Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to thank a dedicated public servant for his service to the people of New Jersey. Mr. Paul H. Bea, Jr., has been Washington representative for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for over 25 years, serving as a voice of the Port Authority here in Washington, DC.

As a former Port Authority Commissioner, I can tell you that this agency is the most complex regional transportation agency in the country. It runs three major airports that handled almost 100 million passengers last year. It operates the largest seaport on the east coast of the United States and the second largest container gateway in the country. It runs a bi-state mass transit system and maintains under its care and responsibility such landmark assets as the Lincoln Tunnel, the Holland Tunnel, the Bayonne Bridge, the George Washington Bridge, and the World Trade Center complex in lower Manhattan.

Mr. Bea has provided lawmakers and policy makers advice and information on a variety of topics including the Federal budget, aviation, surface transportation, tax, and trade issues, but he has developed a particular expertise in the field of maritime, port security, and environmental matters. Through Paul's work with the New Jersey and New York congressional delegations on behalf of the Port of New York-New Jersey, he has contributed to the improvement of both the underwater infrastructure and the Hudson-Raritan estuary.

In 2002, Paul became chairman of the Coastwise Coalition, a public- private sector partnership that works to educate policy makers on the potential of domestic waterborne transportation to enhance the capacity of the national transportation system.

In 2004, he was invited by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, Norman Y. Mineta serve on the Maritime Transportation System National Advisory Council. His principal efforts on that panel involve coastwise shipping, intermodal freight transportation, and waterway issues.

Mr. Bea's experience in Washington dates back to 1970, when he arrived to work on the staff of the late Congressman Edward J. Patten from New Jersey. He was responsible for Federal budget, appropriations, energy, environment, transportation and other issue areas.

In 1978, Mr. Bea went to work as a Washington representative for New Jersey Governor Brendan T. Byrne on environmental and energy concerns, which were a focus of President Carter's administration at the time.

I am very grateful for Mr. Bea's service at the Port Authority. His capable representation has helped the Federal Government navigate through some very tumultuous times for our country, including the 9/11 terror attack on the World Trade Center, and the bombings at the same location in 1993.

On behalf of the people of New Jersey, I thank Mr. Bea for all he has done and will continue to do to make our country a safer, more secure, and efficient place to live and conduct business, and I wish him well.

Mr. President, I wasn't here when Jon Corzine arrived in the Senate 5 years ago in fact, he actually took my place at the time. We met to share ideas on an agenda for New Jersey and America and I followed his progress closely. I was impressed by what I saw in Jon's service in the Senate, where he has earned respect and affection. Jon came from great success in the world of finance and industry, but he is able to communicate with ordinary people, as well.

Some people arrive here and immediately head for the headlines. But that isn't Jon Corzine's style. Jon is a committed ``workhorse,'' who works long hours with high intensity. He doesn't have a lot of flash, but he is very effective.

He came to Washington for one reason: to serve the people of New Jersey. Now, with some sorrow on my part, he is leaving us here for the same reason: to help New Jersey even more directly.

Even before the terrorist attacks on 9/11, work had been done to strengthen security at our chemical plants. Jon recognized the importance of that issue long before most people, so when he arrived here in the Senate, he took the

ball and ran with it. Jon introduced a plan to overhaul security at chemical plants, and many people were surprised when he got it unanimously approved in committee. But those who know Jon Corzine weren't surprised. Even when that bill was blocked by lobbyists, Jon didn't give up. He has continued to fight to make our chemical plants safer. He has raised awareness of the problem, which I will take up once again, because we are at risk across this Nation from the most horrible devastation to our people and communities.

Jon Corzine carried an agenda here that was so appropriate for New Jersey that he established a place for himself in the history of the State even before he becomes Governor.

I wasn't a Member of the Senate on that fateful day of September 11, 2001, when my State lost almost 700 people. But I knew we would have a strong advocate in Jon Corzine. And we did. Jon listened to the families who had lost loved ones, and he knew they deserved answers. So he fought to establish the 9/11 Commission. I honestly don't think it ever would have come to pass without his efforts. He has been a great ally in my fight to make New Jersey and our Nation safer by directing homeland security resources to where they are most needed.

By the time I returned to the Senate almost 3 years ago, Jon had earned a reputation as a hard worker who cares more about getting results than getting credit. People had learned that when you talk to Jon Corzine, he really listens. They had learned that he isn't in love with the sound of his own voice. And they had learned that when Jon Corzine does speak, he has something to say.

Three years ago our Nation was rocked by the Enron scandal, and by other incidents that undermined public confidence in the integrity of major corporations. With his background as the CEO of one of the largest financial services firms in the country, Jon realized the importance of restoring public trust and confidence. Even though he worked mostly behind the scenes on the Sarbanes-Oxley bill the most far-reaching corporate reform law since the Great Depression he was recognized by the New York Times as the bill's ``primary architect.''

