Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask that this statement be inserted in the proper place in the Record.

I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

While I participated in an event commemorating the life of Dr. King at the Morning Star Community Tabernacle Church in Linden, New Jersey, I felt it was important to pay tribute to the life and legacy of this extraordinary American on the first legislative day of this 109th Congress.

The impact of Dr. King's life, actions and deeds is just as great today as it was 36 years ago, when his life was taken from us. Dr. King accomplished so much in his short life; he was a pastor, civil rights activist and leader, Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Time magazine's Man of the Year, and in many ways, the emancipator of all Americans.

Dr. King's adherence to nonviolence in the pursuit of social justice left an indelible mark on our nation's history and conscience. Clearly, much progress has been made in the struggle for civil rights, equality and social justice. We rightly pay tribute to the civil rights accomplishments to date, and we rightly attribute much of that progress to Dr. King.

But there is still much to do. And sadly, the current administration has had a disappointing record on civil rights and has shown little interest in shouldering leadership responsibility on these important issues.

Two years ago, on the week before we celebrated the birthday of Dr. King, Jr., President Bush intervened in a case before the United States Supreme Court in an effort to destroy affirmative action, which is effectively ``equal education rights'' for African Americans and other minority groups.

The case involved the University of Michigan program which used race as one factor among many when selecting incoming students. I joined other United States Senators in an amicus brief in support of the University of Michigan affirmative action program. Thankfully, in its first ruling on affirmative action in higher education admissions in 25 years, the nation's highest court ruled on June 23, 2003, that race can be used in university admission decisions. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the eventual deciding vote in the case, saying that affirmative action is still needed in America--but hoped that its days are numbered.

Last year, on Dr. King's 75th birthday, President Bush went to Atlanta and laid a wreath at Dr. King's grave. The very next day, despite protest from the civil rights community and against the expressed will of the Senate, President Bush recess appointed Judge Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

President Bush cast aside several significant concerns of the African American and civil rights community. Some of these concerns included: Judge Pickering's support as a State Senator in the 1960s for the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission, which was established to prevent the implementation of Brown v. Board of Education; Judge Pickering's opposition as a legislator and Federal judge to voting rights for African Americans; and Judge Pickering's disturbing positions as a Federal judge on two of the key protections of equal voting rights for all Americans--the one person-one vote

Constitutional doctrine and the Voting Rights Act.

These are just two examples of a broader indifference President Bush has shown to the social, economic, and legal obstacles African- Americans are forced to overcome in their ongoing effort to achieve real equality.

Affirmative action has proven beneficial in combating past discrimination and it remains necessary today. Judge Pickering is just one of a host of judicial nominees opposing civil rights President Bush has put forth as part of a larger effort to pack the Federal courts with ultra-conservative ideologues.

Each of us must do our part to advance the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and to promote civil rights equality. I will continue to provide leadership in the 109th Congress to help minority businesses, increase access to education and health care, improve job growth, and fight racial profiling.

I hope that President Bush and the entire Congress will do the same.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a bill that Senator Corzine and I are introducing, the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route bill. Our bill would reauthorize a law based on a bill that former Senator Bill Bradley and I first introduced in 1988. That law was extended once but its authorization has now expired, bringing work on the Trail to a complete standstill.

This bill would reauthorize federal appropriations for New Jersey's Coastal Heritage Trail. This authority would sunset in 2009, allowing enough time for unfinished trail projects to be completed.

The 300-mile Trail is divided into five sections that extend south from Perth Amboy to Cape May and west to Deepwater. New Jersey's Coastal Heritage Trail is unique. It is neither a National Heritage Area, nor a National Trail. Collaboration on this Trail marked the National Park Service's first attempt at protecting a significant resource without actually acquiring it. This experiment has been a resounding success.

The State of New Jersey is heavily developed, and the National Park Service, the State, and many other public and private organizations have worked hard to preserve the natural and cultural heritage along the Trail.

This experiment has also been a bargain. Between 1988 and 2004, the Park Service spent 3.9 million dollars on Trail projects, while non- federal sources contributed 5.4 million dollars in matching funds. These funds represent an important investment in New Jersey's economy. Last year, 65 million visitors came to New Jersey, and the majority of those visitors went to the shore where many spent time on sections of the Coastal Heritage Trail.

In the past, Federal funds have contributed to signs and exhibits along the Trail which entice tourists and local New Jerseyans to explore our maritime history, coastal habitats, and wildlife migration.

Most people think that New Jersey is a crowded, highly industrialized State. That is true. But New Jersey also contains incredible beauty, such as a Bald Eagle silhouetted against a Delaware Bay sunset; a lone fishing boat making its way through Barnegat Inlet at dawn; or the quiet, dark waters flowing slowly through the Pine Barrens.

Such sights can be enjoyed in New Jersey, and the Coastal Heritage Trail invites New Jerseyans and our many visitors to enjoy these splendors.

Mr. President, in the House, Congressman LoBiondo is sponsoring a companion bill to this legislation, so this is truly a bipartisan effort. The Congressman and I have worked with our respective committees of jurisdiction and have come to agreement on identical language in our bills. So, it is my hope that the Senate will be able to pass this bill promptly. Getting it passed and signed into law will help to protect our environment and markedly improve the quality of life for millions of Americans--all at a very low cost to the Nation's taxpayers.

Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Today, I am proud to introduce, along with my colleague Senator DeWine, legislation which will make our roads safer and last longer. Our bill, the ``Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act,'' will extend the current limited freeze of current truck size and weight limits set by states, which only applies to our 44,000-mile Interstate Highway System, to the entire 156,000-mile National Highway System (NHS). This extension will make more roads safer and will further reduce the wear and tear of our highways and bridges.

Fifteen years ago, I got a provision into the ISTEA highway reauthorization bill to ban triple-trailer trucks and other so-called ``longer combination vehicles'' (LCVs) from New Jersey and most other States. At that time and ever since, the trucking industry has fought to defeat and repeal this ban, under the guise of arguments for ``states' rights'' and ``unfair re-distribution of business to railroads.'' But these are not rational arguments for allowing larger and heavier trucks as well as triple-trailer trucks on our roads. Additionally, the trucking industry's proclaimed hardships have not materialized. In fact, the trucking companies have survived the current laws quite well, and trucks have refined their role in our national freight transportation system.

Anyone who has ever shared the road with a large tractor-trailer truck has probably wondered whether the truck driver is aware of the smaller vehicles around the truck. Anyone who has seen the third trailer on a triple-trailer truck swinging around in a 'crack the whip' fashion probably knows that these trucks are to be avoided.

