Floor Statements

Mr. President, I extend my thanks to the Senator from Maine for her graciousness, in terms of describing an effort we are both very much interested in, in solving a problem that exists before us. Very soon, the Senate is going to vote on the two amendments, both of them aimed at foreign subsidiaries doing business with terrorist nations. But only one of these amendments--and it may not come as a surprise, mine--gets the job completely done.

I have great respect for the Senator from Maine. She works very hard to chair a committee on which I sit, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and accomplishes a lot. But unfortunately, in this case, the amendment she offered will not close the loophole we are concerned about, nor will it stop American businesses from doing business with terrorist nations such as Iran.

It recognizes the seriousness of the problem but unfortunately, as it is presented, does not solve the problem. Iran is one of the world's largest state sponsors of terrorism. Nobody doubts that. Every year, the Iranian Government funnels tens of millions of dollars to Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, to name a few. These organizations turn around and use that money to murder Americans and others who are trying to live their lives. No American company should be permitted to help them in any way, either directly or with a sham corporation.

Iran also uses its oil revenues to fund its nuclear weapons program. Once again, through sham corporations, American companies are helping them develop those oil revenues. Revenues, for what purpose? The purpose is to attack our people and other innocents across the world. That is why we do subject Iran to one of the strongest sanction regimes that we have. But some American companies exploit a loophole in our sanctions laws. They go offshore, open a sham foreign subsidiary and use that foreign subsidiary to do business with the Iranian regime with impunity and help create profits for them to be used for any purpose they choose.

This has to stop. In the past, I believe the Senator from Maine agreed

with me that this has to stop. In fact, last year she supported my amendment. So I am hopeful that she will once again vote for my amendment. I am going to vote for hers.

I want to be clear. I have no objection to the Collins amendment, and I am going to vote for it, as I said, as a signal that we must do something to stop supporting these avowed enemies of America. The Collins amendment is not a bad amendment, but it only codifies existing regulations that, frankly, are not enough. It confirms what we have now and permits companies to escape sanctions.

In the case of Cuba, we do not allow, any American company to use a sham to do business there. We ought not permit Iran to do the same things.

If we want to close this loophole, my amendment is the only one that accomplishes it. Under the Collins amendment, the scenario on this placard is still possible. Here is a U.S. corporation. Here is a foreign subsidiary of the U.S. corporation. They can do business with Iran, who then sends funds to Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations. They have their subsidiaries operating in other places. But they should not have subsidiaries that are allowed to do business in this way.

We want to strengthen existing law. The way we do it is to explicitly say that any foreign subsidiary, controlled by an American company, must obey our sanctions.

The senior Senator from Michigan pointed out last week that the standard we have, the sanctions standard, already applies to foreign subsidiaries that do business in Cuba. I repeat what I said before. My amendment simply applies the same rules to terrorist states such as Iran.

I ask my colleagues, is fighting al-Qaida really less important than fighting Castro? If you vote no on this amendment, that is what you are saying.

My amendment is simple and straightforward. It makes clear we will not allow foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies to provide funds to Iran. It is common sense. That is why a conservative group, the Center for Security Policy, supports my amendment. Frank Gaffney, who is president of the Center for Security Policy, said in the Washington Times today:

If the Senate is serious about truly closing this loophole,

it must adopt the Lautenberg amendment.

That is from Frank Gaffney, president of the organization.

We have to stop U.S. companies from doing business with terrorists when they intend to murder innocent Americans. I ask my colleagues, please support my amendment. Families across this country do what they can to protect their loved ones and we can do no less. Every day we wait to close this loophole, more and more money flows into the hands of terrorists. For the sake of our troops, for the sake of our citizens, we have to shut down this source of terrorist funding.

I again restate my intent. My intent is to support the Collins amendment because it does open our eyes a little bit further to the problem. But I hope, if we really want to solve this problem, the Lautenberg amendment is the one that will finally be voted for.

I yield the floor.

How much time remains?

I appreciate that clarification.

I ask the Senator from Maine, under your amendment, is it possible for a foreign subsidiary owned and controlled by a U.S. company to do business with Iran?

I respect the Senator from Maine and do allow time for an answer, if it is a short answer, please.

If the Senator would yield for a question on my time. Can a subsidiary do business with Iran?

I think the conclusion is in error. Rather than have the debate about the precision with which the Collins amendment is drawn, I point out two things. AIPAC and the Cuban American National Foundation support my amendment. That is very specific.

In the reference used about a Saudi company doing business with Israel, Saudi Arabia already boycotts Israel, so that question is taken care of.

I fail to see, I must say, why we are going through these gyrations explaining a perverse effect when, in fact, what I want to do is stop any--by the way, the practice is taking place, currently.

What the Senator from Maine has done is codify regulation. I want to stop any possibility for a sham corporation that wants to evade our laws to do business. That is where we are.

I hope my colleagues will support my amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, we have just had a vote on the Collins amendment that confirms we have a problem. There is no denying there is a problem out there, but there is only one way to solve it; and that is to say that any American company cannot form a sham corporation and do business with Iran as is presently being done. We do not permit it in Cuba, and we should not permit it in any other place in the world. So I hope now I will get the same kind of support we have just seen because we want to cure the problem. This is the best way to do it.

Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this landmark legislation which guarantees equal opportunity for people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public services, telecommunications, and public accommodations.

Over the past 15 years, the ADA has provided opportunity and access for the 54 million Americans with disabilities. The passage of ADA resulted from a long struggle by Americans with disabilities to bring an end to their inferior status and unequal protection under law. Prior to passage of this landmark civil rights legislation, these Americans routinely faced prejudice, discrimination, and exclusion--not to mention physical barriers in their everyday lives. Now these Americans have an opportunity to participate more fully in our national life.

We recognize, however, our work is not finished. We still need to do more for people with disabilities. In addition to removing the physical barriers, we must also change attitudes. People with disabilities--like all people--have unique abilities, talents, and aptitudes. And America is better, fairer, and richer when we make full use of those gifts.

As we celebrate this historic accomplishment, I encourage all Americans to work towards increased recognition and understanding of the manner in which the physical and social environment can pose discriminatory barriers to people with disabilities.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will enhance science education for kids of all ages--including my age.

This bill capitalizes upon the natural allure of our oceans and coastlines to spark an interest in science. This will improve the general science literacy of Americans, which is a key to remaining competitive in today's global economy.

