Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a troubling issue that has plagued our political debate for many years and now has come to a head. I cannot stay silent any longer. We so much admire the eagle, the bird of strength, the bird that portrays the courage of America, the willingness to support our country no matter what the cost. That is what the eagle says to me. At times it has been an endangered species. But there is another bird I want to talk about today. That bird is called, in my view, the chicken hawk. There is such a bird, but usually it is the hawk chasing the chicken. But now I want to talk about the chicken that really chases the hawk. Those of us who answered our Nation's call for military service at wartime have not grandstanded on that issue. We served our country and, frankly, many of my colleagues who answered the call are not always willing to talk about their experiences. But now I see a disturbing trend from the other side of the political aisle. More and more, Senators in this body are tagged as lax on national security or homeland security or support for the military because of votes they took against problematic defense bills over the years. For years the charge coming from across the aisle is that Democrats are somehow or other less patriotic, less supportive of defense, and it is a shameful and grotesque charge. In my view these charges typically come from people I would simply call chicken hawks. My definition of a chicken hawk is someone who talks tough on national defense and military issues, casts aspersions on others who might disagree on the vote, but when they had a chance to serve, they were not there. Now they are attacking the Senator from Massachusetts for opposing bloated or poorly designed defense bills. Is it known how much courage it takes to vote against a bad Defense authorization or appropriations bill? We all know it takes a lot of political courage, because even if the bill contains wasteful and damaging provisions, the vote can be twisted by your opponents. But when faced with a bad defense bill, what do the chicken hawks do? They take the easy road. They fly the easy route. They always vote for it, no matter what it says. How much courage does it take to vote for a bad defense bill? None. Zero. It is the easy thing to do. Our colleague, the distinguished junior Senator from Massachusetts, is being attacked this week by the other side of the aisle as being weak on support for the military and compromising the defense of our country. I say shame on those who impugn the patriotism of those who supported their country's call for duty and paid for it with injuries resulting from their obedience to that call. In my view, that is the cry of the chicken hawk who has no idea what it means to have the courage to put your life at risk to defend your country and its ideals. But the Senator from Massachusetts knows it all too well. When our country went to war in southeast Asia, the Senator from Massachusetts enlisted in the Navy. He requested to be sent to Vietnam to fight for his country, and he did that. For his heroic service in Vietnam, the Senator from Massachusetts won the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, three Purple Hearts--that means he was wounded three times; it is a miracle he is still alive--the Combat Action Ribbon, the Navy Presidential Unit Citation, the Navy Unit Commendation Ribbon, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, and the Vietnam Campaign Medal. How dare they challenge his commitment to our defense? His patriotism? The Senator's action took courage. It is the same courage the Senator showed when he refused to vote for defense bills merely because they were defense bills. As a man who has seen a battlefield, he has a keen understanding of military needs and military policy and he voted accordingly. He actually did what his constituents sent him here to do: evaluate legislation on its merits and vote with your conscience and your obligation to our citizens. Did it take courage? Of course. Integrity? Of course. Was it an easy thing to do? Absolutely not. The easy thing to do would be to simply vote for all the defense bills, no matter what they say, and pretend these votes are the real measure of patriotism. That is what the chicken hawks do. That is the easy road. It is the same easy road we see when someone files for five student deferments and then claims an old football injury should prevent him from fighting for his country. Only a chicken hawk would attack a political rival who lost three limbs in Vietnam as being soft on defense. So I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we are not going to put up with these insinuations that attack our patriotism, our support for our troops, anymore. Because real patriotism and real support for our Nation's defense should not be judged on whether we ignore our constitutional duty and rubberstamp legislation. Real patriotism and support for the defense of this country has to do with answering the call. In my view, as a fellow veteran, the Senator from Massachusetts not only answered the call to fight for his country, but also to perform his duty and judge legislation on its merits. I served in the Army. It doesn't mean I should approve $1,500 toilet seats or poorly designed military equipment that is being procured simply because of political influence. In fact, I believe because I served, I have the duty to the men and women who are now in the military to make sure our military is strong and is as free from waste and corruption as possible, and our military men and women are protected to the fullest extent possible during their service and, when they are veterans, to provide for their health care needs and other services without question. Our job is to think as Senators and not to bow to everything defense contractors or Pentagon officials want. The Senator from Massachusetts has voted for plenty of defense spending increases, but he has also voted to prevent bad programs from moving forward. He does his duty to his country and to his constituents. The way I see it, the President and his proxies are attempting to bring American politics back to the days of dirty tricks. We saw it in 2000, not against just Al Gore but also against the most serious Republican challenger, the Senator from Arizona. The Bush campaign coordinated attacks on the Senator from Arizona that questioned his commitment to our troops. Outrageous. An attack on a man who not only fought for this Nation but spent years as a prisoner of war. They didn't stop there. They even attacked the Senator's family. It was a new low in modern American campaigning. I want the administration and its allies in Congress to know we are not going to put up with these despicable insinuations and dirty campaigning. From now on, they question our commitment to our troops and the defense of this Nation at their own peril. We saw it just the other day, I think it was yesterday. In a speech that was publicly televised, those members of the NEA, the National Education Association, who stick up for the quality of our teachers, for their ability to earn a living, for the ability to take the courses they need--to talk about them as terrorists? That is no different than the chicken hawk line I just talked about. With that, I will yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the bill that is the subject of today's cloture vote on the motion to proceed. We must not be fooled by the seemingly friendly title of this bill. The Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Access to Care Act of 2003 does nothing to promote the health of mothers or babies. This bill will devastate the rights of parents and children, but it will help neither patients nor doctors. The real beneficiaries will be insurance companies, HMOs and large medical corporations. Sponsors of this bill insult us by calling it a Healthy Mothers and Healthy Babies Act. How can shielding from accountability an entire medical specialty area result in healthy babies? Less accountability will never lead to better health care. This bill discriminates against women and infants by restricting their right to hold physicians, hospitals, insurance companies, HMOs, and even drug and medical device manufacturers fully accountable for injuries resulting from the provision of obstetrical and gynecological care. Although proponents of the legislation say the bill is necessary to increase access to women's health care, nowhere does the bill make liability insurance for doctors more available or affordable. And nowhere does it provide access to health care for women who are uninsured. What it does do is greatly limit the ability of women and children with the most devastating injuries to hold the wrongdoer accountable. It is another example of what I call the ``maleogarchy'' that prevails around here placing a higher value on a man's worth than a woman's. The bill cynically devalues the worth of pregnant women injured by medical negligence. Men's injuries are given full value. For example, if a woman is inappropriately prescribed blood pressure medication during pregnancy that causes blood clots, her recovery is limited under the bill's provisions. If a man is prescribed the same defective blood pressure medication by his internist, he may recover against the drug manufacturer in accordance with available State law remedies. The legislation unfairly reduces the amount of time that an injured woman has to file a lawsuit. Under the bill, a suit would have to be filed no later than 1 year from the date the injury was discovered or should have been discovered, but not later than 3 years after the ``manifestation'' of injury. Thus, a pregnant woman who contracted HIV through a transfusion but only learned of the disease 4 years after the transfusion would be barred from filing a claim. In addition, the bill limits the rights of injured newborns by requiring that actions on their behalf be brought within three years from the date of the manifestation of injury. This is in direct contradiction to the laws of many States, which preserve the rights of minors to seek legal redress upon the age of majority. The bill limits non-economic damages to $250,000 in the aggregate, regardless of the number of parties against whom an action is brought. Noneconomic damages compensate patients for very real injuries such as the loss of fertility, excruciating pain, and permanent and severe disfigurement. They also compensate for the loss of a child or a spouse. These are very real damages, and juries are able to calculate them fairly. How do you calculate the economic damages to infants who sustain life-long injuries during childbirth or stay-at-home mothers who lose their fertility due to a defective drug taken during the course of pregnancy? Their injuries may be almost completely non- economic and this bill would have a devastating impact. This bill is an appallingly cynical attack on the rights of mothers and their babies. In many ways, it is even more insidious than the bill that failed in the Senate last July. It is almost as if the proponents of that bill, having failed to eliminate the rights of all patients injured by negligence, decided they would simply target the rights of the most vulnerable: pregnant mothers and their babies.