Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that title VIII in its entirety, section 1004 of title X, and section 1005 of title X, each violates paragraph 4 of Senate rule XVI in the Reid motion to concur in the House amendment No. 2, with an amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, here we go again. Yet again my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to sell the American people a bill of goods to try to convince them that drilling along our shores will do something to lower gas prices. Opening our shores to drilling was a bad idea in June of last year when we voted down an amendment to the Energy bill--very similar--it was a bad idea when this body voted it down in March of this year on an amendment to the budget resolution, and it was a bad idea when we voted this idea down by well over 14 votes 2 days ago on an amendment to the flood insurance bill. Ending a bipartisan, 26-year moratoria on oil drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf will do nothing but jeopardize our precious natural resources. The Energy Information Administration projects that even if we opened the entire Outer Continental Shelf to drilling off the east coast, off the west coast, and opened the entire eastern Gulf of Mexico, nothing would happen to gas prices--nothing. Why? First, because production wouldn't begin until the year 2017. The infrastructure to drill for oil is not just a large oil platform but a network of hundreds of miles of pipelines that transport oil from the platform on to the land and then on to the refineries. This kind of infrastructure simply does not exist on the east coast and in only limited exceptions on the west coast. The second reason why opening all our shores to oil drilling will not lower gas prices is because by the time full production actually ramped up in 2030, drilling off all of the coasts full tilt--full tilt--would only result in a whopping 3-percent increase in domestic production. Even in 2030, as our continent is rung all the way around by oil platforms, all of this new supply would be eaten up by a 7-percent increase in domestic demand. So the Energy Information Administration predicts: ``Any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.'' The fact is that over 80 percent of the resources in the Outer Continental Shelf are already open for exploration. Since 2001, the Bush administration has issued over 100 new leases. Many of these leases are in the eastern gulf where the oil industry already has much of the infrastructure necessary to go into production. Yet only 12 of these new wells have been drilled. The industry is only developing a small fraction of the area already open for drilling. So why isn't ExxonMobil pumping some of its profits into developing some of these areas? If companies are not interested in developing the large fields already in the Gulf of Mexico, why is it so critical to open environmentally sensitive areas to more drilling? My home State of New Jersey and the New Jersey shore is a priceless treasure that my home State will protect at any cost. The shore also generates tens of billions of dollars in revenues each year and supports almost half a million jobs. If we open the east coast to drilling, we jeopardize a tourism and fishing economy worth tens of billions of dollars in exchange for a cumulative total of only a half year's supply of oil--a half year's supply of oil--jeopardizing, however, tens of billions of dollars. The people of New Jersey cannot afford the risk that will take place to our wildlife, to our economy and, in fact, I believe, the people up and down the coast as well. Florida beaches generate billions of dollars each year. In South Carolina, Myrtle Beach alone brought in more than $3 billion in revenue. Do we want oil washing up into the pristine Cape Hatteras National Seashore? What about Virginia Beach? And can Maryland's famous blue crab survive yet another environmental assault? The bottom line is this proposal will do nothing to lower gas prices, but it will jeopardize coastal economies all along both coasts. Now to simply say: Well, it is up to an individual State, that doesn't work. The ocean doesn't have neat little boxes which it is divided into. So the reality is that the ability to open the Outer Continental Shelf in one location threatens, if there is an accident, the beaches along the shoreline along that same region. This isn't about making it one versus another; this is a continuity. There are other things we can do about gas prices. Hopefully the President will soon sign into law the Democratic proposal that passed Congress overwhelmingly to suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through December of 2008. When the people of this country are suffering from paying $4 a gallon for gas and when gas prices are pushing up the cost of food, and the price of oil has broken $125 a barrel, it makes no sense to be buying at this high level and then putting that oil in the ground when we are already 97 percent of where we need to be for the Nation's security, burying this precious commodity when we need it the most. Hopefully the President will sign this important measure and we can truly begin to help gas prices go back down and offer some relief. But it begs even a bigger question, and that is breaking our dependency on foreign oil, seeking renewable sources, and finding new automobiles which we drive in our country; moving on to mass transit, having greater conservation--these are all of the elements that are necessary. It is also about ending speculation in the marketplace. Why is it that when we have testimony before House and Senate committees that says the price of oil should be somewhere between $50 and $70 a barrel between demand and supply that we are looking at $125? Let's go after the speculators. Let's go through a regulatory process that ensures this one market that is so critical ultimately has the regulation necessary. Finally, we can't drill our way out of oil addiction. We can't drill our way out of oil addiction. We must promote sustainable alternative fuels and incentivize people to buy more efficient cars, raise the fuel economy standards and--something we don't do well in the United States--help commercialize technologies that allow us to run our cars, for example, on electricity. General Motors plans to introduce a plug- in hybrid in 2010 and Nissan announced it will start selling an electric car that same year. Once we get this type of technology right, our constituents will be able to run their cars much more cheaply. Some studies project electricity will be the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon of gasoline. That as a fuel source for the future is just around the corner. We understand that. We want to incentivize it and move it in the right direction. On the other side, if all you want to do is create more addiction to the oil, find another vein in which to pop into and go ahead and drill even when all that is already open is not being drilled. It is the wrong policy. We have defeated three times in the Senate over the last year or so such provisions. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Vitter motion to instruct and make sure we keep this bipartisan, 26-year moratoria intact. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time that may be left in opposition, and I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I wish to claim about 10 minutes of that time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I believe there is time in opposition to this motion?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the Senate has on three different occasions over the last year defeated similar efforts to end the 26- year bipartisan moratoria on the Outer Continental Shelf. This is another attempt to get at it. Even the Energy Information Administration projects that if we opened the entire east and west coasts, we wouldn't achieve anything because it would take up to 2017 to ramp up and 2030 to actually achieve results. So this isn't about gas prices; this is about tapping into another vein of oil, continuing our addiction, and putting our shores at risk. I urge my colleagues, particularly from coastal States, to oppose it.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today we are considering a critical piece of legislation. The resolution of disapproval is critical to the diversity of our media and I would like to thank Senator Dorgan for his leadership on the issue. In December, the FCC pushed through new media ownership rules on a partisan three to two vote. The proposal strips newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules that have protected diversity for 32 years in the top 20 markets. This proposal has been described by the chairman as a modest rules change. That since it is restricted to the top 20 markets, and since it only applies to television stations not in the top 4 in ratings in those markets, its some sort of compromise. The reality is that is simply not true. To begin with, 44 percent of Americans live in the top 20 markets. This includes my State of New Jersey, which is split by two of the largest markets in the country. And there are a number of loopholes in the rule. Companies looking to consolidate either outside the top 20 markets or to purchase one of the 4 largest stations need only be granted a waiver from the FCC. The standards for granting these waivers are vague at best. Here is an example: one of the standards a company must show in order for a waiver to be granted is whether the broadcast station has enough editorial independence. How does anybody quantify that? The fact is there is no way to objectively judge the parameters Chairman Martin's rule requires to grant the waivers. This means that depending on who is running the FCC, a waiver can be granted in any market or for any station. As Commissioner Adelstein put it so appropriately, this proposal is nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing. While the FCC devotes its resources to opening up more loopholes for consolidation, the commission has done virtually nothing to address the issue of minority ownership. The reality of diversity in our Nation's broadcast ownership is a far cry from the reality in which we live. Despite making up 35 percent of the population and owning roughly 18 percent of all nonfarm businesses, minorities currently own only 3 percent of all broadcast TV stations. It is in the best interests of our democracy that media ownership reflect the wealth of this Nation's diversity. As a public trustee of the broadcast spectrum, it is the responsibility of the FCC to advocate on behalf of women and minorities. Yet this Commission under President Bush has failed in this pursuit. In fact, the FCC has so mishandled the issue, nobody even uses their statistics on minority ownership anymore. The best estimates we have on minority ownership have to come from outside groups because the FCC simply doesn't have accurate reporting numbers. In 2000, the FCC released five studies conducted to help the commission comply with its own regulations that require the elimination of market-entry barriers for small business. These studies largely found that media consolidation negatively impacted minority ownership, and noted that minority owners face historic barriers to accessing capital from lending institutions to purchase broadcast outlets. But rather than act on these studies to address the underlying problems, the FCC took 4 years to even issue a notice for public comment. So today we have a chance to overturn a misguided decision by the FCC. And we have a chance to tell the Commission that rather than spend their time on finding loopholes for major media corporations to buy up more outlets throughout our country, the FCC should be working to its charge as the trustee for America's airwaves.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate the question of the Senator from Massachusetts and the chairman of the committee. The answer is, yes, I say to the Senator. The fact is that New Jerseyans have this right. Yet every year when I have had visits from firefighters and police officers, they have talked about this legislation because they understand, even though they already have the right, they never want to visit another State for the loss of one of their fellows in service who have committed the ultimate sacrifice. They understand very powerfully that the ability to negotiate, as I suggested earlier, is not only about salaries. Look, you do not do this type of work for a salary. You do not do this type of work for a pension. You do not do this type of work for certain benefits. You do this type of work because you are committed to the proposition that you are willing to sacrifice your life in return for saving someone else's, and that is incredibly important. Finally, the reality is, I found it interesting in those negotiations that I used to have as a mayor, very often, as I said before about the ability to perform the job, because it was with the mission in mind and the oath taken to save lives, that more often was on the table than the question simply about salaries or pensions or benefits. They know their interaction with their governmental bodies in performing and having a service goes far beyond that which may exist in those States that do not permit that interaction through the collective bargaining system, that in fact lives of their fellow officers can be saved, their fellow police officers and, most importantly, the lives of their fellow citizens. That is why they have come and advocated for this legislation. Even though they already enjoy the benefit, they understand the potential benefits for a much broader benefit for a much broader universe.