Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Responsible Education About Life or ``REAL'' Act along with my cosponsors Senators Kennedy, Murray, Schumer, Boxer, and Harkin. The REAL Act aims to reduce adolescent pregnancy, HIV rates, and other sexually transmitted diseases, by providing Federal funds for comprehensive sex education in schools. Comprehensive sex education is medically accurate, age appropriate education that includes information about both contraception and abstinence. It is an approach that tells our kids the truth. The REAL act will help young people make smart choices and give them all the information--not just the ``abstinence only'' side of the story. For years, taxpayer dollars have been flooded into unproven ``abstinence-only'' programs--while no federal program is dedicated to comprehensive sex education. Under the Bush administration, Federal support for ``abstinence- only'' education has expanded rapidly. The proof is in the numbers. In the last 4 years, the Federal government has spent over $680 million dollars on ``abstinence only'' programs. This year President Bush is asking for another $204 million dollars for ``abstinence only'' education despite little evidence that these programs actually work. Would you like to know how much money the government has devoted to comprehensive sex education programs over this same time? Zero dollars. Much of the taxpayer funds going to ``abstinence-only'' programs are essentially being wasted. After years of ``abstinence only'' programs, the United States still has the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world and approximately 50 young Americans a day, an average of two an hour, are infected with HIV. We have tried denying young people information about contraception and STD prevention and now it is time to provide them with medically accurate comprehensive sex education. Comprehensive sex education simply works better. It is a fact that teenagers who receive sex education that includes discussion of contraception are more likely to delay sexual activity than those who receive abstinence-only education. The American public knows what works. Parents do not want sexual education programs limited to abstinence in schools. More than eight in 10 Americans favor comprehensive sexuality education programs that include information about contraception over those that only promote abstinence. The stakes are high: of the 19 million cases of sexually transmitted diseases every year in the United States, almost half of them strike young people between the ages of 15 and 24. These aren't just numbers. These are our sons and daughters whose health and well-being are jeopardized when ideology comes before sound public policy. That is why we are introducing this legislation today. It's time for a more balanced approach; it's time to protect out kids, and it's time to get REAL. The REAL Act is step in a more effective direction. It brings sex education up-to-date in a way that will reflect the serious issues and real life situations millions of young people find themselves in every year. Young people have a right to accurate and complete information that could protect their health and even save their lives. I urge my colleagues to support the REAL Act and make it possible to give young people the tools to make safe and responsible decisions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Responsible Education About Life or ``REAL'' Act along with my cosponsors Senators Kennedy, Murray, Schumer, Boxer, and Harkin. The REAL Act aims to reduce adolescent pregnancy, HIV rates, and other sexually transmitted diseases, by providing Federal funds for comprehensive sex education in schools. Comprehensive sex education is medically accurate, age appropriate education that includes information about both contraception and abstinence. It is an approach that tells our kids the truth. The REAL act will help young people make smart choices and give them all the information--not just the ``abstinence only'' side of the story. For years, taxpayer dollars have been flooded into unproven ``abstinence-only'' programs--while no federal program is dedicated to comprehensive sex education. Under the Bush administration, Federal support for ``abstinence- only'' education has expanded rapidly. The proof is in the numbers. In the last 4 years, the Federal government has spent over $680 million dollars on ``abstinence only'' programs. This year President Bush is asking for another $204 million dollars for ``abstinence only'' education despite little evidence that these programs actually work. Would you like to know how much money the government has devoted to comprehensive sex education programs over this same time? Zero dollars. Much of the taxpayer funds going to ``abstinence-only'' programs are essentially being wasted. After years of ``abstinence only'' programs, the United States still has the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world and approximately 50 young Americans a day, an average of two an hour, are infected with HIV. We have tried denying young people information about contraception and STD prevention and now it is time to provide them with medically accurate comprehensive sex education. Comprehensive sex education simply works better. It is a fact that teenagers who receive sex education that includes discussion of contraception are more likely to delay sexual activity than those who receive abstinence-only education. The American public knows what works. Parents do not want sexual education programs limited to abstinence in schools. More than eight in 10 Americans favor comprehensive sexuality education programs that include information about contraception over those that only promote abstinence. The stakes are high: of the 19 million cases of sexually transmitted diseases every year in the United States, almost half of them strike young people between the ages of 15 and 24. These aren't just numbers. These are our sons and daughters whose health and well-being are jeopardized when ideology comes before sound public policy. That is why we are introducing this legislation today. It's time for a more balanced approach; it's time to protect out kids, and it's time to get REAL. The REAL Act is step in a more effective direction. It brings sex education up-to-date in a way that will reflect the serious issues and real life situations millions of young people find themselves in every year. Young people have a right to accurate and complete information that could protect their health and even save their lives. I urge my colleagues to support the REAL Act and make it possible to give young people the tools to make safe and responsible decisions. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Reserving the right to object. The Senator from California, I believe, still has time remaining.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. All right. The Senator from California is giving her time to me, so I wanted to be sure that time remains.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I come to the floor to support the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment and tell you I must say I do not get it. We are talking now about the security of our country. We are talking about whether we put the fences up around the most susceptible targets or whether we put fences, protective fences, around places in the country where there is no threat. To every place there is a threat. No matter where you go, you can see a place that can be a threat. But where the disease is, that is what the hospital is there for. Take those who have the potential for the disease. If you use an analogy, you don't start putting the antidote in places where the likelihood of catching this disease is not very strong. We are looking at this amendment and this bill. Thirty-four States, besides New Jersey, will have resources taken away. In my State, the FBI has determined the 2-mile stretch between the airport, Newark-Liberty International Airport and Port Newark, is America's most at-risk area for a terrorist attack. We know that in a moment of an orange alert the Prudential Building in Newark has been a specific target of terrorists. In fact, in the summer of 2004 only three specific areas were identified as potential targets under the orange alert: northern New Jersey, New York, and Washington, DC. Yet I have listened to my colleagues, and it disturbs me that they trivialize this purchase of some trucks in New Jersey. If those trucks were used to take debris out of an exploded or damaged area, they would be pretty valuable trucks. If there were snow on the ground when an attack took place, it would be absolutely essential that we have those trucks. We were struck and 700 people from New Jersey died, as did 2,400 others from other places around the area. We know where the heat is when it gets hot. We ought not be dealing out pork. This is not a restaurant. We are not talking about pork. We are not talking about putting money out there in case there is an attack here or there. We know where the attacks take place. They take place in places with high density populations such as London or Spain. We know New Jersey is at risk. New York is at risk. We know other major cities are at risk. They have been identified, and homeland security funds to fight terrorism should go to those places. Recommendation 25 of the 9/11 Commission report said homeland security grants should be distributed based solely on risk. We are having a debate here, saying no, the fact that there are risks should not count because everybody is at risk. Everybody is at risk but not at the same degree. I hope our colleagues will respond in a way that is recommended by the 9/11 Commission, supported by Secretary Chertoff of the Department of Homeland Security, and logic. Logic is on this side. I encourage my colleagues to embrace a risk-based approach and support the Feinstein-Cornyn-Lautenberg amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I first wish to say that my colleague delivered a message that was clear and specific. It was a very valuable reminder of what we are discussing today, including his commentary about the fact that we are as a nation looking at the problem we see in front of us now. On September 11, 2001, 700 of our fellow New Jerseyans never came home. One of my daughter's closest friends with whom she worked on Wall Street perished, and her husband searched for more than 2 weeks. After the obvious was apparent--that she was gone--refusing to believe it, he went from hospital to hospital, wherever one was within any reasonable distance, hoping against hope that maybe his wife would be alive and the mother of his three children would be there to encourage them on in their lives. The stories about all kinds of friends and all kinds of