Moving to the use of even larger trucks is not safe. The U.S. Department of Transportation has determined that multi-trailer trucks are likely to be involved in more fatal crashes--11 percent more than today's single-trailer trucks. By expanding the limits on triples and other longer combination

vehicles to the entire NHS including more than 2,000 miles of highway in New Jersey the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Protection Act will save lives and prevent further deterioration of our roads and bridges.

The State of New Jersey sees its share of the nation's truck traffic. And we are concerned about recent projections that show the amount of traffic increasing considerably over the next 10 to 20 years. We are concerned about these 53-foot, 80,000-pound vehicles on our highways and the pressure from other states to increase weight and length limitations to allow larger trucks to come through our State. This makes truck safety even more important to New Jersey drivers.

Triple-trailers and other LCVs do more damage to our roads and bridges but don't come close to paying associated maintenance and repair costs. Currently, some 37 percent of bridges in New Jersey are considered structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Their average age is 42 years old. But the fees, tolls, and gasoline taxes paid by the operator of a 100,000-pound truck only covers 40 percent of the cost of the damage that truck does to our roads and bridges; taxpayers make up the difference. I believe that motorists should not have to share the road with these dangerous behemoths and pay for the extra damage they cause.

In the 108th Congress, the Senate passed portions of this legislation in the highway reauthorization legislation package. I believe that if we act to pass this legislation, we can make a big difference in the lives of people who share our highways with large truck traffic.

I thank my colleague Senator DeWine for once again joining me in sponsoring this important legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress to improve highway safety and increase the remaining life of our country's roads and bridges.

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

Mr. President, I rise to support the contention of the junior Senator from California that we have to take a very hard look at this. We are trying to demonstrate the virtues of democracy to Iraqis and Ukrainians and other people around the world who are struggling to be free. People must have confidence that our election results are unassailable.

Unfortunately, questions have been raised in the Presidential election of 2000 and in the Presidential election of 2004. At this point, I want to be clear: I am not challenging President Bush's victory in the State of Ohio. Neither has Senator Kerry. But there have been reports of systematic voter disenfranchisement and other problems in Ohio, such that we would be derelict in our duty if we failed to investigate it.

Yesterday, Congressman John Conyers, ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, issued a report of problems that occurred in Ohio. Some of the problems he reported include problems with voting machines in predominantly minority, Democratic-leaning wards, which caused people to wait 10 hours or more in the rain. One precinct was forced to close at 9:25 in the morning because its voting machines were not working. The Ohio Republican Party suppressed the turnout of minority, Democratic-leaning voters by engaging in preelection caging tactics, tactics which were declared illegal by a Federal court.

Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, a Republican, deviated from election law by severely restricting voters' access to provisional ballots. He went so far as to reject voter registration applications based on paperweight and texture. Those actions and his complete unwillingness to cooperate with Congressman Conyers' investigation are deeply troubling. His actions are troubling, particularly because he didn't just serve as the chief election official of his State; he also cochaired the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio.

Allowing a State official to oversee a Federal election and simultaneously serve as a partisan campaign official for a candidate in that election is a blatant conflict of interest and we have to put a stop to it. That is why later this month I am going to introduce the Federal Election Integrity Act, a bill to prohibit State election officials from overseeing Federal elections in which they play a partisan role on behalf of one of the candidates.

Secretary Blackwell is now running for Governor. He recently sent a fundraising letter to potential Republican donors. I think his letter underscores the need for my bill. The first page of his letter tells the story. In part, it says:

I have no doubt that the strong campaign we helped the

President run in Ohio . . . can easily be credited with

turning out record numbers of conservatives and evangelicals

on election day.

It is not surprising that many people have no doubt that Secretary Blackwell also ran a strong campaign against other voters, namely minorities and Democrats.

Americans need to believe their election officials are beyond reproach. Allowing such officials to serve simultaneously in a partisan campaign capacity seriously undermines that confidence. That is why, regardless of what happens today, I will introduce the Federal Election Integrity Act. It is a step we can and should take to restore confidence that our elections are fair and the results are accurate.

I don't believe the objection the junior Senator from California has raised will be sustained this afternoon, but that doesn't mean we should not discuss the problems that precipitated the objection and do something about them in the future to assure that when the votes are counted, we know everybody has had a fair chance to cast their ballots and that there hasn't been any tinkering with them.

I yield the floor.

I also have a question for the Senator from Maine, or for any other Senator who helped draft this important provision in the bill. Would the Senator yield for a question about who else would be involved in the negotiated rulemaking?

I will address this question to the Senator from Connecticut. In reading section 7212(b)(4)(B), I see that the negotiated rulemaking committee to be established by the Secretary of Transportation has to also include ``interested parties.'' What does the author of this provision understand to be the intent of this category?

I thank the ranking member and also the chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee. I am pleased that they agree that it is important that representatives of interested parties have a seat at the table, and I would emphasize that the negotiated rulemaking committee should also include organizations with technological and operational expertise in document security, in addition to organizations that represent the interests of applicants.

Mr. President, I rise to express my approval of this much-delayed 9/11 intelligence reform bill. As a conferee on this important legislation, I am proud of what we produced. The terrible consequences of the 9/11 attack will never be forgotten, but with the passage of this bill future generations will be safer from terrorist attack.

On a personal basis, I, like so many from my State of New Jersey and our region, knew people who perished, families who were torn apart, people who still feel the pain of their loss.

I want to thank Senators Collins and Lieberman, and Representatives Hoekstra and Harman for their efforts to get a strong bill. This was a roller coaster conference, but well worth the effort.

The 9/11 Commissioners also deserve our appreciation for their steady leadership and thoughtful input during this process.

Last, and most importantly, I want to salute the 9/11 families for their dedication to getting this legislation done. I especially want to thank the Steering Committee of 9/11 Families and the so-called ``Jersey Girls.'' Had it not been for you 3 years ago, the 9/11 Commission would have never been established. And were it not for you now, this bill would have never passed.

Mr. President, we can finally look the 9/11 families in the eye and say: ``We have delivered.''

This 9/11 bill is the most significant piece of intelligence legislation we have passed in 50 years.

The last major reform was the National Security Act of 1947, signed into law by President Truman.

While the process of compromise resulted in a bill that did not adopt all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, this new law will bring significant improvements in our intelligence system for the better.

Mr. President, the 9/11 Commission recognized a need to have one person in charge of our intelligence community, to prevent the kind of miscommunica-

tion that occurred before 9/11. This bill addresses this important issue by creating a Director of National Intelligence (DNI) with real authority over America's 15 intelligence-gathering agencies.

This bill gives this intelligence director principal authority over the estimated $40 billion intelligence budget and gives that person the power to establish clear priorities for the intelligence community. The bill makes clear: the buck stops with the DNI.