Sarbanes-Oxley improved business accounting standards, helped restore investor confidence, and protected the savings of millions of Americans. Jon's name isn't on that bill, but his influence is.

Jon has been a great teammate for me, working for New Jersey day in and day out. He has also worked with many of you, on both sides of the aisle.

I know how hard he has worked with Senator Brownback, for instance, to stop genocide in the Darfur region of the Sudan. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Jon offered the first Senate resolution to classify this horrific situation as ``genocide.'' The passage of this bipartisan resolution, coupled with other efforts to increase awareness of atrocities in Darfur, prompted then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to declare that genocide was in fact occurring. After traveling to Sudan personally, Senator Corzine championed a successful bipartisan effort to provide $75 million for African Union peacekeeping troops. He also introduced a bill establishing sanctions against Sudan, which the Senate passed.

Jon served in the Marine Corps Reserves, and he understands the burdens on our men and women in uniform especially the National Guard and Reserves, who have provided so many of the troops in Iraq.

After I served in World War II, I went to college on the G.I. bill. Jon Corzine has worked to update the G.I. bill for the 21st century, to meet rising education costs. He has fought for better health care for veterans and military families. And he sponsored a bill that will help 90,000 vets buy their own homes. For these reasons and many more, the Veterans of Foreign Wars gave Jon their Congressional Award in 2004.

Over the past 3 years I have been proud to call Jon Corzine my friend and my colleague. Today, I am equally proud to call him the next Governor of my home State of New Jersey. I will miss him here in the Senate. But I will take comfort in knowing that he will be leading New Jersey in the right direction. I hope all of my colleagues will join me today in wishing Senator Corzine a fond farewell and great success in the future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Smith in introducing the IRA Equity Act of 2005, which would allow the disabled and those who temporarily leave the workforce to continue to save for their retirement.

We should be encouraging responsible behavior. When those whose income is slashed because they become disabled--or because they take time off to care for a child, volunteer for a good cause, or go to school--want to continue to save for retirement, that is commendable, it is responsible, and we ought to do everything we can to make it easier.

Yet today, people who are injured and have their income replaced by workers' compensation or Social Security disability suddenly are no longer able to contribute to their IRAs. That's because under current law, income contributed to IRAs must be ``compensation,'' or earned through work. Under the current rules, disability income doesn't qualify.

We know that those who become disabled will still need to support themselves in their old age; we know that they may even need to spend more because of their disability; and we know that because of their disability, they have less earning power and that makes it harder to save. So why in the world would we further penalize them for being disabled by taking away one of the most effective savings tools they have? It just doesn't make any sense.

My legislation would fix this problem by allowing wage replacement income, including Social Security disability and workers' compensation, to be contributed to IRAs. Additionally, my legislation would permit those who take up to two years away from the workforce to contribute earnings from prior years to their IRAs so that they can continue to save. Federal law should not force people to break good savings habits.

In the name of fairness and retirement security, I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense legislation.

Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Smith in introducing the IRA Equity Act of 2005, which would allow the disabled and those who temporarily leave the workforce to continue to save for their retirement.

We should be encouraging responsible behavior. When those whose income is slashed because they become disabled--or because they take time off to care for a child, volunteer for a good cause, or go to school--want to continue to save for retirement, that is commendable, it is responsible, and we ought to do everything we can to make it easier.

Yet today, people who are injured and have their income replaced by workers' compensation or Social Security disability suddenly are no longer able to contribute to their IRAs. That's because under current law, income contributed to IRAs must be ``compensation,'' or earned through work. Under the current rules, disability income doesn't qualify.

We know that those who become disabled will still need to support themselves in their old age; we know that they may even need to spend more because of their disability; and we know that because of their disability, they have less earning power and that makes it harder to save. So why in the world would we further penalize them for being disabled by taking away one of the most effective savings tools they have? It just doesn't make any sense.

My legislation would fix this problem by allowing wage replacement income, including Social Security disability and workers' compensation, to be contributed to IRAs. Additionally, my legislation would permit those who take up to two years away from the workforce to contribute earnings from prior years to their IRAs so that they can continue to save. Federal law should not force people to break good savings habits.

In the name of fairness and retirement security, I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medicare Prescription Drug Gap Disclosure Act with my colleagues, Senators Kerry, Dorgan and Dayton. This important legislation will require Medicare beneficiaries enrolling in a Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, PDP, or Medicare Advantage Drug Plan, MA-PD, with a potential coverage gap to sign a short, easy to read, statement indicating that they are aware of the potential loss of coverage.

Yesterday, 42 million Medicare beneficiaries became eligible to sign up for the new Medicare prescription drug benefit, scheduled to start on January 1, 2006. However, too many seniors are understandably confused about this complicated change to Medicare, and I fear that many may sign up for drug plans without understanding the major pitfalls of the program. The biggest pitfall in the drug plan is the notorious ``coverage gap'' also known as the ``donut hole.''

