Floor Statements

Mr. President, I congratulate The New Jersey Alliance for Action on its 30th Anniversary. For three decades the Alliance for Action has been New Jersey's foremost advocate of investment in infrastructure to benefit my home state's economy, environment, and overall quality of life.

New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the nation and we need to continually update infrastructure to help support our growing population. Most importantly, however, is that everyone at Alliance for Action understands how important their mission is. The organization is dedicated to working with legislators of both parties to accomplish their goals.

With the population of the United States and the world increasing rapidly, it is important to have organizations such as New Jersey Alliance for Action which works to support New Jersey's residents.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the New Jersey Alliance for Action on their 30th anniversary.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we are going to have a couple of amendments voted on very shortly. Our good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and I have had a private colloquy. He has been very fair in his review of the amendment I originally proposed. He has a different amendment, and he will speak to his amendment.

I would like to amend my amendment. I am going to ask unanimous consent if it is possible to make a modest amendment to the amendment I already have at the desk.

I hear my colleague and respect his ability to make a decision.

Thank you very much.

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

I have a question, Mr. President, for my colleague. The question is, Was it going to be a second-degree amendment or were these going to be independent, first-degree amendments?

Mr. President, what we have just seen is a vote on the constitutionality question which ought not be the primary point. The question is whether the American people can see pictures of those flag-draped coffins in tribute to those who gave their lives in service to their country.

President Reagan, in 1993, understood it clearly. He publicly received the bodies of 241 marines who were killed, and there were photographs galore. And during the Afghanistan war, during this administration, flag-draped coffins were filmed. And during the Kosovo conflict, President Clinton was on the tarmac to receive those dead. But this requirement, this directive requiring strict censorship issued just as the Iraq war began prevents the American people from seeing the truth about what is happening.

I urge my colleagues to face their constituents back home and tell them it was not appropriate for the media to photograph coffins, flags on top, in tribute in Dover, DE. It is an outrage to permit that to continue.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3291.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I rise to offer a fairly straightforward amendment to this bill. The amendment will change the flawed policy that currently prevents media access to the arrival of deceased military personnel from overseas. I include access by the families as well.

On the eve of the Iraq invasion, the Department of Defense issued the following bizarre directive:

There will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage

of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing

from Ramstein (Germany) Airbase or Dover (Delaware) base.

With this order, the administration effectively blocked images of flag-draped coffins from appearing in the media coverage of this war. It is very hard to understand that decision. I and my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Corzine, went to Arlington Cemetery this week to honor the funeral and burial of one of four New Jersey guardsmen who were killed last week. I was struck by the ceremony. I have seen such ceremonies before, but in Arlington it has a special significance. Thousands of our comrades in arms from different wars are at rest there. But in the formal ceremony, it was particularly noteworthy that the flag was handled by the honor guard in such a way that every fold, every edge was perfectly handled by this obviously well-trained honor guard. When the final recipient among the guard was handed the flag, folded in triangular form, he took it, almost reverently, and carried it over to the mother of this young man who was killed. What a touching moment.

Even though there were no direct photographs, it is permanently etched in the minds of those who viewed this ceremony. The symbolism of the American flag covering the coffins of those killed doing their duty has been televised as never before, and journalists are embedded in tanks with combat units. But by the order of the Pentagon, the solemn homecoming of the dead--a time-honored tradition--was forbidden to be photographed or to appear on a television screen. Perhaps--just perhaps--the American people might believe that the reports on the deaths of our soldiers are somehow exaggerated, and this time-honored respect for giving one's life in battle for his country--an honor by having a flag draped over that coffin--was going to be ended. In seeing these coffins, the American public would make it impossible not to share the sorrow of the families who received them. You didn't have to know who was in that coffin, or the family, to know there was another American hero being returned to his country.

Seeing the returning coffins prompted a national sense of shared pain and sacrifice and despair. But during this war, the administration has chosen to fence itself in and ban cameras not only from the central military morgue at Dover Air Force Base but also make it difficult for the press to access the Walter Reed Army Medical Center here in Washington.

I visited Walter Reed this week with Senator Corzine after we left Arlington Cemetery. We felt it was appropriate to visit with those who were wounded and being treated at Walter Reed from the same contingent, from the Guard company that was attacked so ferociously. We talked to the soldiers who were there with their families. When you see the pain and suffering of those people, you realize how brave and courageous they had been.

I talked to one man, who is now sightless, looking blankly into space. His wife was sitting there with him. He thanked us for visiting. He said he would never again see his 20-month-old daughter. But that would not prevent him from holding her in his arms. He was anxious to get back home to do that. He wanted to return to his fatherly status. He talked of his faith and loyalty to his country. That is a message that ought to go out across America. Why should the press be deprived from an orderly visit, prearranged, to talk to a young man like that, to see the incredible spirit that accompanied this man's faith.

As a result of the current policy at the Pentagon, the over 830 service men and women who died in Iraq passed through a politically imposed void hiding the truth. Even during the Afghanistan war, flag- draped coffins were filmed, and during the Kosovo conflict, President Bill Clinton was on the tarmac to receive U.S. dead.

In 1983, one of the most revered people in American history, President Reagan, personally and publicly received the bodies of 241 marines who were killed by terrorists in Beirut, Lebanon.

I believe the current Pentagon directive is an attempt to manipulate public opinion or make this war pass something that is called the ``Dover test,'' as the Pentagon itself has coined it.

The Dover test dictates that the Pentagon should suppress images of coffins returning from overseas in order to prevent the American people from seeing the real sacrifices that are being made.

The current policy has nothing to do with the privacy of the deceased or their families, as the administration claims. Rather, this policy has everything to do with keeping the country from facing the realities of war, shielding Americans from the high price our young service people are paying.

My amendment is straightforward. It simply instructs the Department of Defense to work out a protocol so that the media can respectfully cover the return to the United States of these heroes who died serving their country.

The amendment specifically states that the new protocol must preserve the dignity of the occasion and protect the privacy of the families. I agree with that statement. The amendment requires the Pentagon to report to Congress on the new protocol within 60 days of enactment of this bill.

The American people deserve to know and see the truth about the cost of the war in Iraq. My amendment will bring an end to this shroud of secrecy cloaking the hard, difficult truth about the war and the sacrifices of our soldiers.

Our soldiers are fighting for democracy, fighting for a free press in Iraq. Yet our Government is censoring the press here. It is not right and is out of line with American values.