This bill also creates a National Counterterrorism Center that will lead our counterterrorism efforts. It will be staffed by terrorism experts from the CIA, FBI, and the Pentagon. The Center will coordinate terrorism intelligence from throughout the government, breaking down the walls that have too frequently prevented agencies from sharing important information in a timely manner.

The bill bolsters border security, particularly improving aviation, air cargo, and maritime security. It also strengthens border surveillance, increases the number of border patrol agents and immigration and customs enforcements investigators.

This bill also has some provisions to safeguard our civil liberties by establishing a ``Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.'' Although I do not believe that this board has quite the independence and power that I wanted, I am hopeful that the Board will help ensure that new regulations and policies do not violate privacy rights or civil liberties.

Mr. President, despite the bipartisan support for this bill, it has faced a difficult road. To be honest, we were ready for a vote on November 20. A strong majority of the conference committee approved this bill and we were ready to go. I signed my name to the conference report at that time.

But later that same day, we found out that the House Republican leadership would not move forward on the bill. The reason? Because two Republican Congressmen didn't like the conference report.

Mr. President, in my view, the delay in passing this bill was unnecessary and unwise. Every day this bill was dragged out was a day that made our communities less safe.

The House Republican leadership nearly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. But thankfully, in the end the families and the 9/11 Commission made their voices heard, and we have reached this milestone today.

Mr. President, my home State, New Jersey, lost 700 of its citizens on 9/11. There is little we in Congress can do to heal their pain. But today, at least we can do something to help prevent such a tragedy in the future.

Mr. President, I rise today to thank Robert (``Bob'') Kenney, a lawyer with the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, for his significant contributions to my office this year as a Brookings Legislative fellow. We will miss his contributions, experience land knowledge, but it is heartening to know that EPA's rank and file includes dedicated and capable civil servants like Bob.

Bob has worked at EPA for over 30 years implementing our clean air, clean water, and toxics laws. This is Bob's second year as a fellow in the Senate. In 1990, he helped draft parts of the Clean Air Act Amendments, the Oil Pollution Act, and Clean Water Act. He ill return later this month to his role as senior counsel at EPA, and I hope his experience in the Senate this year proves helpful to him in his future endeavors.

I would like to mention some of the specific contributions Bob made to my office and to our country. Bob took the lead in developing legislation I am introducing today to amend the Oil Pollution Act. Two weeks ago, my home State of New Jersey suffered a devastating oil spill in the Delaware River. The consequences for our natural resources and economy will take some time to assess, but it is clear they will be substantial. In response to that s Dill and to provide incentives to shippers to shift to safer double-hull vessels faster, the Oil Spill Liability Act of 2004 would phase out the liability cap for single-hull tankers. The bill would double the liability limits for double-hull vessels and facilities since those limits have not changed since they were established 14 years ago. I thank Bob for his hard work on this important bill.

Bob also took the lead on the brownfields tax provision that was successfully added to the JOBS bill which became law this year, Public Law 108-357. We all have so-called brownfields in our States--the long- abandoned manufacturing facilities--and we know how important it is to get these properties cleaned up and put back productive use. My amendment provides developers interested in brownfields with greater access to capital--alleviating what developers say is their number one problem when it comes to investing in these properties and sites. It does this by exempting funds which originate with tax-exempt entities, such as pension funds and university endowments, from being subject to the ``unrelated business income tax'' or UBIT, when those funds are used to clean up and re-sell large brownfield properties. This provision will give developers access to up to $7 trillion in assets. It represents a tremendous opportunity, potentially, for new jobs and a cleaner environment.

Based on Bob's research and recommendation, I worked to ensure that fiscal year 2005 funding to control the Asian longhorned beetle, ALB, ended up being more than triple the President's budget request. The ALB is a wood-boring insect native to China and Korea that has invaded New York, Illinois, and New Jersey via shipping containers. The beetle kills a wide variety of hardwood trees, but has a preference for sugar maples. In New Jersey, this insect's lethal damage to our forests is spreading, and these extra funds will help to combat that destruction.

I also thank Bob for his work on the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail, a Coastal Restoration bill, a bill to protect captive exotic animals, and many other projects. It has not been an easy year to promote, what I believe, are common sense environmental protections and initiatives, so we did not achieve all the successes we had hoped for during the year. But Bob's impact will last far beyond his stay here in the Senate.

It has become fashionable in some quarters to bash Government employees. This is unfortunate and unfair. I have to say that since I became a United States Senator, I have been impressed by the hard work and professionalism of the public servants I have encountered. Bob is no exception. He has tremendous expertise, he is diligent, and he obviously cares for our country. I appreciate his service during the past year he has been a member of my staff, more importantly, I appreciate an entire career spent in selfless service to our Nation. I extend my best wishes to Bob as he returns to EPA and resumes his career there.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Oil Spill Prevention and Liability Act of 2004. This bill encourages the oil industry to speed up the shift to double-hull tankers by phasing out liability caps on oil spills involving single-hull tankers. My bill also updates the liability caps--which haven't changed since 1990--for all other oil-carrying vessels and facilities.

I am introducing this bill because on November 26, the Athos I, a foreign-owned, single-hull tanker, leaked up to 473,000 gallons of Venezuelan crude oil into the Delaware River near Philadelphia. It is the Delaware River's worst oil spill in a decade. The effects of this spill are clearly devastating.

Eighty-five miles of shoreline have been contaminated. Scores of shorebirds have been killed and hunting and fishing areas have been closed. The spill is approaching inlets used as sources for drinking water. Two nuclear reactors have been shut down because contaminated water could damage cooling systems.

The effect on our economy is immense. The Philadelphia/Delaware River ports have more calls by general cargo vessels than any other port system in the country. Now, restrictions have been placed on all ships entering the port, and ships leaving the port have to be decontaminated first.

The clean-up effort, headed by the U.S. Coast Guard, is remarkable.

I want to thank the men and women who are involved. More than 1,600 people and 145 vessels are working on this response effort. But we are told that it will take months to complete.

And because of the type of oil spilled by the ship--raw crude oil-- the ecological impacts of this spill could last for decades.

What is so infuriating is that this spill didn't have to happen. So why did it happen? Because the oil industry is dragging its feet when it comes to shifting from single-hull vessels to double-hull vessels-- that is why.

They are supposed to be doing that under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, a bill I co-sponsored. I also served on the conference committee on the bill.

The 1990 act was our response to the infamous Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, which devastated the pristine Prince William Sound of Alaska with more than 11 million gallons of oil.

We all remember the enormous cost of that spill to the community, the environment, and the economy--costs which continue to this day.

The 1990 act improved our ability to prevent and respond to oil spills.

