Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Exxon is earning $90,000 an hour, about $2 million a day, or nearly $800 million a year, on the same $5 billion as long as the case drags on. And the money stays in its coffers. They are not even paying for it. In fact, what they are doing is making money, interest on that money which belongs to the citizens of the country and for the protection of our environment. What we are looking at is a corporate behavior that should be unacceptable under any standard and where they are using this opportunity to cash in on delays by skillful lawyers instead of paying their obligation as it fell upon them through the courts. It is an outrage. We cannot trust these people to take care of this environment of ours for our children and our grandchildren. I hope the Boxer amendment passes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from California. I thank her for permitting me to speak. Madam President, I have listened very carefully to the arguments being made. I think a fundamental question preempts much of the discussion that is taking place. I think the essentiality to be considered is who determines decisions about a woman's health? As far as I am concerned, it is a relatively simple proposal. Is it the Senate which determines what we do about a woman's health when her health could be in jeopardy and she makes the decision, in consultation with her physician? Should it be the President of the United States? Should it be idealogues who want to control the behavior of legitimate actions of other persons? Or should it simply be a patient in consultation with her doctor and her family, legitimately covered even in reviews by the Supreme Court? The bill offered by the junior Senator from Pennsylvania says politicians know best. And I say that is wrong. Keep the politicians out of the doctor's office. We should not interfere with the medical judgment of a licensed doctor. Only a woman's personal physician can make judgments about the health risks of child birth for that particular patient. If a decision to terminate the pregnancy is made, it should be only the woman and her family and her personal physician. I notice the principal supporters of this legislation are the same men who want to take away decisionmaking from the women of this country for their own health. As of today, this bill has 44 cosponsors and all but one of them are males. This creates the establishment, as I see it, of ``male-ogarchy'' over women's rights. I say let women decide how to protect their health and their families' well-being which is often a question associated with this. I thought we overthrew the Taliban telling women exactly how they can act, when they can act, and what they should be able to do. I continue to hear a great deal of concern from the other side of the aisle about fetuses which they call unborn children. What about the born children? I am reminded of what Congressman Barney Frank said. He is from Massachusetts. He said for some people, their zeal for life seems to begin at conception and then ends at birth. Next week we are going to likely work on the budget resolution. I expect that the Republican budget will track the President's fiscal year 2004 plan. What happens to born children under the President's budget? What happens to pre- and postnatal health programs? What happens to child care and nutrition programs? What happens to education and afterschool programs? What happens to job training programs? I will give you just a few examples. Under the President's budget, the Head Start Program is weakened by turning it into a block grant. We all know the purpose of turning it into a block grant. It is to make it easier to cut the funding for it. In effect, the President is saying to the States: Here, you take this. You figure it out. And by the way, we are going to cut it. The result is that thousands and thousands of children who currently participate in Head Start will be thrown out of the program. It is a very valuable program. Under the President's education budget, millions of children are left behind. Even though the President named his education proposal No Child Left Behind, the President's budget falls $9.4 billion short of fully funding the new education law that he signed into law only last year. The President would leave more than 6 million born children behind by refusing to provide $6.2 billion in title I funding he promised for 2004. The President wants to cut funding for schools for military children, of all things. The President's budget would eliminate Impact Aid education funding for 110,000 born children whose parents are being mobilized to fight the war on terrorism and against Iraq. He wants to make it harder for poor children to get school breakfasts and school lunches that, in many cases, are the only nutritional meals they will get in a day. The President cuts Pell grants and eliminates new funding for Perkins loans. The President wants to reduce the maximum amount for a grant. And the President would eliminate $106 million in funding for new Federal contributions to Perkins loans, which provide low-interest loans for undergraduate and graduate students with exceptional financial need. What about the children of working-class families? The President is willing to eliminate child care services for 200,000 children over 5 years. These are born children. What about them? If we want to help protect children, why hasn't there been a cry in this Chamber for sensible gun