Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to ask the Senate to honor an individual who stands in high esteem in America and throughout the world. I am pleased to submit a resolution calling on the Postal Service to issue a stamp commemorating the life of Oskar Schindler. Postage stamps are often reserved for individuals who have offered especially significant contributions--Oskar Schindler demonstrates how one person truly can make a difference in the world. The stories of Oskar Schindler and his heroism are well-documented and must never be forgotten. To speak against Hitler's genocide during the Holocaust was rare; to help Jews escape from persecution was perilous. Yet Oskar Schindler selflessly risked his own life to save the lives of over 1200 Jewish men, women, and children. He also rescued from the Golezow concentration camp approximately 100 Jewish men and women who were trapped in a sealed and freezing railroad car. I have had the benefit of learning about these heroics first-hand from a New Jersey resident and friend of mine, Abraham Zuckerman. In 1942, Abraham was sent to the Plaszow concentration camp, where he faced certain death--until the day he was told that he was on Schindler's List. He attests: ``I am one of the Survivors and I owe my life to the courage and strength of this great man. His life was always in danger but still he persisted to do what he knew to be the right thing, he saved the Jews anyway he could.'' Since the day Abraham immigrated to the United States, he has made it a mission to keep Oskar Schindler's contributions alive in the minds of Americans, and I thank him for his efforts. A ``general policy'' of the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee, which decides the subject matter of postage stamps, is that U.S. postage stamps and stationery ``primarily will feature Americans or American- related subjects.'' Oskar Schindler rescued many Jewish people who fled areas ruled by Hitler and made America their home. His valor and selflessness exhibit attributes that parallel the founding principles of America and all democracies. He devoted much of his life in the pursuit of freedom and humanitarianism. That is the ultimate American- related subject. Oskar Schindler's bravery and contributions make him worthy of honor and recognition. Issuing a stamp in his memory would assure that his story is told to a new generation.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the bill to reauthorize the Economic Development Administration, EDA, which provides critical support to needed communities. Since its establishment, the Economic Development Administration has invested over $18 billion in more than 50,000 projects in all parts of the United States. These investments have been supplemented by matching funds from investment partners, and have leveraged a great deal of investment by the private sector. The reauthorization bill before us today includes assistance for the productive use of abandoned industrial facilities and the redevelopment of brownfields. I support that effort. While the Environmental Protection Agency's role under the 2002 law is to facilitate the environmental assessment and cleanup of abandoned brownfield sites, EDA's role is to encourage the economic reuse of the property. Under this bill, Federal funds provided by EDA for assessment or cleanup will only be provided consistent with the ``Polluter Pays'' principle. That is, funds will not be provided to those who are responsible for the pollution. They are responsible for cleaning up the mess they made. That is, funds will not be provided to those who are responsible for the pollution. They are responsible for cleaning up the mess they made. Specifically, EDA shall not provide funds for response costs to parties potentially responsible for those costs under section 107 of CERCLA, or to owners or operators responsible for corrective action under the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal Act, or to any other party responsible for the pollution. It is very important to ensure that assessment and clean-up costs are not shifted from the polluter to the taxpayers. To the extent that EDA is involved in funding cleanups, Congress' intent in this bill and EDA's policy must be the same: polluters are responsible for paying to clean up their own messes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be able to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to discuss the situation in Iraq. Every day we see the terrible news about innocent Iraqis being killed, about the terrible tension in the country, about our young people being attacked and killed and, frankly, the mess we are witnessing, which is painful to see. It came home today in a stark recitation, in a statement by Paul Bremer. Paul Bremer was sent to Iraq to be in charge of the transition as we tried to go from the culmination of what appeared to be the end of the violence until we got to a government that was going to be run by Iraqis on an interim basis and the vote coming up in January. But what we heard from Mr. Bremer was painful to hear, and it has to be particularly painful to President Bush and his administration. What he said was there were not enough troops to do their job. We believed that from the beginning. General Shinseki said it, and he was overruled by the Pentagon and by the Defense Secretary. He was fired for saying: We need more troops to do the job, Mr. President. People across the country understand that we need more people. Over 300,000 I believe was the number he used. He now says that and the failure to immediately stop the looting, stop the violence, and stop the response from those who would commit violence on the country were part of the reasons we are in this terrible situation we are in. Last week, we finally had a chance to hear what President Bush's plans for Iraq were. And this is the image of what we got. It is blank. It says nothing. There is no plan. Last Thursday, we heard repetition from President Bush, the same tired slogans we have heard for almost 2 years now, no plan was articulated, no new ideas, nothing, just the same as we see on this placard. President Bush basically said that we are going to get more of the same in Iraq. What a terrible condition that is. Iraq has become an absolute crisis, and there is no plan to fix the situation. When the President asked Senator John Kerry what his plan is, it adds insult to injury. He