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I agree fully with Senator Kennedy, that in fact, it is past time. Senator Dewine was a Republican and obviously saw the wisdom of this legislation. It is even more appropriate today. We face challenges unlike any other time in our history as it relates to what police and firefighters are called to do, to go far beyond their traditional roles. They need to have a voice as it relates to how they respond to these new challenges and to their new roles. Finally, I would simply say, when they negotiated, I know New York City firefighters did not say: Well, we do not have enough men on the rig according to our contract so we are not going to respond on September 11 or enough police officers to say we do not have two-men cars patrolling so we are not going to respond. That has never been the case of those who serve. They have an oath and calling and they live up to that calling every day. We need to live up to our ultimate calling in the Senate to respond to the challenges they face each and every day to give them the right and the dignity they deserve to be able to negotiate not only for themselves and their families but for the well-being of the citizens they serve. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Massachusetts. We had about 60,000 people in the community at the time. But it was a challenge, 60,000 people in 1.1 square miles, the most densely populated city in the Nation. So the uniqueness of some of those challenges of having police and firefighters be able to respond was very much--although the population was high, the geography was small. So we had a much smaller sense of the response times and the necessities that were demanded. But I also was part of the mayors' coalition in the State of New Jersey at the time. That coalition represented urban, suburban, rural mayors. Throughout the State of New Jersey, they had obviously the right for collective bargaining. To be honest with you, I don't recall any of those mayors saying collective bargaining was the bane of their existence as it related to being able to produce the services. I think the reality is that what we do through this process is we build strong partnerships between first responders and the cities and the States in which they serve. When public safety employers and employees work together, it not only reduces worker fatalities, and they have a consequence, even in a noncollective bargaining system-- there obviously clearly are claims against the municipality--but above all, it improves the quality of the services and the delivery of those services at the end of the day. I believe in a post-September 11 world, having resided in a State that lost hundreds of people on that fateful day and in a community that saw several hundred lost on that fateful day, that these are individuals who now play a critical role far beyond what we envisioned originally or what their history has been, which is certainly producing the safety in our communities from the normal challenges of crime, burglaries, thefts, robberies or assaults, or maybe even more minor roles of traffic violations. These first responders across the landscape of the country face a much heightened responsibility. They play a critical role in homeland security. So by enhancing cooperation between those public safety employers and employees, I believe the legislation helps to ensure that vital public services run as smoothly as possible. It is interesting that every New York City firefighter and police officer who responded to the disaster at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, was a union member under a collective bargaining agreement. I believe their ability to have been integrated in their negotiations with the cities about all aspects of the delivery of their services gave some of the most incredible response on that fateful day. There is not a reason why we cannot see that take place across the country in terms of readiness. So I believe that if we look at the bill, it only requires local governments to engage in negotiations. If workers choose to join a union, that is a rather low threshold. Again, States that do not have these protections can choose to establish their own collective bargaining systems. So I hope we realize what is at stake--that safety is incredibly at stake. Twenty-nine States, along with the District of Columbia, currently guarantee all public safety workers the fundamental right of collective bargaining. Now, with the House of Representatives overwhelmingly-- overwhelmingly--approving companion legislation almost a year ago, it is hard to believe the Senate will not act. In fact, it is time for the Senate to act and to respond. With 80,000 firefighters and 76,000 police officers being injured in the line of duty each year, the time has come to ensure that these workers are protected. It is time to put our votes where our values are. It is interesting to me how very often those of us who serve in this body and the other body want to be there with police and firefighters. We want to take our picture with them, acknowledge them. We appreciate their services. We talk about their heroism. But the time for all that talk to be meaningful is when you come to the Senate and you cast a vote that is to simply have a right that is fundamentally basic, that we have believed it to be truly an American right. And so all those pictures, all those speeches, it is time to put that vote to work. It is time to put our votes where our values are. It is time to uphold the rights of those who provide for our safety. It is time we show how much we appreciate the dedication and bravery of our Nation's heroes who take this risk every day.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, let me first say I appreciate the Senator from Massachusetts and his leadership in this regard. I have come to the floor not only to acknowledge his leadership on this critical piece of legislation but to speak strongly in support of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. For me, this bill is about protecting some of the most basic fundamental rights of America's bravest and finest public servants. Our Nation's first responders put their lives on the line every day. That sometimes only comes vividly to us when we lose one of those brave men and women and their lives are lost in the line of duty, but the reality is they are at risk every day, risking everything they have to protect us, to protect complete strangers, to protect their communities. At a moment's notice, they are on call to respond to natural and manmade disasters of every size, scope, and severity. These men and women are firefighters, emergency management technicians, police officers, and first responders who are prepared day in and day out to go to any length to save the life of a complete stranger. They have one goal: to keep others safe. In those moments, they don't think about anything else. As they rush to respond to a fire, they are not thinking about their job security. As they risk their life in a collapsing building, they are not doing it in return for a higher wage. As they put themselves into harm's way, they are not thinking about the benefits their family might receive if the worst should happen. In 2006, more than 75,000 police officers were injured in the line of duty, and last year 140 police officers paid the ultimate price and lost their lives in the line of duty. In 2006, more than 83,000 firefighters