. The American people deserve better. Open up the records. Talk about it plainly. Debate it fairly, and then if it comes to a vote, the people in the country will see who voted for and who voted against women's rights. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, earlier today, we were led to believe that we had an agreement with House conferees to pass a bill that will reform our intelligence community and make America safer from the threat of terrorism. Now we find out that House Republicans have killed the bill. This morning, I was one of 11 Senate conferees--6 Republicans, 5 Democrats--who signed the conference report to the Intelligence Reform bill. Remember: the conference report is to a bill the Senate passed 96-2. The bill the Senate passed, in turn, was based on the recommendations of a unanimous 9/11 Commission--5 Republicans, 5 Democrats. Now, we find out that House Republican conferees have rejected the conference report. They have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. From what I gather, the problem is not with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Hoekstra, who has been leading the conference committee. What these House Republican conferees have done is a slap in the face of the Senate, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, and the 9/11 families who have worked so hard to make something positive happen in the wake of a horrific national tragedy. New Jersey lost 700 of its citizens on 9/11; I have to wonder if these House Republican conferees would be behaving differently if they went through what we in New Jersey went through. I have been in the U.S. Senate for 20 years now. I have been involved in my share of conference committees. In all those years, I don't believe I have ever seen a little cabal of Members act more unreasonably. These House Republican conferees have killed a bill that 16 of 21 conferees have voted for. Talk about obstructionism. The fact of the matter is that the conference report we were poised to adopt today is a far cry from the 9/11 Commission recommendations and the bill the Senate passed so overwhelmingly. But there is enough in the conference report to merit going forward. It creates a National Director of Intelligence with real budget authority; it creates a National Counter-Terrorism Center; it bolsters border and transportation security. And it has some provisions to safeguard our civil liberties. It is time for truth-telling here. House Republicans and the Bush administration have been opposed to this bill from the start. And now they have gotten their way. I think it is incumbent for the President and for the House Republican conferees who have killed this bill to sit down in person with the 9/11 families, look them in the eye, and tell them that the status quo--that doing nothing--is better than passing a bill so many people worked so long and hard to get. We are told that we won't adjourn sine die today; that we will come back on December 6 to give the conferees more time to reach an agreement. The House Republican conferees are absolutely intransigent. It is hard for me to believe that we will be any more successful in the next few weeks than we have been in the past several weeks. I hope I am wrong, but given the President's complete lack of leadership on this matter, it is hard for me to be optimistic. I have to say I think what has happened is totally contrary to the principles of our democracy, as we turn the power of the people over to a couple of bullies who refused to accept a virtually unanimous vote of the U.S. Senate, the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and the will of the largest share of the American people as expressed by their elected representatives.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we could not help but note the sadness we all experienced as our friend and leader, Tom Daschle, made his goodbye speech. As usual, when Tom Daschle spoke, it had meaning, substance. He certainly had that as he closed his chapter here--I hope not his book, just his chapter. He talked about things he cared about and people he cared about and what it is that drove him to take this job. Everyone knows how difficult a task being a leader in the Senate is. It is not always realized outside this Chamber how hard one has to work to please so many, to sacrifice so much in terms of personal life. Tom Daschle, our leader, distinguished Senator from South Dakota, outstanding leader--not just for this side of the aisle but the entire country. He lost an extremely tough, close race a couple of weeks ago. Tom Daschle is the stuff of which so many of our lives in the Senate are made. It is a sad day. It is not just a sad day for me, who treasured the friendship I had with Tom Daschle, listened carefully to his words and followed, for the most part, the directions he portrayed for all Members here, it is a sad day, obviously, for Tom Daschle's family; it is a sad day for the Senate and a sad day for everyone in this great country of ours. I said Tom is the stuff of which so many of our lives are made. It is quite hard to see in this place of splendor the route so many Members took to get here. There is a substantial difference in age between Tom Daschle and me but I had a similar experience. I was the first in my family to go to college. My parents were hard-working people. They did not work on a farm but they worked in the store. They worked in the mills. My father worked in the silk mills of Patterson, NJ, a factory town. What was the legacy they imparted? It was to work hard, to believe in America, to believe in yourself. Try to achieve a degree of respect and dignity. That is what my father did for me, even after I had enlisted in the Army and he was on his deathbed from cancer. The messages were all profound: work, study, learn. He took me into his factory one time and said: You must never work like this, so dirty, so dusty, so noisy, so dangerous. He knew it was dangerous, that there was something in the weaving of that silk fabric where they used chemicals to keep it from growing too brittle, to keep the machinery oiled. It took my father, his brother, their father, at very young ages. When we hear Tom Daschle talk about his background, how his parents worked to provide him with not the funds but the incentive to make something of his life, to give something back to America, we know Tom Daschle is a model for so many to follow, with that commitment to decency and honor. It is a sad day when we reflect on what happened in Tom Daschle's last race. He wanted to be here. We wanted him to be here. Tom has been an effective leader for us for 10 years. The Republicans threw everything they could at him, including some $20 million in that race, including some insults in recent days. And then to not permit the man to leave with grace and hold his head high--no, called him an obstructionist. I know when the shoe is on the other foot what happens, when the minority has to fight like the devil to keep from being rolled over by the majority. We saw it when we were in charge. How I miss those days when we were in charge. The Republican Party, the minority party, they did their filibustering. They did their obstruction. They did the things needed to protect the interests they thought served their constituents, their States, and their country. It was ungracious when the Republican side could not find enough of their Members to sit here out