Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Less than 10 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Once again, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania. And I assure my friend from North Dakota, although it is not my time to give, I am happy he is going to be recognized. Mr. President, I want to take just a few minutes to talk about the legislation before us, the CARE Act, and note its timeliness, because I think fundamental to a lot of good ideas is the fact that it is time to encourage participation in the spirit of harmony and unity within our country. I have been struck by the fact I have not heard a call for either participation or voluntary--call it sacrifice, if you will, although compared to what our young men and women are doing in Iraq, nothing we are going to do here looks like that much of a sacrifice--but it does show good intent. To me, that is important. So I am pleased the sponsors of this bill, Senators Lieberman and Santorum, have agreed to make this more palatable by removing controversial language that raised some constitutional and civil rights concerns. The bill contains several very good provisions, including changes to the Tax Code we all hope will increase charitable giving and certainly encourage the spirit of charitable giving, as well as being an incentive. In addition, the bill increases funding for the social services block grant by over $1 billion. That will restore some of the cuts that have been made in the program over the years. This increase in the social services block grant funding will benefit thousands of Americans who are suffering in this economy, who truly need help. If the President's faith-based initiative means anything, then, obviously, this dedication of funding for charitable work by religious and secular charities confirms that is an appropriate thing to do; that is, to look to our charitable interests to firm up the fact we do feel some commitment to commemorate the sacrifice that is being made by so many. If this funding disappears in conference, I think it would be tragic because it would say, OK, if it passes the Senate--and I certainly hope and believe it will--and then suddenly this mystery hole opens up between here and the House of Representatives--and these things often fall in it--then it is left to people who have a curiosity about what happened, as they say, on the way to the other forum, when things just disappear. But it is a convenient sleight of hand for those who really don't want to support it but don't want to be identified with withdrawing their support. So even though this bill is silent on civil rights issues, the President's overall faith-based initiative contains some disturbing civil rights problems. The President has announced several policies that I think should trouble Americans who care deeply about civil justice and equality. The President has issued an Executive order that authorizes organizations that receive Federal funding to discriminate in employment--it is based on religion--for Government-funded positions. That is not fair, it is not appropriate, and I certainly don't think it is appropriate for faith-based organizations. A policy that says ``Catholics need not apply'' should never, ever be funded by the Federal Government. If a religious group wants to restrict employment with their own money, that is their business, but they should not be able to discriminate in staffing up Government programs paid for with public dollars, tax dollars. The American people agree. A poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 78 percent of Americans oppose allowing religious groups that receive Federal funding to discriminate in employment. And it is not merely a hypothetical problem. It is a real-life problem. In Georgia, a man named Alan Yorker sent his resume to a Government- funded faith-based program for troubled youths. The position he sought was paid for with taxpayer dollars. The faith-based group said they were impressed with his resume and called him in for an interview. When Mr. Yorker arrived, he was asked to fill out an application form. The form asked for the name of his church. He wrote in the name of his synagogue. It also asked for the name of his pastor, and he filled in his rabbi's name. When he sat down for the interview, he was told, straight out, they don't hire Jews. A former employee of the organization later told Mr. Yorker they usually throw resumes with ``Jewish-sounding names'' in the trash, but they did not recognize his last name as Jewish. This was a taxpayer-funded job to perform social service work pursuant to a Government program. And President Bush thinks maybe it is OK to deny someone employment because they are of a different persuasion. The administration thinks it is fine for a Government-funded program to tell a Catholic or a Mormon they can't get a taxpayer-funded job simply because of their religion. Well, I disagree. I think it is wrong. And I am going to join my colleagues, Senators Reed and Durbin, in fighting it during this session of Congress. Again, I commend the sponsors of this legislation. The Senator from Pennsylvania did a very good job, I believe, in developing this legislation, for removing the controversial provisions from the bill before us. I hope the bill will further the good work that faith-based and secular charities do every day. While this bill moves in the right direction, the administration is on, I believe, the wrong track regarding civil rights. I hope the President will reverse that course. Mr. President, our faith should bring us together, not divide us. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on April 26, 2003, more than 1,200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, DC, to compete in the national finals of the ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution'' program. Administered by the Center for Civic Education and funded by the U.S. Department of Education, this program is designed to educate students about the importance and contemporary relevance of the Constitution. The program provides curricular materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels and incorporates critical thinking and problem-solving activities to complement the information gathered in classrooms, and gleaned from textbooks. I am proud to announce that the class from East Brunswick High School will represent my home State of New Jersey in this national event. These young scholars have worked conscientiously to reach the national finals by participating at local and statewide competitions. They have earned the honor to come to Washington for the national competition, which is modeled after a congressional hearing and includes oral testimony and questioning before a panel of judges. It is inspiring to see these young people advocate the ideals and principles of our Government, and I wish these budding constitutional experts from East Brunswick, NJ, the best of luck at the ``We the People'' national finals.