Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program and why those who are opposing the bill are making this a nightmare for children. When I first came to the floor in support of the bill on July 31, I knew there were those who did not share my support, but I thought they would merely be a road bump to reauthorization. Now it seems we have a roadblock to children getting critical care they need. How many times can you veto or vote against children receiving health care and not raise a question as to your role as a representative of the people? How many times can you veto or vote against children receiving health care and then turn around and take pictures with babies and families back in your home State? How many times can you veto or vote against children receiving health care and then still argue that you care about the well-being of children other than your own? I don't understand how we have gotten to this point, but let me make this very simple. The bill at its core provides health care for poor children. Yet there are those in Congress and the White House who are missing that bottom line. More important, their votes are hurting our Nation's children. There are 9 million children in America who suffer in silence because they do not have health care; 6 million of them are eligible for the Children's Health Insurance Program or Medicaid, but they are not enrolled. That keeps me up at night. I hope it keeps up at night others who have to cast a vote soon as well. I want to be sure we know the families and children we are talking about. The families we seek to cover work every day at some of the toughest jobs in America--some of them jobs none of us would want to do, but they work at it every day. They work at jobs that offer no health care coverage whatsoever and they do not make enough money from their employment to afford private coverage. It is the children in these families we are trying to cover. So let's talk about the reasons why there are those who continue to vote to bar children from health care. That is strong language, but I have had enough of sugar-coating this issue. The new bill includes substantial revisions to try to reach out to colleagues who have raised issues and directly addresses a number of the concerns they have talked about. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the new bill would continue to cover nearly 4 million uninsured children by 2012, at a cost of about $35 billion over 5 years. That is a fraction of what we spend in Iraq. That is in addition to the over 6 million children already covered by this program. Those opposed to this bill have been shouting about how the bill needs to cover more low-income children. Good news, the new bill would further increase our focus on covering the lowest income uninsured children. The new bill would prohibit any coverage above 300 percent of the poverty line, except for some who have already been grandfathered in. Limiting new coverage to 300 percent is a harder line than the original bill, and it is a concrete ceiling for new coverage. It also changes the financial incentives States receive to enroll more children, and it ensured we are targeting the enrollment of low-income children. The new bill only provides these incentives to States when they enroll Medicaid-eligible children and no longer includes incentives for enrolling SCHIP children, as was in the original bill. In fact, this new bill will cover an additional 100,000 children as compared to the original bill, for a grand total of 3.9 million children gaining coverage under the bill on which we will be voting cloture. Of these children, essentially half are Medicaid eligible. These children are the low-income children many of our colleagues are talking about. This new bill brings in 200,000 more Medicaid-eligible children than the first bill. We have listened and we have made changes. But compromising on children's health can only go so far. The second issue I have heard, and it makes my blood boil, is the argument that undocumented immigrants would gain coverage under this bill. I know it is Halloween so we are going to scare the American people as best we can, but this is a tactic that cannot stand. Let's make it clear: Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid and CHIP, they have never been, and nothing in this bill changes that. Nothing in this bill changes that. It is a shame there are Members who still come on the floor using that argument. In fact, the new bill tightens citizenship requirements. States will seek to verify names and Social Security numbers but also have to verify citizenship with information from the Social Security Administration. The Social Security Administration will check the information received from the States to determine that the information matches and also check to see if the database shows that the applicant is a citizen. If they can confirm--great. We have another citizen with health care. If not, the State has to require original documents to prove citizenship. This is in no way an open door, and in no way should we allow this to continue to be used as a false reason to not give health care to children in this country. I ask my colleagues to stop tying up this issue, trying to make children's health care an immigration debate so we can have it every night on the nightly news being about immigration. Oh, it is about immigration. It is not about immigration. It is about children's health care; children who do not have it, cannot afford it, and will not have it unless this Congress acts. Some have also raised the question about adults. The reality is we cover some parents. This administration gave us waivers to do it because they said it is a good thing: Let's cover parents who are also in these jobs, working hard, not able to afford health care, not getting it at work--because we are getting more children involved through their parents. By the way, we happen to cover more Americans-- isn't that a terrible thing? We happen to cover more Americans, of the 47 million who have no health care coverage whatsoever. It is a terrible thing. I think it is quite a good thing. I have seen it succeed in my home State of New Jersey. We have found a strong correlation between enrollment of parents and enrollment of children. Finally, if values match our actions, this bill needs to be supported by all Members in the House and Senate and signed into law by the president. It is time for President Bush to stop making his fiscal conservative bones on the health care of children. It is time for the President to put away the veto pen and allow doctors to take out their stethoscopes to make our children healthier. It is time to give the children of America what the President and every Member of the Senate and Congress has, health care coverage, health care for America's most precious asset but also its most vulnerable asset--our children. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes. Should a Member of the Republican side of the aisle seek the floor, I will be happy to yield at that time.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the rest of the Democratic time in morning business.