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern about the violent political crisis engulfing Haiti. We dare not remain silent when faced with such a widespread insurrection in our backyard. I believe that we, members of Congress and the Bush administration, must make an honest reckoning regarding our history of often inconsistence and sometimes even negligent U.S. policies toward this neighboring country, the poorest in the western hemisphere. If the current vicious cycle of resistance and violent reaction to the resistance continues, the resulting instability will have a substantial impact on democracy and security in the Caribbean and will affect our entire hemisphere. Just last month, Haiti celebrated the 200th anniversary of its independence; it was only the second country in the western hemisphere after the United State to throw off the yoke of foreign domination and to declare independence from a European colonizer. Unfortunately, Haiti's long experience with democracy and self-rule has been impeded by successive waves of military coups--over 30 since its independence-- and power consolidation by elites. Poverty and disease are pervasive and government corruption rampant. In its October 2003 survey, Transparency International labeled Haiti the third most corrupt country out of 133 countries in the world and the most corrupt of the 30 countries in the Americas and the Caribbean. Prior to Jean-Bertrand Aristide's election to his first term in 1990, Haiti had been ruled by successive military dictators, many of whom were anointed by foreign leaders. In 1990, the U.S. government and we, the members of the U.S. Congress, felt optimistic about democratic prospects under Aristide's leadership. The subsequent U.S.-backed restoration of Aristide to power derived from an American hope, perhaps even a naive idealism, that he could rebuild viable democratic institutions and further democratic progress as a legitimate head of state. This American idealism, I believe, led the Clinton administration to deploy 20,000 American troops to support Aristide. Since this time, however, Aristide and his political party have made poor economic choices; they have consolidated power, eviscerated the role of the parliament, and allowed corruption and cronyism to corrode the government. Indeed, over the past few years, as our foreign policy attention has shifted eastward, towards hotpots in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, we have been dangerously negligent of Haiti's continuing political dissolution and Aristide's failed leadership. I believe that the current violent expression of political opposition, which has taken the lives of over 40 Haitians in the past two weeks, derives directly from the Haitians' frustration with their government. Haitian political rights have been chipped away since Aristide's 2000 re-election, based on only five percent voter turnout, created a political stalemate. The Haitian parliament has since stopped functioning, prompting international aid donors to block millions of dollars in needed economic aid. The resulting economic situation is bleak. Most of Haiti's 8 million people live on less than $1 per day and it ranks 150th out of 175 countries on the United Nations Human Development Index. But Aristide's government has exacerbated Haiti's economic crisis. The U.S. State Department classified the country's current situation as ``economic stagnation'' caused by ineffective economic policies, political instability, environmental deterioration, the lack of a functioning judiciary, and the migration of skilled workers. On the other hand, we know that this month's violent outburst is not the only means for Haitians to express political opposition. For years, legitimate opposition groups have opposed Aristide's government and most of them do not condone today's violence. Instead they endorse new elections and a peaceful transition of power. We have a unique obligation to stand up for the people of Haiti. Our two countries are inextricably linked--by the virtue of our similar histories, because of our involvement in Aristide's return to power, and as a result of the influx of Haitians who have come to our shores seeking refuge from the economically and politically ravaged country. These Haitian Americans have contributed greatly to American life and I am proud to have a talented young man of Haitian origins on my staff and to represent nearly 60,000 Haitian Americans in my State. The Bush administration has advocated for a negotiated political solution to the crisis. Yesterday, Southern Command has dispatched a small military team to Haiti to provide the ambassador and the embassy staff with an enhanced capability to monitor the current situation. Secretary of State Colin Powell recently met with regional officials and the Canadian and Haitian ambassadors to discuss a possible Caribbean-Canadian police force for Haiti. I support the State Department in its efforts to forge a negotiated political solution brought about by dialogue, negotiation, and compromise and fully support the power sharing agreement put forth by Secretary Powell and international community. I urge the opposition groups to accept this proposal to share power with Aristide until he can be replaced democratically. I also ask my colleagues to follow this crisis closely and to join me in demanding that President Bush, Secretary Powell and other foreign policy advisors continue to play a leading role, facilitating negotiations between the Haitian government and the opposition factions. If the opposition accepts the power-sharing agreement, Secretary Powell should enlist French, United Nations, and Caricom help to see that forceful diplomatic intervention ends the current stand-off. The next step is for the U.S., in concert with international organizations, to assist Haiti in creating a unity government, a council of advisors and the installation of a new prime minister. American diplomacy and influence can be effectively mustered to convince both Aristide and the opposition to accept these reformist measures. U.S. hegemony, wealth, and power have, over the course of our country's history, generated myriad international obligations to resolve global conflicts and preserve peace and security. Our responsibilities emerge no clearer than when conflicts arise in our own neighborhood. It is time to break with a recent policy of U.S. dismissal and neglect regarding Haiti's self-destructive government and devastating economic situation. I urge my colleagues to join with me in insisting that the administration, with Congressional support, rise to fulfill the responsibilities of global leadership.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Coastal Restoration Act of 2004 for myself and Senator Corzine. Since 1995, the Federal beach nourishment program has been a regular target of the White House Office of Management and Budget, OMB. Under two separate administrations there have been at least five efforts to radically change or terminate the program. The 1996, Congress passed the Shore Protection Act as Section 227 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. That legislation was the first statement by Congress since 1946 of its intent that the Nation needed an ongoing Federal beach nourishment program. Unfortunately, that has not stopped OMB from trying to change Federal policies by making budget proposals that would cripple the program. The Coastal Restoration Act, CRA, restates the congressional intent regarding the importance of the Federal beach nourishment program. The CRA makes it clear that changes in administration policy will not prevent feasibility and other types of studies from being processed through the Corps of Engineers and sent to Congress. The legislation emphasizes the role of Congress in determining which beach nourishment projects should be authorized for construction. It also re-states and strengthens existing law that periodic renourishment is an integral part of the ongoing construction of a beach nourishment project. This bill states the intent of Congress that preference shall be given to areas 1, where there has been a previous investment of federal funds; 2, where regional sediment management plans have been adopted to integrate coastal beach nourishment, navigation, and environmental projects; 3, where there is a need to prevent or mitigate damage to shores, beaches, and other coastal infrastructure where that damage is caused at least in part by Federal activities; or 4, where the project promotes human health and safety as well as the quality of life for individuals and families. This recognizes that a primary purpose for establishing the Federal beach nourishment program in 1946 was the promotion of public recreation. My bill will also raise the low priority now accorded by the U.S. Army Corps to the recreational benefits of beach nourishment, giving equal consideration to all national projects. It also establishes the cost share for beach nourishment projects whose primary net benefit is recreational at the same level of Federal cost share participation as it applies to storm damage and environmental restoration beach nourishment projects. Congress retains the prerogative to authorize the project and appropriate funds based on the Corps' report findings. These changes are needed to protect and restore our beaches as the national treasure they are. According to a recent study, travel and tourism is the world's largest industry, contributing $3.5 trillion to the world's economy in 2001. In the United States, nearly 17 million people are employed in the tourism industry. Beaches are the leading tourist destination in the Nation. Each year about 180 million Americans make 2 billion visits to the ocean, the Gulf, and our inland beaches. That is almost twice as many visits as those made to State and national parks and wilderness areas combined. In its ``State of the Beach 2003'' report the Surfrider Foundation states that tourist expenditures in 16 of our coastal States topped $104 billion. My home State, New Jersey, has 127 miles of shoreline and we are proud of every mile. A significant portion of our tourism industry, which generates $10 billion a year, is due to our beaches. I know many of my colleagues in the Senate have similar situations in their States. Our beaches also provide vital habitat for numerous species of plants, and for animals such as claims, snails, and crabs. Every time a wave hits the shore it brings nutrients and oxygen to support the tiny but necessary life forms that live there. Not to be overlooked are the peace and relaxation that a day, or week, at the beach can provide. The poet Lord Byron put it so exquisitely nearly two hundred years ago when he wrote: There is a rapture on the lonely shore, There is a society, where none intrudes, By the deep sea, and music in its roar: I love not man the less, but Nature more. The shore's economic, environmental, and aesthetic benefits are truly limitless. That is why I am introducing the Coastal Restoration Act of 2004. My legislation will revitalize the Federal beach nourishment program by placing beach nourishment projects on a par with other Army Corps projects, and assigning recreational benefits the same priority as storm damage protection and environmental restoration, correcting the inequities in our current practices. Since the 1980s, when medical waste, sewage, and garbage began washing up on the Jersey shore I have been working hard to protect and nurture our beaches. I wrote the Ocean Dumping Act of 1988, which ended ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industry waste. And I have led the fight to ban oil and gas drilling off the Jersey shore. We have made a lot of progress since the 1980s, but our work is far from over. I ask unanimous consent the text of my bill be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Coastal Restoration Act of 2004 for myself and Senator Corzine. Since 1995, the Federal beach nourishment program has been a regular target of the White House Office of Management and Budget, OMB. Under two separate administrations there have been at least five efforts to radically change or terminate the program. The 1996, Congress passed the Shore Protection Act as Section 227 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. That legislation was the first statement by Congress since 1946 of its intent that the Nation needed an ongoing Federal beach nourishment program. Unfortunately, that has not stopped OMB from trying to change Federal policies by making budget proposals that would cripple the program. The Coastal Restoration Act, CRA, restates the congressional intent regarding the importance of the Federal beach