Floor Statements

If I may have the courtesy of a question to the Senator from Arizona. My subject is away from the present discussion. Short subject. It talks about the pride we in New Jersey have about our Giants. But if I might have a few minutes?

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, for his statement about the Super Bowl game that was played yesterday, and his congratulations to the Giants. And notice, I did not say the New York Giants, though that is the name, and we are as proud of that team as we in New Jersey could be.

But pride in my birthplace, my home all my life, the State I am privileged to serve in the Senate, forces me to remind everyone that though we treasure our neighbors' interests in New York, the Giants' home is in New Jersey, many of the players live in New Jersey, the home games are played in New Jersey, and there cannot be any doubt about the fan loyalty and the attendance of our proud New Jersey residents.

But to take nothing away from that smashing victory--that wonderful game, by the way, that was said by everyone I have met and talked to-- even though our pride, our hopes were with the Giants, the fact is, it was a wonderful football game, and we cannot take away the greatness also of the New England Patriots football team.

After a tremendous season, a remarkable run through the playoffs, and a miraculous achievement against the AFC's best--the New England Patriots--our Giants are now the Super Bowl champions for the third time in history.

Last night, the Giants did what those of us in New Jersey and across the country believed they could do: They took the crown from the king. To capture the crown, they made key plays under pressure. The game started with a field goal, but the Patriots came right back and held the lead for much of the game. But with 2 minutes left, and their backs against the wall, the Giants came from behind to score the winning touchdown. The team showed guts and strength and courage, as they had throughout the season and through the playoffs. Last night, we saw them at their best. By winning the Super Bowl, our Giants are truly nominated to be the best team in the NFL, and they brought the Super Bowl trophy right back to its rightful place in New Jersey. From their home turf in East Rutherford, NJ, to the Super Bowl win in Arizona--and it was a wonderful setting and an outstanding opportunity to display our Giant greatness--the Giants stood tall and showed that against all odds they were champions.

What a pleasure it was to see the quarterback, Eli Manning, show his championship colors by hanging on as the Patriot defense came after him time and time again. What a wonderful family place that is to have two sons who are such expert football players. But Eli finally was able to come out of the shadow and take his place alongside his brother's great play.

David Tyree, a New Jersey native, scored the first touchdown and had an incredible catch with barely a minute left in play, falling back and pinning the ball tight against his helmet as he fell to the ground. He was holding onto that ball, and nothing could pull it from his arms.

Plaxico Burress caught the game-winning touchdown.

The offensive line, anchored by Rutgers University alumnus and New Jersey resident Shaun O'Hara, showed the way.

And don't forget, they say that defense wins championships. We saw a lot of that yesterday. The defensive line, led by Michael Strahan, also a New Jersey resident, stopped the record-setting Patriot offense in its tracks. It was no minor accomplishment.

In fact, our defense allowed only 14 points against a team that averaged more than 36 points a game during the regular season--an incredible accomplishment.

The Giants ran and passed, and they sacked their way to a championship and into the record books. The Giants have long had a place in the hearts and minds of New Jerseyans.

While the team does bear the New York name, their home has been in New Jersey for more than 30 years. Right now, one can see--if you pass the area where the Meadowlands in New Jersey is--they are building a brandnew stadium to keep them playing and winning in New Jersey for many years to come.

From Rutgers University to the Giants and the Jets, we have a proud and deep tradition of winning football in the Garden State. I am so proud the tradition lives on.

I congratulate the Mara and Tisch families, Tom Coughlin, the rest of the coaching staff, and the entire Giants team for an incredible Super Bowl victory. Giant fans cannot wait to bring the trophy back home.

On behalf of all New Jerseyans and our fans across the country, I am pleased--so pleased--to be able to call our Giants ``champions.''

The play that was displayed was magnetic, was fascinating. It will go down as one of the great Super Bowl games in history.

So we note, once again, just a reminder: Do not always call them the New York Giants. Just say Giants. That is enough. While we are under full cover of our pride and our allegiance, we call them the ``Jersey Giants.''

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Gun Show Background Check Act of 2008. I am proud to be joined by lead cosponsor Senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island, as well as Senators Feinstein, Kennedy, Menendez, Kerry, Schumer, Whitehouse, Inouye, Levin, and Boxer.

It was almost 9 years ago, on May 20, 1999, that I stood in this chamber and urged my colleagues to close the gun show loophole once and for all.

Barely 1 month earlier, two teenagers had shot and killed 12 students and one teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. None of us will ever forget the horror we felt as we watched students run in fear from a shooting rampage that took the lives of 13 innocent people.

Those 13 people never should have died because those teenagers never should have had those guns. Some of the guns were purchased from unlicensed dealers at gun shows.

Although the Federal Brady Law requires licensed firearms dealers to conduct background checks before selling guns, a loophole in Federal law allows unlicensed dealers--who make up 20 to 50 percent of all dealers at gun shows--to sell guns without conducting background checks.

Because the Columbine killers' guns were bought from unlicensed dealers, they were sold without a single background check being done. A friend who bought them guns said she never would have done it if she had to go through a background check.

In the wake of that terrible tragedy, the Senate responded. We passed my legislation to close the gun show loophole, with Vice President Al Gore casting the tiebreaking vote.

Unfortunately, the gun lobby stripped my legislation in conference, and 9 years later, the gun show loophole is still open. Nine years after the horror of Columbine, easy access to guns is still the law of the land, and gun violence still plagues our schools, our streets, and our communities.

Last April, we witnessed the worst school shooting tragedy in our Nation's history. Thirty-two students and professors were killed, and 15 more were wounded at Virginia Tech.

We know now that the Virginia Tech shooter never should have been permitted to buy the two weapons he used that day. He should have been on a prohibited list because of his history of treatment for serious mental illness. In response, we are working to make sure that States include these mental health records in the FBI's background check database.

However, even if the Virginia Tech shooter had been stopped from buying a gun at a gun shop, he still could have walked down the street to a gun show to buy a gun from an unlicensed dealer. All the mental health records in the world will not stop mentally ill people or other prohibited purchasers from buying guns unless all gun dealers-- including unlicensed dealers at gun shows--have to consult those records before selling a gun.

That is why the Virginia Tech Review Panel recommended closing the gun show loophole to prevent prohibited purchasers from buying guns. That is why the survivors of the Virginia Tech massacre and families of the victims are fighting to close the gun show loophole.

Today, I ask my colleagues to finish the job we started almost 9 years ago. We must close the loophole that allows convicted felons, fugitives and domestic abusers to buy guns without going through a background check.

The Lautenberg-Reed bill would close the gun show loophole by requiring background checks for all gun sales at gun shows. Specifically, our bill would require background checks by licensed firearms dealers for all gun transactions at gun shows; define a gun show as an event where 50 or more guns are offered or exhibited for sale; require gun show promoters to register

with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF, and ensure that sellers understand their legal obligations; require licensed gun dealers to keep records of guns sold at gun shows to make it easier to trace guns that are later used in crime.

