Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Sam Sharkey, who died on Tuesday at the age of 90. Mr. Sharkey, who joined the New York Times in 1945 as a copy editor on the foreign desk, was one of the founding executives of its International Air Edition, now the International Herald Tribune, in 1948, and in 1950 he became head of the national news desk. Five years later, he moved to the National Broadcasting Company as its first editor of NBC News, a position comparable to the editor of a newspaper, and was one of a triumvirate of executives who in 1956 put together the Huntley-Brinkley news program.

While working at the Times, he had become frustrated with the slowness with which the two major wire services reported national election returns--one relayed all returns from west of Kansas City through that city and the other through Chicago, both producing delays. In 1956 at NBC, he invented a system based at the start on buying the fastest Associated Press State wires in every State and funneling their returns electronically through 10 centers around the United States, thence to computers in Studio 8-H in New York, where they were displayed immediately, beating all competition by substantial margins. His system for collecting votes in national elections is still used today by broadcasters, wire services, and newspapers.

In 1958, Mr. Sharkey expanded the system and turned to volunteer teams of members of the League of Women Voters in every State who staffed every polling place and phoned in results to State headquarters, where the data were sent electronically directly to computers in the studio. In 1960, CBS News and the ABC News were added to form the Network Election Service, a cooperative. That was expanded with the addition of the A.P. and United Press International to form the News Election Service, which continues to this day. At NBC, Mr. Sharkey also headed an internal NBC News Service at national political conventions linking reporters at various locations with Chet Huntley and David Brinkley at the anchor desk.

Born March 26, 1915, in Trenton, NJ, he began covering sports on a ``stringer,'' free lance, basis for the Trenton State Gazette at the age of 13. He attended Rutgers University in the class of 1937 but was a Depression dropout. He then worked for the State Gazette as sports editor, columnist, reporter, music and theater critic, and acting city editor. Among the stories he covered were the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby and the trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann, the crash of the Hindenburg at Lakehurst, and the burning of the Bermuda cruise liner Morro Castle off Asbury Park, NJ.

He was a copy editor on the Saratoga Springs, NY, Saratogian and foreign editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer during World War II. He also was a contributing editor to Printing News. At NBC, he was a member of the FCC National Industry Advisory Committee that created the Emergency Broadcast System, and he wrote the broadcast closed-circuit radio advisories from every location to which a President could be taken in time of national emergency--in the air, on land, at sea, under the sea.

In 1963, Mr. Sharkey moved to Seattle as managing director of news for the King Broadcasting Company's stations there and in Spokane, WA, and Portland, OR. While at KING-TV, he won two local Emmys for news and documentary programming. When Bonneville International Corporation purchased KIRO-TV-AM Seattle in 1964, he was appointed corporate director of news for all Bonneville stations nationwide.

In 1965, Mr. Sharkey was named Newhouse National Service economics and labor columnist, based in Washington, DC, later adding the news editor role. He entered government in 1972 as public information director for the then-new Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, moving to the same position at the FCC in 1975.

Mr. Sharkey also taught at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism for 9 years and taught economics and public affairs at the Tobe-Coburn School for Fashion Careers in New York. Known as a witty speaker, he lectured widely for the Times and NBC News. He also was a choral singer, a private airplane pilot, an automobile and outboard motorboat race driver, a motor yachtsman, and even a clown in the Aquacade at the 1939 New York World's Fair. Mr. Sharkey was a life member and former vice commodore of the Capital Yacht Club here in Washington, DC.

Sam Sharkey was a pioneer in journalism for over 70 years, and he left an indelible mark, especially in the field of broadcast journalism. I extend my condolences to his wife Marilyn and the rest of his family.

Madam President, I rise to talk about an amendment Senator Byrd and I are offering to adequately fund Amtrak. I understand there is an alternative that has been offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania which, very frankly, I think amounts to an empty gesture. It is an amendment that looks as though it has funding for the continuation of Amtrak's operations but in fact it doesn't because it doesn't have a source of funding that has any reliability to it.

The bottom line is if we want to fund Amtrak, if we want to keep it going, a vote has to be made for the Byrd-Lautenberg amendment.

President Bush proposed to initially bankrupt Amtrak in last year's budget. The American people and the Democrats and Republicans in Congress stood up and said no. So this year, instead of trying to kill Amtrak outright, President Bush wants to put it on a starvation diet.

This is no time for us to be looking at trying to kill Amtrak because Amtrak in many cases is our only alternative to the crowded skies, to the crowded highways, to be able to move people in the event of emergencies, and as a way to get to work and take care of people's needs. Amtrak and transit in general offers one of the few options.

When we look back at what happened on 9/11, the only transit transportation facility that was available on that terrible day was Amtrak. We never thought it could happen, but we shut down aviation completely. Here we are, and some of our friends on the other side of the aisle think that eliminating Amtrak might be a good idea.

What was proposed by our colleague from Pennsylvania, the junior Senator, was that we find a funding source somewhere in magic land. The money is not there. It is something called 920, which is to hide behind the facts and not tell the truth. But when I look at what is happening in the State of Pennsylvania in terms of Amtrak, I frankly cannot figure out what the mission is here. Pennsylvania has over 4.9 million riders a year on Amtrak.

It is not just Philadelphia and New York; it is not just Philadelphia and Washington; it is places such as Harrisburg and other communities within the State of Pennsylvania that require service. Instead, what they are getting here today is a sleight of hand, saying, Well, we want to put more money in Amtrak, more money than has been proposed in the budget by some $500 million. The fact is there is no money there. There is a colloquialism that has developed in America which says ``show me the money.'' There is no ``show'' and there is no ``dough.'' That is where we are.

Our amendment accounts for the funding necessary by taking it from corporate loopholes and tax shelters.

I hope people here will understand how valuable Amtrak is to our country, how necessary it is, and vote for the Byrd-Lautenberg amendment and not the alternative that has been proposed.

Amendment No. 3063

I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Carper from Delaware as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, we are talking about a proposal that has no funding for it. You reach into the 920 barrel and there is nothing there, you can't come up with any money. But in the process, the Senator from Pennsylvania did acknowledge that the President's budget is way off line because now we are talking about $1.5 billion; whereas, otherwise, it is $500 million less. So while this bill is imperfect we do want to see Amtrak supported, and I hope that we will be able to resolve it in the appropriations process to get it to where it needs to be. But this amendment is not going to do it. It is half a loaf and, at this point, we have little choice.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana and commend him for his hard work on matters financial in the Senate and in our country. Fiscal responsibility is the watchword for the Senator from Montana, and I am grateful for his leadership. At the same time, I say to the distinguished Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the Finance Committee, he is someone who also works very hard to make us a responsible nation, and I respect him. Although we differ on things, the fact is that I listen carefully to what the Senator from Iowa has to say. He has a position of great responsibility, the chairman of one of the most important committees in the Senate, and carries that responsibility honorably; again, if I may say, at times wrongfully, but it is in the eyes of the beholder. But I know the Senator from Iowa understands that if there is any criticism of his views, it is not personal and has nothing to do with his credibility or his honor.

I listened very carefully to what the Senator from Iowa talked about. He talked about shutting down Government and he talked about providing security for our people, protecting them, making sure their lives continue in safety. But I don't get it. I have to tell you this: I don't get it. Because when issues came up such as when we needed more money for port security, we said no. When it came up that we needed more money for the Department of Homeland Security, we said: Well, we will give you some but not all you need. When it came to providing some developmental funds for technology that would help us examine containers coming into our ports, we were unwilling to do it.

