Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise with pity and anger that this administration can be so insulated from reality that millions of American children will be denied health insurance because of the President of the United States and a small minority in the House of Representatives.

There was a critical vote in the House today: whether to override the President's veto of the children's health insurance bill.

Two hundred and eighty six votes were needed to override this veto, but we fell 13 votes short: 273 to 156.

One hundred and fifty six Members of the House of Representatives cowered to the President and turned their back on our children.

They turned their back on almost 4 million kids nationwide who would have gotten health care, including 100,000 in my home State of New Jersey.

And they cast these harmful votes against the will of the American people.

Eighty-one percent of the public supports this bill.

Yet the President's puppets in the House said no. They chose ideology over children.

They choose tax breaks for millionaires over a doctor's visit for a sick child.

They are more than willing to spend $12 billion a month on Iraq, but not $7 billion a year for children's health.

You have to question the moral priorities of those who oppose funding children's health care in America.

Civilized societies take care of their children. I believe we are a civilized society. I just think we have the wrong person in the White House.

It is time to put aside ideology and put the needs of American families first.

The only good news today is that the bill on the floor of the Senate right now puts families first.

This Labor-HHS appropriations bill will help children live longer, healthier, and more productive lives. It increases Head Start funding, medical research gets a boost and we are doing more to support critical education programs.

But despite all of these benefits, President Bush says he will veto this bill too.

I say: ``shame.''

Mr. President, let me begin by thanking Senators Mikulski and Shelby for their leadership in drafting the Commerce- Justice-Science appropriations bill.

This bill empowers our police and law enforcement professionals with tools and resources to keep our children safe. Today, our police need these tools more than ever.

The FBI just released its violent crime data for 2006. After years of going down, violent crime went up in each of the past 2 years. Murders went up from 2005 to 2006, and nearly 15,000 people were murdered in 2006. Those statistics are people--people whose lives were changed or ended by a horrible act of violence. But instead of reacting to those stories with vigilance, this administration has reacted by cutting the very programs that keep our streets safe from crime and violence.

This bill fights back. It restores funding for the programs the administration wrongly cut and lets families feel more secure in their homes. For example, this bill provides $550 million for the COPS Program, and I was proud to cosponsor an amendment to add $110 million for hiring police officers. In New Jersey alone, the COPS Program has added 500 new cops on the beat. It is because of programs such as COPS that I am proud to support this bill. It is preposterous that President Bush is threatening to veto it.

I must note, however, that there is one provision in this bill that is dangerous. Instead of making us safer, it puts our communities and the people trying to protect them at greater risk. That provision is the ``Tiahrt amendment,'' which has been a staple in appropriations bills over the last few years. Instead of helping our police, the Tiahrt Amendment makes their job harder.

The Tiahrt amendment limits the information the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, can tell our police about guns used in crimes.

The Tiahrt amendment does not protect responsible gun owners; it protects criminals, gang members, and gun traffickers.

Before the Tiahrt amendment, ATF data showed 60 percent of crime guns came from 1 percent of gun dealers. It is only common sense that police should be able to target corrupt gun dealers, but the Tiahrt amendment makes it difficult for the police to identify those dealers.

Limiting access to ATF gun trace information means that police have to wait until after a crime has been committed to get information about dangerous weapons, instead of being able to get that information to prevent crimes. That makes no sense.

It is bad enough that the Tiahrt amendment restricts the information our police can get, but the language in the Senate bill is even worse than in previous years and in the current House bill. The Senate version of the Tiahrt amendment requires local cops to certify to the ATF why they want the information--and it threatens them with up to 5 years in jail. It is simply outrageous to threaten our cops with jail time in order to protect the people committing gun crimes. Even the Department of Justice admitted in 2006 that threatening our police with criminal penalties could create a ``chilling effect'' on law enforcement. The Senate language also further restricts the sharing of information between law enforcement agencies when they do obtain information from ATF. With violent crime on the rise, we should be encouraging law enforcement to work together, not prohibiting collaboration.

Simply put, the Tiahrt amendment hurts our law enforcement efforts. That is why more than 10 national law enforcement organizations, 240 mayors, and State and local leaders from across the country have joined together to oppose the Tiahrt amendment. And that is why Senator Mikulski showed leadership and left this language out of the bill to begin with. Regrettably, the Tiahrt Amendment was added back during the committee markup.

The job of fighting crime is hard enough already. We don't need to make it any harder.

I will continue my fight against the Tiahrt amendment until the Tiahrt amendment is no more.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Montclair State University, MSU, on its 100th anniversary. Over the past century, MSU has grown from its humble beginnings as the New Jersey State Normal School with just 187 students into one of the premier educational institutions in the State of New Jersey.

Montclair State University began as a teacher's college and, to this day, continues to train the Nation's finest educators. However, the school's curriculum has expanded to include a comprehensive range of first-class undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral programs. With over 16,000 students and 465 full-time faculty members, MSU is currently the second-largest and fastest-growing university in New Jersey, and has a diverse student body that reflects New Jersey's population.

