Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 28, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The Impact of the Economic Crisis on the U.S. Postal Service''.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today, this Congress is facing a fundamental test of our values: whether to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program and expand it to cover millions of children who would otherwise be left uninsured. We must ask ourselves: Is this good for our Nation's children? The answer is, clearly, yes. And I say this as a father. There is nothing more important to parents than the health of their children, and there is nothing more important to helping them grow up to achieve their potential and contribute all they can to our society. It is no secret what a major financial burden health care can be. We are reminded of the costs every time we go to the doctor or fill a prescription at the pharmacy. There are parents who work every day in some of the toughest jobs in our country, but their jobs don't offer health insurance and their paychecks don't cover the cost of private coverage. They are not the only ones whose health is at serious risk because of this lack of insurance. It is also a major risk for children. Parents stay up at night worrying about whether the hard cough they hear coming from their daughter's room means she has asthma; hoping that the pain in their son's stomach doesn't mean he is going to need surgery; wondering how they are going to pay for a routine checkup; and just praying--praying--that everyone stays healthy until they can afford to get the health care they need. Here is one story: A boy named Jonathan took a trip to the New Jersey shore with his family. His head started to throb on the ride from his home in New Hampshire, and finally the pain became unbearable. I want to read what Jonathan wrote about his experience. He wrote: The pain was so bad; I had to crawl on the ground. My mom drove me to the medical center. I remember my mom calling my dad and asking the question, Do we still have medical insurance? I remember being really scared. The doctor explained that I had an arachnoid cyst about the size of an ice cube growing on the left side of my brain. My mother started to cry. There was another problem: Our insurance coverage had ended. Going to the hospital and having all of the CAT scans and MRI testing was super expensive. Suddenly, insurance was a huge issue. Friends told us about a program called New Hampshire Healthy Kids. My parents had to act quickly and register my brothers and me for the program. The people at NHHK were really helpful. I was able to get the medical attention I needed. Thank goodness Jonathan was okay. But stories such as this are why the Federal Government and the States teamed up to create the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It has been a great success across the country, covering almost 7 million American children. In New Jersey, it covers almost 130,000 of those American children. This year, Congress has an opportunity to make children's health even more inclusive, to pass a bill that will continue to provide health care to the almost 7 million children already enrolled, and expand the program to include 4 million children across America, and that includes another 100,000 in my home State of New Jersey. As we are considering whether to reauthorize and expand children's health, we all have to ask ourselves two questions: One, would we have wanted Jonathan's story to have turned out differently? Absolutely not. And two, are we going to sit back as millions of other stories such as Jonathan's don't end up as happily? The decisions we make today have very clear implications for hardworking families across the country. The difference here between no and yes can mean, for millions of children, the difference between helplessness, suffering, and pain versus opportunity, health, and a better quality of life. That is how high the stakes are. Now, some in this Chamber may question whether we can afford health care for our children. Let us look at the facts. First, this legislation won't cost us a dime because it is completely paid for. Second, making sure kids can get regular checkups and focus on preventive care has the potential to reduce emergency room visits and save costs down the line. We also need to be very clear that public health insurance does not mean free health insurance. Many families across America and in New Jersey are responsible for copays and have to pay a premium every month. They are part of supporting their children's health care coverage. But all that aside, let us look at the bigger budgetary picture, at where our priorities have been for the last several years. The war in Iraq is currently costing us $5,000 every second. With what is spent on the war in Iraq in 40 days, we could insure over 10 million children in America for 1 year. In fact, with the amount that has been spent on the war, we could provide 2 years of health care coverage for all of the 47 million Americans who don't have health insurance, who play Russian roulette every day with their lives and their wallets. And even after providing all that health care for every American who doesn't have it, we would still have $30 billion remaining. If we are willing to look at our priorities and choose our children-- as we often say, and I have heard many of my colleagues speak on the floor about how our children are our most precious resource, and they are, but they are also our most vulnerable resource--tackling America's health care crisis is something we can absolutely do within the reasonable constraints of our budget. Now, some of our colleagues have also objected--I have heard it here on the floor--to how States such as New Jersey are treated under this legislation. They object to my home State's ability to cover children whose parents' salaries are up to 350 percent of the Federal poverty level. I want to give a round estimate of the monthly costs facing a family living at 250 percent of the poverty level, or about $4,594 per month, in one of our counties, in Middlesex, NJ. When you look at that monthly income and then look at the costs for housing, for food, for childcare so you can go to work, for transportation, for the taxes paid there, and then what it costs for health insurance, the reality is you have a set of circumstances where that family has a monthly deficit, a debt of $898, which means they do not have the wherewithal to do all of this. These are the basics. These are no frills. They find themselves in debt. On top of that, comparable private health insurance in my home State can cost almost $1,800 a month. What does a family have left at the end of the month? The answer is a staggering load of debt. If they are making 250 percent of the Federal poverty level, they are going to be in debt almost $900. It is the same in other parts of the State as well. For example, if they are living at that income level in Trenton, NJ, the State's capital, they are going to be in debt about $856 every single month to do the basics--to have a place to call home, to put food on the table, to have childcare, to go to work, transportation to be able to achieve that, to pay their taxes, and then to have health insurance. They do not have enough money to make ends meet. The Federal poverty level does not reflect the difference in cost of living between States. For example, if you are a family making 250 percent of the Federal poverty level in Phoenix, AZ, after all is said and done, under the same set of criteria--housing, food, childcare, transportation, and taxes and health insurance--you have a monthly surplus of about $1,347. That is left over at the end of the month because the cost of living is lower. There is a huge difference in the family's reality with a surplus and being able to have all of these essentials versus having a debt in the two examples I showed before. Let me give another example. In Salt Lake City, UT, the same set of circumstances--housing, food, childcare, transportation, taxes, health insurance--you have a $1,469 surplus, so you have disposable income to be able to make other choices for your family with the same set of circumstances in terms of the Federal poverty level. The reality is, we face a much higher cost of living. The consequences are real to New Jersey families. Let's compare State by State. I understand 350 percent of the Federal poverty level sounds somewhat high if you do not see the numbers. But what it takes to meet that amount in New Jersey is, it takes a much less amount in all of these States--from Kentucky, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, Tennessee, Utah, Missouri, North Carolina--much less. It takes much less to meet the same level of the Federal poverty level. The bottom line is, we simply have a higher cost of living and one size does not fit all. I wish our citizens could get the same quality of life in terms of the essentials for much less money, but that is not the reality. So it makes perfect sense for different States to cover children at different levels of income in order to accomplish the same goal, which is ensuring that children at the end of the day are covered. Even former President Bush understood that when he approved New Jersey's waiver, as he did for a long time. Even then, I would like to point out, the number of New Jersey children who fall into that category is just about 3,300 children, a tiny fraction of those enrolled nationally. Only about 2.5 percent of our children are covered under this level of the Federal poverty level. Finally, the last time legislation to expand children's health came up, hundreds of thousands of children were left out, children who are legal--underline legal, emphasis legal--permanent residents of the United States. They follow our laws every step of the way, children whose parents work hard and pay taxes. Some of them are actually in the service of their country. These children are eventually eligible for Medicaid or CHIP, but the law says we have to bar them from coverage for 5 years first. To a young child, 5 years is a lifetime. Here is what it means to bar legal permanent resident children and pregnant mothers from affordable public health for that long. As it stands, a girl with asthma has to go through 5 years of attacks before she can get an inhaler. A boy whose vision gets so blurry he can't see the chalkboard in the fourth grade has to wait until high school before he gets glasses. A pregnant woman who urgently needs prenatal care can't get it until her child will be ready for kindergarten. I have not met anyone who is not outraged when they hear kids with cancer would have to wait 5 years for chemotherapy. Most people cannot believe that is the law, and it should not be. Children should not have to wait a single day to get the care they need to save and improve their lives. Good health care is essential for them to be able to fully realize their God-given potential. Children, whether they be in a classroom or on a playground, are contagious. So whether it is a legal immigrant child or a U.S.-born citizen, the bottom line is they are playing in that playground together, sitting in the classroom together. If one has health care and the other doesn't because we have an arbitrary bar, it is easy to get some cold or disease that is contagious, so there is a public health interest for all of us. We have the opportunity to do what is right and make a major step in ensuring no child goes to bed at night without health care in the greatest Nation on the Earth. This would bring a half million kids nationwide into the State health insurance programs in this category. Let me conclude. For all of us, this is a matter of values. Do we value our children and do our actions match our values? For those who value life, who have spoken very eloquently in this Chamber about its sanctity, and those who value family, who consider it the bedrock of our lives and our country, now is the time to show the depth of that belief because if children's health is not about protecting life, I do not know what is. If this bill is not profamily, I do not know what is. Now is the time to give new security to millions of young lives to help America's children achieve their God-given potential and to replace fear in millions of minds with hope for a better day. That is the opportunity before the Senate, and that is the one I hope we will adopt at the end of this process. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I am honored to rise today in recognition of the Honorable H. James Saxton, on the occasion of his retirement from the U.S. House of Representatives after 24 years of remarkable service to our country. As a Representative for New Jersey's diverse Third District, Mr. Saxton was truly an advocate not only for his constituents but for New Jersey's interests, as well. Throughout his tenure, he remained an exceptional voice for environmental protection and conservation, and was a fervent advocate for our service men and women and the military bases situated in his district. Encompassing the Jersey Shore, Pinelands Preservation, suburban communities, and countless areas of open space, the landscape of the Third District is special and complex. Mr. Saxton was a tireless fighter for protecting our waterways, preserving our open spaces, and maintaining the health of our oceans. While New Jersey is now home to the Nation's first Mega Base, including Fort Dix, McGuire Air Force Base, and Lakehurst Naval Air Engineering Station, such an installation would not be possible without the contributions of Mr. Saxton. Twice the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission chose to close down one of our bases and twice Mr. Saxton defended and defeated the measure. With the many jobs that were saved as a result of this reversal, the new Mega Base will reenergize our communities by adding even more opportunities to the area. In addition to these and many more accomplishments, Mr. Saxton honorably served on the Armed Services Committee, the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, the Terrorism and Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, the Natural Resources Committee, the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans, and the Joint Economic Committee. His dedication and commitment on behalf of his constituents has earned him the respect and admiration of his peers and colleagues. Mr. President, I would like to recognize, commend, and applaud Mr. Saxton in light of his extraordinary service to the U.S. House of Representatives and his unwavering dedication to the people of New Jersey's Third District.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today to support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in order to defend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and to protect all Americans from the evils of discrimination. Yesterday, millions of Americans rejoiced as Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. Hope for a more inclusive America, a more unified America, a more just America swept across this land from our biggest cities to our smallest towns. There was a sense of wonder that someone who wouldn't have been allowed to eat in certain restaurants or drink from certain water fountains over 40 years ago had just become the freely elected leader of the greatest country on Earth. We should be incredibly proud of the progress we have made since the errors of slavery and Jim Crow. But while we believe our Union can be perfected, we know it still isn't perfect. We know that equal opportunity and impartial justice for all have yet to be attained. And we know what the consequences are, for, as Dr. King so eloquently put in his letter from a Birmingham jail, ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' Despite the progress we have made, we live in a country where women still earn 78 cents for every dollar a man makes, where African Americans earn only 80 cents for every dollar a White man makes and Latinos earn only 68 cents for every dollar a White man makes. Our country, therefore, is still far from perfect. Today, the Senate has a historic opportunity to narrow the gap between our ideals and our practices. We have the opportunity to say that women should be treated the same as men. We have the opportunity to say that people should be fairly paid for their labor. We have the opportunity to loudly proclaim in a unified voice that discrimination will not be tolerated in America. As of last year, after a misguided Supreme Court decision overturned what had been the law of the land for decades, a worker can't bring an action for wage discrimination if the original decision to discriminate happened more than 180 days beforehand. The Supreme Court said employers can get away with discrimination if they hide it long enough, even though the effects of that bigotry have no expiration date. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would recognize the long-term, continuous, systemic discrimination as it really is and not let offending companies get away with it through loopholes and disinformation. If a woman sees her wages continuously fall behind those of her male counterparts or a worker gets paid a wage far lower than the company average just because she is Black, they should be able to challenge their employers even if the original decision to discriminate was made years ago. Narrowly defining discrimination as merely the original decision to discriminate makes no sense at all. Let's say, for example, that a criminal hacks into your bank account and decides to steal a portion of your paycheck every 2 weeks. If we were to apply a precedent similar to the Ledbetter case, if the hacker doesn't get caught 180 days after the initial decision to hack in, he can keep stealing forever with no fear of prosecution. Current discrimination law makes about that much sense. Now, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will ask why workers often don't file their claim within 180 days from the first instance of discrimination. Well, there are several reasons. To begin with, workers generally find it difficult to compare their salaries to coworkers, and many businesses actually prohibit it. Even if a worker sees her pay is lower than her coworkers, she might not recognize it was a result of discrimination. And if workers do recognize it as discrimination, they often wait to contact the EEOC--the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission--or decide not to due to feeling ashamed or more often they fear retaliation by their company. They fear the consequences of ``rocking the boat'' and figure a job in which they are discriminated against is better than being fired and having no job at all. And certainly, in these incredibly tough economic times, that is a rising reality. To make matters worse, skyrocketing unemployment rates have only put these vulnerable workers in a more precarious and often helpless position. Some of my Republican colleagues will also argue that this legislation will open the floodgates, leading to thousands of lawsuits claiming wage discrimination. But this argument simply has no merit. For over 40 years, the courts have interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be consistent with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Eight out of nine appellate courts interpreted it that way, and yet there was no flood of litigation then, nor will there be after we enact this vital piece of legislation into law. Some of my conservative colleagues will argue that this legislation will make companies liable for decades of backpay and will encourage workers to intentionally delay and file claims years later when those accused might no longer be around to defend themselves. Again, these arguments simply ignore the facts. Under this legislation, backpay would be capped at 2 years regardless of how long the victim was discriminated against and the burden to prove discrimination took place is borne by the worker. Any lack of witnesses available to testify would only hurt the worker's efforts to prove their case. Critics who say this legislation will cripple businesses miss the point. The fact is that companies following the law are currently put at a competitive disadvantage compared to those who exploit their workers. The executive director of the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce--a strong business advocacy group--succinctly noted: The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act rewards those who play fair--including women business owners--unlike the Supreme Court's decision, which seems to give an unfair advantage to those who skirt the rules. So we have a strong business advocacy group saying treat those who are obeying the law as it was intended and as it, in fact, has been pursued for over four decades in a way that doesn't put them at a competitive disadvantage. The vast majority of businesses that practice legal hiring procedures will not have to change anything and will no longer be punished for doing the right thing. Wage discrimination is real. The Fair Pay Act would strike a clear blow against it. So we have to make sure to keep the legislation strong. Unfortunately, I am afraid the amendment offered by our colleague from Texas, Senator Hutchison, would severely undermine it. That amendment would require people to prove they had no reason--no reason--to suspect their employer was discriminating against them in 180 days. The amendment is pretty confusing just on its face. I have to ask, how does an employee prove she doesn't suspect discrimination? And when should she have to? In general, I don't see how it is relevant whether a victim suspects discrimination; the issue is whether there is discrimination. If it is happening, it has to be stopped, plain and simple. You can't ultimately be in a position in which you are allowed to discriminate and get away with it. If we send that message in our society, then all the progress we have made will be rolled back. Madam President, I would like to believe that every Member of this body champions principles of equality, justice, and liberty as much as I do. But principles are meaningless without practice. Without vigilantly ensuring that no person is discriminated against because of their gender, their race, their religion, their ethnicity, or their sexual orientation, our principles become just empty words. I would like to remind my colleagues that inaction on this issue is akin to tacit acceptance. And as Dr. King said: We will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends. I urge my colleagues to remember those wise words and put their votes where their values are by supporting this vital piece of civil rights legislation. I thank my distinguished colleague from Maryland for leading the charge. She has been an exceptional fighter on this issue, and I know she will soon see the fruits of her labor, not for herself and her advocacy but for millions of women, Latinos, and African Americans who find themselves discriminated against and who deserve the ability for all to be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor without such discrimination. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Minnesota for allowing me to move forward in this time, during this process, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, is there a time limitation?

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, a few days ago, we all counted down the final seconds of 2008. In Israel they had something else to count all through last year. From January until December of 2008, a terrorist group launched more than 3,262 rockets and mortar shells into Israeli cities. These were deliberate acts of violence, provocation, and murder. The group responsible was Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization founded on one principal goal: destroying the state of Israel. Its charter says there is no value to international conferences, political initiatives, or dialogue. It says there is only one approach to the political situation in the Middle East, and that is jihad. So it was no surprise when the terrorist group Hamas staged an illegal coup against the forces of President Mahmoud Abbas, the legitimate President of the Palestinian people. It was no surprise that Hamas rejected Egyptian and Arabian calls for an extension of the cease-fire Egypt had negotiated. It was no surprise that when Israel voluntarily and unilaterally dismantled settlements and withdrew from Gaza in 2005 that Hamas saw this not as an opportunity to build peace but to instigate war, to continue to terrorize and kill Israelis in their places of worship, their schools, and their homes. Since that year, Hamas terrorists have used Gaza to fire more than 6,300 mortars and rockets into Israel, reaching major cities, and pushing ever closer to the capital. No country would be expected to sit on its hands and simply allow its citizens to endure these kinds of vicious attacks without taking action to stop the responsible party. If I am sitting in New Jersey, and rockets are landing around my house, near my children, and near our schools, my No. 1 goal, my immediate goal, is to stop the rockets. So in December of 2008, Israel sent its military to Gaza to achieve a direct goal: stop the rockets. And now we all hope strongly that this goal can be achieved as quickly as possible. But we recognize it must be pursued if Israel is to have the sovereign right to protect itself and its citizens. Israel's acts to stop the Hamas rocket attacks are a response to the daily risk of death faced by the 900,000 Israeli citizens who live within rocket range. These innocent civilians have been forced to live constantly under the threat of mass casualties. No nation--no nation-- should have to wait for the death toll to rise enough before it