Floor Statements

Mr. President, first, I congratulate my colleagues in the House, Representatives Shays and Maloney, for their hard work on this legislation and for introducing H.R. 5017, the companion legislation to the bill I am introducing today.

Almost 5 years ago, our country was attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001. This attack on our cities, on our symbols, on our democracy, and on our way of life killed nearly 3,000 Americans and over 700 people from my home State of New Jersey. But this attack could not kill our determination to preserve our freedom, our values, and our democratic system.

Almost 2 years ago, the 9/11 Commission published their riveting account of what happened on that terrible day and made 41 unanimous and bipartisan recommendations to make our country safer from future terrorist attacks.

Six months ago, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project published a disturbing report card giving more F's than A's on the implementation of those 41 recommendations.

Today, I am introducing legislation to finally and fully implement the 41 bipartisan and unanimous recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The former Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean, and the former Vice Chairman, Lee Hamilton, endorsed this same legislation in the House, H.R. 5017 Shays-Maloney. In a letter, Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton said that the legislation ``represents a comprehensive approach to carry out each of the recommendations of the Commission . . . [and] focuses on urgent unfinished business before the Nation . . .''

It is the responsibility of the Congress to carry out this urgent unfinished business. We certainly need this comprehensive legislation at a time when the disastrous Dubai Ports World deal made it clear that our ports are not safe and those who live and work near them are not secure; the Department of Homeland Security is increasing homeland security funding for small cities while cutting it to New York and Washington, DC; first responders still don't have the ability to communicate with each other during a disaster; nuclear weapons in the hands of a terrorist remain one of the greatest threats to our Nation, yet the 9/11 Public Discourse Project gave the administration a D on progress towards fixing this problem; and hundreds of Afghans have been killed in the recent violent resurgence of the Taliban.

Since immediately after September 11, many of us in Congress have been working to learn the hard lessons from those attacks so we can prepare for and prevent future terrorist acts. Shortly after the attacks, I introduced comprehensive homeland security legislation and served on the first ad-hoc Homeland Security Committee in the House.

I was a strong supporter of the creation of the 9/11 Commission and introduced a proposal on the House floor to fully implement the 9/11 Commission recommendation in 2004 during the initial debate on the recommendations. I then served as a House negotiator on and helped secure passage of the final landmark intelligence reform bill that was the first step in implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Introducing this legislation today is the next important step in protecting our country against terrorism. I certainly agree with the former heads of the 9/11 Commission that passing this bill should be a top priority for this Congress.

I think all of us were shocked last week when the Department of Homeland Security actually slashed overall homeland security grant funding for New York, Washington, DC, and New Jersey, while increasing funding for much smaller areas with fewer terrorist targets.

DHS slashed these funds in spite of the 9/11 Commission recommendation which said that ``Homeland Security assistance should be based strictly--strictly--on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.''

And that is exactly what I fought for when I introduced the Menendez substitute to the intelligence reform bill in 2004. That is exactly what I fought for in the conference report on that legislation and what I sought to accomplish in the House when I introduced the Risk-Based Homeland Security Funding Act with Senators Corzine and Lautenberg. And that is exactly what the legislation I am introducing today would do.

As many of you know, New Jersey faces unique terrorism threats that require a greater portion of homeland security aid due to its proximity to New York City and to its vast number of potential targets of terror, such as the largest container seaport on the east coast, one of the busiest airports in the country, an area known as the ``chemical coastway,'' our four nuclear power plants, and the six tunnels and bridges that connect New Jersey to New York City.

And if that were not enough, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has placed more than a dozen New Jersey sites on the National Critical Infrastructure List and has called the area in my former congressional district between Port Elizabeth and Newark International Airport the ``most dangerous two miles in the United States when it comes to terrorism.'' An article in The New York Times pointed out that this 2- mile area provides ``a convenient way to cripple the economy by disrupting major portions of the country's rail lines, oil storage tanks and refineries, pipelines, air traffic, communications networks and highway system.''

The bottom line is that States and municipalities, like New Jersey, which are under the greatest risk should receive homeland security dollars based solely on that risk. The funding awarded to Newark and Jersey City clearly proves that New Jersey is well served when Federal homeland security dollars are awarded based on risk. Yet I

cannot understand why the Department of Homeland Security would not use a risk-based formula when awarding all of their grants. So long as Homeland Security grants are awarded based on factors other than risk, those States most at risk will continue to lack the necessary resources to protect the people they serve.

I know that many Americans would also be shocked to learn that almost 5 years after 9/11 and almost 1 year after Hurricane Katrina, many first responders still cannot communicate with each other during a disaster.

In fact, when I speak to firefighters in my home State of New Jersey, they consistently tell me that this remains a serious impediment to their work. In our port in New Jersey, the largest container port in the east coast, firefighters, Coast Guard, police, and other law enforcement officials often still cannot communicate with each other. When Hurricane Katrina hit, emergency personnel were on at least five different channels and were hampered in communicating with one another. As the Washington Post reported on September 2, 2005, ``Police officers and National Guard members, along with law officers imported from around the State, rarely knew more than what they could see with their own eyes.''

It is astonishing that our firefighters, police, and paramedics still do not have the ability to communicate in an emergency. How is it possible that almost 5 years after September 11, our local first responders still do not have interoperable communications systems that can talk with each other as they carry out their lifesaving work?

That is why my legislation would provide adequate radio spectrum for first responders and a status report on creating a unified incident command system during disasters.

In its final report card, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project gave the administration a D for its efforts to secure WMDs. The former Commissioners then recommended that the U.S. Government make this issue the top national security priority to counter what it called ``the greatest threat to America's security.''

I certainly believe that a nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist is one of the greatest threats to our national security. Osama Bin Laden himself has said that it is al-Qaida's ``religious duty'' to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

According to CNN, in January 2002, documents found in a house in Kabul, Afghanistan, reportedly used by al-Qaida operatives included a 25-page document filled with information about nuclear weapons. That document included a design for a nuclear weapon that would require hard-to-obtain materials like plutonium to create a nuclear explosion.

One document appeared to be plans to create a nuclear device. Although experts contended that the design in this document labeled ``superbombs'' is unworkable, the author, noted CNN, was clearly knowledgeable of various ways to set off a nuclear bomb.

In combination with the discovery of AQ Khan's clandestine nuclear supermarket, the potential of al-Qaida building a nuclear weapon is not a fairytale. In fact, according to CNN, al-Qaida may have had some help in its efforts to develop a nuclear device from two Pakistani nuclear scientists.

This bill works to ensure that the fairytale does not become a cataclysmic reality.

The bill specifically implements the 9/11 Commission's recommendation to expand programs to stop shipments of weapons of mass destruction. With this legislation, the United States would also be able to extend our assistance to help countries control, protect, and dismantle their nuclear programs to countries outside of the former Soviet Union. It would also create an Office of Nonproliferation Programs in the Executive Office of the President to prevent terrorist access to WMDs. Finally, the bill includes a provision to enhance the Global Threat Reduction Initiative and would require the President to establish a Department of Energy task force on nuclear materials removal.

I believe we all want to make sure that a nuclearized al-Qaida never becomes a reality. And we should spare absolutely no effort in pursuing this goal.

Many of us have been horrified as we have watched the resurgence of the Taliban and strong anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan. Over just the past few weeks, over 250 people have been killed in the upsurge in violence, and we see techniques borrowed from Iraq, like the use of improvised explosive devices, in Afghanistan. According to the New York Times, Pentagon officials say that 32 suicide bombs were exploded in 2006, which is already 6 more than exploded in all of 2005. Roadside bombs are up 30 percent over last year, and the Taliban are fighting in groups triple the size of last year. And after a deadly traffic accident involving the U.S. military, an anti-American riot exploded in Kabul last week.

The 9/11 Commission made it clear in their recommendations that Afghanistan must be a priority stating that the ``United States and the international community should make a long-term commitment to a secure and stable Afghanistan to improve life and make sure it is not a terrorist sanctuary.'' Unfortunately, we are clearly a long way from achieving that goal.

The administration never finished the job in Afghanistan, the birthplace of the Taliban, the home to al-Qaida, the land of Osama bin Laden, and the place where the attacks of 9/11 were planned.

That is why this legislation is an important step to help us move in the right direction in Afghanistan. My bill urges a new commitment to a long-term economic plan to ensure Afghanistan's stability as well as a report on progress towards achieving the goals in the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act.

This bipartisan, bicameral legislation is the next step to finally implementing all of the 41 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Their report was a call to action. Their report card was a reminder of what still needed to be done. Their work cannot be left unfinished.

We must all heed advice of the 9/11 Commission and learn from the hard lessons of 9/11. We cannot wait any longer to take action, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, first, I congratulate my colleagues in the House, Representatives Shays and Maloney, for their hard work on this legislation and for introducing H.R. 5017, the companion legislation to the bill I am introducing today.

Almost 5 years ago, our country was attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001. This attack on our cities, on our symbols, on our democracy, and on our way of life killed nearly 3,000 Americans and over 700 people from my home State of New Jersey. But this attack could not kill our determination to preserve our freedom, our values, and our democratic system.

Almost 2 years ago, the 9/11 Commission published their riveting account of what happened on that terrible day and made 41 unanimous and bipartisan recommendations to make our country safer from future terrorist attacks.

Six months ago, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project published a disturbing report card giving more F's than A's on the implementation of those 41 recommendations.

Today, I am introducing legislation to finally and fully implement the 41 bipartisan and unanimous recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The former Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean, and the former Vice Chairman, Lee Hamilton, endorsed this same legislation in the House, H.R. 5017 Shays-Maloney. In a letter, Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton said that the legislation ``represents a comprehensive approach to carry out each of the recommendations of the Commission . . . [and] focuses on urgent unfinished business before the Nation . . .''