This bill is a common-sense public safety measure. It has been endorsed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Now, let me be very clear: Our bill would not hurt law-abiding gun owners. It would simply require a background check to stop unlicensed sellers from selling guns to people who are not allowed to own one. Approximately 92 percent of background checks are completed within minutes, and 95 percent are completed within 2 hours.

Those few minutes are worth it. From the enactment of the Brady Act in 1993 through 2005, nearly 70 million background checks have been performed, denying guns to 1.36 million prohibited purchasers.

I am proud to say that more than 150,000 of those guns have been denied to convicted domestic abusers as a result of a law I wrote in 1996.

We can only imagine how many lives have been saved by preventing felons, fugitives, and domestic abusers from getting those guns. Now we have the opportunity to save even more lives by requiring that every gun sold at the thousands of gun shows held across the U.S. each year goes through a background check.

It has been almost 9 years since the Columbine tragedy. We should not wait another day to close the gun show loophole.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Gun Show Background Check Act of 2008. I am proud to be joined by lead cosponsor Senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island, as well as Senators Feinstein, Kennedy, Menendez, Kerry, Schumer, Whitehouse, Inouye, Levin, and Boxer.

It was almost 9 years ago, on May 20, 1999, that I stood in this chamber and urged my colleagues to close the gun show loophole once and for all.

Barely 1 month earlier, two teenagers had shot and killed 12 students and one teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. None of us will ever forget the horror we felt as we watched students run in fear from a shooting rampage that took the lives of 13 innocent people.

Those 13 people never should have died because those teenagers never should have had those guns. Some of the guns were purchased from unlicensed dealers at gun shows.

Although the Federal Brady Law requires licensed firearms dealers to conduct background checks before selling guns, a loophole in Federal law allows unlicensed dealers--who make up 20 to 50 percent of all dealers at gun shows--to sell guns without conducting background checks.

Because the Columbine killers' guns were bought from unlicensed dealers, they were sold without a single background check being done. A friend who bought them guns said she never would have done it if she had to go through a background check.

In the wake of that terrible tragedy, the Senate responded. We passed my legislation to close the gun show loophole, with Vice President Al Gore casting the tiebreaking vote.

Unfortunately, the gun lobby stripped my legislation in conference, and 9 years later, the gun show loophole is still open. Nine years after the horror of Columbine, easy access to guns is still the law of the land, and gun violence still plagues our schools, our streets, and our communities.

Last April, we witnessed the worst school shooting tragedy in our Nation's history. Thirty-two students and professors were killed, and 15 more were wounded at Virginia Tech.

We know now that the Virginia Tech shooter never should have been permitted to buy the two weapons he used that day. He should have been on a prohibited list because of his history of treatment for serious mental illness. In response, we are working to make sure that States include these mental health records in the FBI's background check database.

However, even if the Virginia Tech shooter had been stopped from buying a gun at a gun shop, he still could have walked down the street to a gun show to buy a gun from an unlicensed dealer. All the mental health records in the world will not stop mentally ill people or other prohibited purchasers from buying guns unless all gun dealers-- including unlicensed dealers at gun shows--have to consult those records before selling a gun.

That is why the Virginia Tech Review Panel recommended closing the gun show loophole to prevent prohibited purchasers from buying guns. That is why the survivors of the Virginia Tech massacre and families of the victims are fighting to close the gun show loophole.

Today, I ask my colleagues to finish the job we started almost 9 years ago. We must close the loophole that allows convicted felons, fugitives and domestic abusers to buy guns without going through a background check.

The Lautenberg-Reed bill would close the gun show loophole by requiring background checks for all gun sales at gun shows. Specifically, our bill would require background checks by licensed firearms dealers for all gun transactions at gun shows; define a gun show as an event where 50 or more guns are offered or exhibited for sale; require gun show promoters to register

with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF, and ensure that sellers understand their legal obligations; require licensed gun dealers to keep records of guns sold at gun shows to make it easier to trace guns that are later used in crime.

This bill is a common-sense public safety measure. It has been endorsed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Now, let me be very clear: Our bill would not hurt law-abiding gun owners. It would simply require a background check to stop unlicensed sellers from selling guns to people who are not allowed to own one. Approximately 92 percent of background checks are completed within minutes, and 95 percent are completed within 2 hours.

Those few minutes are worth it. From the enactment of the Brady Act in 1993 through 2005, nearly 70 million background checks have been performed, denying guns to 1.36 million prohibited purchasers.

I am proud to say that more than 150,000 of those guns have been denied to convicted domestic abusers as a result of a law I wrote in 1996.

We can only imagine how many lives have been saved by preventing felons, fugitives, and domestic abusers from getting those guns. Now we have the opportunity to save even more lives by requiring that every gun sold at the thousands of gun shows held across the U.S. each year goes through a background check.

It has been almost 9 years since the Columbine tragedy. We should not wait another day to close the gun show loophole.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended for 2 hours, with the time equally divided.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any quorum time be equally divided.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to applaud the chairman and ranking members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senators Levin and McCain, respectively, on passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.

Specifically, I would like to express my gratitude to the bill conferees for their inclusion of four amendments that I authored and which were unanimously adopted by the Senate during its initial consideration of this bill. These provisions will increase oversight of our country's economic and security assistance to Afghanistan by creating a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, section 1229; help victims of state sponsored terrorism to achieve justice through the U.S. courts, section 1083; prevent military health care fees through the TRICARE program from rising, sections 701 and 702; and increase accountability and planning for safety and security at the Warren Grove Gunnery Range in New Jersey, section 359.

First, I was proud to be joined by my cosponsors, Senators Coburn, Dodd, Hagel, Feingold, Webb, and McCaskill, in creating a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. I wrote this legislation because I believe that while a democratic, stable, and prosperous Afghanistan is important to the national security of the United States and to combating international terrorism, I am concerned that we are not achieving all of our goals there. The United States has provided Afghanistan with over $20 billion in reconstruction and security assistance. However, repeated and documented incidents of waste, fraud, and abuse in the utilization of these funds have undermined reconstruction efforts. I therefore believe that there is a critical need for vigorous oversight of spending by the United States on reconstruction programs and projects in Afghanistan.

I would like to emphasize that the Government Accountability Office and the departmental Inspectors general have provided valuable information on these activities. However, I believe that the congressional oversight process requires more timely oversight and reporting of reconstruction activities in Afghanistan. Oversight by this new Special Inspector General would encompass the activities of the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as other relevant agencies. It would highlight specific acts of waste, fraud, and abuse, as well as other managerial failures in our assistance programs that need to be addressed.

