Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Medicare Do Not Call Act, to prohibit private insurance companies from telemarketing their Medicare prescription drug and Medicare Advantage plans to Medicare beneficiaries. I am very pleased to be introducing this bill along with my colleagues, Senators Johnson and Lautenberg. I thank my colleagues for their support of this important legislation.

Beginning this Saturday, October 1, private insurance plans offering Medicare prescription drug coverage will begin marketing their products to Medicare beneficiaries.

Depending on which Medicare region they live in, beneficiaries will be confronted with selecting from as many as 20 stand-alone prescription different plans. In New Jersey, beneficiaries will choose among 17 different plans. Under current law, these plans can both send mail to and call seniors and people with disabilities who are eligible to enroll in the Medicare Part D benefit. As a result, in addition to being flooded with mail, our seniors and disabled will be flooded with phone calls.

I am extremely concerned that permitting plans to telemarket creates great potential for unscrupulous individuals and businesses to defraud this vulnerable population. Even if the plans themselves are honest brokers, it may be difficult for a senior or disabled beneficiary to distinguish between who is honest and who is not.

I am very concerned that such individuals may seize the opportunity to take advantage of this vulnerable population. Unless we act now, there will be an endless potential for fraud and identity theft within the Medicare Part D plan.

Beneficiaries are already confused about what their rights are with respect to the new prescription drug benefit. A senior who is told that she must provide her Social Security or credit card number to a telemarketer in order to obtain Medicare prescription drug coverage may feel compelled to do so, lest she forgo her opportunity to obtain prescription drug coverage.

Concerns about telemarketing fraud against seniors are very real. The Department of Justice estimates that telemarketing crooks cheat one out of six consumers every year, resulting in costs to Americans of $40 billion a year. Americans over 65, our Nation's seniors, are the primary target of these scams.

At a time when identity theft is at an all time high, the Federal government should take every precaution available to protect the American public. We should not permit government-sponsored programs, such as the Medicare prescription drug program, to engage in telemarketing. The best way to prevent such fraud from occurring is to prohibit telemarketing of any and all Medicare sponsored prescription drug products. The Medicare Do Not Call Act will do just that. My legislation imposes serious criminal penalties on unscrupulous individuals and companies that seek to defraud Medicare beneficiaries through telemarketing appeals. We must do everything we can to protect this vulnerable population.

The bottom line is that telemarketing simply is not necessary to educate seniors about their prescription drug options. My legislation permits insurance companies who are contacted by beneficiaries to discuss plan options with them. As beneficiaries talk to trusted friends and organizations and read over the literature about the different drugs plans, they can then contact plans to discuss their options further. My legislation does not stop beneficiaries from speaking to these companies; it simply prohibits these companies from making the initial `cold call' to beneficiaries.

I deeply believe that the Federal government has a responsibility to do everything in its power to prevent telemarketing fraud. Permitting drug plans to telemarket to seniors and people with disabilities may provide a source of information to these individuals; however, because each plan wants to sell their own products, telemarketers may not provide the most objective information about a beneficiary's options.

There are better ways to educate seniors and disabled about the prescription drug benefit. The Medicare Do Not Call Act provides additional resources--$2 per Medicare beneficiary--to the State Health Insurance Counseling and Assistance Programs (SHIPs) to provide counseling and enrollment assistance services to Medicare beneficiaries. SHIPs provide valuable objective information to beneficiaries and can provide tremendous assistance in helping beneficiaries select the plan that best suits their needs.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. By prohibiting these un-invited calls we can protect seniors and other Medicare beneficiaries from fraudulent intentions and ensure that this complicated transition within the Medicare program be as straightforward, and safe, as possible.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to express my outrage that my colleagues and I have to fend off yet another attack on the environment by the Bush administration. I am appalled that instead of taking steps toward improving air quality by implementing stricter CAFE standards, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and other positive measures, the Bush rule takes a giant step backward.

Indeed, the mercury rule put forth by the Bush administration takes American environmental policy back at least 5 years. In 2000, the Environmental Protection Agency determined that powerplants must be regulated under the Clean Air Act because they are the largest remaining sources of mercury pollution and are, therefore, a public health risk. Up until the spring of 2003, EPA was working toward finalizing an effective regulatory policy to reduce mercury emissions from powerplants by over 90 percent beginning in 2008. But in 2003, the Bush administration reversed course by developing this new rule that exempts powerplants from any regulation under the Clean Air Act. Bowing to industry pressure, the Bush rule will do nothing to reduce emissions for at least a decade and once implemented, will only reduce mercury emissions to approximately one-third of what the Clean Air Act requires. This decision is irresponsible in light of all of the evidence about the dangers of mercury emissions. Mr. President, mercury emissions are continuing to grow and are endangering

the health of American families across the country.

I am proud to say that my State, New Jersey, has taken the helm on reducing its own instate emissions. Last year, New Jersey adopted stringent rules on mercury emissions from coal-fired powerplants, iron and steel melters, and municipal solid waste incinerators. New Jersey's rules set the goal of reducing emissions from instate coal-fired plants by 90 percent by the year 2007. By taking this hard line on mercury, my State will reduce its mercury emissions by over 1,500 pounds of mercury each year.

While New Jersey has implemented this aggressive strategy in the fight to protect the public from mercury exposure, the new Bush administration rule undermines these efforts. More than one-third of mercury deposition in New Jersey comes from out-of-state sources. Instead of allowing more mercury emissions from coal-fired plants, shouldn't the Federal Government be strengthening its laws by requiring States to adopt strict rules similar to New Jersey's? Instead, it is removing powerplants from the list of pollution sources subject to stringent pollution controls under the Federal Clean Air Act. Why does the administration want to undercut States, such as New Jersey, that are making the right decision?

Thankfully, New Jersey has not backed down, and stands by its goal to reduce mercury emissions. In fact, New Jersey spearheaded a multistate lawsuit challenging the EPA's rule delisting powerplants as a source of mercury pollution. Fourteen States have joined New Jersey's challenge to this rule because it violates the Clean Air Act and fails to protect the public adequately from the harmful mercury emissions from coal- fired powerplants.

The health effects of mercury are no secret. Mercury is a known neurotoxin that can cause severe neurological and developmental problems. Developing fetuses and children are the most vulnerable to the effects of mercury contamination. The threat is so severe that the National Academy of Sciences recommends that pregnant and nursing mothers not eat more than 6 ounces of fish per month. Even by EPA's own estimates, more than 600,000 infants are born each year with blood mercury levels higher than 5.8 parts per billion, the EPA level of concern. That is 600,000 children who are at risk of harmful impacts on cognitive thinking, memory, attention, language, and fine motor and visual spatial skills. Some studies indicate that mercury could even be linked to the skyrocketing number of autism cases across the country.

The numbers continue to astonish. Fish from waters in 45 of our 50 States have been declared unsafe to eat as a result of poisoning from mercury. In New Jersey alone, there are mercury consumption advisories for at least one species of fish in almost every body of water in the State.

Knowing these health risks, we cannot be complacent about this new rule. How can we sit back and let powerplants, the Nation's worst mercury polluters, reduce their mercury emissions by such a drastically different rate than what the Clean Air Act requires? This is morally repugnant, irresponsible and just plain wrong.

