Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, last week's double set of suicide attacks in Istanbul are acts of cowardice targeting both the structures and symbols of Turkish coexistence. I grieve for the families of the 58 victims and wish the 750 injured individuals a speedy recovery. The terrorists who have attacked Turkey in the name of Islam and its heritage do not know their history. Throughout the Ottoman Empire, Jews, Christians and other minorities were treated with respect and allowed to practice their religion freely. Since Mustafa Kemal Ataturk founded modern Turkey in 1923, Turkey has been admired by western and non-western countries alike as an apotheosis of progressive Muslim democracy. In Turkey, pride in a rich heritage and faith coexist with a desire to globalize and enhance representative democracy and the freedom it brings. During World War II, as Hitler's troops were marching from the Balkans and emptying Greek cities of their Jewish populations, Turkey's president, Ismet Inonu, closed its border. The Jews of Turkey were spared by the principled leadership of their government, who refused to be complicit in murder. In my own travels through Turkey--from Istanbul to Idirdne--I have seen the rich fusion of ancient and modern and of religious and secular. I have enjoyed the renowned hospitality offered to all visitors. The terrorists who attacked the synagogues, consulate, and bank in Istanbul last week seek to undermine the pluralism, diversity, and openness that have long characterized Turkish culture and society. Together, we will prevent the terrorists from achieving this aim. Americans, and particularly New Jerseyans, are intimately familiar with the pain wreaked by a terrorist attack on our homeland. We in Washington are prepared to offer assistance and support to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his government in the days ahead as Turkey shores up security and begins healing from these traumatic incidents. The U.S.-Turkish friendship continues to be strong and will stand united in the face of the global threat of terrorism.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have a question, Mr. President, about the process. Is the time available under the cloture rule divided between two sides in equal parts?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. So that any speeches now are made under cloture.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I assume the time that would have been credited to me for my 1 hour, whatever time remains, is still available.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. What I got today was a request from one of America's largest companies. I will not identify them because they are not unique. But they wanted us to pass this bill. They don't make pharmaceuticals; they don't do anything in the health care field; they are not an HMO. They are a manufacturing company, a gigantic company by any standards. They are hoping we are going to pass this bill. The reason they are hoping we would pass it is because then those retirees who are dependent on their health care continuation could be kicked off the system. Then, because of what we are saying in this bill--this hocus-pocus language that there will be some money to provide premium support for HMOs--go there and you will be able to get it cheaper, and this giant company, this unnamed giant company will be able to say: Whew, we are finally rid of those retirees who we promised we would give this care to all those years they worked for us. But now we don't have to keep that promise--no. All we have to do is say goodbye, thank you, we are eliminating coverage. In New Jersey, it means that about 90,000 people are likely to lose their company-provided health care. Coming from a State as I do--a State often called ``the Medicine Chest;'' it is a great State--we produce terrific products that make people feel better and help them live longer. I know because I use a couple of their products here and there. But the entire debate here is the result of the irrefutable fact that prescription drugs cost too much in this country. This bill doesn't do anything to fix that fundamental problem. All over the world, people pay less money for the exact same prescription drugs that they can buy cheaper in other countries. In Italy, Acoplex is 40 percent less than here in the United States. In England, it is 31 percent less than here in the United States. And just to the north of us, our friendly neighbor, Canada, the price is 37 percent less. No wonder seniors are getting on buses and making the trip to Canada to get their medication. If you look at the things that we talk about, and see what happens when prices are not negotiated, the prices keep rising. From 2001 to 2002, drug prices rose 17 percent. The only way to lower drug prices is to give Medicare bargaining power--just the opposite of what this bill does. This bill says they want to prohibit giving what is normally called volume discounts. Instead of taking this step to lower prices, this bill explicitly forbids it. The company I was talking about with a health plan has over 1 million employees. They want us to pass this bill. Imagine what happens when they say to their retired employees that they will be off their health care system. We know from experience that allowing agencies to use bargaining power brings down prices. A good example of this is the health care system run by the Veterans' Administration. The VA is encouraged to negotiate prices. In this bill, as it presently exists, they forbid Medicare to negotiate prices. I want to follow up on a point that our friend and colleague, Senator Bob Graham, made earlier today. This chart really tells the story. The chart compares VA-negotiated prices for medication with what it costs to buy from a local pharmacy. By way of example, Acoplex, a stomach acid product, in the drugstore it is $4.37. At the VA it is 22 cents. Let us take a product such as Zocor, to guard against high cholesterol which is very damaging to one's heart. If you want to buy it in the drugstore, you have to pay $3.77 per tablet, and if you are a member of the VA, their price is 66 cents. The list goes on. At the drugstore for aspirin at 325 milligrams, the cost is 20 cents. If you buy it in the VA, it costs a penny. Plavix to guard against heart attack and strokes, $3.63 per tablet; $2.01 if you go to the VA. The list goes on with even better known products. The price comparison is ugly at best when you consider what happens with people on Medicare. Mevacor reduces cholesterol--four bucks in the pharmacy and 26 cents at the VA. Many of these medications make the top 50 list of drugs used by the elderly. We ought to learn from that and not prohibit the VA from negotiating volume prices. Another troubling part in this bill is the effective date. When the Senate first voted on a prescription drug benefit for seniors back in June, I offered an amendment to make this benefit effective within 1 year. But it was voted down with strong Republican assistance. Eleven votes made the difference. We passed that amendment with bipartisan effectiveness to make this benefit effective within 1 year. Under this conference report, the drug coverage doesn't start until January 2006, 23 months from now. We have to ask the question: Why is this taking so long? One clue is illustrated on this chart. Notice election day in the yellow box; the original Medicare Program was processed in 11 months. President Johnson signed the law on July 30, 1965, and 11 months later, July 1, 1966, all of the people who were eligible for the program were enrolled in the program. I know something about computer processing. I literally had my career grow in the computer development stage. They had to create the files. The identification had to be punched into cards. They weren't read electronically in 1965 as they are now. It took 11 months and the whole deal was done. It was created from the beginning in 11 months. Now we are asking for a toleration of 25 months to get it into place. But election day is here, and Heaven forbid that the public at large should find out about this bill. When they learn about it, they are going to be mad as could be. If they can get safely past election day, the rhetoric is out there flooding the country. They even have the American Association of Retired Persons supporting the bill. That is a mystery that we are going to have to find out about one day. A lot of people we get calls from--Medicare recipients and beneficiaries--are ripping up their cards. We got one batch that was 75 to 2 against the bill. There were two who were doctors also who are concerned about whether they will be able to continue their practice as it was. It is a reasonable question. But 75 to 2--that is while this bill is being discussed. The bill is not yet in place. Once the phone calls start coming into my office, I know what is going to happen. They are going to ask: When can we sign up? What are the benefits? We are going to say: Hold your horses. What is the rush? It costs you a lot of money later on. Right now, we have your temper down. Not so much your temperature but your temper is going to go up once you find out after election day that this bill is going to take place with higher prices for medical care and prescription drugs. The Democrats created Medicare. We protected it for decades. The Republicans never really liked it. They