My amendment is supported by leading media associations, including the American Society of Newspaper Editors, and in my view, we should embrace a free press in this country and not fear it. There are heroes who have made the ultimate sacrifice in this war for our country. Let's not censor the honor they earn when they return to our shores.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I yield the floor.

Yes. I did say President Reagan made a point of welcoming the bodies back to this country, 241 of those marines who died in Beirut, and I pointed to the fact that this President, to whom we just said goodbye and who was revered by so many in this country, felt in his heart that it was something he should do. It is so contrary to what is happening now. It does not make sense to me.

I thank my colleague and friend from Virginia. We have shared many experiences. One of them is reaching a particular age when memories go back a long, long time.

The recall that the Senator from Virginia just delivered to us about President Reagan's sensitivity and the part that my friend was able to play, viewing all of that and trying to expedite things, it is a wonderful recall as to what happened with a very sensitive President.

I traveled to Beirut--and that was my freshman year in 1983--and I was there between the killing of the 241 and the killing of 8 more that the Senator recalls a few weeks later. It was a disastrous scene and left an impression that one can never forget of these young people in their sleep taken from us. I never recall hearing one family saying too much exposure resulted from that. I did not hear anybody ever say to the public, my son, in an unidentified casket, should not be honored in a generic way with his comrades who also are fallen in pursuit of an American objective.

As the Senator was recalling his views and offering this amendment, I looked at some information we have, a New York Times/CBS poll from September 2003 that found 62 percent of Americans said the public should be allowed to see pictures of the military Honor Guard receiving the coffins of these soldiers killed in Iraq as they return to the United States. There were 27 percent who said no.

In response to our good friend's concerns about whether families might be inconvenienced if they are called to Dover, DE, or perhaps embarrassed somehow or another, they do not have to go. That is not what my amendment says. It says that media should not be prohibited from going there and taking a picture and saying here is a picture of unknown heroes.

We walked in Normandy together just a week ago, and I saw lots of crosses and Stars of David. I looked at some of the stones and saw a lot of them had a New Jersey home when they left, but I looked at one stone and it just gave me such a shock because it said on this stone, here lies a valued comrade known but to God.

The unknown soldier of a family who lost a brother, a son, a father will never know what happened to them, but they were respected in that piece of turf with their colleagues who had fallen.

I get very emotional when I think about the days that I enlisted in the Army. I was 18. My father was on his deathbed, 42 years old. My mother was about to become a 36-year-old widow, and what it meant to me to join with all of my other comrades to try to do something. The promise I had from the Army was they would give me until my father's death so I would know that I would be home with my mother.

I went, and although I did not serve in active combat, lots of people I know

died. We were attacked by German bombs constantly. Those days meant so much. Then there were the opportunities that were given to us: a college education, an opportunity to serve our country even more forthrightly.

So when I look at veterans and visit the hospital, I see a fellow who has one limb remaining, a prosthetic on his arm, prosthetics on his legs, learning to walk that way, I say, by God, what a price we paid. How dare we not honor them in the most obvious ways.

I hope I can have a talk with my friend and colleague from Virginia-- not to cover this issue with anything but a determination to say if someone has died for their country and we take that flag and put it on that casket, they have received the honor of their country, every one of the 280 million citizens we have here. When that flag is placed there it says your country loves you and they are terribly saddened by what happened to you. I believe that practice should be made obvious to the public. It is not the display of the coffin I am looking for; it is a display of our honoring this individual. It is the way to do that.

I hope the good Senator's second-degree amendment can stand alone. Let this first amendment be considered. It is just to say we are not going to hide anything. The public is going to know that in that box lies a young man or a young woman who gave his or her life in pursuit of the country's interests.

Toward the end of my amendment I use the term ``died.'' That is an appropriate correction. I would certainly accept that.

I wonder if the Senator from Virginia would confirm at this point that we will vote on this amendment whether it carries the second degree or it does not?

In those days the Germans would knock down the wires and I would put them up, they would knock them down, I would put them up, but somehow we survived.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a critical national security amendment that I have cosponsored. I commend the leadership of Senator Kennedy and Feinstein and I join them today in offering an amendment that will eliminate funds in this year's budget for research and development on nuclear bunker buster. This amendment also deletes funding for the advanced concepts programs--money authorized for research on small nuclear weapons.

Mr. President, I am disappointed that this administration has requested these programs for this year's Department of Energy Budget. First and foremost, the development of these new weapons are not needed; the U.S. already has 6,000 deployed nuclear weapons. But most importantly, a U.S. decision to proceed with a new generation of nuclear weapons will undercut international non-proliferation efforts and undermine the United States' credibility on global security.

We are currently facing a new type of national security challenge; our greatest goal is to prevent the nexus of terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. As such, it is imperative that this country's defense and foreign policy reflect a firm commitment to every aspect of non- proliferation and arms control. Destroying and preventing the spread of current nuclear warheads remains a critical component of this commitment. So too is preventing the development of new types of nuclear weapons and materials, however small they might be and however limited their use.

We invaded Iraq to change a regime that we were told posed an imminent threat to global security. The administration assured us that not only had Saddam amassed an arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, but he was also actively pursuing nuclear weapons as well. We have so far lost 840 American men and women in this effort but have yet to uncover traces of WMD programs in Iraq. I find it truly bizarre and hypocritical that the administration would plan to build new types of nuclear weapons at the same time it pursues military operations abroad with the purported objective of destroying similar materials.

In our global war on terror, the last thing we need is more nuclear weapons. What we need are more troops on the ground protecting Iraqis and providing stability. What we need is better intelligence and law enforcement and enhanced efforts to collaborate with our allies on both priorities.

Instead, the administration has decided that researching and developing new types of nuclear weapons is a priority. How we can credibly ask North Korea and Iran to stop their own nuclear programs while at the same time we develop mini nukes and bunker busters?

Let me respond to three points the administration makes in support of its dangerous nuclear requests:

First, the administration says the Pentagon must study bunker busters for the war on terrorism; only the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), it claims, could be used against suspected underground bunkers containing weapons of mass destruction. They say our amendment will tie the Pentagon's hands in the war on terrorism. This is not true. The administration's scenario in which the new nuclear explosives are used against suspected underground bunkers containing biological, chemical or nuclear weapons is highly improbable. Our intelligence about the location of WMD materials is not precise enough to destroy it this way. Just imagine launching nuclear bunker busters based on weapons intelligence as unreliable as that circulating before the Iraq war. Even if underground sites were accurately identified, the resulting nuclear explosions could spread the blast, radiation, and toxins over populated areas.