We have the technology to control mercury emissions--that is not the problem. The problem is that industry does not want to be accountable for the costs of polluting, and the Bush administration is letting them get away with that. Instead, the public will incur the health costs of not reducing emissions. Once again, it is clear that the administration has no problem letting big industry off the hook at the expense of the public's health.

The science is behind us and the technology available to reduce human exposure to mercury. We cannot retreat; we must move forward and protect our Nation's children. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the September 11 Family Humanitarian Relief and Patriotism Act and to urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

On September 11, 2001, the world we live in was torn apart. Each of us, no matter where we lived, shared in the overwhelming sense of loss and grief. We shared our grief with the victims, their loved ones, and their friends. And each of us joined together in the midst of the devastation to unite as Americans and to show the terrorists that we will not be divided.

At that time of grief, we stood together as families, as communities, and as one Nation. We were all personally touched by this outrageous crime. And we stood together to show the terrorists that although they might destroy our buildings, they could never destroy the foundation of our democracy.

Over the years our Nation has matured, and we have become a vast melting pot of cultures and of people, joining together to create the America of today that we love and cherish.

The terrorists sought to destroy our great Nation and the very values upon which our country was built. But they were sorely mistaken. No matter how hard they try, they will never force us to turn our back on our values.

And that means that we can never turn our back on the victims of the terrorist attacks or on their family members. On September 11, almost three thousand people were killed. Many of the victims left behind husbands, wives, sons, and daughters. We cannot turn our back on them. We can not allow these attacks, and the terrorists who perpetrated them, to undercut the love of freedom, justice, and community that makes us who we are.

Terrorists did not distinguish non-documented immigrants from documented immigrants or natural born citizens on September 11. On that date, we were all Americans, attacked by a determined enemy who sought to break our spirit and destroy our way of life.

That is why I have joined with my colleagues to introduce this legislation, which will provide legal recognition and protection to family members of non-citizen victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Many of our immigrant residents lost loved ones that day, and no person who has faced such personal heartache and hardship at the hands of terrorists should be forced to face deportation.

Moreover, these family members should be permitted to remain here to visit the memorials that are presently being built in New York and other locations to honor the victims who perished in the terrorist attacks. In many cases, these memorials will be all that husbands, wives, and children, have left to remember their loved ones.

This bipartisan bill will end deportation procedures, and allow husbands, wives, sons, and daughters of non-citizen victims killed in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia nearly four years ago to apply for green cards that will allow them to become permanent legal residents. The act will apply to dependents of the deceased victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as determined by the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund.

The USA Patriot Act initially allowed many of these individuals to stay in the country. However, that provision expired on September 10, 2002. Moreover, many others were never protected by the Patriot Act legislation. All of these individuals today face the prospect of deportation.

Although our government has not moved forward with deportation procedures, the status of these families, who have already been through so much, remains uncertain. This Act would provide the permanent relief these families need and deserve.

And so I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and in demonstrating to the spouses and children of the non-citizen victims of September 11 that we are all Americans.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the September 11 Family Humanitarian Relief and Patriotism Act and to urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

On September 11, 2001, the world we live in was torn apart. Each of us, no matter where we lived, shared in the overwhelming sense of loss and grief. We shared our grief with the victims, their loved ones, and their friends. And each of us joined together in the midst of the devastation to unite as Americans and to show the terrorists that we will not be divided.

At that time of grief, we stood together as families, as communities, and as one Nation. We were all personally touched by this outrageous crime. And we stood together to show the terrorists that although they might destroy our buildings, they could never destroy the foundation of our democracy.

Over the years our Nation has matured, and we have become a vast melting pot of cultures and of people, joining together to create the America of today that we love and cherish.

The terrorists sought to destroy our great Nation and the very values upon which our country was built. But they were sorely mistaken. No matter how hard they try, they will never force us to turn our back on our values.

And that means that we can never turn our back on the victims of the terrorist attacks or on their family members. On September 11, almost three thousand people were killed. Many of the victims left behind husbands, wives, sons, and daughters. We cannot turn our back on them. We can not allow these attacks, and the terrorists who perpetrated them, to undercut the love of freedom, justice, and community that makes us who we are.

Terrorists did not distinguish non-documented immigrants from documented immigrants or natural born citizens on September 11. On that date, we were all Americans, attacked by a determined enemy who sought to break our spirit and destroy our way of life.

That is why I have joined with my colleagues to introduce this legislation, which will provide legal recognition and protection to family members of non-citizen victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Many of our immigrant residents lost loved ones that day, and no person who has faced such personal heartache and hardship at the hands of terrorists should be forced to face deportation.

Moreover, these family members should be permitted to remain here to visit the memorials that are presently being built in New York and other locations to honor the victims who perished in the terrorist attacks. In many cases, these memorials will be all that husbands, wives, and children, have left to remember their loved ones.

This bipartisan bill will end deportation procedures, and allow husbands, wives, sons, and daughters of non-citizen victims killed in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia nearly four years ago to apply for green cards that will allow them to become permanent legal residents. The act will apply to dependents of the deceased victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as determined by the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund.

The USA Patriot Act initially allowed many of these individuals to stay in the country. However, that provision expired on September 10, 2002. Moreover, many others were never protected by the Patriot Act legislation. All of these individuals today face the prospect of deportation.

Although our government has not moved forward with deportation procedures, the status of these families, who have already been through so much, remains uncertain. This Act would provide the permanent relief these families need and deserve.

And so I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and in demonstrating to the spouses and children of the non-citizen victims of September 11 that we are all Americans.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my sincere condolences to the family of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and to recognize his achievements during a lifetime of public service.

Throughout his life, William H. Rehnquist served this Nation with dignity and integrity, first in the Army Air Corps during World War II and later as an Associate and then Chief Justice on the United States Supreme Court. For 33 years, Justice Rehnquist was a fixture on the Court, and he demonstrated both a love and a respect for the institution. He led the Judicial Conference of the United States with distinction, advocating for judicial independence during this 18-year tenure as Chief Justice. And even as his health declined in recent years, Judge Rehnquist continued to lead the Court, a testament to his tenacity and character.

Although I did not always agree with his legal decisions, I have deep respect for Chief Justice Rehnquist's service to our Nation, and I join my colleagues in honoring him today.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Shelby and Senator Sarbanes for their hard work on H.R. 3, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (SAFETEA). I know how much time, effort and energy went into completing that bill and I commend the chairman and ranking member. I especially appreciate their willingness to work with me to get language included in the bill in support of a full funding grant agreement for the New Jersey Trans- Hudson Midtown Corridor.

The New Jersey Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor project entails construction of a 5-mile commuter rail extension from Secaucus, NJ to a new station in midtown Manhattan. The centerpiece of the project is a new trans-Hudson rail tunnel. This project will benefit transit riders from the New York and New Jersey region and will relieve congestion on the existing tunnels for intercity rail riders of the Northeast corridor, the Nation's busiest passenger railroad. A recent economic impact analysis indicates that the entire project will create 44,000 new jobs and increase gross regional product by $10 billion. The project's estimated cost is approximately $5 billion.

