Bob Menendez

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.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Caregiver Assistance and Relief Effort, CARE, Act and the College Access and Affordability Act because far too many families today are squeezed by the demands of caring for aging loved ones while working to give their children what all parents want for their kids--the opportunity to go to college and be successful. As a son helping to care for a mother with Alzheimer's disease and the proud parent of two college-age kids, I know personally the intergenerational demands families are facing and the sacrifices they are making to care for their loved ones. That's exactly why my first legislative initiatives in the United States Senate are to make higher education and long-term care more affordable and more accessible for New Jersey families and families across the country. The CARE Act would provide tax credits to those caring for ailing family members and loved ones, and encourage individuals to plan and invest in their own long-term care by offering a tax deduction for long-term care insurance. In addition, it would double the funding for the existing National Family Caregiver Support Program, which supports a wide range of important services for older persons. There are an estimated 44.4 million caregivers in the U.S., which is 21 percent of the adult population. My home State of New Jersey has over 830,000 caregivers, ranking it 9th in the country. Caregiving families face unique strains. They are challenged with additional costs, and often caregivers must sacrifice their job or cut back on their hours at work. Almost 6 in 10 caregivers either work or have worked while providing care, and 62 percent of caregivers report having had to make work-related adjustments ranging from going in late and leaving early to having to give up work entirely. Caregivers are also a valuable asset to keeping health care costs down. They are providing $257 billion in care annually, more than double the annual spending on home care and nursing home care combined. Their compassion, dedication, and selflessness come at a price to their families and are a benefit to the greater good of our State and Nation. This legislation is aimed at addressing their hard work, sacrifice, and contributions to society. The other bill I'm introducing today, the College Access and Affordability Act, will help open the doors to higher education for more young people by making financial assistance more flexible for students and by expanding and enhancing existing financial aid options. I know the difference a college education can have on a young person's life. As the first in my family to go to college, and later law school, I had opportunities that would not have been available to me had I not been able to go to college. But financing a higher education was not an easy thing for my family. Federal financial aid helped ensure that I could go to college and that I could pursue my dreams. I know first-hand the important benefits of receiving Federal aid--not only did it help me finance my dreams of college, but it also gave me the extra confidence that I needed to succeed. So, I am committed to ensuring that other promising young people get the same chance that I did and that we, as a Nation, will be there to help everyone in this country achieve their dreams of college, regardless of background, race, language, or income level. One of the great foundations of this country is that the doors of opportunity are open to anyone who works hard. We must follow through on that promise by providing a path for young people to have access to and attend college. If we do not lead the way to ensure that our colleges are full of the brightest minds and fullest potential, we are failing to prepare our future generations and we are jeopardizing the future of our Nation. The College Access and Affordability Act will make financial aid more flexible and accessible to more students, such as extending Pell Grant eligibility to students who attend school year-round. It will also make substantial changes to the Hope Scholarship Tax Credit, a useful tool in helping cover the costs of a higher education. Since the Credit was enacted in 1997, the maximum credit has not increased to reflect the rising cost of tuition. This bill would raise the award by $1,000 and allow the credit to be claimed for all 4 years of college, instead of the current 2 years. It will also make more families eligible for the credit by expanding the eligibility limits. Finally, in recognizing that many of our communities are in need of qualified individuals to serve in essential public service positions, this bill would help attract dedicated college graduates who serve low- income communities in positions such as science, math, bilingual, or special education teachers; nurses; first responders; and child welfare workers. Too many students do not pursue a college education because they think it is out of their reach. We must commit to providing sensible tools and adequate resources so that financing a college education is not more of a burden on families, and achieving the dreams of a higher education is not beyond the reach of our Nation's young people. On any given day, families across New Jersey, and indeed, across this country, face the daunting challenges of making ends meet--putting food on the table, clothing their children, and putting a roof over their head. If that weren't enough, add the challenge of trying to pay for college or care for an aging parent, or in many cases, both, and you have what many times is an insurmountable challenge. But that's exactly what's happening to more and more people everyday. And the intergenerational demands will only increase as the baby boom generation grows older and our life expectancy increases. We need to work now to address the challenges on both fronts--from providing affordable long-term care and encouraging future retirees to plan for their own long-term care, to ensuring that anyone who is willing to work hard has the opportunity to go to college and succeed. That's what this country is all about, and that's why I've made these initiatives my first priorities in the U.S. Senate. I'm hopeful that we will be able to work in a bipartisan fashion to address these important challenges facing American families.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this amendment, which is a sense of the Senate, which I am offering with Senators Schumer, Kerry, Feinstein, Clinton, Lautenberg, and Stabenow, is simply a sense of the Senate to try to ensure that 17 million middle-class families do not see a tax increase next year through the alternative minimum tax. This tax was never intended to raise the taxes of average Americans but, in fact, it has--millions of Americans. Some think this is more problematic for residents of States such as New York, California, or my home State of New Jersey. But the truth is a whole host of other States have a significant percentage of tax failures affected by the alternative minimum tax, including Oregon, Maryland, Virginia, Minnesota, Ohio, Maine, Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. It is a problem of national importance. This is a question of whether the Senate values work and the work of honest and hard-working families who are going to be subjected to a tax not because they made more income but simply because of the way the tax is structured. Ultimately, I urge my colleagues to support the sense of the Senate. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I call up amendment numbered 2705.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Caregiver Assistance and Relief Effort, CARE, Act and the College Access and Affordability Act because far too many families today are squeezed by the demands of caring for aging loved ones while working to give their children what all parents want for their kids--the opportunity to go to college and be successful. As a son helping to care for a mother with Alzheimer's disease and the proud parent of two college-age kids, I know personally the intergenerational demands families are facing and the sacrifices they are making to care for their loved ones. That's exactly why my first legislative initiatives in the United States Senate are to make higher education and long-term care more affordable and more accessible for New Jersey families and families across the country. The CARE Act would provide tax credits to those caring for ailing family members and loved ones, and encourage individuals to plan and invest in their own long-term care by offering a tax deduction for long-term care insurance. In addition, it would double the funding for the existing National Family Caregiver Support Program, which supports a wide range of important services for older persons. There are an estimated 44.4 million caregivers in the U.S., which is 21 percent of the adult population. My home State of New Jersey has over 830,000 caregivers, ranking it 9th in the country. Caregiving families face unique strains. They are challenged with additional costs, and often caregivers must sacrifice their job or cut back on their hours at work. Almost 6 in 10 caregivers either work or have worked while providing care, and 62 percent of caregivers report having had to make work-related adjustments ranging from going in late and leaving early to having to give up work entirely. Caregivers are also a valuable asset to keeping health care costs down. They are providing $257 billion in care annually, more than double the annual spending on home care and nursing home care combined. Their compassion, dedication, and selflessness come at a price to their families and are a benefit to the greater good of our State and Nation. This legislation is aimed at addressing their hard work, sacrifice, and contributions to society. The other bill I'm introducing today, the College Access and Affordability Act, will help open the doors to higher education for more young people by making financial assistance more flexible for students and by expanding and enhancing existing financial aid options. I know the difference a college education can have on a young person's life. As the first in my family to go to college, and later law school, I had opportunities that would not have been available to me had I not been able to go to college. But financing a higher education was not an easy thing for my family. Federal financial aid helped ensure that I could go to college and that I could pursue my dreams. I know first-hand the important benefits of receiving Federal aid--not only did it help me