Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today, families across this country face a growing problem of rising credit card debt. In 2004, the average American household had $9,300 in credit card debt, up from $3,200 just 12 years earlier. More and more Americans are using credit card debt to manage daily living expenses such as basic living costs, medical bills, and house or automotive repairs. And for college students, the problem cannot be overstated. According to university administrators, colleges lose more students to credit card debt than to academic failure. To fuel that growth, credit card issuers have increased the number of solicitations sent to consumers 500 percent since 1990 to a record 5.23 billion in 2004. And they start sending them to children at younger and younger ages. Last year, AJ, the son of my State director received his very first solicitation at the age of 2 years old. If you have a pulse and a social security number, you can get a credit card. Credit card companies are increasingly targeting people who are likely to default. They have focused their attention on teenagers and college students, people who live beyond their means, and those who have declared bankruptcy. Clearly, credit card companies are not paying attention to whom they are giving a credit card, much less if the applicant can afford to pay the balance. There is no question that we must demand personal responsibility from consumers, but at the same time credit card companies should not be allowed to take advantage of consumers with excessive fees and unreasonable interest rates. One study found that people in this Nation pay $90 billion each year in penalty fees and interest payments. Just think about that for a second--- $90 billion annually. It is money that could be used to send our children to college, to pay the health care bills of both our children in the dawn of their lives and our parents in the sunset of theirs, while still saving for our own retirements. One of the most egregious practices is known as ``universal default.'' It involves credit card companies raising interest rates, up to 30 percent APR, on customers who have a perfect record with the credit card but miss a payment with any other creditor. So a person can make their credit card payment on time every month but see their interest rate skyrocket because they paid their gas bill late. Further, this penalty interest rate is often applied not only to future purchases but retroactively to current balances as well. This is a completely arbitrary rate-hike intended solely to hike the company's bottom line. That is why I am introducing the Credit Card Bill of Rights--two pieces of legislation that, taken together, will stop some of the most egregious practices of credit card issuers while also ensuring that future generations have the information to make financial decisions. Many American adolescents are inadequately prepared for the complex financial world that awaits them. In 2004, almost two-thirds of the students who took a personal finance survey failed the test. The causes for this failure are largely due to the lack of high school finance courses available to teenagers combined with insufficient parental mentoring. Statistics show that while a large majority of both college and high school students rely on their parents for financial guidance, only 26 percent of 13- to 21-year-olds reported their parents actively taught them how to manage money. Public education has not filled this void as only about one in five students between the ages of 16 and 22 say they have taken a personal finance course in school. Credit card companies are exploiting this financial inexperience of young Americans with an aggressive marketing strategy designed to maximize enrollment and profit, with little regard for a potential customer's ability to pay. As a result, over 20 percent of children between the ages of 12 to 19 have access to a credit card. This credit card marketing blitz further intensifies once an individual enters college. During the first week college freshmen arrive on campus, they are barraged by an average of eight credit card offers. Students actually double their average credit card debt, and triple the number of credit cards in their wallets, from the time they arrive on campus until graduation. This large number of new credit card owners combined with the lack of financial illiteracy of high school graduates leads to high levels of debt amongst undergrads. Credit card companies have actually encouraged this rise in credit card debt through increasing the median balance for undergraduates. As a result, 21 percent of undergraduates that have credit cards, have high-level balances between $3,000 and $7,000. The Protection of Young Consumers Act will protect people, especially college students and other young people, against skyrocketing consumer debt and the barrage of credit card solicitations that lead to it. The bill will do so by building on the current opt-out program for pre- approved credit card solicitations by requiring young consumers under age 21 to proactively opt-in to receive solicitations from credit card companies. This proposal will also establish a financial literacy and education program in elementary and secondary schools to help prepare young people to be financially responsible consumers. In addition to targeting high school and college students, credit card companies have become very adept at increasing their profits through hidden fees and deceptive advertising, taking advantage of Americans of all ages. The Credit Card Reform Act will protect consumers against hidden fees and excessive interest rates. It does so by: 1) prohibiting ``universal defaults'' that I mentioned earlier, 2) banning unilateral changes in credit card agreements without written consent, and 3) requiring that the fees charged by creditors are ``reasonably related'' to the cost incurred by the issuer. The bill will also establish standards that would prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices, while tightening regulations on credit card companies to ensure that they are not offering credit to high-risk cardholders without verifying their ability to pay. I would like to be clear that I am not trying to remove the obligation for consumers to behave responsibly. Every individual must take responsibility for their own actions, but at the same time it is the obligation of the companies who are earning billions in profits from credit cards to behave ethically as well. This Credit Card Bill of Rights will help ensure that New Jersey consumers and consumers across the country are given a fair chance at being responsible consumers who will enjoy economic security as well as economic opportunity in their futures.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today, families across this country face a growing problem of rising credit card debt. In 2004, the average American household had $9,300 in credit card debt, up from $3,200 just 12 years earlier. More and more Americans are using credit card debt to manage daily living expenses such as basic living costs, medical bills, and house or automotive repairs. And for college students, the problem cannot be overstated. According to university administrators, colleges lose more students to credit card debt than to academic failure. To fuel that growth, credit card issuers have increased the number of solicitations sent to consumers 500 percent since 1990 to a record 5.23 billion in 2004. And they start sending them to children at younger and younger ages. Last year, AJ, the son of my State director received his very first solicitation at the age of 2 years old. If you have a pulse and a social security number, you can get a credit card. Credit card companies are increasingly targeting people who are likely to default. They have focused their attention on teenagers and college students, people who live beyond their means, and those who have declared bankruptcy. Clearly, credit card companies are not paying attention to whom they are giving a credit card, much less if the applicant can afford to pay the balance. There is no question that we must demand personal responsibility from consumers, but at the same time credit card companies should not be allowed to take advantage of consumers with excessive fees and unreasonable interest rates. One study found that people in this Nation pay $90 billion each year in penalty fees and interest payments. Just think about that for a second--- $90 billion annually. It is money that could be used to send our children to college, to pay the health care bills of both our children in the dawn of their lives and our parents in the sunset of theirs, while still saving for our own retirements. One of the most egregious practices is known as ``universal default.'' It involves credit card companies raising interest rates, up to 30 percent APR, on customers who have a perfect record with the credit card but miss a payment with any other creditor. So a person can make their credit card payment on time every month but see their interest rate skyrocket because they paid their gas bill late. Further, this penalty interest rate is often applied not only to future purchases but retroactively to current balances as well. This is a completely arbitrary rate-hike intended solely to hike the company's bottom line. That is why I am introducing the Credit Card Bill of Rights--two pieces of legislation that, taken together, will stop some of the most egregious practices of credit card issuers while also ensuring that future generations have the information to make financial decisions. Many American adolescents are inadequately prepared for the complex financial world that awaits them. In 2004, almost two-thirds of the students who took a personal finance survey failed the test. The causes for this failure are largely due to the lack of high school finance courses available to teenagers combined with insufficient parental mentoring. Statistics show that while a large majority of both college and high school students rely on their parents for financial guidance, only 26 percent of 13- to 21-year-olds reported their parents actively taught them how to manage money. Public education has not filled this void as only about one in five students between the ages of 16 and 22 say they have taken a personal finance course in school. Credit card companies are exploiting this financial inexperience of young Americans with an aggressive marketing strategy designed to maximize enrollment and profit, with little regard for a potential customer's ability to pay. As a result, over 20 percent of children between