Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. No.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Without losing my opportunity to the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, since 1789, every session of the Senate has been opened with prayer. I am proud that the Senate's guest Chaplain today, Rabbi Dr. Bernhard H. Rosenberg, is from my home State of New Jersey. Rabbi Rosenberg is the spiritual leader of Congregation Beth-El in Edison, NJ. As the only child of Holocaust survivors, the late Jacob and Rachel Rosenberg, Rabbi Rosenberg has spent his life teaching the history and effects of the Holocaust. In 1933, there were over 9 million Jews living in Europe. Almost 6 million were killed in the next 12 years. ``Holocaust,'' translated from Greek, means ``sacrifice by fire.'' The systematic persecution and genocide of millions of innocent people in Europe was a ``sacrifice'' the civilized world must never forget. I have met with Holocaust survivors, and I have seen the concentration camps. It was a hideous time in our world's history. But it is vital to learn about it, and it is vital to talk about it. Rabbi Rosenberg serves his community as a leader, teacher, writer, and spiritual adviser. He is an impressively educated man, with multiple degrees in communication and education, and his ordination and doctorate of education from Yeshiva University in New York. Rabbi Rosenberg teaches Holocaust Studies at the Moshe Aaron Yeshiva High School of Central New Jersey, and has taught at Rutgers University and Yeshiva University. Rabbi Rosenberg has authored four books, with ``Theological and Halachic Reflections on the Holocaust'' now in its second printing. He is the spiritual leader of Congregation Beth-El and a model citizen in New Jersey. Rabbi Rosenberg has dedication and commitment that is unparalleled. He is the editor of a Holocaust publication distributed by the Rabbinical Assembly and editor of the New York Board of Rabbis Newsletter. As Interfaith Chairman of the New Jersey State Holocaust Commission, Rabbi Rosenberg is associate editor of the State-mandated curriculum on Holocaust and Genocide. Rabbi Rosenberg is chairman of the Human Rights Commission and chaplain of the Department of Public Safety, police and fire, of Edison, NJ. He is president and founder of the New Jersey Second Generation Holocaust Survivors' Group. The work of Rabbi Rosenberg has not gone unnoticed. He recently received the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Humanitarian Award. He also received the Chaplain of the Year Award from the New York Board of Rabbis for his efforts during and following 9/11. On June 10, 2002, Rabbi Rosenberg was presented with the annual Rabbi Israel Mowshowitz Award by the New York Board of Rabbis. We are privileged to have Rabbi Rosenberg of Edison, NJ, to lead the Senate in prayer today.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to support S. 1215 and to express my dismay about the current human rights situation in Burma. On May 30, opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and at least 17 officials of her party were detained after a violent clash with members of the Union Solidarity Development Association, a government-created organization that has increasingly taken on paramilitary activities. The military junta that rules Burma has stated that ``only'' four died in the violence. But the National League for Democracy, Suu Kyi's party, has put the death toll at 75. Furthermore, it is likely the Burmese Government deliberately provoked the clashes to justify cracking down on opposition leaders and closing down universities. Since May 30, the junta has kept Suu Kyi, who is the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, in an undisclosed location. We have recently received word from a U.N. envoy that Suu Kyi is safe, and members of the Burmese Government have promised that they will release her expeditiously. I join with my colleagues in this body, and with the American people, in demanding that the Burmese regime fulfill this promise immediately. The Government must also find those responsible for the violence and hold them accountable. The bill we have before us today addresses the serious human rights situation in Burma. The recent violence and detainment of opposition leaders exemplify Government repression conducted on a systematic and frequent basis. S. 1215 would punish Burma's dictators, who have a chokehold on the nation's economic life, by barring the import into the United States of goods manufactured in Burma and by freezing the U.S. assets of the regime's leading generals. These are targeted sanctions that would punish the military dictators in Burma, those who are directly responsible for suppressing human rights there. Nearly 55 years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and only weeks after fighting a war to liberate 24 million Iraqis, the U.S. Senate must remain steadfast in its resolve to preserve the freedom of peoples throughout the world. As a strong advocate for human rights and democratic governance in Southeast Asia, I call on this body to stand up to the military junta of Burma by passing this important legislation. We need to send a message to these thugs that their brutal reign of oppression and terror does not go unnoticed and will not last.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of Senator Graham's amendment. This amendment, which I cosponsor, would strike language in the Energy Policy Act that would authorize an inventory of the oil and gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf. This amendment mirrors a bill that Senator Corzine and I introduced last month. It would protect the sensitive marine areas off the coast of New Jersey and of other coastal States. For over 20 years both Democratic and Republican administrations have respected the moratorium on leasing and preleasing activities on Outer Continental Shelf. In his 2004 budget request, President Bush also honored the wishes of the coastal States. His request included the traditional moratorium language--and so should the Energy bill before us. The people of New Jersey, and the residents of all coastal States, do not want oil and gas rigs marring their treasured beaches and fishing grounds. Such drilling poses serious threats to our environment and to our economy, and so do the technologies used to gather data. The seismic surveys authorized in the Energy bill produce explosive pulses which have produced documented organ damage in marine species and have been associated with fatal whale strandings. Dart core sampling, also authorized in the bill, is known to cause the destruction of fish habitat on the sea floor and to smother seabed marine life with silt. Is all of this damage and destruction justified--just to gather data? I don't think it is. Additionally, in New Jersey our