Floor Statements

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 408 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I offer this amendment for myself, Senators Boxer, Corzine, Chafee, Reed, Sarbanes, and Murray.

In short, if we believe that polluters should pay for the contamination they cause, everybody ought to vote for this amendment. It will restate the original taxes created to support the Superfund trust fund as well as two additional taxes signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. It also increases the total Federal revenues by at least $15 billion over 10 years and will reduce the deficit accordingly.

Without the tax, the general fund will have to contribute $1.5 billion to continue the Superfund Program. We cannot afford that. But we cannot abandon Superfund either.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the polluter-pays approach.

Mr. President, my amendment establishes a reserve fund for national defense and homeland security. The amendment is necessary because the budget resolution actually cuts defense spending by $103 billion below the President's request over that 10-year window. That is according to CBO and SBC. From 2004 through 2008, the Republican budget assumes defense spending at the level requested by the President. But the last 5 years of the budget window, from 2009 through 2013, the Republican budget resolution cuts $103 billion below the level CBO estimates.

I ask that my friends on the Republican side of the aisle be very careful when they look at the Republican message. It says the Lautenberg amendment reduces the growth package by $103 billion in budget authority and $88 billion in outlays. They don't say that the budget comes from the tax cuts.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about an amendment I plan to offer when the opportunity presents itself. My amendment establishes a reserve fund for national and homeland security. My amendment is cosponsored by Senators Conrad and Schumer as well.

This budget reminds me of a movie I saw some time ago, not intending to present any humor, but it is precise in what it says: ``Show Me The Money.'' Everyone understood immediately what they were talking about. Here we are, searching for the money to pay for our defense needs and the war with Iraq. It is nowhere to be found.

I was the ranking member of the Budget Committee for several years. There is one thing you learned on that committee, simply wishing for money does not make it appear. This must come as a shock to people who in their regular lives try to set money aside for future expenses such as mortgages or tuition or rent or real estate taxes. We all have to budget for our critical needs.

The war with Iraq has started. We see the pictures of our troops and you wonder how they put up with the heat and the dust, the threat to their lives, the ominous presence, perhaps, of chemicals or biological weapons. There is plenty to think about. But for God's sake, we ought to think here about how we provide the money to prosecute that war. It has to sound strange to people listening to what is said in the Senate this morning.

We have an obligation to tell the American people how much and where the money is going to come from to finance the war and to finance our domestic security needs. At critical moments in history such as this, we ought to be truthful with the American people about what it is we are doing.

The truth is, this budget does not provide the funding to prosecute our war with Iraq. It is a simple equation. We are shortchanging national security spending and the costs of the war in order to protect a tax break, largely for the wealthiest.

I want people to understand. We are going to prosecute the war, and we are going to do it fully, but we ought to tell the truth to the American people about how we are going to pay for it. The money to pay for this war is not provided in any place we look. It is a tax cut that people understand is going to the wealthiest among us. I want everyone to know the money that would be used to prosecute this war is going to go to another priority; that is, a tax cut for the wealthiest. A tax cut that,

as we heard from the Senator from North Dakota, a tax cut people with wealth typically do not need, and I can tell you most of them do not want it when they recognize it comes from the very foundation of our strength in this country.

The Senate GOP plan ignores the cost of war. We are going to look at a supplemental, which is in addition to the budget, that was not planned for. But with less than a wink of an eye, everyone knows the war otherwise will not be prosecuted out of the funds available for the Defense Department. That is what we are looking at. From $60 billion to $95 billion is expected to be requested in a supplemental plan. The present Senate budget plan does not provide for any of it.

My friends in the business world are people who run big companies, some of them little companies, but they run organizations and they know how important it is to fund your critical needs.

My amendment corrects a major problem with this budget. My colleagues may not realize that the Senate Republican budget resolution actually cuts defense spending by $103 billion below the President's request.

We have heard a great deal of talk about patriotism from the other side of the aisle. We have even seen it raised in the ugliest of fashions, in an election where a triple amputee who lost his limbs in Vietnam was accused of lacking patriotism and lost the election. Imagine, a triple amputee, a man left with one arm, the legs are gone, one arm is gone, and he is accused of being unpatriotic. Language flows loosely around here at times.

We have heard a lot about putting national security and homeland first above all, and at times when the defense budget was being prepared it was suggested if you challenged it, if you voiced some concern about it, if you questioned the tactic being used, there was an implied criticism that you were not being loyal, that you might be like the French. Talk is loose here.

I served in another war, a long time ago, and they used to have a slogan ``loose lips sink ships.'' Boy, we would not have a lot of ships afloat here.

When you examine the details of this budget, it is apparent that it is tax cuts for the rich that have the highest priority. In fact, this budget cuts national security funding in order to provide those tax cuts to the wealthy.

I had a business career before I came here. Thank goodness for the American opportunity, we succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. We were three poor kids from working-class families in Patterson, NJ. The company did very well. Today a company that we started employs 40,000 people.

Mr. President, it is obvious that a company with that kind of growth, that kind of success, produced some wealth for the founders. It did. And I can tell you I do not want a tax cut for myself and I don't think people in my position ought to have tax cuts right now. America has been good enough to us that we do not need the tax cut. We need a strong country. We need a harmonious population where people know they are being treated fairly and that we are not putting everything else aside so we can give a tax cut to people who neither need it and in most cases don't want it.

There are sleight of hand maneuvers in this budget. If you look at the years 2004 through 2008, the Republican budget projects defense spending at the level requested by the President. But in the last 5 years of the budget window, from 2009 through 2013, the Republican budget resolution actually cuts $103 billion below the levels CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, estimates would be required just to maintain defense spending in real terms at the level the President proposed. During those latter 5 years, where is that missing $103 billion going? The answer is--I don't want to be repetitive, but this is so hard to understand, so impossible to conceive that we have to say it a lot because it does not get through. But maybe, just maybe, the American people will hear this clearly enough to say:

Hey, listen, I have heard some pretty good presentations

this morning.