were injured in the line of duty, and 115 firefighters paid the ultimate price. This year alone, another 45 have lost their lives. Today we have an opportunity to thank these selfless heroes, not just with our words but with our actions. We have an opportunity to guarantee the rights of those who work to protect our lives and safety every day. In short, we have an opportunity to fix what is wrong and do what is right. This legislation simply gives first responders the same right that virtually all Americans enjoy: the right to collectively bargain and have a voice about their working conditions, to come together in common cause to achieve a better standard. A majority of the States already confer this right of collective bargaining, including my home State of New Jersey. This bill would give public safety officers across the country that right. It would ensure if they choose--if they choose--they can join a union and bargain over wages, hours, and working conditions. I was a former mayor. I did not have the challenges of having a unionized police force and firefighting force that ultimately worked in contradiction to the interests of my municipality. I did not. Certainly, in the urbanized context in which I was, that was a bigger challenge than others. So the reality is I do not believe the right to collectively organize automatically means the dire consequences that some have portrayed as it relates to this legislation. In New Jersey, we recognize how important it is for first responders to have a strong working relationship with the municipalities they serve. We recognize these public safety officers deserve the dignity and respect to have a say in their wages, hours, and working conditions. And we recognize that when public safety employers and employees work together, the results serve us extremely well. Some of my colleagues will try to argue this legislation will hurt volunteer firefighters by limiting the amount of time professionals can volunteer while off duty. We have volunteer firefighters in New Jersey alongside those who are organized at the same time, and that has not simply been the case. This is simply incorrect, as the legislation specifically forbids any State from putting limits on professional firefighters who volunteer during their off-duty hours. Others are saying this legislation could effectively repeal State right-to-work laws. Again, this legislation specifically allows States to enforce right-to-work laws. The bill makes no change in States that have right-to-work laws and would not prevent any other States from adopting new right-to-work laws. Let's be honest about what the bill actually does say. It does not dictate how States should approach this issue. The bill only requires local governments to engage in negotiations if workers choose to join a union. It respects the authority of local legislative bodies to approve or disapprove funding for any negotiated agreement. The bill only affects States that do not already provide their public safety officers with the right to bargain collectively. States that do not have these protections can choose to establish their own collective bargaining systems. I hope we realize what is at stake here. Beyond fairness, which is something which is fundamentally important, particularly for those who risk their lives every day, we are talking about safety. In States where there are not collective bargaining protections for workers, fatalities are 39 percent higher. That is a fact. In States where there is not collective bargaining opportunities, fatalities are 39 percent higher. The fact is, greater protections for workers lead to better safety conditions. We have seen this time and time again in which the negotiation--some people think it is only about money. It is not just about money. When I was a mayor, some of the most significant negotiations were about the standard under which you operated, which was not only important as it related to the firefighter or the police officer but was important as it related to the response time and the ability to perform the services that ultimately saved property and saved lives. Some people think this is all about simply money and making more and having better benefits. A lot of it is about working conditions and the nature of how one, in fact, applies their profession in a way that not only saves lives of those who serve--firefighters and police officers-- but also saves the lives of those they were sworn to protect because they had a better system--breathing apparatus, having the technology to enter into a fire and being able to detect someone who has been immobilized. Often that negotiation was not about money but about can we have this equipment that is essential for us to perform our duty in behalf of those we are sworn to serve. It seems to me we have to understand there is a direct correlation between the benefits that often are on the negotiating table to citizens, not only to those who serve but to citizens in terms of having greater lifesaving capabilities--for me as a mayor, that was often what I heard the negotiations being about. I thought it was exemplary, that we were negotiating over how do we better save lives at the end of the day. Any time we can have the reality that more lives are saved because, in fact, the collective bargaining system allows us to create circumstances under which not only the workplace and the profession, but the lives of the citizens of those communities are saved, is worthy of achieving.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I will be happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, we are debating two very different amendments on gas prices that are up for a vote tomorrow. We have the proposal of the minority leader that is full of old ideas that will not work and will do absolutely nothing to affect gas prices now or in the future. In fact, the only provision in the minority leader's amendment that would do anything to lower gas prices is lifted directly from the Democratic plan to lower gas prices. This is the provision to temporarily suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In response, the majority leader has offered a clean amendment to temporarily suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is one of the few options we have to address the pain at the pump our constituents are facing right now. Every time my friends on the other side of the aisle decide to pay attention to our energy crisis, their solution is always the same: help big oil. In 2005, they authored energy provisions that gave ExxonMobil and other oil giants lavish subsidies that totaled over $14 billion, and these companies are reaping the rewards with record profits announced every quarter. ExxonMobil recently announced $11 billion in profits over a 3-month period. To put that in context, this means ExxonMobil's yearly profit this year might well be almost twice the annual budget of the Department of Energy. The authors of these proposals argue that if we simply shovel more taxpayer money in the direction of oil companies, this money will eventually trickle down to the people. But, as we have all too often seen, it does not. Gasoline prices are now over $3.70 per gallon, and the specter of $4-per-gallon gasoline is looming around the corner. While oil companies hoard their windfall profits, the American people are suffering. Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle do not want real relief for the country; they only want to protect big oil's huge profits at any cost by opening every environmentally sensitive area in the country to drilling. Now, President Bush was right when he said we are addicted to oil, but what amazes me is the President's party is unaware they continue to act like addicts. Instead of supporting real plans to conserve oil or even transition to sustainable fuels, they go out in search of their next oil fix. Some claim the way to lower gas prices is to end a bipartisan, 26- year moratorium to open the Outer Continental Shelf to oil exploration and drill, drill, and drill. But the Energy Information Administration projects that even if we opened the entire Outer Continental Shelf to drilling off the east coast, off the west coast, and opened the entire eastern Gulf of Mexico, nothing would happen to gas prices. Why? First, because production would not begin before the year 2017. The infrastructure to drill for oil is not just a large oil platform but a network of hundreds of miles of pipeline to transport oil from the platform onto land and then to refineries. This kind of infrastructure simply does not exist on the east coast and in only limited exceptions on the west coast. The second reason why opening all our shores to oil drilling will not lower gas prices is because by the time full production actually ramped up, in 2030, drilling off all our coasts full tilt would only result in a whopping 3-percent increase in domestic production. And even in 2030, as our continent is rung all the way around by oil platforms, all of this new supply will be eaten up by a 7-percent increase in domestic demand. The Energy Information Administration predicts that: ``Any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.'' So even opening all of our coasts to drilling, as the minority leader proposes, will have no impact on gas prices at all. As my colleagues can see by this chart, the Federal Government has been issuing more and more leasing permits for drilling, but at the same time the price of gasoline has continued to rise. In fact, over 80 percent of the resources in the Outer Continental Shelf are already open for exploration. Since 2001, the Bush administration has issued over 100 new leases. Many of these leases are in the eastern Gulf where the oil industry already has much of the infrastructure necessary to go into production but only 12 of these new wells have been drilled. The industry is only developing a small fraction of the area already open for drilling. Why isn't ExxonMobil pumping some of its profits into developing these areas? If companies are not interested in developing the large fields already open in the Gulf of Mexico, why is it so critical to open environmentally sensitive areas to more drilling? One might say it is to be expected that those on the side of big oil would use this sort of rhetoric in an election year, but it is much worse than that. The McConnell amendment could be both economically and ecologically devastating. If you look at a picture here taken after a recent oil spill in San Francisco, this is what we can routinely be facing if we allow widespread drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. We could see our beaches closed for business because of oil spills. In my home State of New Jersey, our shore is a priceless treasure that my State would protect at any cost, but the shore also generates tens of billions of dollars in revenues each year and supports almost half a million jobs. It simply makes no sense to jeopardize a tourism and fishing economy worth tens of billions of dollars in exchange for a cumulative total of only a half year's supply of oil. The people of New Jersey cannot afford the risk of millions of gallons of oil washing up on our beaches. This is not just a New Jersey problem. Florida's beaches generate billions of dollars each year. In South Carolina, Myrtle Beach alone brought in $3 billion in revenues. Do we want oil washing up onto the pristine Cape Hatteras National Seashore? What about Virginia Beach? Can Maryland's famous blue crab survive yet another environmental assault? The bottom line is the minority leader's proposal will do nothing to lower gas prices, but it will jeopardize coastal economies all along both coasts. Is there anything we can responsibly do to ease the pain of such high gas prices? The answer is a resounding yes. One important way to address oil prices that I hope we will be debating more fully in the next week or so is to better regulate oil markets. Many analysts who have testified before the relevant House and Senate committees agree that based on pure supply and demand, the price of oil should be somewhere between $50 and $70 a barrel. So why are we hitting $125 a barrel? In part, it is because of excessive speculation on futures markets, and unlike other markets such as the commodities involving corn or soybean futures, oil is being traded around the globe with little or no oversight by the U.S. Government. If the Enron disaster teaches us anything, it should be that markets cannot be allowed to operate without real oversight. In the upcoming weeks when the Senate debates the comprehensive Democratic plan to address runaway gas prices, one of the most important aspects of that package will be increased regulation of oil markets so we can effectively combat excess speculation and any possible market manipulation. Another important measure to bring short-term relief to the pain at the pump is the majority leader's amendment to be voted on tomorrow. This amendment would suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at least through December 2008. When the people of this country are suffering with almost $4-a-gallon gas, when the price of oil has broken $125 a barrel, why would we be burying this precious commodity when we need it the most? We should stop pouring all that oil into a hole in the ground until the price of crude oil recedes to $75 or less. This will truly help drive gas prices back down by increasing supply and offering some immediate relief to Americans. It is very important that we look at these proposals. Even Jim Woolsey is fond of saying, by buying oil in such huge quantities and at such high prices, we are funding both sides of the war on terror. So it seems to me that if we want to do something about kicking our addiction, we don't go after more of it; we move in a different direction. We suspend the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that is already 97 percent full. We will have that opportunity tomorrow. Then we look at market speculation and these other elements of a truly broad-based effort that preserves our natural resources, preserves the economy