Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, our bill has been sent to the desk, and I want to start off by saying that I am pleased, obviously, that the Senate is considering S. 294, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007. The first thing I want to do is to say thanks to my friend and chief cosponsor of the bill, Senator Trent Lott. We have worked together on matters related to transportation in the past, and there is no question that he understands the potential for passenger rail, and his long- standing efforts to improve our country's transportation systems are well known and deeply appreciated. Like him, I believe this is a critical moment--with delays, unavailability of reliable planning for work, personal opportunity to spend time with kids and family or other activities of choice. Anyone who spends any significant time on our roads does not need reminders that highway congestion is a major problem. In almost every city and town of any size throughout our country, it is experienced. A recent study by the Texas Transportation Institute showed that highway congestion costs our country over $78 billion per year, including $4.2 billion in lost productivity and 2.9 billion gallons of wasted fuel and an indeterminable loss in the quality of our lives. These things all cascade upon us. Congestion, however, isn't just limited to our roads. One in four flights was late last year at our airports. At Newark Liberty International Airport, it is almost one in two flights. Other metropolitan regions are experiencing worsening delays. The DOT finally had to cap the number of flights at Chicago's O'Hare Airport a couple of years ago and is considering doing the same thing for Newark and Kennedy Airport in New York. Even airlines are throwing in the towel. The 38 minutes in the air between here and New York City is now scheduled to take almost 2 hours, gate to gate. It is on the schedule-- 38 minutes of flying time and almost 2 hours to make the trip. It is outrageous. Coupled with long security lines, these delays make air travel increasingly stressful and inconvenient. How about those who are stranded in airplanes, for sometimes as long as 9 hours--stuck in an airplane without the amenities that necessarily should be there, like food and potable water and working restrooms and so forth? Everyone knows what a difficult day going to the airport can be, or that air travel can be like. Further, everyone knows that the high price of gas has created economic hardship for so many Americans. Some experienced voices are predicting that oil prices in the future, not too distant, can be as high as $200 a barrel, more than twice the current price. One reason why the United States is addicted to oil, as President Bush puts it, is because the Government has not provided other options for travelers. Where reliable rail service is available, people will run to the trains. Our Nation's passenger railroad, Amtrak, has enjoyed record ridership over the past several years and set a new company record of almost 26 million passengers in the last year. More travelers take the train between Washington and New York City than fly on all the airlines combined between these cities. Amtrak is so popular in the Northeast because people can count on being on time; it is reliable service and it is economical and comfortable. We see similar results outside of the Northeast corridor, where frequent and reliable passenger service is available. I can tell you from personal experience that riding the train can be a pleasurable experience. Passengers can use their laptops, talk on the phone, have a bite and be productive and not be exhausted when they get there. Additionally, in most instances, rail service delivers passengers directly to where they need to go in the heart of a city. What a difference that is. You don't have to spend a half hour or an hour to get to the airport a half hour or an hour before the plane takes off so you are ready when the flight is ready to leave. Good passenger rail service is not only good transportation policy, but it is something people in this country are rushing to use. Everyone is aware now also of the danger of pollution. In the battle against global warming, which is enveloping our country, with erratic weather raising havoc, rail is one of the most effective weapons. To move one passenger a mile, Amtrak emits slightly more than half of the carbon dioxide that airlines do and less than cars as well. Americans want a cleaner option in the air and the water for their children, grandchildren, and future generations than this constant assault on healthy air and water. In a time where conserving energy and reducing our dependency on foreign oil has never been more important, passenger rail service offers significant fuel-saving benefits. In a time when oil imports continue to expand while prices rise, the quality of life in America is being substantially eroded by these high prices. According to the Department of Energy, airlines on the average consume over 20 percent more energy than Amtrak to move a passenger one mile, while we search for ways to fight against poisoning our atmosphere. Passenger rail is not just a matter of convenience. It is also an important security asset. One of the lessons we learned on 9/11 was that our country cannot afford to rely on any single mode of transportation. When our aviation system shut down that terrible day, September 11, and for days thereafter, Amtrak was a principal way to reunite thousands of travelers with their families. We also saw chaotic evacuations during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, with resulting floods, with evacuating motorists stuck for hours and some without cars were left behind altogether. Some investigations showed that with better preparation, passenger trains could have been used to help move thousands out of harm's way. It is clear that rail service can help move our citizens to safety during emergencies, but you can't do it without the trains and the track that are part of the system. Other nations around the world understand these benefits and, unfortunately, we have been lagging behind. I will never forget a trip I took from Paris to Brussels. There are 18 trains a day between these two cities. You cannot get an airplane that goes between the two. The 210-mile trip takes about 85 minutes. Think about it, 210 miles taking 85 minutes, with trains leaving practically every hour. If you go to Union Station here and travel approximately 210 miles, it is a 3-hour or 2\3/4\-hour train ride. We can do so much better. The Europeans are not better at these things than we are. They are not smarter than we are. But from Spain to Germany, they have simply made the wise decision to invest in passenger rail. These investments extend worldwide. Taiwan recently opened its $15 billion, 208-mile rail line this year, where riders can travel its length, 208 miles, in 90 minutes-- approximately the length of the trip between Washington, DC, and New York City. The benefits of these systems are obvious to anyone who travels there. We need the same world-class system in this country. The potential of new rail corridors in our country is enormous. Higher speed, more frequent rail service between Chicago and other Midwestern cities, such as St. Louis, Detroit, and Milwaukee, would revolutionize the way people travel in an entire region of our country. Likewise, expanded rail