In the coverage gap, beneficiaries pay 100 percent of prescription costs after they exceed a certain level of out-of-pocket spending and before protection kicks in against catastrophic drug expenses. They also continue to pay 100 percent of their monthly premiums.

We need to make sure that seniors are aware of the threat that the coverage gap poses, and it should not be

hidden in a mountain of paperwork. My legislation would require plan providers to have beneficiaries sign the following certification before enrollment:

I understand that the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan or

MA-PD Plan that I am signing up for may result in a gap in

coverage during a given year. I understand that if subject to

this gap in coverage, I will be responsible for paying 100

percent of the costs of my prescription drugs and will

continue to be responsible for paying the plan's monthly

premium while subject to this gap in coverage. For specific

information on the potential coverage gap under this plan, I

understand that I should contact [prescription drug plan] at

[toll free phone number].

The bottom line is that, after months of trying to explain this new drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries, many do not understand the ramifications of the coverage gap. Unfortunately, millions of Medicare beneficiaries may learn about the coverage gap the hard way--when the pharmacist at the cash register tells them sometime next year that they are suddenly required to pay the full cost of their prescriptions.

Mr. President, a study by the Commonwealth Fund found that 38 percent of Medicare enrollees are likely to experience this costly interruption in care. Moreover, the benefits must be renewed each year, meaning that the coverage gap repeats itself if beneficiaries reach the coverage gap again.

A recent survey by the Kaiser Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health, found that only 35 percent of people 65 and older said they understood the new drug benefit. In addition, the numerous media stories in recent days contain anecdotal evidence that illustrates the confusion around the new drug benefit.

I therefore urge my colleagues to support this bill. Only with such a clear, separate disclaimer will seniors have a fair opportunity to be warned of the risks posed by this gap in drug coverage.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Medicare Prescription Drug Gap Disclosure Act with my colleagues, Senators Kerry, Dorgan and Dayton. This important legislation will require Medicare beneficiaries enrolling in a Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, PDP, or Medicare Advantage Drug Plan, MA-PD, with a potential coverage gap to sign a short, easy to read, statement indicating that they are aware of the potential loss of coverage.

Yesterday, 42 million Medicare beneficiaries became eligible to sign up for the new Medicare prescription drug benefit, scheduled to start on January 1, 2006. However, too many seniors are understandably confused about this complicated change to Medicare, and I fear that many may sign up for drug plans without understanding the major pitfalls of the program. The biggest pitfall in the drug plan is the notorious ``coverage gap'' also known as the ``donut hole.''

In the coverage gap, beneficiaries pay 100 percent of prescription costs after they exceed a certain level of out-of-pocket spending and before protection kicks in against catastrophic drug expenses. They also continue to pay 100 percent of their monthly premiums.

We need to make sure that seniors are aware of the threat that the coverage gap poses, and it should not be

hidden in a mountain of paperwork. My legislation would require plan providers to have beneficiaries sign the following certification before enrollment:

I understand that the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan or

MA-PD Plan that I am signing up for may result in a gap in

coverage during a given year. I understand that if subject to

this gap in coverage, I will be responsible for paying 100

percent of the costs of my prescription drugs and will

continue to be responsible for paying the plan's monthly

premium while subject to this gap in coverage. For specific

information on the potential coverage gap under this plan, I

understand that I should contact [prescription drug plan] at

[toll free phone number].

The bottom line is that, after months of trying to explain this new drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries, many do not understand the ramifications of the coverage gap. Unfortunately, millions of Medicare beneficiaries may learn about the coverage gap the hard way--when the pharmacist at the cash register tells them sometime next year that they are suddenly required to pay the full cost of their prescriptions.

Mr. President, a study by the Commonwealth Fund found that 38 percent of Medicare enrollees are likely to experience this costly interruption in care. Moreover, the benefits must be renewed each year, meaning that the coverage gap repeats itself if beneficiaries reach the coverage gap again.

A recent survey by the Kaiser Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health, found that only 35 percent of people 65 and older said they understood the new drug benefit. In addition, the numerous media stories in recent days contain anecdotal evidence that illustrates the confusion around the new drug benefit.

I therefore urge my colleagues to support this bill. Only with such a clear, separate disclaimer will seniors have a fair opportunity to be warned of the risks posed by this gap in drug coverage.

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

Mr. President, this modified version of my amendment contains several good suggestions from the managers of this bill, Senator Warner and Senator Levin. My underlying amendment stands for a very simple proposition: Those who knowingly compromise significant classified information should not continue to hold a security clearance and they should be denied further access to classified information. The modification to the amendment makes clear that it applies to Members of the Congress and to their staffs as well.

