Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Gregg in our introduction of legislation that would help protect and preserve the valuable coastal and estuarine lands of our Nation.

Development of the Nation's coastal and estuarine areas poses an increasing threat to water quality, wildlife habitat, flood protection, and recreational opportunities. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy emphasized that intact coastal lands are vital to ensuring the ecological and economic health of coastal communities. However, as these areas are fragmented and disappear, so do the benefits they provide. The Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act (CELP) would authorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as the lead Federal agency supporting State, local or private acquisition of land or conservation easements in undeveloped coastal areas in order to ensure their protection from development. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative has identified enactment of the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act as a high priority for improving our coastal resource management. This legislation builds upon the existing Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) within NOAA. The Program allows States to compete for matching funds to acquire land or easements for the protection of sensitive coastal ecosystems. The Federal funds provided through this program help leverage additional State, local and private funding.

The CELCP complements private, Federal and State conservation programs. This program is based on the highly successful Forest Legacy program which is a Federal-State partnership program that supports efforts to protect environmentally sensitive forest lands. Permanent protection of lands in the coastal zone is also necessary to maintain and enhance coastal and estuarine areas for the benefit of the Nation, including protecting water quality, keeping public beachfront accessible, conserving wildlife habitat, and sustaining sport and commercial fisheries.

Coastal and estuarine areas are some of the most productive ecosystems on earth. They are home to countless plants, animals, birds, and fish. These are complex ecosystems that provide a foundation for marine life as well as protection of inland areas from storm damage. Over the last 150 years the national system of estuaries has decreased in size because of our growing coastal populations and short-sighted land-use planning. Today our coastal areas are home to over 150 million Americans, about 53 percent of the U.S. population, and over 180 million people visit the coasts each year. Due to the increasing pressures from development in low-lying areas, NOAA has estimated 80 percent of our Nations' coastal waters are impaired for human use and marine life.

The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) established under the Coastal Zone Management Act is a network of 27 protected estuaries throughout the United States, including the Jacques Cousteau NERRS site in New Jersey. These are pristine areas that provide public education and conservation awareness, and serve as living laboratories for scientific research. The funds provided through the CELP program established by our legislation would promote the expansion of these estuarine areas and assist in keeping coastal ecosystems healthy and productive.

Federal funds help make New Jersey conservation possible. New Jersey's treasured natural resources--from the Meadowlands to the marshlands of Barnegat Bay--have substantially benefited from Federal support. The existing CELCP has aided in securing protection for over a thousand acres in New Jersey including lands for Gunning Island, Tuckerton Creek, and the Harbor Herons project. This week there will be a formal dedication of a 115-acre property, acquired with the aid of CELCP, on Potter Creek in Berkeley Township for public use and recreation. Lands have been protected in the Manahawkin Marsh, for wildlife habitat, including migratory birds along the Atlantic Flyway. In Ocean County, the CELCP helped secure the acquisition of 800 acres on Tuckerton Creek in Little Egg Harbor which is vital to protecting Atlantic white cedar stands and improving the water quality of the Barnegat Bay. These projects have successfully protected our coasts while sustaining human activity.

The coastal zone is essential to our country's prosperity and well- being. The coastal and estuarine lands are areas of national importance and they are vulnerable to human activities. From 2002 through 2006 twenty-five States have benefited from the CELCP. Now is the time for Congress to authorize this program to conserve lands that are vital to our Nation.

The bill Senator Gregg and I are introducing today, the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act, will ensure an ongoing partnership between Federal, State, and local governments to support the economic and natural resource base of communities through the acquisition of coastal and estuarine lands. This legislation offers the opportunity for States to protect coastal and estuarine areas that have significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, or aesthetic values and are threatened by conversion to other uses.

The organizations supporting this legislation include The Trust for Public Land, The American Littoral Society, NY/NJ Baykeeper, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Land Trust Alliance, Restore America's Estuaries, American Fly Fishing Trade Association, Society for the Protection of New Hampshire's Forests, National Estuarine Research Reserve Association, Association of National Estuary Programs, The Ocean Conservancy, Coastal States Organization, The Conservation Fund, The Nature Conservancy, and the New Jersey Audubon Society. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support from these groups be printed in the Record.

I would like to thank Senator Gregg for his long-time leadership on this issue. I would also like to thank Senator Mikulski for her many years of support for this legislation. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Gregg and my colleagues in the Senate to ensure its passage so that we can fill this vital need for coastal and estuarine protection.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Gregg in our introduction of legislation that would help protect and preserve the valuable coastal and estuarine lands of our Nation.

Development of the Nation's coastal and estuarine areas poses an increasing threat to water quality, wildlife habitat, flood protection, and recreational opportunities. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy emphasized that intact coastal lands are vital to ensuring the ecological and economic health of coastal communities. However, as these areas are fragmented and disappear, so do the benefits they provide. The Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act (CELP) would authorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as the lead Federal agency supporting State, local or private acquisition of land or conservation easements in undeveloped coastal areas in order to ensure their protection from development. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative has identified enactment of the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act as a high priority for improving our coastal resource management. This legislation builds upon the existing Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) within NOAA. The Program allows States to compete for matching funds to acquire land or easements for the protection of sensitive coastal ecosystems. The Federal funds provided through this program help leverage additional State, local and private funding.

The CELCP complements private, Federal and State conservation programs. This program is based on the highly successful Forest Legacy program which is a Federal-State partnership program that supports efforts to protect environmentally sensitive forest lands. Permanent protection of lands in the coastal zone is also necessary to maintain and enhance coastal and estuarine areas for the benefit of the Nation, including protecting water quality, keeping public beachfront accessible, conserving wildlife habitat, and sustaining sport and commercial fisheries.