service between Atlanta, Charlotte, Richmond, and Washington would allow people options besides having to brave traffic and trucks on Interstate 95. I am reminded that the train service between Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington, called the Cascades line, is enjoying tremendous ridership, over 600,000 passengers each and every year. It is an invaluable asset. We see something similar in California between San Diego and Los Angeles, where over two and a half million people took the train this past year. There is enthusiasm for passenger rail service in America, and States are planning rail corridors throughout the country. They are prepared to spend their limited funding for rail projects. But our Federal policies encourage them to build more roads. That is why we need to pass this bill that Senator Lott and I have presented. Our bill paves the way for an improved modern passenger rail network. It authorizes funding for Amtrak's capital needs as well as State grants for passenger rail. We already make a significant investment in roads. We spend $40 billion a year. By comparison, we spend almost half that amount on airports and air traffic control towers. Our bill will start to address this investment gap by authorizing nearly $2 billion a year for Amtrak in the States that participate over the next 6 years. A yearly average of $237 million of this money will be used to create a new State grant program for rail projects. Our Amtrak bill also funds the rehabilitation of Amtrak's Northeast corridor and mandates that Amtrak work with the Department of Transportation and the States to develop plans to do so. Our bill also requires changes at Amtrak--Senator Lott pursued this diligently--to make sure these funds will help the railroad continue moving in the right direction. While we had record ridership and revenues last year, we can still improve its efficiency and management practices. That is why our bill would require Amtrak to reform its operations to reduce its Federal operating subsidy by 40 percent over the life of the bill. It also, at the suggestion of the Department of Transportation's inspector general, will allow the Federal Government to refinance Amtrak's $3 billion in outstanding debt. With this bill, we are hitting so many of the areas of concern: it not only addresses the funding, but it also helps the management to focus on getting this railroad in a condition that it should be in. One of these major reforms is for Amtrak to develop a new financial accounting system, which will provide more transparency into the company's financial management and better cost controls. Most importantly, the Lautenberg-Lott Amtrak bill focuses on improving service for passengers. I learned when I was in the private sector that if you provide a good product, people will buy it. We will require new standards for service quality--on-time performance, onboard and station services, cost recovery, connectivity, to name a few. The public is going to know what Amtrak is doing and would be kept apprised of their performance through quarterly reports from the Federal Railroad Administration. Our bill also addresses the problem of train delays. On many routes outside the Northeast, freight trains delay Amtrak riders from reaching their destination on time. It is against the Federal law. As we know in the airline industry, delays frustrate passengers and hurt the company's bottom line. Our bill would authorize the Surface Transportation Board to issue fines to freight railroads that delay Amtrak trains. We all have to share the system and share it efficiently. Some have suggested another provider could be more efficient than Amtrak. I doubt this claim, but our bill does authorize a program to allow a freight railroad to bid for Amtrak's subsidy on up to two long- distance or State-supported corridor routes. So we are saying, even if there is some skepticism on our part, the bill authorizes the States to go ahead and work with the freight railroad to bid for an Amtrak subsidy, on up to two long-distance or State-supported corridor routes. I repeat that because it is very significant. We want the States to participate, and we want to open as much of a change in policy as can be done with practical output. This pilot program could allow freight railroads to maximize efficiencies because they own the tracks already. As many Northeast corridor States have called for more involvement in how that essential corridor is run, this bill will improve governance by giving Northeast States, such as New Jersey, a bigger voice in infrastructure and operations decisions. The State will join a newly formed commission that will develop recommendations about the short- and long-term capital investments, among other things. And speaking of governance, our bill restructures Amtrak's board of directors by ensuring a bipartisan nine-member board of qualified members. That gives an opportunity to bring more people into the management decision process, and we think it will be a much more efficient and involved board. One board member, nominated by President Bush, actually told me at his Senate confirmation hearing that he had never even been on an Amtrak train. Well, it does not suggest he is going to be working with knowledge in hand that is significant or helpful to the company. Currently there is a seven-member board, no qualification requirements, and for years the Administration had taken the position that the board need not be bipartisan at all. Well, it was originally structured as a bipartisan board to give all sides to the principal parties to be able to be engaged in this process. We worked hard to forge this bipartisan compromise plan. Last Congress, our plan, which was nearly identical to this one, was approved by the Senate as an amendment to the budget bill by a vote of 93 to 6. That tells us this is a well thought-out plan. There are only slight changes to our bill from the last Congress, and we will have a managers' amendment to address other minor modifications. Our Nation's passenger rail programs have not been reauthorized for a decade, and the result is chaos in our transportation system. I urge my colleagues to vote for this Amtrak bill, to provide millions of Americans with more transportation choices. It is fair to say that the public has agreed with this change in droves. They are sick and tired of being delayed, paying more for fuel, and including a more polluted atmosphere at the same time. It is time to make this change. Amendment No. 3451 Madam President, I send a managers' amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell.) The clerk will report.