nourishment program. The CRA makes it clear that changes in administration policy will not prevent feasibility and other types of studies from being processed through the Corps of Engineers and sent to Congress. The legislation emphasizes the role of Congress in determining which beach nourishment projects should be authorized for construction. It also re-states and strengthens existing law that periodic renourishment is an integral part of the ongoing construction of a beach nourishment project. This bill states the intent of Congress that preference shall be given to areas 1, where there has been a previous investment of federal funds; 2, where regional sediment management plans have been adopted to integrate coastal beach nourishment, navigation, and environmental projects; 3, where there is a need to prevent or mitigate damage to shores, beaches, and other coastal infrastructure where that damage is caused at least in part by Federal activities; or 4, where the project promotes human health and safety as well as the quality of life for individuals and families. This recognizes that a primary purpose for establishing the Federal beach nourishment program in 1946 was the promotion of public recreation. My bill will also raise the low priority now accorded by the U.S. Army Corps to the recreational benefits of beach nourishment, giving equal consideration to all national projects. It also establishes the cost share for beach nourishment projects whose primary net benefit is recreational at the same level of Federal cost share participation as it applies to storm damage and environmental restoration beach nourishment projects. Congress retains the prerogative to authorize the project and appropriate funds based on the Corps' report findings. These changes are needed to protect and restore our beaches as the national treasure they are. According to a recent study, travel and tourism is the world's largest industry, contributing $3.5 trillion to the world's economy in 2001. In the United States, nearly 17 million people are employed in the tourism industry. Beaches are the leading tourist destination in the Nation. Each year about 180 million Americans make 2 billion visits to the ocean, the Gulf, and our inland beaches. That is almost twice as many visits as those made to State and national parks and wilderness areas combined. In its ``State of the Beach 2003'' report the Surfrider Foundation states that tourist expenditures in 16 of our coastal States topped $104 billion. My home State, New Jersey, has 127 miles of shoreline and we are proud of every mile. A significant portion of our tourism industry, which generates $10 billion a year, is due to our beaches. I know many of my colleagues in the Senate have similar situations in their States. Our beaches also provide vital habitat for numerous species of plants, and for animals such as claims, snails, and crabs. Every time a wave hits the shore it brings nutrients and oxygen to support the tiny but necessary life forms that live there. Not to be overlooked are the peace and relaxation that a day, or week, at the beach can provide. The poet Lord Byron put it so exquisitely nearly two hundred years ago when he wrote: There is a rapture on the lonely shore, There is a society, where none intrudes, By the deep sea, and music in its roar: I love not man the less, but Nature more. The shore's economic, environmental, and aesthetic benefits are truly limitless. That is why I am introducing the Coastal Restoration Act of 2004. My legislation will revitalize the Federal beach nourishment program by placing beach nourishment projects on a par with other Army Corps projects, and assigning recreational benefits the same priority as storm damage protection and environmental restoration, correcting the inequities in our current practices. Since the 1980s, when medical waste, sewage, and garbage began washing up on the Jersey shore I have been working hard to protect and nurture our beaches. I wrote the Ocean Dumping Act of 1988, which ended ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industry waste. And I have led the fight to ban oil and gas drilling off the Jersey shore. We have made a lot of progress since the 1980s, but our work is far from over. I ask unanimous consent the text of my bill be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I object.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we have been in a difficult parliamentary situation which has precluded my offering my amendment, but had I offered it, it would have accomplished the following. My amendment would keep intact long standing provisions that protect public health, the environment, and the rights of citizens and states to have meaningful participation in transportation decisions. While I know the authors have worked very hard to strike a balance on the provisions in this bill, I believe their language to ``streamline'' transportation planning processes is ill-advised and will have severe and unintended consequences. No one can argue with the theory behind ``streamlining'' transportation projects. No public official wants to slow and encumber its State's transit, highway, bridge, rail, or other major construction projects. Unfortunately, the assumption behind the streamlining in this bill is that crucial tools to protect the environment, such as performing ``environmental impact statements,'' are the reason behind the long, protracted projects that go on for years. That is patently incorrect and this misconception must be put to rest. In 2000, the Federal Highway Administration queried its divisions in all States, asking for a list of all projects requiring an ``Environmental Impact Statement'' that had been in preparation for over 5 years. What they learned should inform this body as it seeks to address the problem of delay. The Highway Administration found that a 70 percent--a large majority of the delays, were due to five issues--all unrelated to the environment. They were: one, lack of funding; two, low project priority; three, local controversies; four, project complexity; and five, late changes made in the scope of a project. If our purpose is really to bring greater efficiency to transportation planning, we must address the primary reasons for delay--those which are listed here. The National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA--which this bill seeks to weaken--was signed by President Nixon for very good reasons. When citizens and all relevant agencies are given the opportunity for meaningful participation in project planning, any needed adjustments can be made early in the process, saving states time and money. The approach outlined in this bill would essentially allow the U.S. Department of Transportation to waive the NEPA process if it so desired. That would be like a manufacturer that waits until its product is already designed before checking to see if it even serves the needs of consumers. Clearly, such an approach is clumsy, inefficient, and far more expensive in the long run if design changes are needed. As written, the language in the substitute amendment is confusing and even contradictory. It first states that despite NEPA or ``any other law'' that agencies are accountable for, the Department of Transportation is given the authority to make the final decision on the need for, and purpose of, a transportation project. At the same time, the bill contains a standard ``savings clause'' which states that no other law--such as NEPA, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act--will be preempted by this very language. This is inherently ambiguous and you can bet it will lead to more litigation. It will without doubt slow the progress on transportation projects--the very outcome this so-called ``streamlining'' language seeks to remedy. Instead of just handing final decisionmaking authority over to the U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT my amendment outlines a simple, traditional process that will allow all relevant agencies to resolve conflicts which can arise. DOT has neither the expertise nor the statutory authority to make pivotal decisions on matters of public health and the environment. Overarching decisionmaking authority should not be handed off to DOT. This amendment restores the balance of authority that has historically existed across all relevant agencies and departments--both State and Federal--to facilitate thorough, responsible project planning. My home State of New jersey perfectly illustrates the crucial role of our health and environmental agencies in making transportation planning decisions. For years, New Jersey has implemented responsible, aggressive environmental law enforcement policies. Yet because of up-wind pollution and large metropolitan areas, health standards for ozone are being violated in every county in New Jersey-- which has some nine million residents. According to New Jersey's department of environmental protection, 45 percent of our ozone pollution is caused by motor vehicle exhaust. The group, Physicians for Social Responsibility, reports that nationwide about 15 million Americans suffer from asthma, which is triggered and exacerbated by ozone. In the last 20 years, the prevalence of asthma has risen over 60 percent. An analysis performed a few years ago estimated that for just one pollutant, particulate matter, 2,300 to 5,400 people die prematurely every year in New Jersey. Mobile sources account for about 30 percent of the particulate matter emitted into the air. Nationally, some 20,000 American citizens die prematurely from this pollutant. Think about that. America grieves for the 536 American soldiers we have lost in Iraq since March of last year, and rightly so. Yet in that same 1-year period 20,000 Americans died unnecessarily from just one air pollutant--particulate matter. Consider toxic air pollutants. Seventeen of New Jersey's 21 counties rank among the 100 most polluted counties in the Nation and the risk of cancer in four of our counties is up to 3000 times higher than EPA's health threshold. A primary cause of these toxic emissions is mobile sources. My point is that with such serious health threats related to transportation on the increase throughout the country, now is not the time to pare back the role of our public health and environmental protection agencies in decisionmaking on Transportation projects. The meaningful participation of these agencies is needed more today than ever before. The U.S. Department of Transportation is simply not equipped or qualified to make the ultimate decisions with regard to public health and the environment. The stakes are too high. I urge my colleagues to support public participation. I urge them to support agency cooperation that protects public health and the environment. And I urge them to support my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an amendment that was cosponsored by Senator DeWine from Ohio. We would like to have had this considered in this important transportation bill. I want to say this to those who are managing the bill and who have developed it. We see a piece of legislation that has a lot of good aspects to it. My State of New Jersey is doing better in this bill than it has on occasions in the past, with some adjustments here and there that give us some more funding in transit as well as highways. We appreciate that. The subject we want to discuss is one that deals with safety, which is an integral part of this legislation and certainly should be, and that subject is the result of drunk driving. Drunk driving cost the lives of 17,419 people in 2002. It is an increase for the third straight year in a row. This is unacceptable in our society by any measure. This is evidence that we are not doing enough to win the war on drunk driving. In 2000, I was proud to team up with Senator DeWine to standardize our Nation's drunk driving blood alcohol concentration level at .08. That is a critical step toward reducing drunk driving, but that measure alone will not end this