Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I listened with interest to the Senator from Maine, the chairperson of the committee on which we both serve. I am trying to figure out why a name change might be part of the plan to try to make FEMA a more efficient agency. I think we are chasing our tail around the tree because I don't see how we can do it under the present structure.

I want to start at the beginning. I don't plan to take all the time that is available. I would like to go back a little bit.

When we look at the structure of DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, we see the complications that exist even today with its general functioning: Are the screeners doing an effective job? Do we have too many?

They were once publicly owned groups across the country, and they were doing a poor job. Then we brought them into the Government and their performance improved substantially. Now there is talk about whether we ought to put them back into private hands.

I think about the task of Secretary Chertoff--and Secretary Chertoff is someone I know very well and for whom I have a great deal of respect--when we look at the assignment--22 Departments, 180,000 people, budgets that are insufficient to start with, and then the squabbling, the arm wrestling that has to take place within the Department to try and get FEMA enough money. It just doesn't make sense to have this Department of Government surrounded by the rest of the structure that is so complicated within DHS.

There was a time when FEMA was called upon to act as a result of natural disasters, and they did it very well. James Lee Witt was the head of FEMA. In 1993, we had what was the equivalent of a 100-year flood in Mississippi, and FEMA acted professionally and efficiently and got the job done. Then we had the Northridge earthquake which was one of the worst disasters we have seen. Once again, FEMA stood up to the task and did it efficiently and responded very promptly to get that done.

I, for one, believe, as does the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, that FEMA ought to be removed, ought to be independent, and to give it a chance to fight for its own budget, to make its own case, to be able to have direct contact with the President's office.

When we think about it, we worry an awful lot about a terrorist attack on our soil, and we should, and we should fight to protect our citizens from the consequences of that kind of an event. But, also, when we look at what happened with natural disasters and the significant--just look at Katrina and see what has happened there. There is a whole sector in our country that has yet to recover.

We are going to be at the first anniversary of Katrina in less than 2 months, and there are still people living in unacceptable conditions, still the restoration has not taken place--the theft, the waste, the fraud that has taken place there, and we look and we say: What has happened here? Why isn't it better? It isn't better because the structure doesn't permit it to get better with any degree of ease. In my view, FEMA has to be a separate department, as it once was, to be able to function as it once did under a different kind of leadership.

Who can forget the consequences of the first strike of the storm when the President of the United States was busy in California. He didn't visit the scene until a couple of days had passed, and he did that from 30,000 feet in the air and called it a devastating sight and gave congratulations to Mr. Brown: Brownie, heck of a job.

Did the President not know what he was saying or did he make a mistake? The fact is, there was so much confusion with the communications links that it was almost impossible to decipher what was going to happen, who was responsible, who was out to dinner when they were crying for help in the various communities, until someone reached over the top, went past the organizational structure, and got to the President's office. Then things began to happen. And they didn't happen very efficiently, nor did they happen thoroughly.

I think if we separated FEMA from the Department of Homeland Security, it would give our new director--who holds high hope, I think, for all of us; he is a competent person. He has experience before he came to FEMA. He has a very positive background for this kind of job. He is new on the job, and I think it would give him a much stronger hand in the annual battle over the agency's budget and appropriations. Obviously, then, it would free FEMA of several layers of bureaucracy at DHS and make it easier for the agency to do its job.

We talk so often around here about the bureaucracy and how tough it is to work your way through it. But here we have this critical agency, the agency that has more direct responsibility for our national security within our boundaries, on our land, than any other agency, and we keep it as a part of a total mechanical structure that says: OK, make sure you get A, B, C, and D. I think that is the wrong approach to having FEMA do the job we want it to do.

It is obvious that FEMA was weak and ineffective and showed a great deal of incompetence. What we want to do is streamline the agency as much as we can, and this is an opportunity to do just that. We are not going to rely on picking friends--cronies, if I can use the term, political campaign workers--to do this job and expect to have it succeed. That is not the way you take a position like this and have it be able to do its job, the job of jumping in there in the middle of a natural disaster of people searching for relatives, searching for a way out. What do you do to replace a reasonable living condition for them? It is a very tough job.

I think FEMA's subservient position inside DHS has contributed to low morale and the loss of qualified professional staff, and it is difficult attracting experienced personnel back to the agency. The agency has lost so much of its former excellent reputation that people are not anxious to go to an agency like that.

So I think the way we have to do it is the way Senator Clinton and I and others are supportive of, which is the separation of FEMA from the Department. Separate FEMA. Let it stand on its own two feet. Let it strive for its own budget. Let it hire its personnel under its own structure and give it the responsibilities that it deserves and the resources that it needs.

So I hope at this point that people will vote against the amendment Senator Collins has presented and support the Clinton amendment that calls for FEMA to be separated from DHS, stand alone, and let it make its case.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask to be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise now to discuss the tense situation we are witnessing in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinians. It has been said that governing is about choices. Right now, Hamas has to make a choice that can determine the future of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian state.

Hamas is, at its roots, a terrorist organization. That has been established in the view of the United States and in the view of the European Union. So we can't kid ourselves about what it is that we see in front of us. They used a strategy to usurp power in the Palestinian territories. First, Hamas offered some social services among the Palestinian people by running social service programs even as it pursued its terrorist objective, to destroy Israel.

But now Hamas has a choice. Does it really care about the Palestinian people or is it simply too dedicated to its terrorist ways? If Hamas is really concerned about the Palestinian people, they would release, promptly and safely, the Israeli soldier they now hold hostage. We have seen them brag--crow about the fact that they killed a young settler they abducted, 18 years of age.

We see a new tactic being used by terrorists over the last few weeks--by terrorists in general. We saw what happened in Iraq when they kidnapped two of our soldiers, Private Kristian Menchaca and Private Thomas Tucker. They were mutilated and tortured before they were killed. So brutally handled by these terrorists in Iraq. I know our troops are working very hard to find these terrorist killers, and I hope we will.

But now Hamas, replicating that kind of terror behavior, has kidnapped an Israeli soldier, a young corporal--Gilad Shallit his name is--and Israel has been on the search to try to rescue him while trying to get the Palestinian people to understand they cannot win this fight for peace with a government composed of terrorism advocates.

Hamas shows their hand choosing this confrontation. To make matters worse, they then abducted this young man, 18-year-old Eliyahu Asheri-- they showed pictures of him--and shot him in the head.