Much of the University's success can be attributed to its steadfast dedication to outstanding faculty, exceptional teaching, and quality of scholarship. The university is led by a dedicated and talented team focused on meeting the many needs of its students and the surrounding community. MSU manages to provide the individual attention of a small college, while also offering a vast array of majors and concentrations.

Mr. President, the students and alumni of Montclair State University have much to be proud of as they celebrate 100 years of academia. I applaud MSU for its many years of service, and I wish the university continued success in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to protect health and safety by notifying the public when there are potentially harmful sewage overflows in our streams, rivers, and coastal waters. This legislation, the Sewage Overflow Right-to-Know Act, would amend the Clean Water Act to require that owners and operators of publicly owned treatment works monitor their systems and notify the public when there is a sewage overflow with the potential to affect public health.

The Clean Water Act is soon to celebrate its 35th anniversary, and despite great gains we are still far from achieving the goal of eliminating pollution discharges. EPA estimates that there are between 23,000 and 75,000 sanitary sewer overflows each year. Those spills dump between 3 billion and 10 billion gallons of untreated sewage into our

rivers, lakes and coastal waters annually. In addition, combined sewer overflows spill 850 billion gallons of contaminated stormwater into our waterways each year.

Increased investment in our wastewater infrastructure is sorely needed to avoid having water quality return to what it was in the 1970s. This is why I chaired a hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee's Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security and Water Quality Subcommittee yesterday on clean water funding, and I look forward to working to reauthorize the Clean Water State Revolving Fund this Congress.

While we work toward closing the infrastructure funding gap and reducing sewage pollution, we must also keep citizens safe by informing them when there are sewage overflows. The EPA estimates that up to 3.5 million people get sick each year from recreational contact with waters contaminated by sanitary sewer overflows alone.

Currently, citizens are often needlessly unaware of sewage overflows. Although some individual utilities do an excellent job of public notification, many do not provide any communication to the public. The Clean Water Act does not require public notification under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System for sanitary sewer overflows, and State requirements, where they exist, are extremely variable. This legislation would remedy that situation by ensuring that publicly-owned treatment works employ a monitoring system to alert the operators when there is an overflow, and relaying that information to the public when there is potential harm to the public's health. In cases where the overflow has the potential for imminent and substantial harm, public health authorities and other affected entities, such as local drinking water treatment plants, must also be notified.

This legislation also requires annual reporting to EPA or the State with a summary of all overflows and the plans in place to address the overflows. This will help provide a more comprehensive picture of sewage infrastructure problems, and increase public awareness of needed repairs and upgrades.

Clean water and public health are priorities for New Jersey. Some sewer pipes in my State date back 150 years, and overflows are becoming more common. In one event earlier this year, 150 million gallons of untreated sewage mixed with stormwater spilled into the Hackensack River. The Sewage Overflow Right to Know Act establishes public notification of health risks posed by sewage overflows to keep our residents healthy while we continue to work to reduce sewage pollution.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record immediately following my statement.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to protect health and safety by notifying the public when there are potentially harmful sewage overflows in our streams, rivers, and coastal waters. This legislation, the Sewage Overflow Right-to-Know Act, would amend the Clean Water Act to require that owners and operators of publicly owned treatment works monitor their systems and notify the public when there is a sewage overflow with the potential to affect public health.

The Clean Water Act is soon to celebrate its 35th anniversary, and despite great gains we are still far from achieving the goal of eliminating pollution discharges. EPA estimates that there are between 23,000 and 75,000 sanitary sewer overflows each year. Those spills dump between 3 billion and 10 billion gallons of untreated sewage into our

rivers, lakes and coastal waters annually. In addition, combined sewer overflows spill 850 billion gallons of contaminated stormwater into our waterways each year.

Increased investment in our wastewater infrastructure is sorely needed to avoid having water quality return to what it was in the 1970s. This is why I chaired a hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee's Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security and Water Quality Subcommittee yesterday on clean water funding, and I look forward to working to reauthorize the Clean Water State Revolving Fund this Congress.

While we work toward closing the infrastructure funding gap and reducing sewage pollution, we must also keep citizens safe by informing them when there are sewage overflows. The EPA estimates that up to 3.5 million people get sick each year from recreational contact with waters contaminated by sanitary sewer overflows alone.

Currently, citizens are often needlessly unaware of sewage overflows. Although some individual utilities do an excellent job of public notification, many do not provide any communication to the public. The Clean Water Act does not require public notification under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System for sanitary sewer overflows, and State requirements, where they exist, are extremely variable. This legislation would remedy that situation by ensuring that publicly-owned treatment works employ a monitoring system to alert the operators when there is an overflow, and relaying that information to the public when there is potential harm to the public's health. In cases where the overflow has the potential for imminent and substantial harm, public health authorities and other affected entities, such as local drinking water treatment plants, must also be notified.

This legislation also requires annual reporting to EPA or the State with a summary of all overflows and the plans in place to address the overflows. This will help provide a more comprehensive picture of sewage infrastructure problems, and increase public awareness of needed repairs and upgrades.

