Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a minute in opposition.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate just voted to concur with me that we need to spend about $1 billion on port security. The difference between this amendment which we just passed and the amendment we are about to vote on is that this is real money that we paid for, and we direct the money in a more comprehensive way to fund security operations at our ports. This amendment puts us on the road to 100 percent scanning of containers entering into this country by increasing the number of inspectors abroad and funding the latest technology in our own ports. I strongly believe we need to strengthen security. This will put us on the road to increasing scanning, inspections, funding for port security grants, and creating real security here at home. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Kohl, Biden, Sarbanes, and Mikulski as cosponsors.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I am pleased my Republican colleagues have joined my call to strengthen security at our ports by offering this amendment to increase port security funding by $978 million. Last week our colleagues voted down in the Budget Committee, on party lines, my amendment to increase port security funding by $965 million. So I am glad our colleagues are about to vote for port security funding right after they voted against it last week. We know our ports are one of the weakest links in our Nation's homeland security system, and it is crucial that this Nation act to make them more secure before a terrorist attack, not after. I applaud the increased funding for the Coast Guard in this amendment. I would like this body to continue to work on how we allocate the money this amendment provides, so we can increase the number of containers that are actually scanned or inspected before they enter the country. I hope we will have the opportunity to do so in conference.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, let me make three quick points. No. 1, we don't raise taxes here. We fully pay for it by closing corporate tax loopholes that the Senate has voted on before. That is much more important to be done, closing those loopholes in favor of security, than keeping them open. Second, this is not about physically going into each container, but it is about scanning each container so we can see its contents, because only 5 percent get screened. Screened is not an inspection, physical or otherwise. That means 95 percent of the cargo that comes into the United States is really untouched. Last, we cannot have it both ways. Either that $4 billion that the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire talks about is about the northern and southern border and border patrol and inspection and the Iraq contingency funding, or it is about port security. But it cannot be about both. If you want to protect the ports of the United States, if you want to make sure the economic consequences of an attack do not take place, if you want to make sure that we save lives, the only way to do that is to adopt the Menendez amendment. I urge our colleagues to do so. We believe in doing so we will have come a significant way on securing the ports of the Nation and, most importantly, securing the citizens of this country.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kennedy- Collins-Menendez amendment. It is an amendment that sends an important message to our Nation. Yes, budgets are about values and priorities. We tell our children in this country that education is a fundamental value that is of the highest importance, and then we submit a budget that speaks of much different values than that which, in fact, we hold up to our children. If this amendment is passed, it says: If you work hard, if you are aiming for a goal, we will help you achieve it. It says no matter the happenstance of where you were born, the station in life into which you were born, we will give you the opportunity to fulfill your God-given potential. That is what this amendment says. It says we are willing to make the investments necessary in our young people to strengthen our country's future. However, the budget before us does none of those things. I sat as a member of the Budget Committee listening through this process and, I must say, eventually cuts have to come from someplace. The suggestion that everything is in the education budget that we have had in the past is simply not reality. At the end of the day, we are still over $700 million short in higher education than from where we were. It does nothing to increase the maximum Pell grant, and we can see from this chart no matter what we talk about in terms of how we try to portray the numbers, there is one unmistakable fact: In the cost of attendance at a 4-year college institution, at a public college, versus the ability of what you can maximally achieve with a Pell grant, there is a huge gap, and that gap has continued to grow. So what we are telling our young people is, yes, education is a value, a higher education, college education degree is incredibly important for your own fulfillment, for the Nation's success in a global economy, but, sorry, we are just largely not going to help you. You are going to have to do that on your own. You are going to have to borrow and graduate under a mountain of debt. That is not a value that I think Americans share. They want to see the fulfillment of their children's potential realized. So this does nothing to increase the maximum Pell grant, which will be frozen for the fifth year, and will decrease the actual real dollars in values as it has over the last 4 years. It does nothing to increase work-study grants, which will mean 1,000 fewer students will receive awards next year. It would take away low-cost loans in terms of the underlying budget for nearly a half million low-income students, loans that are forgiven--forgiven--for those who are serving in vital public service sectors such as teachers, nurses, law enforcement, or military officers. It will mean that more than 1.5 million low-income students would lose out on early intervention and college preparation programs that help make sure they are enrolled in and graduate from college. That is why I am proud to be offering this amendment with my distinguished colleague and a tremendous leader on education, Senator Kennedy. I am also glad to be joined with Senator Collins in this effort. This amendment provides a real opportunity to change the course of events for our Nation and to meet our competitive future.