can act. No nation needs to wait until enough schoolchildren have fallen victim to a rocket attack before it stops rockets from falling on its cities. The launching of rockets and mortar fire is an invasion of Israel's sovereign territory. It is no different from dropping bombs out of airplanes. It is no different from any other act of war. There is no question that Israel has a right and an obligation to defend its people. We mourn the loss of all innocent life, and the death of Palestinian civilians as a result of this conflict is tragic. There are a great many Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank who completely reject the Hamas ideology. They want to live in peace and build the Palestinian state for themselves and for their children. They are, however, Hamas hostages. Hamas has hijacked Gaza, not to build a state in which you can live in peace and prosperity but to use it as a base to launch attacks against innocent civilians in Israel. Let us remember it was Hamas that chose to end the cease-fire, Hamas that chose to fire a continuous barrage of rockets. To date, it is Hamas that deliberately uses civilians as human shields and launches its attacks from heavily populated civilian areas, putting them at risk. It is Hamas that has spent its money on rockets rather than on food for the hungry. It is Hamas that would rather focus on the rhetoric that calls for the destruction of the State of Israel than on relief for its own people. Israel and the United States have proven their commitment to helping innocent civilians in Gaza. In stark contrast to the terrorist group of Hamas, Israel has taken significant steps to prevent civilian casualties. They give warnings of impending attacks, they drop leaflets, and make phone calls to targeted areas to warn the citizens they are in danger, even if that means losing the element of surprise and putting the lives of their own soldiers at risk. Israel and the United States have actively provided humanitarian assistance to Gaza. Since December 26, 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid have been delivered to Gaza in coordination with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, international organizations, and various other donors. The United States Government, through the U.S. Agency for International Development, is continuing to deliver humanitarian supplies to the people of Gaza. The United States has provided medical and food supplies to health care facilities. We support the UN, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and other nongovernmental organizations as they continue their relief efforts. We all want peace in Gaza and hope it can come very soon. But peace cannot be achieved so long as Hamas continues its missile attacks. If a just and lasting cease-fire is to occur, it is incumbent upon Hamas to immediately and permanently halt all attacks against the Israeli people. I rise today to express unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of the state of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. That is what the resolution before us affirms. As the resolution states, the ultimate goal of the United States is a ``sustainable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that will allow for a viable and independent Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security with the State of Israel.'' This will not be possible as long as Israeli civilians are under threat from rockets. As this resolution correctly lays out, Hamas must end the rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce violence, and agree to accept previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. Today, the Senate must stand in support of the state of Israel, stand in support of its right to defend itself against terrorists, stand in support of its right to exist. Having said all of this, of course, we urge Israel as it defends its sovereignty and its people to use every option it can to limit the loss of innocent lives. So let us vote for a resolution that demonstrates our commitment to one of the strongest allies the United States of America has in the world, and let us do all we can to make it a peaceful 2009. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I honor the life of Pablo Raul Alarcon. His dedication and achievements in overcoming the tyranny of the Castro regime to found the largest publicly traded Hispanic- controlled media company in America stands as a powerful example of the realization of the American dream. While we mourn the passing of this broadcasting pioneer, we celebrate his legacy and the profound impact his life has had on the United States. Today, the Spanish Broadcasting System owns and operates 20 radio stations across the country, including the No. 1 Spanish-language radio station in America--which I have the privilege of listening to when I am home in New Jersey. They own a popular television station and operate a bilingual Web site dedicated to Latino culture and news. Under the exemplary leadership of Mr. Alarcon's son, Raul Alarcon, Jr., SBS continues to be the gold standard in Hispanic-operated broadcasting. The Alarcons were born in Cuba, where Pablo Raul Alarcon founded his first radio station in 1951. He found success creating a network of 14 stations across the country, which were ultimately seized by the Castro dictatorship. The Alarcons fled to America with few possessions. But the tyranny of Castro could not crush the spirit of their entrepreneurship. Mr. Alarcon worked his way up in Spanish language radio, doing programming, sales, and advertising. In 1983 Mr. Alarcon and his son, Raul Alarcon, Jr., fulfilled their long-held dream of once again owning a broadcast station. They purchased a small AM station licensed in my home State and created the first Spanish language format to be introduced into the New York/New Jersey market in over 25 years. Since 1983, the Alarcons have overseen the expansion of SBS to become one of the premier Hispanic-controlled broadcast companies in America. Soon after its founding, SBS expanded to Los Angeles and Miami. In 1993, their KLAX-FM station achieved a historic overall No. 1 ranking in southern California. As the torch was passed from father to son, SBS continued its rise. In 1999, SBS completed the second largest IPO in radio history and continued expanding their network of broadcast stations. That same year, SBS went online with the purchase of lamusica.com. In 2001, SBS produced a sell-out Madison Square Garden charity concert to honor the victims of September 11. In 2006, SBS entered the television broadcasting business with the creation of the MEGA-TV network. Raul Alarcon, Jr., is well known for his tremendous successes as the president and CEO of SBS. He has been recognized as one of the 100 most influential Hispanics and as one of the 40 most powerful people in radio. In 1994, Raul Alarcon, Jr., was given the Lifetime Achievement Award for Business Excellence. In 1995, he received both the Ellis Island Medal of Honor and the Human Rights Committee Radio Contributions Award. He has testified before Congress and his position as an authority in the field of minority media ownership is unparalleled. There is no doubt that the Alarcons exhibit the embodiment of the American dream. When a cruel dictatorship destroyed their life's work, they came to America and started over by creating a company that impacts the lives of millions of Americans. So I am pleased to pay tribute to the Spanish Broadcasting System, to honor the passing of Pablo Raul Alarcon, and to recognize the tremendous achievement of Raul Alarcon, Jr., in carrying on his father's legacy.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Chairman Dodd, with the scale of this undertaking and the volume of assets that will be managed, I want to ensure that the contracting provisions for asset managers under the package lead to the engagement of financially sound institutions that have the best and brightest financial minds. The package gives the Treasury Secretary broad authority, including the explicit authority to waive certain portions of Federal acquisition regulations when retaining asset managers. Along those lines, I want to ensure that, despite the safeguards that have been provided, the Secretary does not take a narrow approach but, rather, seeks the broadest collection of asset management experts to assist him. Therefore, I ask my colleague from Connecticut, the chairman of the Banking Committee, do you believe that it is the intent of Congress that the contracting process must be as full and open as possible and that the Secretary should consider a broad range of asset managers, including broker-dealers, insurers, and other experts?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I am as angry as any New Jerseyan, as any American, about the economic situation we have been put in. But the truth is, for those who are honest with themselves, they know we are in an economic crisis and doing nothing is not an option. If we don't get credit flowing again, businesses won't be able to operate. People in our neighborhoods will lose their jobs. Getting a loan for a car, an education, or a home will become increasingly difficult, if not impossible. I believe the American dream itself is facing one of the greatest risks in recent history. What we have before us is an economic stabilization plan. It is not perfect. But it will help protect and create jobs by restoring stability and confidence to our economy. We have taken the plan the administration sent us. We rejected it and reworked it. George Bush first sent us a plan with no accountability, a plan where the idea of checks and balances was: We write the check, and they fill in the blank. But we have changed that plan, made vast improvements, and put taxpayers first. The plan provides for oversight, accountability, an oversight board, and a special inspector general. The plan makes sure there is congressional review and, ultimately, approval for any additional funding over $350 billion. In this plan, taxpayers will be treated as investors. If we take on a risk, we will be given warrants, the equivalent of a shareholder, given a stake in any future profit that might lie ahead for that company. If we step in during the decline, taxpayers must be allowed to share in the profit. So the plan is structured to reward taxpayers with profits while protecting them from losses. This plan says there will be no more golden parachutes. People who led us into this mess cannot be rewarded for failure. Besides strengthening our economy's foundation, it creates jobs, provides relief for struggling homeowners, and will help small businesses access credit, the small businesses that create 75 percent of America's jobs. Tonight's vote provides also tax relief for the middle class by taking care of the alternative minimum tax in the next year. It pushes for loan modifications to help struggling homeowners stay in their homes and stop property values from falling in our neighborhoods. This vote tonight invests in America's renewable energy, to drive down gas prices and create American jobs that can't be outsourced. Now, this plan is not perfect, but it is necessary. We still have a long way to go toward tackling the root of this crisis, which is the housing market. I hope we will set the goal of saving at least a million families from foreclosure. We still have a long way to go to establish the strong regulatory enforcement I have called for in the past that prevents the kinds of abuses that got us into this situation in the first place. But, again, doing nothing is not an option. Jobs are on the line. People's cars, houses, and educations are on the line. Those who would reject this plan tonight out of ideology will be punishing not the CEOs but hundreds of thousands of Americans who will lose their jobs. Madam President, I am going to heed the call of Senator Obama. It is time for us to come together and act in the best interests of this country. Clearly, we are experiencing unprecedented times. I, along with some of my colleagues, warned many times in the past about the gathering specter that irresponsible lending posed, but we were dismissed as alarmists. This is one instance where I wish I had been wrong. But tonight is not about looking back and pointing fingers. It is about looking forward and preventing even further damage to our economy before it is really too late. Tonight is about keeping the American dream stable enough that we can make it a solid promise for tomorrow, and that is why I will be voting yes. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the Senator.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I had intended to speak, but with an understanding that is the presentation by the Senator from Maine, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Maine is recognized by the Chair, I would be recognized following that.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, if I may.