Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez. As has been his tradition, as has been his experience, he brings forth an issue that I think is of special importance at this moment because while we discussed in these last few days the honesty with which we get information and data, we have recognized that there is often an attempt to obscure the truth from the American people about the war we are in at the moment.

We see it in different ways. We see it in the fact that, for instance, flag-draped coffins are not permitted to be photographed when the remains of our most courageous people fighting the

battle in Iraq are returned home. They come to a base in the State of Delaware, and it is prohibited to take pictures of those flag-draped coffins. That testimonial the country gives to these fallen soldiers is denied public view, as is the fact that there is another American, or more, lost in this quest to bring democracy to a country in which there is considerable doubt about whether they want our form of democracy. This amendment would make certain that no Department of Defense funds are used for propaganda.

Last week, we learned that the Defense Department wants to pay a company $20 million to monitor and analyze American and Middle East media to help improve the image of the U.S. Government and the military. I fully agree with him on the importance of limiting these funds for a propaganda campaign. I will not support the use of these funds in that manner.

The contractor being hired is expected to put together a database of news stories and assess their tone to come up with ways to get more glowing news coverage for the administration to try to convince the American people that things are going pretty much to plan and it just needs more time.

We don't talk about the fact that it needs, very often, more troops to do this assignment, without regard to whether we ought to be there at this time or whether they deserve the protections and equipment that is often missing. But we are not just talking about the Middle East press. This is Department of Defense money provided by U.S. taxpayers to comb American newspapers to track and evaluate their stories.

I can't say I am surprised by this development. After all, this administration has mastered the art of propaganda, and after I asked for investigations of the administration's propaganda activity, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, ruled that the administration violated law in several cases. Propaganda efforts by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education were ruled illegal by GAO.

So what did the administration do? Did it agree to abide by the law? Of course not. That is not their customary action, not this administration. The administration announced that it would ignore the GAO rulings. The administration sees the rule of law as kind of a speed bump, not a roadblock. That is why Congress has to cut off these funds for these propaganda efforts.

This isn't the Soviet Union. We promote a free press in this country. It is essential to our democratic functioning. Learn the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, and deal with it as we should--honestly. We should not be manipulating the news media in our country.

I want the news about Iraq to be better, too. We all have great respect and affection for those who are on the front line who are doing their duty in spite of questions about what the purpose is or when the return to their homes begins. But maybe if we made some changes in our leadership and in our strategy we wouldn't need a PR campaign to improve our image here or abroad. Instead of trying to make the current situation look better, we ought to focus on actually making it better.

If we have any money to spare, let's spend it on our troops making sure that everybody has body armor, the latest there is, to protect them, or that the humvees and other vehicles are appropriately armored to see if we can defend ourselves better against these roadside bombs and these attacks on our troops, or on developing better strategies to fight terrorism and to defend our country.

We are on the eve of the commemoration of 9/11. It was one of the events in American history that still shocks our psyche. The fact that in a single day almost 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil by foreign intervention still astounds even the grimaced imagination. The fact that these two tall towers fell--I had an office in one of those towers when I was a commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey before I came to the Senate. They stood like cities, with 50,000 people going in and out, moving to their jobs, to their assignments, to their responsibilities, to their families, not only to their companies, not only to the services they provided. And we are still in search of the perpetrators.

We all want to see victory come out of this war. The problem is I am not sure we can define victory. It is too late for us to resume our lives as we used to live them without constantly having to show an ID, without constantly having to be in lines waiting, interfered with in our normal routine. The last thing we need is to cover up reality. That is what is taking place. This is an attempt to further cover up the reality, cover up the losses we are enduring, cover up the expense it is costing us. The financial costs are secondary to the loss of life, but, nevertheless, that is reality.

I commend my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez. He has brought thoughtful discourse to this body, and we welcome his attempt to clear the air, to make sure we are not spending money to color the issues, to give it a rosy tone, but to tell the truth and to not spend $20 million of taxpayer money on glossing over what is a very painful reality.

I hope our colleagues will fully support this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce and discuss my bill, the ``Truth in Cigarette Labeling Act.'' I wish to thank my colleagues, Senators Clinton, Harkin, Menendez, Reed, Durbin, Kennedy and Leahy for co-sponsoring this important legislation.

My bill bans the tobacco industry from using deceptive cigarette marketing terms such as ``light'' and ``low tar'' to imply health benefits and it prohibits cigarette manufacturers from making any claims based on the cigarette testing method established by the Federal Trade Commission called the ``FTC Method,'' which measures tar and nicotine yields.

My legislation is consistent with the recent court ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler. Kessler's ruling says cigarette manufacturers must stop labeling cigarettes as `'low tar'' or `'light'' or `'natural'' or with other `'deceptive brand descriptors which implicitly or explicitly convey to the smoker and potential smoker that they are less hazardous to health than full-flavor cigarettes.''

The tobacco companies are appealing that ruling, which will likely tie it up in the courts for a while. This makes it necessary for Congress to act now and pass my bill.

Many smokers switch to cigarette brands advertised as ``low tar'' or ``light'' out of concern for their health, believing that such cigarettes are less risky or a step toward quitting. These claims are based on the FTC tar ratings, which are now known to be inaccurate in assessing the behavior of actual smokers. Some 85 percent of all smokers today smoke these so-called safer cigarettes.

FTC officials admit the agency's test is flawed. Former FTC Commissioner Timothy Muris testified at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on June 11, 2003, that the tar rating system is ``broken.'' The FTC has also published a warning to consumers called ``Up In Smoke: The Truth About Tar and Nicotine Ratings.'' This alert concludes that ``cigarette tar and nicotine ratings can't predict the amount of tar and nicotine you get from any particular cigarette.'' It is absurd that the FTC permits a testing method that FTC officials admit is flawed.

According to the National Cancer Institute, cigarette tar and nicotine yields as measured by the FTC Method don't give smokers a meaningful measure with regard to how much tar and nicotine they are likely to inhale from smoking a cigarette, and that marketing cigarettes as delivering lower amounts of tar using the FTC Method is deceptive to consumers.

Not surprisingly, the tobacco companies have known since 1975 that this test doesn't work. The tobacco companies' internal documents show that people actually get more tar and the same amount of nicotine when they smoke light cigarettes than from smoking regular cigarettes. That's because smokers will inhale more deeply and/or frequently to draw out the nicotine they're addicted to.

So, the FTC, the National Cancer Institute and the tobacco companies all agree that the FTC testing method doesn't work.

And all the while, the tobacco companies have been taking advantage of this fact and using it to spike the nicotine yield in cigarettes and make them more addictive.

A recently released report by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health shows that from 1998 through 2004 cigarette manufacturers increased the amount of addictive nicotine delivered to the average smoker by 10 percent. Of 179 cigarette brands tested in 2004, an astonishing 166 brands fell into the State's highest nicotine yield range, including 59 brands that the manufacturers had labeled ``light'' and 14 described as ``ultra-light.''

The increase in nicotine levels went unnoticed because the standard government test--the flawed FTC Method--uses a smoking machine that fails to mimic real-life smoking behavior. A manufacturer, for example, can design a cigarette that will score low in nicotine delivery to the machine by placing tiny ventilation holes in the filter to dilute the smoke. But in real life, a smoker will often cover the vents with his or her lips or fingers, thereby inhaling a higher dose of nicotine.

Everyone knows nicotine is a highly addictive drug. For tobacco companies to spike the amount nicotine at a time when States and the Federal Government are creating public health campaigns to curb smoking is absolutely deplorable.

I used to smoke--a lot. Fortunately, my daughter, when she was a young girl, convinced me to quit. She said, ``Daddy, they told me at school that if you smoke, they will have to put a black box in your throat. I don't want you to get a black box in your throat.''

From that day forward I quit.

Across America, smokers--men, women, and kids--have their own reasons for quitting. I know it's tough to quit. But I want Americans to be healthy.

``Big Tobacco'' doesn't. They make their money off an addictive product that kills people. They have known for decades that their product is lethal. They need our kids sick and addicted to make a dime.

When I came to the Senate, I was determined to do everything I could to protect Americans--especially our youth--from the dangers of tobacco. I'm proud to say that my work on tobacco control started long before it became a mainstream issue.

I've been protecting Americans from Big Tobacco's lies since 1987, when I wrote the bill that banned smoking on planes. In 1989, I wrote the requirement that all federally-funded programs for children provide a smoke-free environment.

Those laws changed our culture. Today, we'll try and change it again. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation and stop cigarette manufacturers from lying to the public.