The events of these past few days are vividly illustrating to the world that Hamas is not a valid governing body. They can't be taken seriously as a civilized leader of its people. That has to be understood by the people in those communities. There is so much to be gained by a peaceful resolution of the differences. No, it is probably true that neither side can fully gain all of its own interests. But Hamas, a terrorist organization, cannot be taken seriously as a civilized leader of its people. It is a terrorist organization masquerading as a government.

But now they are faced with a critical choice. If they have decided that the path of violence is the one that they would like to follow, it dooms the Palestinian people to isolation and economic hardship. Or now they can make a humanitarian gesture on behalf of the people they purport to represent.

I have had a deep interest in the area. Israel is a very important ally. They provide us with a degree of presence that we otherwise would have to gain ourselves with more ships, more troops, more airplanes. But this democratic society survives in a sea of totalitarianism.

It has to be understood that we want to work with the Palestinian people. Believe me, when I see pictures of Iraqi children or Palestinian children, families torn apart, a father or mother lost with a child weeping, sobbing alongside the dead parent, brother or sister, we don't want any violence to come to any side in these attempts to govern. But Hamas is a terrorist organization. Suggesting that they represent the view of the people there presents a very sad picture.

Violence is not helping any cause in the Middle East. But Hamas seems intent on continuing the downward spiral of violence and death. One cannot blame the Israelis for fighting to save

their people. That is their responsibility as a government.

We have reached out to Iraq, ostensibly, as is said by the administration, to protect our freedoms in this country. We have come face to face with terror, and it has changed life in America. The downing of the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon, the violation of our territorial borders, the violation of life and the pursuit of regularity by our people--it is all different now.

I happened to visit a community of Native Americans in New Jersey. One man was complaining that he can't fish in the reservoir anymore. He can't put a boat in there because they are afraid that he might be a terrorist. But they still depend on that for sustenance, hunting animals, fishing. When you see that kind of reach--that is not the most terrible thing that has happened in our world, but it just tells you about the extent that terror can inflict punishment on the free world.

So this situation then between Israel and the Palestine territories really exemplifies what can be. They have this young man captive, threatening to kill him. My advice is, return him promptly and safely, and show the real face of the Palestinian people. They are essentially a hard-working, industrious people who ultimately want to have peace for their families and a chance for them to exist with a standard of living that is reasonable.

The United States and the European Union already know Hamas is a terrorist organization. The rest of the world now knows it, too.

The reach of terror is beyond anything that might have been anticipated, whether it is an attack in a Japanese subway or a train in Great Britain or Spain or wherever; everybody is on guard. We are all looking at how horrible examples of terror are. We are going to see tense days in Israel and Gaza. My hope, and I think the hope of everybody who knows anything about the situation, is that Hamas comes to its senses and quickly releases Corporal Shallit.

Some time ago I was with other Senators on a trip to Iraq. On the way we stopped in Israel to meet with Prime Minister Sharon when he was in power. While we were sitting around the table, I and the four other Senators suddenly saw activity, hustle-bustle in the conference room. The Prime Minister, Sharon then, looked like he was suddenly deflated. He slumped in his chair. He said he had bad news. There was a suicide bombing attack in a port just south of Tel Aviv and 10 people were killed and many others wounded.

I volunteered for the five of us that we could adjourn the meeting and permit the Prime Minister to go on and conduct his necessary function.

He said to me: Senator, when you are the Prime Minister of Israel, you must continue to function no matter what the circumstances are. And we will continue our discussions here.

Israel as we know it is going to fight back against terror with every ounce of energy and blood that it can muster. It is not going to let the Palestinians or any other terror come into their country and kill or injure its citizens without paying a terrible price. The price not only is to the people where the perpetrators come from but the tensions that spread throughout the world.

Let's hope that Hamas comes to its senses and quickly returns the young soldier they are holding.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 21st anniversary of National Literacy Day, designated on July 2, 1985, by President Ronald Reagan.

In 1986, Caryl Mackin-Wagner, the executive director for Focus on Literacy Inc., worked with Congress to establish recognition by a Senate resolution of a National Literacy Day, which Congress has honored each year since.

Caryl Mackin-Wagner established Focus on Literacy, Inc., to bring a greater awareness to the problem of illiteracy in our Nation and to promote effective ways to address this problem while improving the reading skills of children and adults in America.

Developing one's reading and writing skills is a necessary tool to succeeding in this world today. It is extremely important that Americans continue to advance in order to bring about a more successful nation as a whole. We must not ignore the fact that there are many individuals who are not well educated and who are not contributing to society in ways that they could. What is cause for concern is that with inadequate education, people don't reach their full potential and contribute all that they can to our Nation. On Sunday, July 2, Congress will recognize the significance of improving the literacy of individuals, which further contributes to the growth of our society.

Each year, Congress honors National Literacy Day to celebrate literary accomplishments, which have contributed to developing a better and more educated society. As Caryl Mackin-Wagner has said, ``Illiterate individuals are our untapped resource for they possess underutilized talents and abilities.''

Through hard work and a commitment to helping others, Focus on Literacy, Inc. has made remarkable strides in the battle for literacy and I am proud to salute its efforts on National Literacy Day.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield for a question?

Is the Senator from Iowa aware of the fact that we have come up with a terrific product, that science has discovered a vaccine which will prevent cervical cancer?

Mr. President, taking this vaccine can reduce cervical cancer deaths by 70 percent--70 percent. In America, we lose about 4,000 women a year to cervical cancer. Across the world, the numbers are over 230,000 annually. Is the Senator from Iowa aware that there are detractors? The Senator is certainly aware, as he discusses stem cell research and conditions that are so painful for families, such as juvenile diabetes and other autoimmune diseases, that not enough money is going into these programs. But in this case, the chance to stop cervical cancer from killing women has detractors out there who say: If we do that, we will encourage promiscuity. Did you ever hear anything so silly in your life? It is the same as saying: If you give seatbelts to people, they are going to drive more recklessly. It just doesn't make sense.

So if the Senator is aware of these things, they will, I am sure, add interest and fervor to his appeal to get on with finding out what is killing people.

For a lifetime.

Mr. President, the Senator may be aware that I recently sent a letter to the Centers for Disease Control saying: ``Get on with it. Get the vaccine out there. And don't let opponents stand in the way. You are responsible. The product has passed all the tests. It is considered safe and effective.'' So I sent this letter, and another one to the Food and Drug Administration. I don't know whether the Senator is aware of these letters, but I am sure that, knowing his disposition about these things, that he would want to join in this effort and say: `` CDC, don't you dare hold back on this information. Don't you dare.'' Right?