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act and the rail safety bill. I thank Senator Lautenberg, the senior Senator from New Jersey, for being a tireless advocate for rail travel and for successfully shepherding these two essential bills to the floor and hopefully to final passage. In a time of high gas prices, rising air fares, increasing traffic congestion and concerns about greenhouse gas emissions, rail travel can give Americans a sensible alternative mode of travel. Unfortunately, we have not provided rail travel the funding it needs to truly flourish. Every year since 2002 Amtrak has had to scrape by and continue operations on a yearly basis without adequate funds to maintain the rail system over the long haul. The system is at a breaking point. Amtrak's equipment is aging and no amount of maintenance can keep old equipment in service forever. And our rail infrastructure is at the breaking point at a time when our citizens need this system the most. In July Amtrak had more passengers than in any month in its 37 year history. But Amtrak is not just a transportation system that serves 25 million people each year. Amtrak is also an economic engine that creates jobs, fights sprawl, and fosters economic activity. I know firsthand the benefits of Amtrak because over one hundred thousand New Jersey commuters depend on Amtrak's infrastructure every day. Some critics want Amtrak to be the only major transportation system in the world that operates without government subsidy. This prompts a question. Do we ask roads to pay for themselves? Some of my colleagues like to think that gas taxes pay for roads, but this has never been the case. The Texas Department of Transportation recently revealed that not a single road in Texas has ever been fully paid for by a gas tax and most roads recoup less than half their costs from the gas tax. Asking transportation to pay for itself is a standard that is simply impossible to meet and a standard we do not hold any other mode of transportation to. Over the last 35 years we have spent less money on Amtrak than we will on highways in this year alone. When you factor in State and local subsidies for infrastructure and parking some studies suggest that up to 8 percent of our gross national product is spent on subsidies for automobile use. This bill will not give all the funds I think Amtrak deserves or needs to meet its full potential, but I think this legislation finally authorizes the funding Amtrak needs over the next 6 years to plan ahead, adequately fund its operations and finance some critical capital improvements. But these funds are not free. The bill requires Amtrak to tighten its belt while simultaneously improving service. The bill requires reforms that will reduce Amtrak's operating costs by 40 percent. In addition, the bill provides funds for States to provide new passenger rail service between cities. In some instances these State operations will likely provide service that complements existing Amtrak service just as the recent light rail projects in New Jersey have done. But in other cases these funds may actually create competition for Amtrak for service between some cities. And this bill will also require Amtrak to use its resources to provide a new level of service that improves on-time performance, upgrades on-board services, and provides easier access to other transportation systems. The Amtrak bill has also been combined with critical rail safety legislation that would strengthen our railroad security apparatus by investing $1.6 billion in critical transportation safety initiatives. Tragically, we learned just over 2 weeks ago how important railroad safety is when a Metrolink commuter train plowed head-on into a Union Pacific freight locomotive just outside of Los Angeles. Twenty-five people lost their lives and over 135 people were injured in the deadliest train crash this nation has seen in 15 years. Every one of those 25 Americans woke up and got ready for work that Friday morning just like any other day. Mothers and fathers kissed their children goodbye after breakfast, never assuming this would be the last time they would see their loved ones. Weekend plans were made--but were never fulfilled. That fateful Friday morning not only ended the lives of these 25 Americans, but took away 25 mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters from family members who will never be the same. When people board a train in the morning on their way to work, they deserve to have peace of mind that they will reach their destination safely. This legislation would take significant steps to give the American people this peace of mind. It ensures that railroad officials have the resources and tools to do their job safely and effectively by implementing training standards for all safety-related railroad employees and requiring train conductors be certified that they are up to speed with the newest systems in place. The bill also reforms hours-of-service requirements for crews and signal employees so that these critical workers are at their sharpest and most alert while on duty. In addition to these measures designed to reduce human error, we must also address the shortcomings in our rail infrastructure. Crumbling tracks, deteriorating bridges, and failing signals create an environment where it is only a matter of time before the next rail disaster strikes. This legislation fills many of these gaps by authorizing millions of dollars for critical improvements to infrastructure and safety features to make our rail network as safe as possible. This bill also ensures that safety rules are strictly adhered to by strengthening the Federal Railroad Administration's enforcement tools and increasing the penalties for safety violations. It is important to remember that our railroad network is not just critical to commerce and transportation but to national security as well. When the terrorist attacks on September 11 crippled our aviation sector, our Nation relied heavily on trains to make up the shortfall. This illustrates just how important a safe, efficient, well-operated rail transportation network is to all aspects of our nation's well- being--from commercial and economic capacity to national security. With record high gasoline prices, congested highways and airports that are experiencing record delays, we need all of the alternative forms of transportation we can provide to the frustrated American traveler. I urge my colleagues to recognize that a strong, well-funded and safe rail system is essential to our country. Please join me in voting for this critical bill. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate Senator Dodd's words, and I appreciate, above all, his leadership on the Banking Committee and here in this institution. You took a document that was sent to us that had no protections, no guarantees, and certainly nothing for the homeowner, and you dramatically made it better. I know you are working to look at what else can be done. Above all, I appreciate the statements you have made moving beyond the immediate crisis, the leadership you will exert on the committee to have us immediately look at some of these other challenges which are incredibly important for the Nation and a reassurance to the American people. I appreciate the Senator's leadership.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia. The Economy Mr. President, I rise to talk about the financial crisis our country is facing. I think to classify it as such is an understanding most Americans have. It is not an overstatement. The reality shows that today in a Washington Post ABC News poll, most Americans see the current financial situation as a crisis, and there is overwhelming concern that the failure of the House of Representatives to pass the economic recovery package may very well deepen that problem. I think it is important to note the poll also revealed significant public concern with the bill that Congress rejected yesterday. Few voters have said the package did enough to protect ordinary Americans and nearly half said it did not go far enough to shore up the Nation's economy. Half said the failed plan did not do enough to help the broader economy, and 61 percent said there was insufficient assistance for the general public. I think it is important, as we try to move forward in this institution and show some leadership, to keep those realities in mind-- of what our constituents back at home are saying. They recognize there is a crisis. They also recognize there is a challenge to them in the mainstream economy, and they felt as though that specific package didn't do enough for them. So many Americans--I would say the great majority of Americans--who are meeting their obligations with tremendous stress and challenges, who meet their monthly mortgage payments--have for years and have continued to do so--what they reasonably want to know is what do they get out of this? As my home State newspaper, the Star Ledger, said: Why, they continue to ask, should taxpayers have to subsidize the stupidity of people who were either greedy or maybe failed to do their homework? They go on to say in the editorial the real problem in Washington is that no one has made a cogent argument for why, in essence--this is paraphrasing--for why, in essence, we need to have a response and what does it mean to those who are not investment bankers or whose homes aren't in foreclosure. I think the economists generally agree the Nation's economy is at a serious risk of the flow of credit threatening to freeze beyond where it is already. We see the interest rates at which banks lend to each other rising each and every day, suggesting that lenders are hoarding cash. I think that gets to the question of what the editorials have said in my home State and others as well: So then what is the case to be made? Well, with banks leery of lending to each other, credit markets contract, making it difficult for businesses to obtain loans for expansion, to start new ventures or even to cover bills until unanticipated revenue comes in; car loans dry up, causing further suffering among the already ailing automakers; credit card interest rates rise, and all that forces, in essence, markets to shed jobs, creating more unemployment. Overall, this bleak fiscal picture causes consumers to scale back on spending, and then the little shop on Main Street closes as well. That is a broad brush. I would like to get to some of the specifics of how that affects us. When we have watched the news or picked up a newspaper over the last few months, we see top stories about the problems of big institutions: Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual and Wachovia. It has been easy to see what dire straits our financial system is in, but what is not making the headlines is what this economic crisis means for people in our hometowns. We have heard a lot about mortgage-backed securities, credit default swaps, and overnight lending rates. To be very honest with my colleagues, to a large number of Americans that is a foreign language-- but not about what they actually mean in terms of mortgages, credit card bills, and week-to-week budgets of our families. Those are items which they clearly understand and speak about around the kitchen table as they face challenges. I think some of us have been left with a mistaken impression that this crisis is just about Wall Street. I am worried people on every street in this country, who are being powerfully affected by this crisis, are being forgotten. Now, the heart of this crisis is the housing market. So many houses are going into foreclosure that now it is hard for anybody to get a loan of any kind, to buy a home, to invest in a business or have that business grow, to get a college education. There is a credit freeze so businesses can't grow. They can't pay expenses. They can't look to the future. It is becoming a financial wildfire, ravishing our economy and burning away at the fabric of our communities. The crisis stretches across every city in, for example, my home State, but it is replicated across the landscape of the country, North and South and East and West. In Newark, there is a single mother who has lost her job and now holds down three different part-time jobs to make up for it, while her kids are at home by themselves. In Clifton, there is a couple who work two jobs and bring in $4,000 a month together, but when the mortgage payment, the car payment, the electricity and gas, utility bills come in, and the grocery bills and the credit card bills come in every month, they worry they can't make ends meet. In another part of the State, there is a builder who is finding it almost impossible to get funding to keep his business going. Banks want bigger deposits, bigger monthly payments, and stricter payment deadlines. Today, I wish to focus on what the credit crunch means for every New Jerseyan and American--the jobs, the businesses or anyone who needs a loan