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside so I might call up an amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I call up amendment No. 3350, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, before I speak on my amendment, I offer my personal thanks to Senators Harkin and Specter for their hard work in putting together an excellent bill. It puts more resources, in particular, into the well-being of our most precious asset: our children. I was pleased to join Senator Harkin and Senator Specter as a member of the subcommittee in providing more of the resources needed for health and education programs that have been shortchanged by this administration over the last several years. The best part of this bill is that we have a chance to help children live longer, healthier, and more productive lives. The worst part of it is that, despite all of its benefits, the President said he intends to veto the bill. This bill increases Head Start funding by $200 million. Today in New Jersey, more than 14,000 children depend on Head Start for their early education. This bill also recognizes growing concerns about the terrible conditions of autism. It is a growing problem. Studies have shown that 1 in 94 children in New Jersey will be born with or carry autism in their lives. From 1991 to 2005, the number of cases diagnosed as autistic went from 234 in 1991 to 7,400 cases in 2005, a mere 15 years. To see an increase such as this must be paid attention to. These numbers are alarming. I congratulate our committee for this welcome addition for funding autism detection. Families across America are ever more anxious about this health threat. Also alarming are the statistics on another health problem in our country. We have the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world. America sees 19 million cases of sexually transmitted diseases, and almost half of them strike young people. That is why Senator Snowe from Maine and I are offering an amendment to make sure our young people get the truth about their health, so they don't become one of these statistics. America's young people should expect the truth from their doctor, they should expect it from their parents, and they certainly should expect it from a government-funded program. We cannot expect young people to make life-changing decisions if they get the wrong information from the Government. We have a responsibility to give them the most accurate information available when communicating with them. Right now, the Federal Government is falling down on the job. We have given out hundreds of millions of dollars for abstinence-only education. The fact of the matter is these programs are not successful. If we are going to spend as much as a dime on them, we must be good stewards of the people's tax dollars and make sure the information being given out is complete and truthful. Yet we have found case after case of incorrect and potentially harmful information being taught in these programs. In 2004, a report found that of the 13 most common federally funded abstinence programs, 11 have unproven claims and basic scientific errors. In fact, the office in the Department of Health and Human Services in charge of these programs doesn't even bother to check whether they are providing accurate medical or scientific information. It is time to change this policy. Young people have a right to complete and accurate information that protects their health and may save their lives. The amendment Senator Snowe and I are offering would make sure they get it right. Our amendment says Federal money is not to be spent on inaccurate and deceptive information. Millions of children in New Jersey and across this country deserve no less. We have seen misstatements made about the failures of contraception. What does that mean? It means diseases are more likely to be transmitted. It also means the number of teen pregnancies could increase based on misinformation. The Senate had approved this amendment in the 2006 appropriations bill. I hope and urge that we pass it again this year. What is more, I commend the leadership of this committee, Senators Harkin and Specter, for constructing a bill that is going to help our young children better off in their lives. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise with pity and anger that this administration can be so insulated from reality that millions of American children will be denied health insurance because of the President of the United States and a small minority in the House of Representatives. There was a critical vote in the House today: whether to override the President's veto of the children's health insurance bill. Two hundred and eighty six votes were needed to override this veto, but we fell 13 votes short: 273 to 156. One hundred and fifty six Members of the House of Representatives cowered to the President and turned their back on our children. They turned their back on almost 4 million kids nationwide who would have gotten health care, including 100,000 in my home State of New Jersey. And they cast these harmful votes against the will of the American people. Eighty-one percent of the public supports this bill. Yet the President's puppets in the House said no. They chose ideology over children. They choose tax breaks for millionaires over a doctor's visit for a sick child. They are more than willing to spend $12 billion a month on Iraq, but not $7 billion a year for children's health. You have to question the moral priorities of those who oppose funding children's health care in America. Civilized societies take care of their children. I believe we are a civilized society. I just think we have the wrong person in the White House. It is time to put aside ideology and put the needs of American families first. The only good news today is that the bill on the floor of the Senate right now puts families first. This Labor-HHS appropriations bill will help children live longer, healthier, and more productive lives. It increases Head Start funding, medical research gets a boost and we are doing more to support critical education programs. But despite all of these benefits, President Bush says he will veto this bill too. I say: ``shame.''

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking Senators Mikulski and Shelby for their leadership in drafting the Commerce- Justice-Science appropriations bill. This bill empowers our police and law enforcement professionals with tools and resources to keep our children safe. Today, our police need these tools more than ever. The FBI just released its violent crime data for 2006. After years of going down, violent crime went up in each of the past 2 years. Murders went up from 2005 to 2006, and nearly 15,000 people were murdered in 2006. Those statistics are people--people whose lives were changed or ended by a horrible act of violence. But instead of reacting to those stories with vigilance, this administration has reacted by cutting the very programs that keep our streets safe from crime and violence. This bill fights back. It restores funding for the programs the administration wrongly cut and lets families feel more secure in their homes. For example, this bill provides $550 million for the COPS Program, and I was proud to cosponsor an amendment to add $110 million for hiring police officers. In New Jersey alone, the COPS Program has added 500 new cops on the beat. It is because of programs such as COPS that I am proud to support this bill. It is preposterous that President Bush is threatening to veto it. I must note, however, that there is one provision in this bill that is dangerous. Instead of making us safer, it puts our communities and the people trying to protect them at greater risk. That provision is the ``Tiahrt amendment,'' which has been a staple in appropriations bills over the last few years. Instead of helping our police, the Tiahrt Amendment makes their job harder. The Tiahrt amendment limits the information the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, can tell our police about guns used in crimes. The Tiahrt amendment does not protect responsible gun owners; it protects criminals, gang members, and gun traffickers. Before the Tiahrt amendment, ATF data showed 60 percent of