We will do that. I would like to thank the Senator for the compliment on the smoking prohibition in airplanes. It has finally penetrated, after almost 20 years now, into homes, into restaurants, into places where smoking just isn't an acceptable habit anymore. Today's papers have stories about how dangerous secondhand smoke is; you don't have to smoke the cigarette yourself, you just need to be near someone who is. I am sure the Senator is aware of the fact that breathing other people's smoke can be as dangerous to your health as if you engaged in smoking yourself.

What a coincidence it is that as we have been talking about the no smoking in airplanes, our colleague from the State of Illinois, Senator Durbin, has joined us on the floor. At the time, he was the House author of the ban and I was the Senate author, so the two of us together were able to put that legislation into effect.

Returning to the vaccine, is the Senator aware of the fact that there are detractors out there who, even if you get the good product, will stand in the way of it being made readily available to people who need it?

Mr. President, if I may interject one point: is the Senator also aware, as the question of the Senator from Illinois is reviewed, that if we weren't busy giving tax breaks to the very wealthiest among us, to people who don't need the tax breaks and often don't even want them, we would have the funding necessary to do research on all kinds of things? The National Cancer Institute doesn't get the kind of money it deserves in terms of the positive effect it could have on our lives and on the financial condition in this country. The National Institutes of Health don't get the kind of funding they need. We see someone like Warren Buffett stand up and say that he is going to give nearly $40 billion away. That shows you what happens if you work hard in this country. It just shows you. But the administration and the other side want to give Warren Buffett more money. They want to give him more than he has, when he's busy giving it away. They want to give more to Bill Gates, who also is one of our more ennobling figures in this country. Is the Senator aware these are resources which could be used far better elsewhere?

Mr. President, first, I want to say to our friend from Iowa how much we appreciate his diligence in promoting better health in this country, and more opportunities for all Americans. I think, for instance, of his work on the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because of that bill, people who have a disability and weren't able to get around as easily as some others, now have access to so many more places. We are so grateful to the Senator from Iowa for his work on that landmark legislation.

Mr. President, today the Bush administration is taking an action that is almost incomprehensible. Frankly, it is outrageous, when you think about it. The administration is removing Libya from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terror even though Muammar Qadhafi has not fulfilled his commitments to the American victims of Libyan terror. Even though Qadhafi is not keeping his promise to Americans who lost loved ones when agents of his government bombed Pan Am flight 103, the administration is going to give Libya full diplomatic privileges.

The President is taking this action even though this Senate recently passed my resolution which said that diplomatic credentials should not be given to Libya until Qadhafi provides all of the restitution promised to the families of the victims of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing and other acts of terror supported by Libya. I know a lot of those families, families from New Jersey and in the area generally, who lost loved ones on that flight. Many of the victims were young college students from Syracuse University. I have a nephew who went there. He was to take that trip but at the last minute had to change his plans. He lost several very good friends.

I have been to Lockerbie, Scotland, and know too well what happened that fateful day when 270 people were killed, with the airplane and human remains falling onto that beautiful little community, Lockerbie, in Scotland. I have seen the remnants, the souvenirs that the victims had bought on that trip that was during the Christmas period. I saw Mickey Mouse hats and things that college kids enjoy. Even bottles of wine that survived were then put in a warehouse of things that were collected on the ground but could not be assigned to any single family because they didn't have any sort of identification attached to them.

It was a sad moment for mankind, for sanity in our world. Libya ultimately was convicted of providing the resources for those terrorists who brought that airplane down. Libya has not paid all of the claims that were awarded to the families of the victims; Libya has not paid the last installment of compensation due as a condition of being removed from the list of state sponsors of terror. That was the agreement. That was the understanding.

No matter how many years pass, these families will never forget their loss, their grief; neither will anyone who knows these families, who knows the pain visited upon these people when they heard that their son or daughter was killed in the downing of that airplane.

If Libya has indeed renounced terrorism, that is great news, as is the fact that Libya, which was thought to be engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction, has agreed to stop that pursuit. Still, the Libyan government has an obligation it agreed to meet so that it could rejoin the community of nations, to achieve a level of acceptance around the world. Their past behavior cannot be excused. They murdered Americans and they must be held fully accountable.

Today, the Bush administration has rejected accountability for Libya. Today, the administration has put other interests ahead of the interests of the American victims of terrorism. What are those interests that prevailed in the end? We will let the investigative journals figure that one out.

But when leaders of our country say ``we must never forget the lessons'' of acts of terrorism, I think they should mean it. Libya should fulfill its promise, its commitment to the families of the victims of Pan Am 103 and not let that commitment be forgotten because part of it has been fulfilled but not all of it. We must not forget that Libya has failed to comply entirely with the basic promise to those families.

We urge the President and the administration to hold fast and insist that Libya pay its bills. The money will never compensate these families for the loss of their child, brother or sister, father or mother--never. But at least it shows that Libya is serious about honoring it commitments, something that is essential before it can achieve anything approximating the status of nations that follow the rule of law. So we must insist on that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I stand here proud of my country, proud of our liberties, proud of our flag. I went to Europe as a young man during World War II--the first time I was out of the country--and put on a uniform to defend the honor and freedoms that this country represents.

Now we talk about flag desecration by the actions of a few who dare burn our flag. It is a repulsive, ugly act. We never want to see it. But do we take away their right to dissent and do we say America is a country that can't stand dissent? No. One's patriotism may be another person's desecration.

Here's a picture--I show this poster not at all to denigrate the President of the United States, but that is the hand of the President of the United States using a magic marker to write on this flag. He never intended to be disrespectful; he loves this country. I differ with him on policy, but is that desecration, I ask you?

I think this second poster is another example that represents desecration. Here he is, Kid Rock, with his head through the flag. Is that a desecration? It was such a desecration that he was invited to perform in a concert at the Republican Convention, and they partied with him. They loved him.

What constitutes desecration? A lapel pin? We worry about what we do for our soldiers and say that we love the flag so much, but we won't allow news photos of flag-draped coffins coming into Dover? Pictures of those flags are banned?

What is going on here? This is politicking at its worst. We should not violate the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is raw politics. It doesn't demonstrate patriotism. I invite everybody to have the courage to vote against this amendment and show their courage and not to be intimidated by wondering what this one will think or wondering what that one will think.