So now what we hear is the lament that says: How can we shut down our Government? Well, we can avoid shutting it down by not extending tax cuts to the wealthiest among us, people who make millions and don't need any help. I meet these people, and they say: Yes, we don't need it, but what the heck, if it is there, we are going to take it.

But when you think about the outcome of this profligate spending we are seeing here and our deficit going through the roof--I heard one of our good friends from the other side talk about reducing our annual deficits. Well, they could be reduced a trifling amount, but if you look at the debt, that debt increases, that clock is ticking.

We have here an example of a credit card, and our credit card is running kind of over the limit. Right now, we are carrying an $8.2 trillion credit debt. That means if you borrow on credit, you have to pay it off. President Bush and his colleagues, the Republican Congress, are encouraging burdening our children and our grandchildren under a mountain of debt.

A lot of what we do around here is hidden in complicated budget rhetoric, but to put matters simply, this debt extension bill will increase President Bush's credit limit, the one he has established, by $781 billion. It will encourage this Republican Congress--they are the majority--to charge another $781 billion on our Nation's credit card.

Most Americans with credit cards know that you have to play by the credit card company's rules. People understand when they run up big bills they will be responsible to eventually pay up. Few people run up a giant credit card bill and then leave it for their children to pay. But that is what the Bush administration is doing, running up credit, and their kids will have to pay the bill.

Since President Bush took office, he has already increased the total Federal debt by 46 percent. He has added $2.5 trillion to the debt future generations will have to pay. So I say enough is enough. The President and the majority in the Congress have been far too reckless for far too long with our Nation's credit card. We see who the managers are of the legislation we considering here: the Republican majority. And they want to extend his credit limit. I say no way.

In my view, it is time to limit the credit. It is what most parents would do. What would you do as a parent if you had a kid, a child who was running up bills on your credit card, just running them up, higher and higher and higher, and you know you can't pay them off? So what would you do? Pat him on the head and say: Go spend more? No, you wouldn't do that at all. What you would do is cut up his credit card. And this is what we are going to do: cut up his credit card right here and now.

America can do better, leave a better legacy for our grandchildren and their children. Our consciences scream out

just as a family would at home: We are buried in debt; why do you want to add more to it? The response would be: Mom and dad, why do you do this to us? We have college debt from our years at the university. We have less reliability, less reliance on pension funds. They are not guaranteed anymore. We have less expectation that we can hold our jobs based on foreign competition, jobs that used to be done here in Washington, DC, and in my home State of New Jersey and States across this country, jobs that were held, and they were good-paying jobs. Now they come with an accent from India. There is nothing wrong with the accent, but there is something wrong with the place. Why should we be transferring decent jobs Americans can do and do well to India? Why? Because we pay maybe a tenth of what it costs us here. If someone makes $500 a week here, and in India they make 50 bucks, they will be feeling pretty good. So the result is that we are lowering living standards for Americans across this country, and these jobs will not be replaced.

I know something about balancing budgets. I ran a big company, a very large company; it now has 40,000 employees. We started with nothing. We worked hard. But we always balanced our budget. We had 42 years in a row with growth on the profit at 10 percent every year over the previous year, the longest record of any company in American history. That is the company I ran; it is called ADP, Automatic Data Processing. I was the founder.

Here in the Senate, I was the senior Democrat on the Budget Committee. We produced during those years the first balanced budget in 30 years. We did such a good job that when President Bush, President George W. Bush, took the oath of office, he was presented with the rosiest financial picture of any President ever in the history of our country. We had budget surpluses as far as the eye could see. In 2000, we had a budget surplus--surplus--and that is in the year 2000, 5 years ago, going on 6 years ago, we had a budget surplus of $236 billion. In 2001, when President Bush came into office, he had a surplus of $128 billion. We were ready to pay off our national debt by the end of his term. We were in the middle of the longest economic expansion in the history of our country. But the Republicans plunged blindly and recklessly into massive tax breaks, not for the middle class or poor, lower level income among us, but the wealthy, the special interests-- tax breaks that will cost $3.4 trillion if they are extended over the next decade. A third of that amount, more than $1 trillion, will go to the wealthiest of the wealthy, the top 1 percent.

This is what the Bush tax cuts will mean. If you make $1 million a year, you get an average tax cut of $136,000. That helps everybody out every year, I guess, if you need that. But if you make less than $20,000 a year, you get 19 bucks--$19 if you make $20,000 a year. Is that helping the people who are struggling with two jobs often, trying to balance their family obligations with their need to earn an income, having a babysitter intercede while dad comes home from work and mom doesn't yet go to hers? That is what is happening to a lot of people making $20,000 a year with two children in this society of ours--a $19 tax break. Don't spend it all in one place.

And to what end? The only thing President Bush and the Republican majority have accomplished is a doubling of our Nation's debt. If we continue on this path, our national debt will be $12 trillion by 2011.

Tomorrow we are going to vote on whether President Bush should be able to charge up another $781 billion on our credit card, the citizens' credit card, the national credit card. That is $781 billion more of debt. I hear from people I talk to who work for a living with kids in college, they are worried about their personal debt they have to have to get along, so we want to make their job twice as tough by adding more of the national debt on their shoulders. Would a bank keep extending the line of credit for a customer who didn't have a plan to pay his bills? Of course not. That is why I say to my colleagues that we should say to the American people: We really do stand for fiscal responsibility, and we really do want to reduce our deficit, and we really do want to cut back on that debt so we can look our children and grandchildren squarely in the face and say: We didn't add to your woes, we added to your opportunities.

So I urge my colleagues to tell the people the truth out there. Don't cover it up with arcane language. Let us put a stop to this reckless credit binge. Let's make President Bush's credit card useless and put our country back on the road to fiscal responsibility.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, when you look over at this section of the Chamber, you see three Senators who were front and close to what results from an act of terrorism. We saw it in the World Trade Center. We lost over 700 people from the State of New Jersey, and the combination was almost 3,000 people. We know what you have to do to prevent anything like that from ever happening.

We are going to spend up to $500 billion before this year is over on our security interests in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we have an obligation to do as much as we can for people we serve in an area that has been subjected to terrorism and is classified as the worst 2 miles in the country for terrorist attack. Much of that will come as a result of the activity in our harbors and our ports.

I salute my colleague, new to this body but leaderly in his actions that we have seen thus far, and particularly with this, stepping up, as we say in the vernacular, to the plate to say: OK, Mr. President, you want to protect our people? The leadership here in the Senate certainly says they want to protect our people. Then, by golly, spend the money. We are looking for $900 million for the additional port security funds. Let's do it.

We survey 5 percent of the cargo that comes in, in containers, to the country.

That is nothing, on a relative basis. We ought to spend the money and say to the people in those neighborhoods, the people across the country who would be affected by a terrorist attack: We are going to do what we can to protect you. We say it all the time. Now we have to put up or, as they say, be quiet.

I yield my time.

Mr. President, I rise standing near our friend and colleague from Hawaii as we think about his colleague in the Senate and the fond relationship they enjoyed. If a poll was conducted in this Chamber or among the Members of this Chamber, if you said: Who is the most respected, beloved, wise Member of the U.S. Senate, you would come up with only one name, not that there aren't others of friendship and good will and intellect and all of those things, but Danny Inouye is the exceptional person. His demeanor was quiet and thoughtful and always helpful, and he served his country in a way that few have in our history, having lost his arm in Italy and fighting on to lead his troops.

