Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss some disturbing information that was released to the public today. It concerns the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. A little more than a week after September 11, precisely on September 19, 2001, a luxury airliner 727 took off from Boston Logan Airport. It was wheeled up, at 11 o'clock at night, under the cover of darkness. That airplane left the United States for Gander, Canada, then on to Paris, Geneva, and the final stop was Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The question was, Who was on this charter flight carrying people who will never again set foot in the United States? That charter flight, 1 week after September 11, carried 12 members of the bin Laden family out of our country. When they left, they took a million unanswered questions with them. Now, on this chart is the flight manifest of that fateful flight. I will read the names of those with the last name of bin Laden: ``Najia Binladen, Khalil Binladen, Sultan Binladen, Khalil Sultan Binladen, Shafig Binladen, Omar Awad Binladen, Badr Ahmed Binladen, Nawaf Bark Binladen, Mohammed Saleh Binladen, Salman Salem Binladen, Tamara Khalil Binladen, Sana's Mohammed Binladen, and Faisal Khalid Binladen.'' I ask my colleagues, why in the world would we let 12 members of Osama bin Laden's family leave the country at that moment? One of the first rules of a criminal investigation when you have the suspect on the run is to interrogate the family members. Osama bin Laden had just murdered over 3,000 Americans, but the administration let his family flee. The question is, Why? There are reports that some of the bin Ladens were interviewed on the airplane by the FBI. Interviewed on the airplane? Everybody knows when the FBI is conducting a serious interview they do not do it within hearing of everyone else. These people were about to take off. Why would they disclose anything to U.S. law enforcement? They were getting out of here. I have talked to law enforcement officials who said, at the very least, the bin Laden family should have been detained on a material witness warrant and put under oath and asked the question, Do you know where Osama bin Laden is? Do you know where his safe houses are? Where does he get his money? Who are his associates? The Saudi PR machine has been spinning that Osama bin Laden is ostracized from his family; no one has any contact with him anymore. Most experts believe that is not the truth. It may be true for some family members but certainly not all. It is, at the very least, unclear what bin Laden's position on Osama bin Laden really is. Osama bin Laden's brother, Yeslam bin Laden, was interviewed on television recently. He was asked the question, Would you turn Osama bin Laden in, if you knew where he was? He essentially said no. Before it left this country, this charter flight stopped in several U.S. cities. It started by picking up one bin Laden, Najia bin Laden, in Los Angeles. It then flew to Orlando to pick up more members of the bin Laden family. Once in Orlando, the crew of this charter flight found out who they were carrying as passengers and threatened to walk out. They did not want to fly that flight but the charter company insisted they stay on the job. The airplane was flown from Orlando to Dulles, near Washington, to pick up more bin Ladens. Then the flight landed at Logan Airport in Boston to pick up additional family members to leave the country. At Logan Airport, the officials there were not eager to let this plane full of bin Ladens take off so easily. The airport officials demanded clearances from the Bush administration before they let this airplane leave. But then, to their astonishment, the clearances quickly came through. Let them leave, was the order from the Bush administration. And we ask, Why? Look at the names of the bin Laden family members who are allowed to leave the country. It is astounding, 12 of them, all of them with bin Laden last names. That is a pretty good indication that they ought to be questioned, ought to be interpreted, that they ought to tell what they know about Osama bin Laden, the murderer of our Americans. Millions of Americans were still distraught on September 19. Thousands of foreigners were detained across our Nation and across the world, but the family of the perpetrator was let go. It makes no sense. Some of these individuals' names raise specific concern. Take Omar bin Laden. He was under suspicion for involvement in a suspected terrorist organization. This was known on September 19, 2001, but the administration allowed him to flee. Once again, we must ask the question, why? The President of the United States should explain to the American people why his administration let this plane leave. The American people are going to be shocked by this manifest, and they deserve an explanation. These are 12 names that may have been inconvenienced in September 2001, if we detained them and subjected them to questioning under oath. They might not have liked it. That is 12 people potentially inconvenienced compared to the almost 3,000 names of those murdered on 9/11. The American people deserve an answer. This information is reliable. Manifests are always filed with flights, especially those going out of the country. The destination: Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia--all the way down the line. The passport numbers are blocked out on this chart, but their identity is quite clear. This is a question that must be answered. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Ohio for the good work he so often does on behalf of the safety and well-being of young people. Therefore, it is no surprise to see Senator DeWine sponsoring or creating this kind of amendment--something that can markedly affect the well-being of children in our society in general. I want to lend my support to the DeWine-Kennedy amendment, to see if we cannot finally get past these years of delay and obstruction, to permit the FDA to have jurisdiction over tobacco products. It is long overdue, and I am hopeful that the Senate will take this historic step today. There are very few people my age who weren't induced to smoke by all kinds of influences. When I was a soldier many years ago in Europe during the war, the thing we used to look for in our emergency pack was the little packet of four free cigarettes. We never realized it, but the military was marketing for the cigarette companies, because once someone had a few cigarettes, that was it for almost a lifetime. Nothing, other than perhaps some illegal drugs, illicit drugs, such as cocaine, is more addictive than tobacco. Perhaps even they don't compare. I used to smoke. I smoked a lot. Fortunately, my youngest daughter, who was about 7 years old at the time, had more sense than I did. She said to me: Daddy, today we learned in school that if you smoke, you get a black box in your throat.'' She said, ``I love you; I don't want you to have a black box in your throat.'' That was after dozens of times that I tried to stop smoking. I smoked for 25 years. There were dozens of times I swore I would stop smoking and never could quite muster the energy or conviction to do it. But when she gave me that message, within 3 days I was no longer smoking. All I had to do was remember how her eyes looked at me so pleadingly and said, ``Daddy, stop smoking.'' That was it for me. When I came to the Senate, I was determined to do something where I might be able to protect Americans, especially our young people, from the dangers of tobacco. I am pleased to have worked on tobacco control, starting long before it became a mainstream issue. In 1987, along with now-Senator Durbin, formerly Congressman Durbin, we authored the law banning smoking on airplanes. It was a tough fight and it was said, ``You will never get it done.'' But we persisted and convinced a lot of people that changing the rules about smoking in airplanes was worthwhile. It had a long, arduous trip. First, we were able to negotiate for 3 hours, or 2 hours, and settle for 2 hours, with a promise that we would examine the result and maybe change our minds in 18 months and relent. I had a friend in the tobacco business, and one day he said to me, ``Frank, come on, this hasn't been proven dangerous yet.'' This goes back to the 1980s. I said, ``I'll tell you what. If you can convince your father and the other members of your family to start smoking and confirm that they smoke two packs a day, and do it for a year, I will call off my opposition.'' Obviously, that never happened. They knew how dangerous tobacco was, as did the manufacturers of tobacco products going back to the 1930s. The addiction and the harm that comes from nicotine was widely known by the people in the industry, again, in the 1930s. We saw that once nonsmokers could experience a smoke-free environment in the cabin of an airplane, they began to demand it in more places than that. It changed things radically for people who were unable to fly because they had respiratory conditions. And they learned something. If cabin attendants who didn't smoke were on a flight, they learned that the nicotine residue could last for many days after in their body fluids. So it was pervasive. The attitude on tobacco began to change radically. I had an opportunity to write further law, and I put into the statutes a law that required that any building that children inhabited, whether it was a library, hospital, youth hostel, daycare center, could not have any smoking present unless it was in a confined room, a single room that was ventilated to the outside, as long as Federal money was being given there. That succeeded in turning into law and protecting our children even further. I have long supported FDA jurisdiction over tobacco--a milestone I hope we will reach today. Mr. President, make no mistake, tobacco addiction is still a huge problem in America. Tobacco continues to be the No. 1 cause of preventable death and disease in our Nation. Each year, tobacco claims