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I am in strong support of the fiscal year 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill. I thank the chairman of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Harkin, and the ranking member, Senator Specter, for their leadership in crafting this bill and ensuring some of our Nation's most critical priorities are adequately funded. I am proud that we have been able to negotiate a bipartisan appropriations bill that passed the Senate. This bill is one of the most important funding bills that comes before us. It fulfills our responsibilities in key priorities, such as health care and education. With the passage of this legislation, we will be striking a significant departure from the administration's damaging trend of shortchanging our children, our schools, our workers, and our health. Instead of undermining education, abdicating our responsibilities on health care, weakening the rights of our workers, this bill will restore a commonsense balance to our values that we should expect from the greatest Nation in the world. I would like to highlight a few areas in which this bill is especially successful and contrast them to the administration's misguided priorities. While the President's budget zeroed out funding for mentoring programs under the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act--a program that is critical to keeping our children safe and off the streets--I am proud that this bill not only restores that funding, but increases it by more than $30 million. As someone whose dreams of college could not have been realized without Pell grants and other Federal financial aid, I am pleased this bill follows through on the promise to increase Pell grants and restores funding for Perkins loans. These increases will mean that today's young people who come from families that cannot afford college on their own can still achieve their dreams. I know the power of this assistance. Without these programs, I would not have been the first in my family to graduate from college and law school. There are millions of students nationwide who are in the shoes I once was. They are waiting, hoping that there will be adequate financial aid to help them access college. And as tuition continues to increase, as grant aid under this president has shrunk, that challenge is getting anything but easier. In my home state of New Jersey, where the average tuition rose 7 percent since last year, 4-year public colleges are the second most expensive in the Nation. Our students need more, not less, grant aid if they are going to achieve their dreams. This bill sets us in the right direction. Another program that is vital to students in New Jersey is vocational education. The vocational State grants are critical for the institutions in our state that are working to develop a workforce that is able to compete in today's global economy. New Jersey has some of the best vocational and technical education programs in the country. And while this President continually speaks about an educated and competitive workforce in the science, technology and math fields, he does not put his money where his mouth is. His budget would have cut vocational funding in half. Our bill restores those cuts. This bill also restores cuts to education technology grants, which the President called for eliminating. These grants help ensure that our children have access to technology in the classroom. New Jersey alone would have lost $5 million next year under the President's cuts. In the global race to have the most trained, highly skilled, best prepared workforce, we are losing ground. The earlier we can introduce our young people to technology, to help them gain fluency in areas that involve technology, the better off they will be in an evolving and increasing technological world. I am also pleased this bill increases funding for special education by more than $500 million. This funding is critical to ensuring children with disabilities have an equal opportunity to receive a good public education, just as other children. And ensuring all children begin on an equal playing field means adequately funding Head Start, which this bill does. This legislation provides a $200 million increase for Head Start, which will help improve the school readiness of our young children to ensure they can get the skills necessary to succeed. Head Start provides child development, education, health care, nutrition, and socialization skills, all essential services that benefit more than nearly 1 million low-income children in this country. This bill also helps our young people by expanding opportunities for them to learn trade skills. It provides a $15 million increase for YouthBuild, which helps young people learn constructing and housing skills and prepare for postsecondary training. This legislation also provides an increase of almost $82 million for Job Corps to help strengthen these centers that provide key job skills to young people. In addition, this bill will help veterans transition to civilian life by providing a $5 million increase for employment and training services. In terms of health care, this bill makes significant changes to the President's budget proposal and redefines our priorities as a Nation. Overall, the bill provides $68.1 billion in discretionary appropriations for Health and Human Services Department programs. This amount is $5 billion more than last year's level and $5.4 billion more that the administration's budget request. The bill provides $250 million more for Community Health Centers and over $200 million for the National Center of Minority Health and Health Disparities to address the health care needs of our Nation's minority and underserved communities. This bill will also provide almost $29.9 billion in funding for the National Institutes of Health, $1.3 billion more that the Bush administration's budget request. The Centers for Disease Control would also receive $6.4 billion under this bill which is $444 million more than the administration's request. It is imperative that we continue to invest in our Nation's health and research facilities as their work will save and improve the lives of millions of Americans. I am proud that this bill also provides $8 million for the initial implementation of the Patient Navigator, Outreach, and Chronic Disease Prevention Act of 2005, which President Bush signed into law in 2005. I sponsored this legislation when I was in the House of Representatives in order to improve health outcomes by helping patients, including patients in underserved communities, to overcome barriers they face in getting early screening and appropriate followup treatment. This funding will help get people in to see a doctor before symptoms develop, so we can catch diseases such as cancer or diabetes early. Then we can get patients in to treatment early, which means they'll have a better chance of survival and the health care costs will be lower. I know that this funding, and the health provisions in this Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill, will truly help to save lives. This legislation is critical and makes a strong commitment to our Nation's future. This legislation will bolster our commitment to the education, health and well-being of our Nation's workforce.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act of 2007. I thank my distinguished senior colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, who, not only in this legislation but for some time, has been probably Amtrak's strongest advocate. Beyond being an advocate for Amtrak, which certainly is worthy of it, it is the advocacy over the course of the years of millions of riders who depend upon Amtrak to send their sales force to work, to promote their products along Amtrak's routes; those Americans who use Amtrak to get to some of the Nation's leading hospitals and research centers to try to be cured; those individuals who come to visit, for example, the Nation's Capital and do so through Amtrak and the tourism that is spread throughout that process; those who do financial transactions in commerce and lawyers--a whole host and universe of America's economy and people who use Amtrak to ultimately achieve the Nation's economic well-being. Senator Lautenberg has been at the forefront of that. I thank him and Senator Lott for their efforts in guiding this important legislation to the floor. Every year since 2002, Amtrak has had to continue operations on a yearly basis without adequate funds to maintain the rail system over the long term. It is almost like a starvation diet--keeping it up just enough to be temporarily alive but working it in such a way and cutting its funds in such a way that it can neither be successful nor fully survive. Right now, the system is at a breaking point. Amtrak's equipment is aging, and no amount of maintenance can keep cars built in the 1950s on the tracks. Amtrak is not just a passenger rail system that serves 25 million people each year; Amtrak is also a program that reduces our greenhouse gas emissions, reduces congestion on our roadways, fights sprawl, creates jobs, and it fosters economic activity. I know firsthand the benefits of Amtrak because over 100,000 New Jersey commuters depend on Amtrak's infrastructure every day. There are many other commuter rail systems in States that depend upon Amtrak's infrastructure as well to move very large amounts of their State's residents over the