Since that act was passed, we have not built any single-hull tankers in the United States. That is the good news. But the oil industry is still using old, single-hull vessels, and it is evident that the industry will continue to use them until the last minute, putting private profit over the public good. That is the bad news.

As of last year, 14 years after the most catastrophic oil spill in our Nation's history, there were still more single-hull tankers operating out of Valdez, AK, than double-hull tankers.

Apparently, the lessons of the Exxon Valdez have been lost on the oil industry. And now we are paying the price on the Delaware River.

When we passed the 1990 act, we gave the oil industry plenty of time to phase out single-hull tankers in an orderly fashion. But the industry hasn't acted in good faith. The fact is, the only way we are going to get the industry to stop relying on single-hull vessels is to lift the liability caps on their use.

That is why my bill phases out the liability cap for single-hull vessels by 2010, the same year the Coast Guard predicts that the Federal Oil Spill Trust Fund will run out of money. The Trust Fund has been used to clean up over 7,500 oil spills in nearly every State of the Nation.

Right now, the liability for the owner of the Athos I is capped at $45 million.

That may seem like a lot, but the full costs of this spill may continue to accrue for years to come.

Why should we cap liability for companies that insist on using old, unsafe single-hull vessels when they are supposed to be upgrading their fleets to newer, safer double-hull vessels?

The bill I am introducing today has several other features to help protect our ports and waterways from oil spills:

It requires more frequent inspections of older single-hull tankers. Other countries do this; why shouldn't we? Are we getting their rejects?

The bill would double liability caps set in the 1990 act for other oil-carrying vessels and facilities. This provision is extremely important since, as I mentioned, the Federal Oil Spill Trust Fund will run out of money by 2010.

Also, since many ports simply can't handle an interruption of commerce that could be caused by a major oil spill, the bill would require the Coast Guard to establish procedures for determining what types of vessels and cargo are just too risky for certain ports to handle.

I am pleased that Senator Corzine has joined me as a cosponsor of this bill.

I urge my other colleagues to support this bill, too. Single-hull oil tankers pose a titanic risk to our oceans, coasts, rivers, lakes, and ports; it is time we got back on the right course when it comes to fighting and cleaning up oil spills.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Oil Spill Prevention and Liability Act of 2004. This bill encourages the oil industry to speed up the shift to double-hull tankers by phasing out liability caps on oil spills involving single-hull tankers. My bill also updates the liability caps--which haven't changed since 1990--for all other oil-carrying vessels and facilities.

I am introducing this bill because on November 26, the Athos I, a foreign-owned, single-hull tanker, leaked up to 473,000 gallons of Venezuelan crude oil into the Delaware River near Philadelphia. It is the Delaware River's worst oil spill in a decade. The effects of this spill are clearly devastating.

Eighty-five miles of shoreline have been contaminated. Scores of shorebirds have been killed and hunting and fishing areas have been closed. The spill is approaching inlets used as sources for drinking water. Two nuclear reactors have been shut down because contaminated water could damage cooling systems.

The effect on our economy is immense. The Philadelphia/Delaware River ports have more calls by general cargo vessels than any other port system in the country. Now, restrictions have been placed on all ships entering the port, and ships leaving the port have to be decontaminated first.

The clean-up effort, headed by the U.S. Coast Guard, is remarkable.

I want to thank the men and women who are involved. More than 1,600 people and 145 vessels are working on this response effort. But we are told that it will take months to complete.

And because of the type of oil spilled by the ship--raw crude oil-- the ecological impacts of this spill could last for decades.

What is so infuriating is that this spill didn't have to happen. So why did it happen? Because the oil industry is dragging its feet when it comes to shifting from single-hull vessels to double-hull vessels-- that is why.

They are supposed to be doing that under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, a bill I co-sponsored. I also served on the conference committee on the bill.

The 1990 act was our response to the infamous Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, which devastated the pristine Prince William Sound of Alaska with more than 11 million gallons of oil.

We all remember the enormous cost of that spill to the community, the environment, and the economy--costs which continue to this day.

The 1990 act improved our ability to prevent and respond to oil spills.

Since that act was passed, we have not built any single-hull tankers in the United States. That is the good news. But the oil industry is still using old, single-hull vessels, and it is evident that the industry will continue to use them until the last minute, putting private profit over the public good. That is the bad news.

As of last year, 14 years after the most catastrophic oil spill in our Nation's history, there were still more single-hull tankers operating out of Valdez, AK, than double-hull tankers.

Apparently, the lessons of the Exxon Valdez have been lost on the oil industry. And now we are paying the price on the Delaware River.

When we passed the 1990 act, we gave the oil industry plenty of time to phase out single-hull tankers in an orderly fashion. But the industry hasn't acted in good faith. The fact is, the only way we are going to get the industry to stop relying on single-hull vessels is to lift the liability caps on their use.

That is why my bill phases out the liability cap for single-hull vessels by 2010, the same year the Coast Guard predicts that the Federal Oil Spill Trust Fund will run out of money. The Trust Fund has been used to clean up over 7,500 oil spills in nearly every State of the Nation.

Right now, the liability for the owner of the Athos I is capped at $45 million.

That may seem like a lot, but the full costs of this spill may continue to accrue for years to come.

Why should we cap liability for companies that insist on using old, unsafe single-hull vessels when they are supposed to be upgrading their fleets to newer, safer double-hull vessels?

The bill I am introducing today has several other features to help protect our ports and waterways from oil spills:

It requires more frequent inspections of older single-hull tankers. Other countries do this; why shouldn't we? Are we getting their rejects?

The bill would double liability caps set in the 1990 act for other oil-carrying vessels and facilities. This provision is extremely important since, as I mentioned, the Federal Oil Spill Trust Fund will run out of money by 2010.

Also, since many ports simply can't handle an interruption of commerce that could be caused by a major oil spill, the bill would require the Coast Guard to establish procedures for determining what types of vessels and cargo are just too risky for certain ports to handle.

I am pleased that Senator Corzine has joined me as a cosponsor of this bill.

I urge my other colleagues to support this bill, too. Single-hull oil tankers pose a titanic risk to our oceans, coasts, rivers, lakes, and ports; it is time we got back on the right course when it comes to fighting and cleaning up oil spills.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be extended to Bob Kenney, a Brookings Legislative Fellow on loan to my office from the Environmental Protection Agency, for the rest of today's session.

Mr. President, today marks the sixty-third anniversary of the horrific attacks on Pearl Harbor, HI, the first major attack on American soil by a foreign enemy since British troops set fire to the White House and the Capitol Building in the War of 1812. It was 60 years later, September 11, 2001, before the next attack took place on American soil. Pearl Harbor will always be remembered as the first incident to shock the collective psyche of our Nation out of its complacency.

