Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would establish a comprehensive Federal research plan and program to address ocean acidification, which poses a growing threat to the health of our oceans.

Our oceans help reduce global warming by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. To date, about one-third of all human-generated carbon emissions have dissolved into the ocean. However, the increase in carbon dioxide lowers ocean pH, and causes the oceans to become more acidic. This increase in acidity is corrosive to marine shells and organisms that form the base of the food chain for many fish and marine mammals. These changes in ocean chemistry also threaten coral reef ecosystems, habitats so rich in biodiversity they are called he rain forests of the sea. Even a mild increase in ocean acidity could make these organisms more vulnerable to disease, pollution and other environmental stresses. If the acidic conditions increase significantly, marine shells could actually begin to dissolve.

Ocean acidification demands our immediate attention. Current projections of carbon dioxide emissions suggest that the acidity of our oceans is likely to accelerate significantly in the coming years. NOAA scientists have said that ocean acidity has increased 30 percent since the industrial revolution and they estimate by the end of this century the acidity of the oceans may increase 150 percent. They also project that current trends could result in a decrease in ocean pH to the lowest levels in 20 million years.

Ocean acidification threatens our marine ecosystems and could result in significant social and economic costs. The rich biodiversity of marine organisms is an important contribution to the national economy providing food, tourism, and aesthetic benefits, but they are vulnerable to human activity. Ocean acidification threatens fish and all calcifying organisms including corals, scallops, clams, crabs, lobsters, and plankton.

It is important to note the potential economic impacts of ocean acidification. Coastal and marine commercial fishing generates upwards of $30 billion per year and employs nearly 70,000 people. Many of these fisheries also rely upon healthy coral habitats. Increased ocean acidification reduces the ability of corals and shellfish to produce their skeletons. Globally, coral reefs are home to more than 4,000 kinds of fish, and generate $30 billion per year in fishing, tourism, and protection to coasts from storms. Scientists have estimated that, due to excess carbon dioxide in the oceans, corals may be unable to form their skeletons by mid-century, and could begin to dissolve by the end of this century. Destroying these ecosystems will have staggering environmental, social and economic consequences.

In addition, ocean acidification directly threatens numerous commercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish species from coast to coast. Carbon dioxide-rich waters have been shown to decrease the body weight of Pacific salmon and increase the mortality rate of Alaskan blue king crab. Over 50 percent of our commercial catch in the United States is shellfish. In New Jersey, sea scallops and clams are some of the State's most valuable fisheries, valued at $121 million. These and other important shellfish species are threatened by growing acidification.

Research on the processes and consequences of ocean acidification is still in its infancy. The urgency of developing interagency collaboration to address this far-reaching environmental problem is widely recognized in the scientific community. In January, the Administration Ocean Research Priorities Plan, ORPP, identified ocean acidification as a research priority. Consistent with the ORPP, my legislation will establish a comprehensive research and monitoring program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. This is critical for ocean management in the long-term because many questions on the effect of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide on ocean chemistry and marine life remain unanswered.

My legislation also establishes an interagency committee to develop a comprehensive ocean acidification research and monitoring plan designed to improve the understanding of the environmental and economic impacts of increased ocean acidification. The plan will identify priority research areas and strengthen relevant programs within our federal agencies. The plan will also address commercially and recreationally important species, as well as vulnerable ecosystems including coral reefs and coastal and polar oceans threatened by acidification.

The rise of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has been measured continuously since 1958. Known as the ``Keeling Curve'', these measurements are a cornerstone of our understanding of man-made increases in carbon dioxide causing global warming and ocean acidification. It is vital that we establish a program for long-term global measurements of ocean pH to understand the processes and consequences of ocean acidification. A key component in our bill directs federal agencies to establish a long-term monitoring program of pH levels in the ocean utilizing existing global ocean observing assets.

Congress has been hearing from our Nation experts on ocean acidification since 2004. Now is the time for national investment in a coordinated program of research and monitoring to improve understanding of ocean acidification, and strengthen the ability of marine resource managers to assess and prepare for the harmful impacts of ocean acidification on our marine resources.

I would like to thank Senator Cantwell for her cosponsorship and support on this important issue. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure passage of this legislation so that we can fill this vital research need and protect our valuable marine resources.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would establish a comprehensive Federal research plan and program to address ocean acidification, which poses a growing threat to the health of our oceans.

Our oceans help reduce global warming by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. To date, about one-third of all human-generated carbon emissions have dissolved into the ocean. However, the increase in carbon dioxide lowers ocean pH, and causes the oceans to become more acidic. This increase in acidity is corrosive to marine shells and organisms that form the base of the food chain for many fish and marine mammals. These changes in ocean chemistry also threaten coral reef ecosystems, habitats so rich in biodiversity they are called he rain forests of the sea. Even a mild increase in ocean acidity could make these organisms more vulnerable to disease, pollution and other environmental stresses. If the acidic conditions increase significantly, marine shells could actually begin to dissolve.

