Floor Statements

Mr. President, this is a very significant day in environmental history in our world, particularly in our country. While the debate goes on about what corporate America has done and what they have not done and how we should treat them in trying to get our economy back on track, we have heard questions raised about corporate behavior.

I came out of the corporate world when I came to the Senate. It seems to me that things were different years ago.

Over the last few days, we have heard many in these Chambers, here and in the House of Representatives, call on companies to be better corporate citizens.

Today I rise to point out what may be the greatest abandonment of corporate citizenship in our Nation's history, and that was displayed by the Exxon Corporation, one of the most profitable companies in American history. Twenty years ago this day, one of their ships ran aground in Alaska. Still Exxon refuses to live up to the obligations it obtained when that ship ran aground, and it damaged the environment substantially.

It was 20 years ago today the Exxon Valdez crashed into the Bligh Reef in Alaska's Prince William Sound. That ship spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil, damaging 1,300 miles of shoreline, and ruining the lives of thousands of Americans.

Now, as chairman of a subcommittee with appropriations jurisdiction over the Coast Guard, I was taken to Alaska by the Coast Guard and arrived there 3 days after the Exxon Valdez ran aground. To see the damage was horrific. But also during those days there, during that first day, I saw so many of the people who worked for the Government.

This is a discussion we often have about Government servants and their obligations--and I would say, having come from the corporate world, there are few who are more mindful of their obligations than those who work for Government. That day I saw from the helicopter in which I was flying so many of our people committed to their responsibilities, dealing with the problem, brave people traveling to tiny islands by helicopter and small boats. Their mission was to save the wildlife.

I saw many of them fairly close up taking birds, and mammals--the young mammals, particularly--and fish into their hands and wiping the oil off to try to save the lives of these victims. One by one, wherever they could, they were saving animal lives. It was devastating to see.

It was obvious, as one looked at the waters of Prince William Sound, a beautiful place, surrounded by glaciers, that this lure, this almost seductive lure of color and cover that came from the oil was at the same time doling out poisons.

There are many portions of Prince William Sound today that remain contaminated. The cannery workers, fishermen, and people whose lives depended on Prince William Sound are still paying a price. The local economy is still reeling. Think about it. So much time has passed since this spill that as many as 6,000 people injured by that disaster have already passed away. These people were never ever fully compensated for their loss.

Exxon was responsible for this mess. But the company fought at every step to shirk its responsibilities. And ever since the disaster, Exxon has defaulted on its obligations as a corporate citizen and refused to repair whole communities and innocent lives that have been damaged.

Instead, during all of this period, Exxon has fought tooth and nail to deprive the victims of proper compensation, spending as much as $400 million to retain lawyers and keep things bottled up in court.

Exxon took its fight all the way to the Supreme Court, and last year, 19 years after the tragedy, the Justices confirmed that Exxon owes punitive damages to the victims, although they and their skillful hordes of lawyers succeeded in a constant effort to reduce the amount of compensation.

Still, even today, 20 years later, the company continues to stonewall the victims by trying to avoid paying the interest that fell on these charges. Exxon's actions are the height of corporate irresponsibility. As a former CEO of a major corporation, I understand the drive to succeed. But there is nothing more reprehensible than a company evading its obligations to our country's people just to make a quick buck and to avoid the legitimate responsibility that is a giant factor in our economy and social well being. They have that responsibility.

Exxon had record profits last year of $45 billion. Even last quarter, when companies across the country were suffering, this company, Exxon, posted a profit of nearly $8 billion in a single quarter--$8 billion.

Now, it would have been a drop in the bucket for this corporation to have fully compensated the victims who were so severely hurt. All the money, energy, and time that Exxon has wasted should have been spent making local communities whole again and helping to fix the environmental and economic damage done to Alaska's Prince William Sound.

The truth is, Exxon needs to change its ways, and today, the 20th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez disaster, is a perfect opportunity.

On this anniversary, we are also reminded how dangerous transporting oil can be. That is why I have introduced a bill this day that will accelerate the use of double-hulled vessels by shippers.

Oil spills are absolutely catastrophic to the environment and seaside communities and influence wide geographic areas beyond those communities. After examining the costs of past spills, we have written a bill to substantially reduce the possibilities of future spills. So I look forward to seeing this bill passed by this Chamber and to working with colleagues to make sure that disasters like the one we saw 20 years ago this day will never happen again.