Clean water and public health are priorities for New Jersey. Some sewer pipes in my State date back 150 years, and overflows are becoming more common. In one event earlier this year, 150 million gallons of untreated sewage mixed with stormwater spilled into the Hackensack River. The Sewage Overflow Right to Know Act establishes public notification of health risks posed by sewage overflows to keep our residents healthy while we continue to work to reduce sewage pollution.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record immediately following my statement.

Madam President, I speak today as a Senator from New Jersey, the State that lost 700 of its residents including those who were

at work that day at the World Trade Center.

I remember when President Roosevelt in 1941 pronounced December 7 as the ``day of infamy,'' and once again, we see a moment in time, a moment of infamy, evil beyond comprehension, because the events of this day changed the way people live on this Earth.

The Twin Towers were far more than the sum of their steel and concrete parts. The towers that I knew very well were cities, essentially, in the sky. Fifty thousand people worked in those towers, more people than the population of many of our Nation's communities.

In many cases, those 50,000 men and women spent as much time in the towers as they did at home, from New York and New Jersey, and from other States throughout the country, from small families and big families, from every walk and stage of life.

On that autumn morning 6 years ago, they awoke and began moving to the rhythm of the day, drawn to the Trade Center just as normal, just like the days and the years before. Only this day was different. This day became an epoch moment in the history of man, this day terror would no longer be a thing that would be in distant places, not be a thing of memory or talk. Terror was about to become real.

Three thousand people, spouses with no mates, children without a parent, siblings, and treasured friends, gone. They live on only in our memory. Seven hundred of the almost 3,000 people who perished were from my State of New Jersey. Thirty-seven of them came from a single town in New Jersey, Middletown. In 2003, I helped dedicate a memorial garden in their honor. Tears were still flowing. Firefighters, police officers, and first responders died within the towers, as they fought valiantly to save people they never knew and never saw.

I had the privilege of serving as a commissioner of the Port Authority in New York and New Jersey for 4 years before I came to the Senate. I got to know the corridors of traffic and energy contained in those buildings. I also got to know many of the terrific people who filled the jobs that enabled the Port Authority to provide the critical services it offered to our region.

The Port Authority lost 84 staff members on 9/11, including 37 brave police officers who gave their lives as they attempted to help others immobilized by the catastrophe. I knew many others who worked for firms housed in the Twin Towers who perished that day. In one firm, Cantor Fitzgerald, I knew people very well, and they lost 700 that single day at their firm alone, many with young families just beginning. They had young kids and they had lives with great possibilities ahead of them, ended abruptly, brutalized in that terrible moment.

People stared aghast at the television and said to themselves and others who would be listening: This can't be happening. The United States? In America? Taking down the Twin Towers that were monuments to commerce, energy, and vitality.

I was on a trip to the Middle East, and it included a stop in Israel, at the moment the tragedy hit. I saw tears flowing down the faces of people from this tiny country, crying for America, pleading for some understanding that would help relieve the pain.

Like Pearl Harbor 60 years ago, 9/11 changed the world. It changed the world, the way we see it, the way we see ourselves, constantly having to produce identification cards, waiting in lines to be examined by security, thousands and thousands of people. Our own Homeland Security Department has 180,000 people focused primarily on trying to protect this homeland of ours from other violent moments with terrorism. We have to live differently. We must live with more vigilance. We live knowing that evil is omnipresent. We know we are fighting a ruthless enemy, one whose frontline is our homefront, one that brings war to the innocent.

We are constantly on the watch in New Jersey. The stretch between Port Newark, our harbor, and Newark Liberty International Airport, is defined by the FBI as the most dangerous 2-mile stretch in the country, the most inviting for a terrorist attack. We are constantly on guard. We are constantly concerned. Something happened that day when 19 madmen set out to destroy America. We didn't bend. We promised to search for those who orchestrated the terrible acts. We are still looking for them. We must continue to do so. But we will always remember those who fell that day. Their loss binds our Nation.

We stand together as one in our fight against terror, and we will, on this day of remembrance, always remember what happened. We can't forget. They are honored with vigils and candles, with that light serving as beacons of hope and barriers against fear.

In Bayonne, NJ, we remember those who perished with a monument, and we see these memorial sites across our region. In Hoboken, there is a park with ginkgo trees whose longevity reflects the enduring spirit of the victims. From one county in New Jersey, Bergen County, 135 lost their lives.

It can't just be a memorial. America has to rebuild its spirit. The world has to fight against terror. We know this morning a ceremony at the site of the World Trade Center took place with a commitment to rebuild. We want that to happen. It is critical for our spirit that we show that America is trying its best to bring peace to the country, to bring back civilization as we knew it, and we hope that will take place.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to talk about the bill that is presently on the floor. It is a good bill, and it couldn't be done at a more appropriate time. It is a critical issue. We hear many people talking about our decaying transportation infrastructure. The bill is focused primarily on the transportation side, but it also applies to other important subjects, including housing. But when we see the reports about how structurally deficient and functionally obsolete our transportation system is, and where we stand relative to other countries--even some third world countries--we should want to catch up here.