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

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3054 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of not only myself but Senators Clinton, Durbin, Lautenberg, Boxer, Nelson of Florida, and Lieberman. I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator Reed of Rhode Island and Senator Schumer as cosponsors.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the 9/11 Commission told us that to prevent a terrorist attack, we had to think outside the box. If an ordinary envelope could be turned into a biological weapon and a passenger plane into a weapon of mass destruction, then it takes little imagination to see how a container could be used to transport a nuclear weapon to the port of New York and New Jersey, or any other seaport, causing tens of thousands of casualties. The 9/11 Commission told us to think outside the box, but when it comes to port security, I believe we must think inside the container. The bottom line is, we don't know what is inside the vast majority of containers entering this country because despite repeated warnings from security experts from both within and without our Government, only 1 of every 20 containers that passes through our ports is inspected-- inspected. That is very important. Not screened but inspected. Ninety- five percent of the cargo received no inspection other than a cursory glance at the cargo manifest. Now, let me point out what the Government Accounting Office said when it stated that the manifest information, the listing of what goes into these containers ``may be unreliable and incomplete. There is no method to routinely verify whether the manifest data accurately reflects the contents within the cargo container.'' That is why I am offering this amendment with our colleagues, which will put us on the road to 100 percent container scanning. As port security experts Stephen Flynn and James Loy point out--James Loy was the former Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security and the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and Stephen Flynn is well known in this field. They said: To ensure port security, we must construct a comprehensive global container inspection system that scans the contents of every single container destined for America's waterfront before it leaves a port. We need to take advantage of existing technologies that can scan the inside of a container and create a downloadable image of what is inside. That image can be viewed in real time back here in the United States so we know what exactly is in these containers. When this technology is combined with scans for radioactive materials, we can find dangerous materials before it is too late. That is why our amendment provides $105 million for this dual technology in the United States. It provides $50 million to help developing countries which may not have the funds to buy this new technology. In fact, these ports could be the weakest link in our international port security chain. We must be sure they do not become easy targets for terrorists looking for lax security practices. And it provides $10 million to make sure the United States can integrate these new technologies into our existing scanning and inspection system. While we are waiting for this new international scanning system to become fully operational, we must make sure we increase inspections through our existing programs and improve on-the-ground security at our ports. That is why this amendment provides $100 million for at least 400 additional inspectors, both here and abroad. I would note the funding in my amendment is specifically for staff at ports, both here and abroad. I believe we need to make this increase in port security and staffing explicit in our budget. I would also note that the Government Accounting Office--in a report on the container security initiative, which is supposedly this administration's focus on how we do the best we can as it relates to port security, and which is designed to target and inspect high-risk cargo before it leaves the ports, pointed out that staffing problems-- the GAO specifically noted that: Staffing imbalances are one of the factors which limit the Custom and Border Patrol's ability to successfully target containers to determine if they are high-risk. The Government Accounting Office went on to say: As a result of staffing shortages abroad, 35 percent of U.S.-bound shipments from these CSI ports were not targeted and were not subject to inspection overseas . . . The essence, the key goal of the CSI program, they said it wasn't accomplished. In the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, the C-TPAT Program, staffing was also a problem. Specifically, the GAO report points out that the Customs and Border Patrol is not able to validate the self-reported information of C-TPAT members because of ``staffing constraints.'' This means companies which receive less scrutiny and inspection under the C-TPAT Program receive these benefits before ``they undergo the validation process, which is the Custom and Border Patrol's method to verify that members' characterization of their security measures are accurate and that the security measures have been implemented.'' We also provide $600 million for the Port Security Grant Program, more than tripling last year's budget. As this budget reflects no changes over the President's request, we can only assume there is no specific money going to port security grants. The American Association of Port Authorities notes that their recommendation to double the funds is only ``a modest investment.'' In fact, they point out that doubling these funds would represent ``36 percent of the Coast Guard's projected cost of the facility improvements.'' I believe that falls short of the mark. Security experts tell us that we could more than triple the funding for these grants, and we still wouldn't meet the requirements to implement security measures at our Nation's ports. Finally, we must make sure that we have cutting edge technology to safeguard our ports. This amendment provides $100 million for research and development. Up to now, we have not focused enough on creating second generation technologies for nonintrusive inspections, which the private sector is unlikely to develop. It is time for that to change. Strengthening security at our ports will not be cheap, and given the budgetary challenges our Nation faces, every dollar is hard to come by. But the status quo is unacceptable. An attack on one of our ports would not just cause a tremendous loss of life that has no monetary equivalent, but would also shut down a port and all of the economic activity it generates at a cost of billions of dollars to our economy. If we could roll back the clock 10 years and spend a few billion dollars to raise the levees in New Orleans to be able to withstand a category 5 hurricane, we could have saved hundreds of lives, as well as the billions of dollars it will take to rebuild the city. I don't want this country to look back in hindsight a few years from now with the realization that had we spent the necessary dollars to improve the security at our ports now, we could have prevented a major terrorist attack. Who among us would be satisfied in the aftermath of an attack that we did not take the steps that could have prevented it because we were unwilling to dedicate the necessary resources? That is the choice the Congress faces, and for the security of our country it is essential that we make the right one. This amendment is also fully paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes that this body has supported before. I urge all of our colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Democratic whip.