Amtrak lines. Some critics want Amtrak to be the only major transportation system in the world that operates without Government subsidy. This standard is simply impossible to meet and a standard to which we do not hold any other mode of transportation. Over the past 35 years, we have spent less money on Amtrak than we will on highways in this year alone. So over the last three and a half decades, we have spent less money on Amtrak than we will spend on highways just 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. We have never committed the same support behind Amtrak as we have for other modes of transportation. This bill will finally give Amtrak a stable amount of authorized funds it needs over the next 6 years to adequately fund its operation and finance capital improvements. At the same time, these funds aren't free. To get these funds, Amtrak will be forced to tighten its belt, while simultaneously improving service. The bill reduces Amtrak's annual appropriations need by requiring reforms that will reduce Amtrak's operating costs by 40 percent over the life of the bill. In addition, the bill provides for $1.4 billion 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 we have seen in New Jersey have done. In other cases, these funds may actually create competition for Amtrak for service between some cities. The bill will also require Amtrak to use a new financial accounting system so that regulators and legislators can better monitor how Amtrak uses its resources. This bill would also require Amtrak to use its resources to provide a new level of service by improving ontime performance, upgrading onboard services, and providing easier access to other transportation systems. Finally, the bill will also require a systemwide security review to ensure that rail remains a safe transportation alternative. With record-high gasoline prices, congested highways, and airports that are experiencing record delays, we need all the alternative forms of transportation we can provide to a frustrated American traveler. Mr. President, as someone who represents a State that saw the consequences of what happened on September 11, 2001, that fateful day, since then we have come to fully appreciate the importance of multiple modes of transportation in a security context. We have always talked about transportation in the context of getting people to work and jobs and economic opportunity. We have talked about sending sales forces of small and midsize businesses, using rail services to go to different cities, for intercity travel, so they can promote their products and services. We have talked about people who might get on a rail line to go to Johns Hopkins University Hospital or some of the great hospitals in New Jersey, such as Robert Wood Johnson or Hackensack University Medical Center, or the great hospitals in New York, to name one of the many route lines that give people access to such opportunities. We have talked about tourism and people being able to take Amtrak to go to different parts of the country to see the greatness of America. That has always been the focus we have had as it relates to rail passenger service or, for that fact, really transportation modes in general. But on September 11, and therefrom, we learned that multiple modes of transportation are critical to the Nation's security and well-being. On that fateful day, when we had the attacks in New York and the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania and the incident that took place in Washington at the Pentagon--on that fateful day, when in the metropolitan region where there are millions of Americans living, where the tunnels were closed down, where the bridges were closed down, where the subway systems were closed down, it was a different mode of transportation that got people out of downtown Manhattan from the World Trade Center site and to hospitals to be triaged in my State of New Jersey. That particular mode of transportation happened to be ferries. The only way to get into intercity travel, when all of the airlines were shut down for that period of time, was Amtrak. So we have learned a lesson that this is beyond economics. We have learned a lesson that this is beyond tourism and this is beyond getting people to great centers of research and medicine to be cured; it is also about security. If we do away with Amtrak, we do away with the ability to have another mode of transportation that is critical to our security blanket. We have to think about Amtrak in that way as well. Finally, there are small communities in rural America in which the only entity that stops at their doorstep is Amtrak--the only entity that stops at their doorstep. Imagine being cut off from the rest of America, other than through a car, because no entity serves the opportunity to make your community the destination. Amtrak, as part of a national rail system, creates opportunities for many parts of America to finally realize that they, too, will have access to the rest of the country. Mr. President, for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to recognize that a strong, well-funded Amtrak is an essential resource for our country in all of these dimensions. I urge my colleagues to give us a strong vote for the Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act of 2007 and make sure that we reject amendments that would seek to undermine this critical asset for our economy, for our environment, for our health care and, yes, in a post-September 11 world, for our security. Let's make sure we send a strong message from the Senate that we will take second place to no one in the world in terms of having a strong passenger rail system and will unite our country by giving that opportunity for Amtrak to travel across the landscape of America and be able to meet all of these challenges. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I come to the floor primarily to speak about a vote we took earlier today on the DREAM Act. I do appreciate my distinguished colleague from Florida's comments about the President's speech. We look forward to getting a further focus on what the President had to say. We certainly appreciate any movement, any policy that tries to create an opportunity for freedom for the people of Cuba, for them to be able to achieve what we enjoy here in the United States--the right to choose our Representatives, to worship at the altar that we chose freely, to be able to associate with others freely, to be able to protest when we believe our Government is moving in the wrong direction. We have freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech. All of those things are denied the Cuban people. Certainly, the efforts the President speaks about, trying to move in the direction that creates that moment in which those freedoms can be fulfilled for the people of Cuba, we applaud.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I came to the floor to talk about the earlier vote on the DREAM Act. I have heard some of my colleagues define it in ways that make me believe the future of any other form of immigration reform is going to be incredibly difficult. We did not get to cloture and cannot move to have a full debate on the bill and a vote to move in a direction in which we could give young people in this country--who did not choose to come to this country themselves, as they were brought here by their parents at a young age, and who in many cases could achieve great success for the Nation--an opportunity to earn their way to a process of legalization. To see that those hopes have been snuffed out by the votes that were taken here leads me to believe the future of any other form of immigration reform is going to be incredibly difficult. It was not the decision of these children to come to the United States. It's hard to make a decision about where you are moving to when you are in a stroller. If we cannot give hope to children, if we are going to insist that the children be responsible for the sins of their parents, in making the decision they did to come in an undocumented fashion to the United States, then this is not the America I know. If, by no choice of your own, you came to this country and have now grown up--for many of those children I have met across the landscape of the country have grown up as Americans, and thought