Ocean acidification demands our immediate attention. Current projections of carbon dioxide emissions suggest that the acidity of our oceans is likely to accelerate significantly in the coming years. NOAA scientists have said that ocean acidity has increased 30 percent since the industrial revolution and they estimate by the end of this century the acidity of the oceans may increase 150 percent. They also project that current trends could result in a decrease in ocean pH to the lowest levels in 20 million years.

Ocean acidification threatens our marine ecosystems and could result in significant social and economic costs. The rich biodiversity of marine organisms is an important contribution to the national economy providing food, tourism, and aesthetic benefits, but they are vulnerable to human activity. Ocean acidification threatens fish and all calcifying organisms including corals, scallops, clams, crabs, lobsters, and plankton.

It is important to note the potential economic impacts of ocean acidification. Coastal and marine commercial fishing generates upwards of $30 billion per year and employs nearly 70,000 people. Many of these fisheries also rely upon healthy coral habitats. Increased ocean acidification reduces the ability of corals and shellfish to produce their skeletons. Globally, coral reefs are home to more than 4,000 kinds of fish, and generate $30 billion per year in fishing, tourism, and protection to coasts from storms. Scientists have estimated that, due to excess carbon dioxide in the oceans, corals may be unable to form their skeletons by mid-century, and could begin to dissolve by the end of this century. Destroying these ecosystems will have staggering environmental, social and economic consequences.

In addition, ocean acidification directly threatens numerous commercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish species from coast to coast. Carbon dioxide-rich waters have been shown to decrease the body weight of Pacific salmon and increase the mortality rate of Alaskan blue king crab. Over 50 percent of our commercial catch in the United States is shellfish. In New Jersey, sea scallops and clams are some of the State's most valuable fisheries, valued at $121 million. These and other important shellfish species are threatened by growing acidification.

Research on the processes and consequences of ocean acidification is still in its infancy. The urgency of developing interagency collaboration to address this far-reaching environmental problem is widely recognized in the scientific community. In January, the Administration Ocean Research Priorities Plan, ORPP, identified ocean acidification as a research priority. Consistent with the ORPP, my legislation will establish a comprehensive research and monitoring program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. This is critical for ocean management in the long-term because many questions on the effect of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide on ocean chemistry and marine life remain unanswered.

My legislation also establishes an interagency committee to develop a comprehensive ocean acidification research and monitoring plan designed to improve the understanding of the environmental and economic impacts of increased ocean acidification. The plan will identify priority research areas and strengthen relevant programs within our federal agencies. The plan will also address commercially and recreationally important species, as well as vulnerable ecosystems including coral reefs and coastal and polar oceans threatened by acidification.

The rise of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has been measured continuously since 1958. Known as the ``Keeling Curve'', these measurements are a cornerstone of our understanding of man-made increases in carbon dioxide causing global warming and ocean acidification. It is vital that we establish a program for long-term global measurements of ocean pH to understand the processes and consequences of ocean acidification. A key component in our bill directs federal agencies to establish a long-term monitoring program of pH levels in the ocean utilizing existing global ocean observing assets.

Congress has been hearing from our Nation experts on ocean acidification since 2004. Now is the time for national investment in a coordinated program of research and monitoring to improve understanding of ocean acidification, and strengthen the ability of marine resource managers to assess and prepare for the harmful impacts of ocean acidification on our marine resources.

I would like to thank Senator Cantwell for her cosponsorship and support on this important issue. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure passage of this legislation so that we can fill this vital research need and protect our valuable marine resources.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 minutes to speak in morning business.

Mr. President, today is going to be a day of great importance to America. We are going to be voting on the supplemental bill to fund the surge and the number of soldiers on duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. But last night we learned the body of one of the missing soldiers in Iraq was found. Despite our prayers, he was dead. We were informed that the body of Joseph Anzack, Jr., was pulled from the Euphrates River south of Baghdad.

On May 12, he and two of his colleagues went missing after they were ambushed by insurgents. How did the capture of three Americans take place? Are we short of troops to back them up or is it so dangerous we just can't overcome the odds we face?

All of America is hoping and praying, as we keep these other two soldiers in our hearts and our minds, that they will be found alive by the troops searching for them.

One of the soldiers searching for their two colleagues said something to the Associated Press. I quote him here.

It just angers me that it's just another friend that I've

got to lose and deal with, because I've already lost 13

friends since I've been here and I don't know if I can take

it anymore.

Much of America feels the same way. Outside of my office in Washington we have a tribute called ``The Faces of the Fallen.'' Visitors from across the country have stopped by this memorial-- pictures of those who perished. I encourage my colleagues to come and see these photographs displayed on placards on the third floor of the Hart Building.

Since the beginning of May, and we are now at the 24th of May, the Pentagon has announced the deaths of 75 of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan coming from thirty-one different states. I want them to be remembered.

Today, I am going to read their names into the Record. As we listen to the names, the real cost of this war is being felt in many homes across this country.