to drive a car or go to college--and what it means for those who are closer to the twilight of their life and are thinking about their retirement and what that retirement has meant to them in terms of what is taking place and what will continue to take place if we see no action and how they may very well have to extend the time in which they thought they could retire. Let's talk about businesses, especially small businesses, because they are the ones that create 75 percent of all the jobs in America. We have always been an entrepreneurial people. We have always had the ideas and are willing to take intelligent risks to start a business, and those businesses are the ones that create jobs. They rent stores. They buy buildings. Those people who are employed ultimately are gainfully employed in a way that they have income to spend in other businesses for goods and services they need, which employ other people, and, of course, these businesses pay revenues, to their local, State, and Federal entities. So we can see the cycle of how important they are. Now, if you want to start a business, this is one of the worst climates in our history to do so. Loans aren't available, even to people with good credit, and especially not to entrepreneurs who are getting started. So that dream of Americans having business ownership is now miles further away. But the credit crunch hurts small businesses. There are those of us who every day are feeling restricted in our spending and frugal when we open our checkbooks. That means we aren't going, for example, to see this lady at the counter. She is ultimately at the other end of the business cycle. We are restricted in our spending. This is a reality. It is a reality we feel in our lives. We see what is happening in the country. We may already have faced some pressures in our own economic circumstances in a personal family way, so we hold back. We say: Let's see what will happen. How do I decide? So we restrict our spending and we are frugal when we open our checkbooks. That is probably in many ways smart, but there is also a consequence. That means a lot of us aren't going out to eat as much, which means the waitress isn't getting the tips she depended on to bring home for her family and the challenges her family has, and owners of that business aren't getting the checks they depend on, which means restaurants have to either contract dramatically the size of their workforce, or, in the acute set of circumstances, they have to close. It means the local retailer--perhaps from whom we buy the treat we have once a week at the end of a long week or a gift we are buying for a family member or a friend's birthday--will see depleting sales. As their cash input decreases, they have to decrease their output, and they will be giving pink slips to their employees. It means we see more of this sign that says ``store closed'' for business. It means the local lunch spot or the barber will not have the same lunchtime rush or the same Saturday appointments. While we certainly can all live without a haircut as frequently or without eating our favorite sandwich, those shop owners depend on our steady business. They depend on that appointment to make ends meet. When, in fact, that doesn't happen, there is a consequence to them and those who work there and the families of all who are situated there. Small businesses don't have access to capital because banks have severely cut back in lending. So, for example, when my dear father was alive, he was an itinerant carpenter, and he used to go to the lumber shop where he had a little bit of credit to get some supplies as he did the business--the work for the people who hired him--but that lumber store obviously had to get their suppliers and the credit that, in fact, they needed to get those supplies there, to then extend credit to him so he would be able to go ahead and do the job and then get paid and then pay for his supplies and the chain goes on. When, in fact, that chain is broken, there is a consequence, and the consequence of that is people lose their employment. There is a ripple effect. It is not only they who lose their employment but all the resources they had in making the purchase of goods and services that ultimately hired other people and who had families and who had needs and who made expenditures. So we see the consequences of that. In the construction field, for example, we have a set of circumstances where, in fact, you have contractors who get a job in southern New Jersey, but he doesn't get paid for that job upfront. He makes a bid. It might be a public contract or it might be a private construction project. He doesn't get paid up front. So that contractor needs credit. What does he need the credit for? He needs the credit for the supplies to bring to the job to do the work. He needs credit for floating so that he can keep his payroll going for the people he has to pay up front every week so they can do the work that creates the home or the building or the business structure that ultimately will pay them, and they will repay their credit from their suppliers and then ultimately be able to make a profit. Again, all of those construction materials that are provided to that contractor, those people, those entities have credit as it relates to those who provide the supplies that they sell to contractors. So there is, again, an intricate balance of all of these interests coming together in a way that affects the person wearing a hard hat on the front lines of building the infrastructure, the homes, the churches, and the businesses of our community. Again, the reality: When a credit freeze takes place, the pink slips start getting printed, and the workforce is suddenly unemployed. Now the contractors cannot pay their suppliers, so their cash inventory drops and their ability to issue payroll at the end of the week is also jeopardized, and it pushes more families into the ranks of the unemployed. It is a vicious cycle occurring far away from Wall Street, but it is affecting our families, our neighbors, our friends on Main Street. The credit crunch changes our ability to shop. Every business to some degree depends on this credit process for what they sell and the supplies they get. We often use our credit cards in the process of purchasing those goods. But when manufacturers cannot get loans that they need to keep the manufacturing process going to create the products that ultimately get consumed at a store where the store takes credit and purchases it from them but gets maybe 30 days, 60 days the manufacturer needs to continue to produce the product so that ultimately it goes to that store where ultimately consumers seek to purchase, in fact, they cannot get the money to keep the product on the shelves, and, of course, the cycle is clear. Look at farmers. New Jersey is called the Garden State. I often tell my friends you have to get off the turnpike if you want to know what the Garden State really looks like. We have spinach. We are in the top two or three in spinach. We have a whole host of speciality products-- peach orchards, cranberry bogs, blueberries, to mention some. For farmers, crop planting depends greatly on the amount of available credit. Farmers cannot plant next year's crop if they cannot get this year's loans. So from cranberries to blueberries to all of these other products, everything you buy at the grocery store is going to be more expensive. Some food products may wind up in very short supply. They are going to be more expensive because even if you have a great credit history--as the cranberry bogs in the pinelands of New Jersey--if you have a good credit history but the credit crunch creates a higher and higher standard for what you will borrow and under what terms and conditions you will borrow, that is going to be reflected ultimately in the end cost of the product we consume on the dining room table. We have a challenge that is direct for farmers, for family farmers, and for all of us as consumers as we put fruits and vegetables on the table for our families to consume, and that has a direct consequence to us. Credit cards. As loans become more and more difficult and expensive to get, people will continue to increase their usage of credit cards. I hope if people have some disposable money that they will pay down their credit card debts. That is a good thing to be doing in these times and not be looking at spending a lot of interest on credit card debt. This is a good time, if you have the resources, to pay down credit card debt. I know so many families who tell me they are using that credit card as they have transitions in jobs, as they meet some of their challenges. We see credit card interest rates which are already rising, and they will continue to escalate as banks look for ways to recoup the losses resulting from those defaults that are taking place. This is an issue I raised before about credit card reform. We need to pursue reform in several sectors of our financial industry. We already have credit card debt in this country that collectively equals $850 billion. Now we are seeing the consequences of those who find themselves using their credit cards in this economy who ultimately are facing higher interest rates and, should they be somewhat late, higher fees for those payments for being slightly late. Then we will see a ripple effect of those fees pushing people beyond their limits, and when they get pushed beyond their limits artificially, they are in default. When they are in that default, they find themselves with a whole host of new charges that continue to push up their debt. We need to do something about this situation. But it is part of the reality of our present existence that, in fact, we see this driving up as we speak. That is a consequence to the average consumer in this country. I had a teacher in New Jersey who recently showed how hard it is getting for anyone to get a car loan. This teacher is not living within the community in which she teaches. She has to drive there. It is not a location where public transit is easily available. This teacher in New Jersey, who has driven to work every day for the past few years, has to buy a new car because hers is broken down. But the auto lending market essentially has been closed to buyers with credit scores of less than 720. By the way, 720 is an excellent score. Yet finding the resources for an auto loan, not having the money to put it all out to purchase a car up front in cash--they need the opportunity to get access to that auto loan, and even with scores of 720 or less, they are finding it increasingly difficult to do so. Even if they have some savings and just want a modest new car to take them where they need to go to work, unless they have excellent credit, they quite simply are not going to get a loan to get that car. If we don't act soon, we are going to see students who will have trouble paying for their education. Parents trying to save for their children's college education will see their investments shrink, along with the stock market. College endowments that invest in the stock market are also getting hit hard, which makes it harder for them to provide financial assistance to students. If students need loans--and I know in my own life, someone who grew up poor in a tenement, the first in my family to go to college, if it wasn't for what we have done in the Federal Government through Pell grants and Perkins loans and also through other loans, I would not have been the first in my family to go to college and then law school. Students who manage to find loans will carry a higher interest rate than they would otherwise, leaving our graduates with crushing debt. We are already seeing so many of our children graduate with enormous debt. They graduate with a diploma in one hand and enormous debt in the other one. That is only going to rise under the current circumstances-- crushing debt before they even enter the job market. When they do leave school and start to look for a job, at this point, these graduates in the next year or two are going to be greeted by one of the worst job markets in 5 years. We are already at 6.1 percent unemployment and rising. We will see inaction only create a greater percentage of unemployment than we have experienced, and that will be some of the highest unemployment we have seen in well over a generation. In addition to burdening young people who are just about to launch their careers, failing to act will exacerbate the already difficult situation facing those who are winding down their careers and looking forward to retirement. We saw yesterday that the Dow lost the equivalent of $1.2 trillion in value. That is not just about wealthy people who have money to make investments in stocks. That is about those who have 401(k)s, that is about pension plans that make investments on behalf of their pensioners, that is about a broad breadth of all of us. Failing to act exacerbates the already difficult situation facing