Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would preserve the public's right to know about toxic chemical releases and waste management where they live.

The legislation would overturn the Environmental Protection Agency's recent action to undermine the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program-- which I helped create in 1986--by allowing facilities that release up to 2,000 pounds of a toxic chemical to simply provide notice of a chemical's presence at the facility, rather than disclose the actual amounts released to the land, air, and water. The 2,000 pounds standard represents a four-fold increase of the current reporting threshold. EPA finalized another change to the TRI program that will reduce the information available to the public regarding the waste management of some of the most toxic chemicals that accumulate

in the environment, including lead and mercury.

These changes would eliminate detailed reporting for one or more chemicals at thousands of facilities in communities around the country, including hundreds of facilities in New Jersey, and could eliminate entirely the disclosure of the releases of more than a dozen potentially dangerous chemicals. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), citizens living in 75 U.S. counties could have no numerical TRI information about local toxic pollution under the changes made by EPA. Furthermore, GAO estimates that 3,565 facilities-- including 101 in New Jersey--would no longer have to report any quantitative information about their chemical releases and waste management practices to the TRI.

The EPA had also proposed to require reports on chemical emissions only every other year, instead of the current annual requirement. Under that plan, communities would have no knowledge of what chemicals have been released into their neighborhoods, or how those wastes were otherwise managed every other year. Additionally, companies would have an incentive to concentrate their most egregious releases of toxic chemicals into the environment in years which are not reported. EPA withdrew this particular part of their proposal, but there is no guarantee that they will not pursue this avenue in the future.

I strongly oppose all of these rule changes; and the legislation I am introducing will overturn the changes EPA has made, and prevent them from making the third change that they considered.

I firmly believe that it is unacceptable for the EPA to reduce the amount of information available to the public about chemicals-- including mercury, lead benzene, chromium, and other carcinogens-- stored nearby or released into their community. When Congress passed the original Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act in 1986, as a response to the 1984 Union Carbide chemical disaster in Bhopal, India, some accountability was finally established in the chemical industry. And now, the EPA has weakened the rules and reduced the amount of information available to the public on these critical issues. For instance, in my home State of New Jersey, a chemical facility that released 2,000 pounds of arsenic via air emissions in 2003 would no longer be required to disclose this pollution to the general public. Fourteen facilities that released a combined 8,600 pounds of carcinogenic styrene would no longer have to report these emissions in detail.

While the EPA touts the benefits of its proposal as ``burden reduction'' for industry, I strongly believe that the benefit of annual, detailed reporting vastly outweighs any reduction in burden that will be provided to industry. In fact, according to GAO's estimates, the average cost savings for facilities no longer required to report their release of toxic chemicals or waste management practices would be approximately $2.46 per day.

There are constructive ways to improve the TRI program, and lessen the burdens on industry, without reducing the amount of information available to the public. These include improving the system for electronic reporting, and offering technical assistance to help businesses comply with the requirements.

The bill I introduce today, with Senator Boxer and Senator Menendez as original co-sponsors, would codify the previous requirement that facilities with chemical releases of more than 500 pounds of any standard TRI chemical must disclose the details of their releases. Releases in amounts less than 500 pounds could continue to use the less detailed reporting form. Second, it would codify the current prohibition on using the less detailed form for the most persistent chemicals, including lead and mercury--those the EPA has classified as ``chemicals of special concern.'' Finally, it would prevent EPA from making the frequency of reporting less than every year.

I would also like to thank my Congressional colleagues in the House of Representatives, Frank Pallone of New Jersey, and Hilda Solis of California, with whom I have been pleased to work on this issue. Representatives Pallone and Solis are introducing the companion of this bill in the House; I now look forward to continuing to work with them and my colleagues in the Senate to ensure its passage.

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

Madam President, we just heard a debate about debates. It strikes me that this word war we are conducting here doesn't get to the fact that we are losing people every day in Iraq--27 Americans died in a weekend--and our friends on the other side want to discuss the rules and the process instead of being able to agree that there was a nonbinding resolution being proposed about whether you want to see this surge--a la escalation--of the war in Iraq. Our friends were so conscience-stricken that they wanted to resort to more words and amendments. Why couldn't we have just passed or discussed that nonbinding resolution, let it go, and let the debate then continue? Bring on the debates. But, no, this is the press relations battle which was just discussed by our colleague.

That is not what we are looking for. We are looking to save lives, American lives, but we can't get to the subject because there is a question about what the rules ought to be. The rules ought to be the decency of our consciences--let us make decisions that will save lives and ease the pain on American families.

This was an unfortunate dynamic we saw this week: Republican colleagues determined to block the opportunity for the Senate to vote on the President's war escalation policy for Iraq. Just when the American people want this Congress to stop the President's misguided plan, our colleagues on the other side are hard at work to shut

down that opportunity. What they are afraid of is that we will confirm our support for the troops who are there now, and any insinuation that isn't the truth is a foul lie. We are just as anxious to support the troops. We are more anxious, in many ways, because we called for equipment to be available to protect our troops. We called for vehicles to be properly armored. We called for the body armor to be developed. But we didn't hear any complaints about the misdeeds of the contractors who weren't doing what they were supposed to be doing. They were not even monitored. We are going to talk about that.

Our friends in the minority can delay this debate, and I hope the American public understands what is going on--delay the debates, don't let us come to the conclusion, don't let the President see that a majority of this Senate does not want this escalation to take place. They will delay this debate and vote for now, but it is going to happen eventually. It will happen because the American people are understandably frustrated with the President's conduct and mishandling of this war.

Our children are taught a lesson in school: If you do things wrong and you don't pass your courses, don't change your ways, don't listen to advice, you get an F on your report card. In the view of many of the American people--most of the American people--President Bush has gotten an F on his report card on the handling of the situation in Iraq. But he and the Vice President refuse to be held accountable, and his allies in the Senate are blocking us from holding him accountable. It is not a good lesson for our Nation's young people. They see that if they don't do their work, they fail the course, and the President has not done his work, and he ought not to get a positive grade for his job thus far.

The American people don't want Congress to grant unlimited power to the President and his incompetent crew. Our troops have done a magnificent job, but it is the President and failed leadership at the Pentagon that have let them down.

Who can forget Secretary Rumsfeld's quote:

You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you

might want or wish to have at a later time.

Frankly, it is a slur, in my view, against the troops we have, those courageous people over there fighting right now or at that time. It is a terrible message to send to our soldiers.