These are the names: LCpl Benjamin D. Desilets, of Elmwood, IL; CPL Julian M. Woodall, of Tallahassee, FL; CPL Ryan D. Collins, of Vernon, TX; SGT Jason A. Schumann, of Hawley, MN; SSG Christopher Moore, of Alpaugh, CA; SGT Jean P. Medlin, of Pelham, AL; SPC David W. Behrle, of Tipton, IA; SPC Joseph A. Gilmore, of Webster, FL; PFC Travis F. Haslip, of Ooltewah, TN; PFC Alexander R. Varela, of Fernley, NV; SFC Jesse B. Albrecht, of Hager City, WI; SPC Coty J. Phelps, of Kingman, AZ; PFC Victor M. Fontanilla, of Stockton, CA; SGT Ryan J. Baum, of Aurora, CO; SGT Justin D. Wisniewski, of Standish, MI; SGT Anselmo Martinez III, of Robstown, TX; SPC Casey W. Nash, of Baltimore, MD; SPC Joshua G. Romero, of Crowley, TX; SFC Scott J. Brown, of Windsor, CO; SPC Marquis J. McCants, of San Antonio, TX; PFC Jonathan V. Hamm, of Baltimore, MD; SGT Steven M. Packer, of Clovis, CA; PFC Aaron D. Gautier, of Hampton, VA; SSG Joshua R. Whitaker, of Long Beach, CA; SGT Allen J. Dunckley, of Yardley, PA; SGT Christopher N. Gonzalez, of Winslow, AZ; SGT Thomas G. Wright, of Holly, MI; LCpl Jeffrey D. Walker, of Macon, GA; PFC Zachary R. Gullett, of Hillsboro, OH; MAJ Larry J. Bauguess Jr., of Moravian Falls, NC; PFC Nicholas S. Hartge, of Rome City, IN; SFC James D. Connell Jr., of Lake City, TN; PFC Daniel W. Courneya, of Nashville, MI; CPL Christopher E. Murphy, of Lynchburg, VA; SSG John T. Self, of Pontotoc, MS; SPC Rhys W. Klasno, of Riverside, CA; MAJ Douglas A. Zembiec, of Albuquerque, NM; PVT Anthony J. Sausto, of Lake Havasu City, AZ; 1LT Andrew J. Bacevich, of Walpole, MA; PFC William A. Farrar Jr., of Redlands, CA; SPC Michael K. Frank, of Great Falls, MT; PFC Roy L. Jones III, of Houston, TX; SGT Jason W. Vaughn, of Iuka, MS; SGT Blake C. Stephens, of Pocatello, ID; SPC Kyle A. Little, of West Boylston, MA; SGM Bradly D. Conner, of Coeur d'Alene, ID; LCpl Walter K. O'Haire, of Lynn, MA; SGT Timothy P. Padgett, of Defuniak Springs, FL; SPC Dan H. Nguyen, of Sugar Land, TX; SSG Vincenzo Romeo, of Lodi, NJ--my home State; SGT Jason R. Harkins, of Clarkesville, GA; SGT Joel W. Lewis, of Sandia Park, NM; CPL Matthew L. Alexander, of Gretna, NE; CPL Anthony M. Bradshaw, of San Antonio, TX; CPL Michael A. Pursel, of Clinton, UT; SSG Virgil C. Martinez, of West Valley, UT; SGT Sameer A. M. Rateb, of Absecon, NJ--my home State; COL James W. Harrison Jr., of Missouri; MSG Wilberto Sabalu Jr., of Chicago, IL; SSG Christopher N. Hamlin, of London, KY; PFC Larry I. Guyton, of Brenham, TX; SSG Christopher S. Kiernan, of Virginia Beach, VA; MSG Kenneth N. Mack, of Fort Worth, TX; CPL Charles O. Palmer II, of Manteca, CA; PFC Jerome J. Potter, of Tacoma, WA; SSG Coby G. Schwab, of Puyallup, WA; SPC Kelly B. Grothe, of Spokane, WA; SPC Andrew R. Weiss, of Lafayette, IN; SPC Matthew T. Bolar, of Montgomery, AL; LCpl Johnathan E. Kirk, of Belhaven, NC; PFC Joseph G. Harris, of Sugar Land, TX; 1LT Colby J. Umbrell, of Doylestown, PA; 1LT Ryan P. Jones, of Massachusetts; SPC Astor A. Sunsin-Pineda, of Long Beach, CA; PFC Katie M. Soenksen, of Davenport, IA.

Mr. President, as you heard, this list includes two brave men from New Jersey--I visited their families--SSG Vincent Vincenzo Romeo and SGT Sameer Rateb. Staff Sergeant Romeo was from Lodi, NJ, and Sergeant Rateb was from Absecon, NJ.

It also includes SGT Allen J. Dunckley. His funeral is taking place today at 10:30, 5 minutes from now. His family is from Glassboro, NJ. PVT Anthony J. Sausto lived in Hamilton Township, NJ.