those who are winding down their careers and looking forward to retirement. When I looked before, the Dow was going back up, but the problem is that we see no sense of stability. Losses are real. It is not just the point on the Dow; it is the overall S&P performance as well. These people will see their decades of savings continue to shrink smaller and smaller as their IRAs, 401(k)s, and mutual funds drop in value. Yesterday's stock market alone accounted for approximately a $1.2 trillion loss. Without action, those losses will only get worse. I know that a lot of people do not want to look at their 401(k)s right now, but everyone is going to have to look at them eventually. Those on the cusp of retirement cannot afford to wait several years for the market to stabilize on its own. They will be forced to stay in the job market long after they planned on retiring. That is a cruel reality for people who have worked a lifetime to help create families, build communities, and now find themselves in this challenge as they go into those years in which they thought their hard work would pay off. These hard-working Americans, who worked hard their whole lives, need us to act in a strong and sensible way to ensure that 30 years of savings do not get largely eliminated within 30 days. Let's talk about mortgages, which is at the heart of what our challenges are and the foreclosures that are mounting. The credit crunch affects your mortgage even if you pay it on time because if you have a mortgage, whether you pay it on time or not, you are going to find it difficult, if not impossible, to refinance your mortgage or to take out a second mortgage if you need it for the college education of your children or if, God forbid, there is an illness in your family that isn't covered by the insurance you have, if you have insurance, or if you are underinsured. You are going to find yourself with higher rates and different lending conditions. Your neighbors who are struggling and who are walking away from their homes because there is a padlock on the front door--their loss; you may think they maybe didn't make the right decisions, maybe they are part of that 6.1 percent unemployment who lost their jobs and now find themselves in a set of circumstances where they cannot meet the mortgage payment, maybe some should have known better. But regardless of the circumstances, whether they lost their job, don't have the income stream they had before to pay their mortgage, or whether it is because they were led to bad mortgages--I have people come into my Senate offices in New Jersey, and when we look at their information, we see they could have been very responsible borrowers at fixed rates, but they were led to mortgage instruments that, yes, were lower at the beginning but ultimately ballooned later. It is a crime that those mortgage lenders drove them to those products, knowing they could have been a very responsible borrower and had the ability to pay a long-term loan at a fixed rate, they led them to those products and had them choose a mortgage product where now they find themselves losing their home. Neighborhoods with foreclosures bring down home values for everyone in that community. I looked at the Center for Responsible Lending, and I looked at what they are saying about some of our challenges. In New Jersey alone, there are approximately 53,000 homes, and rising, in foreclosure. By the way, we are not the worst State in the Nation in this regard but by way of example. What does that mean? That affects neighborhoods and other homes and becomes a multiplier effect of enormous proportions. When a home forecloses in your neighborhood, the overall value of homes in that neighborhood falls. In New Jersey, that is the equivalent of about an $11,000 loss on your home. Having done absolutely nothing, paying your mortgage, being responsible, you still lost $11,000 on your home because of foreclosures taking place in your neighborhood. When there is a multiplicity of those foreclosures taking place in your neighborhood, it drives the value down even more. That has a consequence too. When values are driven down, as a former mayor I can tell you that means the ratable base begins to shrink. When the ratable base of all values begins to shrink, that is less taxes being paid. When that happens, there are two decisions to make. Either you cut services--police, fire, education--or you have to raise taxes collectively. Of course, that has a spiraling effect in and of itself. This foreclosure crisis is very much a reality not only for those who are losing and/or have lost their homes, but it is very real for those of us who still have a home because our home simply isn't worth as much as we paid for it. The credit crunch makes it harder to get financing to go buy a home presently. We have a story of someone who, totally responsible, good job, buys a condo and gets preapproved for their loan and they sign a contract. But a week before the closing, they are told the market in which they have purchased is declining and now they have to come up with twice the downpayment they had originally been approved for. So that may mean that home doesn't get sold, that person has to make other choices or, if they have any assets to meet the greater downpayment, they now have to make other choices in their lives as well. So the house sits on the market continuing to lose value and affects the values of all other homes in that neighborhood. That has a consequence for all of us. I have tried to outline what some of the challenges are. Let me talk about what I hope we will consider moving toward. As bad as the situation has gotten, with hundreds of thousands of Americans losing their jobs and millions losing their homes, energy and health costs sky-high, with businesses in trouble and loans of any kind incredibly hard to come by, most Americans have been morally opposed to the rescue plan leaders in Congress and the administration presented. Most Americans aren't too interested in a plan that risks rewarding those who got us into this mess, and they are absolutely right to be outraged. I, personally, as someone who in March of 2007, at a Senate Banking Committee hearing, raised the fact that we were going to face a tsunami of foreclosures and that we should be ahead of the curve and deal with that reality, unfortunately, had the administration say to me at that hearing that it was an exaggeration. Well, unfortunately, we haven't even seen the crest of that tsunami, and this is the issue that is at the core of our challenge. So I am, personally, incredibly angry that the greatest economy in the world has been brought to this point. But let us be very clear: Those people who brought us into this process have to be brought to justice, but while we consider that, the reality is we are all facing a consequence. That said, the need for accountability doesn't take away the need for action to rescue the system they damaged. As much as maybe some reckless CEO deserves to lose their job, we can't watch 2 to 3 million Americans lose their jobs to achieve that result. We can't let the entire system fail to punish the few who brought us to where we are today. We have already lost over 600,000 jobs this year alone. We have a 6.2-percent unemployment rate--the highest in 5 years. In some communities, such as the Latino community, it is 8 percent unemployment and rising. We have to be very clear. If the crisis continues, it is going to drastically change our way of life for the worse. So doing nothing is not an option. If we don't shore up the economy's foundation, the floor is going to cave in on all of us. We have to do something to thaw out the credit market, restore trust in our financial system, and put out this economic wildfire before it is too late. Once we saw centuries-old financial institutions fail, once we saw our credit markets freeze up and Americans' savings begin to disappear, the question wasn't do we have to act, the question was how to craft a plan that would work and would give maximum protection to the taxpayers who might fund it. Now, I believe there is something that wasn't in the plan but that should be included, and I appreciate Senator Obama's suggestion of it today, where he proposed lifting the current limit on the Federal Deposit Insurance from its current limit of $100,000 to $250,000. He said he believed it would be: A step that would boost small businesses, make our banking system more secure, and help restore public confidence in our financial system. Right now, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation guarantees deposits up to $100,000 for every citizen or business. Meaning that if the bank goes down, the Federal Government guarantees your first $100,000 are safe. This would raise that limit, at least for a period of time. The FDIC has a long history of experience in protecting taxpayers from an infusion of public capital, especially by preferred stocks and warrants. They know what is the right stock and warrant. These are the guarantees for taxpayers. It would stop the flight by small businesses from some banks to those banks that are considered too big to fail but leaves other institutions without the resources to be part of the lending that is necessary in the community. Deposits would stay in these institutions because there would be newfound confidence, and others would now be depositing their money because they would have a higher insurance level, of up to $250,000, which would provide liquidity to lend to those very businesses that may be placing their resources there. Again, these are the small businesses that create 75 percent of all the jobs in the country. So I hope we will look toward including that provision. I think it is a good one. Change is a good part of what we are seeking to do with an institution that has a long history of being successful on behalf of the taxpayers. I also hope we will look at homeowners. I had a pastor in my home State of New Jersey who had been working with not only his congregation but others with his community development organization to try to save homes. We are told that, in fact, we are getting the lenders and the banks to reconsider the mortgages and refinance them and work with people so they can stay in their home and be responsible borrowers. It is better to have a performing mortgage versus one that is nonperforming and is a negative asset to that bank. So if we can keep people in their homes, making it a performing mortgage and making sure it is, in fact, an asset and not a liability to those institutions, we should do that. Yet recently we had a situation--one example--of a home in New Jersey with a $238,000 mortgage. The homeowner was in foreclosure crisis. They offered to give $220,000 of the $238,000 through the community development corporation. The bank said no. So they are getting zero. Instead of getting zero, they were going to get $220,000 of the $238,000--an $18,000 difference--and they said no. So the community development corporation went to the foreclosure sale and bid the $238,000, the full amount of the mortgage. What did the bank do? They bid it up to $240,000. So they preferred to have this person go in foreclosure. They bid more than they were even getting on the mortgage, even though they could have been made whole, and at the end of the day they had a mortgage that was nonperforming. So we need to do a lot better, a lot better at what is the core of the problem. I think the New York Times said it well when they said: Homeowners were also given short shrift with provisions that mainly urged lenders and the Treasury to do more to help them. That's unconscionable. The financial crisis is as much a problem for homeowners as for Wall Street investment bankers. Appeals to lenders' better natures has not worked to bring lasting relief to homeowners. If they are still not working in the coming months, Congress needs to revisit the issue. I agree with them totally. It should be a basic principle of our actions now, that if we have to rescue Wall Street from their profit- seeking failures, we should also rescue homeowners, many of whom are in trouble through no fault of their own. Remembering Main Street is beneficial to all of us, and remembering that a foreclosure in our neighborhood affects the value of every house on the block and brings down the broader economy, it doesn't make sense to simply sign off on a plan that keeps the CEO in their office but kicks a family out of their home. If we are going to solve the problems that are at the root of the crisis, we have to provide real relief for struggling homeowners. That is incredibly important. One of those ways is through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They are now Federal entities. Not only were they federally backed at one time, but they have now been taken over by the Federal Government. They do not need legislation to have a 90-day freeze on mortgages that may be in foreclosure. We can