finance my dreams of college, but it also gave me the extra confidence that I needed to succeed. So, I am committed to ensuring that other promising young people get the same chance that I did and that we, as a Nation, will be there to help everyone in this country achieve their dreams of college, regardless of background, race, language, or income level. One of the great foundations of this country is that the doors of opportunity are open to anyone who works hard. We must follow through on that promise by providing a path for young people to have access to and attend college. If we do not lead the way to ensure that our colleges are full of the brightest minds and fullest potential, we are failing to prepare our future generations and we are jeopardizing the future of our Nation. The College Access and Affordability Act will make financial aid more flexible and accessible to more students, such as extending Pell Grant eligibility to students who attend school year-round. It will also make substantial changes to the Hope Scholarship Tax Credit, a useful tool in helping cover the costs of a higher education. Since the Credit was enacted in 1997, the maximum credit has not increased to reflect the rising cost of tuition. This bill would raise the award by $1,000 and allow the credit to be claimed for all 4 years of college, instead of the current 2 years. It will also make more families eligible for the credit by expanding the eligibility limits. Finally, in recognizing that many of our communities are in need of qualified individuals to serve in essential public service positions, this bill would help attract dedicated college graduates who serve low- income communities in positions such as science, math, bilingual, or special education teachers; nurses; first responders; and child welfare workers. Too many students do not pursue a college education because they think it is out of their reach. We must commit to providing sensible tools and adequate resources so that financing a college education is not more of a burden on families, and achieving the dreams of a higher education is not beyond the reach of our Nation's young people. On any given day, families across New Jersey, and indeed, across this country, face the daunting challenges of making ends meet--putting food on the table, clothing their children, and putting a roof over their head. If that weren't enough, add the challenge of trying to pay for college or care for an aging parent, or in many cases, both, and you have what many times is an insurmountable challenge. But that's exactly what's happening to more and more people everyday. And the intergenerational demands will only increase as the baby boom generation grows older and our life expectancy increases. We need to work now to address the challenges on both fronts--from providing affordable long-term care and encouraging future retirees to plan for their own long-term care, to ensuring that anyone who is willing to work hard has the opportunity to go to college and succeed. That's what this country is all about, and that's why I've made these initiatives my first priorities in the U.S. Senate. I'm hopeful that we will be able to work in a bipartisan fashion to address these important challenges facing American families.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Finance for yielding time and for his work in preparing the opportunity to offer this amendment. Later today I intend to offer an amendment, and I do certainly hope it will be in order, that lets families across the Nation know we are on their side. In the bill before the Senate we have a clear choice: We can stop a tax increase for 17 million middle-class taxpayers, a tax that was never intended to penalize anyone considered middle class; or we can continue to give people who need it the least a break on their capital gains at the expense of middle-class workers. I thank my colleagues on the Committee on Finance, Senators Baucus, Schumer, Kerry, and Feinstein, who have worked very hard on this issue to ensure that the final result of this bill will not be a tax increase for middle-class families. The options before the Senate are a choice of values. Do we value ensuring fairness for all hard-working Americans or would we rather give a break to those who need it the least? The Senate made the sensible choice when it passed the tax reconciliation bill last November by extending the protection for middle-class families from the alternative minimum tax. Now that the House bill is to come before the Senate, this Senate must make it clear it stands by that vote and that middle-class families will not bear an additional burden of tax cuts for the wealthy. In the past year, this Congress has given enormous tax breaks to an oil industry that has racked up record profits while American drivers saw the price of gas go through the roof, and given out tax break after tax break for those who need it the least, while ignoring middle-class families. I am proud to later offer an amendment that will help hard-working families in America and New Jersey get real relief and to make sure in this great body the middle class is heard at least as clearly as the powerful and the privileged. Last night we heard more of the familiar rhetoric on tax cuts. We heard the President speak about ``a massive tax increase'' American families will face that ``they do not expect and will not welcome,'' if the President's tax cuts are allowed to expire as scheduled in the next few years. The truth is, millions of families, not only in New Jersey but across the landscape of the country, will face an unexpected increase this year if the AMT exemption is not extended and the President's tax cuts do not include a fix for this problem. Time and time again, the President has pushed for his tax credits from 2001 to be made permanent, which overwhelmingly benefit those who need it the least. More than 70 percent of the President's tax cuts have gone to people who make over $200,000, while families who earn between $50,000 and $75,000 have received less than 5 percent of the cuts. Yet the President has done nothing to make the AMT exemption permanent, a tax which in the next 4 years will affect nearly every two-parent family with two kids earning between $75,000 and $100,000. We also heard the President call for more than just ``temporary extensions.'' Yet the fact is all the President has done in terms of this middle-class tax is to propose temporary extensions and only cosmetic changes while proposing no underlying reform to the AMT itself. Would we like to do more than a 1-year extension? Absolutely. But when the President has directed all of his efforts, his priorities, and the Nation's bank account to tax breaks for the wealthy, there is little room, let alone money, left over for the reforms that affect nearly 20 million middle-class taxpayers. When Americans wonder why there has been little attention on what most tax analysts refer to as the single most important tax issue facing the Nation, they should know that it is because tax cuts for the middle class have not been a priority for this administration. Let's be honest. Once again, it is the middle-class families, the hard-working families, who are struggling to send their children to college, to keep up with the cost of health care, to care for aging parents, who pay all of their bills and try to make ends meet each month who are being asked to foot the bill for the top earners in our country. Why? How many middle-class families out of the 17 million know right now they could be facing a tax increase this year? I would guess not very many. It does not help that the President has been silent on this, one of the most significant tax increases facing the middle class. The fact is many families will be faced with a harsh reality at the end of the year. In my State of New Jersey, where nearly 180,000 families were subject to AMT in 2003, the number of middle-class taxpayers subject to this tax will at least double if no fix is enacted. Average families, which are far from wealthy and think they are below the threshold, could face significantly higher taxes this year if we do not act on the crisis at hand. For example, a typical New Jersey family with two parents, where one is a preschool teacher and the other a paramedic, with three kids would be subject suddenly to this new tax increase this year. So this amendment we hope to offer is for middle-class families who may not know a tax hike is coming and for average families who should not be expected to shoulder the burden of the President's tax cuts for the wealthy. This amendment will make very clear that our priority should be to protect middle-class families from this unintentional tax hike and that millions of taxpayers should not wake up next tax season to realize they owe more in taxes even though their income has not changed. Let's remember, this was a tax intended to assure those making some very significant income pay some taxes. It was never intended to raise the taxes of average Americans. This is a zero-sum game. With soaring budget deficits and rapidly climbing debt, tax cuts for top wage earners are just one more burden being put on the shoulders of the working middle class. The reality is, without this amendment, many families could be paying possibly $1,000 more in taxes next year. That is $1,000 more they could put in their pocket, $1,000 more they could use to save for their retirement, $1,000 more they could use for college tuition, $1,000 more to help make ends meet. It is clear there is not room on the President's tax cut agenda for this middle-class tax crisis. That is why we seek to offer this amendment. This is why it is vital this body once again show its support for a tax package that includes an increased AMT exemption to protect middle-class families and not ignore the looming crisis before us. We in this body know the consequences if we do not act. Many Americans do not. We know that if we fail to act, an astounding 30 million Americans will be subject to a higher tax rate within the next 4 years. We also know what many American families do not--that a family with three kids making $63,000 will be facing a higher tax rate next year if we do not enact this fix now. Now, I hear a lot of talk about values. With this amendment, the Senate can decide which values--which values--it wants to embrace: rewarding those who work hard, play by the rules, and struggle to make ends meet, or give yet another tax cut to those who need it the least? Let's send a clear message that the values we embrace are the values of American families. Let's embrace fairness and equal treatment for those who work hard. This is a chance for this body to go on record that we should not be imposing an unfair tax break on our middle-class families just to extend a tax break for those at the top. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment when it is offered, presuming we have the opportunity to offer it, and ensure that hard- working American families, not just top dividend earners, remain our top priority. I also look forward to offering an amendment later on with Senator Kennedy that would expand a critical tool for college students and their families under the HOPE scholarship tax credit. As the first in my family to go to college, I fully understand the power of some of these programs and how they helped me, in my case, be the first in my family to go to college. This amendment will simply expand what the credit can cover to include other associated costs for a college education. I look forward to the opportunity to offer that amendment as well. I yield back whatever time I may have.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I rise in support of the nomination of Ben Bernanke, of my home State of New Jersey, to be the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Once again, New Jersey is honored that the President has nominated one of our own to serve our Nation in such a vital position. Dr. Bernanke has a remarkable record of scholarship. He graduated from Harvard with top honors and later earned a doctorate in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT. Dr. Bernanke then entered academia and has taught at some of the preeminent universities of our Nation, starting at Stanford before continuing at MIT and New York University and eventually ending as the Chairman of the Economics Department at Princeton University. He has also served our Nation with distinction in his roles at both the Council of Economic Advisers and the Federal Reserve. As the newest member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, I look forward to working with Dr. Bernanke in ensuring that inflation remains in check, that our Nation's deficits are addressed and dealt with in a forthright manner, and that all Americans are able to successfully participate in our country's economy. He has a reputation of basing his decisions on sound economics, rather than ideology and partisanship, and I expect this to continue in his new role as Chairman. Mr. President, I would be remiss if I did not also take this time to thank Alan Greenspan for his almost two decades of service and economic stewardship as the outgoing Chairman. I am quite pleased that the President has nominated my fellow New Jerseyan, Dr. Bernanke, to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve and am confident that he will do a good job in his new position, while making our shared State of New Jersey proud. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise, for the first time in this body, to speak on the nomination of Samuel Alito to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. No matter one's political persuasion, we all take pride in the honor that has been bestowed on a fellow New Jerseyan. Samuel Alito's story is one that rings familiar to so many New Jerseyans, including myself. His parents came to this country in search of opportunity, and worked hard to build a better life for their children. The son of immigrants, Judge Alito's life is a story that demonstrates the power of seizing opportunity and working hard. Frankly, it is a story close to my own heart. I too, am the son of immigrants who came to New Jersey to seek a better life and greater opportunity. Thanks to their hard work, and my own, I was the first in my family to graduate from college and law school. Yet home State pride is not a sufficient reason for supporting a nominee. For a Supreme Court appointment is a life-time appointment. When the Supreme Court decides, it is the law of the land and their decisions affect the lives of millions of Americans. So, it's not where you come from that matters, but where you will take the nation. Sam Alito has served his entire legal career in public service, and for that he is to be commended. His work as a prosecutor and as an appellate judge for the past 15 years has given him substantial experience. In his hearings and his meeting with me, he demonstrated that he has a keen intellect. Judged simply by that standard, Sam Alito is ready to serve. But competence and intellect is the very least we should expect from someone seeking a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. Indeed, competence alone might be enough for a nominee for one of a myriad of other appointments. But this is about the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court, alone among our courts, has the power to revisit and reverse its previous decisions. So surely, we should also demand that our justices fairly interpret the law, respect judicial precedent, and properly balance the rights of individuals and the power of the state. Above all, we should demand that they check their personal beliefs at the door. The seat that Judge Alito hopes to fill is one of great importance. Justice O'Connor has been the deciding vote in key cases protecting individual rights and freedoms on a narrowly divided Court, and the stakes in selecting her replacement are high. I have not agreed with every one of her decisions. But she has shown throughout her tenure a respect for law over ideology and a commitment to deciding each case not on the personal views she brought to the bench, but on the facts before her. When some on the court sought to inject an activist political philosophy into judicial decision-making and to turn back the clock on the liberties afforded the American people under the Constitution, it was Justice O'Connor who blocked their path. I had hoped Judge Alito would clearly demonstrate that he shares the commitment to protecting the individual rights and freedoms that Justice O'Connor so often cast the deciding vote to defend. Decades of progress in protecting basic rights, including privacy, women's rights, and civil rights, are at stake with this nomination. The burden was on Judge Alito to be forthright and unambiguous in his answers. Unfortunately, his testimony was not reassuring and his record makes clear what kind of justice Judge Alito would be. A justice who would vote to overturn a woman's right to choose, a justice who has time and time again sided with corporations and against average Americans, a justice who would allow this administration to continue to stretch and potentially violate its legal and constitutional authority. Especially with the challenges our Nation faces today and will face tomorrow, America cannot afford that kind of justice. We live in extraordinary times today. President Bush has sought the accumulation of unprecedented powers. He has asserted the authority to not only torture detainees and indefinitely detain American citizens as enemy combatants, but to also conduct warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. At different times throughout our country's history, Presidents under the cloak of Commander-in-Chief have exercised excessive authority that has eroded individual rights and freedoms in the name of protecting the Nation. Over 200 years ago, our Founding Fathers purposely established our Nation's government with three distinct coequal branches to help prevent this concentration and abuse of power. An independent judiciary, part of our country's long and proud history of checks and balances, is the only thing that stands between the executive branch and these potential threats to our rule of law. In 2004, the Supreme Court stood up for the rule of law when it found that the President cannot ignore the Constitution and confine American citizens indefinitely without the ability to challenge their detentions. Decisions such as this, which recognize that our Nation's security is enhanced rather than undermined by respect of the rule of law, are what has always made the United States the envy of people around the world. The bias Judge Alito has shown in favor of the executive branch threatens to undermine the freedoms that our judiciary has historically protected. From his work as a government lawyer to a speech before the Federalist Society in 2000, he consistently favors the concentration of unprecedented power in the hands of the President, even endorsing the so-called ``unitary executive'' theory that even many conservatives view as being at the fringe of judicial philosophy. It virtually gives the presidency exclusive powers that historically have belonged to either Congress or the courts. This theory is an activist theory, not a theory that reflects mainstream American thinking or values. In fact, the Supreme Court has largely rejected it. Judge Alito has also backed granting absolute immunity to high- ranking Government officials who authorized illegal, warrantless wiretaps of American citizens, which is another position the Supreme Court has rejected. As far back as the Reagan administration, he has advocated that the President issue signing statements in an effort to shape the meaning of legislation. President Bush has often used this practice, most tellingly in December when he claimed the administration could ignore the new law banning torture whenever he sees fit. This undermines one of the coequal branches of our government, the people's elected representatives of the United States Congress. Judge Alito has found against congressional authority when he argued in dissent in United States v. Rybar against a ban on machine guns that five other appellate courts and the Third Circuit itself upheld. Judge Alito also authored the majority opinion in Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, invalidating parts of the Family and Medical Leave Act for exceeding the bounds of congressional authority--a position the Supreme Court subsequently rejected. Several in-depth reviews show, Judge Alito's rulings, especially his dissents, consistently excuse actions taken by the executive branch that infringe on the rights of average Americans. One study found that 84 percent of Judge Alito's dissents favor the government over individual rights. Another, the Alito Project at Yale Law School conducted a comprehensive analysis of the Judge's 15 years on the Federal bench. They found that ``Judge Alito has permitted individuals to be deprived of property or liberty without actual notice or a prior hearing.'' During his hearings and in my meeting with him, Judge Alito did nothing to distance himself from these positions; in