Mr. MENENDEZ. One minute.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I yield the Senator 1 additional minute.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, can you tell me how much time there is on both sides?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the senior Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include Senator Murray as a cosponsor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Menendez pertaining to the introduction of S. 2334 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent to have 12 minutes in morning business.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I am proud that I have introduced today along with Senators Clinton, Lautenberg, Nelson, and Boxer legislation that would guarantee that foreign governments cannot control the operations of the ports of the United States. I thank Senator Clinton for her leadership on this issue as we fight together, along with Senator Schumer and others, to keep the Port of New York/New Jersey safe. I think we all know why public attention has been focused on this deal over the past 2 weeks. Our ports are the gateway to this country. They are the gateway for much that we eat, that we drink, that we wear, drive, and use on a daily basis. But just as they bring in goods we enjoy, the ports are also our Achilles' heel, the vulnerability that could be exploited in an attempt to bring us down if terrorists transport a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon to our ports. That is why our legislation sets a new standard for the future control of our ports. Our legislation would protect our national security by keeping our ports from falling into the hands of foreign governments. Our legislation bans foreign government-owned companies from operating in our ports and requires the President to report to Congress on how to manage national security risks arising from any existing port contracts. Our legislation would also end the secrecy associated with the Dubai deal by making the executive branch notify Congress as well as State and local officials of future deals. The legislation also includes a new public comment period. Never again should the American public find out about a secret deal through the newspapers after the fact. Never again should Congress learn about the sale of a key U.S. infrastructure asset to a foreign state-owned company only after the deal is done. And never again can we compromise national security by turning our port operations over to another country, whether friend or foe. Our message with this legislation today is clear: Never again. I think all Americans instinctively know we cannot simply turn over our critical national security infrastructure such as terminal operations at our ports to a foreign government. Foreign governments act very differently than even foreign companies. Foreign governments act in their own national interests and in their own national security interests. Privately held foreign companies are controlled by stockholders and answer to the needs of the market, not the needs of a government. One must only study the way in which Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has used his state-owned oil company to pursue the interests of the Government of Venezuela to understand that state-owned companies often behave very differently than publicly traded ones. That is why our legislation bans foreign governments from owning, leasing, or operating any facilities in our ports. We believe that just as we would not turn over the operations of our airport facilities to a foreign government, why should we turn the operations of our ports, which are the biggest hole in our national security blanket, over to a foreign government. The opponents of this thought process, of this bill, like to argue this is the reality of global trade. But the people making this argument are the same ones who constantly remind us that the world has changed since September 11 and that we must adapt our security response accordingly. Whatever happened before September 11, the world has changed since then and we cannot rely on our old methods of looking at the world in a traditional way. One of the things the September 11 Commission told us was to think outside of the box. A simple envelope became a weapon of great injury when it was filled with anthrax; an airplane used to travel commercially or for pleasure was turned into a weapon of mass destruction. Think outside the box. And if we cannot think outside the box in the context of understanding how the ports in the United States, in the hands of a foreign government in an operational capacity, can have a security consequence, we are in trouble in this post-September 11 world. This is an area in which security must take priority over commercial transactions. Make no mistake about it; the legislation is urgently needed, and I am writing the President today expressing my concern that this new 45- day review leaves the President with no authority to act to stop Dubai Ports World from taking control of United States port operations. I am not sure that is clear with this 45-day review. This transaction was set to close on March 2, and we want to stop the clock now and make sure that 45-day investigative review period is precedent to the fulfillment of that agreement. We also believe it is time to end the secrecy surrounding these deals. This secrecy apparently allowed the executive branch to ignore our own laws. These laws require a 45-day investigation of deals involving government-owned companies which could affect national security. Clearly a deal to turn over part of our port operations to a foreign government-owned company would impact national security. We know the Coast Guard warned the administration that there were intelligence gaps that made it impossible to determine the threats raised by the deal. Yet it is only now, after enormous external