neighbors are endless. In the area we are talking about in New Jersey that was directly hit, who didn't know someone or who didn't know someone who knew someone--even though we are a densely populated State, still, in all, the names touched so many lives and so many people. We saw the smoke rise and debris fall on that fateful day. It was just across the river from us and from where I live and I think close to where my colleague lives. When one looks at the skyline of New York now, there is an empty space where these proud buildings stood. I was a commissioner for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and thusly had offices in the Trade Center building. I remember seeing people come to work in the morning, over 50,000 people in just a few buildings--more than the population of many cities in our country. It was devastating. We shouldn't forget that attack brought aviation to a standstill, that it had an effect felt way beyond New York and New Jersey and highlighted the fact that you can't just take areas, important areas around the country, and say: Well, that is kind of a local situation. It is not true. It is not true. As Senator Menendez pointed out, when it comes to other needs of other States, it has to be understood that when they are in peril, they are entitled to get as much help from the Federal Government as they can. So why are we protesting at this time? This discussion has taken place over the last couple of years. Now we are seeing another attempt to reduce the maximum amount of funding available to those places which are most at risk. I support most of the legislation before us now. I am concerned with the one part of this bill that does not follow the 9/11 Commission recommendations, the one that is being reviewed right now. Recommendation 25 of the 9/11 Commission Report said that homeland security grants should be distributed based solely on risk. This bill doesn't go sufficiently far enough to a full risk-based approach. Secretary Chertoff, whom we have seen here at many hearings, confirmed that. We looked at what he said. He said we should look not at the question of political jurisdiction but at where the consequences would be catastrophic, where the vulnerabilities would be, where the threats are. Clear statements. Despite that, this legislation directs the Department of Homeland Security to give a minimum amount of money to every State regardless of the risks or threats it faces. When I served on the Homeland Security Committee--and I commend the former chairman and the current chairman for a lot of the work that was done there--we had a disagreement, and I tried in a committee hearing to move the committee at least to endorse the fact that these funds should be distributed solely on a risk basis. I was the only one who voted aye for it out of I think 16 people in attendance. So at some point, I don't know why the call doesn't go out that says: Look, do this on a sensible basis. Do this on an as-needed basis. Give the opportunity to the places most at risk to protect themselves. It is more than good policy; it just makes common sense. Our military doesn't move troops evenly around the globe. You place your resources strategically. Why should homeland security be different? If you want to protect the most people in our country from risk, why not do that? We do that constantly in all kinds of projects, whether they be flood projects or otherwise in places that are prone to natural disasters. It makes sense that we spend more on homeland security in America's at- risk areas. Senator Feinstein and Senator Cornyn and I and others have an amendment to give at-risk States the money they need to protect their residents and their communities and sensitive places where an attack could severely damage the national viability. We have seen something recently that highlights the situation in New Jersey where chlorine is manufactured and stored in large quantities, and we learned from the change in the tactics now in Iraq that chlorine is being used as a brandnew weapon there. The use of chlorine was devastating. It killed a few people but made many more deathly ill, requiring hospitalization and severe treatment to try to protect their lives. We are talking about the most dangerous 2 miles in the country as certified by the FBI. Why not take advantage of the fact that we would be protecting not only the well-being of people in the surrounding area, but we would protect the functioning of our society. So we ought to move closer to the 9/11 Commission's recommendation that homeland security be distributed on risk and threat and cut the minimum amount of money that will be distributed to each State. Secondly, it will result in more homeland security for 35 States that are more at risk. We are not just talking about New Jersey and New York; they are most prominent because we felt it and we have lost friends and neighbors as a result of that attack. But that was not the first time. It was the second time the World Trade Center was attacked. How many times must it happen before somebody who is leaning on one side or the other says: You know what, we don't want those people to be harmed further or that area to be damaged further. And the invitation is certainly there to do just that. We must consider the large States such as Ohio. If something happens in some of the Western States, the way the winds blow in our country, they will deliver toxic emissions all the way across the country-- Georgia, for instance, and Nevada, Maryland, and Massachusetts. The array is impressive because it deals primarily with the largest population centers in the country and the money that could be brought to protect these centers should not just be dealt out on a traditional pork-like basis. We still haven't reached 100 percent risk-based funding. This amendment, however, is an improvement over current law, an improvement over the bill before us today. I would like to be able to report to the 9/11 Commission that we as a Senate did more than simply debate the Commission's findings. We ought to be able to tell them we voted to give more resources to the people, cities, and States that need more protection. They worked very hard to hammer out the Commission report, and I believe it is fair to say that the Feinstein-Cornyn-Lautenberg amendment will do just that. I encourage my colleagues to support it. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will try to conclude my remarks before the time we are closing down the Senate. The House has taken an important step to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I am pleased to see us at work to complete our deliberations on this bill, but for the moment, I wish to talk about amendment No. 298 which Senator Schumer has offered to strengthen our port and container security. It builds on a law I helped write last year. It was then that I authored language in the SAFE Ports Act to require the Bush administration to scan every container entering our country, looking for weapons and contraband. My amendment called for a dramatic change in our national policy on cargo screening, but the administration was not moving fast enough. That is why it is essential that we pass today's amendment offered by Senator Schumer, which I cosponsored. The 2-mile stretch that is between Port Newark and Newark-Liberty International Airport is considered the most at-risk area in the country for a terrorist attack. This is asserted by the FBI, and it is something to which we have to pay serious attention. I served as a commissioner of the Port Authority of New Jersey and New York. I know how vulnerable a target the port region is. Our ports are the doors through which essential goods and commodities enter our national economy. They are the doors through which supplies flow to our military. Ninety-five percent of all America's imported goods arrive by ship. We need a way to ensure that 100 percent of these containers coming into our country are WMD free. We need a scanning system in place as soon as possible. Since the Bush administration has failed to act promptly to put this scanning system in place at our ports, we need to pass this amendment to push the administration to complete the task. The New Jersey-New York port is the second busiest container port in the entire country. In 2005, 13 percent of all vessels arriving in America called on our port. Thousands of longshoremen and others work at docks where these ships come in, and millions of people live in the densely packed communities around the port. Every day we fail to make our ports safer is a day we can leave them more vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Today, we only inspect about 5 percent of the shipping containers that enter our country. Who knows what lies within those containers? We have seen attempts to smuggle arms into our country through the port. Within 95 percent of the containers we don't inspect, terrorists could launch an attack even more devastating than 9/11, virtually in the same neighborhood. Terrorists could smuggle themselves, traditional weapons, chemical or biological weapons, or even nuclear weapons. We know about the availability of smaller, more compact, more deadly weapons that are being developed. We have seen what happened in the past. In April 2005, security guards at the Port of Los Angeles found 28 human beings, Chinese nationals, who were smuggled into the country in two cargo containers. In October 2002, Italian authorities found a suspected Egyptian terrorist living in a shipping container en route to Canada. According to a news report at the time, he had a laptop computer, two cell phones, a Canadian passport, security passes for airports in three countries, a certificate identifying him as an airline mechanic, and airport maps. We can't let that happen. We have screened all airline passengers for weapons, and we do it because Congress passed a strong law with clear deadlines. Of course, that forced the Bush administration to act. We need to screen all cargo containers for weapons. That is why we have to pass a strong law now. Some in the industry and the administration say 100 percent screening cannot be done without crippling our economy. Let me tell my colleagues what would cripple commerce--that would be another terrorist attack. We lost 700 New Jerseyans and a total of over 3,000 people on 9/11. I don't want my State or anybody in our country to lose any more. This amendment will give us the tools and incentives we need to help prevent an attack on our ports, and it will help protect our economy and American lives. I am proud to cosponsor the amendment and urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation that will close an egregious loophole in federal law. Currently, this loophole permits solid waste management facilities operated near