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by our colleagues, Senator Schumer, Senator Clinton, and Senator Mikulski. The amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania, too, is an amendment that has to be considered favorably. This amendment would provide desperately needed funds to State and local governments to bolster their emergency preparedness. I am pleased the amendment sponsors have included my proposal to reimburse State and local governments for additional costs that they are incurring because they have not replaced the first responders called to active duty in the Reserves or National Guard. Not surprisingly, many local police and fire and rescue and emergency medical service and hazardous material disposal personnel serve in the National Guard and Reserves. More and more, these men and women are being called up for longer and longer tours of active duty, and especially now that the war with Iraq is underway. It is critical that we bolster our military capabilities here and abroad but that we not do it at the expense of our safety and security at home. I have spoken to a lot of mayors in New Jersey. New Jersey shared the impact of the terrible assault on the Trade Centers with New York, as 700 of our citizens died that day. What perplexes them is the fact that here they are being asked to bolster the defenses at home, to make sure they cover the emergency needs, and, in many instances, it takes people away to serve either in the Reserves or the National Guard, to put them on active duty. They do not understand--and I agree with them--why it is we cannot take care of our defenses with strength at home as well as abroad. I am pleased that the amendment sponsors have included my proposal to reimburse State and local governments and Indian tribes for the additional costs they incur replacing their first responders who are called to active duty in the Reserves or National Guard. The 1.2 million men and women who serve in the National Guard and Reserves are a crucial component of our military. They account for just 8.3 percent of the Defense budget but give us the capability, if necessary, of nearly doubling our armed forces. Not surprisingly, many local police, fire, rescue, emergency medical service, and emergency hazardous material disposal personnel serve in the National Guard and Reserves. More and more of these men and women are being called up for longer and longer tours of active duty, especially now that the war with Iraq has begun. It is critical that we bolster our military capabilities here and abroad. But we must not do it at the expense of our safety and security at home. Our local communities must have the necessary personnel to respond to terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies. My proposal would reimburse State, local, and tribal governments for the additional costs they incur when their ``first responders'' who serve in the Reserves and the National Guard are called to active duty for 6 or more consecutive months. Reimbursable costs could include the salary and benefits associated with hiring a replacement or the overtime paid to other emergency personnel who ``fill in'' for the first responder called to active duty. The effect of my amendment would be to make such reimbursements an authorized use of the $500 million contained in the underlying provision. Increasingly, I am hearing from State and local officials who are concerned about the toll that active duty call-ups are taking on their emergency preparedness. According to the Police Executive Research Forum, 452 of 1,002 law enforcement agencies and departments surveyed so far have lost personnel to call-ups. The problem is worse in rural and smaller jurisdictions where just a few call-ups can decimate a police or fire department. State and local governments are facing their worst fiscal crisis in over 50 years. We shouldn't leave them ``holding the bag'' when their first responders get called up. And we should not be making our communities less able to respond to terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies. Again, I thank my colleagues from New York and Senator Mikulski for accommodating my proposal. I think my language makes a good amendment even better and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a brave New Jersey resident, 31 year old Sgt. James Riley, one of the prisoners of war now being held in Iraq. On behalf of the Senate, I would like to express my support for his family and for the families of the other American POWs being held in Iraq. On March 23, 12 members of the 507th Maintenance Co, part of the 111th Air Defense Artillery Brigade stationed in Fort Bliss, Texas, took a wrong turn near An Nasiriyah, a key battle ground city on the Euphrates River in southern Iraq. Iraqi forces ambushed their unit. Five soldiers, including Riley, were taken prisoner of war. The remainder were most likely killed, although their deaths have not been confirmed. Subsequently, Iraqi state-run television aired a gruesome videotape of interviews with Sgt. Riley and the other POWs, and displayed chilling shots of four murdered American servicemen and women. This videotape was then broadcast by television networks all over the world, including the influential Qatar-based Al Jazeera. Sgt. Riley's family, including his parents Athol and Jane Riley, are waiting anxiously for information on their son's condition. The Rileys have experienced a tremendous loss this week; their daughter, age 29, died last Friday after suffering from a rare neurological illness that had left her in a coma since late January. My heart goes out to the Rileys and their friends and family during this painful time. James Riley moved to New Jersey from New Zealand when he was 10 years old. He attended West Field Friends Grade School and he graduated from the Pennsauken High School in 1990. According to his parents, he had always dreamed of serving in the Army and he enlisted immediately after he graduated from high school. I am confident that our superior military will find and rescue the American POWs. In the meantime, I pledge my support for all service men and women serving in the Persian Gulf and for their anxious families at home. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a moving story about James Riley printed in the New York Times on April 2, 2003. This story illuminates the quiet courage displayed by the Rileys as they wait for news of their son, as well as the communal support extended to them by their neighbors.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I thank our good friend from Arkansas. Madam President, the floor is open principally to pay our respects to our citizens, our friends, and our neighbors who are serving now in the Iraqi theater to try to right a terrible wrong that has been perpetrated on the world; and that is, to make sure we get rid of the savage regime of Saddam Hussein and the threat he brings not only to the people in that region but to people across the world. People recognize that were he to continue unfettered in his capacity to develop his military might, it would be quite incredible to witness. The fact is, we are there with so much force and so much skill and so much technology, and still we are facing constant obstacles to our mission of getting rid of the regime and reducing the threat or eliminating the threat that these weapons might bring to that area and to the world at large. New Jersey is the home of McGuire Air Force Base. That is a base that has had members leaving for conflicts over the years, and particularly with the first gulf war in 1990 and presently, and other conflicts that we have seen, because of the mobility of an air wing that we have there to refuel aircraft in the air, both cargo and fighter craft, as well as carrying cargo of substantial proportion and need to the theater so our troops have facilities with which to take care of their needs personally as well as, unfortunately, those facilities that might be called upon if they are wounded or injured in any way. At this moment, New Jersey has about 5,000 people deployed from various Reserve and regular Army and Marine units, as well as other branches of the military. One person, SGT James Riley, was someone we saw on television not very long ago being questioned by