Who can forget when the insurgency first started and our troops were getting attacked with roadside bombs, when President Bush said ``bring 'em on''? I wore our Nation's uniform in World War II, in Europe, and I can say none of us wanted our Commander in Chief taunting the enemy, inviting them to come on out and fight and maybe kill us. No. To be in harm's way and have your commander make such a statement from the safety and security of the White House is appalling.

Now the President wants a so-called surge. Does he want to surge our way to more problems? Does he want to surge our national debt by spending billions more every week in Iraq? Anybody who understands English knows that the real definition of ``surge'' as used here means ``enlarge'' or ``escalate.''

From this war, we have more than 700 Americans who have lost limbs, more than 29,000 suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, and over 3,000 have perished in Iraq, 74 of whom have ties to my home State of New Jersey. Yet President Bush dismisses the incredible cost of this war in lives, injuries, and resources essential for the health and well-being of our people at home, domestic programs.

After all the previous failures and incompetence by this administration, why should the American people allow the President to do whatever he chooses in this war, this war which has destroyed thousands of families' lives? Look at the President's record on Iraq: false intelligence on weapons of mass destruction; no posted invasion plan because the administration was convinced that we would be greeted with sweets and flowers in a Utopian celebration. The President's team decided to fire the entire Iraqi Army, dismissing 500,000 trained troops who might have been helpful to us in fighting this insurgency. Then the Bush administration helped create further sectarian division by simply banning members from serving in the new Iraqi Government. The administration has allied itself with an Iraqi Prime Minister who supports a militia leader named Sadr who controlled a terrorist militia which disagrees with the formation of a stable government.

We all saw the waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer funds by contractors such as Halliburton. The Iraqi reconstruction inspector general said that nearly $3 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars for Iraqi reconstruction has been lost--lost, vanished, $3 billion. That is not sloppy, that is incompetence. So it is understandable that a giant majority of the American people are against this escalation. The other side of the aisle obviously does not want to vote consistent with the American people's wishes or their prayers. Taxpayers are footing a massive bill for these mistakes.

The administration gave Halliburton a no-bid contract thought to be worth $50 million--well, it surged to $2.5 billion--to operate Iraqi's oil infrastructure. And what has that contract yielded in oil? Less oil 4 years after the invasion than Iraq was producing before the war. Halliburton was forced to pay back $50 million after a fine was leveled against them by the Department of Defense. That is why the American people say no surge for Halliburton.

I was a member of the Department of Homeland Security committee in the previous Congress. I wrote five letters to the chairman asking we have hearings, oversight hearings, on the Halliburton behavior in the war. I was told that it would be duplicable, and we couldn't get a review of Halliburton's behavior.

When the Republicans were in the majority, they said a vote against the President's policy was cut-and-run, but now the American people are asking the question, What is the alternative? Stay and die?

In November, the American people spoke with the most effective means they have; that is, the ballot box. They said no. They said they want a change. They voted for a voice against the President. Now the Republican minority is blocking Congress from speaking.

The President and the minority in the Senate cannot continue to ignore the will of the American people. We already saw the President ignore his own chosen Iraqi Study Group. First he appoints them; then he challenges them or ignores them. He ignored the advice of GEN John Abizaid, who thinks this escalation is a bad idea. He ignored former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who said more troops are not the answer.

When do we say enough is enough? Well, I think that time is past due.

Outside my office, to remind us all--I am very sensitive to veterans matters, to our military, not just because I served but because they are there to protect us. And they do a splendid job, even when they are asked to do more than the numbers they should have are not in place, and the equipment has not been quite what it ought to be, delays in producing that. We display a memorial outside my office showing the ``Faces of the Fallen,'' which says: ``Let Us Never Forget.'' There are almost 3,000 faces outside the door to my office. We have them on easels. It was our construction. The name, age, rank, battalion affiliation, and the cause of death of each of these Nation's fallen servicemembers is inscribed with their photo on the memorial. If you look, you see the ages and how young they were and what they must have meant to the families they left behind.

Friends and visitors search these photos daily for knowledge of people they might know and miss. As they search, as they review these pictures, some write notes in a book of reflections that we have out there. A woman from Englewood, NJ, wrote:

How do we measure their sacrifice? We are so fortunate to

have these brave men and women.

A woman from Minnesota says:

This display brings tears to my eyes, to see how many lives

have been lost. Please stop more boards from being added and

bring those who would find themselves memorialized here home

safely.

A Californian simply wrote:

Bring them home!

These are what the American people want, and we ignore them at our own peril. We prevent a vote on this momentous issue at our own peril as well.

I close, saying to my colleagues on the other side, please stop the insinuations that we on this side of the aisle do not want to support our troops. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us, myself included, have been there to meet with our troops and see what they need and see what they want and listen to their tales of the days they spend in harm's way. We want to support them. We salute them. They honor their obligation to their country, even though we, in many cases, disagree with the mission.

And when we fool ourselves into believing that all we have to do is to put more people in harm's way and we will get a stabilized government there, we find, in many instances, the recruits they have in the army there are just not capably trained, don't have the will, in many instances, to take up the fight. And we want to put more of our people in there?

I think what ought to be done--as many others here do--is to start to whittle down our presence, leave enough of a resource there to help train those people, maybe instill some courage in their view of what their responsibilities are, get enough people in the flow--the Iraqi people--and plan to get them home as soon as we practically can.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Snowe and Boxer, to introduce the High Performance Green Buildings Act. This legislation encourages the government to improve the energy efficiency, indoor air quality, and environmental impacts of our Nation's Federal buildings, and will reenergize and focus the Federal Government's leadership and commitment on this issue.

Buildings in the United States have an enormous impact on the environment and also on our overall energy situation. According to the Department of Energy, buildings in the United States use almost 40 percent of the total energy consumed in this country. That figure is expected to rise to 53 percent by 2030, meaning that over half of the energy consumed in this country will be used by buildings alone. In addition, buildings are the source of 35 percent of national carbon dioxide emissions, 49 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, and 25 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions.

However, the impact of buildings is even broader than that. Americans spend approximately 90 percent of their time indoors and the quality of the air they breathe can have an impact on their health, as well as work productivity and absenteeism. The U.S. Green Buildings Council, a national non-profit, indicates that on average, installing high performance lighting enhances worker productivity by 6.7 percent. There are also numerous sources of indoor air pollutants, ranging from mold to radon, and strong building design that considers ventilation can help to remedy these potential health problems.