Coastal and estuarine areas are some of the most productive ecosystems on earth. They are home to countless plants, animals, birds, and fish. These are complex ecosystems that provide a foundation for marine life as well as protection of inland areas from storm damage. Over the last 150 years the national system of estuaries has decreased in size because of our growing coastal populations and short-sighted land-use planning. Today our coastal areas are home to over 150 million Americans, about 53 percent of the U.S. population, and over 180 million people visit the coasts each year. Due to the increasing pressures from development in low-lying areas, NOAA has estimated 80 percent of our Nations' coastal waters are impaired for human use and marine life.

The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) established under the Coastal Zone Management Act is a network of 27 protected estuaries throughout the United States, including the Jacques Cousteau NERRS site in New Jersey. These are pristine areas that provide public education and conservation awareness, and serve as living laboratories for scientific research. The funds provided through the CELP program established by our legislation would promote the expansion of these estuarine areas and assist in keeping coastal ecosystems healthy and productive.

Federal funds help make New Jersey conservation possible. New Jersey's treasured natural resources--from the Meadowlands to the marshlands of Barnegat Bay--have substantially benefited from Federal support. The existing CELCP has aided in securing protection for over a thousand acres in New Jersey including lands for Gunning Island, Tuckerton Creek, and the Harbor Herons project. This week there will be a formal dedication of a 115-acre property, acquired with the aid of CELCP, on Potter Creek in Berkeley Township for public use and recreation. Lands have been protected in the Manahawkin Marsh, for wildlife habitat, including migratory birds along the Atlantic Flyway. In Ocean County, the CELCP helped secure the acquisition of 800 acres on Tuckerton Creek in Little Egg Harbor which is vital to protecting Atlantic white cedar stands and improving the water quality of the Barnegat Bay. These projects have successfully protected our coasts while sustaining human activity.

The coastal zone is essential to our country's prosperity and well- being. The coastal and estuarine lands are areas of national importance and they are vulnerable to human activities. From 2002 through 2006 twenty-five States have benefited from the CELCP. Now is the time for Congress to authorize this program to conserve lands that are vital to our Nation.

The bill Senator Gregg and I are introducing today, the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act, will ensure an ongoing partnership between Federal, State, and local governments to support the economic and natural resource base of communities through the acquisition of coastal and estuarine lands. This legislation offers the opportunity for States to protect coastal and estuarine areas that have significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, or aesthetic values and are threatened by conversion to other uses.

The organizations supporting this legislation include The Trust for Public Land, The American Littoral Society, NY/NJ Baykeeper, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Land Trust Alliance, Restore America's Estuaries, American Fly Fishing Trade Association, Society for the Protection of New Hampshire's Forests, National Estuarine Research Reserve Association, Association of National Estuary Programs, The Ocean Conservancy, Coastal States Organization, The Conservation Fund, The Nature Conservancy, and the New Jersey Audubon Society. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support from these groups be printed in the Record.

I would like to thank Senator Gregg for his long-time leadership on this issue. I would also like to thank Senator Mikulski for her many years of support for this legislation. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Gregg and my colleagues in the Senate to ensure its passage so that we can fill this vital need for coastal and estuarine protection.

Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague for his leadership on this issue. I hope we can find out there are lots of leaders around here who just have not shown their intention to lead. I congratulate Senator Harkin for his hard work.

People ask me why stem cell research isn't available. The people who ask me that question most frequently are the families who come to see me. I love seeing their children. I am a grandfather of 10 kids. The oldest is 13, the youngest is 3. When I look at what my responsibilities as a Senator are, I think of my children and grandchildren, and I think about everybody else's children and grandchildren at the same time. I couldn't make it good enough for my grandchildren when it comes to helping them rid themselves of a condition, or permitting them to live an easy, normal life in many cases.

My oldest grandson is 13, and he is asthmatic. Whenever my daughter takes him to play sports, she always checks to see where the nearest emergency clinic is because if he starts to wheeze or he needs some help, she wants to know where to go.

I see it with lots of visitors I have, like families with a diabetic child. I had one boy who was 10 years old come to my office in New Jersey. I sat around a long table with families who have a child who is diabetic. I asked the kids their responses to their disease, what is the worst part of it. They all said: Sticking your finger, and not feeling good when everybody else looks as if they are having fun.

People ask me: Why can't we do something about this? We are spending billions on a war that brings us gloom and despair, and we spend billions on tax cuts for people who don't need them--but we need help.

This 10-year-old boy I referred to, when I asked him what the worst part of having diabetes was, he said: I can't go to sleep-overs anymore.

I said: What do you mean?

He said: One time I slept over at my friend's house and during the night I got sick and he called his mother and she got mad. So my parents won't let me go to sleep-overs anymore. I am sad about that because I like my friend, but we can't do anything about that.

Then he said: But I'm only going to live to 31 anyway.

With that his father sat right up and said: No, no, that's not true at all. We are going to take care of you.

I wish President Bush was in that office when I had some of those kids in there or when I have families with an autistic child come to meet with me. It affects everything that the family does. It would means the world to them if their child could be treated to become healthy.

We have an epidemic across our country with autism. We see that 1 in every 150 families in America are affected by autism and the fact that they must go to public agencies or hire teachers or send children to particular schools.

When we look at the situation, we see that stem cells have the potential to save lives and alleviate the suffering of millions of Americans. Of course we should fully fund research for embryonic stem cells regardless of when they were developed. That is common sense. But we have a President who is held captive by ideologues who are at war with science.