The Federal contribution would be matched by comparable local contributions from the State of New Jersey and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. New York's Governor Pataki, who along with New Jersey's Governor Codey controls the Port Authority governance, recently declared his support of this project--bolstering prospects for future funding from the Port Authority for local share. In addition, the State of New Jersey will soon be reauthorizing its transportation trust fund, which will provide New Jersey with the funding capacity for its own contribution to the project.

Currently, the project is undergoing environmental review, which should be completed in 2006. It is expected that preliminary engineering will start in fall 2005 and construction will begin in 2007.

The language in the SAFETEA bill will be a significant boost to this project. I would like to take a moment to clarify the intent of a couple of points in that provision in the bill. First of all, it is the intent of the language to include the funding expended for the New Jersey Transit river line and the bi-level railroad cars New Jersey Transit purchased for its lines as part of the non-Federal contribution for the New Jersey Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor project.

Second, the language says that the Secretary of Transportation must give ``strong consideration'' to the Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor project when it comes time to awarding a full funding grant agreement, since it will be a crucial link for the Northeast corridor and benefit the region's mobility, security, economy and environment. The term ``strong consideration'' indicates that the New Jersey Trans-Hudson Midtown Corridor project is a high priority for the Secretary and encourages the Secretary to award a full funding grant agreement provided it meets the FTA's New Starts criteria. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify these important points, and I look forward to further progress on the tunnel project.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1619.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin be added as a cosponsor.

I thank the Chair.

I come to the floor today moved by an event that occurred in my life this week and more importantly the life of a family in New Jersey.

Sometimes there are events that move you to feel passionately. I went to a wake for an officer on Monday night. I actually missed a vote.

The reality is that an officer was gunned down a week before by a gang member, a Blood, on the streets of Newark. This police officer was a man with five children. He was 32 years old, the oldest child of 11.

Violence brought on by the illegal movement of guns in our society and the irresponsible dealing in guns is something that actually costs people's lives. I have an amendment which I have talked about previously. I am a realist and I know where this amendment is going, so we will deal with it on a practical basis.

But my amendment is an effort to protect the rights of law enforcement officers who are victimized by gun violence. I want to make certain that law enforcement officers can seek compensation from gun manufacturers and dealers who participate in arming criminals.

I am not a lawyer, so I can't define negligence with the perfection that maybe others can. I know this amendment is not going to pass, and I know this gun industry immunity bill will pass.

This is a picture of another officer from Orange, NJ. We have heard a lot about Detective Lemongello and his

partner, Officer McGuire. They were shot in 2001. They subsequently brought a case in court and reached a $1 million settlement with the gun dealer, because that gun dealer in West Virginia sold 12 guns to what we call a straw buyer. This straw buyer, by the way, was standing next to a second person who qualified as a potential purchaser of weapons and just handed them off, and then that individual walked out, put them in a car, drove off to New Jersey and sold them on the streets. I call that negligence. It was so negligent and so obviously negligent that the gun dealer, the day after being paid in cash for those 12 guns, called up the AFT and said: We think we made a mistake. We ought to do something about this. And so they called up the AFT. But it was too late, and nothing happened to stop the flow of the guns to New Jersey, but at least they recognized that they had done something wrong.

Detective Lemongello and Officer McGuire brought a lawsuit against this gun dealer. They went to court and received justice, although both cannot return to the streets as police officers. They got a $1 million settlement. One took three bullets, one took two, and the other 11 guns purchased that day in West Virginia were also resold and distributed. I wonder whether one of those guns was the used to murder Police Officer Reeves last week in Newark, NJ.

I think it is time we recognize there needs to be the ability to use both the criminal justice and the civil justice system to protect our citizens, particularly our law enforcement officers.

We have heard from Senator Reed, who has done an enormous service to the country, in my view, to bring up so many of the flaws in the arguments that have been made by my colleagues who support this bill.

This bill is not right. We are taking people who protect us at their own risk every day and we are shutting the door to the courthouse in their face. So I believe strongly that we ought to be protecting our law enforcement officers. I passionately believe that because I see it and the distress it brings to families and communities and all who are involved.

My amendment is not a political desire to challenge the NRA or anybody else. And, frankly, I do not understand how anyone could not support this amendment. I do not get it from a commonsense point of view. It is a right and a responsibility that we protect those who protect us.

Mr. President, I will not be asking for a rollcall but a voice vote on my amendment acknowledging the realities and the practical aspects of moving the floor, if that is appropriate.

Will the Senator yield?

I point out this year, by decision, the FOP is not taking a position with regard to my amendment.

Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce a bill, along with Senators Lautenberg and Landrieu, to grant a Federal Charter to the Irish American Cultural Institute, an organization that promotes appreciation and recognition of the important contributions Irish- Americans have played throughout the history of the United States. A longstanding goal of the Irish American Cultural Institute been to establish a museum of Irish-American history and culture in Washington, DC, and I am pleased to help lay the foundation for achieving that goal.

The Irish American Cultural Institute is a national organization founded in 1962, with local chapters in 17 States, including New Jersey. The Institute has spent the last 40 years fighting to promote, preserve and educate about Irish and Irish-American culture. Those involved with the Institute do this, in part, by fostering strong cultural and educational ties between the United States and Ireland-- sending American high school students to Ireland, and bringing Irish scholars, musicians, craftspeople, actors, and artists to the Untied States. They also fund academic research projects that raise awareness about Irish-American history, and provide fellowships for American professors to spend a year as a visiting scholar at the National University of Ireland. In short, the Irish American Cultural Institute serves as an important educational, informational, and financial resource for key initiatives important to the Irish and the Irish- American community in the United States.

Irish-Americans comprise more than 17 percent of the population of the United States, and have made enormous contributions to our Nation in countless ways. In my home State, more than 1.3 million New Jersey residents trace their roots back to Ireland. A Federal Charter would be an important step in the Irish American Cultural Institute's quest to promote activities that recognize and celebrate the heritage of Irish- Americans. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, to introduce the Veterans Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act. This bill would fundamentally change the way the Department of Veterans Affairs is addressing the growing Hepatitis C epidemic, and would create a national standard for testing and treating veterans with the virus.

Hepatitis C is a disease of the liver caused by contact with the Hepatitis C virus. It is primarily spread by contact with infected blood. The CDC estimates that 1.8 percent of the population is infected with the Hepatitis C virus, and that number is much higher among veterans. Vietnam-era veterans are considered to be at greater risk because many were exposed to Hepatitis C-infected blood as a result of combat-related surgical care during the Vietnam War. In fact, data from the Veterans Administration suggests that as many as 18 percent of all veterans and 64 percent of Vietnam veterans are infected with the Hepatitis C Virus (HCV). Veterans living in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area have the highest rate of Hepatitis C in the Nation. For many of those infected, Hepatitis C leads to liver failure, transplants, liver cancer, and death.

And yet, most veterans who have Hepatitis C don't even know it--and often do not get treatment until it's too late. Despite recent advances in treating Hepatitis C, the VA still lacks a comprehensive, consistent, uniform approach to testing and treating veterans for the virus. Only a fraction of the eight million veterans enrolled nationally in the VA Health Care System have been tested to date. Part of the problem stems from a lack of qualified, full-time medical personnel to administer and analyze the tests. Most of the 172 VA hospitals in this country have only one doctor, working a half day a week, to conduct and analyze all the tests. At this rate, it will take years to test the entire enrolled population--years that many of these veterans may not have.