the ages of 12 to 19 have access to a credit card. This credit card marketing blitz further intensifies once an individual enters college. During the first week college freshmen arrive on campus, they are barraged by an average of eight credit card offers. Students actually double their average credit card debt, and triple the number of credit cards in their wallets, from the time they arrive on campus until graduation. This large number of new credit card owners combined with the lack of financial illiteracy of high school graduates leads to high levels of debt amongst undergrads. Credit card companies have actually encouraged this rise in credit card debt through increasing the median balance for undergraduates. As a result, 21 percent of undergraduates that have credit cards, have high-level balances between $3,000 and $7,000. The Protection of Young Consumers Act will protect people, especially college students and other young people, against skyrocketing consumer debt and the barrage of credit card solicitations that lead to it. The bill will do so by building on the current opt-out program for pre- approved credit card solicitations by requiring young consumers under age 21 to proactively opt-in to receive solicitations from credit card companies. This proposal will also establish a financial literacy and education program in elementary and secondary schools to help prepare young people to be financially responsible consumers. In addition to targeting high school and college students, credit card companies have become very adept at increasing their profits through hidden fees and deceptive advertising, taking advantage of Americans of all ages. The Credit Card Reform Act will protect consumers against hidden fees and excessive interest rates. It does so by: 1) prohibiting ``universal defaults'' that I mentioned earlier, 2) banning unilateral changes in credit card agreements without written consent, and 3) requiring that the fees charged by creditors are ``reasonably related'' to the cost incurred by the issuer. The bill will also establish standards that would prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices, while tightening regulations on credit card companies to ensure that they are not offering credit to high-risk cardholders without verifying their ability to pay. I would like to be clear that I am not trying to remove the obligation for consumers to behave responsibly. Every individual must take responsibility for their own actions, but at the same time it is the obligation of the companies who are earning billions in profits from credit cards to behave ethically as well. This Credit Card Bill of Rights will help ensure that New Jersey consumers and consumers across the country are given a fair chance at being responsible consumers who will enjoy economic security as well as economic opportunity in their futures.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise with a series of colleagues to offer an amendment that provides much needed, immediate relief for America's drivers. My amendment suspends the 18-cent Federal gas tax for 60 days and makes up for the lost revenue by getting rid of unnecessary tax giveaways to oil and gas companies. In 2005, the oil and gas industry made nearly $140 billion in profits. The five largest oil companies made over $106 billion. ExxonMobil alone made a staggering $36 billion. Put another way, ExxonMobil's profit alone last year is more than the Federal Government spent on unemployment insurance, more than it spent on medical research, and more than it spent on the Nation's highways. Their CEO just got a $350 million retirement package. That is about $144,000 a day for every day he worked at the company. These record profits and gilded bonuses are occurring while the American people struggle to get to work, to get home, to pick up their kids from school, to take them to a soccer match, or to go to a doctor, all because of record gas prices. Last year, the big oil companies hiked gas prices and blamed an act of God. But it is crystal clear that the current spike in gas prices is at least partly due to an act of greed--greed that has been enabled and even encouraged by the administration, greed that has been aided by an energy bill that put the oil and gas companies first and the American people second. The energy companies were already enjoying record profits and massive tax breaks when the President signed an energy bill that gave them billions more in taxpayer subsidies, plus additional relief from having to pay royalties--in essence, the Nation's collective patrimony for the oil and gas they produce in our oceans. The last thing the oil companies need is more handouts. The first thing the American people need is more help. My amendment would give them that help by establishing a 60-day holiday on the Federal gas tax. As we head into the summer driving season and its traditionally higher gas prices, we should not be burdening American consumers with additional taxes. Temporarily suspending the gas tax will provide $100 million a day in relief to America's drivers, America's consumers. But we cannot starve the highway trust fund with the crucial money needed to fix our Nation's roads. My amendment will repeal three unnecessary tax breaks currently enjoyed by the oil and gas companies, and it will also eliminate royalty relief and other production incentives enacted last year as part of the Energy bill. With the price of oil as high as it is and unlikely to drop in the foreseeable future, companies don't need more incentive from the Federal Government to do their job. This amendment, of course, is only a short-term fix. We need a real energy policy that takes real steps toward ending our dependence on oil, not the lipservice the President has given this issue before and gave again this morning. I listened to what he had to say. The President talks about wanting to end our dependence on foreign oil, but instead of starting a Manhattan-type project to lead us to energy independence, we propose baby steps. The President's budget for fiscal year 2007 barely brought renewable and clean energy research funding back to 2001 levels, and it cut energy efficiency programs by 13 percent. In all the President's spending, there was only 23 percent of what Congress requested in the Energy Policy Act for energy efficiency programs and only 1 percent for renewable energy programs. The President continues to have the blinders on when it comes to real solutions for our energy problems. He said that consumers should buy more efficient cars, and we agree. But he remains opposed to higher fuel efficiency standards. The most recent CAFE standards will improve light truck mileage by only 2.5 miles per gallon. That is simply not enough. Passenger cars have the same standards they had in 1985, over two decades ago. That is not enough. The President also continues to expect the oil companies, out of the goodness of their hearts, to spend substantial amounts of money on alternative energy technologies. Some of the more forward-thinking companies are doing that, but most are not. It is the Government's job to invest in these technologies, and the President's budget has shown that he is not serious about doing that. In short, he suggests and he wants the oil companies and the American consumer to do the things he is unwilling to do. Last month, I joined Senator Bingaman and the Senate Democratic leader and other Democrats in offering an amendment to fully fund energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in the fiscal year 2007 budget. Unfortunately, it was defeated. Democrats in both Chambers have been at the forefront of proposing real solutions to our energy problems, and we were the first to call for the President to investigate price gouging by oil companies, a call he appears to finally have heeded. This amendment is another idea that this Congress and our President need to adopt. It is about providing immediate relief to overburdened consumers who cannot afford for us to wait much longer. This morning, the President finally appears to be feeling the pressure families have been feeling at the pump for quite some time. We heard what he had to say. The difference is that he doesn't make a commitment. He says we should phase out all of those tax benefits we have given the oil companies over the next decade, but he doesn't commit it back to America's consumers. Our amendment does that in the short term to give immediate relief to America's consumers while still maintaining our transportation trust funds, the funds necessary to continue to keep America moving. That is what this amendment is all about. It is about keeping America moving, about keeping America rolling, and about helping the families of this country in a very significant way. I think putting $6 billion in the hands and in the pockets of America's consumers is ultimately giving them real relief at a critical time. Obviously, putting that amount of money in their pockets at this time as they try to deal with high gas prices will have a ripple effect in the economy, as is also realized in the money that will be saved by those who bring to market produce which ends up on our tables, and the costs of the transportation of products to market across a wide scale of different consumer needs are going to be affected as well. We see consistently companies adding a fuel surcharge to the cost to the consumer. So this will have a ripple effect in many different ways, and it is something we have the wherewithal to do and do now and by doing so sending at the same time, I hope, a message to the world marketplace and certainly to OPEC that we are not hostage to them without some options of our own. Let's show American families that we are serious about addressing today's exorbitant gas prices. Let us adopt this amendment to provide real relief now. I urge my colleagues to join me and adopt this amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I tried to seek recognition to speak to the point of order. I simply wish to say this is consistent with what the President proposed this morning, so I believe we should have a vote on the Senate floor. If we don't have a vote today, we are going to continue to bring this measure before the body and will eventually get a vote. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the points of order which lie against this amendment, the amendment still be in order.