Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 10 minutes to speak as in morning business.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this morning I rise to discuss the terrible situation we see in Iraq. While home in New Jersey over these last few days, I was often approached by constituents on the street and there was one topic that would come into the conversation almost immediately, when people said: Senator, when are we going to get our troops out of the crossfire in Iraq? It is a great question, but the answer is certainly not clear. Our constituents back home understand that President Bush has totally mishandled the diplomatic and strategic parts of the Iraq mission and our troops are the ones who are caught in the middle--caught in the middle of an ethnic civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. From my home State of New Jersey, we have already lost 74 people in Iraq; nationwide the total is quite clear--over 3,000 have lost their lives, and there are over 23,000 wounded with injuries that could disable them for the rest of their lives. To make matters worse, a disproportionate amount of the burden of this conflict has fallen to Guard and Reserve troops. In fact, in early 2005, the National Guard and the Reserves made up nearly half of the fighting force in Iraq, people who were to be called up when emergencies arose. The Reserves were not there primarily to be a replacement for long-term combat duty. This administration decided early on that their agenda for the military was to shrink the size of our Active Forces. We all heard that. ``We will get it down to being lean and mean, and increase reliance on contractors for support.'' If it were not so tragic, it would be a joke. Now we see, in practice, the Bush long-term military plan has been a disaster. We do not have enough active troops. We are relying way too much on the Guard and Reserve. And contractors such as Halliburton have been wasting taxpayer dollars right and left. The proof of this waste was a fine, levied against Halliburton, of $60 million at one time for overcharges for the care and feeding of our troops. We continue to hear of irresponsible behavior of contractors serving our needs in Iraq. Mismanagement of all forms has been a hallmark of Defense Department supervision. At every turn, this President has made terrible judgments. Tomorrow we are going to hear another decision by President Bush. Why should the American people trust him to understand what he is getting us into? We heard the President say, ``Bring 'em on,'' one of the most disingenuous statements ever made by a President. I served in Europe during World War II, and I can tell you that we never wanted to hear a Commander in Chief taunting the enemy from the comforts of the White House. Asking more of the enemy to show their faces? We didn't want to see them at all. We saw the President's foolish display of bravado on the Aircraft Carrier Abraham Lincoln when he declared, ``Mission accomplished.'' What a careless statement the President of the United States made that day, over 3\1/2\ years ago. Mission accomplished? That meant the job was finished, as far as most people were concerned. But it was not through. While the President was performing in 2003, leaders were warning of a military crisis. General Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff, told a Senate Armed Services Committee that we would need to keep a large force in Iraq even after a war to curb ethnic tensions and provide humanitarian aid. General Shinseki, distinguished military leader, said we needed several hundred thousand troops there. His assessment was harshly dismissed quickly by the President and by Secretary Rumsfeld. The General's reality-based opinion got in the way of their ideologically based mission of a smaller Active-Duty Force. In the aftermath of the initial invasion, President Bush has made the wrong move almost every time. Now we have walked so deep into the swamp in Iraq that just adding more guns is not going to work. This so-called surge is another bad idea--slogans, such as ``cut and run'' have to be matched against the reality of ``stay and die.'' President Bush likes to say: I do what the generals tell me to. But now we know that is not the case. The generals have been extremely candid about their view of the surge idea. They think it is wrong. Now we are hearing that the President intends to give another $1 billion to Iraqi reconstruction projects. We want to fund every cent that our troops need for their safety, for their return, for their health care, for their well-being, but sending more money down the rat hole is not going to do it. It is being diverted from programs at home, such as education, stem cell research, health care for all our people, to name a few, and the taxpayers of New Jersey do not want their money used to build another civilian project in Iraq that is going to get blown up the next day. Before we look to spend more money on civil projects in Iraq, let's get the diplomatic situation straightened out. The American people want to see us leave Iraq with some hope for stability in our absence. That will require President Bush to use all of the diplomatic tools at his disposal to force a dramatic change of course for the Iraqi Government. The current Government in Iraq has to take real steps to disarm the Shiite militias and show the Sunnis that they will actually be empowered in the Iraqi Government. If we do not do that, we could send a million troops to Iraq tomorrow, but it would not make a difference. If the Sunnis feel the Iraqi Government has nothing to offer and Prime Minister al-Maliki doesn't stop the Shiite militias, the bloodbath will continue. I hope the leaks about the President's plan are wrong and that he will announce tomorrow a better course, a course that will allow us to exit Iraq but with real hope of a more stable society left behind. I conclude that with the history of planning for this war and the statements coming from the White House and the leadership of the Defense Department I ask: How can we trust their judgment with a new plan to put more people in harm's way without some idea of when this will end? It is not a good idea and we ought to get a better explanation from the President and the Defense Department as to what might the outcome be if their plan succeeds. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today with great pride to reintroduce legislation which would create a national park in my hometown of Paterson, NJ, The Paterson Great Falls National Park Act of 2007, which I first introduced last year, would bring long-deserved recognition and accessibility to one of our Nation's most beautiful and historic landmarks. I am pleased that my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, is cosponsoring this legislation. The Great Falls are located where the Passaic River drops nearly 80 feet straight down, on its course towards New York Harbor. It is one of the tallest and most spectacular waterfalls on the east coast, but the incredible natural beauty of the falls should not overshadow its tremendous importance as the powerhouse of industry in New Jersey and the infant United States. Indeed, in 1778, Alexander Hamilton visited the Great Falls and immediately realized the potential of the falls for industrial applications and development. Hamilton was instrumental in creating the planned community in Paterson--the first of its kind nationwide--centered on the Great Falls, and industry thrived on the power generated by the falls. Rogers Locomotive Works, the premier steam locomotive manufacturer of the 19th century, was located in the shadow of the falls, as were many other vitally important manufacturing enterprises. President Ford recognized the importance of the area by declaring the falls and its surroundings a ``National Historic Landmark'' in 1976; he called the falls ``a symbol of the industrial might which helps to make the United States the most powerful nation in the world.'' Now, it is time that we recognize the importance of this historic area by making it New Jersey's first national park. This would be of special importance because so few of our national parks are in urban areas. I believe that it is time we acknowledge that many of our most significant national treasures are located in densely populated areas, and creating a national park in Paterson is an ideal opportunity to do just that. I grew up in Paterson, and I have appreciated the majesty and beauty of the Great Falls for many years. By creating a national park in Paterson, more Americans can be exposed to the exceptional cultural, natural, and historic significance of the Great Falls, and that is why I will passionately advocate for the passage of this bill. I have been delighted to again work with my good friend, Congressman Bill Pascrell--another longtime resident of Paterson--on this issue, as well as with a bipartisan group of lawmakers from my home State, all of whom believe strongly in this cause. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation, which is so important to New Jersey and all of America. