Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the underlying bill, and I will just take a few minutes to do so. Today, the Senate is debating a bill that ensures our homes and communities are safe, it keeps us a world leader in scientific research, it promotes economic development across the Nation, and it funds our national census. I am here today because I strongly support the bill and I wanted to commend Chairman Mikulski for her work, as well as the ranking member. It reflects many of our Nation's top domestic priorities: putting more police on our streets through the COPS program, ensuring the FBI has the tools it needs to fight domestic terrorism, providing the DEA with resources to win the war on drugs, and protecting our children from sexual predators. I am proud to say there is much in this bill to celebrate. And it comes not a day too soon. Last week the FBI released its latest report on crime in America. The news was not good: crime is up for the second year in a row. It is no coincidence that this rise in crime follows years of repeated cuts to the COPS program by the Bush administration and the Republican Congress. In 1994, COPS put more than 100,000 new officers on the streets. According to the Government Accountability Office, every dollar spent on COPS stopped 30 crimes from happening--every dollar stopped 30 of our neighbors, friends and family from being victimized. In my opinion, that is a dollar very well spent. Take a look at this chart. The red line indicates the number of homicides per 100,000 citizens. The blue line indicates the number of police officers. Every time the number of police officers on patrol decreased, the number of homicides increased. This is simple commonsense: more police means less crime. Yet the Bush administration chose to kill funding for the very program that is responsible for hiring more police officers to protect our communities. And predictably, as this chart clearly illustrates, the results have been disastrous. It is time to reverse that course. This bill provides $2.7 billion for State and local law enforcement--$1.6 billion more than the President's request. With this money, our police will be able to prevent gang violence, to combat drug crimes, and to catch child predators. This bill also adds 100 FBI agents whose specific purpose is fighting the rising threat of violent crime. It lifts a hiring freeze on DEA agents and puts 200 new agents on the beat. But, while this bill does a lot to ensure the safety of our communities, there is still work to be done. That is why I am pleased that Chairman Mikulski and the ranking member supported our amendment, an amendment that doubles the funding for juvenile mentoring programs. They care about that effort. It is no secret that juvenile crime--particularly juvenile gang activity--is a serious problem in this country. That is why Senator Feinstein and I worked so hard to pass the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007. One of the biggest problems contributing to gang activity and gang crime is a lack of direction and lack of supervision in the lives of teens. Nor is it a secret that providing good role models and more structure in the lives of teens has a significant impact in reducing gang activity and violence. That is why we need to beef up our juvenile mentoring programs. The Juvenile Mentoring Program was established in 1992 with the specific goals of reducing juvenile delinquency and gang participation, improving academic performance and reducing school drop out rates. Programs funded under the Juvenile Mentoring Program initiative link at-risk children, particularly those living in high-crime areas and those struggling in school, with responsible, working adults. These children receive the structure and support that is otherwise missing in their lives. They learn about the dangers of drug use, the perils of gang involvement, and the importance of staying in school. In other words, programs like these provide children with the tools they need to avoid the pitfalls of gangs and violence, to rise above the situation they were born into, and to make a better life. I can think of no other program more deserving of increased funds and commend my colleagues for recognizing this need and passing my amendment. I want to mention the one difference I have with this bill, one that has to do with a policy known around here as the Tiahrt Amendment. No matter how many great programs we fund in this bill, no matter that we doubled funding for the Juvenile Mentoring Program, we will never successfully stop violence unless we work to combat the illegal use of guns. Gun violence is one of the most serious problems facing our Nation. Every day on average, 81 more Americans will be shot dead-- many of them innocent victims, including children. This is unacceptable. But, it is even more unacceptable for us, as legislators, to allow it to continue. But that is exactly what a provision in this bill does with its Tiahrt provision. This provision could prevent the sharing of gun trace data among law enforcement agencies. It will prevent the ATF from providing trustworthy national data about the flow of crime guns. It will make it harder to figure out where illegal gun activity is most prevalent and what we can do to stop it. Without this data, our state and local law enforcement will have a much harder time combating violence in our communities and making us safe. It should be a priority for all of us to better understand gun crime, so we can better prevent it. But with the Tiahrt provision, data that is essential to understanding gun trafficking and violence will be concealed from law enforcement, concealed from lawmakers, and concealed from the public. There is simply no way to make good policy without having good information, good data to base it on. When convicts get released from prison, we keep their fingerprints on file. But when a gun gets confiscated, information about it gets treated like a State secret. Police can share fingerprint data across state lines, because criminals move across State lines. But under this bill, gun data has to be kept within a small geographic area. I am very disappointed that this language has been included in the bill. But, it is a battle I will seek to fight with others on another day. And, be assured, I will. As I said before, there is much for us to celebrate in this bill. And there is more to celebrate having accepted my amendment to double the funding for Juvenile Mentoring programs. I look forward to supporting the Appropriations bill and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I am happy to.