crime guns came from 1 percent of gun dealers. It is only common sense that police should be able to target corrupt gun dealers, but the Tiahrt amendment makes it difficult for the police to identify those dealers. Limiting access to ATF gun trace information means that police have to wait until after a crime has been committed to get information about dangerous weapons, instead of being able to get that information to prevent crimes. That makes no sense. It is bad enough that the Tiahrt amendment restricts the information our police can get, but the language in the Senate bill is even worse than in previous years and in the current House bill. The Senate version of the Tiahrt amendment requires local cops to certify to the ATF why they want the information--and it threatens them with up to 5 years in jail. It is simply outrageous to threaten our cops with jail time in order to protect the people committing gun crimes. Even the Department of Justice admitted in 2006 that threatening our police with criminal penalties could create a ``chilling effect'' on law enforcement. The Senate language also further restricts the sharing of information between law enforcement agencies when they do obtain information from ATF. With violent crime on the rise, we should be encouraging law enforcement to work together, not prohibiting collaboration. Simply put, the Tiahrt amendment hurts our law enforcement efforts. That is why more than 10 national law enforcement organizations, 240 mayors, and State and local leaders from across the country have joined together to oppose the Tiahrt amendment. And that is why Senator Mikulski showed leadership and left this language out of the bill to begin with. Regrettably, the Tiahrt Amendment was added back during the committee markup. The job of fighting crime is hard enough already. We don't need to make it any harder. I will continue my fight against the Tiahrt amendment until the Tiahrt amendment is no more.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would also like to thank the chairman and ranking member for their leadership on this issue and Senators Specter and Casey for their continued support. Without an extension of the section 508 program, hospitals in New Jersey stand to lose over $22 million. These hospitals cannot afford to sustain this loss and still provide the care needed to New Jersey residents. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to provide an extension of this important program.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to protect health and safety by notifying the public when there are potentially harmful sewage overflows in our streams, rivers, and coastal waters. This legislation, the Sewage Overflow Right-to-Know Act, would amend the Clean Water Act to require that owners and operators of publicly owned treatment works monitor their systems and notify the public when there is a sewage overflow with the potential to affect public health. The Clean Water Act is soon to celebrate its 35th anniversary, and despite great gains we are still far from achieving the goal of eliminating pollution discharges. EPA estimates that there are between 23,000 and 75,000 sanitary sewer overflows each year. Those spills dump between 3 billion and 10 billion gallons of untreated sewage into our rivers, lakes and coastal waters annually. In addition, combined sewer overflows spill 850 billion gallons of contaminated stormwater into our waterways each year. Increased investment in our wastewater infrastructure is sorely needed to avoid having water quality return to what it was in the 1970s. This is why I chaired a hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee's Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security and Water Quality Subcommittee yesterday on clean water funding, and I look forward to working to reauthorize the Clean Water State Revolving Fund this Congress. While we work toward closing the infrastructure funding gap and reducing sewage pollution, we must also keep citizens safe by informing them when there are sewage overflows. The EPA estimates that up to 3.5 million people get sick each year from recreational contact with waters contaminated by sanitary sewer overflows alone. Currently, citizens are often needlessly unaware of sewage overflows. Although some individual utilities do an excellent job of public notification, many do not provide any communication to the public. The Clean Water Act does not require public notification under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System for sanitary sewer overflows, and State requirements, where they exist, are extremely variable. This legislation would remedy that situation by ensuring that publicly-owned treatment works employ a monitoring system to alert the operators when there is an overflow, and relaying that information to the public when there is potential harm to the public's health. In cases where the overflow has the potential for imminent and substantial harm, public health authorities and other affected entities, such as local drinking water treatment plants, must also be notified. This legislation also requires annual reporting to EPA or the State with a summary of all overflows and the plans in place to address the overflows. This will help provide a more comprehensive picture of sewage infrastructure problems, and increase public awareness of needed repairs and upgrades. Clean water and public health are priorities for New Jersey. Some sewer pipes in my State date back 150 years, and overflows are becoming more common. In one event earlier this year, 150 million gallons of untreated sewage mixed with stormwater spilled into the Hackensack River. The Sewage Overflow Right to Know Act establishes public notification of health risks posed by sewage overflows to keep our residents healthy while we continue to work to reduce sewage pollution. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record immediately following my statement.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Montclair State University, MSU, on its 100th anniversary. Over the past century, MSU has grown from its humble beginnings as the New Jersey State Normal School with just 187 students into one of the premier educational institutions in the State of New Jersey. Montclair State University began as a teacher's college and, to this day, continues to train the Nation's finest educators. However, the school's curriculum has expanded to include a comprehensive range of first-class undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral programs. With over 16,000 students and 465 full-time faculty members, MSU is currently the second-largest and fastest-growing university in New Jersey, and has a diverse student body that reflects New Jersey's population. Much of the University's success can be attributed to its steadfast dedication to outstanding faculty, exceptional teaching, and quality of scholarship. The university is led by a dedicated and talented team focused on meeting the many needs of its students and the surrounding community. MSU manages to provide the individual attention of a small college, while also offering a vast array of majors and concentrations. Mr. President, the students and alumni of Montclair State University have much to be proud of as they celebrate 100 years of academia. I applaud MSU for its many years of service, and I wish the university continued success in the years ahead.