I give you that background that all of us are so familiar with: a Medal of Honor winner, a distinction so rarely given, only to true heroes, to true leaders. But Danny is a multidimensional person. He always had room for friendship, warmth, and affection, and his companion of 57 years, someone he always talked of with respect and admiration, and the linkage was true and fast. He relied on some people for advice and counsel and always cleared the air with his own thinking. But Maggie, his wife, was someone who was such an integral part of Danny Inouye's living that this moment is especially tragic. He looked after her

with love and affection and talked to those with whom he had contact about her, never really resigning in tone or in words the fact that she was not doing well.

So when a Member, a friend like Danny Inouye loses his dearest friend, his beloved wife of 57 years, their relationship, we all feel sadness, we all feel touched by his loss and want him and his family, his son and all of the Inouye family, to know that we all care, we all share Danny's grief. We all are ready to stand with him as friends and try to bolster his view about the future by reminding him how valuable he is to all of us and that we understand his pain, his anguish, and the sadness he feels. I think I speak for many in this Chamber: We want to express our feeling and devotion to Danny Inouye, friend, soldier, leader, our sadness, our grief at this terrible loss he has sustained.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the focus today, as we look at reforming lobbyist activities, is trying to show that there is an honest face within the Senate and within the Congress. We must continue with those activities.

However, at the same time, we are looking at a situation that worries more than 70 percent of the American people today. There is no doubt about it, this deal is done. Today, Dubai Ports World owns shipping terminals throughout the United States and in my home State of New Jersey.

Frankly, it is an outcome we are all trying to prevent, and we need to do whatever we can to reverse it. I am not sure it is possible, despite the positive words from colleagues across the room. That is why I am a cosponsor of this amendment.

I know the port area very well in my State of New Jersey. It is called the Port of New York and New Jersey. It is the second busiest container port on the east coast. Millions of tons of cargo pass through it. It is strictly located to be near markets. It is less than 2 miles from the Newark Airport, one of the busiest in the country, and stretches almost to the shores of New York, 2 miles of land that the FBI says is the most dangerous 2 miles of territory in America for a terrorist attack.

The reason goes beyond the confluence of all kinds of activities. It also is an area where there is lots of chemical manufacturing, chemical transportation, and warehousing of chemical materials. And it is said that if an attack were successful in that area, we could be looking at millions of deaths. And we want to transfer the operation of that terminal container, the second biggest in the harbor, to Dubai? People are saying it is good business and something that we have to do in the interests of foreign trade and international economies.

The Dubai Ports deal has been mishandled by the administration from the beginning. President Bush gave the deal a casual ``thumbs up'' when it deserved the highest scrutiny. As a matter of fact, it wasn't even brought to the attention of senior Cabinet officials. Or if it was brought to their attention, they forgot it; they did not remember it.

Instead of a real investigation, the administration issued a document called a Statement of No Objection. We have heard the President's determination to have this go through, even suggesting that he would veto it if there were any attempt to block the transaction. It is a simple statement, the Statement of No Objection, issued by the Treasury Department that said: No problem, go ahead and take over these terminals in our country. Frankly, it was an irresponsible move.

On September 11, longshoremen, people employed on the docks at Port Newark, could see the smoke rising from the World Trade Center across the river. Indeed, throughout New Jersey, people looked to the sky in disbelief. And now, the President is telling these people, my constituents, not to worry? That is not good enough.

The Bush administration has been playing a shell game on this issue from the very beginning. First, they said no thorough investigation was necessary and approved the deal. What they were saying, basically, is ``mission accomplished.'' ``All done.'' We have heard that before, and we know the consequences that came after that. There was a public outcry.

Now the administration is supposedly conducting a thorough investigation. Frankly, it is a meaningless gesture. The deal is done. The deal is closed. Its final moments are today. So now the Ports World Company from Dubai owns those terminals. Before this new investigation even began, President Bush announced he had made up his mind. Last week he said: My position hasn't changed. That throws out the possibility of a truly objective investigation.

This is not simply a 45-day investigation. It is a 45-day stall while the administration hopes the American people will forget about the problem and they can go ahead with the business they plan. But we will not forget what happened on September 11 and we will not forget how much energy, resources, and prayers we devoted to keeping that kind of an incident from ever happening again in America, an attack that wounded us forever. We will not forget how the administration tried to rubberstamp this deal. Our constituents are alarmed. They should be.

I don't think Dubai is a terrible place or the people are awful people. But they consort with people with whom we do not agree. They have a terrible record in Dubai of controlling their own ports. Dubai was a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear weapon components that were sent to Iran, North Korea, and Libya. The relationship with Iran and Dubai is one that is unholy. Iran's stated purpose,

we heard our distinguished Senator from Minnesota state, the President of Iran says he will not be happy until Israel is blown off the map.

There is a constant support stream from Iran to terrorist organizations Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad. They all get support there. Dubai does over $1 billion a year's worth of business with Iran and now has a trade mission there. What does that do? That helps Iran earn money, helps them to supply terrorist insurgent groups to Iraq where they are out to kill our kids, our soldiers, and the Iraqi people. Those are their friends. And we say, according to the administration, come on, these are good people, they bring money, why shouldn't we let them take over a sensitive part of our functioning?

We are saying ``no,'' and we are going to fight it in whatever ways we can. It may take a public demonstration of support that is overwhelming to keep it from happening. But right now, the presumed opportunity for negotiation over the next 45 days is not there.

There is no opportunity, there is no compulsion to bring the truth out. I want to see the administration offer to us, in whatever protected area is necessary, what CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States--I want to see what they had in front of them. And I am putting in a formal request. I want to see what they had in front of them to let them make the decision that, again, did not get the attention of Secretary Snow of the Department of Treasury, to whom the CFIUS people should have reported. It did not seem to disturb Secretary Rumsfeld. It did not seem to bother the President, certainly.

These links are there also between Dubai and Osama bin Laden and 9/ 11. The FBI has determined that money used for the 9/11 attacks was transferred to the hijackers primarily through the UAE's--United Arab Emirates'--banking system. Further, after the 9/11 attacks, the Treasury Department complained of a lack of cooperation by the UAE as the United States was trying to track down Osama bin Laden's bank accounts.

Now, we all remember when the Taliban was harboring and protecting Osama bin Laden within its borders in Afghanistan. Civilized nations of the world were working to isolate this repressive regime. However, the UAE--the United Arab Emirates--was one of only three countries in the world that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Government of Afghanistan.

Then there is another disturbing revelation about the UAE and Osama bin Laden. This seems impossible to conceive. The 9/11 Commission--a respected body that did a lot of hard work in trying to understand what took place on 9/11, what led up to it, and what we should do about preventing that kind of an occurrence again--the 9/11 Commission revealed, on pages 137 and 138 of its report, that members of the UAE Royal Family were secretly meeting with Osama bin Laden--this goes back to 1999--near his camp in Afghanistan. He had already done or led terrible actions against Americans. The UAE meetings with bin Laden came after bin Laden's 1998 bombing of United States Embassies in Africa, killing over 220 people, including 12 Americans. It was also after bin Laden issued something called a fatwa, stating that all Muslims have a religious duty to ``kill Americans and their allies, both civilian and military'' worldwide.