resisted the creation of Medicare and have opposed it ever since. It wasn't too long ago that a very well known leader of the House, Newt Gingrich, expressed his desire to see ``Medicare wither on the vine.'' That is what he wanted to see happen. He represented a view that was generally accepted. We may see it wither but not without a strong fight on our hands, even if we have lost step 1 here. The senior citizen population in this country has to raise the alarm and shout it out to those who are in this building and those who are in the House of Representatives. Tell them: We don't like that bill. It is going to cost us more. You are not helping us, you are hurting us. We worked our lives away with certain promises in place, and the promise included a proposition that said as you get older and as we see things develop, we are going to help you get those things to keep your health going. The bill before us today is the first major step toward disintegration of Medicare as we know it. In reality, this bill is not as much a benefit for seniors as it is a big benefit for HMOs, the private health care organizations, and other private-sector special interests who want to tear the Medicare Program to pieces. Get them in corporate hands so we can charge more, make more. I wonder whether we could limit the incomes of some of the guys at the top of these companies, in the interest of public service? We regulate lots of industry. So what is it specifically the President is afraid seniors will find out before 2006? Is the President afraid the seniors will realize they will pay at least $810 before they break even and get any benefit from this plan? For many seniors, that is more money than they currently spend on prescription drugs. Up to 30 percent of the beneficiaries would pay more for enrolling in the plan than they would receive in actual benefits. Is the White House worried seniors will learn there is a huge gap in coverage? Under this plan, a senior will pay a premium estimated at $35 a month, a $250 deductible, 25 percent coinsurance payments until reaching $2,250 in drug expenses. What happens then? Seniors then get no coverage. I have been heard correctly: Zero coverage. At that point, seniors continue to pay their premiums but they will also pay 100 percent of their drug costs. That is a double whammy, as we say in New Jersey. Only until they have reached a catastrophic limit of $5,100 in drug costs does any benefit restart. By that time, seniors will have incurred $3,600 in out-of- pocket spending. This is the so-called hole in the donut. It does not sound like a good deal to me. Remember, nowhere in the bill does it say that premiums will be only $35. It could be significantly higher. The $35 is a current estimate. We know how good this administration has been at making estimates. Is the President afraid that seniors will figure all this out? You bet. Seniors deserve a much better program than that which the Senate is considering right now. They certainly deserve it before 2006. I will spend a few minutes more talking about the overall impact of this bill on seniors in the State I represent, New Jersey. The most important reason I am voting against this bill is I am convinced more seniors in my State will be hurt by this legislation than helped. There are approximately 1.1 million seniors in New Jersey. Because this bill provides a disincentive to employers to continue offering coverage to retirees, it is estimated that over 90,000 seniors in New Jersey will lose their existing, more generous retiree drug coverage from their former employer. This bill is also going to make poor seniors in my State worse off. In New Jersey, Medicaid covers drug costs for seniors with incomes of less then $9,000 a year for an individual or $12,000 a year for a couple. In New Jersey, low-income seniors currently on Medicaid have access to whatever drugs they need and they do not have a copay for their prescription. Under this bill, however, they are now going to pay $1 per prescription for generic drugs and $3 per prescription for brand name drugs. Low-income seniors tend to be in the worst health and have higher annual drug spending. A senior with $8,000 annual income does not have the discretionary income to shell out $15 or $20 or $25 for the prescriptions he or she may need. I will long remember the battles we have had in the Senate to try to raise the minimum wage. It is the old rhyme that says: Try, try again. We tried, we tried, and we tried, but we could not raise it. So there are people out there who are working for $5.15 an hour, $206 a week. Having to pay these extra burdens for their prescription drugs is going to be a torturous outcome for them. The low-income Americans can be forced to choose between providing medication or buying food, providing medication or keeping the heat on in the winter. This bill represents an enormous opportunity squandered. We had a real chance to do something right. We had $4 billion to improve the lives of 34 million seniors, 14 million of whom do not have any prescription drug coverage right now. Frankly, we missed the opportunity. We ought to scrap this plan and go back to the drawing board to give seniors a real prescription drug benefit in the Medicare Program. Let's not try to move seniors into HMOs. Let's not leave that enormous gap in coverage. We should give seniors a plan that starts now, not in 2006. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the bill before us. When the Senate first voted on a prescription drug benefit for seniors back in June I offered an amendment. My amendment was simple. I proposed that we give seniors a prescription drug benefit sooner rather than later. But that amendment was voted down by the Republican majority. So now, under this conference report, the drug coverage doesn't start until January 2006 23 months from now. Yes, 2006. So why so long? One clue is illustrated on this chart. Notice that Election Day is 11 months from now. And notice that the prolonged effective date for the drug benefit is conveniently well past election day. I would like to remind my colleagues that the original Medicare plan was signed into law by President Johnson on July 30, 1965 and 11 months later July 1, 1966--all the people who were eligible for the program were enrolled in the program. The entire system was created from scratch in 11 months. I know the President is desperate to take credit for passing a prescription drug bill when he faces voters next year. But he does not want the many shortcomings in this plan to be fully evident to seniors until well after the election. My Republican friends are hoping that seniors won't find out what they don't get from this legislation until it is too late. It is almost a cruel joke. When a prescription drug benefit is signed into law, all of our offices will be flooded with calls by seniors asking a simple question: ``How can I sign up for this benefit?'' They will have seen President Bush sign a bill with great fanfare, and they will have seen many Members of Congress crowding the stage with him, and everyone will say ``we have put a prescription drug benefit in place.'' And when seniors call to find out how soon they can receive the benefit, we will have to tell them ``2006.'' Sorry, President Bush's 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug plan will not start until 2006. No one wants to provide a real Medicare prescription drug benefit to seniors more than the Democrats. After all, Democrats created Medicare, and we have protected it for decades. Everyone knows that Republicans resisted the creation of Medicare and have opposed it ever since. It wasn't too long ago that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich expressed his desire to see Medicare ``wither on the vine.'' Well, the bill before us today is the first major step toward the disintegration of Medicare as we know it. In reality, this bill isn't as much a benefit for seniors as it is a big benefit for HMOs and other private sector special interests who want to tear the Medicare program to pieces. So, what is it specifically that the President is afraid seniors will find out before 2006? Is the President afraid that seniors will realize they are going to pay at least $810 before they break even and get any benefit from this plan? For many seniors that is more money than they spend on prescription drugs right now. Up to 30 percent of beneficiaries would pay more for enrolling in the plan than they would receive in actual benefits. Is the President worried that seniors are going to discover that there is a huge gap in coverage? Under this plan, a senior will pay a premium estimated at $35 a month, a $250 deductible, and 25 percent coinsurance payments until reaching $2,250 in drug expenses. What happens then? Seniors get no coverage. You heard me correctly nothing, zero. That is right. At that point, seniors will continue to pay their premiums but they will also pay 100 percent of their drug costs. Only until they have reached the catastrophic limit of $5,100 in drug costs does any benefit return. And by that time, seniors will have incurred $3,600 in out-of-pocket spending. This is called the ``hole in the doughnut'' and it sure doesn't sound like such a good deal to me. And remember that nowhere in this bill does it say that the premium is only $35. It could be significantly higher. The $35 figure is an estimate. We all know