The bill will also foster a deeper appreciation of our oceans and fragile coastal environment. As the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Ocean Commission, pointed out in a report last year, our oceans and their resources are in trouble. Fishery stocks are declining . . . development is changing our coastal environments . . . and water quality has become a problem in many areas.

We won't solve these challenges overnight. The future of our oceans and coastal regions rests with young people--so we must nurture their interest in ocean and coastal science.

The Ocean Commission also pointed out that the level of science knowledge among graduating high school seniors is well below other nations. We must bridge this science gap. And one of the best ways to get kids excited about science is by drawing on their own experiences of our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. Kids are captivated by marine science. Their eyes light up when you show them an octopus squirting ink, a porpoise leaping out of the water, or an ocean wave pounding the shore.

The bill we are introducing today, Ocean and Coastal Literacy in Urban and other Environments--or Ocean CLUE--will ensure that our students have an opportunity to learn about the ocean.

Agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation and NASA already have wonderful ocean education programs. Ocean CLUE will provide a Task Force to coordinate these activities and help shape a national ocean and coastal education strategy.

Our bill will also create a program within NOAA that will complement existing programs and satisfy an area of need identified by the Ocean Commission: minority representation in ocean and coastal careers.

Our new K-12 program will also focus on urban areas. Though many coastal problems can be traced far up watersheds to suburban and rural watersheds, problems are often most acute in population centers. This new urban focus will complement existing ocean and coastal science programs. My hope is that any science teacher nationwide will be able, with the click of a mouse, to easily find an ocean and coastal education program that perfectly suits their needs.

Our oceans are one of the greatest legacies we will bequeath to our children and grandchildren. We must also bequeath to them the knowledge and training to manage this crucial resource. This bill will do that.

I want to thank my colleagues who are co-sponsoring this legislation: Senators Inouye, Boxer, Levin, and Sarbanes.

I ask Unanimous Consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will enhance science education for kids of all ages--including my age.

This bill capitalizes upon the natural allure of our oceans and coastlines to spark an interest in science. This will improve the general science literacy of Americans, which is a key to remaining competitive in today's global economy.

The bill will also foster a deeper appreciation of our oceans and fragile coastal environment. As the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Ocean Commission, pointed out in a report last year, our oceans and their resources are in trouble. Fishery stocks are declining . . . development is changing our coastal environments . . . and water quality has become a problem in many areas.

We won't solve these challenges overnight. The future of our oceans and coastal regions rests with young people--so we must nurture their interest in ocean and coastal science.

The Ocean Commission also pointed out that the level of science knowledge among graduating high school seniors is well below other nations. We must bridge this science gap. And one of the best ways to get kids excited about science is by drawing on their own experiences of our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. Kids are captivated by marine science. Their eyes light up when you show them an octopus squirting ink, a porpoise leaping out of the water, or an ocean wave pounding the shore.

The bill we are introducing today, Ocean and Coastal Literacy in Urban and other Environments--or Ocean CLUE--will ensure that our students have an opportunity to learn about the ocean.

Agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation and NASA already have wonderful ocean education programs. Ocean CLUE will provide a Task Force to coordinate these activities and help shape a national ocean and coastal education strategy.

Our bill will also create a program within NOAA that will complement existing programs and satisfy an area of need identified by the Ocean Commission: minority representation in ocean and coastal careers.

Our new K-12 program will also focus on urban areas. Though many coastal problems can be traced far up watersheds to suburban and rural watersheds, problems are often most acute in population centers. This new urban focus will complement existing ocean and coastal science programs. My hope is that any science teacher nationwide will be able, with the click of a mouse, to easily find an ocean and coastal education program that perfectly suits their needs.

Our oceans are one of the greatest legacies we will bequeath to our children and grandchildren. We must also bequeath to them the knowledge and training to manage this crucial resource. This bill will do that.

I want to thank my colleagues who are co-sponsoring this legislation: Senators Inouye, Boxer, Levin, and Sarbanes.

I ask Unanimous Consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I would like a half-hour evenly divided on the amendment. We have 50 minutes left before a vote. If I might say, could our distinguished colleague be accommodated immediately after the vote, following the Senator from Oregon?

Why don't I just lay it down and take a couple minutes to talk about it.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.

I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I understand I will be able to have some time after the vote to discuss the amendment.

If I can have 15 minutes.

If we have time equally divided, then I ask the Senator from Virginia to allow a half hour equally divided.

With no second degrees possible.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. This amendment shuts down a source of revenue that flows to terrorists and rogue regimes that threaten our security.

President Bush has made the statement that money is the lifeblood of terrorist operations. He could not be more right. Amazingly, some of our corporations are providing revenue to terrorists by doing business with these rogue regimes. My amendment is simple. It closes a loophole in the law that allows this to happen, that allows American companies to do business with enemies of ours. This will cut off a major source of revenue for terrorists. What we need to do is to starve these terrorists at the source. By using this loophole, some of our companies are feeding terrorism by doing business with Iran, which funds Hamas, Hezbollah, as well as the Islamic Jihad.

I want to remind my colleagues that it was Iran that funded the 1983 terrorist act in Beirut that killed 241 United States Marines--241 Marines killed by Iranian terror--and yet we are currently allowing United States corporations to provide revenues to the Iranian Government. It has to stop.

So how do U.S. companies get around terrorist sanctions laws? Because we have those laws that are supposed to prevent contact and opportunity for those nations that support terrorism. The process is simple. These companies run the Iranian operations out of a foreign subsidiary.

I have a chart here that shows the route that is taken to get these funds to these companies that do business with Iran. The U.S. corporation sets up a subsidiary, sets up a foreign subsidiary. They do business directly with Iran. And again, support for Hezbollah and Hamas is common knowledge with Iran.

Our sanctions laws prohibit United States companies from doing business with Iran, but the law contains a loophole. It enables an American company, a U.S. company's foreign subsidiaries, to do business prohibited by the parent. As long as this loophole is in place, our sanctions laws have no teeth. My amendment would close this loophole once and for all. It would say foreign subsidiaries controlled by a U.S. parent, American parent, would have to follow U.S. sanctions laws--pretty simple.

The Iranian Government's links to terrorism are, as you know, Mr. President, substantial. In addition to the 241 Marines who were brutally murdered in their sleep in 1983 in Beirut, Iranian-backed terrorists killed innocent civilians in Israel.