We cannot forget these brave men and women. The Nation cannot afford to forget their sacrifice. We have to remember that these brave souls left behind parents and children, siblings, friends. Their sorrow will last forever. We want them to know the country thinks about them, and we make a pledge to preserve their memory with the dignity that those who served and paid this price deserve.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would increase protections for the Nation's beaches and the public.

This bill, the Beach Protection Act, will amend the sections of the Clean Water Act that were enacted in the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health, BEACH, Act, which I wrote in 1990, and which was enacted and signed by President Clinton in 2000.

The BEACH Act required states to adopt the Environmental Protection Agency's 1986 national bacteria standard for beach water quality and provided incentive grants for States to set up beach monitoring and public notification programs. At the time Congress passed the BEACH Act, only 7 States had adopted water quality standards for bacteria at least as stringent as those recommended by EPA in 1986. Only 9 States had programs in place to monitor all or most of their beaches for pathogens, and to close the beaches or issue advisories when coastal waters are not safe. Only 5 States compiled and publicized records of beach closings and advisories. New Jersey was one of the leaders in all three of these categories.

Now, thanks to the BEACH Act, every coastal State except Alaska has a monitoring program and a program for public notification of contamination of beach waters. In addition, every State has adopted standards at least as stringent as those set by EPA.

The Beach Protection Act would build upon the progress we have made since passage of the BEACH Act, to improve monitoring and notification requirements, and improve the protection of our beaches.

The Beach Protection Act will reauthorize the Federal grants created under the BEACH Act, and make several improvements to the program, based upon the lessons learned over the last 7 years. These amendments will increase protections and help reduce the water pollution that threatens the environment and public health.

First, the Beach Protection Act will increase the funds available to States, and expand the uses of those funds to include tracking the sources of pollution that cause beach closures, and supporting pollution prevention efforts. It will also require EPA to develop methods for rapid testing of beach water, so that results are available in 2 hours, instead of 2 days.

Secondly, this legislation will strengthen the requirements for public notification of health risks posed by beach water contamination, and ensure that all State and local agencies that play a role in protecting the environment and public health are notified of violations of water quality standards.

Finally, the Beach Protection Act will improve accountability for states that fail to comply with the requirements of the Act.

These measures will improve the public's awareness of health risks posed by contamination of coastal waters, and create additional tools for addressing the sources of pollution that cause beach closures, including leaking or overflowing sewer systems and stormwater runoff.

Clean water is an economic and public health necessity for New Jersey and other coastal states. I have devoted my career to keeping New Jersey's waters clean and safe for swimming and fishing. The original BEACH Act I authored was an important step toward ensuring cleaner, safer beaches. The Beach Protection Act will further strengthen protections for the public and our beaches.

I am pleased that Senator Menendez is joining me as an original cosponsor of this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this legislation forward toward passage.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would increase protections for the Nation's beaches and the public.

This bill, the Beach Protection Act, will amend the sections of the Clean Water Act that were enacted in the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health, BEACH, Act, which I wrote in 1990, and which was enacted and signed by President Clinton in 2000.

The BEACH Act required states to adopt the Environmental Protection Agency's 1986 national bacteria standard for beach water quality and provided incentive grants for States to set up beach monitoring and public notification programs. At the time Congress passed the BEACH Act, only 7 States had adopted water quality standards for bacteria at least as stringent as those recommended by EPA in 1986. Only 9 States had programs in place to monitor all or most of their beaches for pathogens, and to close the beaches or issue advisories when coastal waters are not safe. Only 5 States compiled and publicized records of beach closings and advisories. New Jersey was one of the leaders in all three of these categories.

Now, thanks to the BEACH Act, every coastal State except Alaska has a monitoring program and a program for public notification of contamination of beach waters. In addition, every State has adopted standards at least as stringent as those set by EPA.

The Beach Protection Act would build upon the progress we have made since passage of the BEACH Act, to improve monitoring and notification requirements, and improve the protection of our beaches.

The Beach Protection Act will reauthorize the Federal grants created under the BEACH Act, and make several improvements to the program, based upon the lessons learned over the last 7 years. These amendments will increase protections and help reduce the water pollution that threatens the environment and public health.

First, the Beach Protection Act will increase the funds available to States, and expand the uses of those funds to include tracking the sources of pollution that cause beach closures, and supporting pollution prevention efforts. It will also require EPA to develop methods for rapid testing of beach water, so that results are available in 2 hours, instead of 2 days.

Secondly, this legislation will strengthen the requirements for public notification of health risks posed by beach water contamination, and ensure that all State and local agencies that play a role in protecting the environment and public health are notified of violations of water quality standards.

Finally, the Beach Protection Act will improve accountability for states that fail to comply with the requirements of the Act.

These measures will improve the public's awareness of health risks posed by contamination of coastal waters, and create additional tools for addressing the sources of pollution that cause beach closures, including leaking or overflowing sewer systems and stormwater runoff.