It is the responsibility of the Congress to carry out this urgent unfinished business. We certainly need this comprehensive legislation at a time when the disastrous Dubai Ports World deal made it clear that our ports are not safe and those who live and work near them are not secure; the Department of Homeland Security is increasing homeland security funding for small cities while cutting it to New York and Washington, DC; first responders still don't have the ability to communicate with each other during a disaster; nuclear weapons in the hands of a terrorist remain one of the greatest threats to our Nation, yet the 9/11 Public Discourse Project gave the administration a D on progress towards fixing this problem; and hundreds of Afghans have been killed in the recent violent resurgence of the Taliban.

Since immediately after September 11, many of us in Congress have been working to learn the hard lessons from those attacks so we can prepare for and prevent future terrorist acts. Shortly after the attacks, I introduced comprehensive homeland security legislation and served on the first ad-hoc Homeland Security Committee in the House.

I was a strong supporter of the creation of the 9/11 Commission and introduced a proposal on the House floor to fully implement the 9/11 Commission recommendation in 2004 during the initial debate on the recommendations. I then served as a House negotiator on and helped secure passage of the final landmark intelligence reform bill that was the first step in implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Introducing this legislation today is the next important step in protecting our country against terrorism. I certainly agree with the former heads of the 9/11 Commission that passing this bill should be a top priority for this Congress.

I think all of us were shocked last week when the Department of Homeland Security actually slashed overall homeland security grant funding for New York, Washington, DC, and New Jersey, while increasing funding for much smaller areas with fewer terrorist targets.

DHS slashed these funds in spite of the 9/11 Commission recommendation which said that ``Homeland Security assistance should be based strictly--strictly--on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.''

And that is exactly what I fought for when I introduced the Menendez substitute to the intelligence reform bill in 2004. That is exactly what I fought for in the conference report on that legislation and what I sought to accomplish in the House when I introduced the Risk-Based Homeland Security Funding Act with Senators Corzine and Lautenberg. And that is exactly what the legislation I am introducing today would do.

As many of you know, New Jersey faces unique terrorism threats that require a greater portion of homeland security aid due to its proximity to New York City and to its vast number of potential targets of terror, such as the largest container seaport on the east coast, one of the busiest airports in the country, an area known as the ``chemical coastway,'' our four nuclear power plants, and the six tunnels and bridges that connect New Jersey to New York City.

And if that were not enough, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has placed more than a dozen New Jersey sites on the National Critical Infrastructure List and has called the area in my former congressional district between Port Elizabeth and Newark International Airport the ``most dangerous two miles in the United States when it comes to terrorism.'' An article in The New York Times pointed out that this 2- mile area provides ``a convenient way to cripple the economy by disrupting major portions of the country's rail lines, oil storage tanks and refineries, pipelines, air traffic, communications networks and highway system.''

The bottom line is that States and municipalities, like New Jersey, which are under the greatest risk should receive homeland security dollars based solely on that risk. The funding awarded to Newark and Jersey City clearly proves that New Jersey is well served when Federal homeland security dollars are awarded based on risk. Yet I

cannot understand why the Department of Homeland Security would not use a risk-based formula when awarding all of their grants. So long as Homeland Security grants are awarded based on factors other than risk, those States most at risk will continue to lack the necessary resources to protect the people they serve.

I know that many Americans would also be shocked to learn that almost 5 years after 9/11 and almost 1 year after Hurricane Katrina, many first responders still cannot communicate with each other during a disaster.

In fact, when I speak to firefighters in my home State of New Jersey, they consistently tell me that this remains a serious impediment to their work. In our port in New Jersey, the largest container port in the east coast, firefighters, Coast Guard, police, and other law enforcement officials often still cannot communicate with each other. When Hurricane Katrina hit, emergency personnel were on at least five different channels and were hampered in communicating with one another. As the Washington Post reported on September 2, 2005, ``Police officers and National Guard members, along with law officers imported from around the State, rarely knew more than what they could see with their own eyes.''

It is astonishing that our firefighters, police, and paramedics still do not have the ability to communicate in an emergency. How is it possible that almost 5 years after September 11, our local first responders still do not have interoperable communications systems that can talk with each other as they carry out their lifesaving work?

That is why my legislation would provide adequate radio spectrum for first responders and a status report on creating a unified incident command system during disasters.

In its final report card, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project gave the administration a D for its efforts to secure WMDs. The former Commissioners then recommended that the U.S. Government make this issue the top national security priority to counter what it called ``the greatest threat to America's security.''

I certainly believe that a nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist is one of the greatest threats to our national security. Osama Bin Laden himself has said that it is al-Qaida's ``religious duty'' to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

According to CNN, in January 2002, documents found in a house in Kabul, Afghanistan, reportedly used by al-Qaida operatives included a 25-page document filled with information about nuclear weapons. That document included a design for a nuclear weapon that would require hard-to-obtain materials like plutonium to create a nuclear explosion.

One document appeared to be plans to create a nuclear device. Although experts contended that the design in this document labeled ``superbombs'' is unworkable, the author, noted CNN, was clearly knowledgeable of various ways to set off a nuclear bomb.

In combination with the discovery of AQ Khan's clandestine nuclear supermarket, the potential of al-Qaida building a nuclear weapon is not a fairytale. In fact, according to CNN, al-Qaida may have had some help in its efforts to develop a nuclear device from two Pakistani nuclear scientists.

This bill works to ensure that the fairytale does not become a cataclysmic reality.

The bill specifically implements the 9/11 Commission's recommendation to expand programs to stop shipments of weapons of mass destruction. With this legislation, the United States would also be able to extend our assistance to help countries control, protect, and dismantle their nuclear programs to countries outside of the former Soviet Union. It would also create an Office of Nonproliferation Programs in the Executive Office of the President to prevent terrorist access to WMDs. Finally, the bill includes a provision to enhance the Global Threat Reduction Initiative and would require the President to establish a Department of Energy task force on nuclear materials removal.

I believe we all want to make sure that a nuclearized al-Qaida never becomes a reality. And we should spare absolutely no effort in pursuing this goal.

Many of us have been horrified as we have watched the resurgence of the Taliban and strong anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan. Over just the past few weeks, over 250 people have been killed in the upsurge in violence, and we see techniques borrowed from Iraq, like the use of improvised explosive devices, in Afghanistan. According to the New York Times, Pentagon officials say that 32 suicide bombs were exploded in 2006, which is already 6 more than exploded in all of 2005. Roadside bombs are up 30 percent over last year, and the Taliban are fighting in groups triple the size of last year. And after a deadly traffic accident involving the U.S. military, an anti-American riot exploded in Kabul last week.

The 9/11 Commission made it clear in their recommendations that Afghanistan must be a priority stating that the ``United States and the international community should make a long-term commitment to a secure and stable Afghanistan to improve life and make sure it is not a terrorist sanctuary.'' Unfortunately, we are clearly a long way from achieving that goal.

The administration never finished the job in Afghanistan, the birthplace of the Taliban, the home to al-Qaida, the land of Osama bin Laden, and the place where the attacks of 9/11 were planned.

That is why this legislation is an important step to help us move in the right direction in Afghanistan. My bill urges a new commitment to a long-term economic plan to ensure Afghanistan's stability as well as a report on progress towards achieving the goals in the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act.

This bipartisan, bicameral legislation is the next step to finally implementing all of the 41 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Their report was a call to action. Their report card was a reminder of what still needed to be done. Their work cannot be left unfinished.

We must all heed advice of the 9/11 Commission and learn from the hard lessons of 9/11. We cannot wait any longer to take action, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I am not here to cast doubt on the qualifications of Governor Kempthorne to be the next Secretary of the Interior. In fact, I believe he is eminently qualified for the job. Unfortunately, that is also the problem. I fear that the Governor is all too qualified to take the helm of an agency that, in the past 5 years, has drastically shifted its mission from one of conservation and protection, to one of exploitation and commercialism. Governor Kempthorne's record as a Senator, where he cast one vote in favor of the environment in six years, does not give me much hope that he will be able to reverse the trend.

If we are to ensure that our grandchildren will be able to marvel at the majestic grandeur of this country's untouched wide open spaces, or learn of their Nation's heritage at our historic treasures, or observe the beauty of the astounding array of wildlife that roams the continent--it is essential that the next Secretary of the Interior recommits the Department to being a good steward of the land for all the people, and not a good server of it for the oil, mining, and timber companies. Given his consistently held positions for drilling in protected areas of the Arctic and off our coastlines, weakening the Endangered Species Act, and opposing the protection of roadless areas in National Forests, among others, I do not believe that Governor Kempthorne will make a change in the direction of the Interior Department.

I want it to be clear that the real problem is not with the nominee. The real problem is with the policies of the administration, and the willingness of the Secretary to carry them out without question. This administration has certainly been no friend to the environment, and the previous Secretary of the Interior was particularly adept at enabling its primary impulses. Whether it is in the waters off our beaches, in the sensitive lands of the Arctic, or the wild places of the West, the administration has consistently appeared to be working for the interests of the oil and gas companies first, and the interests of the public second. They have consistently pushed for opening the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. They have proposed opening the Mid-Atlantic to oil and gas drilling--barely 75 miles off the coast of New Jersey. And, according to the Government Accountability Office, they more than tripled the number of drilling permits approved for the West--to the point where GAO found that the Bureau of Land Management was having trouble meeting its environmental responsibilities.

The administration's disdain of public lands extends to the point that they have now proposed selling it off to fund other programs or reduce the deficit. To his credit, the Governor flatly stated that he did not approve of reducing the deficit this way, but he was not nearly as clear about whether he would use public land sales to fund other programs. The Governor should not treat our public lands as if they were an inventory that needed to be gotten rid of, but rather as an asset that needs to be protected and nurtured for future generations.