crisis. During my career of public service, I promoted many legislative initiatives to help curb drunk driving in our country. In addition to .08, I wrote the law that established a minimum legal drinking age of 21. Most Americans have responded to these laws by drinking responsibly and reducing fatalities and injuries on our highways. At one point it was estimated that we saved 1,000 young people a year from dying on the highways as a result of that change in the age of drinking. The most feared category of drunk drivers who have failed to mend their ways is also the most shameful: the hardcore drunk drivers. These are the problem drinkers. These are the ones who ignore the dangers and have no concern for the safety of those of us on the road, including our families and our friends. It is estimated that hardcore drunk drivers are responsible for as many as 40 percent of all alcohol-related deaths on the road, and that means about 6,000 to 8,000 people a year die at the hands of a hardcore drunk driver. That is not an acceptable situation. Many of us have terrible, tragic stories involving lost loved ones due to drunk driving crashes. A young woman on my staff recounted a moment in her life when she was a teenager, when five of her close friends, all juniors in high school from southern New Jersey were hit by an SUV. Four were killed and one was badly injured. This was in broad daylight at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. A heavily intoxicated 29- year-old woman had plowed her SUV into the girl's car. One police officer described the scene as ``an explosion with glass everywhere.'' The driver of the SUV is what safety experts term a ``higher-risk'' or ``hardcore'' drunk driver. In fact, her blood alcohol content was found to be .21 nearly 5 hours after the crash, and usually that diminishes significantly. This is almost three times the legal limit of .08. Perhaps the most disturbing part of this story is the fact that this driver had two prior charges of driving while intoxicated in 1991 and 1996. Some States have adopted laws that try to get hardcore drunk drivers off the road. It is something we heard a lot about when we put in place the .08 blood alcohol concentration standard. They said you have to get to the hardcore people; they are the ones who are really dangerous on the road. That is true, but anybody who is impaired while driving is a problem. A TEA-21 program that we put into place resulted in 36 States and the District of Columbia passing repeat offender laws, but currently only 13 States have enhanced penalties based on blood alcohol concentration levels of .15 and above. Thirteen States and our own District of Columbia still do not have laws mandating alcohol assessment and treatment by a professional. Fourteen States do not have laws mandating that a drunk driver's vehicle be impounded. We have to take action to keep these hardcore drunk drivers off our roads. The costs we pay are too high. We can save thousands of lives by passing this bipartisan commonsense amendment that I would like to offer along with Senator DeWine. Victims rights groups, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, have brought to our attention the need to change our laws to make our roads safer. It is my great pleasure to work with the dedicated, thorough, and caring people of MADD. This hardcore drunk driving amendment takes advantage of research and policies that have been proven effective to fix what is wrong with this current repeat offender program. First, it builds on the excellent work done by Senator Inhofe and Senator Jeffords in the bill by allowing the use of ignition interlocks, a popular and effective tool. Forty-two States have laws allowing for ignition interlocks to be used so that in case of hardships, a conditional license can be granted. Our amendment also fixes the loophole that currently exists to allow States to spend Federal funding designated for driver safety programs on construction projects. While road construction is certainly a worthy ambition, this loophole defeats the purpose of the Federal program in the first place and must be addressed. Our amendment cracks down on very high blood alcohol concentration drivers. Drivers with a .15 percent or greater blood alcohol concentration are almost 400 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than a sober driver. I believe the Federal Government needs to continue strong leadership in relation to reducing alcohol-impaired driving. Not all States have dealt with this safety crisis in a comprehensive manner. Loopholes still exist, loopholes so large that drunk drivers continue to drive right through them. Now is the time to take the next step in getting these hardcore drunk drivers off our roads. I look forward to working with Senator DeWine, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Corzine, all of whom joined with me in trying to reduce the 17,000 alcohol-related traffic fatalities that occur each year. It is regretful that we cannot have an opportunity to offer our amendment. It is relevant and germane to this bill, but not having the chance to offer the amendment, frankly, hurts our work and our interests in keeping our highways safer, saving lives wherever we can. This is something I hope we can work out with the managers of the bill to see if there isn't something we can do to show that we are seriously interested in getting drunk drivers off the road. Remember, over 17,000 deaths a year on our highways, 40 percent of which are due to the antics of the repeat drunk driver.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I take this moment to respond to my good friend from Nevada. He has always been interested in the safety and well-being of our people at the basic level, where we can make a difference. Senator Reid from Nevada is always there, and I appreciate his support. I like working with him. When he says this is going to be done, my colleagues can take it to the bank because we are going to keep on working on it. If we ever forget what it is we are talking about today, just continue to read the papers, and there will be stories about the intoxicated driver who went way over the limit and took a life. I will never forget a young woman who came in from Maryland to talk to us one day. She was waiting with her daughter for the schoolbus, child in hand. Someone driving a car at 8 in the morning jumped the curb and killed this child whose hand she was holding. Then there was the man in Hawaii who was driving with his wife behind a car that his son and daughter had rented. They were struck by a drunk driver. It killed them both. These things happen all the time, enough to kill over 17,000 people a year. That means that in less than 4 years, there will be as many people killed on our highways as were killed in Vietnam. So this is not a trivial thing, and we are going to have to keep on working on it. I am willing to do it, and I know the Senator from Nevada is willing to do it. We just have to hope that the opportunity arises.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it feels as if we have been away a long time. This was an unpleasant respite and it goes to the issue of how safe our country can be. This, the people's property, is not exempt from terror or the threat of terror. It does not matter whether we define terrorists as someone coming from Afghanistan or the Middle East or some faraway place. Terrorism is not different if it comes from an individual or a dissatisfied or disgruntled American. We have to fight against it with everything in our means. Unfortunately, we see the result of this fight within our society, within the Capitol. It is not the glorious place it used to be from the outside. We still have the responsibility, for the glory of our country, to carry on from the inside. To our majority leader, we extend our feelings that it could not have been an uglier manifestation of differences. He is someone who we all know has had experiences. I am sure he finds challenges on his trips to Africa and doing the work he has done in flying a single-engine plane to go places to perform services for those less fortunate. I thank the majority leader for bringing up this bill. I know there have been concerns or maybe even disputes from other parts of Government not to move ahead with this, to try and reduce it to less worthiness. While I have the floor and there is apparently no rush for others to follow, I want to say that for my staff, from the Lautenberg office, and I think it is probably fair to say those on the staff of the entire Capitol who perform as they always do under pressure, they manage to get their work done. They are willing to be inconvenienced. They are willing to do whatever they have to do to perform their tasks, and we greatly respect it. That is why I get upset when I hear talk about reducing Government until it withers on the vine when we have people here who work so hard and diligently to keep things going on behalf of our society and across this country. I am pleased we are finally taking up S. 1072, the bill that reauthorizes our Nation's Federal Surface Transportation Program. I do not think there is any other bill we are going to pass this year that is as important or more important, let's say, than the highway bill. We have to be able to move people and goods efficiently, economically, and safely. Otherwise, our economy would choke. It is a peculiar anomaly that even as things have slowed down in this period of recession, I did not see any less traffic on our roads, or any less pollution coming from congestion. So it is important we get on with this, and I hope we are not going to get any resistance to what appears to be a bill that takes care of needs across this country. I hope the President is not approaching this with an objection in mind. Whether that objection extends as far as a veto or not, we do not know, but I hope he will see this is an essential part of our functioning as a society and encourages us to make these investments which are talked about so glibly. As the saying goes, when it comes to where the rubber meets the road, we do not see it happening. We hope it is going to happen now, and the bill will pass--and I think it is inevitable we will pass this bill--that it moves along at least at a pace that it leaves us with the amounts of funding we are looking at. S. 1072 is a complex bill. The major titles come from four different authorizing committees. There are lots of Members who deserve credit for bringing it to the floor. I think of Senator Inhofe and Senator Jeffords and Senator Bond and Senator Harry Reid who had the primary responsibility for this measure in the Environment and Public Works Committee. Also, Senator Shelby and Senator Sarbanes worked so hard to craft a transit title which falls under the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. This title is particularly important to the residents of my home State, New Jersey, over 11 percent of whom rely on public transportation to get to and from work. Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus and the rest of the Finance Committee had to figure out how to pay for the bill. Last but not least, the committee on which I serve, the Commerce Committee, reported out its title, which deals with many important safety programs, under the able leadership of Senator McCain and Senator Hollings. This past Monday, the groundhog, Punxsutawney Phil, saw his shadow. It suggests we face 6 more weeks of winter weather, the kind of dreary weather we have grown accustomed to--the kind that we have seen in these last several weeks and we did not like any of it. We did not like it when it was raining and we did not like it when it was snowing. We like to see some rain to make sure we have enough water, but the accompanying misery was not pleasant at all. I know I speak for everybody when I say that. There was another shadow, however, we saw on Monday last, the shadow cast by record-breaking deficits in the President's budget request for fiscal year 2005. Because of these budget deficits, the President is requesting, sadly, inadequate funding for our highways, mass transit, intercity and freight rail transportation, safety programs and environmental protection. When it comes to the future of our surface transportation system, the President, with his proposal, is forecasting 6 more years of traffic congestion, air pollution, wasted fuel, unnecessary fatalities, and a stagnant economy. The Department of Transportation expects freight traffic to double in this country over the next 2 decades. Meanwhile, more and more Americans will need to use our roads, rails, and runways to travel to their jobs, to school, to medical appointments, to worship, to vacation. We are already straining capacity as we follow those pursuits. The needs of our transportation system are well documented and I am disappointed President Bush has declined to acknowledge these needs in his vision of America's future. S. 1072 would authorize a program that is 25 percent bigger than the Bush administration's current proposal. The House of Representatives may consider one that is even 50 percent bigger than the Bush administration's proposal. We are on the right track, and the President is on the wrong track. I am hopeful we can all agree on a final proposal which truly addresses the needs of our national transportation system this is something the American people deserve. A bigger, better highway bill is not just about reducing traffic congestion and repairing bridges, as important as those things are. The Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, has stated that $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure supports 47,000 good-paying jobs, jobs which are located in America. When it comes to trade, we do not need to export any more jobs. We have to curb that, and we can do it by investing in transportation. One billion dollars invested equals 47,000 good-paying jobs. We ought to look at it from that aspect very seriously. Transportation needs vary across the country. I can assure you, when it comes to need, my State, New Jersey, is near the top of the list. New Jersey is home to some of the oldest transportation routes in the country. Roads, bridges, rail tracks, and airports built decades ago are in need of repair or replacement. Our portion of the national transportation system includes 420 miles of interstate highway and 6,300 bridges, 1,580 miles of class 1 railroad tracks. There are 49 public use airports and the largest seaport on the east coast. I point this out just to indicate the needs of one State, and I know the needs of other States are also acute. This infrastructure makes a significant contribution to our national economy. Over 375 million tons of general cargo move through the State, mostly on trucks and railcars, to and from the Port of New York and New Jersey. Newark Liberty International Airport is the eighth largest cargo airport in the country. And, mind you, we are only a very small State, about 47th in size, and we have the eighth largest cargo airport in the country, the 20th biggest in the world, handling over 78,000 tons of cargo annually. New Jersey lies along the busiest travel routes for freight and passenger travel in the country: The New Jersey Turnpike, the Northeast corridor, the Port of New York and New Jersey, Newark Liberty International Airport, and Interstate 95. There is a very good chance that the goods you use have traveled along these routes, or you yourself have traveled along these corridors in the last few years. While supporting the commercial movement of these goods and passengers in the support of our Nation's economy, New Jersey's transportation infrastructure must also support over 4 million automobiles registered in the State, almost 2 million light-duty trucks and sport utility vehicles, lots of buses, and over 100,000 motorcycles. These vehicles owned by New Jersey residents must share the road with all the freight traffic moving through our State, and we must do it in a safe, environmentally-conscious, and efficient manner. The same goes for rail travel along the Northeast corridor, which extends from Boston to Washington, DC. New Jersey commuter trains must share the rails at the biggest chokepoint on the entire coast, the tunnels under the Hudson River. Right now, during peak travel periods, New Jersey commuter trains run every 3 minutes and pretty soon at the rate they are expanding it will be every 2 minutes. It is hard to believe. This sounds like a subway train, but I am talking about commuter trains, each of which carries some 1,200 passengers. Because New Jersey's transportation infrastructure is used so heavily, both in interstate commerce and by our resident commuters, it is important that it remains in a condition sufficient to support all this traffic. Unfortunately, much of it isn't. I can't overstate this. The current condition of our transportation infrastructure is terrible. Thirty-nine percent of urban interstate roads in New Jersey are reported as being in ``mediocre'' or ``poor'' condition, according to the Federal Highway Administration; 24 percent of our rural interstate roads are in ``mediocre'' or ``poor'' condition; 37 percent of New Jersey's 6,000 bridges are considered to be ``structurally deficient'' or ``functionally obsolete.'' On top of all that, there is at least a $4 billion backlog of rail maintenance on the Northeast Corridor. We desperately need to repair existing infrastructure and add capacity. The average commuting time for New Jersey residents is over 30 minutes, and it is the third longest average commute in the country. So New Jersey desperately needs a new highway bill and I am pleased the bill the Committee on Environment and Public Works has reported authorizes funding levels for the core highway and transit programs that are higher than the funding levels contained in the legislation that it is replacing, TEA 21, and far more than what the President has proposed. Under the Committee's proposal, New Jersey is a donor State. That means that motorists in New Jersey pay more in gasoline taxes than the State receives from the Federal Highway Trust Fund under the allocation formulas. New Jersey is not alone in that category. Texas, Florida, Wisconsin, California, and many other States are currently contributing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to our Nation's transportation system while other States get a windfall--in some instances many times over the amount of their contribution. Formula fights are unpleasant and difficult to resolve--those fights to discuss who gets what under a given formula. Senators who represent States that reap more from the Highway Trust Fund than their citizens pay in gasoline taxes are understandably reluctant to lose ground, especially when their departments of transportation plan the financing for large, long-term projects. I think the allocations in this bill are a good start but still could use some tweaking. New Jersey, as I said, is a donor State and under the Committee's proposal the State will do better than it has under TEA-21. I look forward to the day when we get 100 cents back on the dollar and stop this raid on what I see as New Jersey's contribution to places that really don't have the nexus to us that is needed to get to our system. I say that, not out of anger and malice, but I am so tired of hearing about contributions to Washington, how hard we have to fight to get our contributions honored and respected. We don't have a large military installation. That is not our choice; that is the way the defense establishment was created. But we are 50th in receipt of Federal funds compared to what we send out. That is not a very welcome fact, I can tell you, in my State or with those of us who represent the State of New Jersey. New Jersey's motorists will continue to donate tens of millions of dollars more than the State receives over the life of the bill. So while there is some improvement over the status quo, our State needs to do better, and we will continue that fight, given our transportation needs. I make one final point and that concerns the addition of an intercity rail title to this bill. I think it is not only appropriate to have such a title in this bill, it is imperative. Intercity rail service is an essential part of our national transportation network. That is one of the lessons we learned on 9/11, that fatal day, that fateful day in American history, when our aviation system was crippled and some 5,000 airplanes had to be grounded. That is one of the reasons I fight so hard to protect FAA in its present format as part of the Government, just like we have our military units as part of the Government. I think of the FAA as the fifth branch of our defense. Those airplanes had to be grounded on 9/ 11. The controllers in the towers and centers, the people who control the flight service stations--they did this with the skill of a physician doing brain surgery. Everything was precise. These airplanes, filled with thousands of people--hundreds of thousands of people--were in the air, and they were sent to destinations they didn't plan to be. Yet they could rely on the FAA to bring them all home safely. I make that point as an aside. The fact is, the aviation system was turned off and we had to rely on other means of transportation. Highways were jammed with cars and trucks that couldn't move. Many Americans found another way to get to their destinations, and that was passenger rail service. There was a group from Washington, legislators, who came up there very soon after 9/11 to see what had happened and to see if we could do things that would prevent it from ever happening again. They had to come up by Amtrak. That was the only possible way they could reach their destination--they couldn't fly. For this country to have a decent passenger rail service we need to make the same commitment to rail infrastructure, the same kind of commitment that we have to building highways and runways. It is essential. It is not just essential for New Jersey and New York and that region or the Northeast corridor, it is essential across the country. I am not necessarily just talking about long-distance rail. I am also talking about those centers and cities where there are numerous connections--200-, 300-, or 400-mile-long corridors--that could be so well served by more efficient high-speed rail. One need only look at what happens in Europe. If you want to go from Brussels, Belgium, to Paris, France, you take a train that runs about 1 hour 20 minutes to cover 200 miles. Imagine if we could go from Washington to New York City or vice versa in 1 and a half hours, let us say, or 1 hour 40 minutes. It would make life considerably easier than now with the crowding we have at the airports and on our highways. This is a good bill for the most part. I think it can be improved, and I intend to offer some amendments to do just that. I will discuss them at the appropriate time. I congratulate the managers of this bill for bringing it to the floor, Senator Inhofe and our good friend from Vermont, Senator Jeffords. I look forward to working with them and the rest of the Senate to make a good bill even better and get it to President Bush. I am pleading with him now as much as we can in front of the American people to say, Mr. President, we have to take care of our infrastructure. Everybody knows that. We can define those needs perhaps a little bit differently, but we can't deny that that is the major responsibility at the moment. But we don't make things happen here domestically without investing what we have to. Making things better here at home with our infrastructure is a perfect example of that. I plead with the President openly: Mr. President, please sign this bill when it comes to you. I am hopeful that we will work out something with the House that is not dissimilar to what we have here in the Senate bill. If it is better, we will take that. But we want to be at least as good as the Senate bill. We hope there is not going to be a campaign that puts this highway and interstate funding on a back burner. I hope the President will have the wisdom to sign it, notwithstanding the fact that we will likely authorize more spending for high-speed transit and intercity rail than he wants. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the country desperately needs increased spending on our surface transportation infrastructure. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I think this is quite a moment in history. It will be long remembered. It will be remembered for several reasons, not the least of which is the excessively optimistic tone that was issued by the President of the United States in his address on the State of the Union last night. Millions of people were watching and, I assume, thinking about the effects his thoughts will have on their lives. It is presented as the Omnibus appropriations bill, but I think there is a better description than that complicated term that few in the public really understand. I would rather call it the ``ominous'' bill, and I am going to refer to it that way. It is astonishing to me that we are here, nearly 4 months into the new fiscal year. Our friends on the other side of the aisle who control the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, have failed to move through the Senate the result of the conference with the House. It is an indictment of failure, an indictment of failure to govern. The basic problem with this bill is that in an age when we are so conscious of saturated fats, this bill is saturated with special interest provisions that bring harm to the well-being of our constituents. In some cases, the bill even threatens the health of the American people. For instance, stuck deep in this bill is a provision that blocks the country-of-origin labeling rules for agricultural products, including beef. In the wake of the mad cow scare, it is more critical than ever that Americans get more information about beef and other products they eat, not less information. The bill also, regrettably, undermines workers' rights. Even though both the Senate and the House--both houses of the legislature--voted in favor of blocking the administration's new rule to deny overtime pay to 8 million Americans, this omnibus report allows the rule to go into effect. The question is, How did it get there? You have heard me say that both the Senate and the House voted in favor of blocking the administration's rule to deny overtime to people, deny their just compensation from coming to them. How does this report ban that, those consensus votes? The President's overtime rule amounts to a 25-percent pay cut, on average, for millions of hard-working Americans, including police, firefighters, emergency workers, nurses, and many others. Many of these people are veterans. It amounts on average, according to the Economic Policy Institute, to $161 a week in lost wages--$161 a week. That is $8,000 a year that will be taken away by this rule. It doesn't say you work less. The amount of time you work may be the same. But you are going to lose part of the compensation that you currently earn if you work those hours. It is a very important addition to the average week's pay. Congress voted to stop this unjust rule. But the omnibus allows it to move forward. Is that how democracy works? Congress speaks clearly, unequivocally, on an issue and the White House comes in and tells the conferees: Hey, forget it; we don't care what the people in the Senate or the House in a majority vote want. You have to do what we tell you to do. And we are going to hold billions of dollars in funding hostage until you agree with us. That is not democracy; that is extortion. The overtime rule is not the only provision in the conference report put there because of this extortion. To clarify, there are lots of things in the appropriations bill. Some of them we would like to see put into place. But the administration, in a cute trick, held them out for ransom to pass this omnibus bill. For instance, if you vote your conscience, you are going to lose your money. Your constituents are going to lose their money. The States and cities across this country are going to lose their money. If you dare to vote your conscience and do what is right, we are going to take away the funding that is justly yours. There is another gift to corporate special interests in the omnibus, the new media ownership rules. Current media ownership law prevents a single company from owning local TV stations that reach more than 35 percent of the Nation's households. In most totalitarian nations there is usually only one or two broadcast stations that are controlled by the government. In this case, they are held by people who have a particular view of how society ought to get its information. So in fairness to the constituents, the citizens across the country, we made clear that ownership of those outfits was to be held to a particular percent. In 2002, the FCC proposed raising the limit to 45 percent. Majorities in both the House and the Senate voted to block this FCC rule to weaken media ownership rules--to expand it for the fat cats who presently own it to let them foist their opinion all over America without rebuttal. Congress spoke clearly. We said no. Leave these caps where they are. There is a reason and there is a value to them. But in the conference on this omnibus, the limit was raised from 35 percent to 39 percent--some arbitrary act. By whom? We can't say around here. It is an odd-sounding number. Not coincidentally, that is the number just big enough to accommodate Mr. Rupert Murdock in his effort to allow his conservative views on his media empire to have more control over local TV news than is appropriate in communities across this Nation. These problems are only some of the bad provisions contained in the omnibus. I haven't even mentioned the worst problem in the bill. This bill contains provisions that would help terrorists. I am heard correctly. I will repeat it. This bill aids terrorists who seek to harm the American people. A dangerous provision was snuck into this bill in the dead of night, put there by the Republican leadership carrying water for the gun lobby, that will help terrorists and criminals who purchase weapons to avoid detection by requiring the destruction of gun background checks. That is done to see if the person is stable or if they have any criminal connections, yet requiring the destruction of that information, that research, that investigation to be done in 24 hours. What is the harm in holding that information and giving our law enforcement people a chance to further study it? Some on the other side may say that ``terrorists don't buy guns on the legal market in the United States.'' But they do. In fact, the Bush administration has indirectly assisted them in the acquisition of guns. A recent audit of a small sample of gun background check data by the Justice Department reveals that at least 12 suspected terrorists and perhaps hundreds purchased firearms in the United States last year. How did the Department of Justice find this out? By looking at gun background checks data. But this ominous would change the law so that records of gun purchases are destroyed within 24 hours of sale. The logic to that escapes me and lots of people. I hope the American people pay attention to that. The Brady law calls for these records to be held up to 6 months. The current practice is to hold the records for at least 3 months so that there can be a second review or a second check. If someone is on a terrorist watch list, they certainly ought to report it immediately to the FBI or the CIA or whoever it is that is going to follow up on this information if the war on terrorism is as serious as it ought to be. If the Republicans' 24-hour destruction rule were put into place, no audit or other investigation of terrorist activity involving weapons purchases would be possible. The administration is already dragging its feet when it comes to investigating terrorists who purchase firearms. Believe it or not, when a known terrorist purchases a firearm, the policy of the Justice Department is to withhold relevant information from law enforcement. Why is that so? Why is Attorney General John Ashcroft so concerned with the gun rights of terrorists? I can't figure that one out. We only found out about terrorists acquiring guns from the audit of gun background check data. But now, if this ominous is enacted, records will be destroyed in 24 hours. What the devil is the urgency to destroy those records? Purportedly, it is so we don't have some file or big brother looking over your shoulders. Talk to any of the people who had family members in the World Trade Center neighborhood that I come from and ask them if those records ought to be destroyed in a hurry. Or ask the people who lost loved ones in Pan Am 103. If any of the records--if any of those people associated with Libya and that group goes to purchase a gun, those records ought to be left open until they are totally combed. If a person purchases a gun and it is discovered that terrorists are planning to launch an attack somewhere in the country, the records will have been destroyed. Whom are we trying to protect? Under the 24-hour destruction standard, we will not know where the purchase was placed or when or what firearms were purchased. The loss of this data puts our communities at risk and hinders the ability of law enforcement to prevent terrorist attacks. Does that make America safer? I am sorry that the President last night in his speech didn't object to having that held over our heads legislatively now. In their zeal to please the National Rifle Association and other special interest gun groups, the majority is willing to undermine homeland security and individual security and put our communities in danger. So I ask the majority: Whose side are you on anyway? You really have to wonder when the Republican leadership decides that the protection of the anonymity of gun-buying terrorists is more important than protecting our country from terrorist attacks. My home State, New Jersey, lost 700 people on 9/11. I would like someone from the other side of the aisle, or someone from the Justice Department, to sit down with those families, many of whom I know, who lost loved ones, and explain to them why we should destroy these records so quickly. Explain to these families why we need to protect the terrorists' identity when they try to buy a firearm. It is an outrage. The majority claims that they care deeply about homeland security. I am sure they do. But in practice, when homeland security collides with gun rights, homeland security goes out the window. I was a member of the Appropriations Committee for 18 years. The committee has always done its work in a bipartisan fashion. It is sad to see that bipartisanship evaporate at the snap of Karl Rove's fingers. I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Let us take the pollutants out of this ominous bill. We have a responsibility to fund critical government programs without adding misguided or downright dangerous legislative riders. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Frank Adams who has served the Borough of Spring Lake Heights, NJ, for the past 32 years. Mayor Adams served as councilman with distinction for 12 years and has spent the last 20 years as the borough's mayor. Besides admirably serving Spring Lake Heights for more than 30 years, Frank served as a member of the United States Naval Reserves and was called to active duty during the Korean War. Mayor Adams is about to retire and he leaves behind an enviable legacy of public service to the community he loves, including accomplishments such as the construction of Ocean Road Park, the construction of the current Borough Hall, and the installation of the borough sewer system. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Mayor Frank Adams, a man who has led by example, worked tirelessly for the benefit of all the residents of Spring Lake Heights, and will leave office having made an indelible mark on the borough.