legislation to make our schools and communities safer? In the year 2000, my gun show amendment passed the Senate. It was designed to take away unlicensed dealers' prerogatives to sell guns to anybody they wanted to. But it was killed in the House by the Republican leadership. There are many other sensible gun laws we could pass, including a requirement that guns have child safety locks. Each and every year, approximately 3,300 born children are killed by gunfire. What about them? Are we going to pass laws to help protect children from gun violence? Why isn't that on the agenda of the junior Senator from Pennsylvania? I commend the President for his commitment to fight the global HIV/ AIDS epidemic we see in front of us. But I ask, what is the President doing about the growing AIDS epidemic right here in the United States, where one-half of all new HIV infections are among people under 25? What about these born children? Right now, the Senate is trying to limit the choices women and their doctors have in making the most personal and painful decision. In 1995, Congress repealed the motorcycle helmet law--I was the author of that law--because it was seen as an intrusion by the Federal Government into people's lives. Close to 3,000 people--most of them under the age of 30--die each year in motorcycle accidents. But if we tried to bring back the helmet law, I am sure we would hear about how intrusive it would be in people's lives. The bill currently before the Senate is nothing more than an egregious invasion of privacy and an affront to the doctor-patient relationship. Some of my colleagues would like us to believe women casually decide to terminate a pregnancy after carrying that fetus well into the third trimester. The ugly, inaccurate, and unfair portrayal some of our colleagues offer about a decision to terminate a pregnancy simply is not true. In fact, 89 percent of all abortions in the United States are obtained within the first 12 to 13 weeks. Fewer than 1 percent of all abortions are performed after 20 weeks. In the most gruesome terms, the supporters of S. 3 draw a revolting picture of a process that should be avoided if at all possible. But do they present an alternative scenario of a family with children and a mother who is too ill physically or emotionally to continue giving guidance, love, and strength to her family because we in Congress intervened and told her doctor what he or she could and could not do in providing appropriate medical treatment? This issue is one of trust. Do you trust politicians to make complicated medical decisions affecting women's lives? Or will you leave it to medical experts consulting with families and with patients? I say, let's give women and their doctors--not politicians--the right to make the choice. Another item, Madam President: I would note the junior Senator from Pennsylvania continually quotes from an article that appeared in the Bergen Record, a newspaper in my State. I want to set the record straight since the Senator from Pennsylvania invokes a newspaper in my State. Years ago, it was discovered this newspaper article contained false information. I refer my colleagues to the Congressional Record of September 26, 1996, in which I entered a letter into the Record from the health clinic at issue in the article. The letter showed the statistics cited in the newspaper article are false. It is now 6 years later, and I would say it is time for the junior Senator to refrain from using information that is demonstrably false. There is an old saying: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. The decision whether to vote for this bill ought to be an easy one. A recent Supreme Court decision struck down a Nebraska State law modeled on the very same legislation presented before the Senate by the junior Senator from Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court held the Nebraska statute to be unconstitutional because it is too vaguely worded and it does not contain any exception for the health of the mother. That was the United States Supreme Court that said that. The disregard for the health of a woman in this legislation is unconstitutional and it is offensive. I believe the Government should not intrude on these complicated decisions, or tell a woman with serious health or fertility risks how to make this difficult decision. I am going to oppose this intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship. Let us continue to give women and their families--not politicians--the right to make these difficult choices. Let them determine what is right for their well-being and the well-being of their families. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this intrusion. It is not a choice that should be made for a woman by politicians who do not feel the pain of this decision. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, earlier this evening I pointed out that the junior Senator from Pennsylvania continues to refer to a September 15, 1996 article in the Bergen Record that contained incorrect information about the number and type of abortions performed at Metropolitan Medical Associates, MMA. After I spoke on the floor he offered the following rebuttal, which I am paraphrasing because a formal transcript isn't available yet: I want to counter a couple of things to the Senator from-- the Senator from New Jersey says I keep referring to the Bergen Record I can just say that the Bergen Record never did print a retraction to the story and claims that their investigative reporter was not wrong. There is an honest disagreement. The paper stands by their story and has not printed a retraction and said publicly that they have no intention of doing so. So just because Senator Lautenberg found somebody who disagrees with the story doesn't mean it isn't true. It so happens that the ``somebody'' who ``disagreed'' with the above mentioned Bergen Record article was the management of Metropolitan Medical Associates. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I believe that the death penalty is ineffective, cruel, and unjust. Killing people convicted of criminal offenses under the color of State law is wrong; and the disproportionate execution of a certain class or race of people is utterly unconscionable. In the United States, although African Americans make up only 12 percent of the overall population, 42 percent of the people currently on death row are Black. African Americans are also overrepresented in the number of people on death row who are later found to be innocent: 38 percent of death row inmates freed since 1973 because of new evidence were African Americans, and 35 percent of those executed and later found to be innocent were Black. Despite these startling statistics, the State of Texas, President Bush's home State, is determined to execute Americans as fast as possible, even in light of potentially exculpatory evidence. In today's New York Times, columnist Bob Herbert writes about an American-African man who, in about 48 hours, may become the 300th person executed by the State of Texas since the resumption of capital punishment in 1982. As Mr. Herbert notes, this case is particularly disturbing because there is strong evidence that the accused, Mr. Delma Banks, Jr., did not commit the capital offense. But, in a blatant disregard for truth and the equitable administration of justice, Texas intends to proceed regardless. This senseless State-sanctioned killing must stop! I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Herbert's column in the New York Times dated March 10, 2003, be printed into the Record following my remarks. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this August the Jewish Community Center Maccabi Games will be held in Tenafly, NJ. Along with 300 local athletes, there will be 1,300 athletes from elsewhere in the United States, Canada, Israel, Europe, South America, Mexico, and Australia. It is quite an honor to be the host for this event and quite a responsibility. The benefit of the Maccabi Games lies not only in the sporting events themselves, but because the Games bring together young Jewish people from all over the world. Along with the athletic competitions, there will be social activities that bring together people from all over the world who nonetheless share the same history, values, and pride. The Games will also feature cultural programs and community service projects. When the Games conclude, these teenagers will take with them memories and friendships to last a lifetime. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the participants of the 2003 JCC Maccabi Games. The Games are a great avenue for Jewish teenagers to meet other Jewish teens from around the world and make lifetime friendships and memories. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I today pay special tribute to four incredible women from New Jersey. On March 13 the Monmouth Council of Girl Scouts will honor Mary Pat Angelini, Alice Guttler, Esq., Theresa Seitz, and Judge Susan Wigenton at its Annual Women of Distinction Dinner. Mary Pat Angelini is receiving the Community Service Award and is currently the Executive Director of Prevention First, which works to provide leadership and develop leaders to prevent substance abuse. She has been with the organization since 1992 and has helped to increase its annual budget from $125,000 to multi-million dollar status. Mary Pat Angelini has been involved with substance abuse prevention for many years. She is the immediate past president of the New Jersey Prevention Network and she was a member of the Leadership Council for the Community Anti Drug Coalitions of America. Since 2000 she has served on the Governor's Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. Ms. Angelini coordinated 38 local coalitions to prevent substance abuse with the Monmouth County's Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services. She also sits on the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's New Jersey Health Initiative Advisory Committee. Alice J. Guttler, Esq., is receiving the Professionalism Excellence Award. She currently is corporate counsel with Centrastate Healthcare System. Centrastate runs a 241-bed acute care community hospital, a continuous care retirement community and a 120-bed skilled nursing home. Previously she was a New Jersey Deputy Attorney General in the Department of Law & Public Safety. She served as counsel to the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey and conducted labor, employment, and commercial litigation. Judge Susan Wigenton is also receiving the Professionalism Excellence Award. Currently, Judge Wigenton serves as a United States Magistrate Judge in U.S. District Court. She previously served as a part-time United States Magistrate Judge. Prior to that, Judge Wigenton practiced in Middletown, NJ with the law firm of Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. Judge Wigenton has also served as a Public Defender in Asbury Park, New Jersey. She was