how good this administration has been at making estimates. Is the President afraid that seniors will figure all this out? You bet he is. Seniors deserve a much better program than what the Senate is considering right now, and they certainly deserve it before 2006. There are some who will say we must have this gap in coverage because we only have $400 billion to work with. Well, I say if there are insufficient funds in the budget to give seniors real drug coverage, then it is the result of choices made by the President and his party. They chose to provide a massive tax cut to the wealthy the people who need it least and they chose it at the expense of Medicare. What else is in this bill that the Republican's don't want seniors to find out about until 2006? This bill will effectively destroy the Medicare program that has worked for almost 40 years. That is right. Say goodbye to Medicare as we know it. This bill does not expand Medicare; it opens the door for HMOs to take over the program. And that means that seniors will be at the mercy of these HMOs. And as everyone knows, HMOs will not pay for all prescription drugs. Under this bill, seniors will be limited to the prescription drugs covered by their drug plan or HMO. In order to keep costs down, these drug plans and HMOs will use something called a ``formulary.'' A formulary is a list of drugs that are covered under the health plan. If a particular drug is not on the formulary then it is not covered. That means that after a senior has paid her premium and her deductible if she needs a certain medication not on the list used by her drug plan or HMO, then she will pay 100 percent of the cost of that medication. Where is the benefit in that? Mr. President, this bill goes to great lengths to prop up and protect HMOs at the expense of seniors. Included in this bill is something called the ``Stabilization Fund.'' It should be called the ``HMO Slush Fund.'' This fund is designed to ensure that HMOs succeed by offering artificially lower premiums and better benefits than traditional Medicare. This bill hands over $12 billion of taxpayer money for this effort. This is $12 billion that could be used to close the coverage gap or lower the deductible but our Republican friends have made a choice to create a $12 billion slush fund for the insurance industry. I want to spend a few minutes talking about the overall impact of this bill on seniors in the State I represent--New Jersey. The most important reason why I am voting against this bill is because I am convinced that more seniors in my State will be hurt by this legislation than helped. There are approximately 1.1 million seniors in New Jersey. Currently 430,000 New Jersey retirees receive prescription drug coverage from their former employers. Because this bill provides a disincentive to employers to continue offering coverage to retirees, over 90,000 seniors in New Jersey will lose their existing drug coverage, which often offers more generous benefits. This bill is also going to make poor seniors in my State worse off. In New Jersey, Medicaid covers the drug costs for seniors up to 100 percent of the federal poverty level. That is an income of approximately $9,000 a year for an individual or $12,000 a year for a couple. In New Jersey, low-income seniors currently on Medicaid have access to whatever drugs they need and they don't have any co-pay for their prescriptions. Under this bill, however, they will now pay $1 per prescription for generic drugs and $3 per prescription for brand name drugs. Low-income seniors tend to be in worse health and, as a result, they have higher annual drug spending. A senior with an annual income of $7,000 or $8,000 simply doesn't have the discretionary income to shell out $15 or $20 or $25 for the prescriptions that he or she may need. That may not sound like a lot of money to my colleagues, but for low- income Americans, it can force them to choose between buying medication and buying food or buying medication and keeping the heat turned on in the winter. Mr. President, this bill represents an enormous opportunity squandered. We had a real chance to do something right here. We had $400 billion to improve the lives of 34 million seniors, 14 million of whom don't have any prescription drug coverage right now. Frankly, we blew it. When I look at this bill, I see a bill that makes seniors in New Jersey worse off. I see a bill that makes poor seniors worse off. I see a bill that takes away choices from seniors. I see a bill that wastes taxpayer money on a slush fund for HMOs. I see a bill that ``hides the ball'' until 2006. And I see a bill that I cannot, in good conscience, support. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my colleague from New York for her eloquent statement and her perception about what is really taking place in front of us. We both have the good fortune to share one of the most interesting areas of this country, the center for finance, industry, and trade, and people, yes, who have to work hard to maintain their living in this high cost area that we share. One of the problems we see in both of our States is that unemployment is unreasonably high; that people who used to work in manufacturing in the New York City region, in New Jersey, have lost jobs that are not available to be regained. It is a pity, but what has happened is that they were sold out to cheaper prices. We are looking for things cheaper while many of us revel in the fact we can live by such luxurious standards. What does it tell us? It tells us there is a significant imbalance out there in the way people earn their livings, live their lives. That is one of the things that is so much in our view today when we talk about the outcome of the vote thus far on this purported Medicare bill. It does not have the ``care'' and I am not sure it even has the interest. One of the things we are looking at is whether or not people who have had the good fortune, as I have--as said by the Senator from New York, I have had very good fortune. My father died when he was 43. His father died when he was in his middle fifties. His brother died when he was in his early fifties. I think the cause of death was probably occupational. They all worked in the same factories in the city of Patterson, NJ, where I was born. My father's death left a permanent imprint on me because of the circumstances of how and when it occurred. My father was 43 in the year 1943. He lived his life by the healthiest of standards, including the food that he ate. He disavowed smoking in a very vigorous way. He was not someone who drank a lot of coffee. In fact, he did not drink any coffee. He enjoyed his nonworking time by being in a gymnasium. They did not call it ``workout'' then. They called it exercise. They called it the ``gym.'' So he would spend time down there. He used to like to lift weights, wrestle, and play basketball. One day, he was not feeling well and he went to a doctor. The doctor informed our family that my father had colon cancer, a condition that gets ever rarer with the medical care we have today, if it can be afforded. No matter what we did, without the advances that we have today and medical technology and medicines, he suffered for 13 months. From a well built, muscular man, who was a picture of health to behold, he disintegrated before our very eyes until he died 13 months later. My mother was 36 when my father died. She was a very young widow. I was 18. I had already enlisted in the Army. Why this story? Because it is seared so deeply in my memory. Not only were we grieving, we were poor, and my mother strained to make a living as my father was in his illness. I had a job loading trucks. That was my skill. That was my experience. We just about kept ends together. When my father died, imagine a family of four--I had a little sister who was 12--grieving over the loss of a father at age 43, so young, and also at the same time worrying about bills that had to be paid, about obligations that occurred as a result of hospital treatment, bills that occurred because of doctors' visits, bills that we had to pay because we owed pharmacists money. That is what I remember. I thought, oh, my goodness, if only we could find the money to pay the bills so my mother and I didn't have to worry so much about our existence and at the same time honor our obligations. We were that kind of a family. Then, as time passed, we saw developments in America that made us all proud and that, frankly, I think should have caused us in this body to be more tender, to be more understanding, to be more sensitive to the people who have been able to live long enough to be eligible for Medicare and Social Security and all of that that is intended to reward people for their work to build this country. Many of these people come from what has been described as the greatest generation. If they weren't exactly in that generation, they were in the generation that continued to build our country through the 20th century to make this a stronghold of industry and business and technology and education. That is what these people did who are now concerned about how they continue their life. Oh, of course, a lot of them can get jobs if they want them at school crossings, at $5.50 an hour, $206 a week--have a good time, go to a restaurant and have dinner. Not on your life. That is what should have been thought about as we debated this issue. There was a certain degree, I