Mr. President, this is a very significant day in environmental history in our world, particularly in our country. While the debate goes on about what corporate America has done and what they have not done and how we should treat them in trying to get our economy back on track, we have heard questions raised about corporate behavior.

I came out of the corporate world when I came to the Senate. It seems to me that things were different years ago.

Over the last few days, we have heard many in these Chambers, here and in the House of Representatives, call on companies to be better corporate citizens.

Today I rise to point out what may be the greatest abandonment of corporate citizenship in our Nation's history, and that was displayed by the Exxon Corporation, one of the most profitable companies in American history. Twenty years ago this day, one of their ships ran aground in Alaska. Still Exxon refuses to live up to the obligations it obtained when that ship ran aground, and it damaged the environment substantially.

It was 20 years ago today the Exxon Valdez crashed into the Bligh Reef in Alaska's Prince William Sound. That ship spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil, damaging 1,300 miles of shoreline, and ruining the lives of thousands of Americans.

Now, as chairman of a subcommittee with appropriations jurisdiction over the Coast Guard, I was taken to Alaska by the Coast Guard and arrived there 3 days after the Exxon Valdez ran aground. To see the damage was horrific. But also during those days there, during that first day, I saw so many of the people who worked for the Government.

This is a discussion we often have about Government servants and their obligations--and I would say, having come from the corporate world, there are few who are more mindful of their obligations than those who work for Government. That day I saw from the helicopter in which I was flying so many of our people committed to their responsibilities, dealing with the problem, brave people traveling to tiny islands by helicopter and small boats. Their mission was to save the wildlife.

I saw many of them fairly close up taking birds, and mammals--the young mammals, particularly--and fish into their hands and wiping the oil off to try to save the lives of these victims. One by one, wherever they could, they were saving animal lives. It was devastating to see.

It was obvious, as one looked at the waters of Prince William Sound, a beautiful place, surrounded by glaciers, that this lure, this almost seductive lure of color and cover that came from the oil was at the same time doling out poisons.

There are many portions of Prince William Sound today that remain contaminated. The cannery workers, fishermen, and people whose lives depended on Prince William Sound are still paying a price. The local economy is still reeling. Think about it. So much time has passed since this spill that as many as 6,000 people injured by that disaster have already passed away. These people were never ever fully compensated for their loss.

Exxon was responsible for this mess. But the company fought at every step to shirk its responsibilities. And ever since the disaster, Exxon has defaulted on its obligations as a corporate citizen and refused to repair whole communities and innocent lives that have been damaged.

Instead, during all of this period, Exxon has fought tooth and nail to deprive the victims of proper compensation, spending as much as $400 million to retain lawyers and keep things bottled up in court.

Exxon took its fight all the way to the Supreme Court, and last year, 19 years after the tragedy, the Justices confirmed that Exxon owes punitive damages to the victims, although they and their skillful hordes of lawyers succeeded in a constant effort to reduce the amount of compensation.

Still, even today, 20 years later, the company continues to stonewall the victims by trying to avoid paying the interest that fell on these charges. Exxon's actions are the height of corporate irresponsibility. As a former CEO of a major corporation, I understand the drive to succeed. But there is nothing more reprehensible than a company evading its obligations to our country's people just to make a quick buck and to avoid the legitimate responsibility that is a giant factor in our economy and social well being. They have that responsibility.

Exxon had record profits last year of $45 billion. Even last quarter, when companies across the country were suffering, this company, Exxon, posted a profit of nearly $8 billion in a single quarter--$8 billion.

Now, it would have been a drop in the bucket for this corporation to have fully compensated the victims who were so severely hurt. All the money, energy, and time that Exxon has wasted should have been spent making local communities whole again and helping to fix the environmental and economic damage done to Alaska's Prince William Sound.

The truth is, Exxon needs to change its ways, and today, the 20th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez disaster, is a perfect opportunity.

On this anniversary, we are also reminded how dangerous transporting oil can be. That is why I have introduced a bill this day that will accelerate the use of double-hulled vessels by shippers.

Oil spills are absolutely catastrophic to the environment and seaside communities and influence wide geographic areas beyond those communities. After examining the costs of past spills, we have written a bill to substantially reduce the possibilities of future spills. So I look forward to seeing this bill passed by this Chamber and to working with colleagues to make sure that disasters like the one we saw 20 years ago this day will never happen again.

Mr. President, I rise to express my strenuous objection to the amendment that is being offered by the Senator from Arizona. The amendment has a purpose, no doubt, but it is particularly and solely political.