over 430,000 lives in the United States and serious health impairment occurs as a result of tobacco--emphysema, heart trouble, all kinds of terrible conditions associated with tobacco. According to the Centers for Disease Control, if current tobacco use continues in the United States, an estimated 6.4 million children will die prematurely from a smoking-related disease. This is alarming because every day nearly 5,000 young people buy cigarettes for the first time. Once again, that addiction is enormous. In addition to the human costs, huge economic costs occur in our Nation. It is estimated that direct medical expenditures attributed to smoking total now more than $75 billion each and every year. Despite all of this, the Food and Drug Administration has not been able to take action to reduce tobacco's harm on society. By way of example, right now the FDA, as we have seen on a poster displayed here, can regulate a box of macaroni and cheese but not a pack of cigarettes. If you want to know the ingredients in macaroni and cheese, it is on the label. But for cigarettes, there is scant information on ingredients, toxins, chemicals, et cetera. It makes no sense. Today, we have worthless health warnings, no control over what tobacco companies claim about the relative health effects of their products, no authority to curtail tobacco marketing to kids, and no ability to order the industry to remove especially hazardous ingredients. The amendment before us today has the support of the entire public health community, including the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and the Campaign--an effective campaign, by the way--for Tobacco-Free Kids. Today, we have a historic opportunity to give the FDA the legal authority it needs to prohibit tobacco advertising that targets children, the authority to prevent sale of tobacco products to minors, and the authority to make tobacco products less toxic than they need to be, although I am very suspicious about that because there is much misleading advertising talking about tobacco light cigarettes, et cetera. There is no assurance they are less lethal than ordinary cigarettes. We want to give them the authority to prevent the tobacco industry from misleading the public about the dangers of smoking. I join with other colleagues and hope that we can muster enough support for this bill to give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration the authority it needs to regulate tobacco, as it does other drugs. We owe it to families across this country. We owe it to young people who think it is going to be a kick, but it is a kick they will remember for the rest of their lives once they start. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If I may intervene, Mr. President, for one moment, with Senator DeWine's approval, we worked on issues that focus on protecting children's health in particular. We want the drunks off the highways. We want to get tobacco out of the grasp of children. We want them not to be seduced into smoking to look like they are bigshots, like they have grown up to a point. I remember the days--and I am sure the Senator from Ohio does--when athletes were endorsing tobacco products and doctors were endorsing tobacco products. Thank goodness we do not have that anymore. I commend the Senator from Ohio. I have always enjoyed working with him on issues. I pay my respects to his excellent work on this amendment. I hope it is adopted.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to ensure that all voices are heard in the debate over the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution on the issue of marriage. I have received compelling correspondence from Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Local Officials, GLBLO--a caucus of the National League of Cities--the full text of which deserves to be included in Senate consideration of this issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter from the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Local Officials, GLBLO, board of directors be printed in the Record. July 14, 2004. Dear United States Senator: On behalf of the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Local Officials (GLBLO) Board of Directors and members, a caucus of the National League of Cities working to influence federal policy and municipal relations, we are writing to urge you to vote ``NO'' on S.J. Res. 30 and S.J. Res. 40, respectively, a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. We are also asking for a vote against ``cloture'' so that the Senate may engage in a full debate of the issue. The first sentence of the ``Federal Marriage Amendment'' provides, ``Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and woman.'' GLBLO is opposed to the federal preemption of states to determine marriage. The 10th Amendment of the Constitution clearly confers upon states the authority to determine marriage. The federal intrusion into the state's authority to define marriage is unnecessary. Unfortunately, this proposed preemptive language would also reverse the constitutional tradition of expanding and protecting individual liberties. Second, GLBLO is opposed to the wording of the second sentence of the proposed amendment which would prohibit the federal government and states from conferring ``the legal incidents'' of marriage on unmarried couples. The proposed language could have the far-reaching negative effect preempting state and local laws, as well as private businesses that provide benefits to the partners of their employees. This is particularly troubling given the fact that neither the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution nor the Senate Judiciary Committee vetted the impact of the language. The Constitution of the United States deserves more careful consideration by the Senate, especially when the proposed amendment would break from the traditional historical civil rights practice of allowing stronger state laws. In closing, we ask the Senate to redirect its energies to address the priorities of the nation's cities--such as homeland security, transportation reauthorization, and full funding of social service programs, before taking this historical step of eroding the role of state governments in protecting same-sex and unmarried couples in their states. Sincerely, Greg Pettis, Mayor Pro Tem, Cathedral City, California, At-Large Board Member, Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Local Elected Officials (GLBLO). Rand Haglund, Councilmember, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, At-Large Board Member, Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Local Elected Officials (GLBLO).

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, are we presently acting as in morning business?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent the pending business be put aside and that I have 15 minutes to present my speech.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a serious problem that faces our world, one that is reflected directly in the activities at the United Nations. It is anti-Semitism. It is what we see at the U.N., the distinctly unjust treatment of 1 of its 192 member countries, the State of Israel. A historic moment occurred last month. For the first time in its six- decade history, the U.N. actually convened a conference to discuss the growing problem of anti-Semitism worldwide. While it is heartening to see this development, the fact remains that since its creation in 1946, the U.N. has never produced any resolutions specifically aimed at anti- Semitism. Nor have any of its ancillary bodies ever issued any report on the subject of discrimination against Jews and Israel. At the conference I just mentioned, Columbia Law School professor Anne Bayefsky delivered a remarkable speech. I ask unanimous consent that her speech be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, Professor Bayefsky highlighted the history of the intolerance of the United Nations and outright discrimination against Israel. Now, what does discrimination to Israel mean? It is exemplified in denying Israel and only Israel admission to the vital negotiating sessions of regional groups held daily during meetings of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. It means devoting 6 of the 10 emergency sessions ever held by the General Assembly to repudiating Israel. In contrast, no emergency session was ever held on the Rwanda genocide, estimated to have killed 1 million people, or on the so- called ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands of people in the former Yugoslavia, or on the atrocities committed against millions of people in Sudan in past decades. More than one-quarter of the resolutions adopted by the Human Rights Commission over the last 40 years condemning the human rights record of various nations have been directed solely at Israel. There has not been a single resolution critical of China for suppressing the civil and political rights of its 1.3 billion people. There has not been a single resolution condemning the deadly racism in Zimbabwe that has brought 600,000 people to the brink of starvation. It seems that anti-Israeli sentiment pervades the top levels of the U.N. hierarchy. The Secretary-General publicly condemns the tactics Israelis are forced to use to defend themselves, but he never once mentions the terrorist attacks that precipitate the response. Because of this blatant bias, it is not surprising that last Friday the International Court of Justice--the U.N.'s court--squarely found that the barrier the Israelis are building to protect themselves violates international law. The ICJ demanded it be torn down and insisted that Palestinians be compensated for any damages. Now, make no mistake, I believe an organization comprised of nations around the world must exist. I believe the United Nations is that organization. But it must operate fairly and be balanced. It is precisely because of my idealism regarding the role of the U.N. and the ICJ in international affairs