Clean water is an economic and public health necessity for New Jersey and other coastal states. I have devoted my career to keeping New Jersey's waters clean and safe for swimming and fishing. The original BEACH Act I authored was an important step toward ensuring cleaner, safer beaches. The Beach Protection Act will further strengthen protections for the public and our beaches.

I am pleased that Senator Menendez is joining me as an original cosponsor of this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this legislation forward toward passage.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Federal Government Greenhouse Gas Registry Act. This bill will create an inventory of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Federal Government. This includes the Government's buildings, automotive fleets and other sources of emissions. Understanding the ``footprint'' of the Federal Government's emission is essential to reducing those emissions.

The Federal Government is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world. In particular, the largest owner or renter of buildings and owns the single largest fleet of cars in the United States. The buildings and the transportation sectors account for nearly two-thirds of all of the greenhouse gases in the country. The Federal Government must lead by example by reducing its own emissions.

Understanding the extent of an entity's emissions, through the development of a registry, is important to ultimately reducing emissions. The private sector already understands this. It has found that tracking and monitoring corporate emissions creates an

opportunity to easily reduce emissions by seeing where energy is inefficiently used. According to a recent report by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, ``the first step in developing a climate strategy is to analyze a company's GHG emissions profile . . .''

My bill uses the GHG protocol, a rigorous standard developed by experts and used by companies, States and trading regimes around the world, including Johnson & Johnson, the California Climate Action Registry and the EU's emission trading schemes. Utilizing such a well known and frequently used standard is important because it allows for comparison and benchmarking with other large emitters.

The Government Accountability Office, GAO, has also recognized the importance of measuring greenhouse gas emissions. According to a GAO report from April 2007--``Energy Audits Are Key to Strategy for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions''--conducting emissions assessments would ``. . . include information on cost-effectiveness and potential for reducing emissions.''

In closing, the Federal Government has an obligation to lead by example and this bill is a critical first step in reducing its emissions.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Federal Government Greenhouse Gas Registry Act. This bill will create an inventory of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Federal Government. This includes the Government's buildings, automotive fleets and other sources of emissions. Understanding the ``footprint'' of the Federal Government's emission is essential to reducing those emissions.

The Federal Government is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world. In particular, the largest owner or renter of buildings and owns the single largest fleet of cars in the United States. The buildings and the transportation sectors account for nearly two-thirds of all of the greenhouse gases in the country. The Federal Government must lead by example by reducing its own emissions.

Understanding the extent of an entity's emissions, through the development of a registry, is important to ultimately reducing emissions. The private sector already understands this. It has found that tracking and monitoring corporate emissions creates an

opportunity to easily reduce emissions by seeing where energy is inefficiently used. According to a recent report by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, ``the first step in developing a climate strategy is to analyze a company's GHG emissions profile . . .''

My bill uses the GHG protocol, a rigorous standard developed by experts and used by companies, States and trading regimes around the world, including Johnson & Johnson, the California Climate Action Registry and the EU's emission trading schemes. Utilizing such a well known and frequently used standard is important because it allows for comparison and benchmarking with other large emitters.

The Government Accountability Office, GAO, has also recognized the importance of measuring greenhouse gas emissions. According to a GAO report from April 2007--``Energy Audits Are Key to Strategy for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions''--conducting emissions assessments would ``. . . include information on cost-effectiveness and potential for reducing emissions.''

In closing, the Federal Government has an obligation to lead by example and this bill is a critical first step in reducing its emissions.

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

Mr. President, once we were able to see beyond the death, destruction, and suffering that Hurricane Katrina wrought, we saw that America is unprepared for a megacatastrophe. We learned that lesson at the expense of those in the gulf states.

Nevertheless, our vulnerability is not limited to Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, or to our Southern Atlantic States.

Fifty-seven percent of Americans live in areas prone to earthquakes, hurricanes, or other massive disasters. We know about the quakes that have rocked California, Oregon, and Alaska. But the largest earthquake to strike the continental U.S. was centered in New Madrid, MO, in 1811. It rattled a swath of land that spanned from Mississippi to Michigan, from Pennsylvania to Nebraska.

Twenty States, including Hawaii, and States that share a shoreline with the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, face the threat of hurricanes or severe storms every year.

New Jersey experienced the second most severe storm in its history just last month. These downpours forced nearly 5,000 New Jerseyans to evacuate their homes and led to the deaths of at least three.

Increasing numbers of people make those areas of vulnerability their homes every day. Eight out of the eleven most costly U.S. natural catastrophes have occurred since 2001.

The failures of Katrina--from neglected levies to negligent leadership--must be acknowledged and addressed now, before the next catastrophe strikes. We have a moral obligation to learn from that experience.

America needs an integrated program that unifies State and Federal policies to prepare and protect American families from the devastation of natural catastrophes.

There are steps we can and must take--and we must take them today.

We must prevent unnecessary loss of life and property by encouraging State and local governments to enact sensible building codes and land use policies that recognize the exposure to natural catastrophes.

We must support first responders with the equipment, training, and personnel needed to save lives and reduce property damage.