I am discounting mine. I am talking about others here.

They keep talking about this tax cut for the wealthy.

That is what we are talking about, Mr. and Mrs. American citizen. That is what we are talking about. The tax cut in this bill over 10 years will cost this country $1.4 trillion.

Are we cutting defense for this tax cut? Whom does that help? Let's look at the facts about the President's tax proposal. Almost half of all tax filers, 49 percent of them, would receive tax cuts of less than $100. That doesn't do much for people's standard of living.

The average tax cut for the bottom 80 percent of tax filers would be $226. That is the average tax cut. By contrast, the top 1 percent of tax filers would receive an average tax cut of $24,100. But those who are at the tippy top, with incomes of more than $1 million, would get tax cuts averaging $90,200. That could make a difference in one's standard of living, but not for those folks, they are already living at that scale. That is why I call it skewed towards the wealthy.

As for another part of the tax cut proposal, the dividend tax cut, nearly 70 percent of the benefits would flow to the top 5 percent of our tax filers, and the top 1 percent would receive 46 percent of the benefits--1 percent would receive 46 percent of the benefits, nearly half of the benefit to the top 1 percent.

So the priorities are quite clear: Tax cuts for the wealthy first; national security, when it comes to the money, further down the list. That is just plain wrong.

There is a reason it is being handled that way. I do not suggest lack of patriotism, lack of loyalty, lack of conviction on this war. I just know that in the planning, in the machinations that go toward developing the budget, what happens is someone says: Hey, guys, do you know what happens? If we don't get that tax cut in the total package, we are not going to get it. It is just not going to happen. It's a lot easier to get money for the war, a lot easier to get money for our defense, homeland defense needs. We can get that in supplementals or other places. A tax cut, we had better get that now, while we can.

The President laid out his request for accomplishing these goals. But what did the Senate Republican budget do? It sacrificed funding for national security in order to provide tax cuts for the rich, as I explained. The process took over. To make matters worse, this budget ignores the fact that we have gone to war. Every one of us is glued to the news, whether it is the papers or television or radio or whatever it is; we want to know what is happening with our troops. We worry. We heard about a Black Hawk helicopter that went down. I know I must speak for everybody. We are holding our breath until we learn that those who were carried in that helicopter were rescued.

The White House has told the press that it will happen, that we are going to need the money. Again, I used to be ranking member of the Budget Committee, so I know my colleagues on that committee read the newspaper.

The administration is about to send up a war supplemental request to us of between $60 and $95 billion. It is not in the budget, it is supplemental. It is extra. You can make the case pretty easily. It is one thing to make the case because of the need. It is another thing to make the case because you want to put the funds that are available in a lot of rich persons' pockets.

This war and its aftermath will cost a lot of money. Estimates are that the reconstruction of Iraq could cost $30 billion over 10 years. Every year of Iraqi occupation could cost between $17 billion and $46 billion. As far as this budget is concerned, apparently it doesn't see any of it happening. So we ignore the war in the budget, we cut national security spending. Why? Simply because it seems, in the eyes of the administration, the most important agenda is to provide tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans at the cost of other priorities.

My amendment makes it clear that tax cuts should not take priority over every other need. My amendment restores the 2009 through 2013 national security cuts in the budget resolution. The amendment moves $103 billion in budget authority and $88 billion in outlays into a reserve fund for national security and homeland security. To offset the cost of this critical reserve fund, my amendment simply goes to the tax cut and reduces it by $88 billion during the same period, so we can take that cash from the tax cut--again,

most of it going to the wealthiest--and put it into the most vital need we have right now, and that is to make sure that every penny we can put together to make sure our people in the field, those who are fighting, know we will do everything we must by way of financing to make sure they have every tool available, they have all the protections they need. That is where to put the money.

We are faced with a clear choice. My amendment says our Nation's national security is far more important than tax cuts for the wealthy. I hope when we have a chance to present the amendment, my colleagues will support voting for national and homeland security by voting for the amendment.

In the war I fought in a long time ago, we used to talk to the public about what they had to do to prosecute the war, to provide for our defenses.

This poster shows its age by the way the characters are drawn. It says: ``BUY WAR BONDS.'' I think they were $25 at their least price. It said: Everybody has to kick in. Everybody has to do their share. Do what you can to help us conduct ourselves in our defense as proudly, as forcefully, as we can. That is what it is about.

And here we are ashamed to ask the richest among us to sacrifice their $90,000 on a $1 million income? Wait, make more money. Warren Buffet addressed a group of Senators the other day, and he said: I love paying taxes because every time I pay taxes, it means there is more money left in my pocket. Pretty simple. And that is how we ought to face our responsibilities now: Tell the truth to the American people, I say to my colleagues on the other side. Tell the truth about how you plan to use the money that otherwise would currently be available to prosecute the war.

Maybe we would not even have to do a supplemental. There are times when we are mystified by the arguments presented on one side or the other. I am sure that happens with our Republican friends when it is a Democratic proposal. The fact is, these figures that are generated here have been reviewed by the distinguished committees of people who study budgets as a professional thing, as an organizational commitment. They tell us: Look, all you have to do is look at the lines, look at the years.

Right now, everything looks OK. Get out to about 2007, and you see what happens. The President's budget is one thing; in the Senate GOP plan--that is, the budgeteer's, the majority's plan in the Budget Committee--they have something else. They show they cannot meet the President's number.

The tragedy of this kind of a debate is that we have to confront one another. I believe this is a time when the last thing on the list of priorities ought to be tax cuts going largely to the wealthiest among us.

Let's stand up and do what is right. Let's send all that we have right now: commit it, reserve it, make it such that it cannot be touched anyplace else.