It is important that we confront these issues, and our legislation does just that. High Performance Green Buildings are designed with the impact on occupants, surroundings and energy consumption in mind. Buildings designed or renovated on these merits save money, have healthier occupants, and have a more positive impact on their communities.

While the initial investment cost of green buildings may be higher than a traditional building, many of these costs are recouped over time. For instance, the Federal government spends about $170 million per year on the lighting of federal buildings; using new lighting technology can reduce energy use by 50 to 75 percent. Some estimates show that the payback time for energy efficient lighting is as little as four months.

The High Performance Green Buildings Act focuses the Federal Government's efforts on promoting sustainable design in federal buildings, and realizing the economic benefits associated with reduced energy use and increased occupant health. It creates an Office of High Performance Green Buildings within the General Services Administration (GSA), which manages buildings owned or leased by the Federal Government. GSA is the largest ``landlord'' in the country the government owns or leases nearly 500,000 buildings in the United States, covering 3.1 billion square feet. The new Office will promote public outreach, focus ongoing research and development, and create an Advisory Committee consisting of Agency representatives and experts from various sectors, to improve coordination across Federal Government agencies and bring best practices to the Federal government.

Additionally, the High Performance Green Buildings Act provides grants to schools, in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Education, to provide technical assistance to address environmental and health concerns. The health of our children is our primary concern and this legislation takes important steps to ensure their well-being.

It is clear that having sustainable design in our buildings is smart public policy and a wise financial investment, and this bill will allow the Federal Government to increase its leadership role on the promotion of green buildings. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Snowe and Boxer, to introduce the High Performance Green Buildings Act. This legislation encourages the government to improve the energy efficiency, indoor air quality, and environmental impacts of our Nation's Federal buildings, and will reenergize and focus the Federal Government's leadership and commitment on this issue.

Buildings in the United States have an enormous impact on the environment and also on our overall energy situation. According to the Department of Energy, buildings in the United States use almost 40 percent of the total energy consumed in this country. That figure is expected to rise to 53 percent by 2030, meaning that over half of the energy consumed in this country will be used by buildings alone. In addition, buildings are the source of 35 percent of national carbon dioxide emissions, 49 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, and 25 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions.

However, the impact of buildings is even broader than that. Americans spend approximately 90 percent of their time indoors and the quality of the air they breathe can have an impact on their health, as well as work productivity and absenteeism. The U.S. Green Buildings Council, a national non-profit, indicates that on average, installing high performance lighting enhances worker productivity by 6.7 percent. There are also numerous sources of indoor air pollutants, ranging from mold to radon, and strong building design that considers ventilation can help to remedy these potential health problems.

It is important that we confront these issues, and our legislation does just that. High Performance Green Buildings are designed with the impact on occupants, surroundings and energy consumption in mind. Buildings designed or renovated on these merits save money, have healthier occupants, and have a more positive impact on their communities.

While the initial investment cost of green buildings may be higher than a traditional building, many of these costs are recouped over time. For instance, the Federal government spends about $170 million per year on the lighting of federal buildings; using new lighting technology can reduce energy use by 50 to 75 percent. Some estimates show that the payback time for energy efficient lighting is as little as four months.

The High Performance Green Buildings Act focuses the Federal Government's efforts on promoting sustainable design in federal buildings, and realizing the economic benefits associated with reduced energy use and increased occupant health. It creates an Office of High Performance Green Buildings within the General Services Administration (GSA), which manages buildings owned or leased by the Federal Government. GSA is the largest ``landlord'' in the country the government owns or leases nearly 500,000 buildings in the United States, covering 3.1 billion square feet. The new Office will promote public outreach, focus ongoing research and development, and create an Advisory Committee consisting of Agency representatives and experts from various sectors, to improve coordination across Federal Government agencies and bring best practices to the Federal government.

Additionally, the High Performance Green Buildings Act provides grants to schools, in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Education, to provide technical assistance to address environmental and health concerns. The health of our children is our primary concern and this legislation takes important steps to ensure their well-being.

It is clear that having sustainable design in our buildings is smart public policy and a wise financial investment, and this bill will allow the Federal Government to increase its leadership role on the promotion of green buildings. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Madam President, these have been some terrible days for our country. Last Saturday, we lost 27 American men and women in Iraq, making it the third deadliest day for our country and our forces since this war began. A Blackhawk went down northeast of Baghdad; all 12 of the troops aboard were killed. Men with grenades, mortars, and assault rifles attacked a building guarded by American and Iraqi forces in Karbala. Five American troops were killed that day. Coalition forces made a push against insurgents. Five more troops were killed and 59 Iraqis along with them. In Anbar Province, four soldiers and a marine were killed.

Despite the President's handpicked Iraqi Study Group's bipartisan call for a new course, he has not listened. Despite the advice of GEN John Abizaid, a distinguished military leader and former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, who called for a new course, despite the bipartisan calls of my colleagues who have called for a new course, despite the American people who last November called for a new course, and despite the rising death toll, the President has decided to escalate this conflict. He wants to send 21,500 more troops into the crossfire of a civil war.

Even more disturbing is the behavior and the rhetoric of the Vice President. I don't know how many of my colleagues had a chance to watch the Vice President's interview with Wolf Blitzer this week on CNN's ``The Situation Room.'' But I encourage my colleagues who have not seen it to watch it. It is up on Youtube. You have to see it to believe it. In that interview, Vice President Cheney boasted of ``enormous successes in Iraq.'' He also rejected the idea that Iraq is in a ``terrible situation.'' Imagine him dismissing that.

The interview was so incredible that the Washington Post discussed it on its front page on Thursday. The Vice President blamed everybody but himself for any troubles in Iraq.

As far as the Vice President was concerned, it was all the media's fault. What did he say of us, the Congress? He said we were helping the terrorists. Vice President Cheney's boasting of the Iraq successes was on the front page of the Washington Post that day. The story is incredible. It says on the front page of Thursday's paper: ``Defending Iraq war, defiant Cheney cites enormous successes.'' He says that the media is so eager to write off this effort or to declare it a failure. It goes on to say that there are problems in Iraq, but he said it's not a terrible situation.

Not a terrible situation. Describe that to the families who lost someone in the last few weeks in Iraq.

He said--this is the Vice President of the United States--he has a responsibility to help the President and to help communicate with the Congress. He doesn't. He sits here often, but he doesn't. He said that despite that, the congressional opposition won't stop us from sending 20,500 more troops; it will only validate the course we are on.