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Simon Wiesenthal Holocaust Education Assistance Act.'' This important legislation would provide competitive grants for educational organizations to make Holocaust education more accessible and available throughout this Nation. And I would like to thank my colleague Senator DeWine for cosponsoring this legislation and my former colleague in the House, Congresswoman Maloney, for her leadership on this issue. This legislation could not come at a more important and solemn day in our lives. Today is Yom Hashoah, a day when we commemorate the approximately six million men, women and children of Jewish faith, as well as millions of others who were persecuted and murdered 65 years ago in a systematic, state sponsored genocide. Today, we also honor those who stood up against the genocide and risked their own lives to save others. Today we stand in solidarity with Israel and the Jewish faith, and with all people throughout the world, in remembering these tragic events. And today we honor Simon Wiesenthal who dedicated his life to making sure that those who perpetrated the horrors of the Holocaust were brought to justice. Sixty-five years may seem like a lifetime away, and generations may have been raised thinking that the Holocaust, and events like it, is from a distant past. But let me be clear--these events are not so distant and are not in the past. In fact, they are in our present. Just recently, Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hatefully and outrageously declared the Holocaust a ``myth'' and Israel a ``fake regime'' which ``cannot continue to live.'' And just two months ago, an anti-Semitic gang that calls themselves ``the Barbarians'' tortured 23-year-old Ilan Halimi, a young Jewish man, for three weeks before leaving him for dead near a train station in Paris. It is these events that make us aware of the destructive messages of hate and violence that arise from Holocaust denial. It is these events that show us the importance of Holocaust education, abroad and in our own Nation. For although some States now require the Holocaust to be taught in public schools, this legislation goes further and makes grants available to organizations that teach students, teachers, and communities the dangers of hate and the importance of tolerance in our society. This legislation would give educators the appropriate resources and training to teach accurate historical information about the Holocaust and convey the lessons that the Holocaust provides for all people. We must recognize that by remembering the millions who were murdered in the Holocaust, we create a sense of responsibility to stop genocide wherever it takes place. But we must also remember that hate crimes and genocide could, and are still, happening today. We are reminded, through the deplorable comments made by Iranian President Ahmadinejad against Israel and through the murder of young Ilan Halimi in France that anti-Semitism still exists even 65 years after the Holocaust. The awful acts of murder and rape in Darfur are a horrific example of genocide in the 21st century. And those who believe that anti-Semitism is an attack that need not be answered by those who are not Jewish do not recognize the consequences of history. In fact, an attack against anyone simply because of race or religion is ultimately the beginning of the unraveling of civilization. It is in our common interest to raise our voices against anti-Semitism and against all hatred and discrimination. We must fight the chorus of anti-Semitism and fight the fear and the hate. As a Nation proud of our diverse heritage, we must, each of us, take a stand. With our words, but most importantly with our actions, we will turn the tide against this new wave of anti-Semitism. And funding accurate educational programs on the Holocaust is a step toward winning this battle. In the words of Samantha Power, a renowned expert on genocide, ``the sharpest challenge to the world of bystanders is posed by those who have refused to remain silent in the age of genocide.'' So today, the United States of America stands with Israel and all followers of the Jewish faith in commemorating Yom Hashoah, and condemning all anti-Semitism and hatred. And I am proud to join in the stand against anti-Semitism here and around the world. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Simon Wiesenthal Holocaust Education Assistance Act.'' This important legislation would provide competitive grants for educational organizations to make Holocaust education more accessible and available throughout this Nation. And I would like to thank my colleague Senator DeWine for cosponsoring this legislation and my former colleague in the House, Congresswoman Maloney, for her leadership on this issue. This legislation could not come at a more important and solemn day in our lives. Today is Yom Hashoah, a day when we commemorate the approximately six million men, women and children of Jewish faith, as well as millions of others who were persecuted and murdered 65 years ago in a systematic, state sponsored genocide. Today, we also honor those who stood up against the genocide and risked their own lives to save others. Today we stand in solidarity with Israel and the Jewish faith, and with all people throughout the world, in remembering these tragic events. And today we honor Simon Wiesenthal who dedicated his life to making sure that those who perpetrated the horrors of the Holocaust were brought to justice. Sixty-five years may seem like a lifetime away, and generations may have been raised thinking that the Holocaust, and events like it, is from a distant past. But let me be clear--these events are not so distant and are not in the past. In fact, they are in our present. Just recently, Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hatefully and outrageously declared the Holocaust a ``myth'' and Israel a ``fake regime'' which ``cannot continue to live.'' And just two months ago, an anti-Semitic gang that calls themselves ``the Barbarians'' tortured 23-year-old Ilan Halimi, a young Jewish man, for three weeks before leaving him for dead near a train station in Paris. It is these events that make us aware of the destructive messages of hate and violence that arise from Holocaust denial. It is these events that show us the importance of Holocaust education, abroad and in our own Nation. For although some States now require the Holocaust to be taught in public schools, this legislation goes further and makes grants available to organizations that teach students, teachers, and communities the dangers of hate and the importance of tolerance in our society. This legislation would give educators the appropriate resources and training to teach accurate historical information about the Holocaust and convey the lessons that the Holocaust provides for all people. We must recognize that by remembering the millions who were murdered in the Holocaust, we create a sense of responsibility to stop genocide wherever it takes place. But we must also remember that hate crimes and genocide could, and are still, happening today. We are reminded, through the deplorable comments made by Iranian President Ahmadinejad against Israel and through the murder of young Ilan Halimi in France that anti-Semitism still exists even 65 years after the Holocaust. The awful acts of murder and rape in Darfur are a horrific example of genocide in the 21st century. And those who believe that anti-Semitism is an attack that need not be answered by those who are not Jewish do not recognize the consequences of history. In fact, an attack against anyone simply because of race or religion is ultimately the beginning of the unraveling of civilization. It is in our common interest to raise our voices against anti-Semitism and against all hatred and discrimination. We must fight the chorus of anti-Semitism and fight the fear and the hate. As a Nation proud of our diverse heritage, we must, each of us, take a stand. With our words, but most importantly with our actions, we will turn the tide against this new wave of anti-Semitism. And funding accurate educational programs on the Holocaust is a step toward winning this battle. In the words of Samantha Power, a renowned expert on genocide, ``the sharpest challenge to the world of bystanders is posed by those who have refused to remain silent in the age of genocide.'' So today, the United States of America stands with Israel and all followers of the Jewish faith in commemorating Yom Hashoah, and condemning all anti-Semitism and hatred. And I am proud to join in the stand against anti-Semitism here and around the world. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today the Senate has a historic opportunity with this cloture vote to move forward with tough, smart, and comprehensive immigration reform that secures our Nation's borders or to maintain the status quo of failed laws and a broken immigration system that is weak on enforcement and leaves our borders and our citizens unsecured. A vote for invoking cloture is a vote for an increase of 1,250 Customs and Border Protection officers, 2,500 port-of-entry inspectors, 1,000 personnel dedicated to the investigation of alien smuggling, 25,000 investigators, 12,000 new Border Patrol agents, 10,000 worksite enforcement agents, 5,000 fraud detection agents, and the acquisition of 20 new detention facilities to accommodate at least 10,000 detainees to ensure that we have tightened our border security and workplace enforcement. A vote for invoking cloture is a vote to create an equal playing field and ensure that American workers' wages, benefits and health and safety standards are not undercut. A vote for invoking cloture is also a vote to realize the economic realities in our society in which undocumented workers are bending their backs every day, picking the fruits and vegetables that end up on our kitchen tables, digging the ditches that lay the infrastructure for the future, cleaning the hotel and motel rooms for our travelers, plucking the chicken or deboning the meat that we had for dinner last night, and helping the aged, the sick and disabled meet their daily needs. This vote ensures that they are brought out of the darkness and into the light of America's promise. A vote for invoking cloture is a vote to create the possibility for those who contribute to our country a pathway to earn legalization--but only after they pay thousands of dollars in fines and fees, pass a criminal background check, go to the back of the line behind all applicants waiting for green cards, pay any and all back taxes, remain continuously employed going forward, pass a medical exam, and learn English and U.S. History and Government. A vote for cloture gives us greater security. But unlike the House bill, it doesn't criminalize innocent U.S. citizens--those, for example, like Catholic Charities--who give advice to immigrants, like those who give help to a rape victim or a battered woman. That is why I urge our colleagues to vote to invoke cloture on the Judiciary Committee bill.