Over 5 years ago, President Bush enacted a policy that made no scientific sense, only political sense for his base. He put a stop to the development of new stem cell lines for research. Once again, that is a devastating blow to people who have a diabetic in their family, or cancer, Parkinson's, autism, or other diseases.

In New Jersey, the number of those affected by autism is staggering. In 1991, there were 234 cases of autism diagnosed. In 2005, less than 15 years later, we saw 7,400 cases of autism.

We say we want to help these people, but the President says he doesn't believe in it and threatens another veto when this bill is presented to him.

There is no good answer I can give these families and children. But I do assure them that I will do all I can to reverse the President's policy so we can work hard for a cure for their diseases.

Tomorrow we will have the opportunity to vote to help these kids. The science is clear: Stem cell research, particularly embryonic stem cell research, has tremendous potential to help us better understand treatments and cure a number of diseases. That is why Americans overwhelmingly support stem cell research. Studies show that 7 out of 10 Americans--70 percent--favor embryonic stem cell research. Virtually every major medical scientific and patient group supports embryonic stem cell research. Organizations such as the American Medical Association, the American Diabetes Association, the Christopher Reeve Foundation, the Elizabeth Glazer Pediatric AIDs Foundation, and the list goes on and on. In my home State of New Jersey, support for stem cell research is overwhelming. In fact, Rutgers University, our State university, is one of the leading advocates of stem cell research.

Our country has always been about hope, about the chance for a better life. So when President Bush talks about vetoing a stem cell research bill, it denies hope to millions of Americans. Last year, Congress passed similar legislation that would have reversed the President's policy on stem cells, but the President vetoed that bill based on what he calls ethics and morality. What is ethical about denying a cure to children suffering from diabetes? Is there anything moral about denying people who have paralysis the chance to perhaps walk again?

Any real ethical issues are addressed by this bill. New stem lines will come from embryos donated by fertility patients under strict guidelines. They will not be embryos created for research. What we are talking about in this bill are embryos that would otherwise be disposed of, discarded, thrown away.

We stand at a crossroads in America. We can either take the position that cells in a petri dish are a gift for healing or we can throw away the opportunity to alleviate human suffering. The men, women, and children who suffer from diabetes and other life-threatening conditions are racing against time. Recent statistics show that one out of three children born today will suffer diabetes in their lifetime.

We have wasted so much time and opportunity already, between the President's policy and his veto last year. Those who would benefit from the potential of embryonic stem cell research need the President to put aside politics and deal with the facts. I would love to see President Bush meet some of these families or see the children who come to meet with me who are diabetic. We have had 300 children in one of the meeting rooms in the Senate. To see those children, how beautiful they are, and how desperately they want help. Yet for some reason, our Government wont' help out. We see the President again threatening a veto and saying he will not permit funding for this research. It is a terrible thing.

I salute the bipartisan leadership of Senators Harkin and Specter on this issue. Everybody in Congress and in this country has had contact with someone who is suffering from a condition who desperately needs help. It is hard to understand why we wouldn't have 100 votes in this body to say, yes, we want to do whatever we can for children who are sick or children who are likely to encounter these problems in the future. Yet the President has insisted on turning his back on these opportunities. It is a pity.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Responsible Education About Life or ``REAL'' Act along with my cosponsors Senators Kennedy, Murray, Schumer, Boxer, and Harkin.

The REAL Act aims to reduce adolescent pregnancy, HIV rates, and other sexually transmitted diseases, by providing Federal funds for comprehensive sex education in schools.

Comprehensive sex education is medically accurate, age appropriate education that includes information about both contraception and abstinence. It is an approach that tells our kids the truth.

The REAL act will help young people make smart choices and give them all the information--not just the ``abstinence only'' side of the story.

For years, taxpayer dollars have been flooded into unproven ``abstinence-only'' programs--while no federal program is dedicated to comprehensive sex education.

Under the Bush administration, Federal support for ``abstinence- only'' education has expanded rapidly.

The proof is in the numbers. In the last 4 years, the Federal government has spent over $680 million dollars on ``abstinence only'' programs. This year President Bush is asking for another $204 million dollars for ``abstinence only'' education despite little evidence that these programs actually work.

Would you like to know how much money the government has devoted to comprehensive sex education programs over this same time? Zero dollars.

Much of the taxpayer funds going to ``abstinence-only'' programs are essentially being wasted.

After years of ``abstinence only'' programs, the United States still has the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world and approximately 50 young Americans a day, an average of two an hour, are infected with HIV.

We have tried denying young people information about contraception and STD prevention and now it is time to provide them with medically accurate comprehensive sex education.

Comprehensive sex education simply works better.

It is a fact that teenagers who receive sex education that includes discussion of contraception are more likely to delay sexual activity than those who receive abstinence-only education.

The American public knows what works. Parents do not want sexual education programs limited to abstinence in schools. More than eight in 10 Americans favor comprehensive sexuality education programs that include information about contraception over those that only promote abstinence.

The stakes are high: of the 19 million cases of sexually transmitted diseases every year in the United States, almost half of them strike young people between the ages of 15 and 24.

These aren't just numbers. These are our sons and daughters whose health and well-being are jeopardized when ideology comes before sound public policy.

That is why we are introducing this legislation today. It's time for a more balanced approach; it's time to protect out kids, and it's time to get REAL.

The REAL Act is step in a more effective direction. It brings sex education up-to-date in a way that will reflect the serious issues and real life situations millions of young people find themselves in every year.

Young people have a right to accurate and complete information that could protect their health and even save their lives. I urge my colleagues to support the REAL Act and make it possible to give young people the tools to make safe and responsible decisions.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Responsible Education About Life or ``REAL'' Act along with my cosponsors Senators Kennedy, Murray, Schumer, Boxer, and Harkin.