To address this growing problem, I am again introducing the Veterans Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act. This legislation will improve access to Hepatitis C testing and treatment for all veterans, ensure that the VA spends all allocated Hepatitis C funds on testing and treatment, and sets new, national policies for Hepatitis C care. Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen from New Jersey has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

The bill would improve testing and treatment for veterans by requiring annual screening tests for Vietnam-era veterans enrolled in the VA health system, and providing annual tests, upon request, to other veterans enrolled in the system. Further, it would require the VA to treat any enrolled veteran who tests positive for the Hepatitis C virus, regardless of service-connected disability status or priority group categorization. The VA would be required to provide at least one dedicated health care professional--a doctor and a nurse--at each VA Hospital for testing and treatment of this disease.

This bill would also increase the amount of money dedicated to Hepatitis C testing and treatment, and would make sure these funds are spent where they are needed most. Beginning in FY06, Hepatitis C funding would be shifted to the Specific Purpose account under the Veterans Health Administration, and would be dedicated solely for the purpose of paying for the costs associated with treating veterans with the Hepatitis C virus. The bill would allocate these funds to the 22 Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISN) based on each VISN's Hepatitis C incidence rate, or the number of veterans infected with the virus.

In addition, this bill will end the confusing patchwork of policies governing the care of veterans with Hepatitis C throughout the nation. This legislation directs the VA to develop and implement a standardized, national Hepatitis C policy for its testing protocol, treatment options and education and notification efforts. The bill further directs the VA to develop an outreach program to notify veterans who have not been tested for the Hepatitis C virus of the need for such testing and the availability of such testing through the VA. And finally, this legislation would establish Hepatitis C Centers of Excellence in geographic areas with high incidence of Hepatitis C infection.

The VA currently lacks a comprehensive national strategy for combating this deadly disease. The Veterans Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act will ensure that veterans will finally be provided with the access to testing and treatment that they have more than earned and deserve. And, the Federal Government will actually save money in the long run by testing and treating this infection early. The alternative is much more costly treatment of end-stage liver disease and the associated complications, or other disorders.

The VA has known about the problem of Hepatitis C among veterans since 1992, but they have not acted. We must address this critical issue for the brave men and women who have placed their lives in danger to protect the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this crucial legislation.

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

Mr. President, identity theft is a serious and growing concern facing our Nation's consumers. According to the Federal Trade Commission, nearly 10 million Americans were the victims of identity theft in 2003, which represents a tripling of the number of victims from just 3 years earlier. Research shows that there are more than 13 identity thefts every minute.

According to the Identity Theft Resource Center, identity theft victims spend on average nearly 600 hours recovering from the crime. Additional research indicates the costs of lost wages and income as a result of the crime can soar as high as $16,000 per incident. No one wants to suffer this kind of hardship.

Technological innovation has delivered tremendous benefits to our economy in the form of increased efficiency, expanded access, and lower costs. And it has spurred the creation of an entire industry of data collectors and brokers who profit from the packaging and commoditization of one's personal and financial information. But, regrettably, this technology has also provided identity thieves with an attractive target, and relative anonymity, with which to ply their sinister trade.

While many sectors of our economy are affected, financial institutions face a particularly difficult challenge. By definition, the information they use to conduct their daily business is sensitive, because it is tied so closely to their customers' finances. A breach of this data has the potential to cause large and damaging losses in a very short amount of time.

Events over the past several months have further served to highlight how serious this risk has become. The announcement not long ago by Citigroup that a box of computer tapes containing information on 3.9 million customers was lost by United Parcel Service in my own state of New Jersey while in transit to a credit reporting agency is the latest in a line of recent, high profile incidents. In fact, I myself was a victim of a similar loss of computer tapes by Bank of America earlier this year.

In both of these cases, Citigroup and Bank of America acted responsibly and notified possible victims in a prompt and timely manner. But this is not always the case. And both of these cases involved accidental loss--not even active attempts to steal personal financial information.

At the very least consumers deserve to be made aware when their personal information has been compromised. Right now, they must hope that the laws of a few individual states, such as California, apply to their case, or that victimized institutions will act responsibly on their own.

In the event that an information breach does occur, the legislation I am introducing today, the ``Financial Privacy Protection Act of 2005,'' would require prompt notification of all victims in all cases, subject, of course, to the concerns of law enforcement agencies. Based on this notification, victims could then take immediate action to include an extended fraud alert in their credit files to minimize the damage done.

But on top of notification, customers need to know that if they trust a bank with their sensitive personal information--which they must do in order to engage in a financial transaction--that that bank will be doing everything in its power to protect their information.

For that purpose, the ``Financial Privacy Protection Act of 2005'' would also direct financial regulators, in concert with the Federal Trade Commission, to establish strong and meaningful standards for the protection of information maintained by financial institutions on behalf of their customers. Because these measures are so important, the chief executive officer or the chief compliance officer of every institution must personally attest as to the effectiveness of these safeguards.

It is imperative that we take action to combat the growing threat of identity theft. This crime harms individuals and families, and drags down our economy in the form of lost productivity and capital. We can do more and we must do more.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation being introduced today by my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg. This legislation, the Solid Waste Environmental Regulation Clarification Affecting Railroads Act of 2005, would deal with a growing problem in my state: the problem of railroads avoiding strict environmental standards by constructing waste transfer facilities next to rail lines. I am proud to cosponsor this important legislation.

I first became aware of this problem when constituents contacted me about a waste transfer facility proposed to be built by a railroad in Mullica Township, New Jersey. There could not be a worse place for such a facility. Mullica Township is located in the Pinelands National Reserve, which encompasses more than 1.1 million acres of ecologically sensitive land. The Pinelands was designated as our nation's first national reserve in order to protect its streams, bogs,and cedar and hardwood swamps, as well as the many species that live there. Yet many of these protections could be circumvented if this proposed facility is built. The railroad argues that federal statute provides a shield from all environmental standards for any trash facility built adjacent to a rail line. This same argument has been used by railroads in the case of 5 similar facilities that are already in operation in North Bergen. These facilities lie near New Jersey's Meadowlands, another environmental treasure.

The statute being used by the railroads establishes the Surface Transportation Board, STB, as the reulatory agency for the nation's railroads, title 49 of the United States Code. Under section 10501, the STB has exclusive jurisdiction over the ``construction, acquisition, or operation'' of ``facilities'' located adjacent to a rail line. The railroads argue that facility means any facility, including a trash transfer station. They argue that because of this statute, federal law preempts all other state and local protections.

I cannot believe that Congress intended these types of facilities to be exempt from State and local environmental standards. The risk to the surrounding communities from the air pollution and groundwater contamination that could occur when open rail cars carrying solid waste are allowed

to load and off-load is too great. However, I believe that we must take steps to clarify the law's intent. The ``Solid Waste Environmental Regulation Clarification Affecting Railroads Act of 2005 will do this. The Act makes it clear that all state and local environmental laws and restrictions apply to these facilities.

This is a commonsense measure that insures that the public remains fully involved in decisions relating to these facilities, regardless of where they are built. I urge its enactment.

Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce a bill, along with Senators Lautenberg and Landrieu, to grant a Federal Charter to the Irish American Cultural Institute, an organization that promotes appreciation and recognition of the important contributions Irish- Americans have played throughout the history of the United States. A longstanding goal of the Irish American Cultural Institute been to establish a museum of Irish-American history and culture in Washington, DC, and I am pleased to help lay the foundation for achieving that goal.

The Irish American Cultural Institute is a national organization founded in 1962, with local chapters in 17 States, including New Jersey. The Institute has spent the last 40 years fighting to promote, preserve and educate about Irish and Irish-American culture. Those involved with the Institute do this, in part, by fostering strong cultural and educational ties between the United States and Ireland-- sending American high school students to Ireland, and bringing Irish scholars, musicians, craftspeople, actors, and artists to the Untied States. They also fund academic research projects that raise awareness about Irish-American history, and provide fellowships for American professors to spend a year as a visiting scholar at the National University of Ireland. In short, the Irish American Cultural Institute serves as an important educational, informational, and financial resource for key initiatives important to the Irish and the Irish- American community in the United States.

Irish-Americans comprise more than 17 percent of the population of the United States, and have made enormous contributions to our Nation in countless ways. In my home State, more than 1.3 million New Jersey residents trace their roots back to Ireland. A Federal Charter would be an important step in the Irish American Cultural Institute's quest to promote activities that recognize and celebrate the heritage of Irish- Americans. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, to introduce the Veterans Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act. This bill would fundamentally change the way the Department of Veterans Affairs is addressing the growing Hepatitis C epidemic, and would create a national standard for testing and treating veterans with the virus.

Hepatitis C is a disease of the liver caused by contact with the Hepatitis C virus. It is primarily spread by contact with infected blood. The CDC estimates that 1.8 percent of the population is infected with the Hepatitis C virus, and that number is much higher among veterans. Vietnam-era veterans are considered to be at greater risk because many were exposed to Hepatitis C-infected blood as a result of combat-related surgical care during the Vietnam War. In fact, data from the Veterans Administration suggests that as many as 18 percent of all veterans and 64 percent of Vietnam veterans are infected with the Hepatitis C Virus (HCV). Veterans living in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area have the highest rate of Hepatitis C in the Nation. For many of those infected, Hepatitis C leads to liver failure, transplants, liver cancer, and death.

And yet, most veterans who have Hepatitis C don't even know it--and often do not get treatment until it's too late. Despite recent advances in treating Hepatitis C, the VA still lacks a comprehensive, consistent, uniform approach to testing and treating veterans for the virus. Only a fraction of the eight million veterans enrolled nationally in the VA Health Care System have been tested to date. Part of the problem stems from a lack of qualified, full-time medical personnel to administer and analyze the tests. Most of the 172 VA hospitals in this country have only one doctor, working a half day a week, to conduct and analyze all the tests. At this rate, it will take years to test the entire enrolled population--years that many of these veterans may not have.

To address this growing problem, I am again introducing the Veterans Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act. This legislation will improve access to Hepatitis C testing and treatment for all veterans, ensure that the VA spends all allocated Hepatitis C funds on testing and treatment, and sets new, national policies for Hepatitis C care. Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen from New Jersey has introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

The bill would improve testing and treatment for veterans by requiring annual screening tests for Vietnam-era veterans enrolled in the VA health system, and providing annual tests, upon request, to other veterans enrolled in the system. Further, it would require the VA to treat any enrolled veteran who tests positive for the Hepatitis C virus, regardless of service-connected disability status or priority group categorization. The VA would be required to provide at least one dedicated health care professional--a doctor and a nurse--at each VA Hospital for testing and treatment of this disease.

This bill would also increase the amount of money dedicated to Hepatitis C testing and treatment, and would make sure these funds are spent where they are needed most. Beginning in FY06, Hepatitis C funding would be shifted to the Specific Purpose account under the Veterans Health Administration, and would be dedicated solely for the purpose of paying for the costs associated with treating veterans with the Hepatitis C virus. The bill would allocate these funds to the 22 Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISN) based on each VISN's Hepatitis C incidence rate, or the number of veterans infected with the virus.

In addition, this bill will end the confusing patchwork of policies governing the care of veterans with Hepatitis C throughout the nation. This legislation directs the VA to develop and implement a standardized, national Hepatitis C policy for its testing protocol, treatment options and education and notification efforts. The bill further directs the VA to develop an outreach program to notify veterans who have not been tested for the Hepatitis C virus of the need for such testing and the availability of such testing through the VA. And finally, this legislation would establish Hepatitis C Centers of Excellence in geographic areas with high incidence of Hepatitis C infection.

The VA currently lacks a comprehensive national strategy for combating this deadly disease. The Veterans Comprehensive Hepatitis C Health Care Act will ensure that veterans will finally be provided with the access to testing and treatment that they have more than earned and deserve. And, the Federal Government will actually save money in the long run by testing and treating this infection early. The alternative is much more costly treatment of end-stage liver disease and the associated complications, or other disorders.

The VA has known about the problem of Hepatitis C among veterans since 1992, but they have not acted. We must address this critical issue for the brave men and women who have placed their lives in danger to protect the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this crucial legislation.

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

Mr. President, identity theft is a serious and growing concern facing our Nation's consumers. According to the Federal Trade Commission, nearly 10 million Americans were the victims of identity theft in 2003, which represents a tripling of the number of victims from just 3 years earlier. Research shows that there are more than 13 identity thefts every minute.

According to the Identity Theft Resource Center, identity theft victims spend on average nearly 600 hours recovering from the crime. Additional research indicates the costs of lost wages and income as a result of the crime can soar as high as $16,000 per incident. No one wants to suffer this kind of hardship.

Technological innovation has delivered tremendous benefits to our economy in the form of increased efficiency, expanded access, and lower costs. And it has spurred the creation of an entire industry of data collectors and brokers who profit from the packaging and commoditization of one's personal and financial information. But, regrettably, this technology has also provided identity thieves with an attractive target, and relative anonymity, with which to ply their sinister trade.

While many sectors of our economy are affected, financial institutions face a particularly difficult challenge. By definition, the information they use to conduct their daily business is sensitive, because it is tied so closely to their customers' finances. A breach of this data has the potential to cause large and damaging losses in a very short amount of time.

Events over the past several months have further served to highlight how serious this risk has become. The announcement not long ago by Citigroup that a box of computer tapes containing information on 3.9 million customers was lost by United Parcel Service in my own state of New Jersey while in transit to a credit reporting agency is the latest in a line of recent, high profile incidents. In fact, I myself was a victim of a similar loss of computer tapes by Bank of America earlier this year.

In both of these cases, Citigroup and Bank of America acted responsibly and notified possible victims in a prompt and timely manner. But this is not always the case. And both of these cases involved accidental loss--not even active attempts to steal personal financial information.

At the very least consumers deserve to be made aware when their personal information has been compromised. Right now, they must hope that the laws of a few individual states, such as California, apply to their case, or that victimized institutions will act responsibly on their own.

In the event that an information breach does occur, the legislation I am introducing today, the ``Financial Privacy Protection Act of 2005,'' would require prompt notification of all victims in all cases, subject, of course, to the concerns of law enforcement agencies. Based on this notification, victims could then take immediate action to include an extended fraud alert in their credit files to minimize the damage done.