Let there be no doubt, we have to stop companies from doing business with Iran. Iran's nuclear technology program grows stronger every day, and it represents a serious threat to our country, to Israel, and to mankind. It is known that Iran also funds terrorist organizations, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. That is why we have to deal with this threat seriously whenever we can do so.

Over the last few years, I have offered three amendments to block American companies from helping Iran to develop its nuclear technology and promote terrorist actions. But when the chips were down, my Republican colleagues voted against three amendments.

My amendment would have closed the loophole in our laws that allows American-owned companies to use sham offshore subsidiaries to do business with Iran. Three times I brought amendments for a vote on the Senate floor to shut down this loophole. But each and every time, the Republican Members of the Senate voted against commonsense legislation. They voted to keep Iran open for business. They voted to allow American companies to help the regime in Tehran, as the Senator said, to produce oil, to produce revenues they sent to Iraq to help those guys kill our troops.

So I ask, why now are these Members so interested in stopping companies from doing business with Iran? We know why. Raw political showmanship. But we have to stop Iran's serious nuclear threat from continuing to try to wipe Israel off the map and to attack the United States and other democratic nations. Our national security is at stake, and we should have a serious debate on how to block Iran's nuclear program. That is why we have to object to Senator Kyl's amendment.

There is another problem with his amendment. My legislation would have closed the ``business with terrorists'' loophole, and this amendment does not. I checked with the Congressional Research Service. CRS says this amendment will not have any effect on present sanctions. It will have little or no influence on the mad stream of threats and the ugly hatred that comes from Iran.

If the Senator wants us to work together to get a decent approach to get at this problem, I would be happy to work with him on it in the days ahead. But this amendment before us does nothing to stop their mad dash to build a nuclear threat to humankind. I hope we can work together to come up with a strong piece of legislation to end this practice once and for all.

The amendment simply is a gimmick to attack the omnibus bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield a minute to my friend from Connecticut, Senator Dodd.

I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 638, withdrawn

Mr. Presdient, I rise to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP. I strongly support the NAACP and I am proud to be a lifelong member. Today, I wish to recognize this organization and the tremendous work it has done fighting for political, educational, social and economic equality for all. America would be a less equal and less just nation without the work and lasting influence of the NAACP.

One hundred years ago on the centennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth, a distinguished group of Americans came together to fight racial hatred and racial discrimination through nonviolence. In the intervening years, the NAACP has become one of the most respected civil rights organizations in

the United States, having fought some of country's greatest civil rights battles.

Since its inception, the NAACP has been on the frontlines fighting for racial equality in all areas of life. A team of NAACP lawyers, led by Thurgood Marshall, fought successfully for the desegregation of public schools in the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. The NAACP also played a key role in ensuring the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, laws that are essential to guaranteeing all Americans' full participation in our democracy.

Whether it is combating racial profiling, reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, or fighting hate crimes and pay discrimination, I have been proud to stand side by side with the NAACP throughout my Senate career.

There is no better way to honor the NAACP's work than to continue its fight for justice and equal opportunity. This fight starts with getting the Nation's economy moving again, and giving every child access to quality education and every family access to affordable health care. I look forward to working with the NAACP and with all my Senate colleagues to make these goals a reality.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to Sybil Moses, a

judge and pioneer who for 21 years brought to New Jersey her commitment to the rule of law and passion for the administration of justice. Sybil passed away on January 23, 2009, and is survived by her husband of 48 years, her son, her daughter, and her five beautiful grandchildren. She will be sorely missed by her family and by my home State of New Jersey.

Sybil opened up new opportunities for women by virtue of her hard work, and she created a path that many will follow in the future. After proving herself as a prosecutor and a judge, Sybil was appointed the State's first female assignment judge in 1997. Sybil understood not only the law, but also the needs of residents who came in contact with the court. While serving at the courthouse, for example, she created a free day care center, so that anyone attending a court matter could bring their child with them, rather than having to make other arrangements. Sybil served as an assignment judge until her retirement in October. Even retirement, however, could not stop Sybil, who accepted two Supreme Court committee assignments so that she could continue her work improving New Jersey's judiciary system.

Sybil attended Rutgers Law School in the early 1970s after the birth of her two children. Women were a rarity on campus, and she became part of a group of women who called themselves ``The Band of Mothers.'' Throughout her life, Sybil exhibited an unwavering strength and commitment to succeed, no matter the circumstances.