economy depends heavily on shoreline tourism. Tourism in my State is a 10-billion-dollar-a-year industry and provides employment for thousands of people. We simply cannot afford damage to our shorelines, nor to the marine life which inhabits our coastal waters. What the Energy bill proposes is a step in the wrong direction. What purpose would be served by performing an inventory of oil and natural gas resources along the Outer Continental Shelf, if there is no intention of drilling in these regions? This provision completely undercuts the language which Congress has approved for years--and it clearly undercuts the stated wishes of the coastal States that would incur the greatest damage. Our country needs new sources of energy. And there are many energy sources vastly underutilized in America. We have barely scratched the surface of our country's potential for developing renewable energy. The enormous energy conservation and efficiency savings that are possible are largely untapped. Too often these measures are voluntary rather than a part of the way we do business. If we better utilize these untapped sources of domestic energy, perhaps Congress won't be tempted to sweep aside the will of the people of New Jersey and the will of the citizens of other coastal States. We must continue, as we historically have, to recognize the right of States to govern their own shorelines. I urge my colleagues to vote for Senator Graham's amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to talk about something that is unrelated to any of the subjects we have been discussing today. I rise to talk about the news we just heard about an explosion in Israel and the killing of 13 to 15 people--and it is going to be more because, in addition to that, there are over 50 who have been seriously injured. We have witnessed an attack like this on innocent civilians by mad men who encourage a son, a daughter, a brother, or a sister to blow themselves to smithereens, and their mission is to simply kill innocents. For a few moments, let's review a scenario that perhaps would be better understood in our country. Think about a shopping mall or a busy street in New York, Detroit, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, or Louisiana, and think about people who might be on the bus, youngsters going to school, people going to the doctor, people going to work, people carrying on commerce, and imagine that someone came along with a bomb in one of those cities, Washington, DC, and created an explosion that killed 700 people at one shot. That is the equivalent, if we take the size of Israel, about 6 million people--we have 280 million--it is about 45 to 1, so just do the multiplication. We are talking about 700 people who would die in this senseless attack. What would our response be in America? We would call out the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the FBI, the police, every agency that could retaliate, either to capture or gun down the leader of an organization that would seduce a young person to sacrifice their life for such a heinous purpose. Purportedly this was a response to a tragic accident that took place as the Israelis were pursuing the leader of Hamas, the organization that took credit today for killing those innocent people and that takes credit for lots of attacks on innocent people in Israel. So there was a pursuit by the Israelis of the leader of Hamas because Hamas was an organization that helped take five soldiers' lives in Israel on Sunday night. Unfortunately, the hunt went awry and some innocent people were tragically killed. When an attack such as that takes place, it is in response, it is in retaliation, to the violence that was visited upon the citizens in Israel. When these attacks take place, there is only one mission. They are not hunting criminals. They are not trying to capture somebody. What they are doing is killing innocent people--young people, old people, it does not matter. Today's horrible attack on Jerusalem is another illustration of why Hamas has no place in any peace process. Hamas is a terror organization, has always been a terror organization, and desires to continue as a terror organization. I think it is time for the world to recognize that Hamas is in the same league as al-Qaida, and we know what we did when our people were attacked. We did the right thing. We sent our troops out. We were looking to capture the leader of that organization. We would not stand by 5 minutes and accept it. And Israel should not stand by 5 minutes and accept it. We cannot look at the equal violence on both sides of the issue in Israel and with the Palestinians. They are not the same. Israel's attacks are always in retaliation for violence that was put upon Israelis. The other side delights in recording the fact that a suicide bomber took 8, 10, 12 lives, their count--600 people, or whatever the number is, in equivalence in America. It is time to understand what is going on there. I strongly believe the peace process has to continue, but it should continue with Palestinian leaders who have demonstrated that they are interested in peace, as is now-Prime Minister Mr. Abbas. I commend the administration for deciding to reengage in the Mideast conflict by introducing and promoting a roadmap, a design, for Middle East peace. President Bush's recent visit to the region was an important first step in renewing U.S. commitment to this endeavor, and the administration has to remain committed to peace in the area. President Bush must forcefully deliver a message to the Palestinians about their need to reconstitute and consolidate their security agencies in order to fulfill their stated goal to deter and punish terrorists such as Hamas, and he has to tell the Israelis that they have the right to defend themselves. They have made very important overtures, especially when it comes to talk about dismantling some of the settlements. Mr. Abbas' clear statement that the violence of the intifada was a betrayal of the Palestinian cause is the most important reason that there is hope for progress in the Middle East. I am also encouraged that as a goodwill gesture Israel has opened its borders to Palestinian workers, released about 100 Palestinian prisoners, and has begun to dismantle some outposts. They are important first steps. Israel and the settlers have to come to terms with the inevitability of dismantling some settlements in order to allow for the eventual creation of a contiguous Palestinian state. I was gratified to hear five Arab leaders--President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah of Jordan, King Hamada of Bahrain, and the new Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas--release a statement last Tuesday, June 3, clearly asserting that they oppose terrorism and will not finance or arm extremist Palestinian groups. This statement was long