railroads to go unregulated--free from meeting any minimum level of safety, health, and environmental standards. Basically, this loophole prevents state or local law from regulating the operation of these facilities on property owned or controlled by railroads. In fact, just last week, a United States District Court judge declared this loophole alive and well. By shutting down the State of New Jersey's efforts to regulate solid waste rail facilities, this ruling allows the continuing proliferation of these unregulated facilities--which are already spreading quickly throughout the Northeast United States. These unregulated facilities present an imminent threat to public health and the environment. My bill, the Clean Railroads Act of 2007, will close this loophole once and for all. Almost 2 years ago, I first introduced legislation to address this problem, and I renew that effort today. This problem could easily be solved by proper interpretation of current federal law. Such an interpretation could be made by the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB), an independent board charged with economic regulation of railroads. However, despite several opportunities, the STB has chosen not to define a clear position on this issue. I have urged the Board members to address this problem, as the loophole in federal law has allowed even more of these unregulated facilities to operate. Last week's court ruling has highlighted the need to find a solution to this problem immediately, and my bill would do just that. Let me be clear that my concern is not the transport of solid waste by rail. Railroads provide a vital role in commerce in the United States and the benefits of rail transportation are numerous, as we in New Jersey know. Further, the transportation of waste via rail is not at issue here, and I am not opposed to the operation of solid waste management facilities on property owned or controlled by railroads. My chief concern is the lawful management of solid waste facilities. If a solid waste management facility is to be operated on rail property, it must be regulated like any other such facility. That is not happening today. The threats posed by unregulated waste management facilities operating on property owned or controlled by railroads are so great that a broad and diverse coalition of public and private sector entities have been formed to oppose these rogue operations. I thank these coalition members for their continued efforts, and will be looking forward to the day in which their fears over this issue can be permanently assuaged. Responsible management of solid waste requires safeguards to protect public health and the environment. As Chairman of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security, which has jurisdiction over railroads and the Surface Transportation Board, I will work to ensure this loophole does not continue to let the hazards of unregulated solid waste rail facilities affect the lives of New Jerseyans and other Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation that will close an egregious loophole in federal law. Currently, this loophole permits solid waste management facilities operated near railroads to go unregulated--free from meeting any minimum level of safety, health, and environmental standards. Basically, this loophole prevents state or local law from regulating the operation of these facilities on property owned or controlled by railroads. In fact, just last week, a United States District Court judge declared this loophole alive and well. By shutting down the State of New Jersey's efforts to regulate solid waste rail facilities, this ruling allows the continuing proliferation of these unregulated facilities--which are already spreading quickly throughout the Northeast United States. These unregulated facilities present an imminent threat to public health and the environment. My bill, the Clean Railroads Act of 2007, will close this loophole once and for all. Almost 2 years ago, I first introduced legislation to address this problem, and I renew that effort today. This problem could easily be solved by proper interpretation of current federal law. Such an interpretation could be made by the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB), an independent board charged with economic regulation of railroads. However, despite several opportunities, the STB has chosen not to define a clear position on this issue. I have urged the Board members to address this problem, as the loophole in federal law has allowed even more of these unregulated facilities to operate. Last week's court ruling has highlighted the need to find a solution to this problem immediately, and my bill would do just that. Let me be clear that my concern is not the transport of solid waste by rail. Railroads provide a vital role in commerce in the United States and the benefits of rail transportation are numerous, as we in New Jersey know. Further, the transportation of waste via rail is not at issue here, and I am not opposed to the operation of solid waste management facilities on property owned or controlled by railroads. My chief concern is the lawful management of solid waste facilities. If a solid waste management facility is to be operated on rail property, it must be regulated like any other such facility. That is not happening today. The threats posed by unregulated waste management facilities operating on property owned or controlled by railroads are so great that a broad and diverse coalition of public and private sector entities have been formed to oppose these rogue operations. I thank these coalition members for their continued efforts, and will be looking forward to the day in which their fears over this issue can be permanently assuaged. Responsible management of solid waste requires safeguards to protect public health and the environment. As Chairman of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security, which has jurisdiction over railroads and the Surface Transportation Board, I will work to ensure this loophole does not continue to let the hazards of unregulated solid waste rail facilities affect the lives of New Jerseyans and other Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to take just a few minutes to kind of review where we are here in the silence that abounds in this Senate. The question about what is going on is kind of mystifying for much of the public looking in and saying: What are they doing wasting time? There was some talk about the terrible situation we are in in Iraq, and I spoke as one of those who say we have had enough. We have had enough there. We have lost over 3,000 people, and the Iraqis have lost substantial numbers. One would have to be really hardhearted not to be moved when you look in the paper and you see a child weeping over a dead mother or a brother or a sister or people lying in the street dead from brutal attacks from this internal civil war while we are trying to figure out what we do to protect our people. What is it that we want to accomplish with the votes that have been taken here? I think it is fair to say that what we would like on this side of the aisle, and I am sure there are many colleagues on the other side who feel as we do but would be out of step politically if they took the vote we want to take, to approve or disapprove of sending more troops into that death trap, to say how long we want to stay there. What do we have to prove by supporting the President's order, the President's interest in the so-called surge? They try to disguise the word. The word is ``escalate.'' It is not ``surge.'' ``Surge'' can be interpreted many ways, but ``escalate'' is very clear: Put more people there. Put more people in harm's way. Put more people in an abyss from which there is no way, that anyone has told us, out of the situation. We get the argument: Oh, you want to cut and run. No. Do you want to stay and die? Is that what the alternative is? Ask the families who have children, brothers, fathers, and mothers there. They come in to see me, people who have someone who is in Iraq, and they are scared to death about what kind of news they will get some night. I had a woman in the office one day, with a group of other people, sobbing so hard that she couldn't talk. Why? Because her son had been wounded--a light wound but enough to earn him a Purple Heart--and he was being sent back on hazardous duty. He was willing to do it. His mother didn't want him to do it. But at what point do we say the pain is so excruciating that we can't stand it? It has nothing to do with cut-and-run. I wore a uniform in World War I. Others here have worn the country's uniform, some in Vietnam, some in Korea. We have had a lot of experience with wars. But in each case, if we didn't have an objective, we fared very badly. That was true, unfortunately, in Vietnam, where we finally had to wrap it up and go home, leaving 58,000 of our brothers and sisters still there, if not physically, in sharp memory. And now we see what is happening here. I bring to our attention the fact that in Iraq, in the month of January, we lost 83 of our bravest. Thus far in February, we have already lost 48 members of the American military. And the Iraqis have suffered deaths. Look at the number of people who have been murdered there with suicide bombs, roadside bombs, and brutal murders, with hands tied behind their backs and blindfolded. It goes on and on. If we could wish it away, if we could see an end to it, I would be more than willing to leave troops there to kind of monitor the last parts of a war that is one of the worst America has been in, but what we see is not only the numbers that are perishing daily, weekly, but the tactics they are using now with shooting down helicopters. That wasn't something we saw before. Suddenly now, in the past couple of weeks, three helicopters have been taken down by enemy fire. That changes the complexity of things because helicopters were an integral part of our capacity to fight back. If we can't do that, does that mean we have to put more people on the ground, that we have to lose more people? It ought not to be that way. Last week, we took a vote here, and it was a vote that would limit debate. We, the Democrats, led the charge there because we wanted to get on with the issue of whether we wanted to send more troops than we have there now. The number, estimated to be at 21,000 in combat, means that 48,000, roughly, would be the total number because you need the support groups as well. That vote was disguised as something else, which is what our friends are doing today--disguising what their intent is. Their intent is to escape the responsibility they took when they voted against closing the debate the other day. That is what happened. They have a lot of discomfort over there. I see my colleague from the State