saw, of smugness, as they pirated votes, giving lots of money--$11 billion, $12 billion to a special interest here, special interest there, here a special interest, there a special interest. It reminds me of a nursery rhyme. But that was no game that was being played. They held open the vote in the House of Representatives way beyond the rules. They did anything they could to bypass the process as it was normally. I wish to show those who can see what I am holding, if I have the strength to hold them--I do. Those who witness this stack, who see it, this pile of paper, may say: What is the Senator talking about? This describes what was in this Medicare proposal in which the Democrats were not invited to participate. That is against the rules. The participation was limited. This was a stealth affair: Sneak it out, get it out there. Why? Because they don't want people to know what is in here. Do you know what else? Here is a little smaller part of this whole package. This says: ``Joint Explanatory Statement.'' This tells the audience who might read this what is really in this stack here. It is all mysterious. It is all arcane--can't really understand what is happening. Why is this debate so acerbic? Why is it that those of us, along with the senior citizens of this country, look as if we are losing this debate? It looks as if we are going to lose control of this issue. It is true, that we will have suffered a day in infamy, to steal an expression, because what happens here is we are going to assess poor people more costs. I come from the corporate sector. I was fortunate to be able to create one of America's great companies with two other young fellows who lived in the same area as I did. Both of them, like me, had fathers who worked in the silk mills. That was the trade in the city in which we lived. They had no money. Their parents had no education. But it gave them the incentive to create something for themselves. So we created a company. The company is called ADP. A lot of people know it. It is an international company with 40,000 employees. We started with nothing. One of the things I learned as the CEO and chairman of that company, before I came to the Senate, was that the most important asset my company had was not its customers. The most important asset we had was its employees, because if the employees did their job, the customers were there for us. We could render a service that was an invaluable beginning to outsourcing, to giving specialists opportunities to do jobs that they could best do. But one of the things we had to do was to make sure the employees were considered in everything we did, including health insurance, including an early start with daycare, to make certain our employees were happy and thus productive.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am happy to yield, with the proviso that I regain the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the leadership of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for their resolve in pushing forward with reauthorization for Federal railroad safety programs. The bill reported out of committee, S. 1402, the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act, will reauthorize the Federal Railroad Administration, and make many important updates to continue to ensure safety on the Nation's railroads. In particular, I thank the chairman for his commitment to work with me to address a problem that has been brought to my attention regarding the use of railroad police officers. These railroad employees, who are commissioned by States with law enforcement authority on the railroad property, are given certain police powers for protecting railroad employees, railroad property, and the general public. The Federal Government, recognizing that these personnel perform important functions, has taken steps to extend this authority across States borders, as many North American railroads are extensive and traverse State boundaries. In this reauthorization, we look to extend this authority even further, to allow rail police officers to conduct law enforcement activities with respect to railroads other than the rail police officer's employing railroad, as our national system of rail transportation is an interconnected system. While I welcome this extension, as these officers perform an important security function to protect our rail system, I feel we should take a closer look at a related problem--the potential for abuse of this police power. As a special case of law enforcement officer, rail police officers answer to private sector employers and are not directly accountable to the public like most law enforcement officers. I am mindful that this could present potential for abuse--that under guide of State law enforcement authority, these rail police officers could engage in activities unrelated to law enforcement, such as enforcing railroad company policies or even labor agreements. Given the potential for abuse, I was prepared to offer an amendment to the bill during the committee's executive session to address this problem. However, the chairman has graciously committed to working with me to resolve the issue, and I look forward to working with him.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, tonight we got some good news. I want to just say a few words about the FAA bill because we have resolved the issue on air traffic control. The good news is that tonight we scored a victory, a victory for safety and a victory for homeland security. As many of my colleagues know, I held up the FAA traffic control bill in order to get some assurance that the safety and security of the flying public would not be jeopardized by the privatization of the air traffic control system. I am pleased to announce that we have now received an assurance from the administration regarding fiscal year 2004. Until the end of this fiscal year, the administration has agreed not to privatize any components of our air traffic control system. The controllers are protected, the technicians are protected, the flight service station controllers--all of those units that make up the air traffic control system--are protected. We have a letter stating the administration's assurance. Some of my colleagues have asked why I was doing this: Why do you feel so strongly about it? I put it in personal terms. I told them: Because I don't want my grandchildren or your grandchildren or the grandchildren of our constituents put in danger by a risky privatization scheme. That is what was at stake here. I extend my thanks to many of my colleagues for their support in this fight, specifically our Commerce Committee ranking member, Senator Hollings, and the subcommittee ranking member, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Dorgan, and the leader and assistant leader of our caucus, Senators Daschle and Reid. They always stayed strong and said ``safety first.'' Senator Lott has been an honest broker throughout this process. He kept the discussions alive. It was a tough fight. But at the heart of this fight was the reality that it was a bipartisan decision. In June of this year, 11 Republicans voted to prevent privatization, to stand up for safety. I know we often get pressured to vote with our caucus or vote with our party's President, but sometimes you just have to stand up for your constituents' safety, and that is what my Republican friends did here. Within days of returning to the Senate earlier this year, I learned that the administration intended, through this A-76 process, to privatize air traffic control. In my previous 18 years, I had an active interest in aviation and the air traffic control system. But the moment I learned of the administration's actions, I knew I would spend much of this year fighting to prevent that action from taking place. We won a Senate vote to prevent privatization. We fought off the terrible first conference report. We fought the pending conference report until we received the assurances that we got tonight. But the fight is not over, and I will continue to push for a permanent prohibition. In the words of California's current Governor, I'll be back. We are going to fight this again, and we will keep fighting it until it goes away for good. I am reminded, 700 million people fly in our skies every year, roughly 2 million a day. Our system is going to be pushed to the limits of capacity in these next couple of weeks in what will be the busiest travel day of the year. I hope travelers will rest assured knowing that control of the skies will be in the hands of professionals, the Government employees who make up the air traffic control system. This is the greatest air traffic control system in the world, most safe, most efficient. There are 15,000 Federal air traffic controllers and thousands of professional systems specialists and flight service station controllers. These are the men and women who keep our skies safe and secure. But there are some obvious lessons we need to heed, those of September 11, when the air traffic control system worked flawlessly to bring home safely some 5,000 airplanes in just a couple of hours. These are the lessons from other countries that have tried this. They were left with just what could be expected: Less safety, more delays, and more cost in the end. There are lessons from the space program. I look forward to examining these issues during the policy debate to which our chairman is committed. I hope there can be an adequate discussion for the American people so they can learn how, after next year, the White House proposes to put their safety and security at risk--if they do, all for the benefit of the profit motive. I would like to mention one other item in this bill that is of particular importance to the State of New Jersey. Our great State has a proud history of aviation with a number of public use airports. Certainly the occupant of the chair understands since aviation in Alaska is the lifeblood of that beautiful State. Our great State has a proud history with a number of public use airports, and now some of these airports are disappearing, giving way to urban sprawl and development. To help stem this problem, a key provision in this bill establishes a pilot program which offers additional tools to States to enable them to preserve these public use airports. I am hopeful this program will be used to keep these important facilities for general aviation, corporate, and agricultural uses, and the medevac and firefighting uses which depend on sufficient airport facilities to continue to operate. I commend the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Chairman McCain, for working with me on this provision. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the statement of Senator Kyl, Senator Graham of Florida be recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to join many of my colleagues in strongly opposing this Energy bill. The opposition is not reserved to only Democrats; the opposition is for those people who think about the implications of this bill and the serious concerns it raises. For one thing, it is terribly lopsided. It is out of balance. It is heavily weighted toward the industry because it was written by just a few select individuals with almost no conference input by Democrats. The bill is an embarrassing example of the public's worst fears about Washington power politics, and those power sources are the oil and gas lobbyists downtown. Though it is called the Energy Policy Act of 2003, this bill promotes the outdated policies of a generation ago. It should be called actually the Energy Policy Act of 1903. The policy here is simple: Drill for oil, drill for natural gas, dig for coal. While the country needs oil, natural gas, and coal, we also need leaders with a vision to promote clean sources of energy that won't harm the health of our children, our grandchildren, and future generations. It is the 21st century, and we have the technology to do better. According to the Congressional Research Service, between 1948 and 1998 the Federal Government subsidized the energy industry by well over $100 billion. Unfortunately, less than $1 in $10 was used to promote renewable energy, that which you can find relatively easily and without the pollution that our present energy sources convey to the public. Now, in this single bill, we are being asked to spend another $50 billion to $100 billion on tax credits and loan guarantees to the oil, gas, and nuclear industries. How will all of those taxpayer dollars be spent? They will be spent on a long list of brazen giveaways to polluting uranium companies, Archer Daniels Midland, to MTBE producers, and for a smattering of goodies and pet projects. Taking care of special interests has become a hallmark of this Congress. Peter Jennings highlighted it in a perfect example on the evening news the other night. He reported that taxpayers have so far contributed $1.3 billion to subsidize wealthy individuals who buy the biggest gas guzzlers sold in America. As he pointed out, one couple received $17,000 in tax breaks on their new SUV and boast: ``We have decided to take two extra vacations this year with the money we saved.'' But for the energy they used, they pose a whole different kind of issue. Why is the answer around here always to hand over cash to rich people and successful companies? Can we really justify turning over the hard- earned tax dollars of Americans, who do not earn enough to benefit much from the Bush tax cuts, to companies flush with cash? Here is an issue that was announced August 1, 2003: ``Chevron Quadruples Profits.'' It goes on to say: Oil giant Chevron Texaco increased quarterly profits four times to $1.6 billion. Their revenues soared to $29 billion in the quarter. Do these companies really sound as if they need Government subsidies to do their job? Not to me. We have the perfect opportunity to guide the country toward clean, renewable energy. Yet most of the bill's tax credits for efficiency and renewables last only 2 or 3 years. Any business person knows this is not a sufficient time period to encourage significant investments and technology development. We Americans have always set ourselves apart by our ingenuity and creativity. Today, amid an avalanche of promising scientific discoveries in the field of energy, the majority can see no further than the lobbyists' interests which this bill follows to the letter. Recently, I read that in Amsterdam, a major European chip manufacturer has discovered a new way to produce solar cells that will generate electricity 20 times cheaper than today's solar panels. ST- Microelectronics, Europe's largest semiconductor maker, says that by the end of next year it expects to have the first stable prototypes ready. If a decade ago we had been serious about promoting renewable energy, that discovery could have been made by an American company, but such breakthroughs are unlikely with the minimal incentives offered in this bill for development of better ways to be less dependent on the energy sources we have now. It is also disheartening that this bill grants exemption after exemption to the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and other protective laws. I do not really understand it. Is boosting the profits of giant companies really more important to the bill's authors than the health of the American people? Let us talk about just one of the riders slipped in by House Republicans without a vote from either the House or the Senate. This was snuck in during conference. This rider amends the Clean Air Act, gives cities an easy out if they find meeting the new ozone standard is difficult due to transboundary pollution. It requires EPA to grant them an automatic extension. It does not say for how long. It fails to define the conditions that would precipitate such an extension. The result of this rider, of delaying implementation of the ozone standard for just 1 year, is severe. That rider is estimated to cause 390,000 more asthma attacks, 44,000 of those in my State, 5,000 more hospitalizations, and 570,000 more missed schooldays. That is the result of just one of the many exceptions carved out of our environmental laws by this bill. Among my nine grandchildren, I have two who are asthmatic. The rate of asthma among juveniles is growing substantially. I lost my sister to an asthma attack. It was obviously a devastating event in our family's history. To those who see kids with asthma get fatigued after participating in sports or otherwise, it is the kind of anguish that drives parents to all kinds of anxieties. The bill fails the American people on every level. It fails to boost our energy security, it fails to safeguard electricity consumers, and it fails to protect the environment. It is astounding to look at what this bill does not do. While automobiles account for a whopping 40 percent of our Nation's growing oil addiction, the bill does not address fuel economy at all. The bill comes at the very time when fuel efficiency has arguably never been more important. America's fuel economy is at a 22-year low. Today, the United States spends $200,000 every minute on foreign oil. But the economic costs of weak fuel efficiency requirements go far beyond just the cost of oil. If we include the major oil price shocks of the last 30 years and the resulting economic recessions, the cost goes up at least $7 trillion. Given these hard facts, one would naturally expect a national energy policy to aggressively pursue decreases in oil. It does not. Just the opposite. It generously promotes increases in oil use while tossing what I would call petty cash toward energy conservation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. We never hear a word--and this has happened in Democratic as well as Republican administrations--about sacrifice, conserve, think about what happens when more fuel is ground into toxic emissions. It is terrible that we cannot understand there is a mission attached to saving oil and gasoline use. It is amazing what this bill fails to do on electric policy. This bill contains only one of three provisions the country must enact to prevent another massive blackout such as the Northeast experienced last August. We are being asked to support a dirty Energy bill in order to get one of the fundamental regulatory reforms to our electric grid system. I say the bad outweighs the good, and I cannot support it. Around here, it is often said that the perfect is the enemy of the good, but I say the bad far outweighs the good as an alternative. The administration's energy and environmental policies reflected in this bill are so utterly transparent in their goal of more corporate welfare that the consultant, Frank Luntz, warned the party: Watch your language-- And here he is, the fat cat-- A caricature has taken hold in the public imagination: Republicans seemingly in the pockets of corporate fat cats who rub their hands together and chuckle maniacally as they plot to pollute corporate America for fun and profit. Unfortunately for many, that is no caricature. From where I am standing, that picture is pretty accurate. If one wants proof, look at this bill. It is filled with little but big breaks for those who need them the least. Yet rather than change their policies, Luntz offers them protecting language. He wrote a memo to Republicans instructing them on how to use the language tested on focus groups to hide their deplorable environmental record. This Energy bill is a great disappointment. It might have been acceptable at the beginning of the 20th century, but it is indefensible at the beginning of the 21st century. Mr. President, you know true patriotism is more than waving flags. It means putting the interests of the American people before the powerful special interests, the very thing this Energy bill fails to do. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I want to speak in morning business, but I would be pleased to yield, with unanimous consent, to my friend from Delaware, Senator Biden.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, before the Senator from Delaware leaves the floor, I commend him for his arduous effort here on behalf of reminding the French Government that anti-Semitism is antithetical to a democratic society and to those with whom we have relationships. Senator Biden has worked on this for several years, and he is a voice they will listen to. We commend him again for his thoughts and his remarks.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will vote against the nomination of Major General Robert T. Clark to the rank of Lieutenant General and to the position of Commander, United States Fifth Army. Former President Harry Truman placed a sign on his desk in the Oval Office that read ``The Buck Stops Here.'' As Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Services, President Truman took full responsibility for every action that took place under his watch, at every rank. He never shifted blame, and he never accepted failure. The same, cannot be said for General Clark. In 1999, while General Clark was the commanding officer at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, Private First Class Barry Winchell was bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat by a fellow soldier who believed that Private Winchell was gay. Did General Clark immediately accept responsibility for this terrible incident? Did he use his position of authority to stamp out the hateful and dangerous climate of anti-gay sentiment on the base? No, he did not. Instead, General Clark claimed that there wasn't anything wrong on his base, denying that a vile culture of hate and harassment against gays had been pervasive for some time. But his sentiments do not jibe with reports from soldiers at the base detailing widespread harassment of soldiers thought to be homosexual and the ubiquitous presence of anti-gay graffiti. The hazing and harassment that Private Winchell experienced before his murder were so pernicious that he bravely reported these episodes to the inspector general. This was a very risky course of action because it could have led to Private Winchell's discharge under the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy. On his departure from Fort Campbell, General Clark declared, ``There is not, nor has there ever been during my time here, a climate of homophobia on post.'' Tell that to Barry Winchell's family. Apparently, the buck did not stop with General Clark. Instead of addressing the problem of homophobia at Fort Campbell, General Clark ignored it. Immediately after Private Winchell's murder, General Clark remained silent. He did not condemn anti-gay behavior on his base. He refused to meet with gay rights organizations who simply wanted to address the homophobia prevalent there. Surprisingly, General Clark failed to request the psychological and training services provided by the Army on how to address anti-gay harassment after the murder. General Clark even delayed meeting with Private Winchell's family-- despite their repeated entreaties--for almost 4 years after his murder. I find this particularly inexplicable and inexcusable. The tragic murder of Private Winchell was not the only problem occurring at Fort Campbell. According to an Inspector General review of the base, Fort Campbell suffered from low morale, dilapidated barracks in need of repair, inadequate health care, and significant problems with underage drinking. Today, the Senate faces the decision whether to promote General Clark to a very high-ranking position in the U.S. military. This position requires proven leadership skills. I do not think that General Clark showed leadership at Fort Campbell, either before or after Private Winchell was murdered. He let Private Winchell down. He passed the buck. I rise today to say that General Clark's lack of leadership at Fort Campbell dissuade me from supporting his promotion. I believe this promotion sends the wrong message about what we expect from our commanding officers, especially now in a time of war. I served in the Army Signal Corps in Europe during World War II. Over the course of my three years of service, I never encountered a superior officer who avoided responsibility for his soldiers or their actions. Each and every one of my commanding officers expected and demanded the best from me; their leadership, in turn, inspired me to do my best. I don't think Major General Clark inspires such dedication and service. Therefore, I will vote against this nomination and urge my colleagues to do the same. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce some legislation I consider an emergency because it overrides a misguided policy that threatens our homeland security and exposes our Nation to more vulnerable terrorist attacks. The legislation I am introducing today is called the Terrorist Apprehension Act, and it is cosponsored by Senators Schumer, Feinstein, Corzine, and Reed of Rhode Island. This bill directs the administration to do all it can to apprehend potential terrorists within our borders. Sometimes they do things that defy common sense and are simply hard to believe. This is one of the most outrageous disclosures yet. We have found out if someone on a terrorist watch list--someone who is a potential threat to communities across the country--goes ahead, buys a weapon, applies for a permit to buy a gun, and that information is logged into the gun background check system, the Attorney General has ordered the gun background check system not alert or even be allowed to share critical information with law enforcement concerning the whereabouts of the terrorist--not to give it to the FBI or the ATF or any of the law enforcement agencies. I have to say, this is a mind-boggling policy. We could have a nationwide lookout for a known terrorist within our borders, but if he obtained a weapon, got a permit approved, the Justice Department's current policy is to refuse to reveal any data that might be available for law enforcement officials. It works this way: The subject is on a terrorist watch list. This is a formal thing. The person who is listed on a terrorist watch list-- look out, this guy is bad news, and we do not want him to roam freely. He can go ahead and buy a gun under the rapid response network for a gun permit. The background check is done. Then it goes into a crime database, including the terrorist watch list. The FBI terrorist task force cannot get the information by virtue of this policy because by directive, the Attorney General has said this information should be protected. To me, the protection our citizens need overrides that of these people who are unwelcome to begin with. But nevertheless, once they are on the terrorist watch list, we don't want to give them a lot of courtesy, especially to buy a weapon. In combatting terrorism, Attorney General Ashcroft has shown little concern for core civil rights. That all changes when it comes to gun rights. The Attorney General seems more interested in protecting the rights of terrorists to obtain guns than the protection of our citizens. I know many gun support groups have said: Listen, the terrorists wouldn't buy a firearm on the legal market anyway. But evidence points to something otherwise. An investigation by my staff revealed that since September 11, in somewhere between 13 instances and possibly as many as 21 times--and the reason for the disparity is the information comes from two different places, but it is at least 13 times and possibly as many as 21--a person on the terrorist watch list has attempted to or successfully purchased firearms. Imagine. The madness is that the person gets the firearm and the information is cut off here instead of being available to the FBI and other law enforcement people. In addition, the terrorists know that our gun laws are weak. Found in the ruins of a terrorist training camp that was destroyed by U.S. missiles in Kabul, Afghanistan was a book called ``How Can I Train Myself For Jihad.'' The book discusses the ease with which weapons can be purchased in the United States in order to engage in terrorism. The guns that terrorists have access to in our country can be devastating, such as the 50-caliber assault weapon which would take down a helicopter, as we may have seen. This is according to the Congressional