pressure, that this 45-day review period may be carried out. But starting an investigation that should have already been carried out under the law is not enough, and that is why, from my position on the Banking Committee, during hearings later this week, I plan to seek to discover why the law wasn't followed. I am looking forward to working with both the chairman and ranking member to come up with comprehensive solutions to these problems that emanated under the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. As I said before, I am also concerned about the secrecy in this process. Many New Jersey residents have written or called me asking why the process in approving the deal was so secretive and why Congress was kept in the dark. It is clear to me, to the people of New Jersey, using their common sense, and to the American public that we must have transparency and openness as we address these national security issues. Without our legislation, the committee that reviews this process doesn't even have to tell Congress about the deal until after it has made a decision. And even after they make a decision, they have no obligation to inform the American public. In the particular case of the Dubai Ports deal, the committee sent out no information and the press only learned about it when Dubai Ports World decided to put out its own press release. That is why our legislation would require the notification of Congress, State, and local authorities where appropriate, as well as a public comment period to allow the public impacted by any future deals to share their concerns with the Federal Government. These are basic reforms which I think most Americans would agree seem necessary, almost obvious when it comes to protecting our ports. The fight to secure our ports cannot and will not end with this legislation. Let me be clear: Our ports are not secure. I have been arguing on this for quite a long time as a former Member of the House of Representatives representing the Port of Elizabeth and Newark, the third largest port, the Port of New York/New Jersey and other ports on the eastern seaboard. For all the money the Nation has poured into improving our security, several critical links in the chain have been ignored, and this week the spotlight has shone brightly on one aspect of the problem: our ports, the port of entry for thousands of containers every day, holding everything from clothing to electronics. But these containers could also contain much more dangerous cargo such as a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon. The bottom line is we don't know what is in the vast majority of containers entering this country because despite repeated warnings from security experts from both within and without our Government, only 1 out of every 20 containers that passes through our ports is screened, and 95 percent receive no screening whatsoever other than a cursory glance at a cargo manifest. It is crucial that we also develop a national transportation plan that includes a comprehensive strategy for protecting our ports. A weapon of mass destruction detonated in a shipping container at the Port of New York/New Jersey or any other seaport could cause tens of thousands of casualties and economic losses approaching a trillion dollars. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, $5.4 billion will be needed over the next 10 years for port security. Yet since the 9/11 attacks, Congress has provided less than $800 million. This is not a new problem, and it should not be surprising that the administration has let this problem fester. They have continuously focused on the security of only one aspect of our critical infrastructure to the detriment of the rest. That is something we can no longer continue to accept. In New Jersey we face the reality of failures in our national security every day when we look across the river at Ground Zero and mourn the loss of over 700 fellow New Jerseyans who died on September 11, 2001. The problem of port security is not in some distant future or some distant issue but an everyday reality, as we look at our own port which brings in hundreds of thousands of containers from around the world every day: 145 million tons last year from over 5,000 ships. This is a port that generates over 200,000 jobs and $25 billion of economic activity. It is a great economic engine. It is also a great risk. In today's reality, a foreign government, if it were to be operating the facilities at one of those ports and simply wanted to do something as benign maybe as shutting it down at a critical moment, such as when we are sending supplies to our troops in the field--we use our commercial ports increasingly to send military equipment and supplies to back our troops in the field--imagine if it were shut down at a critical moment when we needed those supplies to be generated across the sea. That is why we have to face these realities together. We must stand together across party lines and across States to fight for the safety and security of our families. Our ports are on the front lines in our fight against terrorism, and with this legislation, we say we will never again allow a deal which would compromise the national security of our ports, the safety of New Jersey, or the security of the United States. I urge my fellow Senators on both sides of the aisle to join with us in this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I am proud that I have introduced today along with Senators Clinton, Lautenberg, Nelson, and Boxer legislation that would guarantee that foreign governments cannot control the operations of the ports of the United States. I thank Senator Clinton for her leadership on this issue as we fight together, along with Senator Schumer and others, to keep the Port of New York/New Jersey safe. I think we all know why public attention has been focused on this deal over the past 2 weeks. Our ports are the