The REAL Act aims to reduce adolescent pregnancy, HIV rates, and other sexually transmitted diseases, by providing Federal funds for comprehensive sex education in schools.

Comprehensive sex education is medically accurate, age appropriate education that includes information about both contraception and abstinence. It is an approach that tells our kids the truth.

The REAL act will help young people make smart choices and give them all the information--not just the ``abstinence only'' side of the story.

For years, taxpayer dollars have been flooded into unproven ``abstinence-only'' programs--while no federal program is dedicated to comprehensive sex education.

Under the Bush administration, Federal support for ``abstinence- only'' education has expanded rapidly.

The proof is in the numbers. In the last 4 years, the Federal government has spent over $680 million dollars on ``abstinence only'' programs. This year President Bush is asking for another $204 million dollars for ``abstinence only'' education despite little evidence that these programs actually work.

Would you like to know how much money the government has devoted to comprehensive sex education programs over this same time? Zero dollars.

Much of the taxpayer funds going to ``abstinence-only'' programs are essentially being wasted.

After years of ``abstinence only'' programs, the United States still has the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world and approximately 50 young Americans a day, an average of two an hour, are infected with HIV.

We have tried denying young people information about contraception and STD prevention and now it is time to provide them with medically accurate comprehensive sex education.

Comprehensive sex education simply works better.

It is a fact that teenagers who receive sex education that includes discussion of contraception are more likely to delay sexual activity than those who receive abstinence-only education.

The American public knows what works. Parents do not want sexual education programs limited to abstinence in schools. More than eight in 10 Americans favor comprehensive sexuality education programs that include information about contraception over those that only promote abstinence.

The stakes are high: of the 19 million cases of sexually transmitted diseases every year in the United States, almost half of them strike young people between the ages of 15 and 24.

These aren't just numbers. These are our sons and daughters whose health and well-being are jeopardized when ideology comes before sound public policy.

That is why we are introducing this legislation today. It's time for a more balanced approach; it's time to protect out kids, and it's time to get REAL.

The REAL Act is step in a more effective direction. It brings sex education up-to-date in a way that will reflect the serious issues and real life situations millions of young people find themselves in every year.

Young people have a right to accurate and complete information that could protect their health and even save their lives. I urge my colleagues to support the REAL Act and make it possible to give young people the tools to make safe and responsible decisions.

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

Reserving the right to object. The Senator from California, I believe, still has time remaining.

All right. The Senator from California is giving her time to me, so I wanted to be sure that time remains.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to support the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment and tell you I must say I do not get it. We are talking now about the security of our country. We are talking about whether we put the fences up around the most susceptible targets or whether we put fences, protective fences, around places in the country where there is no threat.

To every place there is a threat. No matter where you go, you can see a place that can be a threat. But where the disease is, that is what the hospital is there for. Take those who have the potential for the disease. If you use an analogy, you don't start putting the antidote in places where the likelihood of catching this disease is not very strong.

We are looking at this amendment and this bill. Thirty-four States, besides New Jersey, will have resources

taken away. In my State, the FBI has determined the 2-mile stretch between the airport, Newark-Liberty International Airport and Port Newark, is America's most at-risk area for a terrorist attack. We know that in a moment of an orange alert the Prudential Building in Newark has been a specific target of terrorists. In fact, in the summer of 2004 only three specific areas were identified as potential targets under the orange alert: northern New Jersey, New York, and Washington, DC. Yet I have listened to my colleagues, and it disturbs me that they trivialize this purchase of some trucks in New Jersey. If those trucks were used to take debris out of an exploded or damaged area, they would be pretty valuable trucks. If there were snow on the ground when an attack took place, it would be absolutely essential that we have those trucks.

We were struck and 700 people from New Jersey died, as did 2,400 others from other places around the area. We know where the heat is when it gets hot. We ought not be dealing out pork. This is not a restaurant. We are not talking about pork. We are not talking about putting money out there in case there is an attack here or there. We know where the attacks take place. They take place in places with high density populations such as London or Spain. We know New Jersey is at risk. New York is at risk. We know other major cities are at risk. They have been identified, and homeland security funds to fight terrorism should go to those places.

Recommendation 25 of the 9/11 Commission report said homeland security grants should be distributed based solely on risk. We are having a debate here, saying no, the fact that there are risks should not count because everybody is at risk. Everybody is at risk but not at the same degree.

I hope our colleagues will respond in a way that is recommended by the 9/11 Commission, supported by Secretary Chertoff of the Department of Homeland Security, and logic. Logic is on this side.

I encourage my colleagues to embrace a risk-based approach and support the Feinstein-Cornyn-Lautenberg amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I first wish to say that my colleague delivered a message that was clear and specific. It was a very valuable reminder of what we are discussing today, including his commentary about the fact that we are as a nation looking at the problem we see in front of us now.

On September 11, 2001, 700 of our fellow New Jerseyans never came home. One of my daughter's closest friends with whom she worked on Wall Street perished, and her husband searched for more than 2 weeks. After the obvious was apparent--that she was gone--refusing to believe it, he went from hospital to hospital, wherever one was within any reasonable distance, hoping against hope that maybe his wife would be alive and the mother of his three children would be there to encourage them on in their lives.