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to protect health and safety by notifying the public when there are potentially harmful sewage overflows in our streams, rivers, and coastal waters. This legislation, the Sewage Overflow Right-to-Know Act, would amend the Clean Water Act to require that owners and operators of publicly owned treatment works monitor their systems and notify the public when there is a sewage overflow with the potential to affect public health. The Clean Water Act is soon to celebrate its 35th anniversary, and despite great gains we are still far from achieving the goal of eliminating pollution discharges. EPA estimates that there are between 23,000 and 75,000 sanitary sewer overflows each year. Those spills dump between 3 billion and 10 billion gallons of untreated sewage into our rivers, lakes and coastal waters annually. In addition, combined sewer overflows spill 850 billion gallons of contaminated stormwater into our waterways each year. Increased investment in our wastewater infrastructure is sorely needed to avoid having water quality return to what it was in the 1970s. This is why I chaired a hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee's Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security and Water Quality Subcommittee yesterday on clean water funding, and I look forward to working to reauthorize the Clean Water State Revolving Fund this Congress. While we work toward closing the infrastructure funding gap and reducing sewage pollution, we must also keep citizens safe by informing them when there are sewage overflows. The EPA estimates that up to 3.5 million people get sick each year from recreational contact with waters contaminated by sanitary sewer overflows alone. Currently, citizens are often needlessly unaware of sewage overflows. Although some individual utilities do an excellent job of public notification, many do not provide any communication to the public. The Clean Water Act does not require public notification under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System for sanitary sewer overflows, and State requirements, where they exist, are extremely variable. This legislation would remedy that situation by ensuring that publicly-owned treatment works employ a monitoring system to alert the operators when there is an overflow, and relaying that information to the public when there is potential harm to the public's health. In cases where the overflow has the potential for imminent and substantial harm, public health authorities and other affected entities, such as local drinking water treatment plants, must also be notified. This legislation also requires annual reporting to EPA or the State with a summary of all overflows and the plans in place to address the overflows. This will help provide a more comprehensive picture of sewage infrastructure problems, and increase public awareness of needed repairs and upgrades. Clean water and public health are priorities for New Jersey. Some sewer pipes in my State date back 150 years, and overflows are becoming more common. In one event earlier this year, 150 million gallons of untreated sewage mixed with stormwater spilled into the Hackensack River. The Sewage Overflow Right to Know Act establishes public notification of health risks posed by sewage overflows to keep our residents healthy while we continue to work to reduce sewage pollution. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record immediately following my statement.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I speak today as a Senator from New Jersey, the State that lost 700 of its residents including those who were at work that day at the World Trade Center. I remember when President Roosevelt in 1941 pronounced December 7 as the ``day of infamy,'' and once again, we see a moment in time, a moment of infamy, evil beyond comprehension, because the events of this day changed the way people live on this Earth. The Twin Towers were far more than the sum of their steel and concrete parts. The towers that I knew very well were cities, essentially, in the sky. Fifty thousand people worked in those towers, more people than the population of many of our Nation's communities. In many cases, those 50,000 men and women spent as much time in the towers as they did at home, from New York and New Jersey, and from other States throughout the country, from small families and big families, from every walk and stage of life. On that autumn morning 6 years ago, they awoke and began moving to the rhythm of the day, drawn to the Trade Center just as normal, just like the days and the years before. Only this day was different. This day became an epoch moment in the history of man, this day terror would no longer be a thing that would be in distant places, not be a thing of memory or talk. Terror was about to become real. Three thousand people, spouses with no mates, children without a parent, siblings, and treasured friends, gone. They live on only in our memory. Seven hundred of the almost 3,000 people who perished were from my State of New Jersey. Thirty-seven of them came from a single town in New Jersey, Middletown. In 2003, I helped dedicate a memorial garden in their honor. Tears were still flowing. Firefighters, police officers, and first responders died within the towers, as they fought valiantly to save people they never knew and never saw. I had the privilege of serving as a commissioner of the Port Authority in New York and New Jersey for 4 years before I came to the Senate. I got to know the corridors of traffic and energy contained in those buildings. I also got to know many of the terrific people who filled the jobs that enabled the Port Authority to provide the critical services it offered to our region. The Port Authority lost 84 staff members on 9/11, including 37 brave police officers who gave their lives as they attempted to help others immobilized by the catastrophe. I knew many others who worked for firms housed in the Twin Towers who perished that day. In one firm, Cantor Fitzgerald, I knew people very well, and they lost 700 that single day at their firm alone, many with young families just beginning. They had young kids and they had lives with great possibilities ahead of them, ended abruptly, brutalized in that terrible moment. People stared aghast at the television and said to themselves and others who would be listening: This can't be happening. The United States? In America? Taking down the Twin Towers that were monuments to commerce, energy, and vitality. I was on a trip to the Middle East, and it included a stop in Israel, at the moment the tragedy hit. I saw tears flowing down the faces of people from this tiny country, crying for America, pleading for some understanding that would help relieve the pain. Like Pearl Harbor 60 years ago, 9/11 changed the world. It changed the world, the way we see it, the way we see ourselves, constantly having to produce identification cards, waiting in lines to be examined by security, thousands and thousands of people. Our own Homeland Security Department has 180,000 people focused primarily on trying to protect this homeland of ours from other violent moments with terrorism. We have to live differently. We must live with more vigilance. We live knowing that evil is omnipresent. We know we are fighting a ruthless enemy, one whose frontline is our homefront, one that brings war to the innocent. We are constantly on the watch