Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Justice for Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act with my colleagues, Senators Specter, Menendez, Cornyn, Coleman, Lott, Lieberman, Schumer, Clinton, Casey, Collins, Graham, Biden, Stevens, and Feinstein.

I am proud to introduce this legislation on behalf of the many Americans who have suffered at the hands of State sponsors of terrorism. This important legislation will allow victims of state sponsored terrorism to have their day in court. It will do so by enabling these individuals to both sue for liability and seek financial compensation from the states, such as Iran, which committed these murderous acts, thereby starving them of the funds that they use to strike at innocent victims.

In 1983, the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, was bombed by the Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah, killing 241 servicemen and wounding 100 others. In 2003, the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC, found the Republic of Iran, which directly supports Hezbollah, guilty of masterminding that bombing. The victims and their families have the right to sue their tormentors and have judgments against Iran, yet the judgments are not being enforced.

In 1996, the President signed into law legislation that I wrote to amend the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to give private American citizens the right to hold U.S. Department of State-designated state sponsors of terrorism liable in U.S. courts. This legislation, also known as the Flatow amendment, needs to be clarified and updated. The bill I am introducing today will bring clarity to this law on behalf of victims of terrorism and reaffirm their right to sue and collect damages from state sponsors of terrorism.

There are several reasons why the law needs to be improved. First, the courts decided in 2004 in Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Republic of Iran that, contrary to the intent of the Flatow amendment, there would be no Federal private right of action against foreign governments. The ruling stated that there could only be legal action against individual officials and employees of that government. Second, current law permits judgment holders to only seize assets over which a terrorist state has day-to-day managerial control, thereby allowing terrorist states to hide their assets from the victims who have successful judgments against them. Third, state sponsors of terrorism, such as Libya, which is still responsible for terrorist acts it committed in the past, have consistently abused the appeals process to delay litigation proceedings.

My new legislation will address these issues and improve the ability of victims to hold state sponsors of terrorism accountable. First, it will update the Flatow amendment to improve its enforcement by reaffirming the right of private citizens to sue state sponsors of terrorism. Second, it will allow for the seizure of hidden commercial assets belonging to the terrorist state so that the victims of terrorism can be justly compensated. Third, it will limit the number of appeals that the terrorist state can pursue in U.S. courts. In addition, my legislation will provide foreign nationals working for the U.S. Government, if they are victims of a terrorist attack during their official duties, to be covered by these same provisions.

While nothing can bring back innocent lives lost to terrorism, the state sponsors of these horrific acts must be made to pay for their crimes. We are united in our belief that state-sponsored terrorism is wrong and that the perpetrators of terrorism must be brought to justice. This legislation will also strengthen our national security by combating the desire and ability of foreign nations to both finance and support terrorism. Most importantly, it will empower those innocent victims who have suffered from terrorism to seek justice through the rule of American law.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support justice for victims of state sponsored terrorism by supporting this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would ask whether it is understood that I would have up to 15 minutes, and I don't think I will need that long, but I do make that request.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I thought we had carved out an understanding.

I will try to do that.

Mr. President, we are going to soon be voting on an amendment proposed by Senator Bunning. I rise to register my opposition to that amendment, and I hope my colleagues will follow me.

I come to the floor to defend the health and well-being of 3,000 children in the State of New Jersey who would have their children's health insurance stripped away from them by the Bunning amendment.

Our mission this week is to pass a bill to expand health coverage for our Nation's children. But instead of focusing on providing more coverage for children, the Senator from Kentucky has targeted 3,000 children in my State to take their coverage away.

None of us has any asset we treasure more than our children. None of us enjoys anything more than the smiles of our kids when they are feeling good and are in good health. That is why, when we see an attempt to remove health care from a modest-income family's children, who care so deeply about them, I wonder what it is that we are truly about.

This amendment is an assault on children from working families who require health care coverage. To think that while we spend $3 billion each and every week on the Iraq war, there is an unwillingness to provide the necessary funding to keep all our kids healthy regardless of their income situation. This one focuses on modest-income people. It is amazing that while we pledge to protect our people from harm, we shun the opportunity to shelter our children.

I wish to make our request clear to my colleagues, and I want them to recognize that we in New Jersey always

pay our way fully; we more than pay for the incredibly high cost of living in New Jersey. Our health care costs are among the highest in the Nation. Keeping our people healthy is a primary mission in our State. We have had stem cell research going back decades. Our pharmaceutical companies constantly research for new medicines to benefit the well-being of people across this country and the world.

The Bush administration has recognized the higher costs in New Jersey and explicitly granted our State the right to provide health care to children at the level it currently does. New Jersey is not trying to beat the system or get health coverage for its children in a way that is unfair to other States--not at all. The State of New Jersey is legitimately trying to provide health insurance to children, recognizing the distinct economic characteristics of our State.

The Bunning amendment is particularly discouraging, given New Jersey's support when it comes to helping other States in need. We know that other States have different needs than we do, and we have unique challenges we face as well. Time and again, New Jersey taxpayers are asked to shoulder the burden and help other areas of the country that are in need. In fact, for every dollar New Jersey gives to the Federal Government, we only get back 55 cents in Federal spending programs. Compare that with States such as Kentucky, for example, which for every dollar paid gets $1.45 back. Some States get up to $2 back for each dollar they pay.

Whether it is the universal service fund for telephones, essential air service in aviation or other programs, New Jersey gives far more than it gets back.

I want to be clear. I support many of these programs for other States. I recognize this occurs because New Jersey is a State with a higher-than-average income and higher-than-average costs compared to other States.

But we care as much about our children as other people do across the country. More than anything, we want our kids to be healthy.

There are 3,000 children in New Jersey who are depending on Senators to oppose the Bunning amendment--3,000 children who are looking to all of us to let them continue to have health care.

The Bunning amendment is contrary to everything we are trying to accomplish on the floor this week. If that amendment is adopted, this bill will be tainted with the legacy of taking health insurance away from children who need it but whose families cannot afford to supply it on their own.

I have many families who come in to see me and bring their children with them. I welcome them with open arms. There is nothing I find more satisfying than to see parents and their children together. They come in often with diseases that are difficult, such as autism, diabetes, and asthma. Not only do these children require a lot of love, affection, and attention but, unfortunately, very often it is at a cost that few families can bear. I want to help those kids, those families, and I reach out to them in any way I can. I want stem cell research to be available. I want more money spent on general health research.

I hope my colleagues will reject this amendment on a bipartisan basis. I commend the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member for the work they did. They overwhelmingly rejected the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky on a bipartisan vote. This amendment that has been authored by the Senator from Kentucky flies in the face of the good judgment of the Finance Committee. I hope my colleagues will reject this amendment, the Bunning amendment, once again when it gets to the Senate floor.

I am pleased to yield the floor.

Madam President, we listened to the comments from our colleague from Kentucky about how much New Jersey or New York can afford. But I will tell you this, New Jersey, for each dollar that it sends down to the Federal Government, it gets barely half of it back. But not in Kentucky. In Kentucky, if they send in a dollar, they get $1.45 back. We cannot compare things. We cannot compare costs of living. The poverty level for a four-person family is $20,000. That means their income is about $5,000 a month. In New Jersey, after taxes, housing, and other costs, they're left with about $865. And yet their health care costs average above $2,000.

As a consequence, with $2,000 a month for health care costs, every family is burdened up until almost the highest of incomes. So we ask fairness. Here we are trying to expand health care for children, and our colleague wants to take that away. This is not fair, it is not right, and I hope we will defeat this soundly.

Madam President, I also extend my commendations and thanks to Senators Baucus and Grassley for producing this bill. This bill is a long step forward. Although I think it is quite apparent that we need even more than this generous attempt to meet our needs, the fact is, it is a very good bill. But it is surprising to me that we even have to debate this bill.

As we stand here, there are 9 million kids in the United States without health insurance; 250,000 of them live in my State of New Jersey. Every day that we wait to reauthorize and expand the Children's Health Insurance Program we risk more children's illnesses and even permit them to die because they have no health care.

In 2010 there are going to be more than 83 million children, from newborns to 19-year-olds, growing up in America. We have an obligation to make sure those boys and girls have health insurance so they can see their doctor, get a prescription, or visit the hospital if they need to. That is exactly what the CHIP, Children's Health Insurance Program, helps them do. It will ensure that kids have insurance to get regular checkups, to pay for emergencies, or to fight illnesses such as diabetes and other illnesses that afflict children terribly in their lives.

Children without insurance are twice as likely to die from injuries while they stay in the hospital than children who have insurance, and 12 percent of children either delay getting care or do not get any care at all because their families cannot pay for it. It is simply not right. It is those children who need this program the most, but this vital children's health program is set to expire on September 30, just 2 months from now.