When flights are taking off and landing on time, when our railroads are carrying more passengers and cargo safely, when our roads and bridges are in good condition--our economy thrives, and so does the well-being of our people. We don't have anything that measures the stress factor of motorists, but I am sure if every driver were wearing some kind of a meter that recorded stress levels, the needles would go off their face. Tempers rise, time is lost, and appointments are not kept.

But when we fail to adequately fund these priorities, our economy and our infrastructure falters. That is why this bill is critical to our economy.

My colleague, the Presiding Officer, also from the wonderful State of New Jersey, knows we have to get things done. We have to get people and cargo moving. We have a tiny State, with lots of people, the most crowded State in the country, and transportation is essential. However, we don't have a monopoly on congestion, delays, and pollution from travel.

I remember days when I went back and forth to work from the Capitol and that the ride used to be 15 minutes. Now sometimes it can take half an hour. Look at the bridges and the roads around the Capitol, and we see it. Go anyplace that has a thriving population and you will find the same problem.

Our State of New Jersey is a global gateway and a national crossroad for transportation--air, railroad, and sea. We have the largest seaport on the East Coast. Each year, millions of cargo containers are put on trucks and trains at New Jersey's ports, bound for cities and towns across the interior of America. Newark's Liberty International Airport is one of the busiest, and is the most delayed in the country. We have that unfortunate distinction right now.

Each week, many of New Jersey's almost 9 million residents ride trains or buses or drive their cars across bridges and through tunnels connecting them to jobs outside the State or within the State. Last year, 54 million cars, trucks, and buses crossed the George Washington Bridge from Fort Lee, NJ, into New York City, by way of example.

After the tragedy in Minnesota, I began working with State leaders to make sure our bridges in New Jersey could safely and effectively handle the increasing volume of cars and trucks. I know many of my colleagues did the same thing. Thirty-four percent of the bridges in the State of New Jersey are deficient, which is higher than the national average of 27 percent. Think about what these percentages mean. It is saying that one out of three bridges is structurally deficient or functionally obsolete and in trouble. That is the way it seems to be in many places in the country. Enormous parts of the highway system are not able to handle the volume of traffic that passes over these areas.

Congress understands that bridges in America should not disappear into dust and rubble, costing lives and untold economic consequence. That is why in this bill we included $5 billion for Federal bridge programs, a 20-percent increase over last year. I was pleased to work with Senator Murray to add another $1 billion to strengthen our bridges.

As the chairman of two subcommittees overseeing Federal transportation programs, I am going to continue to do my part to keep our bridges strong so New Jerseyans can get to their jobs and back to their families safely.

We want to strengthen these bridges and give people the assurance that when they cross over they are safe. I talk to people who say they are reluctant to cross over some of the bridges we have in our area. Reluctant. But we take it for granted you have to do it in order to get where you must be.

I want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Murray and Ranking Member Bond for building a smart and strong transportation and housing appropriations bill. It funds Federal bridge repair programs, airline safety inspections, bus and rail transportation systems, and even operation of the air traffic control system.

In particular, I am pleased that the committee agreed to increase funds for Amtrak, our Nation's passenger railroad. Between the lines of cars on the highway and the long security lines at airports, American travelers need and deserve a choice. If one wants to see what a difference it could make, travel to some of the countries in Europe or Japan where they have world-class passenger rail service, where a trip from Brussels, Belgium, to Paris, France, a 200-mile distance, is accomplished in 1 hour 25 minutes. If you tried to get an airplane to take you that distance, you couldn't. They do not fly that way anymore. It is superfluous when you can get from the inside of one city to inside the other city and not have to go through the torment of the long lines and other inconveniences of getting on airplanes.

Today I had the experience of getting on an airplane at LaGuardia Airport in New York. My home in New Jersey is mid-way between LaGuardia and Newark airports. The weather didn't look that bad. We got on the airplane at 9 o'clock for a 38-minute flight to be here for a vote at 11. But due to congestion, we arrived here at a quarter past 11. It is somewhat amusing, with an odd twist, when the pilot gets on and tells

you how many minutes the flying time is because it is almost irrelevant. The flying time doesn't tell you how long it is going to take. It can take 38 minutes in the air, but it can take an hour and a half on the ground, which is pretty much what happened to us this morning. As a consequence, Mr. President--and you know how important casting your vote is around here--we missed a vote this morning, two other Senators and myself who were on that flight.

With all the problems with our transportation systems, President Bush either doesn't get it or just won't do it. He wants to put brakes on progress. The day after the terrible tragedy in Minnesota, when rescue crews were still searching for missing people, I heard the President respond, and he said: I am disappointed the Congress hasn't sent me a spending bill. But 2 weeks earlier he said he was going to veto the transportation spending bill because it was too much money. Can't have it both ways, Mr. President. And the public suffers.