try to rework those mortgages and make them performing loans and keep people in their homes. We can make them positive assets versus negative assets for the bank, and that is one thing we can do without any action. But we need the Government and the administration to move in that direction. That also further limits taxpayer exposure. Finally, let's go back to that poll. What did Americans say? They understand this is a crisis, but they don't see the connection in their lives, and I have tried to make that. They also didn't think there was enough in the package to deal with the challenges they face. Therefore, I know our colleagues, many on the other side of the aisle, didn't vote for the stimulus package we offered as Democrats. But it is time to hear what Americans are saying to you. It is time for a new economic stimulus package targeted at creating hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs so we can offset the 600,000 that were lost over the course of this year and to prevent cuts in critical services for millions of Americans. I hope we will revisit that. We should institute a loan program to help jump-start one of the most important economic engines in America--small business. As I have said before, because of this severe credit crunch, many small businesses-- especially those starting out but many well-established businesses--are having trouble finding credit on the private market. I think emergency loans should be available to small business along the lines of what we provide during a natural disaster. This is a pretty big financial storm, and temporary relief can make a big difference. After all, these are the businesses that create 75 percent of America's jobs. Tom Friedman put it well when he said: If our economy were a car, the financial markets would be the transmission, but they're not the engine. The engine of American prosperity is American innovation. And until we get that engine revved up again, investing in higher education and advanced energy, we are going to be driving over a rough stretch of road. Most importantly, if the Federal Government is either going to take on these bad assets or find some other way of capitalization, there must be regulatory reform as well. Those regulations must be robustly enforced. We can't have the cop on the beat, which is the regulator, ultimately hitting the snooze button instead of being at their post and making sure we don't have excesses in the marketplace in a way that ultimately leads us to where we are today. So we never find ourselves in this position again if we pursue robust regulation and its enforcement. If we do not do that, we will send the message that it is okay for firms to behave recklessly, and we will be forced to follow this challenge further down the line. I do not mean to say that the movement toward a rescue plan, with some of the additions I talked about, whether in that plan or following on, is going to bring the sunlight of prosperity tomorrow. I think no one here should believe that. But the consequences would be far greater. I think it was said best in the past when President Hoover said, ``The fundamental business of the country is on a sound and prosperous basis.'' Well, we are not on a sound and prosperous basis. It sounds similar to some of the comments being made today. We need to address some of these fundamentals. This in and of itself will not be it. So I hope the Senate will stay even after we meet this challenge in the next day or so, and hopefully the House will follow the leadership that has taken place here. I hope we will understand that there are still challenges in the days ahead. The administration has left us with bad choices, but they are choices, nonetheless, that we have to deal the best and act on in the Nation's interests at the end of the day. As a member of the Banking Committee, I agree with Chairman Dodd. We should have sessions to look very closely at the regulations we need, this administration and the one in the future. This one does not have too much left to it to adopt. We need a strong response, but we need one that is well calibrated, has the appropriate oversight, and we want to make sure Main Street is protected as much as Wall Street. The financial crisis we face is not an academic exercise. I know some people talk about this esoterically. It is not an academic exercise. I hope people do not treat it that way because in an academic exercise, you can be wrong and the consequences are not great. If we think this is an academic exercise and we are wrong, then the consequences will be very significant. It is a threat to our everyday way of life, and if we do not act, we risk the flood of suffering washing over the entire country. This is one of those moments that each Member of the Senate and each Member of the House must look to determine the courage that is necessary to act in the face of something that is not very popular, obviously. We might take a page out of John F. Kennedy's book ``Profiles in Courage.'' In that book, which is stories of courage that have taken place in this institution and in the other in moments of great importance to the country, he said in that book: In whatever arena of life one meets the challenge of courage, no matter the sacrifices he makes--the loss of his friends, his fortune, his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow man--the stories of past courage can teach, they can offer hope, and they can provide inspiration, but they cannot provide courage itself. For this, each man--and, I would add, each woman--must look into his own soul. Preventing collapse, helping those in need--that is our challenge. I hope that, with some changes and a commitment to do more in the mainstream economy, we will have every Member look in their own soul and provide the courage that is necessary to do what is right for our country and its people. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I was happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Maine on her recognition of Senator Warner. I certainly join in her comments about Senator Warner, as we did recently when the Senator appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and recognized his tremendous service to this institution and to the country. I often say, as I said to him before at the hearing, that, in fact, I am privileged I came to the Senate at a time when I got to serve with John Warner and to see some of the finest traditions of service in this country. I appreciate his tremendous service, not just to the people of Virginia but to the people of this Nation.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the 2009 Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, a bill better known as the continuing resolution. Keeping the government running, particularly as so many Americans are struggling in these tough economic times, is vital. Besides ensuring that basic services continue to be provided, we are also providing some additional measures of assistance that will benefit millions of middle class and working Americans. Now more than ever, we can't simply tell Americans who are having a rough go of it, ``Tough luck, you're on your own.'' It is important to responsibly offer a helping hand where we can and help spur the economy. As families face increasing energy bills that have stretched their budgets thin, and as we head toward cold winter days and nights, we are providing some relief. This resolution contains substantial low-income energy assistance and weatherization assistance--programs that are essential for seniors and low income families this upcoming winter. The CR will also provide much-needed resources for families struggling to keep up with increasing grocery bills and rising college tuition fees. It will provide urgently needed disaster assistance to those hit by recent hurricanes, substantial funding or veteran's health care, and an important investment in Pell grants and emergency food assistance. As the author of the COAST Act, I am adamantly opposed to expanded coastline drilling along eastern and western seaboards of the United States, especially the Jersey shore. I want to continue the moratorium that has protected our Outer Continental Shelf for over two decades. Expanded OCS drilling is bad energy policy, bad environmental policy, and it will do nothing to lower the prices at the pump, now or ever. This country deserves a serious debate about energy and not just election year posturing. Though this resolution does not extend the moratorium on coastline drilling, it allows us to revisit this issue in March, when we can have a serious policy discussion. In the meantime, drilling would not commence between now and then--or for years into the future--anyway. With a new Congress and a new administration I will continue to stand up for the development of a real, comprehensive energy policy that achieves our goals without endangering the Jersey shore. With this action today, we have avoided a shutdown of the Federal Government, provided much-needed relief to middle-class and working Americans struggling in this economy and allowed Congress to focus on finding a bipartisan solution to the urgent financial crisis.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the public's health, and I am introducing two pieces of legislation that will help us assure that healthy people live, work and learn in healthy buildings and healthy communities, S. 3570 and S. 3571. Public health is a shared responsibility of both public and private entities--Federal, State, and local governments, as well as independent organizations and even individuals in their local communities. We all have a role to play, and we must all do more if we are to truly improve the public's health. That is why today I am introducing the Public Health Coordinating Council Act. This bill will establish a National Public Health Coordinating Council, to be chaired by the Assistant Secretary of Health and the Surgeon General. This Council will be a forum to improve interagency communication, coordination and strategic collaboration across Federal agencies. We should have confidence that policies and programs from one office support, rather than undermine, the policies and programs in another office. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's the case within today's structure. For example, if the Department of Health and Human Services is working to reduce obesity, the 2nd leading cause of preventable death in the Nation, how well do the policies of the Transportation, Interior or Agriculture departments support these same goals? Are they working on programs to encourage public safety, or physical activity and healthy eating, as they should be? I look forward to passing this legislation and increasing the Federal Government's effectiveness in protecting the public's health. Secondly, another significant issue facing our Nation is escalating health care costs from chronic diseases--health conditions that can be reduced if we use our land responsibly and design and manage our local environments wisely. Our physical environment is not being designed to protect or promote health. The built environment--the places where we live, work, shop, and play--has an enormous impact on health, and can encourage active living and sound nutritional choices. How we plan and build our streets, homes, businesses and schools can either improve or compromise our health, and I am concerned that more often than not, we miss opportunities to get it right. Uninformed public policy decisions can contribute to health inequities, chronic disease, increased sprawl and traffic, decreased air and water quality, loss of green space and inappropriate siting of facilities and other unwanted health consequences. However, with good planning, we can intentionally and predictably improve health outcomes, improve individual safety, protect the environment, and lower public costs. For example, when car use was reduced during the 1966 Atlanta Olympic Games, asthma admissions to emergency rooms and hospitals also decreased. Obese and physically inactive workers have higher health care costs, lower productivity, increased absenteeism and higher workers' compensation claims. In one state, physical inactivity was estimated to cost $128 per person per year. So imagine, if 10 percent of Americans began a regular walking program, we could save $5.6 billion in heart disease costs. If you combine concerns over growing health care costs with concerns over growing waistlines and chronic diseases, it becomes clear very quickly that designing our environment to encourage walking and physical activity is a good investment. We can improve health outcomes by how we design our environments. People living in the most sprawling counties are likely to weigh on average six pounds more than people in the most compact counties, and are more likely to be obese and have high blood pressure. We can improve public safety outcomes by how we design