that I am so disappointed in the court's one-sided decision last week. The bias emanates not so much from the decision itself but from what the judges neglected to mention. They remained absolutely silent about the suicide bombers, the terrorist attacks that have killed over 1,000 Israelis in the past 4 years. In relative terms, it would be the equivalent to over 46,000 Americans. I think it is informative that 1 week earlier, Israel's own Supreme Court also ruled on the barrier. The Israeli Supreme Court determined that the barrier is defensible as a security measure but ordered the Israeli Army to reroute a section of it in response to Palestinian concerns and make it hew more closely to the pre-1967 Green Line. The justices wrote: We are aware that this decision does not make it easier to deal with that reality, [but] is the destiny of a democracy. They added that a democracy such as Israel's: does not see all means as acceptable, and the ways of her enemies are not always open before her. A democracy must sometimes fight [back] with one arm tied behind her back. The Israeli Supreme Court sent the strongest message, perhaps, to Israel's enemies of its uniqueness, resilience, and fundamental goodness. The Israeli children are never subjected to lessons in the school that say: ``Learn to kill your Arab neighbors,'' as contrasted to textbook after textbook in surrounding countries that say: ``You must learn to kill the Jews and kill the Israelis.'' As a matter of fact, this morning on television, what I saw was a group of very young Palestinian children being taught military methods so they can one day give their lives carrying a suicide bomb. It is incredible, when you think about it, that the Israelis should pay attention to the rights of the Palestinians, when you never hear in any of the Arab countries surrounding Israel that they ought to pay attention to the rights of the Israelis. It is very hard to even get a condemnation from them when some mad suicide bomber comes in and takes innocent Israeli lives without provocation. Israel's vibrant, even if imperfect, democracy is precisely the reason why the U.N. bias against her is so unjust. Israel is a country in which huge crowds often gather in Tel Aviv's Rabin Square to demand the Government quickly end its support of settlements, challenging the views of lots of Israelis who want to use these settlements. But there is a fairness, an equity in the views of the Israelis that prevents them from going ahead and supporting these activities. Israel is a country in which domestic human rights groups, in an act of political protest, recently mounted a photo exhibit of Israeli soldiers abusing Palestinian civilians--in the lobby of its Parliament, the Knesset. Could you ever imagine that taking place in Damascus? Or Iraq, as it was? Or even a country as friendly as Egypt seems to be? Israel is a country in which top reservists in the army and air force have refused to serve in the West Bank because they do not support the policies of the Sharon Government. In an ideal world, Israel could prevent suicide bombers from infiltrating its cafes and malls and buses. But the Israelis do not live in an ideal world. The security fence is a measure of last resort. Israelis felt compelled to build the security fence after Palestinian terrorists launched 50 successful suicide bombings in 2002. The security fence, as Israel's Supreme Court rightly concluded, is a defensive measure. And as a defensive measure, it has been very effective. There were 50 suicide bombings in 2002. In 2003, there were 20. So far this year, there have been eight. That is a very positive outcome. The most recent bombing attack in Israel occurred this past Sunday, July 11, on a Tel Aviv bus, killing one soldier and injuring a dozen civilians. One of the injured was a 29-year-old named Sammi Masrawa, an Israeli Arab who leads an Arab-Jewish friendship group in the Tel Aviv area. Mr. Masrawa told the press he had opposed the barrier. In fact, he even took part in protests against it. But the bombing on Sunday changed his mind. He said: I will now be for [the fence] and form an organization in favor of it. I wonder: How might the 15 judges of the United Nations' highest court justify their ruling to Sammi Masrawa, who from his hospital bed now pledges to lobby in support of the security fence. His quest for peace underpinned by real security should be the call to which the United Nations and the international community respond. Instead, the ICJ has allowed an anti-Israel bias to cloud its vision and undermine its noble purpose. We Americans need to wake up to the fact that the U.N. and its ancillaries are fundamentally hostile to Israel. We need to wake up to the fact that the U.N. and its ancillaries are unwilling to stanch the murderous flow of worldwide anti-Semitism. Why is this important? Because what affects Israel affects the United States as well. Israeli nuclear physicist Haim Harari recently gave a speech in which he grimly but accurately described the virulent new strain of terrorists who are not only threatening Jerusalem, they are threatening Bali, Istanbul, Madrid, Riyadh, and New York. I urge my colleagues to read his message and reflect on what we must do to protect America and Israel, fix the U.N., and promote freedom and democracy and human rights around the world. I hope also to remind our Arab friends in the area--be that Egypt or Kuwait or some of the other countries there--we care about these kinds of poisons that pervade the atmosphere, and we cannot tolerate that kind of an attitude, and won't, in our relationship with the U.N. or without or within these countries. I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Harari's speech be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From On The Record, June 21, 2004] One Small Step: Is the U.N. Finally Ready To Get Serious About Anti- Semitism? (By Anne Bayefsky) (Editor's note: Ms. Bayefsky delivered this speech at the U.N. at a conference on Confronting Anti-Semitism: Education for Tolerance and Understanding, sponsored by the United Nations Department of Information, this morning.) I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you at this first U.N. conference on anti-Semitism, which is being convened six decades after the organization's creation. My thanks to the U.N. organizers and in particular Shashi Tharoor [the undersecretary-general for communications and public information] for their initiative and to the secretary- general for his willingness to engage. This meeting occurs at a point when the relationship between Jews and the United Nations is at an all-time low. The U.N. took root in the ashes of the Jewish people, and according to its charter was to flower on the strength of a commitment to tolerance and equality for all men and women and of nations large and small. Today, however, the U.N. provides a platform for those who cast the victims of the Nazis as the Nazi counterparts of the 21st century. The U.N. has become the leading global purveyor of anti-Semitism-- intolerance and inequality against the Jewish people and its state. Not only have many of the U.N. members most responsible for this state of affairs rendered their own countries Judenrein, they have succeeded in almost entirely expunging concern about Jew-hatred from the U.N. docket. From 1965, when anti- Semitism was deliberately excluded from a treaty on racial discrimination, to last fall, when a proposal for a General Assembly resolution on anti-Semitism was withdrawn after Ireland capitulated to Arab and Muslim opposition, mention of anti-Semitism has continually ground the wheels of U.N.-led multilateralism to a halt. There has never been a U.N. resolution specifically on anti-Semitism or a single report to a U.N. body dedicated to discrimination against Jews, in contrast to annual resolutions and reports focusing on the defamation of Islam and discrimination against Muslims and Arabs. Instead there was Durban--the 2001 U.N. World Conference ``Against Racism,'' which was a breeding ground and global soapbox for anti-Semites. When it was over U.N. officials and member states turned the Durban Declaration into the centerpiece of the U.N.'s antiracism agenda--allowing Durban follow-up resolutions to become a continuing battlefield over U.N. concern with anti-Semitism. Not atypical is the public dialogue in the U.N.'s top human rights body--the Commission on Human Rights--where this past April the Pakistani ambassador, speaking on behalf of the 56 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, unashamedly disputed that anti-Semitism was about Jews. For Jews, however, ignorance is not an option. Anti- Semitism is about intolerance and discrimination directed at Jews--both individually and collectively. It concerns both individual human rights and the group right to self- determination--realized in the state of Israel. What does discrimination against the Jewish state mean? It means refusing to admit only Israel to the vital negotiating sessions of regional groups held daily, during U.N. Commission on Human Rights meetings. It means devoting six of the 10 emergency sessions ever held by the General Assembly to Israel. It means transforming the 10th emergency session into a permanent tribunal--which has now been reconvened 12 times since 1997. By contrast, no emergency session was ever held on the Rwandan genocide, estimated to have killed a million people, or the ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands in the former Yugoslavia, or the death of millions over the past two decades of atrocities in Sudan. That's discrimination. The record of the Secretariat is more of the same. In November 2003, Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a report on Israel's security fence, detailing the purported harm to Palestinians without describing one terrorist act against Israelis which preceded the fence's construction. Recently, the secretary-general strongly condemned Israel for destroying homes in southern