The Children's Health Insurance Program is the only way that 6 million of America's children can afford health insurance. Their parents are typically hard-working people, but they simply cannot afford expensive private insurance, and they make too much money to qualify for Medicaid.

For example, in New Jersey, our State program helps to keep 126,000 low-income children in good health. Considering how many kids the program is keeping healthy in New Jersey

and across the Nation, we would expect that President Bush would keep this program healthy, but he has not, and the long-term health of this program hangs in the balance. The President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2008 is $10 billion short of what we need to keep our children healthy. Without more money, we cannot cover the young people who currently get children's health insurance, and we cannot add any new children, no matter how much they need it, to the ranks of the insured.

By 2009, States will be facing more financial shortfalls. They will be forced to cut coverage for our kids. It is unacceptable, so the Senate is offering a better bipartisan plan. I am proud to support the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, which Senators Baucus and Grassley introduced and the Finance Committee approved. This bipartisan bill will provide $35 billion in new funding. Most of us would have preferred even higher levels of funding--$50 billion--and I plan to support amendments to increase the funding amount. But there cannot be any doubt that this bipartisan compromise that we have before us is a crucial step forward in improving children's health. It would maintain insurance for the 67 million children who are currently covered, and it would insure more than 3 million new kids who do not have any health insurance at all now.

It would also continue giving States flexibility in covering these youngsters. We know the cost of living and the cost of health care varies from State to State, and that must be a consideration in coverage.

President Bush ran on a campaign pledge to get millions more kids on health insurance. Instead of pledging to sign the bipartisan Senate bill--it is incredible but true--President Bush is threatening to veto it. A veto means putting millions of children at risk for illness and disease. It means going back on the President's pledge, and it shows, by his action more than his words, that the President's priorities are not the same as America's.

President Bush's lopsided tax cuts are projected to cost $252 billion in 2008 alone. We spend $3 billion a week on this war, and we have supplementals in between there. We have already spent more than a half trillion dollars on this war. When you think about it, this bill asks for only $35 billion over 5 years, $7 billion a year, to provide for children's health. It is roughly 2 months of keeping this war going.

In those 5 years we could keep millions of kids healthy and help them become productive members of our American society.

Martin Luther King said:

Of all forms of injustice, inequality in health care is the

most shocking and inhumane.

To let millions of children go without health insurance is an absolute injustice. To stand by while they get sick and cannot afford care is both shocking and inhumane. We are the wealthiest country in the world. We also should be the healthiest country in the world. But we do not seem to be able to tie in these domestic needs with the opportunity that faces us, despite the shortage of revenues because we have become so generous with people who are billionaires, in terms of their taxes. Those who make $1 million a year get tax cuts that are substantial, so it does cut into our revenues. So, as I mentioned before, does the war.

I hope all my colleagues will support this bipartisan Baucus-Grassley bill.

Last, we plead with the President to keep his promise, not to veto it but sign it, to do the best we can for our children and our country.

I yield the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with.

I ask unanimous consent now we recess for the caucuses.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Homeland Security appropriations bill now on the floor. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Homeland Security, I am proud of the bill we crafted. This bill will provide our country with more of the resources it needs to protect our communities and secure our residents.

Homeland security is particularly important to my home State. New Jersey lost 700 people on 9/11 families torn apart and lives ended without ever seeing loved ones again.

And New Jersey is ripe with targets for terrorists, from our ports to our chemical plants. In fact, the FBI has stated that the most dangerous 2 miles in America for terrorism lie within the stretch of land from Port Newark to Newark Liberty International Airport.

The level of funding for the Department of Homeland Security directly affects the safety of residents in my State.

That is why I'm glad that this legislation would invest $37.6 billion into making our homeland safer and more secure.

This figure is $2.2 billion more than what President Bush asked for. And because of that, the President is threatening to veto the bill. This is astonishing and it is wrong--$2.2 billion is less money than we spend in 1 week in Iraq.

The Senate must stand up, pass this legislation, and begin to turn a corner to provide more money to effectively defend our homeland.

In addition to more money for border security, this bill provides critical funding for first responders, including $560 million for firefighter equipment grants, $525 million for the State Homeland Security Grant Program--which is $275 million above the President's request--and $375 million for law enforcement and terrorism prevention grants.

This bill also doubles port and rail security grants in the Bush proposal to $400 million.

The Port of New Jersey and New York is largest port on the east coast--and the second-busiest container port in the country. Our ports in south Jersey are part of the Delaware River port system, which is the busiest crude oil tanker port in the country. Through these ports, many goods and materials transit to store shelves, gas pumps and factory assembly lines in the towns and cities in the interior of our country. In short, our ports are essential to our economy.

And in 2006, Amtrak had record ridership of 25 million. Ridership is already up in 2007 by 5 percent. On an average weekday, nearly a million New Jerseyans rely on our transit systems to get to work, including trains, buses, and light rail lines.

This funding for port and rail security is vital for our State.

In 2006, the President--with great fanfare--signed a port security which authorized $400 million for port security grants this year. But then he failed to fund it.

The Senate is prepared to follow through on the promise of this vital funding.

I am also proud that we are working to protect our homeland--and our economy--from terrorists who set their sights on hazardous cargoes at sea.

Senators Inouye, Stevens and I introduced legislation earlier this year to better protect maritime vessels carrying hazardous chemicals and petrochemicals. I am pleased that the committee has agreed with my request to include funding for maritime hazardous cargo protection-- including liquefied natural gas--in this Homeland Security bill.

I am further pleased that the committee acknowledged in the Report for this bill the need to expand the laboratory space at the Transportation Security Lab, TSL, in Pomona, NJ, in order to accommodate the Department's explosives detection equipment certification program. This program certifies all explosives detection equipment used by the Transportation Security Administration, and provides certifications to equipment vendors. It is clear that this facility must be expanded to safely accommodate this important program.

Finally, I am glad the Senate is once again going on record to support my provision to protect the rights of states to pass chemical security laws that are stronger than Federal regulations.

DHS recently put rules into effect for the Federal regulation of chemical plant security. But in doing so, the agency wants to preempt states from enacting stronger chemical security laws. This is the wrong approach.

The language in the Homeland Security funding bill before us wisely preserves the right of states to adopt chemical security measures stronger than Federal regulations. This language is supported by the chairs of the 9/11 Commission, the National Governors Association, and the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Simply put: preempting State laws would make the people of my State and other States less safe.

The language in this bill will allow States to go beyond the Federal regulations as long as there is no actual conflict with the federal regulations. This

means that unless it is impossible to comply with both State law and Federal law, the State law is not preempted.

Between the increases in funding for first responders, port, rail and maritime security, and the protection of States rights to pass chemical security laws that are stronger than Federal regulations, this is the right bill at the right time.

I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and I urge the President to sign it into law.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a valued friend, Daniel Baldinger, who passed away on July 4, 2007. Throughout his life he displayed a special kindness and a deep commitment to his friends and family. His spontaneous humor and wit made for a personality to which people were quickly attracted. He was multilingual, able to communicate in French, Italian, and Spanish among other languages as well. I enjoyed his company and looked forward to our times together. Dan, though creative and artistic, was also a skilled executive and presided over a family business started in 1955, which he quickly expanded into a booming business. The company, Louis Baldinger & Sons, became one of the leading companies in the lighting industry. Under Dan's leadership, Louis Baldinger & Sons' products were obtained by some of the countries most prestigious architects and designers.

While Dan achieved substantial success in his business ventures; he would be most proud of the breadth of friendships and loving relationships he shared with his family. He was a devoted and loving husband to his wife Marjorie of 48 years and together they enjoyed a wonderful family life. Dan was a proud father of his son Howard and daughter Toby, about whom he constantly bragged.

Dan was a caring man with deep intellectual curiosity and myriad interests. He was a person of various talents and abilities including cooking, which he did with flourish and gusto. At any given moment, one could find him discussing--in one of the many languages he spoke-- baseball, his plans for the Design Industries Foundation Fighting AIDS, of which he was the national chairman, or his completion of the New York Marathon in 4 hours and 28 minutes.

While Dan is no longer with us, his memory will carry on. He lived life to the fullest and was a compassionate man who acted with integrity and decency. Dan touched so many lives and all of those that had the pleasure of knowing him will miss him greatly, including my wife Bonnie and me.

Mr. President, this week New Jersey lost one of its great citizens when Judge David A. Waks passed away far too early in life at 66 years of age.

I have known the Waks family over a number of years and his son, Joe Waks, carries on a proud family tradition of public service as chief of staff of my Senate operations in New Jersey.