has a plan. He talked about his plan. But the President has offered nothing on his side and challenges John Kerry to have a plan, and John Kerry presents a plan and the President doesn't show any. The President is showing a stubbornness. He calls it ``staying the course.'' It is a stubbornness that is costing American lives, the lives of our young people, the lives of our soldiers, and the lives of American workers in Iraq. We need a dramatic change in direction. Everything that was assumed to be in order was wrong. They were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction, and they were wrong about how our troops would be greeted on the streets of Iraq. Certainly, as I said earlier, they were wrong about how many troops we needed to secure the country. They were wrong about the reaction of the Shiites. They were wrong about how long the conflict would last and the toll it would take on Americans lives. The President and his team have just about done it wrong. The President's worst adviser in terms of being wrong on almost everything is Vice President Cheney. At the outset of the war in March of 2003, Vice President Cheney declared: We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. In fact, be greeted as liberators? In fact? I don't think so. But maybe the reason Vice President Cheney kept getting things wrong on the war is he has not ever seen it. He has never worn a uniform, and he was never on a battlefield. In fact, when duty called, Vice President Cheney turned his back on the call while many answered the call to serve. Dick Cheney took five student deferments in order to avoid service in Vietnam. He wasn't, however, the only member of the Bush team who kept getting it wrong. I want to review some of the quotes of President Bush's top advisers. One is by Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He said on February 7, 2003: It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last 6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months. It is one thing to be wrong one time but you try to correct the situation. Here is what Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said: We know that there are ties between the Iraqi regime and a whole range of terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, and we know that Saddam has these weapons. Again, what kind of a statement is that? It doesn't tell us anything except that we are wrong. When we look at other statements that have been made, on March 30, 2003, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said: The area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they were. They're in the area around Tikrit, and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. Each one of these statements indicates a lack of knowledge and a lack of understanding as to what was going to happen when this war was concluded. It has not been concluded. When we look at the cost of the war, as of today, 1,058 our troops have died, some 7,000 injured, many with terrible injuries that will handicap them all of their lives. We need to change course. We don't need more of the same. Senator Kerry, our colleague, is offering a new direction, and that is what we need. We need to stop bearing the entire burden of Iraq. We are taking 90 percent of the casualties, and the American taxpayers have shelled out almost $200 billion for Iraq. It is not right. It is not fair to the American taxpayers. It is certainly not fair to the families whose young sons and daughters are in service over there. Senator Kerry prepared a plan for a new direction in Iraq, a direction that will bring other countries to the table. President Bush makes reference to Poland helping us in Iraq. He was almost obsessed with Poland during the debate. What are the facts? Poland has 2,500 troops in Iraq, and they announced just this week they are getting out. They will have all of their troops pulled out sometime next year. Thailand wants to take its troops out--I think they have some 400 people there. Again, under the administration's war plan, we are left with even more of the burden, and we are left with almost all of the costs both in terms of our soldiers' lives and American taxpayer dollars. All that has been accomplished in the last 2 years is we have alienated critical allies, and we are paying the price for that. A big part of the problem is that the President refuses to accept reality. Last week in a television interview President Bush was asked whether he regrets the moment on the aircraft carrier on May 21st in 2003, the infamous ``Mission accomplished'' speech. Incredibly, President Bush said he would do it all over again. In fact, in response to that question, would he have done it, he said he would ``absolutely'' do it again. He went on to say, ``You bet I'd do it again.'' It is incredible. He made that speech approximately a year and a half ago, saying, ``Mission accomplished.'' That meant it was over, that we would not have to worry about things. Instead, we have lost over 800 people, four or five times the number killed during what was considered the active part of the war. We are moving to the delusional. The President does not regret telling our Nation's military families ``Mission accomplished''? He does not regret giving families false hope that major combat operations had ended? We are now facing the biggest fallout of reservists ever in the State of New Jersey. There are pictures in the paper of men and women, saying they are scared; they are worried. Their families are frightened. Their kids are scared. Their spouses are scared. They know darn well it is dangerous over there. Does the President regret taunting the terrorists and insurgents when he said ``Bring 'em on''? I'm sure the men and women on the ground in Iraq wish he had never said those words. When I was wearing a uniform a long time ago, during World War II in Europe, I never wanted to see the enemy. I never wanted to see anyone who was hostile. It was the wrong thing to say. I hope one day we will be able to face up to the truth that these were terrible statements. More recently, President Bush told the world that the war on terror could not be won, but a couple days later he said, no, no, we will win. When the President was asked about a CIA report and the material he was looking at on intelligence, he said he dismisses the CIA report as just guessing when they told him the situation in Iraq was bad and could get much