Floor Statements

Madam President, it is with great sadness that I pay tribute to a New Jersey police officer who tragically lost his life in the line of duty last week.

Officer Christopher Goodell, a lifelong resident of the Borough of Waldwick, NJ, was killed when his patrol car was struck by a tractor- trailer early Thursday morning, July 17. He was 32 years old and will be greatly missed by all who knew him.

Officer Goodell is described by friends and colleagues as having been friendly to everyone he met, with a gift for comedy and a kind heart. He was also long-committed to serving others. He joined the Marine Corps in the wake of September 11, 2001, earning several medals and commendations for his service in Iraq, including the Air Medal and two Humanitarian Service Medals. Upon his return, Officer Goodell never stopped serving--first as a dispatcher for the Waldwick Police Department, and later as a police officer.

Officer Goodell embraced the responsibilities that came with being a police officer, and he cherished the opportunity to protect and serve the town

that helped raise him. He was a role model for children in the community, and he always took the time to speak with students at the local high school about staying on the right track. Officer Goodell was eager to help others, from working to make our streets safer to once assisting a man who had collapsed at his gym. Simply put, his dedication saved lives.

Officer Goodell is mourned by his father Mark, his mother Patricia, his fiancee Jillian, his sister Nicole, his niece and nephew, a large extended family, many friends and neighbors, fellow Waldwick Police Department personnel, the Borough of Waldwick, and the entire State of New Jersey. His spirit of service and his dedication to his community and to our Nation will be long remembered by those he protected and served. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to please join me in honoring this remarkable young police officer and marine, and in recognizing his tremendous service.

Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleagues sitting here before me, especially Senator Heinrich, who invited us to partner in this dialogue today. I wish right now just to express my frustration. We see on our television sets and we hear throughout the American landscape rhetoric, posturing, and demagoguery that does not reflect the truth of who we are as a nation, and it obscures the facts of what is happening on our southern border right now as a country. We have thousands upon thousands of children in the most vulnerable and innocent stage of their lives showing up at our border. I hear ugly rhetoric about just turning them around and sending them back--rhetoric that does not reflect who we are as a nation, the history of our communities or the laws of this land.

If I may, for a brief time I wish to speak just to reflect on the fact of why these children are showing up. Why are they coming to our borders? As the senior Senator from New Jersey has said clearly: This is not a case of ordinary people seeking better economic opportunities. If this was just about poverty, then we would see people coming from all the nations in that area. To be specific, El Salvador's poverty rate is 34.5 percent. Belize's poverty rate is actually higher at 41.3 percent. To make a journey from a country with a lower poverty rate to a country with a higher poverty rate, because that is where many of these refugees are going--to Belize--begs a closer examination of the true drivers of this migration, because it is not poverty. It is not people simplistically looking for economic opportunity. We are seeing countries in addition to America facing the same problem: Children from these three nations escaping severe persecution, sexual assault, rape, violence, and murder are not just coming to the borders of the United States to escape this persecution but going to other nations in that area.

For example, combined, Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Belize documented a 435-percent increase in the number of asylum applications logged by individuals from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. In this area of our globe, where there is such violence and persecution in these three countries, it is driving people out not just to the United States, as some people allege because of the policy of the Obama administration; these are people escaping persecution to countries all throughout the region. This is about violence. This is about heinous crimes. This is about a drug war. This is about cartels carrying out the most egregious of human acts, evidencing the depravity and the evil that so cuts at the conscience of humanity, so that people are escaping to wherever they can go.

We in the United States have a long and noble history that when there are places on our globe that face this level of crisis, we respond, and we are a part of an international community where our peer nations have shown that history as well. Here in North America, we know allies such as Canada have done incredible deeds when there is crisis, violence, war, and persecution--mass rapes going on. There have been responses from our northern neighbor.

In 1972 when Uganda's President Idi Amin announced the Ugandan Asians were to be expelled, Canada set up a refugee office and, by the end of 1973, more than 7,000 Uganda Asians arrived in Canada.

Germany, for example, right now currently is accepting 20,000 Syrian refugees. As I speak right now, Jordan and Lebanon are host to over 2 million Syrian refugees, and we as a nation are encouraging our allies in the Middle East to be there for those refugees when they come to those borders. That is the international community. In America, we set the standard. We are the leaders globally for compassion, for humanity, for charity. I am proud that this tradition, which is two centuries old in America, can continue under Democrats and Republicans. It has not been a partisan football.

In 2008, under the Bush administration, in the face of Burma's humanitarian crisis, this country, with the courage of its compassion, resettled thousands of Burmese refugees, admitting as many as 18,000 of them. President Bush signed the legislation to ease the restrictions that prevented ethnic minorities involved in that struggle against the Burmese regime--eased restrictions for them entering the United States. President Bush spoke eloquently during that time about American compassion. He spoke about American heritage and American tradition. He said, quite poignantly, I thank those of you Americans and those around the country--all of us--who have opened up our arms and said: ``Welcome to America. How can we help you settle in?''

This is who we are as a nation. And when we have children-- innocents--escaping violence and terror and crimes against humanity, where we as a nation are not even fully relieved of culpability for what is going on and when our Nation's drug consumption is helping to drive that violence, we have a responsibility. That is who we are. That is our truth. We know this. We are a nation of people who came from persecution, who came from famine, who came from religious war. We are a nation settled by those who were yearning to be free.

Now, I know the Statue of Liberty well because New Jersey has its back. When I travel around the State, I often get a great view of her noble torch. I know it is not down along our southern border, but the ideals of the Statue of Liberty still hold true:

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

I am grateful and support Senator Mikulski's leadership and the push to address this crisis by stepping up as a nation, by following the letter of the law and providing due process for these young people who have come to our borders, so that we can evaluate them and see those who have a justifiable claim for asylum and to see that we honor our tradition and our law and give them a place in our country that is safe and secure from the terror and the violence that is going on in those three countries. It cannot be acceptable that we use our resources now simply to expedite the return of thousands of children into that conflict zone, which is more dangerous now than at the height of civilian dangers during the Iraq war.

We must as Americans follow that great tradition. We must as Americans now do the right thing by innocent children: evaluate them with our resources, expedite the judicial process to understand clearly who is meritorious of asylum. And we should invest our resources in making sure the conflicts in those nations are abated so this crisis ends.