I hope when we have a chance to review the amendment, we will see the thought has prevailed that says: Hey, they could be right on this one. Let's send it all into our defense needs which are so heavy right now.

I yield the floor.

I rise in support of S. Res. 95, which commends our Armed Forces.

The war with Iraq is underway. I regret that diplomatic efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein have failed. I regret that diplomatic efforts to build a broader coalition of nations willing to join us in military action have also fallen short.

But the task force before us now is to pledge our unqualified support for our courageous young men and women on the battlefield; to do whatever is needed to ensure they have every advantage now that the fighting has commended.

I was in the Army during World War II and served in Europe. As a veteran, I know how important it is for our Air Force personnel; and our soldiers and sailors to know that we feel close to them and they are constantly in our thoughts.

Winston Churchill said: ``We shall not escape our dangers by recoiling from them.'' So we send our young men and women in uniform-- each one a volunteer--to Iraq and to other distant places such as Afghanistan.

They fight to protect us, and they fight to free other people they don't know from cruelty and savage oppression.

Our troops are the best trained and best equipped in history. We have no doubt that they will prevail in their mission to oust Iraq's brutal dictator, eliminate Iraq's dangerous arsenal, and make the world a safer place.

War may be necessary, and war may be right. But it is never good. So we hope that this campaign to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his murderous cohorts will be quick and decisive. We hope that there will be little collateral damage and as few casualties as possible, both among our troops and

among innocent Iraqi noncombatants. We hope that our brave young men and women in uniform will return home to their families safely, and as soon as possible.

Once we win the war in Iraq, we will have to secure the peace. That will be the best way we can honor our troops.

Even as we engage in the fighting today, we have to start planning for what comes tomorrow. That will require a steadfastness of purpose equal to what our troops are displaying as we speak. The task will not be easy. All people, all nations have the same tendency: we judge ourselves by our intentions; we judge others by their actions. We know that our intentions are noble; many others, however--including some of our long-standing allies--only see our actions and they condemn them. It is imperative that once the shooting stops, we do whatever is necessary to build a free, open, and democratic Iraq at peace with itself, its neighbors, and the world.

So, no matter the length of the battle, no matter how demanding the war, we face some years of concerted effort after the guns have fallen silent. We have to be prepared to lead the world in peace with the same vigor and purpose as our troops are currently demonstrating. I'm certain America is up to the task and we will prove to the world that our intentions are honorable.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume, probably less than 20 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I be given that time.

I rise to talk now about an amendment I intend to offer with Senators Boxer, Corzine, Reed of Rhode Island, Sarbanes, and Murray as cosponsors. This amendment would add funding that is critical to the Superfund program. My colleague and friend, Senator Corzine, just talked about his intention to offer an amendment that is going to help us maintain a quality of environment that he and I feel is necessary for America.

I appreciate one part of that because this budget falls short of protecting Americans from deadly toxins in their communities. Too many communities in this country live near toxins left behind by polluting industries. Each day we delay cleanups is another day we expose families to poisonous chemicals. The numbers are alarming: 70 million people in this country live within 4 miles of a Superfund site and 10 million of the people exposed to the chemicals at those sites are children, the most defenseless among us. Ten million children who must eat their meals, brush their teeth and sleep within a few miles of harmful poisons that will persist in their soil and ground water for decades and longer. Children are the most vulnerable among us to arsenic and DDT and brain-damaging heavy metals such as lead and mercury found at the contaminated sites.

On March 3, just 2 weeks ago, the EPA announced the latest scientific data that show small children have a tenfold higher risk of developing cancer when exposed to chemicals than do adults. Across the Nation, each site cleanup--and we have successfully cleaned up over 800 so far--reduces those threats to our children: threats of cancer, learning disabilities, and other chronic and painful health problems.

This amendment enables the equivalent of 28 additional sites a year to be cleaned up, allowing thousands more families to get out from underneath the shadow of living next to a toxic dump. An extra 25 sites may not sound like a lot unless you and your family live next door to an empty lot laced with arsenic and dioxin.

This amendment would eventually close the gap between the program's need and what has been budgeted. This amendment assumes reinstatement of the original structure and guiding principle of Superfund and assumes the restoration of minimal taxes to get that job done. For example, in the case of the oil industry, the tax would be less than 10 cents a barrel for every 42 gallons of oil. This is a small investment for the large dividends it would pay. The end result would be measured in thousands of happier and healthier children and families.

The amendment will permit the addition of $300 million to the Superfund reserve each year for 10 years. That is less than the approximately $350 million the Congressional Research Service estimates the budget will fall short of when it tries to meet next year's projected needs for Superfund cleanup, but it is close.

At the same time, by making the polluter pay, this amendment increases

total Federal revenues by well over $1 billion a year for the next 10 years, contributing to the deficit reduction and helping to lower the public debt.

The Superfund needs new life injected into it because this administration has significantly slowed the pace of cleanups, cutting the rates in half. It is time Congress and the administration stopped refusing to force polluters to pay. They are the ones who ought to pay for it. They did it. They spoiled the Earth and the area, and they ought to pay for this.

No other American President, Democrat or Republican, has ever said that taxpayers, not polluters, should pay to clean up their toxic mess, and neither should this one. President Ronald Reagan understood the importance of the Superfund trust fund in making the polluter pay. In 1986, not only did he reauthorize the original Superfund tax, he approved two in Superfund taxes, a tax on imported chemical derivatives, and corporate income tax of .12 percent on taxable income above $2 million.

Reinstating the polluter-pays principle is fair, it has a proven record of working, and I would urge my colleagues to support this good governance amendment.

I have one more short amendment to discuss, an amendment I will offer on behalf of myself and Senator Robert Byrd to adequately fund our national passenger rail system, Amtrak, at $1.8 billion.