My amendment is similar to one offered by our Democratic leader, Senator Reid, in July. Some of our colleagues reacted to Senator Reid's amendment by expressing their concern that it was an open-ended standard. In deference to these concerns, I have added the ``knowing'' standard; in other words, if someone reveals information knowingly. I am pleased to see my colleagues find this version acceptable.

Senator Warner and I served in World War II. We had an expression then. It said: ``Loose lips sink ships.'' Everybody was participating in protecting ourselves from revealing information to the enemy. Exposing our secrets was a grave offense then and it is a grave offense now.

No one is above this law and no one has a right to keep their security clearance if they knowingly reveal our secrets. Anybody in Government, whether the White House or the Congress or a Government employee, should have to live by the same standards as other hard- working Federal employees. The Los Angeles Times recently reported that an intelligence analyst lost his clearance because he faxed his resume using a commercial machine. A Defense Department employee had her clearance suspended because a jilted boyfriend called her office and said she was unreliable. An Army officer had his clearance revoked over $67 in personal calls charged to a military cell phone. There should not be a double standard for anybody.

I want to be clear with my colleagues. This amendment has nothing to do with criminal behavior. That is taken care of in other statutes. It merely governs under what circumstances someone should lose their security clearance for improper behavior. Given recent developments of which we are all aware, this is a necessary amendment. We need to make sure those who are careless with national security information are denied continued access to top-secret information. Anyone who leaks classified information should not continue to have a security clearance. I am sure across the country people would agree with that. If you are giving out information you should not reveal in the first place, why should you have access to that same type information on a continuing basis?

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I want to be cooperative, but I do want to make sure it is clearly understood that we are all supporting--or those who are supporting this amendment. I would like it clearly on the record. Perhaps a 10-minute vote?

If I were sitting in that chair, I would probably say yes, but I am not sitting in that chair.

I ask that we have a rollcall vote.

If we continue to talk about it, we will have lost the opportunity to move the bill along. This was the understanding that we had, for a rollcall vote. Forgive me, my colleagues, but like everybody else I want to have a rollcall vote.

No.

I don't want to be obstinate. If we could now declare the time that this session will end, perhaps we can then look at a standing vote. Other than that, if I agree to move my amendment along and find out that we still continue to drag on--will all the other amendments be subjected to voice votes?

I have the yeas and nays on this.

If that is the situation, I am going to cooperate.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, the amendment I offer today is something I believe is urgently needed because of security concerns raised constantly these days, particularly as a result of a recent indictment we are all aware of. The amendment is relatively simple, straightforward. It clarifies part of the intelligence law to be clear that those who compromise classified information cannot hold a clearance. The indictment describes conduct by a White House official that must not be tolerated. Certainly, an irresponsible and reckless official should not be allowed to continue to hold a clearance to see top-secret information.

The person at issue is identified in the recent indictment I spoke of earlier as ``Official A.'' According to the Washington Post, White House staff have confirmed that Official A is Mr. Karl Rove. He is the deputy chief of staff to the President. The indictment says this official gave classified information to a journalist. Any official who does such a thing should certainly not continue to hold a clearance.

It is quite clear what President Bush's intent was when he said he wanted to clear the air about any leakage of classified information. I think we should follow his pledge or remind him of his pledge to remove anyone involved with leaking information. We know the information given to the journalist Robert Novak was, indeed, published, and a CIA operative was exposed.

The actions taken by the White House staff have damaged our national security. Thusly, an indictment has come about. It has destroyed an operative's covert cover, compromised intelligence-gathering operations, and endangered the safety of other CIA employees and their contacts.

The amendment I offer today is similar to one that was offered earlier in the year by Senator Reid in July. My amendment has one significant difference. It includes the words a ``knowing'' standard so that someone who unknowingly does it doesn't get included in our amendment. We wanted to narrow the field and say, if you talk about these things and know it, you ought to pay for it. The payment is fairly simple. My Republican colleagues reacted to the Reid amendment by talking about it as an open-ended standard. In deference to the concerns of our colleagues on the other side, I have added

a ``knowing'' standard--in other words, if you don't know it, then that is one thing; if you do know it, it is quite something else--which is more than fair to someone who reveals our national security secrets.

I see my colleague and friend from Virginia on the other side. I am reminded when both of us wore a uniform some years ago, it was ``loose lips sink ships.'' The lights were darkened all along the coast. You couldn't even tell your family where you were at the time. As a matter of fact, I was in an area in Belgium that was quite dangerous. I did find a place that sold a postcard that was written in the language of the area. It was Flemish. I sent it to my mother to give her an indication where I was. I kind of had to sneak by the censors.

We are at war. People are at war with us. Terrorists are liable to attack us at any time. They are certainly doing what they can to even injure or kill our service people who are abroad. We ought to make sure we are as diligent about covering our security as we can be. We should ask nothing less than total obedience to the rules. I am here with the consent and support of Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Levin, and others who believe we should do this. I hope my colleagues across the aisle can agree that if somebody gives information they shouldn't, by golly, what we are saying is the penalty is that you should lose that security clearance and that person should be treated as the President suggests, removed from the security scene.