President Bush's funding request would put Amtrak into bankruptcy, but expanding Amtrak is one way to get people off of the highways in many cases and out of the skyways. It is unacceptable for the Nation's passenger railroad service. Amtrak is experiencing record ridership levels, and it is unfair to the traveling public not to put the money in there that we have to. The bill before us would provide $1.5 billion for Amtrak, providing the funding it needs to survive and to grow. I am a frequent user of Amtrak, and I know very well that while the service is radically improved from where it was, more needs to be done to accommodate the volume of passengers who would use the railroad.

The funding here includes a new $100 million grant program for States to expand passenger rail service. This proposal stems from a plan Senator Lott and I have developed to reauthorize Amtrak.

I also thank my subcommittee leaders for agreeing to my request to include additional funding for the Department of Transportation's Office of Aviation Enforcement, to be able to protect airline passengers' rights. Now it is a small group of people trying to handle passenger complaints, and they cannot get to them. It is ridiculous. How do we in the Government know what is going on if we cannot process complaints that come in? This office is the only place where airline travelers can turn when they are mistreated by airline companies, and they know very well this mistreatment is frequent.

Right now this enforcement office only counts most complaints. Instead of acting on them, they collect them. It is like a mail repository. This includes complaints about overbooked and canceled flights, deceptive advertising, failing to process fare refunds and adjustments, unfair administration of frequent flier programs, and even acts of discrimination upon disabled passengers.

With this new funding we can make sure that airlines provide better service to all their customers and act on the complaints a customer files, not just note that they have arrived.

Furthermore, I am pleased the committee agreed at markup to include an amendment I put in limiting pollution by some waste-handling facilities near railroads. It is an issue of great significance to New Jersey. We have seen fires and pollution emitted from waste-handling facilities. The problem is we cannot get at them and correct them because of a loophole in the Federal law which lets some solid waste processors do business without regulation, allowing unimpeded pollution of our water, air, and lands. My amendment will at least temporarily close this loophole.

I have a more comprehensive bill which will close this loophole permanently, and I am working with railroads and other stakeholders in hopes we can get it passed this year.

We now have transportation and public housing programs together in this bill. Perhaps it is just the way it ought to be to accommodate life in better form for our citizens. Public housing programs provide homes for some 38,000 people in my State alone. Public housing needs have been underfunded by at least $1 billion in the last 6 years. The bill also maintains funding for the Hope VI program, instead of eliminating it, which President Bush has tried to do. Hope VI has generated more than $1 billion to revitalize distressed public housing in New Jersey alone, to make sure these families have an affordable home.

At a time when we see problems with home ownership for lots of people--bankruptcies in abundance--people will have to find different places to house themselves and their families. We have to make these investments. The housing stock that we have is often inadequate, inadequate not simply in numbers but in quality as well. This funding we are getting will be especially important.

President Bush, as I mentioned before, has threatened to veto the bill because it contains $4 billion more for transportation and housing needs than he requested. A veto would cause people to lose their homes. A veto would cause bridges to go unrepaired--bridges in dangerous condition. We have to fix these things to be publicly responsible.

President Bush is willing to have us spend $3 billion every week in Iraq. We want to make sure we provide funding for those soldiers who are serving overseas right now, but we also need to fund our needs here at home.

There is an unacceptable problem we see in our country. We do not invest our limited funds back into our infrastructure as we so desperately need to do, and at the same time we are continuing a war that, for many of us, is questionable and ought to be terminated very quickly.

It is about time the President's priorities matched up with the needs of Americans at home. This bill will go some way toward helping that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I helped craft the 2008 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill and I am proud of the priorities we set for our military.

There is no more important time than now to show our support for our troops. Nearly 200,000 American service men and women are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 1.5 million have served valiantly since these wars began. Of these, more than 33,000 servicemembers have come from New Jersey.

This legislation will provide critical funding to ensure that those in our military who sacrifice in defense of our country now and those who did so in the past are given the best care.

Overall veterans funding will increase 18 percent over last year's levels, supporting physical and mental care, the administration of the Veterans' Administration, VA, health system, and VA medical facilities.

The Veterans Health Administration will receive an increase of $4.6 billion to help care for our wounded warriors, to treat both their physical injuries and increasingly common mental trauma, including post-traumatic stress disorder.

This appropriations bill also aims to strengthen our military bases, providing $21 billion for military construction efforts and infrastructure improvements at bases, including those in New Jersey, and to support projects related to the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Act, BRAC, of 2005.

We are all proud of the work being done at military bases in our home States and nationwide, and it is vital that we support their missions now and in the future.

But I must take a moment to alert my colleagues to troubling information that has come to light since the Appropriations Committee completed work on this bill.

Fort Monmouth, based in New Jersey, is the Army's primary intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance facility. The Army's work at Fort Monmouth is critical to the safety of America's military men and women and to the success of their missions. The intelligence support it provides goes directly to our troops in the field, making them more effective fighters and protecting their lives and the lives of those around them.

Over the next 5 years, researchers at Fort Monmouth are slated to develop significant innovations for our Armed Forces, such as Warlock Jammers, which emit radio frequencies that interfere with the signals that set off improvised explosive devices--infamously known as IEDs.