our environments. The 10 most sprawling cities had traffic death rates 50 percent higher than the 10 least sprawling. We can protect our environments by how we design them. Improved land use, design and engineering practices, and conservation and recycling substantially reduce contamination of major public water supplies, and preserve habitats and biodiversity of species. We can improve social connectedness by how we design our environments. Building healthy neighborhoods and communities increases social cohesiveness, improves mental health, reduces crime, and allows more seniors to ``age in place''. Designing our communities with short commuting distances increases time for extracurricular activities for our children, recreation/rejuvenation time after work for adults, and time for family members to spend together or involved in their communities. My bill, the Health Impact Assessment Act, will encourage community enviroments that improve, or at least do not harm the public's health. Health Impact Assessments, HIAs, are a relatively new strategy here in this country, although they have been successfully used for years in Europe and elsewhere to protect the public's health. Public health is generally not examined in the Environmental Impact Statement process in this country. Some innovative researchers and planners are trying HIAs here, including in Los Angeles and Atlanta. One recent example was an HIA for proposed oil and gas development in Alaska's North Slope region. Interestingly, they learned that the local community was concerned about loss of hunting grounds, increased contamination of their food supply and water quality, and an increased trafficking of alcohol and drugs. Their findings included measures to mitigate these health concerns, such as creating a health advisory board and increasing public safety officers, setting up a public health monitoring system and strategies to control spills and contaminants. My bill requests that the GAO identify what works best for assessing planning, the impact of land use and building design, and social policy on community health. It also creates a national clearinghouse and demonstration program to improve the built environment and promote health. Additionally, it strengthens CDC's capacity to promote HIA processes by developing guidance for assessing the potential health effects of social policy, land use and design, housing, and transportation policy and plans. I want to thank the National Association of County & City Health Officials, Partnership for Prevention, American College of Preventive Medicine, American Public Health Association, and Trust for America's Health for their help and support of this legislation.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today because there are far too many women in America suffering in silence from postpartum depression and it is time to let them know that they are not alone. It is time to lift the veil of shame and secrecy--this condition is not their fault and they can get help. The Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act would establish the first comprehensive legislation to assist new mothers suffering from postpartum depression and educate women about this disabling condition that affects 800,000 women each year. It would help provide support services to women suffering from postpartum depression and psychosis and would also help educate mothers and their families about these conditions. In addition, it would support research into the causes, diagnoses and treatments for postpartum depression and psychosis. It attacks postpartum depression on all fronts with education, support, and research so that new moms can feel supported and safe rather than scared and alone. We know--doctors and psychologists know--that there are all too many mothers in need who are suffering in silence. All too many mothers are unaware of the condition and go without the treatment and support they so desperately need. I introduced this bill because I was inspired by the story of Mrs. Mary Jo Codey--the former first lady of New Jersey--who publically shared her struggle with postpartum depression. It was her courage and strength that helped change New Jersey law--and now, hopefully, will help change our Nation's laws. But postpartum depression affects women all over this country, not just in my home State, and that is why I was proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Durbin and work with the support of Senator Kennedy. I saw the companion legislation of Representative Rush sail through the House--passing 382-3--and we were all set to pass this bill when one singular Senator signaled his objection, essentially blocked the bill, and the whole process ground to a halt. One Senator's objections and American women are left without relief and support from a disabling and often undiagnosed condition affecting as many as one in five new mothers experiencing symptoms. One Senator's objections, and American women are left without this strong program to make sure they no longer have to suffer in silence and feel alone when faced with this difficult condition. One Senator's objections, and American women are left with few places to turn when they show signs of depression, lose interest in friends and family, feel overwhelming sadness or even have thoughts of harming the baby or themselves. Many new mothers sacrifice anything and everything to provide feelings of security and safety to their newborn child. It is our duty to provide the same level of security, safety and support to new mothers in need. We were on our way to taking those steps when a single Senator stepped in and blocked it from happening. For the millions of American women who have suffered or soon will suffer from postpartum depression we need to pass this bill today. I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged of S. 1375 and that the Senate immediately proceed to S. 1375; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and that an amendment at the desk consisting of the text of subtitle (d) of title I of S. 3297 be inserted in lieu thereof; that the amendment be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the public's health, and I am introducing two pieces of legislation that will help us assure that healthy people live, work and learn in healthy buildings and healthy communities, S. 3570 and S. 3571. Public health is a shared responsibility of both public and private entities--Federal, State, and local governments, as well as independent organizations and even individuals in their local communities. We all have a role to play, and we must all do more if we are to truly improve the public's health. That is why today I am introducing the Public Health Coordinating Council Act. This bill will establish a National Public Health Coordinating Council, to be chaired by the Assistant Secretary of Health and the Surgeon General. This Council will be a forum to improve interagency communication, coordination and strategic collaboration across Federal agencies. We should have confidence that policies and programs from one office support, rather than undermine, the policies and programs in another office. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's the case within today's structure. For example, if the Department of Health and Human Services is working to reduce obesity, the 2nd leading cause of preventable death in the Nation, how well do the policies of the Transportation, Interior or Agriculture departments support these same goals? Are they working on programs to encourage public safety, or physical activity and healthy eating, as they should be? I look forward to passing this legislation and increasing the Federal Government's effectiveness in protecting the public's health. Secondly, another significant issue facing our Nation is escalating health care costs from chronic diseases--health conditions that can be reduced if we use our land responsibly and design and manage our local environments wisely. Our physical environment is not being designed to protect or promote health. The built environment--the places where we live, work, shop, and play--has an enormous impact on health, and can encourage active living and sound nutritional choices. How we plan and build our streets, homes, businesses and schools can either improve or compromise our health, and I am concerned that more often than not, we miss opportunities to get it right. Uninformed public policy decisions can contribute to health inequities, chronic disease, increased sprawl and traffic, decreased air and water quality, loss of green space and inappropriate siting of facilities and other unwanted health consequences. However, with good planning, we can intentionally and predictably improve health outcomes, improve individual safety, protect the environment, and lower public costs. For example, when car use was reduced during the 1966 Atlanta Olympic Games, asthma admissions to emergency rooms and hospitals also decreased. Obese and physically inactive workers have higher health care costs, lower productivity, increased absenteeism and higher workers' compensation claims. In one state, physical inactivity was estimated to cost $128 per person per year. So imagine, if 10 percent of Americans began a regular walking program, we could save $5.6 billion in heart disease costs. If you combine concerns over growing health care costs with concerns over growing waistlines and chronic diseases, it becomes clear very quickly that designing our environment to encourage walking and physical activity is a good investment. We can improve health outcomes by how we design our environments. People living in the most sprawling counties are likely to weigh on average six pounds more than people in the most compact counties, and are more likely to be obese and have high blood pressure. We can improve public safety outcomes by how we design our environments. The 10 most sprawling cities had traffic death rates 50 percent higher than the 10 least sprawling. We can protect our environments by how we design them. Improved land use, design and engineering practices, and conservation and recycling substantially reduce contamination of major public water supplies, and preserve habitats and biodiversity of species. We can improve social connectedness by how we design our environments. Building healthy neighborhoods and communities increases social cohesiveness, improves mental health, reduces crime, and allows more seniors to ``age in place''. Designing our communities with short commuting distances increases time for extracurricular activities for our children, recreation/rejuvenation time after work for adults, and time for family members to spend together or involved in their communities. My bill, the Health Impact Assessment Act, will encourage community enviroments that improve, or at least do not harm the public's health. Health Impact Assessments, HIAs, are a relatively new strategy here in this country, although they have been successfully used for years in Europe and elsewhere to protect the public's health. Public health is generally not examined in the Environmental Impact Statement process in this country. Some innovative researchers and planners are trying HIAs here, including in Los Angeles and Atlanta. One recent example was an HIA for proposed oil and gas development in Alaska's North Slope region. Interestingly, they learned that the local community was concerned about loss of hunting grounds, increased contamination of their food supply and water quality, and an increased trafficking of alcohol and drugs. Their findings included measures to mitigate these health concerns, such as creating a health advisory board and increasing public safety officers, setting up a public health monitoring system and strategies to control spills and contaminants. My bill requests that the GAO identify what works best for assessing planning, the impact of land use and building design, and social policy on community health. It also creates a national clearinghouse and demonstration program to improve the built environment and promote health. Additionally, it strengthens CDC's capacity to promote HIA processes by developing guidance for assessing the potential health effects of social policy, land use and design, housing, and transportation policy and plans. I want to thank the National Association of County & City Health Officials, Partnership for Prevention, American College of Preventive Medicine, American Public Health Association, and Trust for America's Health for their help and support of this legislation.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess subject to the call of the chair following the remarks of Senator Craig.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I had another statement, but I see Senator Craig is here. Even though I know he objected to my request on behalf of someone else, I am going to yield the floor and come back at a later time.