I say clearly: In America we stand for something now as we have time and time again. We must garner our resources and, most importantly, our compassion, which is the truth of who we say we are, and make sure we take care of these vulnerable children and make sure we don't turn them around into a dangerous situation. It is time we show internationally that when there is crisis, America stands and shows leadership and does the right thing.

With that, I yield the floor for the senior Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Let Our Communities Access Local TV Act, or the LOCAL TV Act.

I am pleased that I've had the opportunity to collaborate with my friend and colleague, Senator Fischer, and I know we both look forward to working with our fellow colleagues on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee to see that this legislation is enacted.

The LOCAL TV Act directs the Federal Communications Commission to study the impact of media market areas and to assess their impact on the ability of individuals to receive relevant, local news and information.

The current structure of media markets is one in which market areas can sprawl across State lines, creating situations in which you can live in one State, but be exclusively saddled in the media market of another.

My state of New Jersey is particularly affected by this situation because

it is one of only two States in the entire Nation that is served exclusively by out-of-state media markets. We are served by New York and Pennsylvania--both great places but not New Jersey.

Why does this matter? When someone in Patterson, Freehold, or Cape May, New Jersey turns on their local broadcast station--they are lucky when they find stories about their community's latest news, schools, and our local governments. This kind of New Jersey news, unfortunately, takes a back seat to that of neighboring Philadelphia and New York.

These pre-determined media markets often stifle our ability to hear about what's happening back home. We hear more about Philadelphia and New York City than we do about Morristown, Montclair, Camden and Jersey City.

To be sure, broadcast TV plays an important role in communities. It is particularly essential during emergencies and extreme weather events--for instance during Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Even while technology continues to grow and change the way we receive information, still 74 percent of adults get their news from their local broadcast stations, or from their broadcasters' websites.

Because of the existing digital divide, the number of people who rely on broadcast television is even higher when we look at low income communities. We owe them quality coverage of the local news and information they care about.

It is my hope that with further study and recommendations from the Federal Communications Commission we can continue the dialogue on how stations can best serve local communities, especially those who find themselves in media markets that cross state lines. I urge my colleagues to support the LOCAL TV ACT so that we can obtain more data and information on these markets.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Let Our Communities Access Local TV Act, or the LOCAL TV Act.

I am pleased that I've had the opportunity to collaborate with my friend and colleague, Senator Fischer, and I know we both look forward to working with our fellow colleagues on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee to see that this legislation is enacted.

The LOCAL TV Act directs the Federal Communications Commission to study the impact of media market areas and to assess their impact on the ability of individuals to receive relevant, local news and information.

The current structure of media markets is one in which market areas can sprawl across State lines, creating situations in which you can live in one State, but be exclusively saddled in the media market of another.

My state of New Jersey is particularly affected by this situation because

it is one of only two States in the entire Nation that is served exclusively by out-of-state media markets. We are served by New York and Pennsylvania--both great places but not New Jersey.

Why does this matter? When someone in Patterson, Freehold, or Cape May, New Jersey turns on their local broadcast station--they are lucky when they find stories about their community's latest news, schools, and our local governments. This kind of New Jersey news, unfortunately, takes a back seat to that of neighboring Philadelphia and New York.

These pre-determined media markets often stifle our ability to hear about what's happening back home. We hear more about Philadelphia and New York City than we do about Morristown, Montclair, Camden and Jersey City.

To be sure, broadcast TV plays an important role in communities. It is particularly essential during emergencies and extreme weather events--for instance during Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Even while technology continues to grow and change the way we receive information, still 74 percent of adults get their news from their local broadcast stations, or from their broadcasters' websites.

Because of the existing digital divide, the number of people who rely on broadcast television is even higher when we look at low income communities. We owe them quality coverage of the local news and information they care about.

It is my hope that with further study and recommendations from the Federal Communications Commission we can continue the dialogue on how stations can best serve local communities, especially those who find themselves in media markets that cross state lines. I urge my colleagues to support the LOCAL TV ACT so that we can obtain more data and information on these markets.

Mr. President, today I recognize the life and legacy of New Jerseyan Lenny Kaufer, who passed away on July 13 at the age of 92. Lenny was a dear friend and inspiration to me at the very dawn of my career in public service. He will be greatly missed by all who knew him.

Harold Leonard Kaufer was born on August 25, 1921, in Newark, NJ, where he was raised with his 10 siblings in the Roseville neighborhood by his parents, Abraham and Gussie. As a son of Newark, a graduate of its schools, and a New Jersey small business owner, Lenny cared passionately about New Jersey and its future, cheering the revival of its largest city and keeping track of the news ``back home.'' He considered Newark and New Jersey to be at the very core of his identity, and even though his retirement took him to California, he kept a book of historic photos of Newark on his bedside table until the day he died. Lenny never forgot where he came from.

I had the great fortune to get to know Lenny during my time on the Newark City Council and as mayor. I consider him to have been one of the more gentle, kind souls I have ever met, and I appreciated his sound perspective and sage advice. I treasure the conversations we shared, as well as his undeterred love of Newark, and I will miss his wisdom.

Above all else, Lenny was devoted to his family. In 2012, he and his wife Shirley celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary, and they found great pleasure in the time spent with their daughter, three grandchildren, and two great-grandchildren. Lenny always gave loved ones a kiss for the road. As a man of faith, after moving to California, he maintained a membership at his temple in New Jersey, just so he could ensure that his family there would always have a home for the High Holidays.

Lenny is mourned by his wife Shirley, his daughter Jacqueline, sisters Madeline and Helga, brother Irwin, three grandchildren, two great-grandchildren, a large extended family, and his many friends and neighbors. Lenny touched so many lives over his 92 years. He was an American treasure. He demonstrated the truth that so often the biggest thing you can do in any day is a small act of kindness, decency, or love. Lenny lived every day with constant kindness, unyielding decency, and a remarkable love for others. I ask that the Senate join me in honoring him and remembering his extraordinary life.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with nineteen of my colleagues the Access to Birth Control Act of 2014, ABC Act, which protects an individual's right to birth control by requiring pharmacies to fill a valid prescription for birth control in a timely manner.