worse. Just guessing? The arm of our intelligence corps that is supposed to have the latest and the fullest data, and they are just guessing? We need someone to take the bad news seriously, a President who will react to it and fix the situation. So far, President Bush simply ignored the bad news. I guess he hopes it goes away. Unfortunately, he is inflexible on one simple point. He would repeat every one of the mistakes he has made over the last few years. The plan to go to war without a real alliance in place, he would do again. The decision to ignore the advice from General Shinseki that 300,000 troops would be needed, he would ignore the general's advice again. The argument that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction to reconstitute a nuclear programs, links to al-Qaida, he would make all of those arguments again. All of this while ignoring, for all practical purposes, North Korea, Iran, countries that are actually developing nuclear weapons, while taking some of the attention away from the pursuit of Osama bin Laden who killed 3,000 Americans. Not only does the President like to stick with bad ideas but there are flip-flops when someone else suggested good ideas, often resisting and then supporting. One flip was the Department of Homeland support. President Bush strongly opposed creating it in March 2002. His spokesman said a Homeland Security Department ``doesn't solve anything.'' Then flopping 3 months later, the President said he did want a Homeland Security Department. President George Bush opposed creation of the 9/11 Commission. In April of 2002, President Bush said he was against the creation of the 9/11 Commission. He flopped after that as a result of increased political pressure. The President said he does support creating the 9/ 11 Commission in September of the same year. In April, no; In September, yes. It goes on and on. Then the President, in response to an inquiry about Osama bin Laden, which in September of 2001 President Bush said he wanted Osama bin Laden dead or alive. In March of 2002, President Bush said, I don't know where he is; I truly am not that concerned about him. Not concerned? He murdered 3,000 Americans, 700 of my constituents in New Jersey. A terrible comment. What we have seen shows we are on a very bad track right now. In fairness to the American people, families, those who are serving, we ought to come forward with a statement about what we intend to do. How much longer will we have to have people in harm's way? How are we going to get the troops that it is suggested are needed--30,000 or 40,000? Where will they come from? Is there an intention to initiate a draft? I don't know where we are going to get the soldiers and other service people to fill these obligations. I know one thing. Every day we read about another American serviceperson being killed or American civilians being captured or beheaded, it tells everyone in the country we are on the wrong path and we have to make a change. I hope President Bush, even in this interim period, can see the necessity to come forward to the American people and say, look, we made some errors; we are going to correct them. We are going to get more people in there, but we are going to end this conflict by that time so we can start to bring our people home. There is no encouragement out there to believe that. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today what we have seen is a fresh topic of interest, as discussed in the newspaper. I ask unanimous consent that in my hour of time, whatever time I have remaining be available to me as if it were in morning business and that I be permitted to use 15 minutes of that time at this point.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the topic of very active discussion is Mr. Paul Bremer's comments that are in the papers, particularly the Washington Post, today. I say this with a great deal of respect for Paul Bremer. I think he worked hard to do a very good job. He can hardly be described as a leftwing liberal, for sure. He said something that was, to use the vernacular, kind of a show stopper. He said: We paid a big price for not stopping it (looting) because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness. . . . We never had enough troops on the ground. This is our person in charge of the transition from Iraq's former government, purportedly to become a democracy. He is the fellow who was in charge in Iraq. We all, whoever went there, visited with him, listened to him. He worked very closely with the military. He is very skilled. But he said it. ``We never had enough troops on the ground,'' and that was the beginning of the problem in which we are now so deeply enmeshed. We have had generals saying it. We had General Shinseki saying that we needed 300,000 of our troops there to do the job, and not having had enough caused us, frankly, to become mired in a situation that, at least by current appearances, seems as though it is going to hold us there for a long time at a terrible cost in life, terrible cost in family relationships, terrible cost financially as well. The Vice President and HalliBurton Tonight, as everyone knows, the debate will be between Vice President Cheney and Senator John Edwards, for each of them to present their credentials and their views. But I rise to discuss the Vice President's relationship with Halliburton, his financial relationship with the oil company he ran from 1995 to the year 2000, the company that is reaping the benefits of multibillion-dollar contracts from the Bush-Cheney administration. Vice President Cheney still receives salary checks from Halliburton for well over $150,000 each year. He holds 433,000 unexercised Halliburton stock options. It presents a very questionable picture when we look on this chart at the orange line which conveys the Halliburton income to Vice President Cheney from 2001 on, and his Vice Presidential salary. If one looks, we see the compensation from Halliburton exceeded that of the U.S. Government's compensation or pay for the Vice President. In the year 2002, Halliburton fell to $162,000 but then crept back up to where they are very close together. That is, the salary paid by the U.S. Government and the deferred compensation plan that gives Vice President Cheney $178,000. When you look at this, it presents a terrible picture. Here is a Vice President of the United States, the next person in line to take over if, Heaven forbid, something