his captors, the Iraqis. We have been trying to contact his family to offer our services in whatever way we can, and to see if we can find out something about how he is being treated, to make sure the rules of the Geneva Convention are observed to the letter in the treatment of prisoners. They cannot, under any kind of a rule of civilization or treaties, manhandle prisoners. It is not permitted. You are not permitted to interview on public media. And you are not permitted to interrogate in public. We want the Iraqis to know there is a price to pay for that kind of action. We demand they observe all the conventions that relate to prisoners and their treatment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. At the same time, I wish to pay tribute to a dear friend who passed away yesterday, Senator forever, Pat Moynihan. I came to the Senate 6 years after he arrived here, and we served together for 18 years. We left together at the same time in 2001. I personally will miss him and think fondly of the moments we shared together, but, at the same time, say thank goodness--thank goodness-- that this place and this country had Senator Pat Moynihan. He was a great man, with a brilliant mind, an incredible wealth of knowledge. He will have left a mark forever on our Government and on our society, even at a time when our culture has exhibited an ephemeral quality. We can think of the moments we shared with him, all of us who had the good fortune to serve with him. Because New York and New Jersey are neighboring States and have many similar concerns, he and I worked closely on many issues. We served together on the Environment and Public Works Committee. He will be rightfully remembered as one of the giants who have served in this Senate. He will be able to be compared to the greats at the founding of this country because his half century of contributions to this body and to New York and to the region and to the Nation and to the world are immeasurable. He, like many who are serving now and have served, was born in modest circumstances and was raised in an area on the west side of New York called Hell's Kitchen, a rough and tumble area. He joined the Navy. He served in World War II. And then he went on to earn degrees at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. In the early 1950s, Pat Moynihan worked for the International Rescue Committee, one of the earliest and most effective human rights organizations. Then he joined the administration of New York Governor Averill Harriman, where he met his beloved wife and someone we all love, Liz. Pat and Liz came to Washington with the Kennedy administration, and Pat went on to serve in the cabinet or subcabinet of the next three Presidents, two of whom were Republicans. He served as U.S. Ambassador to India and as U.S. Representative to the United Nations. All the while, he had a busy and prolific career in academia, with teaching positions at Syracuse and Harvard and other universities. It is often said that Pat Moynihan has written more books than most people have read. And those books were on subjects as diverse as ethnicity, welfare policy, secrecy as form of regulation, and international law. His books and essays and op-eds were always erudite and displayed a wit and wisdom and grace few people have. His books were so well received, whenever they were produced. I doubt anyone else ever entered the United States Senate with a greater breadth of experience or knowledge. Pat Moynihan was made for the Senate, and the Senate was made for men like Pat Moynihan. Pat was not only a great intellectual; he was a man of principles, deeply held and eloquently expressed. And yet he had that remarkable ability of being able to disagree without being disagreeable. There isn't a single Member of the Senate who served with him who didn't also love and revere him. We are poorer for Pat's passing, but rather than dwell on that, I would like to express my gratitude that someone with such inestimable talents and energies devoted them to public service. We are definitely richer for that. We send our sympathy to Liz Moynihan, and to the children, Timothy and Maura and John, and to the grandchildren, Michael Patrick and Zora. We live in tumultuous and dangerous times. No one understood that better than Pat Moynihan, and we would benefit from his counsel. I will include for the Record a commencement address that Pat delivered at Harvard University about world events and foreign policy, and I commend it to my colleagues. On a more personal note, my legislative director, Gray Maxwell, was Pat's legislative director from 1995 to 2000. When Pat retired, Gray wrote a tribute that was printed in Long Island Newsday. I will also ask that the tribute be printed in the Record. In closing, I note that one of Pat's great abiding passions was public works--not just in New York but here in Washington. He authored much of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA, he fought for Amtrak and mass transit, he wrote the guiding principles for federal architecture, he shepherded the Union Station redevelopment and the Thurgood Marshall and Ronald Reagan buildings to completion, and he almost single-handedly transformed Pennsylvania Avenue. I think what was written in St. Paul's Cathedral in London for Sir Christopher Wren would serve as an equally fitting tribute to Pat Moynihan: Si monumentum requiris circumspice [If you would see the man's monument, look about you.]. I ask unanimous consent that his commencement address delivered at Harvard University on June 6, 2002, to which I referred, and an article written by a person on my staff, Gray Maxwell, who was on the Moynihan staff before that, that demonstrates beautifully the character and capability Pat Moynihan brought to his job and to all of us, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I pay tribute to one of my constituents who is celebrating her retirement from the government of Camden County. Alma Zwick first joined county government in 1978 as a Clerk Typist. On April 1 of this year she will officially retire as a Purchasing Expeditor. For 25 years she has dedicated herself to helping her community be a better place. Ms. Zwick has also been involved civically in Haddon Township. Throughout the years she has served as Vice-President of the Haddon Township Democrat Club and as a Committeewoman of the township. She has also been a member of the Haddon Township Rent Control Board and treasurer of the Haddonview Tenants' Association. Just as Alma Zwick has been dedicated to her fellow citizens, she has also been dedicated to her family of three brothers, three sisters and 28 nieces and nephews. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Alma Zwick for her 25 years of service to Camden County.