We are invited here to think about the freedoms that our country offers and our responsibility, and it is not only protecting the flag, it is protecting our liberties. It is making sure that we protect our veterans, that we give them the right kind of equipment, and that we give them the resources they need. That, to me, is the kind of patriotism that ought to be rewarded--not to say if you write in ink or you tear the flag that we are going to amend the Constitution to get at you. A half dozen or a dozen people have done that to offend everybody. That should not let us be stampeded into amending our Constitution.

Mr. President, today I to celebrate the life and work of Evelyn ``Evy'' Dubrow, a longtime champion for working people in our country, who passed away this week at the age of 95.

Evy was loved by many Members of Congress, but I think I will miss her more than most. She came from my hometown of Paterson, NJ. Her parents were immigrants, like my own mother and father. And one of her first jobs was as a reporter at the Paterson Morning Call, which was our local newspaper.

Evy soon moved into union work, first as a secretary for the textile workers union, and then as an assistant to the president of the New Jersey Congress of Industrial Organizations.

In 1956, she came to Washington as a lobbyist for the International Ladies Garment Workers Union. At that time, lobbying was almost exclusively a man's world but although Evy stood just a little bit shy of five feet tall, she never backed down from anyone.

Although she eventually became vice president of the ILGWU, and later of the textile workers union UNITE, she continued to fight here on Capitol Hill for issues that affect working people--especially women.

She was a lobbyist in the most honorable sense of the profession, because she never tried to browbeat or buy a vote. She simply told you why she felt her position was right--and she always did it with conviction. In 1982, a Washington business newspaper named her one of the town's 10 best lobbyists.

In 1999, President Clinton awarded the Medal of Freedom to Evy. It was quite an honor for a daughter of immigrants from Paterson--and it made me proud.

Evy never married, but she doted on her nieces and nephews, and five grand-nieces. And workers all across the country thought of her as family. They loved her and trusted her to look out for them.

Everyone who cares about working people will miss Evy. We should also give thanks for her long life and the many things she accomplished. And we must honor her memory by carrying on her fight for fair pay, better education and job training, and safer conditions for working people.

Mr. President, may I claim my full 8 minutes?

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the resolution put forward by the senior Senator from Michigan. I appreciate the fact that he has framed the debate on the war in Iraq both for the Senate and for the American people.

Last week the American death toll in Iraq passed 2,500. It is a tragic milestone and the American people are not happy about it, because our President has yet to articulate exactly what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq.

I maintain a gallery of pictures of U.S. servicepeople who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan outside the front door of my office. It reminds me and all who visit my office about the loss of young lives and the terrible cost of this war.

As a war veteran, I know what these troops and their families are going through. I heard the Bush administration say that some Iraqis are worried about us leaving. But I say this: The American people are worried about us staying.

What more can we do for the Iraqi people? We have spent over $300 billion of U.S. taxpayer funds there. We have

helped them hold three elections. We have trained and armed their police and their military.

I say it is time for them to take control of their country.

I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that we would bring dishonor to those who lost their lives if we begin to leave Iraq. But ask the families with loved ones over there how they feel. I met with a group in my Newark office with loved ones in Iraq, including a mother who lost her son there. As far as they were concerned, it would bring dishonor to other families if we just stay there with no plans for the future.

So why are we having so much trouble securing Iraq? The answer is clear: The administration has no plan in place to do it. When they tried, we saw misstep after misstep by the civilian leaders in the Pentagon. And the leadership problems at the Pentagon start at the top.

This administration went to war on the cheap: Not enough troops, not enough body armor, not enough help from our allies. I think we are down to a coalition that has very little coalescence attached to it. No help. And our troops have paid the price for these mistakes.

There were so many mistakes and miscalculations by the Bush administration that it is hard to believe it at all.

Secretary Rumsfeld said the Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops and that the Iraqi resistance would be limited. He was obviously wrong.

He also failed to build coalitions with our allies. One of the few major allies that did join the coalition was Poland, which sent about 1,600 troops. But they began withdrawing early this year. Half are already gone, and by the end of the year, Poland will have all of its troops out of Iraq. Just this week, the Japanese announced they will withdraw their troops.

We ask, when are we going to start withdrawing our troops?

So far, 16 nations who have provided some assistance in Iraq have withdrawn their troops. The administration's failure to build a real coalition has caused our troops to bear the vast majority of the risk and suffer the casualties.

No, I will not yield. I don't have enough time, I am sorry to say. Perhaps afterwards, the Senator from Oklahoma can use his own time to have an exchange.

Secretary Rumsfeld said the war would be short. He said, ``I doubt 6 months.'' More than 3 years later, we know how tragically wrong that assessment was.

Additionally, Secretary Rumsfeld was also way off on the cost of the war. He said it would cost no more than $100 billion. But the staggering reality is that it has cost $320 billion thus far, and we expect it will get close to half a trillion dollars before this year is over.

Now we are experiencing a crisis in military recruiting. But about that, Secretary Rumsfeld is in denial. Whether in public or in private, he claims that recruiting is fine. Well, it is not. Here is the reality: The Army National Guard and Reserve are falling well short of their goals, and the only reason other branches are meeting goals is because the Pentagon has reduced the target numbers.

Eight retired generals have come forward to say what many in the military have been thinking for years, and that is: It is time for a change at the top as well as the recovery of our people back home. One of the generals, 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.

But instead of taking a stand like the generals, we have heard our colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply repeating talking points that were handed to them by the Bush administration: ``Cut and run''--disgusting words when you look at the reflection of what is intended there.

We know this because the Secretary of Defense sent a Republican briefing booklet to Democrats by mistake last week. This briefing book is a three-ring binder of spin. It contains the same spin that we hear today from the other side of the Chamber.

Instead of developing talking points and spin for Republican Senators, we should concentrate on putting together a plan for our troops in Iraq: For our troops to come home.

I think my Republican colleagues should have stamped that briefing book ``Return to Sender'' and told the administration that they will think for themselves. That is what I would hope my colleagues across the aisle would do.

I know that they want to protect our troops and I know that they care as much about loss of life. But we have a different approach on it. We need a fresh start, honest leadership, and we are not going to get either one as long as those in charge maintain their positions.

In sum, I think it is time for Secretary Rumsfeld to go, and it is time for our troops to start to go home.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will try to be quick. I listened with interest to the Senator from Pennsylvania and his presentation. I also looked at the amendment he has produced. In that amendment, we are going to administer sanctions against companies doing business with Iran.