In New Jersey, we don't have an overabundance of public land, which makes us value what we do have a great deal. Even in the most densely populated State in the Nation, we have a number of treasures valued by all New Jerseyans--the Pinelands, the Highlands, the Delaware Water Gap, our National Wildlife Refuges, our historic sites, and more. This is where we take our children to show them the beauty of nature, where we learn about our

past, where we take our vacations, and where we welcome visitors from other States and other countries. But many of these would not exist without the help of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Fund has not only helped the Federal Government preserve these and other sites, it has also helped the State create parks, ballfields, and other recreation areas. Liberty State Park, a green oasis in the middle of the New Jersey metropolitan area, less than a half mile from Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty, would still be a tangle of deserted railroad tracks if it wasn't for the help of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Unfortunately, the administration has been carrying on a multi-year assault on the fund, slicing it from $573 million in 2002 to $142 million this year, and proposing only $85 million for 2007. For the second straight year, they have proposed eliminating the State grant program entirely. This is not the way to run a program that is supposed to provide $900 million each year for land acquisition.

I am also very concerned about the overall direction that the National Park Service has been moving in under this administration. First, the administration has inexplicably proposed rewriting the National Park Service's management policies to take away the clear mandate to preserve the parks for future generations. We have not gotten any satisfactory answers as to why they have proposed this, but it is completely at odds with my view of why we have national parks, which is to protect our natural treasures for our children and our grandchildren. But even if the policies are not rewritten, our parks are in danger of simply falling apart. The National Parks Service faces a multibillion-dollar maintenance backlog, yet the administration has proposed slashing the account to fund that maintenance by over 30 percent.

This does not bode well for Ellis Island, where a large number of historic buildings are in danger of disappearing forever into crumbled brick because the National Park Service has been stalling for years instead of approving a redevelopment plan for the south side of the island. This part of the island belongs to New Jersey, and a dedicated nonprofit group has spent years raising millions of dollars to prepare for the rehabilitation of these structures, only to be thwarted by the National Park Service.

Right next door, the Statue of Liberty has been held hostage by fear since 9/11. The pedestal has been reopened, but visitors are still forbidden from making the unforgettable climb up to her crown to look out onto the harbor. Just yesterday, the Senate passed the amendment, offered by Senator Schumer and myself, that would require the Secretary of the Interior to take the necessary security precautions and open the stairway to Lady Liberty's crown once more. There is no reason it should have taken this long to take the precautions necessary to ensure that the statue is safe to climb, and there is no reason any longer for it to be held hostage to fear.

The National Park Service is not the only agency in the Interior Department facing crippling budget cuts that threaten its very mission. Wildlife refuges throughout New Jersey are going to be losing staff in the upcoming fiscal year; at least one refuge will be left without any staff at all. The largest of our refuges, Edwin B. Forsythe, is going to have to close one of its offices, and make due with only one law enforcement officer for its 47,000 acres. This doesn't just detract from the experience for visitors. It also makes it tougher to protect against vandalism, littering, and other activities that harm the tens of thousands of birds and mammals that depend on the refuge as a sanctuary in a highly urbanized region.

This last point is extremely important. Making sure that wildlife has access to the habitat it needs to thrive is absolutely essential, particularly if endangered species are to survive. But right now the endangered species act is under attack. Last year, the other chamber passed a bill that would severely weaken a number of crucial protections under that Act, including the elimination of critical habitat. The Governor has a long record on endangered species issues, and much of it gives me great cause for concern. I hope that he will take a careful look at this issue and not simply endorse policies designed to protect developers first and endangered species second.

I have just scratched the surface of the antienvironmental policies of the current administration. As I have limited myself to discussing the Department of the Interior, I have not mentioned the misguided policies designed to rollback the progress we have made in cleaning our air, our lakes, and our rivers, or the refusal of the administration to face the facts on global warming. We quite simply might never have the time to completely cover that ground. But Governor Kempthorne has demonstrated himself in the past to be aligned with the environmental philosophy of this administration, and therefore I cannot support his nomination as Secretary of Interior. I have no illusions, however. I am fully aware that he will be confirmed, and I hope that he proves me wrong. Because we are in danger of making mistakes that we can not easily correct. And we need to reaffirm our commitment to being good stewards of the land for future generations. As Theodore Roosevelt said: ``I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us.'' I hope that the administration will take these words to heart.

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

Mr. President, New Jersey and the Nation mourn the May 6, 2006, passing of Sister Rose Thering, a selfless luminary, who was a leader in stamping out bigotry and intolerance and who brought Christians and Jews together for increased mutual understanding. We were indeed lucky to have Sister Rose live in New Jersey for so many years. From 1968, when she first came to Seton Hall in South Orange, New Jersey benefited greatly from her wisdom and her tenacity to act as a bridge between people of different faiths and backgrounds. Sister Rose has made many contributions to the New Jersey community. As a member of the New Jersey Holocaust Commission, she helped write a 1994 law mandating the teaching of the Holocaust and genocide in the schools in New Jersey. As a member of the Seton Hall community, she forged an educational outreach program in Christian- Jewish studies.

Last year, Sister Rose moved back to Racine, WI, to live with her Sisters in the convent in which she initially entered religious life. Many in the New Jersey community sent her off with heavy hearts, knowing she was ill and knowing that they might never see her again. But it was her wish to live her last remaining days with her Dominican Sisters in Racine. As her life went full circle, the path she took is an example to us all.

In her early years, Sister Rose was dismayed at the disparaging comments she heard about Jews. She learned from her teachers that Jews killed Jesus; she heard whisperings of other anti-Semitic statements in her close-knit community. Concerned that a people were being unfairly treated, Sister Rose made it her passion to fight anti-Semitism and to bring attention to the culprit Catholic texts in which anti-Semitism was perpetuated. She wrote her doctorate dissertation on this topic at St. Louis University. In 1965, the Vatican used her dissertation as a basis for Nostra Aetate, the declaration that forever changed the relations between Catholic and Jews.

Sister Rose continued her commitment to Jewish-Christian relations by forging strong bonds with the Jewish community. She was unconventional, feisty, and strong willed always wanting to make principled decisions in support of her cause. She wore a necklace of the Star of David fused to the cross. In 1986, she protested the inauguration of President Kurt Waldheim, former U.N. Secretary General, because he had served in a Nazi unit. In 1987, she went to the Soviet Union to protest the treatment of Russian Jews. She visited Israel frequently, often bringing students with her. At a particularly vulnerable time for Israel, Sister Rose decided to attend the Rally for Israel on April 15, 2002 on the Mall in Washington, DC. Despite her poor health, when she learned that there was no Catholic speaker on the program, she insisted on speaking to show her solidarity. And as no surprise, it was Sister Rose that was given the honor of giving the invocation.

Her legacy is great. It lives on in the documentary ``Sister Rose's Passion'' that won a Tribeca Film Festival

Award and nomination for an Academy Award for best documentary. It lives on the Sister Rose Thering Endowment for Christian-Jewish studies, which has provided scholarships for 350 teachers for graduate work on the Holocaust and other related topics. She will be missed for all her good work and for taking the difficult path toward greater understanding between peoples.

Mr. President, while Republicans proclaim this week as Health Week on the Senate floor, it is quite the contrary in the homes of millions of American families. Today, 46 million Americans have no health insurance at all. And 1.3 million New Jerseyans have no health insurance. Another 16 million or more Americans are underinsured, meaning that they have insurance, but still do not have access to the care they need. Complicating matters even more is the fact that the average cost of family health coverage--$10,880--now exceeds annual earnings for a minimum-wage earner.

So what does the Senate majority propose to do to solve the problem? Nothing more than dust off the old playbook and make another run at the same old play. They propose a medical malpractice bill that has been defeated over and over again, that does not even really reduce costs for providers or patients, and in the process actually reduces remedies for patients. They propose a bill claiming to help small businesses, but it actually hurts patients by removing existing coverage and protections and exacerbates the problem of the underinsured.

So at the end of Health Week in the Senate, all we have to show the American people is more of the same--the same 46 million with no insurance, the same 16 million people with inadequate insurance, and the same families working 40 hours a week to earn a living for their family but still unable to afford quality health care for them.

Instead of leading us down a dead-end road, as Republicans have done this week, we should be on the expressway to real health care solutions--legislation such as the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, legislation to extend the enrollment deadline for the new Medicare Part D drug benefit, legislation to provide real solutions to the large and growing number of uninsured Americans, and legislation to address long- term care needs that will only become more pressing as the baby boom generation ages.

The Republican proposals being considered this week never even received a hearing or a vote in their committees of jurisdiction and were destined to fail from the beginning. Is this really all the majority party plans to address regarding the endless needs of our health care system? I believe we can and must do better.

First, Alzheimer's disease does not boast a party affiliation. Neither does cancer or diabetes or Parkinson's disease. Yet, potential cures to these debilitating and fatal diseases are being ensnared in political wrangling, posturing, and obstruction.

Today, almost 35 years after President Nixon declared war on cancer, the Federal Government and Washington Republicans remain AWOL in the fight against this fatal illness and a host of other debilitating diseases. While we have made great strides in researching potential vaccines and cures, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle choose to tie our researchers hands.

The bottom line is this: When your life--or the life of a loved one-- is on the line, you never give up and you never limit your options-- never. You never lose faith, and you pursue every option, every sliver of hope, of finding a cure.

This issue is about more than statistics, it is about more than numbers on a fact sheet. These are real people. These are families. These are mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, aunts and uncles. These diseases cut through race, age, religion, country, and political affiliation. We all suffer, which is why we must move beyond the usual partisan posturing and fight for expanding research.

I had the opportunity to vote on this stem cell legislation in the House of Representatives, where we had broad, bipartisan support. And I believe that same bipartisan support exists in the Senate, which makes it even more difficult to understand why we cannot come together and do something meaningful for those who are suffering.

We have an opportunity to do what is right, and the majority has again let that opportunity pass them by. This bill means so much more than ending restrictions placed on stem cell research. This bill means hope for the individuals challenged and fighting to live a life with dignity.

Stem cell research has vast potential for curing diseases, alleviating suffering, and saving lives. I know my colleagues recognize the enormous potential of this research too, and it is time to clear the way for discovering new cures and therapies and bring this bill to a vote.

