Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wanted to be sure to have an opportunity to make some comments about President Reagan before we went out of session tonight. I will take the opportunity to do so right now. I join with my colleagues, so many of whom have already spoken, in tribute to our Nation's 40th President, Ronald Reagan. My first term in the Senate coincided with the last 6 years of his Presidency. I had the opportunity to work with him on several occasions. As someone who came from modest beginnings and a working-class family, I understood the fact that he rose from his humble beginnings to become one of the crucial world leaders. He was respected greatly. I had a chance to work with him on several occasions, not the least of which was something as simple as raising the drinking age to 21 across the country, thereby saving thousands of families a year from having to mourn the loss of a young person in their household. The bill was signed in the morning at the White House, and I was pleased I was able to return from a convention in San Francisco in time to be there and share those good moments with President Reagan and then-Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole. We did a lot of good for families across America with that legislation, and also offered support to say to those who would pollute our environment, ``If you pollute, you must pay to clean it up,'' and that was Superfund. It had a very important beginning in those days. President Reagan is appropriately being remembered for his overpowering sense of optimism and rock-solid faith in the fundamental goodness of America. Many of his actions stand as examples of ideas that we ought to consider as we carry out our responsibilities in Government. There was no doubt that he was the Great Communicator, and his ideas and his words will long be remembered. I just returned yesterday from the D-day celebration and commemoration in Normandy. No one will ever forget President Reagan's speech 20 years ago at Normandy commemorating the 40th anniversary of the D-day invasion; it will be permanently etched in our memories. Or his poignant remarks when the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded, and how he helped America recover from that terrible national tragedy. Or who can forget his insistence that helped break the iron grip of the Soviet Union on millions of people around the globe? President Reagan was known for his ideological zeal. But the interesting thing about him at the same time was that he ultimately was a pragmatist. Perhaps the clearest example of his pragmatic side is what happened after he pushed through a massive tax cut in Congress in 1981. One thing that President Reagan disliked enormously was Federal budget deficits. He thought the idea of borrowing from future generations was truly repugnant. On the campaign trail in 1980, he promised he would work to balance the budget. When he took office, he argued that a tax cut was necessary to stimulate the economy. He believed the Federal Government would end up with more, not fewer, revenues. But when the revenues didn't materialize as predicted, and the Federal Government began running huge annual budget deficits, his pragmatism took over and he followed his 1981 tax cuts with tax increases that were necessary in 1982 and 1984, determined to reduce the burgeoning budget deficits. His tax increases were a tacit admission that the plan wasn't working as expected. He was pragmatic enough to change the course. His personality was so unique for someone in that high office. As Mikhail Gorbachev wrote in Monday's New York Times op-ed page, President Reagan was ultimately someone with whom you could negotiate. His suggestion was that he was human enough, he was collegial, funny, and gracious, and you could discuss serious issues with him and accomplish goals. One of President Reagan's last great acts of public service was to acknowledge 10 years ago to the American people and to the people of the world that he was suffering from Alzheimer's disease. He handled his affliction with his customary grace, saying that he was sharing the news with the public in the hope that it might ``promote a greater awareness of this condition.'' That was a courageous thing to do. He went on further to say that he hoped it might encourage a clearer understanding of the individuals and families who are affected by it. He really brought a focus on the disease that ultimately consumed his remaining years. One truly meaningful way that we can honor President Reagan is to pursue the kind of research that might produce a treatment, or even a cure, for Alzheimer's disease and a host of other illnesses, something his beloved wife Nancy has called for. Since we witnessed the pain of the deterioration of this great individual, we have to be mindful of that for the future. His life yielded so many more things, besides those obvious ones, during his service as President of the United States.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to talk for a little while about a matter that has come up regarding one of my distinguished colleagues who, like me, served in Europe during World War II, who was a very brave and proud soldier, and who was decorated for his service there. That is Senator Hollings. Senator Hollings has served for some years in this body as a junior Senator, even when he was well into 70 years of age. That was one of the more unusual circumstances, although I think I, too, bring a junior status at a fairly advanced age to my being here as a freshman. But in the delegation that is going to go to Normandy tonight, I am one of several who served in World War II. The other names are among the bravest of all: Senator Daniel Inouye, who lost his arm in Italy after being struck three times by enemy fire. And, as he described it to me, in one of those incidents he had not felt any part of the wound from the bullet which apparently passed through his body--a rifle shot through his body, or a machine gun shot through his body. He was knocked down. He got up to continue to lead his platoon into a murderous battle in Italy. Although it took some 50 years for Senator Daniel Inouye to get his medal, it finally arrived. Those of us who were privileged to be here were so proud of Senator Inouye's service as the medal was bestowed on him for the service he so bravely gave to his country. It was noted also that even though Daniel Inouye, now Senator Inouye, was volunteering for service in the U.S. Army which at first was denied, he continued to be as loyal as he could to his country, brave and courageous. We are proud of the opportunity to serve with him and to know him as a friend. In addition to Senator Inouye, Senator Hollings, Senator Warner--and Senator Stevens had an illustrious military record flying in China, Burma, India--and Senator Akaka and Senator Warner--all of us join together in the bond we received as a result of serving in World War II and being given then the privilege to serve in this distinguished body. I want to talk about Fritz Hollings, a good friend of mine for more than 20 years, now the senior Senator from South Carolina, a good friend to all of us, an outstanding public servant, someone who has given more years to public service than some of the people who are serving here have. He was accused of being