Imagine. The story inside the paper was a very different one. The story told in these two pages in Thursday's Washington Post is 99 faces, 99 more families who are going to mourn, 99 more children who will not see their father or their mother again, 99 parents who lost a child. And he says it is not a terrible situation? It is a disgrace.

This doesn't look like the face of enormous success. No, it doesn't. On those two pages alone is a total of 99 men and women who will never see their friends and family on American soil again. Madam President, 3,063 American troops have died in Iraq; 74 of them had ties to my State of New Jersey. And we have seen over 23,000 with injuries, many severe, over 700 have lost limbs and many suffering from traumatic brain injury.

Of the almost 600,000 people--584,000 to be precise--who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, over 30,000 of them have PTSD, post-traumatic stress syndrome; 30,000 countless brain injuries besides that.

The administration's troop increase is not simply a surge. What they did is they searched the word files, probably went to the computer and to the dictionaries to try to find a word that would evade the truth of what this is about. Surge is a euphemism for escalation of our involvement in this war.

When we hear the Vice President talking about enormous successes, it makes one wonder if the President and Vice President have been shielded from reality by their handlers. We see it in the continuation of the policy that says don't take any pictures of the flag-draped coffins when the remains of our soldiers are returned to the United States of America; don't do that. It is against the rules. Can you imagine that? That sign of honor to the deceased shielded from the view of the public because underneath that flag lies the remains of some young person.

That is the way they see things, and now we are told to expect another $100 billion request from the administration to fund this war. When does it end?

I am a proud cosponsor of legislation that is authored by my colleague Senator Biden. Senator Hagel served valiantly in Vietnam. He knows what war is like. Senator Levin and Senator Snowe--all denounce this dangerous increase. This resolution, which easily passed the Foreign Relations Committee, is clear in stating that the Bush surge is not in the national interests. It is certainly not in the interests of the families who have sons or daughters serving there. It puts the Senate on record as being against a growing military conflict that will hurt our

long-term goals abroad and our security at home.

Similar to the young men and women serving today, I was proud to wear the uniform of my country in World War II in Europe. Those who are serving are obeying the orders of their Commander in Chief, and they do it fully and bravely.

In that war, World War II, the mission was clear: Defeat the enemies who attacked us. While the battles and the casualties were in far-off places, the brunt of the war's burden was borne by the families at home.

We started this fight because we were told things that proved not to be true. We believed in our leaders, and we thought they were telling us the truth. What else would we think? The President, the Vice President, then the chief of the military, Colin Powell, and others--we had faith in their belief. We had faith in the mission. Many of us doubted. I was out of the Senate for a 2-year period, and that is when that decision was made, but I would have believed it, coming from those illustrious positions with people who were known for substance because of the fact that they had achieved those positions. We had faith, but the mission in Iraq was surrounded in a fog.

It is time to redefine this mission in Iraq, a mission that includes bringing our troops home. The Iraqis say they want us to leave. Members of Congress and military leaders want us to leave, and the American people, in a broad consensus, want us to leave. Bring home those troops, they say.

Outside my office, I continue to pay my respects to these soldiers. I have a display called The Faces of the Fallen, all who have perished in this war up to a date that we can get the latest pictures, such as those we see displayed in the Washington Post. The display gives us a face to the names of the soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Visitors come by. Some of them are families and friends. Visitors search the photos daily for people they know, love and miss and they write notes in a book we have provided. Everyone who signs that book ``God bless these people,'' honors them for their service, even though there is a question about whether they ought to be serving there now.

Until President Bush listens, until Vice President Cheney realizes this is more than a bunch of victories, that successes are there, until that language is wiped out of their daily statements, we are going to have to keep adding faces to that display of fallen heroes memorial. And I am going to have to say to people who come into my office in New Jersey, particularly, who have sons and daughters serving there--one woman tells me about her son who was wounded, got the Purple Heart, and they are sending him back to combat or the woman who comes in crying so bitterly that you can barely hear her talk. She screamed at me at first when I called her when the notice of her son's death was given. She asked the question: My son was a second lieutenant. He loved being in the military. He was a trained artillery officer. What in the world were they asking him to do when they asked him to defuse roadside bombs? He lost his life defusing a bomb.

No, Madam President, if the message can't get through to the White House and the leadership, what faith can we have in the decisions made in this country today? It is discouraging. The world doesn't believe us. The people in our country don't believe us, in huge numbers. Yes, there are those who serve bravely and constantly. They do what they are told. That is what one does in the military. But while we think of sending people there who have already had, some of them, two tours of duty and they are being sent for a third tour of duty, it is impossible to imagine that their consciences don't keep them awake at night, but apparently they don't.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, together with my good friend--the new Minority Whip--Senator Trent Lott I rise to introduce S. 294, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007.

After several gloomy years, the future of America's passenger railroad is bright. This legislation will provide the necessary resources to bring Amtrak up to speed as a real alternative to taking a plane or driving a car.

As we did in the past, we have joined forces to strengthen Amtrak and intercity passenger rail services for all Americans. But today, we introduce an updated version of last Congress's Amtrak reauthorization and passenger rail expansion bill. S. 1516, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement (PRIIA) Act of 2005.

I co-authored this legislation with Senator Lott, then Chairman of the Commerce Committee's Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee, so that we could finally provide Amtrak with the funding and support it needs to thrive. The Commerce Committee favorably reported this bill, and Senator Lott and I added it to last Congress's Budget Reconciliation package, where it was adopted by an overwhelming vote of 93 to 6. Despite the bipartisan support, the House failed to act, so Amtrak was left without a necessary reauthorization.

Now, in the new Congress, I am the chair of the Commerce Committee's Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee. Working with Senator Lott, and our bipartisan group of cosponsors, we are going to get our Amtrak bill through the Senate. This time, I believe the House will be ready, willing, and able to match our efforts, so that we can send a bill to the President for his signature.

Every year, Amtrak is forced to fight for Federal funding--funding that has been insufficient at best. But as air and highway congestion continue to worsen, and concerns over our dependence on foreign oil remain, we must expand the capacity and improve the quality of our passenger rail system.

One needs only to look to Europe and Asia to see the benefits that a modern

passenger rail system can bring to a nation. Germany, which invested nine billion dollars in its rail system 2003 alone, has a modern, high- speed rail system that reduces pollution, eases congestion and improves mobility for all of its citizens. The benefits of their world class system are obvious to anyone who travels there. We need the same world class system in our country.