that those natural resources generate, as the New Jersey shore does, and then ultimately achieves the goal of not only driving down the cost of gas but at the same time move us in a different direction to break our dependency. So what are the real long-term solutions to ending our dependence on oil and greening our transportation fleet? The first thing we need to do is drastically improve fuel economy. In 1976, our cars and trucks got 13 miles per gallon. Because of the Arab oil crisis, we passed laws to improve the fuel economy of our passenger vehicles. From 1976 to 1981, we saw a rapid increase in fuel economy. In 1981, our fleet had improved to 21 miles per gallon. But since 1981, without the political will to improve fuel economy standards and the rising popularity of SUVs, the average fuel economy of our passenger vehicle fleet actually declined to 20 miles per gallon in 2006. What would have happened if we had kept slowly improving the fuel economy of our vehicles from 1981 to the present? If we had increased fuel economy a modest 2 percent per year during that time, our new fleet of vehicles would now average 34 miles per gallon. While this is certainly a huge improvement over where we sit today, it was definitely achievable since this figure is still well below standards set in Japan which are over 40 miles per gallon. Astonishingly, if we had followed this course, our current demand for oil would be over one-third less than it is today, down over 2 billion barrels of oil per year. Cumulatively, we would have saved over 30 billion barrels of oil. Thirty billion barrels of oil is more oil than the entire proven oil reserves remaining in the United States. This means that this sensible and achievable policy could have saved us more oil than we could ever hope to gain from domestic drilling. It is commendable that we have finally raised fuel economy standards, but we must make even further reductions if we want to make up for lost time. Of course, fuel efficiency is just part of the answer to solving our addiction to oil. We also need tax incentives to increase the producion and use of superefficient vehicles already out there--such as hybrids. We need a massive investment in cars that can run on sustainable alternative fuels like electricity or cellulosic ethanol. Once we truly have a choice of fuels, the grip of our oil addiction will finally loosen. This country also needs to invest in our mass transit infrastructure. This weekend the New York Times reported that mass transit is up all over the country. We need a huge investment in mass transit to make sure that we all have multiple transportation options so we are not so reliant on driving. But while most of the Democratic Party supports these sensible policy reforms, my friends on the other side of the aisle are stuck in the past advocating old positions from previous Congresses. Mr. President, I hope that this will be the last time I need to rise in this Chamber to point out that more oil drilling in environmentally sensitive areas is not the answer to our oil addiction. It is time for an intervention. It is time for a real cure based on a tough examination and reordering of our energy priorities--and not the tired old policies of the past. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to honor and celebrate Israel's 60th anniversary. On a sad note, this is the first year that we honor Israel's anniversary without my friend and former colleague, Congressman Tom Lantos, former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Mr. Lantos was the only Holocaust survivor to ever serve in Congress, and his recent passing has left a hollow void for all of us. Mr. President, on April 22 of this year, the Senate unanimously adopted a resolution expressing our unwavering commitment to the sovereign and independent State of Israel. Sixty years after its founding, we now witness a strong nation, a steadfast ally and strategic partner of the United States, a dynamic democracy with a thriving economic, political, cultural, and intellectual life, that survives despite the heavy costs of war, terrorism, and unjustified diplomatic and economic boycotts. We now witness an innovative nation which has developed some of the leading universities in the world and produced eight recipients of the Nobel prize. We now witness a compassionate nation, which regularly sends humanitarian aid, search-and-rescue teams, mobile hospitals, and other emergency supplies to help victims of disasters around the world and which has taken in millions of Jews from countries around the world, often fleeing those countries and persecution. These accomplishments have followed one of the most tragic events in human civilization: the slaughter of more than 6 million European Jews during the Holocaust. We are reminded that, as I have said many times before on this floor, the events of the Holocaust are not distant and are not buried in the past. Today, those who survived the camps live to tell us their story, the stories of their families and their lives before the Holocaust. Their children and grandchildren are here with us too. They are living testimony to the strength, the courage, and optimism of their parents and grandparents. But in their hearts and in their souls they feel the pain and suffering of those who raised them. In them, too, the past is present. Echoes from that tragedy still rattle our world in other ways. Every time a hateful slogan is spray-painted on a wall, every time a bigoted joke spreads like wildfire on the Internet, every time a synagogue somewhere in the world has to station armed guards outside so its members can pray in peace, and every time a terrorist Qassam rocket attack from Gaza shatters a pane of glass at a family's home or a school, we feel the dark shadows of history falling upon our time. It is a harsh reality that 60 years after its founding, the nation of Israel continues to face mounting threats to its way of life and its existence. Sixty years after the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people, antisemitism is very much alive. So those who speak against the sovereignty of Israel or threaten its obliteration or who believe that antisemitism is an attack that need not be answered, do not recognize the consequences of history. In fact, an attack against anyone simply because of race or religion is ultimately the beginning of the unraveling of civilization. So it is in our common interests to raise our voices against antisemitism. By honoring and commemorating the 60th anniversary of Israel, we do more than congratulate a nation. We take a stand against hatred and discrimination everywhere. We recognize a triumph over fear and achievement of industriousness, a victory of hope. We express our sincere confidence that despite the challenges its people have faced, despite the threats to their very existence, Israel has and it shall overcome. Israel and the Jewish people have held many commemorations and events over the past week. Yesterday was a day to remember those who gave their lives to protect the State of Israel and others who have fallen victim to attacks from its enemies. Today is a day to celebrate the nation's 60 years of life. It is a day for celebration and for strong action. On this day, we pause to commemorate all of those who have contributed to make Israel such a strong nation, and we pledge to continue to strengthen our bonds of close friendship and cooperation so that as proud as this nation's history is, the future will be even brighter still. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, our Nation depends on our system of air travel to do business, to visit family and friends, to connect us with the world. We depend on the Federal Government to keep an eye on that system and to make sure air travel is as safe as humanly possible. But over the last 7 years, the American people's trust in the Federal Aviation Administration has come crashing down. When we learned that the FAA had allowed hundreds of flights on planes with cracks in them, that was just the latest abuse of our trust. It seems as if we are finding new regulatory problems in American aviation every day. With every new headline and every whistleblower who comes forward, we learn that something else has gone wrong--something that could inconvenience us, at best and, at worst, claim human lives. Meanwhile, the FAA is enveloped in a cloud of cronyism and neglect. Whether we are talking about managing delays, maintaining safety, or managing its employee relations, the FAA has constantly let us all down and put us all at risk. Last month, we found out that Southwest Airlines was allowing dozens of planes to take off without inspection. We found out American Airlines was flying planes for weeks that had potentially dangerous wiring problems. When the news got out, thousands of Americans saw their flights canceled while airlines scrambled to comply with safety guidelines they should have been following all along. Why did it take so long for the FAA to notice? A few weeks ago, one FAA employee testified before Congress that when he found out these planes were flying with cracks and complained about it, Southwest contacted the FAA, and he was removed--removed--from his role of overseeing the airline. Other employees who complained were encouraged to transfer or removed from their posts. Now, what is the FAA--the Federal Aviation Administration--supposed to be doing? Job 1, it seems to me, is to ensure the safety of the flying public. I know they have this dual mission. I have always wondered about that dual mission of safety and promoting the industry-- the other mission. But safety is job 1--job 1. When they take employees who come forward and say: Look, there are cracks, maybe we should not let this airplane take off, or a series of airplanes take off, and because the company objects, it gets them hauled off of the job, or when others come forth and they are told: Well, maybe you should consider transferring, it simply undermines the very essence of what is job 1. The message that was sent is: If you are an inspector, don't do your job too well or you will lose it. Those are not the only safety concerns. The people of my home State of New Jersey have reason to be worried about safety at our airports. We just learned that Teterboro Airport, which is one of the small but one of the busiest airports we have in the region, has one of the highest numbers of near-misses in the country. A few months ago, at Newark Airport, two planes came within seconds of crashing into each other. There was a similar incident in December and three near-misses last May. How many serious close calls do we have to live through before the FAA takes this problem seriously? Not only is the FAA failing to do due diligence on behalf of the people in the air, they have risked the well-being of people on the ground as well. A while back, the FAA decided to redesign the airspace around some New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania airports. Now, I have been a big supporter of airspace redesign since when I was first in the House on the Transportation Committee. We live in the most congested airspace in the Nation. We are in somewhat of a straitjacket. But the redesign should have been done in such a way that not only did we do something about delays, which this redesign does not do very much about, but it should not have the pounding decibels of noise upon communities that this new redesign does. They decided to change the flightpaths--and it is fair to do that every now and then--but they forgot one thing: They forgot to listen to the people who are going to be flown over. When they rearranged the flightpaths, the FAA simply did not account for air noise and how it affects people's lives. I am not talking about simply being bothered by a little noise. I am talking about the pounding and pounding and pounding of decibel levels that actually affect hearing. Some of the communities have populations that are least likely to be able to be in a position to do something about it. They forgot about people such as Ray Bennett, who lives in Westville, NJ. He has lived there for nearly 40 years. In all those years, he could not remember a single plane flying directly overhead, especially at low altitudes. Now, since the FAA rushed to implement this plan, not only is there noise, but it is noise that causes his windows to vibrate and keeps him up at night. Imagine that. In the comfort of your own home, in a place where you should be able to find your own peace and quiet with your family, one day the Government decides to turn the volume level way up by running jet planes over your house regularly. Ray has seriously thought about moving out of his home, and it is hard to blame him. This is not a case of one or two isolated households. Planes are now flying directly over the center of the city of Elizabeth, NJ, affecting tens of thousands of people. The effects go beyond annoyance. It can cost people money by reducing property values. In the midst of a nationwide housing crisis, in a time when far too many New Jerseyans are facing foreclosure, skyrocketing electricity and home heating costs, and the specter of $4 per gallon gasoline, the last thing they need is for air noise to bring down their property values. It is almost no wonder that we are seeing this agency become so out of touch, considering how toxic the working environment there has been. In addition to the FAA's questionable safety record, there is also the issue of its hostile relationship with its own employees. Experienced air traffic controllers are leaving their jobs at an alarming rate, and the FAA is struggling to attract, train, and keep new ones. But instead of trying to work with the unions to try to finally implement a contract, they fan the flames by publicly suggesting that if the controllers do not like working for the FAA, they should reconsider their line of work. With this kind of working environment, it is no wonder we have a shortage of experienced controllers working to keep our skies safe. We are talking about increasingly--and I fly, obviously, quite a bit, certainly to