happened to the President, and he is getting paid from a company he used to work for. We know this is a deferred compensation plan, that it was earned before. I also mention the fact that Vice President Cheney, when he left Halliburton, got a $20 million termination bonus plus over $1 million in another bonus. If we looked at the deferred salary and the nontermination bonus Dick Cheney has received from Halliburton while Vice President of the United States, it is up to almost $2 million. This is, if not corrupting in its reality, its functionality. It has the appearance that raises enormous questions. This relationship, coupled with Halliburton's no-bid contract and other contracts in Iraq, is extremely problematic. On top of the salary, there are 433,000 shares options that are exercisable. I come out of the corporate world and I know how valuable the stock options can be. The profits are committed to a charity, purportedly, but the more you get, the more you can give away. Why does the Vice President permit this salary arrangement to continue when he could have done away with it, as did Mr. John Snow, who was the Secretary of the Treasury. He wrapped up 6 years' worth of deferred compensation into one year and said: I want to be done with this. I don't want to have my income coming from my former employer while I work for the U.S. Government at such a high level. By continuing this financial relationship, the Vice President undermines our Nation's ethical credibility here and abroad. On September 14, 2003, the Vice President was asked about his relationship with Halliburton and the no-bid contract on the program, ``Meet the Press.'' Vice President Cheney told Tim Russert--and I happened to be watching the program; that is what stimulated my interest--the Vice President said: I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over 3 years. The problem with that statement is that when he said it, he held those 433,000 Halliburton stock options and continued to receive a deferred salary from the company and still has a salary for the year coming into 2005. I went to the Congressional Research Service to see what the definition of a ``financial interest'' might look like. The Congressional Research Service confirmed to me that holding such options and receiving deferred salary constitutes a financial interest. They agree, and so do I, that when you have deferred compensation, when you have stock options, that is a financial interest. They say if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it must be a duck. There it is, a financial interest. Even though the exercised prices for Vice President Cheney's Halliburton stock options are above the current market price, the majority of the options extend to 2009. My goodness, what does it take to free himself from a previous business contact? When I left the company that I helped start and at which I spent 30 years, the minute I left there all of my options were canceled, to my regret, because there was a lot of money involved. Any option holder has to hope that the stock price surges so the value of the options increase. One way this can happen is to be sure that lucrative contracts keep coming from the U.S. Government. In the first quarter of 2004, Halliburton's revenues were up 80 percent from the first quarter of 2003. Why? Wall Street analysts point to one simple factor: The company's massive governmental contracts in Iraq. Those are the things that are responsible for this increase in revenue and profits, if any. Vice President Cheney's annual deferred salary from Halliburton is significant. As I pointed out earlier, in fact, the Vice President's Halliburton salary is as high as his government pay--last year, $178,000 in salary from Halliburton. I have heard the Vice President's defense of his Halliburton deferred salary. He claims that the deal was locked in in 1999 and there is no way for him to get out of his deferred salary deal. How about if he had an employment contract with the company for 10 years and then became Vice President of the United States, would he say he had to have both jobs at the same time because he had a contract? Come on. Checking of the facts revealed otherwise. I obtained the terms of Vice President Cheney's deferred salary contract with Halliburton, and the bottom line is that the deferred salary agreement is not set in stone. In fact, one need only look at the ethics agreement of Treasury Secretary Snow to see what the Vice President should have done in order to avoid taking salary from private corporations while in public office. Secretary Snow took six different deferred compensation packages as a lump sum upon taking office. Get rid of any shadow of doubt, any shadow of conflict. Worst of all, this financial relationship is going on while Halliburton is ripping off American taxpayers. I am very specific about this. Halliburton is ripping off American taxpayers. I have said it, and I will say it again. Look at the record. The Pentagon's inspector general revealed that Halliburton, while our people were fighting for their lives, overcharged $27.4 million for meals that were never served to our troops. False records. Fraudulent. Another Pentagon audit found Halliburton overcharged the Army by $1.09 a gallon for 57 million gallons of gasoline deferred to citizens in Iraq. Auditors found potential overcharges of up to $61 million for gasoline that a Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, delivered as part of its no-bid contract to help rebuild Iraq's oil industry. Under its cost-plus contract with the Pentagon, the more Halliburton spends, the more profit it makes regardless of whether that spending is necessary. Several former Halliburton employees have come forward to reveal how the company has taken advantage of this sweetheart deal by spending millions on nonexistent or vastly overpriced goods and services. According to these former employees, Halliburton engaged in the following wasteful practices: They had its employees drive empty trucks back and forth across Iraq in order to bill for the trips despite the obvious risks that this practice posed to both truck drivers and the 85,000 trucks. Halliburton, under their arrangement, whatever they spent, came up with a profit for them. If they needed an oil change they would buy a new truck. Halliburton removed all of the spare tires from its trucks and failed to provide basic maintenance supplies like oil filters. This is not something I am making up. It is in the record. As a result, when tires went flat or trucks broke down, they were abandoned or torched, with Halliburton making a profit on the replacements. This is the most sinister of behavior. When a Halliburton employee needed one drill, his supervisor told him to order four. When the employee said he did not need four drills, the supervisor responded: Don't worry about it, it is a cost-plus contract. One employee discovered that Halliburton was paying $45 for a case of soda in Kuwait when local supermarkets charged only $7.