The UAE may also be responsible for undoing our best chance of getting rid of bin Laden himself. Former CIA Director George Tenet told the 9/11 Commission that the United States military was prepared to launch a missile strike against bin Laden in February of 1999, but it was called off. It was called off because United States officials discovered the presence of UAE officials near the bin Laden camp. Mr. Tenet, head of the CIA, testified to the 9/11 Commission that the attack was called off when the United States realized that we--and I quote here--``might have wiped out half the royal family in the UAE in the process.'' Kept them alive. We have heard stories here: Oh, we know where bin Laden is. We know what is going on. Well, if we know, why don't we get him?

And this government wants to be able to control terminals in our ports? I do not think so. And more than 70 percent of Americans do not think so.

So it is time--it is time--for the Senate to stand up and say no--no, no, no, no--to this takeover. We see how politically sensitive it is because the American people are often smarter in their thinking than sometimes we are here or in the House of Representatives.

The Republican-led House, the Republican Appropriations Committee, yesterday said this deal with Dubai should not go through. Imagine, Republicans challenging the President, the present leader of the country, the Commander in Chief, challenging the President, their party's President, where they have a majority in the House and here in the Senate. They say to President Bush, with all respect: Say no. We do not want this deal to go through. Say no to the giant international corporations that want this deal to go through at any cost. And say yes to this amendment. Do not let this contract go any further than it is.

With that, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

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

Mr. President, we just heard from the Senator from Oklahoma, someone with whom I have been working since he has been here. We have significant differences of view on issues, but there is a mutual respect. He did join Senator Schumer from New York and me when we announced our opposition at first to this Dubai transaction. There was also a gesture of good faith. We were not expecting to have the political difference become so sharp and so angry over these next days, but information came out about how casually the disapproval took place from CFIUS, the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States. It is supposed to get a review and had a 30-day review.

We listened to the recall by the Senator from Oklahoma about the compact section of the first amendment and reminding us that the Senate should advise and consent on matters like treaties, other things related to international relationships. But nobody knew anything about this. That was the interesting part. Here this thing suddenly pops up on the screen. There is a deal. The Emir of Dubai, a part of the United Arab Emirates, is going to buy this facility in a very sensitive part of the New York-New Jersey Harbor, one of the biggest harbors in the country and the world, all kinds of activities there. I mentioned them in my earlier remarks, a lot of industry, chemical manufacturing, gasoline distribution facilities, all kinds of things that are potentially subject to violent aftershocks if attacked, ignited. Deaths could range in the millions.

It so happened that the World Trade Center, which is on the perimeter of this area--the FBI considers the 2-mile stretch between Newark Airport and the New York-New Jersey Harbor as the most dangerous target for terrorism in the country; the most dangerous 2-mile stretch in the country, says the FBI. The port facility is right alongside this, as is Newark Liberty Airport.

Now we are hearing that Dubai has been friendly. They have helped us. They have let us dock our ships in their harbor.

How do we ignore their association? If someone is a member of a gang, a Mafia-type gang, and we know that they are a member, do we immediately invite them to join the bank board, or do we immediately invite them to one of the more important institutions in our country? Do we invite them to the Board of the Federal Reserve, the board of the stock exchange? Absolutely not. I ran a big company. I wouldn't have invited them to join the board of my company.

Here we have Dubai in a cozy relationship with Iran. Iran pours money into the Iraqi insurgent movement. Iran thusly kills some of our troops. Yesterday we lost a couple more. It seems endless. And Iraqi families are torn apart, children killed, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters--all targets for attack by these insurgents supported by cashflow from Iran. Iran has plenty of cash; little moral principle-- none--but plenty of cash, determined to wipe Israel off the map. They say so. That is the President of the country speaking officially to 4,000 students gathered. He said: We want to wipe Israel off the map.

That is a pretty bold threat. I wouldn't take it lightly. The Israelis shouldn't take it lightly, and America should never take it lightly.

Dubai helped them get nuclear components to build nuclear weapons. That is what this is about. Dubai helped finance the 9/11 attack through their financial system. It took money as well as madness. Dubai helped. What does that count for? Nothing?

The secret nature of the CFIUS meetings, we are to be consoled? As a matter of fact, it was even said by some that it was a victory getting this 45-day window for review. Victory? Like the devil it is a victory. The ball game is over. The deal is made. Dubai Ports World now owns the terminal in Newark and several other ports around the country. They paid $6 billion for it. The Emir bought it out of his own cash. So the deal is done. And the 45-day declaration of victory is a hollow response. There is nothing there. We can't do anything about it.

Yes, if the Republican majority in the House or the Senate say no, Mr. President, we are not going along with this deal, as was indicated by the 60-some Members of the Appropriations Committee in the House who voted against going through with this transaction with Dubai, that has to be a pretty significant revelation. If the President loses the troops that support him so fully, he ought to hear this. This is an unacceptable transaction. It has little to do with advice and consent.

I don't think there is any way we can stop this. This transfer has been made. But why should we waste 45 days to find out? That is what I don't get. We ought to simply take the vote up here. Let's vote in the Senate. Let us do it now, or next week, and decide do we approve of this transfer--and let it be amended any way we want to--from a company that has been operating there for a number of years, a British company. The history was already in place, so we had nothing to worry about there. But we only have 5 percent of the containers that come into the country that are thoroughly examined.

The committee on which I sit, the Governmental Affairs Committee, had a review. Witnesses came from the maritime community, a representative of Dubai, the chief financial officer, and the fellow who heads the World Ports organization. Everybody was convinced there would be few, if any, problems, with nothing to worry about. Then, suddenly, we find out there are things to worry about--a lot of things to worry about. It is said that you judge a person by the company they keep. Well, the company Dubai keeps is not very encouraging, as far as I am concerned.

Our mission and responsibility here is the safety and security of the American people. That is what this is all about. It is not hatred for Dubai, but it raises a question about the company Dubai keeps, about the actions they have taken, about the fact that they were the first to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government in Afghanistan. That is pretty errant behavior, as far as I am concerned. So, my friends, when you get it all talked about and people start getting on their high horses, saying this can be an ad in a political election campaign, would you rather have something go awry instead of taking the extra layer of protection we have taken? Not I. If you think this transaction should be allowed to go ahead and be completed, don't worry about it, mission accomplished, then vote for permitting the action to go through. If not, then join the logic, join the examination, join the view that says these people have things to prove.

I throw out a challenge here to the Emir of Dubai, to the United Arab Emirates: Why don't you say you will remove the boycott that stops Israeli products from coming there, that wants to wipe Israel off the map--get off of that boycott team and show good faith. Do you mean you want to be a friend of ours? Then don't challenge the existence of one of our friends. Say that they are off the boycott and products can flow and passports can be honored.

I will never forget when I went to Saudi Arabia during the first gulf war. I was the first legislator to be in that country. The reason was, there was a big air base in New Jersey called McGuire Air Force Base, where troops and materiel are flown to the eastern theater very promptly. They were in Saudi Arabia and I went to visit them. When I went there, there was a question of whether my passport would be valid--a United States Senator, one of 100 in this country, an official part of the American Government--a question whether my passport would be valid entry into Saudi Arabia because I had once visited Israel on that passport, and it had a stamp that said Israel. They are so narrowminded there that they said: If you have been to Israel, you are not welcome in this country with that kind of a passport. That is how mad and crazed they are about that boycott business.