As it stands now, the budget before the Senate assumes that funding level of only $900 million for Amtrak. That is about half of what the railroad needs. That would be a devastating cut. The funding in this fiscal year 2004 budget is nearly 22 percent lower than this year's level. Without question, it would result in the bankruptcy of our national passenger railroad system halfway through the fiscal year 2004.

This Senate cannot stand idly by and allow this budget to bankrupt Amtrak. Amtrak is critical to our Nation's transportation system. We have a new president, an impressive fellow, CEO at Amtrak, David Gunn. David Gunn has demonstrated his ability to find commonsense solutions to tough problems, particularly around rail and transit. We should give Mr. Gunn the tools he needs to put Amtrak back on the track. Everyone feels confident he has the capability of doing that if we give him the tools.

In many areas across the Nation, rail is as important to the transportation system as aviation. Amtrak is critical to business and the economy in many communities and improves the quality of life for many Americans who use rail as an alternative to traffic jams on highways and the headaches we find now at the airport.

In the days following the September 11 attacks, our entire aviation system was shut down. The unbelievable took place. It was never conceived something could happen in our aviation system that would shut the whole thing down across the country. But it did. Rail served as a critical alternative for those who otherwise would have been stranded.

Now, many passengers have shifted to rail on a more permanent basis. In fact, more people take the train to New York from Washington than catch a flight each day. September 11, 2001, showed us we need to maintain an intermodal transportation system. We cannot put all our resources into aviation, and we cannot put all of our resources into highways. If we want a 21st century transportation system, we must invest in Amtrak and passenger rail. My amendment would provide Amtrak with the $1.8 billion that has been requested by the Amtrak board of directors. This is the funding level that will ensure the trains run in 2004 and beyond. This is also the funding sorely needed for capital investments to improve infrastructure and improve the system's reliability. These capital investments are also needed to help Amtrak lower its operating costs. We cannot continue to let them run a railroad held together by duct tape. Without Amtrak, congestion on the roads and in the skies would be substantially worse. Amtrak helps to remove 18,000 cars a day from the congested Northeast corridor between Philadelphia and New York, and 27,000 cars a day between New York and Boston. Everyone knows if there were that many more cars on the road, it would be impossible to travel on these highways.

But Amtrak does more than alleviate congestion in densely populated highway and air corridors. In many cases, Amtrak also provides residents of small rural towns with their only form of intercity transportation. Each year, some 22 million passengers depend on Amtrak for transportation between urban centers and rural locations. Amtrak provides service in 45 of the 50 States. This country of ours, this most advanced Nation in the world, needs a world-class passenger rail service. We can already board a high-speed train from New York's Penn Station and arrive in Washington in less than 3 hours. That is city to city. It is without the hassle and the problems one takes going to the airports these days.

But we should also be able to take a high-speed train from Atlanta to Charlotte or Miami. We should be able to travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco or St. Louis to Chicago by high-speed rail.

September 11 and the lingering terrorist threat shows us that we need a viable alternative to aviation for intercity travel. But the budget before us would cripple our Nation's passenger rail system.

Once again, I look to my colleagues to think the problem through thoroughly, to recognize even if Amtrak is not a primary mode of transportation in their State, that it is part of the national network that we have to have in a society as advanced and as crowded as ours has gotten to be.

I hope we will have the support for passenger rail and support for Amtrak.

I thank the President, the occupant of the chair, for his indulgence of this wee hour of the night. I thank my colleague from Washington, also, for permitting me to talk about my amendments.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Matsuda, a member of my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of S. Con. Res. 23.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada for yielding the time to me to talk about the Boxer amendment and talk about the decision we could be making very shortly about the use of oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Mr. President, what happens is, as these debates get going, sometimes we hear statements that are somewhat misconstrued or mistaken. We just heard it suggested on the floor that funds from the purchase of Iraq oil are used to purchase bombs. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is, that money is passed through the United Nations to buy food to be distributed to the people of Iraq. There is no way that money can be used to buy

bombs. It is important we keep the record straight.

I want so much to see the Boxer amendment prevail, but in order to make the case, apparently, we have to do more than simply justify the fact that if we did not do this, we could find other ways to conserve oil and not have to invade this snow desert, if one has ever seen it. It is one of the most beautiful places in the world, and the last thing we ought to do is turn the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge into an oilfield.

I traveled to Alaska in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989. At the time, I was chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, so I had jurisdiction over Coast Guard funding. I was also a senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. So I had a great deal of interest in the Valdez incident.

What I saw was shocking, stunning almost. Over 11 million gallons of oil spilled into the Prince William Sound. I witnessed beautiful wildlife covered in oil, many dead or dying. I saw workers from the Department of the Interior, the fire service, and others hand wiping oil off birds and other wildlife. It was a devastating tragedy.

The disaster left a major impression on me. I thought about my children, my grandchildren, other people's children, and other people's grandchildren. I never wanted to see the dismay on their faces should they ever witness this tragedy.

To this day, 14 years later, the area remains contaminated with a persistence that has surprised many scientists. Sadly, the optimistic predictions of its recovery proved to be unjustified. Fully 60 percent of the area remains contaminated. Pools of toxic oil are still being found several feet deep.

Ecosystems, such as those in Prince William Sound and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, are so fragile, they are such delicate treasures of our Nation.

I had the privilege of visiting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge at the same time, and I can tell you, from personal experience, that in addition to the damage caused by drilling and oilspills, the debris of human intrusion, acres of rusting pipes and dilapidated structures dishonors America's 100-year-old tradition of protecting remote wild places.

On that visit, I flew in a single-engine plane across to a community called Deadhorse. It is right near Prudhoe Bay. It was troubling to see that area, the tundra littered by refuse left by the same oil companies that now avow they will be good environmental stewards should the Arctic Refuge be open to drilling.

Why would we risk devastating these national treasures? For what gain?