My legislation can help America's smokers kick the habit by putting out more of big tobacco's big lies. Tobacco-related illnesses kill over 400,000 Americans every year. My bill can help save America $89 billion a year in health care costs. Most important, it can save people's lives.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce and discuss my bill, the ``Truth in Cigarette Labeling Act.'' I wish to thank my colleagues, Senators Clinton, Harkin, Menendez, Reed, Durbin, Kennedy and Leahy for co-sponsoring this important legislation.

My bill bans the tobacco industry from using deceptive cigarette marketing terms such as ``light'' and ``low tar'' to imply health benefits and it prohibits cigarette manufacturers from making any claims based on the cigarette testing method established by the Federal Trade Commission called the ``FTC Method,'' which measures tar and nicotine yields.

My legislation is consistent with the recent court ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler. Kessler's ruling says cigarette manufacturers must stop labeling cigarettes as `'low tar'' or `'light'' or `'natural'' or with other `'deceptive brand descriptors which implicitly or explicitly convey to the smoker and potential smoker that they are less hazardous to health than full-flavor cigarettes.''

The tobacco companies are appealing that ruling, which will likely tie it up in the courts for a while. This makes it necessary for Congress to act now and pass my bill.

Many smokers switch to cigarette brands advertised as ``low tar'' or ``light'' out of concern for their health, believing that such cigarettes are less risky or a step toward quitting. These claims are based on the FTC tar ratings, which are now known to be inaccurate in assessing the behavior of actual smokers. Some 85 percent of all smokers today smoke these so-called safer cigarettes.

FTC officials admit the agency's test is flawed. Former FTC Commissioner Timothy Muris testified at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on June 11, 2003, that the tar rating system is ``broken.'' The FTC has also published a warning to consumers called ``Up In Smoke: The Truth About Tar and Nicotine Ratings.'' This alert concludes that ``cigarette tar and nicotine ratings can't predict the amount of tar and nicotine you get from any particular cigarette.'' It is absurd that the FTC permits a testing method that FTC officials admit is flawed.

According to the National Cancer Institute, cigarette tar and nicotine yields as measured by the FTC Method don't give smokers a meaningful measure with regard to how much tar and nicotine they are likely to inhale from smoking a cigarette, and that marketing cigarettes as delivering lower amounts of tar using the FTC Method is deceptive to consumers.

Not surprisingly, the tobacco companies have known since 1975 that this test doesn't work. The tobacco companies' internal documents show that people actually get more tar and the same amount of nicotine when they smoke light cigarettes than from smoking regular cigarettes. That's because smokers will inhale more deeply and/or frequently to draw out the nicotine they're addicted to.

So, the FTC, the National Cancer Institute and the tobacco companies all agree that the FTC testing method doesn't work.

And all the while, the tobacco companies have been taking advantage of this fact and using it to spike the nicotine yield in cigarettes and make them more addictive.

A recently released report by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health shows that from 1998 through 2004 cigarette manufacturers increased the amount of addictive nicotine delivered to the average smoker by 10 percent. Of 179 cigarette brands tested in 2004, an astonishing 166 brands fell into the State's highest nicotine yield range, including 59 brands that the manufacturers had labeled ``light'' and 14 described as ``ultra-light.''

The increase in nicotine levels went unnoticed because the standard government test--the flawed FTC Method--uses a smoking machine that fails to mimic real-life smoking behavior. A manufacturer, for example, can design a cigarette that will score low in nicotine delivery to the machine by placing tiny ventilation holes in the filter to dilute the smoke. But in real life, a smoker will often cover the vents with his or her lips or fingers, thereby inhaling a higher dose of nicotine.

Everyone knows nicotine is a highly addictive drug. For tobacco companies to spike the amount nicotine at a time when States and the Federal Government are creating public health campaigns to curb smoking is absolutely deplorable.

I used to smoke--a lot. Fortunately, my daughter, when she was a young girl, convinced me to quit. She said, ``Daddy, they told me at school that if you smoke, they will have to put a black box in your throat. I don't want you to get a black box in your throat.''

From that day forward I quit.

Across America, smokers--men, women, and kids--have their own reasons for quitting. I know it's tough to quit. But I want Americans to be healthy.

``Big Tobacco'' doesn't. They make their money off an addictive product that kills people. They have known for decades that their product is lethal. They need our kids sick and addicted to make a dime.

When I came to the Senate, I was determined to do everything I could to protect Americans--especially our youth--from the dangers of tobacco. I'm proud to say that my work on tobacco control started long before it became a mainstream issue.

I've been protecting Americans from Big Tobacco's lies since 1987, when I wrote the bill that banned smoking on planes. In 1989, I wrote the requirement that all federally-funded programs for children provide a smoke-free environment.

Those laws changed our culture. Today, we'll try and change it again. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation and stop cigarette manufacturers from lying to the public.

My legislation can help America's smokers kick the habit by putting out more of big tobacco's big lies. Tobacco-related illnesses kill over 400,000 Americans every year. My bill can help save America $89 billion a year in health care costs. Most important, it can save people's lives.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am proud to support S. 2590, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. This important legislation requires the Office of Management and Budget to create an online searchable Web site to allow Americans to understand who is getting Federal money.

This legislation has broad support from across the political spectrum. Whether we believe we spend too much or we should be doing more to help people in need, we can all agree that we ought to get value from the dollars we spend. Transparency is the first step in that process.

I believe that S. 2590 is only the first step. I am excited that Senators Coburn and Obama have endorsed the concept of creating a similar database for targeted tax benefits that go to companies or industries who are adept enough at Washington politics to get them enacted.

Like the spending to be disclosed in S. 2590, many targeted tax breaks are good policy. But the American people deserve to know who is paying less in taxes and causing them to pay more. They have a right to know who is getting benefits from Congress.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to have a bill, hold hearings, bring the bill to the floor, and make information on tax benefits public and easily accessible.

Mr. President, it is interesting and amazing to me to listen to the critics of dissent in this democratic society. If you disagree with the administration, they try to insult you out of order and to create positions that describe you as insignificant, willing to retreat. We watched last week as the President continued his administration, as he began yet another campaign to convince Americans that its policy in Iraq is working. But much like the President's Iraq policy itself, this latest rhetorical campaign just isn't working. There have been five Bush administration campaigns to convince America that we should stay the course, and in each one of these administration claims they fail to convince the public. The public is smarter than they give them credit for. The American people understand what is happening in Iraq, and no wordsmithing is going to change that.

The administration rhetoric continues. Last month, in a speech in Arizona, Vice President Cheney said:

What these Democrats are pushing now is the very kind of

retreat that has been tried in the past and has failed.

Is he implying that their mismanaged offense worked? Ask the 2,600 families who lost a son or a daughter there whether they think the plan has worked. It is insulting to suggest that those who disagree suggest a retreat. They are ugly, partisan, political comments by the Vice President.

What the Democrats want--and many Republicans--is a change in the direction in Iraq and new civilian leadership at the Pentagon to implement it. The stubborn Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld approach is simply not working. The retreat the Republican administration should be concerned with is the retreat of their colleagues from this failed Iraq policy.

Some Republicans in Congress are happy to walk the plank and support the arguments that simply defy logic and others are jumping ship. We are seeing staunch Republicans, such as Representative Gil Gutknecht of Minnesota, saying that we lack strategic control of Baghdad and calling for a limited troop withdrawal. Representative Mike Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania has characterized the Bush stay-the-course strategy as extreme. We all know our principled colleague, Senator Hagel, has spoken up in favor of changing course in Iraq from these failed policies.

But through it all, the Bush administration mantra is the same: Stay the course. Don't cut and run.

The alternative to that is stay and die. Critics are either unpatriotic or, as we heard from Secretary Rumsfeld last week, like Nazi appeasers.

It seems the more the Americans call on the President to change course in Iraq, the more adamant he is to continue his failed approach. President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld are making the same speeches now that they were making a year ago and even 2 years ago. Most of the words and phrases are the same. Nothing has changed except the date and the stage of the time.

The reality is that this administration is incompetent, and those in this Congress who stand with them are endorsing this grievous incompetence. The administration's incompetence in Iraq has put our troops in danger. The administration's incompetence in Iraq is now empowering the terrorist regime in Iran. The administration's incompetence in Iraq has strengthened, not weakened, al-Qaida and other jihadists.

In summary, this administration's incompetence has made us less safe, and Americans feel it in poll after poll and in State after State.

I used to run a large company. Any successful CEO will tell you that if one of the top executives is making mistake after mistake after mistake, you have only one course: fire him. Get rid of him. There have been so many mistakes and miscalculations by Secretary Rumsfeld it is staggering to try to understand why he is still around, to be polite, why he is still on the job. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to me, and it doesn't make sense to millions across the country.