Moreover, current conventional weapons in our arsenal can destroy these materials. And if we really care about the threat of WMD, then the proposed research money ought to be going to fund better weapons intelligence and improved conventional methods for putting these WMD sites out of commission, like blocking air intakes and external energy sources.

Second, administration officials claim that the bunker buster funding and the mini nuke funding is just for feasibility studies and research and development, not for use. They claim that we are opposing the important scientific advances involved in researching these weapons.

With nuclear weapons, any materials researched and developed must be tested. You cannot understand the physics of nuclear weapons without tests. Currently, the U.S. is a signatory of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits testing nuclear weapons. If we test our new weapons, even at an early non-useable stage of development, we are immediately breaking this treaty and inviting other countries that are signatories to break this treaty as well.

Finally, the proponents of the nuclear funding say that the administration's request only deals with a small amount of money--$9 million for the mini nukes and around $30 million for the bunker busters. Relative to a Defense Budget for 2005 projected to surpass $440 billion dollars, they say that the sum in question--the sum our amendment will delete--is insignificant.

This is also patently wrong. First, the Fiscal Year 2005 budget contains $9 million for mini nukes, which is a 50 percent increase from last year's request. What's more important is not the sum, but the intent. The administration has made it clear that it wants this money to create---and I quote the Pentagon ``a more useable'' nuclear weapon. This funding, however small, sends a dangerous message to other members of the nine country nuclear club that the U.S. is intending to use our nuclear arsenal.

Second, with the bunker buster, in May 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld said that the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetarato program ``is a study. It is nothing more and nothing less.'' This study was planned to cost $15 million for fiscal years 2003-2005. Yet this year, the Administration requested $27.6 million for the study, and suddenly revealed that it planned to spend $485 million over the next five years. That is not insignificant at all.

I just returned from attending a celebration of the 60th anniversary of D-Day in Normandy, France. The most important military and political lesson learned from the D-Day battles was the necessity of international cooperation. I believe that this great example of multi- lateral cooperation should be remembered and applied to current events, in Iraq and elsewhere. The world watched in awe as young, dedicated soldiers from several countries fought side by side on those beaches and cliffs that launched the events that would rid the world of fascism.

Today, the administration's unilateral foreign policy and marginalization

of the United Nations has fractured this alliance of democracies. Our relations with Europe are tense and our public standing in the world an all-time low. I believe that funding nuclear weapons in this year's budget will only provoke further antagonism between the United States and our allies.

I urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy-Feinstein amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a very important amendment to the Defense authorization bill. I have worked with my colleague from Connecticut to draft an amendment that will reimburse U.S. troops serving in Iraq and Central Asia and their family members for flak jackets, weapons and other equipment they have bought out of their own pocket.

At the beginning of this war, the President claimed, ``We must always make sure that America's soldiers are well-equipped and well trained to fight this war on terror.'' However, the administration has not provided the adequate equipment the troops need to do their work, such as enough body armor or the most up to date Global Positioning Systems,

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

Mr. President, I wanted to be sure to have an opportunity to make some comments about President Reagan before we went out of session tonight. I will take the opportunity to do so right now.

I join with my colleagues, so many of whom have already spoken, in tribute to our Nation's 40th President, Ronald Reagan. My first term in the Senate coincided with the last 6 years of his Presidency. I had the opportunity to work with him on several occasions. As someone who came from modest beginnings and a working-class family, I understood the fact that he rose from his humble beginnings to become one of the crucial world leaders. He was respected greatly. I had a chance to work with him on several occasions, not the least of which was something as simple as raising the drinking age to 21 across the country, thereby saving thousands of families a year from having to mourn the loss of a young person in their household. The bill was signed in the morning at the White House, and I was pleased I was able to return from a convention in San Francisco in time to be there and share those good moments with President Reagan and then-Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole.

We did a lot of good for families across America with that legislation, and also offered support to say to those who would pollute our environment, ``If you pollute, you must pay to clean it up,'' and that was Superfund. It had a very important beginning in those days.

President Reagan is appropriately being remembered for his overpowering sense of optimism and rock-solid faith in the fundamental goodness of America. Many of his actions stand as examples of ideas that we ought to consider as we carry out our responsibilities in Government. There was no doubt that he was the Great Communicator, and his ideas and his words will long be remembered.

I just returned yesterday from the D-day celebration and commemoration in Normandy. No one will ever forget President Reagan's speech 20 years ago at Normandy commemorating the 40th anniversary of the D-day invasion; it will be permanently etched in our memories. Or his poignant remarks when the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded, and how he helped America recover from that terrible national tragedy. Or who can forget his insistence that helped break the iron grip of the Soviet Union on millions of people around the globe?

President Reagan was known for his ideological zeal. But the interesting thing about him at the same time was that he ultimately was a pragmatist. Perhaps the clearest example of his pragmatic side is what happened after he pushed through a massive tax cut in Congress in 1981. One thing that President Reagan disliked enormously was Federal budget deficits. He thought the idea of borrowing from future generations was truly repugnant.

On the campaign trail in 1980, he promised he would work to balance the budget. When he took office, he argued that a tax cut was necessary to stimulate the economy. He believed the Federal Government would end up with more, not fewer, revenues. But when the revenues didn't materialize as predicted, and the Federal Government began running huge annual budget deficits, his pragmatism took over and he followed his 1981 tax cuts with tax increases that were necessary in 1982 and 1984, determined to reduce the burgeoning budget deficits. His tax increases were a tacit admission that the plan wasn't working as expected. He was pragmatic enough to change the course.

His personality was so unique for someone in that high office. As Mikhail Gorbachev wrote in Monday's New York Times op-ed page, President Reagan was ultimately someone with whom you could negotiate. His suggestion was that he was human enough, he was collegial, funny, and gracious, and you could discuss serious issues with him and accomplish goals.

One of President Reagan's last great acts of public service was to acknowledge 10 years ago to the American people and to the people of the world that he was suffering from Alzheimer's disease.

He handled his affliction with his customary grace, saying that he was sharing the news with the public in the hope that it might ``promote a greater awareness of this condition.'' That was a courageous thing to do. He went on further to say that he hoped it might encourage a clearer understanding of the individuals and families who are affected by it. He really brought a focus on the disease that ultimately consumed his remaining years.

One truly meaningful way that we can honor President Reagan is to pursue the kind of research that might produce a treatment, or even a cure, for Alzheimer's disease and a host of other illnesses, something his beloved wife Nancy has called for. Since we witnessed the pain of the deterioration of this great individual, we have to be mindful of that for the future.