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, over five years since 9/11, much of our Nation's transportation systems remain vulnerable to terror attack. There are many reasons for the lack of action by the Federal Government, but we can no longer simply look the other way. Last year, the Congress had an opportunity to make significant strides to improve the security of our freight and passenger rail systems, highways, public transit systems, trucking and intercity bus operations, and pipeline systems. The Senate passed my amendments and amendments by other Senators to the SAFE Ports Act to address the security of these important modes of transportation. In fact, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to instruct its conferees to include these provisions in the final conference report of the SAFE Ports Act. Unfortunately, House Republican leaders stripped them out of the final version of the bill behind closed doors, instead enacting a ban on internet gambling. The actions by the House Republican leaders further delayed real progress in securing our homeland from terror. I believe the Federal Government must take a leadership role in securing our country from terrorism. States cannot on their own be left responsible for securing these interstate modes of transportation. That is why I am proud to be an author of the Surface Transportation and Rail Security Act of 2007. I have worked with my committee co- chairmen--Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens--to ensure this bill gets quickly considered. Its provisions are not new to anyone. They were considered, and agreed to, merely four months ago by the Senate. I am hopeful that they will again be quickly considered and adopted. This bill specifically requires accountability from the Department of Homeland Security, by ensuring that our rail systems have been analyzed for security risk. It authorizes necessary funding for making these security improvements and specifically includes $400 million for tunnel security improvements in the New Jersey/New York region. I will seek further Federal funding for improving security of the New Jersey/New York region's tunnels and bridges in additional legislation to be introduced this month, by working with my colleagues on the appropriate committees in the Senate. Last month, the Bush Administration proposed certain improvements to our nation's rail systems, but these proposals fell far short of what is needed to secure our country. For instance, the Administration proposal fails to take specific actions to improve the security of railroad stations, bridges, and tunnels. More people use Amtrak's Penn Station in New York City than use all three major New Jersey-New York region airports, Newark Liberty International, JFK, and LaGuardia airports, every day. This bill takes a much more comprehensive approach, by authorizing the funding needed to make these important security improvements. Our Nation's freight rail systems move some 12 billion tons of cargo, but we are not doing enough to protect those systems. Some of this cargo includes hazardous chemicals and other dangerous materials which travel within feet of our schools, hospitals, neighborhoods, and snake right through the middle of our cities. The potential for disaster looms large, as the misuse of these shipments can produce an effect that a weapon of mass destruction would on our communities. Clearly much more thought needs to be put into how we move this dangerous cargo, and the Federal Government must be involved. The Bush Administration must agree with this assessment, as their proposal would strictly forbid states or communities from acting on their own to protect their residents from these risks. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this important legislation gets considered and enacted soon. We cannot afford to delay any further these vital security improvements to our country.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today with great pride to reintroduce legislation which would create a national park in my hometown of Paterson, NJ, The Paterson Great Falls National Park Act of 2007, which I first introduced last year, would bring long-deserved recognition and accessibility to one of our Nation's most beautiful and historic landmarks. I am pleased that my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, is cosponsoring this legislation. The Great Falls are located where the Passaic River drops nearly 80 feet straight down, on its course towards New York Harbor. It is one of the tallest and most spectacular waterfalls on the east coast, but the incredible natural beauty of the falls should not overshadow its tremendous importance as the powerhouse of industry in New Jersey and the infant United States. Indeed, in 1778, Alexander Hamilton visited the Great Falls and immediately realized the potential of the falls for industrial applications and development. Hamilton was instrumental in creating the planned community in Paterson--the first of its kind nationwide--centered on the Great Falls, and industry thrived on the power generated by the falls. Rogers Locomotive Works, the premier steam locomotive manufacturer of the 19th century, was located in the shadow of the falls, as were many other vitally important manufacturing enterprises. President Ford recognized the importance of the area by declaring the falls and its surroundings a ``National Historic Landmark'' in 1976; he called the falls ``a symbol of the industrial might which helps to make the United States the most powerful nation in the world.'' Now, it is time that we recognize the importance of this historic area by making it New Jersey's first national park. This would be of special importance because so few of our national parks are in urban areas. I believe that it is time we acknowledge that many of our most significant national treasures are located in densely populated areas, and creating a national park in Paterson is an ideal opportunity to do just that. I grew up in Paterson, and I have appreciated the majesty and beauty of the Great Falls for many years. By creating a national park in Paterson, more Americans can be exposed to the exceptional cultural, natural, and historic significance of the Great Falls, and that is why I will passionately advocate for the passage of this bill. I have been delighted to again work with my good friend, Congressman Bill Pascrell--another longtime resident of Paterson--on this issue, as well as with a bipartisan group of lawmakers from my home State, all of whom believe strongly in this cause. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation, which is so important to New Jersey and all of America. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, over five years since 9/11, much of our Nation's transportation systems remain vulnerable to terror attack. There are many reasons for the lack of action by the Federal Government, but we can no longer simply look the other way. Last year, the Congress had an opportunity to make significant strides to improve the security of our freight and passenger rail systems, highways, public transit systems, trucking and intercity bus operations, and pipeline systems. The Senate passed my amendments and amendments by other Senators to the SAFE Ports Act to address the security of these important modes of transportation. In fact, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to instruct its conferees to include these provisions in the final conference report of the SAFE Ports Act. Unfortunately, House Republican leaders stripped them out of the final version of the bill behind closed doors, instead enacting a ban on internet gambling. The actions by the House Republican leaders further delayed real progress in securing our homeland from terror. I believe the Federal Government must take a leadership role in securing our country from terrorism. States cannot on their own be left responsible for securing these interstate modes of transportation. That is why I am proud to be an author of the Surface Transportation and Rail Security Act of 2007. I have worked with my committee co- chairmen--Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens--to ensure this bill gets quickly considered. Its provisions are not new to anyone. They were considered, and agreed to, merely four months ago by the Senate. I am hopeful that they will again be quickly considered and adopted. This bill specifically requires accountability from the Department of Homeland Security, by ensuring that our rail systems have been analyzed for security risk. It authorizes necessary funding for making these security improvements and specifically includes $400 million for tunnel security improvements in the New Jersey/New York region. I will seek further Federal funding for improving security of the New Jersey/New York region's tunnels and bridges in additional legislation to be introduced this month, by working with my colleagues on the appropriate committees in the Senate. Last month, the Bush Administration proposed certain improvements to our nation's rail systems, but these proposals fell far short of what is needed to secure our country. For instance, the Administration proposal fails to take specific actions to improve the security of railroad stations, bridges, and tunnels. More people use Amtrak's Penn Station in New York City than use all three major New Jersey-New York region airports, Newark Liberty International, JFK, and LaGuardia airports, every day. This bill takes a much more comprehensive approach, by authorizing the funding needed to make these important security improvements. Our Nation's freight rail systems move some 12 billion tons of cargo, but we are not doing enough to protect those systems. Some of this cargo includes hazardous chemicals and other dangerous materials which travel within feet of our schools, hospitals, neighborhoods, and snake right through the middle of our cities. The potential for disaster looms large, as the misuse of these shipments can produce an effect that a weapon of mass destruction would on our communities. Clearly much more thought needs to be put into how we move this dangerous cargo, and the Federal Government must be involved. The Bush Administration must agree with this assessment, as their proposal would strictly forbid states or communities from acting on their own to protect their residents from these risks. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this important legislation gets considered and enacted soon. We cannot afford to delay any further these vital security improvements to our country.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, next week the Iranian Government and its President, Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad, will convene a 2-day conference in Tehran on the Holocaust. The Iranians say their conference will bring together the vast array of ``opinions'' on the Holocaust. Allegedly more than 60 so-called scholars from 30 countries will participate. I can only imagine the hatred that will be on display. It is no secret that President Ahmadi-Nejad has a long history of distortion of the truth and hatred for the Jewish people. It is also shocking that he has called for the destruction of the sovereign, democratic State of Israel. But what is so revolting is how casually he tries to alter history and the memory of those who perished at the hands of the Nazis. To make matters worse, Iran is holding this conference on International Human Rights Day Last year at an Islamic conference in Saudi Arabia, the Iranian President told reporters that the Holocaust had been used as a tool of propaganda, stating that the scale of the Holocaust had been exaggerated. He also sent a 3,000-word letter to German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, outlining his arguments. Now, the Iranians are trying to assure the world that this conference will be free of anti-Semitism and that it will explore views of ``both sides.'' Both sides? It is clear that denial is one of the sides. The Holocaust is an undeniable fact of history, and the upcoming conference will serve only to perpetuate intolerance. Eleven million people in total, including six million Jews, were viciously murdered in Nazi death camps. No one living in the rational world denies this fact. The Iranian President has a clear track record of poisonous hatred. He has stated that ``Israel must be wiped off the map.'' He also said ``Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nations' fury.'' Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is poised to take up and adopt a resolution that I have drafted--along with Senators Biden and Clinton--that condemns the Iranians and this sham conference. It is important that the Senate go on record condemning this hate and intolerance.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would preserve the public's right to know exactly what types and amounts of chemicals are being stored and released into their neighborhoods and communities. The legislation would stop the Environmental Protection Agency's dangerous attempts to undermine the Toxic Release Inventory--TRI-- program--which I authored in 1986--by allowing facilities that release up to 5,000 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 5,000 pounds standard represents a ten-fold increase of the current reporting threshold; this change would eliminate detailed reporting for thousands of facilities in communities around the country, including 92 facilities in New Jersey, and could eliminate entirely the disclosure of the releases of more than a dozen potentially dangerous chemicals. The EPA also has proposed to require reports on chemical emissions only every other year, instead of the current annual requirement. Under this wildly irresponsible proposed rule change, corporations would only be required to disclose their chemical emissions every other year. This means that communities would have no knowledge of what chemicals have been released in the 50 percent of years where emissions are not disclosed; additionally, companies would have a perverse incentive to concentrate their most egregious releases of toxic chemicals into the environment in years which are not reported. Furthermore, the EPA has published a proposal to reduce the information available to the public regarding the management of some of the most toxic chemicals that accumulate in the environment, including lead and mercury. Needless to say, I strongly oppose all three of these rule changes; the legislation I am introducing will stop them from taking place. I firmly believe that it is simply unacceptable for the EPA to reduce the amount of information available to the public about chemicals-- including mercury, lead 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 is attempting to weaken these rules and reduce 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. I find these proposals absolutely outrageous. It truly begs the question: who is the EPA really ``protecting''? The general public and the environment, or corporate interests that pollute our communities? 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 the marginal reduction in burden that will be provided to industry. In fact, according to the EPA's own estimates, the average cost saved for facilities no longer required to report the release of toxic chemicals in amounts less than 5,000 pounds would be approximately $2.32 per day. It is simply stunning that the EPA is willing to jeopardize public health and safety for a daily cost savings roughly equivalent to a couple cups of coffee. 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 am introducing is simple. First, it would codify the requirement that companies which release emissions of more than 500 pounds of any standard TRI chemical must disclose the details of their releases. Releases in amounts less than 500 pounds would continue to be allowed 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, mercury, and dioxin. Finally, it would prevent EPA from making the frequency of reporting less than every year. I would be remiss not 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 have introduced the companion of this bill in the House; I now look forward to continuing to work with them to ensure its passage. I would also like to thank my colleagues Senator Menendez and Senator Boxer, for being original cosponsors of this important legislation. As a result of the EPA's dereliction of its duty to protect the public and the environment, Congress must act to do so. I strongly encourage my colleagues to do just that by enacting this legislation. 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 exactly what types and amounts of chemicals are being stored and released into their neighborhoods and communities. The legislation would stop the Environmental Protection Agency's dangerous attempts to undermine the Toxic Release Inventory--TRI-- program--which I authored in 1986--by allowing facilities that release up to 5,000 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 5,000 pounds standard represents a ten-fold increase of the current reporting threshold; this change would eliminate detailed reporting for thousands of facilities in communities around the country, including 92 facilities in New Jersey, and could eliminate entirely the disclosure of the releases of more than a dozen potentially dangerous chemicals. The EPA also has proposed to require reports on chemical emissions only every other year, instead of the current annual requirement. Under this wildly irresponsible proposed rule change, corporations would only be required to disclose their chemical emissions every other year. This means that communities would have no knowledge of what chemicals have been released in the 50 percent of years where emissions are not disclosed; additionally, companies would have a perverse incentive to concentrate their most egregious releases of toxic chemicals into the environment in years which are not reported. Furthermore, the EPA has published a proposal to reduce the information available to the public regarding the management of some of the most toxic chemicals that accumulate in the environment, including lead and mercury. Needless to say, I strongly oppose all three of these rule changes; the legislation I am introducing will stop them from taking place. I firmly believe that it is simply unacceptable for the EPA to reduce the amount of information available to the public about chemicals-- including mercury, lead 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 is attempting to weaken these rules and reduce 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. I find these proposals absolutely outrageous. It truly begs the question: who is the EPA really ``protecting''? The general public and the environment, or corporate interests that pollute our communities? 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 the marginal reduction in burden that will be provided to industry. In fact, according to the EPA's own estimates, the average cost saved for facilities no longer required to report the release of toxic chemicals in amounts less than 5,000 pounds would be approximately $2.32 per day. It is simply stunning that the EPA is willing to jeopardize public health and safety for a daily cost savings roughly equivalent to a couple cups of coffee. 