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, on December 4, 2003, an outstanding example of the American Dream ended with the passing of Meyer ``Mike'' Steinberg. Mike was a young 84 with a personal vitality and clarity of mind that many far younger people would envy. He was recently stricken with lung cancer even though he had given up smoking more than 30 years ago. He was an individual admired and beloved by those who had the good fortune to know him in his lifetime. This past Sunday, December 7, Park Avenue Synagogue in New York was filled with 1,000 people who wanted to share the grief of his passing with his family who loved him so deeply that eight of his grandchildren, including an 11-year-old, wanted to share their innermost thoughts of affection and sadness with everyone gathered there. Mike's life, his grit and determination, his business successes, and his devotion to family are the stuff of which books are often written. In every definition of the American Dream, Mike Steinberg would emerge as an ideal example. From the humblest beginnings, having to end his formal education at the age of 15, he went on, ultimately, to the role of a real estate magnate. He developed, owned, and managed properties from New York to Texas to California. He was someone I was proud to know. He had a rare ability to attract admiration and respect from all who had contact with him and he will long be remembered as someone who proved that business success, devotion to family, pride in his heritage, and regard for others are still goals to be cherished in these days of disposable relationships. We grieve his passing but we honor his being and I ask to have printed in the Record an item I placed in the New York Times on December 6 commemorating his extraordinary life. The material follows. [From the New York Times, Dec. 6, 2003] Steinberg, Meyer ``Mike''. Steinberg--Meyer ``Mike''. To our dearest husband and Dad from your five lucky girls. We are forever blessed with the love and life you showered upon us. There wasn't a time you weren't there are always knew we could count on you. Our hearts are broken and the void can never be filled. You will be cherished in our hearts forever and ever. We will always honor your memory and we will live our lives by the examples you set for us. You are our King of Hearts, our hero, we will love you forever. Jean, Susan, Bonnie, Carol, and Lois. Steinberg--Meyer ``Mike''. Extraordinary beloved husband of Jean. Most cherished father of Susan Zises Green, Bonnie S. Englebardt, Carol S. and Michael Weisman, Lois Robbins Zaro and Andrew Zaro. Adoring and revered grandfather of Lynn Zises, Justin H. Green, Danielle and Lara Englebardt, Brett and Jad Weisman, Alex, Olivia, Stephen and Victoria Zaro. Great-grandfather of Isabelle Zises Krugman. Services Sunday, 1 pm, Park Avenue Synagogue, 87th and Madison Ave. In lieu of flowers, contributions may be made to honor his memory to the S.L.E. Foundation for Lupus Research, 149 Madison Ave., NY NY 10016. For further information call Plaza Community Jewish Chapel. Steinberg--Meyer ``Mike''. An admired friend, extraordinary entrepreneur, beloved family leader, husband, father, grandfather and greatgrandfather. To know him as I did, father of my dearest Bonnie Englebardt, was a special privilege. His success in the business world was outstanding, but it never interfered with his role as the family patriarch. The risks that he took in his business life were always motivated by his desire to protect his family's security. His love of family extended as well to philanthropy. He supported Israel's survival and the fight to cure Lupus disease, among many other programs to help the needy. He was a special human being, someone I cared deeply about, and his memory will be forever an inspiration to all who knew him. Frank R. Lautenberg United States Senator. Steinberg--Meyer. The Officers, Trustees, Clergy and Members of Park Avenue Synagogue mourn the passing of a devoted congregant. We extend to his wife Jean, his daughters Susan, Bonnie, Carol and Lois and the entire family our heartfelt sympathy. David H. Lincoln Senior Rabbi Amy A.B. Bressman Chairman of the Board Menachem Z. Rosensaft President. Steinberg--Meyer. The Directors and staff of the S.L.E. Lupus Foundation and the Lupus Research Institute mourn the loss of our dear friend Mike Steinberg, a devoted champion in the fight to conquer lupus. We extend our deepest sympathies to the Steinberg family, his devoted wife Jean and his beloved daughters Bonnie, Carol, Lois, and Susan. Richard K. DeScherer President, The S.L.E. Lupus Foundation. Steinberg--Meyer. The Gural Family would like to extend its deepest sympathies to the family of Meyer Steinberg. We were proud to call Meyer our friend and partner. He was a true humanitarian, a charitable person in every sense of the word, and his presence will be greatly missed. Our hearts go out to Jean, Susan, Bonnie, Carol, Lois and the entire Steinberg Family for their loss. Steinberg--Meyer ``Mike''. The Board of Governors and the members of The Seawane Club record with sorrow the loss of our beloved member, Meyer ``Mike'' Steinberg. We extend heartfelt sympathy to his wife Jean and family. Ted Markson, President. Steinberg--Meyer ``Mike''. We are heartbroken at he passing of our dear friend. Mike had great courage, accomplishment and was a generous philanthropist. Our condolences to his beloved wife Jean and family. He will be missed but not forgotten. Elma and Milton Gilbert. Steinberg--Meyer. Newmark and Company Real Estate wishes to extend its condolences to the Steinberg Family, on the loss of their husband, father and grandfather Meyer Steinberg. He was both a friend and partner, and he will be greatly missed. Steinberg--M. ``Mike''. It is with deepest regret that we mourn the loss of a wonderful, caring person who entered our lives years ago and was a model friend, husband, father and leader of people. Our heart goes out to Jean and her beautiful family. Barbara and Philip Altheim. Steinberg--Meyer. Our deepest condolences to the Steinberg family on the loss of their beloved husband, father, grandfather, and great grandfather. Mike was a man of great fortitude and charity and he will be missed. The Zises family. Steinberg--Meyer ``Mike''. To Jean and his beloved children and grandchildren, our sincerest condolences. We will sorely miss our dear friend, Love, Laura and Artie Ratner. Steinberg--Meyer (Mike). My heartfelt sympathy to the Steinberg family on the their loss. Mike will be greatly missed by all his friend and associates. Norman F. Levy.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, first, I want to say thank you----

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Sure.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. No objection, Madam President.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I would just note that the gracious statement of the Senator from Texas said ``10 minutes or so.'' I would hope, for clarification, if ``or so'' is 3 or 4 minutes longer, it will not be a violation of the unanimous consent agreement that we just heard.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, it is about 26 months since the assault on our families, our people, and our invincibility that took place at the World Trade Center, at the Pentagon, and in a field in Pennsylvania where it was so heroically disrupted on its way to a target. Therefore, I am outraged that we can't find enough time to further pay attention to the memory of the 9/11 victims by passing a bill to extend the deadline for victims' families, enabling them to apply for victims' compensation which is in a fund that was passed in the Senate and passed in the House and that is about to expire. Though we have just been through a difficult and contentious period with some acrimony, no matter how much I or others might have agreed with the outcome, our business for this year is not yet done. We are facing the expiration of this compensation fund, and there are lots of families who have yet to participate in this program that was designed for them. The need for this 9/11 victims bill is urgent. If we don't vote on it before Thanksgiving, this bill will become obsolete because the current filing deadline is December 22, 2003. We are reminded that a truly joyous part of the year is just beginning. It starts with Thanksgiving, goes through to Christmas and Hanukkah. It is just around the corner. A lone, anonymous Republican Senator is holding up a bill that would make these holidays less stressful for the 9/11 families. As we requested or will request in a unanimous consent request, the Senate must take up and pass this bill today in order to fulfill our commitments to compensate the victims' families. So far, out of approximately 3,000 killed, about 1,800 families, or only 60 percent of those eligible, have filed claims on behalf of relatives who were killed. This is far too low a percentage. Helping the families of 9/11 victims is not just the responsibility of the Senators in the Northeast, it is a national commitment we made that we owed to those who suffered on that tragic day. I am distressed by the fact that because of somebody in the majority, having just spent 39 hours of time talking about a handful of judicial nominees, we can't even commit a few minutes today to take up a simple but critical bill and pass it. The bill is vital to thousands of Americans who lost loved ones or who were themselves injured in the 9/11 attacks. Many of these families will mourn forever. Many of these families cannot yet bring to closure the terrible tragedy that befell their families. They are just not emotionally ready to begin the process of closure by applying to the victims compensation fund while their grief is still surrounding them. Imagine the Thanksgiving table without a son or a daughter or a mother or a father or a child. How sad that is. And we walk away from here not yet completing the task. I quickly point out, there are no additional funds required. Those funds were allocated 2 years ago when the fund was established. It is a rather confusing application, 40 pages. The difference is, if one applies to the fund, there is a settlement available. But in some cases, it may seem better for them to resort to the courts. That is why we have the system we have. It is hard to proceed and leave here without trying to do something about the condition in which we leave these families. We should help them get through the holiday period and encourage them a little bit further. The fund was estimated to cost $5 billion by Mr. Feinberg, who is the master in charge of the distribution. He is an outstanding lawyer who took this job, volunteered to do it. He notes that only $1 billion out of $5 billion that might be required or available were expended. Many others have been waiting. Some victims' families are non-native-English speakers, working hard to understand, get people to help them comprehend the application forms. Many others have been waiting to receive the required information from their loved ones' former employers in order to complete the forms. S. 1602, the bill that Senator Leahy and I introduced, keeps our promise to the 9/11 victims' families by extending the deadline to apply to the fund to the end of 2004, roughly a year from now. We are simply giving these grief-stricken families some more time to fill out this cumbersome application. Senators Boxer, Clinton, Corzine, Dodd, Durbin, Lieberman, and Schumer are cosponsors of this bill. I think it is really unfair that the Republican majority will not permit us to just move this bill along. President Bush and other Republicans were anxious to appear with the 9/11 families soon after the tragedy to show that they shared in some way their grief and to try to alleviate their distress. Now the cameras are gone. We should not, however, forget that we