fact, by refusing to candidly discuss where he stands on executive power, he only strengthened my concerns about his views. If it's not where you come from that matters, but where you will take the nation, does a Supreme Court with Justice Alito take the nation forward or move our Nation back? Back to a time when a President suspended the writ of habeas corpus; back to a time when a President ordered the internment of individuals based upon their ethnicity; and back to a time when a President ordered the unlawful breakins and wiretaps against his opponents. Our next Supreme Court justice must be a check and balance against broad Presidential powers that are inconsistent with our Constitution. With respect to reproductive rights, Judge Alito told the members of the Judiciary Committee that he would look at such cases with an ``open mind.'' However, he has, throughout his career, written that the Constitution does not protect a woman's right to choose, worked to incrementally limit and eventually overturn Roe v. Wade, so narrowly interpreted the ``undue burden'' standard in one specific case as to basically outlaw this right for an entire group of women, and refused to state whether Roe is ``settled law.'' When asked by Judiciary Committee Chairman Specter whether he continues to believe that the Constitution does not protect the right to choose, as he wrote in his 1985 job application at the Department of Justice, Judge Alito acknowledged that it was his view in 1985, but refused to say whether or not he holds that view today. I found Judge Alito' s refusal to answer this question extremely troubling. Later, as an Assistant Solicitor General, Judge Alito wrote a memo outlining a new legal strategy that the Reagan administration could use to ``advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the meantime, of mitigating its effects.'' As a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Alito alone concluded that all of the Pennsylvania restrictions, including the spousal notification provision, should be upheld as constitutional in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found 5-4 that the spousal notification provision was unconstitutional. Justice O'Connor, who wrote the opinion, rejected Judge Alito's arguments and wrote that the spousal notification provision constituted an impermissible ``undue burden'' on reproductive rights. She concluded by saying ``Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry.'' During our meeting, when I asked Judge Alito, ``Do you believe Roe v. Wade is the `settled law' of the land,'' he was unwilling to say that it is settled law. During the Judiciary Committee hearing, he said multiple times in response to questions from three of my distinguished colleagues on the Committee that the principle of stare decisis, or respect for precedent, is not an ``inexorable command.'' While this is undoubtly the case, this language is exactly what Justice Rehnquist used in his dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey when arguing that Roe should be overturned. Justice Rehnquist wrote, ``In our view, authentic principles of stare decisis do not require that any portion of the reasoning in Roe be kept intact. `Stare decisis is not . . . a universal, inexorable command.' '' Because I was concerned that his approach to these issues is far different than Justice O'Connor's, I gave Judge Alito every opportunity in our meeting to alleviate my concerns and those expressed by many New Jerseyans. I regret that he did not do so. If it's not where you come from that matters, but where you will take the Nation, does a Supreme Court with Justice Alito take the nation forward or move our Nation back? What does Morning in America look like after Judge Alito becomes a Supreme Court justice? Will it be an America where a woman's constitutional right to privacy is not acknowledged? Will it be an America where a woman does not have access to the best medical care? Will it be an America where women do not control their own bodies? Our next Supreme Court justice must respect both the constitutional right to privacy and a woman's right to choose. Our Nation's civil rights are needed to provide equal rights in employment, voting, or disability, they are designed to eliminate discrimination from our society and to provide equal opportunity and access. These laws are often the direct result of our country's civil rights movement. Unfortunately, Judge Alito has consistently applied a narrow interpretation of civil rights laws. Over his 15-year judicial career, he has more often than not sided with corporations and against individuals. In five split decisions involving a claim of sex discrimination, Judge Alito has sided with the person accused of the sex discrimination every time. In Sheridan v. E.I DuPont de Nemours, a woman brought a gender discrimination lawsuit after being denied a promotion. A jury ruled in her favor, but the trial judge threw out the verdict. The full complement of the Third Circuit voted 10-1 to reverse the judge's decision in this sex discrimination case and remand the case for reconsideration. Judge Alito wrote the lone dissent, arguing that the case should be dismissed. If Judge Alito's view was the law of the land, virtually no woman who has been wrongfully denied a promotion based upon her gender would have her day in court. In the area of race discrimination, Judge Alito voted in dissent against the plaintiff in both split decisions cases. The Third Circuit held that the plaintiff in Bray v. Marriot Hotels had shown enough evidence of possible racial discrimination to merit a trial before a jury. As in Sheridan, Judge Alito dissented, saying that the plaintiff had not produced enough evidence even to get to a trial of a jury of their peers. If Judge Alito's view was the law of the land, virtually no person of color would be able to pursue discrimination based on race in the courts of our nation. From the bench, Judge Alito has participated in five split decisions in the area of disability rights law and he sided with the defendant four out of the five times. In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, relating to a college's knowledge of and response to the disability needs of a student, the majority held that the facts required a jury to hear her claims. Judge Alito disagreed with the majority, writing that Nathanson failed to prove that the college acted unreasonably in its responses to her requests for alternative seating arrangements. If Judge Alito's view was the law of the land, virtually no disabled person denied alternative accommodations could seek relief from the court. These are only symbolic of the many cases where Judge Alito would say no to the average American citizen. If someone's daughter was seeking relief from discrimination based upon her gender, Judge Alito would say no. If an American of color was seeking relief from discrimination based upon their race, Judge Alito would say no. If someone's handicapped son was seeking relief from discrimination based upon his disability, Judge Alito would say no. Judge Alito would make it virtually impossible for an individual to go to court when his or her rights were violated, and have their day of judgment. If it's not where you come from that matters, but where you will take the Nation, does a Supreme Court with Justice Alito take the Nation forward or move our Nation back? Back to a time when there was not equal access to schools and government programs, back to a time when employers could fire employees without just cause; and back to a time when all citizens were not guaranteed the right to vote. Our next Supreme Court justice must truly subscribe to the inscription above the entrance to the United States Supreme Court-- ``Equal Justice under Law.'' The confirmation of a Supreme Court justice is one of the two most important responsibilities that a Senator has, in my view. The first is a decision on war and peace, which is also about life and death. The other is deciding who will have a lifetime appointment to the Court that decides the laws of the land. Make no mistake about it, Judge Alito is a decent, accomplished, intelligent man. A man who is proud to call our shared State of New Jersey home. But it is not enough to come from New Jersey--the test is--will you represent the values of New Jersey and this Nation on the highest court in the land? In New Jersey we value creating opportunity, we cherish the idea of individual freedom and responsibility, and we believe that justice is a force that should level the playing field between the individual and the powerful. I have given careful consideration to this nomination, and I entered the process with hopes of supporting Judge Alito. This is my first vote in this Senate, and I had hoped to cast it in support of this nominee, but after reviewing his record, and his testimony before my fellow Senators, I cannot. The question for me has been will he tilt the court in its ideology so far that he will place in jeopardy decades of progress in protecting individual rights and freedoms. I am afraid that answer is yes. In good conscience, I regrettably cannot support his nomination for a lifetime appointment to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the extension of the Defense Department's Section 1207 Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (SADBU) program through September 2009. I am very pleased to see this program extended in this bill because it has proven to be extremely effective in fighting discrimination in the defense contracting process, and has been tremendously successful in ensuring that African Americans, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans are able to compete more effectively for government contracts. The goal of the SADBU program is to provide opportunities for all Americans to take part in the defense contracting process. Since its inception in 1987, the SADBU program has helped to level the playing field for small and disadvantaged businesses. However, there is still a lot that needs to be done. Years of Congressional hearings have shown that minorities have historically been unfairly excluded from both public and private construction contracts in general, and from federal defense contracts in particular. And a recent study by MGT of America revealed that minority-owned and women-owned businesses in New Jersey still faced significant challenges in obtaining state contracts. Many business owners and representatives stated that their opportunities to perform work as subcontractors on state contracts decreased after the suspension of the state's minority and women business enterprise program. If the federal SADBU program were to end, a lot of the progress we have made to this point would likely be erased. That's why this extension is so important. Mr. Speaker, the 1207 program helps to correct the problems of discrimination without imposing an undue burden on other businesses. It is not a quota. It is not a set-aside. It is not a guarantee of contracts or dollars. It is simply about fairness, and the ability of minority-owned businesses to compete more effectively for federal defense contracts. All of us benefit when recipients of federal opportunities reflect America's diversity, and I'm proud to support the reauthorization of the 1207 program.