Before the war, Secretary Rumsfeld said:

We know where the weapons of mass destruction are.

But now we know that there was no real evidence that Iraqis had WMDs. He also said that the Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops and that Iraqi resistance would be limited. That was obviously wrong. He also failed to build coalitions with our allies. That doesn't stop him from referring to the coalition experience that we are having. There is virtually no coalition existence there, with the exception perhaps of the U.K. and Canada. In fact, Secretary Rumsfeld went out of his way to mock our allies when he should have been reaching out to them.

This administration's failure to build a real coalition has caused our troops to bear the vast majority of risk and to suffer the casualties. These casualties stand at 2,652 deaths and almost 20,000 wounded.

Secretary Rumsfeld said the war would be short. He said:

It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could

last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.

More than 3 years later, we know that assessment was tragically wrong.

Secretary Rumsfeld also ignored warnings that he wasn't committing enough personnel and resources to win the war. When Army Chief of Staff GEN Eric Shinseki suggested that we needed more troops to maintain order in postwar Iraq, he was forced out.

Secretary Rumsfeld also was way off on the cost of the war. He said it would cost no more than $100 billion. The war so far has cost a staggering $320 billion. He missed the mark. He said--insultingly:

You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you

might want.

Is that a suggestion that our troops are less competent, less brave, less courageous, less willing to do their job? I think it is a terrible reference:

If you think about it, you can have all of the armor in the

world on a tank and a tank can be blown up.

Ask the parents of those who are in the tank corps how they feel about that.

And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown

up.

So it means, if you take it literally, well, that is what happens. If you don't have enough armor, they just get killed. Talk to the parents. I talked to them. I visited with them. Boy, they don't feel they were as protected as they should have been.

Despite all of the funds, all of the effort, all of the sacrifice devoted to the war, Secretary Rumsfeld has failed to fully equip our troops. As we know, a number of prominent retired generals have come forward to say what many in the military have been thinking for years-- it is time for Secretary Rumsfeld to leave his post.

The generals who have spoken out: MG Paul D. Eaton, GEN Anthony Zinni, LTG Gregory Newbold, MG John Batiste, MG John Riggs, MG Charles Swannack, Jr., LTG Paul van Riper, GEN Wesley Clark--distinguished military leaders who served nobly, who served bravely. Now, when they say take a look and see where we are going, they are ignored.

General Eaton, who served in Iraq, said the following about Secretary Rumsfeld:

In sum, he has shown himself incompetent, strategically,

operationally, and tactically, and is, far more than anyone

else, responsible for what has happened to our important

mission in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.

In summary, business as usual in Iraq has to stop. We need new leadership. Unless Secretary Rumsfeld is replaced, we are, unfortunately, destined for more of the same pain and casualties as we have in Iraq now.

Mr. President, we have very few hours before we depart for the August break. Let's say we have 6 hours--360 minutes-- before we leave to campaign or vacation or meet with constituents back home.

How are we going to use 360 minutes?

The Republican leadership's idea is to use that precious time to pass the so-called ``trifecta'' bill. It's a bill that was sent to us from the House, and I think it symbolizes all that is wrong with the Republican Congress.

For one, it is a cynical ruse. This bill holds the minimum wage hostage in exchange for a dramatic reduction in the

inheritance tax--which only the richest families in America pay.

The minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 for almost a decade. That's $10,712 a year.

And even though the Republican leadership has blocked a clean vote on the minimum wage for years, this ``trifecta'' bill marries the minimum wage increase with this huge cut in the inheritance tax. This inheritance tax only affects the richest one-half of 1 percent of families in the country.

So, in other words, the Republican position is: we will only help everyday working people in America if you give multi-millionaires and billionaires a bribe.

Mr. President, that is not the way to govern this country.

This bill is also offensive because it is so out of touch with the priorities of the American people.

Why aren't we taking steps to actually bring down gas prices? Gas is over $3 a gallon. It costs $60 to fill a tank for many people. That's what most Americans are concerned about right now.

Are we going to use these last 360 minutes to deal with that issue?

Meanwhile healthcare is in crisis. We have 43 million people without health insurance.

And then there is a storm brewing over the new Medicare drug law. Indications of this storm are appearing in newspapers from Honolulu to Ho-Ho-Kus. This storm is called the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap.

Some call this coverage gap the ``Doughnut Hole,'' but that is too kind a name. It's a much more serious crisis, and can have deadly consequences.

Here is what is happening across America because of the coverage gap: millions of seniors on the new Medicare Prescription Drug Plan are going to the pharmacy counter and experiencing ``sticker shock.'' Why? Because their drugs suddenly cost four times as much as last month.

Their drugs are costing four times as much because the Republican Medicare law allows drug plans to include a massive gap in coverage. In a nutshell, once you pay $750 out of pocket from the deductible and co- pays, your coverage just stops. And to make matters worse, your coverage goes away but you still have to pay the monthly premium.

A lot of unhappy seniors are starting to experience this problem, and it will only get worse through the end of August and into September.

So what are we doing about it?

An inheritance tax break for multi-millionaires is what the Republican leadership is concerned about while millions of seniors are facing a financial gap in their prescription drug coverage.

I would like to share some stories with my colleagues from recent news articles about how this coverage gap is affecting people across the country.

The Bergen Record in New Jersey told the story of Melba Heck, who is in the coverage gap. When she started the Medicare Part D plan, she was paying $50 a month. Now, all of the sudden, the bill is $400.

Ms. Heck, a retired nurse, told the newspaper that ``For the first time in ten years, I've had to cut back on my church pledge.''

Marcella Crown of Des Plaines, IL, reached the coverage gap back in April. Her husband said ``Blue Cross is saying that even though she will get no benefit, she must still pay the premiums. That's outrageous. We have never had insurance policies that gave us no benefit yet required us to pay premiums.''

In Maryland, retired teacher Elise Cain walked into her Silver Spring pharmacy and said she nearly ``passed out'' at the cash register. Her drug monthly cost jumped from $20 to $175.

These are just some examples of the pain that millions of senior citizens will have to endure. Unfortunately, this is only the beginning of this crisis.

We need to deal with this Medicare coverage gap crisis now. If we wait until September, we do so at our own peril.

Mr. President, this Congress is out of touch, and the Republican priority is to heap more wealth on a few of the richest people in America while tens of millions of their hardworking neighbors' children will struggle to get along with less as a result.

Let's not let it happen.

Mr. President, this pension bill is a good bill, but it is not a perfect bill. It will make sure companies put real money behind their pension promises, in good times and bad. It will give workers more information about their pension plans so they understand the risks they face. It will create incentives to encourage more workers to save for their retirement.

Unfortunately, the bill is not fair to all airlines. The bill gives advantages for some carriers at the expense of others--especially disadvantaging those in New Jersey. As a result of this bill, some airlines will have to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars more to their pensions than others. That isn't fair, and it doesn't create a level competitive playing field.

The Senate agreed that this isn't fair, and that is why the Senate's version of airline relief treated all airlines equally. If the House Republican conferees had not hijacked this conference, I believe we wouldn't be in this position. But we have been put in a very difficult place. We are forced to choose between stopping this bill and endangering pensions for hundreds of thousands of workers and accepting an outcome that is blatantly unfair.

I hope and expect that when this bill passes, we will be able to work together to fix this problem at the first opportunity.

Mr. President, recognizing that our colleague from the other side is here, traditionally, we

switch sides on recognition. I ask that after our colleague from Wyoming speaks, that I have 20 minutes to make mine.

Mr. President, today we heard some interesting news. I would have used the term startling, but based on the news we are seeing from the various war fronts, it is hard to find anything more startling.

The reference I make to this news is brought about by a report. I come out of the corporate world, so I am interested in corporate performance in this

country. I saw the report. If you watch television or read the papers-- ExxonMobil, I would say, had a pretty good year. Their profit for this quarter was $10.4 billion--for the quarter. That is up from $7.65 billion the same quarter last year.

That is pretty stunning news. It is the largest quarterly earnings of any corporation in America, save one. That is in the history of this country. In the history of this country, ExxonMobil, the quarter just ended in June, was the second highest in the history of the country.

If they were selling widgets or some product, we would say: OK, that is a pretty good job. But when they are selling a commodity that people are literally begging for by way of availability, it is a different picture.

This oil and gas is so much a part of our life that it is almost like the air we breathe or the water we drink. It is incredible.

That then spurred my curiosity. I am, going to file an amendment to the Energy bill. I send it to the desk.

I am sorry?

I am not offering the amendment, Mr. President. I am simply filing it.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

This amendment is to change the bill's title, to call it the ``Lee Raymond Oil Profitability Act.'' I propose that we rename the Energy bill to reflect Mr. Raymond's profitability courtesy of ExxonMobil.