of respect. I remember being here when Bob Dole left and I could not wait to sit in my chair and salute his contribution to America and to this body, because, although Bob Dole could disagree with you, he was always interested in the well-being of the country. You saw it from the result of his service to country and the military. I do not know why, in the closing days, some element of comity, some element of grace, some element of respect for a human being could not have gotten some of our friends out of their offices to come down to the floor. You saw the applause. The applause that I paid most of the attention to was from the people who work back here, the people who saw Tom Daschle at work every day. They know what he meant to them personally, to this country, to this institution. That is why they stood and applauded so vigorously. You saw Tom's colleagues standing here, hating to let go, hating to let him leave the room. They did it with their applause and their hugs, their glances, and their tears. So we are sorry that the Tom Daschle segment of service to this country and to this body is over. As usual, as always, there was a characteristic graciousness in his departure, in acknowledging that he had lost the race. Everyone here has some sense of how painful it could be, especially being leader of the party, especially when they threw everything in the book at him that they could pick up. It is not going to be easy to forget Tom Daschle. We are going to miss him. He had wonderful service to country. He served as an intelligence officer in the Air Force for 3 years. He won his first race. Many cited the chronology of his climb to leader of the Democratic Senate. He carved out a national reputation. People knew who he was, but he never forgot his South Dakota constituents. We heard him talk about them. He talked about traveling to each of the State's counties every year as an unscheduled driving tour, where he stopped at the local clubs, the Elks Club, the cattle auctions, the health clinics, schools, cafes, police stations, or any other place where people could gather to hear him talk about what was on his mind, and to listen to them talk about what was on their mind. Tom has been an effective legislator. His aim: to help his constituents, help his country, help those who were less fortunate across America. He fought hard for small farmers in his State. We did not always agree. Those of us who come from an urban environment disagreed with some of the votes he took. But he always remembered from whence he came. He fought hard for the people that he believed in, for Native Americans from his State, veterans exposed to Agent Orange. I joined him in that fight because I always believed anyone who had any remote contact, no matter how remote or how short a period of time, with Agent Orange should be treated as any other veteran or any other soldier who had a wound because we know what Agent Orange has done to so many who have served so well, so loyally in a war we could not agree on, much like what we are seeing now in our country. And we had to respect his insistence that we remember these people, the seniors, and the people in the rural parts of the country where the economy has never really been robust. Nature always takes its toll. But Tom insisted we fight back, that we make sure the farm community continued to exist in this country so we could produce the nutrition that is so vital--the products we all use so regularly. And Tom is so young looking, soft spoken, self-effacing, and fundamentally decent. He was actually mistaken for a paperboy one time. But beneath that wonderful exterior, that almost placid view of things, there was a spine of steel. He could get up and fight hard and fight for the issues. His leadership for us--and, believe me, it was not easy. It is not easy on the Democratic side, it is not easy on the Republican side, I am sure, to pull everybody together because each of us has differences that come from our geography, from our State, from the culture within our States. But the fact is, Tom could get us together on the most difficult issues, not always 100 percent, not always in victory, but always with vigor and always with commitment. Tom has devoted practically all his entire life to public service. We are going to miss his leadership, his counsel, and his friendship. In my closing comments to him I said: We are saying kind of so long but hopefully not really goodbye. We want to hear from Tom Daschle. I have made a plea to him that he stays involved with the public interest. I hope he is going to do that. Tom will have many offers for commercial development and to make lots more money, but he feels an obligation down deep, as I would think most of us or all of us do here, to try to do something that counts. I encourage him and his great wife Linda to get through this difficult, difficult period. It is not easy when you are the leader to lose a race. It is never easy, but it is particularly difficult when you have had leadership responsibilities. So my message to Tom is: Tom, keep that spine of steel. Keep that interest that you have in the well-being of our society, in the belief that America can recover from all kinds of difficulties, some of the worst that we are facing right now. It is not just the war, as painful as that is. I have a display in front of my office of young faces, of people, many of whom are in their teens, late teens, 18, 19. I enlisted in the Army when I was 18. I did not realize then I was such a baby. I realize now that 18 is so, so young. But I have those photographs there as reminders about what the price of this war really is. It is not just the financial side, which is enormous. It is not just the humiliation side, which is enormous, the humiliation because we failed to have the appropriate intelligence, intelligence to tell us even most recently how difficult Fallujah was going to be. We underestimated, and as a consequence the costs are heavy. In the last week, we lost two people from New Jersey. We are now over 1,200 who have died in the course of that fight. But again, Tom Daschle, and I think all of us here, have to continue to fight for what is right. We can endure our differences here. I will tell you what we cannot endure. We cannot endure the bitterness that exists across the dividing line here. We cannot endure the vitriol that is constant in this room of ours. We cannot endure the anger that exists. We have a cause that is greater than all of us. I am not saying it all comes flowing this way, but I am saying it is unpleasant. I have now had 22 years since I arrived. It is now 22 years since I arrived in the Senate. I remember different days. I remember days when you could disagree and still be able to say hello without grimacing when you saw one of your colleagues. Lord willing, I hope Tom Daschle taught us some of that, with his graciousness, his characteristic willingness to listen and to understand and get back to you when a problem existed. So, Mr. President, I am going to yield the floor, but I do want to talk about our other colleagues who are retiring in a few minutes. There are a lot of good people here on both sides of the aisle. We are going to miss all of our friends over here, but I am going to miss Don Nickles. I have had a lot of fights with him, but I know he always knew where he wanted to go. I respected that. Peter Fitzgerald, newer among us, but a gentleman to be noted, and Ben Nighthorse Campbell comes from a State I love. I have two grandchildren there. He is a decent fellow. We are going to miss all of them. I will talk about them later. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, our colleague from Alabama was generous enough to step aside and permit me to make a few remarks. I deeply appreciate it. I talked before about Tom Daschle. I also will discuss the rest of our colleagues who are leaving the Senate. When the 109th Congress convenes in January, nine of our current colleagues will not be here. I take a few moments to pay tribute to them. Collectively, our colleagues have served in the Senate for 144 years. We will miss them. Fritz Hollings First of all, Fritz Hollings, the most senior Member leaving the Senate at this time, had a distinguished career in public service. It started in 1942, the same year I joined the Army. After he graduated from the Citadel and he received a commission from the U.S. Army, he served as an officer in the North African and European campaigns in World War II. He had a lot of time in combat. He got the Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons. In 1948 he was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives. Ten years later, and still only 36, Fritz Hollings was elected Governor of South Carolina. As Governor, he showed his fearlessness and independence as a progressive southern Democrat, especially when he integrated Clemson University. In 1966, Fritz was elected to the Senate. I don't have time to list all of the things he has done in 30 years in the Senate or 56 years in public office, but early in his Senate career Fritz focused on poverty and hunger that gripped the rural South and urban areas of the country. In 1968, he embarked on his now famous hunger tours. In 1970, he wrote about what he saw in a highly acclaimed book entitled ``The Case Against Hunger: A Demand for a National Policy.'' What a wonderful program that was. He followed up by coauthoring a bill that created the special supplemental food program for Women, Infants and Children. We call it WIC. In 1972, continuing this very active campaign of writing legislation, he wrote the National Coastal Zone Management Act, the Nation's first land use law designed to protect coastal wetlands. He played a pivotal role in establishing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Ocean Dumping Act, and the Fishery Conservation Management Act. Perhaps he is best known for his tireless fight for fair trade and being a true fiscal conservative. Who can forget Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. I served with him many years on the Committee on the Budget and I can attest to his determination to put our Nation on the pay-as-you-go path rather than burdening future generations with escalating Federal deficits and debt. On a parochial note, I thank the Senator from South Carolina on behalf of the people of New Jersey. After September 11, he made our ports safer by helping to get security funding for our ports. Fritz Hollings gallantly laid out an inspiring vision for the future of passenger rail service in our country. Through it all, Fritz Hollings has always been a southern gentleman and a Senator's Senator. Fritz's remarks in committee and his speeches in the Senate have always been worth listening to even if some of us had difficulty deciphering them. He has been a true original and the Senate will be poorer for his departure. I know he wants to spend more time with his beloved Peatsy, his four children, and his seven grandchildren. Fritz, we will miss you. I never stop being surprised when Fritz Hollings recalls things he did 20 or 40 years ago and recall them with fairly precise detail. He always has colorful language--except in places like the Senate--that attract attention and yet he completes his serious mission with humor, candor, and courage. I ask unanimous consent a press release entitled ``38 Years in the Senate, 38 of His Greatest Hits'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is amazing to see how many things Fritz Hollings has touched in his life. Once again, he will be sorely missed. John Breaux Another dear friend from the south, John Breaux, senior Senator from Louisiana, probably the Senate's consummate deal maker. I don't think anyone in this Chamber has ever worked harder to bring the two parties together on taxes, on health care, and especially our two biggest entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare. He is the logical choice to chair the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare and the cochair of the National Commission on Retirement Policy. He has always been an effective champion for Louisiana's oil and gas, agriculture, and tourism industries, which is why his constituents have sent him to Washington with 60, 70, or even 80 percent of the vote. He was only 28 when he first won a seat in the House in 1972. With 14 years in the House and 18 years in the Senate, he spent more than half of his entire life as a Member of Congress doing the public's mission. We will miss his Cajun humor, his legislative savvy, and his tireless dedication of bringing Republicans and Democrats together for the good of all America. Bob Graham Another esteemed colleague from the South, Senator Bob Graham, the senior Senator from Florida, is clearly one of the State's most popular elected officials. He won two terms as State representative, two terms as a State senator, two terms as a Governor, three terms as a U.S. Senator, with a 9-9 record. For a short time he put his hat in the ring in the recent Presidential race. He had a 9-9 record of elections dating back 38 years. Like Senator Breaux, Bob Graham has worked diligently to forge bipartisan solutions to the most pressing problems. He is a fiscal conservative, dedicated to strengthening and improving Social Security and Medicare. Bob Graham is the author of a comprehensive, bipartisan plan to restore the Everglades, a plan that created an unprecedented partnership among Federal, State, and local governments and private industries to reverse the damage done by fragile ``River of Grass'' decades of dredging, dumping, and destruction. He has fought hard to protect Florida's coastline from oil and gas exploration. One of the things that made Bob Graham so popular has been his determination to spend time working side by side with people he represents. Over 30 years he has worked 400 workdays. On those workdays--and most have seen him in costume--he has worked as a police officer, railroad engineer, construction worker, fisherman, garbage man. I don't think I would have taken all the jobs he did, but he did them wonderfully and endeared himself to his constituents. He was a factory worker, busboy, teacher. If Bob does not want to retire, I am sure he will be able to find some kind of work. He is experienced in so many fields. John Edwards The senior Senator from North Carolina, John Edwards, has streaked across the political firmament like a shooting star. Six years ago, he was a trial lawyer who won a Senate seat in his first try at elected office and 2 weeks ago he was very nearly elected Vice President. John Edwards, like Tom Daschle, was the first person in his family to graduate from college. His father worked in the textile mills. His mother held several jobs, working in a post office, running a furniture refinishing business. After he graduated from the University of