Another thing we cannot ignore is the fast approaching deadline for seniors to enroll in a Medicare prescription drug benefit without being penalized. We need to stand up for our seniors and extend the deadline so that our seniors have time to choose the plan that is right for them.

When the Federal Government rolled out the new benefit, and it did not go as planned, States such as New Jersey stepped up to the plate and provided emergency drug coverage to seniors and people with disabilities in need. Now the Federal Government has a responsibility to recognize its shortcomings and give our seniors a chance to enroll without having to pay the price for the Federal Government's mistakes.

And the concerns go beyond just seniors' drug benefits. There is also a grave concern that seniors and people with disabilities may lose access to their local neighborhood pharmacies. Almost any senior will tell you that they rely on their local pharmacist to help them when they have complications with their drugs--whether it is interactions between drugs or problems getting their medications.

I recently heard from Adolph Gonzalez and Alan Garcia who run the North Bergen Pharmacy, which has been open and serving its customers for the past 21 years. Unfortunately, since prescription drug plans are not paying their claims in a timely fashion, pharmacies such as this one are dipping into their line of credit, taking out loans and scrambling to stay afloat. Unless things change, pharmacies such as the one in North Bergen, NJ, are going to be forced to close their doors.

I introduced legislation to address problems with the Medicare Part D drug benefit and so have many of my colleagues. All of us recognize that unless we start making important changes to improve the program, seniors are going to see lapses in their care. We must be committed to making sure that all Americans have a comprehensive drug benefit that allows them to take the medication prescribed by their doctors, provides them the information and flexibility to pick a plan that works best for them without being penalized, and allows them to continue visiting their local pharmacy.

Unfortunately, the majority party is not going to allow us the opportunity to improve the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit this week. Our fight for seniors is one we are going to continue, but one that has been overlooked this week in the U.S. Senate.

Second, the unproductive nature of this week is most insulting to the 46 million people across the country who have no health insurance at all--1.3 million in New Jersey alone. No American family should be forced to skip a trip to the doctor because they fear it will also mean an unfortunate trip to the bank.

That is why I strongly support initiatives that will help small businesses afford meaningful health insurance for themselves and their employees; increase coverage for uninsured parents by extending the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP; and help Americans nearing retirement buy into Medicare--programs that have proven successful in reducing the uninsured and providing access to quality coverage.

In addition, I introduced the Health Care COSTS Act, which will help hard-working Americans afford their health insurance when they are between jobs by providing an ``advanceable'' tax credit for half the cost of COBRA premiums. As I mentioned earlier, the average cost of a family health plan exceeds a full year's earnings for a minimum-wage worker, so there is no way most families can afford to continue to purchase coverage if they lose their job and have to find another.

Instead of debating a bill that will preempt the important New Jersey

State coverage protections--including coverage of cervical cancer screening, contraceptives, home health care, mammography screening, mental health parity, and prostate cancer screening, to name a few--and protection against age discrimination in setting premiums, the Enzi bill takes the high bar of health insurance for New Jersey, and lowers it to a dangerously low level that strips away the coverage our State fought so hard to get.

The choice before us this week--the Enzi bill or nothing--is a false choice. This policy will result in reduced access to important health benefits and substantially increase premiums for people who need coverage most. It will allow insurance companies to cherry-pick the most profitable patients and punish those who need coverage most. It will allow companies to discriminate against older, sicker patients by charging them 3 exhorbitant premiums for the care they get. It will pit young versus old, the healthy versus the sick. These are false choices, and we should not allow the majority to force us into making them.

What we should be doing is considering a bill that preserves State benefits and prevents such cherry-picking. By offering small businesses access to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which has provided extensive benefit choices at affordable prices to me, my colleagues, and all Federal employees for decades, we can do just that.

By pooling small businesses across America into one risk and purchasing pool like the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, the new Small Employees Health Benefit Plan will allow employers to reap the benefits of group purchasing power and streamlined administrative costs, as well as access to more plan choices. That is why I support the Lincoln-Durbin alternative. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has refused to let us have a full debate and up-or-down vote on this proposal.

Finally, the challenge of caring for our aging population will only increase as the baby boom generation grows older and our life expectancy increases. We need to work now to address the challenges of providing affordable long-term care, encourage future retirees to plan for their own long-term care, and strengthen our existing programs to address this growing need.

I have introduced legislation to do just that. This week we should be supporting legislation that helps all families afford to care for the ones they love while also preparing for their own long-term care needs.

While I am disappointed in the partisan nature of this week's debate, it makes my commitment to fighting for the health and well-being of all Americans that much stronger. I call on my colleagues to finally make the health care priorities of the America people the health care priorities of the Senate.

No longer should we avoid a vote on stem cell research, a vote on improving the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, a vote for a real solution to solve the issue of the uninsured, and a vote to help our growing senior population age with dignity. At the end of so-called Health Week in the Senate, we will have accomplished nothing for the millions of Amerians who are uninsured or underinsured and struggling every day to provide health care for their families.

Mr. President, today we are here in the middle of what is being called Health Week in the Senate. But rather than debating important lifesaving, life-enhancing

legislation that has bipartisan support and could actually deliver hope and promise to millions of Americans, the Republican leadership in the Senate has, instead, decided to continue their political posturing, business-as-usual approach to governing.

It is no wonder the American people have become disillusioned with the leadership in Washington. Instead of debating and passing stem cell legislation that will end suffering and extend lives, we are again focusing on a partisan proposal to limit patient options, even when they are harmed, for example, through medical malpractice.

Instead of passing stem cell legislation that will provide new treatments and cures for debilitating diseases, such as Alzheimer's, juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injuries or cancer, we are debating a bill that would actually eliminate--eliminate--the health coverage that many States currently provide to cover some of these very diseases, that will cherry-pick, pitting the healthy versus older workers or those who have some chronic disease or illness. And where there is no insurance regulation, prices go up, insurance companies pick the healthy, and they discriminate against older workers and those who are less healthy.

And they can deny coverage that States have thought important to have to meet the challenges of their individual States, sometimes very uniquely so.

So instead of wasting an entire week debating legislation that I believe ultimately has no chance of passing, we owe it to the American people--to the millions of Americans and their families suffering from life-altering disabilities and diseases--to demonstrate our Nation's full commitment to finding a cure and doing all we can to help their hopes and dreams come true.

It has been almost 1 year since the House of Representatives passed the Stem Cell Enhancement Act, and yet the Senate still has not passed this vital legislation. I rise to urge the majority leader to do the same and bring this important legislation to a vote in the Senate.

I was fortunate to have had the opportunity to vote in favor of the bill as a Member of the House, where we had broad bipartisan support for the proposal. I believe that same bipartisan support exists in the Senate, which makes it even more difficult to understand why we cannot come together and do something meaningful for those who are suffering.

My support of stem cell research is partially a reflection of my home State's commitment to innovation and discovery. In 2004, New Jersey became the second State in the Nation to enact a law that specifically permits embryonic stem cell research. We know that embryonic stem cells have the unique ability to develop into virtually every cell and tissue in the body. And we know that numerous frozen embryos in fertility clinics remain unused by couples at the completion of their fertility treatments. Why shouldn't they be allowed to donate those embryos to Federal research to save lives? We allow people to donate organs to save lives. Why couldn't a couple, if they so chose, donate their frozen embryos instead of simply discarding them?

The great State of New Jersey offers more scientists, engineers, and technicians per capita than any other State, and I am proud to represent the innovation and research taking place in New Jersey. Our State is not only known as the Garden State but also as America's ``Medicine Chest.'' But for our State and our country to continue to compete globally with health care breakthroughs, it is going to take more than private and State support. It is going to take the support of our Nation. It is going to take leadership that looks beyond politics.

But, to me, similar to countless Americans and New Jerseyans, this issue is about more than our ability to compete as a nation. The promise of stem cell research is painfully personal. It means hope and promise--hope that people such as my mother who suffer from advanced Alzheimer's disease might one day be cured from the loneliness and confusion caused by this horrible disease and the promise that future generations of families will not have to see their loved ones enter into a world of dementia that robs them of the best years of their lives.

We hold the key to unlock that door. It is shameful that we have let partisan politics stand in the way of medical progress. We owe it to our parents, to our children, and our grandchildren to unlock that door.

Diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, Parkinson's--none of these diseases boast a party affiliation. And we cannot let ours keep us from doing what is right.

Today we have an opportunity to do what is right. But it is clear to me that the majority will again let that opportunity pass them by. I will continue to fight, along with many of my colleagues, to see that this bipartisan bill is debated on the Senate floor and becomes law. We can no longer afford to delay this bill when it holds the key to curing some of the most devastating and debilitating diseases of our day. As the bill waits in the wings of the Capitol, children and adults alike wait for the cure they have been praying for.

This is Health Week. What could better demonstrate our commitment to the health of this country than full Federal support for embryonic stem cell research? This bill has the potential to make a profound and positive impact on the health of millions of Americans. All we need is the leadership to bring the bill to the floor for a vote for the humanity of our Nation and for the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters across this country who are suffering or watching a loved one suffer.

This bill means so much more than ending restrictions placed on stem cell research. This bill means hope and promise to countless Americans.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Amendment No. 3777, as modified

I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Brownback as a cosponsor to the amendment.

I thank the distinguished chairman for his inquiry. The answer is yes, our effort is to ensure the ability of the U.N. work to continue and to ultimately have the wherewithal when a peacekeeping force is called for to be able to have that move forward so we can hopefully end the genocide in Darfur.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss an amendment, filed by Senator Nelson of Florida and myself, joined by Senators Lieberman, Lautenberg, Kerry our distinguished minority leader, that will provide serious resources, not just lipservice, to help us kick the oil addiction habit and put this country on a long-term path to real energy security. At a time when American families are spending exorbitant amounts to fill their cars and heat their homes, when this Nation is using ever increasing quantities of foreign oil, when our coastal communities are threatened by rising sea levels caused by global warming, we need a new approach. For the sake of our economy, our security, and our environment, we need to act now.