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a truly extraordinary citizen of New Jersey and America. Vincent Bove is the region manager for Summit Security Services, Inc. His region covers the New York metropolitan area and his more than 2,000 officers secure sites including NBC Studios, JFK International Airport, and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Prior to September 11, 2001, Summit Security had 300 officers at the World Trade Center, many of whom assisted with the evacuation of the two towers. Mr. Bove is also a nationally acclaimed expert on school violence in America. Since the Columbine tragedy in 1999, Mr. Bove has given presentations to over 15,000 educators, corporate representatives, and law enforcement officials. He also trained 100 New York Police Department Crime Prevention Specialists in advanced techniques of crime prevention and community policing. Recently, the American Police Hall of Fame conferred five nationally acclaimed medals to Vincent Bove, including the Medal of Honor for Public Service for outstanding leadership skills in reducing crime and assisting law enforcement throughout the United States; the J. Edgar Hoover Gold Medal for his leadership in police and private security issues as a nationally respected law enforcement instructor; the Knights of Justice Medal for his outstanding service exemplifying the Biblical Act of the Good Samaritan in protecting the community; the Patriotism Medal for promoting faithfulness to the Federal, State, and local laws and for supporting the Constitution and Bill of Rights; and the Civilian Medal of Appreciation for leadership in private security, which assists law enforcement officers. He was also named the North Jersey Regional Crime Prevention Officers Association Recipient for ``Exceptional Service to Crime Prevention for 2002.'' This award recognizes Mr. Bove for his achievements in the reduction of crime on both a local and national level. The same organization also recognized Mr. Bove with the 2002 ``Presidential Award for Dedicated Service'' for his service to the organization and the community. Vincent Bove is an amazing individual. He dedicates his life to making his fellow citizens and communities safer and more secure. I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring Vincent Bove for his sense of duty, determination, and dedication in making our country a safer and more secure place to live.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a brave human being. Robert Giorgio is the Fire Chief in the town of Cherry Hill, New Jersey. In April of last year Chief Giorgio put himself in harm's way and performed honorably in the face of danger. It was April 3, 2002, and Chief Giorgio was in his office when he heard reports of a vehicle that had crashed over a highway overpass on a State highway in Cherry Hill. Although not required to respond to the incident, Chief Giorgio chose to do so. When Chief Giorgio arrived on the scene he saw that the car was suspended about five feet above the ground, just barely held in place by a small tree. There was also a fire from the engine compartment that was spreading into the interior of the car. The driver, Deborah Trainor, was pinned behind the steering wheel. Chief Giorgio gave orders to arriving firefighters and directed civilians to use portable fire extinguishers. He quickly realized that the units dispatched by the fire department would not reach the scene by the time the fire reached Ms. Trainor. Understanding the gravity of the situation Chief Giorgio placed himself beneath the vehicle in an attempt to free her. To say that there was a serious chance of the car falling on the Chief is a severe understatement. Though Ms. Trainor was burned by the fire, Chief Giorgio was successful in freeing her from the car. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring and saluting this brave American. Chief Robert Giorgio acted with honor and bravery in putting himself in harm's way to save another person's life.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 408 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I offer this amendment for myself, Senators Boxer, Corzine, Chafee, Reed, Sarbanes, and Murray. In short, if we believe that polluters should pay for the contamination they cause, everybody ought to vote for this amendment. It will restate the original taxes created to support the Superfund trust fund as well as two additional taxes signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. It also increases the total Federal revenues by at least $15 billion over 10 years and will reduce the deficit accordingly. Without the tax, the general fund will have to contribute $1.5 billion to continue the Superfund Program. We cannot afford that. But we cannot abandon Superfund either. I urge my colleagues to vote for the polluter-pays approach.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, my amendment establishes a reserve fund for national defense and homeland security. The amendment is necessary because the budget resolution actually cuts defense spending by $103 billion below the President's request over that 10-year window. That is according to CBO and SBC. From 2004 through 2008, the Republican budget assumes defense spending at the level requested by the President. But the last 5 years of the budget window, from 2009 through 2013, the Republican budget resolution cuts $103 billion below the level CBO estimates. I ask that my friends on the Republican side of the aisle be very careful when they look at the Republican message. It says the Lautenberg amendment reduces the growth package by $103 billion in budget authority and $88 billion in outlays. They don't say that the budget comes from the tax cuts.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an amendment I plan to offer when the opportunity presents itself. My amendment establishes a reserve fund for national and homeland security. My amendment is cosponsored by Senators Conrad and Schumer as well. This budget reminds me of a movie I saw some time ago, not intending to present any humor, but it is precise in what it says: ``Show Me The Money.'' Everyone understood immediately what they were talking about. Here we are, searching for the money to pay for our defense needs and the war with Iraq. It is nowhere to be found. I was the ranking member of the Budget Committee for several years. There is one thing you learned on that committee, simply wishing for money does not make it appear. This must come as a shock to people who in their regular lives try to set money aside for future expenses such as mortgages or tuition or rent or real estate taxes. We all have to budget for our critical needs. The war with Iraq has started. We see the pictures of our troops and you wonder how they put up with the heat and the dust, the threat to their lives, the ominous presence, perhaps, of chemicals or biological weapons. There is plenty to think about. But for God's sake, we ought to think here about how we provide the money to prosecute that war. It has to sound strange to people listening to what is said in the Senate this morning. We have an obligation to tell the American people how much and where the money is going to come from to finance the war and to finance our domestic security needs. At critical moments in history such as this, we ought to be truthful with the American people about what it is we are doing. The truth is, this budget does not provide the funding to prosecute our war with Iraq. It is a simple equation. We are shortchanging national security spending and the costs of the war in order to protect a tax break, largely for the wealthiest. I want people to understand. We are going to prosecute the war, and we are going to do it fully, but we ought to tell the truth to the American people about how we are going to pay for it. The money to pay for this war is not provided in any place we look. It is a tax cut that people understand is going to the wealthiest among us. I want everyone to know the money that would be used to prosecute this war is going to go to another priority; that is, a tax cut for the wealthiest. A tax cut that, as we heard from the Senator from North Dakota, a tax cut people with wealth typically do not need, and I can tell you most of them do not want it when they recognize it comes from the very foundation of our strength in this country. The Senate GOP plan ignores the cost of war. We are going to look at a supplemental, which is in addition to the budget, that was not