my home State of New Jersey through Newark International. But in the whole region, and across the country, where we have controllers--trainees, I should say. They are still not fully controllers. It takes about 5 years to fully train a controller. Trainees can only do part of the segment necessary, whether it be on takeoffs, whether it be on landings, or whether it be about controlling the airspace, as delays take place and aircraft are made to be put in holding patterns. So imagine you and your family are up in an airplane and you are dealing with, increasingly, individuals who do not have the full certification to do all of these elements together, which is what we would like to see--for them to have the expertise. Because we can spend all the money in the world--and I appreciate the bill does move us forward in modernization and technology, and that is critically important--but at the end of the day, we can have the best technology in the world, but if, in fact, we do not have the human capital to make that technology work successfully, then, in fact, we have failed. That human capital happens to be the air traffic controllers. At the end of the day, all the technology in the world will be used by those individuals. Human capital in this regard is incredibly important. The FAA has disdain for them. I believe they are the critical nexus to the safety of the flying public. So you are seeing a system that is on a path to becoming slower and less safe because experienced personnel are colliding with management. When you have problems that are so widespread and an institutional culture that shows no sense of urgency, it is not just about one employee or another, it is about a lack of leadership. That is why Senator Lautenberg, my colleague from New Jersey, and I have placed a hold on the nomination of Robert Sturgell as the FAA Administrator, and we will continue the hold until the FAA truly addresses these and other concerns. We have no choice but to use every tool at our disposal to make this unresponsive bureaucracy do what is right for the well-being of the American public. If the public's concerns are not being addressed at the FAA, we will have to make sure they are addressed in Congress. Which brings me to this bill. We have an opportunity--and I salute Senator Rockefeller and the members of the Commerce Committee who have worked with him to bring this bill to the floor--we have a tremendous opportunity with this authorization bill to set some things right. This bill makes smart investments to make air traffic safer. It upgrades our aging airport infrastructure. The bill improves the oversight of airlines and the FAA. This legislation makes great strides in making air travel safer not only in the skies, but on the runways. But I also believe the base bill can have some improvements, so at the appropriate time--I want to talk about a few of them now--I will be offering some amendments to it. The first is to strengthen the provision with reference to the revolving door between the FAA and the airline industry and end the cozy relationship between safety inspectors and the airline industry. We have to have faith and confidence in the people who are critical to making sure that when we fly, we are flying in airplanes that are as safe as safe can be; that they are not compromised. I appreciate what the committee did in the bill, but I think there are some elements of it that can be strengthened. The second amendment will require the FAA to monitor the air noise impacts of the air space redesign and simply provide that data to the public. I don't even understand why the FAA has no intention--no intention whatsoever--of monitoring air noise as a result of the redesign. I think the public has a right to know what health consequences there are in that redesign, and that is a minimal--a minimal--amount of information and transparency that we should be allowing the flying public to have and the communities that are affected to know. The third will help local communities coordinate with nearby airports to plan compatible land use and mitigate air noise and to receive grants from the FAA to do so. This is incredibly important. There are several communities, I am sure, across the Nation, but in our State in the city of Elizabeth, which is the third largest city in the State, it is pounded, pounded, pounded away--schools have actually held a press conference at one of the schools. I don't know how students learn at that school, because all you hear is one constant drone of jet noise. I can imagine a teacher in the classroom having to overcome that challenge day in and day out to keep the attention of the students. We should have the ability to make sure that in fact there is mitigation money for that noise, and we look forward to being able to offer that. The last amendment we are considering is to address the growing problem of low fuel landings. We have had a whole host of low fuel landings at Newark International. That means you are sitting on an airplane and because the industry is trying to save money, they have less fuel in the aircraft and now, because you have been put in delays and holding patterns, it gets pretty low, maybe dangerously low. We want to know what is the level of that and what is the reporting of that so we can make judgments--and certainly so the FAA can make judgments--along the way. We think that is incredibly important. Finally, one of the worst casualties of the Bush administration is how much trust the public has lost in their Government. We lost trust when the administration flew us into Iraq on the wings of a lie. We lost trust when millions of dollars in tax breaks were given to those with million-dollar bank accounts while the middle class saw their economic situation get worse. And at the very least, at the very least, we should be able to trust our Government to keep us safe when we take to the skies. That is the core mission of the Federal Aviation Administration. It is time for them to put that mission ahead of the financial interests of the industry they regulate. It is time for them to put that mission and our safety first. This bill goes an enormous way to making that happen. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, as a reminder, at 11 a.m. tomorrow, there will be a joint meeting of Congress with the Prime Minister of Ireland, Bertie Ahern. Senators attending the meeting should gather in the Senate Chamber at 10:30 a.m. and proceed as a body to the Hall of the House at 10:40 a.m.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, with respect to H.R. 4040, which passed the Senate on March 6, 2008, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 533 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, April 30; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 2881, the FAA reauthorization bill, with Senator Durbin recognized to offer an amendment; that at 10:40 a.m., the Senate recess until 12 noon for the joint meeting of Congress.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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