For years, this administration has promoted one course--more drilling. Instead of making the necessary and timely investments needed to push this country in the direction of a sustainable energy policy, the administration has beat one drum over and over again--drill, drill, drill. Drill in the Arctic, drill in our wilderness, drill off our beaches. This is not the way to kick our oil habit. The President claims to have seen the light, and now touts the virtues of efficiency and the importance of biofuels and renewable energy, and we applaud him. But he proposes to fund the Department of Energy's Efficiency and Renewables programs at the same level they were at in 2001, and he refuses to endorse higher mileage standards for automobiles, which are the same now as they were years ago.

Our energy situation has reached a critical point, and it is truly an emergency. Secretary of Energy Bodman even admitted on Sunday that we are facing a crisis. Gas prices are nearing their record highs, rising 41 cents in the past month and over 54 cents since the Energy bill was signed into law last August. Many of the countries that we depend on for our oil are politically unstable or have unfriendly regimes. The Iranian situation, in particular, threatens to drive oil prices far higher. We can not allow our economy to be continually held hostage by the whims of OPEC.

This is not just about economic security. It is about national security. As former CIA Director James Woolsey testified before the Energy Committee, the hundreds of billions of dollars we send abroad each year to feed our oil addiction help to fund the very organizations that preach hatred for America.

We should have taken serious action years ago. The American people can afford to wait no longer. The Nelson-Menendez amendment provides the immediate funding we need to allow us to take control of our destiny and create a brighter, cleaner, and safer energy future for America. It provides $3 billion for a wide range of efficiency, security, and research and development programs--programs the President talks about in glowing terms but does not propose to actually fund.

His 2007 budget barely includes half of the authorized funding for renewable energy research, and provides less than 2 percent for the incentives needed to encourage the installation and use of renewable energy. Our amendment would add $50 million for renewable energy research and development in the Department of Energy, over $100 million in renewable energy rebates for homes and small businesses, and $200 million for the Department of Defense to do its part to meet the renewable energy goals set out by the President and in the law.

The administration has tried for years to portray efficiency as a vice, something that is totally inconsistent with the American way of life. Recently they have changed their tune, but not their actions. The President's budget actually cut energy efficiency programs by 13 percent. That simply astounds me. Few things are more effective for curbing our addiction to oil than becoming more energy efficient. A 2001 study by the National Academy of Sciences found that a $7 billion investment in DOE energy efficiency programs had returned $30 billion in benefits. That's better than 4 to 1. But the President cut efficiency programs by over a hundred million dollars. The weatherization program, which helps low-income families reduce fuel use and lower their energy bills, has been shown to provide well over $3 of benefit for each $1 spent. But the President proposed to slash that by nearly 30 percent.

Our amendment recognizes the tremendous benefit we as a Nation receive by becoming more efficient, and provides an additional $300 million for energy efficiency programs, and another $225 million for weatherization grants.

If we want to make a serious dent in our use of oil, however, we need to look at the transportation sector, which is responsible for two- thirds of our national oil consumption. While everyone seems to agree on the need to get more flex fuel and alternative-fuel vehicles on the road, and the urgency of producing cellulosic ethanol, the administration simply does not make the real financial commitment. But this amendment does. It provides $150 million for vehicle research programs, $350 million for the clean cities program, $200 million for biomass research and development and $250 million in production incentives for cellulosic fuels.

There are also provisions in this amendment to increase the reliability of our electricity grid, encourage the Federal Government to purchase alternative fuel vehicles, help improve the efficiency of aircraft, and much more. It is a large amendment because this is a large problem. Our economy, our environment, and our national security are all too important to be left to the best interests of OPEC and the giant oil companies. Skyrocketing gas prices have been a wake-up call for everyone, but even if we succeed in providing relief for American consumers, as my amendment last week would have done, we can not afford to go back to sleep on this issue. The American people expect us to get serious about our energy future, and they expect us to do it immediately. If we don't act now, when do we act?

So even though I fully recognize the rules of the Senate and understand the nature of the debate we are having today, I do believe we are in an emergent process as it relates to our energy independence, to our energy security, to giving consumers an opportunity for a break.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that any pending amendments be laid aside to call up amendment No. 3721 and that it be considered germane for the purposes of rule XXII.

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

Mr. President, I want to reiterate my motion simply to have an opportunity to offer an amendment. I think it is an emergency, and it is a moral imperative to deal with the issue in Darfur, Sudan. So I hope the mere opportunity to have a debate on the floor of the Senate would be allowed.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleague, if I may, that we have talked with both the chairman's staff and with others who express the view that this is a moral imperative and have suggested offsets, none of which have been accepted. So it is very difficult to have a position in which we all agree there is a moral imperative to act and then we reject every offset that is proposed.

Understanding the Senator's concern, but also understanding that genocide does not have an offset to it, I once again ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Reserving the right to object.

If I may ask the Presiding Officer a parliamentary question: If we were to proceed to the Senator's unanimous consent request, would that obviate the ability to offer an amendment during that time period?

Then I have to object.

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

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

Mr. President, I call up my amendment that is at the desk with a modification and ask unanimous consent that it be considered at this time.

Mr. President, last Sunday, thousands of Americans gathered here in Washington, DC, and in other cities across the country to focus our attention on the horrific acts being committed a world away in Darfur, Sudan. But it wasn't a gathering of the powerful, although politicians and celebrities were there. It was a gathering of the American community--of high school students, of members of synagogues and colleges, of churches, of people of all races, ethnicities, and religions. In fact, the movement to stop genocide in Darfur has been led by some of the youngest in our society.

In New Jersey, students in middle schools have raised funds for refugees. Young people at colleges have led the movement to divest from Sudan. They are not the leaders of the future; they are the leaders of today.

I know that as I stand here calling for action, I am not alone. In my home State of New Jersey, high school students started a nonprofit organization called Help Darfur Now which raises awareness and funds for the refugees in the Sudan.

Newark, NJ, is the headquarters of the Darfur Rehabilitation Project, a national group started by the Sudanese people living in the United States who lobby for humanitarian aid, intervention, and conflict resolution in the Sudan. And across the country, Americans are signing petitions, participating in marches, holding townhall events and contacting their elected officials to demand that the dire needs of the Darfurian people be addressed. It seems to me as representatives of the people, it is our job to act.

Here in Congress, many of our fellow colleagues in the Senate and in the House of Representatives have led the fight for real action to address the genocide in Darfur, and I certainly salute them for their hard work.

When we talk about genocide, it seems to me it is almost impossible for any of us to take the intellectual understanding of what that means: the number of people killed, over what period of time, and for what reason, and to comprehend the dimensions of such atrocities.

The truth is that each of the estimated 200,000 to 400,000 people murdered in Darfur was a father, a mother, a sister, a daughter, or son slaughtered by their own countrymen whose ethnic makeup and religion was similar to their own. Each of these people has a family who mourns them and a community that lost them.

Many of us here cannot imagine what life is like for the at least 2 million

who have been displaced in this conflict. Those who have survived have the scars of watching their relatives and neighbors murdered, raped, and subjected to other horrors we cannot imagine.

For the hundreds of thousands of people who fled to Chad, the terror continues as they face new attacks in this expanding conflict. Samantha Power, who is a Pulitzer Prize winning expert on genocide, has pointed out that many women face the essence of a Sophie's choice: They can either leave their villages and camps to gather firewood, facing the likelihood of rape or attack by the jingaweit, or starve inside the camp.

It is in this dire context that the World Food Program announced that it would be forced to cut the rations to feed those who are affected by the conflict in Darfur. This means people already facing a humanitarian crisis will now only receive half of the recommended level of calories per day. Even worse are reports that at least 200,000 people have been displaced since January, and that many of those cannot be reached or helped by aid agencies.

A recent article in the New York Times quoted one senior humanitarian aid official as saying:

The situation for humanitarian workers and the United

Nations has never been as bad as it is now. The space for us

to work is just getting smaller and smaller.

Not surprisingly, the Sudanese Government, which is supporting the groups that conduct this campaign of death and destruction, continues to hinder any attempts by the international community to assess the situation and provide aid to the millions of refugees. Just this month, the Sudanese Government denied entry into the country to Mr. Jan Egeland, a top U.N. official on humanitarian issues. Last week, Sudan refused to grant visas to officials who intended to conduct a U.N. military assessment on planning a peacekeeping operation in Darfur.

So in a region the size of Texas, 7,000 African Union troops have been put in place to protect the people of Darfur. While I believe the African Union force is better than nothing, their troop numbers are clearly too small. They are underfunded, underequipped, and lack a mandate to protect civilians. I agree with many of the experts who have said that we need to at least triple the size of the African Union force as a bridge until we can get a U.N. force operational in Darfur. I also think the President and others have the right idea of using NATO forces to provide logistical support while letting countries with Muslim populations take the lead on the ground.

Of course, we face some obstacles to getting a U.N. force into the Sudan and controlling the situation. First, the Chinese continuously stand in the way of the United Nations. Let's make it simple: The Chinese buy oil from the Sudanese, and they don't want to stop. In fact, China, because of its rule that it doesn't involve itself in any way in the domestic affairs of other countries, has no problem buying oil from a government committing genocide in the Sudan. Then there is the issue of Osama bin Laden, who has denounced the idea of U.N. troops and in his most recent audiotape broadcast called on Muslims to fight such a force.

In the past, some steps have been taken on the part of the United States and the international community to address the crisis in Darfur, but the violence continues. Congress has appropriated funds for African Union peacekeeping, food aid, and support for refugees. The United Nations Security Council has passed various resolutions raising concerns about war crimes committed in Darfur. The Government of Sudan and the two rebel groups involved are now in negotiations, and I know that Deputy Secretary of State Zoellick is there now trying to reach a final agreement with the rebels. Yet, despite all of these measures, the sad truth remains that the people of Darfur face a bleak future of uncertainty, suffering, and death. It is time that we take additional action to stop the genocide in the Sudan.