New Jersey was blessed to have such an enthusiastic, dedicated civil servant administering the rule of law for the past 21 years. Sybil blazed a path that made it easier for women everywhere to accomplish their goals. For that, she will be missed and will serve as a role model for future generations.

Mr. President, the amendment we have before us is of critical importance. By adopting this infrastructure amendment, we will improve this package by increasing its focus on repairing and upgrading our Nation's infrastructure. The fact is, our Nation's highways, bridges, and transit and water systems are just not keeping pace with our country's needs.

For our economy, our workers, and our future, we have to rebuild America. This amendment will instantly translate into construction projects in communities across our country and send a quick jolt through our economy.

In all, this amendment will create 655,000 new jobs. We cannot forget that unemployment in construction is higher than in any other sector.

We know transportation investments are one of the most effective ways to grow our economy. For every dollar we invest in transportation, we get an immediate $1.59 in return.

But make no mistake--this amendment is not just a short-term fix. It is a long-term investment that will pay off for our entire Nation.

The truth is, as a Nation, we have neglected our pressing infrastructure needs. More than 25 percent of our Nation's bridges are deficient. Let us not forget the catastrophic bridge collapse in Minneapolis just a year and a half ago. Gridlock on our highways means each commuter spends an average of 38 hours a year sitting in traffic, burning 26 gallons of gas while going nowhere. And travelers in many parts of our country are stuck in their cars simply because they don't have the option to board a train. Our economy--the largest in the world--still doesn't have a world-class passenger rail system.

This amendment will allow States to invest in highways, bridges, transit systems and expanded rail service.

And it will put people back to work. Right now, families across our country are suffering. Every day more and more people join the unemployment line, a line that is right now 11 million people long.

We have a tremendous opportunity before us to rebuild our infrastructure, reinvigorate our economy, and create jobs.

We have a lot to do in the next week, and I hope we will meet our obligations and get the job done.

Mr. President, I will take a minute to salute the leadership of the Senator from Montana on the Finance Committee. He has done a masterful job trying to keep things together as we get ourselves back to a more stable economy. I congratulate him for the work done and ask him to continue to exert the effort and leadership he has thus far.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to protect the well-being of more than 3,000 children in New Jersey.

Amendment No. 74

A particular focus as we seek to stimulate an economic revival is to preserve and protect the Children's Health Insurance Program which has helped millions of kids get to a doctor for regular checkups to keep them well and get them the medicines or treatment they need.

However, instead of continuing that safety net or strengthening it, the Senator from Kentucky is targeting 3,000 children in my State, putting their coverage at risk. It is an assault on equity in our diverse country. Incomes vary and certainly costs of living differ and Federal assistance to States reflects their subsistence needs.

This amendment will deprive children of essential health care. These children are from working families who are producing income--modest as it may be--not enough to take care of all their needs but, nevertheless, essential in their family circumstance.

I wish to note that while our economy is going deeper and deeper into a recession, there is an attack on children's well-being by a Senator whose State in 2005 was the ninth largest recipient of Federal assistance. His State--Kentucky--receives 90 cents more for every dollar they pay to the Federal Government than New Jersey does. With the way my Republican colleagues are talking, one might think too many children in New Jersey are receiving health insurance.

While this assault is taking place, it is important to plead our case in the Senate. Right now, the number of children in New Jersey without health coverage is far above the national average. In fact, more than a quarter of a million kids in my State do not have health insurance, and now the Bunning amendment would put more children in my State at risk of losing their health insurance.

One of the other serious problems with this amendment is it intimates that costs among States are identical in each case. The Federal poverty level cannot be applied, for instance, equally in New Jersey and Kentucky. In New Jersey, we have the twin problems of very high costs of living and very high health insurance costs. The cost of living in the State of New Jersey is 30 percent higher than the national average. In fact, only two other States have a higher cost of living than New Jersey. Nearly all the families who rely on this program to get medical care for their children still have to pay copays, monthly premiums, and other out-of-pocket expenses.

This amendment is a bomb intended to disrupt the process the entire country desperately wants to see accomplished--and that is protecting children's health.

Given New Jersey's contribution when it comes to filling other States' needs, I find it particularly offensive. We know other States have different needs than we do, and we join in supporting these needs. If there is a natural disaster in a particular State, for example, the other 49 chip in. That is what our Republic demands.