North Carolina Law School, he put his formidable legal skill to work for ordinary people as a trial attorney. He was good at it. In 1997, he won the largest personal injury verdict in North Carolina history, $25 million, for a 9-year old girl injured by a swimming pool drain the manufacturer knew was faulty. John proved if there is injury or damage, take it to a jury of your peers. Let them make the judgment regarding careless operation of a piece of machinery or automobile. The damage is incalculable in terms of a monetary value. So John Edwards did what he ought to do. He protected those who had recourse for terrible damages that they incurred. John knew what it was like for that little girl's parents I just talked about because he and his wife lost their 16-year-old son. His name was Wade. He died in a car accident. When he got to the Senate, John continued to fight for working-class Americans, and despite being a freshman Member, he was a principal author of a Patients' Bill of Rights bill which passed the Senate in June of 2001. He also fought hard for his constituents, securing more than $250 million in disaster funds following Hurricane Floyd in September 1999. I don't know what the future holds for John. One looks at that face, and sees such a young man. He is only 51 years old, and to me that is like a child. But somehow or other I do not think we have seen the last of him. Of course, his first task is to help his wife Elizabeth get through her bout with breast cancer. We send our prayers to both of them, for her quick and complete recovery. He and Elizabeth have the good wishes and prayers of each and every one of us here in the Senate. Mr. President, I will talk about a couple of my friends on the Republican side. Don Nickles I have had my differences with Don Nickles. We both have served on the Budget Committee, and it is hard to believe that he, at his tender age, has been here for 24 years. He is still so youthful looking. As a matter of fact, the two Senators from Oklahoma at one point in time did not equal the age of one of the Senators from South Carolina. They are both very young. But he was so young when he came here in 1981. He was barely 32. On the subject of age, if I might digress, after 30 years of business I never dreamed I was going to be here 24 years, Lord willing. And for my friends on the Republican side, don't count me out at the end of 24 years. I worked with Don Nickles for many years on the Budget Committee. He has been a passionate, articulate spokesman for conservative causes, but he has always been a good opponent, a gracious opponent. The Senate is going to miss his energy and his knowledge. Ben Nighthorse Campbell Another friend from the other side of the aisle is Ben Nighthorse Campbell, the senior Senator from Colorado. He is one of the true originals in the Senate. He is one of 44 chiefs of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. He served our country in Korea. He is a renowned jewelry designer, athlete, trainer of champion quarter horses. He participated in the 1964 Olympics as a member of the U.S. Olympic judo team. He was elected to the Colorado State legislature in 1982, serving for 4 years before coming to Washington. He has livened up the place with his string ties, beautiful jewelry, and his Harley Davidson motorcycles. And he has been our conscience when it comes to meeting our treaty obligations to Native Americans. Peter Fitzgerald Peter Fitzgerald, the junior Senator from Illinois, like me, came to the Senate after a good business career. He has been here only for one term but in those 6 years he established a solid reputation as an independent Member, committed to doing what he thinks is right, even if it puts him at odds with other members of his party. He and I serve on the Governmental Affairs Committee, and I have been impressed by his willingness to hold hearings on scandals and malfeasance in the mutual fund and insurance industries. Perhaps because of his business background, he understands the importance of effective oversight by the Federal Government. I regret he is leaving. He has been a gentleman, and it is too bad that we do not have more like Peter Fitzgerald. He is a wonderful person to work with. He has got a ready smile, and he is a gentleman at all times. I close my remarks by noting that these men have made remarkable contributions to our society, and all Americans should be grateful. I would tell those who are retiring, I retired 4 years ago, and I did not like it. So here I am. Perhaps there is hope for any of them who want to rejoin. If you want to come back, I am here to tell you it can be done. Just make sure that you get to keep your seniority. Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank my colleagues for their indulgence while I made my remarks.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator. I thank the Senator from Montana for the opportunity to use a few minutes to describe what I see as the latest in a series that is rather discouraging for America. It is fair to say, using that expression that has been coined around the country over a number of years: Mr. President, there we go again. For the third time in 3 years, President Bush has gone over the limit on our Nation's credit card. So now the President is asking Congress to raise his limit. That is often an expression used at gaming tables in Las Vegas and Atlantic City and other casino establishments. I don't know whether that is what we have here. Is this a casino where we are willing to bet table stakes, everything that we have, because we are out of control? I want to say to President Bush that this solution may work for you, but everyday Americans don't have the luxury of simply saying: You know what, give me a little more credit so I can continue to deal with this so irresponsibly. Banks simply will not agree to increase people's credit limits when they rack up dollars and debt on their card. That is what President Bush is asking members to do today. We are the bank's chief lending officers and he wants us to raise his credit limit. Simply put, what we are seeing in this administration is credit card economics. It is totally irresponsible and among the most reckless administrations in the history of this country with their fiscal management. Why are we in this mess? Because President Bush and the Republican majority in the Congress decided they wanted to give the wealthiest in America a big tax cut. A portion of the President's tax cut goes to people like myself who are in the highest percentage of wage earners. I had a successful business career. I was lucky I did what I did in the computer industry many years ago when America presented all kinds of opportunities for me to work and create something of lasting value. The top 1 percent of the wage earners are receiving this tax cut that equals $100 billion every single year. That is almost a third of the total cost of operating. The worst part about this mountain of debt we are being asked to authorize is it is going to be on the backs of our children and grandchildren. Who among us would say, I want to live high on the hog, so here, kids, here grandchildren, you pay the bill while we go ahead on this spending kick? President Bush simply wants to leave this debt burden to future generations. I don't want to do it. If colleagues vote to raise this debt limit, they are voting to saddle every child in this country with an immediate