His life yielded so many more things, besides those obvious ones, during his service as President of the United States.

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

Mr. President, I want to talk for a little while about a matter that has come up regarding one of my distinguished colleagues who, like me, served in Europe during World War II, who was a very brave and proud soldier, and who was decorated for his service there. That is Senator Hollings.

Senator Hollings has served for some years in this body as a junior Senator, even when he was well into 70 years of age. That was one of the more unusual circumstances, although I think I, too, bring a junior status at a fairly advanced age to my being here as a freshman.

But in the delegation that is going to go to Normandy tonight, I am one of several who served in World War II. The other names are among the bravest of all: Senator Daniel Inouye, who lost his arm in Italy after being struck three times by enemy fire. And, as he described it to me, in one of those incidents he had not felt any part of the wound from the bullet which apparently passed through his body--a rifle shot through his body, or a machine gun shot through his body. He was knocked down. He got up to continue to lead his platoon into a murderous battle in Italy.

Although it took some 50 years for Senator Daniel Inouye to get his medal, it finally arrived. Those of us who were privileged to be here were so proud of Senator Inouye's service as

the medal was bestowed on him for the service he so bravely gave to his country.

It was noted also that even though Daniel Inouye, now Senator Inouye, was volunteering for service in the U.S. Army which at first was denied, he continued to be as loyal as he could to his country, brave and courageous. We are proud of the opportunity to serve with him and to know him as a friend.

In addition to Senator Inouye, Senator Hollings, Senator Warner--and Senator Stevens had an illustrious military record flying in China, Burma, India--and Senator Akaka and Senator Warner--all of us join together in the bond we received as a result of serving in World War II and being given then the privilege to serve in this distinguished body.

I want to talk about Fritz Hollings, a good friend of mine for more than 20 years, now the senior Senator from South Carolina, a good friend to all of us, an outstanding public servant, someone who has given more years to public service than some of the people who are serving here have. He was accused of being anti-Semitic because of an op-ed piece he wrote that appeared recently in the Charleston Post and Courier.

The charge has been made on the Senate floor by the junior Senator from Virginia who apparently heads up the National Republican Senatorial Committee and serves as the chief fundraiser for Republican incumbents and candidates for the Senate.

It is very unusual. Frankly, I don't remember in almost 20 years of service that one Senator issues a press release criticizing another for something the person did in a public press release. That tells us where it was going. It was going to politics.

I also heard the junior Senator from Virginia repeat the charge again earlier this week while he was a guest on the Don Imus radio show. The charge he leveled is outrageous. I encourage the junior Senator from Virginia to cease and desist.

I am a Jewish American and fully support the American-Israeli relationship, not because I am a Jewish American but because it is good for America. It is good for us to have an ally that is as strong as she is, an ally that is the only democratic society in the entire Middle East with over 100 million of those who would declare they are the enemy of Israel and the United States. Israel is a very valuable part of our support for freedom and liberty in this world.

I have known the senior Senator from South Carolina for almost a quarter of a century. I am proud of his longstanding service to the people of this country. I treasure our friendship. Although he will be leaving this Senate in January of next year, he will be missed. I certainly will be one of those who will miss him.

He is one of the strongest Senate supporters of the State of Israel and the American Jewish community we have. He doesn't just ``talk the talk.'' As an appropriator, he has ``walked the walk.''

Israel is safer and more secure as a result of the votes Senator Hollings has cast in the Appropriations Committee and on the floor of the Senate.

The senior Senator from South Carolina has a well-deserved reputation for candor. And, frankly, we could use a little bit more of that around here.

The op-ed in question is his candid assessment of why President Bush took us to war with Iraq despite the fact Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction or links to al-Qaida.

I want to make it positively clear I don't necessarily agree with everything the senior Senator from South Carolina said in the op-ed, but I reserve the right to disagree with the best of friends on an issue. But to construe the op-ed piece or its author as representing anti-Semitism is patently unfair.

Senator Hollings was critical of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and the journalist Charles Krauthammer for being three of the architects of a dubious policy to forcibly democratize the Middle East, starting with Iraq. They believe that such policy will make Israel more secure. That is something all of us want and need.

The problem with that policy is that it is not quite working the way the architects envisioned. This may have something to do with the fact that none of them, to my knowledge, have any combat experience. People who do have experience in combat, such as former President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, are a little more circumspect about what we can achieve and how we can achieve it.

I, too, have been critical of this policy which the administration swallowed hook, line, and sinker. I called for Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz and Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith to resign, along with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. Does that make me an anti-Semite? I would say not.

We are all kind of holding our breath right now as we wait to see the fallout from the resignation of Mr. Tenet, the head of the CIA, so abruptly, so quickly. We want to know what it is that caused that sudden change. He was a loyal, faithful servant. Perhaps mistakes were made. We will find out more about that very soon.

The bottom line is that these high-ranking civilian officials to whom I just referred in the Pentagon have misled America and they have let our troops down. Senator Hollings' contention that Israel is less secure as a result of this misguided policy certainly cannot be dismissed.

It is time for that cadre of people who run the Pentagon to go. It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It has everything to do with the fact that Iraq is becoming a quagmire and has already claimed over 800 brave young American men and women.

When I heard the junior Senator from Virginia attack Senator Hollings, I asked my staff to research his voting record with regard to Israel and other matters of concern to the American Jewish community.

The memo my staff prepared is 10 pages long. I could not find a single vote that could be construed as opposition to Israel or American Jews.

I will cite a few examples. In 1978, he voted against S. Con. Res. 86, a measure to disapprove the sale of jet fighters to Israel. He voted against the disapproval of the sale. The resolution was defeated 44 to 54.

In 1980, he voted to table an amendment to S. 2714, the foreign aid authorization bill, that would have withheld $150 million in aid to Israel because of the settlements being erected in the West Bank.

In 1981, he opposed President Reagan's decision to sell AWACs and other military equipment to Saudi Arabia.

In 1986, Senator Hollings supported Senator Byrd's amendment to H.J. Res. 738, the continuing resolution for fiscal year 1987 to ensure that funds appropriated for aid to the Philippines did not come at the expense of aid to Israel or Egypt.

Senator Hollings also supported recognizing Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. As the ranking member and former chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary, he has insisted that the annual appropriations bill under his jurisdiction contain the following three provisions: One, that people born in Jerusalem be allowed to list Israel as their country of origin; two, that all relevant official U.S. Government documents list Jerusalem as the capital of Jerusalem; and three, that U.S. policies treat Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

I note that these provisions have been eliminated in conference at the insistence of House Republicans and the administration.