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, from the congressional district that I have had the honor of representing over the past 13 years, 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 and searching for freedom. Because of this, the debate that we started yesterday and continue today is of special and personal interest to me. So, America has a proud tradition as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. But unfortunately, our current immigration laws and system have failed us. As a predicate for labor to grow, and for the country to achieve all the things it needs to, we need tough, smart, and comprehensive immigration reform that reflects current economic realities, that respects the core values of family unity and fundamental fairness, and that upholds our proud tradition as a nation of immigrants. We need to aggressively seek to curtail crossings at the border and we need smart enforcement measures that prevent illegal immigration, so that our immigration system is safe, legal, orderly, and fair to all. Our goal should be neither open borders nor closed borders, but smart borders. Now, tough enforcement laws may make us feel good, but they do not do the job all by themselves. Since 1986, we have tripled the number of Border Patrol agents and increased the enforcement budget 10 times over, but we haven't made a dent in the number of undocumented workers who make it here. Mr. Chairman, 1 year ago tomorrow, President Bush signed into law the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. As one of the conferees on that bill, I want to remind Members that it contained 43 sections and 100 pages of immigration-related provisions. These tough, but smart new measures include, among others, adding thousands of additional Border Patrol agents, Immigration and Customs investigators and detention beds, and criminalizing the smuggling of immigrants, just as the 9/11 Commission recommended. I am sure that the American people assume that their government has not only implemented, but also fully funded these tough measures to ensure our Nation's safety. Unfortunately, the President's budget and the Republican Congress have chosen not to do so. In fact, as part of the fiscal year 2006 appropriations process, the Republican Congress has provided a shortfall of: 500 Border Patrol agents of the 2,000 new Border Patrol agents called for this year by that law; 482 investigators of the 800 immigration enforcement investigators; and 4,130 detention beds of the 8,000 additional detention beds required. So much for being tough. And so much for fully funding what is called for in the bill we are currently debating. I mean, who truly believes that we will fully fund and build the fence along the southwest border of the United States that so many of my colleagues voted for last night? So we are not only passing a variety of provisions that will most likely never be fully funded or enforced, but we are also criminalizing not only millions of undocumented workers in the United States, but also citizens of this country. Under the guise of a much broader definition of smuggling, this bill could allow the Government to prosecute almost any American who has regular contact with undocumented immigrants. Certainly alien smuggling and trafficking for profit are activities that need to be sanctioned, and current law, part of last year's intelligence reform bill, provides for harsh penalties. However, under the broad language contained in this bill: A soccer mom who drives her neighbor to the grocery store, or has a live-in nanny could be penalized for ``transporting''; The church group that provides food aid, shelter, or other assistance to members of its community could be penalized 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 could be penalized for ``transporting''; A counselor who assists a victim of domestic violence and her children could be penalized for ``assisting or encouraging''; The landscaper who drives his workers to jobs could be penalized for ``transporting''; A U.S. citizen living with an undocumented spouse could be considered to be ``assisting or encouraging'' her spouse's presence; and Last, but certainly not least, our district caseworkers could be penalized for either ``assisting or encouraging'' or even ``transporting'' as part of their official congressional duties. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against the underlying bill. By doing so, we then could work not as Democrats and Republicans, or Congressmen and Senators, but as Americans to bring our policies in line with our Nation's ideals and values.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a personal explanation. Last Thursday, I was unable to vote on tabling the motion on H. Res. 591, a resolution raising a question of the privileges of the House (rollcall No. 622), due to an unavoidable commitment in New Jersey. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 622.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend from California who I have had the privilege of serving with on the International Relations Committee. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank Mr. Cantor for his work on this resolution, my counterpart on it, and his efforts to bring the resolution to the floor. I also want to thank Mr. Lantos, Mr. McCaul, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Wexler, among all the others. There is an enormous number of bipartisan supporters of this resolution which speaks volumes, I think, about where the Congress stands. We are here today to send a clear message to the Palestinian Authority that terrorism and democracy do not mix. Today we are here to send a clear message to President Abbas and to Hamas before the Palestinian elections on January 25. If Hamas and other terrorist organizations participate in the upcoming legislative elections, without first disarming and renouncing terrorism and their goal of eliminating the State of Israel, they will undermine Palestinian democracy and the Palestinian Authority's relationship with the United States of America. As Mahatma Gandhi once said, ``The spirit of democracy cannot be established in the midst of terrorism, whether governmental or popular.'' That is why we are simply asking the Palestinians to join democracies around the world in taking a stand against hatred and terrorism. In fact, the Palestinian Authority's own election law would disqualify groups like Hamas from participating. These groups, who espouse racism, terrorism, intolerance and hatred, have no place in democratic elections. When I met with President Abbas a few months ago, I made it clear to him that we hoped that he would deal with this issue before the elections. I gave him a letter signed by nearly 300 Members of the House of Representatives, which I wrote with Representative Pryce, from the House leadership and the International Relations Committee, urging him to take immediate action. Yet we have only to look at the recent suicide bombing in Netanya, which killed five people and wounded at least 30 others, to see that President Abbas has not taken the necessary steps to dismantle the terrorist organizations. And while President Abbas has taken some steps to quell incitement and has condemned terrorist attacks, I believe that his failure to fully confront Hamas will only hurt him in the future and will threaten Palestinian democracy. Let me be clear, I simply do not believe that Hamas should be given the ability to use democracy to carry out terrorism. President Abbas has asked Hamas to respect one authority, one law and one gun. But Hamas has refused to accept that policy. Hamas leaders have even vowed to turn the Palestinian Authority forces into a ``resistance force'' against Israel. That is why I am deeply concerned that President Abbas is allowing Hamas to participate in elections. Perhaps he is hoping that, by buying time now, he will be able to disarm them later. But a policy of hoping will not work. Look at Hezbollah. Hezbollah, a terrorist group funded by Iran and waiting right across Israel's northern border, took part in elections in Lebanon. Now they are armed with political power, as well as guns, and they have used their seats in parliament to avoid disarming. I can think of no clearer example of the danger of a state run by those who support terrorism and espouse violence and anti-Semitism than the country of Iran. The Iranian president has spewed anti-Semitism and hatred in his calls for the destruction of the state of Israel and his denial of the Holocaust. Meanwhile, his government continues to defy the world with its dangerous nuclear programs. It is all too clear what President Abbas must do: He should take responsibility as leader of the Palestinian people and demonstrate that the Palestinian Authority can establish the rule of law. That is why we are urging Mr. Abbas to confront Hamas and fully dismantle the terrorist network. Otherwise, we risk more violence, more terror and more Israeli and Palestinian blood. We risk jeopardizing a nascent Palestinian democracy. We risk too much. Today this Congress needs to send a clear message to Hamas that you cannot manipulate democracy to carry out terrorism. Today this Congress sends a clear message to President Abbas that we support true democracy for the Palestinian people. Today this Congress needs to send a clear message to Israel that the United States will never waiver, and we will never falter in our support for our historic ally. We will never waiver nor falter in our support for Israeli democracy, and we will never waiver or falter in our fight against terrorism, anti-Semitism, hatred and violence. As we vote for this resolution, the United States is proud to stand with Israel and the Israeli people.