Chair, Monmouth County District Ethics Committee. She currently serves as the Chair of the Civil Justice Reform Act Committee for the Federal Courts in the District of New Jersey. Theresa I. Seitz is also receiving the Community Service Award. Since 1961 she has served on the Recreation Commission of Freehold, New Jersey and has directed Christmas plays for the Parent Teacher Association or St. Rose of Lima School. Since 1982 Ms. Seitz has been a member of the Board of Trustees for ``180, Turning Lives Around.'' This organization offers services to all family members affected by domestic violence and sexual abuse. She currently runs 180's ``Puttin' on the Ritz Resale Boutique,'' which is a non-profit clothing shop that benefits the organization. I ask my colleagues to join me and the Monmouth Council of Girl Scouts in honoring Mary Pat Angelini, Alice J. Guttler, Esq., Theresa I. Seitz and Judge Susan Wigenton for their great service to the residents of New Jersey. (At the request of Mr. DASCHLE, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I pay tribute to the heroic ``Four Chaplains'' of World War II. In February, the Jewish War Veterans of Monmouth County and the Marlboro Jewish Center hosted the Monmouth County Interfaith Memorial Commemoration. These organizations honored four chaplains who bravely gave their life during World War II. On February 3, 1943 the U.S. Troopship S.S. Dorchester was in the Atlantic Ocean when it was torpedoed by a German U-boat submarine 150 miles from Greenland. On board the ship were four chaplains. Protestant Ministers George L. Fox and Clark V. Poling, Roman Catholic Priest John P. Washington and Rabbi Alexander D. Goode. All went down with the Dorchester. Two hundred and twenty-nine of the 902 Army GIs on board were rescued. Indications are that not as many would have made it safely to the rescue ships if not for the bravery of these four men. They helped soldiers to the rescue ships and when life vests ran out they gave up theirs so four soldiers could live. According to some eyewitnesses, the four men were last seen with their arms linked and their heads bowed in prayer. I ask my colleagues to join me and the Jewish War Veterans of New Jersey in paying tribute to these four brave souls who died with dignity and gave their lives so others could live. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I honor a few outstanding residents of the State of New Jersey. In March the SINAI Special Needs Institute is honoring these New Jerseyans for their dedication to the community. The Institute works to meet the needs of learning disabled children throughout the State. Ephraim and Joanne Zayat received the Pillars of SINAI award. Mr. Zayat is the executive chair and CEO of Heineken, Egypt and was named a Global Leader for Tomorrow by the World Economic Forum. He also serves on the Bush-Mubarak Presidents Council. Mr. Zayat is a member of the board of directors of the Academic Egyptian Arts & Sciences Foundation. Mrs. Zayat is on the board of directors at Yavneh Academy and she was a board member of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun. She is also an active member of Amit and Emunah. Dr. Paul and Esther Lerer were the Institute's guests of honor at this annual dinner. Dr. Lerer is a board member of Moriah School and a member of the religious services and tzedakah committees of Congregation Ahavath Torah. Esther Lerer is on the board of trustees at Congregation Ahavath Torah where she was also president. She is also a member of the board at Ma'ayanot High School, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, and the UJA Federation of Bergen County and North Hudson. Dr. and Esther Lerer are involved in Bar Ilan University and they have been honored by Yeshivat Shalvim. Michael and Sharon Glass were the Kesser Shem Tov awardees. Michael Glass is an original member of Dof Yomi. He also helps set up the Shalosh Seudos every Shabbat and is a member of the monthly shomer program. Michael Glass is the vice president of Global Scientific Affairs for the Adams division of Pfizer. In that capacity he works for kosher certification of Adams confectionary products. Sharon Glass is director of the Jewish Center of Teaneck's Nursery School and used to be a teacher in the Leah Sokoloff Nursery School at Congregation Shomrei Torah. She is also the shul's co-vice president of sisterhood. Rabbi Ya'akov Neuburger was the recipient of the Rabbinic Leadership award. Rabbi Neuburger is the spiritual leader for Congregation Beth Abraham. He was also one of the first rabbis to receive Yadin Yadin ordination from the Rabbi Isaac Eichanan Theological Seminary. I ask my colleagues to join me and the SINAI Special Needs Institute in honoring these very dedicated residents of New Jersey who have contributed so much to their communities.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I take the opportunity to make some comments regarding the ratification of the Moscow Treaty. I do it with some reservation. I think the treaty is both a ``good news'' and ``bad news'' story. Right now, roughly speaking, the United States and Russia each deploy 6,000 nuclear warheads. The treaty would require the U.S. and Russia to reduce these levels to 1,700 to 2,200 ``operationally'' deployed strategic nuclear weapons on each side by December 2012. The good news is that this treaty is a positive step--long overdue, but a positive step nonetheless. Over 10 years ago, in January of 1992, when U.S.