This new position will monitor U.S. assistance to Afghanistan in the civilian and security sectors, as well as in the counternarcotics arena, and will help both Congress and the American people better understand the challenges facing U.S. programs and projects in that country. I am pleased that this provision has been included in this final bill.

Second, this bill includes my legislation to provide justice for victims of state-sponsored terrorism, which has strong bipartisan support. I believe this legislation is essential to providing justice to those who have suffered at the hands of terrorists and is an important tool designed to deter future state-sponsored terrorism. The existing law passed by Congress in 1996 has been weakened by recent judicial decisions. This legislation fixes these problems.

In 1996, Congress created the ``state sponsored terrorism exception'' to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, FSIA. This exception allows victims of terrorism to sue those nations designated as state sponsors of terrorism by the Department of State for terrorist acts they commit or for which they provide material support. Congress subsequently passed the Flatow Amendment to the FSIA, which allows victims of terrorism to seek meaningful damages, such as punitive damages, from state sponsors of terrorism for the horrific acts of terrorist murder and injury committed or supported by them.

Congress's original intent behind the 1996 legislation has been muddied by

numerous court decisions. For example, the courts decided in Cicippio- Puleo v. Islamic Republic of Iran that there is no private right of action against foreign governments--as opposed to individuals--under the Flatow Amendment. Since this decision, judges have been prevented from applying a uniform damages standard to all victims in a single case because a victim's right to pursue an action against a foreign government depends upon State law. My provision in this bill fixes this problem by reaffirming the private right of action under the Flatow Amendment against the foreign state sponsors of terrorism themselves.

My provision in this bill also addresses a part of the law which until now has granted foreign states an unusual procedural advantage. As a general rule, interim court orders cannot be appealed until the court has reached a final disposition on the case as a whole. However, foreign states have abused a narrow exception to this bar on interim appeals--the collateral order doctrine--to delay justice for, and the resolution of, victim's suits. In Beecham v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Libya has delayed the claims of dead and injured U.S. service personnel who were off duty when attacked by Libyan agents at the Labelle Discotheque in Berlin in 1986. These delays have lasted for many years, as the Libyans have taken or threatened to take frivolous collateral order doctrine appeals whenever possible. My provision will eliminate the ability of state sponsors of terrorism to utilize the collateral order doctrine. My legislation sends a clear and unequivocal message to Libya. Its refusal to act in good faith will no longer be tolerated by Congress.

Another purpose of my provision is to facilitate victims' collection of their damages from state sponsors of terrorism. The misapplication of the ``Bancec doctrine,'' named for the Supreme Court's decision in First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba, has in the past erroneously protected the assets of terrorist states from attachment or collection. For example, in Flatow v. Bank Saderat Iran, the Flatow family attempted to attach an asset owned by Iran through the Bank Saderat Iran. Although Iran owned the Bank Saderat Iran, the court, relying on the State Department's application of the Bancec doctrine, held that the Flatows could not attach the asset because they could not show that Iran exercised day-to-day managerial control over Bank Saderat Iran. My provision will remedy this issue by allowing attachment of the assets of a state sponsor of terrorism to be made upon the satisfaction of a ``simple ownership'' test.

Another problem is that courts have mistakenly interpreted the statute of limitations provision that Congress created in 1996. In cases such as Vine v. Republic of Iraq and later Buonocore v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the court interpreted the statute to begin to run at the time of the attack, contrary to our intent. It was our intent to provide a 10-year period from the date of enactment of the legislation for all acts that had occurred at anytime prior to its passage in 1996. We also intended to provide a period of 10 years from the time of any attack which might occur after 1996. My provision clarifies this intent.

My provision also addresses the problems that arose from overly mechanistic interpretations of the 1996 legislation. For example, in several cases, such as Certain Underwriters v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, courts have prevented victims from pursuing claims for collateral property damage sustained in terrorist attacks directed against U.S. citizens. My new provision fixes this problem by creating an explicit cause of action for these kinds of property owners, or their insurers, against state sponsors of terrorism.

Finally, in several cases the courts have prevented non-U.S. nationals who work for the U.S. Government and were injured in a terrorist attack during their official duties from pursuing claims for their personal injuries. My provision fixes this inequity by creating an explicit cause of action for non-U.S. nationals who were either working as an employee of the U.S. Government or working pursuant to a U.S. Government contract.

I also want to make special mention of the inspiration for this new legislation. On October 23, 1983, the Battalion Landing Team headquarters building in the Marine Amphibious Unit compound at the Beirut International Airport was destroyed by a terrorist bomb killing 241 marines, sailors, and soldiers who were present in Lebanon on a peace-keeping mission. In a case known as Peterson v. the Islamic Republic of Iran, filed on behalf of many of the marine victims and their families, the U.S. District Court ruled in 2003 that the terrorist organization Hezbollah was funded by, directed by, and relied upon the Islamic Republic of Iran and its Ministry of Information and Security to carry out that heinous attack. The judge presiding over this case, Judge Royce Lamberth, referred to this as ``the most deadly state sponsored terrorist attack made against United States citizens before September 11, 2001.'' In September of this year Judge Lamberth found that Iran not only is responsible for this attack but also owes the families of the victims a total of more than $2.6 billion for the attack. Congress's support of my provision will now empower these victims to pursue Iranian assets to obtain this just compensation for their suffering. This is true justice through American rule of law.

However, President Bush's veto of the initial version of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008, H.R. 1585, on New Year's Eve required that my provision to provide justice for victims of state-sponsored terrorism be amended. The President chose to take this extraordinary action without warning after asserting that he had not been aware of the provision's potential impact on the Government of Iraq. The President contended that this provision would hinder Iraqi reconstruction by exposing the current Iraqi government to liability for terrorist acts committed by Saddam Hussein's government and vetoed the entire Defense Authorization bill on that basis.

To address the President's concerns that the Government of Iraq could be made liable, the revised provision grants the President the authority to waive the terror victim's provision only for cases in which Iraq or its agencies, instrumentalities, or governmental actors are named defendants. The provision does not give the President the authority to waive any part of the provision for any case in which a government, its agencies, instrumentalities, or governmental actors are named defendants other than Iraq.

By insisting on being given the power to waive application of this new law to Iraq, the President seeks to prevent victims of past Iraqi terrorism--for acts committed by Saddam Hussein--from achieving the same justice as victims of other countries. Fortunately, the President will not have authority to waive the provision's application to terrorist acts committed by Iran and Libya, among others.

In addition, my new provision includes a Sense of the Congress that the Secretary of State should work with Iraq, on a state-to-state basis, to resolve the meritorious claims made against Iraq by terror victims. It is crucial that the victims of these terrorist acts be included in such discussions. Their approval of agreements made between the two governments on their behalf is critical to ensuring that justice is served.