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate the views of my distinguished colleague from Vermont. I particularly appreciate his support for comprehensive immigration reform for which he has been a champion. However, I must take the opportunity to note that the underlying amendment Senator Salazar and I were addressing, for which no point of order was raised against and which, in essence, was adopted by the Senate, goes to the very heart of this issue. As a matter of fact, there was a colloquy between Senator Tester and Senator Graham that basically said to some degree that, in fact, the resources Senator Graham had in his amendment, adopted by the Senate, could go to the northern border. What Senator Salazar and I want to make clear is that, in fact, either we protect all of the country or we protect none of it.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Unfortunately, I didn't have notice of it before it was called up for a vote; otherwise, I would have had the opportunity.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I would note for the Senator, however, that his concern was in the underlying Graham amendment as well. So here we are, where we as a body consistently pursue one course of action on one part of the U.S. border, and on the other border we actually say it is quite different. The reality is, some of us on this issue believe there has to be some consistency because, if not, some of us believe either it is about securing the country or it is not. If it is about securing the country, you can't secure one border and say the other border is free for people to cross undetected, as has been well documented by the Government Accountability Office, by the 9/11 Commission, and by the fact that the millennium bomber came through, and a host of other things. Either we are going to have security, which means north and south, or we are not going to have security. If it is only about the southern border, then it is about a lot more than security. It is about who happens to be crossing we don't like. What is the color of their skin? What is their ethnicity? Why is that such a threat when the only real terrorist threat we have ever had came through the northern border? This Senator, for one, intends to ensure moving forward that as we have other appropriations bills, I will make it my business to be on the Senate floor to raise points of order because either it is about securing all of the country or it is about securing none of it. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I offer this amendment with my colleague, Senator Salazar from Colorado, because we both feel passionately about the security of our country. Earlier this afternoon the Senate voted on an amendment to provide funding to create greater security along the border between the United States and Mexico. I voted for that amendment because I recognize we certainly have to do more to protect our borders and, more importantly, because it had monies for employer verification efforts as well. At the same time, I recognize it is simply not enough. It was not enough because it made no mention--no mention--of our northern border or the significant security threat that it presents. That is why Senator Salazar and I are offering this amendment--to ensure that the northern border receives the same care and attention as does the southern border. Last week, the Government Accountability Office released a report detailing the serious vulnerabilities of the northern border between Canada and the United States. Shortly thereafter, I came before this body to talk about those vulnerabilities, and I had hoped to raise awareness about this largely ignored problem. What I may not have accomplished last week I hope to accomplish today by offering this amendment. With all due respect, I question this body's almost single-minded focus on the southern border. Personally, I am sick and tired of voting on amendment after amendment to build a fence between us and Mexico, amendment after amendment sending more Border Patrol agents to the south, amendment after amendment focusing on the gaps in our southern border, without--without--the same attention and the same concern directed toward our northern border. Last week, the Government Accountability Office reported that given the current state of the northern border, almost anyone could enter our country undetected carrying radioactive material or any other illegal and dangerous substance. Almost anyone could bring chemical or biological weapons into our country across the northern border. That is simply unacceptable. But what is more unacceptable and what is more shocking to me is that this body continues to ignore these findings and instead focuses, as it did today, almost unilaterally on building a fence to separate us from our southern neighbors. Now, what did the previous amendment have to say about the northern border with Canada? What did it have to say about the current gaps that could allow a