of themselves as Americans--and then came a point in time in which they wanted to go to college or enlist in the Armed Forces, they found their status was not that of an American. They wanted badly to either serve or to be able to fulfill their God-given abilities by achieving a college education. They had to earn all of this. All we need to do is give them a chance. I have colleagues who represent a lot of sectors, and they want people to come to this country and use their human capital to do some of the toughest jobs that exist in America, to bend their backs and be on their knees picking crops for Americans to be able to consume. There are some who suggest we are going to even change the nature of what AgJOBS is, so even though you come year after year, you bend your back, you give your sweat, you do some of the toughest jobs no one wants to do--we will not give you any pathway to earn legalization. I don't know how those who want to see the AgJOBS bill move think it can move when we turn down children who had no choice of their own. Our friends in industries that request H1-B visas say we need to bring people from other countries in the world to America because we don't have enough human capital here to meet our Nation's high-tech demands, but in that case it doesn't make much sense to refuse to take advantage of the proven capacity of so many children in this country, some of whom have graduated as valedictorians and salutatorians from high school. A vote against the DREAM Act says, we are not going to use that intellect; no, let's bring in somebody from outside the country to perform that service. Those in the service industries, such as the hotels and motels of our cities and highways, who want people to clean the toilets and the bathrooms, or those who want workers to pluck the chickens at poultry plants or work at seafood establishments and the list goes on and on-- let's give those people visas to come to this country and let's use their human capital. I am for any American who wants to do any of those jobs first and foremost. Whatever is necessary to create that opportunity, I am for. But in the absence of it, I wish to challenge some of our colleagues who talk about the big growers and their needs, who talk about the high-tech industry and their needs, who talk about the hotels and motels and poultry plants and seafood plants--and then vote against these children. I want to hear how they can justify the differences. What the DREAM Act said was if you had no choice, you made no choice in coming to this country--your parents brought you here, you grew up here and you have been a good citizen, you have lived the type of life we want all our young people to live in terms of being good citizens, being of exemplary character, being individuals who have the intellectual capacity on their own to get into college--we want to give them the opportunity to have the status to do that. I would rather have our kids going to school than hanging out on the streets, but I guess we would rather have them hanging out on the streets rather than having them get an education and serving our Nation. I don't understand how a military that is straining, in terms of the volunteer Armed Forces that we have, that has now downgraded whom they are willing to accept in the Armed Forces to include people who have criminal records and those who are high school dropouts, we will have those people serve, but we will not have young people who are incredibly talented, have no criminal record whatsoever, exemplary individuals, and some of them, some very smart ones, but who want to serve America because they believe themselves to be Americans--oh, no, let's not have them serve in the Armed forces of the United States. By virtue of that service, including the possibility that they could die on behalf of their adopted country, no, let's not give them that opportunity either. We would rather take people who have criminal records. We would rather take people who have not even finished high school. The first U.S. soldier who died in Iraq was someone who was not a U.S. citizen. Yet he died in Iraq in the service of the country he loved as his own. I believe there are going to be challenges going forward. As Members of the Senate who represent different parts of our economy come forth and say, ``I need to help the farmers because we need to get people in those fields, we can't get anybody to do the job;'' or, ``I need to have someone at that poultry plant and make sure that we are able to pluck chickens and go through the bone-breaking job, their hands are cut from the processing,'' I want to see how, in fact, that discussion is going to take place. We will certainly be here to challenge our colleagues to think about how can you promote those desires and yet snuff out the hopes and dreams and aspirations of a young person who did not do anything wrong. On the contrary, they want to do everything they can to serve this country, and we say no to them. Yet we will bring in people from other parts of the world to do these things. It is going to be very difficult. It is going to be very difficult, without reform of the process, to make sure we are not outsourcing jobs in the process, without labor protections. I think it is all going to be very difficult. I hope our colleagues will think about reconsidering their position on the DREAM Act because they say it is an ``amnesty.'' Everything is amnesty to them. I can't wait until the AgJOBS bill comes up. I am sure we will get cries of ``amnesty.'' I can't wait until the H-1B issue comes up. I can't wait until the H-2B issue comes up. I am sure it will be cries of ``amnesty.'' So those sectors of the American economy will be halted, and we will not get the productivity we need because I am sure they are not going to find a way to say that it is not ``amnesty.'' At end of the day, I am looking forward to those debates as we move forward. I believe we have set a precedent in today's vote that people will rue as they try to understand the essence of some of the economic sectors of our country that are going to need help, have needed help, and need help today. We should, hopefully, have a little introspection and figure out whether a process in which you have a journey to go through, in which you have to start with an exemplary record, in which you have to be willing to meet all types of challenges, in which you must give of yourself to the Nation or you must be able to create personal achievement that ultimately will be of value to the Nation--whether snuffing out that opportunity is in the national interests of the United States. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hutchison be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the American Cancer Society and all of these other organizations tell us that this amendment will help individuals who are in rural communities, minorities, and other medically underserved populations who suffer from a disproportionate burden of cancer, navigate the health care system, create more positive outcomes, save money, and save lives. That is why we urge all of our colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I wanted to thank Senators Harkin and Specter for their leadership on the bill and their strong support of this amendment, which is to put $8 million in the Patient Navigator and Chronic Disease Prevention Act. It is strongly supported by a letter that was issued by the American Cancer Society, the Leukemia Lymphoma Society, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the National Medical Association, the National Patient Advocate Foundation, and the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation. What they say in their letter sums it up in its totality. It says: Improving the health of America as a whole depends significantly on our ability to improve health outcomes for the uninsured, those who live in rural areas, minorities--