The era of the free and easy interstate and quick, hassle-free flights has come and gone, and time for us to make real investments in our passenger rail system has come. If we do not invest in Amtrak now, I fear for our country's economy and quality of life over the coming years. We simply cannot afford to rely solely on air travel or automobiles if we are going to keep this country moving.

The terror and tragedy we experienced on 9/11 taught us that we cannot rely solely on our aviation system. Last fall, Hurricane Katrina highlighted the role that passenger rail could play in evacuating residents who do not own automobiles. Hurricane Rita demonstrated the limits of our highway system, as evacuees' vehicles crawled to a stop in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Each one of these disasters reminded us that our Nation needs Amtrak and better train service to provide options for the traveling public--in good times and in bad.

The bill we introduce today is the most comprehensive reauthorization of Amtrak ever attempted by this body. We have worked with Amtrak, freight railroads, the States and rail labor to draft strong and comprehensive legislation.

Our bill authorizes nearly $12 billion in Federal support to expand partnerships for passenger rail with the States, improve the Northeast Corridor and provide real rail security for the Nation. Additionally, Senator Lott and I filed an amendment today to this bill which would add $7.8 billion in bonding authority for States and Amtrak to develop rail infrastructure. This bonding authority would augment the appropriated funds authorized by this bill and provide Amtrak and the States with a reliable, multi-year source of capital for major projects. We look forward to working with the Finance Committee to consider this proposal.

Our bill also requires significant reforms of Amtrak: The system's supporters and detractors alike agree that it is time to reauthorize the Corporation so that Amtrak has congressional guidance on how to proceed with important reform initiatives needed to improve service, grow revenues, and cut costs.

People in New Jersey rely on Amtrak and want to be sure that the system will be there for them in the future. With this plan, it will.

Last year, 93 Senators voted for this plan. I ask that my colleagues, once again, join Senator Lott and myself in supporting this important bill that will bring America's passenger rail system into the 21st Century.

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

Mr. President, together with my good friend--the new Minority Whip--Senator Trent Lott I rise to introduce S. 294, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007.

After several gloomy years, the future of America's passenger railroad is bright. This legislation will provide the necessary resources to bring Amtrak up to speed as a real alternative to taking a plane or driving a car.

As we did in the past, we have joined forces to strengthen Amtrak and intercity passenger rail services for all Americans. But today, we introduce an updated version of last Congress's Amtrak reauthorization and passenger rail expansion bill. S. 1516, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement (PRIIA) Act of 2005.

I co-authored this legislation with Senator Lott, then Chairman of the Commerce Committee's Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee, so that we could finally provide Amtrak with the funding and support it needs to thrive. The Commerce Committee favorably reported this bill, and Senator Lott and I added it to last Congress's Budget Reconciliation package, where it was adopted by an overwhelming vote of 93 to 6. Despite the bipartisan support, the House failed to act, so Amtrak was left without a necessary reauthorization.

Now, in the new Congress, I am the chair of the Commerce Committee's Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee. Working with Senator Lott, and our bipartisan group of cosponsors, we are going to get our Amtrak bill through the Senate. This time, I believe the House will be ready, willing, and able to match our efforts, so that we can send a bill to the President for his signature.

Every year, Amtrak is forced to fight for Federal funding--funding that has been insufficient at best. But as air and highway congestion continue to worsen, and concerns over our dependence on foreign oil remain, we must expand the capacity and improve the quality of our passenger rail system.

One needs only to look to Europe and Asia to see the benefits that a modern

passenger rail system can bring to a nation. Germany, which invested nine billion dollars in its rail system 2003 alone, has a modern, high- speed rail system that reduces pollution, eases congestion and improves mobility for all of its citizens. The benefits of their world class system are obvious to anyone who travels there. We need the same world class system in our country.

The era of the free and easy interstate and quick, hassle-free flights has come and gone, and time for us to make real investments in our passenger rail system has come. If we do not invest in Amtrak now, I fear for our country's economy and quality of life over the coming years. We simply cannot afford to rely solely on air travel or automobiles if we are going to keep this country moving.

The terror and tragedy we experienced on 9/11 taught us that we cannot rely solely on our aviation system. Last fall, Hurricane Katrina highlighted the role that passenger rail could play in evacuating residents who do not own automobiles. Hurricane Rita demonstrated the limits of our highway system, as evacuees' vehicles crawled to a stop in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Each one of these disasters reminded us that our Nation needs Amtrak and better train service to provide options for the traveling public--in good times and in bad.

The bill we introduce today is the most comprehensive reauthorization of Amtrak ever attempted by this body. We have worked with Amtrak, freight railroads, the States and rail labor to draft strong and comprehensive legislation.

Our bill authorizes nearly $12 billion in Federal support to expand partnerships for passenger rail with the States, improve the Northeast Corridor and provide real rail security for the Nation. Additionally, Senator Lott and I filed an amendment today to this bill which would add $7.8 billion in bonding authority for States and Amtrak to develop rail infrastructure. This bonding authority would augment the appropriated funds authorized by this bill and provide Amtrak and the States with a reliable, multi-year source of capital for major projects. We look forward to working with the Finance Committee to consider this proposal.

Our bill also requires significant reforms of Amtrak: The system's supporters and detractors alike agree that it is time to reauthorize the Corporation so that Amtrak has congressional guidance on how to proceed with important reform initiatives needed to improve service, grow revenues, and cut costs.

People in New Jersey rely on Amtrak and want to be sure that the system will be there for them in the future. With this plan, it will.

Last year, 93 Senators voted for this plan. I ask that my colleagues, once again, join Senator Lott and myself in supporting this important bill that will bring America's passenger rail system into the 21st Century.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 10 minutes to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, this morning I rise to discuss the terrible situation we see in Iraq. While home in New Jersey over these last few days, I was often approached by constituents on the street and there was one topic that would come into the conversation almost immediately, when people said: Senator, when are we going to get our troops out of the crossfire in Iraq?

It is a great question, but the answer is certainly not clear.

Our constituents back home understand that President Bush has totally mishandled the diplomatic and strategic parts of the Iraq mission and our troops are the ones who are caught in the middle--caught in the middle of an ethnic civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. From my home State of New Jersey, we have already lost 74 people in Iraq; nationwide the total is quite clear--over 3,000 have lost their lives, and there are over 23,000 wounded with injuries that could disable them for the rest of their lives.