Does that make them anti-Semites? Absolutely not. The Senator from South Carolina is eloquent and certainly able to defend himself and his record.

But when I hear his reputation repeatedly besmirched, the reputation and integrity of a man that I know to be one of the staunchest supporters of Israel and the American Jewish community, a man who fought hard, almost gave his life to defend his country, I will not sit by and be quiet.

To paraphrase our former colleague, Lloyd Bentsen: I know Fritz Hollings. Fritz Hollings is a friend of mine. Fritz Hollings is no anti-Semite.

To state otherwise goes beyond the pale of partisan rhetoric, even by the standards of a heated election campaign.

Frankly, I think the senior Senator from South Carolina is owed an apology, not just by the junior Senator from Virginia but from Senators who believe it was an inappropriate besmirching of character and reputation

dutifully earned by years and years of service to this country and certainly to this body. Silence on the other side, in my view, is implicit approval of what was said.

I hope we hear something different in the not-too-distant future.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute and to remember a courageous young lady from New Jersey, Ms. Melissa Anne Centrella. Sadly, Melissa passed away 2 years ago, at the age of 25, from complications due to a disease known as dystonia. Much of Melissa's short life was dedicated to battling dystonia, which affects more than 300,000 people in North America.

Melissa was diagnosed at an early age with dystonia, which is the third most common movement disorder after Parkinson's disease and tremor. This neurological disease is characterized by powerful and painful involuntary muscle spasms that cause twisting of the body, repetitive muscle movements and sustained postural deformities. Although she endured many painful medical procedures to treat her dystonia, Melissa never once complained. Instead, she became a part of the effort to find a cure for dystonia, so no one else would have to experience the pain she suffered in her short life.

Along with her mother Claire, Melissa worked relentlessly to establish the New Jersey Chapter of the Dystonia Medical Research Foundation. The chapter today holds many events to raise funds for dystonia research and promotes awareness of dystonia. I would like to salute the Centrella family for the work they have done to found and support the New Jersey Chapter of the foundation. Today, because of Melissa Centrella, her family and others who have fought alongside them against dystonia, we are closer than ever to a cure.

Mr. President, it is important that we recognize the fight against dystonia. Although there is not yet a cure for dystonia, we will continue the work of Melissa Centrella and remember her fight against this disease.

Madam President, if I may take just a few minutes to respond to the comments of our colleagues, to our majority leader, Senator Frist, and Tom Daschle, our Democratic leader, and other colleagues, including Senator Reid, Senator Bond, and Senator Warner, who is kind of a member of this clan of ours--to be with colleagues like Senator Stevens, Senator Inouye, Senator Hollings, and Senator Akaka, all serving together at the same time, it is hard to believe it was as many years ago as it was.

Senator Hagel, I thank him for his comments, as well, and Senator Dodd.

But it was a long time ago, and those who now are approaching 50 years of age remember serving when we were just kids. I enlisted in 1942 when my father was on his death bed with cancer. He was 42 in the year 1942. It was a duty that I felt keenly and I enlisted, even as my father was on his death bed. My mother was 36 years old.

I cannot remember any of my contemporaries who did not serve or who were not going to serve. There were 16 million in uniform. It was quite an assembly of Americans of all cultures and religions. We had one mission and that was to protect this world of ours from becoming a product of fascism.

While it was so many years ago, it is wonderful to be able to recall we were there. When I look at the actions of Danny Inouye, who among us is at the top, given the Congressional Medal of Honor, that is a distinction that is given to so few people. As I recall my many discussions with Senator Inouye--I hope my memory is accurate--he had been hit by fire, even as he got up to lead his platoon further on. That is bravery as few have it. He knew his duties had to continue because he had the responsibility of others he was in charge of.

Danny Inouye, as we all know, is modest to the core. He never brags, would never talk about his performance. Danny will always stand for what is right, but he never is in a position where he brags about his incredible service.

Fritz Hollings, similarly, got his stars, his clusters for his duty in so many different combat areas.

Mine was different. I was not in a combat unit. I, like so many others, performed my duties in a different place. Most of what I saw of World War II was from the top of a telephone pole. I was a pole lineman. My mission was to make sure the connections between those who were serving at the front and those who were issuing the orders from way back at command headquarters were clearly transmitted. I took my responsibilities seriously. Even as we were being bombed by B-1's and B-2's--for those who are not old enough to remember, one was a jet bomb and another was a rocket bomb. That was like a time bomb because you never saw it coming. It went off and did whatever damage it did.

The first jet airplane I ever saw in the sky was German. They were outdistancing our fighter pilots in minutes. They would just pull away. They would drop bombs wherever they could. This was my service primarily in Belgium.

When I visited the World War II Memorial--and, unfortunately, I was not there at the ceremony; I could not be, as I had longstanding plans, and I had to maintain those appointments--I visited with Senator Dole and Senator Inouye, Senator Hollings and Senator Warner, and Senator Akaka was there,

as well. Not to be critical, but I did not see anything that indicated how many died in different places, what were the regiments that fought these battles, what were the divisions, what were those who served on the seas doing at the time when the bombs were falling or the torpedoes were being sent.

It took my unit 3 days to cross the channel from England to France because they could not get the convoy stabilized enough to carry on.

I hope they will make some adjustments at the memorial to reflect the sacrifices that were made, other than in artistic terms. There is a wall of gold stars, each representing 100 deaths. Using quick multiplication, you could figure out 400,000 people died in combat or combat-related activities. We see New Jersey, we see New York, we see Virginia, and the other States; columns of granite, but not one indication of how many people came from the then-48 States and 6 territories. Did 10,000 die from the State of New Jersey? It is just a guess.

It would be important if we knew what happened. The memorial has a certain beauty. It is a tranquil beauty, however, and it does not talk to the smashing victories we had on D-Day or in the Belgium Bulge.

I was in Belgium at the time. I was not at the front line. The weather was abominable. It was gray and snowy and our troops were getting licked badly and we were moving back.

I was taken down to the railroad station, given ammunition, and they said: OK, Lautenberg, you and your unit have to go up there. Fortunately, with prayers supporting it, the sun came out and the Air Force got up into the sky, and they smashed the German line and moved it all back. It was the turning point in that stage of the war, December 1944.

We are all grateful to have survived, to be here, to be able to serve, to continue our service in this great body. I say to my colleagues, I am grateful to each one of you--each one of you who served, each one of you who made a difference in how this world of ours turned out, and each one of you who continues to serve. Even though we might have different opinions about quite how we do it, the fact is, we are here because we want to continue to serve our country. We are lucky to be in America.