-Russian relations were the warmest in years, President Yeltsin of Russia proposed that the U.S. and Russia reach a strategic arms control agreement that set the levels at 2,000-2,500 in a START II agreement. If former President Bush had agreed back then, we could be close to the levels today that the Moscow Treaty envisions for 10 years from now. At the time former President Yeltsin made his proposal for deep reductions, Defense Department officials, especially Defense Secretary Cheney--now our Vice President--opposed them. As a result, the START II agreement, signed in January 1993, only limited the number of strategic nuclear warheads to 3,000 to 3,500 on each side. And due to wrangling over national missile defense the START II agreement never entered into force. So I am glad to see that the administration and Vice President Cheney now support cuts to levels first proposed by President Yeltsin in January 1992. This support for stronger strategic arms control steps is long overdue but welcome. A second chance to achieve greater reductions came 6 years ago in 1997. President Clinton agreed with President Yeltsin at Helsinki that a future START III agreement would entail reductions to 2,000-2,500 strategic warheads on each side. Most likely, the START III agreement would have overlapped with the START II agreement, finishing implementation at the end of December 2007. The START III levels of 2,000 to 2,500 are essentially the same as those embodied in the Moscow Treaty. The START III would have counted several hundred warheads on systems in overhaul; the Moscow Treaty will not. Unfortunately, because START II never entered into force, START III negotiations never began. In addition, after 1994, our Republican colleagues deliberately made it more difficult to make progress on reducing strategic nuclear arms. Starting with the fiscal year 1995 Defense authorization bill, a provision was regularly added forbidding the President from reducing U.S. strategic forces below the START I levels of 6,000 strategic nuclear warheads. In time for this treaty, this provision has been repealed. So I am pleased to see that my Republican colleagues now support cuts to the levels envisioned by President Clinton and President Yeltsin in March 1997. It is a welcome change of heart, even though it is long overdue. The bad news, however, as many have noted, is that the treaty is but a modest step forward. Many have argued it has several major shortcomings. First, the 10-year implementation period is too long and includes no benchmarks for progress or verification measures. Theoretically, as the treaty now stands, both sides could wait until the last moment to make their reductions, right before the treaty expires. Second, only some of the warheads removed from missiles and bombers will be dismantled. The rest would merely be put into storage, where they could be redeployed. Thus, there will not be a real reduction in the United States or Russian strategic nuclear arsenals. Moreover, the security of thousands of stored weapons will remain a matter of major concern, especially during this era of heightened terrorism. Third, the treaty could have reduced the strategic arsenals of the United States and Russia even further. Fourth, the treaty does not cover the thousands of small tactical nuclear weapons that are a major concern for theft by terrorist groups. And they are weapons of great power, great destructive capability. Since this treaty is so long overdue, and such a modest accomplishment, we must work hard through the Bilateral Implementation Commission to improve it in the coming years. We also need to take steps beyond the scope of this treaty to reduce our nuclear arsenals even more. So I strongly endorse the call in the Foreign Relations Committee Resolution of Ratification for the President to ``accelerate'' U.S. strategic force reductions so they can be achieved before December 31, 2012. We should aim to accomplish this by the end of 2007. We should also seek to dismantle the 4,000 or so warheads that will be removed from launchers--not just put them in storage. Otherwise, this treaty is more of a nuclear ``shell game'' than a true disarmament measure. Warheads taken off missiles today could be put back tomorrow. We should begin new discussions to reach new lower levels of strategic nuclear weapons. I strongly support the Resolution of Ratification's call for the President to continue reductions in strategic nuclear warheads. President Putin wanted each side to decrease to levels of 1,500 warheads. There isn't any reason we can't reduce to levels of 1,000 to 1,500 in the next 5 to 10 years. There are other problems relating to tactical nuclear weapons and transparency and security of nuclear arsenals that need to be addressed and that many have touched upon today. The Senate needs to be active in addressing these questions. I look forward to seeing the reports required by the Resolution of Ratification so we can monitor the progress of the treaty and act accordingly. We have waited too long for this treaty. We cannot let the long implementation time of the treaty sweep these important questions from our agenda for the next 10 years. With the assumption that the Senate will remain active on these questions and the administration will follow through with the provisions of the Resolution of Ratification, I give my reluctant advice and consent to this treaty and look back and see how much more we could have accomplished. Nevertheless, let's get on with what we have in front of us and start reducing the size of the nuclear forces out there. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Joshua Handler, a fellow in my office, be given floor privileges for the duration of Senate consideration of Executive Calendar No. 1, the Resolution of Ratification accompanying the Moscow Treaty.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to welcome Dr. Michael J. Flavin to the Senate. Dr. Flavin comes to us from New Providence, NJ and we are very happy that he is joining us today as the Senate's Guest Chaplain. Dr. Flavin received his Bachelor's Degree from Bemidji State University and he currently serves as Associate Pastor at New Providence Presbyterian Church in New Providence. He received his theology degree from Bethel Seminary and his doctorate from Eastern Theological Seminary. He spends much of his time working with students. I am always excited when we can welcome someone from New Jersey to the Senate Chamber and I am honored to welcome Dr. Michael J. Flavin to lead us in our morning prayer.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send the resolution to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be held there.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution condemning the recent selection of Libya to chair the 59th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. If it was not so tragic, this selection would be a joke. That session begins in just a few days, on March 17. Joining me as cosponsors are Senators Smith, Kennedy, Feinstein, and Corzine. The reason I say it would almost be a joke is that it is unconscionable that a human rights abuser such as Libya, and a country that has been the subject of United Nations sanctions because of its links to terrorist activities, would be selected to lead an international human rights organization. Talk about the fox in the chicken coop, this is an exact replication of what that old saw is. Libya has not even complied with the Commission's own recommendations on how to improve its own dismal human rights record. We are talking about a country that was responsible for downing a passenger airliner and the bombing of a discotheque in Europe. Libya's selection to the chairmanship undermines the credibility of this Commission and threatens the international community's responsibility to protect human rights. How can the Commission retain any credibility with Libya at the helm? I want to review Libya's human rights record over the past three decades, which Human Rights Watch characterizes as ``appalling.'' This record includes the abduction, forced disappearance, and assassination of political opponents. In Libya today, hundreds of people remain arbitrarily detained, and some have been so for over a decade. Human rights monitors have registered concern about the use of physical and psychological torture in detainment, leading to the deaths of some detainees. Additionally, the Libyan Government restricts freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, and religion. Does a government with such a record merit the chair of a Commission that was established in 1946, in the wake of the atrocities of World War II, specifically to protect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Libya should not chair this Commission. If anything, it should be under investigation by it. In 2000, after years of investigations and appeals, two Libyan intelligence officers were found guilty by Scottish judges in the attack on Pan Am flight 103, which killed 270 people, including 38 from New Jersey and citizens from over 20 other countries. Just as the international community was finally sentencing the Libyans responsible for this 1988 tragedy, and beginning to bring them to justice, General Qadhafi was planning Libya's ascent to lead the Commission on Human Rights. He gained the African nomination for chair against the wishes of many fellow African leaders, some of whom are making genuine strides toward improving their countries' human rights records. At the time, a spokeswoman from South Africa's opposition group, the Democratic Alliance, said: African countries should have supported a candidate of whom all Africans could be proud. For the first time in the history of the Commission on Human Rights, the United States--appalled by the African Union's nomination of Libya--called for a vote. On January 20 of this year, only Canada and one other country joined the United States in voting against Libya's chairmanship. Many of the 33 countries that voted in favor of Libya are recipients of United States direct foreign assistance. Imagine, we are giving them aid, and these countries are supporting the chairmanship of a country that is an abuser of human rights of the first order. Many of our European allies abstained from the vote. The resolution I am introducing with my colleagues, Senators Smith, Kennedy, Feinstein, and Corzine, condemns Libya's selection as chair. It asserts that the manipulation of the Commission by a gross human rights violator undermines the credibility of the body while legitimizing regimes that continue their oppressive activities. This resolution calls on countries throughout the world to renew their commitment to human rights. The resolution also calls on the President and the Secretary of State to object strongly to the United Nations' current suspension of its sanctions against Libya. These sanctions should remain in place until Libya complies with the requirements of multiple U.N. resolutions, one of which calls on Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi to acknowledge responsibility for the 1988 Pan Am terrorism attack--something he has refused to do so far, despite the incontrovertible evidence. Finally, in this resolution, I call on the Secretary of State to work with other members of the United Nations to reform that Commission and to ensure that governments that violate human rights, sponsor terrorist activities, and are subject to U.N. sanctions cannot be elected to leadership positions in the Commission and other U.N. bodies in the future.