debt burden of $27,764. I look at the wonderful young people we have, known as pages, who get a taste of government from their experience here, spending a term in their high school years. Each page will owe $27,000 as a result of what we are doing here today. It raises the debt limit above $8 trillion for the first time ever in our history. It is sometimes hard to get a grasp on numbers like that, so let me try to put that in perspective. I cannot imagine what $8 trillion is like. We are not talking about stacks of $1 bills. It is two-thirds of the value of the entire New York Stock Exchange. That is how much we are in debt. If we want to pay it off right now, we have to hand over two-thirds of our stock market. It is irresponsible. It is impossible to comprehend. The deficit is a real problem that affects our lives and our Nation's economy. When President Bush took over and got a resounding endorsement from people across the country for his second term, we were in a position of surplus. I was on the Budget Committee. I was fairly senior on the Budget Committee on the Democratic side. We struggled and we pushed and President Clinton encouraged us and he twisted arms of both parties--not just the Democrats, but the Republicans--and we got a balanced budget in place. We had over $200 billion in surplus in the year 2002. Now we are looking at a debt just for this year that could be somewhere in the $600 billion range; $488 billion. But including the cost for the extra borrowing, it will be somewhere around $600 billion in debt. When President Bush took over we had an almost $300 billion surplus. That is quite a change. Tomorrow, there is an official dedication ceremony for the Clinton Presidential Center. What a difference between the economic policies of those days and current times. President Clinton understood the importance of fiscal discipline. Right now, there is no concept of it whatever. What we have now is a deficit attention disorder. We look at this credit card and we see what has been asked: Through November of 2004, $7.384 trillion. I was the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee in 1997 when we negotiated the historic Balanced Budget Act that produced surpluses for the first time in three decades. What we were looking for was a $5 to $7 trillion surplus in 10 years. There is no fiscal discipline. We are running the biggest deficit in history. Because of the 1997 balanced budget agreement, the surpluses it produced, we were able to pay down $600 billion in debt. We were on a path to pay off public debt by the year 2008. Now, because of the reckless tax cuts that President Bush and the Republican controlled Congress have pushed through, instead of being debt free, we are going to be at least $10 trillion in debt by 2008. No one on the other side can seriously argue that we will be better off $10 trillion in debt. The Republican plan is to borrow and spend, saddle future generations with the responsibility for paying the bills. That is a terrible abuse of the financial future of our country. I don't think responsibility of our children should be just a Democrat or Republican value. It should be an American value. We cannot abandon it. We all know in our homes and families, if we spend more than we take in, if we spend more than our salaries, we have to be able to borrow to keep our families afloat. That is what the United States of America is doing right now, borrowing to keep us afloat, putting us ever deeper in debt, and transferring that obligation from ourselves to future generations. My children, my grandchildren, and other people's children and grandchildren will have to shoulder part of that. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute and recognize our Nation's veterans. Too often, the sacrifices of our Nation's brave men and women of the Armed Forces go unnoticed and underappreciated. I wish to take a moment now to share a recent experience I had with some of New Jersey's Vietnam Veterans. On November 11, 2004, I was honored to participate in a Veterans' Day Ceremony hosted by the New Jersey Vietnam Veterans' Memorial in Holmdel, New Jersey. At this ceremony, I was touched by the words of Major Frank M. McDonough, Esq., a retired member of the United States Marine Corps. Major McDonough has written a moving piece about what it means to be a veteran. Mr. President, in honor of the sacrifice of our Nation's veterans, I ask unanimous consent that Major McDonough's written statement be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the FSC/ETI conference report. What the Republican Leadership did to this bill in conference is downright shameful. In July, I supported an amendment Senators DeWine and Kennedy offered to this bill that combined a tobacco buyout with a provision giving the Food and Drug Administration regulatory authority over tobacco. The Senate passed the FDA amendment by a vote of 78-15. That is a strong show of support. But something strange happened in conference. The FDA portion disappeared. So in this conference report we have the buyout, but not FDA authority over tobacco products. That is unacceptable. It is nothing more than a sweetheart deal for tobacco companies. They get cheaper tobacco and continue to avoid FDA regulation. I have a long history of working on tobacco control. As a former smoker, this is a personal issue to me. And the more I learn about that menace the happier I am for myself and my loved ones. I have worked hard in the Senate to protect Americans--especially children--from the deadly effects of cigarettes and other tobacco products. In 1987, long before tobacco control became a mainstream issue, I worked with then Congressman Durbin to author the law banning smoking on airplanes. That law brought about a seachange in our society's attitudes about smoking. Once non-smokers could experience a smoke-free environment--in this instance, the cabin of an airplane--they began to demand it. I also wrote the law banning smoking in all federally-funded places that serve children. And I have long supported FDA jurisdiction over this deadly addiction. I am deeply disappointed that the Republican leadership is putting politics ahead of the health of our children by opposing FDA authority over tobacco. Make no mistake: tobacco addiction is still a huge problem in America. Tobacco continues to be the number one cause of preventable death and disease in our Nation. Each year, tobacco claims an estimated 440,000 lives prematurely here in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control, if current tobacco use patterns continue in the United States, over five million children alive today will die prematurely from a smoking-related disease. That is because nearly 4,000 young people try cigarettes for the first time each and every day--a statistic I find mind-boggling. In addition to the terrible human costs, there are massive economic costs to our Nation. It is estimated that direct medical expenditures attributed to smoking now total more than 75 billion dollars per year. Despite all of this, the FDA has not been able to take actions to reduce tobacco's harm on society. A pro-tobacco Congressman recently said: Tobacco faces enough federal regulation. But that is a joke. Cigarettes are essentially unregulated. When you go in a grocery store, the only consumable product you can't find a listing of the ingredients for is what's in cigarettes. The Republican leadership is