The Jammer was engineered at Fort Monmouth and modified for use in Iraq. The military was able to deploy them within 60 days of their development, and they save American lives.

But despite the critical value of this and other innovations at the Fort, the BRAC Commission in 2005 voted to close Fort Monmouth.

It goes without saying that no Senator wants to see a base close in his or her State. And it is not only New Jersey that will suffer a loss of jobs and economic activity because of the 2005 BRAC process.

But the situation with Fort Monmouth is unique and casts a shadow on the entire base closure process.

As we learn more information about the closure of Fort Monmouth, it becomes increasingly clear that this was a flawed process based on faulty estimates that must be thoroughly investigated.

The first and most pressing question is how this closure will affect our troops in the field, given the crucial work Fort Monmouth does for ongoing missions overseas.

Simply put, Fort Monmouth is strategically vital to our military and to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Anticipating this alarming problem, the BRAC Commission specifically included a requirement for the Secretary of Defense to prove that closing Fort Monmouth will not harm troops in the field.

The caveat required the Pentagon to submit a report to Congress ensuring ``that movement of organizations, functions, or activities from Fort Monmouth to Aberdeen Proving Ground will be accomplished without disruption of their support to the Global War on Terrorism.'' The GAO is then expected to review and audit the report.

Yet more than 2 years after the BRAC Commission vote, the administration has failed to produce this report.

Even worse, the Army is trying to move personnel out of Fort Monmouth before it has even considered the effect on our military.

This is unacceptable. No personnel should leave Fort Monmouth and be transferred to Aberdeen, MD, before the Department of Defense reports to Congress that the closure of Fort Monmouth will not hurt our troops in the field.

But that is only one of the reasons why the BRAC decision to close Fort Monmouth is so controversial and so flawed.

It is becoming increasingly clear that only about 20 percent of the highly trained and highly skilled workforce who work at the Fort--from engineers to scientists--appear willing to move to Maryland.

This is far fewer than the rosy forecast of 75 percent that was provided to the BRAC Commission in 2005.

Again, we must ask how this shortage of expertise will affect the critical operations and technology that Fort Monmouth currently provides to our military.

Furthermore, the costs of closing Fort Monmouth are skyrocketing and call into question the very cost-savings rationale upon which BRAC decisions are made.

This argument was made by many in 2005, but the warnings were ignored. And as more facts come to light, it becomes apparent that the BRAC Commission was not given all of the information that it should have had to make its decision.

The original cost estimate for closing the fort was $780 million.

But according to the Army's own budget request for the fiscal year 2008, that cost has now nearly doubled to $1.5 billion.

We all know that the cost overruns are not limited to the closure of Fort Monmouth.

In fact, the Congressional Research Service has calculated that overall BRAC costs have increased from initial estimates of $17 billion to a current projection of $32 billion.

There are also signs that the true costs of closing Fort Monmouth may have been ignored in 2005. There is mounting evidence that the Pentagon knew, or should have known, that the cost estimates it gave the BRAC Commission related to the closure of Fort Monmouth were not correct. A July 2005 memo from Fort Monmouth officials detailed significant cost errors in the Pentagon's estimates, but the information in that memo was never received by the BRAC Commission.

For these reasons I, joined by Senator Menendez and our colleagues in the House of Representatives, have asked both the Government Accountability Office and Defense Department's inspector general to investigate the decision to close Fort Monmouth.

There is over $200 million in this bill for military construction at Aberdeen, MD.

While I understand this committee's desire to continue funding pursuant to the 2005 BRAC Commission decisions, I must caution that the closure of Fort Monmouth and the transfer of its critical operations needs to be reexamined in light of these facts and the investigations and reports that are underway.

I would also note that Senator Menendez and I have introduced legislation to change the BRAC process by calling for a review of major base closures that result in excessive cost overruns of over 25 percent.

I hope my colleagues will see the wisdom of this legislation and support it in the coming months.

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

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

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

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

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

This is simply unacceptable. No personnel should be transferred out of Fort Monmouth until the Department of Defense has submitted the report to Congress proving that the closure of Fort Monmouth will not hurt troops in the field.

Mr. President, I rise to speak directly to the American people to tell them that this Senator understands the risks that our country faces and I will do everything in my power to protect them from a terrorist attack.

We have a President whose words do not match his actions and who continues to accuse Democrats of being weak on terrorism and unwilling to do what it takes to secure our nation.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

New Jersey was hit on September 11th we lost 700 people on that fateful day. Not a day goes by when I don't think about it. And it is largely that day that brought me back to this Chamber.

My State is ripe with targets for terrorists, from its ports to its chemical plants and it has the most dangerous 2 miles for terrorism within it borders. So President Bush please don't lecture me on terrorism.

Instead of rhetoric, the Senate has been acting to defend our homeland. Just last month we passed a bill to fund our homeland security needs next year. It would put $38 billion into making our homeland safer and more secure.

What does the President do? He says he will veto it. Why? Because he thinks it costs too much. It costs too much? How do you measure the cost of protecting us from terror?