A constituent of mine, Sarah Duker, 22 years old, from the town of Teaneck, NJ, was riding a bus in Jerusalem. The bus was blown up in 1996 by Hamas, and Hamas receives funding support from the Iranian Government. We were able to create an opportunity for American citizens to bring action against Iran, and they did that, and there was a resolution of significant proportion that holds Iran responsible and has them owing substantial sums of money to the victim's family. We also have to worry, however, about providing revenue to Iran because of its well-known desire--we see it now. It worries us all. We have all kinds of conversations about what we do as Iran tries to build a nuclear bomb and other weapons of mass destruction. Well, we don't want to help them, we don't want to help provide revenues, opportunities for them to continue this crazy pursuit.

The 911 Commission, which established the intelligence organization reform, concluded in their report, and I quote:

Preventing the proliferation of WMD warrants a maximum

effort.

Everybody in our country shares that view. Allowing American companies to provide revenue to rogue WMD programs is clearly not part of a maximum effort.

Some think this is an isolated problem, but it is not. A report by the Center for Security Policy says there is a large number of companies doing business with Iran and other sponsors of terror. Think about it. Here we have

130,000, 140,000 of our best young people over there fighting to bring democracy to Iraq while Iran is funding terrorist activities, people who come in there and help those who would kill our troops. The terror they fund has killed hundreds of Americans. Iran continues to seek to develop nuclear weapons, and yet American companies are utilizing a loophole in the law in order to do business with the Iranian Government. It is wrong but not yet illegal. And we want to make it illegal. This amendment would change that.

It is inexcusable for American companies to engage in any business practice that provides revenues to terrorists, and we have to stop it. Here we have a clear view of what happens. We have a chance to stop it with this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and close the terror funding loophole.

I hope my distinguished colleague and friend from Virginia, without having a chance to do the examination he would like, has not suggested opposition even though there hasn't been time for a thorough review.

I know the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee very well, and we have visited sites of war, and he, like I, served in World War II, and we are veterans. I hope I could encourage the Senator from Virginia and colleagues across the aisle to join us to shut down this loophole that permits American companies to do business indirectly through sham corporations and to earn profits as there are attempts to kill our young people. I hope the distinguished manager of the bill would give us a chance to talk about the amendment and not register opposition before having a chance to study it.

I thank the Senator from Virginia.

I thank the Senator from Michigan.

The question is why we would want to protect the opportunity for an American company to help fund terrorists directly and indirectly, those who want to kill our people. If you ask the average person who are the worst enemies America has, they would, I am sure, list Iran, North Korea, among those that would develop weapons of mass destruction, and we don't even want there to be the slightest opportunity for cash to flow into their development of a weapons program based on the fact that an American company is helping to fund the development of those weapons.

Heaven knows what we are fighting in Iraq is a battle not against a uniformed army, organized military, but against insurgents, terrorists, and all one has to do is look at the death toll and see it continuing to mount. We care mostly about Americans, but we also don't like to see what happens in Iraq to infants and families. These terrorists bring their violence into the country, ripping limbs off. I don't want to get too detailed, but the horror that is brought from these insurgent attacks is beyond description. And to permit--by the way, I will say this--encourage American companies to do business with Iran is outrageous. In the war the Senator from Virginia and I were in, anybody who did business with the enemy would be pilloried, called traitors. And here, because it is a loophole, there is a roundabout way of getting these funds over there, we are saying, no, no, we don't want to interrupt that process.

I hope my colleagues on both sides will say no to this practice, and shut it down. The last thing we want to do in this room is abet and help companies that do business in Iran because the profit is not worth it. There is no way those profits can be enjoyed by shareholders, by employees, anyone.

I thank the Senator from Virginia, and I thank my friend from Virginia for being so patient in listening.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment I have just sent to the desk.

Mr. President, I would like to bring to your attention the important work of the Afghan Medical Relief Foundation, AMRF, which was formed in 2004 to promote the prevention, awareness, training, and treatment of life-threatening diseases. They are focused in particular on diabetes, delivering insulin and providing treatment for 15,000 to 20,000 diabetic children, young people, and adults in Afghanistan. This organization opened four new centers in Kabul in April and May 2005. Nearly 2,000 new diabetic patients a month are visiting the centers.

Mr. President, It is unfortunate that the subcommittee is not able to support the work of the Afghan Medical Relief Foundation, but it is understandable why the subcommittee cannot do so.

Mr. President, I would like to speak about the pending amendments on rail and transit security. One is offered by my colleague and friend from Alabama.

I know firsthand his breadth of knowledge and leadership on transportation issues, as we worked together for many years as leaders on the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee.

I am confident that his amendment will help address the transit security problem in our country in a necessary and effective way.

One amendment is offered by my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. His amendment goes beyond the Shelby amendment and includes funding for our national freight and passenger rail transportation systems as well. This funding is crucial for the security needs of Amtrak.

Each year, the Bush administration and Amtrak opponents in the Congress fight to cut funding for Amtrak to provide rail services to 500 stations in 46 States.

So as Congress and the administration bicker, 68,000 daily passengers rely on Amtrak using some of its Federal transportation operating grant for security purposes.

My point is that if we don't fund Amtrak's security needs in this bill, it must come out of the transportation budget, where resources are limited.

Last week's attacks in London--like previous attacks on subway systems in Madrid and Moscow--highlighted the importance of securing our entire transportation system--and especially public transit.

Since 9/11 we have made huge strides in the aviation sector. But the words of the 9/11 Commission still haunt us:

Rail and Port Security--the Next Threat

Over 90 percent of the Nation's $5.3 billion annual

investment in the TSA goes to aviation--to fight the last war

. . .

Opportunities to do harm are as great, or greater, in

maritime or surface transportation.--9/11 Commission Report,

p. 391.

When are we going to start seriously taking the notion that we must secure our homeland from terrorist attack?

Every day, more than a half a million riders in New Jersey get on a bus. Another 340,000 board an Amtrak or commuter train, and another 30,000 a light rail car. That is a total of 870,000 people--as many as the total populations of States served by some of our colleagues.

These citizens depend on public transit to get to their jobs, to school, and to visit family and friends. And they are depending on us to protect our rail and transit systems from terrorists.

Rail and transit systems move people efficiently because they are open systems, but unfortunately that also makes them vulnerable to an attack.