To make matters worse, a disproportionate amount of the burden of this conflict has fallen to Guard and Reserve troops. In fact, in early 2005, the National Guard and the Reserves made up nearly half of the fighting force in Iraq, people who were to be called up when emergencies arose. The Reserves were not there primarily to be a replacement for long-term combat duty. This administration decided early on that their agenda for the military was to shrink the size of our Active Forces. We all heard that. ``We will get it down to being lean and mean, and increase reliance on contractors for support.'' If it were not so tragic, it would be a joke.

Now we see, in practice, the Bush long-term military plan has been a disaster. We do not have enough active troops. We are relying way too much on the Guard and Reserve. And contractors such as Halliburton have been wasting taxpayer dollars right and left.

The proof of this waste was a fine, levied against Halliburton, of $60 million at one time for overcharges for the care and feeding of our troops. We continue to hear of irresponsible behavior of contractors serving our needs in Iraq. Mismanagement of all forms has been a hallmark of Defense Department supervision.

At every turn, this President has made terrible judgments. Tomorrow we are going to hear another decision by President Bush. Why should the American people trust him to understand what he is getting us into? We heard the President say, ``Bring 'em on,'' one of the most disingenuous statements ever made by a President. I served in Europe during World War II, and I can tell you that we never wanted to hear a Commander in Chief taunting the enemy from the comforts of the White House. Asking more of the enemy to show their faces? We didn't want to see them at all.

We saw the President's foolish display of bravado on the Aircraft Carrier Abraham Lincoln when he declared, ``Mission accomplished.'' What a careless statement the President of the United States made that day, over 3\1/2\ years ago. Mission accomplished? That meant the job was finished, as far as most people were concerned. But it was not through.

While the President was performing in 2003, leaders were warning of a military crisis. General Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff, told a Senate Armed Services Committee that we would need to keep a large force in Iraq even after a war to curb ethnic tensions and provide humanitarian aid. General Shinseki, distinguished military leader, said we needed several hundred thousand troops there. His assessment was harshly dismissed quickly by the President and by Secretary Rumsfeld. The General's reality-based opinion got in the way of their ideologically based mission of a smaller Active-Duty Force.

In the aftermath of the initial invasion, President Bush has made the wrong move almost every time. Now we have walked so deep into the swamp in Iraq that just adding more guns is not going to work. This so-called surge is another bad idea--slogans, such as ``cut and run'' have to be matched against the reality of ``stay and die.''

President Bush likes to say: I do what the generals tell me to. But now we know that is not the case. The generals have been extremely candid about their view of the surge idea. They think it is wrong. Now we are hearing that the President intends to give another $1 billion to Iraqi reconstruction projects. We want to fund every cent that our troops need for their safety, for their return, for their health care, for their well-being, but sending more money down the rat hole is not going to do it. It is being diverted from programs at home, such as education, stem cell research, health care for all our people, to name a few, and the taxpayers of New Jersey do not want their money used to build another civilian project in Iraq that is going to get blown up the next day. Before we look to spend more money on civil projects in Iraq, let's get the diplomatic situation straightened out.

The American people want to see us leave Iraq with some hope for stability in our absence. That will require President Bush to use all of the diplomatic tools at his disposal to force a dramatic change of course for the Iraqi Government. The current Government in Iraq has to take real steps to disarm the Shiite militias and show the Sunnis that they will actually be empowered in the Iraqi Government. If we do not do that, we could send a million troops to Iraq tomorrow, but it would not make a difference. If the Sunnis feel the Iraqi Government has nothing to offer and Prime Minister al-Maliki doesn't stop the Shiite militias, the bloodbath will continue.

I hope the leaks about the President's plan are wrong and that he will announce tomorrow a better course, a course that will allow us to exit Iraq but with real hope of a more stable society left behind.

I conclude that with the history of planning for this war and the statements coming from the White House and the leadership of the Defense Department I ask: How can we trust their judgment with a new plan to put more people in harm's way without some idea of when this will end? It is not a good idea and we ought to get a better explanation from the President and the Defense Department as to what might the outcome be if their plan succeeds.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with great pride to reintroduce legislation which would create a national park in my hometown of Paterson, NJ, The Paterson Great Falls National Park Act of 2007, which I first introduced last year, would bring long-deserved recognition and accessibility to one of our Nation's most beautiful and historic landmarks. I am pleased that my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, is cosponsoring this legislation.

The Great Falls are located where the Passaic River drops nearly 80 feet straight down, on its course towards New York Harbor. It is one of the tallest and most spectacular waterfalls on the east coast, but the incredible natural beauty of the falls should not overshadow its tremendous importance as the powerhouse of industry in New Jersey and the infant United States. Indeed, in 1778, Alexander Hamilton visited the Great Falls and immediately realized the potential of the falls for industrial applications and development. Hamilton was instrumental in creating the planned community in Paterson--the first of its kind nationwide--centered on the Great Falls, and industry thrived on the power generated by the falls. Rogers Locomotive Works, the premier steam locomotive manufacturer of the 19th century, was

located in the shadow of the falls, as were many other vitally important manufacturing enterprises.

President Ford recognized the importance of the area by declaring the falls and its surroundings a ``National Historic Landmark'' in 1976; he called the falls ``a symbol of the industrial might which helps to make the United States the most powerful nation in the world.'' Now, it is time that we recognize the importance of this historic area by making it New Jersey's first national park. This would be of special importance because so few of our national parks are in urban areas. I believe that it is time we acknowledge that many of our most significant national treasures are located in densely populated areas, and creating a national park in Paterson is an ideal opportunity to do just that.

I grew up in Paterson, and I have appreciated the majesty and beauty of the Great Falls for many years. By creating a national park in Paterson, more Americans can be exposed to the exceptional cultural, natural, and historic significance of the Great Falls, and that is why I will passionately advocate for the passage of this bill. I have been delighted to again work with my good friend, Congressman Bill Pascrell--another longtime resident of Paterson--on this issue, as well as with a bipartisan group of lawmakers from my home State, all of whom believe strongly in this cause. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation, which is so important to New Jersey and all of America.