planned for. But with less than a wink of an eye, everyone knows the war otherwise will not be prosecuted out of the funds available for the Defense Department. That is what we are looking at. From $60 billion to $95 billion is expected to be requested in a supplemental plan. The present Senate budget plan does not provide for any of it. My friends in the business world are people who run big companies, some of them little companies, but they run organizations and they know how important it is to fund your critical needs. My amendment corrects a major problem with this budget. My colleagues may not realize that the Senate Republican budget resolution actually cuts defense spending by $103 billion below the President's request. We have heard a great deal of talk about patriotism from the other side of the aisle. We have even seen it raised in the ugliest of fashions, in an election where a triple amputee who lost his limbs in Vietnam was accused of lacking patriotism and lost the election. Imagine, a triple amputee, a man left with one arm, the legs are gone, one arm is gone, and he is accused of being unpatriotic. Language flows loosely around here at times. We have heard a lot about putting national security and homeland first above all, and at times when the defense budget was being prepared it was suggested if you challenged it, if you voiced some concern about it, if you questioned the tactic being used, there was an implied criticism that you were not being loyal, that you might be like the French. Talk is loose here. I served in another war, a long time ago, and they used to have a slogan ``loose lips sink ships.'' Boy, we would not have a lot of ships afloat here. When you examine the details of this budget, it is apparent that it is tax cuts for the rich that have the highest priority. In fact, this budget cuts national security funding in order to provide those tax cuts to the wealthy. I had a business career before I came here. Thank goodness for the American opportunity, we succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. We were three poor kids from working-class families in Patterson, NJ. The company did very well. Today a company that we started employs 40,000 people. Mr. President, it is obvious that a company with that kind of growth, that kind of success, produced some wealth for the founders. It did. And I can tell you I do not want a tax cut for myself and I don't think people in my position ought to have tax cuts right now. America has been good enough to us that we do not need the tax cut. We need a strong country. We need a harmonious population where people know they are being treated fairly and that we are not putting everything else aside so we can give a tax cut to people who neither need it and in most cases don't want it. There are sleight of hand maneuvers in this budget. If you look at the years 2004 through 2008, the Republican budget projects defense spending at the level requested by the President. But in the last 5 years of the budget window, from 2009 through 2013, the Republican budget resolution actually cuts $103 billion below the levels CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, estimates would be required just to maintain defense spending in real terms at the level the President proposed. During those latter 5 years, where is that missing $103 billion going? The answer is--I don't want to be repetitive, but this is so hard to understand, so impossible to conceive that we have to say it a lot because it does not get through. But maybe, just maybe, the American people will hear this clearly enough to say: Hey, listen, I have heard some pretty good presentations this morning. I am discounting mine. I am talking about others here. They keep talking about this tax cut for the wealthy. That is what we are talking about, Mr. and Mrs. American citizen. That is what we are talking about. The tax cut in this bill over 10 years will cost this country $1.4 trillion. Are we cutting defense for this tax cut? Whom does that help? Let's look at the facts about the President's tax proposal. Almost half of all tax filers, 49 percent of them, would receive tax cuts of less than $100. That doesn't do much for people's standard of living. The average tax cut for the bottom 80 percent of tax filers would be $226. That is the average tax cut. By contrast, the top 1 percent of tax filers would receive an average tax cut of $24,100. But those who are at the tippy top, with incomes of more than $1 million, would get tax cuts averaging $90,200. That could make a difference in one's standard of living, but not for those folks, they are already living at that scale. That is why I call it skewed towards the wealthy. As for another part of the tax cut proposal, the dividend tax cut, nearly 70 percent of the benefits would flow to the top 5 percent of our tax filers, and the top 1 percent would receive 46 percent of the benefits--1 percent would receive 46 percent of the benefits, nearly half of the benefit to the top 1 percent. So the priorities are quite clear: Tax cuts for the wealthy first; national security, when it comes to the money, further down the list. That is just plain wrong. There is a reason it is being handled that way. I do not suggest lack of patriotism, lack of loyalty, lack of conviction on this war. I just know that in the planning, in the machinations that go toward developing the budget, what happens is someone says: Hey, guys, do you know what happens? If we don't get that tax cut in the total package, we are not going to get it. It is just not going to happen. It's a lot easier to get money for the war, a lot easier to get money for our defense, homeland defense needs. We can get that in supplementals or other places. A tax cut, we had better get that now, while we can. The President laid out his request for accomplishing these goals. But what did the Senate Republican budget do? It sacrificed funding for national security in order to provide tax cuts for the rich, as I explained. The process took over. To make matters worse, this budget ignores the fact that we have gone to war. Every one of us is glued to the news, whether it is the papers or television or radio or whatever it is; we want to know what is happening with our troops. We worry. We heard about a Black Hawk helicopter that went down. I know I must speak for everybody. We are holding our breath until we learn that those who were carried in that helicopter were rescued. The White House has told the press that it will happen, that we are going to need the money. Again, I used to be ranking member of the Budget Committee, so I know my colleagues on that committee read the newspaper. The administration is about to send up a war supplemental request to us of between $60 and $95 billion. It is not in the budget, it is supplemental. It is extra. You can make the case pretty easily. It is one thing to make the case because of the need. It is another thing to make the case because you want to put the funds that are available in a lot of rich persons' pockets. This war and its aftermath will cost a lot of money. Estimates are that the reconstruction of Iraq could cost $30 billion over 10 years. Every year of Iraqi occupation could cost between $17 billion and $46 billion. As far as this budget is concerned, apparently it doesn't see any of it happening. So we ignore the war in the budget, we cut national security spending. Why? Simply because it seems, in the eyes of the administration, the most important agenda is to provide tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans at the cost of other priorities. My amendment makes it clear that tax