overdue. Right now the Arab leaders must translate this statement into action through one central task, and that is strengthening the hand of the new Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas. This means conferring on Mr. Abbas the authority they once gave Yasser Arafat and condemning violent groups such as Hamas and their rejectionist agendas. Only a united international front critical of terrorists and supportive of Mr. Abbas' plan for the Palestinians' future can facilitate the implementation of the roadmap. The United States should continue exerting pressure on Syria to shut down its support for Palestinian terrorists, Hezbollah, and other organizations, the organizations that have no function except to disrupt the prospect for peace. They should encourage the withdrawal of the Syrians from occupied Lebanon and stem any production or research on weapons of mass destruction. Sometimes it is hard to understand why an embattled country like Israel will be so effective, so hard, in its response. It is only hard to understand if you have not been there. This is a country that seeks peace more than any other place on Earth that we can imagine. They have lost thousands of people, perhaps hundreds of thousands in the equivalent American counts. There is a history of the people there that says they are always the subject of some cruelty, some attacks, some injury, some dead, from outsiders. The last century saw the killing of millions of Jewish people. That sets a tone. That tone says, make peace, make life satisfactory. Do the things you have to to create a society, a country. Do what we can do about fighting disease, research what can be done about turning arid lands into farm lands, do what can be done to make life more livable. Yet, these criminal organizations continue to press their attack on Israel. I make this suggestion. If the people in Paris or London or Berlin or other capital cities around the world had an attack such as this, we would have a response from the U.N. and everybody else. But when it comes to attacks on Israel, there is a notable silence, except for the only friend that Israel has in the world, and that is the United States and the American people. We look with horror and grief at what took place this day. Unfortunately, this is not an unusual occurrence as far as Israel is concerned. We have to say that we in the United States of America will not tolerate this kind of violence, that we are going to let Israel fight back as hard as she has to, to defend herself and force the communities in the Middle East to understand that there will be no peace for anybody. That is very dangerous. That conflict could escalate into a major confrontation in other parts of the world. We send our sadness and condolences to the people of Israel. We wish them well in the future and hope peace will soon be the only confrontation that takes place, and that would be across the table. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senate is poised to pass H.R. 1625, a bill to designate the United States Post Office located at 1114 Main Avenue in Clifton, NJ, as the ``Robert P. Hammer Post Office Building.'' Robert Hammer was a dedicated public official, working as City Manager of Clifton, NJ, for 7 years before his death last December at the age of 54. Among the many accomplishments during his tenure, Bob Hammer oversaw a nationally recognized recycling program and helped improve town parks and playgrounds. It is particularly gratifying that the Senate will pass this measure in time for the facility's dedication ceremony this Saturday, June 14. It will mean so much to Bob's family to have this bill passed in time for the dedication. I also thank Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman for their help in getting this measure passed so expeditiously.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thought we were going to be discussing the candidate for office. I am sorry we kind of got off into another discussion. We are not filibustering this appointment. We are happy about this appointment. I want the chance to say that, and take what has happened as an indication of what can happen. I rise today to support the confirmation of Michael Chertoff, whom I know well, to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. I am pleased that President Bush has selected this distinguished New Jerseyan for this important seat on the court of appeals. I hope that tells us where, in fact, we might be going with future appointments. Mr. Chertoff is a highly intelligent and competent lawyer who has compiled a long and impressive record of accomplishment in both the public and private sectors. Mr. President, I ask the Chair, if I could, to remind me if I run past, let's say, 8 minutes so that my colleague, Jon Corzine, has a chance to speak.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, Mr. Chertoff was born in Elizabeth, NJ, and distinguished himself academically as an undergraduate and law student at Harvard University. After law school, he served as a law clerk to Judge Murray Gurfein on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. After he clerked on the Second Circuit, Michael Chertoff served as a clerk to a legendary jurist from the great State of New Jersey--U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan. Justice Brennan was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1956 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he spent 34 years on the Court. He is universally regarded as one of the most influential Justices of the second half of the 20th century. If Mr. Chertoff follows the legacy of his mentor, the Third Circuit is going to be in great hands. In 1990, Mr. Chertoff became the U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey. He remained there until 1994. During his able tenure, he aggressively tackled organized crime, public corruption, health care, and bank fraud. He also played a critical role in helping the New Jersey State Legislature to investigate racial profiling. ``Driving while Black,'' as they say, should not be a crime in any State in the Nation, and I know Mr. Chertoff agrees. That is why I introduced the first bill in the Senate to ban racial profiling. And I am grateful to Mr. Chertoff for the interest he took in this matter at the State level. As a result of Michael Chertoff's contribution, I am proud to report that just a couple of months ago New Jersey enacted the strongest antiracial profiling law in the Nation. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals is one of the most impressive courts in the country. Based on his past performance, I am confident Mr. Chertoff will fit right in. As you know, I have strongly opposed some of the President's judicial nominees. I believe some of them are not appropriate for the Federal bench, not simply because they may not have compiled the kind of record that speaks to fairness and balance on the bench but because of a refusal, let's say, to even discuss the views they hold and what their background might be. I think it is inappropriate. Again, I did not want to discuss the process. I want to discuss the individual. And that is where I think we ought to go. But in this case, we have a candidate, and I stand here as an American, as a Democrat as well, to fully support the appointment of Michael Chertoff because he has the talent and ability to render justice fairly. I believe some of the nominees who came up were on a mission to curtail fundamental civil rights laws and protections. Others, as I said, have simply refused to answer important questions that would permit Senators to execute their constitutional duty for advice and consent. The fact is, there are many highly qualified candidates that the President could nominate to the circuit courts, the appeals courts, who would enjoy broad support in the Senate from both Democrats and Republicans. Mr. Chertoff is one such candidate. So I enthusiastically support his nomination to the Third Circuit. I urge my fellow Senators to support this consensus nominee who will serve the people of New Jersey and the Third Circuit ably and competently. I thank you, Mr. President, and yield my remaining time to my colleague from New Jersey.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the Lincoln-Snowe amendment to H.R. 1308 to reinstate the child tax credit for low-income working Americans. The House and the Senate went to conference on the reconciliation bill. For the public at large, when we talk about a reconciliation bill, it is kind of arcane. The House and the Senate confer to get a bill together, with each side presenting the views of its Members. I am not sure I am making it more clear, but I want to make sure this is understood. When those conferees got together, they stripped out this tax credit for low-income working people. I thought that was a most outrageous act. The Bush tax cut bill was already a handout to wealthy elites. It threw token benefits to some others and virtually nothing to working people. Taking out the tax credit for families earning between $10,500 a year and $26,625 a year added outrage to an insult. When the President was forced, as a result of the agreements in the Congress, to reduce the tax cut to $350 billion, he and the House Republicans had to search for about $30 billion in ``fat'' to cut out of the bill to meet that target. Why didn't they slow down the reduction in the top rate? It is a pretty easy thing to do. What did they do instead? They went after low-income working families. These are people who are working at or just above minimum wage. These are Americans who are feeding their families by laboring in cafeterias, cleaning offices, working late at night, working in the factories packing food or making clothing, working in retail chains and small stores across the country--jobs that are traditionally at the low end of the pay scale. These people work hard and are a significant part of our labor force. I know there are those in the administration who do not have any idea what it is like to work for low wages and try to raise a family on them. I learned what it was like from my parents, who were brought here as child immigrants. They knew what it was like and I knew what it was like because my parents were poor. They worked hard and tried to give their children an example of respect for hard work, and to hold out ideals, even though there was little money. The Lincoln-Snowe amendment is about restoring the American dream. It is about knowing that this country is a fair and honest place, where someone willing to work can still make a living. It is about knowing that this Government and this Congress respect hard work and loyalty to families. The Bush tax bill telegraphed a terrible shift in the message our Government is sending to the country. Despite the once revered view that hard work pays off and breeds respect, President Bush and the House Republicans failed to support that contention to millions of hard-working Americans. Why did they do it? Why did they drop a tax benefit that would have helped almost 12 million children who have low-income working parents? Why? The tax credit for hard-working minimum wage families was thrown overboard to make room for even more tax cuts for the highest income earners in our country. The cost of the tax credit to low-income families was $3.5 billion--not an insignificant sum by any means. But we could have found more than that by nicking the reduction to the top income tax rate by just a little bit. This is the rate the people at the top of the income scale will pay. We are talking about people who make over $1 million a year. We are talking about the top 1 percent of the country, households with average incomes over $350,000 or so. These are the people who are going to profit most from the President's tax cut. We are going to reduce the rate, the income tax rate that they will have to pay. If we only reduced that top rate to 35.3 percent instead of a flat 35 percent for the years 2003 through 2005, we would have saved $3.9 billion, and the cost of the tax credit for low-income families is $3.5 billion. That is a lot of money. But not in the context of a $350 billion tax cut package; it is only 1 percent. There would have been more than enough to save the child tax credit. White House spokesmen repeatedly claimed that President Bush's tax bill would provide a tax cut for every American taxpayer. But that was not true. The final bill left out 8 million working Americans and almost 12 million children. The wealthy certainly got their tax cut. It was approximately $90 billion in tax cuts over 10 years that will go to 200,000 households nationwide with annual incomes of $1 million or more. That is about $450,000 per household. President Kennedy said, ``To govern is to choose.'' To give massive tax cuts to people who are already well off, and then tell hard- working, low-income families, ``Sorry, there is nothing left for you,'' is awful. That is not a choice I want America to make. Fortunately, after some gentle pressure from the media and outraged constituents, the Republican majority has seen how egregious that plan was and they now support the Lincoln-Snowe amendment. It is about time we did something to help families who are struggling, and not just the fortunate few who are coasting. We have the opportunity to repair some of the harm caused by the President's unfair tax plan with this amendment. I urge its adoption. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President I rise today to pay tribute to and wish a happy birthday to one of my dearest friends, Louis Reich. Louis was born on May 24, 1903 in Brooklyn, NY, the middle of three children. His sister Anne is now 102. By the time he was 15, Louis had a job at a big law firm on Wall Street where he made 25 cents for a car fare and food. For lunch he ate at Max's Busy Bee where he could get a frank, beans, waffles, ice cream and coffee for 15 cents. Those were the days. Everyday he would come up from Max's basement location and encounter men standing in the middle of the street yelling up to people in four surrounding buildings. These men were called ``brokers'' and they were buying and selling stocks. In fact, Louis was witnessing the birth of the New York Curb Exchange. He was so entranced with the scene that he got a job as a runner paying $8 a week. Wanting a way to make more money, he headed to Jerome B. Sullivan & Co., where he was hired as a clerk. By the time he was 22, he was the head cashier at Sullivan making $100 a week plus bonus. Soon afterwards he formed the New York Curb Cashiers Exchange and was elected president. In 1923, he was introduced to Kitty Hirshleifer by his closest friend Jerry Goldberg. Four years later, Louis and Kitty were married. When Louis got his bonus from Sullivan that month the company made him a partner and he spent his newfound wealth on a trip to the coast, a new Cadillac and an apartment for $125 a month. Not many apartments available at those rates in New York today. The crash came in 1929 and Louis was left nearly penniless. Demonstrating his adaptability he purchased a seat on the Curb Exchange with his brother Al and his cousin Ernie. His salary was now $50 a week. From 1933 to 1938 Louis became an arbitrageur. He sensed that the Canadian market was becoming competitive and through connections in Canada he started to urge companies to apply for listing on what used to be the Curb Exchange, but now known as the American Stock Exchange. He formed a partnership with Moe Weiss which lasted for many years. Around 1955 Lou became a governor of the American Stock Exchange and chairman of the listing committee. A few years later in 1959 I met Lou when his back-office manager saw an ad about a company who could process payrolls. It was a company I know a little about, Automatic Data Processing. At that point I was the company's salesperson and Reich & Co. signed on. We became dear friends ever since. I owe Lou a great deal because he really spread the word about ADP. Henry Taub worked to have ADP handle all of the back office operations. Within a year ADP had a system to process securities transactions. Today, in large part thanks to Lou, ADP is one of the largest payroll and securities processing firms in the world. Louis Reich is now 100 years old. He brings a wonderful history and an important legacy of leadership in one of the most important industries we have. The investment and finance sector helped build this country's pre-eminence in the global economy to the point that it has become. He has many happy, exciting memories. The names he remembers from that bygone era--those who worked for him--and with him are too numerous to mention here. And the one person who stood by him through it all--the one person who will be forever in his heart and who truly would have enjoyed this day--his darling wife--Kitty, the one who he misses most of all. They are all here in spirit and will never be forgotten. We wish him many more years that we can celebrate together.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, President Bush inherited the strongest economy in history and has run it into the ground. When he took office in January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, was forecasting a cumulative, 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. Now, the CBO is forecasting a 10-year deficit of $2.1 trillion. You can't mangle the economy that badly by accident; it has to be by design. The design is something that President Bush's father once called ``voodoo economics.'' The theory behind ``voodoo economics'' is that massive tax cuts for the wealthiest among us will somehow ``stimulate'' the economy. The theory should be discredited by now. It certainly didn't work in 2001. Since the 2001 tax cuts, unemployment has risen by nearly 50 percent. Two point seven million Americans have lost their private sector jobs under the Bush administration; that is about 3,100 people each and every day since he took office, 129 people each and every hour, or more than 2 people each and every minute. And yet, as Ronald Reagan would say, ``there you go again.'' Just a short while ago, the Republicans passed another ill-advised tax cut skewed to the rich, this one costing $318 billion over 10 years. The only people who will get jobs under the reconciliation bill the Republicans just adopted are lawyers and accountants. As Warren Buffett put it the other day in the Washington Post, ``Overall, it's hard to conceive of anything sillier than the schedule the Senate has laid out. . . . The manipulation of enactment and sunset dates of tax changes is Enron-style account- ing . . .'' Mr. Buffett went on to point out that ``giving one class of taxpayer a `break' requires--now or down the line--that an equivalent burden be imposed on other parties.'' That brings us to H.J. Res. 51. Apparently without embarrassment, the Republicans are willing to vote for another tax cut at a time when we are looking at record budget deficits, and then--on the very same day-- vote for the biggest debt ceiling increase in history, $984 billion. The Republicans' strategy has been to back up the consideration of H.J. Res. 51 so that it is the only thing standing between us and the Memorial Day recess. They want to pass it with as little debate and as quickly as possible. They certainly don't want to amend it. That would send it back to the House, which would be a problem. House Republicans didn't have the courage--and probably didn't have the votes--to pass H.J. Res. 51. So, in a bit of legerdemain that would make President Bush's close friend Ken Lay proud, they ``deemed'' themselves to have passed it as part of the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution. Let me try to put this debt ceiling increase in perspective. President Bush wants $984 billion. That is more than the total debt outstanding when Ronald Reagan took office. In other words, it took this country 200 years to get its debt up to the amount that President Bush wants to add in the 11 months since the last debt ceiling increase. Because of the disciplined economic policies that congressional Democrats and the Clinton administration enacted between 1993 and 2000, the debt ceiling stayed at $5.95 trillion from 1997 to 2001. Debt held by the public actually declined from $3.7 trillion to $3.3 trillion. President Bush's ``voodoo economics'' necessitated a debt ceiling increase for the first time in 5 years to $6.4 trillion last June and now he is back for another $984 billion. In essence, President Bush inherited a ``credit