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 am introducing is simple. First, it would codify the requirement that companies which release emissions of more than 500 pounds of any standard TRI chemical must disclose the details of their releases. Releases in amounts less than 500 pounds would continue to be allowed 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, mercury, and dioxin. Finally, it would prevent EPA from making the frequency of reporting less than every year. I would be remiss not 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 have introduced the companion of this bill in the House; I now look forward to continuing to work with them to ensure its passage. I would also like to thank my colleagues Senator Menendez and Senator Boxer, for being original cosponsors of this important legislation. As a result of the EPA's dereliction of its duty to protect the public and the environment, Congress must act to do so. I strongly encourage my colleagues to do just that by enacting this legislation. 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 recognize and congratulate a great New Jersey company, the Control Group, on completing 100 years of service to firms and facilities throughout the country. This century-old company founded in 1906 by Austrian immigrant Louis Turen is the Nation's oldest, privately owned facility maintenance service company. The Control Group is still a family-owned and operated business and one of the largest private employers in the State of New Jersey. Four generations of the Turen family have directed Control Group from their headquarters in Secaucus, NJ. Louis Turen began a one-man enterprise washing windows and provided maintenance services. He eventually passed the torch on to sons Nathan and Sam Turen, who continued the tradition. Today, Nathan's sons Edward D. Turen and Neal L. Turen carry the mantle of leadership of the organization. A fourth generation, Scott Turen continues to carry on the family tradition. The growth of the company has been consistent and has expanded internationally as well as across our country achieving revenues in excess of $300 million annually. Control's success has produced a well-trained, loyal workforce of more than 7,000 employees providing their services to real estate, retail, banking, airport, pharmaceutical, and manufacturing industries as well as educational and public institutions. As a tribute to Control's high-quality service capabilities, its long-term customer base continues to grow, including some 50-year client relationships. Control Group has contributed to New Jersey's economy, its business climate and its jobs market. Faithful to its traditions of reliable service, quality, and new products, the Control Group has earned a reputation for its integrity, vision, and dedication. It is believed that the company will continue to expand its service offerings which will continue to expand its growth and opportunity. We applaud and thank the Turen family and their fine companies for their commitment to quality and client satisfaction and its allegiance to its roots in the State of New Jersey.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to thank Commerce Committee co-chairmen Stevens and Inouye for their hard work in achieving this bill's passage. H.R. 5782 the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006 is a timely piece of legislation, and I hope that it will soon become law. I am proud to be one of the original cosponsors of the Senate version of this bill, S.3961. Our 2.3 million miles of natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines are more than simply a series of tubes. This system is the transportation mode for nearly two-thirds of the energy consumed by our Nation. From large transmission pipelines to distribution pipelines to service lines which run into our homes, every part of this system must be safe. I am pleased that Congress is acting to reauthorize the Office of Pipeline Safety, OPS, and bringing its resources more in line with what is needed to adequately regulate this industry. This bill would authorize 50 percent more Federal pipeline safety inspectors than the Federal Government currently has. The bill will change Federal policy to help prevent construction- related damage to pipelines by giving additional enforcement authority to OPS and authorizing grants to states to improve one-call notification programs. At the same time, it will also make OPS enforcement actions more transparent to those interested in what the Federal Government is doing to make their lives safer. Furthermore, this bill will also regulate for the first time low-stress oil pipelines, such as the ones in Prudhoe Bay, AK, and gas distribution pipelines all over the country. One subject in the bill I was proud to author deals with the mandatory use of excess flow valves. These important safety devices can shut off gas flow when a service line is ruptured, preventing a potential explosion. One lesson we learned after the 1994 gas explosion in Edison, NJ, is that technology must be used to shut off gas flow in the case of a rupture. Shortly after that damaging explosion, I introduced legislation to require a greater use of automatic or remotely controlled shutoff valves. I am pleased that this bill will require excess flow valves to be installed in every new single family residence or replacement service lines in a single family residence. While the bill would give some discretion to the administration as to who may be exempted from this EFV requirement, I have met with Admiral Barrett, Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, and he assures me that only operators of master meter and liquefied petroleum gas, LPG, systems are intended to be excluded. On these systems, he believes EFVs have not been shown to be effective. By letter to me dated December 4, 2006, Admiral Barrett of the Federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration wrote to me: Requiring Installation of Excess Flow Valves The American Gas Association has provided data that leads PHMSA to believe that 1.2 million new and renewed gas services will be installed each year. PHMSA had been planning to propose to require each operator to include in its risk analysis consideration of whether to install EFV's to protect single-family residences served by new and replaced gas service lines from release of gas due to major damage to the line. Modifications to the reauthorization provisions will change PHMSA planned approach, but would allow PHMSA to determine applicability of the future standard to distribution operators. The circumstances where PHMSA believes conditions for installation of EFV's are not suitable are when gas supply pressure is not continuously higher than 10 psig, when liquids/contaminants that could interfere with valve operation are present in the gas stream, and where load data may be unstable. Based on current data, we would expect to apply the requirements for EFV's to more than 99 percent of new and replaces residential service lines. PHMSA plans to exclude from the requirement only operators of master meter and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) systems. These are very small distribution systems, whose operation of gas is incidental to another business, such as a mobile home park or small apartment complex, in the case of the master meter operator; or a ski lodge, in the case of the LPG operator. The variability in gas use is too large to pick one size EFV and most incidents would not trigger an EFV. We estimate that approximately 8,000 of these systems would be excluded from the EFV requirement. The estimate is based on reports in 2004 from (1) 45 state pipeline safety agencies that collectively 6,972 master meter systems were operating in their states and (2) 5 state pipeline safety agencies indicating that 926 LPG systems were operating in their states. Because some states do not have jurisdiction over all master meter systems in their states, the number reported may slightly understate the actual number. Further, we estimate that, on average, for each master meter and LPG system the operator has 100 services. I will continue to work with Senator Inouye in the next Congress, who will chair the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to determine the feasibility of requiring these important safety devices in types of buildings as well--other than single family residences as well as safety advocates including the National Transportation Safety Board have suggested is feasible. These safety devices can provide crucial protection in the event of a pipeline rupture or similar incident, and technology has advanced to the point where they are effective and readily available. Many pipeline companies are already using excess flow valves in such installations. I thank all those who worked toward an agreement on this provision and all those who helped pass this bill. A gas leak in a home can be a silent killer, with little warning; we must utilize technology which is available to keep our families safe.