There is a dispute as to whether it is a 6-month oil supply or more that we will see from the Arctic Refuge, but for this short-term gain, what is the long-term risk, the cost?

I believe the long-term damage is too great. Turning this refuge into an oilfield will result in the loss of a national treasure we will never be able to replace. Look at what is happening on the North Slope. The National Research Council's new report shows that oil drilling on the North Slope has drastically reduced the population of nesting birds, such as the snow geese, and seismic exploration has displaced the culturally sacred bowhead whales from their migratory path, according to the National Research Council.

Additional drilling will only compound the stresses on these and the 200 other animal and bird species that inhabit the region.

What would the payoff be for recklessly endangering this national treasure? We would save more oil than we could drill at the Arctic Refuge at the height of production by requiring SUVs to meet the same fuel economy standards as regular cars. We never hear talk about conservation. We never hear talk about everybody pitching in on the eve of a war to economize and use less fuel whenever we can do so.

There is simply no good reason to endanger this fragile Coastal Plain ecosystem.

More than oil is at stake here. Thoreau wrote:

In wilderness is the preservation of the world.

America and the world need the last remaining wilderness places. The Arctic wilderness is one of those places. It would be unconscionable to despoil it for all time just for a bit of oil. We can find other ways.

I came across an article that tells us about the risk, a risk we are not discussing in pure terms. This is an Internet news report from a service called Ananova. The headline is: ``ExxonMobile damages for Valdez spill cut to $4 billion from 5; to appeal.'' It is going to be appealed further by the ExxonMobile company. They already paid some damages to the Alaskans, some money for cleanup, and some money to the State and Federal governments. But they have yet to pay a dime for punitive damages. This is 1989. We are not talking about recent months or even recent years. Fourteen years ago last month that tragedy took place, and they have not paid, and they do not want to pay. They are going back to court to say, Reduce our damages, even though the court the first time assessed them a $9 billion punitive damage claim. They are working their way down, and maybe they will get it down to nothing one of these days. We ought to stop it right now where it is and not permit this to continue. They just want to get their mitts on the money that comes from that oil drilling, and it is without regard for the consequences.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article by Ananova be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we will wrap up this debate in a very short while. We have to look at the full picture. It is not simply getting oil here or taking advantage of an opportunity to go into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to search for more opportunities to consume oil at a rate that has never been heard of. We have to step back and take a look into the future as to what we want for our children and their children.

I hope the Boxer amendment will get the support it deserves. I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from California. In a short statement I would like to identify what has happened since 1989 when the Exxon Valdez ran aground, since the period of time when the court said that ExxonMobil should pay $9 billion in punitive damages for the havoc it created in Prince William Sound. Lest we be fooled that these environmental stewards are going to take good care of our assets, of our natural resources, let's look at what happened.

The fine is now down $4 billion. This is since shortly after 1989. And who is paying the tariff here? Well, the Anchorage Daily News on August 4, 1998, reported ``Apparently Delay Pays.''

Exxon is earning $90,000 an hour, about $2 million a day, or nearly $800 million a year, on the same $5 billion as long as the case drags on. And the money stays in its coffers. They are not even paying for it. In fact, what they are doing is making money, interest on that money which belongs to the citizens of the country and for the protection of our environment.

What we are looking at is a corporate behavior that should be unacceptable under any standard and where they are using this opportunity to cash in on delays by skillful lawyers instead of paying their obligation as it fell upon them through the courts.

It is an outrage. We cannot trust these people to take care of this environment of ours for our children and our grandchildren. I hope the Boxer amendment passes.

I thank the Senator from California. I thank her for permitting me to speak.

Madam President, I have listened very carefully to the arguments being made. I think a fundamental question preempts much of the discussion that is taking place. I think the essentiality to be considered is who determines decisions about a woman's health? As far as I am concerned, it is a relatively simple proposal. Is it the Senate which determines what we do about a woman's health when her health could be in jeopardy and she makes the decision, in consultation with her physician? Should it be the President of the United States? Should it be idealogues who want to control the behavior of legitimate actions of other persons? Or should it simply be a patient in consultation with her doctor and her family, legitimately covered even in reviews by the Supreme Court?

The bill offered by the junior Senator from Pennsylvania says politicians know best. And I say that is wrong. Keep the politicians out of the doctor's office.

We should not interfere with the medical judgment of a licensed doctor. Only a woman's personal physician can make judgments about the health risks of child birth for that particular patient. If a decision to terminate the pregnancy is made, it should be only the woman and her family and her personal physician.

I notice the principal supporters of this legislation are the same men who want to take away decisionmaking from the women of this country for their own health. As of today, this bill has 44 cosponsors and all but one of them are males. This creates the establishment, as I see it, of ``male-ogarchy'' over women's rights.

I say let women decide how to protect their health and their families' well-being which is often a question associated with this.

I thought we overthrew the Taliban telling women exactly how they can act, when they can act, and what they should be able to do. I continue to hear a great deal of concern from the other side of the aisle about fetuses which they call unborn children. What about the born children?

I am reminded of what Congressman Barney Frank said. He is from Massachusetts. He said for some people, their zeal for life seems to begin at conception and then ends at birth.

Next week we are going to likely work on the budget resolution. I expect that the Republican budget will track the President's fiscal year 2004 plan.

What happens to born children under the President's budget?

What happens to pre- and postnatal health programs? What happens to child care and nutrition programs? What happens to education and afterschool programs? What happens to job training programs? I will give you just a few examples.

Under the President's budget, the Head Start Program is weakened by turning it into a block grant. We all know the purpose of turning it into a block grant. It is to make it easier to cut the funding for it. In effect, the President is saying to the States: Here, you take this. You figure it out. And by the way, we are going to cut it. The result is that thousands and thousands of children who currently participate in Head Start will be thrown out of the program. It is a very valuable program.