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Michael A. Chagares to be a Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. It is an honor that another person from my home State of New Jersey has been called to serve this Nation by the administration. The confirmation of a judge to a lifetime appointment is a vital responsibility given to this body by the Constitution and one that I take very seriously. Mr. Chagares has been nominated to replace the current Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, on the Third Circuit. No matter one's political persuasion, we all take pride in the honor that has been bestowed on a fellow New Jerseyan. Mr. Chagares is a New Jersey native who graduated from Gettysburg College and Seton Hall School of Law, with honors. Upon graduation, he clerked for Judge Greenberg on the Third Circuit. Over the past 15 years, Mr. Chagares has served the public with distinction in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey and has also worked in private practice. In addition, he is a popular Professor of both appellate advocacy and civil trial practice at Seton Hall. I believe this popularity is a testament to his ability to both convey the essence of the subject matter and do it in a way that excites a new generation of lawyers. The American Bar Association has rated Mr. Chagares as ``well qualified'' for the position that he has been nominated. It is a view that I share as well. I am pleased that see that people of his quality are willing to serve our Nation in the administration of justice, and join Senator Lautenberg in commending him to the Senate. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Mr. Chagares to be a judge on our Nation's Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, along with my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, to preserve seniors' and all patients' access to local pharmacies, doctors and hospitals. Since these providers are on the front lines of our communities' health care systems and often find themselves squeezed by insurance copies on the one hand and their obligation to take care of patients on the other, this bill aims to relieve their burden by requiring prescription drug managers, managed care plans and other private health insurers to pay health care claims in a timely fashion. The Prompt Payment of Health Benefits Claims Act bill seeks to address the financial strains being faced by hospitals and physicians in my State of New Jersey and across the country. In addition, this legislation would address the new financial crisis pharmacies are facing in light of the new Medicare Prescription Drug benefit. Specifically, the legislation requires prescription drug managers, private health plans and other private health insurers to pay manually filed claims within 30 days and electronically filed claims within 14 days. Insurers that fail to meet these timeframes would be required to pay interest for every day the claims goes unpaid. Insurers that knowingly violate these prompt payment requirements would be subject to monetary penalties. A Federal prompt pay law is critical to ensuring that our pharmacies and health care providers maintain adequate cash flows and are able to continue functioning. Seniors and all patients depend on their local pharmacists and preferred physicians. They are the providers that know their patients best and ensure that they receive the important care they need and deserve. The threat of local pharmacies, physicians and hospitals going out of business has serious consequences with regards to the kind of care the community will receive. The need for this legislation cannot be understated. In my State of New Jersey, local pharmacies have never had a more challenging financial situation. They are encountering lower reimbursement rates from the prescription drug managers and a 60-90 day lag time in reimbursements, which are putting many on the brink of going out of business. Almost half of all hospitals are operating in the red, and that number is growing. Physicians and hospitals are experiencing rising health care operating costs and tight Federal and State budgets. Untimely payment of claims has only compounded these problems. The problem of late payments has reached such a crisis that the majority of States, including New Jersey, have enacted ``prompt pay'' laws to require insurers to pay their bills within a specific timeframe. Unfortunately, New Jersey's law, like most similar State laws, is largely ineffective because it lacks strong enforcement provisions and offers no incentives for private insurers to comply. Furthermore, State prompt-pay laws apply only to State-regulated plans, which only cover approximately half of New Jerseyans that are insured. The bottom line is that pharmacies, physicians, hospitals and other health care providers should not have to shoulder the burden of unpaid claims. These local providers have fulfilled their commitment to care for patients, and my legislation will ensure that private insurers assume the financial responsibilities for the health coverage they are being paid to provide. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, along with my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, to preserve seniors' and all patients' access to local pharmacies, doctors and hospitals. Since these providers are on the front lines of our communities' health care systems and often find themselves squeezed by insurance copies on the one hand and their obligation to take care of patients on the other, this bill aims to relieve their burden by requiring prescription drug managers, managed care plans and other private health insurers to pay health care claims in a timely fashion. The Prompt Payment of Health Benefits Claims Act bill seeks to address the financial strains being faced by hospitals and physicians in my State of New Jersey and across the country. In addition, this legislation would address the new financial crisis pharmacies are facing in light of the new Medicare Prescription Drug benefit. Specifically, the legislation requires prescription drug managers, private health plans and other private health insurers to pay manually filed claims within 30 days and electronically filed claims within 14 days. Insurers that fail to meet these timeframes would be required to pay interest for every day the claims goes unpaid. Insurers that knowingly violate these prompt payment requirements would be subject to monetary penalties. A Federal prompt pay law is critical to ensuring that our pharmacies and health care providers maintain adequate cash flows and are able to continue functioning. Seniors and all patients depend on their local pharmacists and preferred physicians. They are the providers that know their patients best and ensure that they receive the important care they need and deserve. The threat of local pharmacies, physicians and hospitals going out of business has serious consequences with regards to the kind of care the community will receive. The need for this legislation cannot be understated. In my State of New Jersey, local pharmacies have never had a more challenging financial situation. They are encountering lower reimbursement rates from the prescription drug managers and a 60-90 day lag time in reimbursements, which are putting many on the brink of going out of business. Almost half of all hospitals are operating in the red, and that number is growing. Physicians and hospitals are experiencing rising health care operating costs and tight Federal and State budgets. Untimely payment of claims has only compounded these problems. The problem of late payments has reached such a crisis that the majority of States, including New Jersey, have enacted ``prompt pay'' laws to require insurers to pay their bills within a specific timeframe. Unfortunately, New Jersey's law, like most similar State laws, is largely ineffective because it lacks strong enforcement provisions and offers no incentives for private insurers to comply. Furthermore, State prompt-pay laws apply only to State-regulated plans, which only cover approximately half of New Jerseyans that are insured. The bottom line is that pharmacies, physicians, hospitals and other health care providers should not have to shoulder the burden of unpaid claims. These local providers have fulfilled their commitment to care for patients, and my legislation will ensure that private insurers assume the financial responsibilities for the health coverage they are being paid to provide. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, as we approach May, the National Month to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, I rise to introduce the Teen Pregnancy Prevention, Responsibility and Opportunity Act. This legislation will establish a comprehensive program for reducing adolescent pregnancy through education and information programs, as well as positive activities and role models both in and out of school. As parents, there is nothing more important than protecting our children and giving them a future filled with hope and opportunity. As leaders, we also have a responsibility to our young people--to provide resources for communities, parents, and children to help them achieve those goals. There are many ways we can provide parents with the tools they need to help kids make responsible decisions and avoid destructive behavior such as drug and alcohol abuse or sexual activity which can lead to unintended pregnancies. The U.S. continues to have the highest teen pregnancy rate and teen birth rate in the Western industrialized world. In a fiscal context, it costs the U.S. at least $7 billion annually, and in a human context, this impacts one third of all teenage girls. It is time to do something about it. Whi1e we have done a good job of progressively decreasing teen pregnancy, we can do much better. With the sons of teen mothers more likely to end up in prison, and the daughters of teen mothers more likely to end up teen mothers themselves, we must act now to break this problematic cycle. Our schools, community and faith-based organizations need access to funds to teach age-appropriate, factually and medically accurate, and scientifically-based family life education. We need programs that encourage teens to delay sexual activity. We need to provide services and interventions for sexually active teens. We need to educate both young men and women about the responsibilities and pressures that come along with parenting. We need to help parents communicate with teens about sexuality. We need to teach young people responsible decision making. And, we need to fund after school programs that will enrich their education, replace destructive behavior time with constructive activities, and offer character and counseling services. We know that after-school programs reduce risky adolescent behavior by involving teens in positive activities that also provide positive life skills. Teenage girls who play sports, for instance, are more likely to wait to become sexually active, and to have fewer partners. They are consequently less likely to become pregnant. Let us join together to recommit ourselves to continuing to decrease the incidence of teen pregnancy, and recommit ourselves to offering family life education and positive after school programs that will foster responsible young adults. The time is now to invest in our teens. As all parents know, we place overwhelming pressure on ourselves to make sure we raise our children well. Decisions we make--and they make--will affect them for the rest of their lives. We cannot afford to let the doors close on them. Instead we must continue to open the door of opportunity. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, as we approach May, the National Month to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, I rise to introduce the Teen Pregnancy Prevention, Responsibility and Opportunity Act. This legislation will establish a comprehensive program for reducing adolescent pregnancy through education and information programs, as well as positive activities and role models both in and out of school. As parents, there is nothing more important than protecting our children and giving them a future filled with hope and opportunity. As leaders, we also have a responsibility to our young people--to provide resources for communities, parents, and children to help them achieve those goals. There are many ways we can provide parents with the tools they need to help kids make responsible decisions and avoid destructive behavior such as drug and alcohol abuse or sexual activity which can lead to unintended pregnancies. The U.S. continues to have the highest teen pregnancy rate and teen birth rate in the Western industrialized world. In a fiscal context, it costs the U.S. at least $7 billion annually, and in a human context, this impacts one third of all teenage girls. It is time to do something about it. Whi1e we have done a good job of progressively decreasing teen pregnancy, we can do much better. With the sons of teen mothers more likely to end up in prison, and the daughters of teen mothers more likely to end up teen mothers themselves, we must act now to break this problematic cycle. Our schools, community and faith-based organizations need access to funds to teach age-appropriate, factually and medically accurate, and scientifically-based family life education. We need programs that encourage teens to delay sexual activity. We need to provide services and interventions for sexually active teens. We need to educate both young men and women about the responsibilities and pressures that come along with parenting. We need to help parents communicate with teens about sexuality. We need to teach young people responsible decision making. And, we need to fund after school programs that will enrich their education, replace destructive behavior time with constructive activities, and offer character and counseling services. We know that after-school programs reduce risky adolescent behavior by involving teens in positive activities that also provide positive life skills. Teenage girls who play sports, for instance, are more likely to wait to become sexually active, and to have fewer partners. They are consequently less likely to become pregnant. Let us join together to recommit ourselves to continuing to decrease the incidence of teen pregnancy, and recommit ourselves to offering family life education and positive after school programs that will foster responsible young adults. The time is now to invest in our teens. As all parents know, we place overwhelming pressure on ourselves to make sure we raise our children well. Decisions we make--and they make--will affect them for the rest of their lives. We cannot afford to let the doors close on them. Instead we must continue to open the door of opportunity. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, from the district I had the honor of representing over 13 years in the House of Representatives, one can see the Statue of Liberty. Ellis Island is a place that has been the gateway to opportunity for millions of new Americans. For me, it is a shining example of the power of the American dream, a place that launched millions down their own road to success. Like millions of Americans, my own parents came to this country fleeing tyranny in Cuba and searching for freedom. Because of this debate we continue today, this has a special and personal interest to me. America has a proud tradition as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. Unfortunately, our current immigration law and systems are broken and have failed us. We need tough, smart, and comprehensive immigration reform that reflects current economic and social realities, that respects the core values of family unity and fundamental fairness, and that upholds our tradition as a nation of immigrants. We need to aggressively curtail crossings at the border. We need tough border security and enforcement measures that prevent undocumented immigration so our immigration system is safe, legal, orderly, and fair to all. Our goal should be neither open borders nor closed borders but smart borders. In a post-September 11 world, our efforts must be tough and swift to ensure the borders of the United States are controlled. Unfortunately, that is not the case right now. We have all heard about and seen what is happening along our borders. Crimes are up in our border communities and overpowering local law enforcement's ability to address these challenges. So-called ``coyotes'' or human smugglers charge thousands to bring people into this country illegally. Because of this, organized criminal organizations have entered the business of trafficking humans into the United States. In fact, there are reports there is more money in smuggling undocumented aliens into our Nation than smuggling drugs. That is why the first step of any immigration reform proposal must be to secure our lax and broken immigration system. Our porous and dangerous border and uneven enforcement of our Nation's current laws are significant security risks. Immigration reform is needed to protect America and restore the rule of law. It is unbelievable, however, under the nature of that reality that when we look at the Clinton administration in 1999, 417 businesses were cited for undocumented immigration violations. If we look at the Bush administration in 2004, only three employers were issued notices by the Bush administration. That is why I support stronger immigration enforcement, not only at our borders but at our workplaces as well. We must take full command of both human capital and technology to truly secure the borders. This can be done by stronger screening at our consulates and ports of entry, better use of technology, such as unmanned aerial vehicles along our borders, and ensuring that our border agencies have both the necessary staff and the resources to do their jobs. Time and time again, we in Congress have passed many of these provisions into law. The question is not whether we will pass them again but whether we will actually provide the funding to make these security improvements a reality. Over a year and 3 months ago, President Bush signed into law the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. I was one of the conferees on that bill. I would remind our colleagues that it contained over 40 sections and 100 pages of immigration-related provisions. These tough but smart, new measures included, among others, adding thousands of additional Border Patrol agents, Immigration and Customs investigators, detention beds, and criminalizing the smuggling of immigrants, just as the 9/11 Commission recommended. Now, I am sure the American people assume that their Government not only implemented but also fully funded these tough measures to secure our borders and ensure our Nation's safety. Unfortunately, the President and this Congress have chosen not to do so. In fact, as part of the fiscal year 2006 appropriations process, Congress has only funded 1,500 of the 2,000 new Border Patrol agents called for this year by that law, less than half of the 800 immigration enforcement investigators, less than half of the 8,000 additional detention beds required. So much for being tough and for fully funding what has already been passed and called for. While the Senate must be tough and smart in the legislation it passes, I do not want it to be mean-spirited. I was still a Member of the House of Representatives last December when that body considered the Sensenbrenner bill, H.R. 4437. Beyond the heated rhetoric that existed during the debate on that legislation, the bill itself was shortsighted and even mean-spirited. Since it makes a felon out of anyone who is here in an undocumented status, it would require the most massive roundup and deportation of people in the history of the world. I believe that is both highly unlikely and impractical on many levels, including due to both the budgetary and economic impact on our Nation and its economy. That bill would also criminalize citizens of the United States. Under the guise of a much broader definition of smuggling, that bill could allow the Government to prosecute almost any American who has regular contact with undocumented immigrants. Under the Sensenbrenner bill, an American citizen who helps an undocumented alien under any of these circumstances would be found guilty: A rape crisis counselor who is assisting a woman who has been raped would be guilty of a crime for ``assisting''; the church group that provides food aid, shelter, or other assistance to members of its community would be guilty of a crime for ``assisting or encouraging''; an aid worker who finds an illegal entrant suffering from dehydration in the desert and drives that person to a hospital would be guilty of a crime for ``transporting''; a counselor who assists a victim of domestic violence and her children would be guilty of a crime for ``assisting or encouraging''; Catholic Charities or other faith-based groups or lawyers who give advice on immigration procedures would be guilty of a crime. I don't believe any of those