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I remind the Chair that according to the rules under cloture I have an hour of time to be used if I can get an agreement for unanimous consent. I ask unanimous consent, because the time is going to be used by me, that I be allowed a few more minutes until I finish my remarks.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the manager. The Senator from Maine has worked very hard on this intelligence reform bill. I supported her as a member of that committee. I know this might be a diversion to her, but I appreciate her consent. One employee discovered that Halliburton was paying $45 for cases of soda in Kuwait when local supermarkets charged about only $7. And then there are the kickbacks. Halliburton admitted to the Pentagon that two employees took kickbacks, valued at approximately $6 million, in return for awarding a Kuwaiti-based company with lucrative subcontracts. The scandal is playing itself out in the real world, while this Senate sleeps. It is neglect on everybody's part that this was permitted to continue. This kind of corporate behavior resembles that of Enron and other corporations that have sought to defraud the Government with kickbacks and bribes and overcharges. Profiteering during war is an outrageous action, if not a crime. When I served in World War II, if a company profiteered as people were losing their lives, they would be punished. They would have jail sentences in front of them. That is not what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is that this is abominable behavior and it ought not be permitted. When I think of the debate that is going on and John Kerry is accused of being soft on defense, when he served so bravely, when even though he disagreed with the policy of the Government, he served the country loyally, bravely, and was wounded. The assertions that maybe the wounds weren't deep enough were challenged by statements in the paper yesterday where it said that he still has shrapnel in his body from those wounds. Anyone who would suggest that because Senator John Kerry examined the question on moneys being spent for the war, because it included tax relief for some of the richest among us, the fact is, he served without question, without any reservation whatsoever, except he had a difference in policy. But he put his life on the line, which we haven't seen around here, I can tell you, as I have described in past speeches. I used the identification of the chicken hawk. The chicken hawk is someone who makes war that other people are to fight. I don't think it is fair to tear apart the loyalty, the heroism of Senator John Kerry anymore than it was fair to challenge the heroism or the loyalty of former Senator Max Cleland. I hope this assault on character can stop and we can discuss the issues that affect the American people. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time from my hour when I come back to the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, may I challenge whether this is part of the debate on the intelligence reform bill or is this discussing a different matter?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have made my request, but I have no objection.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a concurrent resolution that allows for a temporary display in the Capitol Rotunda memorializing the soldiers lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can think of no greater tribute to the families of those who died for our country than to honor their memories right here in the Capitol Building. This temporary memorial would provide pictures and biographical information for each serviceman and servicewoman who has died in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Also, it would include space for people visiting the Capitol to write notes and tributes to be shared with the families so they know that their loved ones will always be in our thoughts and prayers. To date, the United States has lost 1,409 soldiers in Iraq, and 138 in Afghanistan. There are currently 150,500 active duty and reserve forces in Iraq and Afghanistan combined--135,000 in Iraq and 15,500 in Afghanistan--including 3,709 from New Jersey. The Capitol Rotunda is the symbolic heart of the United States Capitol and our Nation's democracy, and it is visited by thousands of people each day. The Rotunda has long been considered an ideal setting for important ceremonial events, including state funerals for presidents from Abraham Lincoln to Lyndon Johnson, distinguished Members of Congress, military heroes, and eminent citizens. The Rotunda is filled with portraits and sculptures reminding Americans of past battles and more modern achievements. Eight framed niches hold large historical paintings--four revolutionary period scenes and four scenes of early exploration. There is precedence for a memorial to fallen heroes in the Capitol Rotunda. Beginning in 1921, the Capitol Rotunda was used to honor the Unknown Soldier who lost his life serving in World War I. Memorials to the Unknown Soldier from World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War followed. In addition, in 1989, an official POW/MIA flag was installed in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda, where it remains today, as a result of legislation passed overwhelmingly during the 100th Congress. This memorial builds upon congressional action of the past and presents an opportunity for the United States Congress to thank our fallen soldiers and their families. I urge my colleagues to join me in this endeavor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank our esteemed friend and colleague, the Senator from West Virginia, for his words--always words of wisdom and words of rage when he sees such an affront to the basic tenets of our society.