Family planning is central to women's basic health care. Studies show that 99 percent of women will use contraception at some point in their lives. Yet, despite the prevalence of contraceptive use, women in at least 24 States across the country have reported incidents where pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions for birth control or provide emergency contraception to individuals who do not require a prescription. Furthermore, 6 States permit refusals without patient protections, such as requirements to refer or transfer prescriptions, and 7 States allow refusals but prohibit pharmacists from obstructing patient access to medication. It is Unbelievable to me that in 2014 we are still debating a woman's right to make responsible and personal decisions about her own health.

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, insurance plans are required to cover preventive services, including birth control without a copay. Congress has an obligation to see that the intent of the Affordable Care Act to make preventive health care affordable and accessible comes to fruition and act to make sure that the pharmacy counter does not come between women and timely access to contraception.

The ABC Act would ensure women's timely access to basic, preventative health care and ensures that women of age will not be denied birth control or emergency contraception by their pharmacist. The bill requires pharmacies to help a woman obtain medication by her preferred method if the requested product is not in stock and protects women from being intimidated when requesting contraception.

Denying contraception to women represents an erosion of a woman's right to access to contraception and a threat to women's access to basic health care. Access is especially important for low-income women who may lack the resources to find an alternative pharmacy in the appropriate time frame and women living in rural areas who may not have multiple pharmacies near them. When women are seeking emergency contraception, a pharmacist's denial can be an unsurmountable obstacle to access within the limited timeframe.

Under the ABC Act, if a requested product is not in stock, but the pharmacy stocks other forms of contraception, the pharmacy must help the woman obtain the medication without delay by the method of her preference: order, referral, or a transferred prescription. By placing the burden on the pharmacy--not the individual pharmacist--the ABC Act strikes a balance between the rights of individual pharmacists who might have personal religious objections to contraception and the rights of women to receive their validly prescribed medication.

The idea that women would still have to fight for access to birth control is astonishing. It should be clear: personal health care decisions should be between women and their doctors. I'm proud to join with my colleagues in putting forward this legislation that will protect woman's right to access contraception throughout the country. A woman's rights must not be dependent on her zip code or State.

I also want to acknowledge the late Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, who introduced a version of this legislation 5 times in the past. I am proud to build on Senator Lautenberg's leadership in defending a woman's right to make responsible and personal decisions about her own health.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to build support for this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with nineteen of my colleagues the Access to Birth Control Act of 2014, ABC Act, which protects an individual's right to birth control by requiring pharmacies to fill a valid prescription for birth control in a timely manner.

Family planning is central to women's basic health care. Studies show that 99 percent of women will use contraception at some point in their lives. Yet, despite the prevalence of contraceptive use, women in at least 24 States across the country have reported incidents where pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions for birth control or provide emergency contraception to individuals who do not require a prescription. Furthermore, 6 States permit refusals without patient protections, such as requirements to refer or transfer prescriptions, and 7 States allow refusals but prohibit pharmacists from obstructing patient access to medication. It is Unbelievable to me that in 2014 we are still debating a woman's right to make responsible and personal decisions about her own health.

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, insurance plans are required to cover preventive services, including birth control without a copay. Congress has an obligation to see that the intent of the Affordable Care Act to make preventive health care affordable and accessible comes to fruition and act to make sure that the pharmacy counter does not come between women and timely access to contraception.

The ABC Act would ensure women's timely access to basic, preventative health care and ensures that women of age will not be denied birth control or emergency contraception by their pharmacist. The bill requires pharmacies to help a woman obtain medication by her preferred method if the requested product is not in stock and protects women from being intimidated when requesting contraception.

Denying contraception to women represents an erosion of a woman's right to access to contraception and a threat to women's access to basic health care. Access is especially important for low-income women who may lack the resources to find an alternative pharmacy in the appropriate time frame and women living in rural areas who may not have multiple pharmacies near them. When women are seeking emergency contraception, a pharmacist's denial can be an unsurmountable obstacle to access within the limited timeframe.

Under the ABC Act, if a requested product is not in stock, but the pharmacy stocks other forms of contraception, the pharmacy must help the woman obtain the medication without delay by the method of her preference: order, referral, or a transferred prescription. By placing the burden on the pharmacy--not the individual pharmacist--the ABC Act strikes a balance between the rights of individual pharmacists who might have personal religious objections to contraception and the rights of women to receive their validly prescribed medication.

The idea that women would still have to fight for access to birth control is astonishing. It should be clear: personal health care decisions should be between women and their doctors. I'm proud to join with my colleagues in putting forward this legislation that will protect woman's right to access contraception throughout the country. A woman's rights must not be dependent on her zip code or State.

I also want to acknowledge the late Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, who introduced a version of this legislation 5 times in the past. I am proud to build on Senator Lautenberg's leadership in defending a woman's right to make responsible and personal decisions about her own health.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to build support for this bill.

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

Madam President, I rise to support the ``Not My Boss's Business Act,'' which will help to fix the recent Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision by making it illegal for a company to deny their workers specific health care benefits, including birth control, as is required to be covered by Federal law.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill which is necessary to ensure that all women have access to preventive care.

I wish to say, on a personal note, I was a young child growing up in a household with a working mother. Mom worked for a big corporation and worked in human resources. My table would often be one where it was discussed that my mother was dealing with challenges of racial discrimination, challenges of sexism in the workplace. I watched how my mother, in human resources, would fight to make sure that we as a nation, as well as this particular corporation, continued to advance in fairly treating all of its employees. I was proud to watch my mother assert her independence, her freedoms, and her basic sense of equity, which resonates with the highest values of this Nation.

What is frustrating to me now is here we stand in 2014, and we seem to be fighting so many battles and advancements we won before that are still needing to be fought.

It is unthinkable to me that as we should be turning our focus toward other things such as paid family leave or raising the minimum wage, here we are again fighting about whether women should have the right to have access to birth control. This is unfortunate because contraception is essential to a woman's right to make her own personal health care decisions. Birth control is not only basic to making health care decisions, but it is one in which 99 percent of women avail themselves. Throughout their lifetime we will see 99 percent of American women avail themselves of birth control.

These women should not be forced to decide between contraception and a tank of gas or between contraception and meals for their family, contraception and paying rent.

The Hobby Lobby decision, if you think about it, is imposing the will of a corporation--one corporation's board member's religious beliefs or what-have-you can be imposed such that it would cost women who now want to exercise their freedom up to $1,000 a year. For minimum-wage or low- wage workers, the out-of-pocket cost for birth control each month is a real and substantive financial burden.