David Waks was respected and admired for his candid, forthright action on decency and integrity in Government service. Known as someone who had a sympathetic ear and a generous heart, so much so that when a person in serious need sought his help he would reach into his own limited resources to assist. He was a model of a compassionate public servant who all in public service should emulate. Anyone who had the good fortune to know him was inspired by his genuine affection and concern. His life was exemplary and I wanted to ensure that a permanent record of David Waks' life existed as an outstanding example of how public service can be ennobled by the right kind of leadership.

I ask that an article from the Herald News be printed in the Record.

The article follows

[From Herald News, July 19, 2007]

David A. Waks, 66, Led Life of Service

(By Suzanne Travers)

Wayne.--David A. Waks, who championed integrity in public

service for almost 40 years, first as a councilman, then as

mayor in Wayne, and later as a state Superior Court judge in

Paterson, died at his home here Wednesday.

The cause of death was lung cancer, diagnosed in mid-

November, his wife, Joan, said.

Waks, 66, who once described himself to a reporter as an

``ornery cuss'' but told voters they could count on him to be

fair-minded, even-handed and flexible, was known for his

honesty, compassion, intelligence and hard work.

``He was one of Passaic County's real jewels,'' said Rep.

Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-Paterson), a close friend for whom Waks'

son, Joseph, previously worked as spokesman.

Born and raised in Paterson, Waks moved to Wayne and got

his start in politics in 1971 as an advocate for local

tenants after his landlord hiked his apartment's rent by 20

percent.

He was elected to the council with heavy support from 5th

Ward renters, and continued to support enforcement of

tenants' rights. Often the only Democrat on a Republican

governing body, Waks was elected mayor in 1994 and again in

1997, resigning to become judge in 2000.

In December 1971, Wayne's township council voted to give

one of its last liquor licenses to the friend of a

councilman. Soon after he was sworn in, in January 1972, Waks

drafted a resolution to rescind the issuance of the license.

To avoid public allegations of cronyism, the councilman's

friend returned the license before the resolution could go

before the council, and the license was later issued to a

Vietnam veteran who opened a now-defunct liquor store on

Route 23.

``It was a nice way to get started,'' said Waks.

``Everybody knew the first time it was political patronage.

It was the first thing I ever did, and still one of the

proudest.''

Waks' tenure coincided with an era in which former Wayne

officials, including its

former mayor, business administrator, and township attorney,

pleaded guilty to taking part in various bribery schemes

involving developers. Later, Waks and his wife, an attorney

who served on the Wayne council after her husband's

departure, sued the wrongdoers for damages in an innovative

racketeering lawsuit that brought the township more than

$300,000.

Running for mayor, Waks refused to take campaign

contributions from those doing business with the township.

``He drove me nuts in this office,'' Beverly Tierney,

administrative assistant in the Wayne mayor's office, said of

her friend and former boss. ``He never let anyone do

anything. He would not accept a gift. A restaurant sent over

a tray of cookies, and he had me send them back.''

He was sworn in as a Civil Division judge in state Superior

Court in Paterson seven years ago today, according to

Assignment Judge Robert Passero.

Waks wasn't above getting personally involved in his job,

according to Passero. He recalled a case before Waks in which

a single mother with children faced eviction for failure to

pay rent. ``He gave her the money to pay the rent,'' Passero

said. ``While liking inwardly what he did, I actually had to

admonish him for that as not being appropriate.''

For as hard as he worked and as compassionate as he was,

Passero said Waks never let the grandiosity of being a judge

go to his head. ``He was the type of guy who never wore

socks. I think he still wore the same ties as he had in high

school,'' he said, with a laugh. ``He was very unassuming.

Very casual.''

Passero added, ``He studied hard, he worked hard. In my

opinion, he was an ideal judge.''

Waks graduated School 20 and Eastside High School in

Paterson, and received a bachelor's degree from Rutgers

University. In 1966, he earned a law degree from Georgetown

University, where he met his wife. He joined his father,

Isadore Waks, in his Paterson law practice the following

year. On occasion Waks filled in for his father as attorney

for Paterson's Board of Adjustment, and gave the money he

earned for that work to his mother, Joan Waks said. Later,

Waks continued as a solo practitioner.

State Sen. John Girgenti, D-Hawthorne, who appointed Waks

to state Superior Court, said Waks was ``a perfect candidate

for the bench, because he got along well with everyone.''

Waks received a lifetime appointment to the bench before

the state Senate Judiciary Committee in May, Joan Waks said.

Family members brought a wheelchair because he was weak at

that point, but Waks stood for a brief speech about how

``important it was to serve the people,'' said his wife.

``He really was so proud to be recognized for the work he

did,'' she said. ``He loved being a judge.''

Waks quit smoking about 15 years ago, his wife said. She

said he expressed his fear about dying and said he was ``not

ready to go.'' ``I don't think he believed it 'til the end,''

she said. ``He died like he lived, stubbornly.''

In addition to his wife, Waks is survived by a brother, Jay

Waks, of Larchmont, N.Y.; his children, Joseph Waks and his

wife Nancy Slowe of Bayonne; daughters Jennifer Kennelly and

her husband Thomas, of Pompton Plains; and Melanie Graceffo

and her husband Gerald, of Cranford, six grandchildren: Cole,

McKenzie, and Aidan Kennelly, and Gordon, Gabriel, and Isabel

Graceffo, and what his wife termed ``his two granddogs.''

Joan Waks said she would hold a ``family-only'' service

Monday. Waks, who was proud to be Jewish but nonpracticing,

will be cremated, she said. A memorial service will likely be

held Aug. 4 at DePaul High School in Wayne, where Waks sold

coffee at Friday bingo games long past the time their

children attended the school. Wayne Mayor Scott Rumana

ordered flags to fly at half staff for 30 days to honor

Waks.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Community Broadband Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Smith of Oregon, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator McCain of Arizona, Senator McCaskill of Missouri, and Senator Snowe of Maine.

Far too many U.S. residents live in areas of the country where there is no broadband access. Too many others live in areas where there may as well be no access because broadband is so expensive. This legislation will promote economic development, enhance public safety, increase educational opportunities, and improve the lives of the people who live in those areas.

In 2004, President Bush called for universal and affordable broadband in the U.S. by the year 2007. We are now more than halfway through 2007, and the U.S. is far from reaching this goal. Not only has the U.S. failed to provide universal, affordable broadband, but we are lagging far behind other countries. A recent study by the International Telecommunication Union shows that the U.S. ranks 15th worldwide in the percentage of people with broadband connections. If you take into account the availability of affordable broadband, the U.S. ranks 21st in the world. The U.S. should be a leader in providing fast and affordable broadband to its citizens.

Many of the countries ahead of the U.S. have successfully combined public and private efforts to deploy municipal networks that connect their residents and businesses with high-speed Internet services. The U.S. should be encouraging these innovative networks. We should not be creating obstacles for municipalities that want to provide affordable broadband access. Unfortunately, 14 States have passed legislation to prohibit or significantly restrict the ability of local municipalities and communities to offer advanced communications services and capabilities to their citizens. More States are considering such legislation. The Community Broadband Act is in response to efforts by States to tell local communities that they cannot establish networks for their residents, even in communities that have no access to broadband, in communities where access is not affordable to all residents, and in communities that want to build high-capacity networks that are comparable to those being built in the leading cities in the world.

The Community Broadband Act is a simple bill. It says that no State can prohibit a municipality from offering high-speed Internet to its residents; and when a municipality is a provider, it cannot abuse its governmental authority as regulator to discriminate against private competitors. Furthermore, a municipality must comply with Federal telecommunications laws. It also contains provisions to ensure transparency by making sure the public is aware of its town's or city's effort and intention to provide broadband either itself or in partnership with a private entity, and provides those in the community with an opportunity to be heard on the costs and benefits of the project and potential alternatives.

This bill will allow communities to make broadband decisions that would: improve their economy and create jobs by serving as a medium for development, particularly in rural and underserved urban areas; aid public safety and first responders by ensuring access to network services while on the road and in the community; strengthen our country's international competitiveness by giving businesses the means to compete more effectively locally, nationally, and internationally; encourage long-distance education through video conferencing and other means of sharing knowledge and enhancing learning via the Internet; and create incentives for public-private partnerships.

A century ago, there were efforts to prevent local governments from offering electricity. Opponents argued that local governments didn't have the expertise to offer something as complex as electricity. They also argued that businesses would suffer if they faced competition from cities and towns. But local community leaders recognized that their economic survival depended on electrifying their communities. They knew that it would take both private investment and public investment to bring electricity to all Americans.

We face a similar situation today. Municipal networks can play an essential role in making broadband access universal and affordable. We must not put up barriers to this possibility.