throwing away an historic opportunity to give the FDA the legal authority it needs to protect the public's health. Today, we have worthless health warnings on cigarettes, no control over what tobacco companies claim about the relative health effects of their products, no authority to curtail marketing tobacco to kids, and no ability to order the industry to remove especially hazardous ingredients. The bottom line is: FDA authority will protect kids and save lives. The 1998 legal settlement between the States and the tobacco companies prohibited the companies from taking ``any action, directly or indirectly, to target youth . . . in the advertising, promotion or marketing of tobacco products.'' But the tobacco companies are ignoring these promises. Since the settlement, the tobacco companies have actually increased their marketing expenditures by 66 percent. According to the Federal Trade Commission, the tobacco industry spends more than $11.2 billion per year--over $30.7 million a day--marketing its deadly products just in the United States alone, often targeting youth. For example, in 2002, Brown & Williamson unveiled a new marketing promotion for their Kool brand of cigarettes called Kool Mixx. This advertising campaign was designed with one simple goal: target young African-Americans and addict them to nicotine. The ``Kool Mixx'' campaign included new cigarette packages with images of young DJs and dancers: It is an outrageous attempt to addict youth. Brown & Williamson doesn't even bother to be subtle when it comes to targeting African-American youth in this campaign. The press release from Brown & Williamson announcing the campaign contained almost comical sentences revealing their racial targeting. This is what the company's press release said: Kool understands the vibrant urban world of the trendsetting, multicultural smoker. It goes on to say: Kool keeps it real and remains linked to the latest urban trends. This campaign to addict young African Americans to cigarettes doesn't stop at product packaging and slick ads. Kool is sponsoring a nationwide ``DJ Competition'' in cities such as New York, Atlanta, Washington, St. Louis, and Chicago. It seems that ``Kool Mixx'' is the new ``Joe Camel'' for minority teenagers. This overt racial targeting of youth shows that the tobacco industry has not really changed its ways since its settlement with the State attorneys general. The big tobacco companies have reverted back to the same atrocious behavior we all saw before they promised they would become good ``corporate citizens.'' Here is something even more outrageous difficult as that is to believe: one of the tobacco industry's new tactics is the introduction of candy-flavored cigarettes and other sweet-flavored tobacco products. R.J. Reynolds--the same company that once marketed cigarettes to kids with the infamous cartoon character, Joe Camel has launched a series of flavored cigarettes, One flavor is a pineapple and coconut cigarette called ``Kauai Kolada''; another is a citrus-flavored cigarette called ``Twista Lime.'' These names sound more like bubble gum flavors than deadly cigarettes--which is the point. These new marketing techniques aimed at kids are especially troubling, given that over 550,000 children will become regular smokers this year alone. FDA regulation is critical for many reasons. One reason--as we see with these candy-flavored cigarettes--is to keep kids away from these deadly products. Another reason we need FDA regulation is to make sure that preventable dangers in cigarettes are removed. There are thousands of products for sale in America that people consume, but tobacco products are the only ones--the only ones--which don't have their ingredients disclosed. That is amazing when you consider that cigarettes are by far the most deadly product you can buy in a grocery store. Right now, the FDA can regulate a box of macaroni and cheese, but not a pack of cigarettes. If you wanted to know the ingredients of macaroni and cheese, they're listed on the package. But for cigarettes, there is no information whatsoever on the ingredients, toxins, chemicals, etc. It makes no sense. When a smoker lights a cigarette, the burning ingredients create other chemicals. Some of these are carcinogenic. But tobacco manufacturers are not required by law to disclose the ingredients of their products to the public, including the toxic and cancer-causing ingredients. A Surgeon General's report in 1989 reported that cigarettes contain 43 known carcinogens. I wonder how many smokers realize that one of these chemicals is arsenic. I bet most smokers don't know that. It boils down to this: by stripping out the FDA regulatory authority over tobacco products, we are failing our children. We are putting their health in jeopardy. This conference report provides billions of dollars to tobacco farmers and boosts tobacco industry profits, but it does absolutely nothing nothing to reduce tobacco's terrible human and economic toll. I don't know how any Member of this body who is truly concerned about children's health can, in good conscience, support this bill without the FDA provision. We had a deal; everyone knew it: the tobacco buyout in exchange for FDA regulation. The Republican leadership broke that deal. I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report until we give the FDA the authority it needs to regulate tobacco as it does other products.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Speaking for our side, is the Senator asking for 5 minutes from our remaining time?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will use our time to discuss a couple of subjects, one of which relates to the present debate or dialog, and that is the position of our respective parties on behalf of the interests of the American people. After that, I will talk about the terrible attack that took place in Egypt against a group of Israelis and what the world is saying about events such as that. First, what we heard in the debate a little while ago was the fact that the reason, as I heard it--and I am willing to be corrected if wrong--that one of the reasons we went to war in Iraq was a resolution that was passed in this body, in the Senate--talking about the resolution that was passed in October 2002--giving the President authority to send our troops to Iraq. That hardly was the reason we did that. We did not mandate in this body that we go to war. What we said was: OK, Mr. President, if you know about those weapons of mass destruction, and if you know that al-Qaida has a presence there, and if all of these threats are directed at world peace and a threat to the security of the United States, we give you permission, we give you support to send them. We never relinquished our support for the troops in Iraq, nobody here, not even the most tranquil of the personalities. Everybody said: Take care of our troops. Senator John Kerry stood up and said: Take care of our troops. I was not in the Senate at that particular moment, but I have been back here again since the beginning of 2003. There was never a moment when it was suggested that we would not support our troops and their needs, the basic things. So when we were told that all these threats were there, that we have to do it to protect ourselves, that 9/11 was fresh in our memory, that we felt we had to get out there before we had another 9/11 thrust down our throats that would kill more Americans, we said: OK, let's do it. Let's go ahead and make sure that we wipe out these things that menace America's population, that menace American citizens. That was the reason we did it. Then we found out that we were duped. That is what happened. We were fooled. We were misled, and now everybody knows it. Yes, Senator John Kerry had the same information President Bush had. The fact is, Senator John Kerry did not manipulate the information, did not make sure that people were identifying tubes and pipes as part of the threat that Iraq raised to us and to world peace. Much of that was, if not fabricated, tainted, biased. Some of our most distinguished Government servants, our distinguished Secretary of State Colin Powell, made such a convincing argument in front of the U.N. and in front of the world at large about where these weapons were stored, how they were transported, and so forth. And all of us--I speak for myself--have faith in Secretary Powell, a distinguished soldier, great statesman, brilliant man, honest--honest. He later on said in a public release that he, too, was deceived by the information that he received. Now when we try to suggest that we were parties to the origination of this war, it is an outrage. I felt, too--and I was not in the Senate, but I said it publicly, people were still hearing me occasionally--that I supported the thrust to go to war in Iraq because of the ominous reports we had. It was not that we wanted to throw American lives in there. We are now about to deploy some 1,500 Guard people from New Jersey. I hope that tomorrow I will be able to be there to wish them well when they depart New Jersey. It reminds me of a long time ago when I also was transported out of New Jersey to a ship up in Massachusetts so I could go to Europe during the war. I want to be there tomorrow. They are all concerned. They are frightened. The families are frightened. Their spouses are frightened. Their kids are frightened. We are in a mess, we are in a quagmire, and the world is looking at us and listening to the messages that say we are doing well, we are prepared for the Iraqi takeover fully for the next election. We hear, well, maybe the next election cannot be held as we thought it might be in the whole country, maybe only part of it, maybe just the part that we think is friendly. The assertion when Prime Minister Allawi was here, the interim Prime Minister who made his speech at the joint session, that we should be assured--I heard President Bush say we should be assured that things are on the right track. In other words, do not believe what one sees in front of them. No, no. Listen to what we tell people coming from the administration. Listen to the fabrications. Listen to the stories about Senator John Kerry's lack of courage, unwillingness to support the troops. There is an unwillingness that stands largely in our sight about an unwillingness to serve when the country was sending its people to Vietnam, where 58,000 of them perished on the battlefield. For Vice President Cheney, he said, and I quote him, I think--if I do not quote him, I am sure about the general content of what he said, and that is: I had other priorities. He received almost a half dozen deferments. President Bush's service, yes, I know, it was 30 years ago, and what does it matter? It matters because it shows character. That is what it does. It shows character. President Bush did not want to be over there where the fighting was tough, where one's life might be at risk. No, no. He managed to have a sweetheart duty and never went to war when he could very well have, with the bravado that is now exhibited. He could have gone to war and stood alongside people like John Kerry and Max Cleland, those who paid a price for their loyalty to country. I saw a commercial running on TV this morning. I found it shocking. Widows, apparently, whose husbands perished in the Korean War were saying they did not trust John Kerry's judgment because, why? It is because the Bush administration and the political operation there has succeeded in poisoning the minds of Americans. Do not believe the fact that Senator Kerry got three Purple Hearts, deservedly, oh, no. They want to make the judgment from the White House. Those judgments were made by the medical department of the U.S. military, and they were confirmed by the highest authorities in the military. The medals for valor, the Bronze Star and Silver Star--I served in Europe during the war and I know what it took to get those medals. It took heroism. I did not get one of those medals. I did my job the best I could. But John Kerry earned his medals, and they are being questioned to try to show he is unpatriotic. The fact that he rebelled against the purpose of the war in Vietnam after he served, boy, what kind of backbone that takes. The man knows the policy is wrong, and it turned out to be wrong, and it turned out to be a terrible loss of life, but he fought the battle. He exposed himself to danger, to death. He did it. What kind of courage that is. That is not the kind of courage we saw from a young George W. Bush, not at all, or from Vice President Cheney. I think Attorney General Ashcroft also had a few deferments. There is a list of them. I think the race against former Senator Max Cleland, who lost two legs and most of an arm and struggles to get out of bed every day and do what he has to--he is a courageous man and he lost because he was portrayed as soft on defense. He was portrayed as soft on defense by those who also had Vietnam deferments. The country was in a rage, with demonstrations all over the place, but John Kerry took up the challenge and went to war. So now when I hear these spurious assertions that one cannot trust John Kerry, well, I will say, if I was lost in the woods and had a choice between John Kerry or George W. Bush getting me out, I know John Kerry can make a decision. I know he can find his way. I know he can survive when the going is tough. I know he had the guts to reach into the water to pull out one of his companions who was likely to drown and saved his life. The man says so all over the place. I think the country would be far better off if we followed John Kerry's courageous character and tried to find a way out of the mess. We are almost a year and a half after President Bush declared the mission was accomplished. It is almost 18 months ago but more importantly it was more than 800 lives ago. We have now lost over 1,000 people and more than 800 of them since May of a year ago, and they are still trying to portray what the President said as gospel: mission accomplished. He said, bring them on. Boy, that one got to me because I know what it is like to be worried about the enemy. They shoot at you. Bring them on? I never wanted to see a German uniform, I can say that. I never wanted to see more of the enemy. I wanted to make sure I did my duty. I wanted to make sure that I got through. I wanted to make sure I got back to my widowed mother and my kid sister. That is what I wanted to do. So we never said, bring them on. I have never heard of another Commander in Chief say, bring them on. I do not want to elongate this discussion, but I must say when I see these character assassination ads that run on television regularly, I do not hear them talking seriously about the job recovery, no, no. Some jobs are newly created but not as many as we lost. They talk on the other side about how John Kerry is going to raise