terrorist to waltz right in and detonate chemical or biological weapons? Absolutely nothing. That is why we are here today. We are here today to make sure we take care of our northern border, and that we make it just as safe and as secure as our border to the south. We either protect the Nation as a whole or we have not protected the Nation at all. The problems of the northern border, by the way, are not new. In fact, the 9/11 Commission noted that in 1999, there was one single agent on the northern border for every 13.25 miles. They compared this to the southern border which had one agent every quarter of a mile. So in one case, we have an agent for every 13.25 miles, and in the other case we have an agent for every quarter of a mile. Sadly, however, not much has improved since the 9/11 Commission pointed that out. In fact, currently only 965 agents out of a total of 13,488 agents are stationed in the north--only 7 percent. Such numbers are ludicrous when we consider that our northern border spans over 5,525 miles and is almost three times as large as the 1,993-mile southern border, 3 to 1 odds. That is exactly why the 9/11 Commission specifically recommended that the border between Canada and the United States be strengthened and that immigration controls be tightened. Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you put 13,000, or a little less than 13,000, border agents in one part of the country and you put 965 in another part of the country, and I want to do damage to the country, where am I going to come through? Where I have to face almost 13,000 agents in a third of the space or where I have to face 965 agents in three times the space? Of course, those agents work on a rotational system, so it is not that they are all out there at the same time. So it is a third of those people who are out there at any given time. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure how you do harm. Even before the 9/11 Commission issued its report, the Office of the Inspector General found serious problems with the security of the northern border. In 2000, the Office of the Inspector General found that Border Patrol agents in northern border sectors experienced more-- more--organized criminal activity than agents in the southwest--more organized criminal activity than agents in the southwest. It found that illegal activity in the north was facilitated by the open nature of the border, the unpatrolled waterways, and the vast stretches of wilderness with little enforcement present. It noted that a severe lack of resources prevented the Border Patrol from truly knowing even the extent of the problem. Sound familiar? It should, because nothing has really changed. Last week, MSNBC had video clips of people crossing the northern border of Canada with bags in their hands, with impunity, totally unobstructed, unprotected. Make no mistake about it. Northern border security is a serious problem. It has been a serious problem in the past, and it continues to be a serious problem. Just over the last several years, nearly 69,000 individuals have been apprehended crossing over the northern border. That doesn't include the thousands and thousands who cross without apprehension. Let me remind my colleagues about the millennium bomber. In 1999, the millennium bomber, Ahmed Ressam, crossed the northern border with Canada intending to kill as many American citizens in cold blood as possible. While we eventually stopped Ahmed Ressam from carrying out his plans, we have not addressed the problem that allowed him to enter the United States in the first place. We simply cannot afford to ignore the problem of our northern border. And we will not, if we pass our amendment; we will be able to address that serious concern. Our amendment ensures that the $3 billion appropriated under Senator Graham's amendment is also available for use on the northern border, wherever the greatest security needs are. So we urge our colleagues to support this amendment. Trying to secure our Nation by focusing on only one of two borders is a recipe for disaster. We either protect the entire country, or we end up protecting none of it. This amendment guarantees we protect the entire country. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3198.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent that the Record remain open today until 2 p.m. for the submission of statements and cosponsorships.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following calendar items be indefinitely postponed: Calendar No. 296, S. 1539; Calendar No. 297, S. 1596; Calendar No. 298, S. 1732; Calendar No. 300, S. 1781.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 337, submitted earlier today.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m., Monday, October 1; that on Monday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period of morning business until 3 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, and the time equally divided and controlled between the two sides; that at 3 p.m., the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 1585.