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, yesterday I began to speak about what the failed war in Iraq is costing us at home to mark the fifth anniversary of Congress's capitulation to the war. As we debate the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, I can't think of a better moment to return to the cost of this war. Let me begin by saying again we are aware of the human cost of the war: 3,816 Americans are dead; more than 28,000 have come back home wounded. Iraqis have died in even greater numbers. Millions have fled their homes. The United States has been involved in the war for longer than we fought World War II. We all know the Iraq war is a human calamity of vast proportions. It can be harder to visualize the direct damage that comes from the financial cost of the war. We are paying for this war with borrowed money, burying ourselves in massive debt, severely threatening the future of our country. We know we have spent more than $450 billion on this war so far, and we continue to spend about $10 billion every month. That doesn't add up to a stack of bills that could have been sitting in the Treasury. It is equipment at ports that scan nuclear weapons and other measures that actually make the homeland more secure. It is children healed with better health care. It is more teachers in school, better training for jobs, energy that is clean and doesn't strengthen repressive regimes in the Middle East, payments of our debts so future generations will inherit a country that is financially viable. The Bush administration likes to parrot the line: We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here. But when we add it all up, the bottom line is clear: The administration's motto really is: We are spending all our money over there so we don't spend it here. Yesterday I spoke about how much we could accomplish to safeguard our homeland against terrorists if we spent a fraction of the money we have dumped into the war that makes no sense. Today I would like to speak about what the failed war in Iraq has cost us in terms of our health; specifically, the health of our children. Today the House of Representatives considered whether to support a bill to provide health insurance for children. Every time we go to the doctor or fill a prescription at the pharmacy, we remember how expensive health care can be. There are families who work every day in some of the toughest jobs, but their jobs don't offer health care, and their paychecks would not let them afford private coverage. That is why the Federal Government and the States teamed up to start the State Children's Health Insurance Program or what is commonly referred to as SCHIP. This year Democrats and Republicans came together to pass a bill that would continue to provide health care to the 6 million children already enrolled and will expand the program to include a total of 10 million children across America. We knew we had to because the children who fall into the wide abyss between Medicaid and private coverage are depending on us. But on October 3, millions of children got some terrible news. President Bush had vetoed the bill. He did it silently and secretly, with no cameras allowed to watch as he condemned millions of children to a lack of coverage with a single stroke of his pen. Today families across America were waiting to see if Congress had the moral resolve to override that veto. Some of our colleagues who cast decisive votes against children's health raised the question of whether the bill was financially reasonable, whether 10 million uninsured American kids were worthy of funding. President Bush said they were not. Many of my colleagues who voted against children's health have repeatedly decided to vote for continuing the failed war in Iraq. Right now I wish to speak directly to all of them. If we are talking about what is financially reasonable, let's take a very close look at the stark contrast in cost between children's health and the failed war in Iraq. The total cost of expanding children's health is $35 billion over 5 years for 10 million children. How many dollars per child does this cost us every day? Depending upon which State you live in, the answer is as little as $3.50 a day, about the cost of a latte at Starbuck's. Iraq costs us $10 billion per month. That means with 3\1/2\ months of Iraq funding, the total expansion in this bill would have been paid for. That is what the war costs--health care for 10 million children versus 3\1/2\ months of what we spend in Iraq. The impact of this bill would have been enormous in many States, including my State of New Jersey, where families have to pay some of the highest health care costs in the Nation. It would have helped support the State in keeping 124,000 New Jersey children insured. It would have covered as many as 100,000 additional children in my State. In the bill, New Jersey would have received about $350 million next year alone to cover working families and children. This program has given New Jersey families that cannot afford private coverage the peace of mind to know that children have health care. President Bush has told those children: No, you don't deserve the Federal Government's strong support, even though this country spends $330 million in Iraq every day. Again, every single day in Iraq, we spend roughly the amount of money it would take to get tens of thousands of New Jersey children coverage for a full year. I wish he had to look every child in the eye to tell them that. But that is what the war costs: Health insurance for New Jersey children versus one day in Iraq. In fact, for the amount Congress has spent on the failed war in Iraq, we could provide 2 years of health 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 still have $30 billion left over. We could have provided health care coverage for all of the 47 million Americans who don't have health coverage today. That is what the war costs: Health care coverage for every single American family versus the failed war in Iraq. Here is the question we have to ask ourselves as legislators, as Americans, as human beings: Is a child to get more benefit from a dollar spent keeping our military in Iraq to referee a civil war or a dollar spent on their health insurance? Is she going to be better served by oil injected in an Abrams tank or by a vaccine a nurse injects in her arm to save her from measles? Is her life going to be improved by missiles in the desert or antibiotics in her medicine cabinet; more troops on the streets of Baghdad or more doctors in the hospital down the block; multimillion dollar bombs that rain down on Iraqi neighborhoods with surgical precision or orthopedic surgery for a disease such as cerebral palsy that would mean the difference between a debilitated life in a wheelchair and being able to walk and run and play with other children at school? How dare we take money from her family and borrow money from foreign countries to spend it on a war that makes no sense, while leaving her on her own to fight diseases and injuries that might very well claim her life. It is hard to think of a more grievous act on the part of this Government than abandoning those children in order to prolong a war. The vote to override President Bush's veto was not only about political responsibility. It was not only about constitutional responsibility. It was a question of right and wrong. Let's remember the administration motto: Spend all our money over there so we don't have to spend it here. In my mind, that is as wrong as it gets. I will continue to speak out on what else this war is costing us here at home in terms of education and jobs and green energy, helping the middle class make ends meet and the financial stability of our Nation that our children will inherit. America deserves to know what we could have achieved had this horrible war never happened. The administration has spent down our finances, mortgaged the future. Republicans in the House have voted down health care coverage for our children. But one thing they have not yet emptied out is our vast treasury of hope. It is tragic to think what might have been, but it is not too late to believe in what we can become. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to amend the previous unanimous consent agreement so I may speak next and the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, will speak after me.

Mr. MENENDEZ. In part on the bill, yes.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I have been waiting on the floor to speak for about 10 minutes, so at some point I wish to be recognized.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments so I can offer an amendment that has been sent to the desk.