Some local governments will decide to do this; others will not. Let me be clear, this is not going to be the right decision for every municipality. But there are plenty of examples of municipalities that need to provide broadband, and those municipalities should have the power to do so.

A few months ago, the Parish Council of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana voted unanimously to create a wireless network. Jefferson Parish, like New Orleans, was plagued with communications problems following Hurricane Katrina. New Orleans has already created a wireless network. Now, Jefferson Parish plans to establish its own network to make sure that, should another disaster strike, emergency officials and family members will be able to communicate with one another. During nonemergency times, the network will foster communication between public workers and stimulate economic development.

These stories come from all across the country, from small towns to underserved urban areas. The small town of Granbury, TX, population 6,400, initiated a wireless network after waiting years for private industry to take an interest. In Scottsburg, IN, a city and its 6000 residents and businesses north of Louisville, KY, could not get broadband service from their local phone company. When two important businesses threatened to leave unless they could obtain broadband connectivity, municipal officials stepped forward to provide wireless broadband throughout the town. The town retained the two businesses and gained much more. There are many Granburys and Scottsburgs across the country.

There are also underserved urban areas, where private providers may exist, but many in the community simply cannot afford the high prices. For example, the City of Philadelphia reports that 90 percent of the residents of its affluent neighborhoods have broadband, whereas only 25 percent of residents in its low-income areas have broadband. For that reason, Philadelphia is now creating a city-wide wireless network.

Community broadband networks have the potential to create jobs, spur economic development, and bring the full benefits of the Information Age to everyone. I hope my colleagues will join Senators Smith, Kerry, McCain, McCaskill, Snowe and me in our effort to enact the Community Broadband Act of 2007.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Community Broadband Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Smith of Oregon, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator McCain of Arizona, Senator McCaskill of Missouri, and Senator Snowe of Maine.

Far too many U.S. residents live in areas of the country where there is no broadband access. Too many others live in areas where there may as well be no access because broadband is so expensive. This legislation will promote economic development, enhance public safety, increase educational opportunities, and improve the lives of the people who live in those areas.

In 2004, President Bush called for universal and affordable broadband in the U.S. by the year 2007. We are now more than halfway through 2007, and the U.S. is far from reaching this goal. Not only has the U.S. failed to provide universal, affordable broadband, but we are lagging far behind other countries. A recent study by the International Telecommunication Union shows that the U.S. ranks 15th worldwide in the percentage of people with broadband connections. If you take into account the availability of affordable broadband, the U.S. ranks 21st in the world. The U.S. should be a leader in providing fast and affordable broadband to its citizens.

Many of the countries ahead of the U.S. have successfully combined public and private efforts to deploy municipal networks that connect their residents and businesses with high-speed Internet services. The U.S. should be encouraging these innovative networks. We should not be creating obstacles for municipalities that want to provide affordable broadband access. Unfortunately, 14 States have passed legislation to prohibit or significantly restrict the ability of local municipalities and communities to offer advanced communications services and capabilities to their citizens. More States are considering such legislation. The Community Broadband Act is in response to efforts by States to tell local communities that they cannot establish networks for their residents, even in communities that have no access to broadband, in communities where access is not affordable to all residents, and in communities that want to build high-capacity networks that are comparable to those being built in the leading cities in the world.

The Community Broadband Act is a simple bill. It says that no State can prohibit a municipality from offering high-speed Internet to its residents; and when a municipality is a provider, it cannot abuse its governmental authority as regulator to discriminate against private competitors. Furthermore, a municipality must comply with Federal telecommunications laws. It also contains provisions to ensure transparency by making sure the public is aware of its town's or city's effort and intention to provide broadband either itself or in partnership with a private entity, and provides those in the community with an opportunity to be heard on the costs and benefits of the project and potential alternatives.

This bill will allow communities to make broadband decisions that would: improve their economy and create jobs by serving as a medium for development, particularly in rural and underserved urban areas; aid public safety and first responders by ensuring access to network services while on the road and in the community; strengthen our country's international competitiveness by giving businesses the means to compete more effectively locally, nationally, and internationally; encourage long-distance education through video conferencing and other means of sharing knowledge and enhancing learning via the Internet; and create incentives for public-private partnerships.

A century ago, there were efforts to prevent local governments from offering electricity. Opponents argued that local governments didn't have the expertise to offer something as complex as electricity. They also argued that businesses would suffer if they faced competition from cities and towns. But local community leaders recognized that their economic survival depended on electrifying their communities. They knew that it would take both private investment and public investment to bring electricity to all Americans.

We face a similar situation today. Municipal networks can play an essential role in making broadband access universal and affordable. We must not put up barriers to this possibility.

Some local governments will decide to do this; others will not. Let me be clear, this is not going to be the right decision for every municipality. But there are plenty of examples of municipalities that need to provide broadband, and those municipalities should have the power to do so.

A few months ago, the Parish Council of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana voted unanimously to create a wireless network. Jefferson Parish, like New Orleans, was plagued with communications problems following Hurricane Katrina. New Orleans has already created a wireless network. Now, Jefferson Parish plans to establish its own network to make sure that, should another disaster strike, emergency officials and family members will be able to communicate with one another. During nonemergency times, the network will foster communication between public workers and stimulate economic development.

These stories come from all across the country, from small towns to underserved urban areas. The small town of Granbury, TX, population 6,400, initiated a wireless network after waiting years for private industry to take an interest. In Scottsburg, IN, a city and its 6000 residents and businesses north of Louisville, KY, could not get broadband service from their local phone company. When two important businesses threatened to leave unless they could obtain broadband connectivity, municipal officials stepped forward to provide wireless broadband throughout the town. The town retained the two businesses and gained much more. There are many Granburys and Scottsburgs across the country.

There are also underserved urban areas, where private providers may exist, but many in the community simply cannot afford the high prices. For example, the City of Philadelphia reports that 90 percent of the residents of its affluent neighborhoods have broadband, whereas only 25 percent of residents in its low-income areas have broadband. For that reason, Philadelphia is now creating a city-wide wireless network.

Community broadband networks have the potential to create jobs, spur economic development, and bring the full benefits of the Information Age to everyone. I hope my colleagues will join Senators Smith, Kerry, McCain, McCaskill, Snowe and me in our effort to enact the Community Broadband Act of 2007.

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

Well, I wanted to do like so many, to speak much earlier. Six a.m. was the time I had reserved, and it was believed then that we would have two or three people to fill an hour. I would like 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I am sure that what is taking place on the floor of the Senate must present a terribly confusing picture to the American people. It is hard to understand even being here, with colleagues shouting their support for the American troops while they inject that what they need is an injection of truth serum for the vote. Then it will be plain and simple to see where they are, those who are opposing a direct vote, an up-or-down, as we call it, to take place, and that will answer the question: Do you want our soldiers, airmen, seamen, and marines returned home, as the American people are demanding? I remind our friends that the obligation is to get our people back to their families as soon as possible.

Outside my office, I pay respect to America's lost soldiers, our casualties of war, in a display called the ``Faces of the Fallen.'' It gives a picture and some background of the soldiers who gave their lives in this ill-conceived and seemingly endless war in Iraq. Every day, families, friends, and visitors search through thousands of photos looking to see if there are people they know, while they try to comprehend the human cost of this war to parents, spouses, children, siblings, and friends across our country.

Four years and 4 months have passed since President Bush sent young American men and women to fight in a war based on faulty intelligence and incomplete information about an enemy and the scope of this ferocious conflict. Now 160,000 American men and women are mired in a civil war in Iraq, facing thousands of insurgents willing to die themselves while they try to kill any American they can find.

Mr. President, 3,613 brave American souls will never again sit at a family table, play with their children, or return to their jobs and their communities. Ninety-one of those men and women came from New Jersey. They set their boots on the ground in Iraq never expecting they would not put them back on American soil again. Now their faces and their stories live on only in our memories.

But the solemn story those numbers tell does not stop there. Nearly 27,000 troops have left combat with wounds to their body. More than 800 of them have lost limbs or sight or other senses. Many more have left with their minds totally impaired. More than 30,000 soldiers now live with post-traumatic stress disorder or brain injuries, robbing them of the ability to think clearly or perform tasks that once came easily. They put themselves in the line of fire and fought to give the President's policy a chance, but the policy has failed.

It was more than 3 years ago that the President, in military dress, staged on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, proudly declared ``mission accomplished.'' Mission accomplished? A declaration of victory in millions of American minds? How casual. How cruel. How inept. The President did this without hesitation or pause or the idea of the cost soldiers would come to endure in the future and the hellfire they would face. There were 139 American soldiers who had died by that date, by the day that ``mission accomplished'' was declared. Compare that with today's count, which stands above 3,600. Mr. President, 139 American soldiers then--``mission accomplished''--and now the death toll is over 3,600. ``Mission accomplished''--a show of grandeur, a curtain of disaster, misleading, and I don't know if the President really understood what was taking place in front of his eyes.