The stories about all kinds of friends and all kinds of neighbors are endless. In the area we are talking about in New Jersey that was directly hit, who didn't know someone or who didn't know someone who knew someone--even though we are a densely populated State, still, in all, the names touched so many lives and so many people. We saw the smoke rise and debris fall on that fateful day. It was just across the river from us and from where I live and I think close to where my colleague lives. When one looks at the skyline of New York now, there is an empty space where these proud buildings stood. I was a commissioner for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and thusly had offices in the Trade Center building. I remember seeing people come to work in the morning, over 50,000 people in just a few buildings--more than the population of many cities in our country. It was devastating.

We shouldn't forget that attack brought aviation to a standstill, that it had an effect felt way beyond New York and New Jersey and highlighted the fact that you can't just take areas, important areas around the country, and say: Well, that is kind of a local situation. It is not true. It is not true. As Senator Menendez pointed out, when it comes to other needs of other States, it has to be understood that when they are in peril, they are entitled to get as much help from the Federal Government as they can.

So why are we protesting at this time? This discussion has taken place over the last couple of years. Now we are seeing another attempt to reduce the maximum amount of funding available to those places which are most at risk.

I support most of the legislation before us now. I am concerned with the one part of this bill that does not follow the 9/11 Commission recommendations, the one that is being reviewed right now. Recommendation 25 of the 9/11 Commission Report said that homeland security grants should be distributed based solely on risk. This bill doesn't go sufficiently far enough to a full risk-based approach. Secretary Chertoff, whom we have seen here at many hearings, confirmed that. We looked at what he said. He said we should look not at the question of political jurisdiction but at where the consequences would be catastrophic, where the vulnerabilities would be, where the threats are. Clear statements. Despite that, this legislation directs the Department of Homeland Security to give a minimum amount of money to every State regardless of the risks or threats it faces.

When I served on the Homeland Security Committee--and I commend the former chairman and the current chairman for a lot of the work that was done there--we had a disagreement, and I tried in a committee hearing to move the committee at least to endorse the fact that these funds should be distributed solely on a risk basis. I was the only one who voted aye for it out of I think 16 people in attendance.

So at some point, I don't know why the call doesn't go out that says: Look, do this on a sensible basis. Do this on an as-needed basis. Give the opportunity to the places most at risk to protect themselves. It is more than good policy; it just makes common sense. Our military doesn't move troops evenly around the globe. You place your resources strategically. Why should homeland security be different? If you want to protect the most people in our country from risk, why not do that? We do that constantly in all kinds of projects, whether they be flood projects or otherwise in places that are prone to natural disasters. It makes sense that we spend more on homeland security in America's at- risk areas.

Senator Feinstein and Senator Cornyn and I and others have an amendment to give at-risk States the money they need to protect their residents and their communities and sensitive places where an attack could severely damage the national viability.

We have seen something recently that highlights the situation in New Jersey where chlorine is manufactured and stored in large quantities, and we learned from the change in the tactics now in Iraq that chlorine is being used as a brandnew weapon there. The use of chlorine was devastating. It killed a few people but made many more deathly ill, requiring hospitalization and severe treatment to try to protect their lives.

We are talking about the most dangerous 2 miles in the country as certified by the FBI. Why not take advantage of the fact that we would be protecting not only the well-being of people in the surrounding area, but we would protect the functioning of our society. So we ought to move closer to the 9/11 Commission's recommendation that homeland security be distributed on risk and threat and cut the minimum amount of money that will be distributed to each State.

Secondly, it will result in more homeland security for 35 States that are more at risk. We are not just talking about New Jersey and New York; they are most prominent because we felt it and we have lost friends and neighbors as a result of that attack. But that was not the first time. It was the second time the World Trade Center was attacked. How many times must it happen before somebody who is leaning on one side or the other says: You know what, we don't want those people to be harmed further or that area to be damaged further. And the invitation is certainly there to do just that.

We must consider the large States such as Ohio. If something happens in some of the Western States, the way the winds blow in our country, they will deliver toxic emissions all the way across the country-- Georgia, for instance, and Nevada, Maryland, and Massachusetts. The array is impressive because it deals primarily with the largest population centers in the country and the money that could be brought to protect these centers should not just be dealt out on a traditional pork-like basis. We still haven't reached 100 percent risk-based funding. This amendment, however, is an improvement over current law, an improvement over the bill before us today.

I would like to be able to report to the 9/11 Commission that we as a Senate did more than simply debate the

Commission's findings. We ought to be able to tell them we voted to give more resources to the people, cities, and States that need more protection. They worked very hard to hammer out the Commission report, and I believe it is fair to say that the Feinstein-Cornyn-Lautenberg amendment will do just that. I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will try to conclude my remarks before the time we are closing down the Senate.

The House has taken an important step to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I am pleased to see us at work to complete our deliberations on this bill, but for the moment, I wish to talk about amendment No. 298 which Senator Schumer has offered to strengthen our port and container security. It builds on a law I helped write last year. It was then that I authored language in the SAFE Ports Act to require the Bush administration to scan every container entering our country, looking for weapons and contraband. My amendment called for a dramatic change in our national policy on cargo screening, but the administration was not moving fast enough. That is why it is essential that we pass today's amendment offered by Senator Schumer, which I cosponsored.

The 2-mile stretch that is between Port Newark and Newark-Liberty International Airport is considered the most at-risk area in the country for a terrorist attack. This is asserted by the FBI, and it is something to which we have to pay serious attention.

I served as a commissioner of the Port Authority of New Jersey and New York. I know how vulnerable a target the port region is. Our ports are the doors through which essential goods and commodities enter our national economy. They are the doors through which supplies flow to our military. Ninety-five percent of all America's imported goods arrive by ship. We need a way to ensure that 100 percent of these containers coming into our country are WMD free. We need a scanning system in place as soon as possible. Since the Bush administration has failed to act promptly to put this scanning system in place at our ports, we need to pass this amendment to push the administration to complete the task.