gateway to this country. They are the gateway for much that we eat, that we drink, that we wear, drive, and use on a daily basis. But just as they bring in goods we enjoy, the ports are also our Achilles' heel, the vulnerability that could be exploited in an attempt to bring us down if terrorists transport a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon to our ports. That is why our legislation sets a new standard for the future control of our ports. Our legislation would protect our national security by keeping our ports from falling into the hands of foreign governments. Our legislation bans foreign government-owned companies from operating in our ports and requires the President to report to Congress on how to manage national security risks arising from any existing port contracts. Our legislation would also end the secrecy associated with the Dubai deal by making the executive branch notify Congress as well as State and local officials of future deals. The legislation also includes a new public comment period. Never again should the American public find out about a secret deal through the newspapers after the fact. Never again should Congress learn about the sale of a key U.S. infrastructure asset to a foreign state-owned company only after the deal is done. And never again can we compromise national security by turning our port operations over to another country, whether friend or foe. Our message with this legislation today is clear: Never again. I think all Americans instinctively know we cannot simply turn over our critical national security infrastructure such as terminal operations at our ports to a foreign government. Foreign governments act very differently than even foreign companies. Foreign governments act in their own national interests and in their own national security interests. Privately held foreign companies are controlled by stockholders and answer to the needs of the market, not the needs of a government. One must only study the way in which Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has used his state-owned oil company to pursue the interests of the Government of Venezuela to understand that state-owned companies often behave very differently than publicly traded ones. That is why our legislation bans foreign governments from owning, leasing, or operating any facilities in our ports. We believe that just as we would not turn over the operations of our airport facilities to a foreign government, why should we turn the operations of our ports, which are the biggest hole in our national security blanket, over to a foreign government. The opponents of this thought process, of this bill, like to argue this is the reality of global trade. But the people making this argument are the same ones who constantly remind us that the world has changed since September 11 and that we must adapt our security response accordingly. Whatever happened before September 11, the world has changed since then and we cannot rely on our old methods of looking at the world in a traditional way. One of the things the September 11 Commission told us was to think outside of the box. A simple envelope became a weapon of great injury when it was filled with anthrax; an airplane used to travel commercially or for pleasure was turned into a weapon of mass destruction. Think outside the box. And if we cannot think outside the box in the context of understanding how the ports in the United States, in the hands of a foreign government in an operational capacity, can have a security consequence, we are in trouble in this post-September 11 world. This is an area in which security must take priority over commercial transactions. Make no mistake about it; the legislation is urgently needed, and I am writing the President today expressing my concern that this new 45- day review leaves the President with no authority to act to stop Dubai Ports World from taking control of United States port operations. I am not sure that is clear with this 45-day review. This transaction was set to close on March 2, and we want to stop the clock now and make sure that 45-day investigative review period is precedent to the fulfillment of that agreement. We also believe it is time to end the secrecy surrounding these deals. This secrecy apparently allowed the executive branch to ignore our own laws. These laws require a 45-day investigation of deals involving government-owned companies which could affect national security. Clearly a deal to turn over part of our port operations to a foreign government-owned company would impact national security. We know the Coast Guard warned the administration that there were intelligence gaps that made it impossible to determine the threats raised by the deal. Yet it is only now, after enormous external pressure, that this 45-day review period may be carried out. But starting an investigation that should have already been carried out under the law is not enough, and that is why, from my position on the Banking Committee, during hearings later this week, I plan to seek to discover why the law wasn't followed. I am looking forward to working with both the chairman and ranking member to come up with comprehensive solutions to these problems that emanated under the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. As I said before, I am also concerned about the secrecy in this process. Many New Jersey residents have written or called me asking why the process in approving the deal was so secretive and why Congress was kept in the dark. It is clear to me, to the people of New Jersey, using their common sense, and to the American public that we must have transparency and openness as we address these national security issues. Without our legislation, the committee that reviews this process doesn't even have to tell Congress about the deal until after it has made a decision. And even after they make a decision, they have no