Today, the President continues to use statements that defy reality. Vice President Cheney joined in. He said in those times, ``We will be greeted as liberators with sweets and treats,'' with not a hint of intelligence available before that. Today, the President continues to use statements that defy reality. We have to look back a little bit to see when Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said this war could last 6 days, 6 weeks, perhaps, I doubt, 6 months. He said that in February of 2003, a month before the invasion. What were they thinking? It is hard to understand. They were getting intelligence. They had the best information available, and they didn't use it.

Just last week, the President said:

The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq

were the ones who attacked us in America on September 11th.

This statement smacks of the same careless rhetoric we heard 4 years ago. The most frightening part about that statement is either President Bush actually believes what he is saying, doesn't bother to check, or is he deliberately distracting the American people?

The fact is that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida attacked us on 9/11 and Iraq had nothing to do with the tragedy of 9/11. The Defense Department's own inspector general confirmed this past February that the Saddam Hussein regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaida before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Has the President forgotten about Osama bin Laden, the man responsible for inflicting those wounds on the victims, their families, and this country? The war with al-Qaida and the hunt for Osama bin Laden began and continues outside of Iraq. Yet Osama bin Laden is still at large, and al-Qaida has become stronger as a result of President Bush's failed policies.

This administration took its eye off the ball. Instead of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, we are stuck in the middle of a civil war in Iraq with ever-escalating American casualties. That is why some of us in this Congress believe deep in our minds and in our souls that this carnage must end and we have to fight to bring our troops home from Iraq. We are fighting with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are giving us reasons to continue with the surge and continue with the exposure in harm's way of our brave men and women.

Millions of Americans are begging us for a change of course. They are tired of having their sons and daughters coming home in flag-covered coffins--coffins that are hidden from the public eye by order of the Pentagon. They don't even let pictures be taken of those flag-draped coffins showing the honor that is bestowed upon the person in that coffin.

The American people want Congress to step in and start to bring our troops home in a responsible way. The amendment by Senators Levin and Reed would do just that. It would begin to redeploy our troops out of Iraq within 120 days and remove all combat troops by the end of April of next year. Some American forces would remain to perform counterterrorism operations, protect U.S. personnel, and to train Iraqi forces.

This amendment reflects the will of the American people, and it is a responsible way to phase our troops out of the civil war in Iraq. But instead of having a vote to decide where a majority of the Congress stands, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are standing in the way. They are resorting to process to keep us from having a vote so that the American people can see very clearly where we each stand on this issue. So we stayed here all night. That is not much of a sacrifice; that is not much when you consider our people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Soon, every Senator will go on record, and their constituents will know whether they want to continue the President's failed policy or are they looking for a new, brighter day, a chance to bring our people back to their families?

Some of our colleagues on the other side have called for change. If you look at recent votes, seven of them had the courage to stand with the Democrats and say: Yes, we agree that this conflict has gone on long enough and we ought to start doing something to bring them home. But with the President dug in on staying the course, saying the right thing is not enough. Change will only come with a vote.

So I ask my colleagues to stand up and support the Levin-Reed amendment so we can begin to bring our men and women home. Let the American people hear our sincerity, and they will when they see procedural attempts to hide this vote and obstruct the return.

The slogan they are using is ``cut and run.'' The result would be ``stay and die.''

I yield the floor and the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I submit today a resolution calling on former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan to be honored with a commemorative stamp. Congresswoman Jordan was the first African American and the first woman to deliver a keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, which was delivered exactly 31 years ago today.

Congresswoman Barbara Jordan was a pioneer whose devotion to civil rights certainly warrants recognition. She was born in Houston on February 21, 1936, educated in Houston's public schools, and received a B.A. in political science and history from Texas Southern University in 1956. Congresswoman Jordan graduated from Boston University School of Law in 1959, after which she was admitted to the Massachusetts and Texas bars.

In 1966, Congresswoman Jordan became the first African American since 1883 to serve in the Texas Senate, where she served with distinction until 1972. That year, she won election to represent Texas' 18th District in the U.S. House of Representatives and became the State's first African-American Representative. In August 1994, President Bill Clinton awarded Congresswoman Jordan the Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian honor.

Overcoming some of the most difficult odds imaginable, Congresswoman Jordan always fought hard for what she believed in, devoting herself to improving the quality of life for all Americans. I am pleased that the Senate is considering this resolution which is cosponsored by 14 other Senators, including the 2 distinguished Senators from Texas, Congresswoman Jordan's home State.

Madam President, more time has passed, and more American troops have lost their lives overseas. I feel very strongly that we should take a few moments in the U.S. Senate to honor them.

Outside my office here in Washington, we have a tribute called ``Faces of the Fallen.'' Visitors to the Senate from across the country have stopped by the memorial. I encourage my colleagues to come see this tribute on the third floor of the Hart Building.

I last came to the Senate floor to honor our fallen troops at the end of May. And between that time and the end of June, the Pentagon announced the deaths of 165 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I want them to be remembered. So today, I will insert their names into the Record:

SPC James L. Adair, of Carthage, TX; SSG Robb L. Rolfing, of Milton,

MA; SGT Shin W. Kim, of Fullerton, CA; SGT Michael J. Martinez, of Chula Vista, CA; SGT Giann C. Joya Mendoza, of North Hollywood, CA; SPC Dustin L. Workman II, of Greenwood, NE; PFC Cory F. Hiltz, of La Verne, CA; SGT William W. Crow Jr., of Grandview Plaza, KS; SGT Frank M. Sandoval, of Yuma, AZ; SSG Daniel A. Newsome, of Chicopee, MA; SFC Nathan L. Winder, of Blanding, UT; CAPT Darrell C. Lewis, of Washington, DC; SGT Joel A. Dahl, of Los Lunas, NM; PFC Andre Craig Jr., of New Haven, CT; CPL Derek C. Dixon, of Riverside, OH; SPC Eric C. Palmer, of Maize, KS; SGT Michael J. Montpetit, of Honolulu, HI; PFC Henry G. Byrd III, of Veguita, NM; SGT William E. Brown, of Phil Campbell, AL; SPC Dominic N. Rodriguez, of Klamath Falls, OR; 1LT Daniel P. Riordan, of St. Louis, MO; SGT Joel A. House, of Lee, ME; SGT Jimy M. Malone, of Wills Point, TX; SPC Derek A. Calhoun, of Oklahoma City, OK; SSG Michael D. Moody Jr., of Richmond, VA; SGT Chris Davis, of Lubbock, TX; PVT Shane M. Stinson, of Fullerton, CA; SPC Carter A. Gamble Jr., of Brownstown, IN; PFC Jerimiah J. Veitch, of Dibble, OK; MAJ Sid W. Brookshire, of MO; SSG Darren P. Hubbell, of Tifton, GA; SPC Joe G. Charfauros Jr, of Rota, Mariana Islands; SPC Joseph P. Kenny, of Veneta, OR; SGT Alphonso J. Montenegro II, of Far Rockaway, NY; SGT Ryan M. Wood, of Oklahoma City, OK; PFC Daniel J. Agami, of Coconut Creek, FL; PFC Anthony D. Hebert, of Lake City, MN; PFC Thomas R. Leemhuis, of Binger, OK; A1C Jason D. Nathan, of Macon, GA; SPC Karen N. Clifton, of Lehigh Acres, FL; PFC Raymond N. Spencer Jr., of Carmichael, CA; PFC Jacob T. Tracy, of Palestine, IL; SGT Shawn P. Martin, of Delmar, NY; SSG Stephen J. Wilson, of Duluth, GA; SGT Dustin J. Perrott, of Fredericksburg, VA; SFC William A. Zapfe, of Muldraugh, KY; PFC Joshua S. Modgling, of Las Vegas, NE; SPC Darryl W. Linder, of Hickory, NC; SGT Derek T. Roberts, of Gold River, CA; SPC Val J. Borm, of Sidney, NE; PFC Larry Parks Jr., of Altoona, PA; SGT Richard K. Parker, of Phillips, ME; CAPT Joshua E. Steele, of North Henderson, IL; SFC Christopher D. Henderson, of Hillsboro, OR; SFC John M. Hennen, of Vinton, LA; PFC David A. Wilkey Jr., of Elkhart, IN; 1LT Frank B. Walkup, IV, of Woodbury, TN; SSG Roy P. Lewsader, Jr., of Belleville, IL; SGT Danny R. Soto, of Houston, TX; CPL Zachary A. Grass, of Beach City, OH; PFC Michael P. Pittman, of Davenport, IA; CPL Dustin R. Brisky, of Round Rock, TX; SSG Michael A. Bechert, of New Castle, IN; MAJ Kevin H. Sonnenberg, of McClure, OH; MSG Arthur L. Lilley, of Smithfield, PA; PFC Casey S. Carriker, of Hoquiam, WA; SPC Josiah W. Hollopeter, of San Diego, CA; LTC Glade L. Felix, of Lake Park, GA; SPC Damon G. LeGrand, of Lakeside, CA; LCpl Johnny R. Strong, of Waco, TX; PVT William C. Johnson, of Oxford, NC; PFC Cameron K. Payne, of Corona, CA; CPL Llythaniele Fender, of Medical Lake, WA; CPL Meresebang Ngiraked, of Koror, Republic of Palau; SPC Adam G. Herold, of Omaha, NE; PVT Scott A. Miller of Casper, WY; SGT Cory M. Endlich of Massillon, OH; SSG Brian M. Long of Burns, WY; SGT Charles E. Wyckoff Jr. of Chula Vista, CA; SGT Dariek E. Dehn of Spangle, WA; A1C Eric M. Barnes of Lorain, OH; SFC Greg L. Sutton of Spring Lake, NC; SrA William N. Newman of Kingston Springs, TN; PFC Timothy R. Vimoto of Fort Campbell, KY; SGT Matthew Soper of Kalamazoo, MI; SGT Kimel L. Watt of Brooklyn, NY; PFC Justin A. Verdeja of La Puente, CA; PFC Shawn D. Gajdos of Grand Rapids, MI; SSG Timothy B. Cole Jr. of Missouri City, TX; SSG Juan F. Campos of McAllen, TX; SPC Jacob M. Lowell of New Lenox, IL; SGT Andrews J. Higgins of Hayward, CA; SSG Greg P. Gagarin of Los Angeles, CA; SGT James C. Akin of Albuquerque, NM; SGT Tyler J. Kritz of Eagle River, WI; SGT Robert A. Surber of Inverness, FL; SGT Caleb P. Christopher of Chandler, AZ; TSgt Ryan A. Balmer of Mishawaka, IN; SSG Matthew J. Kuglics of North Canton, OH; SPC Jeremiah D. Costello of Carlinville, IL; SPC Keith V. Nepsa of New Philadelphia, OH; SGT Charles R. Browning of Tucson, AZ; SGT Shawn E. Dressler of Santa Maria, CA; PFC Joshua D. Brown of Tampa, FL; CWO Christopher M. Allgaier of Middleton, MO; CWO Joshua R. Rodgers of Carson City, NV; SSG Charlie L. Bagwell of Lake Toxaway, NC; SGT Jesse A. Blamires of West Jordan, UT; SGT Brandon E. Hadaway of Valley, AL; SSG Travis W. Atkins of Bozeman, MT; SGT Bruce E. Horner or Newport News, VA; LTC Michael A. Robinson of Sylacauga, AL; SPC Doonewey White of Milpitas, CA; SPC William J. Crouch of Zachary, LA; 1LT Kile G. West of Pasadena, TX; SGT Anthony D. Ewing of Phoenix, AZ; CPL Zachary D. Baker of Vilonia, AR; CPL James E. Summers the 3rd of Bourbon, MO; SPC Alexandre A. Alexeev of Wilmington, CA; SGT Bacilio E. Cuellar of Odessa, TX; SPC James E. Lundin of Bellport, NY; PFC Joshua M. Moore of Russellville, KY; CPL Jonathan A. Markham of Bedford, TX; PFC Matthew E. Baylis of Oakdale, NY; PFC Matthew A. Bean of Pembroke, MA; PFC Robert A. Liggett of Urbana, IL; SGT Richard V. Correa of Honolulu, HI; 1LT Keith N. Heidtman of Norwich, CT; CWO Theodore U. Church, OH; SSG Thomas M. McFall of Glendora, CA; PFC Junior Cedeno Sanchez of Miami, FL; PFC Charles B. Hester of Cataldo, ID; SPC Clinton C. Blodgett of Pekin, IN; LCpl Emmanuel Villarreal of Eagle Pass, TX; SPC Francis M. Trussel Jr. of Lincoln, IL; SPC Mark R. C. Caguioa of Stockton, CA; LCpl David P. Lindsey; SGT Nicholas R. Walsh; SPC Erich S. Smallwood of Trumann, AR; PVT William L. Bailey the 3rd of Bellevue, NE; SPC Alexander Rosa Jr. of Orlando, FL; SPC Mathew P. LaForest of Austin, TX; SFC Robert E. Dunham of Baltimore, MD; SSG Russell K. Shoemaker of Sweet Springs, MO; CPL Victor H. Toledo Pulido of Hanford, CA; CPL Jonathan D. Winterbottom of Falls Church, VA; PFC Casey P. Zylman of Coleman, MI; SGT Iosiwo Uruo of Agana Heights, Guam; PFC Robert H. Dembowski of Ivyland, PA; SSG Steve Butcher Jr. of Penfield, NY; PFC Daniel P. Cagle of Carson, CA; SPC Benjamin J. Ashley of Independence, MO; SSG Kristopher A. Higdon of Odessa, TX; PFC Robert A. Worthington of Jackson, GA; SSG David C. Kuehl of Wahpeton, ND; SSG Shannon V. Weaver of Urich, MO; SGT Brian D. Ardron of Acworth, GA; CPL Michael W. Davis of San Marcos, TX; SGT Robert J. Montgomery Jr. of Scottsburg, IN; PVT Oscar Sauceda Jr. of Del Rio, TX; SSG Joseph M. Weiglein of Audubon, NJ; SGT Eric L. Snell, of Trenton, NJ; SPC Farid Elazzouzi, of Paterson, NJ; PFC David J. Bentz III, of Newfield, NJ; SGT Trista L. Moretti, of South Plainfield, NJ.

Madam President, as you heard, this list includes five soldiers from New Jersey: SSG Joseph Weiglein; SGT Eric L. Snell; SPC Farid Elazzouzi; PFC David J. Bentz III; and SGT Trista L. Moretti.

Staff Sergeant Weiglein was killed after an IED, or ``improvised explosive device,'' blew up while he was on patrol. He was 31.

Sergeant Snell died after his unit came under fire from insurgents in Baghdad. He was 35.

Specialist Elazzouzi was killed by an IED, after it exploded outside his vehicle. He was 26.

Private First Class Bentz was also killed by an IED, after it exploded outside his vehicle. He was 20 years old.

And Sergeant Moretti died of injuries sustained in combat. She was 27.

To date, more than 3,500 American men and women have lost their lives in Iraq. And more than 400 have lost their lives in Afghanistan. We will not forget them and the Nation will not forget their sacrifice.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the Kean University Cougars baseball team's dramatic victory in the 2007 NCAA Division III National Championships. Bringing joy to the more than 13,000 Kean University students and all of the Cougar fans in Union, NJ, Kean University capped off their impressive season with a thrilling 5-to-4 victory in the 10th inning of the championship game. The victory ushered in the Cougars' first baseball championship title and was the culmination of an inspiring undefeated run through the postseason.

Throughout the season the team played with courage and determination. Boasting a roster with 28 New Jerseyans, the Cougars finished in first place in the New Jersey Athletic Conference, NJAC, with an impressive record of 15 wins and only 3 losses, best in the conference. Although the Cougars fell to the College of New Jersey in the conference championships, the team recovered quickly and finished the season with an overall record of 43 wins and 8 losses and the national championship.

Championship baseball requires strong leadership, and under coach Neil Ioviero, the Cougars played team baseball that allowed them to realize their full potential. With the help of assistant coaches Jamie Ioviero, Lewis France, Jack Nagy, Francisco Romero, and Frank Beckhorn, the coaching staff created a winning environment and offered the guidance that allowed the Cougars to excel on the field.

The entire Cougars squad played with heart and the championship was truly a team effort. I would like to congratulate and commend all of the players on the Kean University 2007 Division III Championship Team: Maikel De La Rosa, Ryan Clark, Joseph Augustine, Mike Shymanski, Keith Kwiatek, Aaron Richard, Joseph D'Andrea, Eric Ammirata, Perry Schatzow, Chris Carrano, Thomas Paglione, Brandon Aich, Mike Manganiello, Kevin O'Neill, Kyle Murphy, Andrew Cupido, Colin Feneis, Matt Donaghue, Derek Gianakas, Mark Blevins, Dan Mattonelli, Matt Grinkevich, Joe Rizzo, Tim Lowe, Daniel Zeffiro, Joe Bartlinski, Matt Merrigan, Nick Nolan and Nick Cesare.