The New Jersey-New York port is the second busiest container port in the entire country. In 2005, 13 percent of all vessels arriving in America called on our port. Thousands of longshoremen and others work at docks where these ships come in, and millions of people live in the densely packed communities around the port. Every day we fail to make our ports safer is a day we can leave them more vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

Today, we only inspect about 5 percent of the shipping containers that enter our country. Who knows what lies within those containers? We have seen attempts to smuggle arms into our country through the port. Within 95 percent of the containers we don't inspect, terrorists could launch an attack even more devastating than 9/11,

virtually in the same neighborhood. Terrorists could smuggle themselves, traditional weapons, chemical or biological weapons, or even nuclear weapons. We know about the availability of smaller, more compact, more deadly weapons that are being developed.

We have seen what happened in the past. In April 2005, security guards at the Port of Los Angeles found 28 human beings, Chinese nationals, who were smuggled into the country in two cargo containers. In October 2002, Italian authorities found a suspected Egyptian terrorist living in a shipping container en route to Canada. According to a news report at the time, he had a laptop computer, two cell phones, a Canadian passport, security passes for airports in three countries, a certificate identifying him as an airline mechanic, and airport maps. We can't let that happen.

We have screened all airline passengers for weapons, and we do it because Congress passed a strong law with clear deadlines. Of course, that forced the Bush administration to act. We need to screen all cargo containers for weapons. That is why we have to pass a strong law now.

Some in the industry and the administration say 100 percent screening cannot be done without crippling our economy. Let me tell my colleagues what would cripple commerce--that would be another terrorist attack. We lost 700 New Jerseyans and a total of over 3,000 people on 9/11. I don't want my State or anybody in our country to lose any more. This amendment will give us the tools and incentives we need to help prevent an attack on our ports, and it will help protect our economy and American lives.

I am proud to cosponsor the amendment and urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation that will close an egregious loophole in federal law. Currently, this loophole permits solid waste management facilities operated near railroads to go unregulated--free from meeting any minimum level of safety, health, and environmental standards. Basically, this loophole prevents state or local law from regulating the operation of these facilities on property owned or controlled by railroads.

In fact, just last week, a United States District Court judge declared this loophole alive and well. By shutting down the State of New Jersey's efforts to regulate solid waste rail facilities, this ruling allows the continuing proliferation of these unregulated facilities--which are already spreading quickly throughout the Northeast United States.

These unregulated facilities present an imminent threat to public health and the environment. My bill, the Clean Railroads Act of 2007, will close this loophole once and for all. Almost 2 years ago, I first introduced legislation to address this problem, and I renew that effort today.

This problem could easily be solved by proper interpretation of current federal law. Such an interpretation could be made by the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB), an independent board charged with economic regulation of railroads. However, despite several opportunities, the STB has chosen not to define a clear position on this issue. I have urged the Board members to address this problem, as the loophole in federal law has allowed even more of these unregulated facilities to operate.

Last week's court ruling has highlighted the need to find a solution to this problem immediately, and my bill would do just that.

Let me be clear that my concern is not the transport of solid waste by rail. Railroads provide a vital role in commerce in the United States and the benefits of rail transportation are numerous, as we in New Jersey know. Further, the transportation of waste via rail is not at issue here, and I am not opposed to the operation of solid waste management facilities on property owned or controlled by railroads.

My chief concern is the lawful management of solid waste facilities. If a solid waste management facility is to be operated on rail property, it must be regulated like any other such facility. That is not happening today.

The threats posed by unregulated waste management facilities operating on property owned or controlled by railroads are so great that a broad and diverse coalition of public and private sector entities have been formed to oppose these rogue operations. I thank these coalition members for their continued efforts, and will be looking forward to the day in which their fears over this issue can be permanently assuaged.

Responsible management of solid waste requires safeguards to protect public health and the environment. As Chairman of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security, which has jurisdiction over railroads and the Surface Transportation Board, I will work to ensure this loophole does not continue to let the hazards of unregulated solid waste rail facilities affect the lives of New Jerseyans and other Americans.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation that will close an egregious loophole in federal law. Currently, this loophole permits solid waste management facilities operated near railroads to go unregulated--free from meeting any minimum level of safety, health, and environmental standards. Basically, this loophole prevents state or local law from regulating the operation of these facilities on property owned or controlled by railroads.

In fact, just last week, a United States District Court judge declared this loophole alive and well. By shutting down the State of New Jersey's efforts to regulate solid waste rail facilities, this ruling allows the continuing proliferation of these unregulated facilities--which are already spreading quickly throughout the Northeast United States.

These unregulated facilities present an imminent threat to public health and the environment. My bill, the Clean Railroads Act of 2007, will close this loophole once and for all. Almost 2 years ago, I first introduced legislation to address this problem, and I renew that effort today.

This problem could easily be solved by proper interpretation of current federal law. Such an interpretation could be made by the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB), an independent board charged with economic regulation of railroads. However, despite several opportunities, the STB has chosen not to define a clear position on this issue. I have urged the Board members to address this problem, as the loophole in federal law has allowed even more of these unregulated facilities to operate.

Last week's court ruling has highlighted the need to find a solution to this problem immediately, and my bill would do just that.

Let me be clear that my concern is not the transport of solid waste by rail. Railroads provide a vital role in commerce in the United States and the benefits of rail transportation are numerous, as we in New Jersey know. Further, the transportation of waste via rail is not at issue here, and I am not opposed to the operation of solid waste management facilities on property owned or controlled by railroads.