And President Bush is accusing others of being weak on homeland security?

The President is upset because Congress plans to put $2 billion more into homeland security than he thinks we should do. That is less money for a year of homeland security than we spend in one week in Iraq. This is a critical bill, and the President should have his pen ready to sign it, not continue to shortcut security for millions of people within our borders and within our homeland.

On Wednesday night, we saw a terrible incident when a bridge collapsed in Minnesota, causing fear, death, and injury. It brought to light the serious infrastructure needs of our country. What does President Bush do the next morning? He played raw politics and accused Congress of not working hard enough to fund our transportation needs. Again, nothing could be further from the truth.

The Senate Appropriations Committee has passed a transportation bill that is ready to go the Senate floor. It includes $5 billion for bridge replacement and rehabilitation across the Nation a full $1 billion increase over last year's amount. Guess what. The President is threatening to veto that one as well. Why? Again he thinks it costs too much to protect people domestically.

And now the administration is telling us there are gaps in our ability to gather intelligence about terrorists. So we are trying to make changes to the law dealing with the surveillance of emails and phone calls to make sure we protect the American people. And we must make those necessary changes, even if we stay here through the month of August to do so. But we must do so in a way that balances our national security with our fundamental civil rights.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, another month has passed, and more American troops lost their lives overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is only right that we take a few moments in the U.S. Senate to honor them. Outside my office here in Washington, we have a tribute called ``Faces of the Fallen.'' Visitors to the Senate from across the country have stopped by the memorial. I encourage my colleagues to come see this tribute on the third floor of the Hart Building.

Since the end of June, the Pentagon has announced the deaths of 88 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They will not be forgotten. So today, I will read their names into the Record:

SGT Stephen R. Maddies of Elizabethton, TN;

CPL Jason M. Kessler of Mount Vernon, WA;

1LT Benjamin J. Hall, VA;

SPC Camy Florexil of Philadelphia, PA;

CPL Sean A. Stokes of Auburn, CA;

SSG Wilberto Suliveras of Humacao, Puerto Rico;

MAJ Thomas G. Bostick Junior of Llano, TX;

SSG William R. Fritsche of Martinsville, IN;

PFC Cody C. Grater of Spring Hill, FL;

SPC Daniel A. Leckel of Medford, OR;

PVT Michael A. Baloga of Everett, WA;

SGT William R. Howdeshell of Norfolk, VA;

SPC Charles E. Bilbrey Junior of Owego, NY;

SPC Jaime Rodriguez Junior of Oxnard, CA;

PFC Juan S. Restrepo of Pembroke Pines, FL;

SGT Courtney D. Finch of Leavenworth, KS;

SSG Joshua P. Mattero of San Diego, CA;

LCpl Robert A. Lynch of Louisville, KY;

CPL James H. McRae of Springtown, TX;

CPL Matthew R. Zindars of Watertown, WI;

1SG Michael S. Curry Junior of Dania Beach, FL;

SGT Travon T. Johnson of Palmdale, CA;

PFC Adam J. Davis of Twin Falls, ID;

PFC Jessy S. Rogers of Copper Center, AK;

Hospitalman Daniel S. Noble of Whittier, CA;

PFC Zachary R. Endsley of Spring, TX;

LCpl Bobby L. Twitty of Bedias, TX;

SGT Shawn G. Adams of Dixon, CA;

CPL Christopher G. Scherer of East Northport, NY;

SGT Jacob S. Schmuecker of Atkinson, NE;

SFC Luis E. Gutierrez-Rosales of Bakersfield, CA;

SPC Zachary R. Clouser of Dover, PA;

SPC Richard Gilmore the Third of Jasper, AL;

SPC Daniel E. Gomez of Warner Robbins, GA;

CPL Rhett A. Butler of Fort Worth, TX;

PFC Brandon M. Craig of Earleville, MD;

SGT Ronald L. Coffelt of Fair Oaks, CA;

PFC James J. Harrelson of Dadeville, AL;

PFC Ron J. Joshua Junior of Austin, TX;

PFC Brandon K. Bobb of Orlando, FL;

SGT Nathan S. Barnes of American Fork, UT;

CPO Patrick L. Wade of Key West, FL;

PO1 Class Jeffrey L. Chaney of Omaha, NE;

SPC Eric M. Holke of Crestline, CA;

LCpl Shawn V. Starkovich of Arlington, WA;

SGT John R. Massey of Judsonia, AR;

PFC Benjamin B. Bartlett Junior of Manchester, GA;

SPC Robert D. Varga of Monroe City, MO;

PFC Christopher D. Kube of Sterling Heights, MI;

SGT Allen A. Greka of Alpena, MI;

SGT Courtney T. Johnson of Garner, NC;

1SG Jeffrey R. McKinney of Garland, TX;

CAPT Maria I. Ortiz of Bayamon, Puerto Rico;

SGT Eric A. Lill of Chicago, IL;

MSG Randy J. Gillespie of Coaldale, CO;