Third, this Defense authorization bill includes my provision to prevent proposed increases in enrollment fees, premiums, and pharmacy copayments for TRICARE, the military community's health plan. The principal coauthor of this provision is Senator Hagel.

Both career members of the uniformed services and their families endure unique and extraordinary demands and make extraordinary sacrifices over the course of 20-year to 30-year careers in protecting freedom for all Americans. I believe they deserve the best retirement benefits that a grateful nation can provide. Proposals to compare cash fees paid by retired military members and their families to fees paid by civilians fails to adequately recognize the sacrifice of military members. We must be mindful that military members prepay the equivalent of very large advance premiums for health care in retirement through their extended service and sacrifice.

The Department of Defense and our Nation have a committed obligation to

provide health care benefits to Active Duty, National Guard, Reserve, and retired members of the uniformed services, their families, and survivors, that considerably exceed the obligation of corporate employers to provide health care benefits to their employees. Ultimately, the Department of Defense has options to constrain the growth of health care spending in ways that do not disadvantage current and retired members of the uniformed services, and it should pursue any and all such options as a first priority. Raising fees excessively on TRICARE beneficiaries is not the way to achieve this objective.

Finally, I thank the conferees for including my amendment to require increased oversight and accountability, as well as improved safety measures, at the Warren Grove Gunnery Range in New Jersey. I wrote this provision with Senator Menendez because a number of dangerous safety incidents caused by the Air National Guard have repeatedly impacted the residents living nearby the range.

On May 15, 2007, a fire ignited during an Air National Guard practice mission at Warren Grove Gunnery Range, scorching 17,250 acres of New Jersey's Pinelands, destroying 5 houses, significantly damaging 13 others, and temporarily displacing approximately 6,000 people from their homes in sections of Ocean and Burlington Counties in New Jersey.

My provision will require that an annual report on safety measures taken at the range be produced by the Secretary of the Air Force. The first report will be due no later than March 1, 2008, and two more will be due annually thereafter. My provision will also require that a master plan for the range be drafted that includes measures to mitigate encroachment issues surrounding the range, taking into consideration military mission requirements, land use plans, the surrounding community, the economy of the region, and the protection of the environment and public health, safety, and welfare. I believe that these studies will provide the type of information that we need to ensure that there is long-term safety at the range, both for the military and the surrounding communities.

Mr. President, another month has passed, and more American troops lost their lives overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is only right that we take time in the Senate to honor them.

Since last memorializing the names of our fallen troops on November 16, the Pentagon has announced the deaths of 39 troops. They lost their lives in Iraq and in Operation Enduring Freedom, which includes Afghanistan. They will not be forgotten. Today I submit their names into the Record:

PFC Juctin R. P. McDaniel, of Andover, NH

SGT Austin D. Pratt, of Cadet, MO

PVT Daren A. Smith, of Helena, MT

SFC Jonathan A. Lowery, of Houlton, ME

SSG Michael J. Gabel, of Crowley, LA

CPL Joshua C. Blaney, of Matthews, NC

SGT Samuel E. Kelsey, of Troup, TX

SPC Brynn J. Naylor, of Roswell, NM

CPO Mark T. Carter, of Fallbrook, CA

SSG Gregory L. Elam, of Columbus, GA

CPL Tanner J. O'Leary, of Eagle Butte, SD

CPL Johnathan A. Lahmann, of Richmond, IN

SPC Randy W. Pickering, of Bovey, MN

SGT Eric J. Hernandez, of Waldwick, NJ

PVT Dewayne L. White, of Country Club Hills, IL

CPT Adam P. Snyder, of Fort Pierce, FL

SGT Kyle Dayton, of El Dorado Hills, CA

SGT Blair W. Emery, of Lee, ME

SPC Matthew K. Reece, of Harrison, AR

SFC John J. Tobiason, of Bloomington, MN

CPL Allen C. Roberts, of Arcola, IL

PVT Isaac T. Cortes, of Bronx, NY

SPC Benjamin J. Garrison, of Houston, TX

SSG Jonathon L. Martin, of Bellevue, OH

SPC Melvin L. Henley, Jr., of Jackson, MS

SGT Alfred G. Paredez, Jr., of Las Vegas, NV

PFC Marius L. Ferrero, of Miami, FL

CPL Jason T. Lee, of Fruitport, MI

CPL Christopher J. Nelson, of Rochester, WA

2LT Peter H. Burks, of Dallas, TX

SSG Alejandro Ayala, of Riverside, CA

SGT Steven C. Ganczewski, of Niagara Falls, NY

SGT Mason L. Lewis, of Gloucester, VA

SGT Kenneth R. Booker, of Vevay, IN

2LT Stuart F. Liles, of Hot Springs, AR

SPC Ashley Sietsema, of Melrose Park, IL

CPT David A. Boris, of PA

SPC Adrian E. Hike, of Callender, IA

SGT Derek R. Banks, of Newport News, VA

We cannot forget these brave men and women and their sacrifice. These brave souls left behind parents and children, siblings, and friends; we want them to know the country pledges to preserve the memory of our lost soldiers, who paid the ultimate price, with the dignity they deserve.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss one provision of the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus appropriations bill which is of great importance to the security of our nation, and of particular importance to my State of New Jersey. That is Section 534, which will overturn the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to preempt the rights of State and local governments to adopt chemical security protections stronger than the standards adopted by the Federal Government.

The effort by DHS to prevent States from going beyond the measures adopted by DHS to protect their residents from terrorist attacks on chemical facilities was never authorized by Congress, and the inclusion of my provision overturning the Department's effort represents a strong rejection by Congress of the Department's attempt to do so.

Opposition to the Department's efforts has been widespread and bipartisan, including from the National Governor's Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the Chairmen of the 9/11 Commission, Representative Lee Hamilton and former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean. Nevertheless, DHS continues to insist that its partnership with industry rather than a partnership with States--will be sufficient to protect the American public. By including this provision in the omnibus bill, Congress is making clear that the role of State and local governments is not to be undermined by the Department of Homeland Security.

The provision included in the omnibus bill amends Section 550 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 to clarify that DHS does not have the authority to preempt State or local governments from adopting chemical security measures stronger than those adopted by DHS. The language in this bill will allow States to go beyond the Federal regulations as long as there is no actual conflict with the Federal regulations. This means that unless it is impossible to comply with both State and Federal law, the State law is not preempted. Determinations on whether it is impossible to comply with both State law and Federal law are properly decided by the Federal courts, and DHS should not be prejudging or interfering with this determination.