anti-Semitic because of an op-ed piece he wrote that appeared recently in the Charleston Post and Courier. The charge has been made on the Senate floor by the junior Senator from Virginia who apparently heads up the National Republican Senatorial Committee and serves as the chief fundraiser for Republican incumbents and candidates for the Senate. It is very unusual. Frankly, I don't remember in almost 20 years of service that one Senator issues a press release criticizing another for something the person did in a public press release. That tells us where it was going. It was going to politics. I also heard the junior Senator from Virginia repeat the charge again earlier this week while he was a guest on the Don Imus radio show. The charge he leveled is outrageous. I encourage the junior Senator from Virginia to cease and desist. I am a Jewish American and fully support the American-Israeli relationship, not because I am a Jewish American but because it is good for America. It is good for us to have an ally that is as strong as she is, an ally that is the only democratic society in the entire Middle East with over 100 million of those who would declare they are the enemy of Israel and the United States. Israel is a very valuable part of our support for freedom and liberty in this world. I have known the senior Senator from South Carolina for almost a quarter of a century. I am proud of his longstanding service to the people of this country. I treasure our friendship. Although he will be leaving this Senate in January of next year, he will be missed. I certainly will be one of those who will miss him. He is one of the strongest Senate supporters of the State of Israel and the American Jewish community we have. He doesn't just ``talk the talk.'' As an appropriator, he has ``walked the walk.'' Israel is safer and more secure as a result of the votes Senator Hollings has cast in the Appropriations Committee and on the floor of the Senate. The senior Senator from South Carolina has a well-deserved reputation for candor. And, frankly, we could use a little bit more of that around here. The op-ed in question is his candid assessment of why President Bush took us to war with Iraq despite the fact Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction or links to al-Qaida. I want to make it positively clear I don't necessarily agree with everything the senior Senator from South Carolina said in the op-ed, but I reserve the right to disagree with the best of friends on an issue. But to construe the op-ed piece or its author as representing anti-Semitism is patently unfair. Senator Hollings was critical of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and the journalist Charles Krauthammer for being three of the architects of a dubious policy to forcibly democratize the Middle East, starting with Iraq. They believe that such policy will make Israel more secure. That is something all of us want and need. The problem with that policy is that it is not quite working the way the architects envisioned. This may have something to do with the fact that none of them, to my knowledge, have any combat experience. People who do have experience in combat, such as former President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, are a little more circumspect about what we can achieve and how we can achieve it. I, too, have been critical of this policy which the administration swallowed hook, line, and sinker. I called for Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz and Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith to resign, along with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. Does that make me an anti-Semite? I would say not. We are all kind of holding our breath right now as we wait to see the fallout from the resignation of Mr. Tenet, the head of the CIA, so abruptly, so quickly. We want to know what it is that caused that sudden change. He was a loyal, faithful servant. Perhaps mistakes were made. We will find out more about that very soon. The bottom line is that these high-ranking civilian officials to whom I just referred in the Pentagon have misled America and they have let our troops down. Senator Hollings' contention that Israel is less secure as a result of this misguided policy certainly cannot be dismissed. It is time for that cadre of people who run the Pentagon to go. It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It has everything to do with the fact that Iraq is becoming a quagmire and has already claimed over 800 brave young American men and women. When I heard the junior Senator from Virginia attack Senator Hollings, I asked my staff to research his voting record with regard to Israel and other matters of concern to the American Jewish community. The memo my staff prepared is 10 pages long. I could not find a single vote that could be construed as opposition to Israel or American Jews. I will cite a few examples. In 1978, he voted against S. Con. Res. 86, a measure to disapprove the sale of jet fighters to Israel. He voted against the disapproval of the sale. The resolution was defeated 44 to 54. In 1980, he voted to table an amendment to S. 2714, the foreign aid authorization bill, that would have withheld $150 million in aid to Israel because of the settlements being erected in the West Bank. In 1981, he opposed President Reagan's decision to sell AWACs and other military equipment to Saudi Arabia. In 1986, Senator Hollings supported Senator Byrd's amendment to H.J. Res. 738, the continuing resolution for fiscal year 1987 to ensure that funds appropriated for aid to the Philippines did not come at the expense of aid to Israel or Egypt. Senator Hollings also supported recognizing Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. As the ranking member and former chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary, he has insisted that the annual appropriations bill under his jurisdiction contain the following three provisions: One, that people born in Jerusalem be allowed to list Israel as their country of origin; two, that all relevant official U.S. Government documents list Jerusalem as the capital of Jerusalem; and three, that U.S. policies treat Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. I note that these provisions have been eliminated in conference at the insistence of House Republicans and the administration. Does that make them anti-Semites? Absolutely not. The Senator from South Carolina is eloquent and certainly able to defend himself and his record. But when I hear his reputation repeatedly besmirched, the reputation and integrity of a man that I know to be one of the staunchest supporters of Israel and the American Jewish community, a man who fought hard, almost gave his life to defend his country, I will not sit by and be quiet. To paraphrase our former colleague, Lloyd Bentsen: I know Fritz Hollings. Fritz Hollings is a friend of mine. Fritz Hollings is no anti-Semite. To state otherwise goes beyond the pale of partisan rhetoric, even by the standards of a heated election campaign. Frankly, I think the senior Senator from South Carolina is owed an apology, not just by the junior Senator from Virginia but from Senators who believe it was an inappropriate besmirching of character and reputation dutifully earned by years and years of service to this country and certainly to this body. Silence on the other side, in my view, is implicit approval of what was said. I hope we hear something different in the not-too-distant future. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute and to remember a courageous young lady from New Jersey, Ms. Melissa Anne Centrella. Sadly, Melissa passed away 2 years ago, at the age of 25, from complications due to a disease known as dystonia. Much of Melissa's short life was dedicated to battling dystonia, which affects more than 300,000 people in North America. Melissa was diagnosed at an early age with dystonia, which is the third most common movement disorder after Parkinson's disease and tremor. This neurological disease is characterized by powerful and painful involuntary muscle spasms that cause twisting of the body, repetitive muscle movements and sustained postural deformities. Although she endured many painful medical procedures to treat her dystonia, Melissa never once complained. Instead, she became a part of the effort to find a cure for dystonia, so no one else would have to experience the pain she suffered in her short life. Along with her mother Claire, Melissa worked relentlessly to establish the New Jersey Chapter of the Dystonia Medical Research Foundation. The chapter today holds many events to raise funds for dystonia research and promotes awareness of dystonia. I would like to salute the Centrella family for the work they have done to found and support the New Jersey Chapter of the foundation. Today, because of Melissa Centrella, her family and others who have fought alongside them against dystonia, we are closer than ever to a cure. Mr. President, it is important that we recognize the fight against dystonia. Although there is not yet a cure for dystonia, we will continue the work of Melissa Centrella and remember her fight against this disease.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, if I may take just a few minutes to respond to the comments of our colleagues, to our majority leader, Senator Frist, and Tom Daschle, our Democratic leader, and other colleagues, including Senator Reid, Senator Bond, and Senator Warner, who is kind of a member of this clan of ours--to be with colleagues like Senator Stevens, Senator Inouye, Senator Hollings, and Senator Akaka, all serving together at the same time, it is hard to believe it was as many years ago as it was. Senator Hagel, I thank him for his comments, as well, and Senator Dodd. But it was a long time ago, and those who now are approaching 50 years of age remember serving when we were just kids. I enlisted in 1942 when my father was on his death bed with cancer. He was 42 in the year 1942. It was a duty that I felt keenly and I enlisted, even as my father was on his death bed. My mother was 36 years old. I cannot remember any of my contemporaries who did not serve or who were not going to serve. There were 16 million in uniform. It was quite an assembly of Americans of all cultures and religions. We had one mission and that was to protect this world of ours from becoming a product of fascism. While it was so many years ago, it is wonderful to be able to recall we were there. When I look at the actions of Danny Inouye, who among us is at the top, given the Congressional Medal of Honor, that is a distinction that is given to so few people. As I recall my many discussions with Senator Inouye--I hope my memory is accurate--he had been hit by fire, even as he got up to lead his platoon further on. That is bravery as few have it. He knew his duties had to continue because he had the responsibility of others he was in charge of. Danny Inouye, as we all know, is modest to the core. He never brags, would never talk about his performance. Danny will always stand for what is right, but he never is in a position where he brags about his incredible service. Fritz Hollings, similarly, got his stars, his clusters for his duty in so many different combat areas. Mine was different. I was not in a combat unit. I, like so many others, performed my duties in a different place. Most of what I saw of World War II was from the top of a telephone pole. I was a pole lineman. My mission was to make sure the connections between those who were serving at the front and those who were issuing the orders from way back at command headquarters were clearly transmitted. I took my responsibilities seriously. Even as we were being bombed by B-1's and B-2's--for those who are not old enough to remember, one was a jet bomb and another was a rocket bomb. That was like a time bomb because you never saw it coming. It went off and did whatever damage it did. The first jet airplane I ever saw in the sky was German. They were outdistancing our fighter pilots in minutes. They would just pull away. They would drop bombs wherever they could. This was my service primarily in Belgium. When I visited the World War II Memorial--and, unfortunately, I was not there at the ceremony; I could not be, as I had longstanding plans, and I had to maintain those appointments--I visited with Senator Dole and Senator Inouye, Senator Hollings and Senator Warner, and Senator Akaka was there, as well. Not to be critical, but I did not see anything that indicated how many died in different places, what were the regiments that fought these battles, what were the divisions, what were those who served on the seas doing at the time when the bombs were falling or the torpedoes were being sent. It took my unit 3 days to cross the channel from England to France because they could not get the convoy stabilized enough to carry on. I hope they will make some adjustments at the memorial to reflect the sacrifices that were made, other than in artistic terms. There is a wall of gold stars, each representing 100 deaths. Using quick multiplication, you could figure out 400,000 people died in combat or combat-related activities. We see New Jersey, we see New York, we see Virginia, and the other States; columns of granite, but not one indication of how many people came from the then-48 States and 6 territories. Did 10,000 die from the State of New Jersey? It is just a guess. It would be important if we knew what happened. The memorial has a certain beauty. It is a tranquil beauty, however, and it does not talk to the smashing victories we had on D-Day or in the Belgium Bulge. I was in Belgium at the time. I was not at the front line. The weather was abominable. It was gray and snowy and our troops were getting licked badly and we were moving back. I was taken down to the railroad station, given ammunition, and they said: OK, Lautenberg, you and your unit have to go up there. Fortunately, with prayers supporting it, the sun came out and the Air Force got up into the sky, and they smashed the German line and moved it all back. It was the turning point in that stage of the war, December 1944. We are all grateful to have survived, to be here, to be able to serve, to continue our service in this great body. I say to my colleagues, I am grateful to each one of you--each one of you who served, each one of you who made a difference in how this world of ours turned out, and each one of you who continues to serve. Even though we might have different opinions about quite how we do it, the fact is, we are here because we want to continue to serve our country. We are lucky to be in America. I thank all of you, my colleagues, for the work you do.