CPL Kory D. Wiens of Independence, OR;

PFC Bruce C. Salazar Junior of Tracy, CA;

SGT Gene L. Lamie of Homerville, GA;

PFC Le Ron A. Wilson of Queens, NY;

CPL Jeremy D. Allbaugh of Luther, OK;

LCpl Steven A. Stacy of Coos Bay, OR;

LCpl Angel R. Ramirez of Brooklyn, NY;

COL Jon M. Lockey of Fredericksburg, VA;

SFC Sean K. Mitchell of Monterey, CA;

PFC Jason E. Dore of Moscow, ME;

SPC Jeremy L. Stacey of Bismarck, AR;

SPC Anthony M.K. Vinnedge of Okeana, OH;

SPC Roberto J. Causor Junior, of San Jose, CA;

SPC Michelle R. Ring, of Martin, TN;

MAJ James M. Ahearn, CA;

SGT Keith A. Kline of Oak Harbor, OH;

SPC Christopher S. Honaker of Cleveland, NC;

PFC Joseph A. Miracle of Ortonville, MI;

SGT Thomas P. McGee of Hawthorne, CA;

PO1 Jason Dale Lewis of Brookfield, CT;

PO1 Robert Richard McRill of Lake Placid, FL;

PO1 Steven Phillip Daugherty of Barstow, Ca;

CWO Scott A.M. Oswell, WA;

PFC Andrew T. Engstrom of Slaton, TX;

PFC Steven A. Davis of Woodbridge, VA;

1LT Christopher N. Rutherford of Newport, OH;

LCpl William C. Chambers of Ringgold, GA;

LCpl Jeremy L. Tinnel of Mechanicsville, VA;

LCpl Juan M. Garcia Schill of Grants Pass, OR;

SFC Raymond R. Buchan of Johnstown, PA;

SSG Michael L. Ruoff Junior of Yosemite, CA;

SPC Victor A. Garcia of Rialto, CA;

PFC Jonathan M. Rossi of Safety Harbor, FL.

To date, more than 3,600 American men and women have lost their lives in Iraq. And more than 400 have lost their lives in Afghanistan. We will not forget them and the Nation will not forget their sacrifice.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Justice for Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act with my colleagues, Senators Specter, Menendez, Cornyn, Coleman, Lott, Lieberman, Schumer, Clinton, Casey, Collins, Graham, Biden, Stevens, and Feinstein.

I am proud to introduce this legislation on behalf of the many Americans who have suffered at the hands of State sponsors of terrorism. This important legislation will allow victims of state sponsored terrorism to have their day in court. It will do so by enabling these individuals to both sue for liability and seek financial compensation from the states, such as Iran, which committed these murderous acts, thereby starving them of the funds that they use to strike at innocent victims.

In 1983, the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, was bombed by the Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah, killing 241 servicemen and wounding 100 others. In 2003, the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC, found the Republic of Iran, which directly supports Hezbollah, guilty of masterminding that bombing. The victims and their families have the right to sue their tormentors and have judgments against Iran, yet the judgments are not being enforced.

In 1996, the President signed into law legislation that I wrote to amend the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to give private American citizens the right to hold U.S. Department of State-designated state sponsors of terrorism liable in U.S. courts. This legislation, also known as the Flatow amendment, needs to be clarified and updated. The bill I am introducing today will bring clarity to this law on behalf of victims of terrorism and reaffirm their right to sue and collect damages from state sponsors of terrorism.

There are several reasons why the law needs to be improved. First, the courts decided in 2004 in Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Republic of Iran that, contrary to the intent of the Flatow amendment, there would be no Federal private right of action against foreign governments. The ruling stated that there could only be legal action against individual officials and employees of that government. Second, current law permits judgment holders to only seize assets over which a terrorist state has day-to-day managerial control, thereby allowing terrorist states to hide their assets from the victims who have successful judgments against them. Third, state sponsors of terrorism, such as Libya, which is still responsible for terrorist acts it committed in the past, have consistently abused the appeals process to delay litigation proceedings.

My new legislation will address these issues and improve the ability of victims to hold state sponsors of terrorism accountable. First, it will update the Flatow amendment to improve its enforcement by reaffirming the right of private citizens to sue state sponsors of terrorism. Second, it will allow for the seizure of hidden commercial assets belonging to the terrorist state so that the victims of terrorism can be justly compensated. Third, it will limit the number of appeals that the terrorist state can pursue in U.S. courts. In addition, my legislation will provide foreign nationals working for the U.S. Government, if they are victims of a terrorist attack during their official duties, to be covered by these same provisions.

While nothing can bring back innocent lives lost to terrorism, the state sponsors of these horrific acts must be made to pay for their crimes. We are united in our belief that state-sponsored terrorism is wrong and that the perpetrators of terrorism must be brought to justice. This legislation will also strengthen our national security by combating the desire and ability of foreign nations to both finance and support terrorism. Most importantly, it will empower those innocent victims who have suffered from terrorism to seek justice through the rule of American law.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support justice for victims of state sponsored terrorism by supporting this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.