Research Service. That weapon can penetrate 6 inches of steel plating and has a range of a mile. One has to ask: Why is it available at all on the civilian market? On this issue of terrorist access to weapons, it is peculiar, at least, to know that Attorney General Ashcroft's position is at odds with the Department of Homeland Security. During his confirmation earlier this year, Secretary Tom Ridge acknowledged to me in a question publicly that the link between access to guns and terrorism is a dangerous one. Under oath at another hearing, the general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security told me it was his belief that someone on the terrorist watch list should not even be permitted to purchase guns. Not only does the Attorney General think it is OK to allow these guns to be purchased by terrorists, but he thinks it should be done secretly, without law enforcement's knowledge. That has to change. We hope the Attorney General will reverse course immediately. Unfortunately, I doubt he even comprehends the anomaly this generates. This is why it is critical that the Senate pass this emergency legislation before we leave for the year. If we don't, we will put our constituents at risk unnecessarily. My legislation is simple and to the point. It says, if a terrorist buys a gun, law enforcement must be notified right away. We would like to prevent them from getting the gun, but the law, as it is for now, is the FBI, the local police, and the regional terrorist task force must be told the time and the place of purchase. I introduce this bill today and hope that we can pass it as soon as possible.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce some legislation I consider an emergency because it overrides a misguided policy that threatens our homeland security and exposes our Nation to more vulnerable terrorist attacks. The legislation I am introducing today is called the Terrorist Apprehension Act, and it is cosponsored by Senators Schumer, Feinstein, Corzine, and Reed of Rhode Island. This bill directs the administration to do all it can to apprehend potential terrorists within our borders. Sometimes they do things that defy common sense and are simply hard to believe. This is one of the most outrageous disclosures yet. We have found out if someone on a terrorist watch list--someone who is a potential threat to communities across the country--goes ahead, buys a weapon, applies for a permit to buy a gun, and that information is logged into the gun background check system, the Attorney General has ordered the gun background check system not alert or even be allowed to share critical information with law enforcement concerning the whereabouts of the terrorist--not to give it to the FBI or the ATF or any of the law enforcement agencies. I have to say, this is a mind-boggling policy. We could have a nationwide lookout for a known terrorist within our borders, but if he obtained a weapon, got a permit approved, the Justice Department's current policy is to refuse to reveal any data that might be available for law enforcement officials. It works this way: The subject is on a terrorist watch list. This is a formal thing. The person who is listed on a terrorist watch list-- look out, this guy is bad news, and we do not want him to roam freely. He can go ahead and buy a gun under the rapid response network for a gun permit. The background check is done. Then it goes into a crime database, including the terrorist watch list. The FBI terrorist task force cannot get the information by virtue of this policy because by directive, the Attorney General has said this information should be protected. To me, the protection our citizens need overrides that of these people who are unwelcome to begin with. But nevertheless, once they are on the terrorist watch list, we don't want to give them a lot of courtesy, especially to buy a weapon. In combatting terrorism, Attorney General Ashcroft has shown little concern for core civil rights. That all changes when it comes to gun rights. The Attorney General seems more interested in protecting the rights of terrorists to obtain guns than the protection of our citizens. I know many gun support groups have said: Listen, the terrorists wouldn't buy a firearm on the legal market anyway. But evidence points to something otherwise. An investigation by my staff revealed that since September 11, in somewhere between 13 instances and possibly as many as 21 times--and the reason for the disparity is the information comes from two different places, but it is at least 13 times and possibly as many as 21--a person on the terrorist watch list has attempted to or successfully purchased firearms. Imagine. The madness is that the person gets the firearm and the information is cut off here instead of being available to the FBI and other law enforcement people. In addition, the terrorists know that our gun laws are weak. Found in the ruins of a terrorist training camp that was destroyed by U.S. missiles in Kabul, Afghanistan was a book called ``How Can I Train Myself For Jihad.'' The book discusses the ease with which weapons can be purchased in the United States in order to engage in terrorism. The guns that terrorists have access to in our country can be devastating, such as the 50-caliber assault weapon which would take down a helicopter, as we may have seen. This is according to the Congressional Research Service. That weapon can penetrate 6 inches of steel plating and has a range of a mile. One has to ask: Why is it available at all on the civilian market? On this issue of terrorist access to weapons, it is peculiar, at least, to know that Attorney General Ashcroft's position is at odds with the Department of Homeland Security. During his confirmation earlier this year, Secretary Tom Ridge acknowledged to me in a question publicly that the link between access to guns and terrorism is a dangerous one. Under oath at another hearing, the general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security told me it was his belief that someone on the terrorist watch list should not even be permitted to purchase guns. Not only does the Attorney General think it is OK to allow these guns to be purchased by terrorists, but he thinks it should be done secretly, without law enforcement's knowledge. That has to change. We hope the Attorney General will reverse course immediately. Unfortunately, I doubt he even comprehends the anomaly this generates. This is why it is critical that the Senate pass this emergency legislation before we leave for the year. If we don't, we will put our constituents at risk unnecessarily. My legislation is simple and to the point. It says, if a terrorist buys a gun, law enforcement must be notified right away. We would like to prevent them from getting the gun, but the law, as it is for now, is the FBI, the local police, and the regional terrorist task force must be told the time and the place of purchase. I introduce this bill today and hope that we can pass it as soon as possible.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. My goodness, we couldn't privatize it within a year if we started today. That letter doesn't say what it is purported to say.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. On my time, I ask the Senator from Mississippi just one question, if the Senator is available. I want to put a question to him. Can the Senator tell me why Congressman Young from Alaska fought so hard to take two of his airports off of the privatization possibility?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Take a short minute, if you will.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is apparent the Congressman from Alaska wants to make sure his people are safe when they are in and out of that airport. He doesn't want to be privatized, and neither do I, or most of the people in the Chamber. I have great respect for the Senator from Mississippi. He and I will agree on lots of things. When we don't, they are usually deep disagreements. We all want the system to function. The Senator from Arizona certainly understands aviation and how the system operates, but he said something in his remarks that really struck me. No matter what happens, this program is going to get funded. It is going to get funded regardless of the action we take tonight. Why it is that the President of the United States and his people decided to delay implementation of this reauthorization, I will never know. This is kind of like a Custer's last stand: We are going to teach you Democrats something. Don't teach us; teach the American people how you care about them, about their safety. Why, suddenly, are we so concerned about going commercial? We took roughly 28,000 baggage handlers and said, you know what. The private sector can't handle them. They mess up all the inspections. They are terrible. We have to get them in Government hands where we know things can be properly operated. But when it comes to the FAA, the people who responded so heroically when the tragedy of 9/11 struck our country, no, then we want to put security on the cheap. We want them to be operated by Acme Air, or whoever else it is. The aviation industry has had a lot of difficulty. Much of that is because our country had an overwhelming tragedy strike us on 9/11, and so our citizens were afraid to travel. They were afraid to get up in an airplane. Now they don't have to worry so much, except for