Right now, they have us by the barrels. Oil prices are going through the roof. Wealth is pouring into these countries as never before believed possible. Look at Dubai. I understand from the pictures it is beautiful--skyscrapers, and I think they even have an

indoor ski hill. They have all kinds of things from money that we send. That money is used to buy ammunition for insurgents to continue to promote terrorism by supporting Hamas and Hezbollah and all the others through Iran. And Dubai says they are our pals.

What I conclude with is we ought to play showdown here--to use the expression--and vote on whether we want this deal to go through. It is so simple. Let the American people hear those who agree say yes, and those who disagree say no. It is not political, but let's do it.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor and congratulate the Rutgers University women's basketball team for its thrilling victory against the University of Connecticut on February 27. Before a sold-out crowd of over 8,000 fans, the tenacious Scarlet Knights achieved one of college basketball's most coveted titles: Big East Conference champions. In the process, Rutgers also became only the third team in history to finish its regular season undefeated.

This victory did not come easily, but the Scarlet Knights came ready to play, thirsty to win, and eager to give the Connecticut Huskies a run for their money. Despite trailing UConn by 18 points in the first half, Rutgers refused to give up. Instead, they regrouped, refueled, and used strong defense and solid teamwork to make up the point deficit. Led by head coach C. Vivian Stringer and senior standout Cappie Pondexter, the Scarlet Knights played a flawless second half that capped an outstanding season. By the time the final buzzer rang, the Rutgers women had proven that they can compete with any team in the Nation. More importantly, after winning their second straight conference title, the Scarlet Knights confirmed that hard work, perseverance, and desire remain the keys to success.

With four New Jersey natives on their roster, including Big East Defensive Player of the Year Essence Carson, these young women have become a source of pride for my home State. Coach Stringer, in particular, deserves special recognition for the strong coaching and leadership skills she has demonstrated over her 10 years at Rutgers University. As one of the most recognized and most respected coaches in the game, she was inducted into the New Jersey Sports Hall of Fame in 2005. I think I speak for both the Scarlet Knights and the Rutgers community when I say how pleased I am to have Coach Stringer leading this remarkable team.

Mr. President, on behalf of the entire State of New Jersey, I am proud to congratulate the Scarlet Knights once again for their second consecutive Big East Conference title. As the Scarlet Knights begins this year's NCAA tournament, we hope they are able to maintain the momentum that carried them so well through the regular season. We wish them the best of luck.

Mr. President, on September 11, 2001, the longshoremen who work on the docks in Newark, NJ, could see the flames and smoke from the World Trade Center. Many of those dock workers lost a loved one or a friend that day. Of the three thousand people who died, 700 were from New Jersey.

I have been to Port Newark many times before--I used to serve as a Commissioner of the Port Authority. This week I went back to Port Newark to tell those workers why I thought it was a bad idea to turn control of their port over to the government of Dubai, the United Arab Emirates. I really didn't have to explain it to them. They understood why it is a bad idea--just as 70 percent of the American people understand.

Unfortunately, as of yesterday, a company owned by the government of

Dubai now controls port operations in Newark--and five other major ports in the United States. This is an outcome we have been trying to prevent. And if Congress had been given any warning, we would have prevented it.

Instead, the Bush Administration gave this deal a casual thumbs-up, when it deserved the highest scrutiny. Now the President is telling my constituents in New Jersey--as well as residents of Philadelphia, Baltimore, South Florida and New Orleans--``don't worry.''

But that's not good enough.

By rubber stamping this deal, the Bush Administration sold out the Federal Government's ability to object to the deal. Any ``investigation'' at this point is after-the-fact and all for show. You don't buy a home before you look at it, and get it inspected. But that's what the Bush Administration did in this case.

The people who work in our port, and those who live nearby, know better than anyone how important it is to keep our ports secure. That's why I am introducing legislation today that will empower our ports to terminate leases that pose a security threat to the port and the surrounding community. My bill will give ports that power when the company that holds a lease is sold or taken over by a foreign company like the Dubai-owned one in this case.

This is a valid approach. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is already in court trying to invalidate the lease that was sold to Dubai Ports World. My bill would also encourage ports to do their own security assessment of transfers of ownership. It requires the Department of Homeland Security to assist our ports with those assessments.

We need to take this step to protect our constituents, because the Bush Administration has left them high and dry. The Administration has been playing a shell game on this issue from the very beginning. First they said no thorough investigation was needed, and approved the deal. Then came the public outcry. Now the Administration is supposedly conducting a ``thorough investigation.'' But it is a meaningless gesture--the deal was finalized already.

And before the so-called investigation even begins, President Bush has already made up his mind. On Tuesday, President Bush said: ``My position hasn't changed.'' So much for an objective investigation.

This is not a 45-day investigation. It's just a 45-day stalling period while the Administration hopes the American people will forget about this problem. But we don't forget what happened on September 11-- and we won't forget how the Administration tried to rubber-stamp this deal.

My constituents are alarmed. And unfortunately, the Bush administration hasn't displayed the competence that could restore public confidence. We can't afford to wait 45 days while the Administration stalls. The time to protect our constituents is now.

I urge my colleagues to support my bill, which will give local ports the power to protect the American people.

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

Mr. President, on September 11, 2001, the longshoremen who work on the docks in Newark, NJ, could see the flames and smoke from the World Trade Center. Many of those dock workers lost a loved one or a friend that day. Of the three thousand people who died, 700 were from New Jersey.

I have been to Port Newark many times before--I used to serve as a Commissioner of the Port Authority. This week I went back to Port Newark to tell those workers why I thought it was a bad idea to turn control of their port over to the government of Dubai, the United Arab Emirates. I really didn't have to explain it to them. They understood why it is a bad idea--just as 70 percent of the American people understand.

Unfortunately, as of yesterday, a company owned by the government of

Dubai now controls port operations in Newark--and five other major ports in the United States. This is an outcome we have been trying to prevent. And if Congress had been given any warning, we would have prevented it.

Instead, the Bush Administration gave this deal a casual thumbs-up, when it deserved the highest scrutiny. Now the President is telling my constituents in New Jersey--as well as residents of Philadelphia, Baltimore, South Florida and New Orleans--``don't worry.''

But that's not good enough.

By rubber stamping this deal, the Bush Administration sold out the Federal Government's ability to object to the deal. Any ``investigation'' at this point is after-the-fact and all for show. You don't buy a home before you look at it, and get it inspected. But that's what the Bush Administration did in this case.

The people who work in our port, and those who live nearby, know better than anyone how important it is to keep our ports secure. That's why I am introducing legislation today that will empower our ports to terminate leases that pose a security threat to the port and the surrounding community. My bill will give ports that power when the company that holds a lease is sold or taken over by a foreign company like the Dubai-owned one in this case.

This is a valid approach. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is already in court trying to invalidate the lease that was sold to Dubai Ports World. My bill would also encourage ports to do their own security assessment of transfers of ownership. It requires the Department of Homeland Security to assist our ports with those assessments.

We need to take this step to protect our constituents, because the Bush Administration has left them high and dry. The Administration has been playing a shell game on this issue from the very beginning. First they said no thorough investigation was needed, and approved the deal. Then came the public outcry. Now the Administration is supposedly conducting a ``thorough investigation.'' But it is a meaningless gesture--the deal was finalized already.

And before the so-called investigation even begins, President Bush has already made up his mind. On Tuesday, President Bush said: ``My position hasn't changed.'' So much for an objective investigation.

This is not a 45-day investigation. It's just a 45-day stalling period while the Administration hopes the American people will forget about this problem. But we don't forget what happened on September 11-- and we won't forget how the Administration tried to rubber-stamp this deal.