It is plain common sense. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Yes, the Senator is correct. And what we say is, if you do it, the least that ought to happen is you ought to learn enough of a lesson that we are going to remove any access to classified information if you do it knowingly.

Right.

We tried our best to clarify it and remove the concern that was exhibited when Senator Reid offered it last July. This was added because colleagues on the other side made an observation that was sensible; that is, if someone does something unknowingly, you can't punish them. But on the other hand, if someone has a job that includes security, I would have to say they would know this is a violation to betray any of the rules they are subjected to. But this clarifies it. There is no intention here to pull the wool over anybody's eyes or anything such as that. It is to make sure we prevent any leakage as much as we can of security information. We are so sensitized to it that the country is at times locked up in concerns with these warnings being given out, and we ought to try to restrict that from happening as much as possible.

It can be careless. The Senator can well remember the time, a very unfortunate time, when an informant, someone working with the CIA in Latin America--Guatemala, I believe it was--was assassinated after their identity was revealed. We don't want that to happen. We have our friends and relatives overseas now.

Certainly.

I think current law describes that. We will use that as the standard. Again, there is no intention here to bypass the rules. It is to confirm clearly that if you talk about this, we are not saying you go to jail. We are not saying anything else. But you certainly should no longer have access to classified information.

Yes. We will certainly try to do that.

I thank the Senator. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to amend my amendment, No. 2478, which I introduced earlier, to include another paragraph to clarify exactly what we mean. I listened to recommendations that we use other language that again further clarifies the intent here.

The intent, very simply, is to say if someone violates the rules for transferring classified information knowingly, then we think they should lose that opportunity for access to that.

That was the sole purpose. I offer it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to second- degree my amendment. I send it to the desk for consideration.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2370

I have offered an amendment to ensure that people understand what they are signing up for when the new Medicare drug benefit comes to life and that is beginning in 2006. There is such a mix of things that the recipient beneficiaries, I am sure, will be very confused as to what the cost is going to be on the gap of coverage, whether they have to pay it all out of their pockets. I want to make sure they understand what it is they are applying for and the pitfalls or the advantages thereof.

This is very simple. We ask them to sign a note when they apply for the plan so that they are saying they are fully aware of the consequences of their signature. This should be passed, Mr. President, because it helps the senior citizens understand what it is they are getting into.

Mr. President, pursuant to the relevant sections of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive those sections for consideration of the pending amendment.

Mr. President, what is the distribution of time? I thought we had 15 minutes.

Six of our 15? Was that the arrangement, I ask the Senator from Mississippi? I thought we had a clear 15 minutes on our side.

I am not hearing the Senator from New Hampshire.

But I thought it was clearly understood. I ask unanimous consent we have 30 minutes, except for the time used already, divided in the presentation. This is an important amendment. I ask unanimous consent we be allowed 30 minutes, minus the time the Senator from Mississippi has already used.

How much time is still available to the proponents of the legislation?

Six minutes 22 seconds.

We have several requests for time to speak on this amendment. I wonder whether it is not possible to give us the opportunity to have those who would speak on behalf of the amendment offset by any opposition, in an equal amount of time, to give us 15 minutes to let the proponents make the case.

We will try to be as brief as we can. We will try to be as brief as we can, so we can develop high-speed service for Amtrak and scoot along.

The Senator from Mississippi, I assume, yields time.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi and commend him for the development of this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to echo the sentiments of Senator Lott, who serves so ably as chairman of the Commerce Committee's rail subcommittee. Like him, I believe it is critical that we act to improve passenger rail service in our country.

One of the lessons we learned on 9/11 was that our Nation cannot afford to rely entirely on one mode of transportation. When our aviation system shut down that day, Amtrak was able to reunite thousands of travelers with their families. We also saw chaotic evacuations during the recent hurricanes, with motorists stuck in traffic for hours, and those without cars left behind. We need rail service to help move our citizens to safety during emergencies.

And, of course, congestion isn't just limited to our roads. The DOT has had to cap the number of flights at Chicago's O'Hare airport cutting 37 flights a day because of congestion. Even between here and New York City, ground delays can be as much as an hour, when the flight itself is only 39 minutes of air time. We all know flight delays and cancellations are common. Coupled with long security lines, they make air travel increasingly stressful.

If we give people a choice that is viable and reliable, many will choose rail. Amtrak enjoyed record ridership last year--more than 25 million passengers--and about as many travelers ride the train between here and New York City as fly.

Other nations understand the importance of rail. Unfortunately, we have been lagging behind. I remember a NATO trip I took from Paris to Brussels. There are 18 trains a day between these two cities. The 210- mile trip takes about 85 minutes.