We must educate consumers and provide them the tools they need to prepare for catastrophes and protect their families and homes from harm.

We must establish a rigorous process of continuous improvement by learning from past mistakes and assessing recovery efforts after every disaster to identify ways to continually improve our ability to recover from catastrophes.

My Senate colleagues, the warnings before Hurricane Katrina were shamefully ignored and unheeded, the response was slow and erratic, and this Nation paid an enormous price.

We have been warned. We must learn from the lessons of Katrina and exhibit the leadership America needs to be prepared and protected from catastrophes to come.

Mr. President, we have an interesting challenge in front of us today. All of us support drug availability at affordable prices. The challenge that brings us to the floor today is how to ensure that prescription drugs used by Americans are both affordable and safe. That is the goal for all of us, I believe, in the Senate.

We trust the drugs we get at our local pharmacies, our neighborhood pharmacies, are safe because they go through a rigorous FDA approval process, and a series of tests and inspections are done before they reach our medicine chests. Those drugs improve, extend, and save lives.

I am proud so many of these drugs originate in my home State. In fact, more than half the medicines approved by the FDA in 2001 were developed by 70,000 hard-working people employed in the pharmaceutical companies of New Jersey. These companies have received more than 11,000 patents for their products since 1985 for their innovative work. Many of these products are life-extending and limit often painful and debilitating conditions.

When we look at the prospects these companies are offering, we want to encourage the research. I heard this morning about an inoculation that could be sufficient, given one time to women, that could prevent osteoporosis. What a wonderful thing. Recently, we have had a product come to the market called Gardasil. It says that young women who receive an injection of Gardasil can be protected against cervical cancer for their lives. What a wonderful thing that is. Lipitor has been known for some time to reduce plaque gathering in the valves and the veins that lead to the heart. We want to encourage that kind of development, and our goal is to make sure these workers continue developing lifesaving medications and at the same time lower costs and increase access to these drugs.

I support the efforts to lower prescription drug prices, and I understand the appeal of reimportation, as long as we are absolutely assured of the safety and efficacy of these products. So if we are going to trust drugs imported from other countries, we need to be sure they are as effective and completely safe. We cannot put our citizens in the position of buying medicine they think will lower their cholesterol or prevent heart disease only to find out years later the drug was a fake.

According to the World Health Organization, up to 10 percent of all drugs sold across the globe are counterfeit. We heard debate about the countries that some of these drugs come from. If we want to give consumers the chance to buy drugs imported from other countries, we have to insist these drugs are authentic, reliable, and safe.

That is why the Senate has, on three prior occasions, required the Department of Health and Human Services to certify that importation be without additional risk to the public health while it reduces costs. That is why I intend to support the Cochran second-degree amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same thing. Let's make sure what we are telling the public to buy is absolutely safe, harmless, and can improve life's qualities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds more.

Mr. President, the Cochran amendment would require the same certification this body has approved three times before--to guarantee prescription drugs and provide consumers peace of mind, knowing that the drugs they are taking are safe and effective no matter where they originated.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize and congratulate the United Parcel Service on its 100th anniversary. In these 100 years, many of us have grown to see UPS's ubiquitous brown vans as symbols of reliability and to know and trust the remarkable people who drive them. As UPS has evolved to become the largest package delivery company in the world, it has become a cornerstone of commerce in America and a vital part of my State's economy.

When James E. Casey founded UPS in 1907 with a $100 loan from a friend, surely it would have been beyond even his wildest dreams that the company would grow to deliver 15.6 million documents and packages every day, to employ 360,600 employees here in the United States, and to make deliveries to over 200 countries and territories throughout the world. By constantly innovating and improving service and

through the dedication of its employees, UPS has reached the pinnacle of its industry and has set the standard by which its competitors must follow.

I am proud to say that since opening their first facility in Newark, NJ, in 1928, UPS has maintained a significant presence in my home State of New Jersey. It employs more than 18,000 people statewide, making it one of the 10 largest employers in our State. I recently had the privilege and opportunity to visit a UPS hub in Edison to help commemorate UPS's 100th anniversary. At the Edison facility, 3,000 dedicated employees process and sort packages originating from and destined for points all over our State. Individuals and businesses across New Jersey rely on their efforts every day, and the intricate and sophisticated processes used by these employees ensure that important packages and documents are delivered on time.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in congratulating UPS on 100 years in business. I personally extend my best wishes to the company and its employees in New Jersey and across the world for many more years of success and prosperity.

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

Madam President, I want to take some time, as we contemplate what is going to happen with the supplemental bill we just passed because, frankly, I am in a state of shock over the casual dismissal of the opinions of the American people, in huge majorities, who say: We have had enough of this war, and we want to make a change. They want us to start to position ourselves in a manner that would allow us to bring our people home.

Not far from this Senate floor, in the middle of the National Mall, is a place of stone and water, of strength and reflection. It is a place that is important to me and, I think, important to the country as a whole. It is where we honor those who served and those who died in World War II.