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce and discuss my bill, the ``Guarantee of Medical Accuracy in Sex Education Act.'' My bill would require that federally-funded sex education/abstinence only programs contain medically accurate and factual information as part of any course instruction. During the past few years, there has been an increase in the number of federally funded programs using curricula that provide medically inaccurate or misleading information. Some of these medical inaccuracies include teaching young people that HIV can be transmitted by sweat and tears, citing failure rates of condoms as high as 69 percent, as well as giving inaccurate symptoms and outcomes of sexually transmitted diseases. In addition, some federally funded programs provided erroneous information about basic scientific facts, for example, stating that human cells have 24 chromosomes from each parent when in fact the number is 23. Inaccurate information regarding contraception and STD/HIV prevention can make sex education both dangerous and counterproductive. Responsible sex education, by contrast, is an important component of a strategy to reduce unintended pregnancies, decrease the number of abortions, and mitigate the incidence of STD's. Instruction regarding sexual health and reproduction that includes inaccurate or biased information is not only irresponsible, but it is also dangerous, and it puts our young people at risk for unintended pregnancy and disease. I urge my colleagues to support medically accurate sex-education-- programs that helps young people to develop the proper understanding of their sexuality, so they can make responsible decisions throughout their lives. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for enabling me to make some remarks about the war and where things are as we see them. It has been more than a month since we were last together in the Senate. While we were out of session, the war in Iraq continued to rage. We in the Congress had the pleasure of going home to our families, our friends, familiar circumstances and surroundings. Our troops in Iraq, however, didn't have that opportunity while we were off, so to speak, for almost 6 weeks. Everyone knows that we did work at home, but we were in familiar, safe territory. The troops were in harm's way, trying to bring order to a country in absolute chaos. Tragically, many of our people there did not survive since the Senate was last in session. During the recess, America lost 157 brave men and women in combat, 146 in Iraq and 11 in Afghanistan, and 649 were seriously wounded. Most of us have been to Walter Reed and the naval hospital in Bethesda and had opportunities to talk to some of those people who are so seriously wounded, some limbless, some sightless. Their pain goes way beyond that which is directly part of their wound; their pain goes on for the rest of their lives. Now here we are, almost at Thanksgiving. Americans are looking forward to sharing a holiday with family and friends. But in this season of giving and cheer, we have to find a serious way to give some cheer, some recognition for the sacrifices of our soldiers. Outside my office, I have found a way to express thanks to them. We have established a photographic display of those who have lost their lives. It is called the ``Faces of the Fallen.'' It is visited daily by tourists and others who search the gallery for people they may have known from a hometown or region. Today I offer another way to honor our courageous men and women. I am going to place the names and hometowns of the 157 troops that we lost since the Senate was last in session in the Congressional Record. Too often when we talk about our fallen troops, they become faceless, if it is not your family, statistics, but we don't want that anymore. We want to recognize, and the American people want to recognize, what is really happening to the fathers, mothers, sisters, and children. They are our children, and many have children of their own. Among those who perished are PFC Donald S. Brown, 19 years of age, from Succasunna, NJ. I attended his wake 2 weeks ago, met with his family, and LCpl Christopher B. Cosgrove III of Cedar Knolls, NJ. There are many more New Jerseyans who have perished there. The number is almost 80 now. We look around, and they are from States across the country. Almost every State has seen the loss of a former resident, someone with roots in that State: SGT Bryan Burgess of Garden City, MI; SGT Courtland A. Kennard of Starkville, MS; CWO Miles P. Henderson of Amarillo, TX; CPL Kyle W. Powell of Colorado Springs, CO; SPC James L. Bridges of Buhl, ID; LTC Paul J. Finken of Mason City, IA; LCpl James Brown of Owensville, IN; SSG Jason D. Whitehouse of Phoenix, AZ; PFC Jason Franco of Corona, CA; SGT Luke J. Zimmerman of Luxemburg, WI; SGT Thomas M. Gilbert of Downers Grove, IL; SPC Nicholas K. Rogers of Deltona, FL; MAJ David G. Taylor of Apex, NC; LCpl Eric W. Herzberg of Severna Park, MD; CPL Joshua C. Watkins of Jacksonville, FL; SSG Patrick O. Barlow of Greensboro, NC; CPL David M. Unger of Leavenworth, KS; SGT Norman R. Taylor of Blythe, CA; SSG Garth D. Sizemore of Mount Sterling, KY; 2LT Joshua L. Booth of Fiskdale, MA; PFC Keith J. Moore of San Francisco, CA; and 1SG Charles M. King of Mobile, AL. There are too many more to read them all now. I ask unanimous consent that a full list of the 157 persons be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I want their families to know that they can find their names in the permanent Record. Around many dinner tables across the Nation this Thanksgiving, the conversation will no doubt turn to the Iraq war. By this Thanksgiving, we will have been at war in Iraq as long as we were in World War II. I served in that war for almost 3 years. By reading these names today, my hope is that the dinner table conversations will discuss our foreign policy and the reasons that we are there, the reasons that they think put us there. I would ask them to contact their Senators, Representatives in Washington with views and questions that are on their minds. Think about it. There are proposals now from outstanding leaders in this body suggesting that we need more troops than we have there, when it is the desire of most of us to get out of there. We can argue about timetables and should we have timetables, but we know this: we want our people home. It is shocking to hear suggestions that maybe we ought to be--not maybe, that we ought to be sending more troops. Where were those suggestions when General Shinseki, a very high ranking chief of the Army, said to the Pentagon, to the President, to the American people that we ought to have at least 300,000 people on the ground there? Why, then, if this war was planned properly, didn't we respect the opinions of so many senior officers in the military who said we needed more and were denied? When we hear pleas that say put more troops there, I, for one--I am sure colleagues of mine feel the same way--don't know where they are going to get them. We are stretched thin now. So I think it is a fairly arbitrary suggestion, unless there is a plan accompanying it that says whatever we do, this is what we intend to do. I don't want to get into that argument about timetables, and cut and run. No, stay and die. Is that the alternative that we are talking about? No. I don't want us to leave in a fashion that negates some of the sacrifices that have been made, but we are now being left alone as other countries pull out the few people who were there as part of a coalition which never really materialized. We want a plan. We want some idea as to what the President, the administration thinks about when we can start to look ahead, think more about it from this side, from the American side, and not have some false hopes, dismal hopes that we are going to be able to stay there and correct this situation without telling the American people, without telling the Congress that some program has to be presented that says we will not stay there forever. The price is far too costly. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Joel Rubin, a congressional fellow in my office, be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of my comments.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Iowa. I thank my colleague for yielding time, his time. I do not want to take too much time, aside from my response to what comments I heard here, but I do want to say that I regret this is among the last opportunities we will have to meet on the floor with our distinguished colleague from Minnesota, who has always been forthright on the issues, sticking up for what he believes, no matter what the penalty. Mr. President, I want to talk to another issue. I want to respond to these challenges that I hear on television about where are the-- essentially, and I will inject the word; they don't use it, but they say--cowards who won't come down on the floor to defend their position? Who are they? Challenge me on cowardice? You have to look at my record before they start that stuff. I was an original cosponsor of the Ryan White CARE Act. That was back in 1990. I have been an active supporter of this legislation for many years now. So I do not appreciate some of the lectures I have been hearing from people who claim that this is a principled issue with them and that we are being cruel and unfair and all kinds of things. It is nonsense. Let's discuss the issue rationally and see where they have been all these years when we have had practically flat funding on this critical issue for some 4 years now, not even meeting the growth in inflation. I have heard lectures about