The Europeans aren't any smarter than we are. They simply have made a smart investment in passenger rail. Germany, with its modern, high- speed rail system, invested $9 billion in 2003 alone. And the benefits of their world-class system are obvious to anyone who travels there. We need a similar world-class system in our country.

States are in need of Federal leadership to help make improved intercity passenger rail service a reality, but the infrastructure needs are prohibitive.

Our amendment authorizes funding for Amtrak's capital needs, as well as State grants for passenger rail. We make a significant Federal investment in roads--$35 billion a year. By comparison, we spend almost half that amount on airports and air traffic control towers.

This bipartisan amendment will ultimately provide millions of Americans with more transportation choices.

So Mr. President, in the interests of less congestion, lower fuel demands, and an improved environment, I ask my colleagues to support the Lott-Lautenberg amendment.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time back to my colleague from Mississippi, should he need it.

Mr. President, I would like to be as accommodating to the manager of the bill, the Senator from New Hampshire, as I can be, so I relinquish the floor.

I relinquish the time.

Mr. President, yesterday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, citing the words of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, said ``Israel must be wiped off the map.''

He then went on to call Israel a ``disgraceful blot.''

He rejected the two-state solution to the Middle East crisis as a defeat for the Islamic world, adding that the ``roadmap'' would be short-lived. He said ``If we put it behind us successfully, God willing, it will pave the way for the destruction and the downfall of the Zionist regime.''

The Iranian President also criticized his neighbors by warning ``Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nations' fury.''

He made these despicable comments to 4,000 students attending a ``World without Zionism'' conference.

This was just hours before a Palestinian suicide bomber from Islamic Jihad blew himself up in the small Israeli town of Hadera, killing 5 people and wounding more than 30.

It's important to note that Islamic Jihad's murderers are supported and trained by Iran.

Given the seriousness of President Ahmadinejad's hateful comments, I am submitting a resolution with Senator Smith asking that this body repudiate them.

The resolution also calls on President Bush, on behalf of the United States, to condemn the remarks in the strongest terms possible.

This kind of incendiary rhetoric is what we have come to expect from Iran.

The Iranian President has been quite open about his views on Israel. He has been clear and consistent, echoing Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini, who called frequently for the destruction of Israel through the 1980s.

The words and ideas of the President of Iran are offensive to civilized people around the world. We will not tolerate anti-Israel or anti- Semitic rhetoric.

The Iranian President has spoken words that are certain to incite violence against the state of Israel. Too often, that translates into violence against Jews worldwide.

But what makes the comments especially chilling is the fact that Iranian officials announced earlier this year that they had completed development of solid fuel technology for missiles, a huge breakthrough that increases missile accuracy.

Iran has the Shahab-3 missile, which has a range of 810 miles to more than 1,200 miles. Jerusalem is 970 miles from Tehran.

The Shahab-3 is capable of deliverinq a nuclear warhead to Israel and to U.S. forces in the Middle East.

So when the Iranian President threatens to ``wipe Israel off the map,'' we can't afford to take such a threat lightly. We have to take note of it and repudiate it.

I urge the Senate to adopt this resolution and go on record condemning the hateful words of the Iranian President. And I hope that President Bush himself will speak to this issue. It's that important.

I want to thank Senator Smith for co-sponsoring this resolution with me. I urge its adoption.

Mr. President, this is a grim moment for America: 2,000 of our young courageous people have perished in Iraq--2,000. From the years 1961 to 1965--those are the years in Vietnam--we got over 2,000 death notices sent to homes across the country. There is a lot of pain across the country, yes, for those who lost loved ones, but across this Nation of ours people are wondering what is it, when do we get to see our people coming back home, because it certainly does not have the appearance of a matter resolved.

I have often thought that some memorial should be present in this body as these casualty numbers are reported. But as we were denied the opportunity to have some reminders of this catastrophe displayed in the Rotunda or a busier place, I decided to put a memorial to those lost in Iraq at the front door to my office. I have been overwhelmed by the interest shown by passers-by.

We have their pictures up there and their names and the communities they come from. There are more numbers coming. We update the list regularly, the pictures regularly. Every casualty is a life cut short, families torn apart. Outside my office we have this memorial to the fallen heroes. You look at those faces and see how young are the people who died.

When I started the Senate memorial I hoped major combat would soon be over and our casualties would be minimal or eliminated, but major combat has dragged on and the memorial display unfortunately has grown and grown. It has gotten to the point where the memorial takes up most of the space outside my office. I encourage my colleagues to visit these memorials. There is one in the Longworth House Office Building in front of the office of Representatives Rahm Emanuel and Walter Jones. I encourage my colleagues to visit these memorials and pay tribute to these troops.

As we reach this grim milestone today, it is critical that we examine the situation we are facing in Iraq. The President made a speech today. We heard it on TV. He basically said let's keep on doing what we are doing. We heard the usual rhetoric about spreading freedom.