I proudly wore the uniform of my country during that war. I do not consider myself a hero, but I did my duty to the best of my ability. I and 16 million others went to war because our mission was clear: defeat the enemy who attacked us. And while the battles were fought across the ocean, the entire country united. They all sacrificed. That was the message: sacrifice, sacrifice at home, use less gas, turn off the lights, reduce energy consumption, black out the beachfront places or coastal areas so the enemy could not see the lights of the cities. Even with rising injuries and casualties in World War II, America kept its resolve because we believed in our leaders.

How times have changed.

There is one simple reason the American people have lost faith in this war effort: It has become clear our leaders are not providing us with the truth. And the chief purveyor of misstatements is Vice President Cheney. He chooses to say whatever he wants to, to advance his agenda. But the agenda has now, we know, resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans, thousands of Iraqis. It is time to say: Enough is enough.

I want to review some of the outlandish statements the Vice President has made about this war. On the eve of the invasion, in March 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney assured the Nation that ``we will be greeted as liberators.''

I ask the question: How dare he make a statement such as that-- without knowledge, without any idea of what the consequences of that action might be. We will be greeted as liberators?

He went on to say the fight would be ``weeks rather than months.''

In June of 2005, Vice President Cheney assured us the insurgency in Iraq is ``in the last throes.'' That was almost 2 years ago. Ask our people in uniform, ask our people in combat, ask those who are facing another deployment after having been there once or even twice--ask them what they think about that statement, about the accuracy of those remarks.

Earlier this year, even after the Pentagon admitted there was no evidence at all of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, the Vice President said there was a connection. If you say it, maybe you can convince people, even if it is not the truth.

And now, this week, we have our Vice President speaking out against this bill we just passed, again making outlandish claims.

You have to ask yourself a question: Who is still listening to those comments and giving them any credibility? Unfortunately, there are people, despite his outrageous and unsubstantiated claims--claims such as the ``insurgency is in its last throes''--who tend to believe him. He is, after all, the Vice President of the United States. It is a prestigious job. There is an automatic assumption that credibility goes to the occupant of that position.

We may never know the real motivation behind this administration's drive to Iraq, but we do know the following: They presented false intelligence to the American people and our allies.

We have seen some of those responsible, credible people, who believed in the case that was being made by the intelligence reports--look at one of the great figures in American contemporary history, Colin Powell--a general, Chief of Staff. I remember his speech at the United Nations providing evidence of materials that confirmed there were weapons of mass destruction there. And now this man, who has a lifetime built on honesty and credibility, has said he regrets those statements. But we do not hear that pause, that reflection, coming from the President or the Vice President of the United States.

The administration knowingly misled the country about Iraq's nuclear ambitions in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address.

In a recent CBS News poll, 66 percent of the American people disapproved of the way President Bush is handling this situation with Iraq. That disapproval has continued to build. If you look at some of the polling data we have seen over the last couple years, less and less of the people in the country believe we are doing a good job with the situation in Iraq, as portrayed by the President.

On Monday, President Bush said:

There's been some progress.

That statement shows the President is living in an alternate reality.

On that same day--Monday--10 American troops were killed, 9 of them in a single attack. Since the beginning of this war, more than 3,300 of our people in uniform have died.

One of those people was a fellow from Toms River, NJ, Marine Cpl Thomas Saba. He served with the Marines' Flying Tigers. He volunteered to extend

his tour of duty after his squadron was deployed to Iraq. He died with his comrades in February when their helicopter was shot down by insurgents. Corporal Saba is one of 77 people from my home State of New Jersey to see their last sunset in Iraq. Ten more have died in Afghanistan.

Beyond these casualties, nearly 25,000 of our troops have left the combat theater with serious wounds. More than 800 of them have lost at least one limb. We have spent mountains of taxpayer money in Iraq. We have spent $400 billion, going now at the rate of $3 billion a week. What have we gotten for our investment? A disaster. That is the reality of Iraq, not the endless and empty picture of optimism the Vice President and others in the administration and the President continue to paint. ``Extend our victories.'' What victories are they talking about? I don't see any victories. We see more threats. Not only to our people--that is the most serious one--not only to our reputation, but to our leadership in the world as it disintegrates in front of us as this conflict continues.

We need a new course, and we need it now. This supplemental provides that new course. We hope the President will reflect a little bit, instead of the braggadocio attitude and false stories about how Democrats want to surrender. That is the most offensive thing. Democrats want to surrender? Senator Inouye, a Medal of Honor winner here, and other people who fought in Vietnam and other places. We want to surrender America? It is an outrage.

Outside my office, we have a memorial and it shows the ``Faces of the Fallen''--photographs. Some of them are blank, but they have a name and a location of the person--the faces of the fallen from Iraq and Afghanistan. Typically it carries each picture, and we have about 3,000 of them. It takes a while to get the pictures together. People walk by, they stop and pause and write notes in a journal we have there. It includes the name and age, the rank and the battalion or company they served in, the cause of death of each of the Nation's fallen servicemembers, inscribed with their photo on the memorial. Families, friends, and visitors search those photos on a daily basis looking for people from their State, from their area, people who many knew and loved and miss. One woman found a picture of her son up there and wrote an inscription in our journal.