My constituents are alarmed. And unfortunately, the Bush administration hasn't displayed the competence that could restore public confidence. We can't afford to wait 45 days while the Administration stalls. The time to protect our constituents is now.

I urge my colleagues to support my bill, which will give local ports the power to protect the American people.

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

Mr. President, I rise to recognize Black History Month and pay tribute to the enormous and varied contributions African Americans have made to our Nation.

The other evening, on the final night of the Olympics, Tom Brokaw of NBC News did a story about an American soldier named Vernon Baker who fought in Italy in World War II. Mr. Baker is now 86 years old. He was just a young man on the day in 1945 when he wiped out three Nazi machine gun nests and took out an enemy observation post.

Mr. Baker came home from the war without much fanfare. But like the 1.7 million other Black soldiers who served our Nation during World War II, he came home a changed man. After fighting on foreign soil against an enemy that claimed superiority to other races, these men could no longer accept second-class treatment in their own country.

World War II was the catalyst that finally convinced a significant portion of the American people that segregation was wrong. It was the beginning of the end of segregation in our Nation.

After World War II, 432 Americans were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Not one of them was African American. Finally, in 1997, the Government bestowed our Nation's highest medal on six Black veterans of World War II. Vernon Baker was the only one of those men still alive to accept his award.

Mr. Baker's story mirrors Black history in our Nation in the last half of the 20th century. It is a story of determination and hope. During World War II, African Americans fought to keep our Nation free, even when their own freedom was not fully enjoyed. In the same way, the ideas and talent of African Americans have always enriched American life, even as their own lives were impoverished by racism and the vestiges of slavery.

From the Nobel laureate Toni Morrison to the great composer Duke Ellington, from the brilliant jurist Thurgood Marshall to my old friend Larry Doby, the first Black baseball player in the American League, from the uplifting leadership of Martin Luther King, Jr., to the heroism of Vernon Baker, African Americans have inspired and enlightened our Nation.

I join the people of New Jersey in celebrating the contributions of African American citizens during Black History Month.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Andrea Bronfman, a respected philanthropist and a dear friend. Andrea passed away on January 23, 2006, at the age of 60.

Born in Great Britain in 1945, Andrea quickly demonstrated remarkable compassion for those in need and an ardent desire to improve the world around her. She was married to Charles Bronfman in 1982, and together they raised five children and six grandchildren. While their wonderful family was certainly one of Andrea's proudest achievements, she will also be fondly remembered for her generous nature, her passion for life, and her multitude of charitable endeavors.

Andrea's philanthropy benefited citizens of all countries and faiths, but she is best known for her activism within the Jewish community and her devotion to Israel, Jewish life, and the Jewish people. In addition to serving on the boards of several well-respected Jewish organizations, she and Charles cofounded Birthright Israel, a program that offers young adults a chance to travel to Israel and experience the roots of their ancestry firsthand. As a result of these good works and her undying devotion to Jewish life, Andrea

was named an honorary citizen of Jerusalem in 2002 and was given the key to the city by then-Mayor Ehud Olmert.

Throughout her life, Andrea proved herself to be a true pillar of decency and generosity both within the Jewish community and outside of it. Not content just to fund projects, Andrea was actively involved in the community and was constantly devising new undertakings that would benefit society and help more people. Most recently she served as founder and deputy chairman of The Gift of New York, a nonprofit initiative that provided free admission to concerts, theatrical productions, and sporting events to the families of those who died at the World Trade Center in 2001. Andrea recognized that grief is not an emotion that subsides after a few months. Long after the rubble of 9/11 had been cleared, she ensured that the bereaved families knew that their loss and heartache had not been forgotten.

Our hearts go out to Andrea's family and friends as they deal with the inevitable pain and sadness that come from an unexpected death. To mitigate that pain somewhat, we can remember and be grateful that Andrea lived a life filled with love, kindness, and compassion. Her dedication to humanitarian causes and deep devotion to her faith served as an inspiration to everyone who knew her and benefited from her achievements and generosity. While her determination and spirit will be missed, her legacy will live on through the millions of people her work has touched.

I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Mrs. Andrea Bronfman and the legacy she left to philanthropy and caring about people whether she knew them or not.

Mr. President, I wish to pay my respects to someone I knew very well, Preston Robert Tisch, who passed away last month of brain cancer. He was a distinguished American who, along with his brother, Laurence, built a giant financial enterprise. Bob was eminently successful at everything he did, particularly in his role as a husband, father, and grandfather.

I, like all who had contact with Bob Tisch, treasure my times with him. I send my deepest condolences to his wife and family. I ask to have printed in the Record a statement released by the New York Giants organization that so perfectly describes the life and accomplishments of Bob Tisch.

He will be long remembered for his productive life and his legacy of important leadership in all of his endeavors. We are all better off for Bob Tisch's contributions to our country.

The material follows.

Preston Robert Tisch (1926-2005)

Preston Robert ``Bob'' Tisch, the Giants'' Chairman and Co-

Chief Executive Officer, one of the nation's most respected

and successful businessmen, a former United States Postmaster

General, and an extremely generous philanthropist, died

Tuesday night.

Tisch passed away trom inoperable brain cancer, which was

first diagnosed in the summer of 2004. He was 79. His death

comes just three weeks after the passing of his fellow owner,

Wellington Mara, who died of cancer on October 25 at the age

of 89.

Tisch realized a longtime dream in 1991 when he completed

negotiations with Wellington Mara's nephew, Tim Mara, and his

family and paid $75 million for a 50 percent interest in the

Giants.

``I was very fortunate,'' Tisch said in a 2002 interview.

``I got a call trom (former Cleveland and Baltimore owner)

Art Modell telling me that Tim Mara wanted to sell his half

of the team and asking me if I would be interested in

purchasing it. I met with Wellington Mara and John Mara and

said I'd be very interested. There were no problems with

them, and then I bought my share of the team from Tim Mara.

It's been a great relationship and a great boon to me. I'm

very happy to be the 50 percent owner of the New York

Giants.''

Tisch played an active role in the organization. As a

member of the National Football League's Finance and Super

Bowl Policy Committees, he attained a prominence in the

sports arena equal to his position in the world of business.

Owning the Giants was one of many careers Tisch pursued

simultaneously. Forbes magazine ranks him 56th on its list of

the country's 400 wealthiest people and estimates his net

worth to be about $3.9 billion.

He was the Chairman and Director of the Loews Corporation,

one of the country's most successful financial companies. The

company, with a 2004 net income of $1.2 billion and assets

exceeding $74 billion, owns and operates 91 percent of CNA

Financial Corporation; 100 percent of Lorillard; 100 percent

of Boardwalk Pipelines, which consists of Texas Gas

Transmission and Gulf South Pipelines; 52 percent of Diamond

Offshore Drilling; 100 percent of Loews Hotels and 100

percent of Bulova.

Tisch served as Postmaster General of the United States

from August 1986 until returning to New York in March 1988.

Prior to his appointment as Postmaster, he served as

President and Chief Operating Officer of Loews Corporation

and its corporate predecessor, Loews Theaters, Inc., a

position held from 1960 until his appointment as Co-Chairman

and Co-CEO.

Tisch also served as Chairman of the New York Convention &

Visitors Bureau for 19 years and currently serves as the

Bureau's (now called NYC & Co.) Chairman Emeritus. He was

also founding Chairman of the New York City Convention and

Exhibition Center Corporation and Chairman of the Citizens

Committee for the Democratic National Conventions held in New

York City in 1976 and 1980.