in New Jersey. The stretch between Port Newark, our harbor, and Newark Liberty International Airport, is defined by the FBI as the most dangerous 2-mile stretch in the country, the most inviting for a terrorist attack. We are constantly on guard. We are constantly concerned. Something happened that day when 19 madmen set out to destroy America. We didn't bend. We promised to search for those who orchestrated the terrible acts. We are still looking for them. We must continue to do so. But we will always remember those who fell that day. Their loss binds our Nation. We stand together as one in our fight against terror, and we will, on this day of remembrance, always remember what happened. We can't forget. They are honored with vigils and candles, with that light serving as beacons of hope and barriers against fear. In Bayonne, NJ, we remember those who perished with a monument, and we see these memorial sites across our region. In Hoboken, there is a park with ginkgo trees whose longevity reflects the enduring spirit of the victims. From one county in New Jersey, Bergen County, 135 lost their lives. It can't just be a memorial. America has to rebuild its spirit. The world has to fight against terror. We know this morning a ceremony at the site of the World Trade Center took place with a commitment to rebuild. We want that to happen. It is critical for our spirit that we show that America is trying its best to bring peace to the country, to bring back civilization as we knew it, and we hope that will take place. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to talk about the bill that is presently on the floor. It is a good bill, and it couldn't be done at a more appropriate time. It is a critical issue. We hear many people talking about our decaying transportation infrastructure. The bill is focused primarily on the transportation side, but it also applies to other important subjects, including housing. But when we see the reports about how structurally deficient and functionally obsolete our transportation system is, and where we stand relative to other countries--even some third world countries--we should want to catch up here. When flights are taking off and landing on time, when our railroads are carrying more passengers and cargo safely, when our roads and bridges are in good condition--our economy thrives, and so does the well-being of our people. We don't have anything that measures the stress factor of motorists, but I am sure if every driver were wearing some kind of a meter that recorded stress levels, the needles would go off their face. Tempers rise, time is lost, and appointments are not kept. But when we fail to adequately fund these priorities, our economy and our infrastructure falters. That is why this bill is critical to our economy. My colleague, the Presiding Officer, also from the wonderful State of New Jersey, knows we have to get things done. We have to get people and cargo moving. We have a tiny State, with lots of people, the most crowded State in the country, and transportation is essential. However, we don't have a monopoly on congestion, delays, and pollution from travel. I remember days when I went back and forth to work from the Capitol and that the ride used to be 15 minutes. Now sometimes it can take half an hour. Look at the bridges and the roads around the Capitol, and we see it. Go anyplace that has a thriving population and you will find the same problem. Our State of New Jersey is a global gateway and a national crossroad for transportation--air, railroad, and sea. We have the largest seaport on the East Coast. Each year, millions of cargo containers are put on trucks and trains at New Jersey's ports, bound for cities and towns across the interior of America. Newark's Liberty International Airport is one of the busiest, and is the most delayed in the country. We have that unfortunate distinction right now. Each week, many of New Jersey's almost 9 million residents ride trains or buses or drive their cars across bridges and through tunnels connecting them to jobs outside the State or within the State. Last year, 54 million cars, trucks, and buses crossed the George Washington Bridge from Fort Lee, NJ, into New York City, by way of example. After the tragedy in Minnesota, I began working with State leaders to make sure our bridges in New Jersey could safely and effectively handle the increasing volume of cars and trucks. I know many of my colleagues did the same thing. Thirty-four percent of the bridges in the State of New Jersey are deficient, which is higher than the national average of 27 percent. Think about what these percentages mean. It is saying that one out of three bridges is structurally deficient or functionally obsolete and in trouble. That is the way it seems to be in many places in the country. Enormous parts of the highway system are not able to handle the volume of traffic that passes over these areas. Congress understands that bridges in America should not disappear into dust and rubble, costing lives and untold economic consequence. That is why in this bill we included $5 billion for Federal bridge programs, a 20-percent increase over last year. I was pleased to work with Senator Murray to add another $1 billion to strengthen our bridges. As the chairman of two subcommittees overseeing Federal transportation programs, I am going to continue to do my part to keep our bridges strong so New Jerseyans can get to their jobs and back to their families safely. We want to strengthen these bridges and give people the assurance that when they cross over they are safe. I talk to people who say they are reluctant to cross over some of the bridges we have in our area. Reluctant. But we take it for granted you have to do it in order to get where you must be. I want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Murray and Ranking Member Bond for building a smart and strong transportation and housing appropriations bill. It funds Federal bridge repair programs, airline safety inspections, bus and rail transportation systems, and even operation of the air traffic control system. In particular, I am pleased that the committee agreed to increase funds for Amtrak, our Nation's passenger railroad. Between the lines of cars on the highway and the long security lines at airports, American travelers need and deserve a choice. If one wants to see what a difference it could make, travel to some of the countries in Europe or Japan where they have world-class passenger rail service, where a trip from Brussels, Belgium, to Paris, France, a 200-mile distance, is accomplished in 1 hour 25 minutes. If you tried to get an airplane to take you that distance, you couldn't. They do not fly that way anymore. It is superfluous when you can get from the inside of one city to inside the other city and not have to go through the torment of the long lines and other inconveniences of getting on airplanes. Today I had the experience of getting on an airplane at LaGuardia Airport in New York. My home in New Jersey is mid-way between LaGuardia and Newark airports. The weather didn't look that bad. We got on the airplane at 9 o'clock for a 38-minute flight to be here for a vote at 11. But due to congestion, we arrived here at a quarter past 11. It is somewhat amusing, with an odd twist, when the pilot gets on and tells you how many minutes the flying time is because it is almost irrelevant. The flying time doesn't tell you how long it