Now, the surprise here is that three times before, when I had an amendment, the Senator from Pennsylvania voted against it, would not include it, didn't want to discriminate against firms that do business with Iran and that provide revenues that kill our kids in Iraq. And now we have a flimsy aspect. We say we are going to impose sanctions; however, it will be out of reach of American jurisdiction. It, therefore, will not apply to the company that owns it--in this case it happens to be a Halliburton--that has a sham corporation operating in Dubai based originally in the Cayman Islands. That should not be allowed, that the grasp of the U.S. Government cannot reach these perpetrators of the kind of indecency that places our soldiers at risk because they are doing business with an avowed enemy of the United States that is providing funds that are lethal to our troops over there.

I hope everybody will take a good close look at this amendment and vote ``no.''

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, is the Senator aware that the exemption in his amendment would make it almost impossible to hold a U.S. company liable for doing business with Iran through a foreign subsidiary?

Mr. President, I have another question, if I may, and that is, would the Senator be willing to move the vote back, if we can do it, so we can discuss the language?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be the pending business.

Madam President, I send a modification to the amendment to the desk.

I am.

Madam President, I wish to now discuss my amendment, which is fair and simple. It prohibits increases in the pharmacy copayments of our military families and military retirees they purchase at retail pharmacies.

These families are part of the military's health insurance program called TRICARE.

The price of everything going up so rapidly now hardly seems the time to ask the people who have sacrificed for our country--many who have been in harms way--to pay more for their prescription drugs. It is incomprehensible.

My amendment, cosponsored by Senators Stabenow, Bingaman, Harkin, Lincoln, Menendez, Mikulski, Landrieu, Lieberman, Kerry, and Murray, is very simply a prohibition on increasing, at this point in time, the copayments that veterans and active duty families have to pay for prescription drugs.

The amendment is very simple. It says no, n-o, at increase on pharmacy copays through the end of fiscal year 2007.

We ask military our families to make enormous sacrifices for our country, and now we want to saddle them with higher health care costs? It doesn't make sense. The administration is proposing to increase the cost of TRICARE prescription drug copayments from $9 to $15 for brand- name drugs. This is, indeed, a hardship. It means that over a 5-year period, prescription drug prices will rise by 70 percent for military families--far outstripping the 24-percent increase in military pay or the 14-percent increase in retirement pay over the same period. If we don't stop this increase we will have taken away those increases that they worked so hard to get.

If you can go to a military base to purchase your prescriptions you don't need to pay a copayment, but in the real world that is always not possible. Too many veterans and military families don't live on or near a base, particularly when it comes to the National Guard and Reserve.

In New Jersey, for instance, there are seven military installations, but only three have pharmacies and none of these facilities are in the northern part of the State. Driving long distances, especially with gas costing $3 a gallon or more, is not the solution.

Families and veterans have the option of getting prescription drugs at no cost by mail order. But many times people can't wait for a week or two to fill a prescription. If you have a sick child at home who needs an antibiotic right away, who will wait for mail delivery. Also, many people, especially older veterans, prefer to get their prescription drugs from the local pharmacy where they can also get consultations with pharmacists and other services. TRICARE beneficiaries deserve the ability to choose where they want to go to get their prescriptions.

Retail pharmacies account for about 43 percent of the prescription drugs purchased through TRICARE. One large pharmacy chain estimated that it fills more than 7 million TRICARE prescriptions every year. Close to 9 million individuals are enrolled in the TRICARE program. The increases proposed by the administration would affect a large number of military families and veterans.

We know how the Guard and Reserves have been disproportionately affected by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. To raise their health care costs, I think that is unconscionable.

John F. Kennedy said:

To govern is to choose.

Last Thursday, all but two Republican Senators voted to repeal the inheritance tax permanently, a move that would cost $989 billion over 10 years. Remember that fewer than one-half of 1 percent of all estates incur tax liability. We are talking about a tax break for the wealthiest Americans, the very people presumably who benefit the most from the freedom that our men and women in uniform protect. Now we are being told that we cannot afford to freeze these copayments that these men and women have to make and their families have to pay for the medicines they need. It is really unbelievable.

CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, says my amendment will cost $290 million in fiscal year 2007.

In good conscience can we repeal the inheritance tax on the super- rich while imposing a pharmacy tax on our men and women in uniform, our veterans, and their families.

American's appreciate so much the sacrifices asked of our Nation's military families and veterans. I'm certain they would be willing to cover the cost of my amendment.

This amendment freezes pharmacy copayments at their current levels. It will send a message to our military men and women. It will tell them that just as they protected us, we are concerned about them and their families. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Madam President, I appreciate that and am pleased that we are going to make a statement here that we don't want those people who are on TRICARE, to have to pay more at this time. It just would be the wrong thing to do.

I am not surprised that the Senator from Virginia, with a sound military record and having been involved in Government for many years in terms of military affairs, stands up and delivers that agreement. I thank him very much, and I thank my colleague from Michigan also, for the opportunity to introduce this amendment. Without further ado, I assume that it will now be accepted.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about a significant event that took place yesterday in the U.S. Senate, and that is the fact that we have now a new longest serving U.S. Senator in the history of our country. Senator Byrd nears the end of his eighth term here in the Senate but holding more than just another significant record. His contribution to our country has been almost beyond compare. He already holds Senate records for the most leadership positions held and for the most rollcall votes cast, over 17,600 and still counting.

Starting in 1946, Senator Byrd has run in 14 elections for the West Virginia House of Delegates, the State Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate. He inspires the envy of all of us because he has won all of these races, and I have no doubt that voters in West Virginia will reelect him to a ninth Senate term this fall. That is going to enable him in December of 2009 to pass the record that Carl Hayden has as the longest serving Member of Congress in United States history. But Bob Byrd is not here

merely to set and break records. He is here to serve the people of West Virginia and all Americans, and he has done so admirably.

Senator Byrd is a testament to the values of hard work and perseverance. Almost from the start, he has had a hard life, but he has triumphed. His mother died from the 1918 flu pandemic, when Senator Byrd was just an infant. His aunt and uncle raised him in the hardscrabble coalfields of West Virginia during the Great Depression. He was the valedictorian of his high school class, but he couldn't afford to go to college. After high school, Senator Byrd went to work. He pumped gas, sold produce, became a meat cutter and welder. During World War II, he helped to build Liberty and Victory ships in the Baltimore and Tampa shipyards.