I do not think we need any more slogans. I remember the President's slogan on the aircraft carrier when he said, ``Mission accomplished.'' Mission accomplished? The President declared that major combat operations were over. This was in May 2003. Since then we have lost 1,855 of our people.

As the debacle on the aircraft carrier proved, slogans are only as good as the banners they are written on. But we don't need more slogans. We need a plan. We need a plan that will provide relief to our troops so they are not shouldering all of the burdens in Iraq. The President and his team ignored the wise advice of the State Department and alienated our usual allies before the war, and did it with incredible arrogance and ineptitude.

Last year, President Bush scolded my colleague Senator Kerry, while debating this issue, alleging that Senator Kerry forgot--I put this in quotes--``forgot Poland.'' But even Poland is pulling out of Iraq now. With the exception of British troops in Basra, we are essentially going it alone across the rest of Iraq. As our troops go it alone, they have to live with President Bush's taunt to our enemies when he said: ``Bring `em on. Bring `em on.''

Mr. President, have they sufficiently brought them on? That was said in July of 2003.

What the troops on the ground need is less talk and more of a plan that defines our specific goals. They want to know exactly how many Iraqi troops need to be trained before our soldiers can begin to come home. We hear stories about these trained battalions, trained units that are made up of Iraqi soldiers. But when you get the other side, people who have knowledge from the front, they tell us there are far fewer Iraqis trained than are presented to us from the administration.

What we hear from President Bush over and over again is that we need to complete the mission. But we are not told what the mission is.

Today, I hope every American will pause and reflect on the price that has been paid by our very brave service people. Their courage is above question--but the administration's policy in Iraq is not. The American people

have a right and a duty to demand answers from our Government. Our troops deserve nothing less. Every flag-draped coffin represents a family who will never again share a moment with their spouse, with their child, sibling, friend.

It was very telling, early on in this conflict, when the administration banned the photography of flag-draped coffins coming back to our shores from Iraq. Imagine banning that demonstration of honor and tribute--a flag-draped coffin, based upon the fact that it might disturb the privacy of the family while they greet the coffin. Families don't come to Dover, DE, where the coffins are carried off the airplanes. There is a mortuary where remains are often identified and moments of privacy provided for the families. But they banned these tributes to heroes who served our country. The administration argued about the privacy matter. It is a red herring. Of course the funerals are private. But at issue was the return of these caskets to Dover Air Force Base.

Why do I talk about it? Because it is an attempt to hide the real pain and sacrifice that is being made in this war in Iraq. They do not want the American people to see flag-draped coffin after flag-draped coffin because it reminds us about what is taking place.

Presidents Reagan and Clinton publicly met flag-draped coffins on the tarmac at Dover. But under this President we cannot even take pictures of them.

We should honor, not hide, flag-draped coffins. They are a symbol of the respect, honor, and dignity our fallen heroes deserve. Today we honor the 2,000 heroes who sacrificed their lives for our country.

I urge the President to pay tribute to their memory by offering this country a concise, realistic plan that will allow us finally to transfer power to Iraqis and bring our troops home.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to take a couple minutes to talk about the amendment to fully fund the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, what we call LIHEAP.

Americans have already been slammed by outrageously high gas prices. The average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gas in New Jersey is now $2.65. That is 37 percent higher than a year ago.

For an average New Jersey motorist, a tank of gas now costs about $46, which is $12.50 more than a year ago. That extra $12.50 for every tank of gas adds up to a cost of more than $400 a year for the average motorist--a new cost for their transportation needs with their cars.

It is affecting our quality of life. Driving to work or taking your children to school is not a luxury, nor is a visit to the doctor, nor is a visit to a shop. These things are all necessities. That is a terrible mistake because we have to make sure we do not misunderstand or misquote the importance of this extra cost to the average family. It is particularly onerous for those who do not have the choice of using transit.

Families have sacrificed substantially. They have cut back on lots of things. According to a new survey by AARP, almost 40 percent of Americans over the age of 50 have had to reduce their visits with family and friends because of high gas prices.

I have even spoken to people who run businesses that are not on a transit route or a bus route of any kind. They tell me their business has fallen off substantially. And people who work there--a lot of people with very modest jobs--have been very seriously affected.

Forty-one percent of the people the AARP was talking about have cut back on spending. That includes food and medicine.

Gas price increases have been a heavy blow, and now we are about to get hit again by higher home heating costs. According to all predictions, heating oil and natural gas prices will increase more than gasoline prices have increased.

Now, some people can lower their thermostats by a few degrees; and those who can, should. But heating a family home is not a luxury. It is a necessity, like putting food on the table. It is a level of comfort that is required to be met that cannot be ignored. That is why we have to support LIHEAP.