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

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, first I wish to thank Senator Harkin for his leadership on this bill, as well as the ranking Republican, and his strong support of what I am trying to do here, which is to fund the Patient Navigator Program. The amendment provides $15 million for initial implementation of the Patient Navigator Outreach and Chronic Disease Prevention Act of 2005. This act creates a 5-year, $25 million demonstration program within the Health Resources and Services Administration for patient navigator services through community health centers, National Cancer Institute centers, Indian Health Service centers, and rural health clinics, as well as hospitals, academic health centers, and certain nonprofit entities that enter into partnerships to provide patient navigator services. This funding is the culmination of years of bipartisan and bicameral compromise. I was then, at the time, in the House of Representatives, a sponsor with Congresswoman Deborah Pryce from Ohio. Here in the Senate, Senators Hutchison and Bingaman were champions of this legislation. It passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, and President Bush signed it into law in 2005. The Labor-HHS Subcommittee provided funding last year, but unfortunately that did not make it into the final bill. This Patient Navigator and Chronic Disease Prevention Act and the patient navigators that are called for in the bill have strong grassroots support from organizations such as the American Cancer Society. Actually, it was our work with the American Cancer Society that at the time had it as its No. 1 or No. 2 top legislative initiative. So we got the bill passed into law, but we haven't been able to fund it yet. It also has the support of the National Association of Community Health Centers, the National Rural Health Association, the American Diabetes Association, the American Medical Association, the Intercultural Cancer Council, the National Alliance for Hispanic Health, the National Hispanic Medical Association, the National Patient Advocate Foundation, and many others. The goal of a patient navigator is to improve health outcomes by helping patients, including patients in underserved communities, to overcome barriers they face in getting early screening and appropriate followup treatment. Patient navigators benefit people across the country, from all walks of life, regardless of class, location, culture, or language, and navigators help get people into a health care provider for preventive screenings and help them navigate our complex health care system if an abnormality is detected. They conduct year-round outreach into underserved communities so people are aware of the importance of early detection and screening. They help them find followup testing and treatment. They stay with them throughout the process to make sure they get to that next doctor's appointment and they get early treatment. This is a small investment with huge benefits, benefits in terms of lives and dollars saved. I was fortunate enough, in the House of Representatives, when I served there, to actually get some pilot projects of patient navigators in what was my former congressional district in New Jersey. It replicated two very successful programs that were the forerunners of this idea--Dr. Harold Freeman in Harlem Hospital, who works with the American Cancer Society, and here in Washington, DC, at the Washington Cancer Center, Dr. Elmer Huerta, who had a different variation on it, but both of them created patient navigation, the effort to bring individuals into a preventive setting, and in doing so, help them navigate. We took that example and we brought it to my home State of New Jersey. What we did is, at one of the family health centers, we found ourselves significantly bringing in people into a preventive setting. We found a fair number of individuals who had abnormalities, and because of the screening we put them through, we detected their abnormalities. Then, through the patient navigator, we navigated them through the health care system in a way that we saved lives and we saved an enormous amount of money from people whom we caught early in their illness, particularly cancer-related, and whom we ultimately were able to not only save their lives but at an enormous cost of having individuals not wait longer in the process and end up, at the end of the day, in an emergency room with far greater costs. So this is a small investment with huge benefits, benefits in terms of lives and dollars saved. By getting people in to see a doctor before symptoms develop, we can catch diseases such as cancer or diabetes early. Then we can get patients into treatment early, which means they will have a better chance of survival, and the health care costs will be lower. This is a win-win proposition which has strong bipartisan support in the House and Senate, signed by the President. We are just simply looking to get it funded. We look forward to working with the chair of the subcommittee, Senator Harkin, and the ranking member to get it accepted. We think we have an appropriate offset, but at the same time, we are open to others as well in order to achieve this goal. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, on October 11, we marked the fifth anniversary of Congress's capitulation to the resolution authorizing the war in Iraq. I believe we should take this opportunity to tally up what this war has cost our Nation. We are all very aware of the human cost. More Americans have died in Iraq than died on September 11. These are our friends and neighbors, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, gone forever. Twenty-eight thousand men and women have come back home wounded, some with their legs or arms blown off by bombs, some blind from shrapnel in their eyes, some thrown into a state of mental shock from which they will never fully recover. As for the Iraqi men, women, and children who have died in this conflict, we cannot even say. Some estimates say the body count is more than 100,000. As for the people who have been forced to abandon their homes, they are about to number 4\1/2\ million, a disproportionate number of them being children. We all know that the Iraq war is a human calamity of vast proportions. It can be harder to visualize the direct damage that comes from the financial cost of the war, to see it as the cancer that it is, making our debt metastasize, threatening our budget, eating away at the financial stability of our entire Nation. We are paying for this war with borrowed money, racking up massive debt, severely threatening the future of our country. We know our country has spent more than $450 billion on this war so far. We continue to spend about $10 billion every month. That does not just add up to a stack of bills that could have sat in the Treasury; it is equipment at ports that can scan for nuclear weapons and other measures that actually make the homeland more secure. It is children healed with better health care. It is more teachers in our schools, better training for our jobs, energy that is clean and does not strengthen repressive regimes in the Middle East, payment of our debts so future generations will inherit a country that is financially viable. Those are casualties we cannot fail to count. When our money gets burned in Iraq, we deserve to know what we are trading away. What we are trading away cannot be summed up in one speech, however, so I will be coming back to the subject as many times as necessary to give each sacrifice fair attention. When we add it all up, the bottom line is very clear: If we had never gone into Iraq, our lives would be better. The sooner we get out of Iraq, the better our lives will be. I will repeat this until our troops have come home. If we had never gone into Iraq, our lives would be better, and the sooner we transition out of Iraq, the better our lives will be. Today, I wish to speak about what the failed war in Iraq has cost us in terms of our security here at home. The Bush administration likes to parrot the line that: We are fighting them over there, so we do not have to fight them here. Nevermind that the war has created more terrorists than there were before. Beyond that, it has directed funding away from programs that actually would prevent terrorists from attacking the homeland. The administration's budget for the failed war in Iraq is 13 times this year's budget for Homeland Security--13 times this year's budget for Homeland Security. Do we really think the Iraq war is 13 times more important to America than the Department of Homeland Security's mission? When it comes to our money, the administration's motto really is: We are spending it over there, so we do not have to spend it here. Every time we ride the subway or the bus, we put ourselves at risk because our public transportation systems are unnecessarily vulnerable to terrorist attacks. The American Public Transportation Association estimates that it will cost $6 billion to make them substantially more secure. That includes funding for personnel, training, communications systems, cameras, detection systems. Well, we spend that much--that is, $6 billion that the Public Transportation Association