Following the war, he began his career as an elected official, winning a seat in the House of Delegates in West Virginia. In 1952, he was elected to the first of three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1958, he was elected to the U.S. Senate. In his races since then, he has carried all 55 of West Virginia's counties. In the year 2000, he won all but seven of West Virginia's 1,970 precincts. What a record. It is hard to find one that compares in any way to the allegiance that he has had from the constituents in West Virginia who not only send him back here but love him as their representative at the same time.

It just wasn't winning elections. Senator Byrd could have rested on his laurels, but that is not his style. His life and career have been a relentless pursuit of self-improvement. In 1963, after 10 years of taking classes at night, Senator Byrd earned his law degree cum laude from American University. He didn't have to do that because he wasn't going to become a lawyer, but he thought it would make him a better person and a better Senator.

Senator Byrd is a great example to all of us, but he is especially interesting for America's young people for three reasons. First, he is truly a self-made man. Nothing has been handed to him. He has earned it all. He knows what it is like to be poor, and he knows what it is like to do hard manual labor. That is why he has always been the working man's champion.

Second, he is always striving to learn more and do more. No other Senator can match his extensive knowledge on so many subjects or can recite so many passages from the Bible or from Roman history or from Shakespeare and other playwrights and poets. Senator Byrd isn't content merely to memorize what others have written. He literally wrote the book on the history of the U.S. Senate. No one can match his knowledge of Senate rules, precedents, and parliamentary procedure.

Finally, Senator Byrd is a shining example to all of us because of his steadfast commitment to principle, especially with regard to the role of a U.S. Senator. He has never wavered in his defense of our institution. All Americans are deeply indebted to him for that dedication and loyalty. At a time when the current administration is intent on usurping powers that the Founding Fathers reserved for Congress, we need Senator Byrd more than ever, his reminders to all of us about what is appropriate in terms of obeying the rules and the procedures we have adopted, but more importantly, the honor that this institution has developed over more than 200 years.

Senator Byrd has demonstrated that fearlessly standing on principle, even when it is unpopular, is the key to a successful political career and in life generally. His concern for his State and his constituents, and his ability to deliver for them, are legendary. But above all, Senator Byrd has stood up for the Constitution. He is what we refer to as a Senator's Senator. We are truly fortunate to have him here, and we are truly privileged to serve with him. He is also a wonderful colleague. He never forgets a birthday or other important occasion, never fails to remind us of the beauty of the seasons.

Yesterday his service here in the Senate reached 17,327 days, a record for which he can be appropriately proud. I know that day was bittersweet because it also marked the birthday of his beloved wife, Erma Ora James, his high school sweetheart, and a coal miner's daughter. We were all so sad when Erma passed away this past March, just 2 months shy of their 69th wedding anniversary. Their love for each other, their respect for each other, was an inspiration to every one of us.

Senator Byrd's record-setting day yesterday was tinged with some sorrow and reflection, but I hope he can take comfort in knowing that so many people here in the Senate and all across America hold him in such high regard.

I would like to borrow a page from Senator Byrd by quoting Shakespeare, who in ``Twelfth Night'' wrote:

Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have

greatness thrust upon them.

Senator Byrd has achieved greatness in the U.S. Senate. He achieved it through his tireless service to the people of West Virginia and his fearless defense of the Constitution of the United States of America. The Senate and the Nation are far better for his efforts. We wish him well, a continued ability to serve, and look forward to hearing from him when he talks about subjects that are so familiar to him and yet are so far removed from the typical daily thought that we run into.

Senator Byrd, when I first came here, invited me into his office. He delivered a treatise on the former rulers of Great Britain, the Kings of England. From memory, he recalled the length of their term, how they died, who succeeded each and every one of them. I sat there feeling like I was back in the university or even earlier than that, because he had this incredible and has this incredible memory of so many things, and he can relate them wonderfully.

I come out of the computer business. Until I got here and got to know Bob Byrd, I didn't realize that there is someone who has the knowledge, the database, the information that is very difficult to find in other than very large capacity computers.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I am sure it is not going to be a surprise to anyone here that I am opposed to the repeal of the inheritance tax. Now, I don't believe people ought to be taxed beyond what is normal by increasing taxes here or there, but I do have a problem with figuring out ways to reduce taxes, inheritance taxes, on the wealthiest among us. We are talking about wealth that staggers the imagination, that is so vast that the average American can't even comprehend it. We are talking now about making it easier for the wealthiest among us to pass along the fortunes that some of them worked hard for, a lot of them inherited, and for the next generation who is waiting for dad or mom to pass away so they can make sure they can keep up with the yachts and the airplanes and the things of that nature. I don't say that everybody who is wealthy is spoiled or has bad values, but I think we have to look very carefully at what we are doing in the circumstances in which this country is living.

To give an example, this is like saying, if you are in debt, deeply in debt, the best way to solve your problems is to go out and borrow more money to pay off the old debt. It sounds foolish, doesn't it? But that is what we are about to do if we chip away at the taxes that are now--the revenue that is now collected through inheritance taxes.

At first glance, it sounds like a good idea to get rid of the inheritance tax. When you look below the surface, you learn that repealing it is a bad deal for the vast majority of Americans.

There is a lot of misinformation being passed around about who pays this tax. We have even given it a name that makes it so repulsive that as soon as you hear it, you say: Wow, what is this, a death tax? Do you mean you have to pay a tax for dying?

No. You have to pay a tax for making so much money that life can forever be comfortable. Not a bad thought, but at what cost? That is the thing that we are concerned about.

Here is the truth: One-half of 1 percent of the estates this year will be subject to tax. I don't know how many people who make $45,000 a year can understand what happens with one-half of 1 percent of the estates in this country of ours. What it says is that 99.5 percent of the estates left are not subject to any tax. To be even considered for this tax, an estate must be worth at least $2 million.

For any of you who hear my voice or look at the figures you see in the paper, remember, when someone says to you: You don't want that death tax out there, do you? It doesn't affect you unless you are worth at least $2 million. Then, on top of that, there are all kinds of tax shelters and exemptions. So very few people pay the tax. As a matter of fact, the average rate that estates pay is somewhere in the high teens, and rarely ever approaches the 55 percent marginal rate, which is the highest of them all. So I think some of my colleagues have to understand the history of the inheritance tax.

I was very lucky in my lifetime. My father died very young and left my mother a widow when she was 37 years old, and I was already in the Army. I had enlisted in the Army just over--well, over 62 years ago. My mother was this young, struggling widow, deep in debt because my father, who was a very healthy man, got sick on the job, and it took a year to rob him of his strength and his energy, so that there was nothing left except grief and debts my mother had to pay.