I thank all of you, my colleagues, for the work you do.

Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the landmark 1954 civil rights decision of Brown v. Board of Education. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment prohibits States from maintaining racially segregated public schools.

In Brown, the Court upheld the principle that America is a land of laws, not men.

In Brown, the Court affirmed that equality, fairness, and justice are for all Americans, irrespective of race, ethnicity, color, or creed.

The Supreme Court found that the segregation of white and black children in public schools denied black children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment.

The Court reached this decision even if the physical facilities and other ``tangible'' factors of white and black schools were equal.

Of course, we all know that the facilities and resources were far from being equal.

It took courage on the part of the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the so-called ``separate but equal'' precedent that the Court had created in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson.

The Plessy decision concerned a 30-year-old shoemaker named Homer Plessy who had been jailed for sitting in the ``White'' car of the East Louisiana Railroad. Plessy was only one-eighth black and seven-eighth white, but under Louisiana law, he was considered black and therefore required to sit in the ``Colored'' car.

In Plessy, the Supreme Court found that laws requiring separate black and white railroad cars did not conflict with the thirteenth amendment which abolished slavery.

The Court held that ``a statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races.'' Consequently, the noxious notion of ``separate but equal'' took root in America.

The lone dissenter in the Plessy case, Justice John Harlan, wrote, ``Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.'' Justice Harlan was a half-century ahead of his time.

After years of arguing discrimination cases throughout the Nation, a team of NAACP lawyers, led by Thurgood Marshall, brought five case from Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Washington DC to the Supreme Court. Thurgood Marshall--one of the giants of American history--stood before the Supreme Court determined to rid this Nation of a ``failure of our constitutional system.''

In Brown, the Court ruled that in the United States and under the U.S. Constitution, ``separate'' is inherently unequal.

These words were profound then and there are equally profound today because when the Supreme Court struck down school legal segregation, it advanced the cause of human rights in America and set an example for all the world.

I just visited the ``Separate and Unequal'' exhibit at the Smithsonian. I was struck by how one of the displays put it: the Brown decision told Americans and the world that ``the American dream of ethnic diversity and racial equality under the law is a dream of justice for all.''

Although the Brown decision declared the system of legal segregation unconstitutional, the Court ordered only that the States end segregation with ``all deliberate speed.'' One dictionary definition of ``deliberate'' is ``leisurely or slow in manner or motion.''

This ambiguity over how to enforce the ruling gave segregationists an opportunity to organize what came to be called ``massive resistance.'' Many State officials in the South responded to the Brown decision by promising to use all legal means and resources under their command to prevent integration.

In Prince Edward County, VA, for example--one of the cases decided in the Brown decision--the school district's response was to close the public schools in Farmville for 5 years, from 1959 to 1964. White students enrolled in private schools while a generation of black children was denied access to education.

Over the 50 years since Brown, this Nation has continued to wrestle with issues of racial and ethnic equality.

As I stand here today to pay homage to the Brown decision and the civil rights struggle, I feel compelled to ask, ``A half-century after Brown, how far have we come? Where we are today, and where are we headed?''

Fifty years after the Brown decision, the struggle for equality has come to include not only racial and ethnic minorities, but also women, the disabled, and gays and lesbians. That is a promising development.

We need only remember that it is only this week when the Massachusetts Supreme Court's order recognizing gay marriages is given the full effect of law.

Since the 1954 Brown decision, we have made progress in the sense that Americans overwhelmingly repudiate discrimination and segregation.

But while we no longer see the blatant vestiges of the segregationist era such as signs saying ``whites only'' or ``colored only,'' our society is still plagued by inequality and injustice.

African Americans have yet to enjoy true racial equality in this Nation. And in the absence of real equality, African Americans are being denied the essence of what it means to be an American.

Statistics are the clearest barometer for measuring our progress and far too many of them reveal that African Americans continue to lag behind whites in important ways.

In April 2004, the Nation's unemployment rate was 4.9 percent for whites; for blacks, it was 9.7 percent.

In 2002, the poverty rate was 12.1 percent nationwide; for blacks, it was 22.7 percent.

In 1999, median income for white families was $51,244; for black families, it was $31,778.

Today, black men make up 41 percent of all prisoners, but only 4 percent of all college and university students.

African Americans are 13 percent of the population in my home State of New Jersey, but they constituted a staggering 63 percent of the State's prison population in 2002.

The murder rate for whites is 3.3 per 100,000 people; for blacks, it's six times as high, 20.5 per 100,000 people.

These statistics make it pretty clear that while we have come a long way from the blatant racism of ``separate but equal'' and the decision to close the Farmville public schools to prevent their integration, we still have a long way to go in making the dream of justice and equality for all Americans a living, breathing reality.

As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision, we need to rededicate ourselves to the civil rights struggle. As Teddy Roosevelt said, ``This country will not be a really good place for any of us to live in if it is not a really good place for all of us to live in.''

Mr. president, yesterday, the Comptroller General of the United States ruled that the Bush administration illegally spent taxpayer dollars for political propaganda in violation of two laws.

To make matters worse, these funds were taken from the Medicare Trust Fund.

In other words, money reserved for our seniors' healthcare was illegally used for political activity. It is outrageous.

The President has raised plenty of money for his campaign. Over 200 million dollars. Why does he need to use Medicare funds?

With taxpayer money, the Bush administration produced so-called ``video news released'' --fake news stories that hailed the new Medicare law--and distributed them to TV stations across the country.

This covert propaganda was never identified as being produced by the administration. As a result many news stations ran this story as real news and

viewers had no idea it was produced by the government.

The phony news stories show scenes of the President receiving a standing ovation before signing the bill into law and even end with a sign off from a fake reporter.

The GAO has said that these materials are illegal, but the money is already spent and that money will likely never be recovered unless we pass this legislation.

My bill calls on the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign to repay this money to the Federal Government. It's the right thing to do.

I have long said that this administration's so-called ``education'' campaign on the new Medicare law is fraught with questionable activity.

And now we know that they have in fact acted illegally. I think somewhere along the way they confused the word ``education'' with ``election.''

This is just the most recent incident in a long line of advertising by the Bush administration that the non-partisan GAO has called misleading and political.

If the Bush-Cheney campaign wants to spend funds dollars touting the new Medicare law, that's their prerogative--but they cannot use government agencies and taxpayer funds to do it.

I am all for educating seniors, but I will always guard against any misuse of taxpayer dollars, especially those reserved for Medicare.