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the landmark 1954 civil rights decision of Brown v. Board of Education. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment prohibits States from maintaining racially segregated public schools. In Brown, the Court upheld the principle that America is a land of laws, not men. In Brown, the Court affirmed that equality, fairness, and justice are for all Americans, irrespective of race, ethnicity, color, or creed. The Supreme Court found that the segregation of white and black children in public schools denied black children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment. The Court reached this decision even if the physical facilities and other ``tangible'' factors of white and black schools were equal. Of course, we all know that the facilities and resources were far from being equal. It took courage on the part of the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the so-called ``separate but equal'' precedent that the Court had created in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson. The Plessy decision concerned a 30-year-old shoemaker named Homer Plessy who had been jailed for sitting in the ``White'' car of the East Louisiana Railroad. Plessy was only one-eighth black and seven-eighth white, but under Louisiana law, he was considered black and therefore required to sit in the ``Colored'' car. In Plessy, the Supreme Court found that laws requiring separate black and white railroad cars did not conflict with the thirteenth amendment which abolished slavery. The Court held that ``a statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races.'' Consequently, the noxious notion of ``separate but equal'' took root in America. The lone dissenter in the Plessy case, Justice John Harlan, wrote, ``Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.'' Justice Harlan was a half-century ahead of his time. After years of arguing discrimination cases throughout the Nation, a team of NAACP lawyers, led by Thurgood Marshall, brought five case from Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Washington DC to the Supreme Court. Thurgood Marshall--one of the giants of American history--stood before the Supreme Court determined to rid this Nation of a ``failure of our constitutional system.'' In Brown, the Court ruled that in the United States and under the U.S. Constitution, ``separate'' is inherently unequal. These words were profound then and there are equally profound today because when the Supreme Court struck down school legal segregation, it advanced the cause of human rights in America and set an example for all the world. I just visited the ``Separate and Unequal'' exhibit at the Smithsonian. I was struck by how one of the displays put it: the Brown decision told Americans and the world that ``the American dream of ethnic diversity and racial equality under the law is a dream of justice for all.'' Although the Brown decision declared the system of legal segregation unconstitutional, the Court ordered only that the States end segregation with ``all deliberate speed.'' One dictionary definition of ``deliberate'' is ``leisurely or slow in manner or motion.'' This ambiguity over how to enforce the ruling gave segregationists an opportunity to organize what came to be called ``massive resistance.'' Many State officials in the South responded to the Brown decision by promising to use all legal means and resources under their command to prevent integration. In Prince Edward County, VA, for example--one of the cases decided in the Brown decision--the school district's response was to close the public schools in Farmville for 5 years, from 1959 to 1964. White students enrolled in private schools while a generation of black children was denied access to education. Over the 50 years since Brown, this Nation has continued to wrestle with issues of racial and ethnic equality. As I stand here today to pay homage to the Brown decision and the civil rights struggle, I feel compelled to ask, ``A half-century after Brown, how far have we come? Where we are today, and where are we headed?'' Fifty years after the Brown decision, the struggle for equality has come to include not only racial and ethnic minorities, but also women, the disabled, and gays and lesbians. That is a promising development. We need only remember that it is only this week when the Massachusetts Supreme Court's order recognizing gay marriages is given the full effect of law. Since the 1954 Brown decision, we have made progress in the sense that Americans overwhelmingly repudiate discrimination and segregation. But while we no longer see the blatant vestiges of the segregationist era such as signs saying ``whites only'' or ``colored only,'' our society is still plagued by inequality and injustice. African Americans have yet to enjoy true racial equality in this Nation. And in the absence of real equality, African Americans are being denied the essence of what it means to be an American. Statistics are the clearest barometer for measuring our progress and far too many of them reveal that African Americans continue to lag behind whites in important ways. In April 2004, the Nation's unemployment rate was 4.9 percent for whites; for blacks, it was 9.7 percent. In 2002, the poverty rate was 12.1 percent nationwide; for blacks, it was 22.7 percent. In 1999, median income for white families was $51,244; for black families, it was $31,778. Today, black men make up 41 percent of all prisoners, but only 4 percent of all college and university students. African Americans are 13 percent of the population in my home State of New Jersey, but they constituted a staggering 63 percent of the State's prison population in 2002. The murder rate for whites is 3.3 per 100,000 people; for blacks, it's six times as high, 20.5 per 100,000 people. These statistics make it pretty clear that while we have come a long way from the blatant racism of ``separate but equal'' and the decision to close the Farmville public schools to prevent their integration, we still have a long way to go in making the dream of justice and equality for all Americans a living, breathing reality. As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision, we need to rededicate ourselves to the civil rights struggle. As Teddy Roosevelt said, ``This country will not be a really good place for any of us to live in if it is not a really good place for all of us to live in.''