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today is the 12th day, as remarkable as that seems, that the Senate is debating this nomination instead of doing what it has to for the important business of the American people, as I see it. It is quite clear the other side is just not going to get cloture on this nomination. So the choice is either bring forward a cloture motion or move on to other business. The Nation's Governors are in Washington meeting with President Bush and Members of Congress to discuss critically important issues, such as homeland security, rising unemployment, and increasing State deficits. These are serious issues that need attention, but we are delaying tending to the needs of the American people with endless debate on a judicial nominee who is refusing to tell the Senate almost anything about his judicial philosophy or decisionmaking process. This hide-the-ball strategy being used by Mr. Estrada, frankly, I think is an affront to the Senate and the American people. We have the right to get complete and thoughtful answers to legitimate concerns about his approach to his interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the country. I was formerly a businessman. Sometimes there are processes that are not dissimilar to our functions here. One of them is to be able to understand what a nominee or an appointment of a high-ranking executive might include and a review of that person's potential, that person's experience, that person's attitude before you put him to work. My fellow Senators on the other side of the aisle would have the Senate, considered the most deliberative body in world history--and, I assume, also considered one of the most thoughtful places in the world in terms of Government and deliberative bodies--vote to confirm a nominee to a lifetime--lifetime, and it is important people realize that means you cannot be fired from the job; this means you can go as long as you want to, and when you are finished with your service, your salary continues at exactly the same level it did when you went to work every day--a lifetime appointment without disclosure of what I and my colleagues consider required information. In the business world, this practice would have been unheard of, and the American people deserve better. If someone were seeking a post and they appeared before a congressional committee or a department head and said, I would like the job, but I am not willing to answer that questionnaire, that would make that aspirant unacceptable under any condition. It should be a requirement when a lifetime-tenured job is under discussion, something so important as the circuit court of appeals where people, after getting a decision from district court, go to get the judgment of wise and experienced people. His unwillingness to answer questions, to talk about what he stands for, and what he believes is a shocking disregard for appropriate behavior. Responsible business owners do not hire senior managers without first conducting a complete and thorough review of that candidate's job application. The candidate would answer questions that give interviewers an opportunity to measure the candidate's decisionmaking process and views on work-related issues. A candidate cannot simply refuse to answer important questions of fitness, philosophy, or temperament. No business executive would hire a candidate who refused to answer basic inquiries. These are not private matters. They become the matters of the employer, be it government or business. Those in business would put their businesses at risk and leave themselves susceptible to future lawsuits based on negligent hiring practices. No one is doubting the fact Mr. Estrada is bright and intelligent, but his repeated refusal to provide the Senate with any insight into his views on the law and the U.S. Constitution is incomprehensible. I just cannot understand it. How can we make an informed decision about a judicial nominee if the nominee refuses to provide the Senate with sufficient information about his judicial philosophy and, therefore, his temperament? The questions being asked are not prohibited by law or judicial or professional ethics codes. Instead of entertaining continuing with these dilatory tactics, the Senate should simply move on to the important business of the American people concerned about the protection of their homeland; move on to repair a hemorrhaging Federal budget that under this administration has been converted from a $5.6 trillion surplus into a 2.