cuts should not take priority over every other need. My amendment restores the 2009 through 2013 national security cuts in the budget resolution. The amendment moves $103 billion in budget authority and $88 billion in outlays into a reserve fund for national security and homeland security. To offset the cost of this critical reserve fund, my amendment simply goes to the tax cut and reduces it by $88 billion during the same period, so we can take that cash from the tax cut--again, most of it going to the wealthiest--and put it into the most vital need we have right now, and that is to make sure that every penny we can put together to make sure our people in the field, those who are fighting, know we will do everything we must by way of financing to make sure they have every tool available, they have all the protections they need. That is where to put the money. We are faced with a clear choice. My amendment says our Nation's national security is far more important than tax cuts for the wealthy. I hope when we have a chance to present the amendment, my colleagues will support voting for national and homeland security by voting for the amendment. In the war I fought in a long time ago, we used to talk to the public about what they had to do to prosecute the war, to provide for our defenses. This poster shows its age by the way the characters are drawn. It says: ``BUY WAR BONDS.'' I think they were $25 at their least price. It said: Everybody has to kick in. Everybody has to do their share. Do what you can to help us conduct ourselves in our defense as proudly, as forcefully, as we can. That is what it is about. And here we are ashamed to ask the richest among us to sacrifice their $90,000 on a $1 million income? Wait, make more money. Warren Buffet addressed a group of Senators the other day, and he said: I love paying taxes because every time I pay taxes, it means there is more money left in my pocket. Pretty simple. And that is how we ought to face our responsibilities now: Tell the truth to the American people, I say to my colleagues on the other side. Tell the truth about how you plan to use the money that otherwise would currently be available to prosecute the war. Maybe we would not even have to do a supplemental. There are times when we are mystified by the arguments presented on one side or the other. I am sure that happens with our Republican friends when it is a Democratic proposal. The fact is, these figures that are generated here have been reviewed by the distinguished committees of people who study budgets as a professional thing, as an organizational commitment. They tell us: Look, all you have to do is look at the lines, look at the years. Right now, everything looks OK. Get out to about 2007, and you see what happens. The President's budget is one thing; in the Senate GOP plan--that is, the budgeteer's, the majority's plan in the Budget Committee--they have something else. They show they cannot meet the President's number. The tragedy of this kind of a debate is that we have to confront one another. I believe this is a time when the last thing on the list of priorities ought to be tax cuts going largely to the wealthiest among us. Let's stand up and do what is right. Let's send all that we have right now: commit it, reserve it, make it such that it cannot be touched anyplace else. I hope when we have a chance to review the amendment, we will see the thought has prevailed that says: Hey, they could be right on this one. Let's send it all into our defense needs which are so heavy right now. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I rise in support of S. Res. 95, which commends our Armed Forces. The war with Iraq is underway. I regret that diplomatic efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein have failed. I regret that diplomatic efforts to build a broader coalition of nations willing to join us in military action have also fallen short. But the task force before us now is to pledge our unqualified support for our courageous young men and women on the battlefield; to do whatever is needed to ensure they have every advantage now that the fighting has commended. I was in the Army during World War II and served in Europe. As a veteran, I know how important it is for our Air Force personnel; and our soldiers and sailors to know that we feel close to them and they are constantly in our thoughts. Winston Churchill said: ``We shall not escape our dangers by recoiling from them.'' So we send our young men and women in uniform-- each one a volunteer--to Iraq and to other distant places such as Afghanistan. They fight to protect us, and they fight to free other people they don't know from cruelty and savage oppression. Our troops are the best trained and best equipped in history. We have no doubt that they will prevail in their mission to oust Iraq's brutal dictator, eliminate Iraq's dangerous arsenal, and make the world a safer place. War may be necessary, and war may be right. But it is never good. So we hope that this campaign to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his murderous cohorts will be quick and decisive. We hope that there will be little collateral damage and as few casualties as possible, both among our troops and among innocent Iraqi noncombatants. We hope that our brave young men and women in uniform will return home to their families safely, and as soon as possible. Once we win the war in Iraq, we will have to secure the peace. That will be the best way we can honor our troops. Even as we engage in the fighting today, we have to start planning for what comes tomorrow. That will require a steadfastness of purpose equal to what our troops are displaying as we speak. The task will not be easy. All people, all nations have the same tendency: we judge ourselves by our intentions; we judge others by their actions. We know that our intentions are noble; many others, however--including some of our long-standing allies--only see our actions and they condemn them. It is imperative that once the shooting stops, we do whatever is necessary to build a free, open, and democratic Iraq at peace with itself, its neighbors, and the world. So, no matter the length of the battle, no matter how demanding the war, we face some years of concerted effort after the guns have fallen silent. We have to be prepared to lead the world in peace with the same vigor and purpose as our troops are currently demonstrating. I'm certain America is up to the task and we will prove to the world that our intentions are honorable.