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. president, yesterday, the Comptroller General of the United States ruled that the Bush administration illegally spent taxpayer dollars for political propaganda in violation of two laws. To make matters worse, these funds were taken from the Medicare Trust Fund. In other words, money reserved for our seniors' healthcare was illegally used for political activity. It is outrageous. The President has raised plenty of money for his campaign. Over 200 million dollars. Why does he need to use Medicare funds? With taxpayer money, the Bush administration produced so-called ``video news released'' --fake news stories that hailed the new Medicare law--and distributed them to TV stations across the country. This covert propaganda was never identified as being produced by the administration. As a result many news stations ran this story as real news and viewers had no idea it was produced by the government. The phony news stories show scenes of the President receiving a standing ovation before signing the bill into law and even end with a sign off from a fake reporter. The GAO has said that these materials are illegal, but the money is already spent and that money will likely never be recovered unless we pass this legislation. My bill calls on the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign to repay this money to the Federal Government. It's the right thing to do. I have long said that this administration's so-called ``education'' campaign on the new Medicare law is fraught with questionable activity. And now we know that they have in fact acted illegally. I think somewhere along the way they confused the word ``education'' with ``election.'' This is just the most recent incident in a long line of advertising by the Bush administration that the non-partisan GAO has called misleading and political. If the Bush-Cheney campaign wants to spend funds dollars touting the new Medicare law, that's their prerogative--but they cannot use government agencies and taxpayer funds to do it. I am all for educating seniors, but I will always guard against any misuse of taxpayer dollars, especially those reserved for Medicare. I am here today to tell the President: Don't use the people's money to promote your bid for reelection. It's not only unethical, it's against the law. Taxpayer money should not be used for political purposes. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the GAO report be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. president, yesterday, the Comptroller General of the United States ruled that the Bush administration illegally spent taxpayer dollars for political propaganda in violation of two laws. To make matters worse, these funds were taken from the Medicare Trust Fund. In other words, money reserved for our seniors' healthcare was illegally used for political activity. It is outrageous. The President has raised plenty of money for his campaign. Over 200 million dollars. Why does he need to use Medicare funds? With taxpayer money, the Bush administration produced so-called ``video news released'' --fake news stories that hailed the new Medicare law--and distributed them to TV stations across the country. This covert propaganda was never identified as being produced by the administration. As a result many news stations ran this story as real news and viewers had no idea it was produced by the government. The phony news stories show scenes of the President receiving a standing ovation before signing the bill into law and even end with a sign off from a fake reporter. The GAO has said that these materials are illegal, but the money is already spent and that money will likely never be recovered unless we pass this legislation. My bill calls on the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign to repay this money to the Federal Government. It's the right thing to do. I have long said that this administration's so-called ``education'' campaign on the new Medicare law is fraught with questionable activity. And now we know that they have in fact acted illegally. I think somewhere along the way they confused the word ``education'' with ``election.'' This is just the most recent incident in a long line of advertising by the Bush administration that the non-partisan GAO has called misleading and political. If the Bush-Cheney campaign wants to spend funds dollars touting the new Medicare law, that's their prerogative--but they cannot use government agencies and taxpayer funds to do it. I am all for educating seniors, but I will always guard against any misuse of taxpayer dollars, especially those reserved for Medicare. I am here today to tell the President: Don't use the people's money to promote your bid for reelection. It's not only unethical, it's against the law. Taxpayer money should not be used for political purposes. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the GAO report be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues please to permit us to have order in the Senate. We don't have much time to talk about this. I would appreciate the opportunity to speak.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send a modification to my original amendment to the desk.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the Senator from Arizona will yield for a question, is a second-degree amendment still the proposal?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we have had some discussion about what we can do to help raise the funds to finance our fight against terrorism. At this point, we are spending $5 billion a month in Iraq. I think if we wanted to really get some money raised to continue that assignment, which we must, then perhaps we ought to consider repealing the top tax rate cut for all millionaires and raise even more money for our troops than what has been offered. I have an amendment. It has been modified. It is fairly obvious that we are talking around the issue. It is surprising that we cannot get together in an effort to dissuade companies, to prevent companies that are doing business with terrorist states from continuing to do that. My amendment says if a U.S. company owns 50 percent or more of a corporation, that it would be a violation of law for them to continue to do business with terrorist states. I do not know what the concerns are about this amendment. It is fairly clear we are spending so much money, so much effort, and so many lives to fight terrorism. When we register concern about American companies doing business with these terrorist states, we seem to have created a climate that has people objecting and, frankly, I don't understand why. When we talk about supplying revenue opportunities to Iran, we have to remember that they funded the 1983 terror attack in Beirut, killing 240 U.S. marines. We are talking about an Iranian Government that funds Hamas, Islamic jihad, and Hezbollah. I ask my colleagues whether there is anyone here who would stand up and tell the American people why we should be helping Iran. Is there anyone here who can explain how it helps our soldiers to make sure that funds and potential profits are funneled to Iran? How does it help our troops to make sure Iran has more money to pass on to terrorists? We want to shut that down. My amendment offers a simple proposition: You are either with us or against us, and if we are serious about the war on terror, then we have to cut off every revenue source we can of those sponsors of terror. President Bush said himself, ``Money is the lifeblood of terrorist operations.'' He is right. We know that terrorist groups, such as Hamas and Islamic jihad, are funded by Iran and other rogue states, and we need to cut off that funding opportunity. Terrorist operations cannot survive without funds, and that is why our sanctions program is so critical. No American business should provide revenues to state sponsors of terror, and the nations that sponsor terrorism need to learn they will be denied business opportunities as long as they are funding terror groups. Right now, American companies are doing business with terrorist states through foreign subsidiaries, and we must stop this practice. As long as this loophole is in place, our sanctions