Let's be clear. Workers have insurance coverage through their labor. It is part of their earned pay. This is not a free giveaway. They earned this coverage. What they spend their health care coverage on is their business, not their boss's business.

I deeply value ideals of religious liberty. This is what this country was founded on. But religious liberty belongs to all of us; it does not belong to a corporation. Religious liberty means being free from having other people's religions foisted upon you, imposed upon you, or forced upon you.

Most employees would never dream of telling their bosses what they must decide and abide by in terms of religious freedom. And by that same principle, no boss should have the right to impose his religion on the people who work for him.

That is one of the reasons why so many faith leaders have spoken against the Hobby Lobby decision. It is now making it acceptable for a corporation to impose on the individual liberty of others their religious beliefs, also the financial freedom that goes along with that, and also the ability for a woman to make critical health care decisions. They might even be interfering with a doctor telling a patient what is best for them and their health.

The views held by companies' owners should not be able to interfere with this basic understanding of fundamental rights. The Not My Boss's Business Act protects workers' religious liberty by not allowing their bosses to impose this hardship, to impose their religion, and to impose what I believe ultimately comes down to discrimination.

Finally, the precedent set by this decision could open the door wider and wider for more court cases and more employers who want to deny more aspects of basic health coverage and services because they claim it conflicts with the boss's religious beliefs. From blood transfusions to vaccinations, we are now in a minefield in which we can have the destruction of religious freedom of employees and the health care freedom we have fought so hard to manifest.

The Hobby Lobby decision is a step backward that we must correct. It is a step against women's rights. It is a step against religious freedom. It is a step against workers who earn basic benefits to have the ability to make those benefits real in their lives.

The Not My Boss's Business Act will make it clear that bosses cannot discriminate. The Not My Boss's Business Act will make it clear that there should be equal treatment under the law for the tens of thousands of workers whose coverage now hangs in the balance.

A woman's health care decisions should be between that woman and her doctor. There is no room for a boss's religious beliefs in that equation, period.

I watched for decades, growing up, not only my mother but countless people fight to establish basic principles in the workplace. We cannot go back now. This is such a critical piece of legislation, to correct for the mistakes in this Supreme Court decision and assert those fundamental American ideals, that individuals should be able to make their own health care decisions, that bosses and corporations should not impose religious beliefs on others, and that we are a nation where every woman can create a sacrosanct and private relationship with her doctor and make ultimately the health care decisions that are best for her, not ones in any way influenced or affected by a corporation.

I thank again the Senate and the Presiding Officer for this time but, most importantly, I thank Senator Murray and other Senators who have led on this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with my colleague Senator Dean Heller, legislation that would extend a critical and innovative program for our nation's veterans. Senator Heller and I urge our colleagues to consider The Assisted Living Program for Veterans with Traumatic Brain Injury Extension, AL-TBI, Act which authorizes the continuation of a Veterans Health Administration program that provides intensive care and rehabilitation to veterans with severe brain injuries.

Thanks to this program, veterans with traumatic brain injuries more quickly re-adjust to their day-to-day lives--from making dinner for others, to fixing a faucet, to doing yard work. AL-TBI consists of privately run group homes around the country where veterans are immersed in therapies for movement, memory, speech, and gradual community reintegration. Veterans in these homes benefit from 24-hour team-based care. There are about twenty of these homes in New Jersey that have yielded impressive results. Nationally, several dozen veterans have been rehabilitated from severe injuries that are notoriously difficult to treat.

This program is working to help a generation of veterans with traumatic brain injuries and so many older veterans that have been suffering for decades. Since 2001, more than 265,000 U.S. troops suffered traumatic brain injuries, according to the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center. While most were mild concussions, over 26,000 men and women veterans suffered from moderate or severe head wounds. Advances in medicine keep alive soldiers with head wounds that might have killed them in previous conflicts. However, the ability to cure these injuries has not kept pace. Innovative, effective programs must be supported by Congress in order to give our veterans the care they need and deserve.

But unfortunately, as the program nears the end of its 5-year authorization, veterans across the country are being told that they need to prepare to move out of the facilities in September. I have heard from a veteran in New Jersey, who was told he will need to be out of the program on September 15 and worries he will be out on the street. He has made tremendous gains with the AL-TBI program. He has rekindled his relationship with his son. He is able to do basic math again. But, he has a lot more to do to get his independence back. We cannot leave him and other veterans like him out in the cold.

The VA offers no alternative program that replicates the comprehensiveness of the rehabilitative care, the benefit of providing care in a residential setting, and the positive impact on veterans of sustained, longer-term care.

This is a proven program that does not require new funds, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join Senator Heller and myself in supporting this critical piece of legislation for our Nation's veterans.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with my colleague Senator Dean Heller, legislation that would extend a critical and innovative program for our nation's veterans. Senator Heller and I urge our colleagues to consider The Assisted Living Program for Veterans with Traumatic Brain Injury Extension, AL-TBI, Act which authorizes the continuation of a Veterans Health Administration program that provides intensive care and rehabilitation to veterans with severe brain injuries.

Thanks to this program, veterans with traumatic brain injuries more quickly re-adjust to their day-to-day lives--from making dinner for others, to fixing a faucet, to doing yard work. AL-TBI consists of privately run group homes around the country where veterans are immersed in therapies for movement, memory, speech, and gradual community reintegration. Veterans in these homes benefit from 24-hour team-based care. There are about twenty of these homes in New Jersey that have yielded impressive results. Nationally, several dozen veterans have been rehabilitated from severe injuries that are notoriously difficult to treat.

This program is working to help a generation of veterans with traumatic brain injuries and so many older veterans that have been suffering for decades. Since 2001, more than 265,000 U.S. troops suffered traumatic brain injuries, according to the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center. While most were mild concussions, over 26,000 men and women veterans suffered from moderate or severe head wounds. Advances in medicine keep alive soldiers with head wounds that might have killed them in previous conflicts. However, the ability to cure these injuries has not kept pace. Innovative, effective programs must be supported by Congress in order to give our veterans the care they need and deserve.