My chief concern is the lawful management of solid waste facilities. If a solid waste management facility is to be operated on rail property, it must be regulated like any other such facility. That is not happening today.

The threats posed by unregulated waste management facilities operating on property owned or controlled by railroads are so great that a broad and diverse coalition of public and private sector entities have been formed to oppose these rogue operations. I thank these coalition members for their continued efforts, and will be looking forward to the day in which their fears over this issue can be permanently assuaged.

Responsible management of solid waste requires safeguards to protect public health and the environment. As Chairman of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security, which has jurisdiction over railroads and the Surface Transportation Board, I will work to ensure this loophole does not continue to let the hazards of unregulated solid waste rail facilities affect the lives of New Jerseyans and other Americans.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. President.

I wanted to take just a few minutes to kind of review where we are here in the silence that abounds in this Senate. The question about what is going on is kind of mystifying for much of the public looking in and saying: What are they doing wasting time?

There was some talk about the terrible situation we are in in Iraq, and I spoke as one of those who say we have had enough. We have had enough there. We have lost over 3,000 people, and the Iraqis have lost substantial numbers. One would have to be really hardhearted not to be moved when you look in the paper and you see a child weeping over a dead mother or a brother or a sister or people lying in the street dead from brutal attacks from this internal civil war while we are trying to figure out what we do to protect our people.

What is it that we want to accomplish with the votes that have been taken here? I think it is fair to say that what we would like on this side of the aisle, and I am sure there are many colleagues on the other side who feel as we do but would be out of step politically if they took the vote we want to take, to approve or disapprove of sending more troops into that death trap, to say how long we want to stay there.

What do we have to prove by supporting the President's order, the President's interest in the so-called surge? They try to disguise the word. The word is ``escalate.'' It is not ``surge.'' ``Surge'' can be interpreted many ways, but ``escalate'' is very clear: Put more people there. Put more people in harm's way. Put more people in an abyss from which there is no way, that anyone has told us, out of the situation.

We get the argument: Oh, you want to cut and run. No. Do you want to stay and die? Is that what the alternative is? Ask the families who have children, brothers, fathers, and mothers there. They come in to see me, people who have someone who is in Iraq, and they are scared to death about what kind of news they will get some night.

I had a woman in the office one day, with a group of other people, sobbing so hard that she couldn't talk. Why? Because her son had been wounded--a light wound but enough to earn him a Purple Heart--and he was being sent back on hazardous duty. He was willing to do it. His mother didn't want him to do it. But at what point do we say the pain is so excruciating that we can't stand it?

It has nothing to do with cut-and-run. I wore a uniform in World War I. Others here have worn the country's uniform, some in Vietnam, some in Korea. We have had a lot of experience with wars. But in each case, if we didn't have an objective, we fared very badly. That was true, unfortunately, in Vietnam, where we finally had to wrap it up and go home, leaving 58,000 of our brothers and sisters still there, if not physically, in sharp memory. And now we see what is happening here.

I bring to our attention the fact that in Iraq, in the month of January, we lost 83 of our bravest. Thus far in February, we have already lost 48 members of the American military. And the Iraqis have suffered deaths. Look at the number of people who have been murdered there with suicide bombs, roadside bombs, and brutal murders, with hands tied behind their backs and blindfolded. It goes on and on. If we could wish it away, if we could see an end to it, I would be more than willing to leave troops there to kind of monitor the last parts of a war that is one of the worst America has been in, but what we see is not only the numbers that are perishing daily, weekly, but the tactics they are using now with shooting down helicopters. That wasn't something we saw before.

Suddenly now, in the past couple of weeks, three helicopters have been taken down by enemy fire. That changes the complexity of things because helicopters were an integral part of our capacity to fight back. If we can't do that, does that mean we have to put more people on the ground, that we have to lose more people? It ought not to be that way.

Last week, we took a vote here, and it was a vote that would limit debate. We, the Democrats, led the charge there because we wanted to get on with the issue of whether we wanted to send more troops than we have there now. The number, estimated to be at 21,000 in combat, means that 48,000, roughly, would be the total number because you need the support groups as well. That vote was disguised as something else, which is what our friends are doing today--disguising what their intent is. Their intent is to escape the responsibility they took when they voted against closing the debate the other day. That is what happened.

They have a lot of discomfort over there. I see my colleague from the State of Minnesota is here now, and if I am not mistaken, he was one of those who said: Let's cut the debate and get on with the issue. That is what his message was that day. And so there is abject discomfort with the vote that was taken because people at home interpreted that in a different way. They are not interested so much in our tactical maneuvering here or the process; they want to know: Do we want to send more troops into that inferno or do we want to try to figure out a way to get out of there as quickly as practicable? That is the question.

So they voted the wrong way. And now, Heaven forbid, we had something we could vote on, and that was voted on by way of closing the debate, which was developed by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman now of the Armed Services Committee, and supported fully by Senator John Warner, who himself was a veteran and served at the time of World War II, who agreed with him that we ought to show our displeasure. There wasn't anything radical in it. We weren't calling the other side names. We just said we want to stop this escalation. We don't want to put more troops out there in harm's way. We don't want to see more limbless veterans. We have almost 800 now, veterans who have lost one limb at least, and we have 25,000 who have been injured. And there are a lot of severe injuries that you can't see because they are internal injuries. They are injuries of the mind. They are injuries of the spirit. There are a lot of them; 30,000 with PTS, post-traumatic stress, in addition to those who have the physical, visible wounds we see.