laws have no teeth. We know that many companies find tax loopholes or regulatory loopholes that they exploit from time to time, but in this case, we are talking about companies exploiting loopholes just so they can do business with terrorists--sham corporations. I urge my colleagues to look at this chart because it demonstrates how companies utilize this loophole. If a U.S. corporation has a foreign subsidiary, they can send money to Iran. Iran can then send money to support Hezbollah or Hamas in their terror, suicide bombings, with their interests in developing weapons of mass destruction. We all believe that is in the works now. We should not in any way permit these companies--American companies created here, earning their living here, the executives earning their bonuses here--to be able to get some of that money as a result of sending funds to places such as Iran and other terrorist states. U.S. companies often have several subsidiaries, and most U.S. companies and their subsidiaries do not cross the line that prevents business with terrorist states, but some do. President Bush also has declared that Iran is part of the ``axis of evil,'' and he couldn't be more right. My amendment says that if we are going to impose sanctions on rogue nations such as Iran, then let's be serious about it. Let's make sure Iran is isolated for their sponsorship of terrorism. In addition to the 240 marines who were brutally murdered in their sleep in 1983 in Beirut, Iranian-backed terror killed these 2 young American women, 22-year-old Sara Duker and 14-year-old Abigail Litle. They were traveling in Israel. Sarah Duker was a constituent of mine from Teaneck, NJ. A summa cum laude graduate of Barnard College, Sara was killed with her fiance when the bus she was riding on in Jerusalem was blown up in 1996 by Hamas. Again, Hamas receives funding and support from the Iranian Government. Last year, 14-year-old Abigail, originally from New Hampshire, was riding home from school in Haifa when her bus exploded as a result of a suicide bombing. That attack killed 15 people and was directly linked to terrorists funded by Syria and Iran. Iran sponsors terrorism, and they glow in that relationship. They love to let the world know they are out to harm Americans. The terror they help fund has killed hundreds of Americans and yet American companies are utilizing a loophole in order to do business with the Iranian Government. I want to close the loophole. It is inexcusable for U.S. companies to engage in any business practices that provide revenue for terrorism. The bottom line is that big businesses, even those with financial ties to the top members of our Government, do not get a free pass in this war on terrorism. I hope that when my amendment comes up for a vote later on that all of my colleagues will step up and ask the questions of themselves: Why do we want to promote anything that would send funds to Iran or other rogue terrorist nations? I cannot understand why that would be. There are laws that say it should not happen, but they lack teeth. The process does not work. So I urge my colleagues, when the opportunity comes a little later in the day, to pass this amendment to close a terrorist funding loophole.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, please try to help us maintain order. This is very quick, very simple. My amendment is straightforward. Current sanctions law has a loophole that permits foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies to do business with nations that sponsor terrorism, such as Iraq. My amendment closes the loophole. It is that simple. It only applies to foreign subsidiaries in which U.S. parent companies have a majority interest. The question is, do we want U.S. companies to sell oilfield equipment through a sham foreign subsidiary to a country such as Iran--which the President has rightly called the axis of evil--so Iran can sell its oil at greater profits and funnel those profits to Hezbollah, Hamas, or Islamic Jihad, terrorist groups that killed 240 marines in Beirut, Lebanon. These two young women in this photo, from New Jersey and New Hampshire, were killed in Israel by terrorist activities sponsored by Iran. It is very simple. The amendment says: Are you with us or against us? If you are with us and want them to stop killing our kids in Iraq, then you have to stand up and say, yes, this amendment counts, and, yes, we want to close this loophole. We just had a vote relating somewhat to my amendment. I hope my colleagues will stand up and say close the door. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I just want to say I thank my colleagues who worked so hard to get this legislation passed. But I want everybody to remember that this vote that was just taken said it is all right to do business with Iran. Look at the list of the dead and missing and see whether it is all right to vote for companies that sell to Iran. When we had a chance to close the loophole, the party lines were clear. No, stick with the companies. Forget about those who are serving in Iraq. Forget about those kids who want to come home in one piece. That is the kind of vote that just took place, and I hope the constituents back home will note it and remember it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill for his courtesy and understand that when my remarks are finished, a request will be made to lay the amendment aside. For now, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment that is vital to the purpose of this Defense authorization bill. This bill supports our men and women who are on the front lines of the war on terrorism throughout the world. They are paying a terrific price. They are doing it bravely and courageously. We want to make sure there are no opportunities to circumvent rules that would permit any business to go on with terrorist countries. My amendment focuses on a key component of the war on terror; that is, to deny terrorists funding and support. My amendment will close a loophole that allows U.S. companies to do business with terror- sponsoring nations such as Iran. Senators Feinstein, Clinton, Corzine, and Feingold are cosponsors of the amendment. As my colleagues know--and we just heard from the Senator from Arizona about his concern with the behavior of some of the rogue nations, including Iran, who are planning terrible things in their public statements for the United States--American companies are supposed to be prohibited from doing business with Iran. But by creating shell companies as foreign subsidiaries, these companies are making a mockery of our sanctions laws and providing revenue for the financing of terrorist acts. It is wrong. It has to stop, and this amendment would do just that. Immediately after the attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush told the world, ``You are either with us or against us.'' Pretty clear. That same message should apply to people in our own country, including those in our corporate world. We know many companies find tax loopholes or regulatory loopholes they exploit from time to time. But in this case, we found U.S. companies exploiting loopholes so they could do business with terrorists. President Bush also said, ``Money is the lifeblood of terrorist operations.'' He is right. If U.S. companies do business with rogue states like Iran, they are