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my dear friend and distinguished ranking member of the committee. It has been a privilege to serve with him under his leadership and all of my colleagues on the International Relations Committee. If I miss one thing, it will be those Members I have had close associations with in this body, but I continue to see in the days ahead. I want to thank Congressman Smith for his leadership on this issue. I am proud that someone from my home State of New Jersey has dedicated himself to ending trafficking of people around the world. I want to thank all of my other colleagues collectively because of their leadership, countries around the world have been forced to change their laws and improve enforcement. All of us know the shocking statistics: somewhere between 600 and 800 people per year are forced across borders to become slaves and prostitutes. If we include those who are trafficked within their own countries, the numbers are even worse, somewhere between 2 and 4 million people. The vast majority of these are women and girls. So as we fight to end trafficking, we are also fighting for the rights of women and girls around the world. It is easy to forget that each of those numbers represents a person, a daughter, a sister, a mother, or a son who is suffering. It is easy to forget that each of these people is part of a family that has been torn apart by trafficking, and it is easy to forget that the number of individuals trafficked hides the even greater number of families around the world devastated by trafficking. I am proud to be a cosponsor and strong supporter of this legislation which reauthorizes programs designed to attack trafficking both here at home and abroad. And in particular, the legislation addresses issues of trafficking after natural disasters in postconflict areas. As we learned after the devastating tsunami in the Indian Ocean, children are among the most vulnerable victims after any disaster and conflict. If there are no adults to protect them and take care of them, these children become particularly susceptible to disease, hunger, and exploitation. In the chaotic environment following a disaster, when normal protection mechanisms may be disrupted, unaccompanied children are more exposed to traffickers; and that is why I strongly support the new focus in this legislation on postconflict and postdisaster areas. But this law is not only designed to stop trafficking. It is also designed to take care of the victims of trafficking. I cannot imagine the pain that someone goes through after being taken away from their family, their country, and their life. I cannot imagine how it feels to be forced into slavery or prostitution, but I do know that we can and we must take action to help these victims as they once again return to their lives. The pilot programs authorized in this legislation are designed to provide a safe haven and rehabilitation for the victims of trafficking. We must ensure their success so we can eventually expand them in future pieces of legislation. Finally, I want to focus our attention on the countries of our own hemisphere. I am deeply concerned to see that five of the 14 tier 3 countries designated by the State Department are from Latin America or the Caribbean. These are the countries that are designated as the worse violators. They are not even complying with the minimum standards to eliminate trafficking. Even worse, they are not making a significant effort to be able to change the course of events. So I hope that this legislation will have our own hemisphere focused on what they must do to stop the hurting and trafficking of their own people. Finally, I would remind my colleagues of article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: ``No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.'' This legislation takes those words and turns them into action. I urge all Members to support this important legislation.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Congressman Burton, for sponsoring this important legislation mourning the loss of life resulting from hurricanes and flooding in Central America. We are discussing this resolution as the record fourteenth hurricane of the season, Hurricane Epsilon, still rages. Although Hurricane Epsilon has moved out to the Atlantic where it poses no threat to land, we were not so lucky with Hurricane Beta. This hurricane slammed into Nicaragua in late October and caused a great deal of damage, flooding and forced evacuations in both Nicaragua and neighboring Honduras. And Hurricane Wilma left its imprint not only on Mexico but on our own state of Florida, just one week before Hurricane Beta hit. This has been a difficult and trying hurricane season throughout our hemisphere. And it has been made even more difficult by the fact that many Central American countries are still trying to rebuild after hurricanes from previous years, such as 1998's devastating Hurricane Mitch. So I strongly support this resolution, which expresses our heartfelt condolences and deepest sympathies to the victims of flooding and mudslides caused by the various hurricanes. It also pledges our support to the countries of Central America that have been hit hardest by multiple hurricanes this year, and our help in rebuilding their infrastructure and economies. And let's be clear--the region will need not only our help, but the help of the entire international community. Guatemala, El Salvador, Mexico, Nicaragua, Haiti, Cuba and Costa Rica were all hit by damaging winds and drenching rains this hurricane season, causing widespread destruction and flooding. The magnitude of this devastation is staggering. In Guatemala alone, the official death toll is just over 670, although other sources estimate that more than 2,000 people may have perished and that hundreds are missing. Across the region, tens of thousands of families have been affected by these natural disasters. Thousands of Central American families have lost everything. They are in need of food, clean water, clothes and shelter. Just as Mexico and the countries of Central America contributed to us during our time of need after Hurricane Katrina, we should now contribute to them. So I am pleased that the US government, particularly through USAID and the US Armed Forces, has responded quickly with both initial monetary and technical aid during this crisis. While I encourage these efforts, we must be sure to provide relief and long-term reconstruction assistance to the affected communities. Many of us on the Subcommittee were already concerned about poverty and inequality in Central America and about proposed cuts to core development funding for Central America. I was pleased by the strong bipartisan support the Subcommittee showed when almost every Subcommittee Member joined me in sending a letter in late October to the conferees on the Foreign Operations bill urging them to restore this funding. While we continue the long-term fight to reduce poverty and inequality in Central America, we must also offer our condolences to the victims of this most recent natural disaster. And I know that many of the victims' families live here in the United States. So I would also like to acknowledge the actions of the US Latino communities in DC, New Jersey, and around the country, who quickly mobilized to send money and aid to help the survivors. Our diversity is our greatest strength and connects us to almost every country in the world. When tragedy strikes anywhere in the world, it also is directly felt in the homes of US citizens who still have family and friends in their countries of origin. Personally, I am deeply saddened by the devastation and loss of life caused by massive flooding, landslides, and hurricanes in Guatemala and throughout Central America. I would like to express my deepest sympathies and condolences to the victims and their families and friends, both in Central America and here at home. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my fellow colleague from New Jersey, Congressman Rothman, for sponsoring this important resolution which addresses the unfair treatment of Israel in the United Nations. Too frequently we witness the destructive effects of anti-Semitism, hatred and intolerance on innocent people around the world. Just this past weekend, a suicide bomber killed 5 people and wounded at least 66 others at a shopping mall in Netanya, Israel. Year after year, anti-Israel sentiments have manifested themselves in U.N. resolutions that unfairly condemn and castigate the State of Israel. That is why I am a proud cosponsor of this resolution that criticizes the blatant anti-Israel tone within the United Nations and calls on the U.N. to encourage a more balanced approach to the Middle East conflict. At a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise around the world, the United Nations should be taking a strong stance in support of tolerance. Instead, it is funding entities that support anti-Israel propaganda; it has dedicated over half of its emergency special sessions to Israel; and it continues to single out Israel for human rights violations in both the annual meetings of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and in thirty percent of the resolutions voted on by the U.N. General Assembly each year. Let me be clear--there have been some improvements, such as the election of Israel's Ambassador to the vice presidency of the 60th General Assembly. And yet Israel still remains the only member nation that has been denied admission to its regional grouping. In 1948, the United Nations established the State of Israel as a homeland and refuge for Jewish people around the world. It is shameful that 57 years later, anti-Semitism has not gone away but is on the rise. The United Nations Charter calls for its members to practice tolerance and live together in peace as good neighbors. Yet the U.N.'s unbalanced approach toward the situation in the Middle East in general, and toward Israel in particular, risks undermining this foundation. The United Nations should be a bastion of equal rights, equal voices, equal treatment and, when necessary, equal condemnation. If it cannot be an impartial judge of circumstances, the U.N. risks losing its credibility in the Middle East and undermining any future peace process. I join my colleagues in supporting this bill to call on the United Nations to stop unfairly castigating Israel, and to support fair and equal treatment of all member nations.