Last week, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said increasing the support for LIHEAP is ``not on the agenda.'' Not on the agenda? That is hard to understand. Maybe someone with a lofty position such as the Secretary can discard it as a noncritical situation. But if a child shivers at home while he or she tries to study or while they sit there with their families to have some conversation--maybe what this Government of ours ought to do is ship out blankets to everybody, or shawls they can wrap around their shoulders. You tell the senior citizen who has to choose between buying medicine or paying the heating bill that the Government is not going to help them through this crisis.

Helping families heat their homes should be near the top of our agenda. The Secretary's statement is outrageous. It is a sad commentary on the priorities of this administration. I don't think any Member of this body would walk into a modest-income family home and turn off their heat in the middle of winter. But voting against this amendment is going to have the same effect for thousands of low-income families.

We cannot leave American families out in the cold. We have to support the Reed-Collins LIHEAP amendment and give families a helping hand through what some suggest is going to be a fairly cold winter. With weather as erratic as it is, we cannot tell what is going to happen.

So, Mr. President, I hope we will be able to adopt this amendment.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to commemorate Hispanic Heritage Month. I was proud to support, along with my Senate colleagues, a resolution recognizing Hispanic Heritage Month and celebrating the vast contributions that Hispanic Americans have made to the strength and culture of our Nation.

I would like to take a moment now to honor the contributions of the Latino community in the great State of New Jersey. New Jersey's 1.3 million Hispanic Americans are an integral and vital part of our State, contributing to every aspect of life, from business to culture. Hispanic or Latino Americans represent nearly 15 percent of the population of my State. They are the largest and fastest-growing minority group in the Nation and in New Jersey.

As the son of immigrants who came to this country for the opportunities it offers, I am proud of the way our Latino neighbors have worked to make a better life for themselves and for their children.

New Jersey is home to more than 50,000 Latino-owned businesses, ranging from big corporations like Goya Foods, which is based in Secaucus, to small mom-and-pop bodegas. Through their energy and talent, these Hispanic businesses in New Jersey generate more than $9 billion in economic activity and support 167,000 jobs.

Latinos contribute to our economy, to our culture, and also to our public life. Hispanic Americans serve our Nation and the State of New Jersey at all levels of government--as mayors and municipal council members, county freeholders, and in countless elected and appointed capacities throughout the State. Seven members of the State's current General Assembly are of Hispanic descent, as well as a member of our Congressional delegation, Congressman Robert Menendez. In 2004, Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto became the first Hispanic American to serve on New Jersey's Supreme Court. And just this year, New Jersey's first Latino county prosecutor was appointed.

I am honored today to recognize the efforts and contributions of New Jersey's Hispanic Americans and I thank my colleagues for supporting this important resolution.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Food Employment Empowerment and Development Act or FEED Act along with my colleagues Senators Dole and Lincoln. This important, bipartisan legislation will award grants to qualified programs that effectively combat hunger while creating opportunity through food rescue programs and job training.

This legislation is inspired by some of the great work that food rescue programs in my State of New Jersey, such as Table to Table in Englewood Cliffs, Elijah's Promise in New Brunswick; the Food Bank of Monmouth and Ocean Counties, in Spring Lake; and the Community Food Bank of New Jersey in Hillside are doing.

It is a tragedy that in the United States, a country where food is plentiful, more than 34 million people are either going hungry or living on the edge of hunger. Thirteen million of those are children.

While on average New Jersey is one of the wealthiest States in the Nation, nearly 12 percent of all New Jersey households experience either hunger, food insecurity or both. Low wages, unstable employment and the high cost of living in the State leave many people in need. Senior adults in particular, faced with high housing costs, rising taxes and significant medical expenses miss meals to help make ends meet.

That is why we believe the FEED Act is so important. The FEED Act would provide eligible entities with a maximum grant of $200,000 per year to carry out food rescue and job training activities.

Food rescue programs collect food from restaurants and businesses and turn it into nutritional meals for seniors, children, and low-income families. In turn, these meals can be distributed and served to hungry people at homeless shelters, community and youth centers, children's after-school programs, and senior citizen programs.

Such programs have proven to be very successful, encouraging partnerships between existing social service programs like welfare-to- work, meals-on-wheels, the school lunch program, and after school programs with the preparation of nutritious meals for people in need. Food rescue programs often maximize use of existing school, community, or private food service facilities and resources to run programs.

But just addressing the immediate problem of hunger by providing food is half the battle. Hunger and poverty are closely related. With hunger on the rise in America, we need to go further and address the root causes of hunger by encouraging self sufficiency and responsibility. We need to focus on opportunities that will provide for a living wage through job training and education.

Programs supported by FEED are designed to provide long-term hunger relief by helping participants find employment in the food service industry. In the food service industry, the average wage for starting jobs is $8.81--over three dollars higher than the Federal minimum wage.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. Together we can make progress by finding innovative, cost-effective ways to use food to feed the hungry while working to break the cycle of poverty by training the homeless and unemployed in food service preparation and delivery.

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