shoulder- guided missile launchers and except for terrorists constantly trying to break through. And now, to make life easier, we are going to take the FAA, the most well-trained group in the country, people who are on the job 24/7, constantly, they are always there when we need them, regardless of weather, regardless of what else happens--when those airplanes struck the Trade Towers, we are now talking about my neighborhood. I saw the Trade Towers from my apartment house. I didn't see them that day because I happened not to be there, but I notice their absence. It is very clear. The people in the tower at Newark--I know those guys and the ladies. I know them well. I have been up in that tower many times. I used to be commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. I know what goes on in towers. I know we used to gauge rainfall with a pail outside. It wasn't that long ago. The fact is, they could see the buildings burning, and when the order came to take safer action, they did. We are going to soon be voting cloture on the FAA conference report, and it would have passed except for the fact there was an insert put in after neither House had a Democrat in the conference--neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives, neither had a Democrat in the conference. Nevertheless, we are now suddenly delivered a program that includes a recommendation from the White House, which neither body acted upon, and when we voted overwhelmingly to preserve the no- privatization view. On June 24, 2002, just in the aftermath of 9/11, the President signed an Executive order. So this issue has been in the works for some time. We don't have to talk about who is delaying the movement of the reauthorization bill. There it is. June 4, 2002: Section 1 of this Executive order: The first sentence of that order is amended by deleting `` . . . an inherently governmental function.'' That is what the President of the United States said on June 4, 2002, not too many months after 9/11 took place. We took up the FAA bill in June. The Senate spoke loudly and clearly: No privatization. The House also spoke loudly: No privatization. But in the conference, the prohibitions disappeared. Conference leaders simply dropped all the language dealing with privatization. Why did the Members of the conference, sitting behind closed doors, ignore the mandates for safety and security of our aviation system? If you ask them, they say the White House said we had to; so the order. Both Houses of Congress were clear. Both Houses spoke on the issue. Both Houses said no privatization of air traffic controllers. But in the conference, that commitment disappears. Why? Apparently in this Congress, we pass bills in both Houses, and then the White House writes the conference report. It is presented graphically on this chart. House bill: No privatization. Senate bill: No privatization of air traffic controllers. White House position: Silence on privatization. Conference bill: Silence on privatization. That is a coverup. What that means is they can go ahead and do it any time they want to. In this Congress, if the House and Senate agree on something and you throw it out and allow the White House to write whatever they want, we don't usually respond favorably to that happening. The stakes are high because the safety and security of our families, our friends, and our neighbors are at stake. The clearest evidence of this is how our air traffic control system performed on September 11, 2001. The first airplane struck one of the Trade Towers at 8:45 a.m. This chart shows what the skies looked like at that time. The little light green areas represent airplanes. You can barely see the ground. This was 1 hour, and it was even more crowded than that. The order came out to get the airplanes out of the sky, get them on the ground, get people safely to someplace where they could call their families and let them know what was happening. One hour later, 5,000 airplanes were taken out of the sky, directed to land at destinations that were not originally planned, and the picture looks like this chart. It is a lot safer. If my family was flying, I would have been very happy to hear they landed someplace, whether it was in Wyoming or Arizona--anyplace else besides New Jersey. I would have just been happy to know they were on the ground. My State suffered major losses. Almost 700 people--691, to be exact-- from New Jersey lost their lives that day in the World Trade Center attack. We are very sensitive to safety. We know this hits home. This is no academic exercise for us. We know there are families tortured by the loss of a father or mother or brother or sister. My oldest daughter lost her best friend in that World Trade Center. They worked together at one financial firm. My daughter went to law school, and this lady went to a place called Kantor Fitzgerald. They lost 700 of their 1,000 employees. These acts of terror utilizing our aviation system introduced a new era of fear for the U.S. travelers. September 11 also highlighted the heroic act of many public employees who did their jobs, as they do every day, with skill, courage, and professionalism. Emergency responders, rescuers, firefighters, police officers, and other government employees aided people out of the burning buildings. We heard of a historic incident where a couple of policemen and firemen went into the buildings knowing very well their lives were at stake. Unfortunately, they were right; their lives were at stake, but they tried to save others. As our aviation system was both under attack and being used as a means of attack, it was the air traffic controllers who protected the tens of thousands of Americans aboard aircraft at that time. The snapshots we have seen tell us the picture quite precisely. Within an hour of the time that the flights were ordered to the ground, the Nation's air traffic controllers made unbelievable progress. We saw that in the chart. Within an hour, numbers of those planes--huge numbers--were successfully grounded. I repeat, almost 5,000 aircraft were guided safely to the ground in a matter of hours, a tremendous feat. All parts of the system worked well, worked together, and worked safely to bring home those traveling by plane that day. This included roughly 15,000 air controllers, 6,000 technicians, and 2,800 flight service station employees. These people acted bravely and professionally. So why does President Bush want to honor these heroes of 9/11 by firing them? I do not get that at all. The administration plans to privatize our air traffic control system. I heard the distinguished Senator from Mississippi say there are no plans, no, but just take away the safeguards and anything one wants can be done. This conference report allows them to do exactly that. It is a bad idea, truly disrespectful to the thousands of September 11 heroes and disrespectful to all of those who worry about air travel when they read about shoulder-fired weapons and even worse. It is no coincidence that this important section of the FAA bill was omitted without any Democratic input or debate. The American people do not want safety and security on the cheap. They want air traffic control to remain essentially a Government safety function, as it was before President Bush signed that Executive order in 2002. That is why the Senate voted on June 12 of this year--I remind my colleagues who are in the Chamber, talking about who should vote for what--I want everybody in this Chamber to feel like they can look in the mirror and answer the question: What was the best thing I did for the safety and the safeguarding of our airplanes and our passengers? That is to make sure this system stays intact. The Senate voted on June 12, a vote of 56 to 41--we do not have 56 on this side--to ban this privatization. I remind my colleagues that safety and security are not partisan issues. Eleven of my Republican colleagues voted for safety and security. This conference report on the FAA is not the first conference report produced on this bill. Conferees produced an original conference report that was downright strange. How much time do we have remaining on our side?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. For starters, it exempted the State of Alaska. Of course, that has something to do with the fact the chairman of the House Transportation Committee is from Alaska. He did not want his airports privatized. He was very specific. He said: Of course, the criticism of myself is that I exempted the State of Alaska, and here is the reason for that. One, he describes Juneau Field itself to be going under Capstone next year so it would not be eligible to be contracted out. The Merrill Field is a real complex issue. He winds up saying that the airplanes take off right toward my hotel room every morning. I look out and there is one coming right at me. It is an interesting experience and I want to make sure everything is done right in that field. He does not want Acme air controllers to be there perhaps in the middle of a labor dispute or something like that. He wants to know that the tried and trusted hand of the FAA as it is presently composed continues. If he thinks that exempting Alaska is a good idea, let the other States have an exemption, too. The other 49 should just as well be exempt. If the Chair would let me know when we have 10 minutes, I would like to turn that time over to the Senator from West Virginia.