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

Mr. President, over five years since 9/11, much of our Nation's transportation systems remain vulnerable to terror attack. There are many reasons for the lack of action by the Federal Government, but we can no longer simply look the other way. Last year, the Congress had an opportunity to make significant strides to improve the security of our freight and passenger rail systems, highways, public transit systems, trucking and intercity bus operations, and pipeline systems. The Senate passed my amendments and amendments by other Senators to the SAFE Ports Act to address the security of these important modes of transportation. In fact, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to instruct its conferees to include these provisions in the final conference report of the SAFE Ports Act.

Unfortunately, House Republican leaders stripped them out of the final version of the bill behind closed doors, instead enacting a ban on internet gambling. The actions by the House Republican leaders further delayed real progress in securing our homeland from terror. I believe the Federal Government must take a leadership role in securing our country from terrorism. States cannot on their own be left responsible for securing these interstate modes of transportation.

That is why I am proud to be an author of the Surface Transportation and Rail Security Act of 2007. I have worked with my committee co- chairmen--Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens--to ensure this bill gets quickly considered. Its provisions are not new to anyone. They were considered, and agreed to, merely four months ago by the Senate. I am hopeful that they will again be quickly considered and adopted.

This bill specifically requires accountability from the Department of Homeland Security, by ensuring that our rail systems have been analyzed for security risk. It authorizes necessary funding for making these security improvements and specifically includes $400 million for tunnel security improvements in the New Jersey/New

York region. I will seek further Federal funding for improving security of the New Jersey/New York region's tunnels and bridges in additional legislation to be introduced this month, by working with my colleagues on the appropriate committees in the Senate.

Last month, the Bush Administration proposed certain improvements to our nation's rail systems, but these proposals fell far short of what is needed to secure our country. For instance, the Administration proposal fails to take specific actions to improve the security of railroad stations, bridges, and tunnels. More people use Amtrak's Penn Station in New York City than use all three major New Jersey-New York region airports, Newark Liberty International, JFK, and LaGuardia airports, every day. This bill takes a much more comprehensive approach, by authorizing the funding needed to make these important security improvements.

Our Nation's freight rail systems move some 12 billion tons of cargo, but we are not doing enough to protect those systems. Some of this cargo includes hazardous chemicals and other dangerous materials which travel within feet of our schools, hospitals, neighborhoods, and snake right through the middle of our cities. The potential for disaster looms large, as the misuse of these shipments can produce an effect that a weapon of mass destruction would on our communities. Clearly much more thought needs to be put into how we move this dangerous cargo, and the Federal Government must be involved. The Bush Administration must agree with this assessment, as their proposal would strictly forbid states or communities from acting on their own to protect their residents from these risks.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this important legislation gets considered and enacted soon. We cannot afford to delay any further these vital security improvements to our country.

Mr. President, I rise today with great pride to reintroduce legislation which would create a national park in my hometown of Paterson, NJ, The Paterson Great Falls National Park Act of 2007, which I first introduced last year, would bring long-deserved recognition and accessibility to one of our Nation's most beautiful and historic landmarks. I am pleased that my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, is cosponsoring this legislation.

The Great Falls are located where the Passaic River drops nearly 80 feet straight down, on its course towards New York Harbor. It is one of the tallest and most spectacular waterfalls on the east coast, but the incredible natural beauty of the falls should not overshadow its tremendous importance as the powerhouse of industry in New Jersey and the infant United States. Indeed, in 1778, Alexander Hamilton visited the Great Falls and immediately realized the potential of the falls for industrial applications and development. Hamilton was instrumental in creating the planned community in Paterson--the first of its kind nationwide--centered on the Great Falls, and industry thrived on the power generated by the falls. Rogers Locomotive Works, the premier steam locomotive manufacturer of the 19th century, was

located in the shadow of the falls, as were many other vitally important manufacturing enterprises.

President Ford recognized the importance of the area by declaring the falls and its surroundings a ``National Historic Landmark'' in 1976; he called the falls ``a symbol of the industrial might which helps to make the United States the most powerful nation in the world.'' Now, it is time that we recognize the importance of this historic area by making it New Jersey's first national park. This would be of special importance because so few of our national parks are in urban areas. I believe that it is time we acknowledge that many of our most significant national treasures are located in densely populated areas, and creating a national park in Paterson is an ideal opportunity to do just that.

I grew up in Paterson, and I have appreciated the majesty and beauty of the Great Falls for many years. By creating a national park in Paterson, more Americans can be exposed to the exceptional cultural, natural, and historic significance of the Great Falls, and that is why I will passionately advocate for the passage of this bill. I have been delighted to again work with my good friend, Congressman Bill Pascrell--another longtime resident of Paterson--on this issue, as well as with a bipartisan group of lawmakers from my home State, all of whom believe strongly in this cause. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation, which is so important to New Jersey and all of America.

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

Mr. President, over five years since 9/11, much of our Nation's transportation systems remain vulnerable to terror attack. There are many reasons for the lack of action by the Federal Government, but we can no longer simply look the other way. Last year, the Congress had an opportunity to make significant strides to improve the security of our freight and passenger rail systems, highways, public transit systems, trucking and intercity bus operations, and pipeline systems. The Senate passed my amendments and amendments by other Senators to the SAFE Ports Act to address the security of these important modes of transportation. In fact, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to instruct its conferees to include these provisions in the final conference report of the SAFE Ports Act.

Unfortunately, House Republican leaders stripped them out of the final version of the bill behind closed doors, instead enacting a ban on internet gambling. The actions by the House Republican leaders further delayed real progress in securing our homeland from terror. I believe the Federal Government must take a leadership role in securing our country from terrorism. States cannot on their own be left responsible for securing these interstate modes of transportation.

That is why I am proud to be an author of the Surface Transportation and Rail Security Act of 2007. I have worked with my committee co- chairmen--Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens--to ensure this bill gets quickly considered. Its provisions are not new to anyone. They were considered, and agreed to, merely four months ago by the Senate. I am hopeful that they will again be quickly considered and adopted.

This bill specifically requires accountability from the Department of Homeland Security, by ensuring that our rail systems have been analyzed for security risk. It authorizes necessary funding for making these security improvements and specifically includes $400 million for tunnel security improvements in the New Jersey/New

York region. I will seek further Federal funding for improving security of the New Jersey/New York region's tunnels and bridges in additional legislation to be introduced this month, by working with my colleagues on the appropriate committees in the Senate.