says would make us safer--we spend that much in Iraq every 18 days. Every 18 days. That is what the war costs. Security on public transportation versus 18 days in Iraq--what is our choice? Money being spent in Iraq could have substantially improved security in our Nation's ports, where 95 percent of the cargo slips into the country without any inspection whatsoever. For the cost of 3 days of operations in Iraq, we could fund a year's worth, a year's worth of strong port security initiatives throughout our country--purchasing radiation detectors, giving individual grants tailored to the specific needs of each port, and drastically increasing the number of containers screened. Here is an example. There is something called a container security device. It attaches to the hinges of a container and lets inspectors at ports know if the container has been tampered with from the port it came from. They cost about $25 each. You could provide a device for every one of the 11 million-plus containers that enter our ports every year for the same money it costs us to be in Iraq for 1 single day. We could take 11 million containers that enter our ports every year and for 1 single day in Iraq make our country more secure. That is what the war costs--electronic security for every container entering the United States versus 1 day in Iraq. As we have considered the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill that we passed yesterday, it is as good a time as any to discuss how funding for the Iraq war impacts local police departments here at home. With the billions of dollars going toward a failed effort to secure the streets of Baghdad, we could boost our efforts to fight terror and violence of gangs on the streets of the neighborhoods we call home. The FBI tells us that crime rates are going up in the United States. This is no coincidence considering the Bush administration has repeatedly cut funding for hiring new police, law enforcement technology, and successful prevention programs. Luckily, this Senate under Democratic leadership has changed that course. We are taking action to reverse that situation. I was proud to cosponsor Senator Biden's amendment to boost funding for the COPS Program, one of the most successful Federal crime prevention programs in history. Eight hours of Iraq funding pays for that amendment to put community police officers on the streets of our Nation. That is the war cost--more police on the streets versus 8 hours of spending in Iraq. When it comes to our money, the message the administration is sending is clear. We are spending it over there so we don't spend it here. But in terms of security, if we had never gone into Iraq, our lives would be better. The sooner we transition out of Iraq, the better our lives will be. Costs of the war for the United States are going only to escalate as Great Britain withdraws its troops. So the financial question we have to answer as a nation is as urgent as any we have ever faced. We have to decide what we value as a Nation: the war or keeping our country safe. These are the questions we are going to continue to ask to put a real sense of what it is costing us here at home in real terms. Today was about security. We will come back to the Senate floor and talk about education and health care and economic expansion and reducing debt, because we have to offer a real sense to the American people of what this war is costing us here at home. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month. During this month, numerous national service organizations, professional medical associations, and government and local agencies are working to promote breast cancer awareness, share information and provide access to screening services to women nationwide. As you may know, breast cancer is the second leading cause of death among women--around 180,000 women in the United States will be found to have invasive breast cancer in 2007. Furthermore, about 40,500 women will die from the disease this year. And right now there are slightly over 2 million women living in the United States who have been treated for breast cancer. Mr. President, in my home State, of New Jersey, we have one of the highest incidence rates of breast cancer in the Nation, averaging approximately 8,000 new cases per year. New Jersey also has one of the highest morbidity rates associated with breast cancer--approximately 1,500 deaths per year. These statistics are painful. Mothers and sisters and daughters are struggling to survive this disease across the country--a disease that is treatable through proper education, early diagnosis, and aggressive therapy. Routine mammography screening is an especially effective means of detecting breast cancer at the earliest stages. That is why during Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I urge women nationally to maintain a regular mammography schedule. When breast cancer is diagnosed at early stages, the chance of survival greatly increases. Aside from mammographies, the American Cancer Society recommends that women obtain annual clinical breast exams, perform monthly breast self exams, and obtain a risk assessment from a physician to maintain their own breast health, and to catch breast cancer at the earliest stage possible. Although it may seem like breast cancer solely plagues women, there are documented cases, although rare, of male breast cancer. In fact, it is estimated that in 2007 some 2,030 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed among men in the United States. However, there is hope among these devastating statistics; with knowledge and early screening, many cases can be caught early, increasing patients' chances of survival tremendously. We need to increase our outreach to men and women so we can combat this devastating disease. It is also important to remember that Breast Cancer Awareness Month cannot just be a 31-day event--we must take action every day of the year if we have a hope of increasing treatment and saving lives.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland for yielding me time. Can I get a sense of how much time that is?

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the Chair. Madam President, as I listened to our colleague describe his amendment, one might say: Why shouldn't I support this amendment? The problem is, the very issues he described, including the one in my own home State of New Jersey, would not be resolved by his amendment. That is a breakdown of the system that had nothing to do with communities making a decision not to go ahead and assist and inform, when they actually have someone who has committed a crime, of, in fact, the status of that individual. What this amendment will do--what this amendment will do--is it will undercut the ability of communities to actually prosecute the crime--to prosecute the crime. Why? Because a crime is committed against an individual, and if that individual happens to be a victim who is undocumented in this country, that community wants--and communities across the country want--the victim to come forth and say: Hey, I had this crime committed against me. I had this robbery committed against me. I was assaulted. I was raped. We want the victim to come forward and talk about the crime and testify against the perpetrator because society, the community, is best served by having the criminal--the criminal--put away in jail. If you don't have people coming forth to testify about the crimes committed against them--you might have had a sexual predator, you might have had someone who was involved in a whole host of things--the bottom line is, if you don't have the person who was the victim coming forth, you don't get to the person committing the crime, and that person is allowed to stay out there committing more crimes. What if you are a witness to a crime. As a witness to the crime--you saw it, you are an eyewitness--you can help the police, you can help the prosecutor, you can help the sheriff put that person away. But, no, you are not going to come forth because, in fact, your status in this country isn't clear, and ultimately why should you come forth and put yourself in jeopardy? Communities across the landscape of the country have said: We want to get to the criminal element. We want that witness to come forth. We want them to come and testify. What the Vitter amendment does is it cuts the legs out from under law enforcement, who say they prefer to get the perpetrator of the crime and that is much more important than ultimately going to the question as to whether that person has a legal status in this country. That is why a large number of people whom we trust every day, who put their lives on the line for us in terms of protecting us as citizens, have said they oppose the Vitter amendment, including the National Sheriffs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major City Police Chiefs Association, Major County Sheriffs Association, and those who, as the chief executive officers of their municipalities, are actually responsible for making sure that their citizens are protected, the U.S. Conference of Mayors--they have all come out in opposition to this amendment because they understand it goes to the very heart of being able to keep their communities safe. This amendment