the effect on minorities. I will tell you something. The National Minority AIDS Council opposes this bill and supports our objection. I ask unanimous consent that a communication from them be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Ryan White CARE Act reauthorization legislation that is before us now would shift already inadequate Ryan White money away from States such as New Jersey where the epidemic first appeared and where the need is still growing, to States where the epidemic is emerging. I have been to an AIDS ward in a hospital in Jersey City. I have looked in those cribs where those little things are, twitching and moving because they come from mothers who have been HIV-infected, and the effect is horrible to witness. These are poor people. In this State of mine we have five of America's poorest urban centers. That is where we see the dominance of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. This bill pits cities against cities, States against States, women against men, and urban areas against rural areas. That is not the way to do it, if you really care. We need to fully fund the Ryan White CARE Act. But the majority is not willing to do that. So they are trying to steal the funds away from States that have the need and already have the population to serve. It is less than amusing for me to hear people who oppose adequate funding for this program suddenly act like this is the primary concern to them, that everybody else who doesn't agree with them is cowardly. And these four Senators they keep identifying--I am one of the four, proud to be one of those four. If there is a newly emerging problem in rural areas, then there is one answer--add money, add funding. But instead of funding AIDS treatment, the Senators on the other side of the aisle who are not here to defend the tax giveaways or the cost of the war--they voted to give away AIDS funding money to wealthy Americans, the wealthiest among us, in massive tax cuts. That's OK. Give that money to the rich so these poor little things, shivering in their cribs, can just do with a little bit less than they have. How about, instead of the estate tax cut for Paris Hilton--substantial funds--I ask my colleagues, why don't they come out here, protest that, and say let's give that money to help people with AIDS? The majority has allowed President Bush to turn Iraq into such a mess that we are spending over $2 billion a week. Our whole program is $2 billion a year. So why don't we cut back for a couple of weeks, give it to support treatment for HIV/AIDS. What if we could take just 1 week's worth of spending in Iraq for AIDS treatment? We still have a massive problem in our States, and maybe they have an emerging problem. My suggestion, with all my heart, fund it. Find the money for it. But don't take it away from a neighbor or another State where the problems are overwhelming as well. In my home State of New Jersey, we have the highest proportion of cumulative AIDS cases in women. We rank third in cumulative pediatric AIDS cases. Furthermore, we have consistently ranked fifth in overall cumulative AIDS cases since the beginning of this epidemic. Yet under the reauthorization proposal, we stand to lose $70 million. It is unacceptable. It is not acceptable for us to simply say this is a formula fight and there will undoubtedly be winners and losers because the losers in this case pay a terrible price. With the Ryan White CARE Act, when we talk about losers we are talking about lives being lost. I for one will not settle for such an outcome. I object to this process and to this bill because it is a shortsighted approach to how we take care of HIV and AIDS patients in the future. This bill will take hope away from people living with HIV/AIDS to urban areas in large States. I will not let it happen on my watch, no matter how challenging or how vitriolic the suggestions are made talking as if we are afraid to come out. We are not afraid at all to defend our position. We just think theirs is wrong. Come out and tell the truth about how you feel about it and say, let's find more money. Let's have a debate about higher funding for the Ryan White CARE Act and see if we can get the necessary means to cover our needs. I don't think you are going to hear that from the Senators who were so bold in their accusations.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank you. I will continue to object to going forward with this bill.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, one of the most important parts of this Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill is a section that should not be in it at all. It is a perfect example of how the majority has decided to legislate: make back room deals and pass phony protections instead of real ones. I am speaking about the section that purports to adopt chemical security protections for our country. To illustrate what chemical security means, and why it is so important, let me tell you what happened on Tuesday in Elizabeth, NJ. A worker at a trucking company accidentally ruptured a small pressurized gas tank and released a cloud of sulfur dioxide into the air. Workers at nearby storage and shipping facilities became ill. Truck drivers in the area abandoned their vehicles as their lungs burned and they couldn't breathe. People on the side of the road were vomiting. Fifty- eight people--including a first responder--were taken to the hospital. That was a small accident. Imagine if a terrorist blew up a large chemical facility. To understand the impact, all you have to do is drive 9 miles down the road from Elizabeth to Kearny, NJ, home to the Nation's most dangerous chemical plant. Kearny is a blue-collar, working-class town. Forty- thousand residents--men, women and children--make Kearney home. An act of terror at the Kuehne chemical facility could put Kearny--and the twelve million Americans who live within fourteen miles of the plant at risk. No wonder that facilities storing large amounts of chemicals have been called ``pre-positioned weapons of mass destruction'' by homeland security experts. One would think that the majority and the administration would do all it can to stop an attack in Kearny--or at any of America's nearly 15,000 chemical facilities. Republican leaders have put together a counterfeit bill that they are trying to pawn off as ``chemical security,'' but we are not buying it, and neither should the American people. Recognizing that this was a problem even before 9/11, I introduced the Nation's first chemical plant security bill in 1999. And earlier this year, Senator Obama and I introduced a new comprehensive chemical security bill that seeks to protect the American people--not the chemical industry. The Republican leadership has brushed aside our strong bill, and other legislation that has come out of the Homeland Security committees in the Senate and the House. Instead, the Republican leaders borrowed a page from the ``Dick Cheney Energy Task Force'' playbook: lock the windows, bolt the doors and meet with industry lobbyists. And what did the Republicans and chemical industry lobbyists come up with? A fraudulent bill. The chemical industry bill put forward by the Republicans fails to require the safest practices at the highest-risk facilities. It is a bill that fails to secure the nearly 15,000 facilities that store dangerous chemicals. A bill that fails to protect drinking and waste water facilities. And a bill that fails to make clear that states can adopt stronger chemical security laws than the federal government. So will this chemical security bill authored by the chemical industry, the majority, and the administration make the Nation safer? No. The public should not be fooled. Because this fake chemical security bill has been attached to the Homeland Security appropriations bill, most Senators will vote for it. But make no mistake, it is not what we want or need. We need a bill that requires all chemical plant owners to improve the security of their sites, and when possible, replace toxic chemicals with safer ones. We need a bill that makes perfectly clear that states can adopt stronger laws than the toothless version the majority are doing here. We don't need the majority, the White House, and the chemical industry deciding the fate of towns like Kearny or Elizabeth behind closed doors. All of this is more reason we need a new direction in Washington.