But on top of notification, customers need to know that if they trust a bank with their sensitive personal information--which they must do in order to engage in a financial transaction--that that bank will be doing everything in its power to protect their information.

For that purpose, the ``Financial Privacy Protection Act of 2005'' would also direct financial regulators, in concert with the Federal Trade Commission, to establish strong and meaningful standards for the protection of information maintained by financial institutions on behalf of their customers. Because these measures are so important, the chief executive officer or the chief compliance officer of every institution must personally attest as to the effectiveness of these safeguards.

It is imperative that we take action to combat the growing threat of identity theft. This crime harms individuals and families, and drags down our economy in the form of lost productivity and capital. We can do more and we must do more.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation being introduced today by my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg. This legislation, the Solid Waste Environmental Regulation Clarification Affecting Railroads Act of 2005, would deal with a growing problem in my state: the problem of railroads avoiding strict environmental standards by constructing waste transfer facilities next to rail lines. I am proud to cosponsor this important legislation.

I first became aware of this problem when constituents contacted me about a waste transfer facility proposed to be built by a railroad in Mullica Township, New Jersey. There could not be a worse place for such a facility. Mullica Township is located in the Pinelands National Reserve, which encompasses more than 1.1 million acres of ecologically sensitive land. The Pinelands was designated as our nation's first national reserve in order to protect its streams, bogs,and cedar and hardwood swamps, as well as the many species that live there. Yet many of these protections could be circumvented if this proposed facility is built. The railroad argues that federal statute provides a shield from all environmental standards for any trash facility built adjacent to a rail line. This same argument has been used by railroads in the case of 5 similar facilities that are already in operation in North Bergen. These facilities lie near New Jersey's Meadowlands, another environmental treasure.

The statute being used by the railroads establishes the Surface Transportation Board, STB, as the reulatory agency for the nation's railroads, title 49 of the United States Code. Under section 10501, the STB has exclusive jurisdiction over the ``construction, acquisition, or operation'' of ``facilities'' located adjacent to a rail line. The railroads argue that facility means any facility, including a trash transfer station. They argue that because of this statute, federal law preempts all other state and local protections.

I cannot believe that Congress intended these types of facilities to be exempt from State and local environmental standards. The risk to the surrounding communities from the air pollution and groundwater contamination that could occur when open rail cars carrying solid waste are allowed

to load and off-load is too great. However, I believe that we must take steps to clarify the law's intent. The ``Solid Waste Environmental Regulation Clarification Affecting Railroads Act of 2005 will do this. The Act makes it clear that all state and local environmental laws and restrictions apply to these facilities.

This is a commonsense measure that insures that the public remains fully involved in decisions relating to these facilities, regardless of where they are built. I urge its enactment.

Mr. President, tomorrow marks the 40th Anniversary of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon Baines Johnson traveled to Independence, MO to sign the Medicare and Medicaid programs into law. That day, President Johnson signed a contract with the citizens of this country. The contract states that our Nation recognizes that health care is a fundamental human right and that a just society will marshal resources to provide basic medical care for those most in need. Forty years later, the Medicare and Medicaid programs continue to abide by that contract, providing government safety nets that keep the elderly, disabled, and economically disadvantaged from falling into the ranks of the uninsured.

In passing legislation to establish the Medicare program, Members of this

body took a courageous step by guaranteeing health insurance coverage to seniors and people with disabilities--regardless of a person's income and regardless of a person's illness. Medicare is a commitment to America's seniors that if you are over 65 or disabled, no matter what your income, we will stand by you and you will get the health care you need.

Before the Medicare program was established, nearly 50 percent of seniors lived their golden years without health coverage. Seniors were forced to choose between a trip to the grocery store and a visit to the doctor's office. Today, because of Medicare, 98 percent of older Americans have access to and can afford to get the medical care they need. Of the forty-two million Americans currently covered by Medicare, including 35 million seniors and 6 million people with disabilities or end-stage renal disease, 1.3 million live in my home State of New Jersey. I've spoken with many of those beneficiaries from throughout my State and it's clear there is great uncertainty about what the future of Medicare holds for beneficiaries.

On the 40th Anniversary of the Medicare program, we should be cheering the dramatic impact Medicare has had on the health and wellbeing of this country. Yet, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the real fear I have that Medicare beneficiaries will be in for a rude awakening early next year. This coming January, a prescription drug benefit will be added to the Medicare program. Since the day I joined the Senate, I consistently supported ensuring seniors access to affordable prescription drugs by adding prescription drug coverage to Medicare. In June, 2003, I was one of 76 Senators to vote to pass legislation to establish a comprehensive, affordable prescription drug benefit under Medicare. While bill was not perfect, on the whole the legislation would have been good for Medicare beneficiaries in New Jersey and those across the Nation. Yet, Mr. President, the bill that came back from House-Senate conference and was ultimately signed by the President does more harm than good.

For most New Jersey beneficiaries, the prescription drug plan set to take effect January 1, 2006 is neither affordable, nor comprehensive. It will cost seniors $3600 for $5,000 in drug benefits, will result in over 90,000 New Jersey retirees losing their drug coverage from their former employers, and could force nearly 200,000 New Jersey seniors out of Medicare as they know it into private HMOs.

Most troubling is the impact that the prescription drug plan will have on low and middle income beneficiaries in my state. My colleague Senator Lautenberg and I worked hard to save New Jersey's PAAD and Senior Gold programs--which the original Republican plan would have scrapped. But unlike New Jersey's PAAD and Senior Gold programs, the Medicare plan will have drug formularies that will restrict seniors' access to certain drugs. This means that a senior in PAAD or Senior Gold who now has complete prescription drug access may face limited drug access or substantially higher costs for their drugs.

One of the few bright spots that came of the Medicare prescription drug bill is the establishment of a ``Welcome to Medicare'' physical exam for new beneficiaries. For the majority of Medicare beneficiaries, this program has been a treatment program, not a preventive health program. Instead of covering preventive services like colonoscopy, cardiovascular screenings, and wellness programs that keep beneficiaries healthy, Medicare has traditionally focused more on treating the patient once he or she gets sick. We need to continue to promote prevention, instead of just reacting to illness, under the program. Not only will a focus on prevention keep our beneficiaries healthier and more independent, but the imminent retirement of the baby boom generation will continue to drive the costs of the program higher. The simplest way to constrain Medicare spending while also keeping Americans in their home and out of the hospital is to advance the program's focus on providing coverage of preventive health services.

I have no doubt that expanding Medicare coverage to include preventive measures will continue to improve the health and wellbeing beneficiaries. On the whole, however, I have grave reservations about the impact that the new prescription drug plan will have on what has, for 40 years, been a reliable and affordable health coverage program for this country's elderly and disabled citizens. One of the guiding principles of health care is, ``do no harm.'' My real fear is that the prescription drug plan will seriously undermine the Medicare program by shifting costs and limiting access to lifesaving services. These terms were not part of the contract President Johnson signed to establish Medicare.