of Minnesota is here now, and if I am not mistaken, he was one of those who said: Let's cut the debate and get on with the issue. That is what his message was that day. And so there is abject discomfort with the vote that was taken because people at home interpreted that in a different way. They are not interested so much in our tactical maneuvering here or the process; they want to know: Do we want to send more troops into that inferno or do we want to try to figure out a way to get out of there as quickly as practicable? That is the question. So they voted the wrong way. And now, Heaven forbid, we had something we could vote on, and that was voted on by way of closing the debate, which was developed by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman now of the Armed Services Committee, and supported fully by Senator John Warner, who himself was a veteran and served at the time of World War II, who agreed with him that we ought to show our displeasure. There wasn't anything radical in it. We weren't calling the other side names. We just said we want to stop this escalation. We don't want to put more troops out there in harm's way. We don't want to see more limbless veterans. We have almost 800 now, veterans who have lost one limb at least, and we have 25,000 who have been injured. And there are a lot of severe injuries that you can't see because they are internal injuries. They are injuries of the mind. They are injuries of the spirit. There are a lot of them; 30,000 with PTS, post-traumatic stress, in addition to those who have the physical, visible wounds we see. So we want to get on with the vote. Let us have an honest count here about whether you are for escalation or against it. Do you want to throw more into the Iraqi war? Do you want to put more sons and daughters there or do you want them to start coming home and reuniting them with their families? That is the question. Instead, it is dressed up here. If we voted to adjourn, it would be a sign that we are not supporting the troops. Baloney. We support the troops fully. Each and every one of them over there now is a hero to us, each and every one, because many of them disagree with the policy that got them there, the falsification of whether there were weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank our colleague from Minnesota. What we see is a deliberate attempt to avoid the question: Yes or no, how do you stand on the escalation of this war? How do you stand on sending more sons and daughters into that hell on Earth? It is time to stand up and be counted and not to permit the public, across this land of ours, to be fooled by debate structures, by delaying tactics. It is time to stand up and be counted, but we cannot do that. The other side will not permit us to do it, and we know how to count votes so we know we do not have enough to do what we would like to. But the House has taken the bull by the horns. The House is considering it, and it is very favorably being considered there--not yet voted--legislation that says we are against this escalation. Republicans as well as Democrats there are going to join. What we are saying here is let us simply vote on that. That is what has been asked for by our leadership. I hope we will be able to conclude this debate, find out and let the American people know where we stand, each one of us. When we raise our hand, each one of us will be making a declaration: Do we think it is necessary to put more of our troops out there, to run them through there at the risk of their limbs, or lives, and disrupt family life, leaving children without a guiding parent on one side, to let the bills accumulate, worry about the mortgages? These are people, for the most part, who were reservists. They have served once, served twice--a year each--and now a third callup is being talked about because the President has decided--against the will of many outstanding military experts, those who have served at the highest rank. They say no, it will not help. But the President of the United States is very stubborn on this issue, despite all of the opposition--opposition here, opposition across this country. The numbers are around 70 percent of the people do not want us to continue to do this, or send in any more troops. I hope we can resolve the truth here in short order. I yield the floor with thanks again to my colleague from Minnesota.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senator Robert Menendez and our House colleague Congressman Donald Payne in honoring Dr. William Neal Brown, a distinguished and inspiring figure in African-American history. In recognition of Black History Month, we gathered with residents of New Jersey to pay tribute to Dr. Brown on Saturday, February 10, 2007 at the Newark Museum in Newark, NJ, during ``A Salute to Heroes.'' Dr. Brown was born in Warrenton, GA, on February 24, 1919. His father was an ex-slave and his mother was Native American. He grew up in Aliquippa, PA, where his father labored as a farmer and steel mill worker. His love of learning and inspiration to educate others began at an early age, when he and six of his classmates dreamed of becoming teachers. After graduating with honors from high school, Dr. Brown went to work in the Civilian Conservation Corps, CCC, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's public works program that put over 3 million young men and adults to work during the Great Depression. It was here that he was introduced to the Hampton Institute, where he would enroll as a work- study student and proceed to graduate with a bachelor of science in 1941. Dr. Brown heeded the call to serve his country and enrolled in the Army Air Force, where he served in special services as an information education officer, and trained at various bases including with the Tuskegee Airmen in Tuskegee, AL. After the war, on the GI bill, Dr. Brown began his graduate studies, first at Columbia University and then at City College. After 3 years of social work at the Veterans' Administration in Newark, NJ, Dr. Brown became the first African-American professor at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. During his 41 years as a professor at Rutgers, Dr. Brown mentored and inspired countless students and future social workers. He has lived his life by a verse he often quotes from Thanatopsis by William Cullen Bryant: ``So live, that when thy summons comes to join the innumerable caravan that went to sway to the silent halls of death, thou go not like a quarry-slave at night, scourged to his dungeon, but sustained and soothed by an unfaltering trust. Approach thy grave as one who lies down to pleasant dreams.'' Mr. President, there is no doubt that Dr. William Neal Brown is an exemplary and committed leader and a true role model for our State and the entire country. I am pleased to pay tribute to him today, and I know my colleagues will join me in wishing him continued success. DeNorval Unthank

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Military Health Care Protection Act along with my colleagues, Senators Hagel, Kerry, and Lincoln. This important legislation will keep the Pentagon from dramatically raising health care fees on active duty military personnel, National Guard, Reserves, retirees and their families. Our bill will limit increases to TRICARE military health insurance enrollment fees, deductibles, and pharmacy co-payments for those military retirees who are enrolled in TRICARE. Under this legislation, increases in these health care fees cannot exceed the rate of growth in uniformed services beneficiaries' military compensation, thereby protecting beneficiaries from an undue financial burden. Our bill will also cap increases to TRICARE military health insurance pharmacy co-payments at current levels for those active duty military personnel, National Guard, Reserves members, and their families. Under this legislation, increases in such fees also cannot exceed the rate of growth in uniformed services beneficiaries' military compensation. Just last week, the Department of Defense (DOD) submitted its Fiscal Year 2008 budget to Congress. Within that budget, a cut of $1.86 billion was made to TRICARE out of the Defense Health Program budget. Such a cut would require a doubling of fees on senior enlisted retirees and a tripling of such fees for officer retirees. This would mean increases of up to $1,000 annually for some military retirees. While the Department of Defense temporarily halted plans to raise fees last year at the direction of Congress, we are again faced with this challenge. We must pass legislation now that limits the amount of any health care increase and protects beneficiaries from extreme health care fee increases in the future. With this bill, Senator Hagel and I reiterate our commitment to our troops and future veterans by assuring them that just as they protected us, we will take care of them when their service ends. Last year, Congress rejected the same increases that the Pentagon is proposing again for this year. I ask the support of my colleagues to pass this legislation this year to prevent these significant increases permanently. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Military Health Care Protection Act along with my colleagues, Senators Hagel, Kerry, and Lincoln. This important legislation will keep the Pentagon from dramatically raising health care fees on active duty military personnel, National Guard, Reserves, retirees and their families. Our bill will limit increases to TRICARE military health insurance enrollment fees, deductibles, and pharmacy co-payments for those military retirees who are enrolled in TRICARE. Under this legislation, increases in these health care fees cannot exceed the rate of growth in uniformed services beneficiaries' military compensation, thereby protecting beneficiaries from an undue financial burden. Our bill will also cap increases to TRICARE military health insurance pharmacy co-payments at current levels for those active duty military personnel, National Guard, Reserves members, and their families. Under this legislation, increases in such fees also cannot exceed the rate of growth in uniformed services beneficiaries' military compensation. Just last week, the Department of Defense (DOD) submitted its Fiscal Year 2008 budget to Congress. Within that budget, a cut of $1.86 billion was made to TRICARE out of the Defense Health Program budget. Such a cut would require a doubling of fees on senior enlisted retirees and a tripling of such fees for officer retirees. This would mean increases of up to $1,000 annually for some military retirees. While the Department of Defense temporarily halted plans to raise fees last year at the direction of Congress, we are again faced with this challenge. We must pass legislation now that limits the amount of any health care increase and protects beneficiaries from extreme health care fee increases in the future. With this bill, Senator Hagel and I reiterate our commitment to our troops and future veterans by assuring them that just as they protected us, we will take care of them when their service ends. Last year, Congress rejected the same increases that the Pentagon is proposing again for this year. I ask the support of my colleagues to pass this legislation this year to prevent these significant increases permanently. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would preserve the public's right to know about toxic chemical releases and waste management where they live. The legislation would overturn the Environmental Protection Agency's recent action to undermine the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program-- which I helped create in 1986--by allowing facilities that release up to 2,000 pounds of a toxic chemical to simply provide notice of a chemical's presence at the facility, rather than disclose the actual amounts released to the land, air, and water. The 2,000 pounds standard represents a four-fold increase of the current reporting threshold. EPA finalized another change to the TRI program that will reduce the information available to the public regarding the waste management of some of the most toxic chemicals that accumulate in the environment, including lead and mercury. These changes would eliminate detailed reporting for one or more chemicals at thousands of facilities in communities around the country, including hundreds of facilities in New Jersey, and could eliminate entirely the disclosure of the releases of more than a dozen potentially dangerous chemicals. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), citizens living in 75 U.S. counties could have no numerical TRI information about local toxic pollution under the changes made by EPA. Furthermore, GAO estimates that 3,565 facilities-- including 101 in New Jersey--would no longer have to report any quantitative information about their chemical releases and waste management practices to the TRI. The EPA had also proposed to require reports on chemical emissions only every other year, instead of the current annual requirement. Under that plan, communities would have no knowledge of what chemicals have been released into their neighborhoods, or how those wastes were otherwise managed every other year. Additionally, companies would have an incentive to concentrate their most egregious releases of toxic chemicals into the environment in years which are not reported. EPA withdrew this particular part of their proposal, but there is no guarantee that they will not pursue this avenue in the future. I strongly oppose all of these rule changes; and the legislation I am introducing will overturn the changes EPA has made, and prevent them from making the third change that they considered. I firmly believe that it is unacceptable for the EPA to reduce the amount of information available to the public about chemicals-- including mercury, lead benzene, chromium, and other carcinogens-- stored nearby or released into their community. When Congress passed the original Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act in 1986, as a response to the 1984 Union Carbide chemical disaster in Bhopal, India, some accountability was finally established in the chemical industry. And now, the EPA has weakened the rules and reduced the amount of information available to the public on these critical issues. For instance, in my home State of New Jersey, a chemical facility that released 2,000 pounds of arsenic via air emissions in 2003 would no longer be required to disclose this pollution to the general public. Fourteen facilities that released a combined 8,600 pounds of carcinogenic styrene would no longer have to report these emissions in detail. While the EPA touts the benefits of its proposal as ``burden reduction'' for industry, I strongly believe that the benefit of annual, detailed reporting vastly outweighs any reduction in burden that will be provided to industry. In fact, according to GAO's estimates, the average cost savings for facilities no longer required to report their release of toxic chemicals or waste management practices would be approximately $2.46 per day. There are constructive ways to improve the TRI program, and lessen the burdens on industry, without reducing the amount of information available to the public. These include improving the system for electronic reporting, and offering technical assistance to help businesses comply with the requirements. The bill I introduce today, with Senator Boxer and Senator Menendez as original co-sponsors, would codify the previous requirement that facilities with chemical releases of more than 500 pounds of any standard TRI chemical must disclose the details of their releases. Releases in amounts less than 500 pounds could continue to use the less detailed reporting form. Second, it would codify the current prohibition on using the less detailed form for the most persistent chemicals, including lead and mercury--those the EPA has classified as ``chemicals of special concern.'' Finally, it would prevent EPA from making the frequency of reporting less than every year. I would also like to thank my Congressional colleagues in the House of Representatives, Frank Pallone of New Jersey, and Hilda Solis of California, with whom I have been pleased to work on this issue. Representatives Pallone and Solis are introducing the companion of this bill in the House; I now look forward to continuing to work with them and my colleagues in the Senate to ensure its passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, we just heard a debate about debates. It strikes me that this word war we are conducting here doesn't get to the fact that we are losing people every day in Iraq--27 Americans died in a weekend--and our friends on the other side want to discuss the rules and the process instead of being able to agree that there was a nonbinding resolution being proposed about whether you want to see this surge--a la escalation--of the war in Iraq. Our friends were so conscience-stricken that they wanted to resort to more words and amendments. Why couldn't we have just passed or discussed that nonbinding resolution, let it go, and let the debate then continue? Bring on the debates. But, no, this is the press relations battle which was just discussed by our colleague. That is not what we are looking for. We are looking to save lives, American lives, but we can't get to the subject because there is a question about what the rules ought to be. The rules ought to be the decency of our consciences--let us make decisions that will save lives and ease the pain on American families. This was an unfortunate dynamic we saw this week: Republican colleagues determined to block the opportunity for the Senate to vote on the President's war escalation policy for Iraq. Just when the American people want this Congress to stop the President's misguided plan, our colleagues on the other side are hard at work to shut down that opportunity. What they are afraid of is that we will confirm our support for the troops who are there now, and any insinuation that isn't the truth is a foul lie. We are just as anxious to support the troops. We are more anxious, in many ways, because we called for equipment to be available to protect our troops. We called for vehicles to be properly armored. We called for the body armor to be developed. But we didn't hear any complaints about the misdeeds of the contractors who weren't doing what they were supposed to be doing. They were not even monitored. We are going to talk about that. Our friends in the minority can delay this debate, and I hope the American public understands what is going on--delay the debates, don't let us come to the conclusion, don't let the President see that a majority of this Senate does not want this escalation to take place. They will delay this debate and vote for now, but it is going to happen eventually. It will happen because the American people are understandably frustrated with the President's conduct and mishandling of this war. Our children are taught a lesson in school: If you do things wrong and you don't pass your courses, don't change your ways, don't listen to advice, you get an F on your report card. In the view of many of the American people--most of the American people--President Bush has gotten an F on his report card on the handling of the situation in Iraq. But he and the Vice President refuse to be held accountable, and his allies in the Senate are blocking us from holding him accountable. It is not a good lesson for our Nation's young people. They see that if they don't do their work, they fail the course, and the President has not done his work, and he ought not to get a positive grade for his job thus far. The American people don't want Congress to grant unlimited power to the President and his incompetent crew. Our troops have done a magnificent job, but it is the President and failed leadership at the Pentagon that have let them down. Who can forget Secretary Rumsfeld's quote: You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. Frankly, it is a slur, in my view, against the troops we have, those courageous people over there fighting right now or at that time. It is a terrible message to send to our soldiers. Who can forget when the insurgency first started and our troops were getting attacked with roadside bombs, when President Bush said ``bring 'em on''? I wore our Nation's uniform in World War II, in Europe, and I can say none of us wanted our Commander in Chief taunting the enemy, inviting them to come on out and fight and maybe kill us. No. To be in harm's way and have your commander make such a statement from the safety and security of the White House is appalling. Now the President wants a so-called surge. Does he want to surge our way to more problems? Does he want to surge our national debt by spending billions more every week in Iraq? Anybody who understands English knows that the real definition of ``surge'' as used here means ``enlarge'' or ``escalate.'' From this war, we have more than 700 Americans who have lost limbs, more than 29,000 suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, and over 3,000 have perished in Iraq, 74 of whom have ties to my home State of New Jersey. Yet President Bush dismisses the incredible cost of this war in lives, injuries, and resources essential for the health and well-being of our people at home, domestic programs. After all the previous failures and incompetence by this administration, why should the American people allow the President to do whatever he chooses in this war, this war which has destroyed thousands of families' lives? Look at the President's record on