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, what have America's children ever done to the Republican Party? Because if one looks at this budget bill, one can only conclude that children have somehow wronged House Republicans. Why else would there be an all-out assault against our Nation's most vulnerable and their families. This Republican budget guts vital services for New Jersey's working families and those across the country. For a party that talks about family values, in this bill Republicans walk away from nearly every responsibility we have as parents and legislators. What type of value cuts more than $14 billion in student loan funding, increasing the costs of college for American families by $6,000? What type of value could deny 6 million children the health care they need, adding to the 9 million children who are uninsured? What type of value decimates Federal funding for child support enforcement by $5 billion, allowing deadbeat parents to avoid their responsibility? What type of value leaves an estimated 270,000 children without child care while cutting foster care by over $500 million? What type of value forces 300,000 low-income families to lose their food stamps? What type of value increases the deficit by over $100 billion, leaving our children and our grandchildren to repay tomorrow the tax cuts we are giving to the wealthy today? The chairman talked about the bureaucracy that failed the people of the gulf coast. It is your Republican administration that failed them and fails them tonight. This is compassionate conservatism. Vote down this immoral budget, and let us work together to enact a budget such as the Democrats offered previously that truly reflects the values and the priorities of all the American people. Together, America can do better.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, today we have some very clear choices. It is not every day that we face such black and white options--often the issues we debate on this floor have many shades of gray. But today, there is no confusion, there is no muddying of the issues, and there is no way to mask the harm this bill would do: cut education spending for the first time in a decade, slash funding for worker and youth training, and provide no increase for home heating assistance for low-income families. Today, we have a choice. We can pass a bill that will be detrimental to our children's future; that will hurt students in need of financial assistance to go to college; that will not help families struggling to pay their heating bills; and that will severely hinder research and preventive health efforts. Or we can reject this bill and demand something better for American families. We have heard that this bill is the result of priorities. Well, this is one point where I agree with my Republican colleagues. This bill is the result of priorities. The wrong priorities, Mr. Speaker. When the Republican leadership of this Congress is content to spend more on tax cuts than on the entire Department of Education or Labor; When we can spend $70 billion in tax cuts but cannot provide children the access to technology or advanced science and math instruction they need to compete in today's world; When we can give millionaires a break but cannot provide students even a meager increase in Pell Grants to help them pay for the rising cost of college; When we can shell out billions in tax breaks to oil companies but cannot help those in need prepare for what is expected to be one of the costliest winters yet; it is clear that Republicans have the wrong priorities in mind. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's children should not have their education shortchanged because the administration had to scrounge around for a few million here and there to pay for tax cuts that benefit a small minority in this country. At a time when people are losing faith in their government and their leaders, when they are asking for honesty and looking for answers to their everyday needs, this bill provides no answers. This bill tells them to go it alone. Mr. Speaker, America deserves better than this. Vote no on this conference report that shortchanges and unfairly punishes everyday Americans.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague and good friend from Texas for organizing this Special Order and for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay honor to a visionary leader, a distinguished public servant, and a great American, the late gentleman from California, Edward Roybal. Though I never had the pleasure of serving with Congressman Roybal in the House, I hold him in the highest regard, and I am grateful for the opportunity to join my colleagues in paying tribute to this amazing man. Today, we mourn the loss of a truly inspiring individual, who spent his long career working to improve the lives of the underprivileged and underrepresented. During his 30-year tenure in the House of Representatives, Congressman Roybal served with distinction and established himself as a powerful voice in the fight for social justice and a trailblazer among Latino leaders. He rose from the ranks of local politics to become one of the most powerful members of Congress, eventually serving on the House Appropriations Committee. Though Congressman Roybal was not the most outspoken member of Congress, he was known as a man of action. He worked diligently to give a voice to the voiceless, and fought to make significant policy changes to important issues that affected his constituents, especially the elderly, Latinos, and immigrants. Even before his political career began, Congressman Roybal was fighting for civil rights and working to create unity in his East Los Angeles community. He established the Community Service Organization, which partnered the Jewish and Mexican-American communities in efforts to end the discrimination he witnessed in education, housing, and employment. In 1949, Congressman Roybal overcame threats and racism to become the first Hispanic to serve on the Los Angeles City Council in more than a century. Though he faced discrimination, he was not deterred. He used his experiences as motivation to invoke change, and spent his career in public service advocating civil rights. As a leading figure in the Latino community, he worked to address the issues facing his many Latino constituents, whose problems were often ignored. Congressman Roybal understood the importance of supporting the Hispanic community-- and in a country with more than 40 million Latinos, we see that his investment in this community was well founded. As the son of immigrants, I applaud Congressman Roybal's work to protect the rights of those coming to America in search of a better life. He played a pivotal role in getting Congress to support funding initiatives for educational and medical services for immigrants, and he authored the Bilingual Education Act of 1968--the first federal law of its kind. Congressman Roybal's efforts to help those that society often overlooks did not end there. During his extensive career in this chamber, he played a critical role in developing legislation to improve the lives of the elderly. As the founder and chairman of the House Select Committee on Aging, he was committed to improving housing and health care for our nation's seniors. In the 1980s, when the country knew little about HIV and AIDS, Congressman Roybal was instrumental in securing funding for research of this deadly disease. His hard work inspired the Centers for Disease Control to rename its main campus after him. The first Mexican-American to represent a district of California, Congressman Roybal began his career in the House in 1962, joining Henry B. Gonzalez as the second Hispanic serving in the chamber at that time. But Congressman Roybal was not content being merely a shining star among Latinos. He made it his personal mission to see that others would follow and served as a mentor to numerous lawmakers and aspiring public servants. He went on to found the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute and the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, both influential organizations that empower Latinos and encourage their participation in politics. Today, thanks in part to CHCl's work and NALEO's advocacy, more than 6,000 Latinos serve in elected and appointed offices. Within the halls of Congress, he founded the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which today boasts 21 members. Congressman Roybal helped pave the way for Latinos in politics, and all of us serving in Congress--myself included--owe part of our success to him. I know his daughter, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard, feels blessed to have had such an inspiring figure in her life, and I'm sure Congressman Roybal enjoyed seeing her continue his legacy in the House. Once introduced as the ``new Mexican councilman who also speaks Mexican,'' Congressman Roybal not only educated public officials about the Latino community, but created a lasting legacy in Los Angeles, where he has more buildings named after him than almost any other politician in the city. Congressman Roybal received numerous honors, including two honorary doctor of law degrees and the Presidential Citizens Medal of Honor. But it is not his awards that people will remember. It is his dedication to serving his district and the Nation. Edward Roybal was a man ahead of his time, who saw beyond the limits society tried to impose. His vision for this country has empowered and improved the lives of many in this Nation--and I would not be standing here in the midst of so many of my distinguished Latino colleagues if it hadn't been for the work of leaders like him. We are impressed by his many accomplishments and truly grateful for his outstanding service. I would like to offer my sincere condolences to his wife, Lucille, and to my dear colleague, Lucille Roybal-Allard, and her entire family. May they take comfort in the proud legacy that Congressman Roybal left behind, and may they find peace in knowing that his mission to defend civil rights and empower Latinos will be taken up and continued by those of us here today.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, this week House Republicans will once again demonstrate why the American people no longer have confidence in them to lead this Nation. At a time when college tuition is skyrocketing, House Republicans propose to cut over $14 billion in student loan funding, increasing the cost for college for American families by $5,800. At a time that the number of families with no health insurance is growing, House Republicans propose slashing Medicaid by $12 billion, forcing our Nation's most vulnerable to either pay more themselves or lose the health services they need. At a time that the majority talks about values, House Republicans propose decimating Federal funding for child support enforcement, allowing deadbeat parents to avoid their responsibility. And at a time when our national debt sets daily records, House Republicans propose to actually increase the deficit by more than $100 billion, using these cuts to ensure tax cuts for the wealthiest. That is what a Republican majority means for our country. Together, America can indeed do better.