In May 1990, Mayor David Dinkins appointed Tisch as New

York City's Ambassador to Washington, D.C. Through 1993, he

served as a liaison between the City of New York and his

friends and colleagues in both the national government in

Washington, D.C. and the business community in New York City.

From 1990-1993, Tisch served as Chairman of the New York

City Partnership, Inc. and the New York Chamber of Commerce

and Industry, where he was instrumental in developing a

campaign to enhance New York's position as an international

business center. After completing his stint as chairman,

Tisch remained on the Board of Directors of both

organizations, now merged.

Tisch was also a Trustee of New York University.

The Giants, however, were truly a labor of love for Tisch,

a lifelong sports fan. He attended every Giants game, home

and away, and spent as much time working in his stadium

office as possible. His two sons are now important members of

the organization: Steven as executive vice president and Jon

as treasurer.

The process of going from fan to owner took at least three

decades for Tisch.

``I came to New York in 1960, and a couple of propitious

things happened,'' he said. ``Our company owned a radio

station at that time, WHN. During the 1950s they broadcast

Giants games. The president of the radio station had ten 50-

yard-line tickets at Yankee Stadium. When we sold the radio

station he decided he wanted to stay with us, so he came over

to Loews Theaters to become the controller. So for about

seven or eight years, I had the use of these tickets.

``Also, when we came to New York we moved to Scarsdale, and

I got to know Allie Sherman, who was then coach of the

Giants. Actually, Allie's son Randy and my son Jon were born

one day apart. So we got to know the Sherman family. Then in

1975 or '76, Pete Rozelle moved to Harrison. We lived in the

city, but we have a house in Harrison, which

was a mile away from where Pete Rozelle and his family

resided. We became very friendly with Pete Rozelle. So I have

a history in the last 40-some odd years of being involved. I

went to most of the owners meetings and all the Super Bowls

with Pete Rozelle. I was chairman of a group of his friends

called Rozelle's Raiders--I was responsible for getting him

to the right place at the right time. He finally gave me a

whistle and a sign that said `Rozelle's Raiders.' I've been

very lucky. In my own mind, I've been involved in football

since 1960.''

It was about that time that Tisch first began to consider

buying a professional team.

``I had tried several times before (purchasing his interest

in the Giants),'' he said. ``Steve Ross, who ended up as CEO

of Time-Warner, Inc. and I tried to buy the Jets in about

1967 or '68 and it didn't work out. I looked at other things.

In 1988, when I came out of the Postal Service, I decided I

would try to buy a sports team. I looked at many of them,

both in football and basketball. I looked at the Dallas

Cowboys and a couple of other teams. But I made up my mind I

was never going to buy a team that was more than one hour

from New York. I was interested in becoming owner of the new

franchise that was in Baltimore. We were putting together a

group when the opportunity came about to become the 50

percent owner of the New York Giants, which I jumped at and

dropped everything else.''

He completed the negotiations with Tim Mara just a few

months after the Giants won Super Bowl XXV.

Tisch's business success was but a small part of his life's

achievements. His generosity and commitment to civic and

charitable causes was legendary. Tisch was a tireless and

influential participant in civic affairs throughout his adult

life.

In February 2000, he helped found Take the Field, Inc., a

non-profit organization dedicated to renovating and

rebuilding the athletic fields at New York City's public high

schools. Tisch, a product of those schools who graduated from

Erasmus Hall High in Brooklyn, was Chairman of Take the

Field, Inc. He launched the organization with a $1 million

donation, and as of earlier this year had raised more than

$147 million in public and private dollars.

Tisch and two partners in Take the Field, Tony Kiser and

Richard Kahan, believed the private sector had to play a

leading role in repairing sports fields at schools throughout

the city that had been slowly destroyed by more than two

decades of neglect. Tisch approached then-mayor Rudy Giuliani

with his idea. The city agreed to match every dollar raised

by Take the Field with three of its own, and the mission was

to re-do every athletic field in the city that was classified

as ``needy.''

``Take the Field is one of the most innovative and

wonderful ideas of my life in the city,'' said New York Mets

owner Fred Wilpon, one of Tisch's best friends. ``And it

doesn't happen without Bob. At a time in his life when he

could have just sat back and enjoyed everything he had

accomplished, he went to work.''

That's what Tisch did throughout his life. He was a

founding Co-Chairman of Citymeals-on-Wheels, President of the

Board of Directors from 1993 to 2002, and later served on the

Board as Honorary Chairman. He also served as chairman of

Public Private Initiative, a public private partnership that

raises funds for important community programs, from 1997 to

1998.

Tisch's philanthropy continued even after he became gravely

ill. His family picked a physician at the Duke University

Medical Center to supervise his treatment for the brain

cancer. Tisch and his family recently donated $10 million to

the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center and the school's Brain

Tumor Center.

The gift accounted for the majority of a $16.3 million

package of subsidies that Duke will use to support research

into the treatment of brain tumors.

``I was very, very impressed by the program at Duke, and

very taken by more than just its medical approach,'' said

Steve Tisch. ``For me, there was the intangible that became

so important, of the spiritual and emotional commitment that

these programs and their doctors have.''

Duke officials have pledged to use $5 million from the

Tisch family to underwrite the hiring of additional

researchers. The medical center is matching that with $5

million of its own money. Another $2.5 million from the Tisch

family will finance the screening of drugs that might be

useful in treating brain tumors. Duke officials are now

calling the treatment center the Preston Robert Tisch Brain

Tumor Center.

Given his many accomplishments and interesting ventures,

Tisch was asked in that 2002 interview what was most

rewarding to him.

``My brother (Laurence, who died of cancer at age 80 two

years ago today on November 15, 2003) and I took the Loews

Corporation from a corporation that did about $20 million

worth of business and built it up to a $13 billion company,

which is now run by the next generation,'' Tisch said.

``Building the company and seeing it grow has been extremely

gratifying. I also enjoyed my time at the Postal Service when

I was appointed Postmaster General. People said, `How can you

stand a job like that?' I loved it. I made one mistake--I

stayed two years when I should have stayed three years.

``Then, of course, my involvement with the New York Giants

has been very rewarding. I've been very, very lucky in my

life and what I've been able to achieve.''

Everyone who knew him, worked with him or were touched by

his generosity were just as fortunate.

Preston Robert Tisch was born on April 29, 1926 in New York

City. He attended Bucknell University before entering the

Army in 1944. After military service in World War II, he

earned a B.A. degree in economics from the University of

Michigan in 1948. Tisch is survived by his wife, the former

Joan Hyman, and their three children, Steven, Laurie, and

Jonathan, and nine grandchildren.

Mr. President, the motion clearly says that taxpayers would have to choose between deducting their sales tax costs or their income tax costs. If a taxpayer lives in a State that chooses to have both a sales tax and an income tax, why should they be penalized? This motion is not fair for the people in my State or many States such as mine that have both sales and income taxes.

The Federal Government should not be micromanaging State tax systems. If we have the expense, we ought to allow the deduction. If we are going to allow the deduction of State sales taxes, we should allow it no matter where the taxpayers live.

I hope we will oppose this management from the Federal Government of how a State ought to conduct its tax system.

I yield the floor and urge opposition to the motion.