The State Department reports that from 1991 to 1998 violent attacks worldwide against transportation targets went from 20 percent of all those attacks to 40 percent. And a growing number of these are directed at bus and rail systems.

Securing our country will take resources. For every week that we are on orange alert, one New Jersey public transit operator is forced to spend an extra $100,000. That is on top of a security budget that has doubled since 9/11.

As I said earlier, Amtrak spends tens of millions of dollars of its Department of Transportation operating grant on security. This funding will upgrade stations and other critical facilities and will improve security operations of transit systems. It will also help train our frontline employees.

A report by the Mineta Transportation Institute found after studying the events of 9/11 that prompt action by frontline employees can save lives. It goes on to say that ``Transportation employees are also first responders, so they require training and empowerment.''

Transit operators must take effective steps to reduce the risk of terrorist attack. And they need the resources to do it.

In addition to the commuters who rely on transit systems daily, senior citizens, students an disabled persons are especially reliant on transit. For many, it is their only way to get to medical appointments, school and other important destinations.

We can't afford to wait until there is a major terrorist attack on a U.S. transit system. We must act now. Let's do what our responsibilities demand of us and protect our citizens when they travel as well as when they are at home, at work or at school.

Mr. President, I rise to support the Reid amendment. It is something we have to do, given the White House inaction on Mr. Rove's behavior. We hear nitpicking about words. What was the intention? Is it ex post facto law? No, it is not ex post facto law. We are not just writing a law here. What we are doing is trying to curtail a situation that enables someone at the White House level to make a statement that, frankly, sounds as if it is traitorous, as defined in April of 1999, when former President George H. W. Bush said, speaking about the outing of a CIA agent and sources: ``I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are in my view the most insidious of traitors.'' That is right: traitors.

So now we know who leaked the information, revealed publicly, Mr. Rove. Where is the appropriate action? Well, here is a quote from a White House press briefing with Scott McClellan on September 29, 2003.

Q: You said this morning, quote, ``The President knows that

Karl Rove wasn't involved.'' How does he know that?

A: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous

suggestion in the first place. . . . I've said that it's not

true. . . . And I have spoken with Karl Rove. . . .

Q: When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, ``Did you

ever have this information?''

A: I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that

there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.

We go to the next episode. This is Scott McClellan on September 29, 2003:

If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they

would no longer be in this administration.

I guess it takes a long time to terminate somebody. That was over a year and a half ago.

President George W. Bush said on September 30, 2003:

If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to

know it, and will take appropriate action.

It is pretty clear what is intended here. He violated the rules of the White House here. Why shouldn't the public be aware of the fact that, as they try to distribute guilt all over the place, it comes from the President's very senior assistant? That is what we are talking about. The rest of this is trivial. It is getting even. It is recrimination: I will get you if you get me.

So we ought to move on positively on the Reid vote. Let's see how everybody stands on this, whether they want the public to know the truth; and that is: Karl Rove, did he violate the rules? Did he violate the regulations when he went ahead and revealed something that never should have been made public, the identification of a CIA employee.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child, Worker and Consumer Safe Chemicals Act of 2005. Senators Jeffords, Boxer, Kerry, Corzine, Clinton and Kennedy are cosponsors of this legislation.

Every day, Americans use household products that contain hundreds of chemicals. Most people assume that those chemicals have been proven safe for their families and children. Unfortunately, that assumption is wrong. Many chemicals that have been in use for decades have never been tested for their health effects.

Over 40 years ago Rachel Carson, in her book Silent Spring, warned about the danger of using chemicals that had not been fully tested. Today, nearly all of those same chemicals are still being used--yet to this day most of them have never been tested for their health effects.

Many of these chemicals perform amazing services and make our lives easier. But in recent years study after study has raised concerns about some of the chemicals that are used in thousands of products.

For instance, take the common baby bottle. Many baby bottles contain the chemical ``Bisphenol A'' which at very low doses has been shown to affect reproduction, the immune system, brain chemistry, behavior and more. How great is the risk of using Bisphenol A in baby bottles, water bottles and other everyday products? The answer is ``we don't know.''

Mothers have every right to expect their babies to be safe from exposure to toxic chemicals--before and after birth. We have laws to make sure that pesticides and medicines are safe--and even toys. But we fail to require similar assessments for the chemicals used in baby bottles, water bottles, food packages and thousands of other products. This is inexcusable.

But the current law, known as ``Toxic Substances Control Act'' (TSCA) actually sets up roadblocks to EPA getting the vital information it needs to determine whether these chemicals are safe. So last year, I asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to assess TSCA to determine how effective it has been in doing the job of protecting public health and the environment.

In the GAO report released today, Chemical Regulation: Options Exist to Improve EPA's Ability to Assess Health Risks and Manage its Chemical Review Program, we learn that TSCA is such an ineffective and burdensome law that it often fails to protect our children, workers and the general population from exposure to carcinogens such as asbestos-- for which there is no safe level of exposure.

According to the GAO, only five chemicals that existed 29 years ago when Congress passed TSCA have ever been restricted by EPA. In 29 years, the agency has formally requested health and environmental effects information on just 200 chemicals--out of about 80,000.

The GAO reports, ``EPA does not routinely assess existing chemicals and has limited information on their health and environmental risks.'' It adds, ``EPA lacks sufficient data to ensure that potential health and environmental risks of new chemicals are identified.''

Children are the most sensitive population to chemical pollutants and we must protect that sacred bond between a mother and her child. Again, it is inexcusable that our laws require extensive data to approve pesticides and pharmaceuticals as safe--but fail to require similar analysis for the chemicals used in baby bottles, water bottles, food packages and thousands of other products.

That is why today I am introducing The Child-Safe Chemicals Act. My bill will establish a safety standard that each chemical on the market must meet. It shifts the burden for proving that chemicals are safe from EPA to the chemical manufacturers. Under my bill, the manufacturers must provide the EPA with whatever data it needs to determine if a chemical use meets the safety standard. And the bill strengthens EPA's authority to restrict the use of chemicals which fail to meet that standard.

I have ten grandchildren . . . and I believe we have a sacred duty to protect the health of infants and children. I agree with Daniel Maguire, a professor of religious ethics at Marquette University who stated, ``As a principle of ethics, whatever is good for kids is good; whatever is bad for kids is ungodly.''

My bill has been endorsed by the American Public Health Association and many of the nation's leading pediatricians. The American people have a right to assume that the products they use are safe. This bill will help guarantee that right.