So we want to get on with the vote. Let us have an honest count here about whether you are for escalation or

against it. Do you want to throw more into the Iraqi war? Do you want to put more sons and daughters there or do you want them to start coming home and reuniting them with their families? That is the question. Instead, it is dressed up here. If we voted to adjourn, it would be a sign that we are not supporting the troops. Baloney. We support the troops fully. Each and every one of them over there now is a hero to us, each and every one, because many of them disagree with the policy that got them there, the falsification of whether there were weapons of mass destruction.

I ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes.

I thank our colleague from Minnesota.

What we see is a deliberate attempt to avoid the question: Yes or no, how do you stand on the escalation of this war? How do you stand on sending more sons and daughters into that hell on Earth?

It is time to stand up and be counted and not to permit the public, across this land of ours, to be fooled by debate structures, by delaying tactics. It is time to stand up and be counted, but we cannot do that. The other side will not permit us to do it, and we know how to count votes so we know we do not have enough to do what we would like to.

But the House has taken the bull by the horns. The House is considering it, and it is very favorably being considered there--not yet voted--legislation that says we are against this escalation. Republicans as well as Democrats there are going to join. What we are saying here is let us simply vote on that. That is what has been asked for by our leadership.

I hope we will be able to conclude this debate, find out and let the American people know where we stand, each one of us. When we raise our hand, each one of us will be making a declaration: Do we think it is necessary to put more of our troops out there, to run them through there at the risk of their limbs, or lives, and disrupt family life, leaving children without a guiding parent on one side, to let the bills accumulate, worry about the mortgages? These are people, for the most part, who were reservists. They have served once, served twice--a year each--and now a third callup is being talked about because the President has decided--against the will of many outstanding military experts, those who have served at the highest rank. They say no, it will not help. But the President of the United States is very stubborn on this issue, despite all of the opposition--opposition here, opposition across this country. The numbers are around 70 percent of the people do not want us to continue to do this, or send in any more troops. I hope we can resolve the truth here in short order.

I yield the floor with thanks again to my colleague from Minnesota.

Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senator Robert Menendez and our House colleague Congressman Donald Payne in honoring Dr. William Neal Brown, a distinguished and inspiring figure in African-American history. In recognition of Black History Month, we gathered with residents of New Jersey to pay tribute to Dr. Brown on Saturday, February 10, 2007 at the Newark Museum in Newark, NJ, during ``A Salute to Heroes.''

Dr. Brown was born in Warrenton, GA, on February 24, 1919. His father was an ex-slave and his mother was Native American. He grew up in Aliquippa, PA, where his father labored as a farmer and steel mill worker. His love of learning and inspiration to educate others began at an early age, when he and six of his classmates dreamed of becoming teachers.

After graduating with honors from high school, Dr. Brown went to work in the Civilian Conservation Corps, CCC, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's public works program that put over 3 million young men and adults to work during the Great Depression. It was here that he was introduced to the Hampton Institute, where he would enroll as a work- study student and proceed to graduate with a bachelor of science in 1941.

Dr. Brown heeded the call to serve his country and enrolled in the Army Air Force, where he served in special services as an information education officer, and trained at various bases including with the Tuskegee Airmen in Tuskegee, AL. After the war, on the GI bill, Dr. Brown began his graduate studies, first at Columbia University and then at City College.

After 3 years of social work at the Veterans' Administration in Newark, NJ, Dr. Brown became the first African-American professor at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.

During his 41 years as a professor at Rutgers, Dr. Brown mentored and inspired countless students and future social workers. He has lived his life by a verse he often quotes from Thanatopsis by William Cullen Bryant: ``So live, that when thy summons comes to join the innumerable caravan that went to sway to the silent halls of death, thou go not like a quarry-slave at night, scourged to his dungeon, but sustained and soothed by an unfaltering trust. Approach thy grave as one who lies down to pleasant dreams.''

Mr. President, there is no doubt that Dr. William Neal Brown is an exemplary and committed leader and a true role model for our State and the entire country. I am pleased to pay tribute to him today, and I know my colleagues will join me in wishing him continued success.

DeNorval Unthank

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Military Health

Care Protection Act along with my colleagues, Senators Hagel, Kerry, and Lincoln.

This important legislation will keep the Pentagon from dramatically raising health care fees on active duty military personnel, National Guard, Reserves, retirees and their families.

Our bill will limit increases to TRICARE military health insurance enrollment fees, deductibles, and pharmacy co-payments for those military retirees who are enrolled in TRICARE. Under this legislation, increases in these health care fees cannot exceed the rate of growth in uniformed services beneficiaries' military compensation, thereby protecting beneficiaries from an undue financial burden.

Our bill will also cap increases to TRICARE military health insurance pharmacy co-payments at current levels for those active duty military personnel, National Guard, Reserves members, and their families. Under this legislation, increases in such fees also cannot exceed the rate of growth in uniformed services beneficiaries' military compensation.

Just last week, the Department of Defense (DOD) submitted its Fiscal Year 2008 budget to Congress. Within that budget, a cut of $1.86 billion was made to TRICARE out of the Defense Health Program budget. Such a cut would require a doubling of fees on senior enlisted retirees and a tripling of such fees for officer retirees. This would mean increases of up to $1,000 annually for some military retirees. While the Department of Defense temporarily halted plans to raise fees last year at the direction of Congress, we are again faced with this challenge. We must pass legislation now that limits the amount of any health care increase and protects beneficiaries from extreme health care fee increases in the future.

With this bill, Senator Hagel and I reiterate our commitment to our troops and future veterans by assuring them that just as they protected us, we will take care of them when their service ends.

Last year, Congress rejected the same increases that the Pentagon is proposing again for this year. I ask the support of my colleagues to pass this legislation this year to prevent these significant increases permanently.

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

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