I am here today to tell the President: Don't use the people's money to promote your bid for reelection. It's not only unethical, it's against the law. Taxpayer money should not be used for political purposes.

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

Mr. president, yesterday, the Comptroller General of the United States ruled that the Bush administration illegally spent taxpayer dollars for political propaganda in violation of two laws.

To make matters worse, these funds were taken from the Medicare Trust Fund.

In other words, money reserved for our seniors' healthcare was illegally used for political activity. It is outrageous.

The President has raised plenty of money for his campaign. Over 200 million dollars. Why does he need to use Medicare funds?

With taxpayer money, the Bush administration produced so-called ``video news released'' --fake news stories that hailed the new Medicare law--and distributed them to TV stations across the country.

This covert propaganda was never identified as being produced by the administration. As a result many news stations ran this story as real news and

viewers had no idea it was produced by the government.

The phony news stories show scenes of the President receiving a standing ovation before signing the bill into law and even end with a sign off from a fake reporter.

The GAO has said that these materials are illegal, but the money is already spent and that money will likely never be recovered unless we pass this legislation.

My bill calls on the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign to repay this money to the Federal Government. It's the right thing to do.

I have long said that this administration's so-called ``education'' campaign on the new Medicare law is fraught with questionable activity.

And now we know that they have in fact acted illegally. I think somewhere along the way they confused the word ``education'' with ``election.''

This is just the most recent incident in a long line of advertising by the Bush administration that the non-partisan GAO has called misleading and political.

If the Bush-Cheney campaign wants to spend funds dollars touting the new Medicare law, that's their prerogative--but they cannot use government agencies and taxpayer funds to do it.

I am all for educating seniors, but I will always guard against any misuse of taxpayer dollars, especially those reserved for Medicare.

I am here today to tell the President: Don't use the people's money to promote your bid for reelection. It's not only unethical, it's against the law. Taxpayer money should not be used for political purposes.

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

Mr. President, I send a modification to my original amendment to the desk.

If the Senator from Arizona will yield for a question, is a second-degree amendment still the proposal?

I thank the Senator.

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

Mr. President, we have had some discussion about what we can do to help raise the funds to finance our fight against terrorism. At this point, we are spending $5 billion a month in Iraq. I think if we wanted to really get some money raised to continue that assignment, which we must, then perhaps we ought to consider repealing the top tax rate cut for all millionaires and raise even more money for our troops than what has been offered.

I have an amendment. It has been modified. It is fairly obvious that we are talking around the issue. It is surprising that we cannot get together in an effort to dissuade companies, to prevent companies that are doing business with terrorist states from continuing to do that. My amendment says if a U.S. company owns 50 percent or more of a corporation, that it would be a violation of law for them to continue to do business with terrorist states.

I do not know what the concerns are about this amendment. It is fairly clear we are spending so much money, so much effort, and so many lives to fight terrorism. When we register concern about American companies doing business with these terrorist states, we seem to have created a climate that has people objecting and, frankly, I don't understand why.

When we talk about supplying revenue opportunities to Iran, we have to remember that they funded the 1983 terror attack in Beirut, killing 240 U.S. marines. We are talking about an Iranian Government that funds Hamas, Islamic jihad, and Hezbollah. I ask my colleagues whether there is anyone here who would stand up and tell the American people why we should be helping Iran. Is there anyone here who can explain how it helps our soldiers to make sure that funds and potential profits are funneled to Iran? How does it help our troops to make sure Iran has more money to pass on to terrorists? We want to shut that down.

My amendment offers a simple proposition: You are either with us or against us, and if we are serious about the war on terror, then we have to cut off every revenue source we can of those sponsors of terror. President Bush said himself, ``Money is the lifeblood of terrorist operations.'' He is right. We know that terrorist groups, such as Hamas and Islamic jihad, are funded by Iran and other rogue states, and we need to cut off that funding opportunity.

Terrorist operations cannot survive without funds, and that is why our sanctions program is so critical. No American business should provide revenues to state sponsors of terror, and the nations that sponsor terrorism need to learn they will be denied business opportunities as long as they are funding terror groups.

Right now, American companies are doing business with terrorist states through foreign subsidiaries, and we must stop this practice. As long as this loophole is in place, our sanctions laws have no teeth.

We know that many companies find tax loopholes or regulatory loopholes that they exploit from time to time, but in this case, we are talking about companies exploiting loopholes just so they can do business with terrorists--sham corporations.

I urge my colleagues to look at this chart because it demonstrates how companies utilize this loophole.

If a U.S. corporation has a foreign subsidiary, they can send money to Iran. Iran can then send money to support Hezbollah or Hamas in their terror, suicide bombings, with their interests in developing weapons of mass destruction. We all believe that is in the works now. We should not in any way permit these companies--American companies created here, earning their living here, the executives earning their bonuses here--to be able to get some of that money as a result of sending funds to places such as Iran and other terrorist states.

U.S. companies often have several subsidiaries, and most U.S. companies

and their subsidiaries do not cross the line that prevents business with terrorist states, but some do.

President Bush also has declared that Iran is part of the ``axis of evil,'' and he couldn't be more right. My amendment says that if we are going to impose sanctions on rogue nations such as Iran, then let's be serious about it. Let's make sure Iran is isolated for their sponsorship of terrorism.

In addition to the 240 marines who were brutally murdered in their sleep in 1983 in Beirut, Iranian-backed terror killed these 2 young American women, 22-year-old Sara Duker and 14-year-old Abigail Litle. They were traveling in Israel. Sarah Duker was a constituent of mine from Teaneck, NJ. A summa cum laude graduate of Barnard College, Sara was killed with her fiance when the bus she was riding on in Jerusalem was blown up in 1996 by Hamas. Again, Hamas receives funding and support from the Iranian Government.

Last year, 14-year-old Abigail, originally from New Hampshire, was riding home from school in Haifa when her bus exploded as a result of a suicide bombing. That attack killed 15 people and was directly linked to terrorists funded by Syria and Iran.

Iran sponsors terrorism, and they glow in that relationship. They love to let the world know they are out to harm Americans. The terror they help fund has killed hundreds of Americans and yet American companies are utilizing a loophole in order to do business with the Iranian Government. I want to close the loophole.

It is inexcusable for U.S. companies to engage in any business practices that provide revenue for terrorism. The bottom line is that big businesses, even those with financial ties to the top members of our Government, do not get a free pass in this war on terrorism.