Mr. President, I rise today to voice strong opposition to the amendment being offered by Senator Collins to this Homeland Security appropriations bill. It is the wrong approach at a critical time in the war on terror. Need any of us here be reminded that it wasn't Portsmouth, England, that was attacked last week? I will tell you that the odds are that it won't be Portsmouth, ME, that is going to be under terrorist threats or that it compares in any way to the most inviting targets in the country--one of which is in the State of New Jersey,

where 12 million people could be killed if there is a raid on the chemical plant that is very close to the New York border and within our State.

Mr. President, I am a member of the Homeland Security Committee. For the record, the Collins legislation didn't pass without dissent in the committee. I strongly opposed the Collins bill offered by the chairman in committee, and I strongly oppose it here as an amendment to this appropriations bill.

The Collins amendment flies in the face of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Everybody says they worked hard. As a matter of fact, Senator Collins was a leader in getting the legislation done to reform the intelligence operation. I commend her for that. But they are very clear in the 9/11 Commission report that distribution should be made on the basis of risk. And it also, by the way, defies the wishes of President Bush and Secretary Chertoff.

The Commission stated in no uncertain terms that homeland security funding should be allocated on the basis of risk, not political pork.

Unlike the Collins amendment, the underlying appropriations bill and the Feinstein amendment move toward the goal of more risk-based funding.

I salute the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and the ranking member, Senator Byrd, for their efforts to move us toward more risk-based funding in this appropriations bill. Their bill greatly improves the confusing status quo by allocating 70 percent of homeland security funding based on risk and threat. Very frankly, we ought to be at 100 percent, if we were consistent with the report produced by the 9/11 Commission. I checked this again directly with former Governor Kean from New Jersey. He reaffirmed his belief that you ought to put the money where the risk is. But the Collins amendment before us today is a step backward, not forward. The Collins amendment would change the appropriations bill by reducing the amount of risk-based funding to just 60 percent.

This is an affront to the 9/11 Commission. What they said about how homeland security funds should be distributed is clearly stated here. Their recommendation No. 25 said this:

Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an

assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.

Federal homeland security assistance should not remain a

program for general revenue sharing.

That is clear. They went on to make the point in very blunt language:

Congress should not use this money as pork barrel.

It is not just the 9/11 Commission that said that. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has stated numerous times the need for homeland security funding should be based more on risks, threats, and vulnerabilities.

This past Sunday on ``Meet the Press,'' Secretary Chertoff said:

We have to be risk-based in our funding.

He went on to define ``risk-based'' funding this way:

It means we look not at the question of political

jurisdiction, we look at where the consequences would be

catastrophic, where the vulnerabilities would be, where the

threats are.

He is right. We need to protect our Nation where the risks and vulnerabilities are. If we want to peel off pork, then we have to go to some other bill to do it. I am not saying these are casual programs that are being funded by a reduction in risk-based grants, but it is the wrong thing at the wrong time, and everybody knows that. We are all in a semistate of shock as a result of the bombing in London.

Mr. President, 700 of my fellow New Jerseyans lost their lives on September 11, 2001. Families, in many cases, are ruined forever, with the lack of a daddy, a husband, a brother, a sister or a mother.

Throughout that tragic day, people in northern New Jersey could see the smoke rising from the Trade Center, where many of our friends, neighbors, and loved ones worked. It could be seen from my house. The New York-New Jersey region bore the brunt of the attacks on 9/11, and it continues to be the area of our Nation that is most at risk. But I don't plead for this on a parochial basis. I plead for it for the safety of our country as a whole.

In fact, the FBI determined that the 2-mile stretch in New Jersey, between the Port of Newark and Newark Airport, is the most at-risk area in the country for a terrorist attack.

The New York Times recently reported that an attack on just one particular chemical plant in this area could kill or harm millions of people.

I ask my colleagues to think about that. With the potential loss of life in the millions, this is no time for putting parochial interests before the security of the Nation.

The tragic attacks in London only reinforce the need to protect the high-threat areas. As I said earlier, it is not Portsmouth, England, or Portsmouth, ME, that was attacked. That is not where the principal focus of the terrorist is. We have to protect our entire country, but there ought to be a system of priority that says this is the most important area. We should not casually dismiss an area that is one of the largest population centers of our country or of the world, in fact.

Mr. President, I pose the question: How can we, in the wake of the London attacks, with all of the alerts that we have around the country, now move to take funding away from where the threats are? It makes no sense. We ought to have more funding, not less, and we ought to have it directly aimed at the area of highest risk.

Under the amendment proposed by the Senator from Maine, 40 percent of homeland security funds will be distributed not based on risk, but simply distributed to every State and territory, regardless of the risks they face. The Congressional Research Service has analyzed how the Collins legislation would change the amount of funding going out based on risk under this bill. They concluded that the Collins approach would reduce risk-based funding by over $183 million--$183.53 million-- compared to the underlying appropriations bill.

It is absolutely critical that the Senate reject the Collins amendment. In the wake of the London attacks, we need to show the American people we are serious about protecting the country and not just interested in another back-home project.

In addition to opposing the amendment, I urge my colleagues to support the Feinstein-Cornyn-Lautenberg amendment. Our amendment moves us much closer to the goal of risk-based funding as called for by the 9/11 Commission and the President of the United States.

The issue before us is bigger than politics. We are talking about the best way to protect fellow Americans from another terrorist attack but also, in protecting our ability to function in the event of an attack, making sure we have the communications link and the transportation link. We ought to make certain that we pay attention to securing those areas that are most likely to be inviting targets for terrorism. This is not about regional rivalries. It is about protecting our most vulnerable communities.

With our votes on these two amendments, we are going to decide whether we are going to follow the guidance of the 9/11 Commission or simply ignore their recommendations. I do not know how we do that. It is fairly simple. I urge my colleagues to reject the Collins approach and support the Feinstein-Cornyn-Lautenberg amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will be very brief. We just heard a reference to an investment made by the city of Newark. Newark Airport and the Port of Newark have been identified as the two most dangerous miles for a terrorist attack in the United States, and they chose to use the money to make sure their access ways would be clear of debris. That was their choice. We are not going to talk about what any other State does with their money. That is not the argument. The argument is, what is the truth? The truth is, CRS, in a phone call just now, for the information of the Senator from Maine, confirmed exactly what they gave us as being correct. Under the Collins amendment, they come down with a conclusion that the percentage allotted for the risk would be 60 percent, and the percentage allotted for a guarantee, 40 percent. That is not what we are going into. Anything that we try to do to confuse the figures to say that oh, no, in fact we are getting more, well, New Jersey may get a couple more dollars under the Collins formula, but we have to look at where the bulk of the danger is to our country.