I was the beneficiary, as a result of my military service, to get something called the GI Bill. The GI Bill said to those who serve: We are going to help you make up for some of the years that we took for you to protect our country and protect our ideals, and we are going to provide funds for you to improve your lot, to get an education, to make up for the time lost, for building a career. The GI Bill sent me to college. I never would have been able to

go. It would never have been available to me.

When I graduated high school, I had a job loading trucks. That is what my life was like. But good fortune struck me, and the opportunities that America gives were mine in abundance.

I went to Columbia University. I went to the business school there. I sit on that school's board now. I look back in amazement at what good fortune that I had. I created a company with two other fellows named ADP, Automatic Data Processing. Automatic Data Processing is a company that today employs 44,000 people in 26 countries in which we serve. Three guys from factory-working fathers, two of them are brothers, and my father, all worked in the same kinds of factories in Patterson, NJ. So life was good.

We presented a new idea in America, those years when we started. It was called outsourcing. It was the opportunity for companies to render specialized services so that the companies who hired us could devote themselves to making their product better and selling it cheaper and being more efficient totally. So as a consequence of that--why is this story relevant? It is because as a consequence of creating a company-- my old company before I came to the Senate over 20 years ago--that company had the longest growth record of any company in America at over 10 percent, each and every year, growth and income. Every year for 42 years in a row we had the longest growth record in America, and I take modest pride in knowing I was part of that development.

As a consequence, of course, I made some money, a lot of money by most standards, and I brought my four kids up to understand that they were also lucky, and not just because their father was successful, and each one of them has worked very hard to make their own lives.

I tell that story because what I want to be understood is that I would be a beneficiary, or my kids would be beneficiaries, of a no-tax estate if it was left to them. But what would that do for my children as a result? It wouldn't do anything for them, in my view, in the long run. Give them more money? No. I would rather give them a safe country. I would rather give them a chance to fight against childhood diseases. My oldest grandchild has asthma, and my daughter, when she takes them out to play sports anyplace, the first place she looks for is an emergency clinic to make sure if he has an attack, they can get there in a hurry.

That is the most important thing in my life, to make sure that my children are safe and that we know that if, heaven forbid, they are the one-third of the children in America who are going to get diabetes in their juvenile years, that we will be able to fight against it. I meet with those families. I talk to them. I talk to the children, and I ask them about the terrible inconvenience that it is to deal with sticking their fingers day and night and making sure they feel good throughout their schoolday.

So when I think of what legacy I might give my children, it is not more money in the bank. It is a safer country, it is air that they can breathe, it is water that they can drink, it is assistance, if they need it, to get through school, the same thing that every grandparent wants for their grandchildren.

Now, to say, OK, Frank, you have been lucky. You did well. You provided a lot of people with very good jobs. But now what we are going to do is reward you on top of the rewards you have already gotten by giving you more money, by making sure that your kids can live comfortably.

I have a list of people who are lobbying against the estate tax. When you see the size of some of these estates, it blows your mind, to use a common expression. I want to take a look at the chart that shows what happens if we cut estate taxes for the wealthiest.

This is interesting. There is a company called Halliburton, a company that used to be run by the Vice President of the United States, and who still gets an income from them, almost as large as his income from the U.S. Government. This is the Vice President of the United States who gets an income from a private company that does all kinds of defense business that has been charged with overcharging us for work they did in Iraq, that got a no-bid contract that ran over $2 billion. The Cheney family--and listen, we respect success, but Vice President Cheney still has options, tens of thousands of options that are not yet exercised in Halliburton, whose value depends on their ability to do better.

That is the price of the stock. So if we want to reward Vice President Cheney and Halliburton for their questionable work and their questionable morality when they still do business with Iraq through sham corporations, Iran who gives money to terrorists, who go to Iraq to kill our kids--Halliburton, that is the company. Vice President Cheney was the CEO of the company. I am not suggesting there is a connection anymore, but I will tell you this: If you want to go to ADP and sell them something, you tell them you know Frank Lautenberg--I was the chairman and CEO of the company--it does make it a notch easier to get some business. We are going to give them a $12 million tax cut-- $12.6 million. That is what happens if we repeal the estate tax, as is suggested.

A famous name here, it is not the Hilton Hotel, but it is Paris Hilton, and she will get $14 million in tax cuts if we go ahead and eliminate the estate tax as suggested. The chairman of Exxon made a lot of money. He made $145,000 a day--$145,000 each and every day--and the average wage in this country is $45,000 a year, the average wage. The number of people who make $145,000 a year is very small. Senators in the United States Senate make a little more than $145,000. In fact, they make $165,000. But here, Mr. Raymond made $145,000 a day. So we are going to be nice to him because he made so little: $145,000 a day. We want to give him a $164 million tax cut, give his heirs $164 million. It is obscene, Mr. President. That is what it is.

It is really funny. When you ask for the origins--when did the inheritance tax come into play--people forget that it was originally pushed by President Roosevelt. President Roosevelt, people say? Yes, but not Franklin Roosevelt. It was developed by a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt. He believed that an inheritance tax should not be aimed at the average citizen or even citizens of above average wealth. President Theodore Roosevelt said the inheritance tax should ``be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits.'' This is what the current estate tax does. It affects only the hereditary elite, those who inherit estates of more than $2 million. I repeat: 99.5 percent of American families will not be affected by the estate tax. They won't have to pay a penny out of their legacy.

So when I look at where we stand now, deep in debt because in America we increased the debt limit so we could splurge some more and spend and borrow up to $9 trillion--not earn, borrow to get us up to $9 trillion, and it is rumored that soon we will be looking at the possibility of raising the debt limit again.

And repealing the inheritance tax will only further balloon our Nation's debt. So in order to increase the inheritance of the richest people in the country, we are going to pass more debt to everyone else's children and grandchildren.

I would like someone to explain why that is a good idea.

In 2009, the estate tax exemption will be $3.5 million--but that is not good enough for most Senate Republicans.

Here's what that means in real life:

You could have a $1.9 million mansion, a 44-foot motor yacht, a beautiful summer beach house, his and hers Porsches, and a $600,000 investment portfolio--and still--still--you would not pay a penny of estate tax.

The people who need a break are not the wealthiest one-half of 1 percent. It's everyday people who deserve a break. They deserve a break from high gas prices, rising college tuition and health care costs.

But instead of trying to help everyday people, the Republicans in the Senate are clamoring to help the richest families in America.