Under the President's education budget, millions of children are left behind. Even though the President named his education proposal No Child Left Behind, the President's budget falls $9.4 billion short of fully funding the new education law that he signed into law only last year. The President would leave more than 6 million born children behind by refusing to provide $6.2 billion in title I funding he promised for 2004.

The President wants to cut funding for schools for military children, of all things. The President's budget would eliminate Impact Aid education funding for 110,000 born children whose parents are being mobilized to fight the war on terrorism and against Iraq.

He wants to make it harder for poor children to get school breakfasts and school lunches that, in many cases, are the only nutritional meals they will get in a day.

The President cuts Pell grants and eliminates new funding for Perkins loans. The President wants to reduce the maximum amount for a grant. And the President would eliminate $106 million in funding for new Federal contributions to Perkins loans, which provide low-interest loans for undergraduate and graduate students with exceptional financial need.

What about the children of working-class families? The President is willing to eliminate child care services for 200,000 children over 5 years. These are born children. What about them?

If we want to help protect children, why hasn't there been a cry in this Chamber for sensible gun legislation to make our schools and communities safer? In the year 2000, my gun show amendment passed the Senate. It was designed to take away unlicensed dealers' prerogatives to sell guns to anybody they wanted to. But it was killed in the House by the Republican leadership.

There are many other sensible gun laws we could pass, including a requirement that guns have child safety locks. Each and every year, approximately

3,300 born children are killed by gunfire. What about them? Are we going to pass laws to help protect children from gun violence? Why isn't that on the agenda of the junior Senator from Pennsylvania?

I commend the President for his commitment to fight the global HIV/ AIDS epidemic we see in front of us. But I ask, what is the President doing about the growing AIDS epidemic right here in the United States, where one-half of all new HIV infections are among people under 25? What about these born children?

Right now, the Senate is trying to limit the choices women and their doctors have in making the most personal and painful decision.

In 1995, Congress repealed the motorcycle helmet law--I was the author of that law--because it was seen as an intrusion by the Federal Government into people's lives. Close to 3,000 people--most of them under the age of 30--die each year in motorcycle accidents. But if we tried to bring back the helmet law, I am sure we would hear about how intrusive it would be in people's lives.

The bill currently before the Senate is nothing more than an egregious invasion of privacy and an affront to the doctor-patient relationship.

Some of my colleagues would like us to believe women casually decide to terminate a pregnancy after carrying that fetus well into the third trimester. The ugly, inaccurate, and unfair portrayal some of our colleagues offer about a decision to terminate a pregnancy simply is not true. In fact, 89 percent of all abortions in the United States are obtained within the first 12 to 13 weeks. Fewer than 1 percent of all abortions are performed after 20 weeks.

In the most gruesome terms, the supporters of S. 3 draw a revolting picture of a process that should be avoided if at all possible. But do they present an alternative scenario of a family with children and a mother who is too ill physically or emotionally to continue giving guidance, love, and strength to her family because we in Congress intervened and told her doctor what he or she could and could not do in providing appropriate medical treatment?

This issue is one of trust. Do you trust politicians to make complicated medical decisions affecting women's lives? Or will you leave it to medical experts consulting with families and with patients? I say, let's give women and their doctors--not politicians--the right to make the choice.

Another item, Madam President: I would note the junior Senator from Pennsylvania continually quotes from an article that appeared in the Bergen Record, a newspaper in my State. I want to set the record straight since the Senator from Pennsylvania invokes a newspaper in my State. Years ago, it was discovered this newspaper article contained false information. I refer my colleagues to the Congressional Record of September 26, 1996, in which I entered a letter into the Record from the health clinic at issue in the article. The letter showed the statistics cited in the newspaper article are false. It is now 6 years later, and I would say it is time for the junior Senator to refrain from using information that is demonstrably false.

There is an old saying: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

The decision whether to vote for this bill ought to be an easy one. A recent Supreme Court decision struck down a Nebraska State law modeled on the very same legislation presented before the Senate by the junior Senator from Pennsylvania.

The Supreme Court held the Nebraska statute to be unconstitutional because it is too vaguely worded and it does not contain any exception for the health of the mother. That was the United States Supreme Court that said that.

The disregard for the health of a woman in this legislation is unconstitutional and it is offensive. I believe the Government should not intrude on these complicated decisions, or tell a woman with serious health or fertility risks how to make this difficult decision.

I am going to oppose this intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship. Let us continue to give women and their families--not politicians--the right to make these difficult choices. Let them determine what is right for their well-being and the well-being of their families.

Madam President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this intrusion. It is not a choice that should be made for a woman by politicians who do not feel the pain of this decision.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, earlier this evening I pointed out that the junior Senator from Pennsylvania continues to refer to a September 15, 1996 article in the Bergen Record that contained incorrect information about the number and type of abortions performed at Metropolitan Medical Associates, MMA. After I spoke on the floor he offered the following rebuttal, which I am paraphrasing because a formal transcript isn't available yet:

I want to counter a couple of things to the Senator from--

the Senator from New Jersey says I keep referring to the

Bergen Record I can just say that the Bergen Record never did

print a retraction to the story and claims that their

investigative reporter was not wrong. There is an honest

disagreement. The paper stands by their story and has not

printed a retraction and said publicly that they have no

intention of doing so. So just because Senator Lautenberg

found somebody who disagrees with the story doesn't mean it

isn't true.

It so happens that the ``somebody'' who ``disagreed'' with the above mentioned Bergen Record article was the management of Metropolitan Medical Associates.

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

Mr. President, I believe that the death penalty is ineffective, cruel, and unjust. Killing people convicted of criminal offenses under the color of State law is wrong; and the disproportionate execution of a certain class or race of people is utterly unconscionable.

In the United States, although African Americans make up only 12 percent of the overall population, 42 percent of the people currently on death row are Black. African Americans are also overrepresented in the number of people on death row who are later found to be innocent: 38 percent of death row inmates freed since 1973 because of new evidence were African Americans, and 35 percent of those executed and later found to be innocent were Black.