Mr. President, on behalf of the State of New Jersey I am honored to congratulate the Cougars for their NCAA Division III Championship season. They played hard and displayed an admirable commitment to competition and sportsmanship that instills a sense of pride in the students of Kean University, the team's fans, and the people of my State.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business, the time to be charged to the time allotted for cloture. I will probably take up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, the first thing I want to do is take a minute to publicly thank the majority leader for the kindness he extended to me earlier when he announced the fact that I have cast the second-highest number of votes of any Senator from the State of New Jersey.

Mr. President, I am as surprised as anybody in this Chamber that this event took place and that kind of longevity has been extended to me by the people of New Jersey. I now enter the middle of my 23rd year in the Senate and I want to continue to serve. But that is a discussion for another time.

The majority leader was very generous in his comments about me. Coming from a person who has provided so much by way of leadership and contribution to the country as Harry Reid, it is a touching experience. We are busy, but Senator Reid took time out of the business of the day to note the fact that I had achieved that record.

The biggest surprise of all is, for me, the fact that I have been in this Chamber as long as I have been. I spent 30 years building a company with a couple of colleagues.

That is the legend of America--what can happen even if you are born poor but you have some assistance. I wore the uniform of this country proudly during World War II. I was a beneficiary of the GI Bill of Rights. That is how they defined the educational opportunity that was given.

Mr. President, my surprise--my awe, if I may--was that I was able to go to Columbia University, a distinguished educational facility, which was something I never dreamed possible because of the humble roots that my family had. They gave me values--nothing of value but values. My parents' admonition throughout my life was to always be honest, always tell the truth, always work hard, and remember one thing, son: There are people as poor as we are. As difficult as it is at times, there are always people less fortunate.

My grandmother had a little bank in the house, which we shared with her many times, in which we would put small coins, to be used for--I cannot say charity but for others who were less fortunate.

So I stand in this Chamber at this moment, and I want to talk about something related to roots--to my roots. My father and my mother struggled to make a living. My father worked in the silk mills of Paterson, NJ, a textile city. Others like my dad and mother were brought to this country by their parents, hoping for an opportunity to make a living and to have some degree of opportunity.

My father worked in the silk mill with a dear friend of his who was later very active in union organization. My father made a plea to his foreman for a holiday off. It was an important religious holiday. He wasn't looking for any pay, Heaven forbid. He just wanted to have the time off for observance of the holiday. He and his very close friend asked the foreman if it would be all right if they took the day off for the observance of the holiday, which was the week following. The reply was very quick: Oh, sure, you can take the day off, but don't come back to work here anymore. With that, you can imagine the view of my father and his friend not being able to continue a job that was scarce and difficult to get. So they waited, hat in hand.

In those days, people would wear hats to work in common labor at a mill. They described that, hat in hand, the two of them nervously waited for the owner of the company to come by. They would not let them go into the owner's office. Heaven forbid, that is no place for people like you. But the owner was a kind, generous man. When he walked out, they stopped him and explained that they desperately wanted to take the holiday off, but they needed their jobs. The owner was a kind, sympathetic person, and he said: Take the time off, and you are going to be paid for that holiday.

That was the beginning days of union representation in this country-- very active, very confrontational, very difficult, and sometimes violent. But my father saw and his friend saw that they had to have a better way to do things than stand hat in hand and beg for a day off. Fortunately, they found a kind man who listened and gave them the day off. But the experience was searing, and they never forgot that working people had to have representation.

Both of them then became active in union organization. Those were difficult days. We have all heard stories about employees who wanted some representation, wanted a voice in how they were paid, wanted a voice in what conditions were like.

My father worked in a mill. My father was a health faddist even in those days. He took very good care of himself. He was a man with muscles. He would go to the gym, and he would lift weights. He belonged to the local Y. He never smoked, was light on coffee, and no liquor. He died when he was 43 years old. He contracted cancer when he was 42. The cause was almost undeterminable, but they realized that there were materials they used when they worked with the silk to keep the silk brittle and to keep the machinery working that ultimately caused my father's cancer. His brother died at age 56 also from cancer. Their father died at age 52 also from cancer induced by the environment at the factory in which they worked.

The fact is that people who work in places like this should have a voice--and we see disparities, such as taking 10 years to raise the minimum wage.

It is time to give unions, to give working people a chance to have a voice in their work or their opportunity to take care of their families, or the opportunity, as my father said, to

hold your head high, be proud, be proud you are a worker, be proud you are contributing something to your country.

What we see now is distressing, which is why we are discussing freedom of choice for workers, to give them a chance have their voice heard without having to go through a hassle about whether they are organized. I have seen what happens. I ran a very big company. When I left the company, it had 16,000 employees. Today it has 40,000 employees, a company I started with 2 other poor kids from the neighborhood. We were always very conscious of our responsibility to our employees. That is why the company was so successful. It had the longest growth of any company in American history of 10 percent or more on the bottom line.

We had a case in New Jersey where a bus driver was fired for being a union supporter and giving testimony to the National Labor Relations Board. Even as we gather here, we see that employers are still using all kinds of tactics to harass, threaten, or fire workers who try to exercise their right to form a union. Ninety-two percent of employers make their employees sit through one-sided, anti-union presentations, according to a study by Cornell University.

The Cornell study also said that 78 percent of employers have supervisors hold repeated closed-door, one-on-one meetings with workers to intimidate them to oppose the union.

I don't think those kinds of tactics are appropriate. Decent jobs are ever more scarce in this country as we ship so many jobs abroad, as technology--and I come from the computer business; I know something about technology--as technology takes jobs away from people whose only skills are manual skills, and they need a way to make a living. You don't have to be a new immigrant to need a job where you use your hands, use your body, or use your strength to make a living. But these jobs are going further and further afield because of the technology.

We should not allow employers to prevent workers from having a greater voice in their workplace on issues of pay and benefits and working conditions.

We can improve this situation by passing the Employee Free Choice Act to protect workers and to protect their rights--again I use the expression--hold their heads high, know they can provide for their families, know they don't have to apologize to their kids for having to work as hard as so many do, two jobs in many cases.

The bill that is in front of us will let employees select a union if a majority signs cards saying they want representation. They don't want to take over the ownership of the company. They don't want to deprive senior executives from making their salaries or their benefits. When we see what is happening in America today, there is a frightening specter out there, and I talk as someone who came from the corporate boardroom. I can be accused of being a tree hugger because I care about the environment. I can be accused of other things. But I can't be accused of not understanding what it is like to run a business, a successful business.

If people want representation, when we see that there are people in this country making $1.8 billion for a single year's work, and many others earning $240 million or more. The salaries are adequate enough, as they said in an article in the New York Times a couple of weeks ago, that if you took the combined wages of people who made $240 million or more in the year, you could pay 80,000 school teachers in the city of New York for 3 years.

There are disparities, and what has to happen is that people who work for a living have to understand their work, their effort, their contribution to the country. We have Tom Brokaw here for lunch right now. He wrote a book, ``The Greatest Generation.'' What was it? It was working people who made the contribution. It was working people who on D-Day--I didn't arrive in Europe on D-Day; I arrived a little bit later--those who were there, those who were the heroes, those who saved their companions, working people. They are entitled to be heard.

Workers cannot be hassled or harassed to be kept from expressing their interests in a union. This bill says employees can select a union as soon as a majority signs a card saying they want representation. Current law allows for this majority signup, but only at the employer's discretion. The employer can instead demand an election and use that time before that election to scare workers away from joining a union.

The Employee Free Choice Act will protect and enhance the right of workers to join a union, and there is good reason for some to choose a union. As President Bush helps the wealthy get wealthier, helps the corporations develop ever more earnings, I see nothing wrong with that as long as there is a fairness, an equity. When a company such as ExxonMobil earns almost $40 billion in a year, and Americans pull up to the pump and very often they are giving away a significant part of their purchasing power at that gasoline pump, we have to be sure we don't totally demoralize the working people of this country.

Union wages can help low- and middle-wage workers earn their way to new opportunities and financial stability. Everybody knows it costs more to live these days. It costs more to send a kid to college. It costs more to get health care. It costs more for gasoline. It costs more for mortgages. It costs more for everything.

We have to make sure that the people who work for a living, who do the building, who do the lifting, are able to make a living.

When it comes to wages, union wages are almost 30 percent higher than nonunion wages, and union workers are almost twice as likely to have employer-sponsored health benefits.