Whether it could be classified as a terrorist act or otherwise, the attack on Pearl Harbor claimed the lives of 2,403 American servicemen. This event, perpetrated by a people who have long since reconciled their differences with America and the world, is a reminder to all of us of the sacrifices made by millions of individuals during this time of national peril. Their selfless actions and incredible courage in the face of extreme personal risk helped to ensure that the freedoms which are the bedrock of our country were preserved. We honor the memory of our countrymen who sacrificed their own lives, so others could live, and the families who lost loved ones in the attack. And we honor the survivors of Pearl Harbor, including the roughly 6,000 who are still alive today. We must never forget any of these brave Americans.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute and to recognize a New Jersey organization celebrating its tenth anniversary, the New Jersey Community Development Corporation, NJCDC. I wish to take a moment now to honor NJCDC for the important work it is doing in the State of New Jersey and the accomplishments it has achieved over the past decade.

The work of the NJCDC has helped make the dreams of New Jersey residents become a reality for over a decade now. The NJCDC provides hope for a rewarding future through urban revitalization efforts, financial support, education initiatives, and the creation of jobs. The work done by NJCDC has directly transformed the lives of many, especially in the city of Paterson, where I was born.

In honor of the accomplishments of this organization, I ask that a proclamation honoring the tenth anniversary of the NJCDC be printed in the Record.

The proclamation follows.

Whereas, the New Jersey Community development Corporation

is a non-profit community development and social service

agency based in the City of Paterson, New Jersey; and

Whereas, the New Jersey Community Development Corporation

and its dedicated staff empowers individuals to transform

their lives and offers a variety of programs and services to

assist economically disadvantaged individuals, at-risk youth,

and people with disabilities; and

Whereas, the New Jersey Community Development Corporation

helps create jobs, support affordable housing, generate

educational initiatives, and support men, women, and children

of the community; and

Whereas, the New Jersey Community Development Corporation

has contributed to the revitalization of the City of Paterson

and the Great Falls Historic District, helping to ensure a

vibrant future for the City and its residents; and

Whereas, now as the New Jersey Community Development

Corporation prepares to celebrate its 10th Anniversary, we

congratulate the staff and volunteers on this milestone.

Therefore, in presenting this citation to the New Jersey

Community Development Corporation, I, Frank R. Lautenberg,

United States Senator, State of New Jersey, on behalf of the

People of the State of New Jersey hereby congratulate the New

Jersey Community Development Corporation on its contributions

to the community, the City of Paterson, and the State of New

Jersey.

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

In our State of New Jersey, public hospitals are not allowed to deny abortion services to a woman. What effect will this new Federal law have on those women's rights accorded to them under State constitutions?

Can a doctor who works at a hospital that doesn't provide abortion services be prevented from providing a patient with a simple direction to say we don't do it, I won't do it, but there are places you can go and you ought to check the directory, or check Web sites and see if you can find a place to get this done?

If I may ask the Senator from California, the Senator is saying she has a commitment. Will that be expressed?

Will the Senator from California yield for a quick question?

Could you see that this information might be used in a political campaign?

Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to this sweeping gag rule with which we have become familiar. It is against women's health. It has just been slipped into the omnibus spending bill. Even though most of this country is pro-choice, the House Republicans have inserted radical anti-choice language into this legislation.

One thing I have learned in my time in politics is that if one of the parties is shameless, the other party cannot afford to be spineless. I am pleased that my colleagues have caught on to what is going on here and are trying to make sure we all understand what is in this huge bill we are looking at. It deserves a thorough examination.

I think the Senator from Maryland indicated that if you recognize some mistakes in this pile of paper, one thing you know is that there are many others that lurk in the voluminous bill before us. So the effect of this Republican provision to allow doctors to be gagged from even discussing abortion with their patients is outrageous.

This morning, I heard our majority leader, Senator Frist, say that the Senate should focus on ``putting the doctor-patient relationship first.'' But here the Republican majority is inserting language that would block doctors from even talking to their patients about legal medical procedures.

Under current law, if a doctor's religious beliefs prevent him or her from providing abortion procedures, then he or she cannot be forced to perform the procedure or even discuss it. That is called the conscience clause, and I think it makes sense. But what is in this omnibus bill goes way beyond the conscience clause. It is a gag rule that allows a hospital or an HMO to order its doctors not to perform, discuss, or even provide basic information on abortion, and that certainly is not putting the doctor-patient relationship first. That is putting politics first.

Even if a doctor believes that the information on abortion would be critical to saving the life of the mother, this new provision could be used to prohibit that doctor from providing such lifesaving information.

To put it simply, this is an outrageous attack on women's health and women's rights.

In addition, this Republican provision overrides State laws. I asked the Senator from California a question as she was making her remarks: Would this eliminate the possibility that even though in the State of New Jersey, my State, for example, if we allowed under our State constitution the right for a woman to have an abortion, that it could be overridden by Federal law if this becomes law. And the answer is yes--state's would not be able to enforce their own constitutional protections. I guess the Republican Party suddenly wants to preempt State or local law from ensuring a woman's access because it does not suit their agenda.

My State of New Jersey has such a law, but now our law would be overridden by this Federal gag rule, and that is totally unacceptable.

The provision goes so far as to say that any State or local government that attempts to enforce its own laws or policies in the area of abortion could have all of its Federal labor health and education funding canceled--cancel the funding for those essential services.

My only complaint is this is not States rights, it is State bullying.

One year ago, President Bush--how well I remember it, and I am sure most of my colleagues do--signed an anti-choice bill into law. It was an extraordinary event not just because of the terrible bill that he was signing into law, but also it was quite an image that appeared in newspapers across the country.

This is the image. Look at the image again: Smiling faces of all men--all men. Not one woman Republican or Democrat stood with them when the President signed that bill. They are all men, and it is downright frightening. I call this photo a ``male-a-garchy.'' This photo says to women: Your right to make choices about your health and your body is being taken back from you, and these men are doing it, right here, with smiling faces, and the President, with pen in hand, is signing the bill.

This trend is going to continue to be enforced by this bill today. The bill before us takes away the decision-making power from women and doctors, and puts it into the hands of men who lead hospitals, insurance companies, and HMOs. Supporters of this gag rule claim this policy change is necessary to make sure that health care providers are not forced to perform abortions.

I want to make it crystal clear that under current law, no doctor or nurse in this country is required to provide or discuss abortions against their will. Unlike the conscience clause, this gag rule does not protect doctors' rights, it takes doctors' rights away. Doctors have a duty to ensure that patients

have access to accurate information so that they can make the medical decisions that are best for them.

This bill would gag them from providing that information and denies women the right to understand all of their medical options.