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will speak on the port security conference report we are just passing. I am a conferee on that bill and this conference has been a sham. It is shameful because the Democratic members of the conference committee have not been allowed to offer amendments to the conference report. We were sitting on our hands for virtually an hour while the chairman of the conference committee was absent, without a piece of paper in front of us about what was in the port security bill. Nothing. There was no indication of what was there. No guide, nothing--just sitting there wiling away the time. Why, we asked, did the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate allow this perversion of the democratic process? Why make promises we would have a chance to offer amendments but never be able to do so? They wanted this conference to be a plain backroom deal. Their agenda is to strip from this bill important provisions on rail security, transit security and aviation security and replace them with legislation that has nothing to do with our homeland security at all, our port security. I would like to understand from the majority what it is they were trying to tell the American people. What was so objectionable about the provisions Democratic conferees wanted to offer to bolster aviation, transit, rail, truck, bus, and pipeline security? The Senate has agreed to the rail security legislation and twice the Senate has approved transit security legislation. Twice the Senate agreed to my amendment to remove the arbitrary cap on the number of airport screeners that can be hired, but each time these measures died due to the inaction by the House of Representatives. Now Republican leaders, once again, want to kill them. Last night, the Republican chairman assured the Democratic conferees that they could offer amendments to the conference report, but they put obstacles in the way to permit it from happening. Republicans were fearful of showing votes against common sense for rail, transit and aviation security measures. This challenges logic beyond belief. Last night, the House had actually approved, had voted 281-140, to instruct their conferees to support the Senate provisions on rail, transit and aviation security. Transit systems have always been terrorist targets. They are open, accessible and teeming with innocent people. Since we have not done what we need to do to protect them, they are vulnerable. Recent attacks in Madrid, London and Mumbai have shown just how devastating these attacks can be. Hundreds of people have been killed just commuting to and from their jobs in those cities. The Senate rail security provision mandated measures to help protect 25 million Amtrak riders each year, but the House leadership dismissed recent attacks on the rail systems as not significant enough to guard against. It would protect millions more who live near rail tracks where trains carrying hazardous materials pass by, with some very close to this facility, on nearby tracks. Once again, logic failed. The aviation security provision dealing with airport screeners was approved in the Senate by a vote of 85-12. It would have removed the arbitrary caps on hiring TSA airport screeners. I repeat, the Senate, by a vote of 85-12, would have removed the arbitrary cap on hiring TSA airport screeners even though burgeoning numbers of passengers are flooding our airports. Lifting the cap could have made air travel safer. And it would have reduced the amount of time passengers have to wait in line at terminals to pass through security lines. It is important for the American people to understand the enormous opportunity taken away from them to protect themselves. It is important for our people to understand the leadership in the Congress stood against rail security, transit security or shorter airport-airline passenger security. We did not finish the conference on the port security bill. We finished a sham. The majority ought to be embarrassed by their thoughtless abandonment of essential security protection for the American people as they travel. The leadership stripped out--in the conference that never took place--rail transit and aviation security but made sure that Texas Hold'em Poker games are illegal to play on your computer. I regret this took place. I hope America does not see in its near future that they were foolishly careless in not protecting our citizens as much as they could. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to talk about my bill to provide a temporary reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act. I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Menendez, Clinton, Schumer, Obama, Durbin, and Bill Nelson, for cosponsoring this important and life-saving measure. I was an original cosponsor of the Ryan White CARE Act and I have been an active supporter of this legislation for many years now. Never have I been as concerned about the future as I am right now. The Ryan White CARE Act Reauthorization legislation that has been proposed in both the House and the Senate actually attempts to shift already inadequate Ryan White money away from States like New Jersey, where the epidemic first appeared and the need is still growing, to States where the epidemic is emerging. The Committee bill pits cities against cities, States against States, women against men, and urban areas against rural. This is not the way to go. We need to fully fund the Ryan White CARE Act to realize the promise of its original intentions. Today I am introducing an alternative bill to reauthorize Ryan White. My bill has something for everyone in it. This legislation to reauthorize the Ryan White Care Act includes provisions that would help remedy funding disparities and permit a temporary extension to allow negotiations to continue. My bill would simply extend current law through Fiscal Year 2007. Additionally it would provide for a 3.7 percent increase in authorizations over the 2006 amounts to account for inflation. Importantly, my bill also protects States that have not yet transitioned to ``names based'' reporting for HIV cases by giving them an extra year to make that change. Without this protection these States would lose significant money. Finally, I recognize the need of those States who have a growing incidence of HIV, which is why I include a one-time emergency authorization of $30 million to be distributed to those States who have unmet need and no Title I entities. The original Ryan White CARE Act provides critical funding to help provide health care and support services for low-income individuals and families affected by HIV or AIDS. Since its enactment in 1990, Ryan White funds have helped millions of HIV/AIDS patients receive the care and treatment services they need to live healthy and productive lives. The Senate and House bills to reauthorize the Ryan White Care Act are named the ``Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act.'' Ironically, it does not modernize the care of folks living with HIV/ AIDS in our communities. Rather, it will bring us back to the early 1990s when the disease was spreading even more rampantly than it is now, and people were dying quickly. I know firsthand that many of the stakeholder groups, those people who are on the ground providing and receiving services funded by the Ryan White CARE Act, are terrified of what will happen to our system of care should this reauthorization move forward. In my home State of New Jersey, we have the highest proportion of cumulative AIDS cases in women, and we rank third in cumulative pediatric AIDS cases. Furthermore, we have consistently ranked fifth in overall cumulative AIDS cases since the beginning of this epidemic. And yet, under the reauthorization proposal we stand to lose millions of dollars. That is unacceptable. It is not acceptable for us simply to say that this is a formula fight and there will undoubtedly be winners and losers. With the Ryan White CARE Act, when we talk about losers, we are talking about lives being lost. I, for one, am not willing to settle for such an outcome. It's not just my State that stands to lose money, either. New York, Florida, and Illinois all stand to lose millions of dollars under this proposal. All those states that have substantial need. My bill is clearly not meant to be a permanent substitute for reauthorizing Ryan White. It is meant to give us all more time to continue our negotiations and try to work out a compromise that may keep all of our systems of care in tact. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today with great pride to introduce legislation which would create a national park in my hometown, Paterson, NJ. The Paterson Great Falls National Park Act of 2006 would bring long-deserved recognition and accessibility to one of our Nation's most beautiful and historic landmarks. I am pleased that my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, is cosponsoring this legislation. The Great Falls are located where the Passaic River drops nearly 80 feet straight down, on its course towards New York Harbor. It is one of the tallest and most spectacular waterfalls on the east coast, but the incredible natural beauty of the falls should not overshadow its tremendous importance as the powerhouse of industry in New Jersey and the infant United States. Indeed, in 1778, Alexander Hamilton visited the Great Falls and immediately realized the potential of the falls for industrial applications and development. Hamilton was instrumental in creating the planned community in Paterson--the first of its kind nationwide--centered on the Great Falls, and industry thrived on the power generated by the falls. Rogers Locomotive Works, the premier steam locomotive manufacturer of the 19th century, was located in the shadow of the falls, as were many other vitally important manufacturing enterprises. President Ford recognized the importance of the area by declaring the falls and its surroundings a ``National Historic Landmark'' in 1976; he called the falls ``a symbol of the industrial might which helps to make the United States the most powerful nation in the world.'' Now, it is time that we recognize the importance of this historic area by making it New Jersey's first national park. This would be of special importance because so few of our national parks are in urban areas. I believe that it is time we acknowledge that many of our most significant national treasures are located in densely populated areas. Mr. President, I grew up in Paterson, and I have appreciated the majesty and beauty of the Great Falls for many years. By creating a national park in Paterson, more Americans can be exposed to the exceptional cultural, natural, and historic significance of the Great Falls, and that is why I will passionately advocate for the passage of this bill. I have been delighted to work with my good friend, Congressman Bill Pascrell--another longtime resident of Paterson--on this issue and with a bipartisan group of lawmakers from my home State, all of whom believe strongly in this cause. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation, which is so important to New Jersey and all of America.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to talk about my bill to provide a temporary reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act. I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Menendez, Clinton, Schumer, Obama, Durbin, and Bill Nelson, for cosponsoring this important and life-saving measure. I was an original cosponsor of the Ryan White CARE Act and I have been an active supporter of this legislation for many years now. Never have I been as concerned about the future as I am right now. The Ryan White CARE Act Reauthorization legislation that has been proposed in both the House and the Senate actually attempts to shift already inadequate Ryan White money away from States like New Jersey, where the epidemic first appeared and the need is still growing, to States where the epidemic is emerging. The Committee bill pits cities against cities, States against States, women against men, and urban areas against rural. This is not the way to go. We need to fully fund the Ryan White CARE Act to realize the promise of its original intentions. Today I am introducing an alternative bill to reauthorize Ryan White. My bill has something for everyone in it. This legislation to reauthorize the Ryan White Care Act includes provisions that would help remedy funding disparities and permit a temporary extension to allow negotiations to continue. My bill would simply extend current law through Fiscal Year 2007. Additionally it would provide for a 3.7 percent increase in authorizations over the 2006 amounts to account for inflation. Importantly, my bill also protects States that have not yet transitioned to ``names based'' reporting for HIV cases by giving them an extra year to make that change. Without this protection these States would lose significant money. Finally, I recognize the need of those States who have a growing incidence of HIV, which is why I include a one-time emergency authorization of $30 million to be distributed to those States who have unmet need and no Title I entities. The original Ryan White CARE Act provides critical funding to help provide health care and support services for low-income individuals and families affected by HIV or AIDS. Since its enactment in 1990, Ryan White funds have helped millions of HIV/AIDS patients receive the care and treatment services they need to live healthy and productive lives. The Senate and House bills to reauthorize the Ryan White Care Act are named the ``Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act.'' Ironically, it does not modernize the care of folks living with HIV/ AIDS in our communities. Rather, it will bring us back to the early 1990s when the disease was spreading even more rampantly than it is now, and people were dying quickly. I know firsthand that many of the stakeholder groups, those people who are on the ground providing and receiving services funded by the Ryan White CARE Act, are terrified of what will happen to our system of care should this reauthorization move forward. In my home State of New Jersey, we have the highest proportion of cumulative AIDS cases in women, and we rank third in cumulative pediatric AIDS cases. Furthermore, we have consistently ranked fifth in overall cumulative AIDS cases since the beginning of this epidemic. And yet, under the reauthorization proposal we stand to lose millions of dollars. That is unacceptable. It is not acceptable for us simply to say that this is a formula fight and there will undoubtedly be winners and losers. With the Ryan White CARE Act, when we talk about losers, we are talking about lives being lost. I, for one, am not willing to settle for such an outcome. It's not just my State that stands to lose money, either. New York, Florida, and Illinois all stand to lose millions of dollars under this proposal. All those states that have substantial need. My bill is clearly not meant to be a permanent substitute for reauthorizing Ryan White. It is meant to give us all more time to continue our negotiations and try to work out a compromise that may keep all of our systems of care in tact. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today with great pride to introduce legislation which would create a national park in my hometown, Paterson, NJ. The Paterson Great Falls National Park Act of 2006 would bring long-deserved recognition and accessibility to one of our Nation's most beautiful and historic landmarks. I am pleased that my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, is cosponsoring this legislation. The Great Falls are located where the Passaic River drops nearly 80 feet straight down, on its course towards New York Harbor. It is one of the tallest and most spectacular waterfalls on the east coast, but the incredible natural beauty of the falls should not overshadow its tremendous importance as the powerhouse of industry in New Jersey and the infant United States. Indeed, in 1778, Alexander Hamilton visited the Great Falls and immediately realized the potential of the falls for industrial applications and development. Hamilton was instrumental in creating the planned community in Paterson--the first of its kind nationwide--centered on the Great Falls, and industry thrived on the power generated by the falls. Rogers Locomotive Works, the premier steam locomotive manufacturer of the 19th century, was located in the shadow of the falls, as were many other vitally important manufacturing enterprises. President Ford recognized the importance of the area by declaring the falls and its surroundings a ``National Historic Landmark'' in 1976; he called the falls ``a symbol of the industrial might which helps to make the United States the most powerful nation in the world.'' Now, it is time that we recognize the importance of this historic area by making it New Jersey's first national park. This would be of special importance because so few of our national parks are in urban areas. I believe that it is time we acknowledge that many of our most significant national treasures are located in densely populated areas. Mr. President, I grew up in Paterson, and I have appreciated the majesty and beauty of the Great Falls for many years. By creating a national park in Paterson, more Americans can be exposed to the exceptional cultural, natural, and historic significance of the Great Falls, and that is why I will passionately advocate for the passage of this bill. I have been delighted to work with my good friend, Congressman Bill Pascrell--another longtime resident of Paterson--on this issue and with a bipartisan group of lawmakers from my home State, all of whom believe strongly in this cause. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation, which is so important to New Jersey and all of America.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the inhumane and unnecessary annual slaughter of small cetaceans, including Dall's porpoise, the bottlenose dolphin, Risso's dolphin, false killer whales, pilot whales, the striped dolphin, and the spotted dolphin, by Japan's drive fishery. Drive hunts are run by fishers who use scare tactics to herd, chase, and corral the animals into shallow waters where they are trapped and then killed or hauled off live to be sold into captivity. The overexploitation of these highly social and intelligent animals for decades has resulted in the serious decline, and in some cases, the commercial extinction, of these species. On April 7, 2005, I introduced Senate Resolution 99 to help end this inhumane and unnecessary practice and urged participating countries to stop the brutal treatment of these animals. Fishers have killed small cetaceans along the coastlines of Japan for centuries with no regard for the humaneness or sustainability of the hunt. Currently, up to 20,000 small cetaceans of several species are killed in Japanese drive and harpoon hunts each year. In the last two decades, more than 400,000 have been slaughtered in Japan alone. The cruelty endured by dolphins and whales caught in drive hunts is immense. Aboard motorized boats, drive hunt fishers loudly bang metal pipes over the side of their boats to disorient the animals and drive them toward shore where they are trapped by nets and stabbed with long knives, usually just behind the blowhole or across the throat. Many of the animals eventually die from blood loss and hemorrhagic shock or their spinal cord is severed. Today, the Humane Society of the United States/Humane Society International, Animal Welfare Institute, and Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society are joining with concerned citizens throughout this country and around the world to gather in peaceful demonstrations to express their concern for the welfare of these animals. I, too, join them in condemning these brutal and senseless hunts.