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what is the pending question? Do we have an amendment pending?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3802 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I offer an amendment to this intelligence reform bill because I think it is consistent with the mission of that bill. There has been a lot of work and a lot of debate about the bill, and I personally am supporting it, but I offer an amendment to do something we very much intend to have happen, and that is to shut down the source of revenue for terrorist organizations. The 9/11 Commission report talks about the critical issue of terrorist financing because as President Bush has said, money is the lifeblood of terrorist operations. Amazingly, some of our very own corporations help provide revenue indirectly to terrorists by doing business with state sponsors of terrorism. My amendment would close the loophole in the law that allows this to happen, thereby cutting off a major source of revenue for terrorists. As the 9/11 Commission stated: Vigorous efforts to track terrorists' financing must remain front and center in the U.S. counterterrorism efforts. We took pains to check with the Parliamentarian about the germaneness, the relevance of our amendment, and it was confirmed that this would be relevant. We need to starve the terrorists at the source and that is why our sanctions program in law is so critical, but now we know a loophole in the law exists that enables companies to do business with Iran, which openly boasts about its support for Hamas and Islamic jihad. Iran also funded the 1983 terror attack in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. Marines; 241 of our finest young people killed by Iranian terror, and yet we are permitting U.S. corporations to provide revenue flows to the Iranian Government. We have to put a stop to it as quickly as we can. How do companies get around terrorist sanction laws? It is a fairly simple process. They simply establish a foreign subsidiary and run their Iranian operations. It is demonstrated on this chart which says that U.S. corporations have subsidiaries all over the place and that is common in our economic and business structure. Once a foreign subsidiary is created, then people can do business with Iran or other rogue nations, people who are determined to kill our citizens, can do business with them and provide services--intentionally, I do not believe--but nevertheless to people like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is a terrible thing to recognize that American companies can be providing sustenance to countries that support terrorism actively. Our American sanctions law prohibits American companies from doing business with Iran, but the law does not mention an American company's foreign subsidiaries. As long as a loophole like this is in place, our terrorist sanction laws are considerably diminished in their force. After brutally murdering 241 of our young marines in their sleep in Beirut in 1983, an Iranian-backed terrorist killed two American women whom we show in these photos. Look at these young faces. They are people at the dawn of life. Sara Duker was a constituent of mine, a 22- year-old from the town of Teaneck, NJ. She was a summa cum laude graduate of Barnard College. Sara was killed with her fiance when the bus she was riding in in Jerusalem in 1996 was blown up by Hamas. An American court confirmed that Iran was responsible and assets were seized to try and provide compensation to the families. Hamas receives its funding and support from the Iranian Government and that is why this attempt to sequester assets was done. Last year, Abigail Litle, a 14-year-old Christian missionary originally from New Hampshire, was riding home from school in Haifa, Israel, when her bus exploded as a result of a suicide bomb. That attack killed 15 people and was directly linked to terrorists funded by Syria and Iran. I was in Iran with several other Senators and we talked to the President of the country about supporting terrorism. He denied any suggestion that they might be operating out of his country, but the Israelis last week apparently took an action to eliminate the head of one of the terrorist organizations who was clearly functioning there. We have to worry about these countries and we cannot give them any latitude, any encouragement to continue with their killing ways. We also have to worry about providing revenue to Iran because of its well- known desire to build a nuclear bomb and other weapons of mass destruction. The 9/11 Commission concluded: Preventing the proliferation of [WMD] warrants a maximum effort. Certainly, ``maximum'' includes providing funding for some of these firms. So allowing U.S. companies to provide revenue to rogue WMD programs is clearly not a maximum effort. Some people think this is an isolated problem, but it is not. According to a report by the Center for Security Policy, there are large numbers of companies doing business with Iran and other sponsors of terror. Iran sponsors terrorism, period. The terror they help fund has killed hundreds of Americans. Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons and yet U.S. companies are using a loophole in the law in order to do business with the Iranian Government. It is wrong. It is not illegal yet, but this amendment would change it. I am sure when my colleagues examine what we are talking about, they will consider joining us, I hope, enthusiastically. It is inexcusable for American companies to engage in any business that provides revenue, any business practice that provides revenues to terrorism. We have to stop it. We have a chance to do that with this amendment. I remind our distinguished colleague, the chairperson of the committee, that she supported this amendment before and I hope she will once again support the amendment and let all of us close the terror funding loophole. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arizona for his patience. I send my amendment to the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first, I commend the chairman of the committee and our esteemed ranking member and say I am pleased to see that we have a chance to wrap up discussion on this reform attempt in the time we are presently allowing. I offer an amendment to establish a 5-year term for the national intelligence director. Our colleague from Pennsylvania has put forward an amendment to extend the term for the national intelligence director, to put in place a term that is 10 years in length, and I salute the Senator's attempt to try to assure objectivity for the new intelligence chief. The Senator from Pennsylvania and I share the same goal and that is to do all we can to make sure the national intelligence director is as independent and nonpartisan as possible. My specific proposal differs from the approach used by the Senator from Pennsylvania. Mine would establish a 5-year term, not a 10-year term, for the national intelligence director. Under my amendment, if the President wants to reappoint that person, he could, as long as he sends the nomination to the Senate and we confirm him or her. Under Senator Specter's amendment, the director's term would be limited to a single 10-year term. I think a formula of 5-year terms that could be renewed is more practical. If we are serious about objective intelligence, then we have to provide a national intelligence director with as much independence as we can, that allows him to tell the President things the President may not generally want to hear. The NID should be able to provide information and analysis to the President without necessarily worrying about job security. During one of our hearings in the Governmental Affairs Committee on intelligence reform earlier this month, I asked interim CIA Director John McLaughlin what he thought of a limited term for the national intelligence director. His response was that it may be yet another way to ensure the objectivity and nonpolitical character of whoever holds that office. Interim Director McLaughlin is on target. A term for the national intelligence director will bolster objectivity and help keep politics out of our intelligence data. Some of my colleagues have voiced concern that they want to make sure the director is someone the President trusts, and I wholeheartedly support that. I agree it is critical that the individual and the President have a relationship built on trust. I believe my amendment bolsters that trust. With an independent, objective national intelligence director, the President can trust that the data he gets is objective. When it comes to intelligence data, a President surely does not want a simple yes-man. The President needs independent, clean, quality analysis. Unlike the amendment that has been proposed, my amendment does not restrict the director to only one term. If the President wants to renominate the same person to serve in the post again, then he may do so, and the Senate will then decide whether to confirm the person for another term. I want to be clear that while the amendment provides a degree of independence to the NID, it is not absolute. Under my amendment, the President could certainly dismiss the NID if he did not have further confidence in his ability to perform. In fact, all it takes for the President to remove the director is the will to do so. So I believe my amendment will help improve the quality of nominees for the position of national intelligence director. With a 5-year term in place, there will be an expectation that the individual serve both Democrats and Republicans. Given what I hope will be a nonpartisan mandate, we will see much more objective and nonpartisan nominees. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, may I ask the Chair what the status is of our schedule right now?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. I will take the opportunity to speak in morning business. Mr. President, in the last couple of hours, a news conference was held with President Bush and Prime Minister Allawi, the interim Prime Minister from Iraq, in an attempt to clarify our Iraq policy. It was held in the Rose Garden. What we heard was a peculiar use of words, when a reporter asked President Bush to explain some comments he made on Tuesday. Those comments are on this chart. President Bush--this was on September 21 at the Waldorf-Astoria. The quotation is that of the President when he says: The CIA laid out a--several scenarios that said, life could be lousy, life could be OK, life could be better. And they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like. That is talking about Iraq. The reporter further asked President Bush why, after faithfully relying on CIA intelligence estimates to justify invading Iraq, he now calls CIA intelligence ``just guessing.'' Once again I quote President Bush: I used an unfortunate word, ``guess''; I should have used ``estimate.'' An unfortunate word? It was unfortunate, all right, because many of us in the Congress are taking the quality of our Nation's intelligence very seriously. It was unfortunate because the American people are trying to understand what has taken place, what took place on 9/11, what took place in the review of 9/11 with the 9/11 Commission. The demand is that we take intelligence seriously after the failures of 9/ 11. Yesterday, we approved the appointment of a new CIA Director, Mr. Porter Goss. Although I challenged that appointment, the fact is he won the confidence of this body and, without any possible interruption, is going to be the head of the CIA. I think that is pretty darn important. There were hours of debate in the Senate, covered on TV channels, in newspapers, you name it; everybody must have thought it was pretty important. But President Bush said something else. President Bush said he was trusting the word of a foreign leader, and the statement is made like this: And the CIA came-- Once again, he is talking about the situation in Iraq-- and said, ``this is a possibility, this is a possibility, and this is a possibility.'' But what's important for the American people to hear is reality. And the reality is right here in the form of Prime Minister Allawi. And he is explaining what is happening on the ground. That's the best report. Are we hearing that President Bush is dismissing the word of the CIA, the comments of the CIA, to say they are just guessing or that might be a guesstimate, and what is really happening, the reality is right here in the form of the Prime Minister? Are we going to trust the Prime Minister of a foreign country to supply intelligence that is more reliable than the CIA? Lord willing, I hope not. First the President says our intelligence data is just guessing, and then he says the word of a foreign leader is more valuable than U.S. intelligence. The entire purpose of our intelligence program is so we do not have to rely on the word