That is why this amendment that I have had other colleagues join me in would provide $60 million to support U.N. peacekeeping in Darfur. I certainly wish to thank the cosponsors of this amendment--Senators Leahy, Durbin, Sarbanes, Dodd, Obama, Lautenberg, Wyden, and Stabenow-- for their support and for their efforts.

The African Union troops in Darfur are clearly overwhelmed by the challenge at hand. This amendment would provide critical funding to equip international troops and restore law and order to the region of Darfur. Although the intervention of U.N. troops has not been authorized, this amendment would assure that when it is accomplished, the money is there, and it will increase pressure on the African Union, the Khartoum Government, and the international community to make sure that a U.N. force is put in place in Darfur.

For those who would question the amount--even though it is now offset--proposed in this amendment, I would like to point out that my amendment adds the same level of funding to the Contributions for International Peacekeeping account that has already been approved in the House supplemental appropriations bill. There is no other way to get these funds to protect the people of Darfur. They are not in the current funds appropriated for fiscal year 2006. I think we can all agree that genocide in Darfur constitutes an emergency--an emergency to which this body has a moral obligation to respond.

Genocide is not a new phenomenon. We have witnessed this hatred and inhumanity many times over the past century. After the world learned the horrors of the Holocaust, America and the international community vowed: Never again. Never again. After we saw the gruesome slaughter of approximately 800,000 Tutsis in less than 100 days in Rwanda, we swore: Never again. Never again, however, is an empty promise--it is an empty promise--if we do not take action to stop the murder of innocent people when we know it is happening.

Once again we find ourselves in a position to make that choice, and history is going to judge what we do--not what we say about never again but what we do when we have the power to do it. For even as I stand here today, I know the number of dead and displaced persons in Darfur continues to grow. Genocide is not Sudan's problem, it is not Africa's problem, it is the world's problem. It is our problem. And by failing to take part in the solution, we have become part of the problem. As Americans and as human beings, we have a moral obligation to help those who are suffering the consequences of genocide and who cannot help themselves. Now is not the time to forget that obligation, and history will judge us by the actions we take or fail to take in the next days as we move forward on this amendment.

Jan Egeland, one of the top U.N. humanitarian officials, has said, ``Africa is the biggest drama of our time; nowhere else in the world are so many lives at stake as in Africa.'' Now is the time to act.

Some people might say that the fiscal 2007 budget proposal allocates sufficient funds to help the people of the Sudan. I would say you cannot put a price on human lives. Genocide is not a horror of the past; it is the reality, unfortunately, of the present. It is an emergency we must face today. The $60 million this amendment offers will help put an end to the senseless murder and displacement of the people of Darfur. If American lives were at stake, I am certain we would find the money to act. I hope we have both the humanity and the commitment to say ``never again,'' to make sure that we do so in this case. Simon Wiesenthal said, ``For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing.'' Let us act now to put an end to this evil.

I hope my colleagues will see that in the face of genocide, this is money well spent. I certainly hope we are permitted to respond to a moral imperative because history will judge each and every one of us for how we act in the face of the genocide going on in Darfur and in the Sudan. I hope that when it comes time for a vote on this amendment, the chairman will actually be able to accept the amendment as offset as it is now. I find it sometimes difficult to hear that we have a moral imperative, that we say ``never again,'' and yet we put up roadblocks for fulfilling and responding to that moral imperative, and when we offer solutions to it, there are those who do not like the solution of offsets.

The bottom line is, if it were one of us--if it were one of us--thank God we

live in the greatest country in the world, and it is not, but if it were one of us, if it were our family suffering the slaughter, would we be content with the councils of patience and delay? I daresay the answer is no. That is why I feel so passionately that we have an opportunity to fulfill the commitment to say ``never again.''

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, if the Senator from North Carolina will agree, I ask unanimous consent that subsequent to his amendment, I be recognized next in order to offer my amendment, and I will have no objection to setting aside the pending amendment.

About 10 to 12 minutes.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3675 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, when Congress adjourned on its 2-week recess, I heard from many of my constituents back home in New Jersey that they were somewhat shocked to find out that one of the most critical elements of our security, the ports in the Nation, still were subject to such vulnerability.

Just this weekend, we received a vivid reminder of the threat that still exists when Osama bin Laden released yet another tape threatening to kill innocent Americans.

We often talk tough, but then sometimes we act weak. And nowhere is that concern more urgent than at our ports where 4\1/2\ years after September 11, we still don't know what is contained in 95 percent of all of the containers entering this country. That is a colossal failure, and we are here to make sure that Congress takes steps to reverse it.

In the collapse of the Dubai Ports World deal, the eyes of the Nation were riveted on this problem. Most Americans were shocked to discover that only 5 percent--5 percent--of the containers passing through our ports are

inspected, and they demanded improvement.

In the wake of that deal, the Senate responded by approving our plan that added nearly $1 billion to the budget to fund port security, and that was a good first step. But as we said at the time, the proof will be if Congress actually steps forward to follow through with the funding.

The 9/11 Commission told us that to prevent a future terrorist attack, we had to think outside the box. But at our ports, we actually need to think inside the container because we need to know what is in the containers that enter the country through our ports every day.

The bottom line is that we need to get on the road to 100 percent scanning and inspections of the containers coming into this country, and we need to get there sooner rather than later. That is why this amendment requires the administration to provide Congress and the American people with a clear plan, with specific yearly benchmarks to achieve 100 percent inspections of containers.

The Appropriations Committee took a big step forward by approving Senator Byrd's amendment to spend $648 million to strengthen inspections, fund new radiation portals and cargo container systems, and add money for local port security grants. That is a dramatic improvement over the other body's bill which did nothing to add additional funding for port security.

But I believe we need to do more. To protect our ports at home, we have to inspect containers abroad, before they arrive in our ports, our towns, and our cities. We must also ensure that foreign ports, especially those ports in less prosperous countries, are safe and secure because this cargo comes to our ports as well.

The amendment, therefore, provides $50 million to help those countries that may not have the wherewithal to achieve the latest cargo scanning technologies because without that kind of support, those ports could remain the weakest link in our international port security chain. We have to make sure they do not become the easy targets for terrorists looking for lax security practices.

I listened a lot to those in the shipping industry, and officials have stated that the Container Security Initiative operated by Customs and the Border Patrol is highly dependent on the willingness of a foreign port to participate in the program and to effectively implement security measures. But even if a foreign port is prepared to participate and to implement security measures, they may lack the funding to procure the technologies and to hire and train adequate personnel to do so.

In compounding this potential security gap, the shipping industry has noted there is inconsistency among U.S. ports in the way they operate. So if there are already operational inconsistencies among U.S. ports, one can only imagine how security measures are implemented at foreign ports of origins shipping goods to the United States.

The additional funding I am calling for will help redress some of those inconsistencies by providing some of the state-of-the-art scanning technologies used at U.S. ports in countries abroad.

While we are on the subject of technologies, I have heard from a number of Federal, State, and local officials working at the port in my home State, Port Elizabeth in Newark, who have emphasized the critical need of deployment of the most current detection and scanning technologies at U.S. ports. They are currently using first-generation detection technologies, older technologies noted to be insufficient to combat newer and more complex security threats.

Cargo volume at that port alone is expected to double by 2020. Space at most ports is at a premium. Access to freight is extremely difficult. Cargo containers are often stacked end to end and door to door. We have to give Federal, State, and local law enforcement and Homeland Security officials near-term access to technologies that make their jobs feasible. We cannot send them out to fight a war with sticks and stones.

The complexity and vulnerability of the cargo container transport process only makes the need for robust technologies that much more important. My amendment, therefore, also provides $100 million for Domestic Nuclear Detection Office research and development. We have not sufficiently focused on creating second-generation technologies for nonintrusive inspections which the private sector is unlikely to develop. It is time for that to change.

Our technologies are only as good as the people operating them. That is why we also have included $10 million for CBP training. That amendment would provide $10 million to train CBP officers so they can utilize new technologies and processes to improve port security.

It actually takes six such officers alone to safely operate one vehicle and cargo inspection unit. Right now at Port Elizabeth in Newark, they operate four of those mobile units and two stationary ones. That is 36 officers dedicated solely to operating one scanning technology. Those officers need to be trained before they can operate those units.

Cargo volume is forecast to increase. We want to see that in the context of our trade and economy, but terminal operators are extending commercial hours to accommodate that increased cargo volume. We have to make sure it moves quickly and safely. Doing so not only requires effective modern technologies but also a sufficient number of well- trained staff to operate the scanning and detection equipment. That is going to require additional officers to be on the job for extended hours and even on the weekends.

Once we have the right technologies and a sufficient number of well- trained CBP and Coast Guard officers with the tools to do their jobs, we need to make sure that port workers who come in and out of the ports, particularly into sensitive areas, are properly screened.

This is not about randomly excluding people we don't like from coming in. This is about ensuring that the men and women who are in essential parts of the cargo supply chain cannot be compromised by interests seeking to harm our Nation's port. That is where the Transport Worker Identification Program comes in.

The Maritime Transportation Security Act, MTSA, enacted in 2002 requires DHS to supply a worker identification card that uses biometrics, such as fingerprints, to control access to secure areas of ports or ships. The TSA was supposed to issue those credentials to more than 6 million maritime workers in August of 2004. It is April of 2006 and nearly 2 years down the line, and there is still no nationwide port worker credential program.

If this was such a priority, such a critical part of our security, why hasn't it happened? The GAO report back at the end of 2004 said that TSA didn't have a plan for managing this project. Guess what else they said would happen without that plan. Failure to develop such a plan places the program at higher risks of cost overruns, missed deadlines, underperformance. Missed deadlines--that obviously has happened. Cost overruns, I wouldn't doubt it. And I suppose the jury is still out on ``underperformance.'' They concluded that each delay of the program to develop a credential card postpones enhancements to port security and complicates port stakeholders' efforts to make the appropriate investment decisions regarding security infrastructure.

Just this week, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff announced that DHS will finally begin background checks on port workers as a precursor to a nationwide rollout of this long-awaited port worker credential program by the fall of 2006. I am glad they are finally getting around to doing this.