Despite these startling statistics, the State of Texas, President Bush's home State, is determined to execute Americans as fast as possible, even in light of potentially exculpatory evidence.

In today's New York Times, columnist Bob Herbert writes about an American-African man who, in about 48 hours, may become the 300th person executed by the State of Texas since the resumption of capital punishment in 1982.

As Mr. Herbert notes, this case is particularly disturbing because there is strong evidence that the accused, Mr. Delma Banks, Jr., did not commit the capital offense. But, in a blatant disregard for truth and the equitable administration of justice, Texas intends to proceed regardless.

This senseless State-sanctioned killing must stop!

I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Herbert's column in the New York Times dated March 10, 2003, be printed into the Record following my remarks.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, this August the Jewish Community Center Maccabi Games will be held in Tenafly, NJ. Along with 300 local athletes, there will be 1,300 athletes from elsewhere in the United States, Canada, Israel, Europe, South America, Mexico, and Australia.

It is quite an honor to be the host for this event and quite a responsibility. The benefit of the Maccabi Games lies not only in the sporting events themselves, but because the Games bring together young Jewish people from all over the world.

Along with the athletic competitions, there will be social activities that bring together people from all over the world who nonetheless share the same history, values, and pride. The Games will also feature cultural programs and community service projects. When the Games conclude, these teenagers will take with them memories and friendships to last a lifetime.

I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the participants of the 2003 JCC Maccabi Games. The Games are a great avenue for Jewish teenagers to meet other Jewish teens from around the world and make lifetime friendships and memories.

(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, it is with great pride that I today pay special tribute to four incredible women from New Jersey. On March 13 the Monmouth Council of Girl Scouts will honor Mary Pat Angelini, Alice Guttler, Esq., Theresa Seitz, and Judge Susan Wigenton at its Annual Women of Distinction Dinner.

Mary Pat Angelini is receiving the Community Service Award and is currently the Executive Director of Prevention First, which works to provide leadership and develop leaders to prevent substance abuse. She has been with the organization since 1992 and has helped to increase its annual budget from $125,000 to multi-million dollar status.

Mary Pat Angelini has been involved with substance abuse prevention for many years. She is the immediate past president of the New Jersey Prevention Network and she was a member of the Leadership Council for the Community Anti Drug Coalitions of America.

Since 2000 she has served on the Governor's Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. Ms. Angelini coordinated 38 local coalitions to prevent substance abuse with the Monmouth County's Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services. She also sits on the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's New Jersey Health Initiative Advisory Committee.

Alice J. Guttler, Esq., is receiving the Professionalism Excellence Award. She currently is corporate counsel with Centrastate Healthcare System. Centrastate runs a 241-bed acute care community hospital, a continuous care retirement community and a 120-bed skilled nursing home.

Previously she was a New Jersey Deputy Attorney General in the Department of Law & Public Safety. She served as counsel to the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey and conducted labor, employment, and commercial litigation.

Judge Susan Wigenton is also receiving the Professionalism Excellence Award. Currently, Judge Wigenton serves as a United States Magistrate Judge in U.S. District Court. She previously served as a part-time United States Magistrate Judge. Prior to that, Judge Wigenton practiced in Middletown, NJ with the law firm of Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla,

Mr. President, I pay tribute to the heroic ``Four Chaplains'' of World War II. In February, the Jewish War Veterans of Monmouth County and the Marlboro Jewish Center hosted the Monmouth County Interfaith Memorial Commemoration. These organizations honored four chaplains who bravely gave their life during World War II.

On February 3, 1943 the U.S. Troopship S.S. Dorchester was in the Atlantic Ocean when it was torpedoed by a German U-boat submarine 150 miles from Greenland. On board the ship were four chaplains. Protestant Ministers George L. Fox and Clark V. Poling, Roman Catholic Priest John P. Washington and Rabbi Alexander D. Goode. All went down with the Dorchester.

Two hundred and twenty-nine of the 902 Army GIs on board were rescued. Indications are that not as many would have made it safely to the rescue ships if not for the bravery of these four men. They helped soldiers to the rescue ships and when life vests ran out they gave up theirs so four soldiers could live. According to some eyewitnesses, the four men were last seen with their arms linked and their heads bowed in prayer.

I ask my colleagues to join me and the Jewish War Veterans of New Jersey in paying tribute to these four brave souls who died with dignity and gave their lives so others could live.

(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, it is with great pride that I honor a few outstanding residents of the State of New Jersey. In March the SINAI Special Needs Institute is honoring these New Jerseyans for their dedication to the community. The Institute works to meet the needs of learning disabled children throughout the State.

Ephraim and Joanne Zayat received the Pillars of SINAI award. Mr. Zayat is the executive chair and CEO of Heineken, Egypt and was named a Global Leader for Tomorrow by the World Economic Forum. He also serves on the Bush-Mubarak Presidents Council. Mr. Zayat is a member of the board of directors of the Academic Egyptian Arts & Sciences Foundation.

Mrs. Zayat is on the board of directors at Yavneh Academy and she was a board member of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun. She is also an active member of Amit and Emunah.

Dr. Paul and Esther Lerer were the Institute's guests of honor at this annual dinner. Dr. Lerer is a board member of Moriah School and a member of the religious services and tzedakah committees of Congregation Ahavath Torah.

Esther Lerer is on the board of trustees at Congregation Ahavath Torah where she was also president. She is also a member of the board at Ma'ayanot High School, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, and the UJA Federation of Bergen County and North Hudson. Dr. and Esther Lerer are involved in Bar Ilan University and they have been honored by Yeshivat Shalvim.