It is quite a thing. As we look at the turmoil this country is going through while people struggle at minimum wage jobs and we see the kinds of profits that are being made off the backs of working people, it struck me, as I dug further into the history of the company--it is a pretty well-run company, but it is so profitable because Americans are going to the pump and buying gasoline at over $3 a gallon typically. I have seen it as high as $3.35 a gallon. People who work in these gas stations can't even afford to buy the gas they are pumping. That is how extraordinary this pricing is.

I come from the corporate world and I ran a very successful company. The company is called ADP. It has been in business 50 years. I started it with a couple of other fellows, and we watched our profits carefully. So I know how to read a financial statement.

When I see this, while people are stuck at minimum wage of $5.15 for 9 years--I am going to detail some of the extraordinary results Mr. Raymond got as a result of his leadership in that company. The profits, I think, are unconscionable. I don't understand where Board of Directors' conscience is, as I read his benefits program. There is no conscience, and there is no soul at all.

At the end of 2005, Mr. Lee Raymond retired from the chairmanship and CEO position of ExxonMobil. He was working and got a decent week's pay. I think his salary was running about $500,000 a week. That permits a lot of things to be acquired. But he also then held $151 million in stock options and holdings. His total compensation for 2005, including salaries, stock options, and pension, totaled $140 million. He made $140 million running a gasoline company where prices typically have gone, since January 2002, from $2.24--and any of the audience that sees this should mark it in their mind--it was $2.24 at the beginning of this calendar year; it is now $3. That is the average price. So it has risen some 36 percent I think is what the number works out to be.

It is incredible that during this period of time, while the average working person is struggling and things are getting harder and harder, the cost for gasoline, which is a requirement for virtually every family in this country--whether they have a car or are using fuel oil in their homes--it is outrageous that Mr. Raymond, in addition to those things I just mentioned, has seen his package of stock ownership and stock options go from $151 million in this period of time--$151 million he had at the end of 2005--to $250 million now, so it is a $100 million boost. Remember, he made $25 million in salary. But the absurdity of it all and the offensiveness of it all, is that Exxon's board also agreed to pick up Mr. Raymond's country club fees so he could make sure he could buy enough golf balls for a round of golf. Country club fees, use of the company aircraft, and still pay him another $1 million to stay on as a consultant for another year. Where is their conscience? I don't understand it.

So that is why my amendment would rename this bill the ``Lee R. Raymond Oil Profitability Act.'' That is what it ought to be called, so everybody knows what is happening in this country of ours. People are struggling for a living with a $5.15 minimum wage, which has been in place for 9 years. Those people are making $206 a week, if they are working at minimum wage, and they haven't had a raise in 9 years. That doesn't matter. Big business is the interest served by this Government and by the Bush administration. It is incredible.

When President Bush took over, gas was $1.06 a gallon. That was back at the end of 2000: $1.06. Now it is over $3 a gallon. Two years ago, President Bush threatened that if John Kerry was elected President of the United States, he would tax gasoline. Look at this: From $2.24 up to $3, this year alone. There is no limit. But that doesn't bother the conscience of the board members of ExxonMobil, and it doesn't bother the conscience of Mr. Raymond. If he asks for country club dues to be paid on top of everything else, to have an airplane for his private use, he feels entitled to it. These are company expenses, and because they are company expenses, they are tax deductible. It is shameful, I think, and I hope we will do something about it.

I rise to speak against this so-called energy bill. The bill is simply another gift to the oil industry. It is dressed up as some kind of benefit to consumers. I know the media likes to talk about who is winning the debate on this issue or that issue. But you don't see these commentators saying: Let's look back at the effects of legislation after it is passed. So here we are considering a second Republican energy bill. We should ask: What was the effect of the first Republican energy bill? My colleagues across the aisle said of the first energy bill that it would lower gas prices as it goes into effect. Well, here is what we have seen happen in just this year alone: up by 36 percent.

A few months after President Bush signed the first Republican energy bill, gas prices started to soar. So now we know what happens when you take care of the oil companies: Tax breaks and subsidies, and everyday Americans get charged more, pay through the nose, as we say, and now we are ready for a repeat performance.

Will this bill help get gas prices over $4 a gallon? Think about that, for the average family. Spend 80 bucks to fill up your gas tank. Right now you have to spend over $60 to fill up a 20-gallon tank. We have to do a reality check about who is writing these bills. President Bush and Vice President Cheney are both former oil company executives. They focus on helping their friends in the oil business. Big oil companies want to open up our coastline to oil drilling, to platforms, pipelines, and tankers.

Everyone jumps to attention in the Cabinet room there and they say: Yes, sir, as they do here on the Republican side of the aisle. And the oil companies' profits continue to explode.

Just this week, BP announced its largest quarterly profit in their history: $7.27 billion. BP is a piker compared to Exxon, which made over $10 billion. This was 30 percent more than the same period a year ago.

I remember hearing in the Commerce Committee when we asked about price gouging and so forth, and the oil company executives denied it: Oh, we don't price gouge, no. Well, somebody is making a heck of a lot of money while people who struggle for a living have to pay more than they can afford just to buy gasoline. Other big oil firms continue to enjoy record profits as well. Royal Dutch announced second quarter profits of $7.3 billion, almost $2 billion more than the same quarter a year ago. While Shell's profits increased 40 percent, its total revenue increased less

than 1 percent. So look what has happened. Their profits increased 40 percent, but their revenues increased less than 1 percent. I would like to hear an economist or an accountant explain how wonderful their management is, how good management must have been to pull that trick. In other words, sales were relatively constant, but profits jumped significantly.

Then there is our favorite, the poster company, ExxonMobil. In 2005 ExxonMobil raked in a record $36 billion in profits. That translates to almost $100 million a day in profit and more than $4 million every hour in profit for one oil company. And while all of these oil companies profit, consumers pay.

Now, as this Congress winds down its work for the year, the majority and the administration have proposed nothing that will lower gas prices at any time in the near future. They have nothing to offer in the way of a serious idea or a plan to reduce consumption, to improve efficiency, or to develop renewable sources of energy.

Whatever the question, the answer for this administration and the majority in this Congress is always the same: Hand over some more money to their friends in the oil industry, and give them more opportunities to drill and explore in environmentally sensitive areas. What do we get in return? Higher and higher gas prices. And now they want permission to drill in areas that are sensitive, areas where an oil spill could be disastrous. We had an oil spill in the Delaware River that separates Pennsylvania from New Jersey, and it didn't look too bad, but the cost to clean it up was $267 million. So there are a lot of risks with drilling in these areas. Higher prices aren't the only negative consequence of this bill.

The bill is going to harm our grandchildren's birthright to enjoy the natural beauty of our coastlines and beaches. I have seen the worst of oil spills. I was sent to Alaska with the Coast Guard 3 days after the Exxon Valdez ran aground. Exxon paid approximately $4 billion in compensatory damages and the punitive award was $5 billion, and that was in 1989. So we are looking at 17 years ago, and Exxon has yet to pay a dime on the punitive damages. The company has smart lawyers, and they have kept it bottled up in court. They say: Don't pay the bill, whatever you do. ExxonMobil makes $10.4 billion in a quarter, and the company is still trying to get out of paying the $5 billion that resulted from the court decision.

It is clear the plan is to pass this bill in the Senate, and then combine it with the House bill that opens up the coastal waters of New Jersey, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, California, Oregon, and Washington State to oil and gas drilling.

The effects of even one spill off the shore of New Jersey would be devastating. Tourism, a principal business for us, is a $26 billion industry in New Jersey, and it supports 390,000 jobs. My State has already seen how much economic damage can result from threats to our shore. In 1988, a bag of medical waste washed up on the New Jersey shore. The incident was widely reported in the media and we lost a third of our tourism revenues that year--one-third of our tourism revenue.

We can be sure of one thing: If we drill for oil, we will spill oil, and New Jersey and other States cannot afford to have oil washing up on their shores or polluting their water. States that depend on beaches and marine recreation and clean water for fishing and other activities can't afford to have oil spills along those shores. Our commercial and recreational fishing industries in New Jersey are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. An economic catastrophe would result from an oil spill that reaches our shores, whether the drill rigs are located in the waters off New Jersey or Massachusetts or Virginia.

In short, it is absolutely certain that the current bill can only go from bad to worse. This bill is a Trojan horse and it should be rejected by any Senators who are concerned about protecting their coastlines and their coastal economies. It also should be rejected by Senators who care about developing a long-term, sustainable energy policy, and by any Senator who has a vision for our country which says we owe our children and our grandchildren a clean environment. We owe them relief from what we see now. I have not even discussed fossil fuels and global warming.