Time and time again, New Jersey's taxpayers are asked to shoulder the burden to help other areas of the country that are in need, and for every dollar New Jersey gives to the Federal Government, we only receive 61 cents back. As a matter of fact, we are last in the list of States. Compare that with Kentucky. For every dollar Kentucky pays to the Treasury, it gets back $1.51.

Whether it is the Universal Service Fund for phone service, Essential Air Service in aviation or other programs, New Jersey gives far more than it gets back.

The Bunning amendment is contrary to everything we are trying to accomplish on the floor this week. More than 3,000 children in New Jersey are depending upon us now to protect their health. Whether it is illness, disease, violence, toxic pollution, terrorism or other threats, it is our job to protect our children, particularly when they are holding out their hands in need. Children in New Jersey are depending on the Members of this institution to oppose the Bunning amendment.

Two years ago, on a bipartisan vote, the Senate rejected a similar amendment that was offered by the Senator from Kentucky. It is an assault he continues with. I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment once again. Do it with a flourish, and do it with emphasis, because we have to stop States picking on other States in our moments of great need.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the events that are in front of us and their significance. We are presently sharing in the excitement that surrounds this Capitol and our country at the prospect that President Obama will be taking office and leading this country in a positive fashion.

There is a lot of work to do and a lot of concerns have been brought to our attention. We are reminded by President-elect Obama that people are losing their jobs, and we cannot stand still and let it happen. Prospects are that maybe 500,000 new people a month will be out of work. The economy is fragile and there is not the capital around to get businesses started or to reverse the course we are on. And health care is of great concern to people who are uninsured and struggling.

At the same time that we are concerned about these things now in our own country, we have international responsibilities that we cannot ignore.

Even as excitement surrounds us here, inspired by the new President, we have to look away from our shores and see what is happening in the Middle East where there is fighting raging between Israel and Hamas. And even while we face domestic problems, we cannot step back from what is happening in the Middle East and the responsibility of America as the leading Nation on our globe. Although I bring this up with some degree of reluctance, we must discuss the situation that we face.

We know that governing is about choices. When we look at the Middle East right now, the choice for Israel is whether Israel steps aside and ignores the attacks on her people that come daily, without provocation.

We have all heard the opinion around the world about how awful the situation in the Middle East is. It is awful. It is terrible. When I see children hurt, when I see them killed, when I see families distressed as their economy worsens, it is a terrible sight.

I was in the Gaza Strip some years ago, bringing good news and financial assistance to the people of the Gaza as they opened a new airport. It was during the time that Arafat was President. There was hope springing up all around that maybe they could get out of the misery that existed in the Gaza Strip and develop an orderly society.

Israel is a democracy in an area of many nations that are less than democratic. When these economies flourish the wealth falls into a few hands, who build their buildings, take their resources, and buy bigger yachts and bigger airplanes for themselves and not for their countries. But there was hope that maybe the Gaza Strip would become a place of opportunity for its people. That is why I was so pleased to be there and to bring the promise of aid upon which we had agreed.

There was no Hamas there at that time. Now, Hamas is there making determinations about its future and the future of the people of the Gaza. Apparently the choice of Hamas is to continue the assault on Israel and to not let discussions take place. I am one of those people who support a two-state commitment there, knowing full well that Israel is a place that could share its knowledge and experience with the people of Gaza. But Hamas refuses to do that. It is a terrorist organization.

I remember a trip I took with several colleagues when we went to Iraq and on the way we stopped in Jordan and Syria, and we spoke to the President of Syria and I asked him to try to curb the activities of Hamas by securing the borders. I said: Why are you encouraging Hamas to find refuge here, have their headquarters here along with Hezbollah? President Asad said: They are a social service organization.

Social service--Mr. President, that is no more a social service organization than the people who attacked us on 9/11; than the people who attacked the British train system; than those who attack innocent people in various countries and cities.

Terrorism is at our throat. We have to be wary. It has changed the way our society functions. Look at all the inspections you go through if you want to catch an airplane or go into public buildings--always with an ID card. We know the results of terrorism. It is to destroy democratic society, take away the choices people have in their lives. It says women have to conduct themselves in a certain way satisfactory and

not have rights to participate in financial opportunities for themselves and their families.

And so we look at Hamas and have to ask: Does it really care about the people of Gaza or is it simply dedicated to its terrorist ways? For the answer we can review how Hamas conducts itself.

Once again, I, as a human being, as a person who cares about life and family, I am distressed to see the loss of life that is taking place in Gaza and in Israel. People are injured and frightened to go out of their homes--and yet even their home can be a place where misery prevails.