is going to take. It can take 38 minutes in the air, but it can take an hour and a half on the ground, which is pretty much what happened to us this morning. As a consequence, Mr. President--and you know how important casting your vote is around here--we missed a vote this morning, two other Senators and myself who were on that flight. With all the problems with our transportation systems, President Bush either doesn't get it or just won't do it. He wants to put brakes on progress. The day after the terrible tragedy in Minnesota, when rescue crews were still searching for missing people, I heard the President respond, and he said: I am disappointed the Congress hasn't sent me a spending bill. But 2 weeks earlier he said he was going to veto the transportation spending bill because it was too much money. Can't have it both ways, Mr. President. And the public suffers. President Bush's funding request would put Amtrak into bankruptcy, but expanding Amtrak is one way to get people off of the highways in many cases and out of the skyways. It is unacceptable for the Nation's passenger railroad service. Amtrak is experiencing record ridership levels, and it is unfair to the traveling public not to put the money in there that we have to. The bill before us would provide $1.5 billion for Amtrak, providing the funding it needs to survive and to grow. I am a frequent user of Amtrak, and I know very well that while the service is radically improved from where it was, more needs to be done to accommodate the volume of passengers who would use the railroad. The funding here includes a new $100 million grant program for States to expand passenger rail service. This proposal stems from a plan Senator Lott and I have developed to reauthorize Amtrak. I also thank my subcommittee leaders for agreeing to my request to include additional funding for the Department of Transportation's Office of Aviation Enforcement, to be able to protect airline passengers' rights. Now it is a small group of people trying to handle passenger complaints, and they cannot get to them. It is ridiculous. How do we in the Government know what is going on if we cannot process complaints that come in? This office is the only place where airline travelers can turn when they are mistreated by airline companies, and they know very well this mistreatment is frequent. Right now this enforcement office only counts most complaints. Instead of acting on them, they collect them. It is like a mail repository. This includes complaints about overbooked and canceled flights, deceptive advertising, failing to process fare refunds and adjustments, unfair administration of frequent flier programs, and even acts of discrimination upon disabled passengers. With this new funding we can make sure that airlines provide better service to all their customers and act on the complaints a customer files, not just note that they have arrived. Furthermore, I am pleased the committee agreed at markup to include an amendment I put in limiting pollution by some waste-handling facilities near railroads. It is an issue of great significance to New Jersey. We have seen fires and pollution emitted from waste-handling facilities. The problem is we cannot get at them and correct them because of a loophole in the Federal law which lets some solid waste processors do business without regulation, allowing unimpeded pollution of our water, air, and lands. My amendment will at least temporarily close this loophole. I have a more comprehensive bill which will close this loophole permanently, and I am working with railroads and other stakeholders in hopes we can get it passed this year. We now have transportation and public housing programs together in this bill. Perhaps it is just the way it ought to be to accommodate life in better form for our citizens. Public housing programs provide homes for some 38,000 people in my State alone. Public housing needs have been underfunded by at least $1 billion in the last 6 years. The bill also maintains funding for the Hope VI program, instead of eliminating it, which President Bush has tried to do. Hope VI has generated more than $1 billion to revitalize distressed public housing in New Jersey alone, to make sure these families have an affordable home. At a time when we see problems with home ownership for lots of people--bankruptcies in abundance--people will have to find different places to house themselves and their families. We have to make these investments. The housing stock that we have is often inadequate, inadequate not simply in numbers but in quality as well. This funding we are getting will be especially important. President Bush, as I mentioned before, has threatened to veto the bill because it contains $4 billion more for transportation and housing needs than he requested. A veto would cause people to lose their homes. A veto would cause bridges to go unrepaired--bridges in dangerous condition. We have to fix these things to be publicly responsible. President Bush is willing to have us spend $3 billion every week in Iraq. We want to make sure we provide funding for those soldiers who are serving overseas right now, but we also need to fund our needs here at home. There is an unacceptable problem we see in our country. We do not invest our limited funds back into our infrastructure as we so desperately need to do, and at the same time we are continuing a war that, for many of us, is questionable and ought to be terminated very quickly. It is about time the President's priorities matched up with the needs of Americans at home. This bill will go some way toward helping that. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I helped craft the 2008 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill and I am proud of the priorities we set for our military. There is no more important time than now to show our support for our troops. Nearly 200,000 American service men and women are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 1.5 million have served valiantly since these wars began. Of these, more than 33,000 servicemembers have come from New Jersey. This legislation will provide critical funding to ensure that those in our military who sacrifice in defense of our country now and those who did so in the past are given the best care. Overall veterans funding will increase 18 percent over last year's levels, supporting physical and mental care, the administration of the Veterans' Administration, VA, health system, and VA medical facilities. The Veterans Health Administration will receive an increase of $4.6 billion to help care for our wounded warriors, to treat both their physical injuries and increasingly common mental trauma, including post-traumatic stress disorder. This appropriations bill also aims to strengthen our military bases, providing $21 billion for military construction efforts and infrastructure improvements at bases, including those in New Jersey, and to support projects related to the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Act, BRAC, of 2005. We are all proud of the work being done at military bases in our home States and nationwide, and it is vital that we support their missions now and in the future. But I must take a moment to alert my colleagues to troubling information that has come to light since the Appropriations Committee completed work on this bill. Fort Monmouth, based in New Jersey, is the Army's primary intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance facility. The Army's work at Fort Monmouth is critical to the safety of America's military men and women and to the success of their missions. The intelligence support it provides goes directly to our troops in the field, making them more effective fighters and protecting their lives and the lives of those around them. Over the next 5 years, researchers at Fort Monmouth are slated to develop significant innovations for our Armed Forces, such as Warlock Jammers, which emit radio frequencies that interfere with the signals that set off improvised explosive devices--infamously known as IEDs. The Jammer was engineered at Fort Monmouth and modified for use in Iraq. The military was able to deploy them within 60 days of their development, and they save American lives. But despite the critical value of this and other innovations at the Fort, the BRAC Commission in 2005 voted to close Fort Monmouth. It goes without saying that no Senator wants to see a base close in his or her State. And it is not only New Jersey that will suffer a loss of jobs and economic activity because of the 2005 BRAC process. But the situation with Fort Monmouth is unique and casts a shadow on the entire base closure process. As we learn more information about the closure of Fort Monmouth, it becomes increasingly clear that this was a flawed process based on faulty estimates that must be thoroughly investigated. The first and most pressing question is how this closure will affect our troops in the field, given the crucial work Fort Monmouth does for ongoing missions overseas. Simply put, Fort Monmouth is strategically vital to our military and to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Anticipating this alarming problem, the BRAC Commission specifically included a requirement for the Secretary of Defense to prove that closing Fort Monmouth will not harm troops in the field. The caveat required the Pentagon to submit a report to Congress ensuring ``that movement of organizations, functions, or activities from Fort Monmouth to Aberdeen Proving Ground will be accomplished without disruption of their support to the Global War on Terrorism.'' The GAO is then expected to review and audit the report. Yet more than 2 years after the BRAC Commission vote, the administration has failed to produce this report. Even worse, the Army is trying to move personnel out of Fort Monmouth before it has even considered the effect on our military. This is unacceptable. No personnel should leave Fort Monmouth and be transferred to Aberdeen, MD, before the Department of Defense reports to Congress that the closure of Fort Monmouth will not hurt our troops in the field. But that is only one of the reasons why the BRAC decision to close Fort Monmouth is so controversial and so flawed. It is becoming increasingly clear that only about 20 percent of the highly trained and highly skilled workforce who work at the Fort--from engineers to scientists--appear willing to move to Maryland. This is far fewer than the rosy forecast of 75 percent that was provided to the BRAC Commission in 2005. Again, we must ask how this shortage of expertise will affect the critical operations and technology that Fort Monmouth currently provides to our military. Furthermore, the costs of closing Fort Monmouth are skyrocketing and call into question the very cost-savings rationale upon which BRAC decisions are made. This argument was made by many in 2005, but the warnings were ignored. And as more facts come to light, it becomes apparent that the BRAC Commission was not given all of the information that it should have had to make its decision. The original cost estimate for closing the fort was $780 million. But according to the Army's own budget request for the fiscal year 2008, that cost has now nearly doubled to $1.5 billion. We all know that the cost overruns are not limited to the closure of Fort Monmouth. In fact, the Congressional Research Service has calculated that overall BRAC costs have increased from initial estimates of $17 billion to a current projection of $32 billion. There are also signs that the true costs of closing Fort Monmouth may have been ignored in 2005. There is mounting evidence that the Pentagon knew, or should have known, that the cost estimates it gave the BRAC Commission related to the closure of Fort Monmouth were not correct. A July 2005 memo from Fort Monmouth officials detailed significant cost errors in the Pentagon's estimates, but the information in that memo was never received by the BRAC Commission. For these reasons I, joined by Senator Menendez and our colleagues in the House of Representatives, have asked both the Government Accountability Office and Defense Department's inspector general to investigate the decision to close Fort Monmouth. There is over $200 million in this bill for military construction at Aberdeen, MD. While I understand this committee's desire to continue funding pursuant to the 2005 BRAC Commission decisions, I must caution that the closure of Fort Monmouth and the transfer of its critical operations needs to be reexamined in light of these facts and the investigations and reports that are underway. I would also note that Senator Menendez and I have introduced legislation to change the BRAC process by calling for a review of major base closures that result in excessive cost overruns of over 25 percent. I hope my colleagues will see the wisdom of this legislation and support it in the coming months.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to discuss an important issue with the manager of this bill, Senator Reed, and with my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator. I would like to first thank the Senator and Senator Hutchison for putting together a good bill. Everyone in this body agrees that we must support the men and women of the military while they are serving overseas and when they return home, and I believe this appropriations bill meets that demand.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this bill also strengthens our military bases, providing money for military construction efforts and improvements at bases, and to support projects related to the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Act of 2005, known as BRAC. While I support strengthening our bases and their overall infrastructure, some disturbing information has come to light about the BRAC process and the closing of the Fort Monmouth Army base in New Jersey since our Appropriations Committee completed work on this bill that warrants our immediate attention.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Fort Monmouth researchers also develop critical technology for our Armed Forces, such as ``Warlock Jammers,'' which were engineered at Fort Monmouth and modified for use in Iraq. This equipment emits radio frequencies that interfere with the signals that set off improvised explosive devices known as IEDs. The military was able to deploy them within 60 days of their development, and they started saving American lives.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yet more than 2 years after the BRAC Commission vote, the administration has failed to produce this report. To make matters worse, the Army is trying to move personnel out of Fort Monmouth now, before it has even considered the effect on our Armed Forces. Before the Army starts to shift work out of Fort Monmouth, we need to know that it won't hurt our troops.