card'' with a $5.95 trillion ``limit.'' He wanted to borrow more to pay for his first round of tax cuts, so he went to the ``bank''--which I call the Bank of Our Children's Future--and got a credit increase last June. But it wasn't enough, so he is back again, asking for another, bigger credit increase. But here's the rub: we all get stuck paying his bill. Right now, that bill is over $22,200 for every man, woman, and child in America. President Bush wants to add another $3,400 to your share of the bill in one fell swoop. For a family of four, that is a total of $102,400. And don't forget: when you run up charges on your credit card and don't pay the balance in full, you get stuck paying interest, too. For that family of four, the interest cost would add another $33,000 over the next 10 years. President Bush just can't wait to get that credit increase so he can pay for his newest tax cuts. That is why I think we should stamp credit card ``Over the Limit.'' I think it is important that each and every American understand what is at stake here. Each year, when Americans get their Social Security account statements, I think those statements ought to include, in plain language, information about the public debt, each person's share of that debt, and the extent to which the Social Security trust fund is being raided. Then, they can make an informed decision about whether they want tax cuts that do nothing to help the economy but do contribute to budget deficits ``as far as the eye can see'' and put a knife to the throat of Social Security, Medicare, and other vital programs. I don't have the time today to discuss why the President and his Republican allies in Congress are pushing policies that deliberately cause deficits; suffice it to say, for now, that it is part of their grand strategy to cripple government permanently. I will have more to say about that on another day. In the interim, I urge my colleagues to vote against bailing out the Bush administration and its allies here in the House and Senate. They have mishandled our economy in a monumental way. People ought to be informed. Amendment No. 833

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the achievements and experiences of Asian Pacific Americans in our country. Asian Pacific American Heritage month, observed during the month of May, celebrates the diverse cultures represented by the over 13 million Americans of Asian and Pacific Island heritage in our country. The theme for this year's APA month, ``Salute to Liberty: Many Journeys, One Dream'' represents Asian Pacific Americans' diverse paths to achieving their goals. In New Jersey, where Asians are the fastest growing racial group, this month is particularly significant. Asian Pacific Americans in my State play important roles such as educating our students, owning small businesses, working on new technologies, and holding public office. The difficult journeys of Asian Pacific Americans include the Chinese laborers who built our Nation's railroads, Japanese Americans who were sent to internment camps during WWII, refugees from Vietnam and other Southeast Asian nations, immigrants from the Indian subcontinent, and Filipino farm workers. Despite the great obstacles faced on these journeys, Asian Pacific Americans have accomplished a great deal and have made major contributions to our country. First and foremost, I would like to recognize the service of Asian Pacific Americans in our Armed Forces, especially as we celebrate Memorial Day. The history of Asian Pacific Americans in military service stretches from William Ah Hang, who enlisted in the U.S. Navy during the Civil War, to the more than 25,000 Japanese Americans who served during World War II, to the young APA men and women fighting terrorism today. In particular, I would like for us to remember Lance Corporate Alan Dinh Lam, a 19 year old Vietnamese-American from North Carolina and Corporal Kempahoom A. Chanawongse, a 22 year old Thai- American who moved from Thailand to Connecticut at age 9. These two young men recently gave their lives for our country during the war with Iraq. I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the contributions of Asian Pacific Americans in space exploration. Kalpana Chawla was the first Indian-American woman to go into space. Although she lost her life during the recent space shuttle Columbia disaster, Ms. Chawla will be remembered for her work in the field of aerospace engineering. Currently, another Asian Pacific American, Eric Lu, is working on the International Space Station. His work is certain to inspire many young men and women interested in space. The brave men and woman I mentioned today are only a small example of the difficult endeavors undertaken by Asian Pacific Americans. It is my hope that recognizing the heritage and accomplishments of Asian Pacific Americans will inspire the next generation to embark upon challenging journeys and reach their dreams.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question? This could be described as ``business unusual.''

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes. Often we say business as usual; this is business as unusual. Does the Senator, in the resolution proposed, talk about terms or performance? Is it not worth noting if this contract were done, if not in the dark of night, certainly at dusk--we do not know the terms--that not only means price could be many times over, there are no performance standards, either, which is pretty darn unusual?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. It turned out to be a fire sale.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield? Does it say the maximum amount the Government could spend?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. So if $7 billion became $10 billion--is there any limitation?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my friend and colleague from California. I support Senator Boxer's amendment regarding the questionable--and it is questionable; friends here know I spent a lot of my time, most of my life, in business, more than I have in the Senate. No-bid contracts are practically nonexistent when they have significant value to either the company, the government, or otherwise. The contract given to Halliburton in early March regarding Iraq's oil infrastructure, this no-bid contract, has raised serious concern. There is good cause. There is no accusation here. It is just a question of what is a good, sensible business practice. I ask every Senator in this body to take a look and ask if they would give out a contract to cut the lawn at their house or cut down trees or paint the house without getting some formal response as to what it might cost. We have a strange happening: no-bid contract. It could be as much as $7 billion, with no ceiling on it. That is the interesting aspect. For whatever reason, the administration has attempted to conceal the scope and the terms of the contract. This attempt to hide information has generated plenty of suspicion. Initially, it was announced that the contract with Halliburton was for the specific and limited purpose of extinguishing Iraqi oil fires. That could be described as emergency and repairing equipment. The initial value of the contract, the initial value, was $50 million. We are now talking about approximately $7 billion, give or take $2 billion or $3 billion--mostly take; I guarantee there is no give, in the hope that no one would ask any questions. This was a no-bid contract given to a company that has strong ties to the administration. Then the details began to change. Six weeks after the contract was originally disclosed, the Army admitted that the contract was not only for putting out the fires and making some repairs--repairs, $7 billion?