But there is one problem, and that is that they lack fiscal 2006 funding to implement the rollout. So we better hope that DHS has put some money away in its coffers to pay for this big event. It is probably not wise to bank on a timely passage of the 2007 spending bill in time to provide DHS with the funds they need for that rollout. We can certainly hope that is the case, but I wouldn't want to jeopardize a rollout of a critical program by banking on something that may or may not happen in time.

That is why this amendment also allows DHS to have the funds necessary on an urgent, near-term basis, so that we can finally, 2 years later, get to where we need to be.

Let me close by reminding us all that strengthening security at our ports is

not going to be cheap. Given the budgetary challenges we face, we understand it is a difficult choice. But an attack on one of our ports would not only cause a tremendous toll in loss of life, but it would also shut down a port and all of the economic activity it generates.

Just in my home State of New Jersey alone, with the third largest port in the country, the mega port of the east coast, 200,000 jobs, $25 billion of economic activity, that is what is at stake, in addition to the lives.

If we could roll back the clock 10 years and spend a few billion dollars to raise the levees in New Orleans to be able to withstand a category 5 hurricane, we could have saved hundreds of lives, as well as the billions of dollars more that it would take to rebuild that city. I don't want our country to look back in hindsight a few years from now with the realization that had we spent the necessary dollars now to improve the security at our ports, we could have prevented a major terrorist attack.

Who among us would be satisfied in the aftermath of an attack that we did not take the steps that we could have in order to prevent such an attack because we were unwilling to make the commitment to do so? That is the choice the Congress faces for the security of our country. It is an essential one that we need to make right now, and this amendment offers that opportunity.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, families across this country face a growing problem of rising credit card debt. In 2004, the average American household had $9,300 in credit card debt, up from $3,200 just 12 years earlier. More and more Americans are using credit card debt to manage daily living expenses such as basic living costs, medical bills, and house or automotive repairs. And for college students, the problem cannot be overstated. According to university administrators, colleges lose more students to credit card debt than to academic failure.

To fuel that growth, credit card issuers have increased the number of

solicitations sent to consumers 500 percent since 1990 to a record 5.23 billion in 2004. And they start sending them to children at younger and younger ages. Last year, AJ, the son of my State director received his very first solicitation at the age of 2 years old. If you have a pulse and a social security number, you can get a credit card.

Credit card companies are increasingly targeting people who are likely to default. They have focused their attention on teenagers and college students, people who live beyond their means, and those who have declared bankruptcy. Clearly, credit card companies are not paying attention to whom they are giving a credit card, much less if the applicant can afford to pay the balance.

There is no question that we must demand personal responsibility from consumers, but at the same time credit card companies should not be allowed to take advantage of consumers with excessive fees and unreasonable interest rates. One study found that people in this Nation pay $90 billion each year in penalty fees and interest payments. Just think about that for a second--- $90 billion annually. It is money that could be used to send our children to college, to pay the health care bills of both our children in the dawn of their lives and our parents in the sunset of theirs, while still saving for our own retirements.

One of the most egregious practices is known as ``universal default.'' It involves credit card companies raising interest rates, up to 30 percent APR, on customers who have a perfect record with the credit card but miss a payment with any other creditor. So a person can make their credit card payment on time every month but see their interest rate skyrocket because they paid their gas bill late. Further, this penalty interest rate is often applied not only to future purchases but retroactively to current balances as well. This is a completely arbitrary rate-hike intended solely to hike the company's bottom line.

That is why I am introducing the Credit Card Bill of Rights--two pieces of legislation that, taken together, will stop some of the most egregious practices of credit card issuers while also ensuring that future generations have the information to make financial decisions.

Many American adolescents are inadequately prepared for the complex financial world that awaits them. In 2004, almost two-thirds of the students who took a personal finance survey failed the test.

The causes for this failure are largely due to the lack of high school finance courses available to teenagers combined with insufficient parental mentoring. Statistics show that while a large majority of both college and high school students rely on their parents for financial guidance, only 26 percent of 13- to 21-year-olds reported their parents actively taught them how to manage money. Public education has not filled this void as only about one in five students between the ages of 16 and 22 say they have taken a personal finance course in school.

Credit card companies are exploiting this financial inexperience of young Americans with an aggressive marketing strategy designed to maximize enrollment and profit, with little regard for a potential customer's ability to pay. As a result, over 20 percent of children between the ages of 12 to 19 have access to a credit card.

This credit card marketing blitz further intensifies once an individual enters college. During the first week college freshmen arrive on campus, they are barraged by an average of eight credit card offers. Students actually double their average credit card debt, and triple the number of credit cards in their wallets, from the time they arrive on campus until graduation. This large number of new credit card owners combined with the lack of financial illiteracy of high school graduates leads to high levels of debt amongst undergrads.

Credit card companies have actually encouraged this rise in credit card debt through increasing the median balance for undergraduates. As a result, 21 percent of undergraduates that have credit cards, have high-level balances between $3,000 and $7,000.

The Protection of Young Consumers Act will protect people, especially college students and other young people, against skyrocketing consumer debt and the barrage of credit card solicitations that lead to it. The bill will do so by building on the current opt-out program for pre- approved credit card solicitations by requiring young consumers under age 21 to proactively opt-in to receive solicitations from credit card companies. This proposal will also establish a financial literacy and education program in elementary and secondary schools to help prepare young people to be financially responsible consumers.

In addition to targeting high school and college students, credit card companies have become very adept at increasing their profits through hidden fees and deceptive advertising, taking advantage of Americans of all ages.

The Credit Card Reform Act will protect consumers against hidden fees and excessive interest rates. It does so by: 1) prohibiting ``universal defaults'' that I mentioned earlier, 2) banning unilateral changes in credit card agreements without written consent, and 3) requiring that the fees charged by creditors are ``reasonably related'' to the cost incurred by the issuer.

The bill will also establish standards that would prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices, while tightening regulations on credit card companies to ensure that they are not offering credit to high-risk cardholders without verifying their ability to pay.

I would like to be clear that I am not trying to remove the obligation for consumers to behave responsibly. Every individual must take responsibility for their own actions, but at the same time it is the obligation of the companies who are earning billions in profits from credit cards to behave ethically as well.

This Credit Card Bill of Rights will help ensure that New Jersey consumers and consumers across the country are given a fair chance at being responsible consumers who will enjoy economic security as well as economic opportunity in their futures.

Mr. President, today, families across this country face a growing problem of rising credit card debt. In 2004, the average American household had $9,300 in credit card debt, up from $3,200 just 12 years earlier. More and more Americans are using credit card debt to manage daily living expenses such as basic living costs, medical bills, and house or automotive repairs. And for college students, the problem cannot be overstated. According to university administrators, colleges lose more students to credit card debt than to academic failure.

To fuel that growth, credit card issuers have increased the number of

solicitations sent to consumers 500 percent since 1990 to a record 5.23 billion in 2004. And they start sending them to children at younger and younger ages. Last year, AJ, the son of my State director received his very first solicitation at the age of 2 years old. If you have a pulse and a social security number, you can get a credit card.

Credit card companies are increasingly targeting people who are likely to default. They have focused their attention on teenagers and college students, people who live beyond their means, and those who have declared bankruptcy. Clearly, credit card companies are not paying attention to whom they are giving a credit card, much less if the applicant can afford to pay the balance.

There is no question that we must demand personal responsibility from consumers, but at the same time credit card companies should not be allowed to take advantage of consumers with excessive fees and unreasonable interest rates. One study found that people in this Nation pay $90 billion each year in penalty fees and interest payments. Just think about that for a second--- $90 billion annually. It is money that could be used to send our children to college, to pay the health care bills of both our children in the dawn of their lives and our parents in the sunset of theirs, while still saving for our own retirements.

One of the most egregious practices is known as ``universal default.'' It involves credit card companies raising interest rates, up to 30 percent APR, on customers who have a perfect record with the credit card but miss a payment with any other creditor. So a person can make their credit card payment on time every month but see their interest rate skyrocket because they paid their gas bill late. Further, this penalty interest rate is often applied not only to future purchases but retroactively to current balances as well. This is a completely arbitrary rate-hike intended solely to hike the company's bottom line.

That is why I am introducing the Credit Card Bill of Rights--two pieces of legislation that, taken together, will stop some of the most egregious practices of credit card issuers while also ensuring that future generations have the information to make financial decisions.

Many American adolescents are inadequately prepared for the complex financial world that awaits them. In 2004, almost two-thirds of the students who took a personal finance survey failed the test.

The causes for this failure are largely due to the lack of high school finance courses available to teenagers combined with insufficient parental mentoring. Statistics show that while a large majority of both college and high school students rely on their parents for financial guidance, only 26 percent of 13- to 21-year-olds reported their parents actively taught them how to manage money. Public education has not filled this void as only about one in five students between the ages of 16 and 22 say they have taken a personal finance course in school.

Credit card companies are exploiting this financial inexperience of young Americans with an aggressive marketing strategy designed to maximize enrollment and profit, with little regard for a potential customer's ability to pay. As a result, over 20 percent of children between the ages of 12 to 19 have access to a credit card.

This credit card marketing blitz further intensifies once an individual enters college. During the first week college freshmen arrive on campus, they are barraged by an average of eight credit card offers. Students actually double their average credit card debt, and triple the number of credit cards in their wallets, from the time they arrive on campus until graduation. This large number of new credit card owners combined with the lack of financial illiteracy of high school graduates leads to high levels of debt amongst undergrads.

Credit card companies have actually encouraged this rise in credit card debt through increasing the median balance for undergraduates. As a result, 21 percent of undergraduates that have credit cards, have high-level balances between $3,000 and $7,000.

The Protection of Young Consumers Act will protect people, especially college students and other young people, against skyrocketing consumer debt and the barrage of credit card solicitations that lead to it. The bill will do so by building on the current opt-out program for pre- approved credit card solicitations by requiring young consumers under age 21 to proactively opt-in to receive solicitations from credit card companies. This proposal will also establish a financial literacy and education program in elementary and secondary schools to help prepare young people to be financially responsible consumers.