Last month, the Bush Administration proposed certain improvements to our nation's rail systems, but these proposals fell far short of what is needed to secure our country. For instance, the Administration proposal fails to take specific actions to improve the security of railroad stations, bridges, and tunnels. More people use Amtrak's Penn Station in New York City than use all three major New Jersey-New York region airports, Newark Liberty International, JFK, and LaGuardia airports, every day. This bill takes a much more comprehensive approach, by authorizing the funding needed to make these important security improvements.

Our Nation's freight rail systems move some 12 billion tons of cargo, but we are not doing enough to protect those systems. Some of this cargo includes hazardous chemicals and other dangerous materials which travel within feet of our schools, hospitals, neighborhoods, and snake right through the middle of our cities. The potential for disaster looms large, as the misuse of these shipments can produce an effect that a weapon of mass destruction would on our communities. Clearly much more thought needs to be put into how we move this dangerous cargo, and the Federal Government must be involved. The Bush Administration must agree with this assessment, as their proposal would strictly forbid states or communities from acting on their own to protect their residents from these risks.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this important legislation gets considered and enacted soon. We cannot afford to delay any further these vital security improvements to our country.

Mr. President, next week the Iranian Government and its President, Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad, will convene a 2-day conference in Tehran on the Holocaust.

The Iranians say their conference will bring together the vast array of ``opinions'' on the Holocaust. Allegedly more than 60 so-called scholars from 30 countries will participate.

I can only imagine the hatred that will be on display.

It is no secret that President Ahmadi-Nejad has a long history of distortion of the truth and hatred for the Jewish people. It is also shocking that he has called for the destruction of the sovereign, democratic State of Israel.

But what is so revolting is how casually he tries to alter history and the memory of those who perished at the hands of the Nazis.

To make matters worse, Iran is holding this conference on International Human Rights Day

Last year at an Islamic conference in Saudi Arabia, the Iranian President told reporters that the Holocaust had been used as a tool of propaganda, stating that the scale of the Holocaust had been exaggerated. He also sent a 3,000-word letter to German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, outlining his arguments.

Now, the Iranians are trying to assure the world that this conference will be free of anti-Semitism and that it will explore views of ``both sides.'' Both sides? It is clear that denial is one of the sides.

The Holocaust is an undeniable fact of history, and the upcoming conference will serve only to perpetuate intolerance. Eleven million people in total, including six million Jews, were viciously murdered in Nazi death camps. No one living in the rational world denies this fact.

The Iranian President has a clear track record of poisonous hatred. He has stated that ``Israel must be wiped off the map.'' He also said ``Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nations' fury.''

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is poised to take up and adopt a resolution that I have drafted--along with Senators Biden and Clinton--that condemns the Iranians and this sham conference. It is important that the Senate go on record condemning this hate and intolerance.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would preserve the public's right to know exactly what types and amounts of chemicals are being stored and released into their neighborhoods and communities.

The legislation would stop the Environmental Protection Agency's dangerous attempts to undermine the Toxic Release Inventory--TRI-- program--which I authored in 1986--by allowing facilities that release up to 5,000 pounds of a toxic chemical to simply provide notice of a chemical's presence at the facility, rather than disclose the actual amounts released to the land, air, and water. The 5,000 pounds standard represents a ten-fold increase of the current reporting threshold; this change would eliminate detailed reporting for thousands of facilities in communities around the country, including 92 facilities in New Jersey, and could eliminate entirely the disclosure of the releases of more than a dozen potentially dangerous chemicals. The EPA also has proposed to require reports on chemical emissions only every other year, instead of the current annual requirement. Under this wildly irresponsible proposed rule change, corporations would only be required to disclose their chemical emissions every other year. This means that communities would have no knowledge of what chemicals have been released in the 50 percent of years where emissions are not disclosed; additionally, companies would have a perverse incentive to

concentrate their most egregious releases of toxic chemicals into the environment in years which are not reported. Furthermore, the EPA has published a proposal to reduce the information available to the public regarding the management of some of the most toxic chemicals that accumulate in the environment, including lead and mercury. Needless to say, I strongly oppose all three of these rule changes; the legislation I am introducing will stop them from taking place.

I firmly believe that it is simply unacceptable for the EPA to reduce the amount of information available to the public about chemicals-- including mercury, lead and other carcinogens--stored nearby or released into their community. When Congress passed the original Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act in 1986, as a response to the 1984 Union Carbide chemical disaster in Bhopal, India, some accountability was finally established in the chemical industry. And now, the EPA is attempting to weaken these rules and reduce the amount of information available to the public on these critical issues. For instance, in my home State of New Jersey, a chemical facility that released 2,000 pounds of arsenic via air emissions in 2003 would no longer be required to disclose this pollution to the general public. Fourteen facilities that released a combined 8,600 pounds of carcinogenic styrene would no longer have to report these emissions in detail. I find these proposals absolutely outrageous. It truly begs the question: who is the EPA really ``protecting''? The general public and the environment, or corporate interests that pollute our communities?

While the EPA touts the benefits of its proposal as ``burden reduction'' for industry, I strongly believe that the benefit of annual, detailed reporting vastly outweighs the marginal reduction in burden that will be provided to industry. In fact, according to the EPA's own estimates, the average cost saved for facilities no longer required to report the release of toxic chemicals in amounts less than 5,000 pounds would be approximately $2.32 per day. It is simply stunning that the EPA is willing to jeopardize public health and safety for a daily cost savings roughly equivalent to a couple cups of coffee.

There are constructive ways to improve the TRI program, and lessen the burdens on industry, without reducing the amount of information available to the public. These include improving the system for electronic reporting, and offering technical assistance to help businesses comply with the requirements.

The bill I am introducing is simple. First, it would codify the requirement that companies which release emissions of more than 500 pounds of any standard TRI chemical must disclose the details of their releases. Releases in amounts less than 500 pounds would continue to be allowed to use the less detailed reporting form. Second, it would codify the current prohibition on using the less detailed form for the most persistent chemicals, including lead, mercury, and dioxin. Finally, it would prevent EPA from making the frequency of reporting less than every year.

I would be remiss not to thank my congressional colleagues in the House of Representatives, Frank Pallone of New Jersey, and Hilda Solis of California, with whom I have been pleased to work on this issue. Representatives Pallone and Solis have introduced the companion of this bill in the House; I now look forward to continuing to work with them to ensure its passage. I would also like to thank my colleagues Senator Menendez and Senator Boxer, for being original cosponsors of this important legislation.

As a result of the EPA's dereliction of its duty to protect the public and the environment, Congress must act to do so. I strongly encourage my colleagues to do just that by enacting this legislation.

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