In the Netherlands last week, they reported the hottest temperature in June--this past June--ever since temperatures have been recorded: 1704, I believe, was the year. The hottest month ever since that time, since 1704. We see evidence of global warming all over the place. I don't hear anybody on the Republican side standing up here and saying: My gosh, we have to find a way to get these temperatures normalized. We have to find a way to reduce the number of hurricanes. We have to find a way to reduce the ferocity of these hurricanes. We don't want any more Hurricane Katrinas. But here we are, big oil companies are soaking the public with $3 per gallon for gasoline. It is not fair. We can do better than ``more of the same.'' I hope my colleagues will hear from their constituents back home and oppose this bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4689, which is at the desk, and ask for its consideration.

Mr. President, the amendment I am offering gets to the heart of the issue this bill purportedly means to address; that is, reducing the number of abortions. The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to prevent teen pregnancies in the first place. It is that simple.

The amendment I am offering, along with Senators Menendez, Clinton, Schumer, Kennedy, Kerry, and Feinstein, is aimed at dramatically reducing teen pregnancy rates in the United States. This amendment will assist efforts by nonprofit organizations, schools, and public health agencies to reduce teen pregnancy through awareness, education, and abstinence programs.

The root problem we are talking about today is not abortion, it is teen pregnancy. If we do nothing about teen pregnancy, yet pass this punitive bill, then it proves that this exercise is only a political charade and not a serious effort to combat the problem.

The U.S. teen pregnancy rate is the highest by far among developed countries, and here is some of the evidence we use to prove this.

In Germany, the teen pregnancy rate is 16 per 1,000. The U.S. rate is 84 per 1,000. I ask my colleagues to look at this chart which shows several countries teen pregnancy rates compared with the U.S. This is teen pregnancy rate for ages 15 to 19, among developed countries per 1,000 persons. In Sweden, it is 25 young women per 1,000; in France, it is 20 young women per 1,000; in Canada, 46; in Great Britain, 47; and here we are. Are we the winners in this contest? I hardly think so. We have 84 unintended teenage pregnancies per 1,000 persons.

I mentioned before that Germany has a teen pregnancy rate of 16 per 1,000, and again, I mention the rate in the United States is 84 per 1,000. So it tells us that there is something terribly wrong about the way we do things here.

I look further at Belgium, which has a teen pregnancy rate of 14 per 1,000; the Netherlands, 12 per 1,000; and ours is 84 per 1,000. We cannot continue to ignore facts such as these. We can pass all the abortion restrictions we can think of, but unless there are fewer teen pregnancies, the results will be tragic for thousands of young women.

In many cases, teen pregnancies result in abortion, but that is not the extent of the problem. We know that children of teenage mothers typically have lower birth weight deliveries, are more likely to perform poorly in school, and are at greater risk of abuse and neglect than other children. The sons of teen mothers are 13 percent more likely to end up in prison, while teen daughters are 22 percent more likely to become teen mothers themselves.

Each year in the United States, approximately 860,000 young women become pregnant before they reach the age of 20. Eighty percent of these pregnancies--80 percent of 860,000. That is over 600,000 young women are unintended, and 81 percent of these young women are unmarried.

So what are we doing differently in the United States that is separating us from the rest of the developed world? The answer is simple: the other countries promote full, comprehensive sex education programs, and in the United States--would you believe it--we don't allow funding for comprehensive sex education. I repeat that because some people may think they misheard me. The Federal Government will not fund comprehensive sex education programs despite the fact that 90 percent of parents polled say that in addition to abstinence, sex education should cover contraception and other forms of birth control. But the Federal Government currently will not fund any programs that even mention contraception and restricts all of its funding to abstinence-only programs.

I want to be clear, I am not against abstinence programs. In fact, our amendment will also fund abstinence programs. I think they can be effective at times. But the Federal Government's current policy of restricting funding to abstinence-only programs is producing the wrong result. Just look at how poorly our teenage pregnancy rates compare with other nations.

We need to dedicate our scarce Federal resources toward medically accurate, age-appropriate education that includes information about contraception as well as abstinence. In many cases, particular types of contraception can help avoid sexually transmitted diseases. Isn't that a good objective as well? We have to be realistic about the hope that each and every teenager is going to abstain from premarital sex. Saying ``Don't do it'' may work at times but not all the time.

Look at another problem--youth smoking, for instance. Kids are bombarded with warnings not to smoke. These messages have cut teen smoking rates dramatically, but 1,500 kids a day still start smoking. So it needs intensity of education, comprehensive education.

We remember First Lady Nancy Reagan's ``Just Say No to Drugs'' campaign. It worked for some kids but obviously not for others. For those teenagers who already are sexually active or who do become sexually active, we fail them if we don't teach them about contraception. If we are serious about reducing the number of unintended pregnancies, almost half of which tragically end in abortion--we have to implement programs that work so that our teenagers have the knowledge they need to bring about a positive future for themselves with the opportunity to pursue their dreams. We create a huge number of abortions as a result of the ignorance of what the facts are, about sex and young people.

This year, the Federal Government will direct $176 million of taxpayers' money to abstinence-only programs. Some of these programs can be effective but often don't get the job done because many teenagers need to understand something about contraception and other aspects of a comprehensive sex education program. Research has shown that the most effective programs are the ones that encourage teenagers to delay sexual activity but also provide information on how they can protect themselves. What is more, research shows that teenagers who receive sex education which includes discussion of contraception are more likely to delay sexual activity than those who receive abstinence- only messages.

There was an interesting article in this Saturday's Wall Street Journal about a sex education program in Bamberg County, SC. The article said:

More than a quarter of the families--

In this county--

live below the poverty line. Nearly half have only one parent

living at home . . .

If ever there was a place to expect a wave of teen mothers,

it would be . . . among the flat farmlands of South

Carolina's Allendale and Bamberg Counties. Yet while teen

pregnancies are numerous on the Allendale side--

That is the other side of the county line--

adolescent girls on the Bamberg side have one of the lowest

pregnancy rates in the State. The county's rate has fallen

faster than the rate in most of the U.S.

It is a startling revelation because, again, this is a county where so many people are below the poverty line, where typically teenage pregnancies occur, and in the neighboring county, which is better off, they have a far greater number than does Bamberg County.

Why does that happen? This is an area which has had historically high teen pregnancy rates, but they decided to take bold action to improve their teen pregnancy prevention efforts. Bamberg County initiated a comprehensive sex education program in 1982. Since that time, the county's teen pregnancy rate has fallen by nearly two-thirds. If our objective here is to reduce abortions, then this is one exceptionally effective way to do it.

Adjacent to Bamberg County, as I said, is Allendale County which has similar demographics, but Allendale County has not taken a comprehensive approach. Allendale restricts its programs to abstinence only. What is the result? Allendale County's teen pregnancy rate is more than twice as high as Bamberg's. In 2004, there were 24 pregnancies per 1,000 girls between the ages of 10 and 19 in Bamberg County. In Allendale County, there were 54 pregnancies per 1,000--more than twice the rate.

Abortion is a divisive issue, a tough issue, but we should all be able to agree that the best way or an effective way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, especially among unwed teenage girls. And the proven way to reduce the number of teen pregnancies is to provide youth with comprehensive sex education.

When it comes to our children, we should do everything within our power to protect them. We can and we must help America's young people to do better, to make better choices and have brighter futures.

So what we come down today is that this argument is not exclusively about abortion because if that were the case, then we would be giving comprehensive sex education wherever we have a young audience across the country and not saying as a Government: OK, we will give you the money, but you can't talk about an effective way to stop a pregnancy; we will not fund anything that tells you about contraception, about birth control, about thinking about how you plan your family.

We are looking at raw politics here, Mr. President. What we are looking at is a way to compel young people to go through with unwanted pregnancies, and I think the way to stop that is to prevent these pregnancies in the first place.

The way to prevent them is through knowledge.

I urge my colleagues to think this thing through thoroughly so we can effectively control the number of abortions that are done every year in this society and not only think of the punishment we render by jailing people who assist in helping young women get abortions, about penalizing families, about forcing young women who might have been victims of incest to carry on and find subversive, secret ways to end their pregnancies. That is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to present young people with knowledge about how they do not get themselves in a position where they want to consider an abortion.

I hope my colleagues will think this problem through thoroughly as we debate this issue and recognize that the alternative is strictly a punitive one and should not be dictated. I hope they will support this amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for getting through the process. It is not unusual for Senators to be permitted to modify their amendments. However, at this point I yield up to 15 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to my colleague from New York State.