Women have the right to access to medical information about all of their options, not just those that the ``male-a-garchy'' wants them to hear. So I say to women across this country: Be aware, the right to choose is in dire jeopardy. This bill today is yet another attempt to chip away at the right to reproductive choice.

Look at the size of the bill that we have just received. It is thousands of pages. Hidden within these pages is the attack on a woman's right to choose.

It is wrong to take away people's rights by slipping it into a giant spending bill without any debate, without any discussion, and concealing it in such a way that if we were not lucky and did not catch it, even though it was suggested we are studying all of these bills-- believe me, when there is that much paper and it arrives so late, one does not have time to do it, and it is just luck when it is found. To put it bluntly, it is not becoming of a democracy.

I am pleased the Senators from California have secured an ironclad agreement from the majority leader to take up this issue before the end of April of next year. We look forward to that debate. The American people deserve better. Open up the records. Talk about it plainly. Debate it fairly, and then if it comes to a vote, the people in the country will see who voted for and who voted against women's rights.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, earlier today, we were led to believe that we had an agreement with House conferees to pass a bill that will reform our intelligence community and make America safer from the threat of terrorism. Now we find out that House Republicans have killed the bill.

This morning, I was one of 11 Senate conferees--6 Republicans, 5 Democrats--who signed the conference report to the Intelligence Reform bill.

Remember: the conference report is to a bill the Senate passed 96-2. The bill the Senate passed, in turn, was based on the recommendations of a unanimous 9/11 Commission--5 Republicans, 5 Democrats.

Now, we find out that House Republican conferees have rejected the conference report. They have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

From what I gather, the problem is not with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Hoekstra, who has been leading the conference committee.

What these House Republican conferees have done is a slap in the face of the Senate, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, and the 9/11 families who have worked so hard to make something positive happen in the wake of a horrific national tragedy.

New Jersey lost 700 of its citizens on 9/11; I have to wonder if these House Republican conferees would be behaving differently if they went through what we in New Jersey went through.

I have been in the U.S. Senate for 20 years now. I have been involved in my share of conference committees. In all those years, I don't believe I have ever seen a little cabal of Members act more unreasonably. These House Republican conferees have killed a bill that 16 of 21 conferees have voted for. Talk about obstructionism.

The fact of the matter is that the conference report we were poised to adopt today is a far cry from the 9/11 Commission recommendations and the bill the Senate passed so overwhelmingly. But there is enough in the conference report to merit going forward. It creates a National Director of Intelligence with real budget authority; it creates a National Counter-Terrorism Center; it bolsters border and transportation security. And it has some provisions to safeguard our civil liberties.

It is time for truth-telling here. House Republicans and the Bush administration have been opposed to this bill from the start. And now they have gotten their way.

I think it is incumbent for the President and for the House Republican conferees who have killed this bill to sit down in person with the 9/11 families, look them in the eye, and tell them that the status quo--that doing nothing--is better than passing a bill so many people worked so long and hard to get.

We are told that we won't adjourn sine die today; that we will come back on December 6 to give the conferees more time to reach an agreement.

The House Republican conferees are absolutely intransigent. It is hard for me to believe that we will be any more successful in the next few weeks than we have been in the past several weeks. I hope I am wrong, but given the President's complete lack of leadership on this matter, it is hard for me to be optimistic.

I have to say I think what has happened is totally contrary to the principles of our democracy, as we turn the power of the people over to a couple of bullies who refused to accept a virtually unanimous vote of the U.S. Senate, the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and the will of the largest share of the American people as expressed by their elected representatives.

Mr. President, we could not help but note the sadness we all experienced as our friend and leader, Tom Daschle, made his goodbye speech. As usual, when Tom Daschle spoke, it had meaning, substance. He certainly had that as he closed his chapter here--I hope not his book, just his chapter.

He talked about things he cared about and people he cared about and what it is that drove him to take this job. Everyone knows how difficult a task being a leader in the Senate is. It is not always realized outside this Chamber how hard one has to work to please so many, to sacrifice so much in terms of personal life.

Tom Daschle, our leader, distinguished Senator from South Dakota, outstanding leader--not just for this side of the aisle but the entire country. He lost an extremely tough, close race a couple of weeks ago.

Tom Daschle is the stuff of which so many of our lives in the Senate are made.

It is a sad day. It is not just a sad day for me, who treasured the friendship I had with Tom Daschle, listened carefully to his words and followed, for the most part, the directions he portrayed for all Members here, it is a sad day, obviously, for Tom Daschle's family; it is a sad day for the Senate and a sad day for everyone in this great country of ours.

I said Tom is the stuff of which so many of our lives are made. It is quite hard to see in this place of splendor the route so many Members took to get here. There is a substantial difference in age between Tom Daschle and me but I had a similar experience. I was the first in my family to go to college. My parents were hard-working people. They did not work on a farm but they worked in the store. They worked in the mills. My father worked in the silk mills of Patterson, NJ, a factory town.

What was the legacy they imparted? It was to work hard, to believe in America, to believe in yourself. Try to achieve a degree of respect and dignity. That is what my father did for me, even after I had enlisted in the Army and he was on his deathbed from cancer. The messages were all profound: work, study, learn.

He took me into his factory one time and said: You must never work like this, so dirty, so dusty, so noisy, so dangerous. He knew it was dangerous, that there was something in the weaving of that silk fabric where they used chemicals to keep it from growing too brittle, to keep the machinery oiled. It took my father, his brother, their father, at very young ages.

When we hear Tom Daschle talk about his background, how his parents worked to provide him with not the funds but the incentive to make something of his life, to give something back to America, we know Tom Daschle is a model for so many to follow, with that commitment to decency and honor.

It is a sad day when we reflect on what happened in Tom Daschle's last race. He wanted to be here. We wanted him to be here. Tom has been an effective leader for us for 10 years. The Republicans threw everything they could at him, including some $20 million in that race, including some insults in recent days. And then to not permit the man to leave with grace and hold his head high--no, called him an obstructionist.

I know when the shoe is on the other foot what happens, when the minority has to fight like the devil to keep from being rolled over by the majority. We saw it when we were in charge. How I miss those days when we were in charge. The Republican Party, the minority party, they did their filibustering. They did their obstruction. They did the things needed to protect the interests they thought served their constituents, their States, and their country.

It was ungracious when the Republican side could not find enough of their Members to sit here out of respect. I remember being here when Bob Dole left and I could not wait to sit in my chair and salute his contribution to America and to this body, because, although Bob Dole could disagree with you, he was always interested in the well-being of the country. You saw it from the result of his service to country and the military.