Forty years ago, along with the Medicare program, President Johnson signed legislation establishing Medicaid. This health insurance program was designed to keep the Nation's most vulnerable populations--the poorest and sickest, from falling onto the rolls of the uninsured. Medicaid is based on the proposition that the health of a nation should be judged by the health of its people. For the last 40 years, Medicaid has provided health care for 105 million Americans with disabilities, working families, the elderly, children, and pregnant women. The success of this federal-state partnership is a tribute to President Johnson and the members of Congress who were brave enough to recognize that, in the world's richest country, basic medical care should be a right, not a privilege.

The Medicaid program has grown and evolved from a safety net program to the primary source of care for millions of Americans. Today, Medicaid provides vital health care services more than 53 million Americans. For millions of low-income children and families, including 500,000 children in New Jersey, Medicaid covers primary and preventive health care services that they otherwise could not afford. Medicaid provides crucial primary care health services for children with disabilities. And as my colleagues know, Medicaid is the Nation's largest payer of nursing home and other long-term care services. The amazing thing about Medicaid is the fact that the program covers people who can't get health coverage anywhere else, and it does so at a fraction of the cost of other programs. A recent study found that the cost of serving an adult in Medicaid in 2001 was about 30 percent lower than if that same person were instead covered by private health insurance. And Medicaid spends about half as much on administrative costs as private insurance. In 2003, only 6.9 percent of Medicaid costs were administrative expenses compared to 13.6 percent for private insurance. It is truly remarkable that Medicaid is able to do so much for so many Americans.

As we take time to celebrate the dramatic success Medicaid has had in covering our most vulnerable populations, we must be cognizant that there is much more to do and that the program itself is vulnerable. Clearly, Medicaid does a remarkable job covering Americans who would otherwise be uninsured, but the reach of the program is becoming more and more limited. Forty-five million Americans were uninsured at some point during the past year. For many of these Americans, their primary source of care is hospital emergency rooms. Many could have been kept out of the hospital emergency room if they had access to basic health services under Medicaid, and this could have been achieved at a fraction of the cost. Yet, arguing that the program is rife with waste, fraud, and abuse, Republicans passed a budget earlier this year that cuts $10 billion out of the Medicaid program. Clearly, there's always room for improvement, and I don't think there is a member of this body who believes we shouldn't rid the program of any waste, fraud, and abuse that exists. However, I have seen no credible evidence to convince me that there is $10 billion in savings to be had from such efforts. Instead the evidence suggests that $240 million of the $10 billion in cuts will come directly from the New Jersey Medicaid program. For $240 million, New Jersey could cover 100,000 more children, 17,000 more seniors, or 12,000 more residents with disabilities. Instead of expanding the Medicaid program to these populations, the $10 billion in cuts will likely come at the expense of beneficiaries--pregnant women, children, and people with disabilities-- people who rely on the program for their basic medical needs.

Dramatic changes to Medicaid based not on sound public policy but on

achieving $10 billion in savings would be a grave mistake. It would be a huge step backward for Medicaid beneficiaries in New Jersey or across the country. It simply is not possible to cut $10 billion from the Medicaid program without chipping away at the foundation on which the program is based. Make no mistake about it, in a federal-state partnership such as this, cutting $10 billion from Medicaid means taking $10 billion away from the States ability to cover their uninsured. It means that States will be left with the tough choices of decreasing reimbursements to providers, eliminating services like prescription drugs and specialized services for the mentally ill, or raising taxes to preserve these services.

The most egregious aspect of the proposed Medicaid cuts is that these cuts come in a budget that includes the $204 billion cost of making permanent the President's tax cuts for millionaires. How do we, as legislators, look hard-working Americans in the eye and tell them honestly that we can't afford $10 billion for health coverage for low- income Americans, but we can afford $204 billion in tax breaks for the most well-off? Is this the same legislative body that recognized the social value of offering a helping hand to those who could otherwise not help themselves? Instead of tax cuts for those Americans least in need of tax cuts, we should be preserving and expanding access to health care for our Nation's most vulnerable by maintaining our Federal obligation to the States to pay our fair share for these services.

As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, we must recognize that some of those who have urged the dismantling of these programs are the same people who argue that these programs are the epitome of big government run amuck. On the contrary, Medicare and Medicaid are government at its finest. For 40 years, these programs have been examples of government up to the plate to provide a lifeline for citizens who would otherwise fall through the cracks of society. On July 30, 1965, Medicare and Medicaid were the vision of a stronger, healthier, more prosperous America. We must continue to share this vision today, as we have for the past 40 years.

Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the energy conference report. I thank the managers of the bill, the two Senators from New Mexico, for their diligent effort in putting together an energy bill. While I cannot support the final product, I respect that they have made every effort to make this a bipartisan process and I thank them for their leadership.

I voted against the Senate energy bill last month because it inadequately addresses several major priorities that should be included in a sound energy policy--reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, implementing CAFE standards, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, and protecting the coastline from offshore energy drilling.

Unfortunately, the bill has only become worse in conference and amounts to a missed opportunity to create an effective comprehensive energy policy. This bill does not do enough to lead this Nation toward energy independence and energy security.

The bill also does not address an issue that faces Americans daily-- soaring gas prices. A a time when gas prices are skyrocketing and our dependency on oil is steadily increasing, we are voting on a bill that the President himself has said will do nothing to address those prices. The people of New Jersey, and in fact this Nation, deserve a bill that tackles this problem. I'm sure all Americans will be disappointed to know that instead of helping them at the gas pump, the bill provides giveaways to the Nation's fossil fuel industries.

To truly make a dent in our energy independence, we need at least a savings of three to five million barrels of oil per day, yet this bill does not include any oil savings provision. Furthermore, this bill misses an opportunity to effectively reduce this Nation's oil use by increasing the fuel economy of passenger vehicles. Indeed, improving fuel efficiency, or CAFE, standards is not only a cost effective way to improve our energy security, but it would be instrumental in reducing soaring greenhouse gas emissions. During the debate on the Senate energy bill, Senator Durbin proposed an amendment that would have raised CAFE standards and closed the SUV loophole, both of which would save this country over 101 billion gallons of oil by the year 2016.

In addition, the bill does not do enough to encourage the use of renewable energy sources. One of the few good provisions of the Senate energy bill was the ten percent renewable portfolio standard. My home State of New Jersey has been a leader in the area of renewable portfolio standards as it already has a 20 percent RPS. It is about time that the rest of the Nation follow suit. A Federal RPS is a crucial step in weaning this country from its dependence on foreign oil sources and I am disappointed that this conference report excludes this provision.

The bill also includes a seven and a half billion gallon ethanol mandate. Those in favor of an ethanol mandate claim that it will enhance U.S. energy security. In fact, increasing the renewable fuel standard would not significantly reduce U.S. oil imports because each gallon of gasoline blended with ethanol to make gasohol has less energy in it than regular gasoline. Therefore, we need increased petroleum product imports to make up that energy loss. In addition, producing ethanol requires a significant amount of fossil fuel. Worst of all, the ethanol mandate amounts to a new gas tax for my constituents. With the cost of living in New Jersey being one of the highest in the Nation and gas prices at an all-time high, an ethanol mandate is not acceptable for New Jerseyans.

I am also extremely disappointed that energy conferees voted down an amendment in conference that would have stricken the seismic inventory of the Outer Continental Shelf. This seismic inventory is paramount to opening the door to drilling off the coast of New Jersey. This is a crucial issue for the state of New Jersey.