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume, probably less than 20 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I be given that time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I rise to talk now about an amendment I intend to offer with Senators Boxer, Corzine, Reed of Rhode Island, Sarbanes, and Murray as cosponsors. This amendment would add funding that is critical to the Superfund program. My colleague and friend, Senator Corzine, just talked about his intention to offer an amendment that is going to help us maintain a quality of environment that he and I feel is necessary for America. I appreciate one part of that because this budget falls short of protecting Americans from deadly toxins in their communities. Too many communities in this country live near toxins left behind by polluting industries. Each day we delay cleanups is another day we expose families to poisonous chemicals. The numbers are alarming: 70 million people in this country live within 4 miles of a Superfund site and 10 million of the people exposed to the chemicals at those sites are children, the most defenseless among us. Ten million children who must eat their meals, brush their teeth and sleep within a few miles of harmful poisons that will persist in their soil and ground water for decades and longer. Children are the most vulnerable among us to arsenic and DDT and brain-damaging heavy metals such as lead and mercury found at the contaminated sites. On March 3, just 2 weeks ago, the EPA announced the latest scientific data that show small children have a tenfold higher risk of developing cancer when exposed to chemicals than do adults. Across the Nation, each site cleanup--and we have successfully cleaned up over 800 so far--reduces those threats to our children: threats of cancer, learning disabilities, and other chronic and painful health problems. This amendment enables the equivalent of 28 additional sites a year to be cleaned up, allowing thousands more families to get out from underneath the shadow of living next to a toxic dump. An extra 25 sites may not sound like a lot unless you and your family live next door to an empty lot laced with arsenic and dioxin. This amendment would eventually close the gap between the program's need and what has been budgeted. This amendment assumes reinstatement of the original structure and guiding principle of Superfund and assumes the restoration of minimal taxes to get that job done. For example, in the case of the oil industry, the tax would be less than 10 cents a barrel for every 42 gallons of oil. This is a small investment for the large dividends it would pay. The end result would be measured in thousands of happier and healthier children and families. The amendment will permit the addition of $300 million to the Superfund reserve each year for 10 years. That is less than the approximately $350 million the Congressional Research Service estimates the budget will fall short of when it tries to meet next year's projected needs for Superfund cleanup, but it is close. At the same time, by making the polluter pay, this amendment increases total Federal revenues by well over $1 billion a year for the next 10 years, contributing to the deficit reduction and helping to lower the public debt. The Superfund needs new life injected into it because this administration has significantly slowed the pace of cleanups, cutting the rates in half. It is time Congress and the administration stopped refusing to force polluters to pay. They are the ones who ought to pay for it. They did it. They spoiled the Earth and the area, and they ought to pay for this. No other American President, Democrat or Republican, has ever said that taxpayers, not polluters, should pay to clean up their toxic mess, and neither should this one. President Ronald Reagan understood the importance of the Superfund trust fund in making the polluter pay. In 1986, not only did he reauthorize the original Superfund tax, he approved two in Superfund taxes, a tax on imported chemical derivatives, and corporate income tax of .12 percent on taxable income above $2 million. Reinstating the polluter-pays principle is fair, it has a proven record of working, and I would urge my colleagues to support this good governance amendment. I have one more short amendment to discuss, an amendment I will offer on behalf of myself and Senator Robert Byrd to adequately fund our national passenger rail system, Amtrak, at $1.8 billion. As it stands now, the budget before the Senate assumes that funding level of only $900 million for Amtrak. That is about half of what the railroad needs. That would be a devastating cut. The funding in this fiscal year 2004 budget is nearly 22 percent lower than this year's level. Without question, it would result in the bankruptcy of our national passenger railroad system halfway through the fiscal year 2004. This Senate cannot stand idly by and allow this budget to bankrupt Amtrak. Amtrak is critical to our Nation's transportation system. We have a new president, an impressive fellow, CEO at Amtrak, David Gunn. David Gunn has demonstrated his ability to find commonsense solutions to tough problems, particularly around rail and transit. We should give Mr. Gunn the tools he needs to put Amtrak back on the track. Everyone feels confident he has the capability of doing that if we give him the tools. In many areas across the Nation, rail is as important to the transportation system as aviation. Amtrak is critical to business and the economy in many communities and improves the quality of life for many Americans who use rail as an alternative to traffic jams on highways and the headaches we find now at the airport. In the days following the September 11 attacks, our entire aviation system was shut down. The unbelievable took place. It was never conceived something could happen in our aviation system that would shut the whole thing down across the country. But it did. Rail served as a critical alternative for those who otherwise would have been stranded. Now, many passengers have shifted to rail on a more permanent basis. In fact, more people take the train to New York from Washington than catch a flight each day. September 11, 2001, showed us we need to maintain an intermodal transportation system. We cannot put all our resources into aviation, and we cannot put all of our resources into highways. If we want a 21st century transportation system, we must invest in Amtrak and passenger rail. My amendment would provide Amtrak with the $1.8 billion that has been requested by the Amtrak board of directors. This is the funding level that will ensure the trains run in 2004 and beyond. This is also the funding sorely needed for capital investments to improve infrastructure and improve the system's reliability. These capital investments are also needed to help Amtrak lower its operating costs. We cannot continue to let them run a railroad held together by duct tape. Without Amtrak, congestion on the roads and in the skies would be substantially worse. Amtrak helps to remove 18,000 cars a day from the congested Northeast corridor between Philadelphia and New York, and 27,000 cars a day between New York and Boston. Everyone knows if there were that many more cars on the road, it would be impossible to travel on these highways. But Amtrak does more than alleviate congestion in densely populated highway and air corridors. In many cases, Amtrak also provides residents of small rural towns with their only form of intercity transportation. Each year, some 22 million passengers depend on Amtrak for transportation between urban centers and rural locations. Amtrak provides service in 45 of the 50 States. This country of ours, this most advanced Nation in the world, needs a world-class passenger rail service. We can already board a high-speed train from New York's Penn Station and arrive in Washington in less than 3 hours. That is city to city. It is without the hassle and the problems one takes going to the airports these days. But we should also be able to take a high-speed train from Atlanta to Charlotte or Miami. We should be able to travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco or St. Louis to Chicago by high-speed rail. September 11 and the lingering terrorist threat shows us that we need a viable alternative to aviation for intercity travel. But the budget before us would cripple our Nation's passenger rail system. Once again, I look to my colleagues to think the problem through thoroughly, to recognize even if Amtrak is not a primary mode of transportation in their State, that it is part of the national network that we have to have in a society as advanced and as crowded as ours has gotten to be. I hope we will have the support for passenger rail and support for Amtrak. I thank the President, the occupant of the chair, for his indulgence of this wee hour of the night. I thank my colleague from Washington, also, for permitting me to talk about my amendments.