Michael and Sharon Glass were the Kesser Shem Tov awardees. Michael Glass is an original member of Dof Yomi. He also helps set up the Shalosh Seudos every Shabbat and is a member of the monthly shomer program. Michael Glass is the vice president of Global Scientific Affairs for the Adams division of Pfizer. In that capacity he works for kosher certification of Adams confectionary products.

Sharon Glass is director of the Jewish Center of Teaneck's Nursery School and used to be a teacher in the Leah Sokoloff Nursery School at Congregation Shomrei Torah. She is also the shul's co-vice president of sisterhood.

Rabbi Ya'akov Neuburger was the recipient of the Rabbinic Leadership award. Rabbi Neuburger is the spiritual leader for Congregation Beth Abraham. He was also one of the first rabbis to receive Yadin Yadin ordination from the Rabbi Isaac Eichanan Theological Seminary.

I ask my colleagues to join me and the SINAI Special Needs Institute in honoring these very dedicated residents of New Jersey who have contributed so much to their communities.

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

Mr. President, I take the opportunity to make some comments regarding the ratification of the Moscow Treaty. I do it with some reservation. I think the treaty is both a ``good news'' and ``bad news'' story.

Right now, roughly speaking, the United States and Russia each deploy 6,000 nuclear warheads. The treaty would require the U.S. and Russia to reduce these levels to 1,700 to 2,200 ``operationally'' deployed strategic nuclear weapons on each side by December 2012.

The good news is that this treaty is a positive step--long overdue, but a positive step nonetheless. Over 10 years ago, in January of 1992, when U.S.-Russian relations were the warmest in years, President Yeltsin of Russia proposed that the U.S. and Russia reach a strategic arms control agreement that set the levels at 2,000-2,500 in a START II agreement.

If former President Bush had agreed back then, we could be close to the levels today that the Moscow Treaty envisions for 10 years from now.

At the time former President Yeltsin made his proposal for deep reductions, Defense Department officials, especially Defense Secretary Cheney--now our Vice President--opposed them.

As a result, the START II agreement, signed in January 1993, only limited the number of strategic nuclear warheads to 3,000 to 3,500 on each side. And due to wrangling over national missile defense the START II agreement never entered into force.

So I am glad to see that the administration and Vice President Cheney now support cuts to levels first proposed by President Yeltsin in January 1992. This support for stronger strategic arms control steps is long overdue but welcome.

A second chance to achieve greater reductions came 6 years ago in 1997. President Clinton agreed with President Yeltsin at Helsinki that a future START III agreement would entail reductions to 2,000-2,500 strategic warheads on each side. Most likely, the START III agreement would have overlapped with the START II agreement, finishing implementation at the end of December 2007.

The START III levels of 2,000 to 2,500 are essentially the same as those embodied in the Moscow Treaty. The START III would have counted several hundred warheads on systems in overhaul; the Moscow Treaty will not.

Unfortunately, because START II never entered into force, START III negotiations never began. In addition, after 1994, our Republican colleagues deliberately made it more difficult to make progress on reducing strategic nuclear arms.

Starting with the fiscal year 1995 Defense authorization bill, a provision was regularly added forbidding the President from reducing U.S. strategic forces below the START I levels of 6,000 strategic nuclear warheads. In time for this treaty, this provision has been repealed.

So I am pleased to see that my Republican colleagues now support cuts to the levels envisioned by President Clinton and President Yeltsin in March 1997. It is a welcome change of heart, even though it is long overdue.

The bad news, however, as many have noted, is that the treaty is but a modest step forward. Many have argued it has several major shortcomings.

First, the 10-year implementation period is too long and includes no benchmarks for progress or verification measures. Theoretically, as the treaty now stands, both sides could wait until the last moment to make their reductions, right before the treaty expires.

Second, only some of the warheads removed from missiles and bombers will be dismantled. The rest would merely be put into storage, where they could be redeployed. Thus, there will not be a real reduction in the United States or Russian strategic nuclear arsenals. Moreover, the security of thousands of stored weapons will remain a matter of major concern, especially during this era of heightened terrorism.

Third, the treaty could have reduced the strategic arsenals of the United States and Russia even further.

Fourth, the treaty does not cover the thousands of small tactical nuclear weapons that are a major concern for theft by terrorist groups. And they are weapons of great power, great destructive capability.

Since this treaty is so long overdue, and such a modest accomplishment, we must work hard through the Bilateral Implementation Commission to improve it in the coming years. We also need to take steps beyond the scope of this treaty to reduce our nuclear arsenals even more.

So I strongly endorse the call in the Foreign Relations Committee Resolution of Ratification for the President to ``accelerate'' U.S. strategic force reductions so they can be achieved before December 31, 2012. We should aim to accomplish this by the end of 2007.

We should also seek to dismantle the 4,000 or so warheads that will be removed from launchers--not just put them in storage. Otherwise, this treaty is more of a nuclear ``shell game'' than a true disarmament measure. Warheads taken off missiles today could be put back tomorrow.

We should begin new discussions to reach new lower levels of strategic nuclear weapons. I strongly support the Resolution of Ratification's call for the President to continue reductions in strategic nuclear warheads. President Putin wanted each side to decrease to levels of 1,500 warheads. There isn't any reason we can't reduce to levels of 1,000 to 1,500 in the next 5 to 10 years.

There are other problems relating to tactical nuclear weapons and transparency and security of nuclear arsenals that need to be addressed and that many have touched upon today. The Senate needs to be active in addressing these questions. I look forward to seeing the reports required by the Resolution of Ratification so we can monitor the progress of the treaty and act accordingly.

We have waited too long for this treaty. We cannot let the long implementation time of the treaty sweep these important questions from our agenda for the next 10 years.

With the assumption that the Senate will remain active on these questions and the administration will follow through with the provisions of the Resolution of Ratification, I give my reluctant advice and consent to this treaty and look back and see how much more we could have accomplished. Nevertheless, let's get on with what we have in front of us and start reducing the size of the nuclear forces out there.

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