Forget gas prices--Congress needs to make sure Paris Hilton gets a few more million dollars in inheritance. We have to make sure that the heirs to the former CEO of ExxonMobil don't miss out.

Some of the wealthiest Americans in the country have actually spoken out against this madness.

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett said that the estate tax has played a ``critical role'' in promoting American economic growth by creating a society in which success is based on merit rather than inheritance.

Buffett said that repealing the estate tax ``would be a terrible mistake'' and would be the equivalent of ``choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics.''

Mr. President, if we repeal this inheritance tax, what would be the effect on everyday people and the Federal budget?

For starters, it would cost our Nation $73 billion every year by the middle of the next decade.

What could we do with that much money?

We could provide health insurance for every uninsured child in America, and have enough left over to give them full college scholarships.

We could give every family in America a $500 tax cut.

We could eliminate 75 percent of the Social Security shortfall.

We could provide clean food and water to the 800 million people in the world who lack it.

We could provide the funds necessary to pay for the war in Iraq for the next 10 years.

So that is our choice. We can help everyday people, or we can give a big gift to the richest people in America.

I have heard my colleagues on the other side say they hear stories every week about farmers or small business people having to sell their businesses to pay the estate tax. But they have not been able to cite a single example of this actually happening.

In fact, in 2001, the American Farm Bureau could not find even one family farm that had to be sold to pay the estate tax.

The estate tax mostly does not hit small business people and family farms. The vast majority of assets affected by the estate tax, more than 70 percent, were in liquid assets like stocks, bonds, and cash.

In an attempt to do away with this ``small business'' and ``family farm'' fiction once and for all, in 2002, Democrats proposed to completely and permanently exempt all family farms and all family-owned businesses from the estate tax. But those on the other side of the aisle voted against it. It was an illustration that they are interested in protecting the wealthy, pure and simple.

Mr. President, this week has really showcased how backwards the priorities of this Senate are. Instead of tackling gas prices or dealing with the war in Iraq, we tried to pass a constitutional amendment on gay marriage.

Now, instead of helping families afford college or get better access to health care, we are looking to help the richest families in the country get richer.

This is indeed the twilight zone Senate. In my view, it is time to cancel this show.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in light of the recent announcement to remove Libya from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terror, I rise today to submit a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the Libyan Government should meet the terms of its financial commitment to the families of the victims of the Pan Am flight 103 bombing and other acts of terror supported by Libya before the President accepts credentials of any representative of the Government of Libya. I am pleased that Senators Graham, Menendez, Clinton, Kennedy, Biden, Lieberman, Levin, Kerry, Stabenow, Mikulski, Schumer, Boxer, Dodd, Bingaman, Allen, Collins, Burr, Salazar, DeMint, Lincoln, Dorgan, Reed, DeWine, Kohl, Reid, and Santorum have agreed to cosponsor my resolution.

In May 2002, Libya made an unequivocal commitment to compensate the families who lost loved ones in the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people, including 189 Americans. To date, Libya has not resolved these claims in full, particularly the last installment of compensation that is to be paid to each family upon Libya's removal from the list of state sponsors of terror. Now that the Secretary of State has announced Libya's removal from the list, the U.S. must ensure that Libya honors its commitment.

Before the U.S. normalizes its relationship with the Government of Libya, it is crucial that we underscore our expectation that Libya will fully honor its commitment to all these American families. The resolution also exhorts the President to press the Government of Libya to make a good faith

effort to resolve other outstanding cases involving U.S. victims of its state-sponsored terrorism, including the 1986 bombing of the La Belle Discotheque in Berlin, Germany, that killed two American soldiers and wounded dozens of others.

I am pleased that the Senate is considering this important resolution and urge its immediate adoption.

S. Res. 504

Whereas there has not been a resolution of the claims of

members of the United States Armed Forces and other United

States citizens who were injured in the April 6, 1986,

bombing of the LaBelle Discotheque in Berlin, Germany, and

the claims of family members of the service men and women

killed in that bombing or the resolution of other outstanding

cases of United States victims of terror sponsored or

supported by Libya;

Whereas, on December 21, 1988, terrorists from Libya bombed

Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270

people, including 189 Americans;

Whereas, on May 29, 2002, the Government of Libya offered

to pay up to $2,700,000,000 to settle claims by the families

of the 270 people killed aboard Pan Am Flight 103,

representing $10,000,000 for each victim of the Pan Am Flight

103 bombing;

Whereas, on August 15, 2003, Libya's Ambassador to the

United Nations, Ahmed Own, submitted a letter to the United

Nations Security Council formally accepting ``responsibility

for the action of its officials'' in relation to the

Lockerbie bombing;

Whereas, on September 12, 2003, the United Nations lifted

sanctions against Libya, thereby enabling the first trigger

of the agreement between the Government of Libya and the

families of the victims of the attack on Pan Am Flight 103

for a payment of $4,000,000 per victim that has been paid to

the victims' families;

Whereas, on September 24, 2004, the United States lifted

most economic sanctions against Libya, thereby enabling the

second trigger of the agreement between the Government of

Libya and the families of the victims of the attack on Pan Am

Flight 103 for an additional payment of $4,000,000 per victim

that has been paid to the victims' families;

Whereas, on May 15, 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza

Rice announced the determination of President George W. Bush

to rescind the designation of Libya on the list of state

sponsors of terrorism, thereby enabling the third trigger of

the agreement between the Government of Libya and the

families of the victims of the attack on Pan Am Flight 103

for a final payment of $2,000,000 per victim;

Whereas, on May 15, 2006, Secretary of State Rice announced

the reestablishment of full diplomatic relations with the

Government of Libya, ending 26 years of isolation; and

Whereas the agreement between the Government of Libya and

the families of the victims of the attack on Pan Am Flight

103 incorporated a timeline for payment of the full

$2,700,000,000 that has not been met even though all of the

other conditions for such payment have been satisfied.

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) it remains an important priority for further

improvement in the relations between the United States and

Libya that the Government of Libya make a good faith effort

to resolve all outstanding claims of United States victims of

terrorism sponsored or supported by Libya;

(2) it is in the best interests of the long-term

relationship between the United States and Libya that final

payment be made to the families of the victims of the attack

on Pan Am Flight 103; and

(3) the President should not accept the credentials of any

representative of the Government of Libya without the

expressed understanding that the Government of Libya will

continue to work in good faith to resolve outstanding cases

of United States victims of terrorism sponsored or supported

by Libya, including the settlement of cases arising from the

Pan Am Flight 103 and LaBelle Discotheque bombings.