of a foreign government for information. Would we take the word of a Prime Minister of a country to say I think this is the condition in a territory, that is the condition in that territory, and use that information to declare war and send over 1,000 people to their death? I hope not. The President has finally admitted he uses unfortunate words. He certainly has. I remember some words that shocked me. I was a soldier once, a long time ago, and I never heard a commander, whether it was a lieutenant in charge of my platoon or the general of the army, Dwight D. Eisenhower, or any other world leader say, ``Bring 'em on,'' when they were talking about the enemy. The last thing I wanted to see was a German soldier, I can tell you. But when President Bush said ``Bring 'em on,'' it was unfortunate. There were tragic consequences. And now since we lost four more people than when I talked yesterday, the number is up to 1,041 troops killed and so many more injured. On May 1, 2003, President Bush made another unfortunate statement. He said: ``Mission accomplished.'' It was a grand presentation on the deck of an aircraft carrier with proud American sailors standing behind him, flags waving all over the place. He said: ``Mission accomplished.'' That premature statement gave false hope to our troops and the families back home who were waiting for them now that it was all done, all wrapped up. ``Mission accomplished'' says: Job well done, finished. This was not a job well done, not at all. Yes, our troops fought hard. Yes, there is plenty of bravery. Yes, there is plenty of courage out there. But for the Commander in Chief to say ``mission accomplished,'' he could have said: ``Pack your duffel bags; you are going home.'' When I heard ``mission accomplished'' in World War II, I was on a ship headed for Japan, having served in Europe first. When President Roosevelt and President Truman at the time said, ``mission accomplished,'' we came home. When it was said here, May 1, 2003, roughly 18 months ago, ``mission accomplished,'' the mission was not at all accomplished. Ask the families of the 1,041 who perished in Iraq. Ask those families, more than 800 since the President declared ``mission accomplished,'' ask them whether they think the job is done. Then the President flip-flopped on whether we can win the war on terror, which is what he said. One day, he told Matt Lauer from NBC on national television: I don't think you can win the war on terror. The next day he said: We will win the war on terror. President Bush is speaking more and more unfortunate words, and flip- flopping on fundamental issues. I think that is what they accuse John Kerry of, flip-flops. Maybe we ought to put up a chart that shows who did more flip-flops than the other. We can prove President Bush's flip- flops were accompanied by pain and grievous losses. There was a ``Hardball'' interview last night by Chris Matthews. Bush supporters on that program, a man by the name of Ed Rogers, said Senator Kerry is like George McGovern. Anybody who served in this body understands that George McGovern fought in World War II heroically, and there is not anybody who served with George McGovern or who knows anything about him who is not proud of his accomplishments and his commitment to the well-being of America. So that is a sarcastic way of saying something is wrong with those two men--John Kerry was awarded the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and three Purple Hearts. George McGovern served in Europe during World War II--and that there is something sinister about their character. Bush supporters say Kerry is like George McGovern. The real analogy that ought to be made is perhaps President George W. Bush is like Richard Nixon, campaign dirty tricks, misleading the American public. Maybe that is the right comparison. We can continue to criticize and assassinate character, which seems to be the thrust of the Bush-Cheney campaign. This chart was shown on the floor by another Senator about John Kerry's record. John Kerry's record is three Purple Hearts. Those are awards for being wounded, confirmed by medical personnel. You cannot get a Purple Heart by writing a letter and saying: I am hurt here and hurt there. And you cannot get a Silver Star without the Secretary of a service signing on or you cannot get a Bronze Star without certification by someone of very high rank in the military. Instead, we ought to look at a chart such as this: Bush rhetoric, and the reality in Iraq. If the measure of your performance is to be the interim Prime Minister of Iraq, brave man though he may be, who insists Iraq is going to be ready to take over in January with an election and they will have 145,000 people in uniform ready to fight, and a year later up to 200,000--I hope that is not wishful thinking because if it is, it could turn into a nightmare. No, we have to do better than that. We have to be able to tell the American people the truth. We have to be able to look at the record of both people. I know this: If I were being called into battle, I would sure as heck follow John Kerry in because I know if I fall in the water he is going to turn around and pull me out. But I would not be able to find George W. Bush because he was not there in the unit to take up his part. No, he was absent, I think the record has established, and I am not getting into CBS's authenticity. We have other records that say he did not show up for his physical and, thusly, could not qualify to fly any longer. So I think it has to stop. When we look at the reality of the Bush- Cheney campaign and we see what Halliburton, a familiar tie to Vice President Cheney in an earlier period, has done to defraud the American Government, the American people of their funds, overcharging here, bribery there, a Vice President with a financial interest in this company that is held up for such disregard, that is the record at which we have to look: what was their performance, not what were their words. An irate, angry Senator spoke at the Republican convention. He said one thing you have to remember; it is not what people say, it is what they do that counts. Let us judge Senator Kerry by what he did that counts. Let us judge President George W. Bush on where we stand in this conflict: 1,041 dead, thousands more wounded, many of them very seriously. I visited some of them at Walter Reed Hospital.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would, indeed.