would deny funding to over 70 law enforcement jurisdictions in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin; jurisdictions that have made it their decision to have laws and policies and practices that put the enforcement against the crime, that puts the perpetrator away in jail, as their primary goal. There are plenty of things that can be done to pursue people who are undocumented in this country if that is the right policy. But denying municipalities the funding, the Federal moneys for police officers, because they want to get the perpetrator versus get the undocumented immigrant is, in my mind, the wrong policy. That is why all these major law enforcement entities, the people on whom we depend, consistently are in opposition. Last, it seems to me when the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, in testimony over in the House, said nothing that these communities do stops ICE, which is ultimately responsible for prosecuting individuals, for detaining them and deporting them--that nothing by any of these jurisdictions is stopping them from being able to do that--as is being suggested, that that is why this amendment is necessary--I think it makes a very compelling argument. Let's make sure the victims of crime come forth. Let's make sure the witnesses of crimes come forth. Let's listen to the law enforcement entities that say they oppose the Vitter amendment. Let's make sure we have the community policing opportunities that take place to reduce crime, which has risen 2 years in a row in the country, and ultimately let's listen to the Secretary of Homeland Security who says nothing these jurisdictions have done has stopped them from being able to have ICE pursue their duty to proceed against an individual who is undocumented in this country. I would rather get the perpetrators, those who are committing a rape, who are committing a robbery, who are sexual predators, who are doing those things--who are breaking the law. The rule of law is very important and there are a lot of elements to that. We want to make sure the rule of law is preserved by ensuring those who can help us put criminals away have the wherewithal to do so and are not ultimately afraid to come forth. That helps all the citizens in the community and that is why I believe we should defeat the Vitter amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the Vitter amendment. I don't believe it is common sense, I don't believe it is reasonable, and I want to lay out the reasons. This body has, during the immigration debate, actually acted on a very similar amendment and defeated it. And the reason this body was wise enough to defeat it was because they understood that some of the toughest law enforcement officials in our country, from sheriffs to prosecutors, and a whole host of law enforcement officials in between, understand that the cooperation of a community is essential for police and law enforcement entities to do their job. Under Senator Vitter's amendment, denying money to municipalities across the landscape of the country--and this would deny monies to about 126 cities in a whole host of States represented by people on both sides of the aisle--would set up a series of circumstances under which a crime could be committed and the witness to that crime happens to be someone who is undocumented in some fashion. Do we want the witness to be able to come forward and provide essential, crucial eyewitness testimony about the crime or do we want them to hide in the darkness and not talk to the police because they are afraid of their immigration status? I want to solve the crime, Mr. President. I want to get the perpetrator. I want to convict that person and put them in jail. I don't want the opportunity to do that to go wasted because of some political statement that has nothing to do with the core issue of security in our communities. I want to make sure a witness comes forth and testifies against a perpetrator and has no fear to do so. Senator Vitter's amendment would undermine that ability. Senator Vitter's amendment would undermine the ability of someone who is a victim of a crime and who happens to be in an undocumented capacity to come forward because they might very well be concerned that their status is such that it might create a problem for them. So victims of a crime would not come forward, which not only is inhuman as it relates to the victim of that crime--and that crime could be of all types and manner that was committed against the individual--but the unwillingness of that person to come forward because of fear--fear--may lead to another crime committed against someone else by that same individual in that same community; perhaps to a child who might be molested, to a person who might be assaulted, to a family who might get robbed. So instead of catching the perpetrator, the criminal element, and being able to prosecute them either through the witness or through the victim, no, we prefer to deny monies to that community because they have a view that in their own interest--and I hear so many times in debates that States and municipalities know best, but when it comes to this, they know nothing. They know nothing about how best to secure their communities. They have made decisions across the landscape of the country--urban, suburban, and rural--to say we care more about prosecuting the crime and having witnesses come forward to tell us about the crime than we care about the person's status, and we are not going to put a chilling effect across the landscape of our community to being able to achieve those goals. That is what tough law enforcement will tell you--sheriffs will tell you, prosecutors will tell you, and police chiefs will tell you. They will tell you that they want the community to participate. Now, when Secretary Chertoff was before the committee recently testifying in a House hearing, he responded to a question about this issue. He said: I am not aware of any city that actually interferes with our ability to enforce the law. So let's not mix apples and oranges. The suggestion is that these cities interfere with the Department of Homeland Security and ICE's ability to go ahead and pursue someone to be deported. That is not the case. But that is the argument that is trying to be made in pursuit of an amendment that is all about immigration and nothing about security. We need to be about security in our communities. We need to be able to have witnesses come forward and be able to have victims come forward. Now, local governments have taken the initiative to reassure these communities in order to deliver services vital to the public health and safety. And these may be immigrant families who also, in fact, have perfect status in this country. But the message being sent out is: Don't talk to the local police. We have had incidents where people who, in fact, have total legal status, and who, because they came forward as witnesses to a crime, ended up feeling more like a criminal themselves than the person they were trying to testify against. That sends a chilling effect across immigrant communities which says: Do not participate. It would not be in the interest of security in our communities to have that be the message. If immigrant families are afraid to access the opportunities for local law enforcement to have their participation as the eyes and ears of what is happening, it would have a negative effect and be a ripple effect of what would happen. If that is the message, then if you are a perpetrator of a crime and you want to do breaking and entering, robbing in a community, God forbid you want to do rapes, you say: This community will not go to the police. Let's do it in that sector. Then the crime continues and the perpetrator continues to be free and the process gets worse and worse. It seems to me all Americans are at higher risk of preventable crimes when the population fears coming forward to give information. This is also about telling municipalities that they cannot figure out for themselves what is the best way to combat crime in their communities. Our whole effort under the fantastic bill that Senator Mikulski has put together is to ensure communities have the wherewithal to combat the rise in crime we have seen over the past 2 years, according to recent reports. The way to do that is to have citizens come forward and participants in communities come forward and tell the police about what is happening. It is not to put a chilling effect on it. The Senate has in the past already largely rejected these amendments--in good judgment. Let's listen to the cops, let's listen to the prosecutors, let's listen to the sheriffs, let's listen to the tough law enforcement people, let's listen to the communities that have elected officials who are in the midst of these communities and who say: When it comes to identifying crime and victims of crime, we want them to come forward. That is in the public interest. Nothing in these cities is used in a way, as Secretary Chertoff said, to impede the opportunity for ICE to do what they want to do should they want to deport somebody. For all those reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the Vitter amendment when it comes up for a vote and preserve the security of our communities. I yield the floor.