generating revenue for those who supply money and other resources to terrorists. They are also sending a message to these countries that they are not really isolated, as they should be, and that the United States, in some form, finds their behavior acceptable. We have passed laws, such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which make it clear U.S. companies must not do business with terrorist states. The vast majority of American companies abide by that law. However, a few companies have exploited a loophole that allows them to do business with Iran and other rogue nations. If we look at this chart, we see the structure or format that permits this to happen. Once they form a subsidiary company that doesn't have the same restrictions on doing business with Iran we have, that money can be earned, revenues can be generated that help these countries, help Hezbollah and Hamas, and they brag about it constantly. This placard demonstrates how companies utilize this loophole. U.S. companies often have several subsidiaries. Most American companies and their subsidiaries do not cross the lines that prevent business with terrorist states. But some do, and here is how they do it. Some U.S. companies set up a foreign subsidiary for the specific purpose of gaining revenues from terrorist states. The reason is the sanctions laws prohibit the parent company and its foreign branches from doing business with terrorist states. Foreign subsidiaries, however, are not mentioned in the law. This omission has not gone unnoticed by corporate lawyers. It has been identified as a major loophole that allows companies to do business with rogue states. We know a few American companies are using this loophole to do business with the Iranian Government. This is the same Iranian Government President Bush said is part of the axis of evil. This is the same Iranian Government that directly funds organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad--all terrorist organizations, according to the State Department. Now, for a moment, I ask my colleagues to look at the young faces in this photograph. One of these young women is Sara Duker, a young woman who lived in New Jersey until her death. The other is Abigail Litle. Sara was a constituent of mine. She was a 22-year-old from the town of Teaneck, NJ; a summa cum laude graduate of Barnard College. Sara was killed with her fiance when the bus she was riding in Jerusalem was blown up in 1996 by Hamas. Hamas receives funding and support from the Iranian Government. Iranian terrorists caused the deaths of many American citizens abroad, including the 240 Marines who were brutally murdered in their sleep in 1983 in Beirut. They also took the lives of these two young American women, Sara Duker and 14-year-old Abigail Litle. Iran sponsors terrorism. The terror they help fund has killed hundreds of Americans. Yet American companies--it is hard to believe this--are flaunting the law in order to do business with the Iranian Government. It is wrong, but it is not technically illegal yet. This amendment would change that. I say to my colleagues this is a loophole we must close. We have to tell both our friends and those who continue to sponsor terrorism we are serious in our efforts to battle this evil. It is inexcusable for American companies to engage in any business practice that provides revenues or profits to terrorism. We have to stop them. We have a chance to do that today with this amendment. The bottom line is big businesses, even those with financial ties to top members of our Government, do not get a free pass in this war on terrorism. No one in America wants to give these countries any advantage they could restrict them from. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, close the terror- funding loophole, pass this legislation, and send out the message we are against any help for terrorist nations that might occur. I understand the request I agreed to earlier is to permit another amendment to be considered. I will honor that commitment, and I want to make sure we have an understanding that at an appropriate time we will have a discussion and further review of my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, all of us in the Senate, and in the Government generally, are terribly upset with the events of these last days and weeks because the shock and awe that we all experienced in the beginning days has been diminished when compared to what we are seeing now. Now we are seeing the ultimate degradation of human conduct. Unfortunately, some part of it comes from us, from Americans. We are embarrassed, apologetic, humiliated by what we have seen. I, like all of my colleagues, had a chance to view the pictures the Pentagon sent to Congress yesterday. They were sick, perverted images from the Abu Ghraib prison. Shameful, perverted, degraded images that made Members feel ill. But we could tell from the images there were many soldiers present at these scenes. This was not a soldier or two; there were many. The photographs demonstrated complete disintegration of discipline. Unfortunately, while it would be a lot easier if this were just the case of a few bad apples, it indicates a breakdown in leadership. I am a World War II veteran. I experienced the stress of being in a combat zone. I understand the psychological wear and tear. I also know it is the responsibility of a soldier's leaders all the way to the top of the chain of command to supervise, to manage as best they can the conduct of the troops. Regarding the current case of prison abuse, it is premature to rush to court-martial individual soldiers before all of the facts are known. I understand the administration seeks a public, visible court-martial trial to demonstrate the United States commitment to justice, but before we simply lay all the blame on the soldiers at the bottom of the chain of command, we need to understand where the directives were and what they were when they came down from the top. How clear is it now that well-dressed men in charge have let the soldiers in uniform down? The top civilian leadership at the Pentagon has failed. In my view, replacing Secretary Rumsfeld will change little at the Pentagon if his discredited team of advisers remain in their high-level position. A series of bad decisions by the top civilian leadership at the Pentagon has severely undermined our operations in Iraq. In my view, the Pentagon's trio of civilian leaders needs to be replaced. I am speaking specifically of the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and the Under Secretary for Policy, Douglas Feith. All three of those officials ought to be replaced. They all work very closely together, and I am sure not one, not even the Secretary himself, made all of the decisions. The trio's poor planning and miscalculations have undermined the troops serving on the ground in Iraq. We are proud of those who have served so generously and nobly. That does not mean we cannot have some bad actors, but it also does not mean those at the top are free of responsibility. Their negligence regarding reports of prisoner abuses which were alleged to take place as early as last October is the last straw in a record of missteps and miscalculations that have compromised the safety and effectiveness of our military operations. These civilian leaders have dismissed the views of