obligation to inform the American public. In the particular case of the Dubai Ports deal, the committee sent out no information and the press only learned about it when Dubai Ports World decided to put out its own press release. That is why our legislation would require the notification of Congress, State, and local authorities where appropriate, as well as a public comment period to allow the public impacted by any future deals to share their concerns with the Federal Government. These are basic reforms which I think most Americans would agree seem necessary, almost obvious when it comes to protecting our ports. The fight to secure our ports cannot and will not end with this legislation. Let me be clear: Our ports are not secure. I have been arguing on this for quite a long time as a former Member of the House of Representatives representing the Port of Elizabeth and Newark, the third largest port, the Port of New York/New Jersey and other ports on the eastern seaboard. For all the money the Nation has poured into improving our security, several critical links in the chain have been ignored, and this week the spotlight has shone brightly on one aspect of the problem: our ports, the port of entry for thousands of containers every day, holding everything from clothing to electronics. But these containers could also contain much more dangerous cargo such as a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon. The bottom line is we don't know what is in the vast majority of containers entering this country because despite repeated warnings from security experts from both within and without our Government, only 1 out of every 20 containers that passes through our ports is screened, and 95 percent receive no screening whatsoever other than a cursory glance at a cargo manifest. It is crucial that we also develop a national transportation plan that includes a comprehensive strategy for protecting our ports. A weapon of mass destruction detonated in a shipping container at the Port of New York/New Jersey or any other seaport could cause tens of thousands of casualties and economic losses approaching a trillion dollars. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, $5.4 billion will be needed over the next 10 years for port security. Yet since the 9/11 attacks, Congress has provided less than $800 million. This is not a new problem, and it should not be surprising that the administration has let this problem fester. They have continuously focused on the security of only one aspect of our critical infrastructure to the detriment of the rest. That is something we can no longer continue to accept. In New Jersey we face the reality of failures in our national security every day when we look across the river at Ground Zero and mourn the loss of over 700 fellow New Jerseyans who died on September 11, 2001. The problem of port security is not in some distant future or some distant issue but an everyday reality, as we look at our own port which brings in hundreds of thousands of containers from around the world every day: 145 million tons last year from over 5,000 ships. This is a port that generates over 200,000 jobs and $25 billion of economic activity. It is a great economic engine. It is also a great risk. In today's reality, a foreign government, if it were to be operating the facilities at one of those ports and simply wanted to do something as benign maybe as shutting it down at a critical moment, such as when we are sending supplies to our troops in the field--we use our commercial ports increasingly to send military equipment and supplies to back our troops in the field--imagine if it were shut down at a critical moment when we needed those supplies to be generated across the sea. That is why we have to face these realities together. We must stand together across party lines and across States to fight for the safety and security of our families. Our ports are on the front lines in our fight against terrorism, and with this legislation, we say we will never again allow a deal which would compromise the national security of our ports, the safety of New Jersey, or the security of the United States. I urge my fellow Senators on both sides of the aisle to join with us in this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, to introduce legislation designed to protect our State's coastline from the threat of encroaching oil and gas development. The Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism Anti-Drilling Act, or COAST Anti-Drilling Act, bans oil and gas drilling off the New Jersey shore, and in the entire Atlantic seaboard from Maine to North Carolina. This bill is necessary because of last week's publication of the Minerals Management Service's, MMS, draft 5-year plan for the Outer Continental Shelf, which proposes to open the waters off the coast of Virginia to oil and gas leasing in 2011. In some places, this means drilling less than 75 miles off the coast of New Jersey. While the MMS may believe you can assign a part of the ocean as belonging to a certain state, oil spills will not respect those boundaries. Seventy- five miles is more than close enough for a spill to affect the New Jersey shore, potentially devastating our beaches and the state's critical tourist economy. According to the New Jersey Commerce and Economic Growth Commission, tourism is a $22 billion dollar industry in the State, responsible for more than 430,000 jobs, over 10 percent of the total jobs in the State. To risk all of that, and the coastal economies of every State along the Atlantic coast, for what is estimated to be a fairly small potential reserve of oil and gas is simply not worth it. The MMS recently released new estimates for recoverable oil and gas in the outer continental shelf, and the entire Atlantic seaboard adds up to less than 6 percent of the nation's estimated OCS gas reserves, and less than 3 percent of the oil reserves--barely a 6-month supply. And that's from Maine to Florida, so the area off any individual State will be a small fraction of that. This is not an issue of trying to lower the price of natural gas, or making the United States more energy independent. This is about protecting New Jersey's environment and economy. This is about protecting the coastline where New Jersey families live, work, and play. I look forward to working with my colleagues from neighboring States, and from States around the country, to ensure that our beaches are protected for generations to come.