While we all wish it were not so, the threat of terrorists using our chemical plants as a mechanism for killing hundreds or thousands of citizens is not far-fetched. It was reported as far back as December 2001 that chemical trade publications had been found in a hideout in Afghanistan used by Osama bin Laden. Numerous Government agencies and independent bodies have identified the Nation's chemical facilities as an attractive target for terrorists. And New Jersey has good reason to be concerned about a terrorist attack on a facility storing large amounts of dangerous chemicals. The FBI has called the stretch between Port Newark and Liberty International Airport ``the most dangerous two miles in America.'' According to a 2005 CRS report, 7 of the 111 sites identified by EPA that could put more than 1 million people at risk in the event of an attack or serious accident are in New Jersey. According to the same report, up to 7 facilities in New Jersey put up to 1 million people at risk, and up to 20 more facilities pose a risk to up to 100,000 people.

I want to thank the leadership of the Appropriations Committee and my colleagues in the Senate and the House for their support for including this critically important national security provision in the Omnibus appropriations bill.

Madam President, I wish to applaud the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senators Levin and McCain, respectively, on passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.

Specifically, I would like to express my gratitude to the bill conferees for their inclusion of four amendments that I authored and which were unanimously adopted by the Senate during its consideration of this bill. These provisions will increase oversight of our country's economic and security assistance to Afghanistan by creating a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, section 1229; help victims of state-sponsored terrorism to achieve justice through the U.S. courts, section 1083; prevent military health care fees through the TRICARE program from rising, sections 701 and 702; and increase accountability and planning for safety and security at the Warren Grove Gunnery Range in New Jersey, section 359.

First, I was proud to be joined by my cosponsors, Senators Coburn, Dodd, Hagel, Feingold, Webb, and McCaskill, in creating a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. I wrote this legislation because I believe that while a democratic, stable, and prosperous Afghanistan is important to the national security of the United States and to combating international terrorism, I am concerned that we are not achieving all of our goals there. The United States has provided Afghanistan with over $20 billion in reconstruction and security assistance. However, repeated and documented incidents of waste, fraud, and abuse in the utilization of these funds have undermined reconstruction efforts. I therefore believe that there is a critical need for vigorous oversight of spending by the United States on reconstruction programs and projects in Afghanistan.

I would like to emphasize that the Government Accountability Office and the departmental Inspectors General have provided valuable information on these activities. However, I believe that the congressional oversight process requires more timely oversight and reporting of reconstruction activities in Afghanistan. Oversight by this new Special Inspector General would encompass the activities of the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the United States Agency for International Development, as well as other relevant agencies. It would highlight specific acts of waste, fraud, and abuse, as well as other managerial failures in our assistance programs that need to be addressed.

This new position will monitor U.S. assistance to Afghanistan in the civilian and security sectors, as well as in the counternarcotics arena and will help both Congress and the American people better understand the challenges facing U.S. programs and projects in that country. I am pleased that this provision has been included by the conferees.

Second, this bill includes my legislation to provide justice for victims of state-sponsored terrorism, which has strong bipartisan support. I believe this legislation is essential to providing justice to those who have suffered at the hands of terrorists and is an important tool designed to deter future state-sponsored terrorism. The existing law passed by Congress in 1996 has been weakened by recent judicial decisions. This legislation fixes these problems.

In 1996, Congress created the ``state-sponsored terrorism exception'' to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, FSIA. This exception allows victims of terrorism to sue those nations designated as state sponsors of terrorism by the Department of State for terrorist acts they commit or for which they provide material support. Congress subsequently passed the Flatow amendment to the FSIA, which allows victims of terrorism to seek meaningful damages, such as punitive damages, from state sponsors of terrorism for the horrific acts of terrorist murder and injury committed or supported by them.

Congress's original intent behind the 1996 legislation has been muddied by numerous court decisions. For example, the courts decided in Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Republic of Iran that there is no private right of action against foreign governments--as opposed to individuals--under the Flatow amendment. Since this decision, judges have been prevented from applying a uniform damages standard to all victims in a single case because a victim's right to pursue an action against a foreign government depends upon state law. My provision in this bill fixes this problem by reaffirming the private right of action under the Flatow Amendment against the foreign state sponsors of terrorism themselves.

My provision in this bill also addresses a part of the law which until now has granted foreign states an unusual procedural advantage. As a general rule, interim court orders cannot be appealed until the court has reached a final disposition on the case as a whole. However, foreign states have abused a narrow exception to this bar on interim appeals--the collateral order doctrine--to delay justice for, and the resolution of, victim's suits. In Beecham v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Libya has delayed the claims of dead and injured U.S. service personnel who were off duty when attacked by Libyan agents at the Labelle Discothque in Berlin in 1986. These delays have lasted for many years, as the Libyans have taken or threatened to take frivolous collateral order doctrine appeals whenever possible. My provision will eliminate the ability of state sponsors of terrorism to utilize the collateral order doctrine.

Another purpose of my provision is to facilitate victims' collection of their damages from state sponsors of terrorism. The misapplication of the ``Bancec doctrine,'' named for the Supreme Court's decision in First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba, has in the past erroneously protected the assets of terrorist states from attachment or collection. For example, in Flatow v. Bank Saderat Iran, the Flatow family attempted to attach an asset owned by Iran through the Bank Saderat Iran. Although Iran owned the Bank Saderat Iran, the court, relying on the State Department's application of the Bancec doctrine, held that the Flatows could not attach the asset because they could not show that Iran exercised day-to-day managerial control over Bank Saderat Iran. My provision will remedy this issue by allowing attachment of

the assets of a state sponsor of terrorism to be made upon the satisfaction of a ``simple ownership'' test.

Another problem is that courts have mistakenly interpreted the statute of limitations provision that Congress created in 1996. In cases such as Vine v. Republic of Iraq and later Buonocore v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the court interpreted the statute to begin to run at the time of the attack, contrary to our intent. It was our intent to provide a 10-year period from the date of enactment of the legislation for all acts that had occurred at any time prior to its passage in 1996. We also intended to provide a period of 10 years from the time of any attack which might occur after 1996. My provision clarifies this intent.

My provision also addresses the problems that arose from overly mechanistic interpretations of the 1996 legislation. For example, in several cases, such as Certain Underwriters v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, courts have prevented victims from pursuing claims for collateral property damage sustained in terrorist attacks directed against U.S. citizens. My new provision fixes this problem by creating an explicit cause of action for these kinds of property owners, or their insurers, against state sponsors of terrorism.

Finally, in several cases the courts have prevented non-U.S. nationals who work for the U.S. Government and were injured in a terrorist attack during their official duties from pursuing claims for their personal injuries. My provision fixes this inequity by creating an explicit cause of action for non-U.S. nationals who were either working as an employee of the U.S. Government or working pursuant to a U.S. Government contract.