But unfortunately, as the program nears the end of its 5-year authorization, veterans across the country are being told that they need to prepare to move out of the facilities in September. I have heard from a veteran in New Jersey, who was told he will need to be out of the program on September 15 and worries he will be out on the street. He has made tremendous gains with the AL-TBI program. He has rekindled his relationship with his son. He is able to do basic math again. But, he has a lot more to do to get his independence back. We cannot leave him and other veterans like him out in the cold.

The VA offers no alternative program that replicates the comprehensiveness of the rehabilitative care, the benefit of providing care in a residential setting, and the positive impact on veterans of sustained, longer-term care.

This is a proven program that does not require new funds, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join Senator Heller and myself in supporting this critical piece of legislation for our Nation's veterans.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about our Nation's broken criminal justice system, a system that has taken an unimaginable and I believe unsustainable toll on our Nation.

The United States remarkably is home to between 4 and 5 percent of the entire globe's population, but we have 25 percent of the world's prison population. This phenomenon is unacceptable, that the land of the free would have 25 percent of the globe's imprisoned people. What is startling about that is the majority of those people are nonviolent offenders. In fact, the majority are nonviolent drug offenders.

This phenomenon has largely emerged since around 1980, a period during which the Federal prison population has grown nearly tenfold. Since 1980 we have seen a 10-time increase in our prison population. Again, if we were locking up violent offenders, people who are terrorizing our streets or inflicting vicious and violent harm on our communities, then ridding our streets of such dangerous criminals would be understandable and it would be a price worth paying. But that is not the story of this unbelievable explosion of our Federal prisons and our Nation's incarcerated people. The reality is that nearly three-quarters of Federal prisoners are nonviolent and have no history of violence whatsoever.

What is worse and what is anguishing is that once they are convicted of a crime, American citizens then face daunting obstacles to successfully rejoin society, to being able to raise their family, put food on the table, provide for themselves. As a result of that, our State and Federal prison exits have now become revolving doors, with two of every three ex-offenders getting rearrested within 5 years. Two- thirds of those nonviolent folks leaving our prisons come back within 5 years.

When ex-offenders return to prison again and again, they are not just paying a price; we all are paying the price. We are contributing so much of our national treasure to rearresting the same people over and over, to reincarcerating the same people over and over. A recent Pew report concluded that if just 10 States cut their recidivism just 10 percent, it would save taxpayers $470 million--money this Nation urgently could use either to keep in the pockets of taxpayers or invest in things such as lowering the cost of college or in our roads and bridges or our crumbling infrastructure.

As hard-working, taxpaying Americans have increased the fund for our prisons, funding more and more, there have been fewer and fewer resources left for these other crucial parts of our society--fewer resources for law enforcement, fewer resources for rehabilitative programs, fewer resources for proven investments in children that help prevent crime in the first place. The result has been a cycle of spending and incarceration that has led to the ballooning of this Federal prison bureaucracy, more than one-quarter of a trillion dollars a year from our economy going to unproductive and even counterproductive uses.

Our country's misguided criminal justice policies place an economic drag on local communities and on our Nation's global competitiveness. Remember, if we are putting 25 percent of the globe's prison population in our American prisons, paying the price for that, our competitive democracies, our competitive economies aren't paying that price, we are paying this egregious price, and it is not making us any more safe. In fact, I would say it is making us less safe as a community.

Many of my colleagues in this body, I am proud to say, recognize the urgent need for reform and have already put forth pieces of legislation that seek to improve various parts of this broken system. I am grateful and I applaud the bipartisan efforts that exist in this body amongst my colleagues--Senators Leahy, Flake, Durbin, Lee, Whitehouse, Landrieu, Franken, and others--who stand up to say: We have to save taxpayer dollars, we have to elevate human potential, and we have to make our streets safer.

So to build off the momentum of these leaders in the Senate, I join with Senator Rand Paul to introduce today the Record Expungement Designed to Enhance Employment--or REDEEM--Act. This bipartisan legislation will establish much needed, sensible, pragmatic reforms that keep kids out of an adult system in the first place, protect their privacy so a youthful mistake can remain a youthful mistake and not haunt young people throughout their lives, and help make it actually less likely that low-level nonviolent offenders reoffend.

Among other measures, our bill incentivizes States to raise the age of original jurisdiction for criminal courts to 18 years old. Trying juveniles who have committed low-level, nonviolent crimes as adults is counterproductive. They don't emerge from prison reformed and ready to reintegrate into a high school. The criminal record they have won't help them as they try to get a job. We need a system that treats juveniles toughly but fairly and with an eye toward a productive adulthood, with an eye toward restorative justice.

For kids in the dozen States that treat 17- and even 16-year-olds as adults, no longer would it be likely that getting into a scuffle at school would result in an adult record that could follow an individual for the rest of their life, restricting access to a college degree, limiting employment prospects, and increasing the likelihood of engaging in further criminal activity. It is time that we empower our children to succeed, not undermine their long-term prospects for life's success.

The REDEEM Act also enhances Federal juvenile record confidentiality provisions and provides for automatic expungement of records for kids who commit nonviolent crimes before they turn 15 and automatic sealing of records for those who commit nonviolent crimes after they turn 15.

It will also ban the very cruel and counterproductive practice of juvenile solitary confinement that can have immediate and long-term detrimental effects on youth detainee mental and physical health. In fact, the majority of suicides by juveniles in prisons happens by young people who are in solitary confinement. Other nations even consider it torture.

For adults, this legislation offers the first broad-based Federal path to the sealing of criminal records. A person who commits a nonviolent crime will be able to petition a court and make his or her case.

Furthermore, employers requesting a background check from the Federal Bureau of Investigation will be provided with only relevant and accurate information thanks to a provision that will protect job applicants by improving the quality of the Bureau's background check.

Think about this: 17 million background checks were done by the FBI last year, many of them for private providers, and upward of half of them were inaccurate or incomplete, often causing people to lose a job, miss an economic opportunity, and be trapped with few options to address the basic economic security that could lead someone to reoffend in order to feed a child. The REDEEM Act lifts a ban on receiving Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits. These benefits were conceived in a way that should empower people when they have to leave, and those convicted of drug use or possession having paid their dues now have a path to the reinstatement of those benefits so that they can get their lives together so they can be empowered and successful.

Taken together, these measures will help keep kids who get in trouble out of a lifetime of crime and help adults who commit nonviolent crimes become more self-reliant and less likely to reoffend.