have these obligations to these families. This bill is unfinished business with a deadline. I had hoped the majority leader and my Republican colleagues would allow us to pay our respects to these families who need our help. On September 11 of this past year, I spoke at an event in Central Park, NY, that was arranged by a company called Cantor Fitzgerald. They lost 700 of their 1,000 employees. One of those who perished was a very close friend of my oldest daughter. They had worked together at another firm. My daughter went to law school and her friend went to work for Cantor Fitzgerald and was one of the 700 and left 3 young children and a husband behind--so unwilling to believe that his wife, the mother of these children, was taken away, that he visited hospitals in the area for some time after the attack took place, hoping that there was an error someplace, that he might find his wife, and that some way they would be able to continue. But she is gone. When I spoke to the people from Cantor Fitzgerald, about 4,000 people were there. And, again, this company lost 700. The people they touched is a far greater number than the number who actually perished. They were looking to us for some leadership, some recognition that they paid a price for their sheer courage, many of whom died helping others, including the policemen and the fire personnel, the emergency personnel. There are all kinds of stories, including the one about the man who walked up a flight to try to carry a woman down and both of them perished in the process. The stories are replete with heroism and courage--but dying. I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1602 and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read the third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I know I have to surrender the microphone. I do it sadly, because I don't believe that the Senator from Texas, who raises the objection on behalf of the Republican Party, really would object to extending a deadline--no more money and nothing else has to be done except to say to these people that we have not forgotten. We remember that you died when America's invincibility was shattered. That is a day that will mark our coming and going forever. One need only remember what happens every time you take your shoes off at the airport, or you are forced to show your ID, or you are searched with a magnetic wand, or whatever, or the fence surrounding the Washington Monument so you cannot see it at ground level when you pass by on Constitution Avenue and fortresses are being built out there. They did this to us and we are going to have to live with that. I wish reconsideration would be taken here in a discussion with the majority leader and the Senator from Texas, if he cares to be involved, and that we can pass that bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, before the majority leader leaves the floor, I want to say that I have been back here about a year now, and working with the majority leader, when he took office, has been an interesting and a positive experience. We are all cognizant of the wonderful work that Dr. Frist has done in his time before the Senate and how he served populations so desperately in need. He took the risks and the time necessary to do that. We all congratulate him for that, for his generosity of spirit, and his skill as a surgeon and physician. I have found on the rare occasions that I--I hope they are rare-- called on Senator Frist for an ear, he was more than willing to lend it. If he disagreed, he said so. And if he agreed--even rarer--that was done with dispatch and a straightforwardness which I greatly respect. I hope he and his family will enjoy the Thanksgiving holiday. As we muse over what happened in the last week, since Senator Frist is a physician, I hope he can prescribe a way we can heal some of the bruises that occurred in this last contentious period.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the passing of Norman Tobin on October 12, 2003, someone I respected and admired for many years. Norman and I belonged to the same synagogue for decades. He was a talented, generous person who was a leader in philanthropy and the Jewish community. I considered Norman and his wife Zelda good friends and know how strong the ties were in the Tobin family. I sent my deepest sympathy to the Tobin family and an acknowledgement of my gratitude for having been enriched by my contact with this great man. I ask to print a copy of the obituary that appeared in the Star Ledger in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of ARRIVE-21. I believe rail is a vital component of our national transportation system, and investment in our Nation's rail infrastructure is necessary for our economy, our security, and the effective and safe movement of people and goods in our country. The importance of rail service became apparent in the Northeast long ago, as we dealt with the myriad transportation planning and congestion issues that many other States are now just facing. These States are joining us Northeasterners in looking to the Federal Government to provide the leadership needed to ensure that passenger rail is given the priority it deserves. It took Federal money, not just gasoline taxes, to build the Dwight D. Eisenhower Interstate Highway System. It took Federal money to build our national aviation system. Here in the Northeast, the first part of the country to become densely populated, we faced congestion problems long ago, and passenger rail service became a mainstay. In the Northeast, we rely heavily on Amtrak's high-speed service between Boston and Washington, D.C. The Northeast Corridor serves cities with four of the Nation's seven most congested airports: Logan, LaGuardia, Newark, and Reagan National. Amtrak carries more passengers between New York and Washington than all of the airlines combined and, unlike airline passengers, rail travelers are able to stop in Trenton and Newark, New Jersey, and in other places along the way. Next month, New Jersey Transit will open for service a new rail station in Secaucus, NJ. As a result of this opening, more than 15,000 cars will be diverted from our roads each day by 2010. That will reduce carbon monoxide emissions by nearly 277,000 pounds each year. New Jersey riders who switch to rail because of this one station will cut their gasoline consumption by 1.3 million gallons each year. Also, in this post-9-11 environment we have a new perspective about the national security interest in ensuring that there is more than one way to get from here to there, and this includes passenger rail. September 11 underscored just how important passenger rail is to America's economy and security. New Jersey's economy is so dependent on passenger rail and mass transit as a result of being the most densely populated State in the Nation. New Jersey needs federal assistance for passenger rail infrastructure. But New Jersey is not alone. As metropolitan areas across the country continue to swell with people, our roads and airports become more and more congested. I think the prudence of increasing our investment in another way to move people--passenger rail--has become more and more obvious. And ARRIVE-21 provides this investment opportunity. The benefits of rail service are not limited to urban areas. In rural towns across America, passenger trains may be the only option for intercity travel for many people. From 1987 through 2000, I was the Chairman or Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation. During that time, I helped to secure 10.3 billion dollars in operating funds for AMTRAK and an additional 2.2 billion dollars in tax-advantaged financing for capital improvements. Unfortunately, during that time, we have not been able to make the capital investments necessary to bring Amtrak's infrastructure up to a state of good repair. ARRIVE-21 gives the Federal Government the impetus to step up and take charge with a strong program to invest in our rail infrastructure. The States are interested, the traveling public is interested. This kind of investment will lay the tracks for the future of all Americans to have travel options, provide a national security role, and support our economy. For these reasons, I am proud to cosponsor ARRIVE-21.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of ARRIVE-21. I believe rail is a vital component of our national transportation system, and investment in our Nation's rail infrastructure is necessary for our economy, our security, and the effective and safe movement of people and goods in our country. The importance of rail service became apparent in the Northeast long ago, as we dealt with the myriad transportation planning and congestion issues that many other States are now just facing. These States are joining us Northeasterners in looking to the Federal Government to provide the leadership needed to ensure that passenger rail is given the priority it deserves. It took Federal money, not just gasoline taxes, to build the Dwight D. Eisenhower Interstate Highway System. It took Federal money to build our national aviation system. Here in the Northeast, the first part of the country to become densely populated, we faced congestion problems long ago, and passenger rail service became a mainstay. In the Northeast, we rely heavily on Amtrak's high-speed service between Boston and Washington, D.C. The Northeast Corridor serves cities with four of the Nation's seven most congested airports: Logan, LaGuardia, Newark, and Reagan National. Amtrak carries more passengers between New York and Washington than all of the airlines combined and, unlike airline passengers, rail travelers are able to stop in Trenton and Newark, New Jersey, and in other places along the way. Next month, New Jersey Transit will open for service a new rail station in Secaucus, NJ. As a result of this opening, more than 15,000 cars will be diverted from our roads each day by 2010. That will reduce carbon monoxide emissions by nearly 277,000 pounds each year. New Jersey riders who switch to rail because of this one station will cut their gasoline consumption by 1.3 million gallons each year. Also, in this post-9-11 environment we have a new perspective about the national security interest in ensuring that there is more than one way to get from here to there, and this includes passenger rail. September 11 underscored just how important passenger rail is to America's economy and security. New Jersey's economy is so dependent on passenger rail and mass transit as a result of being the most densely populated State in the Nation. New Jersey needs federal assistance for passenger rail infrastructure. But New Jersey is not alone. As metropolitan areas across the country continue to swell with people, our roads and airports become more and more congested. I think the prudence of increasing our investment in another way to move people--passenger rail--has become more and more obvious. And ARRIVE-21 provides this investment opportunity. The benefits of rail service are not limited to urban areas. In rural towns across America, passenger trains may be the only option for intercity travel for many people. From 1987 through 2000, I was the Chairman or Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation. During that time, I helped to secure 10.3 billion dollars in operating funds for AMTRAK and an additional 2.2 billion dollars in tax-advantaged financing for capital improvements. Unfortunately, during that time, we have not been able to make the capital investments necessary to bring Amtrak's infrastructure up to a state of good repair. ARRIVE-21 gives the Federal Government the impetus to step up and take charge with a strong program to invest in our rail infrastructure. The States are interested, the traveling public is interested. This kind of investment will lay the tracks for the future of all Americans to have travel options, provide a national security role, and support our economy. For these reasons, I am proud to cosponsor ARRIVE-21.