In 2005, 1.3 million New Jersey residents were uninsured for health. That is 300,000 more residents than 5 years ago. Union membership can make a huge difference to them and their families. Hard-working Americans deserve these benefits. We need the Employee Free Choice Act so workers can express themselves without intimidation. They have to be certified if they make that kind of choice. But we also want employers to be accountable when they violate the law. This bill will strengthen penalties for employer violations of the National Labor Relations Act so that employers are deterred from breaking the law.

Workers deserve an atmosphere where they can choose a union without intimidation or coercion. They need a strong law to allow them to make their own choice without interference from management. The Employee Free Choice Act is that law. It will give employees a stronger voice in shaping the workplace and will help employees earn more money, benefits, and improve their futures.

I am proud to support this bill for New Jersey's and America's current union members and for those who want to unionize.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Permit people to make their choice and make it freely and not have to be worried about intimidation or harassment. If you want to join a union, simple: Fill out a card. Why should they be deprived from doing so for their future? I don't think they should be.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, right now, people are at gas stations across America, filling up cars and trucks to get to work, take their kids to school, and run their errands.

In May of 2002, a gallon of gas cost $1.40. Today that same gallon of gas costs $3.22. In just 5 years, the price of gas has more than doubled.

Gas isn't the only energy cost that has spiked in the last 5 years. In New Jersey, individuals, families, and businesses are paying 25 percent more for electricity than they were just 5 years ago. These high prices are hurting our families--families whose budgets are already stretched thin.

We also know that our energy policies are hurting our environment. The emissions from our cars and trucks, electric utilities, and factories are causing global warming--a fact recently verified by a United Nations Panel on Climate Change. The energy bill before us marks the first serious attempt in years to address our energy crisis.

First, it takes a measured but appropriate approach to improving CAFE standards governing the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks. Right now, Japan leads the world in fuel efficiency. Many of their cars and trucks get more than 40 miles per gallon. The United States is far behind. Our passenger cars have been stuck at CAFE standards of 27.5 miles per gallon since 1990--and our light trucks get just 21.6 miles per gallon. We must do better, and with this bill, we will.

Our energy bill calls for increasing fuel efficiency to 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020. As we improve our fuel efficiency, we decrease both the amount of gas Americans have to pay for and the greenhouse gases our cars emit. But despite what many think, greenhouse gases don't only come from cars and trucks. Buildings have a significant impact on the environment and on the health of every American-- accounting for nearly 40 percent of America's greenhouse gases. The Federal Government is the largest owner and renter of buildings in the Nation and is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world.

In addition, poorly designed schools can cause the air inside to be unhealthy. This poor air quality increases childhood asthma.

More than 67 percent of schools have a design problem that contributes to asthma. For those reasons, I introduced the High Performance Green Buildings Act, which is now included in the Energy bill. This legislation focuses on making our Federal buildings ``green'' and improving the environmental and health impacts of our schools. I worked with our former colleague, Senator Jeffords, on this bill in the past--and the language now in the Energy bill represents a collaborative effort between myself, Senator Boxer, and Senators Snowe and Warner.

In comparison to standard buildings, the average green building has better air quality, uses 30 percent less energy, and results in nearly 40 percent fewer emissions. Green buildings also have smaller electric bills, which saves owners and tenants on their bottom lines.

The Federal Government must lead by example and achieve those results for its buildings. Accordingly, my green buildings bill will direct the General Services Administration to use a green building certification that all Federal buildings should achieve. It also provides grants and voluntary guidelines for schools to lessen their environmental impacts--and improve the health of the students, teachers, and staff inside them.

Finally, the bill calls for demonstration projects to show the public that green buildings are environmentally sound, benefit people's health, and are both cost-effective and practical.

The States are doing their part. New Jersey and 21 other States have already signed bills similar to my legislation. Many private companies are doing their part as well. For example, Bank of America is building a new highrise office tower in Manhattan--a building that will be entirely green. It is time for the Federal Government to do its part.

We need a solution to our energy problems: one that protects the American pocketbook, improves our CAFE standards, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and promotes green building. This energy bill will be an important step forward toward achieving these goals.st

amendment no. 1792

Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from New Jersey.

I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia. It is not often I disagree with the Senator from Virginia. I think this is the wrong course. To allow exploration and potential drilling off the coast of Virginia? We are from a State with a coastline that we cherish and must protect with all of our energy. Imagine the devastation an oil or a natural gas spill off the coast of Virginia would cause. New Jersey is only 75 miles from the proposed drilling sites off the coast of Virginia. An oil spill can travel hundreds of miles. For instance, when the Exxon Valdez dumped 11 million gallons of oil in Alaska, the oil traveled 470 miles. I was there within 3 days. It had already traveled hundreds of miles in Alaska. An oil spill from any offshore site off Virginia's coast could easily devastate the shoreline of our State and States up and down the Eastern Seaboard. It could poison the Atlantic and marine life that has made the ocean their home. It would damage our economy enormously. Our coastline accounts for approximately $50 billion a year in tourism every year and supports almost 500,000 jobs.

The Warner amendment calls for offshore exploration and drilling for natural gas. According to the Department of Interior, natural gas is seldom found as a solitary product. Oil is almost always found in those locations. So not only can natural gas have environmental problems, but drilling for natural gas can easily result in puncturing oil deposits and causing major spills.

According to the Department of Interior, approximately 3 million gallons of oil were spilled as a result of offshore drilling between 1980 and 1999. Each of these spills averaged more than 40,000 gallons. The Warner amendment will increase the likelihood of a spill ravaging our beaches. We won't allow New Jersey's coastline and our marine life to be placed at such a risk.

It is not just me who is urging my colleagues to vote against this. The Governors from New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, and Maine have written letters to Congress urging this body to act responsibly and not allow drilling off our coasts. The energy we might be able to get there pales in comparison to the damage we could do to our coastlines in a very short time.

Reluctantly, I say to my friend from Virginia, I oppose the amendment. I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Maritime Hazardous Cargo Security Act of 2007 along with my colleagues Senators Inouye, Stevens, and Smith. As the bipartisan leaders of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and its Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Safety, Security, and Infrastructure, we have been working together over the course of this session to evaluate the risks posed by the transportation of especially hazardous cargo in the maritime sector. This bill is the result of exhaustive research and consultation with affected industries and the Department of Homeland Security. Ships bringing liquefied natural gas, LNG, from foreign ports as well as the facilities along America's shores that handle LNG must be better secured against terrorism.

With so much focus on hazardous cargo that is transported on our roads and railways, we must not neglect the much larger shipments of hazardous cargoes that are carried by vessel. Energy supply challenges in our country have led to the proposals for approximately 70 new shoreside facilities in the United States to receive liquefied natural gas via oceangoing tank vessel. Many of the safety and security risks of the transportation of this commodity are known and have been detailed by the Government Accountability Office. Furthermore, other chemicals and petrochemicals can present even greater security risks.

The shipping system for these commodities is international in scope, so our bill would require the administration to work with our international trading partners to develop standards of care to adequately protect those ships, facilities, employees and nearby communities and residents from attacks involving these and other hazardous cargoes. Our proposal would require significant steps to protect the safety and security of our regional and national economies, and the public health, from the potential hazards of high risk cargo transported by ship.

Specifically the Maritime Hazardous Cargo Act of 2007 would: Direct the Administration to work with international partners to develop standards and procedures for the safe and secure handling of especially hazardous cargoes, EHC, for all vessels and port facilities; require successful completion of U.S. Coast Guard Incident Command System, ICS, training for all personnel responsible for the safety and security of a vessel in port; require the Department of Homeland Security to develop regional response and recovery plans for the resumption of commerce after disruption by a security incident; authorize the U.S. Coast Guard to develop cost share plans for security costs associated with high- risk U.S. facilities; authorize assistance to foreign ports that handle and transport EHC's for the purpose of complying with or exceeding current International Ship and Port Facility Code, ISPFC, standards; authorize voluntary third party validation of international port facilities to certify they meet or exceed international safety standards; and require the U.S. Coast Guard to develop a resource allocation plan to show how its proposed budget will be used for EHC security operations and to report to Congress biannually.

In summary, the Maritime Hazardous Cargo Act of 2007 will require strengthening of Federal protections against terrorist attacks on facilities and vessels that transport, handle, and store especially hazardous cargoes, EHC's. The transportation of EHC's by ship can pose a significant risk to the public safety and the economic security of the Nation, particularly the transportation of chemicals and petrochemicals such as anhydrous ammonia, ammonium nitrate, chlorine, liquefied natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas. Currently, no international standards exist for the safe and secure handling of these chemicals/petrochemicals by ship and limited U.S. Coast Guard resources for EHC security poses a dangerous risk to our communities. Further, I intend to work with my cosponsors and other colleagues to ensure there are sufficient resources in the Federal budget to carry out the provisions of the bill.

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