Gaza without mentioning the arms-smuggling tunnels operating beneath them. When Israel successfully targeted Hamas terrorist Abdel Aziz Rantissi with no civilian casualties, the secretary-general denounced Israel for an ``extrajudicial'' killing. But when faced with the 2004 report of the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions detailing the murder of more than 3,000 Brazilian civilians shot at close range by police, Mr. Annan chose silence. That's discrimination. At the U.N., the language of human rights is hijacked not only to discriminate but to demonize the Jewish target. More than one quarter of the resolutions condemning a state's human rights violations adopted by the commission over 40 years have been directed at Israel. But there has never been a single resolution about the decades-long repression of the civil and political rights of 1.3 billion people in China, or the million female migrant workers in Saudi Arabia kept as virtual slaves, or the virulent racism which has brought 600,000 people to the brink of starvation in Zimbabwe. Every year, U.N. bodies are required to produce at least 25 reports on alleged human rights violations by Israel, but not one on an Iranian criminal justice system which mandates punishments such as crucifixion, stoning and cross-amputation of the right hand and left foot. This is not a legitimate critique of states with equal or worse human rights records. It is demonization of the Jewish state. As Israelis are demonized at the U.N., so Palestinians and their cause are deified. Every year the U.N. marks Nov. 29 as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People--the day the U.N. partitioned the British Palestine mandate and which Arabs often style as the onset of al naba or the ``catastrophe'' of the creation of the state of Israel. In 2002, the anniversary of the vote that survivors of the concentration camps celebrated, was described by Secretary-General Annan as ``a day of mourning and a day of grief.'' In 2003 the representatives of over 100 member states stood along with the secretary-general, before a map predating the state of Israel, for a moment of silence ``for all those who had given their lives for the Palestinian people''--which would include suicide bombers. Similarly, U.N. rapporteur John Dugard has described Palestinian terrorists as ``tough'' and their efforts as characterized by ``determination, daring, and success.'' A commission resolution for the past three years has legitimized the Palestinian use of ``all available means including armed struggle''--an absolution for terrorist methods which would never be applied to the self- determination claims of Chechens or Basques. Although Palestinian self-determination is equally justified, the connection between demonizing Israelis and sanctifying Palestinians makes it clear that the core issue is not the stated cause of Palestinian suffering. For there are no U.N. resolutions deploring the practice of encouraging Palestinian children to glorify and emulate suicide bombers, or the use of the Palestinian population as human shields, or the refusal by the vast majority of Arab states to integrate Palestinian refugees into their societies and to offer them the benefits of citizenship. Palestinians are lionized at the U.N. because they are the perceived antidote to what U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi called the great poison of the Middle East--the existence and resilience of the Jewish state. Of course, anti-Semitism takes other forms at the U.N. Over the past decade at the commission, Syria announced that yeshivas train rabbis to instill racist hatred in their pupils. Palestinian representatives claimed that Israelis can happily celebrate religious holidays like Yom Kippur only by shedding Palestinian blood, and accused Israel of injecting 300 Palestinian children with HIV-positive blood. U.N.-led anti-Semitism moves from the demonization of Jews to the disqualification of Jewish victimhood: refusing to recognize Jewish suffering by virtue of their ethnic and national identity. In 2003, a General Assembly resolution concerned with the welfare of Israeli children failed (though one on Palestinian children passed handily) because it proved impossible to gain enough support for the word Israeli appearing before the word children. The mandate of the U.N. special rapporteur on the ``Palestinian territories,'' set over a decade ago, is to investigate only ``Israel's violations of . . . international law'' and not to consider human-rights violations by Palestinians in Israel. It follows in U.N. logic that nonvictims aren't really supposed to fight back. One after another concrete Israeli response to terrorism is denounced by the secretary-general and member states as illegal. But killing members of the command-and-control structure of a terrorist organization, when there is no disproportionate use of force, and arrest is impossible, is not illegal. Homes used by terrorists in the midst of combat are legitimate military targets. A nonviolent, temporary separation of parties to a conflict on disputed territory by a security fence, which is sensitive to minimizing hardships, is a legitimate response to Israel's international legal obligations to protect its citizens from crimes against humanity. In effect, the U.N. moves to pin the arms of Jewish targets behind their backs while the terrorists take aim. The U.N.'s preferred imagery for this phenomenon is of a cycle of violence. It is claimed that the cycle must be broken--every time Israelis raises a hand. But just as the symbol of the cycle is chosen because it has no beginning, it is devastating to the cause of peace because it denies the possibility of an end. The Nuremberg Tribunal taught us that crimes are not committed by abstract entities. The perpetrators of anti-Semitism today are the preachers in mosques who exhort their followers to blow up Jews. They are the authors of Palestinian Authority textbooks that teach a new generation to hate Jews and admire their killers. They are the television producers and official benefactors in authoritarian regimes like Syria or Egypt who manufacture and distribute programming that depicts Jews as bloodthirsty world conspirators. Listen, however, to the words of the secretary-general in response to two suicide bombings which took place in Jerusalem this year, killing 19 and wounding 110: ``Once again, violence and terror have claimed innocent lives in the Middle East. Once again, I condemn those who resort to such methods.'' ``The Secretary General condemns the suicide bombing Sunday in Jerusalem. The deliberate targeting of civilians is a heinous crime and cannot be justified by any cause.'' Refusing to name the perpetrators, Mr. Secretary- General, Teflon terrorism, is a green light to strike again. Perhaps more than any other, the big lie that fuels anti- Semitism today is the U.N.-promoted claim that the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the occupation of Palestinian land. According to U.N. revisionism, the occupation materialized in a vacuum. In reality, Israel occupies land taken in a war which was forced upon it by neighbors who sought to destroy it. It is a state of occupation which Israelis themselves have repeatedly sought to end through negotiations over permanent borders. It is a state in which any abuses are closely monitored by Israel's independent judiciary. But ultimately, it is a situation which is the responsibility of the rejectionists of Jewish self- determination among Palestinians and their Arab and Muslim brethren--who have rendered the Palestinian civilian population hostage to their violent and anti- Semitic ambitions. There are those who would still deny the existence of anti- Semitism at the U.N. by pointing to a range of motivations in U.N. corridors including commercial interests, regional politics, preventing scrutiny of human rights violations closer to home, or enhancement of individual careers. U.N. actors and supporters remain almost uniformly in denial of the nature of the pathogen coursing through these halls. They ignore the infection and applaud the host, forgetting that the cancer which kills the organism will take with it both the good and the bad. The relative distribution of naivete, cowardice, opportunism, and anti-Semitism, however, matters little to Noam and Matan Ohayon, ages 4 and 5, shot to death through their mother's body in their home in northern Israel while she tried to shield them from a gunman of Yasser Arafat's al- Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. The terrible consequences of these combined motivations mobilized and empowered within U.N. chambers are the same. The inability of the U.N. to confront the corruption of its agenda dooms this organization's success as an essential agent of equality or dignity or democratization. This conference may serve as a turning point. We will only know if concrete changes occur hereafter: a General Assembly resolution on anti-Semitism adopted, an annual report on anti-Semitism forthcoming, a focal point on anti-Semitism created, a rapporteur on anti-Semitism appointed. But I challenge the secretary-general and his organization to go further--if they are serious about eradicating anti- Semitism: a. Start putting a name to the terrorists that kill Jews because they are Jews. b. Start condemning human-rights violators wherever they dwell--even if they live in Riyadh or Damascus. c. Stop condemning the Jewish people for fighting back against their killers. d. And the next time someone asks you or your colleagues to stand for a moment of silence to honor those who would destroy the state of Israel, say no. Only then will the message be heard from these chambers that the U.N. will not tolerate anti-Semitism or its consequences against Jews and the Jewish people, whether its victims live in Tehran, Paris or Jerusalem. Ms. Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and an adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School.