I do not know why, in the closing days, some element of comity, some element of grace, some element of respect for a human being could not have gotten some of our friends out of their offices to come down to the floor. You saw the applause. The applause that I paid most of the attention to was from the people who work back here, the people who saw Tom Daschle at work every day. They know what he meant to them personally, to this country, to this institution. That is why they stood and applauded so vigorously. You saw Tom's colleagues standing here, hating to let go, hating to let him leave the room. They did it with their applause and their hugs, their glances, and their tears.

So we are sorry that the Tom Daschle segment of service to this country and to this body is over. As usual, as always, there was a characteristic graciousness in his departure, in acknowledging that he had lost the race. Everyone here has some sense of how painful it could be, especially being leader of the party, especially when they threw everything in the book at him that they could pick up.

It is not going to be easy to forget Tom Daschle. We are going to miss him. He had wonderful service to country. He served as an intelligence officer in the Air Force for 3 years. He won his first race. Many cited the chronology of his climb to leader of the Democratic Senate. He carved out a national reputation. People knew who he was, but he never forgot his South Dakota constituents.

We heard him talk about them. He talked about traveling to each of the State's counties every year as an unscheduled driving tour, where he stopped at the local clubs, the Elks Club, the cattle auctions, the health clinics, schools, cafes, police stations, or any other place where people could gather to hear him talk about what was on his mind, and to listen to them talk about what was on their mind.

Tom has been an effective legislator. His aim: to help his constituents, help his country, help those who were less fortunate across America. He fought hard for small farmers in his State.

We did not always agree. Those of us who come from an urban environment disagreed with some of the votes he took. But he always remembered from whence he came. He fought hard for the people that he believed in, for Native Americans from his State, veterans exposed to Agent Orange. I joined him in that fight because I always believed anyone who had any remote contact, no matter how remote or how short a period of time, with Agent Orange should be treated as any other veteran or any other soldier who had a wound because we know what Agent Orange has done to so many who have served so well, so loyally in a war we could not agree on, much like what we are seeing now in our country. And we had to respect his insistence that we remember these people, the seniors, and the people in the rural parts of the country where the economy has never really been robust.

Nature always takes its toll. But Tom insisted we fight back, that we make sure the farm community continued to exist in this country so we could produce the nutrition that is so vital--the products we all use so regularly.

And Tom is so young looking, soft spoken, self-effacing, and fundamentally decent. He was actually mistaken for a paperboy one time. But beneath that wonderful exterior, that almost placid view of things, there was a spine of steel. He could get up and fight hard and fight for the issues. His leadership for us--and, believe me, it was not easy. It is not easy on the Democratic side, it is not easy on the Republican side, I am sure, to pull everybody together because each of us has differences that come from our geography, from our State, from the culture within our States. But the fact is, Tom could get us together on the most difficult issues, not always 100 percent, not always in victory, but always with vigor and always with commitment.

Tom has devoted practically all his entire life to public service. We are going to miss his leadership, his counsel, and his friendship.

In my closing comments to him I said: We are saying kind of so long but hopefully not really goodbye. We want to hear from Tom Daschle. I have made a plea to him that he stays involved with the public interest. I hope he is going to do that. Tom will have many offers for commercial development and to make lots more money, but he feels an obligation down deep, as I would think most of us or all of us do here, to try to do something that counts.

I encourage him and his great wife Linda to get through this difficult, difficult period. It is not easy when you are the leader to lose a race. It is never easy, but it is particularly difficult when you have had leadership responsibilities.

So my message to Tom is: Tom, keep that spine of steel. Keep that interest that you have in the well-being of our society, in the belief that America can recover from all kinds of difficulties, some of the worst that we are facing right now. It is not just the war, as painful as that is.

I have a display in front of my office of young faces, of people, many of whom are in their teens, late teens, 18, 19. I enlisted in the Army when I was 18. I did not realize then I was such a baby. I realize now that 18 is so, so young. But I have those photographs there as reminders about what the price of this war really is. It is not just the financial side, which is enormous. It is not just the humiliation side, which is enormous, the humiliation because we failed to have the appropriate intelligence, intelligence to tell us even most recently how difficult Fallujah was going to be. We underestimated, and as a consequence the costs

are heavy. In the last week, we lost two people from New Jersey. We are now over 1,200 who have died in the course of that fight.

But again, Tom Daschle, and I think all of us here, have to continue to fight for what is right. We can endure our differences here. I will tell you what we cannot endure. We cannot endure the bitterness that exists across the dividing line here. We cannot endure the vitriol that is constant in this room of ours. We cannot endure the anger that exists. We have a cause that is greater than all of us.

I am not saying it all comes flowing this way, but I am saying it is unpleasant. I have now had 22 years since I arrived. It is now 22 years since I arrived in the Senate. I remember different days. I remember days when you could disagree and still be able to say hello without grimacing when you saw one of your colleagues. Lord willing, I hope Tom Daschle taught us some of that, with his graciousness, his characteristic willingness to listen and to understand and get back to you when a problem existed.

So, Mr. President, I am going to yield the floor, but I do want to talk about our other colleagues who are retiring in a few minutes. There are a lot of good people here on both sides of the aisle.

We are going to miss all of our friends over here, but I am going to miss Don Nickles. I have had a lot of fights with him, but I know he always knew where he wanted to go. I respected that.

Peter Fitzgerald, newer among us, but a gentleman to be noted, and Ben Nighthorse Campbell comes from a State I love. I have two grandchildren there. He is a decent fellow. We are going to miss all of them. I will talk about them later.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, our colleague from Alabama was generous enough to step aside and permit me to make a few remarks. I deeply appreciate it.

I talked before about Tom Daschle. I also will discuss the rest of our colleagues who are leaving the Senate.

When the 109th Congress convenes in January, nine of our current colleagues will not be here. I take a few moments to pay tribute to them. Collectively, our colleagues have served in the Senate for 144 years. We will miss them.

Fritz Hollings

First of all, Fritz Hollings, the most senior Member leaving the Senate at this time, had a distinguished career in public service. It started in 1942, the same year I joined the Army. After he graduated from the Citadel and he received a commission from the U.S. Army, he served as an officer in the North African and European campaigns in World War II. He had a lot of time in combat. He got the Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.

In 1948 he was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives. Ten years later, and still only 36, Fritz Hollings was elected Governor of South Carolina. As Governor, he showed his fearlessness and independence as a progressive southern Democrat, especially when he integrated Clemson University.

In 1966, Fritz was elected to the Senate. I don't have time to list all of the things he has done in 30 years in the Senate or 56 years in public office, but early in his Senate career Fritz focused on poverty and hunger that gripped the rural South and urban areas of the country. In 1968, he embarked on his now famous hunger tours. In 1970, he wrote about what he saw in a highly acclaimed book entitled ``The Case Against Hunger: A Demand for a National Policy.'' What a wonderful program that was.