I hope that when my amendment comes up for a vote later on that all of my colleagues will step up and ask the questions of themselves: Why do we want to promote anything that would send funds to Iran or other rogue terrorist nations? I cannot understand why that would be.

There are laws that say it should not happen, but they lack teeth. The process does not work. So I urge my colleagues, when the opportunity comes a little later in the day, to pass this amendment to close a terrorist funding loophole.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues please to permit us to have order in the Senate. We don't have much time to talk about this. I would appreciate the opportunity to speak.

Mr. President, please try to help us maintain order.

This is very quick, very simple. My amendment is straightforward. Current sanctions law has a loophole that permits foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies to do business with nations that sponsor terrorism, such as Iraq. My amendment closes the loophole. It is that simple. It only applies to foreign subsidiaries in which U.S. parent companies have a majority interest.

The question is, do we want U.S. companies to sell oilfield equipment through a sham foreign subsidiary to a country such as Iran--which the President has rightly called the axis of evil--so Iran can sell its oil at greater profits and funnel those profits to Hezbollah, Hamas, or Islamic Jihad, terrorist groups that killed 240 marines in Beirut, Lebanon.

These two young women in this photo, from New Jersey and New Hampshire, were killed in Israel by terrorist activities sponsored by Iran. It is very simple. The amendment says: Are you with us or against us? If you are with us and want them to stop killing our kids in Iraq, then you have to stand up and say, yes, this amendment counts, and, yes, we want to close this loophole. We just had a vote relating somewhat to my amendment. I hope my colleagues will stand up and say close the door.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I just want to say I thank my colleagues who worked so hard to get this legislation passed. But I want everybody to remember that this vote that was just taken said it is all right to do business with Iran. Look at the list of the dead and missing and see whether it is all right to vote for companies that sell to Iran. When we had a chance to close the loophole, the party lines were clear. No, stick with the companies. Forget about those who are serving in Iraq. Forget about those kids who want to come home in one piece. That is the kind of vote that just took place, and I hope the constituents back home will note it and remember it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill for his courtesy and understand that when my remarks are finished, a request will be made to lay the amendment aside. For now, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment that is vital to the purpose of this Defense authorization bill. This bill supports our men and women who are on the front lines of the war on terrorism throughout the world. They are paying a terrific price. They are doing it bravely and courageously. We want to make sure there are no opportunities to circumvent rules that would permit any business to go on with terrorist countries.

My amendment focuses on a key component of the war on terror; that is, to deny terrorists funding and support. My amendment will close a loophole that allows U.S. companies to do business with terror- sponsoring nations such as Iran. Senators Feinstein, Clinton, Corzine, and Feingold are cosponsors of the amendment.

As my colleagues know--and we just heard from the Senator from Arizona about his concern with the behavior of some of the rogue nations, including Iran, who are planning terrible things in their public statements for the United States--American companies are supposed to be prohibited from doing business with Iran. But by creating shell companies as foreign subsidiaries, these companies are making a mockery of our sanctions laws and providing revenue for the financing of terrorist acts. It is wrong. It has to stop, and this amendment would do just that.

Immediately after the attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush told the world, ``You are either with us or against us.'' Pretty clear. That same message should apply to people in our own country, including those in our corporate world.

We know many companies find tax loopholes or regulatory loopholes they exploit from time to time. But in this case, we found U.S. companies exploiting loopholes so they could do business with terrorists.

President Bush also said, ``Money is the lifeblood of terrorist operations.'' He is right.

If U.S. companies do business with rogue states like Iran, they are generating revenue for those who supply money and other resources to terrorists. They are also sending a message to these countries that they are not really isolated, as they should be, and that the United States, in some form, finds their behavior acceptable.

We have passed laws, such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which make it clear U.S. companies must not do business with terrorist states. The vast majority of American companies abide by that law. However, a few companies have exploited a loophole that allows them to do business with Iran and other rogue nations.

If we look at this chart, we see the structure or format that permits this to happen. Once they form a subsidiary company that doesn't have the same restrictions on doing business with Iran we have, that money can be earned, revenues can be generated that help these countries, help Hezbollah and Hamas, and they brag about it constantly.

This placard demonstrates how companies utilize this loophole.

U.S. companies often have several subsidiaries. Most American companies and their subsidiaries do not cross the lines that prevent business with terrorist states. But some do, and here is how they do it.

Some U.S. companies set up a foreign subsidiary for the specific purpose of gaining revenues from terrorist states. The reason is the sanctions laws prohibit the parent company and its foreign branches from doing business with terrorist states. Foreign subsidiaries, however, are not mentioned in the law. This omission has not gone unnoticed by corporate lawyers. It has been identified as a major loophole that allows companies to do business with rogue states.

We know a few American companies are using this loophole to do business with the Iranian Government. This is the same Iranian Government President Bush said is part of the axis of evil. This is the same Iranian Government that directly funds organizations

like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad--all terrorist organizations, according to the State Department.

Now, for a moment, I ask my colleagues to look at the young faces in this photograph. One of these young women is Sara Duker, a young woman who lived in New Jersey until her death. The other is Abigail Litle. Sara was a constituent of mine. She was a 22-year-old from the town of Teaneck, NJ; a summa cum laude graduate of Barnard College. Sara was killed with her fiance when the bus she was riding in Jerusalem was blown up in 1996 by Hamas. Hamas receives funding and support from the Iranian Government. Iranian terrorists caused the deaths of many American citizens abroad, including the 240 Marines who were brutally murdered in their sleep in 1983 in Beirut. They also took the lives of these two young American women, Sara Duker and 14-year-old Abigail Litle.

Iran sponsors terrorism. The terror they help fund has killed hundreds of Americans. Yet American companies--it is hard to believe this--are flaunting the law in order to do business with the Iranian Government. It is wrong, but it is not technically illegal yet. This amendment would change that.

I say to my colleagues this is a loophole we must close. We have to tell both our friends and those who continue to sponsor terrorism we are serious in our efforts to battle this evil.

It is inexcusable for American companies to engage in any business practice that provides revenues or profits to terrorism. We have to stop them. We have a chance to do that today with this amendment.

The bottom line is big businesses, even those with financial ties to top members of our Government, do not get a free pass in this war on terrorism. No one in America wants to give these countries any advantage they could restrict them from.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, close the terror- funding loophole, pass this legislation, and send out the message we are against any help for terrorist nations that might occur.

I understand the request I agreed to earlier is to permit another amendment to be considered. I will honor that commitment, and I want to make sure we have an understanding that at an appropriate time we will have a discussion and further review of my amendment.

I yield the floor.

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