Sure, rural States are entitled to be protected, but that is not done at the expense of having the most inviting targets in the country not get more money to protect themselves.

The Senator from Maine asked for it. We are going to send over for her review the report from CRS, and we have clarified a couple of things. But at 60/40, we are far worse off than we were when we left the committee, and I do not understand why that is. Perhaps the Senator from Maine does not see threats in the country in the same way that the 9/11 Commission or the Secretary of Homeland Security does. Dismiss that and make sure that everybody gets a little bit of the pie, that is not where we are.

This is the second front in a war against terrorism, and we ought to make sure we put plenty of funding here. We spend over $200 billion a year in maintaining our fighting force in Iraq, and I want to do it as well as anybody else, but we sure do not say we ought to distribute funds throughout the Army, whether they are based in Georgia or some other State. No, we want to take care of them in the area where the risk is greatest, and that is the same thing we ought to be doing, and not trifling with this and trying to defend the numbers as not really saying what they say.

They say what they say, and I ask unanimous consent that the report from CRS be printed in the Record.

We will see that the Senator from Maine gets a copy immediately.

Will the Senator yield?

I thank the Senator from Maine.

Mr. President, I had asked to be yielded to for a question, but if there is no yielding, if the time is charged to me, I do not need consent from anybody. If it is our time, we are going to use it.

I thank the Senator from Maine but would say no thank you, and I will take this brief minute because what we are looking at is what has passed through the committee and what is actually on the floor as an appropriations bill.

Under the appropriations bill--this is CRS--it very simply says $1.338 billion for the underlying bill creates a shortage for the risk- based of $183.53 million. We can turn the table, we can play with the numbers, but we are looking at an appropriations bill. And if we do not believe CRS, then I do not know to whom we ought to turn for advice and for understanding.

When the Senator from Maine suggests that my numbers are incorrect, do not take my numbers, please. Just take CRS and see what they say. It makes it all very clear. It is a 60/40 relationship, far different than that which we intended when the amendment passed the committee.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from California and the Chair.

I want to clear up some of the confusion that took place this morning in our debate over these amendments on homeland security funding. First, I want to make it absolutely clear that we have checked continuously with the CRS. Their report sent to me about the effects of the amendment proposed by Senators Collins and Lieberman to this appropriations bill is absolutely accurate. They confirm that the ratio of funds directed to the high-risk areas is at 60 percent and the other distribution is 40 percent. So we take it away from the highest risk areas. The Senator from Maine earlier suggested that CRS has somehow disavowed their memo. That is not so. Again, we have talked to CRS recently and have been assured that the memo sent to me is valid and accurate.

The CRS memo sent to me summarizes how much money the Collins amendment would direct to risk and how much to State guarantees. In a nutshell, the report finds that the Collins-Lieberman amendment would only provide 60 percent of the funding based on risk. The CRS report goes on to explain that the underlying appropriations bill would provide 70 percent of the funding on a risk basis. CRS reports this is a difference of over $183 million. That is over $183 million that Secretary Chertoff wanted to send to the highest risk places.

We don't want to tie the Secretary's hands. The administration has been very clear about what they want. They want to put the money where the risk is. That is what makes the most sense.

I have said in the past we are the second theater of war to Iraq because we know that at any time our enemies could attack, and they are not telling us when or where. The fact is, we are all under the misgiving that what happened in London and what happened at the World Trade Center and what happened in Madrid could happen here. How dare we say: No, we have to distribute around to other places. Everybody wants to protect their constituents, small towns, large cities, whatever it is. I don't blame people for that. But when you have a plague in an area, you give the vaccine, if you have it, to the people who live in that area. When you have an attack on the water, you send the ships to the area. Why in the world are we deciding here and now that we shouldn't give the money to the areas of highest risk?

In my State, a place called South Carney, NJ has a significant chemical manufacturing and distribution operation. If that was attacked and those chemicals were released into the air, we could see 12 million people die. We saw the terrible events in London. It has been said that a couple seconds either way could have created a much higher casualty figure.

Today you heard from the Senator from California that Secretary Chertoff wrote a letter to all Senators. I repeat:

The administration strongly believes that Federal Homeland

Security funds should be distributed to our first responders

based on risk and need.

You have heard again that Secretary Chertoff wants the flexibility to distribute up to 90 percent of the funds based on risk. Ninety percent is a lot different than a mere 60 percent.

We can't legislate risk. It is that simple. We need to leave this to the experts. Secretary Chertoff is developing analytical tools to target areas of risk and vulnerability. We confirmed him almost unanimously. Now we should let him do the job he has been selected to do.

The 9/11 Commission was adamant that we must distribute homeland security money based on risk. I have talked to former Governor Tom Kean, a distinguished public servant and head of the Commission, about this subject. He continues to demand that we move toward risk-based funding. I remind the Senate that Secretary Ridge, before Secretary Chertoff, supported full funding to go to the areas of highest risk.

There was an arduous effort put into the creation of an intelligence reform bill, led by Senators Collins and Senator Lieberman. I say to them: Let's help the administration target real areas of risk and vulnerability. Let's make sure we understand that the authorization for the bill was at $2.9 billion, around that, and the appropriations bill is at $1.9 billion. So on the surface it does look like there is more coming to everybody. But it is not true. The fact is, we should not be taking money away from the highest risk areas and dividing it based simply on population.

I hope we will approve the Feinstein amendment and reject the Collins amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana. Today I want to discuss the speech made by the President Tuesday night about Iraq. I think it is encouraging that the President is reaching out to the country and attempting to explain his policy in Iraq. But I think, to be more effective, the President has to be candid and upfront with the American people.

Frankly, in my view, the credible speech on this subject should have come from the Oval Office, not from a stage with uniformed service people all around. Apparently, a patriotic backdrop behind the President, and rows of soldiers in dress uniforms, was necessary to speak to the American people about the crisis our country faces in Iraq. It was, I thought, good theater, but not a very informative speech. Maybe that is why the soldiers didn't applaud until the White House staff urged them on.