He followed up by coauthoring a bill that created the special supplemental food program for Women, Infants and Children. We call it

It is amazing to see how many things Fritz Hollings has touched in his life. Once again, he will be sorely missed.

John Breaux

Another dear friend from the south, John Breaux, senior Senator from Louisiana, probably the Senate's consummate deal maker. I don't think anyone in this Chamber has ever worked harder to bring the two parties together on taxes, on health care, and especially our two biggest entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare.

He is the logical choice to chair the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare and the cochair of the National Commission on Retirement Policy. He has always been an effective champion for Louisiana's oil and gas, agriculture, and tourism industries, which is why his constituents have sent him to Washington with 60, 70, or even 80 percent of the vote. He was only 28 when he first won a seat in the House in 1972. With 14 years in the House and 18 years in the Senate, he spent more than half of his entire life as a Member of Congress doing the public's mission.

We will miss his Cajun humor, his legislative savvy, and his tireless dedication of bringing Republicans and Democrats together for the good of all America.

Bob Graham

Another esteemed colleague from the South, Senator Bob Graham, the senior Senator from Florida, is clearly one of the State's most popular elected officials. He won two terms as State representative, two terms as a State senator, two terms as a Governor, three terms as a U.S. Senator, with a 9-9 record. For a short time he put his hat in the ring in the recent Presidential race. He had a 9-9 record of elections dating back 38 years.

Like Senator Breaux, Bob Graham has worked diligently to forge bipartisan solutions to the most pressing problems. He is a fiscal conservative, dedicated to strengthening and improving Social Security and Medicare. Bob Graham is the author of a comprehensive, bipartisan plan to restore the Everglades, a plan that created an unprecedented partnership among Federal, State, and local governments and private industries to reverse the damage done by fragile ``River of Grass'' decades of dredging, dumping, and destruction. He has fought hard to protect Florida's coastline from oil and gas exploration.

One of the things that made Bob Graham so popular has been his determination to spend time working side by side with people he represents. Over 30 years he has worked 400 workdays. On those workdays--and most have seen him in costume--he has worked as a police officer, railroad engineer, construction worker, fisherman, garbage man. I don't think I would have taken all the jobs he did, but he did them wonderfully and endeared himself to his constituents. He was a factory worker, busboy, teacher. If Bob does not want to retire, I am sure he will be able to find some kind of work. He is experienced in so many fields.

John Edwards

The senior Senator from North Carolina, John Edwards, has streaked across the political firmament like a shooting star. Six years ago, he was a trial lawyer who won a Senate seat in his first try at elected office and 2 weeks ago he was very nearly elected Vice President.

John Edwards, like Tom Daschle, was the first person in his family to graduate from college. His father worked in the textile mills. His mother held several jobs, working in a post office, running a furniture refinishing business. After he graduated from the University of North Carolina Law School, he put his formidable legal skill to work for ordinary people as a trial attorney. He was good at it. In 1997, he won the largest personal injury verdict in North Carolina history, $25 million, for a 9-year old girl injured by a swimming pool drain the manufacturer knew was faulty.

John proved if there is injury or damage, take it to a jury of your peers. Let them make the judgment regarding careless operation of a piece of machinery or automobile. The damage is incalculable in terms of a monetary value. So John Edwards did what he ought to do. He protected those who had recourse for terrible damages that they incurred.

John knew what it was like for that little girl's parents I just talked about because he and his wife lost their 16-year-old son. His name was Wade. He died in a car accident.

When he got to the Senate, John continued to fight for working-class Americans, and despite being a freshman Member, he was a principal author of a Patients' Bill of Rights bill which passed the Senate in June of 2001.

He also fought hard for his constituents, securing more than $250 million in disaster funds following Hurricane Floyd in September 1999.

I don't know what the future holds for John. One looks at that face, and sees such a young man. He is only 51 years old, and to me that is like a child. But somehow or other I do not think we have seen the last of him.

Of course, his first task is to help his wife Elizabeth get through her bout with breast cancer. We send our prayers to both of them, for her quick and complete recovery. He and Elizabeth have the good wishes and prayers of each and every one of us here in the Senate.

Mr. President, I will talk about a couple of my friends on the Republican side.

Don Nickles

I have had my differences with Don Nickles. We both have served on the Budget Committee, and it is hard to believe that he, at his tender age, has been here for 24 years. He is still so youthful looking. As a matter of fact, the two Senators from Oklahoma at one point in time did not equal the age of one of the Senators from South Carolina. They are both very young. But he was so young when he came here in 1981. He was barely 32.

On the subject of age, if I might digress, after 30 years of business I never dreamed I was going to be here 24 years, Lord willing. And for my friends on the Republican side, don't count me out at the end of 24 years.

I worked with Don Nickles for many years on the Budget Committee. He has been a passionate, articulate spokesman for conservative causes, but he has always been a good opponent, a gracious opponent. The Senate is going to miss his energy and his knowledge.

Ben Nighthorse Campbell

Another friend from the other side of the aisle is Ben Nighthorse Campbell, the senior Senator from Colorado. He is one of the true originals in the Senate. He is one of 44 chiefs of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. He served our country in Korea. He is a renowned jewelry designer, athlete, trainer of champion quarter horses. He participated in the 1964 Olympics as a member of the U.S. Olympic judo team.

He was elected to the Colorado State legislature in 1982, serving for 4 years before coming to Washington. He has livened up the place with his string ties, beautiful jewelry, and his Harley Davidson motorcycles. And he has been our conscience when it comes to meeting our treaty obligations to Native Americans.

Peter Fitzgerald

Peter Fitzgerald, the junior Senator from Illinois, like me, came to the

Senate after a good business career. He has been here only for one term but in those 6 years he established a solid reputation as an independent Member, committed to doing what he thinks is right, even if it puts him at odds with other members of his party.

He and I serve on the Governmental Affairs Committee, and I have been impressed by his willingness to hold hearings on scandals and malfeasance in the mutual fund and insurance industries. Perhaps because of his business background, he understands the importance of effective oversight by the Federal Government.

I regret he is leaving. He has been a gentleman, and it is too bad that we do not have more like Peter Fitzgerald. He is a wonderful person to work with. He has got a ready smile, and he is a gentleman at all times.

I close my remarks by noting that these men have made remarkable contributions to our society, and all Americans should be grateful. I would tell those who are retiring, I retired 4 years ago, and I did not like it. So here I am. Perhaps there is hope for any of them who want to rejoin. If you want to come back, I am here to tell you it can be done. Just make sure that you get to keep your seniority.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank my colleagues for their indulgence while I made my remarks.