Mr. President, just a quick response to our colleague and friend from Oklahoma. The fact is, there are certainly different views than this well-trained physician offered on the floor of the Senate. Parents all across the country--some 90 percent of the parents of high school students--insist that they would prefer to have comprehensive sex education available for their children.

The fact that this country of ours doesn't permit anything except abstinence only until marriage to be taught is outrageous. Where is the fairness? Where is the equity?

In New Jersey, we have a different view about people's choice than they do in Oklahoma. That doesn't mean that Oklahoma is totally wrong or that New Jersey is totally right. But the fact is, it is not sinful conduct and we ought to encourage people to give the young women a full understanding about sex education so they know there are alternatives to exposing themselves to an unwanted pregnancy.

It is outrageous that we want to close down the minds and opportunities for people to make a choice about what they do with their health and with their families.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how incomprehensible it is that we have a position on the one hand that refuses to acknowledge in this body there are other ways to control teenage pregnancies than abstinence. We are not against abstinence. There are funds provided in the President's budget for 2007 for abstinence--$204 million. This amendment asks for additional funding to supply comprehensive education. We heard from the Senator from South Carolina saying that he describes our values as shared values. But we are not sharing values with the people in South Carolina from Bamberg County who had the lowest rate of teenage pregnancies after they started a program for comprehensive education in South Carolina. The Senator from South Carolina said we had to have shared values on these things. But these are shared values.

I hope our colleagues will look at this fairly, and think about the women who are hurting because they are prevented from getting an education and vote ``no'' on this bill and ``yes'' on my amendment.

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

Mr. President, I to pay tribute to a fine New Jerseyan and a great friend of my State, James Healy. News of Jim's untimely passing this past Friday at the age of 48 saddened all of us in the New Jersey delegation. His great personality and tremendous work ethic truly made him a pleasure to work with and an asset to his organization, the New Jersey Department of Transportation, NJDOT.

For nearly 20 years, Jim held several important posts within the department. Most recently, he served as the NJDOT's Federal liaison. Jim was an expert on Federal legislative, regulatory, and finance issues. He provided my office with valuable expertise and advice concerning subjects of great importance to New Jersey.

New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the Union, and the movement of people and goods through its travel corridors is of utmost importance, not just to New Jerseyans, but for the entire regional economy.

Jim guided the New Jersey delegation through Federal highway bill authorizations, which took years to accomplish. The most recent one, SAFETEA-LU, took 2 years to complete. Jim also worked closely with New Jersey members on aviation reauthorization bills, including the VISION- 100 legislation passed in 2003.

He advocated for the State's priorities, including legislation to help preserve open spaces in New Jersey. My staff and I had the pleasure of working with him many times on these bills and he was always a consummate professional: well-informed, thorough in his work, and always extraordinarily helpful.

When a former NJDOT commissioner served as president of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, Jim served as liaison to AASHTO staff, where he helped coordinate and set national transportation policy goals.

Jim was an assistant professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University and was a 1979 graduate of William Paterson University, where he earned a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration. He received his law degree in 1983 from Rutgers University in Newark, NJ.

Jim is survived by his parents, Philip and Hannah Healy of Wayne, NJ, and his brothers and sisters, Joseph Healy, Mary Jo Ridge, Kathleen Bianco, Teresa Hoey, and Joan Wielenta. My heart goes out to Jim's family during this difficult time.

I salute the life and memory of this great son of New Jersey, Jim Healy. May he rest in peace.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of S. 728, the bill to reauthorize the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA.

I want to join my colleagues in expressing my sincere appreciation to Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords, and to Senator Bond, who chairs the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Senator Baucus, who serves as the ranking member of the Subcommittee. I also want to commend their dedicated staff for their hard work and consideration on this important legislation. The leaders in our committee and their staff have literally worked for years to bring this bill to the floor for consideration, and they deserve credit for their patience and perseverance.

I particularly thank Senator Inhofe and Senator Bond for the New Jersey project authorizations they have included in this bill. As do other States, New Jersey depends on the Army Corps to carry out projects that are vital to our economy. This bill contains authorizations for three important projects in New Jersey. The first is a South River storm damage and ecosystem restoration project. The second is a Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay project at Union Beach which will address hurricane and storm damage and provide for beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the project. The third is a Manasquan to Barnegat Inlets project to address hurricane and storm damage and provide for beach nourishment over the 50-year life of the project.

The bill also contains a contingent authorization for a Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet project for hurricane and storm damage reduction and periodic nourishment over the 50-year life of the project. I also appreciate the bill managers' willingness to accept my language on the shore protection demonstration program. This program will help us learn how to nourish our shore in smarter and cheaper ways.

While I supported the Feingold-McCain amendment regarding independent peer review, I hope this won't be construed to take anything away from the underlying bill or the hard work of its managers. The underlying bill is one that I am pleased to support, and I will vote for its final passage.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa. I ask I be notified when 4 minutes 30 seconds has passed.

Mr. President, this is one of those debates that makes the American people scratch their heads and ask, what are those people in Washington thinking about? From the perspective of everyday people, this should not even be a debate. Of course we should fully fund research with embryonic stem cells because it has the potential to save lives and alleviate the suffering of millions of Americans. It is common sense.

But our President is a captive of ideologs and extremists of his political party. Nearly 5 years ago President Bush enacted a policy that made no scientific contribution, only political fodder for another election. He put a stop to the development of new stem cell lines for research. It was a devastating blow to Americans suffering from diabetes, cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, and other injuries and diseases.

For many years, I have met with children stricken with juvenile diabetes. We have established friendships, their parents and I, and the children and I. These children ask their parents, brothers, sisters, and me why the President won't allow research to move forward so their disease can be cured. There is no decent answer I can give them.

When I ask them what the worst thing about living with diabetes is, they respond plaintively, begging for help, so they can stop drawing blood from their finger six times a day. They are pleading to live their lives like other kids. One child said he is forbidden something so simple--to sleep at other friends' houses--because of the fear that he will go into insulin shock.

I promised these kids I would do everything I possibly could to get the message to the President of the United States, to help us find the cure for them. Today we have an opportunity, finally, to help these children.

It has been over 1 year since the House passed this bill. Why the delay? There is no comprehensible reason. All we know is that people wanted to obstruct this discussion today. We can only wonder how many people have had their hopes dashed and their spirits broken during that wasted year.

Americans in large majorities support stem cell research. I don't understand this ``fiddling while Rome burns'' policy. Seventy-two percent of Americans register support for embryonic cell research, a 3- to-1 margin over opposition. One of the most outspoken supporters of stem cell research is former First Lady Nancy Reagan. She spent 10 years watching her husband's memory fade from life, probably not even recognizing her. I have friends whose parents do not know who they are.

Virtually every major medical, scientific, and patient group supports embryonic stem cell research. In my home State of New Jersey, support for stem cell research is overwhelming. We were the second State after California to authorize embryonic stem cell research. Unfortunately, President Bush has cut off Federal funding for those projects.

My colleague Senator Menendez and I recently visited the Coriell Institute in Camden, NJ. They are not well known, but they were founded in 1953 and hold the world's largest collection of human cells for research. Coriell has everything in place to find cures and help millions of people. But there is one problem: President Bush is undermining their efforts with his irrational policy on stem cell research.

Because of the scarcity of embryonic stem cell lines caused by his Executive Order, the Coriell Institute in New Jersey had to go overseas to the Technion Institute in Israel to get access to an embryonic stem cell line so they could continue their research.

The President denies hope to millions of people based on his standard of ``ethics and morality.'' But what is ethical about denying a cure to children suffering from diabetes? What is moral about denying paralyzed people the chance to walk again?

Any real, ethical issues are addressed by this bill. New stem cell lines will come from embryos donated by fertility parents under strict guidelines. There will not be embryos created for research.

What we are talking about in this bill are embryos that would otherwise be disposed of--thrown away.

I believe compassion and common sense must prevail over rigid ideology

If we pass this bill, I understand that the President intends to veto it. That would be a terrible and tragic mistake.

President Bush has never vetoed a bill. In the nearly 6 years of his Presidency--not one veto.

What would it saw to the American people if his first veto was of a bill that could save millions of lives?

And I say to the American people: don't be fooled by the sleight of hand we are seeing today. There are three bills being considered but only one of them matters.

The other two bills are part of a shell game. They are there to give President Bush something to sign.

But will those two bills do much to help the American with a shaky hand from being cured of Parkinson's disease?

Will those two bills make real strides toward relieving a child with diabetes from the constant shots of insulin? I don't think so.

Only one bill can do that--the House stem cell bill. Let's vote to approve it.

Mr. President, I hope our colleagues will look in the faces of their children and their grandchildren and say: We do not want them to be sick. And if they get sick, we want to help them. I hope this bill will pass overwhelmingly.