Tuesday night's staged show reminded me of another Hollywood-type event, when President Bush declared ``mission accomplished.'' We all remember this picture very clearly. It was on an aircraft carrier, with signs up--their authorship was denied by lots of people. The Navy personnel were standing there directly behind the President. The speech took place on May 1, 2003, just slightly over 2 years ago, when the President said to the country at large that major combat was over in Iraq.

How wrong he was. Before the ``mission accomplished'' speech on May 1, we had lost 139 people and had about 500 of our troops wounded. Since President Bush's ``mission accomplished'' declaration, we have lost 1,594 Americans in Iraq--versus that 139, 2 years ago. Almost 1,600 versus 139; and 12,000 seriously wounded versus 500 at the time, in that 2 years.

It has been a terrible 2 years. Despite the gigantic banner and the theatrical presentation on the aircraft carrier 2 years ago, the mission was not accomplished then and it is not accomplished now. In fact, the mission isn't even close to being accomplished, as all of us in America, and I am sure the President is included, would like to see.

We are not going to solve our problems in Iraq through spin and photo ops. We will solve these problems only with a tangible plan that gets our troops home and then we will all truly celebrate mission accomplished. Not only are we not seeing a plan, but high level administration officials seem to be in serious disagreement about the status of the insurgency. One day we saw Vice President Cheney say that the insurgency is in its ``last throes.'' Then a few days later we see Secretary Rumsfeld say that the insurgency could last ``12 years.''

This war has turned into a quagmire and Americans want to hear what changes we are making to address our growing difficulties in Iraq, and unfortunately a lot of what we heard from the President Tuesday night was rhetoric. Unfortunately, much of the President's rhetoric focused on September 11. But simply referencing September 11 over and over again does not explain how we are going to move forward in Iraq. In fact, it only serves to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose, and we are all perplexed by the statement made by Mr. Goss, the head of intelligence, that we know where Osama bin Laden is. I don't know why we don't go get him if we know where he is.

Nearly 4 years after the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, the leader of the terrorist group that killed almost 3,000 Americans, including 700 of our neighbors and friends from my State of New Jersey, continues to inflame his terrorist network. Al-Qaida cannot be effectively dismantled unless we capture bin Laden, and getting him should be our No. 1 priority, but it seems it has moved its way down on the President's priority list.

I urge President Bush not to use September 11 again as a way to support our failures in Iraq. The American people would rather you simply address the problems and fix them.

Poor planning for the war in Iraq is causing serious long-term problems for our military. Mainly we are failing to meet our recruiting goals. Yes, I know we had a blip up in the present month, but in May the Army fell about 25 percent short of its recruiting target. That is after they lowered their target. The Army also missed its monthly targets in April and March and February of 2005, each month worse than the one before. In February it fell 27 percent short. In March the gap was 31 percent short. In April it was 42 percent. Things are so bad that the Army is contemplating $40,000 signing bonuses for new recruits. It reminds me of some of the bonuses offered athletes who sign contracts. That may rival what professional ballplayers get. And the Army is perhaps going into a new deal that allows for very short enlistment periods, as low as 15 months of active duty.

The National Guard and Reserves are even farther behind in recruiting this year. The Army Reserve met only 82 percent of its May recruitment goal and the Marine Corps Reserve met only 88 percent of its recruiting goal. This raises questions. Even if the President agrees to send more troops to Iraq, where are they going to get them? I don't think it is simply the casualty numbers that are hurting recruiting. It is a sense that this administration does not have a plan for Iraq--and maybe they never did. After all, in March of 2003 Vice President Cheney predicted that the conflict would last ``weeks rather than months.'' Now it is years and, according to Secretary Rumsfeld, it could be over a decade before the country is stabilized.

What about those Army service men and women who return to our country and become veterans? Look at how they are being treated by this administration. My Democratic colleagues Senator Murray and Senator Byrd tried three times to increase funding for the VA this year because they understood that veterans returning from Iraq are going to need more help. What happened? Republicans voted those amendments down each time. Why? Because the administration kept saying ``we don't need the money.''

But just this week the VA Secretary, Jim Nicholson, suddenly realized he is facing a $1 billion budget shortfall. Nicholson said it was ``unexpected.'' Unexpected? How could they not expect increased needs from the troops coming back from Iraq? We know people are being severely wounded there, and returning and needing a lot of attention. What kind of message does this send to our troops? We forgot to fund your veterans health care needs? I think it is shameful and shows a lack of respect.

Only now, because of embarrassment, did we see the other side of the aisle

vote for Senator Murray's amendment to increase VA funding. All of a sudden a prominent member of the Republican leadership, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, after repeatedly opposing increases to VA funding, has become an enthusiastic cheerleader. It is interesting how elections motivate people.

Our service men and women and their families are getting a raw deal. Because of the administration's lack of planning, military families are stuck with extended tours of duty leading to family problems and serious financial difficulties. A real eye opener is to talk to some of the Reserve and Guard people who have returned from Iraq and find themselves in desperate situations with family problems, upset relationships, financial disaster. It is terrible.

The bottom line is we need plain, straight talk coming out of the White House and not staged events such as ``mission accomplished'' in Tuesday night's speech.

One of my distinguished Republican colleagues, a combat veteran of the Vietnam war, recently said:

The White House is completely disconnected from reality.

And it is tragically true.

If the President wants to earn back the American people's trust on his Iraqi planning, he needs to start by being truthful and admitting some mistakes. So far that hasn't happened and I plead with the President and this administration: Level with the American people. It is a very discouraging picture out there when we see the casualties mount and the morass thicken.

Mr. President, I yield the floor with this plea: Say it like it is.

Mr. President, I would like to bring to the Senator's attention a very important project in my home State of New Jersey that I believe should be given strong consideration for funding. The Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority is currently undertaking a project on a grand scale. In 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency directed the authority to expand its wastewater treatment capacity in order to meet wet weather sanitary sewage overflow requirements by 2008. The estimated cost of this large project was $68 million at the time.

That estimate proved to be optimistic. The present day cost estimate for the project is $235 million.

The authority, as required by the consent order, has developed a comprehensive strategic plan to comply with the order. A critical component of the plan is the construction of a new gravity relief sewer that will convey combined sanitary sewage overflows for enhanced treatment at the upgraded plant. The authority has focused its request for Federal funding exclusively on this gravity relief sewer facility. The gravity relief sewer facility is estimated to cost $10.9 million in its entirety. Federal funding can play an important role in financing this cost and in facilitating the early construction of this much needed project.