In addition to targeting high school and college students, credit card companies have become very adept at increasing their profits through hidden fees and deceptive advertising, taking advantage of Americans of all ages.

The Credit Card Reform Act will protect consumers against hidden fees and excessive interest rates. It does so by: 1) prohibiting ``universal defaults'' that I mentioned earlier, 2) banning unilateral changes in credit card agreements without written consent, and 3) requiring that the fees charged by creditors are ``reasonably related'' to the cost incurred by the issuer.

The bill will also establish standards that would prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices, while tightening regulations on credit card companies to ensure that they are not offering credit to high-risk cardholders without verifying their ability to pay.

I would like to be clear that I am not trying to remove the obligation for consumers to behave responsibly. Every individual must take responsibility for their own actions, but at the same time it is the obligation of the companies who are earning billions in profits from credit cards to behave ethically as well.

This Credit Card Bill of Rights will help ensure that New Jersey consumers and consumers across the country are given a fair chance at being responsible consumers who will enjoy economic security as well as economic opportunity in their futures.

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

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

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. President, I rise with a series of colleagues to offer an amendment that provides much needed, immediate relief for America's drivers. My amendment suspends the 18-cent Federal gas tax for 60 days and makes up for the lost revenue by getting rid of unnecessary tax giveaways to oil and gas companies.

In 2005, the oil and gas industry made nearly $140 billion in profits. The five largest oil companies made over $106 billion. ExxonMobil alone made a staggering $36 billion. Put another way, ExxonMobil's profit alone last year is more than the Federal Government spent on unemployment insurance,

more than it spent on medical research, and more than it spent on the Nation's highways. Their CEO just got a $350 million retirement package. That is about $144,000 a day for every day he worked at the company. These record profits and gilded bonuses are occurring while the American people struggle to get to work, to get home, to pick up their kids from school, to take them to a soccer match, or to go to a doctor, all because of record gas prices.

Last year, the big oil companies hiked gas prices and blamed an act of God. But it is crystal clear that the current spike in gas prices is at least partly due to an act of greed--greed that has been enabled and even encouraged by the administration, greed that has been aided by an energy bill that put the oil and gas companies first and the American people second. The energy companies were already enjoying record profits and massive tax breaks when the President signed an energy bill that gave them billions more in taxpayer subsidies, plus additional relief from having to pay royalties--in essence, the Nation's collective patrimony for the oil and gas they produce in our oceans. The last thing the oil companies need is more handouts. The first thing the American people need is more help.

My amendment would give them that help by establishing a 60-day holiday on the Federal gas tax. As we head into the summer driving season and its traditionally higher gas prices, we should not be burdening American consumers with additional taxes. Temporarily suspending the gas tax will provide $100 million a day in relief to America's drivers, America's consumers.

But we cannot starve the highway trust fund with the crucial money needed to fix our Nation's roads. My amendment will repeal three unnecessary tax breaks currently enjoyed by the oil and gas companies, and it will also eliminate royalty relief and other production incentives enacted last year as part of the Energy bill.

With the price of oil as high as it is and unlikely to drop in the foreseeable future, companies don't need more incentive from the Federal Government to do their job.

This amendment, of course, is only a short-term fix. We need a real energy policy that takes real steps toward ending our dependence on oil, not the lipservice the President has given this issue before and gave again this morning.

I listened to what he had to say. The President talks about wanting to end our dependence on foreign oil, but instead of starting a Manhattan-type project to lead us to energy independence, we propose baby steps. The President's budget for fiscal year 2007 barely brought renewable and clean energy research funding back to 2001 levels, and it cut energy efficiency programs by 13 percent. In all the President's spending, there was only 23 percent of what Congress requested in the Energy Policy Act for energy efficiency programs and only 1 percent for renewable energy programs.

The President continues to have the blinders on when it comes to real solutions for our energy problems. He said that consumers should buy more efficient cars, and we agree. But he remains opposed to higher fuel efficiency standards. The most recent CAFE standards will improve light truck mileage by only 2.5 miles per gallon. That is simply not enough. Passenger cars have the same standards they had in 1985, over two decades ago. That is not enough.

The President also continues to expect the oil companies, out of the goodness of their hearts, to spend substantial amounts of money on alternative energy technologies. Some of the more forward-thinking companies are doing that, but most are not. It is the Government's job to invest in these technologies, and the President's budget has shown that he is not serious about doing that.

In short, he suggests and he wants the oil companies and the American consumer to do the things he is unwilling to do.

Last month, I joined Senator Bingaman and the Senate Democratic leader and other Democrats in offering an amendment to fully fund energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in the fiscal year 2007 budget. Unfortunately, it was defeated.

Democrats in both Chambers have been at the forefront of proposing real solutions to our energy problems, and we were the first to call for the President to investigate price gouging by oil companies, a call he appears to finally have heeded.

This amendment is another idea that this Congress and our President need to adopt. It is about providing immediate relief to overburdened consumers who cannot afford for us to wait much longer. This morning, the President finally appears to be feeling the pressure families have been feeling at the pump for quite some time.

We heard what he had to say. The difference is that he doesn't make a commitment. He says we should phase out all of those tax benefits we have given the oil companies over the next decade, but he doesn't commit it back to America's consumers. Our amendment does that in the short term to give immediate relief to America's consumers while still maintaining our transportation trust funds, the funds necessary to continue to keep America moving.

That is what this amendment is all about. It is about keeping America moving, about keeping America rolling, and about helping the families of this country in a very significant way.

I think putting $6 billion in the hands and in the pockets of America's consumers is ultimately giving them real relief at a critical time. Obviously, putting that amount of money in their pockets at this time as they try to deal with high gas prices will have a ripple effect in the economy, as is also realized in the money that will be saved by those who bring to market produce which ends up on our tables, and the costs of the transportation of products to market across a wide scale of different consumer needs are going to be affected as well.

We see consistently companies adding a fuel surcharge to the cost to the consumer. So this will have a ripple effect in many different ways, and it is something we have the wherewithal to do and do now and by doing so sending at the same time, I hope, a message to the world marketplace and certainly to OPEC that we are not hostage to them without some options of our own.

Let's show American families that we are serious about addressing today's exorbitant gas prices. Let us adopt this amendment to provide real relief now. I urge my colleagues to join me and adopt this amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I tried to seek recognition to speak to the point of order. I simply wish to say this is consistent with what the President proposed this morning, so I believe we should have a vote on the Senate floor. If we don't have a vote today, we are going to continue to bring this measure before the body and will eventually get a vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the points of order which lie against this amendment, the amendment still be in order.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Simon Wiesenthal Holocaust Education Assistance Act.'' This important legislation would provide competitive grants for educational organizations to make Holocaust education more accessible and available throughout this Nation.

And I would like to thank my colleague Senator DeWine for cosponsoring this legislation and my former colleague in the House, Congresswoman Maloney, for her leadership on this issue.

This legislation could not come at a more important and solemn day in our lives. Today is Yom Hashoah, a day when we commemorate the approximately six million men, women and children of Jewish faith, as well as millions of others who were persecuted and murdered 65 years ago in a systematic, state sponsored genocide. Today, we also honor those who stood up against the genocide and risked their own lives to save others.

Today we stand in solidarity with Israel and the Jewish faith, and with all people throughout the world, in remembering these tragic events.

And today we honor Simon Wiesenthal who dedicated his life to making sure that those who perpetrated the horrors of the Holocaust were brought to justice.

Sixty-five years may seem like a lifetime away, and generations may have been raised thinking that the Holocaust, and events like it, is from a distant past. But let me be clear--these events are not so distant and are not in the past. In fact, they are in our present.

Just recently, Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hatefully and outrageously declared the Holocaust a ``myth'' and Israel a ``fake regime'' which ``cannot continue to live.''

And just two months ago, an anti-Semitic gang that calls themselves ``the Barbarians'' tortured 23-year-old Ilan Halimi, a young Jewish man, for three weeks before leaving him for dead near a train station in Paris.

It is these events that make us aware of the destructive messages of hate and violence that arise from Holocaust denial. It is these events that show us the importance of Holocaust education, abroad and in our own Nation.

For although some States now require the Holocaust to be taught in public schools, this legislation goes further and makes grants available to organizations that teach students, teachers, and communities the dangers of hate and the importance of tolerance in our society. This legislation would give educators the appropriate resources and training to teach accurate historical information about the Holocaust and convey the lessons that the Holocaust provides for all people.

We must recognize that by remembering the millions who were murdered in the Holocaust, we create a sense of responsibility to stop genocide wherever it takes place. But we must also remember that hate crimes and genocide could, and are still, happening today.

We are reminded, through the deplorable comments made by Iranian President Ahmadinejad against Israel and through the murder of young Ilan Halimi in France that anti-Semitism still exists even 65 years after the Holocaust. The awful acts of murder and rape in Darfur are a horrific example of genocide in the 21st century.

And those who believe that anti-Semitism is an attack that need not be answered by those who are not Jewish do not recognize the consequences of history. In fact, an attack against anyone simply because of race or religion is ultimately the beginning of the unraveling of civilization. It is in our common interest to raise our voices against anti-Semitism and against all hatred and discrimination.

We must fight the chorus of anti-Semitism and fight the fear and the hate. As a Nation proud of our diverse heritage, we must, each of us, take a stand. With our words, but most importantly with our actions, we will turn the tide against this new wave of anti-Semitism. And funding accurate educational programs on the Holocaust is a step toward winning this battle.

In the words of Samantha Power, a renowned expert on genocide, ``the sharpest challenge to the world of bystanders is posed by those who have refused to remain silent in the age of genocide.''

So today, the United States of America stands with Israel and all followers of the Jewish faith in commemorating Yom Hashoah, and condemning all anti-Semitism and hatred. And I am proud to join in the stand against anti-Semitism here and around the world.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.