taxes. Outrageous, the thought that he had voted to increase taxes. No, they would rather vote to increase the deficit and to increase our indebtedness. That is what they want to vote for. Let America owe so much money that we may one day tip the world's economy into a recession mode. That was said by former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, a very reliable voice. Both Republicans and Democrats had faith in Bob Rubin. He said if this indebtedness continues to grow, we could upset the world's economy, not just ours. And I believe it. Anybody who has ever been in business, anybody who has ever paid bills, anybody who has ever lived in a serious adult life knows that indebtedness is a killer. But the administration managed to turn things around. It wasn't my doing, I can tell you. I tried to help. When I left here, we were having surpluses, a couple of hundred billion dollars in surplus with forecasts of a $5 trillion surplus at the end of 10 years. That has turned around. Instead, we expect about a $7 trillion deficit after 10 years. We have managed to take this economy and turn it on its ear, borrow from Social Security, threaten Medicare with insolvency in 15 years. By 2019, the expectation is that Medicare will go belly-up at that time. Social Security? We are borrowing everything available there. Why don't we tell the people the truth? Why don't we talk about those issues in depth? In the debates coming up tonight and another one next week, I hope the focus will be on what kind of plans each of the candidates has. What kind of plans has President George W. Bush for getting us out of Iraq? What kind of plans does he have for getting this economy back into surplus performances year after year? What kind of plans does he have to fulfill the obligation he took on with the Leave No Child Behind Act? It is one thing to enact legislation, to create law; it is another to pay for it. When it comes to paying for it, that didn't happen. When you think about these tax cuts, we were accused before by one of our distinguished colleagues on the other side of trying to create class warfare. That is the cheesiest thing I have ever heard. Class warfare? I happen to be in a class of income earners who did very well in America, I and two other kids who came from the same poor neighborhood that I did. Their father worked in the same mill my father worked in, and my father died at 43 from an occupationally hazardous environment. We built a huge business, a huge business. We went from nothing, three of us together, kids in their 20s, and we built a business that today employs 40,000 people. That is the old-fashioned American way. I made some money with this, as did many others who succeeded in business. We did it the old-fashioned way. Class warfare? I come from working-class stock, and I am proud of it. But because I have been successful, because this country was the enabler that permitted me to be successful, as everybody else who has been successful here, I say I don't need a tax cut. It will not do me any more good. I can't buy more, I can't eat more, I can't do more, and I want it distributed among the ordinary people who work every day, struggling the way I remember my mother and my father did just to keep things on an even keel, to provide clothing, to provide food, to provide decent shelter. I lived in the back of the store for a lot of years, I can tell you, four of us in one room. Nobody wants to hear those stories anymore. The Great Depression is a thing of the past. But we do understand when people want to rise above their circumstances and educate their children and make sure they have a chance at a job, a career, and a family where they can afford the ordinary things of life--not the luxuries. So we can't talk about class warfare. If there is class warfare, boy, it is over there. They say take the upper class, give them a lot of money back, and don't worry about those poor people or those who now have two jobs, who now find their purchasing power is substantially reduced, who now are worried about what it is going to cost for health care and who are worried about pensions. I was at a hearing the other day on the financial condition of the airlines. What they want to do is to get rid of their pension obligation. If you work 26 years for an airline, a factory, or a company, work 27 years, count on your pension, and wake up one day and find out it is not there, what do you do? You are 55, 60, 65 years of age. These are terrible blights. I hope we are going to see something of the truth. Terrorist Bombing In Egypt Mr. President, I want to discuss another subject. I want to discuss the news we heard today of a raid in Egypt aimed at a bunch of Israelis who were there on vacation--brutalizing, suicide bombers, the whole thing. An Israeli official says maybe it was al-Qaida. Obviously it was some mad group. What I see lately is disturbing trends regarding the various criticisms of Israel. We have seen two prominent church bodies decide to take away their investments from Israel because of Israel's--maybe it is because Israel wants to defend itself, to keep its people alive. Maybe it is because Israel wants to live as any other country--in peace, without torture, without suicide bombers ripping up the society. The Israelis have lost over 1,000 lives since 2000. Think of it in terms of America and the numerical equivalents because their population is so much smaller. One thousand citizens of Israel would be the same as 48,000 Americans lost to terror. Heaven forbid it, but that is the truth of the matter. Israel has taken appropriate measures to defend itself against the terrorist threat it faces every day. Israel has made tough choices to defend her people. But now we are seeing these respected, mainstream church organizations contemplating divestment campaigns against the State of Israel. I wish they would talk about ending the violence that has been the pattern there for so long. There is so much violence and strife in the region, not dissimilar to that which we are facing in Iraq. There is a trend. You can see it in the talk of a divestment campaign--blame Israel first. The innocents killed by terrorists are ignored, but there is a disproportionate focus on civilian victims of Israeli military operations against terrorists. To blame Israel for the turmoil and violence in the Middle East is outrageous. Review some of the recent history in the Middle East, events that had nothing to do with Israel. Yet when I was in Syria with other Senators, we heard the President of Syria, President Assad, say all the problems that exist in the area are because of Israel. Millions died in the Iran-Iraq war. It had nothing to do with Israel. In Sudan, Arab Muslims are murdering thousands of Black Christians-- nothing to do with Israel. Iraq invading Kuwait in 1991 and threatening Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with Israel. The Taliban took control of Afghanistan and severely oppressed women and gave safe haven to terrorists--nothing to do with Israel. None of these events had anything to do with Israel, yet somehow or other the region's problems are Israel's fault. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, with that, I will close my comments and hope the world takes a look at what is causing the problems within Israel and her right to defend herself. I yield the floor. Quorum Call

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.