provisions are the Christian values we so often hear talked about on the Senate floor. Because of those very troubling provisions, I certainly could not vote for that legislation. In doing so, I hoped that the Senate would work not as Democrats or Republicans but as Americans to bring our policies in line with our Nation's ideals and values. History is replete with examples of the United States of America being a welcoming nation. But, unfortunately, the public dialog through the years has been less than welcoming. Over the decades, the influx of immigrants of various ethnicities has caused concerns and in many cases heated comments against such immigrants to our Nation. In some cases, there were even laws enacted to limit or ban certain ethnicities from being able to come to the land of opportunity. Before the American revolution, Founding Father Benjamin Franklin wrote of the influx of German immigrants to Philadelphia. He said: Those who come hither are generally the most stupid of their own nation. Henry Gardner, the Governor of Massachusetts, in the middle of the 19th century, saw the Irish as a ``horde of foreign barbarians.'' Finally, a 1925 report of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce stated that Mexicans are suitable for agricultural work ``due to their crouching and bending habits . . . , while the white is physically unable to adapt himself to them.'' We should not stand for rhetoric that focuses solely on the weak and says nothing about those who benefit the most from immigrants' contributions--the corporations and, ultimately, all of us, the consumers of these goods and services. Let's face it, we are all a part of the equation that contributes to this unfortunate situation in which we currently find ourselves--the fortunate among us in our country who have nannies to care for our children, maids to clean our hotels, motels, and even our homes, landscapers who maintain our lawns, and so many others who make a difference in our daily lives. Yet they seem to be invisible to us. Yet they, too, those who employ them, are part of the problem as well. It does not end with the rhetoric. There has been a concerted effort over the past few years, through piecemeal proposals, to make our civil servants do things they do not even have the proper training to do. These efforts have included anything from trying to make our caregivers and doctors into police officers and our school teachers into INS and border security agents. Changes to our immigration system cannot be done in a patchwork approach. They need to be undertaken in a comprehensive manner that can provide us with a safe and orderly immigration system that preserves family values, rewards hard work and sacrifice, and is in the national interest and benefits all Americans. Now, let me be clear. I am first and foremost for hiring any American who is willing to do any job that is available in this country, any American who wants to do the backbreaking work that is so needed in our agricultural sector, to clean the bathrooms in our hotels on their hands and knees, and to do the work in our meat-packing plants across our Nation. These are done largely by immigrants. They should be available to any American who wants to do it first. But many of us know all too well this is not the case. Like my parents--and I am sure many others here--immigrants have not come to this country to be taken care of. They have come to work hard--very hard--to provide for their families, and all they want is a better life for their children. It is in the national interest to have all those here seeking the American dream to be able to fully participate and contribute to American society. Those who bend their back every day picking the fruits and vegetables that end up on our kitchen tables are part of America. Those who, through the sweat of their labor, dig the ditches that lay the infrastructure for the future are part of America. Those who are on their knees cleaning the hotel and motel rooms for our travelers are part of America. Those who plucked the chicken or deboned the meat we had for dinner last night are part of America. And those whose steady hands and warm hearts help the aged, the sick, and disabled meet their daily needs are part of America. These men and women who, through hard work and sacrifice, are seeking the American dream need to be brought out of the darkness and into the light of America's promise. It is in the national security interest of the United States to know who is here to seek the American dream versus who is here to destroy it. That is why I support the comprehensive immigration reform proposal that was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in a bipartisan manner. It is perfect? No. But it is tough, smart, and balanced, unlike either the Sensenbrenner bill or the bill offered by the majority leader. The Judiciary-reported bill will enforce our laws, protect our national and homeland security, while also reflecting current economic realities and respecting the core values of family unity and fundamental fairness. It secures our borders through the increased use of aerial vehicles and sensors, while increasing the number of Border Patrol agents and immigration enforcement investigators. The Judiciary Committee bill has very strong border security and enforcement provisions that go even beyond the bill offered by the majority leader. For example, it makes tunneling under our borders a Federal crime, adds new criminal penalties for evading immigration officers, makes manslaughter an aggravated felony, and adds 12,000 new Border Patrol agents over the next 5 years. This bill provides a way for future workers to safely migrate to the United States in a legal process, works with labor and worker protections, and addresses the family backlog so that families can be reunited. The Judiciary Committee legislation would also allow the possibility for temporary guest worker permits. Those who try to portray the bill as amnesty are, I believe, moving us in a direction to seek to, in essence, express the sense of fear. In fact, the Judiciary Committee legislation would punish those who are here in an undocumented status by requiring them to meet all of the following requirements before they can even join the path toward earned legalization. They would have to pay a couple thousand dollars in fines and fees. They would have to pass a criminal background check. They would have to go to the back of the line behind all applicants waiting for green cards. They would have to pay any and all back taxes. They would have to remain continuously employed going forward. They would have to pass a medical exam, and, yes, they would have to learn English and learn U.S. history and government. So as Senator Graham stated, this is an 11-year path--an 11-year path--to earned citizenship, not amnesty. There is a broad and diverse coalition supporting the comprehensive immigration reform in the Judiciary bill. This unusual coalition includes individuals and organizations from our business, civic, civil rights, faith, immigrant, and labor communities. So in closing, let me commend Senators Specter, Leahy, Kennedy, Graham, and all the Senators on the Judiciary Committee for the work they did in producing a bill that moves us much closer to once again controlling our borders, while upholding our tradition as a nation of immigrants and laws. However we got here, from wherever we came, we know that we are now in the same boat together as Americans. And together, hopefully, this Senate will act to make this journey a safe, orderly, and legal process that preserves and fulfills that American dream for all. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution honoring the African American Spiritual as a national treasure. This important piece of legislation recognizes that the African American spiritual is a poignant and powerful genre of American music that contributes to the cultural richness of our country. I am very proud to sponsor this resolution and grateful to the individuals who helped make this landmark occasion possible. In particular, I would like to thank Calvin Earl, a New Jersey native, who is a noted performer and educator on African American spirituals for his vision and dedication in helping make this resolution a reality. I also would like to thank the staff at the American Folklife Center in the Library of Congress for their endless expertise and insight.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to block U.S. support for yet another anti-Armenian initiative. In numerous cases over the last few years, the Turkish government has methodically sought to isolate Armenia economically, politically and socially. One of the most egregious examples was the imposition of a 1993 blockade against Armenia in support of Azerbaijan's war against Karabakh Armenians. The Turkish government has routinely sought to exclude Armenia from projects that would benefit the economies of the countries of the South Caucasus. The latest example of this policy is the proposal to build a new rail line that would connect Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan. Similar to the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, this rail link would specifically go around Armenia. Now, geographically, we all know that a pipeline or rail line that seeks to connect Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan would have to pass through Armenia. One would have to make a special effort to bypass Armenia. The U.S. should not endorse Turkey and Azerbaijan's politically motivated attempt to isolate Armenia. I therefore rise today in opposition to this plan, and to introduce legislation, along with my colleague, Senator Santorum, that would bar U.S. support and funding for a rail link connecting Georgia and Turkey, and which specifically excludes Armenia. This project is estimated to cost up to $800 million and would take three years to complete. The aim of this costly approach, as publicly stated by Azeri President Aliyev, is to isolate Armenia by enhancing the ongoing Turkish and Azerbaijani blockades and to keep the existing Turkey-Armenia-Georgia rail link shut down. This ill-conceived project runs counter to U.S. policy, ignores the standing Kars-Gyumri rail route, is politically and economically flawed and serves to destabilize the region. U.S. policy in the South Caucasus seeks to foster regional cooperation and economic integration and supports open borders and transport and communication corridors. U.S. support for this project would run counter to that policy which is why Senator Santorum and I are introducing this legislation today. We cannot continue to stoke the embers of regional conflict by supporting projects that deliberately exclude one of the region's most important members. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to block U.S. support for yet another anti-Armenian initiative. In numerous cases over the last few years, the Turkish government has methodically sought to isolate Armenia economically, politically and socially. One of the most egregious examples was the imposition of a 1993 blockade against Armenia in support of Azerbaijan's war against Karabakh Armenians. The Turkish government has routinely sought to exclude Armenia from projects that would benefit the economies of the countries of the South Caucasus. The latest example of this policy is the proposal to build a new rail line that would connect Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan. Similar to the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, this rail link would specifically go around Armenia. Now, geographically, we all know that a pipeline or rail line that seeks to connect Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan would have to pass through Armenia. One would have to make a special effort to bypass Armenia. The U.S. should not endorse Turkey and Azerbaijan's politically motivated attempt to isolate Armenia. I therefore rise today in opposition to this plan, and to introduce legislation, along with my colleague, Senator Santorum, that would bar U.S. support and funding for a rail link connecting Georgia and Turkey, and which specifically excludes Armenia. This project is estimated to cost up to $800 million and would take three years to complete. The aim of this costly approach, as publicly stated by Azeri President Aliyev, is to isolate Armenia by enhancing the ongoing Turkish and Azerbaijani blockades and to keep the existing Turkey-Armenia-Georgia rail link shut down. This ill-conceived project runs counter to U.S. policy, ignores the standing Kars-Gyumri rail route, is politically and economically flawed and serves to destabilize the region. U.S. policy in the South Caucasus seeks to foster regional cooperation and economic integration and supports open borders and transport and communication corridors. U.S. support for this project would run counter to that policy which is why Senator Santorum and I are introducing this legislation today. We cannot continue to stoke the embers of regional conflict by supporting projects that deliberately exclude one of the region's most important members. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I am honored to address the Senate in celebration of the 185th anniversary of Greek independence. On March 25, 1821, the Greeks revolted against nearly 400 years of repressive rule by the Ottoman Empire and began their journey toward independence. And in honor of that historic day, the United States and Greece stand together in our commitment to the principles of democracy, freedom, and independence. In honor of that day, we celebrate the achievements and contributions of the Greek state and her people. We honor Greece's accomplishments in history, science, philosophy, mathematics, literature, and art. In honor of that day, we recognize and celebrate our own democratic heritage in this Nation. The Greeks believed in self-governance, and our Founding Fathers incorporated the ancient Greeks' political experience and philosophy when they formed our representative democracy. Greek ideas of government and freedom have had an immense and unparalleled influence in the world and in this Nation. And I would like to thank the Greek people for leading the way and giving us the inspiration to pursue these ideals. In honor of that day, we celebrate the contributions of the more than 1 million Greek-Americans in this country. In New Jersey alone, there are over 61,000 Greek-Americans who contribute daily to the economic, political, and cultural fabric of this Nation. Over the years, not only has Greece supported the United States in every major international conflict in the last century, but it has stood by this country after the September 11 terrorist attacks. And Greece generously supported us with aid after the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina here on our soil. And we should stand with Greece and protect the human and religious rights of the Ecumenical Patriarch. This is an issue that not only affects the Greek community but is important to all communities. We must protect the rights of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as Turkey has: refused to recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate's international status and its significance to Orthodox Christians around the world, impeded training for the clergy while requiring that all candidates for the Holy Synod be Turkish nationals; confiscated 75 percent of the Ecumenical Patriarchal properties, and levied a 42 percent retroactive tax on the Balukli Hospital which is run by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Last year, as Member of the House, I authored a resolution calling on Turkey to eliminate all forms of discrimination and to respect the human and religious rights of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. And that language sent a strong message to Turkey when it was included in the State Department authorization bill which passed the House last year. Now, as a U.S. Senator, I will remain firm in my position and will continue to work hard to make sure Turkey ends its discrimination and persecution against the Ecumenical Patriarchate. As Aeschines, one of ancient Greece's more gifted orators once said, ``In a democracy, it is the laws that guard the person of the citizen and the constitution of the state, whereas the despot and the oligarch find their protection in suspicion and in armed guards.'' From the history of democracy to the religious freedom and human rights of the Ecumenical patriarchate, we in this Nation share this common vision with Greece and her people. And the United States of America stands proudly with Greece in honor of our shared commitment to democracy, freedom, and independence.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today, I am introducing new legislation to address the critical issue of access to information about guns traced to crimes. This bill would repeal restrictions on the release of crime gun trace data from the Federal Government to State and local police. It goes without saying that the more we understand a problem and its sources, the more proficient we will be in our attempt to create a solution that works. That is especially true when talking about guns that are used to commit crimes. One study has shown that 1.2 percent of gun dealers sell 57 percent of guns later traced to criminal investigations. The State that I have the honor of representing in the Senate, New Jersey, has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet hundreds, if not thousands, of off-limit customers, such as those under age or those who do not have a license, wind up with such weapons each month. And the overwhelming majority of guns used to commit crimes in our State's cities were originally sold in compliance with the law in other States. In fact, a large majority of the guns used to commit crimes in Jersey City, Newark, and Camden traveled up the East Coast along I-95, which has been called the ``Iron Pipeline.'' This is truly a paradox that has not only frustrated law enforcement agents, but elected officials too. That is why the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives's Crime Gun Trace Reports (CGTRs) were created to provide information to three different audiences: Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies; federal Firearm Licensees (FFL); and the public, Congress, and State and local authorities. According to the reports released in July 2002, 85 percent of the traced guns used to commit crimes in Jersey City and Newark, and 77 percent of those used in Camden, were originally purchased outside of New Jersey. And more than 67 percent of crime guns recovered in Jersey City were originally purchased more than 250 miles away. This is exactly the type of information that assists law enforcement officials in placing local crime guns in a regional and national strategic enforcement context and would allow Federal, State, and local elected officials to develop national, regional, and local strategic responses to gun crime. Unfortunately, every year for the past few years Republicans in the House have slipped a provision into law to prohibit the release of this information to anyone other than ``. . . a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency or a prosecutor solely in a criminal investigation or prosecution.'' This amendment effectively prohibits information from reaching Congress, and State and local authorities, and the public. This even limits how Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies can use these Crime Gun Trace Reports. It only allows law enforcement agencies to use these reports to investigate a crime that has already been committed. So, it only allows law enforcement officials to retroactively punish crime, rather than proactively preventing it from happening in the first place. That is why I am introducing legislation to make this gun crime data public again. It will not only help law enforcement prosecute gun crimes, but will also increase public awareness about where these guns originated. Until now, the restrictions have been imposed through the annual appropriations process, which means they end at the end of each fiscal year, or September 30. However, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow on legislation that would write these restrictions into law permanently. Why is this information being concealed from the American people? It certainly contains no classified or sensitive national security material. The taxpayers have paid for information to be collected and the reports to be prepared, so why do they not deserve access to the information? And why is it illegal for Federal, State and local policymakers and law enforcement officials to use these reports in the way they were envisioned: to better understand and combat the scourge of gun violence that plagues our cities? Denying police access to this information about crime gun traces helps no one but the bad guys. Our families' safety should never take a backseat to the demands of radical interest groups seeking only to further their own narrow agenda. Congress needs to pass my legislation--instead we need to stand up for our families. I urge my colleagues to join me in this important effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today, I am introducing new legislation to address the critical issue of access to information about guns traced to crimes. This bill would repeal restrictions on the release of crime gun trace data from the Federal Government to State and local police. It goes without saying that the more we understand a problem and its sources, the more proficient we will be in our attempt to create a solution that works. That is especially true when talking about guns that are used to commit crimes. One study has shown that 1.2 percent of gun dealers sell 57 percent of guns later traced to criminal investigations. The State that I have the honor of representing in the Senate, New Jersey, has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet hundreds, if not thousands, of off-limit customers, such as those under age or those who do not have a license, wind up with such weapons each month. And the overwhelming majority of guns used to commit crimes in our State's cities were originally sold in compliance with the law in other States. In fact, a large majority of the guns used to commit crimes in Jersey City, Newark, and Camden traveled up the East Coast along I-95, which has been called the ``Iron Pipeline.'' This is truly a paradox that has not only frustrated law enforcement agents, but elected officials too. That is why the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives's Crime Gun Trace Reports (CGTRs) were created to provide information to three different audiences: Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies; federal Firearm Licensees (FFL); and the public, Congress, and State and local authorities. According to the reports released in July 2002, 85 percent of the traced guns used to commit crimes in Jersey City and Newark, and 77 percent of those used in Camden, were originally purchased outside of New Jersey. And more than 67 percent of crime guns recovered in Jersey City were originally purchased more than 250 miles away. This is exactly the type of information that assists law enforcement officials in placing local crime guns in a regional and national strategic enforcement context and would allow Federal, State, and local elected officials to develop national, regional, and local strategic responses to gun crime. Unfortunately, every year for the past few years Republicans in the House have slipped a provision into law to prohibit the release of this information to anyone other than ``. . . a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency or a prosecutor solely in a criminal investigation or prosecution.'' This amendment effectively prohibits information from reaching Congress, and State and local authorities, and the public. This even limits how Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies can use these Crime Gun Trace Reports. It only allows law enforcement agencies to use these reports to investigate a crime that has already been committed. So, it only allows law enforcement officials to retroactively punish crime, rather than proactively preventing it from happening in the first place. That is why I am introducing legislation to make this gun crime data public again. It will not only help law enforcement prosecute gun crimes, but will also increase public awareness about where these guns originated. Until now, the restrictions have been imposed through the annual appropriations process, which means they end at the end of each fiscal year, or September 30. However, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow on legislation that would write these restrictions into law permanently. Why is this information being concealed from the American people? It certainly contains no classified or sensitive national security material. The taxpayers have paid for information to be collected and the reports to be prepared, so why do they not deserve access to the information? And why is it illegal for Federal, State and local policymakers and law enforcement officials to use these reports in the way they were envisioned: to better understand and combat the scourge of gun violence that plagues our cities? Denying police access to this information about crime gun traces helps no one but the bad guys. Our families' safety should never take a backseat to the demands of radical interest groups seeking only to further their own narrow agenda. Congress needs to pass my legislation--instead we need to stand up for our families. I urge my colleagues to join me in this important effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, as I have been traveling across the State of New Jersey on a listening tour, I have heard from countless seniors and their loved ones that the new prescription drug plan has brought much confusion, concern, and difficulty. In townhall meetings and in senior homes, these sentiments of puzzlement are echoed over and over again. Knowing the challenges seniors are facing, I am committed to doing whatever it takes to make this drug benefit something that helps instead of hurts, which is why I am speaking in support of Senator Nelson's amendment. This amendment will make sure that instead of penalizing our seniors for taking a little more time in choosing a plan, it will accommodate them. This amendment will make sure that instead of penalizing our seniors for choosing the wrong plan, it will give them the flexibility to change to the right one. It is already March 14, just about 2 months before the May 15 deadline for seniors to signup for a plan without being penalized by the late enrollment fee. And the tune I hear in New Jersey and across the country hasn't changed. Seniors need more time to figure out how the new program works and which drug plan is best for them. And it isn't just the seniors that need more time--let's not forget that the Federal Government needed more time, too. As a matter of fact, when the new drug plan was implemented, New Jersey, like many other States, stepped up to the plate to provide emergency drug coverage to ensure that no one went without the lifesaving drugs they needed. They did not do it because that was planned; they did it because it was the right thing to do. They did it to make sure that there was no loss of life or emergency hospitalization due to the inability for individuals to get their lifesaving and life-enhancing drugs. The Federal Government dropped the ball, and our States picked it up. While the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have agreed to reimburse New Jersey and other States for their emergency coverage costs, our States still haven't seen a check, and it will probably be a while until they. I think our seniors deserve the same flexibility and understanding granted to our Government. We have a responsibility in Washington to ensure that the initial confusion and problems with implementation do not go any farther. Our seniors should not be punished for the shortfalls of this new drug benefit. It is an issue of fairness. It is about keeping your word, about being accountable. And today we have the opportunity to give our seniors the much needed extension of time and flexibility they need to choose a plan. I voted against the Medicare Modernization Act at the time because I didn't think it would provide adequate assistance, and I have been sorry to see that the implementation has not gone as promised. However, this is the prescription drug plan we have, and we must do everything we can to make it as helpful and beneficial as possible. For that reason, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting Senator Nelson's amendment. It is the least we can do to make things right.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Byrd- Lautenberg amendment to provide additional funding for Amtrak, and I do so to protect the 25 million people who ride Amtrak each year, as well as the one hundred thousand New Jersey commuters who depend on Amtrak's infrastructure every day. The current level of funding in this budget for Amtrak does not recognize the tremendous benefits generated by intercity rail in this country. Not the billions of dollars generated in commerce, nor the thousands of businesses along the Northeast Corridor whose employees are dependent on Amtrak, nor the national security value of having an additional mode of transportation, nor the benefits to our environment by taking cars off the road. Every year, we hear complaints that Amtrak has already received too much money from the Federal Government, but the fact is that we have spent less money on Amtrak in the last 35 years than we will on highways in this year alone. And highways don't pay for themselves, even with the gas tax. Neither does mass transit, either in this country or anywhere else in the world. But we subsidize them because they improve the quality of our lives. And that is what transportation is about. It is not just getting from one place to another. It is about creating jobs, revitalizing neighborhoods, stimulating commerce, redeveloping underutilized land, and making us more secure. We have never provided the kind of commitment to Amtrak that we have for other modes of transportation, and this amendment will be an important step to getting Amtrak off the starvation budgets that it has subsisted on for far too long. A vote for the Byrd-Lautenberg amendment is a vote for a strong Amtrak, and a stable national network of intercity rail, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Another issue that I would like to bring up regarding the Amtrak budget is the misconception that New Jersey and other States along the Northeast Corridor are not paying their fair share. I believe that misconception may have led to the insertion of a provision in the fiscal year 2006 transportation appropriations bill that directed the Department of Transportation to assess additional fees to commuter railroads on the Northeast Corridor. New Jersey currently pays over $100 million a year to Amtrak, and has invested roughly $1.8 billion in the Northeast Corridor since 1991. New Jersey Transit also maintains and operates the stations along the corridor in New Jersey, all at no cost to Amtrak. It pays no operating subsidy because the Northeast Corridor turns an operating profit. But this new provision in the appropriations bill could cost New Jersey tens of millions of additional dollars, a cost which would eventually be borne by New Jersey commuters. As we continue this debate throughout the year, I hope that my colleagues will recognize the investment that New Jersey already makes for intercity passenger rail, and I look forward to working with them to come to a resolution that ensures equitability for all States.