According to the Forest Service, more than 5,000 acres of forest and farm land in the New York and New Jersey sections of the Highlands have been lost annually to development between 1995 and 2000, and nearly 300,000 acres of land critical to future water supplies remain unprotected. As the demand for new housing and other types of development continues to alter the vast areas of forest and open space in our region, it is important that Congress acts now to provide funding to preserve the high priority open space that remains. I appreciate the consideration by my colleagues from North Dakota and Montana of the importance of protecting the Highlands Region.

Thank you very much.

Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader for those kind comments. I had hoped he would go on a little longer.

(Laughter.)

But, in any event, I thank you and all of my colleagues.

There are 7,000 votes. If I were asked to recite which of those I liked the best or which of those I disliked the most, I would be hard pressed to remember them. But the fact is, even though we have disagreements on some issues and agreements on others, I speak sincerely when I say I am proud to serve with all of you.

I know each of us has a responsibility that carries way outside this Chamber. We make the decisions here. But the desire to be of service and the obligation originates in places that we are all too familiar with. So we have differences.

I am going to stick up for my views, and I know others will stick up for theirs. The fact is, we are here to serve. I am proud to serve with each and every one of you. I am grateful for the commentary and thank you all very much.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Madam President, parliamentary inquiry.

Madam President, I have an amendment, Amendment No. 839, related to altering scientific documents. Would that amendment be germane postcloture?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Community Broadband Act of 2005.'' I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator McCain of Arizona.

This legislation will promote economic development, enhance public safety, increase educational opportunities, and improve the lives of citizens in areas of the country that either do not have access to broadband or live in a location where the cost for broadband is simply not affordable.

A recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows that the United States has dropped to 12th place worldwide in the percentage of people with broadband connections. Many of the countries ahead of the United States have successfully combined public and private efforts to deploy municipal networks that connect their citizens and businesses with high-speed Internet services.

It is in this context that President Bush has called for universal and affordable broadband in the United States by the year 2007. If we are going to meet President Bush's goals, we must not enact barriers to broadband development and access. Unfortunately, fourteen States have passed legislation to prohibit or significantly restrict the ability of local municipalities and communities to offer high-speed Internet to their citizens. More States are considering such legislation. The ``Community Broadband Act'' is in response to those efforts by States to tell local communities that they cannot establish networks for their citizens even in communities that either have no access to broadband or where access is prohibitively expensive.

The ``Community Broadband Act'' is a simple bill. It says that no State can prohibit a municipality from offering high-speed Internet to its citizens; and when a municipality is a provider, it cannot abuse its governmental authority as regulator to discriminate against private competitors. Furthermore, a municipality must comply with Federal and state telecommunications laws.

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

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

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

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

Today's Wall Street Journal notes the small town of Granbury, TX, population 6,400, that initiated a wireless network after waiting years for private industry to take an interest. In Scottsburg, IN, a city and its 6000 residents north of Louisville, KY, could not get broadband from an incumbent telephone company. When two important businesses threatened to leave unless they could obtain broadband connectivity, municipal officials stepped forward to provide wireless broadband throughout the town. The town retained the two businesses and gained much more. There are many Granburys and Scottsburgs across the country.

There are also underserved urban areas, where private providers may exist, but many in the community simply cannot afford the high prices. Dianah Neff, Philadelphia's chief information officer, knows this all too well. ``The digital divide is local,'' Neff has said, commenting that while 90 percent Philadelphia's affluent neighborhoods have broadband, just 25 percent in low-income areas have broadband. When the city of Philadelphia announced plans for wireless access, it immediately faced opposition and the Pennsylvania legislature passed legislation to counter this municipal power.

Community broadband networks have the potential to create jobs, spur economic development, and bring a 21st century utility to everyone. I hope my colleagues will join Senator McCain and me in our effort to enact the Community Broadband Act of 2005.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Community Broadband Act of 2005.'' I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator McCain of Arizona.

This legislation will promote economic development, enhance public safety, increase educational opportunities, and improve the lives of citizens in areas of the country that either do not have access to broadband or live in a location where the cost for broadband is simply not affordable.

A recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows that the United States has dropped to 12th place worldwide in the percentage of people with broadband connections. Many of the countries ahead of the United States have successfully combined public and private efforts to deploy municipal networks that connect their citizens and businesses with high-speed Internet services.

It is in this context that President Bush has called for universal and affordable broadband in the United States by the year 2007. If we are going to meet President Bush's goals, we must not enact barriers to broadband development and access. Unfortunately, fourteen States have passed legislation to prohibit or significantly restrict the ability of local municipalities and communities to offer high-speed Internet to their citizens. More States are considering such legislation. The ``Community Broadband Act'' is in response to those efforts by States to tell local communities that they cannot establish networks for their citizens even in communities that either have no access to broadband or where access is prohibitively expensive.

The ``Community Broadband Act'' is a simple bill. It says that no State can prohibit a municipality from offering high-speed Internet to its citizens; and when a municipality is a provider, it cannot abuse its governmental authority as regulator to discriminate against private competitors. Furthermore, a municipality must comply with Federal and state telecommunications laws.

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

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

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

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

Today's Wall Street Journal notes the small town of Granbury, TX, population 6,400, that initiated a wireless network after waiting years for private industry to take an interest. In Scottsburg, IN, a city and its 6000 residents north of Louisville, KY, could not get broadband from an incumbent telephone company. When two important businesses threatened to leave unless they could obtain broadband connectivity, municipal officials stepped forward to provide wireless broadband throughout the town. The town retained the two businesses and gained much more. There are many Granburys and Scottsburgs across the country.

There are also underserved urban areas, where private providers may exist, but many in the community simply cannot afford the high prices. Dianah Neff, Philadelphia's chief information officer, knows this all too well. ``The digital divide is local,'' Neff has said, commenting that while 90 percent Philadelphia's affluent neighborhoods have broadband, just 25 percent in low-income areas have broadband. When the city of Philadelphia announced plans for wireless access, it immediately faced opposition and the Pennsylvania legislature passed legislation to counter this municipal power.

Community broadband networks have the potential to create jobs, spur economic development, and bring a 21st century utility to everyone. I hope my colleagues will join Senator McCain and me in our effort to enact the Community Broadband Act of 2005.

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