The time to act is now. We cannot afford to let our criminal justice system continue to grow at the rate that it is. We cannot afford to sap billions of taxpayer dollars from a broken system that is locking people up and then doing nothing to empower them to succeed. We are wasting human potential and human productivity. We are hurting our economy, and by trapping people without options, we often end up making our communities less safe.

We have seen how other individual States are doing things to address this issue and are actually lowering recidivism and lowering their prison population and on top of it lowering actual crime in their States. It is time that the Federal Government act to do the same.

I urge my colleagues to support the REDEEM Act so we can make our communities safer and stronger and truly be a nation that savors and values freedom and empowers its citizens to live productive, strong lives of contribution.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I rise to speak on an amendment I have filed on the appropriations bill that this Chamber is now considering. The amendment is cosponsored by Senators Rockefeller, Feinstein, Menendez, Schumer, Blumenthal, Gillibrand, Markey, Warren, and Brown.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors to the amendment Senator Durbin, Senator Boxer, Senator Hirono, Senator Murphy, and Senator Schatz.

Thank you, Madam President.

Our amendment would maintain critical evidence-based safety rules that reduce truckdriver fatigue. I am disappointed that this bill currently includes a provision that would roll back the enforcement of these rules--rules that are based on years of scientific evidence. It is doing so without further study. It is rolling back these safety rules without public input. It is rolling back these safety rules without even a hearing.

At a time when truck crashes are actually on a rise in the United States of America, it is paramount that Congress do more in transportation safety to improve the protection of lives--not remove an evidence-based element of reform.

Keep in mind that the rule the bill currently suspends enforcement of was the result of feedback from more than 20,000 formal comments submitted by industry and stakeholders. It was a result of 6 public sessions and incorporated 80 sources of scientific data and research, as well as a regulatory impact analysis.

Over the past week alone, New Jersey has been impacted by at least four major, separate accidents involving tractor trailer collisions. National statistics, unfortunately, show that these tragedies are unfolding more and more frequently.

Many of my colleagues may not spend much time in New Jersey, but I am willing to bet that many have driven on the more than 38,000 miles of public roads that exist in my State. If you know the New Jersey Turnpike, this corridor connects our State and drivers, much of our commerce, and our economy all together. This highway also sees a lot of trucks at all times of the day, all around the clock.

So I am compelled by these facts:

Nearly 4,000 people are killed in truck accidents and over 100,000 people are injured every single year.

From 2009 to 2012, truck crash injuries increased by 40 percent and truck fatalities increased in our Nation by 16 percent.

Truckdriver fatigue is a leading cause of major truck accidents. These drivers, who work extensively long days delivering the goods we depend upon, deserve basic protections allowing them to get sufficient rest to do their job safely and efficiently.

Just this morning the National Transportation Safety Board released a preliminary report about a truck crash that happened on the New Jersey Turnpike on June 7 which killed one passenger traveling in a limousine, and four others were airlifted to a hospital. Six cars were impacted by the collision between the truck and the limo. The truckdriver, according to the NTSB report, had logged 13 hours 32 minutes of work at the time of the crash. Had he reached his destination, he certainly would have exceeded the number of federally permitted hours to work in a given day. The truckdriver will clearly be punished for pushing the limits.

Truckdrivers are working extremely long days to deliver the goods that keep America moving, but it should never ever be at the cost of safer roads.

At a time when we should be doing more to improve safety, we should not be rolling back evidence-based rules. Our amendment prevents readopting a policy that could force many truckdrivers to work over 80 hours per week. It maintains a balanced rulemaking that provides for truckdrivers to be allowed two nights' rest at the end of a taxing workweek.

The Department of Transportation itself--our Federal Department of Transportation--estimates that the current rulemaking is preventing 1,400 crashes each year, saving 19 lives and avoiding 560 injuries on American highways.

Our amendment would simply retain a provision to authorize--it would actually retain a provision to authorize further study. We believe further study on the issue is good. I am not against further study, nor are we against further analysis. But we believe it is absolutely unacceptable to consider suspending these driver rules while the study is being conducted. Safety cannot wait.

I have not been in the Chamber very long and even today may have violated some of the rules of comity of this great body, but I know this effort is an important one, and I know it will be an uphill fight. There are some entrenched interests who tend to have a lot of influence on Capitol Hill, but this, to me, is one worth fighting. I urge my colleagues to join me.

I have heard a lot of the arguments and questions about why this should possibly be rolled back, why we should roll back safety regulations in the face of increasing accidents on our highways. Somebody might say that DOT rules make the roads less safe by forcing trucks on the road during busy rush hour traffic.

The notion that the DOT's rules--which were based on all of those hearings, all of that public input, the scientific study--somehow make the roads less safe, to me, is unfounded. To be sure, the rule does require that scientifically proven optimal sleep hours of 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. be included in the DOT's mandatory 34-hour ``restart'' period. But let me be clear. This restart period only applies when a truckdriver has reached his or her maximum driving hours for the week--the maximum allowed. It only triggers that provision when someone has worked a 70- hour workweek.

Keep in mind that most people work 40-hour workweeks. Requiring those drivers operating 80,000-pound trucks on busy roads to get some rest is not only common sense, it is supported by the science. The Department of Transportation estimates that the current rule, again, is preventing crashes, is preventing the loss of life. Nineteen lives they believe these rules around hours have saved, 560 injuries, 1,400 crashes. Suspending this rule without studying it first is not common sense.

I have heard another argument that the DOT rules are a solution looking for a problem, that truckdriver fatigue is somehow not that common. A study

that was conducted by FMCSA in 2006 found an astonishing number of truckdrivers--65 percent of truckdrivers--reported that they often feel drowsy while driving. Over 40 percent of truckdrivers responded they have trouble staying awake at the wheel. An alarming 13 percent admitted they have fallen asleep while driving.

Fatigue is an issue. The survey illustrates how vitally important rules governing hours of service and rest periods are in keeping our roads and highways safe. Now is not a time to roll back those rules without studying, without evidence, without a hearing, without information.

There are some people who might say this is a partisan issue, that somehow Democrats are safety advocates and are exploiting the severe accident that faced a comedian named Tracy Morgan, that we are using this as a political opportunity. But that suggestion is wrong. Somehow it misses that fatal accidents are common on our highways.