people in uniform numerous times. For example, in early 2003, Four Star General Eric Shinseki disagreed with Secretary Rumsfeld's plans for a light battlefield force for Iraq. He said--and it was a courageous statement--that at least 300,000 troops would be needed during the war, particularly in the aftermath of the war. Now we know that General Shinseki was right. The security situation in Iraq is deteriorating in exactly the way he said it would if there were not enough troops. So how was General Shinseki handled by the trio of civilian leaders at the Pentagon? He was fired. Fired for telling the truth. It tells us something about the character of those decisionmakers who said, no, no, we can get this done in much easier fashion. He was fired for knowing what he was talking about. That is just one of the many miscalculations and mistakes made by this trio at the Pentagon. Despite the urging of the Joint Chiefs of Staff not to do so, the Pentagon civilian leadership disbanded the Iraqi army after the invasion. We left 400,000 armed and trained Iraqis unemployed--I am not trying to give them jobs--and resentful, and now these men are contributing significantly to the massive security problems American troops are facing. The civilian leadership at the Pentagon also ignored postwar plans drawn up by the Army War College and the State Department Future of Iraq Project, which predicted most of the security and infrastructure problems that America faced in the early days of the Iraq occupation. We have heard plenty of speeches from Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz and Under Secretary Feith. They talk tough about supporting the soldiers, sailors, marines, air men and women, but in reality they fail to provide adequately for our U.S. commanders as they requested in Iraq such things as sufficient interceptor body armor or adequate protection from Humvees. I learned that on my trip to Iraq last month when I asked a young soldier--a captain, as a matter of fact--what it was he needed to better conduct his soldiers in our Army there. He said: Senator, the flak jacket you are wearing is the latest. It is the most protective. I don't understand, he said to me, why we do not have them when I have seen those in the coalition wearing those vests. He said to me: You see this rifle? This big, heavy rifle is bigger than the one I carried in World War II; I carried a carbine. He said: There are better weapons out there with better sighting mechanisms, lighter to carry. He said: We do not have them, and I don't understand why, Senator. He said: We have seen those in coalition hands. Recently, Acting Secretary of the Army Les Brownlee and Army Chief of Staff GEN Peter Schoomaker recently told Congress that the Army currently only has 2,000 armored Humvees even though it needs at least 5,000 to adequately protect our troops. And the sight of those vehicles burning leaves out what happened to those people who were in those vehicles. When asked why the Army did not have enough of these vehicles, General Schoomaker said the Pentagon policymakers had not foreseen the need for these standard fighting vehicles. Despite their academic credentials, Wolfowitz and Feith horribly misjudged the post-invasion situation in Iraq, and it has cost American lives. Under Secretary Feith dismissed all dissent to his view that U.S. forces would be greeted as liberators and quickly win the lasting gratitude of the Iraqi people. Despite the current quagmire, he continues to cling to his delusional view of the situation. In addition, before the invasion, these civilian leaders also told the American people that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction through oil revenues. As we now know, not only has that not happened, but U.S. taxpayers are paying virtually all of the costs of the reconstruction of Iraq. We cannot pass a highway bill in this Congress for America, but we are unloading U.S. taxpayer dollars to rebuild Iraq's highway system. Why do we have to go to our taxpayers over and over again for billions of dollars for Iraq? Why does the President need to take another $25 billion that could be used for Medicare, education, and American highway construction? The reason is the administration marginalized the international community before the war, and Pentagon civilian leaders refused to cede any control of post-invasion Iraq to the international community. As a result, we have paid more than 80 percent of all of the reconstruction funds in Iraq. I want to make it perfectly clear, I do not think we can cut and run. I think we have a responsibility there that we have developed through our own decisionmaking and through the fate that war has brought us. So I do not say cut and run. But I do say it would help us an awful lot if we were not, at this point in time, arguing to give people who have been successful in business or in life greater tax breaks when we desperately need the money. Furthermore, there is little hope that European allies or international donors will cough up the over $30 billion that Iraq still needs for rebuilding, according to World Bank estimates. U.S. taxpayers will have shelled out almost $200 billion by the end of 2004. As a result of this unilateralism, we barely cobbled together a meager coalition of the willing, but our men and women make up over 87 percent of the troops fighting in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, and Under Secretary Feith all have to be replaced. We need new leadership at the Pentagon, leadership that will listen to the military experts, leadership that will not cling to discredited ideologies. Perhaps the best illustration of the ineptitude of this team was their gross underestimate of the length of the Iraqi operation. They created false hopes for troops and their families, especially the reservists, many of whom are now facing more than a year's worth of duty away from their homes, away from the ability to pay their mortgages, away from the comfort children need from a father. They created the false hopes, especially of the reservists, who expected much shorter battlefield tours of duty. In February 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld said the war ``could last six days, six weeks.'' And he said: ``I doubt [that it could last] six months.'' It is well over a year from the beginning of this war, and now our own generals are publicly questioning whether we can win. We have to win. We have no choice. But in order to win, we have to make sure our troops have the tools to do the job with, and that we have sufficient help from other places. We have to make sure we pursue that mission. I am not sure the current Pentagon team has the ability to direct our needs now. We need new leadership. Secretary Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, and Under Secretary Feith need to resign. And if they do not do so, then the President would be wise to ask them to go. 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. LAUTENBERG. In fact, in my own State of New Jersey, the Department of Environmental Protection oversees ten thousand potential brownfield sites, but admits that many more sites may exist in the State that have not yet been identified. I ask Senator Lieberman if he is aware of any barriers in our Tax Code that may be hindering the remediation of brownfields sites.