My State is the East Coast hub for oil refining and with three nuclear power plants, many traditional power plants, and hopefully an LNG terminal in the near future. We have made these contributions to energy production and we have made them without offshore drilling.

A seismic inventory threatens New Jersey's way of life. It is a slippery slope toward drilling that threatens not only New Jersey's environment, but also its economy. Drilling endangers New Jersey's pristine beaches as well as jeopardizes the tourist industry, which generates $5.5 billion in revenue for my State and supports 800,000 jobs. Furthermore, the seismic explosions put our marine life and fisheries at risk. I made my opposition to undermining the moratoria on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf when I spent hours on the floor during the Senate energy debate to defend against amendments that would weaken the moratoria in any way. That effort was successful, but this inventory that remains in the bill will weaken the current moratoria on drilling, and I am very concerned about the potential consequences.

Another major issue that the energy conference report fails to address is climate change--one of the most pressing issues facing our planet today. The science makes it increasingly clear that that greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity are changing the earth's climate. The rest of the industrialized world understands the danger of this problem and the United States must catch up.

I have long been a proponent of legislation that would counter this problem and encourage reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. My advocacy on behalf of climate change legislation is not limited to the current Congress.

Senator Brownback and I led the way to passing a greenhouse gas registry and reporting amendment to the Energy Bills in the 107th and 108th Congresses. The current voluntary programs encourage reductions from only a small group of industry leaders, and have little to no effect on most of the economy. Despite these well-intended programs, greenhouse gas emissions have risen on average one percent per year for the last several years. Our Nation can do better.

The potential effects of global warming are dire for my State. If we do not control climate change, New Jersey could face a receding coastline along the shore, loss of habitat in our beautiful beach towns like Cape May, and more extreme weather events such as storms and flooding. Similar to the effects of the seismic inventory, this devastation would directly affect New Jersey's economy. If our beaches are threatened, and our coastline damaged, New Jersey will see an economic impact of catastrophic proportions. Our second largest industry, tourism, will be devastated.

This is an issue for New Jersey and the rest of the United States, but it is also an issue for the world. Unless Congress acts, the effects of global warming may be devastating to the worldwide economy and environment.

Finally, while the bill does not include the MTBE liability provision that has stalled past energy bills, it does include a provision that moves MTBE claims from State court to Federal court when the claims are based on State tort law, nuisance law, or consumer law. This provision amounts to backdoor immunity for MTBE producers by unfairly depriving injured parties and their representatives of their right to have their claims heard in their State forum. This language could even derail many legal claims entirely, effectively shielding those companies responsible for MTBE contamination from their full financial liability for the damages they have caused. This is unacceptable.

I voted against this bill when it was in the Senate with the hope that it would have been improved in conference. Unfortunately, the bill has only been made worse. A sound energy bill must move this country toward energy security and independence. This bill does not come close. I must, therefore, vote against this conference report and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 1619, if possible.

Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator if I might be able to understand the principles that would be involved in deciding whether there are particular avenues of exploration to make sure that this amendment is acceptable going forward? How would we look at this?

Certainly.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's candor. I hope we will be able to bring up my amendment, which will protect the rights of law enforcement officers who are victimized by gun violence to get justice through the American legal system.

I would note the presence of my colleague from the State of New Jersey in the Chamber, who has been a remarkable advocate for law enforcement and for the safety and security of people in our community.

This past Monday night, I missed a vote on the floor of the Senate because I went to a wake for a police officer, Officer Reeves, who was shot on the streets of Newark by a gang member. The gun that was used has not yet been traced to find out whether it was trafficked in the illegal or black market, or whether it was bought by a straw purchaser.

But there is one thing that is certain--there were five children sitting in the pew with their mother at that wake, all under the age of 11. Gun violence is real. The amendment I would like to bring up--which I appreciate the rules of the Senate and respect the judgment of the Senator from Idaho--but the Lemongello amendment I would like to offer to the gun immunity bill is about protecting police officers on the street and giving them the right to get justice in a court of law. If, by unfortunate circumstances, they are the victims of gun violence, we have the right in the State of New Jersey, within the legal system, to call to account those who have wrongfully allowed guns to get into the hands of criminals.

In the case of Detective Lemongello, 11 guns were sold to a gun trafficker out of a gunshop--11 guns. Why does one person happen to need 11 guns? These guns were bought by a straw-purchaser for a career criminal, who then put the guns in a car and drove them to New Jersey, where one was sold to the criminal who shot Detective Lemongello in Orange, NJ.

That gun was turned on this gentleman shown in this picture, Detective Lemongello, just as a gun was recently turned on the young police officer whose wake I recently attended in Newark on Monday night, Officer Dwayne Reeves. Officer Reeves was 31 years old, and he was married with five children.

I believe in the constitutional right of individuals to bear arms under circumstances that will protect the public. I have no argument with that. But I do not think there is a constitutional right to put guns into the hands of criminals who attack police officers and other innocent victims in our country.

I represent a State where crime rates are going down, but murder rates are going up because guns are freely available among gangs on the streets in our communities. This is completely unacceptable. And to allow gun trafficking to continue on, without giving the victims of gun violence the right to seek justice in a court of law, is just plain wrong. It should be enough for any individual with common sense to say: Enough is enough.

Prohibiting civil liability actions as this bill does--and I recognize that some may argue about limited exceptions to the general immunity given to the gun industry in this bill--would make it next to impossible for Detective Lemongello, his partner Officer McGuire, or the family of Officer Dwayne Reeves to have their day in court, to seek and receive justice through the American legal system.

So again, the purpose of my amendment is to protect the rights of law enforcement officers. I understand that this bill is going to pass with, I understand, 61 cosponsors. But I hope my colleagues will understand that, at a minimum, law enforcement officers should be permitted to bring lawsuits against culpable gun dealers and manufacturers.

In the Lemongello case, actually, the people who sold the guns recognized their own mistake, and settled with Detective Lemongello and Officer McGuire. They were able to reach this settlement because Congress did not pass this bill last year, which would have given the gun dealer immunity and removed these lawsuits from the courts.

Now, what's more, the gun dealer who sold the gun to the criminal who shot Detective Lemongello and Officer McGuire, along with several other purveyors of guns in that West Virginia city, changed their policies. These gun dealers now sell one gun at a time as a result of this lawsuit and they no longer make bulk sales.

So this is a real issue. This is not just a debate. There are people dying because we are not doing the right thing. There are lots of forums where we can make this case, and we will continue to, those of us who care about public safety, who want fewer guns on the streets, and who care about accountability.

It is hard for me to understand this legislation as it relates to States rights, in the sense that State legislatures, both Republican and Democratic, have supported the right of victims of gun violence to have access to the courts.

So this is my view, and I am only one Senator, but it is heartfelt. My opposition to this bill and my support for this amendment comes in the context of the real problems and the real tragedies that will occur if we do not have the right checks and balances in the system, if we take away the right of innocent victims to go to court when they are wronged.

I understand that this bill will pass but I am asking all my colleagues to, at the least, support this amendment to protect the brave men and women in uniform who risk their lives to protect the citizens of our country every single day--people like Detective Lemongello, Officer McGuire, and Officer Reeves.

I yield the floor.