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

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I, like millions of Americans, see what is happening on television, listen to what is happening on radio, and hear campaign commercials that are being submitted on a fairly regular basis. I listen to them and wonder, what is the message to our country? What is being said? What is the message we want to give to the American people? What do we want to tell them about our concern for their needs? Do we want to talk about lower prices for prescription drugs? Do we want to talk about educating our children? Do we want to talk about health care generally? Do we want to talk about bringing the troops home? Do we say enough is enough? When we look at the record and see what is happening, the killing continues in Iraq. Since we have gone over to an Iraqi interim government, the rate of death has not diminished from the time before we turned this government over to the Iraqi interim government. Today, we heard news of a terrible explosion that killed a bunch of Iraqis and injured American soldiers. The toll continues to mount. I believe the American people are concerned about that. I hear it from parents who say: My son's term has been extended. He thought he would be home by now. Now he has to serve 3 more months. Or, my daughter has to stay there far longer than she expected. Not only are they emotionally torn apart, not only are there family problems from the absence of dad or the absence of mom from the household, but financially it is a disaster. I have tried to get an amendment. I tried to put it on the Defense appropriations bill, but I couldn't get the amendment attached. They said no, we don't want to give $2,000 a month more for these people for the 3 months more they have to serve; $6,000 total cost; maybe $150 million out of a budget of $400 billion, and we couldn't get an ear to listen to it here. We couldn't get the majority to pay attention. The job market is not robust. We are still at a loss for the number of jobs we have available since this administration took over. When do we put these people to work? When do we stop shipping jobs abroad? When do we deal with the problems that concern everyday citizens? When do we deal with the cost of gasoline, which is up 50 percent almost in the last year? What we hear in response to those problems are campaign commercials-- $8 million of them in recent weeks. We hear that John Kerry has missed two-thirds of the votes that have been taken here in the U.S. Senate. We do not hear anybody saying John Kerry served bravely in Vietnam when he disagreed with the policy of his country, but he felt loyal enough and obliged enough and went ahead and got wounded three times. He got three Purple Hearts. I served in the Army 3 years. I didn't earn one, but I know what a Purple Heart means in recognition of bravery; a Silver Star, very high-ranking medal; a Bronze Star, an important recognition of bravery on the battlefield. And we want to hear talk about how he has missed these votes. Yes, I am a Member of the Senate and am proud of it. I am proud of my voting record. But I am also proud of the contribution John Kerry is trying to make to this country. We ought to talk about comparing service to country, President Bush's service and Senator John Kerry's service. Compare the two. Start with Vietnam. See what happened there, when President Bush had an opportunity to avoid regular service by going to the Air Guard, which he didn't really do anything with. But to criticize Senator John Kerry for his contribution to our country by pointing out the fact that he has missed a bunch of votes, that he found time to vote against the Laci Peterson amendment which was offered here, and that he missed other votes--talk about the platforms of these two, talk about what John Kerry is saying we have to do about jobs, about getting a coalition to help us deal with Iraq to try to strengthen our resources there. President Bush's decision, along with his Cabinet, the Secretary of Defense, and the Vice President, was that General Shinseki was all wrong when he said we have to have 300,000 people in Iraq. They fired him. They got rid of him. They don't want to hear dissent and difference. They don't want to hear it. They don't want the public to hear what John Kerry has done for his country. No. They want to hear that he missed votes. It is too bad that he missed votes, but he is on a larger mission. He wants a change in the direction of this country. He is not here at times when he is out there delivering messages to which people respond. Just look at the gatherings. We see people for Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards. They are thirsty for information that affects their everyday lives. They do not sit around the dinner table talking about how much time we are spending--not enough time, they might say--on gay marriage and a constitutional amendment. I don't think Mr. and Mrs. Working American are sitting around their table praying for the moment that an amendment to the Constitution will be put in place where we can challenge the rights of a particular group of people when we haven't gotten our appropriations bills in place; we haven't voted on moving homeland security resources along not funding these things. No, but we can spend days here. By the way, we may have set a record for quorum calls. We have spent a lot of time with two lights on. That should tell the American people that there is nothing going on in here. We have had one vote this week, and the prospects for another vote are not very bright. What an exhausting schedule, two, three votes, possibly five votes in a week. Come on. Please, Mr. President, clear your message, talk about the things the American people are concerned about. Talk about how we get our kids home from Iraq, talk about how we get our former allies into the mix so they can help share the burden. That is what we want to hear. We do not want to hear only critical comments about John Kerry because then you force us to compare the two records. If I were President Bush, I would hide from the record. If they want to compare President Bush's record to Senator John Kerry's record of service to country, we would have quite a revelation for the people in this country. Spending millions on commercials to denigrate Senator John Kerry, a war hero, a volunteer, who went to Vietnam--go there, do your duty, pull a guy out of the water whose life may be hanging in the balance, under gunfire. Pull this man out of the water. I have campaigned with one of his former swift boat colleagues. If you heard the praise that he gave to LTG John Kerry for his leadership. But we do not want to talk about that. We want to try to subdue it with sneering commentaries about how he missed a vote and flip-flopped. I wish President Bush would look at some of the decisions he made and flip them. One of them I tried to pass was to have flag-draped coffins, the respect that they earn. People who gave their lives on behalf of the country's mission, when they come back to Dover, DE, where the coffins are deposited, and we say no, the media cannot show those coffins because that would alert people to the penalties of war, to the punishment that families endure. We do not want that. Hide it from the public. Don't let them understand what the cost of war is. They criticize Senator John Kerry, loyal American, who served his duty, served it well, served it here. Look at his voting record before he ran for President of the United States. Look at the President's tours for fundraising and political gatherings. He goes on Air Force One and the only cost--and this 747 is a beautiful airplane; most of America has seen it--all that has to be paid is the cost of the first- class transportation on a commercial airliner. Take this huge airplane, lift it into the sky and say: Well, we will reimburse it because we used it for fundraising or for political campaigns. Mr. President, change your tune. Let's hear your view on what America has to have to satisfy the needs of our constituents. Please, you have gone too far with this character abuse, with this character assassination. You have gone too far. Look at the American people. Look them in the eye and say, yes, I, President George Bush, approve of this message, and give a positive message about when drug prices are coming down, about how we will fund Head Start for 300,000 children who will now be dropped, or other programs that are talked about but not funded. Please, Mr. President, speak up on behalf of the people in America so we can build strength, so we can have some harmony and not the divisive attitude we find prevailing. It is not fair to the American people. When we deny a hero's recognition, we do something far worse. It was done in the State of Georgia in a senatorial election recently. A fellow named Max Cleland, with whom we served, and whom we all felt very close to, lost three limbs in Vietnam. They managed to paint him in a somewhat cowardly fashion, that he was soft on defense. One arm missing, half of one arm missing, two legs missing. It takes him 2 hours to get out of bed in the morning, and they made him look like he was soft on defense. What a disgrace. The American people have to look at that. And now the game is to denigrate John Kerry's record to make him look as if he is just absent and not doing anything worthwhile. He and Senator Edwards are trying to put this country on the right path. The voters will decide, by the way. But we ought to let the record be out there so that everybody knows what each of the parties is doing. Enough, Mr. President. Please change the tone of your commercials. It is not fair to have an airplane in the sky saying: Senator John Kerry, if he had his choice, would have voted against the interests of the troops. It is a foul lie, that is what it is, not true at all. If a vote was made, it was made in the context of an entire amendment. It was not made simply to take money away from our serving troops. President Bush knows that. I wish he would change his tone. It does not ring properly for the President. It does not become the President of the United States to be looking at Senator John Kerry's record and make jokes about his attendance, about his flip-flop. No, no, no, look at the things he has done. We can all pick out the blemishes of the other, but that is no way to run a country. That is the way to run a schoolyard fight. It does not become the President of the United States. I yield the floor, but I hope President Bush will change his tone.