Iraq: false intelligence on weapons of mass destruction; no posted invasion plan because the administration was convinced that we would be greeted with sweets and flowers in a Utopian celebration. The President's team decided to fire the entire Iraqi Army, dismissing 500,000 trained troops who might have been helpful to us in fighting this insurgency. Then the Bush administration helped create further sectarian division by simply banning members from serving in the new Iraqi Government. The administration has allied itself with an Iraqi Prime Minister who supports a militia leader named Sadr who controlled a terrorist militia which disagrees with the formation of a stable government. We all saw the waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer funds by contractors such as Halliburton. The Iraqi reconstruction inspector general said that nearly $3 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars for Iraqi reconstruction has been lost--lost, vanished, $3 billion. That is not sloppy, that is incompetence. So it is understandable that a giant majority of the American people are against this escalation. The other side of the aisle obviously does not want to vote consistent with the American people's wishes or their prayers. Taxpayers are footing a massive bill for these mistakes. The administration gave Halliburton a no-bid contract thought to be worth $50 million--well, it surged to $2.5 billion--to operate Iraqi's oil infrastructure. And what has that contract yielded in oil? Less oil 4 years after the invasion than Iraq was producing before the war. Halliburton was forced to pay back $50 million after a fine was leveled against them by the Department of Defense. That is why the American people say no surge for Halliburton. I was a member of the Department of Homeland Security committee in the previous Congress. I wrote five letters to the chairman asking we have hearings, oversight hearings, on the Halliburton behavior in the war. I was told that it would be duplicable, and we couldn't get a review of Halliburton's behavior. When the Republicans were in the majority, they said a vote against the President's policy was cut-and-run, but now the American people are asking the question, What is the alternative? Stay and die? In November, the American people spoke with the most effective means they have; that is, the ballot box. They said no. They said they want a change. They voted for a voice against the President. Now the Republican minority is blocking Congress from speaking. The President and the minority in the Senate cannot continue to ignore the will of the American people. We already saw the President ignore his own chosen Iraqi Study Group. First he appoints them; then he challenges them or ignores them. He ignored the advice of GEN John Abizaid, who thinks this escalation is a bad idea. He ignored former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who said more troops are not the answer. When do we say enough is enough? Well, I think that time is past due. Outside my office, to remind us all--I am very sensitive to veterans matters, to our military, not just because I served but because they are there to protect us. And they do a splendid job, even when they are asked to do more than the numbers they should have are not in place, and the equipment has not been quite what it ought to be, delays in producing that. We display a memorial outside my office showing the ``Faces of the Fallen,'' which says: ``Let Us Never Forget.'' There are almost 3,000 faces outside the door to my office. We have them on easels. It was our construction. The name, age, rank, battalion affiliation, and the cause of death of each of these Nation's fallen servicemembers is inscribed with their photo on the memorial. If you look, you see the ages and how young they were and what they must have meant to the families they left behind. Friends and visitors search these photos daily for knowledge of people they might know and miss. As they search, as they review these pictures, some write notes in a book of reflections that we have out there. A woman from Englewood, NJ, wrote: How do we measure their sacrifice? We are so fortunate to have these brave men and women. A woman from Minnesota says: This display brings tears to my eyes, to see how many lives have been lost. Please stop more boards from being added and bring those who would find themselves memorialized here home safely. A Californian simply wrote: Bring them home! These are what the American people want, and we ignore them at our own peril. We prevent a vote on this momentous issue at our own peril as well. I close, saying to my colleagues on the other side, please stop the insinuations that we on this side of the aisle do not want to support our troops. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us, myself included, have been there to meet with our troops and see what they need and see what they want and listen to their tales of the days they spend in harm's way. We want to support them. We salute them. They honor their obligation to their country, even though we, in many cases, disagree with the mission. And when we fool ourselves into believing that all we have to do is to put more people in harm's way and we will get a stabilized government there, we find, in many instances, the recruits they have in the army there are just not capably trained, don't have the will, in many instances, to take up the fight. And we want to put more of our people in there? I think what ought to be done--as many others here do--is to start to whittle down our presence, leave enough of a resource there to help train those people, maybe instill some courage in their view of what their responsibilities are, get enough people in the flow--the Iraqi people--and plan to get them home as soon as we practically can. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Snowe and Boxer, to introduce the High Performance Green Buildings Act. This legislation encourages the government to improve the energy efficiency, indoor air quality, and environmental impacts of our Nation's Federal buildings, and will reenergize and focus the Federal Government's leadership and commitment on this issue. Buildings in the United States have an enormous impact on the environment and also on our overall energy situation. According to the Department of Energy, buildings in the United States use almost 40 percent of the total energy consumed in this country. That figure is expected to rise to 53 percent by 2030, meaning that over half of the energy consumed in this country will be used by buildings alone. In addition, buildings are the source of 35 percent of national carbon dioxide emissions, 49 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, and 25 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions. However, the impact of buildings is even broader than that. Americans spend approximately 90 percent of their time indoors and the quality of the air they breathe can have an impact on their health, as well as work productivity and absenteeism. The U.S. Green Buildings Council, a national non-profit, indicates that on average, installing high performance lighting enhances worker productivity by 6.7 percent. There are also numerous sources of indoor air pollutants, ranging from mold to radon, and strong building design that considers ventilation can help to remedy these potential health problems. It is important that we confront these issues, and our legislation does just that. High Performance Green Buildings are designed with the impact on occupants, surroundings and energy consumption in mind. Buildings designed or renovated on these merits save money, have healthier occupants, and have a more positive impact on their communities. While the initial investment cost of green buildings may be higher than a traditional building, many of these costs are recouped over time. For instance, the Federal government spends about $170 million per year on the lighting of federal buildings; using new lighting technology can reduce energy use by 50 to 75 percent. Some estimates show that the payback time for energy efficient lighting is as little as four months. The High Performance Green Buildings Act focuses the Federal Government's efforts on promoting sustainable design in federal buildings, and realizing the economic benefits associated with reduced energy use and increased occupant health. It creates an Office of High Performance Green Buildings within the General Services Administration (GSA), which manages buildings owned or leased by the Federal Government. GSA is the largest ``landlord'' in the country the government owns or leases nearly 500,000 buildings in the United States, covering 3.1 billion square feet. The new Office will promote public outreach, focus ongoing research and development, and create an Advisory Committee consisting of Agency representatives and experts from various sectors, to improve coordination across Federal Government agencies and bring best practices to the Federal government. Additionally, the High Performance Green Buildings Act provides grants to schools, in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Education, to provide technical assistance to address environmental and health concerns. The health of our children is our primary concern and this legislation takes important steps to ensure their well-being. It is clear that having sustainable design in our buildings is smart public policy and a wise financial investment, and this bill will allow the Federal Government to increase its leadership role on the promotion of green buildings. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Snowe and Boxer, to introduce the High Performance Green Buildings Act. This legislation encourages the government to improve the energy efficiency, indoor air quality, and environmental impacts of our Nation's Federal buildings, and will reenergize and focus the Federal Government's leadership and commitment on this issue. Buildings in the United States have an enormous impact on the environment and also on our overall energy situation. According to the Department of Energy, buildings in the United States use almost 40 percent of the total energy consumed in this country. That figure is expected to rise to 53 percent by 2030, meaning that over half of the energy consumed in this country will be used by buildings alone. In addition, buildings are the source of 35 percent of national carbon dioxide emissions, 49 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, and 25 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions. However, the impact of buildings is even broader than that. Americans spend approximately 90 percent of their time indoors and the quality of the air they breathe can have an impact on their health, as well as work productivity and absenteeism. The U.S. Green Buildings Council, a national non-profit, indicates that on average, installing high performance lighting enhances worker productivity by 6.7 percent. There are also numerous sources of indoor air pollutants, ranging from mold to radon, and strong building design that considers ventilation can help to remedy these potential health problems. It is important that we confront these issues, and our legislation does just that. High Performance Green Buildings are designed with the impact on occupants, surroundings and energy consumption in mind. Buildings designed or renovated on these merits save money, have healthier occupants, and have a more positive impact on their communities. While the initial investment cost of green buildings may be higher than a traditional building, many of these costs are recouped over time. For instance, the Federal government spends about $170 million per year on the lighting of federal buildings; using new lighting technology can reduce energy use by 50 to 75 percent. Some estimates show that the payback time for energy efficient lighting is as little as four months. The High Performance Green Buildings Act focuses the Federal Government's efforts on promoting sustainable design in federal buildings, and realizing the economic benefits associated with reduced energy use and increased occupant health. It creates an Office of High Performance Green Buildings within the General Services Administration (GSA), which manages buildings owned or leased by the Federal Government. GSA is the largest ``landlord'' in the country the government owns or leases nearly 500,000 buildings in the United States, covering 3.1 billion square feet. The new Office will promote public outreach, focus ongoing research and development, and create an Advisory Committee consisting of Agency representatives and experts from various sectors, to improve coordination across Federal Government agencies and bring best practices to the Federal government. Additionally, the High Performance Green Buildings Act provides grants to schools, in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Education, to provide technical assistance to address environmental and health concerns. The health of our children is our primary concern and this legislation takes important steps to ensure their well-being. It is clear that having sustainable design in our buildings is smart public policy and a wise financial investment, and this bill will allow the Federal Government to increase its leadership role on the promotion of green buildings. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, these have been some terrible days for our country. Last Saturday, we lost 27 American men and women in Iraq, making it the third deadliest day for our country and our forces since this war began. A Blackhawk went down northeast of Baghdad; all 12 of the troops aboard were killed. Men with grenades, mortars, and assault rifles attacked a building guarded by American and Iraqi forces in Karbala. Five American troops were killed that day. Coalition forces made a push against insurgents. Five more troops were killed and 59 Iraqis along with them. In Anbar Province, four soldiers and a marine were killed. Despite the President's handpicked Iraqi Study Group's bipartisan call for a new course, he has not listened. Despite the advice of GEN John Abizaid, a distinguished military leader and former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, who called for a new course, despite the bipartisan calls of my colleagues who have called for a new course, despite the American people who last November called for a new course, and despite the rising death toll, the President has decided to escalate this conflict. He wants to send 21,500 more troops into the crossfire of a civil war. Even more disturbing is the behavior and the rhetoric of the Vice President. I don't know how many of my colleagues had a chance to watch the Vice President's interview with Wolf Blitzer this week on CNN's ``The Situation Room.'' But I encourage my colleagues who have not seen it to watch it. It is up on Youtube. You have to see it to believe it. In that interview, Vice President Cheney boasted of ``enormous successes in Iraq.'' He also rejected the idea that Iraq is in a ``terrible situation.'' Imagine him dismissing that. The interview was so incredible that the Washington Post discussed it on its front page on Thursday. The Vice President blamed everybody but himself for any troubles in Iraq. As far as the Vice President was concerned, it was all the media's fault. What did he say of us, the Congress? He said we were helping the terrorists. Vice President Cheney's boasting of the Iraq successes was on the front page of the Washington Post that day. The story is incredible. It says on the front page of Thursday's paper: ``Defending Iraq war, defiant Cheney cites enormous successes.'' He says that the media is so eager to write off this effort or to declare it a failure. It goes on to say that there are problems in Iraq, but he said it's not a terrible situation. Not a terrible situation. Describe that to the families who lost someone in the last few weeks in Iraq. He said--this is the Vice President of the United States--he has a responsibility to help the President and to help communicate with the Congress. He doesn't. He sits here often, but he doesn't. He said that despite that, the congressional opposition won't stop us from sending 20,500 more troops; it will only validate the course we are on. Imagine. The story inside the paper was a very different one. The story told in these two pages in Thursday's Washington Post is 99 faces, 99 more families who are going to mourn, 99 more children who will not see their father or their mother again, 99 parents who lost a child. And he says it is not a terrible situation? It is a disgrace. This doesn't look like the face of enormous success. No, it doesn't. On those two pages alone is a total of 99 men and women who will never see their friends and family on American soil again. Madam President, 3,063 American troops have died in Iraq; 74 of them had ties to my State of New Jersey. And we have seen over 23,000 with injuries, many severe, over 700 have lost limbs and many suffering from traumatic brain injury. Of the almost 600,000 people--584,000 to be precise--who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, over 30,000 of them have PTSD, post-traumatic stress syndrome; 30,000 countless brain injuries besides that. The administration's troop increase is not simply a surge. What they did is they searched the word files, probably went to the computer and to the dictionaries to try to find a word that would evade the truth of what this is about. Surge is a euphemism for escalation of our involvement in this war. When we hear the Vice President talking about enormous successes, it makes one wonder if the President and Vice President have been shielded from reality by their handlers. We see it in the continuation of the policy that says don't take any pictures of the flag-draped coffins when the remains of our soldiers are returned to the United States of America; don't do that. It is against the rules. Can you imagine that? That sign of honor to the deceased shielded from the view of the public because underneath that flag lies the remains of some young person. That is the way they see things, and now we are told to expect another $100 billion request from the administration to fund this war. When does it end? I am a proud cosponsor of legislation that is authored by my colleague Senator Biden. Senator Hagel served valiantly in Vietnam. He knows what war is like. Senator Levin and Senator Snowe--all denounce this dangerous increase. This resolution, which easily passed the Foreign Relations Committee, is clear in stating that the Bush surge is not in the national interests. It is certainly not in the interests of the families who have sons or daughters serving there. It puts the Senate on record as being against a growing military conflict that will hurt our long-term goals abroad and our security at home. Similar to the young men and women serving today, I was proud to wear the uniform of my country in World War II in Europe. Those who are serving are obeying the orders of their Commander in Chief, and they do it fully and bravely. In that war, World War II, the mission was clear: Defeat the enemies who attacked us. While the battles and the casualties were in far-off places, the brunt of the war's burden was borne by the families at home. We started this fight because we were told things that proved not to be true. We believed in our leaders, and we thought they were telling us the truth. What else would we think? The President, the Vice President, then the chief of the military, Colin Powell, and others--we had faith in their belief. We had faith in the mission. Many of us doubted. I was out of the Senate for a 2-year period, and that is when that decision was made, but I would have believed it, coming from those illustrious positions with people who were known for substance because of the fact that they had achieved those positions. We had faith, but the mission in Iraq was surrounded in a fog. It is time to redefine this mission in Iraq, a mission that includes bringing our troops home. The Iraqis say they want us to leave. Members of Congress and military leaders want us to leave, and the American people, in a broad consensus, want us to leave. Bring home those troops, they say. Outside my office, I continue to pay my respects to these soldiers. I have a display called The Faces of the Fallen, all who have perished in this war up to a date that we can get the latest pictures, such as those we see displayed in the Washington Post. The display gives us a face to the names of the soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Visitors come by. Some of them are families and friends. Visitors search the photos daily for people they know, love and miss and they write notes in a book we have provided. Everyone who signs that book ``God bless these people,'' honors them for their service, even though there is a question about whether they ought to be serving there now. Until President Bush listens, until Vice President Cheney realizes this is more than a bunch of victories, that successes are there, until that language is wiped out of their daily statements, we are going to have to keep adding faces to that display of fallen heroes memorial. And I am going to have to say to people who come into my office in New Jersey, particularly, who have sons and daughters serving there--one woman tells me about her son who was wounded, got the Purple Heart, and they are sending him back to combat or the woman who comes in crying so bitterly that you can barely hear her talk. She screamed at me at first when I called her when the notice of her son's death was given. She asked the question: My son was a second lieutenant. He loved being in the military. He was a trained artillery officer. What in the world were they asking him to do when they asked him to defuse roadside bombs? He lost his life defusing a bomb. No, Madam President, if the message can't get through to the White House and the leadership, what faith can we have in the decisions made in this country today? It is discouraging. The world doesn't believe us. The people in our country don't believe us, in huge numbers. Yes, there are those who serve bravely and constantly. They do what they are told. That is what one does in the military. But while we think of sending people there who have already had, some of them, two tours of duty and they are being sent for a third tour of duty, it is impossible to imagine that their consciences don't keep them awake at night, but apparently they don't. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, together with my good friend--the new Minority Whip--Senator Trent Lott I rise to introduce S. 294, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007. After several gloomy years, the future of America's passenger railroad is bright. This legislation will provide the necessary resources to bring Amtrak up to speed as a real alternative to taking a plane or driving a car. As we did in the past, we have joined forces to strengthen Amtrak and intercity passenger rail services for all Americans. But today, we introduce an updated version of last Congress's Amtrak reauthorization and passenger rail expansion bill. S. 1516, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement (PRIIA) Act of 2005. I co-authored this legislation with Senator Lott, then Chairman of the Commerce Committee's Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee, so that we could finally provide Amtrak with the funding and support it needs to thrive. The Commerce Committee favorably reported this bill, and Senator Lott and I added it to last Congress's Budget Reconciliation package, where it was adopted by an overwhelming vote of 93 to 6. Despite the bipartisan support, the House failed to act, so Amtrak was left without a necessary reauthorization. Now, in the new Congress, I am the chair of the Commerce Committee's Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee. Working with Senator Lott, and our bipartisan group of cosponsors, we are going to get our Amtrak bill through the Senate. This time, I believe the House will be ready, willing, and able to match our efforts, so that we can send a bill to the President for his signature. Every year, Amtrak is forced to fight for Federal funding--funding that has been insufficient at best. But as air and highway congestion continue to worsen, and concerns over our dependence on foreign oil remain, we must expand the capacity and improve the quality of our passenger rail system. One needs only to look to Europe and Asia to see the benefits that a modern passenger rail system can bring to a nation. Germany, which invested nine billion dollars in its rail system 2003 alone, has a modern, high- speed rail system that reduces pollution, eases congestion and improves mobility for all of its citizens. The benefits of their world class system are obvious to anyone who travels there. We need the same world class system in our country. The era of the free and easy interstate and quick, hassle-free flights has come and gone, and time for us to make real investments in our passenger rail system has come. If we do not invest in Amtrak now, I fear for our country's economy and quality of life over the coming years. We simply cannot afford to rely solely on air travel or automobiles if we are going to keep this country moving. The terror and tragedy we experienced on 9/11 taught us that we cannot rely solely on our aviation system. Last fall, Hurricane Katrina highlighted the role that passenger rail could play in evacuating residents who do not own automobiles. Hurricane Rita demonstrated the limits of our highway system, as evacuees' vehicles crawled to a stop in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Each one of these disasters reminded us that our Nation needs Amtrak and better train service to provide options for the traveling public--in good times and in bad. The bill we introduce today is the most comprehensive reauthorization of Amtrak ever attempted by this body. We have worked with Amtrak, freight railroads, the States and rail labor to draft strong and comprehensive legislation. Our bill authorizes nearly $12 billion in Federal support to expand partnerships for passenger rail with the States, improve the Northeast Corridor and provide real rail security for the Nation. Additionally, Senator Lott and I filed an amendment today to this bill which would add $7.8 billion in bonding authority for States and Amtrak to develop rail infrastructure. This bonding authority would augment the appropriated funds authorized by this bill and provide Amtrak and the States with a reliable, multi-year source of capital for major projects. We look forward to working with the Finance Committee to consider this proposal. Our bill also requires significant reforms of Amtrak: The system's supporters and detractors alike agree that it is time to reauthorize the Corporation so that Amtrak has congressional guidance on how to proceed with important reform initiatives needed to improve service, grow revenues, and cut costs. People in New Jersey rely on Amtrak and want to be sure that the system will be there for them in the future. With this plan, it will. Last year, 93 Senators voted for this plan. I ask that my colleagues, once again, join Senator Lott and myself in supporting this important bill that will bring America's passenger rail system into the 21st Century. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, together with my good friend--the new Minority Whip--Senator Trent Lott I rise to introduce S. 294, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007. After several gloomy years, the future of America's passenger railroad is bright. This legislation will provide the necessary resources to bring Amtrak up to speed as a real alternative to taking a plane or driving a car. As we did in the past, we have joined forces to strengthen Amtrak and intercity passenger rail services for all Americans. But today, we introduce an updated version of last Congress's Amtrak reauthorization and passenger rail expansion bill. S. 1516, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement (PRIIA) Act of 2005. I co-authored this legislation with Senator Lott, then Chairman of the Commerce Committee's Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee, so that we could finally provide Amtrak with the funding and support it needs to thrive. The Commerce Committee favorably reported this bill, and Senator Lott and I added it to last Congress's Budget Reconciliation package, where it was adopted by an overwhelming vote of 93 to 6. Despite the bipartisan support, the House failed to act, so Amtrak was left without a necessary reauthorization. Now, in the new Congress, I am the chair of the Commerce Committee's Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee. Working with Senator Lott, and our bipartisan group of cosponsors, we are going to get our Amtrak bill through the Senate. This time, I believe the House will be ready, willing, and able to match our efforts, so that we can send a bill to the President for his signature. Every year, Amtrak is forced to fight for Federal funding--funding that has been insufficient at best. But as air and highway congestion continue to worsen, and concerns over our dependence on foreign oil remain, we must expand the capacity and improve the quality of our passenger rail system. One needs only to look to Europe and Asia to see the benefits that a modern passenger rail system can bring to a nation. Germany, which invested nine billion dollars in its rail system 2003 alone, has a modern, high- speed rail system that reduces pollution, eases congestion and improves mobility for all of its citizens. The benefits of their world class system are obvious to anyone who travels there. We need the same world class system in our country. The era of the free and easy interstate and quick, hassle-free flights has come and gone, and time for us to make real investments in our passenger rail system has come. If we do not invest in Amtrak now, I fear for our country's economy and quality of life over the coming years. We simply cannot afford to rely solely on air travel or automobiles if we are going to keep this country moving. The terror and tragedy we experienced on 9/11 taught us that we cannot rely solely on our aviation system. Last fall, Hurricane Katrina highlighted the role that passenger rail could play in evacuating residents who do not own automobiles. Hurricane Rita demonstrated the limits of our highway system, as evacuees' vehicles crawled to a stop in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Each one of these disasters reminded us that our Nation needs Amtrak and better train service to provide options for the traveling public--in good times and in bad. The bill we introduce today is the most comprehensive reauthorization of Amtrak ever attempted by this body. We have worked with Amtrak, freight railroads, the States and rail labor to draft strong and comprehensive legislation. Our bill authorizes nearly $12 billion in Federal support to expand partnerships for passenger rail with the States, improve the Northeast Corridor and provide real rail security for the Nation. Additionally, Senator Lott and I filed an amendment today to this bill which would add $7.8 billion in bonding authority for States and Amtrak to develop rail infrastructure. This bonding authority would augment the appropriated funds authorized by this bill and provide Amtrak and the States with a reliable, multi-year source of capital for major projects. We look forward to working with the Finance Committee to consider this proposal. Our bill also requires significant reforms of Amtrak: The system's supporters and detractors alike agree that it is time to reauthorize the Corporation so that Amtrak has congressional guidance on how to proceed with important reform initiatives needed to improve service, grow revenues, and cut costs. People in New Jersey rely on Amtrak and want to be sure that the system will be there for them in the future. With this plan, it will. Last year, 93 Senators voted for this plan. I ask that my colleagues, once again, join Senator Lott and myself in supporting this important bill that will bring America's passenger rail system into the 21st Century. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.