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, to introduce legislation designed to protect our State's coastline from the threat of encroaching oil and gas development. The Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism Anti-Drilling Act, or COAST Anti-Drilling Act, bans oil and gas drilling off the New Jersey shore, and in the entire Atlantic seaboard from Maine to North Carolina. This bill is necessary because of last week's publication of the Minerals Management Service's, MMS, draft 5-year plan for the Outer Continental Shelf, which proposes to open the waters off the coast of Virginia to oil and gas leasing in 2011. In some places, this means drilling less than 75 miles off the coast of New Jersey. While the MMS may believe you can assign a part of the ocean as belonging to a certain state, oil spills will not respect those boundaries. Seventy- five miles is more than close enough for a spill to affect the New Jersey shore, potentially devastating our beaches and the state's critical tourist economy. According to the New Jersey Commerce and Economic Growth Commission, tourism is a $22 billion dollar industry in the State, responsible for more than 430,000 jobs, over 10 percent of the total jobs in the State. To risk all of that, and the coastal economies of every State along the Atlantic coast, for what is estimated to be a fairly small potential reserve of oil and gas is simply not worth it. The MMS recently released new estimates for recoverable oil and gas in the outer continental shelf, and the entire Atlantic seaboard adds up to less than 6 percent of the nation's estimated OCS gas reserves, and less than 3 percent of the oil reserves--barely a 6-month supply. And that's from Maine to Florida, so the area off any individual State will be a small fraction of that. This is not an issue of trying to lower the price of natural gas, or making the United States more energy independent. This is about protecting New Jersey's environment and economy. This is about protecting the coastline where New Jersey families live, work, and play. I look forward to working with my colleagues from neighboring States, and from States around the country, to ensure that our beaches are protected for generations to come.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Health Care COBRA OffSet Tax Savings (COSTS) Act of 2006. This important legislation is a step forward in helping working families afford quality health care in this country. Rewarding work is one of the most fundamental core values of our Nation. Our founding fathers built a society on the notion that if you work hard, you will have an opportunity to provide a better future for your children and thus build a stronger, more competitive nation. And, as we've seen throughout our Nation's history, America's workers have not disappointed. Unfortunately, too many Americans are working hard every day, but are still unable to make ends meet and provide even the most basic needs for their family, such as food, shelter, or health care. The legislation I'm introducing will help address one of these important challenges: affordable, quality health care for working families. The statistics are undeniable--almost 46 million Americans have no health insurance and more than 1 million of the uninsured are in my home state of New Jersey. But that's just the beginning of the problem. Even families who are fortunate enough to have health insurance, are struggling to pay the premiums, which in New Jersey, have increased at four times the rate of earnings. Since 2000, the employee share of health care premiums in New Jersey increased almost 43 percent or almost $400 a year. When family earnings increase by only 10 percent over the same period, it becomes clear just how challenging it is for our hard working families to get by. The Health Care COSTS Act does not address the entire problem, but it will help some workers afford to keep their health insurance when they're between jobs. Currently, many workers who receive health coverage through their employer are entitled to keep that coverage for up to 18 months after they leave their jobs. This coverage is known as COBRA coverage. However, many don't take advantage of COBRA coverage because it's simply too expensive. The employee, who has just lost their job, has to pay the full cost of the coverage, making it prohibitively expensive for most families. The Health Care COSTS Act helps moderate-income families with the cost of COBRA by providing an ``advanceable'' tax credit for half the cost of these health care premiums. The tax credit would go directly to the health plan administrator, thus reducing the workers' monthly premiums by half. This is not a handout, but a helping hand for workers who have contributed to the economic well-being of their community and have earned the opportunity to care for their family while they get back on their feet and find another job. Clearly, there is much more to do in addressing the health care crisis in this country, but this is an important first step in helping working families afford health care coverage during one of the most difficult and vulnerable times a family might face. I hope this legislation will be a starting point for discussion of the significant challenges families face in affording quality health care in this country.