Reserving the right to object, I am not sure if I had the full context of the Senator's request regarding the time remaining here.

I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the amendment offered by my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez. I want to make sure there is a clear understanding about what we are discussing. It has been said before--it is worthy of repetition--that 700 of the almost 3,000 people who lost their lives on 9/11 came from the State of New Jersey. The largest remaining share came from the State of New York. The region is connected by all kinds of interests and conditions. When we look at the region and see what happened with our State and the State of New York, in terms of resources from grants by Homeland Security, it is hard to understand.

We don't have sufficient resources for homeland security. I heard my colleague say that earlier. We don't. However, whatever we do have should be targeted to those parts of the country most at risk of another terrorist attack. Here we see, once again, that our friends in the Congress, our friends in the Senate are treating homeland security as another opportunity for additional resources. We are all resource starved, every State. Why? The reasons are obvious. We are giving tax breaks to people who don't deserve and, in many cases, don't want them, billions and billions of dollars to the wealthiest among us. We have a war, about which there is considerable question, that is costing us hundreds of billions of dollars. And by the end of this year, we will probably be at the level of $500 billion, a half a trillion dollars. That funnel keeps on taking money away from what we need at home.

Yes, we have to protect ourselves against terrorism from any part of the world against American citizens. But we have a reason to believe that on these shores of ours, within the boundaries of the United States, we could lose lots more of our people and have our lives disrupted much more than they have been. It is very uncomfortable. We spend a fortune in security funding. If you go to the airports, you see it every minute. If you go into large public buildings, you see it there. Wherever you go, our lives have been inhibited in some way. Our freedoms are curtailed by the threat of terrorism.

So we hear that our enemy has their guns loaded. What would happen if we knew that there was going to be an assault coming from abroad on the New York Harbor? Would we say: Don't defend that harbor; don't defend those areas, New Jersey and New York, where they are at the highest risk of terrorism facilities in the country? No, don't defend them? Even though the armada is on its way to New York Harbor, let's make sure that we take care of Wyoming and Nebraska and other States? No slight intended; they are all great States. But let's make sure we give them money now because we are going to distribute funds for defending ourselves.

Seven hundred people from our State--neighbors, friends, even family. My oldest daughter's best friend died in the World Trade Center, leaving three children behind. Her husband searched hospitals for 2 weeks, refusing to accept the fact that she would no longer be in their lives, hoping against hope she would be discovered alive. Those stories were repeated all over the area. The FBI has declared the 2-mile stretch that goes from Newark Liberty Airport to the harbor as the most inviting place for a terrorist attack in the country. Why? It is a very densely populated area, with large chemical facilities that could endanger the lives or well-being of more than 12 million people.

To suggest that each State should be guaranteed a minimum I find hard to believe. I commend my colleague for saying: OK. Recognizing that if we want to get this passed, that we desperately need to raise the funds for those places most at risk, as mandated by the 9/11 Commission, then we have to understand reality. It is politics. Every State wants to get a little bit of the distribution. So let's reduce it from three- quarters of 1 percent to one-quarter of a percent as a minimum and allow more funds to be distributed among the States most at risk. It makes eminent sense to me.

When we look out west and we see Wyoming, beautiful State that it is, getting seven times more resources, more funding per capita than New Jersey, seven times more, if there is a risk in Wyoming, it sure can't be comprehended by seven times more distribution.

I recall, once again, for emphasis purposes, recommendation 25 of the 9/11 Commission report:

Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an

assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. Federal homeland

security assistance should not remain a program for general

revenue sharing.

Listen to that. Pay attention to this report. It was skillfully done, headed by the former Governor of New Jersey, a brilliant public servant who said that this is the way the program should be divided. Let's do it that way. Let's do it. Let's put the money where the risk is. That is what this ought to be about, nothing more. We have tried to arrive at a compromise position. I hope the Senate will support that position.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue because, frankly, it is so hard to comprehend that it needs clarification.

What are we talking about? We are saying if people have guns, and they are caught up in the chaos of a natural disaster, with people being chased out of their homes, people being rescued from rooftops, people begging for assistance, hanging out of windows, and so forth, if you have the wrong person who is hollering for help, and you are a first responder and you go into that house, you could get shot.

What is the sense of this? We are not saying you are being deprived of a privilege at that point. What is the privilege? To maybe kill a neighbor? Mr. President, if there are 30,000 people in a place that cannot accommodate that number, and in the middle of that confusion, in the middle of that frustration, in the middle of the anger and the rage that has to follow because you have been taken out of your home, or maybe don't know where your children are or where your spouse is, and the mental attitude that could exist in that situation, and they are making sure you have your pet pistol handy?

It is outrageous, and it should not be allowed. We have to vote against the Vitter amendment because what it attempts to do is to make sure there is protection. The protection, however, is for the NRA. National Rifle Association really means ``No Records Available'' and that is ridiculous that we

don't want to have lethal weapons controlled in times of crisis.

I am sure the Senator from Louisiana is reacting to a situation. To put it bluntly, I think the Vitter amendment would put the lives of police officers, National Guard troops, rescuers, and victims of a disaster in far greater danger. The Vitter amendment would prevent law enforcement officials and rescuers, first responders from collecting firearms from individuals, even temporarily, during an emergency or major disaster.

I will be pleased to yield.

The Senator is absolutely correct. Imagine this in response to what the Senator is saying: There were felons turned loose on the streets, there were looters occupying homes or anything to get themselves out of the flood or out of the way and steal anything, and here we give them a present. Not only did they find a roof over their head, they found guns.

So someone innocently trying to be of help comes in, such as an ambulance group, a physician, a coastguardsmen--look how gallant the Coast Guard people were--and imagine they try to break their way into a window to rescue someone they know is in there, and some crazy is there with a gun. Everybody knows, despite the fact that the person coming into the house wants to be of help--visualize what is taking place in some of the major cities across our country, where fire trucks responding to a fire are shot at. Here we are going to say: Wait a second, don't take away their guns. Maybe we ought to take away the fire engine, but don't take away their guns.

It is the NRA button. It has been pushed by the organization, and they are saying: Hey, don't let them encroach on our weapon ownership, even if the crisis is one that is going to take lives, as we saw in Katrina. Imagine being in that facility, that hall with all those people who were desperate to find some way out of that mess and someone starts an argument. Pistols, guns around? Outrageous.

What it means is that our law enforcement community will not be able to, even temporarily, hold weapons to protect other victims of the community at large during this crisis. At the next evacuation center, such as the Louisiana Superdome, we should allow people to roam around that facility with guns and assault weapons? What happens if someone wants to steal something they see one of their neighbors has and an argument ensues? The lawfulness is gone. They will be totally out of control giving somebody a gun like that.

I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to write a law that took guns away from domestic abusers of children and spouses. We had a huge fight over it and finally we got it through. It was 1998. Since then, we have had over 100,000 gun permits denied to people who get so enraged that they beat up their kids, their spouse, their wives, their husbands, and the NRA was in there fighting every inch along the way: Oh, no, don't deprive the people of their freedom to beat up their wife, beat up their kids, and maybe if they are drunk enough, they may want to take a couple of shots at members of their household. No, we stopped that.

We plead with the Senator from Louisiana: Don't force us to vote on this amendment. Don't do it. Think about the people in Louisiana and think about what it might have been like in New Orleans at that time, with water running over the rooftops in many cases. Now we are asking for the right to prohibit law enforcement from confiscating guns if they knew where they are? Perhaps one of these people who had a gun, been arrested and convicted for domestic abuse still has the gun--let them sit there with a gun and try to enter into a household that is disturbed? It is not right, not fair.

The Senate is going to tell law enforcement officials who are trying to control these facilities that they are powerless: Keep your hands off those guns, policemen, FBI agents, FEMA people; keep your hands off those guns. Our police and Federal law enforcement officers are the first line of defense in terrorist attacks and natural disasters, and they have to have some degree of discretion.

The International Brotherhood of Police Officers thinks this about the Vitter amendment:

The IBPO stands by our brothers and sisters in law

enforcement and disapproves of any legislation that may

interfere with a police officer's discretion to react as he

or she sees fit under extreme emergency circumstances.

Furthermore, the IBPO believes that responsible gun owners

who act in accordance with Federal, State and local law are

unlikely to have their guns confiscated unless they use or

possess the guns in a manner or place that would be

prohibited or threatening.

They are confirming that this is a bad idea.

The Vitter amendment would make it almost impossible for officials to set up safe areas during an emergency. It would turn evacuation centers into the Wild West. Take the guns and set them up in a safe area so they are returned to the owners. However, be careful to make sure that the original owner, the person who turned the gun in, isn't really a felon on the loose. Police know that large crowds, confined quarters, and limited amounts of food and water will lead to high tempers and leave people on the edge.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes more.