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, the Constitution and the fifth amendment allows the government to use ``eminent domain'' to condemn and take private property only if the owner receives ``just compensation'' and only if the property is taken for ``public use.'' Common sense and Supreme Court decisions tell us that public uses are schools, roads, parks, railways, hospitals, and military bases. That is something that we all know and realize. Unfortunately, earlier this year, in Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court empowered the government to seize private property, including someone's own home, and transfer it to another private owner as long as the transfer would provide an economic benefit to the community. The hope of one day owning a home is the backbone of the American Dream. The house is the single most important purchase most Americans will ever make. The average family invests more in their homes than they invest in the stock market, the money market, or their retirement savings plans. There's a good reason for that. Housing has been a safe, leveraged investment, and one of the best investments one can make. That is why government must not have a green light to seize our homes just because it believes it would be more profitable as something else. While eminent domain has been used successfully throughout our history to advance important public projects, it should never be manipulated to solely support the interests of private developers. Increasingly, local governments are exploiting eminent domain powers to take property for retail, office or residential development. In my State of New Jersey, some localities have abused eminent domain so that beachfront homes can be replaced by luxury townhouses and condominiums. That is why I support H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act. This legislation would deny States and localities from receiving any Federal economic development funds if they abuse their eminent domain power. H.R. 4128 also bars the Federal Government from exercising eminent domain for economic development. Mr. Chairman, over 200 years ago, James Madison said that ``Government is instituted to protect property of every sort . . . This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.'' That is why this bill is so needed. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4128 to not only protect homeowners, but to also ensure that homeownership remains the hallmark of American life.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from votes in the House on Wednesday, November 2, due to a previous and unavoidable commitment. Therefore, I was unable to vote on H.R. 1606, the Online Freedom of Speech Act, rollcall No. 559; H.R. 4061, the Department of Veterans Affairs Information Technology Management Improvement Act, rollcall No. 560; and H.R. 1691, the John H. Bradley Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic Designation Act, rollcall No. 561. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 559 and ``yea'' on rollcalls 560 and 561.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, today I'm pleased to introduce the Health Care COBRA OffSet Tax Savings (COSTS) Act of 2005. 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, however, too many Americans today 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 harder and harder to afford health care for your family. 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 50%. 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.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Garrett amendment, which would be devastating for middle-class families across New Jersey and in high-cost areas throughout the country. While my colleague might argue that this amendment would have no effect on the ability of families to purchase a home, he is gravely mistaken. The Garrett amendment prohibits Fannie and Freddie from purchasing mortgages at a higher cost than the current limit. This means that in the high-cost areas such as those in New Jersey where the median home price exceeds the national price by at least $200,000 in counties like Bergen and Passaic, families would not have access to an affordable loan. Under this amendment families will be priced out of their own neighborhood. Those who live in higher-cost areas do not deserve to be punished and should not have to move somewhere else to obtain an affordable home loan; yet that is exactly what this amendment does. This amendment is a step backwards for efforts to open the doors to affordable homeownership. We should be trying to expand opportunities for families who dream of owning a home in the area they want to live in, not shutting them out of achieving the American Dream. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Garrett amendment, which would be devastating for middle-class families across New Jersey and in high cost areas throughout the country. One of the sensible actions this bill takes is allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase mortgages that reflect the actual median home price instead of a set national limit. We all know that the price of purchasing a home is increasing. But Madam Chairman, it is blatantly wrong to pretend that the same loan limits should apply to areas where the average home cost is $75,000 as areas where the median cost is well over $350,000. The reality is, home prices in high-cost areas are skyrocketing at higher rates and to costs that are far above the national average. While my colleague from New Jersey argues that this amendment would have no affect on the ability of families to purchase a home, he is gravely mistaken. Because his amendment would prohibit Fannie and Freddie from purchasing mortgages at a cost higher than the current limit, families in high cost areas--such as those in New Jersey where the median home price exceeds the national median home price by at least $200,000-- would not have access to any affordable loan. Under this amendment, family will be priced out of their own neighborhood. These affordable loans help ensure families who seek the dream of homeownership have the same chance to own their own home as those with more means. Families that live in higher cost areas do not serve to be punished and should not have to move somewhere else to obtain an affordable home loan. Yet that is what this amendment would do. A family living in Bergen or Passaic County, for instance, where the median home price is $390,000, would not be able to get an affordable loan from Fannie or Freddie simply because they live in an area where the cost excess the current limit. So where are they supposed to go? This amendment is a step backwards for efforts to open the doors to affordable homeownership. We should be trying to expand opportunities for families who dream of owning a home in the area they want to live, not shutting them out from achieving the American dream.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished ranking Democrat from California (Mr. Lantos) not only for his support but also for his leadership along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) in taking the lead on this important issue and bringing a resolution to the floor, one that I am strongly in support of. As we learned in September here in the United States, natural disasters strike without warning, destroy our homes and communities, and challenge us to take care of the victims. We also learned that it is only with the help of the world that we can respond to such large- scale natural disasters. Over 90 countries responded after Hurricane Katrina, including both India and Pakistan. Now it is our turn to respond to them. Current estimates are that over 40,000 people were killed in India and Pakistan, and the number is only expected to rise. We know that the rescue efforts have been difficult, because many of the villages that were hardest hit were in remote mountainous areas which are almost impossible to reach. In fact, the U.N. estimates that only 30 to 40 percent of an estimated 350 to 900 villages damaged by the earthquake have been inspected. Right now, many suffer without food, medicine, or shelter and face the oncoming winter cold with great fear. I want to commend the international rescue effort that is underway and the U.S. contribution to that effort. As Andrew Macleod, the United Nations Operations Chief in Pakistan, said, the task of responding to this crisis is ``bigger than all of us.'' We have all heard the saying, ``the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.'' When nations contribute to the relief efforts in India and Pakistan, they are working together to create that greater response, that whole which is greater than the sum of its parts. In response to the United Nations' appeal for $272 million for emergency aid, over 30 countries have already offered assistance, and the United States has pledged $50 million. I hope the world and the United States will continue to provide not only immediate, but long- term assistance to those areas that need it most, and I hope our combined efforts can prevent any public health disasters that could result from this tragedy. Our diversity is our greatest strength and connects us to almost every country in the world. When tragedy strikes anywhere in the world, it is also directly felt in the homes of U.S. citizens who still have family and friends in their countries of origin. So I would like to acknowledge the actions of the U.S. Indian and Pakistani communities who are sending money and aid to help the survivors. I see that in my own home State of New Jersey, which has the third largest population of Indian Americans in the country and a very large Pakistani community as well. In closing, I want to express my deepest sympathies and condolences to the families and friends of those who perished in last Saturday's earthquake in India and Pakistan. This has been a year of great trials and tribulations, of enormous disasters followed by unprecedented responses. But as we learned after the tsunami at the start of the year and during the hurricanes last month, and as I am confident we will see again with this earthquake, together we can be greater than the sum of our parts and overcome these grave natural disasters. I encourage all Members to vote for the resolution.