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Matsuda, a member of my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of S. Con. Res. 23.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada for yielding the time to me to talk about the Boxer amendment and talk about the decision we could be making very shortly about the use of oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Mr. President, what happens is, as these debates get going, sometimes we hear statements that are somewhat misconstrued or mistaken. We just heard it suggested on the floor that funds from the purchase of Iraq oil are used to purchase bombs. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is, that money is passed through the United Nations to buy food to be distributed to the people of Iraq. There is no way that money can be used to buy bombs. It is important we keep the record straight. I want so much to see the Boxer amendment prevail, but in order to make the case, apparently, we have to do more than simply justify the fact that if we did not do this, we could find other ways to conserve oil and not have to invade this snow desert, if one has ever seen it. It is one of the most beautiful places in the world, and the last thing we ought to do is turn the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge into an oilfield. I traveled to Alaska in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989. At the time, I was chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, so I had jurisdiction over Coast Guard funding. I was also a senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. So I had a great deal of interest in the Valdez incident. What I saw was shocking, stunning almost. Over 11 million gallons of oil spilled into the Prince William Sound. I witnessed beautiful wildlife covered in oil, many dead or dying. I saw workers from the Department of the Interior, the fire service, and others hand wiping oil off birds and other wildlife. It was a devastating tragedy. The disaster left a major impression on me. I thought about my children, my grandchildren, other people's children, and other people's grandchildren. I never wanted to see the dismay on their faces should they ever witness this tragedy. To this day, 14 years later, the area remains contaminated with a persistence that has surprised many scientists. Sadly, the optimistic predictions of its recovery proved to be unjustified. Fully 60 percent of the area remains contaminated. Pools of toxic oil are still being found several feet deep. Ecosystems, such as those in Prince William Sound and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, are so fragile, they are such delicate treasures of our Nation. I had the privilege of visiting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge at the same time, and I can tell you, from personal experience, that in addition to the damage caused by drilling and oilspills, the debris of human intrusion, acres of rusting pipes and dilapidated structures dishonors America's 100-year-old tradition of protecting remote wild places. On that visit, I flew in a single-engine plane across to a community called Deadhorse. It is right near Prudhoe Bay. It was troubling to see that area, the tundra littered by refuse left by the same oil companies that now avow they will be good environmental stewards should the Arctic Refuge be open to drilling. Why would we risk devastating these national treasures? For what gain? There is a dispute as to whether it is a 6-month oil supply or more that we will see from the Arctic Refuge, but for this short-term gain, what is the long-term risk, the cost? I believe the long-term damage is too great. Turning this refuge into an oilfield will result in the loss of a national treasure we will never be able to replace. Look at what is happening on the North Slope. The National Research Council's new report shows that oil drilling on the North Slope has drastically reduced the population of nesting birds, such as the snow geese, and seismic exploration has displaced the culturally sacred bowhead whales from their migratory path, according to the National Research Council. Additional drilling will only compound the stresses on these and the 200 other animal and bird species that inhabit the region. What would the payoff be for recklessly endangering this national treasure? We would save more oil than we could drill at the Arctic Refuge at the height of production by requiring SUVs to meet the same fuel economy standards as regular cars. We never hear talk about conservation. We never hear talk about everybody pitching in on the eve of a war to economize and use less fuel whenever we can do so. There is simply no good reason to endanger this fragile Coastal Plain ecosystem. More than oil is at stake here. Thoreau wrote: In wilderness is the preservation of the world. America and the world need the last remaining wilderness places. The Arctic wilderness is one of those places. It would be unconscionable to despoil it for all time just for a bit of oil. We can find other ways. I came across an article that tells us about the risk, a risk we are not discussing in pure terms. This is an Internet news report from a service called Ananova. The headline is: ``ExxonMobile damages for Valdez spill cut to $4 billion from 5; to appeal.'' It is going to be appealed further by the ExxonMobile company. They already paid some damages to the Alaskans, some money for cleanup, and some money to the State and Federal governments. But they have yet to pay a dime for punitive damages. This is 1989. We are not talking about recent months or even recent years. Fourteen years ago last month that tragedy took place, and they have not paid, and they do not want to pay. They are going back to court to say, Reduce our damages, even though the court the first time assessed them a $9 billion punitive damage claim. They are working their way down, and maybe they will get it down to nothing one of these days. We ought to stop it right now where it is and not permit this to continue. They just want to get their mitts on the money that comes from that oil drilling, and it is without regard for the consequences. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article by Ananova be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we will wrap up this debate in a very short while. We have to look at the full picture. It is not simply getting oil here or taking advantage of an opportunity to go into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to search for more opportunities to consume oil at a rate that has never been heard of. We have to step back and take a look into the future as to what we want for our children and their children. I hope the Boxer amendment will get the support it deserves. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from California. In a short statement I would like to identify what has happened since 1989 when the Exxon Valdez ran aground, since the period of time when the court said that ExxonMobil should pay $9 billion in punitive damages for the havoc it created in Prince William Sound. Lest we be fooled that these environmental stewards are going to take good care of our assets, of our natural resources, let's look at what happened. The fine is now down $4 billion. This is since shortly after 1989. And who is paying the tariff here? Well, the Anchorage Daily News on August 4, 1998, reported ``Apparently Delay Pays.''