I thank the chair.

Understandably, police don't want guns in those shelters. The police must have the right to make that shelter a gun-free area. So what do they do? They say: Hey, Joe, turn in that gun; turn it in, and as soon as you are settled, we will keep it in safekeeping for you, and we will give you back your gun. But meanwhile, don't permit that gun owner, in a moment of rage, to do damage that is irreparable.

The fact is, our law enforcement community has to have the ability to make decisions that it believes will ensure the health and safety of the community at large. There is no valid reason law enforcement agencies should be prevented from doing their job in times of emergency. Let's not make it tougher for them. What do we want to do in times of crisis such as a flood, an earthquake, a hurricane, a tornado? At times like that, do we want to make it tougher for our emergency response people to carry out the duties they volunteer for, typically, and do so efficiently, under dangerous circumstances to themselves?

Let the NRA say: Come on, come on, let's let them have their guns. What is the difference? So they may take a shot or two. That is how it sounds to me, and I hope it sounds the same way to others.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for yielding time.

What the Senator is attempting to do is make sure we react appropriately to the threats we face. We talk about making sure our citizens are safe. We want to make sure they are safe from terrorist attacks around the world, but it has to be focused on protecting our homeland from yet another terrorist attack. Unfortunately, the amounts dedicated to State and local Homeland Security grants in this bill fall far short of that goal.

Senator Clinton's amendment is crucial because it restores $790 million that has been slashed from Homeland Security grant programs over the past 2 years. This amendment will help ensure our high-risk States and cities get what they need to protect their citizens and to defend our country.

How can we justify cutting Federal Homeland Security funds at this time? The administration has been warning us about terrorist plots targeting the passenger rail tunnels between New York and New Jersey. They have broken up another plot that targeted the Sears Tower in Chicago, areas that are under considerable risk. How do we justify cutting funds?

We are going to spend some $500 billion on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan before this year is out. We should be making sure we protect ourselves from an attack from abroad. But how about attacks within our boundaries? Almost 3,000 people lost their lives on September 11. Nothing could have been worse than to see the consequences of that, as we did from the State of New Jersey. We could see the smoke from the towers. We could see the disappearing World Trade Center facilities.

The Clinton amendment restores funding for the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and the urban area security initiative to the fiscal year 2005 levels.

New York and New Jersey bore the brunt of the attacks on September 11 and continue to be the most at risk. Just recently, a Lebanese citizen was taken into custody with two other individuals for plotting to bomb the PATH railway tunnels under the Hudson River that connect New Jersey and New York.

We have seen terror strikes all over the world. Just yesterday, bombs went off on 7 different trains during rush hour in India, killing 160 people and wounding over 460. We do not yet know who is responsible for that atrocity, but coming on the heels of the London and Madrid transit system bombings and the two attacks on the World Trade Center, it is clear that terrorists strike in places that are vulnerable, where they can maximize the number of innocent civilians who will be killed or wounded.

The FBI has identified the 2-mile strip between the Port of Newark and the Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey as the most at risk area in the entire Nation for a terrorist attack. Yet my State's Homeland Security funding was cut by $4.6 million when the fiscal year 2006 grants were allocated. And New Jersey got off relatively well, with an 8 percent cut, compared to New York, which lost 37 percent of its funds, or Texas, which lost 31 percent of its funds.

Are we truly protecting our citizens if we keep cutting homeland security funding? No, we are not. Have we already won the war on terror? Has the mission been accomplished?

We are fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. We want to make sure our troops on the front lines there have everything they need to do the job. But the other front line is the home front line. We have to make sure our States and our cities and particularly those places most at risk have everything they need to do the job.

What are our priorities in the Senate? Reducing inheritance tax for multimillionaires or providing our communities with Homeland Security funds? This is the choice we face on this amendment.

We may disagree on whether it is appropriate to have nonrisk-based formulas apply to Homeland Security grants, but we can all agree that cutting overall funding year after year is not making anyone safer.

I urge my colleagues to support Senator Clinton's amendment. I proudly support it. We desperately need this restoration of funding for homeland security. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first I commend my colleague, Senator Menendez, for his persistence on this issue. We both come from the northern part of the State of New Jersey, which is the most dense portion of the most densely populated State in the country.

Seven hundred of our fellow New Jerseyans lost their lives on September 11, 2001. It would be hard to find people whose lives were not touched by the events of that day--whether immediate neighbors, friends, family, all of us knew someone who was killed or injured on that fateful day. From our part of New Jersey, you could see the smoke rising from the World Trade Center where many of our friends, neighbors, and loved ones worked.

The New York-New Jersey region bore the brunt of the attack on 9/11, and to this day it remains the area of our country that is most at risk of another attack. We were reminded of this just last week when authorities disrupted a plot by eight terrorists to blow up commuter train tunnels connecting New Jersey and New York. Each day, nearly 200,000 people travel through these tunnels.

Since we don't have unlimited resources for homeland security, homeland security must be targeted to those parts of the country most at risk of another terrorist attack. But that isn't currently the case. Why? Because this Congress is treating homeland security funding as just another pork project rather than sending the resources based solely on risk, as has been recommended by the 9/11 Commission. And in section 25:

Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on

assessments of risks and vulnerabilities.

[F]ederal homeland security assistance should not remain a

program for general revenue sharing.

This is by the authors of this Commission report which was adopted wholeheartedly in this place.

Because each State gets a minimum guarantee of funding regardless of risk or population density, we take resources from States known as major terrorist targets and give them to low-risk areas.

Politics rears its ugly head.

I saw the prevailing view on the Homeland Security Committee on which I sit--the committee of jurisdiction. I called the attention of the committee to the report of the 9/11 Commission very specifically and asked the committee to endorse fully the risk-based distribution mechanisms for funding. Perhaps my argument wasn't persuasive, but the vote was 15 to 1 against it, solely basing this distribution of grants on risk. It was painful for me to see that.

I want to give you an example. In fiscal year 2006, New Jersey received $1.92 per capita spending for State homeland security and law enforcement terrorism prevention grants. Wyoming received $14.73. New Jersey, the most densely populated State in the country, received $1.92 in per capita spending; and Wyoming--a beautiful State, though I think it is fair to say that their risk of a terrorist attack is substantially different or not even this in terms of what terrorist planning is typically doing--Wyoming, $14.73. Are the people of Wyoming seven times more likely to be the victims of a terrorist attack than the people of New Jersey? I don't think so.

The FBI has identified the 2-mile strip between the Port of New York and Newark-Liberty International Airport in New Jersey as the most inviting target in the entire Nation for a terrorist attack because of the huge amount of damage that could be inflicted. It is believed--this isn't secret, it has been published many times in many places--it is believed that a terrorist attack in this area could kill or injure more than 10 million people because of the density of population there and the presence of so many chemical facilities.

The way we fund homeland security flies in the face of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We see it on this placard. It is a stark reminder of what we ought to be doing and how much it differs from what we are arguing.

Today, nearly 5 years after 9/11, nearly 40 percent of the State Homeland Security Grant Program is given out as ``general revenue sharing'' to each and every State and territory regardless of the danger they face from terrorism. The system is broken. We have to fix it. I have been trying to reform this grant program for several years.

In February 2005, I introduced a bill called the Risk-Based Homeland Security Funding Act, which would require that all homeland security grants be based strictly on risk, threat, and vulnerability. My colleague, Senator Menendez, did similarly when he was a Member of the House of Representatives. The amendment offered by my colleague today moves us in that direction. That is why I so strongly support it.

Under the Menendez-Lautenberg amendment, the Senate minimums will be reduced from .75 percent of Homeland Security funding to .25 percent. That lower amount, .25 percent, is the same as the allocation President Bush recommends. Even the Bush administration confirms the .75 minimum is inappropriate and puts our security at risk. Secretary Chertoff has consistently advocated Homeland Security funding be risk-based.

By reducing these State minimums, we can better protect the Nation by getting more funding to areas that are actually under threat and risk. If Congress will not eliminate State minimums, the best way to proceed is to reduce the State minimums so that as much money as possible is directed toward the highest risk areas.

If we review past terrorist attacks, it is clear terrorists want to attack densely populated areas, areas where they can inflict the most damage. We heard my colleague, Senator Menendez, talk about the damage it could do to our national economy if we have a major attack in this very sensitive area. They want to kill as many people as they can, disrupt economic life as it exists.

I urge our colleagues to support the Menendez-Lautenberg amendment. A vote for this amendment is a vote in support of the administration's position, the 9/11 Commission position, and plain common sense.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.