$1 trillion deficit; move on to provide States that are experiencing dire economic conditions with more Federal assistance that would help them weather the storms during these times of increasing unemployment, threatening war with Iraq, and a sustained fear of potential terrorist acts. In the most recent CNN Gallup poll, 50 percent of Americans believe the economy is the most pressing issue confronting the Nation. Thirty percent of Americans believe the war with Iraq is the most important issue, second to jobs and the economy. The nomination of Mr. Estrada did not make the list of important concerns facing the Nation. Since January 2001, the number of unemployed Americans has increased by nearly 40 percent, with nearly 8.3 million Americans out of work. Since President Bush took office, 2.3 million private sector jobs have been lost and the unemployment rate for Latinos by way of example has increased 33 percent. According to the Department of Labor, there are now 2.4 jobseekers for every job opening. So rather than focusing on creating jobs for 8.3 million Americans, the Senate is targeted on the job of one attorney, a very successful attorney who made a lot of money. But how does that influence what the American people see as their need? This is the same thinking that has produced an economic stimulus package that overwhelmingly favors the top 1 percent of American taxpayers while giving very little to those who really need some economic help. The Senate needs to move on to the important work of protecting the homeland. CIA Director Tenet and FBI Director Mueller have both testified that America is still vulnerable to terrorist attack, and we keep on hearing alarms described in different colors. The American public does not understand what the difference between red and yellow is. They just know it scares them. It panics them. They do not know what to do. I get phone calls from people in New Jersey asking, Should we stay out of New York City? Should we not take our children on a trip? Should we stay home? The answer to all of those is that we do not really know, but we ought to get on with finding out. The omnibus appropriations bill provides less than half of the $3.5 billion in funding promised to law enforcement people, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel. Meanwhile, America's ports, borders, and critical infrastructure remain dangerously unprotected. Once again, instead of focusing on protecting the homeland and funding our first responders, the work of the Senate is being delayed in order to secure the appointment of a judicial nominee who refuses to share his views with the American people. I do not intend to demean or diminish the importance of this nomination. It is very important. To the contrary, the nomination at issue is to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which is the most powerful intermediate Federal appellate court, second only to the U.S. Supreme Court. The DC Circuit is more powerful, it is observed, than other Federal courts because it has exclusive jurisdiction over a broad array of far-reaching Federal regulations that enforce critical environment, consumer, and worker protection laws. As history has shown, DC Circuit Court judges are often tapped to serve on the Supreme Court. Presently, three of the nine Supreme Court Justices--Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg--previously served on the DC Circuit. The Senate has a constitutional responsibility. The constitutional judicial confirmation process grants authority to the President of the United States to make the nominations and gives the Senate an equally significant role to agree by advising and consenting with the President's recommendation before a nominee can sit on the Federal bench. These important, mutually coexisting roles of the President and the Senate are central to the democratic system of separation of powers and checks and balances. Mr. Estrada must provide the Senate with a full and complete understanding of his views of the law and the Constitution, including important civil rights laws that protect all Americans, especially minorities, women, the elderly, and the disabled. However, if he is unwilling or the White House is unwilling to nominate judicial nominees who are willing to answer reasonable, nonintrusive, and legitimate inquiries of the Senate, then these nominees should not be confirmed. The role of the Senate in the confirmation process is advise and consent. It does not say anyplace to rubberstamp all Presidential nominations. The Senate should not abdicate its responsibility to thoroughly review judicial nominations. It is a responsibility, it is an obligation, for each one of us. Rather, the Senate is dutybound to ensure that each nominee maintains the utmost commitment to upholding the Constitution of our country--following precedent, listening to arguments without fear or favor, and rendering judgment without personal bias. Miguel Estrada has failed to respond to legitimate inquiries to the Senate and the American people. As I said before, it is time to move on to the important work of the American people, and let this appointment fall as it should unless Mr. Estrada has a reckoning with himself and his obligation and comes to the Senate to discuss his views in response to questions posed by the Senate.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is a very important paper, yes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am aware of that.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do not know precisely, but it is in the----

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am sorry?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Over a million certainly on the weekends.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am. I am also aware of the fact that there are Latino organizations that are unalterably opposed to this nomination.