This concern continues to rise in our country as the number of accidents increases. While the accident involving Tracy Morgan on the turnpike was tragic, it was one of thousands of accidents and crashes that occur in our country each day. The incident has brought needed attention to a rising trend of trucking accidents. This is a problem policymakers have long been trying to address through Federal rules and initiatives, based again on years of study and analysis.

In fact, last month I sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation regarding important truck safety concerns. My predecessor, Frank Lautenberg, spent years of his life in public service trying to make our roads safer.

I also have heard that most truckdrivers are negatively impacted by the current rule, that language in the Senate appropriations bills stops this impact that most truckdrivers are seeing.

That is simply not true. A driver is only required to use the 34-hour restart if and only if he or she works the maximum number of hours allowed under the Federal regulation. This restart is most frequently in effect for those long-haul drivers who make up only about 15 percent of the trucking workforce. Those averaging 70 hours per week or less are not affected by the changes to the 34-hour restart, because they would never work the number of hours that would require them to use the restart under the current rule.

The Senate amendment would allow drivers, though, to return to the extreme schedule allowed under the pre-July 2013 rule, when a company could require a driver to work a maximum of 82 hours a week, pushing the limit of human endurance. Not only 82 hours in 1 week, trucking companies would force the limits of human endurance of 82 hours week after week after week after week, 82-hour week after 82-hour week after 82-hour week.

I have also heard this HOS provision in the T-HUD appropriations bill is a low-impact change to the hours-of-service rule, that this is actually not that much of a change. Suspending enforcement of these DOT hours-of-service rules substantially increases the number of hours a truckdriver could be forced to work each week and forced to push the realm of human endurance. In fact, the change would be from an already high 70-hour workweek to a more than 80-hour workweek, which is the equivalent of an extra workday each week and nearly twice the amount the average American works.

The appropriations bill will remove this commonsense guarantee that truckdrivers themselves, as we have seen with the support from the Teamsters Union, that truckdrivers themselves get at least a 2-night rest, the humane 2-night rest at the end of a tasking workweek.

What these changes mean in practice is that drivers may be forced to work grueling hours now, week after week by truck companies that are pushing the limit. Studies have shown this leads to the fatigue that causes accidents such as we are seeing on the New Jersey Turnpike. The DOT hours-of-service rules, some people say, implemented last year were based on insufficient analysis, that somehow these were rushed rules.

But I have said already, this came out of a balanced rulemaking effort and process that took into account both safety and industry interests. DOT rulemaking involved the feedback from 21,000 formal document comments submitted by a wide range of stakeholders, including six public listening sessions, and incorporated 80 basic scientific research data provided by scientists, as well as conducted a formal regulatory analysis.

By contrast, the bill rolling this all back was done in an appropriations process. It was not reviewed. It was not considered by the committee of jurisdiction upon which I sit. It was not subject to public comment. It had no hearings established where both sides were listened to and their comments were weighed and engaged. It rolled back a rule that now will allow truckdrivers to be pushed more into the limits of their human endurance and put more fatigued drivers on our roads.

Some people say this amendment I am putting forth, with many of my colleagues, somehow would prevent further study. That is not true. Our amendment only strips the provision of the appropriations bill that ties the Department of Transportation's hands and prevents them from enforcing the current rules on the books. But we actually leave intact authorization for more study, which I am open to.

This should be done on scientific studies in an open process, with hearings, with information, with testimony. It should not be saddled onto an appropriations bill that ultimately would roll back rules which the DOT themselves are saying will help to preserve the safety and the lives of American citizens. So I caution right now, why not wait? Why not do a study, leaving the current rule intact? Why not keep these regulations, these safety regulations in place, and let's do another round of studies? Let's do another round of hearings. Let's have debate and discussion in committee and the committee of jurisdiction before we roll back rules that put truckdrivers on our roads, pushed by trucking companies, to further their limits of exhaustion.

I yield the floor.

Will my colleague yield for one short question?

Madam President, today I recognize David Giordano, the former director of the Newark Fire Department. A driving force for good in the City of Newark, Dave's exceptional career as firefighter, fire director, and trusted advisor created the foundation for the long- term strength of the department, setting it on the path to a sustainable future, and improving safety for the city's residents.

A native of North Newark, Dave grew up near Sacred Heart Basilica and is a product of the Newark Public School system. As Newark invested in him, so, too, did he invest in Newark--first as a small business owner in 1979, and then, in 1985, as a firefighter. Committed to serving as a strong voice for his colleagues, Dave became active in the Newark Firefighter's Union, serving as treasurer and vice president, and ultimately union president.

When I became mayor of Newark in 2006, I knew Dave's knowledge and experience would be an asset to my team.

Indeed, he worked hard to obtain new equipment, shorten response times, and streamline the delivery of service to make our fire department more effective. In an emergency, every second counts; Dave's commitment to excellence surely saved lives.

Dave retires from the City of Newark on June 30, 2014, after 29 years of dedicated service to the city. These years have been marked by exemplary dedication to the best interests of the community and his fellow firefighters.

It is an honor to formally recognize the contributions that David Giordano has made to the citizens of Newark throughout his career, to thank him for his tremendous service, and to wish him happiness in a well-deserved retirement.

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

Madam President, I rise today to express my disappointment that earlier today this Chamber could not even proceed to the consideration of the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. This would have allowed those with outstanding student loan debt to refinance at the lower interest rates currently offered to new borrowers. This is deeply disappointing to me, and it should be to the American public--that we could not even get on to the bill to debate it.

This is why it is particularly disappointing: Our Nation's young people and their families are burdened with extraordinary debt--$1.2 trillion of student loan debt. This exceeds the aggregate--the total-- auto loan, credit card, and home equity debt balances in America, making student loans the second largest debt of U.S. households, following mortgages.

Today, the average student graduates from college with around $29,000 in loans. In New Jersey, that is up from an average of $27,600 in 2011 and $23,792 in 2010. More than 16 percent of my constituents now have student debt. That is over 1 million New Jerseyans who are weighed down by a significant financial obligation that limits the amount of money they are able to put back into the economy--in buying homes and in investing in their futures, in pursuing their American dream.

Reduced purchasing power due to high student loan debts not only holds back a family's day-to-day spending but it keeps them from making those large investments.