--suddenly the Army Corps revealed that the contract called for Halliburton to operate the oil wells and distribute Iraqi oil. That is a huge difference. There is the issue of the no-bid process. Perhaps we ought to have a Senate resolution to see how our friends would vote if we said let's go to all no-bid contracts for Government purchases. Sound like a good idea? I doubt it. Asked why the Halliburton contract was awarded in a no-bid fashion, the Army Corps asserted that there was no time for a competitive process and this contract would be of short duration. You can spend $7 billion in a hurry, I guess. We now learn the contract could be worth up to $7 billion. For the past 6 weeks, each time the Army Corps has been questioned about the contract, we hear a different story. I recently have written a letter to Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, the chairman and the ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee of which I sit, asking them to hold a hearing to investigate this contract. I believe the hearing will allow us to finally determine the true scope of this contract and why the administration chose not to have a bidding process and why the information was withheld. Something here is not right. Not only do we need to investigate the process under which this contract was awarded, but we also need to put a competitive contracting process in place for this work in Iraq. We need to ensure for the American people that the Government is not engaged in sweetheart deals for its corporate friends. The amendment of Senator Boxer encourages that the current no-bid Halliburton contract be replaced shortly through a competitive process, and I congratulate the Senator from California for that thought. That is the way it ought to work. The reconstruction of Iraq, particularly the rebuilding of the Iraqi oil industry, is an extremely sensitive endeavor. I believe it is vitally important for the Pentagon to divulge information as to how it awards contracts in a public and systematic fashion. The Halliburton contract and the cloak of secrecy around it must not set a precedent for future contracts in the reconstruction process. In this time of budget difficulties, with our inability to finance programs that have been an important part of the structure of the United States--whether it is education, whether it is prescription drugs or otherwise--for us to go ahead and spend $7 billion without knowing how, why, and when this work is going to be performed is an outrage. I don't think the American public ought to stand still for it. I hope my colleagues on the other side will agree. Many of them are good business-people who have been out there and understand what has been appropriate process in business. I urge my colleagues to support the Boxer amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Further than we can remember.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, will the manager yield a moment?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Just a minute, because I want to second what we just heard from the Senator from California about my friend and colleague from Virginia. We have our policy differences. But when there is something that strikes the right note, I know for the many years we have served together, now about 20, including a 2-year lapse, we were able to agree on things here and there that meant a lot in terms of the process of our functioning. I commend the Senator from Virginia for coming to a negotiated settlement and consensus view that accomplishes what we all wanted. I thank him for his willingness to listen and for me to be able to participate. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am going to support this national Defense authorization bill, S. 1050, but I would like to speak candidly about my reservations about it. When I left the Senate in early 2001, weapon development and troop deployment concerns indeed, even the idea of serious national security threats seemed to be fading into the obscurity of our cold war past. Over the past 2\1/2\ years, this has changed. We now live in a world of multiple and continuously emerging threats, emanating not only from states but also from nonstate transnational groups. What's more, we live in a time when America's superior armed services have been called up for missions that embody the essence of defense transformation. Defense transformation means that our country can overthrow the Taliban regime in Afghanistan 6,000 miles away almost solely from the air. It has allowed special operations forces to train antiterrorist units in places such as Georgia and the Philippines. Finally, defense transformation has meant that military commanders can direct precision-guided weapons at specific office buildings in downtown Baghdad from a command room in Florida. Today we debate the merits of this national defense bill and the important issues it raises regarding the future of weapons control and military research, technology, and development. Let us first acknowledge and express gratitude to the men and women of our armed services. We are proud of their successful wartime mission to liberate Iraq. We wish them continued success in their peace time mission to secure stability for the Iraqi people. As we support our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, we must keep in mind that their ultimate mission is to defend not only America's security interests but also the cause of global security. I have spoken about a new set of threats that require a transformation of our defense budget and priorities. I believe, however, that it is incumbent upon Congress to conceive of defense transformation--indeed our near-and short-term defense needs--in a way that will also seek to protect world peace. I am concerned about elements of S. 1050 that allow the Pentagon greater flexibility in developing, testing, and producing new types of nuclear weapons. The diplomatic and security costs of even beginning research on these new types of nuclear weapons far outweigh any marginal benefits of such weapons. These new nuclear weapon initiatives will further weaken the already struggling international efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. U.S. influence with the international community will erode if it seeks to upgrade U.S. nuclear weapons while demanding that other countries, such as Iran and North Korea, disarm. Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, recently said that instead of developing new nuclear weapons, the U.S. should send a message to potential proliferators that, ``Even though we have nuclear weapons, we are moving to get rid of them. We are going to develop a system of security that does not depend on nuclear weapons because that's the way we want the world to move.'' I agree with Dr. Baradei; I believe the best way to deter nations trying to develop nuclear capabilities is to send the signal that the prospect of nuclear warfare is an idea confined to science fiction movies. I have supported the amendments offered by Senators Reed, Feinstein, and others intended to modify rather than repeal the 1994 Spratt-Furse prohibition on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons. Secretary Rumsfeld has argued that these mini-nukes could be the ideal weapon for going after deeply buried stashes of chemical and biological weapons--the sort roguish regimes and terrorist groups like al-Qaida might attempt to conceal. But at the same time, the Pentagon is considering adapting existing conventional warheads for such bunker busting jobs. We don't need both types of weapons to do the same job. By dangerously treating nuclear weapons as just another explosive in the arsenal, rather than as a deterrent weapon of last resort, researching low-yield nukes threatens to blur the line between conventional and non conventional weapons. Given our interest in preserving the seriousness with which the world regards the nonproliferation treaty, we should not be doing anything in our own arsenals that would confuse this distinction. I would also like to call attention to my amendment, S. 722, that will help protect many endangered species. I am pleased that this amendment passed. I would also like to call attention to an amendment that I have sponsored along with Senator Boxer and Senator Warner regarding a noncompetitive contract granted by the Department of Defense to Halliburton Co. for the reconstruction of Iraq. This amendment will ensure that this no-bid contract gives way to a competitively bid contract expeditiously. I am pleased by the bipartisan cooperation and Senator Warner's leadership in the passage of this amendment. In recent weeks, I have become concerned with the lack of transparency regarding this particular contract--worth up to $7 billion--awarded in a no-bid process to Halliburton and Co.'s subsidiary. The scope of the contract--both the actual task order and the dollar amount--were not fully disclosed by the administration, and information leaked out about it piecemeal, when the Army was pressed for it. It is extremely important that the Pentagon divulge information about the contracts it awards in a public and systematic fashion. I believe that this Defense authorization bill has merits and provides comprehensive funding for the Department of Defense's needs. It will effectively meet the needs of our men and women in the armed services. I am, frankly, very concerned about its authorization of low- yield nuclear weapons research, ballistic missile development, and its reduction of the constraints on nuclear weapons testing.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce, along with my colleagues Senator DeWine and Senator Feinstein, legislation which will make our roads safer and last longer. Anyone who has ever shared the road with a large tractor trailer truck has wondered whether the truck driver is aware of the smaller vehicles around the truck. Anyone who has seen the third trailer on a triple-trailer truck swinging around like the tail end of a snake knows that these trucks are to be avoided. The State of New Jersey sees its share of the Nation's truck traffic, but, incidentally, not its share of federal highway dollars. We are concerned about these 53-foot, 80,000-pound vehicles on our highways and the pressure from other states to increase weight and length limitations to allow bigger trucks to come through our State. This makes truck safety even more important to New Jersey drivers. Twelve years ago, I got a provision into the highway reauthorization bill we call ``ICE-TEA'' to ban triple-trailer trucks and other so- called ``longer combination vehicles'', LCVs, from New Jersey and most other States. At that time and ever since, the trucking industry has fought to defeat and repeal this ban, under the guise of arguments for ``states' rights'' and ``unfair re-distribution of business to railroads.'' But these are not rational arguments for allowing bigger and heavier trucks as well as triple-trailer trucks on our roads. Additionally, the trucking industry's proclaimed hardships have not materialized. In fact, the trucking companies have survived the current laws quite well, and trucks have refined their role in our national freight transportation system. Our bill, the ``Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act, will extend the current limited ban which only applies to our 44,000- mile Interstate Highway System to the entire 156,000-mile National Highway System, NHS. This extension will make more roads safer and will further reduce the wear and tear of our highways and bridges. Bigger trucks are not safe. The U.S. Department of Transportation has determined that multi-trailer trucks are likely to be involved in more fatal crashes--11 percent more--than today's single-trailer trucks. By expanding the limits on triples and other longer combination vehicles to the entire NHS--including more than 2,000 miles of highway in New Jersey--the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Protection Act will save lives and prevent further deterioration of our roads and bridges. Triple-trailers and other LCVs do more damage to our roads and bridges but don't come close to paying associated maintenance and repair costs. The fees, tolls and gasoline taxes paid by the operator of a 100,000-pound truck only covers 40 percent of the cost of the damage that truck does to our roads and bridges. The rest of the taxpayers make up the difference. I believe that motorists should not have to share the road with these dangerous behemoths and pay for the extra damage they cause. I thank my colleagues Senator DeWine and Senator Feinstein for joining me in sponsoring this important legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress to improve the highway safety and increase the remaining life of our country's roads and bridges.