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to discuss unanswered questions regarding the no-bid contract that the administration awarded Halliburton last year to operate Iraq's oil infrastructure. As my colleagues know, I have been outspoken in my criticism of this no-bid contract awarded by the Bush administration to the company that the Vice President led for 5 years as CEO. This one contract alone has cost the U.S. taxpayers $2.2 billion. That is $2.2 billion in public funds that were given to a company through a contract on which no other companies were allowed to bid. Recognizing this condition, we had a unanimous vote one night in the Senate, when it was decided that we would no longer ever, in connection with the Iraq war, issue any no-bid contracts. We forced that out into the open, even though it was the intention of the Republican majority to keep it from being discontinued, the no-bid contract business. To make matters worse, the Vice President maintains a continuing financial relationship with Halliburton, even as the company reaps the benefit of multibillion-dollar contracts from the Bush-Cheney administration. I believe it is ethically inappropriate, but the Vice President's response to criticism has been to dismiss the concerns with questionable statements. For example, on September 14, 2003, the Vice President was asked about his relationship with Halliburton and the no-bid contract on ``Meet the Press.'' Vice President Cheney told Tim Russert: I've severed all of my ties with the company, gotten rid of all of my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years. The problem with that statement is that when he said it, he held over 400,000 Halliburton stock options and continues to receive deferred salary from the company. But that is not all the Vice President said that day. Look at his other statement on this placard: [A]s Vice President, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the [Army] Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the Federal Government. September 14, 2003.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I appreciate that very much because they want to shut down the debate on Halliburton, whose receivables were $161 million larger than the Pentagon wanted to pay because they knew there were overcharges, but they do not want to let that debate happen here. I thank the Senator from Nevada for those extra 5 minutes. For months, the Vice President's allies pointed to this statement saying that he made it clear that he stays out of all issues relating to Halliburton's contracts. But now an e-mail from March 2003 has become public, and it seriously challenges Vice President Cheney's claim of a hands-off policy. In fact, the e-mail message suggests that the Vice President's office had an active role in Halliburton's no-bid contract. Look at this e-mail: Feith-- Feith was Under Secretary of the Department of Defense. Feith approved, contingent on informing the WH tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated with the VP's office. Expect PA press release and Congressional coordination tomorrow AM and declass action to us early in

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 15 minutes to make my presentation in morning business, and if my time extends beyond the time allocated, that it be equally available to the Republican side as well.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I was unaware of that. Be that as it may, may I ask from the Parliamentarian or the Chair, what is the business that follows immediately after morning business?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I just want to be sure. We are going to be discussing whether we put into the Constitution a ban on gay marriage. As a consequence, we are not going to be able to discuss issues that affect Halliburton or this war or the condition of our country. I assume that is correct, Mr. President.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is no debate; it is a question of what is generally appropriate and available on the floor of the Senate, and when courtesies are extended.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this proposed amendment to the Constitution as, by the way, has Vice President Cheney and Mrs. Cheney. They are opposed. They are not taken by surprise on a moral issue. These are sophisticated people who understand government and who have a role to play. They are opposed to this amendment, and I think there is very good reason for that. As Senators, many of us are from different backgrounds but we do all share a solemn oath to uphold the spirit and the letter of the American Constitution. I would like to uphold the value and the commitment that the Constitution makes to all of us to protect our rights. I have to raise a question, and that is, what is it that makes this the most important business we have in this body right now? Is this the only thing that we want to talk about for the American people to hear from the Senate? Or would a subject such as the killings that are taking place in Iraq, such as it was announced that three more were killed yesterday, be more important, and that we are stretching to have enough reserves to fight the battle and protect our troops in the best way possible but we need to have enough of them? Do the American people care about that? Are the American people saying the issue that interests us most is whether a homosexual couple can marry, even though it is taken care of in many States and will continue to be? Are we saying, no, the war is not that important, we are going to lay it aside while notices go out to families, very often by a knock on the door that is an ominous calling that says your son, your daughter has been killed, your son, your daughter, has been seriously wounded? No, we do not want to discuss that. We have to discuss gay marriage, and see whether we can change the Constitution, the Constitution which was designed to expand rights at any time that we saw a default in our system, whether it had to do with giving the vote to women or the vote to 18-year-olds or other expansions of rights. No, we want to do the moral thing. We want to decide who is in charge of the morality of this country. The people are in charge of the morality of this country, not the people who are making speeches today. When I think about what affects the American people, how about the people who work 35 or 40 years in a company and see their pensions disappear in front of their eyes because of the deceptive leadership of companies or falsification of records? No, no, the American people do not want to worry about that. They want to talk about this amendment. That is what they care about. My phone is--no, it is not crowded. In fact, I do not get many calls at all about the morality of the constitutional amendment that has been proposed and, by the way, creates a constitutional convention so we can throw anything that we want on top of this. No, the American people are not concerned about whether they can pay their bills or whether drug prices are going through the roof that they cannot afford or whether we can give an education to the children who want to learn in Head Start but do not know how. No, those are not the issues we want to talk about. We want to talk about whether a gay couple can engage in a relationship or a marriage. Let the States of New Jersey, Massachusetts, and the other States that choose to give that right to give those citizens the same standing that other citizens within those States have. No, we do not want to discuss that. We want to discuss this issue. We want to discuss what is morally correct. What is morally correct is what the people want, and we ought to let them hear on this floor that we understand the issues that concern them. I get calls from families who have people overseas, whether in Reserve units or regular enlistments, and they ask, what can we do to hasten my son's return? I want to see his face. Go to Walter Reed hospital, as I and many others have done. I went there a couple of weeks ago after we buried a young soldier from New Jersey in Arlington Cemetery. Senator Corzine and I, my colleague in the Senate, decided we should not only pay our respects to the dead but also our respects to the wounded, and we went to Walter Reed Hospital. In one of those rooms there was a young man sitting with his wife and he was staring blankly at the floor. It was not his lack of interest. It was his lack of sight. He could not see anything. He said: I will not be able to see my 28-month-old daughter but I still want to hold her. I still miss her. I still love her. We do not want to discuss those things. We want to discuss what is moral and change the Constitution to impose our value of morality on all of America. It is wrong. The proposed constitutional amendment before us would etch the markings of intolerance, discrimination, and bigotry into a document that is based on the enduring truth that everyone is created equal. The constitutional amendment that is being offered today would do much more than ban same-sex marriages. It would also ban civil unions, saying they cannot really live together and share the values of our society, or domestic partnership laws, even if those relationships are specifically recognized by their fellow residents in their States by their State legislatures and signed by the Governor. If enacted, I believe this amendment would create a permanent class of second-class citizens with fewer rights than the rest of the population. In fairness and in good conscience, I will not support this mean- spirited proposal. Our Constitution is about expanding individual rights, not taking them away. The last thing the Constitution should do is mandate conditions for some people and another set of rights for a different group. What is especially strange in this debate is we have the Republican majority looking to take away a State's right to determine the rules for marriage within its borders. I always thought the Republicans were States righters. I thought they always wanted to give power back to the States. That is what I thought they wanted to do. In my home State of New Jersey, our State legislature, the duly elected representatives of the people of New Jersey, drafted, debated, and enacted a domestic partnership law. We ought to respect the State law, not stamp it out. The State of New Jersey decided to establish a domestic partnership law. The Federal Government has no business telling us we cannot do it. It doesn't violate current Federal law and we should let that stand. States should continue to have the ability to decide whether same-sex couples should have the inheritance rights or pension rights or whatever other legal rights should be respected in a domestic partnership. Domestic relations law, the law that governs family issues, has always been the domain of the State, not Federal law. The ability to decide matters of marriage has been with the States since the founding of the Republic. But now, those who typically advocate a smaller Federal Government--shrink government down to size, get rid of those people who are making their livings there, forget whether they contribute to the general well-being, we want to shrink Federal Government--now they are seeking to amend the Constitution to take power away from the States and put it in the hands of the Government so we can have people running around, morality police, making sure this couple isn't engaged in a relationship that would be prohibited by Federal law. Once the Federal Government starts regulating marriage, you have to ask yourself what is next? Ten years from now what is going to stop Congress from prohibiting people getting married unless they pledge to have children? What is to stop this body from outlawing divorce or second marriages? You have to ask yourself what is it that is driving this agenda? Why, in this election year, are we debating an amendment to the Constitution designed to restrict the rights of gay Americans? It is clearly not a legitimate legislative debate, as there are not near enough votes to pass this amendment. But that doesn't stop them from wanting to use the time to confuse the American public about what is important, what is important to the public which is worried about their jobs and the war and their kids. No. We want to discuss gay marriage. I have come to an unfortunate conclusion about why we are doing this amendment. This is gay bashing, plain and simple. That is what this is about. This amendment is picking on productive members of our society, people who pay taxes, want to raise their families and contribute to their communities, as everyone else does. They want to be like everyone else in their conformity to law. This amendment attempts to divide America and it is shameful. It should not be that way. When we see things that are shameful we should not be too spineless to respond. Look back on world history. There are notorious examples of those who seek political advantage by picking on segments of society. It is a sad day when we see this dynamic happening here in the United States. I urge my colleagues, reject this divisive amendment. Let's get on with the regular business that affects people's everyday lives. We can talk about this after the first of the year. It is not that urgent. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wish to talk for a few minutes about a subject different than the one we have been hearing about most of this morning. I rise as a proud member of the Senate. I treasure every moment that I serve here. I look at my voting record of over 20 years and I am proud of that record. It is important; whatever we do here is important. So I rise today to raise a question about a disturbing television ad that President Bush is running against our colleague, Senator Kerry. The ad opens up with the President saying, ``I approve of this message.'' The President's commercial is called ``priorities.'' It criticizes Senator Kerry for missing votes here. The President's advertisement says that ``leadership means choosing priorities.'' I could not agree more because Senator Kerry has chosen the correct priorities, while President Bush has been absent from leadership--sometimes referred to as AWOL. If you look at the priorities of these two men throughout their lives, you learn a lot about who was absent and who was a leader. Senator Kerry has never been absent, AWOL, from his responsibilities. The President, on the other hand, has been absent at times when it required leadership. During the Vietnam war, an era in which 58,000 American soldiers lost their lives, and many more than that were wounded, President Bush was AWOL from leadership, AWOL from serving our country. He was assigned to the Texas Air National Guard, but he was absent from mandatory physicals, so he was grounded from flying. He was absent from his duties. We will never know all of the facts about the President's National Guard service because, today, the New York Times revealed that his records have been destroyed ``by mistake.'' If you look at Senator Kerry's history, you see a totally different picture. You see a man who signed up not just to join the Navy, but to go to Vietnam to serve his country. Even though he disagreed with that policy, he served bravely and courageously in a leadership role. He commanded a swift boat and he led it bravely. Last week, I had the opportunity to visit with Del Sandusky, one of Senator Kerry's crewmen in the Navy. He tells many moving stories about the bravery and leadership of Senator Kerry in Vietnam. By the time he returned from Vietnam, Senator Kerry earned a Silver Star and a Bronze Star, which are high-standing awards for bravery and courage in serving his country; and three awards of the Purple Heart for his service in combat. In fact, a question has been raised about whether he deserved the third Purple Heart. I don't know what that means. Does it mean we want to measure the depth of the wound to see whether you pass a certain line, and the Purple Heart is one color or another? The military has a process, and they said he is entitled to three Purple Hearts. In my view, he is also entitled to the gratitude of this country for speaking up after he finished his service to talk about what might have gone wrong with the decisions in Vietnam. But he didn't ever relinquish or shirk his duties. What about the President's service at this time? They won't reveal the specifics. The records were destroyed, as we now know, and we will never find out. In this current war, as our brave soldiers are battling insurgents in Iraq, the President has not been honest about the true cost of this war. I am talking about the human cost as well as in monetary terms. The President has ordered that no cameras be allowed to film the flag-draped coffins of heroes returning from battle. In my view, that is disrespectful to these men and women who gave their lives for this country. I went to a funeral at Arlington Cemetery, and I also went to the funeral service of President Reagan. Each funeral had a similarity. They had an honor guard of proud service people escorting the coffin, doing their duty to say this Nation is grateful to these people they considered heroes. One act that the honor guard is required to perform is the folding of the flag and to finally put it into a triangle that can be handed over to the family. I watched at Arlington Cemetery when, crease by crease, each pair of service people--soldiers, marines, sailors--turned their part of the flag over. Finally, they folded it into a triangle, and the head of the honor guard walked over to the mother of this man who died and handed it to her. You could see the pride and the tears in her eyes with her family as she received this tribute from her country for her son's life. The President has ordered that no cameras be allowed to film the flag-draped coffins of heroes returning from battle. In my view, it is disrespectful. Other Presidents weren't afraid to show the American people images of the honor guard receiving their coffins. In fact, President Reagan stood on the tarmac and publicly and openly received the coffins of 241 marines killed by Iranian-backed terrorists in Beirut in 1983. President Clinton did the same for flag-draped coffins returning from Kosovo. But President Bush hasn't been there. He is AWOL from this solemn duty. When it comes to domestic issues, the President is AWOL from leadership. He was absent from funding the No Child Left Behind program. He signed it into law with great fanfare. But when the cameras were shut off, his leadership stopped. The latest budget underfunds No Child Left Behind by $9.4 billion. The budget also proposes the elimination of 38 educational programs. That is absence from leadership. When it comes to protecting the environment, the President is absent. He refuses to make polluters pay for Superfund cleanups. He has proposed an outrageous rule to allow powerplants to spew mercury into the air and water, which brings potential harm to our children and those who are on the way to being born. In the fight to cure disease, the President is absent. We have great tools to cure diseases such as Alzheimer's and juvenile diabetes at our disposal, and that tool is the use of embryonic stem cells, but the President is refusing to allow such research to proceed for political reasons. That is an absence of leadership. When it comes to our Nation's transportation needs, the President has been AWOL. He has threatened to veto the highway bill even though it enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support. That puts 1.7 million jobs at risk at a time when we need to create jobs. Thirty-eight percent of our roads are in fair or poor condition and 28 percent of our bridges are structurally deficient. Traffic congestion costs Americans more than $69 billion annually in lost time and productivity and 5.7 billion gallons of fuel annually is wasted while motorists sit in traffic. This absence of leadership on transportation is harming American families across the country. The President signed a Medicare drug bill into law and the law has turned into a confusing nightmare for our Nation's senior citizens, who are barely going to see little, if any, monetary benefit. That is an absence of leadership. Of course, the main benefit does not kick in until 2006, conveniently past the next election. He does not want the American public to really see what is in that Medicare bill. On homeland security, the President talks tough, but is he really there? The President's budget would reduce funding for grants to local police, fire, and emergency medical personnel from $4.2 billion in 2004 to $3.5 billion in 2005, more than a 15-percent decrease. Would anyone suggest we have less to worry about from terrorists when we just heard the dismal review by the Secretary of Homeland Security? The President's proposal will also cut first responder training by 43 percent. The lack of leadership is not just at the White House. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues in the Congress almost always march in lockstep with the White House, even at the peril of their constituents. This blind allegiance to the White House is having devastating effects. We have seen our budget surplus turn into deficits as far as the eye can see. In Iraq, we bought the White House line and ignored military leaders. Look at the case of GEN Eric Shinseki, who said we need 300,000 troops in Iraq to do the job. He was right, but he was fired for telling the truth. We have recently heard from one of the leading Army generals who said our forces are too thin, and as a result of that, it is fair to say we have seen terrible casualties--879 Americans killed in Iraq, over 5,000 injured. If we had listened to General Shinseki and other military experts rather than the White House, perhaps those numbers would be less. When the President said to the Congress, do not let Medicare negotiate for drug prices, we should have said: Too bad. Prices are out of control. We see that in the newspapers regularly now. We need to do this. Instead, the Republican majority said, ``yes, sir,'' and followed the White House's orders, and drug prices keep soaring. I say enough is enough. We are a coequal branch of the Government. Let us act like it. My Republican colleagues should stand up to the President when they think he is wrong. Senator Kerry is on a noble mission to change the direction of this country for the better. In doing so, he is leading us down a path toward a stronger America, and I can think of no better reason to pursue that goal with every minute of time, with every ounce of effort, with every bit of intellect he can muster. We wish him good health and success, to lift our country out of the misery of worry about their children, their jobs, their parents, and their Nation. We wish Senator Kerry Godspeed and hardly think of him as being AWOL. His record disproves any notion of that. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Jeffords today in introducing the High-Performance Green Buildings Act. This legislation will reenergize the Federal Government's commitment to building design and construction into the 21st Century. Buildings have an enormous impact on environmental quality, on energy use, and on natural resource consumption. The statistics are staggering. Buildings devour 37 percent of the energy used in this country, including 68 percent of electricity. They are responsible for 35 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, the primary greenhouse gas associated with climate change. And they account for 49 percent of sulfur dioxide and 25 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions and generate 40 percent of the Nation's non-industrial waste stream. Moreover, building construction and demolition produce 136 million tons of waste in this country, and use 12 percent of potable water in the U.S. Mr. President, for too long these prodigious effects have gone unrecognized. The impacts are even more far reaching than that. Since Americans spend an average of 90 percent of their time indoors, buildings have a considerable influence on public health. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, indoor air pollution concentrations may be two to five times, and in some cases 100 times, higher than in outdoor air. EPA scientists estimates that about 20,000 deaths occur related to indoor levels of radon, and that 3000 lung cancer deaths occur among nonsmoking adults due to second-hand smoke each year. Experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, estimate that an additional 35,000 coronary disease deaths occur each year in this country among nonsmoking adults due to second-hand smoke. These losses do not include exposure to toxic pollutants emitted from building materials, such as adhesives, paints, carpets, and pressed- wood products, which many researchers believe to be significant. We must confront these environmental and public health challenges and to do so we need a vision for the future. Our legislation offers that vision. High-performance green buildings are designed and constructed in ways that significantly reduce or eliminate negative effects on the environment, on energy use, and on resource consumption. They are also designed to reduce or eliminate harmful pressures on the health and productivity of building occupants. According to the U.S. Green Building Council, a national nonprofit organization, green design and construction practices are directed at five broad areas: 1. Sustainable site planning; 2. Safeguarding water and water efficiency; 3. Energy efficiency and renewable energy; 4. Conservation of materials and resources; and 5. Indoor environmental quality. Green buildings have many benefits, and while the initial investment may be higher (although not necessarily) than for a traditional buildings, they significantly lower long-term costs for things such as heating and cooling. Since new government buildings are intended to be used for a long period of time--at least 50 years--it is easier to justify any initial higher investment costs. By improving working conditions and increasing daylighting, case studies have shown that green buildings improve occupant productivity and reduce employee absenteeism. This legislation would provide for research to capture and measure those impacts and incorporate the lessons learned into future construction. The High-Performance Green Building Act focuses Federal Government efforts to promote the environmental, energy, health, and economic benefits that can be realized from green buildings. This legislation incorporates the findings of two reports that make recommendations for improving the Federal Government's role in relation to high-performance green buildings. The first report, ``Building Momentum: National Trends and Prospects for High-Performance Green Buildings,'' was prepared by the U.S. Green Building Council and the second report, ``The Federal Commitment to Green Building: Experiences and Expectations,'' was released by the President's Office of the Federal Environmental Executive. Our legislation changes the way the Federal Government manages its thousands of buildings. The bill establishes an Office of High- Performance Green Buildings within the General Services Administration, GSA, which is the logical place for this office since this agency is the Federal Government's primary landlord. GSA manages over 8,700 buildings owned or leased by the United States. The new office will promote public outreach, coordinate and focus research and development, and improve life-cycle analysis and budgeting for building construction. This title also creates an Interagency Steering Committee to improve coordination across Federal agencies, and with state and local governments. This bill would expand the role of EPA in supporting healthier buildings at the nation's schools. Schools can serve as the vanguard for the effort to protect our children's health and the environment, so this title authorizes the Agency to administer grants to state and local education agencies to support implementation of EPA's effective Tools for Schools Program. It also authorizes the Agency to develop Federal guidelines for school location siting that take into account the special vulnerabilities of children to the contamination of land and water. This legislation would incorporate building life-cycle costing as a tool to achieve more efficient and economical long-term investments in government buildings, by requiring the Comptroller General to review the annual Federal budget process and submit a plan to reach these goals to Congress. In closing, investing in green buildings is good public policy for a variety of reasons. Our bill will allow the Federal Government to take a leadership role in promoting green buildings. We have a commitment to our children and grandchildren to protect and conserve the planet's resources and to safeguard public health. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Jeffords today in introducing the High-Performance Green Buildings Act. This legislation will reenergize the Federal Government's commitment to building design and construction into the 21st Century. Buildings have an enormous impact on environmental quality, on energy use, and on natural resource consumption. The statistics are staggering. Buildings devour 37 percent of the energy used in this country, including 68 percent of electricity. They are responsible for 35 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, the primary greenhouse gas associated with climate change. And they account for 49 percent of sulfur dioxide and 25 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions and generate 40 percent of the Nation's non-industrial waste stream. Moreover, building construction and demolition produce 136 million tons of waste in this country, and use 12 percent of potable water in the U.S. Mr. President, for too long these prodigious effects have gone unrecognized. The impacts are even more far reaching than that. Since Americans spend an average of 90 percent of their time indoors, buildings have a considerable influence on public health. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, indoor air pollution concentrations may be two to five times, and in some cases 100 times, higher than in outdoor air. EPA scientists estimates that about 20,000 deaths occur related to indoor levels of radon, and that 3000 lung cancer deaths occur among nonsmoking adults due to second-hand smoke each year. Experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, estimate that an additional 35,000 coronary disease deaths occur each year in this country among nonsmoking adults due to second-hand smoke. These losses do not include exposure to toxic pollutants emitted from building materials, such as adhesives, paints, carpets, and pressed- wood products, which many researchers believe to be significant. We must confront these environmental and public health challenges and to do so we need a vision for the future. Our legislation offers that vision. High-performance green buildings are designed and constructed in ways that significantly reduce or eliminate negative effects on the environment, on energy use, and on resource consumption. They are also designed to reduce or eliminate harmful pressures on the health and productivity of building occupants. According to the U.S. Green Building Council, a national nonprofit organization, green design and construction practices are directed at five broad areas: 1. Sustainable site planning; 2. Safeguarding water and water efficiency; 3. Energy efficiency and renewable energy; 4. Conservation of materials and resources; and 5. Indoor environmental quality. Green buildings have many benefits, and while the initial investment may be higher (although not necessarily) than for a traditional buildings, they significantly lower long-term costs for things such as heating and cooling. Since new government buildings are intended to be used for a long period of time--at least 50 years--it is easier to justify any initial higher investment costs. By improving working conditions and increasing daylighting, case studies have shown that green buildings improve occupant productivity and reduce employee absenteeism. This legislation would provide for research to capture and measure those impacts and incorporate the lessons learned into future construction. The High-Performance Green Building Act focuses Federal Government efforts to promote the environmental, energy, health, and economic benefits that can be realized from green buildings. This legislation incorporates the findings of two reports that make recommendations for improving the Federal Government's role in relation to high-performance green buildings. The first report, ``Building Momentum: National Trends and Prospects for High-Performance Green Buildings,'' was prepared by the U.S. Green Building Council and the second report, ``The Federal Commitment to Green Building: Experiences and Expectations,'' was released by the President's Office of the Federal Environmental Executive. Our legislation changes the way the Federal Government manages its thousands of buildings. The bill establishes an Office of High- Performance Green Buildings within the General Services Administration, GSA, which is the logical place for this office since this agency is the Federal Government's primary landlord. GSA manages over 8,700 buildings owned or leased by the United States. The new office will promote public outreach, coordinate and focus research and development, and improve life-cycle analysis and budgeting for building construction. This title also creates an Interagency Steering Committee to improve coordination across Federal agencies, and with state and local governments. This bill would expand the role of EPA in supporting healthier buildings at the nation's schools. Schools can serve as the vanguard for the effort to protect our children's health and the environment, so this title authorizes the Agency to administer grants to state and local education agencies to support implementation of EPA's effective Tools for Schools Program. It also authorizes the Agency to develop Federal guidelines for school location siting that take into account the special vulnerabilities of children to the contamination of land and water. This legislation would incorporate building life-cycle costing as a tool to achieve more efficient and economical long-term investments in government buildings, by requiring the Comptroller General to review the annual Federal budget process and submit a plan to reach these goals to Congress. In closing, investing in green buildings is good public policy for a variety of reasons. Our bill will allow the Federal Government to take a leadership role in promoting green buildings. We have a commitment to our children and grandchildren to protect and conserve the planet's resources and to safeguard public health. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.