Mr. President, the motion is simple. It says the conferees need to come back with a final bill that does not increase the national debt. So if you vote against this, you are saying it is OK to increase the national debt. Lord knows what we have by way of debt. It is drowning us and will be paid for by our children and our grandchildren. It is reckless to charge $50 billion on our Nation's credit card when we have another option. We can pay for these tax cuts by closing the egregious tax loopholes such as the $6 billion for oil companies with record earnings--on the front page of the paper this morning.

Whether you voted for or against the bill, we should all agree that we should not stick future generations with the bill.

That is what my motion says. It is very simple.

On Valentines Day, vote against increasing the national debt.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I think I have been yielded time. I would like to check with the people at the desk to see whether that is the case. I heard the Senator from Illinois say I was expected on the floor. Is that noted in the Record in any way?

Mr. President, since I am on the floor and there is nobody else here on the Democratic side, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for not more than 5 minutes or so.

I believe it is our time.

Mr. President, I would like to use Senator Durbin's time. He has 3 minutes left. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to use Senator Durbin's time.

Mr. President, since time is limited, I am going to get down to the nuts and bolts. I come from a State in which asbestos was prominent in manufacturing in many places. As a matter of fact, early in the 1950s, a doctor named Irving Selikoff, who was a researcher as well as a physician, discovered the lethality of asbestos. He is the one who raised the alarm about the dangers of that product.

He saw mesothelioma and asbestosis.

In my office in New Jersey, I had a man and his wife and his mature son, who was about 30 years old, come in to see me because they all had mesothelioma, but only the father worked in the manufacturing facility, the mill. His wife and child, his son, were made ill as a result of the mother washing her husband's clothes. That is how lethal, how dangerous asbestos is.

This bill is an abstract exercise. There are real people involved, people who are going to die as a result of the exposure. I have seen it up front and personal. A friend of mine who was a lawyer, after practicing 20 years, got a call from a member of a union one day that had asbestos workers, and he was told to get a chest x ray. He did. After 20 years of no illness, nothing, suddenly they found that he had a spot on his lung, and it turned into mesothelioma and he was dead soon thereafter.

I recently had a World War II vet--I am one as well--come into my office, sick from mesothelioma, from work he did 40 years ago. We have seen so many cases where the gestation period is so long, so that to suddenly close this out and say that is going to be enough money, $140 billion--it sounds like a lot, but it is not a lot when it comes to individuals who need help and who need to be able to continue to conduct their lives and do whatever they can to make life comfortable.

The Congressional Budget Office has stated that the fund will need $10 billion more. Other analysts put the figure as high as $300 billion. So it is fairly obvious that I am going to oppose this bill and support the point of order. I urge my colleagues to do the same because what we are doing is dismissing the suffering of people who have been exposed to this, even though the companies knew how dangerous the material was they were working with. They permitted people to work with it and did not do anything about it, except ultimately, in many cases, they went bankrupt as a result of their behavior.

I yield the floor, and I hope my colleagues will oppose this bill and support the point of order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending motion be set aside, and I send a motion to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I want to discuss this motion to instruct conferees that I bring to this bill. You see here a display of a credit card. It is drawn on the ``Bank of our Children's Future.'' My amendment is simple. It asks the conferees, please, do not increase our national debt.

A lot of what we do around here is hidden and complicated Federal budget rhetoric. But to put matters simply, this bill allows President Bush to charge another $50 billion on the credit card of the United States of America. But when he leaves office, who is going to pay the debt that is left behind? Certainly, it will not be their rich or infamous friends. They are guaranteed to be safe from the bill collector. The reality is that the President is going to leave repayment of this credit card debt to our kids and our grandchildren. I don't want to have that burden on my grandchildren or my children. They work hard and they pay their debts and they pay their taxes--my children, I am talking about; my grandchildren are too young. They are willing to pay their taxes and they are proud of this country of ours.

The Democrats want to pay for these tax cuts by ending giveaways to rich special interests. But the Republican side said: No, no, don't persecute millionaires.

I had a very successful business career. It happened because I live in America and America responds to ingenuity and hard work. I don't mind paying my taxes. I want to pay my taxes to be sure that America is strong internally, not just on the weapons front but strong in character, strong in mission.

My colleagues on the other side, all good folks, will not admit they are passing this burden on to future generations. They claim they are going to cut spending to make up the difference.

Are they? As President Bush insists, are they willing to cut Medicare and make health care more expensive for seniors? Are they, as President Bush insists, willing to cut student loans? Isn't tuition expensive enough for the average family in America? Are they, our colleagues on the other side, as President Bush insists, going to eliminate the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program? Are they willing to cut the Head Start Program for children who don't have the benefit of being in a home where they can learn, who don't have the benefit of guidance from parents often? Those children often get their only nutritional meal in a facility that is supported by the Federal Government. We are now only serving 800,000 out of 1.6 million children who would qualify.

Even if we do all these things, we are still going to be in the hole with massive deficits because of the President's

insistence on irresponsible tax cuts, and I use the word advisedly.

I know something about balancing budgets. I was a senior Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee that produced the first balanced budget in 30 years. We did such a good job that when President Bush took the oath of office, he was presented with a rosy financial picture like no President in the history of our country has ever seen.

We had budget surpluses as far as the eye could see. In 2000, we had a budget surplus of $236 billion. In 2001, President Bush enjoyed a surplus of $128 billion. We were ready to pay off our national debt by the end of President Bush's last term. We were in the middle of the longest economic expansion in the history of our country. But the Republicans plunged into massive tax breaks for the wealthy and the special interests, tax breaks that will cost $3.4 trillion to make them permanent over the next decade. One-third of that, more than $1 trillion, will go to the richest 1 percent of our population.

So here is how the Republican tax cuts translate. If you make $1 million a year, you get an average tax cut of $136,000, but if you make less than $20,000 a year, you get a whopping $19. To what end? Instead of paying off our national credit card bill, President Bush and the Republican majority are set to double our national debt. If we continue on this path, our national debt will be more than $12 trillion by 2011.

With this bill, we are being asked to approve another $50 billion charge on our credit card. The most tragic thing is that there is no reason to charge these tax cuts to the national credit card.

When we were considering this bill a few weeks ago, our senior colleague on the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, offered a way to pay for these tax cuts by closing corporate loopholes. Closing these loopholes would have shut down abusive foreign tax shelters. I don't understand why we should give cover to abusive foreign tax shelters. It would have made polluters pay to clean up the damage they cause to our environment, it would have required tax withholding on payments to Federal contractors, such as Halliburton, just like every American has on their paycheck. Every Member on this side of the aisle voted for budget discipline, and every Member of the other party voted for budget recklessness.

We still have a chance to put a stop to this. We can adopt my motion. It is simple. It says to the conferees: Don't increase our national debt. Is that too much to ask, don't increase our national debt?

Of course, we could go ahead and get a second mortgage on the White House or this Capitol Building or the Pentagon. Every day people across America will take a second mortgage in a similar situation. ``Similar situation'' means when your debt exceeds your ability to pay it down. The administration is willing to do that.

So if my colleagues think we should saddle our children and grandchildren with more debt, then I suggest they oppose my motion, but if they think it is wrong to run up our Nation's debt so special interests, such as Halliburton and polluters, can get off scot-free, then vote for my motion.

Every American's share of the national debt now is $27,529. This bill raises that debt another $170 per adult and child in this country. By voting for my motion, we say no to debt for our kids.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion and show that they want some fiscal responsibility put into place.

I yield the floor.