But Hamas has attacked Israel, firing rockets, and even now, when it is perhaps possible to get a cease-fire, they insist on continuing rocket firing.

We have seen the opinions of countries around the world as they look at this situation. Instead of just criticizing Israel, why isn't it said that Hamas is a terrorist organization that wants to take away people's rights, that wants to permit their innocent citizens to be used as decoys--in schools and mosques and other places--to try to hide the militants who are firing rockets into Israel?

Hamas starts by saying they don't recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist, but Israel has that right and shall defend that right. She has built a society from the sands, a society that flourishes, not just on the economic side, but on the scientific and research side. They have figured out how to grow crops in areas that were arid, and how to develop the technology that Israel is known for.

The practice of medicine is another thing that Israel is known for. There is a facility in Israel that I helped fund, in memory of my father who died as a very young man--43 years old--from cancer. There is a scientist who lived in New Jersey and was a professor at our principal institution, Rutgers University.

And he asked if I would help fund a laboratory and a facility there that did cancer research. I said yes. That was some time ago. I know they have Arab students there and they have Arab professors there and they all cooperate in helping people maintain good health. We have all seen stories in the paper about the young Arab child who came to Israel, brought by her father, to have a heart transplant. In this way Israeli science reaches out to people of all nations and all religions.

Israel has a right to exist, and a right to exist in peace, and would be more than willing to bring in the countries surrounding Israel to participate in programs for peace as it has with medicine. But there cannot be real peace without security. Israel is taking appropriate action to ensure the security of its people, and to ask them to do less is unfair.

It is impossible to say to them that if we had rockets falling on Boston, we would not respond or if we had rockets falling on Newark, NJ, we would not respond.

I can tell you, as a resident of New Jersey where we have a 2-mile strip that is said by the FBI to be the most dangerous 2-mile strip in the country for a terrorist attack, we are constantly on the alert. We have boats there, we have guards all over the place, and we make sure we are ready to defend ourselves.

Not only is Israel defending itself, as we would, against deadly aggression, it is also putting a stop to the psychological warfare that has become a daily part of life for the people in southern Israel. Innocent civilians live with constant fear that a rocket might kill them, their children, or destroy their home.

Israel, like the United States, is determined to protect and safeguard its people. After 9/11, America sought to eliminate threats to our country from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Now Israel is seeking to eliminate threats from ongoing terrorist attacks.

We cannot kid ourselves about the strategy that Hamas used to gain power in Gaza. Hamas built up its image among the Palestinian people by painting itself as a social service provider. But if they really cared about the Palestinian people, they would not use them as human shields, and they would not use the rooftops of homes to launch rocket attacks.

The events of the past few weeks illustrate to the world that terrorist groups cannot be permitted to go on menacing the free world with terror attacks and there are no countries that are safe from this kind of assault.

Hamas has shown that it cares more about destruction than about improving the lives of the people of Gaza. Hamas leaders have chosen to ignore the fact that their people are suffering in poverty and instead have focused exclusively on hurting Israel.

So we ask Hamas: Stand up; show that you do care about your people and stop attacking Israel's citizens.

There will be tense days ahead in Israel and Gaza, and I am deeply concerned about the loss of innocent life, the pain of losing a family member, and injuries that may last for a lifetime.

To put a stop to the loss of innocent life, Hamas must come to its senses and pursue a cease-fire that is sustainable and durable.

Israel should be joined by nations around the world in pursuing a cease-fire because terror is ultimately possible in their own states and their own communities, whether it is in India, whether it is in France, whether it is in Spain, whether it is in the UK, or whether it is in America as we saw on 9/11.

There is only one way to bring real peace and real security to the Middle East: stop the rockets and get the people to the bargaining table.

Negotiations are being attempted with Egypt's active participation. We have to encourage these negotiations.

And it has to be very clear to Hamas and other terrorist organizations that they are not going to win by killing people or by discouraging free thought and democratic values.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 60 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, January 14; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the Senate then resume consideration of S. 22, the lands bill, with time until 10:30 a.m. divided equally and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; and that the cloture vote with respect to S. 22 occur at 10:30 a.m.

I further ask that the filing deadline for second-degree amendments be 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. President, the manager of the bill was unable to reach an agreement to consider amendments today. As a result of this impasse, the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the bill at 10:30 tomorrow.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for the transaction of morning business be extended until 6 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to present my remarks. I should not go over 10 minutes, but I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to do so.