I believe it is irresponsible and shortsighted for us to think that we can saddle young people--the true engines of our economy--with this burden and maintain our position as the world's most powerful economy.

Historically, the United States has done things differently. We were the leader in expanding college opportunity. From the GI bill following World War II to Pell grants in 1980, we have taken bold steps to ensure that Americans have access to college regardless of their ability to pay their way entirely on their own. We created these programs because we understood that an educated workforce is essential to our Nations's economic competitiveness. The most valuable natural resource any nation on the planet has is the genius and mental acuity of its people. Without highly skilled workers, without trained minds, without that opportunity that comes with higher education, America simply will not be able to compete as well in the global economy.

The cost of college in America puts our young people at a disadvantage compared to their peers. We are not leading; we are lagging. These obstacles to a college education deny a level playing field. We are disadvantaging our young people in their fight to compete and lead against other nations that are doing so much more.

Take this important data point: More than 51 percent of the median income is the cost of college in the United States, while the cost of college in Germany is just 4.3 percent of that country's income. In Canada it is about 5 percent. In England it is about 6 percent. Compare that to us--51 percent of median income in the United States. It is less than 7 percent in Canada, in England, in Germany--our competitors.

We should be doing everything in our power to encourage forthcoming generations to pursue higher education so that we do not slide further in global rankings and compromise our ability to compete. Where we used to lead the globe in percentage of population with a college education, now we lag. We cannot be the leading economy if we are the lagging nation in education.

I commend my colleagues, including Senators Harkin, Reed, Warren, and Gillibrand, who have been so active even before I came to this body in calling attention to this issue. I urge my colleagues to step up and be a part of preserving this grand American tradition of college access, which is so essential to the other grand tradition in our Nation of social mobility, that no matter where you are born, no matter what your economic status, no matter what your color or your creed, this is the Nation where, if you have grit and toughness, discipline and hard work, you can make it. We are a country that will remove those obstacles and allow genius to be made manifest.

I hope we can begin to get bills like this that are so common sense-- this idea that we can refinance student debt--to the point where we can discuss the bills on the floor and they can escape the trap of the filibuster.

Truck Safety

Before yielding the floor, I wish to take this moment to express my deepest condolences to the family of victims involved in a tragic tractor trailer accident Saturday night on the New Jersey Turnpike. My thoughts and prayers go out to the several individuals who were injured in the crash. I obviously wish them a full recovery.

We owe many thanks to the emergency personnel who responded to this weekend's accident and countless others who worked tirelessly along our highways to keep them safe. During times like these, though, we must ask ourselves whether this tragedy and so many others in New Jersey and across our Nation along our highways could have been prevented with common sense. It is too early to tell, but I am grateful to the National Transportation Safety Board for investigating

this particular accident thoroughly. I eagerly await their findings, but in the meantime, it is worth reviewing what we do know.

Larger and heavier trucks cause greater damage when collisions occur. It is just physics. That is why there are rules governing truck size and weight limitations on our highways. I have concerns about any attempts to increase truck size and weight limits. I hope that sound data and science will inform our decisions, the decisions this body must make on that issue.

Another major highway problem--one that I know is affecting the lives of families from coast to coast--is the problem with driver fatigue. Studies show that fatigue contributes to 30 to 40 percent of all major accidents--all major truck accidents. Thirty to forty percent of truck accidents are contributed to by fatigue. When drivers do not get enough rest, when they are more tired, they are much more likely to get into an accident. That is why there are limitations in place on the number of hours truckdrivers may work in any given week. I am concerned about any efforts to weaken those rules, which would allow people to push the limit of human exhaustion even further and would therefore create an environment where more accidents are possible.

The bottom line is that truck accidents and the deaths and injuries caused by them are actually increasing in America. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to take a serious look at what we can do to improve the safety of our highways.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Freight Priorities Act, which takes an all-of-the-above approach to addressing our Nation's freight needs. We must improve the movement of freight and strengthen our economic competitiveness by examining a comprehensive, multimodal, national network that includes not just our major highways, but our rail, seaports, local roads and intermodal facilities. This bill would authorize the Department of Transportation to broaden our approach to freight policy, set goals for reducing air pollution, and creates a pilot program to study the disproportionate impacts on urban communities that can be caused by the movement of freight.

In 2011, 17.6 billion tons of goods were transported throughout the United States, valued at more than $16.8 trillion. The Federal Highway Administration estimates there will be a 60 percent increase of freight being moved over the next 30 years.

In New Jersey, hundreds of millions of tons of freight are annually shipped through our ports, by rail, and highways. The port of New York and New Jersey, as of 2012, supported over 296,000 jobs and 28.9 billion in business income. This major economic engine drives New Jersey's economy and boosts U.S. economic competitiveness. 1However, too often, our lack of investment and our limited focus on the highway network causes our freight to get stuck in congested, heavily trafficked urban areas. Extended truck, rail and ship idling negatively impacts the health and air quality of local urban communities. With a slight adjustment of our priorities and a strong national commitment to investing in our infrastructure, we can dramatically reduce congestion, improve the health of American communities, make sure goods get where they need to go faster and cheaper, strengthen our economy and create jobs.

The Freight Priorities Act sets goals for increasing efficiencies. It outlines goals to reduce air pollution and congestion, and requires the inclusion of port authorities in freight infrastructure investment decisions. The bill requires DOT to meet performance measures for all modes of freight movement, and establishes a pilot program that will help find ways to reduce the impact on local communities and help create access to jobs at ports and other multimodal facilities.

By refocusing our priorities, we will ensure that the smartest, most- cost effective projects secure funding. In New Jersey this could mean investing in the Raritan intermodal hub project in Essex, Union and Middlesex counties, which would create a direct connection for freight cars to access the port of New York and New Jersey. The project would relieve congestion on the roads and shift freight off of Amtrak's passenger lines. This bill would also prioritize investments that reduce air pollution, such as shore power technology at the port of Newark, which would help reduce emissions by allowing major cargo vessels to plug into the electric grid while at port.

Rather than finding ways to merely skate by on the limited infrastructure funds we have each year, the conversation we should be having in Congress is how we can dramatically increase investments in our infrastructure and improve the safety and functionality of our entire network that transports both people and goods. This bill is a strong step in that direction. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation, and look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee to carry these priorities as we draft our portion of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization bill.