As they search these pictures, some write notes in a book of reflections. I want to share two of those reflections. A person named Prudence Hart from New Jersey wrote:

We honor our soldiers for answering the call of their

Nation. We must honor them and this Nation by never allowing

another President to wage war as this one has.

Another person, Jay Miller from Rhode Island, wrote:

We are at a pivotal point in our country's history. Our

leaders must take a stand and use their constitutional powers

to end this madness.

To Prudence Hart, Jay Miller, and every American, I say: We are with you. We do honor those who have bravely taken up their task, able and willing to do it. Some of those troops are the third deployment away from a spouse, children, community, job. They are the ones making the sacrifice, and they are the ones whom we want to honor. We want to honor them by remembering those who paid the ultimate price, but we want to honor them further by bringing them home and giving them appropriate post-service treatment.

I wish we were treating our veterans in the same honorable manner in which they were recruited. We have failed in many instances. We failed, even as people criticize Democrats and those who disagree with them, even as they try to discredit us as wanting to surrender, when they didn't provide the right equipment, whether the humvees were sufficiently armored, or whether they had the proper flak jackets.

I went to Iraq some years ago, and when I asked the people I met from New Jersey: What is it we could do to make their job better and protect them more, one of them said, Senator--and I was with four other colleagues--Senators, the flak jackets you are wearing, the body armor you are wearing is the latest and the best. We don't have it. People who were in the coalition have that, but we don't. What else? They said: Our humvees are not sufficiently armored to protect us. We know what has happened.

So if we want to talk about honoring our troops, where was the administration while Halliburton was stealing from the country with food and shelter and had a fine of millions of dollars imposed by the auditors from the Defense Department? Shame on them. In the war I fought in, there wasn't anybody except a traitor who would do something that might help the enemy like having a sham corporation in the Cayman Islands, a branch in Dubai where they then did business with Iran-- Iran, which supplies weapons and encouragement to insurgents who want to kill our people there. It is shocking that we see that, and when we hear these false tales coming from the Vice President of the United States, when he talks about victory, and I am paraphrasing: victory within our grasp, within our reach. The American people don't believe it, and I tell my colleagues I don't believe it, and a lot of my colleagues don't believe it.

We had a vote one day that was significant. It was 56 to 44, and it included seven of our colleagues from the Republican side, people who had the courage to stand up and say: Look, we are not ashamed to be Republicans, and we are not ashamed to be Democrats, but we think this policy is wrong. We had enough votes--not to get cloture, but to establish a significant majority. I know some of our colleagues over there who are loyal to the party and to the President who don't like a bit what he is asking of the American people now, and asking of us, labeling this bill as a porkbarrel thing.

I can't get the word ``surrender'' out of my mind.

I sit on the Appropriations Committee, and I was at a conference committee of the House and the Senate the other night, and the ranking Republican on the House side said the Democrats want to surrender just when General Petraeus is coming in--surrender. This bill is our stand, the American stand. It begins to set a timetable for us to come home-- not to run away from our responsibilities. Our responsibility has been more than met. But we are even willing to leave enough of a cadre there to say: OK, we will help the Iraqis learn to defend themselves. We will help the Iraqis to reconstruct their society. We will help even to do some counterterrorism and counterinsurgencies.

It is time to come home. It is time to come home, and I hope the President of the United States will follow the demands of the American people and a major number of people who oppose where we are, a huge majority.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Stop Business With Terrorists Act of 2007. Senator Clinton is joining me as an original cosponsor of this important bill. This bill will shut down a source of revenue that flows to terrorists and rogue regimes that threaten our nation's security.

President Bush has made the statement that money is the lifeblood of terrorist operations. He could not be more right. Amazingly, some of our corporations are providing revenue to terrorists by doing business with these rogue regimes. My bill is simple. It closes a loophole in the law that allows American companies to do business with our enemies.

Our current sanctions laws prohibit United States companies from doing business directly with Iran, but the law contains a loophole. It enables an American company to create a foreign-based subsidiary that can do business with that prohibited country. As long as this loophole is in place, our sanctions laws have no teeth.

My bill will close this loophole once and for all and will cut off a major source of revenue for terrorists. It will require foreign subsidiaries that are majority controlled by a U.S. parent company to follow U.S. sanctions laws. For those companies that would need to divest from such a situation, they would have 90 days to do so. This is a simple concept with significant impact.

It is critical that we starve these rogue regimes and the terrorists they support at the source. Of the companies that are taking advantage of this loophole, the country that has benefited the most has been Iran. And as we know, Iran funds Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist organizations. We should not allow American-controlled companies to provide cash to Iran so that they can convert these funds into bullets and bombs to be used against us and our allies.

It is inexcusable for American companies to engage in any business practice that provides revenues to terrorists, and we have to stop it. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to close the terror funding loophole.

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