I also want to make special mention of the inspiration for this new legislation. On October 23, 1983, the Battalion Landing Team headquarters building in the Marine Amphibious Unit compound at the Beirut International Airport was destroyed by a terrorist bomb killing 241 marines, sailors, and soldiers who were present in Lebanon on a peace-keeping mission. In a case known as Peterson v. the Islamic Republic of Iran, filed on behalf of many of the marine victims and their families, the U.S. District Court ruled in 2003 that the terrorist organization Hezbollah was funded by, directed by, and relied upon the Islamic Republic of Iran and its Ministry of Information and Security to carry out that heinous attack. The judge presiding over this case, Judge Royce Lamberth, referred to this as ``the most deadly state-sponsored terrorist attack made against United States citizens before September 11, 2001.'' In September of this year Judge Lamberth found that Iran not only is responsible for this attack, but also owes the families of the victims a total of more than $2.6 billion for the attack. Congress's support of my provision will now empower these victims to pursue Iranian assets to obtain this just compensation for their suffering. This is true justice through American rule of law.

Third, this Defense authorization bill includes my provision to prevent proposed increases in enrollment fees, premiums, and pharmacy copayments for TRICARE, the military community's health plan. The principal coauthor of this provision is Senator Hagel.

Both career members of the uniformed services and their families endure unique and extraordinary demands and make extraordinary sacrifices over the course of 20-year to 30-year careers in protecting freedom for all Americans. I believe they deserve the best retirement benefits that a grateful nation can provide. Proposals to compare cash fees paid by retired military members and their families to fees paid by civilians fails to adequately recognize the sacrifice of military members. We must be mindful that military members prepay the equivalent of very large advance premiums for health care in retirement through their extended service and sacrifice.

The Department of Defense and our Nation have a committed obligation to provide health care benefits to Active Duty, National Guard, Reserve, and retired members of the uniformed services, their families, and survivors, that considerably exceeds the obligation of corporate employers to provide health care benefits to their employees. Ultimately, the Department of Defense has options to constrain the growth of health care spending in ways that do not disadvantage current and retired members of the uniformed services, and it should pursue any and all such options as a first priority. Raising fees excessively on TRICARE beneficiaries is not the way to achieve this objective.

Finally, I thank the conferees for including my amendment to require increased oversight and accountability, as well as improved safety measures, at the Warren Grove Gunnery Range in New Jersey. I wrote this provision with Senator Menendez because a number of dangerous safety incidents caused by the Air National Guard have repeatedly impacted the residents living nearby the range.

On May 15, 2007, a fire ignited during an Air National Guard practice mission at Warren Grove Gunnery Range, scorching 17,250 acres of New Jersey's Pinelands, destroying five houses, significantly damaging 13 others, and temporarily displacing approximately 6,000 people from their homes in sections of Ocean and Burlington Counties in New Jersey.

My provision will require that an annual report on safety measures taken at the range be produced by the Secretary of the Air Force. The first report will be due no later than March 1, 2008, and two more will be due annually thereafter. My provision will also require that a master plan for the range be drafted that includes measures to mitigate encroachment issues surrounding the range, taking into consideration military mission requirements, land use plans, the surrounding community, the economy of the region, and the protection of the environment and public health, safety, and welfare. I believe that these studies will provide the type of information that we need to ensure that there is long term safety at the range, both for the military and the surrounding communities.

I have no objection as long as this time is not charged against the pending amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent that whatever time is used during the quorum be charged equally.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

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

Mr. President, before I speak to the amendment Senator Lugar and I have offered, I wish to express my thanks to Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Chambliss and the entire Agriculture Committee for the weeks of work that represent the foundation of this legislation.

I also particularly thank Senator Lugar for bringing his experience and knowledge to the development of our amendment. His background carries the tradition of generations of family farming in Indiana, where over 600 acres of theirs are still under production, and he calls for farming to be continued as a significant part of America's culture. He understands how critical it is to our national well-being that family farms exist independently to produce the nutritious foods that help America maintain a healthy population.

Although I didn't grow up on a farm, I do have experience in the business world, and our alliance on this issue brings together two views on the farm bill and what we ought to do in the interest of our country. That business experience I had matches up well with Senator Lugar's experience in this amendment because I learned in my business experience that fair and balanced competition for all products will result in quality products at low prices, and we ought not to be subsidizing the extremely well-off producers at the expense of family farmers who need help to continue to be able to offer their produce in the marketplace.

Writing a law such as the farm bill is no simple task, with the varied views on how we put nutritious food on family tables at costs that are affordable. I believe the bill on the floor helps farmers and millions of Americans in several ways that fulfill our responsibility as public servants. For example, it imposes limits on the amount of taxpayer money that can be used to subsidize our already profitable farms. It offers opportunities to produce more renewable fuels to conserve energy and conservation to keep farmlands in existence.

Despite these improvements, we need more changes for serious reform. I know many of my colleagues agree with Senator Lugar and me on the need to do more to encourage all farmers to continue to produce food and nourishment at the best quality and lowest possible price while they earn a livelihood.

America grows thousands of crops, but the bill before us includes $42 billion in subsidies for only five--corn, cotton, rice, soybeans, and wheat. Most of that money goes not to struggling farmers who are spending long hours in the fields away from their families toiling to bring enough crops to market to merely get by and resisting the seduction of selling their land at high prices to developers for commercial purposes, but the money is going to those who are already raking in record profits, and I want to demonstrate what I mean.

This chart says it all: 10 percent of farms receive nearly 75 percent of the subsidies. Think of it--10 percent receive nearly 75 percent of the subsidies. The 10 percent of the farms we talk about from this chart are those well-off farmers and agribusinesses--the ones that are bringing in giant profits. As a matter of fact, they received $120 billion in subsidies in the last 10 years. In fact, our current farm policy funnels subsidy checks into the mailboxes of millionaire landowners and agribusinesses across the country. Even someone who might have just become familiar with this situation in front of us would tell you that it doesn't make sense to fund huge farms and businesses while failing to help farmers continue producing crops essential to our national well-being on smaller farms that preserve the traditions that made America strong and independent.

We all recognize that the Agriculture Committee wants America's farms to thrive, our economy to be strong, and Americans to eat healthy foods, but I ask, if every farmer is helping to feed America, shouldn't America be helping every farmer? The answer is, without question, of course. We need a farm bill that helps farmers across the country regardless of where they farm or what they grow. We need a farm bill that invests in more than just crops. It must invest in nutrition and in healthier foods, such as fruits and vegetables, so that our children are not burdened with obesity, diabetes, and other serious illnesses that are the side effects of poor nutrition. It must provide more in food stamps so that modest, hard-working parents who face tough times can still prepare quality, nutritious foods for their families to eat. And it must invest in conservation so that our green spaces do not fall victim to highrises and commercial buildings and so that we don't destroy the Earth that our children and grandchildren call home by turning it into concrete highways and buildings.

The Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, and I have offered a plan for reform. We are from different States and different experiences. My colleague, Senator Lugar, grew up on a farm, whereas I grew up in the city, but when it comes to the farm bill, Senator Lugar and I see eye to eye on the challenges America and its lands face, and we have a shared vision for the path forward. We see that our subsidies are for only a handful of crops in our country and are going to the giant agribusinesses instead of smaller farms. The taxpayer-funded handouts we turned over to those businesses in the last 5 years totaled $72 billion. We gave them $72 billion. Think about that. The profits of four out of the five largest crops that get subsidies will set alltime records this year.

This has been a prosperous year for a lot of people who run the large agribusinesses and the large profit-making farms. As I said, alltime records are being set this year, according to the Department of Agriculture. At the same time, crops such as fruits and vegetables and other nutritious foods we want to see on American tables do not get the same kind of help. My State of New Jersey, for example, has many farms in our densely populated State. We are called the Garden State for a reason. We have major growers of blueberries, cranberries, and lettuce, for example, near the marketplace. Those nutritious fruits and vegetables go directly from our farms to markets in the cities, saving unnecessary fuel and transportation costs while improving the health of our residents at the same time. But the current farm bill fails to aid and encourage these farmers across the country, and that is why the Lugar-Lautenberg amendment makes so much sense.

Our plan for reform will help every farmer in America grow their crops and feed the Nation. I demonstrate here what I mean.

As we refer to here, our amendment provides for free crop insurance to protect all farmers from major losses. Our plan replaces the current system of subsidies with smart and free insurance programs to protect all farmers from catastrophes such as drought or pest infestation. Whether farmers grows corn or cranberries, soybeans or squash, their livelihoods are protected so they can continue to provide nutritious meals that are essential for the health of children and families across the country.

Our plan guarantees that the income of farmers will not fall so severely that

they stop farming. It protects all farmers, most of whom will be covered against losses of 15 percent or more in any year whether they grow and harvest 20 acres or 2,000 acres.

This approach is not only more equitable for every farmer, but it is far less expensive--for them and for every American taxpayer. With the money we save, we are going to be able to invest $2.5 billion more in nutrition programs, food stamps, and specialty crops such as potatoes, tomatoes, and oranges. With more support for nutritional foods such as fruits and vegetables, Americans can provide healthier meals and fight health problems such as diabetes and obesity, and more money for food stamps will help the 26 million Americans who rely on food stamps to stay alive and keep their heads above water, to feed themselves and their families.

It is shocking to note that some of the food stamp recipients are expected to survive on $10 a month--think about that, $10 a month. It is a paltry sum by any standard. We checked prices at a local supermarket recently, and if you add up the cost of a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk, a pound of cheese, and a dozen eggs, you are already over $10. How is it possible for people to sustain themselves with that small amount of funds at their disposal? Helping those with the least is exactly what America is about. By increasing money for food stamps, our amendment goes in the right direction.

Our plan invests $1 billion more than does the bill on the floor in conservation programs that assure farmers they can protect their land from pollution and urban sprawl. All of us see what is happening now to farmland, to the green areas. They are falling prey to development at paces that frighten us. Cities across the country are beginning to say no more development here. And the best way to stem the tide is to give farmers the ability to preserve and conserve their land. Right now our farmers who want to participate in these programs are limited because they do not have the funds.

Our plan invests a half billion dollars more into alternative energies. With oil prices and concerns about global warming on the rise, this investment addresses both of these urgent problems.

Finally, our reform plan does what the public wants us to do: to be good stewards of the taxpayers' money by putting $4 billion toward paying down the Federal deficit. Think about it, our national debt is growing out of control, our deficits are growing, and we are constantly looking for ways to fund domestic programs. At least we will begin to arrest in significant part the growth of the annual deficit with $4 billion at the same time we accomplish the goal of helping those who do farming, those who have modest pieces of land and have businesses that are difficult to maintain in this day of competition.

Every State in America has agriculture, so we need a farm policy that helps every State. The plan that Senator Lugar and I have offered is in the best interests of every American farmer and thus every American family. The men and women whose labor, sweat, and toil feed the Nation deserve nothing less, and we hope it will be recognized on the floor of this Chamber that we want to encourage farmers to stay on the farms; that we want to encourage the availability of products that are nutritional and will aid the health of our population.

I yield the floor and ask the remainder of my time be reserved for Senator Lugar as he indicated he desired.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill) The Senator from Georgia is recognized.

Mr. President, another month has passed, and more American troops lost their lives overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is only right that we take a few moments in the Senate to honor them.

Since last memorializing the names of our fallen troops on October 24, the Pentagon has announced the deaths of 72 troops. They lost their lives in Iraq and in Operation Enduring Freedom, which includes Afghanistan. One Defense Department civilian was also killed. They will not be forgotten. So today I will submit their names into the Record:

PFC Casey P. Mason, of Lake, MI

SGT Christopher R. Kruse, of Emporia, KS

CPL Peter W. Schmidt, of Eureka, CA

SGT Joseph M. Vanek, of Elmhurst, IL

SGT Phillip A. Bocks, of Troy, MI

SSG Patrick F. Kutschbach, of McKees Rocks, PA

SPC Jermaine D. Franklin, of Arlington, TX

CPT Matthew C. Ferrara, of Torrance, CA

SGT Jeffery S. Mersman, of Parker, KS

SPC Sean K. A. Langevin, of Walnut Creek, CA

SPC Lester G. Roque, of Torrance, CA

PFC Joseph M. Lancour, of Swartz Creek, MI

SGT Lui Tumanuvao, Fagaalu, American Samoa

CPT Benjamin D. Tiffner, of WV

SSG Carletta S. Davis, of Anchorage, AK

SSG John D. Linde, of New York, NY

SGT Derek T. Stenroos, of North Pole, AK

PFC Adam J. Muller, of Underhill, VT

SGT Daniel J. Shaw, of West Seneca, NY

PO2 Kevin R. Bewley, of Hector, AR

SPC Christine M. Ndururi, of Dracut, MA

PFC Dwane A. Covert, Jr., of Tonawanda, NY

SFC Johnny C. Walls, of Bremerton, WA

2LT Tracy Lynn Alger, of New Auburn, WI

MSG Thomas A. Crowell, of Neosho, MO

SSGT David A. Wieger, of North Huntingdon, PA

Nathan J. Schuldheiss, of Newport, RI

SGT Daniel L. McCall, of Pace, FL

PFC Rush M. Jenkins, of Clarksville, TN

PVT Cody M. Carver, of Haskell, OK

CPT Timothy I. McGovern, of IN

SPC Brandon W. Smitherman, of Conroe, TX

SGT Louis A. Griese, of Sturgeon Bay, WI

SSG James D. Bullard, of Marion, SC

MAJ Jeffrey R. Calero, of Queens Village, NY

MSG Thomas L. Bruner, of Owensboro, KY

SSG Joseph F. Curreri, of Los Angeles, CA

SPC David E. Lambert, of Cedar Bluff, VA

SGT Joshua C. Brennan, of Ontario, OR

SPC Hugo V. Mendoza, of Glendale, AZ

PFC Adam J. Chitjian, of Philadelphia, PA

SSG Robin L. Towns, Sr., of Upper Marlboro, MD

SGT Edward O. Philpot, of Latta, SC

SSG Larry I. Rougle, of West Jordan, UT

Seaman Anamarie Sannicolas Camacho, of Panama City, FL

Seaman Genesia Mattril Gresham, of Lithonia, GA

SPC Wayne M. Geiger, of Lone Pine, CA

CPL Erik T. Garoutte, of Santee, CA

SSG Jarred S. Fontenot, of Port Barre, LA

SPC Vincent A. Madero, of Port Hueneme, CA

SPC Micheal D. Brown, of Williamsburg, KS

SPC Jason B. Koutroubas, of Dunnellon, FL

1LT Thomas M. Martin, of Ward, AR

PFC Kenneth J. Iwasinski, of West Springfield, MA

SFC Justin S. Monschke, of Krum, TX

SPC Frank L. Cady III, of Sacramento, CA

PVT Nathan Z. Thacker, of Greenbrier, AR

SSG Donald L. Munn II, of Saint Clairs Shores, MI

SSG Lillian Clamens, of Lawton, OK

SPC Samuel F. Pearson, of Westerville, OH

SGT Jason M. Lantieri, of Killingworth, CT

SSG Eric T. Duckworth, of Plano, TX

CPL Gilberto A. Meza, of Oxnard, CA

LCPL Jeremy W. Burris, of Tacoma, WA

CPL Benjamin C. Dillon, of Rootstown, OH

SPC Adam D. Quinn, of Orange City, FL

SGT Joseph B. Milledge, of Pointblank, TX

CPL Jason N. Marchand, of Greenwood, WV

SPC Vincent G. Kamka, of Everett, WA

SPC Rachael L. Hugo, of Madison, WI

SPC Avealalo Milo, of Hayward, CA

SGT Ricardo X. Rodriguez, of Arecibo, Puerto Rico

Seaman Apprentice Shayna Ann Schnell, of Tell City, IN

We cannot forget these brave men and women. The Nation cannot afford to forget their sacrifice. We have to remember that these brave souls left behind parents and children, siblings, friends. Those left behind will feel their sorrow forever. We want them to know the country thinks about them, and we make a pledge to preserve their memory with the dignity that those who served and paid this price deserve.

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

Mr. President, the Senate is now back on the Amtrak bill that Senator Lott and I have been working on together for many years. I am glad we are moving closer to passing this bipartisan legislation. Our bill has had wide support with over 40 cosponsors. This is our fifth day on the Amtrak bill, and we have made very good progress. We have been able to work through most amendments. Some we were able to agree to, while some required votes. We still have a few amendments, however, we need to address. But we should be able to finish this bill soon, hopefully today.

It is critical that we do so. When we think about how crowded our roads are, the high price of gasoline, airport delays as an alternative, the potential fuel savings and reduction in greenhouse gases from more people riding the trains, the need for multiple modes of transportation for evacuations during emergencies, rail is a critical answer to our needs.

The need for multiple modes of transportation for evacuations during emergencies is a critical factor, and rail is one very important answer.

We know people will ride the train when there is service available. Amtrak set a new company record of almost 26 million passengers in the last fiscal year. We have seen successes in the Northeast corridor between Boston and New York and through New Jersey to Washington, but there is no reason why we can't have world-class rail service in other regions of the country. Many States are ready to develop new rail corridors, and our bill is going to meet this need by creating a new State grant program for rail projects. In all, it would authorize almost $2 billion a year for Amtrak and for the States over the next 6 years. Instead of barely giving Amtrak enough resources to survive, our bill paves the way for an improved, modern passenger rail network by providing funding for Amtrak's capital and operating needs. Our legislation will also reduce train delays by allowing the Federal Surface Transportation Board to issue fines to freight railroads when their trains delay Amtrak passenger trains.

When it comes to overseeing use of taxpayer funds, our bill requires that Amtrak improve its efficiency and its management. Overall, we require a 40-percent reduction in Federal operating subsidies over 6 years. We require a new financial accounting system to increase the transparency of the company's financial management.

The last Congress, our bipartisan compromise bill plan was approved by the Senate 93 to 6. I hope we will see a similar showing of support in this Chamber later today. America's travelers have been through terrible inconveniences, missed appointments, total unreliability. Now they are relying on us to provide practical and convenient travel options and passenger rail service must be one of them.

I yield the floor.

I object.

Excuse the delay.

Yes, I object.

Mr. President, to be sure the Record reflects our understanding, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 11:45 a.m. be for debate with respect to the Coburn amendment No. 3474, the time be equally divided and controlled in the usual form, no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the vote; that upon disposition of the amendment, the Senate then proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on S. 294.

Mr. President, everybody knows the Senator from Oklahoma is meticulous in terms of his anxiousness to reduce the costs of Government in any way we can. That certainly is what is being attempted in this bill that Senator Lott and I have introduced.

The amendment the Senator from Oklahoma has offered will slowly but surely eliminate one crucial component of Amtrak service, and that is its food and beverage service.

Passengers who take Amtrak's long-distance trains may be in transit for as long as 2 or 3 days, and some may be diabetic.

Unlike airports, most Amtrak stations don't have restaurants or snack bars where you can pick up a bite before you get on the train.

Mr. President, how much time do we have available?

Mr. President, I will summarize very quickly to say that on these long rides, a person may be diabetic, may need food. It is part of what rail transportation offers, and it attracts more passengers to know that they can be comfortable and still have some nourishment along the way. If we want to reduce subsidies, then we ought to look at the airlines where we are subsidizing them to the tune of $15 billion a year and say cut out the mini pretzels, cut out the little bag of nuts. It costs a lot of money when you multiply it by all of the passengers who get on airplanes.

The objective is to make Amtrak a more viable part of our transportation network, and I hope we will not start to pick things apart. Maybe we ought to look at what they do mechanically; see whether we can reduce a mechanic here or there. That is not what we want to do. All of this is going to be reported. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his amendment, but I am going to oppose it, and I hope all of our colleagues will.

Would the Senator yield for a quick question?

Knowing the situation that we run into with the airlines where the people are stuck for hours at a time, is it a good idea to eliminate--as the Senator suggested, we are happy that we eliminated pretzels on the airlines. Is that a good idea?

Mr. President, if the Senator would yield for one more question.

Mr. President, I wanted to ask the Senator if he was aware that we differ on the amount of subsidy that goes into rail service food costs. It is only $80 million as we see it.

How would a rejection of all loss for food eliminate all subsidies, when, in fact, we subsidize the airlines that are for-profit businesses? Why should we then continue to offer them----

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the recess period count postcloture.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.