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today to shed light on a serious national security vulnerability facing our Nation, a dangerous gap in the United States-Canadian border. For the past 2 weeks, we have been debating the Department of Defense authorization bill, a bill that authorizes many of the programs that keep us safe from foreign terrorists on foreign soil. What we have not been focused on in these 2 weeks is the threat that comes when people cross our own borders without inspection. In fact, I would argue we haven't been focusing on this problem enough this year. We haven't taken the steps necessary to keep our borders, particularly the northern border, safe. That is simply unacceptable. It is no secret that today our immigration system is in shambles. To say our borders are not secure is an incredible understatement. Although most of my Republican colleagues would agree with me, they have failed to take comprehensive action. So our borders remain unsafe and insecure. Securing our borders is a catchy political phrase, a sound bite guaranteed to get on the evening news. And 99 percent of the time, it is used in reference to our southern borders. Stories run with pictures of immigrants crossing the United States-Mexico border as politicians lament about the dangers these immigrants pose, those who would be gardeners, nannies, busboys, and maids. It is as if no one remembers that this country has a northern border as well, a porous border that represents just as many problems and dangers. Today, I hope that will change. The Government Accountability Office has released a report detailing the vulnerabilities of our northern border, and people are starting to pay attention. MSNBC is even showing images of people carrying bags and boxes across the border without any inspection whatsoever. I hope my colleagues are as attentive as the media is on this issue. Let me take a moment to read some of the Government Accountability Office's report. It said: Our visits [referring to the GAO's investigations of the Northern border] show that Customs and Border Protection faces significant challenges in effectively monitoring the border and preventing undetected entry into the United States. Our work shows that a determined cross-border violator would likely be able to bring radioactive materials or other contraband undetected into the United States by crossing the United States-Canadian border at any of the locations we investigated. Think about that for a moment. The Government Accountability Office is saying that terrorists are currently able to smuggle radiological, biological, or chemical weapons into our country without much difficulty. If this were to happen, our worst nightmare scenario would become a reality. Millions could be killed from a single barbaric act. Right now, this very day, such an action is possible because of our lack of border security, our lack of northern border security. Now, this report may be a recent release, but the vulnerabilities it revealed are old news. In July, during the debate over the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill, Senator Salazar and I introduced an amendment that was approved, compelling the President and the Secretary of Homeland Security to improve security at our northern border until they are able to certify that they have 100 percent operational control of the border. We introduced this amendment because the Bush administration was not living up to the requirements of existing law. The law requires, requires--does not suggest, does not allow, it requires--that 20 percent of all new border agents be sent to the northern border. But the administration has flaunted that requirement. In fact, only 965 agents out of a total of 13,488 agents are stationed in the North--only 7 percent. And that is after the number of agents actually decreased by nearly 9 percent from fiscal year 2005 to 2006. Such numbers are ludicrous when you consider that our northern border spans over 5,525 miles and is almost three times as large as the 1,993- mile southern border; almost three times as large, yet it is allocated an infinitesimal amount of our overall border security. Some of my Republican colleagues will argue that the risk of terrorism is much greater from our border with Mexico than our border with Canada. But they would be flat wrong. History has proven that today. Let me recite some of it. Over the last several years, nearly 69,000 individuals have been apprehended crossing the northern border. That is the tip of the iceberg as countless others have crossed the border illegally without apprehension because, notwithstanding the law, the administration has only got a handful of people up on the border that is almost three times as long as the southern border. So we have no idea what the magnitude of this vulnerability is or what consequences will result from the administration's dereliction of duty. We know terrorists seek to exploit vulnerabilities. I created the first task force on homeland security when I was in the House of Representatives. I sat on the select committee that created the Department of Homeland Security. I was the chief Democratic negotiator for the first element of the 9/11 bill. I have spent a lot of time on this issue. The one thing we can be assured of is that terrorists don't continuously operate in the same way. They study, and seek to exploit, vulnerabilities. We know they study how our Nation works and where the holes in our security are. We can be sure they will seek out the easiest path of entry to the United States, and right now that path is through the northern border where it can be easy to avoid the mere 965 agents scattered along more than 5,500 miles. Those agents are not all on duty at one time. They go through a rotational system. They have 8-hour shifts. That means only a third of those people are covering the northern border at any given time of day. I remind my colleagues that in 1999, Ahmed Ressam, the millennium bomber, because he came at the time we were ready to turn to the year 2000, snuck in through the northern border to kill as many American citizens in cold blood as possible. Although we were able to stop Ahmed Ressam from carrying out his deadly plans, we do not appear to have learned any lessons from this near catastrophe. That incident should have been a wake-up call illustrating the vulnerabilities of our northern border and the dire need to remedy them. But instead we remain complacent, focusing the Senate and the Nation on a more politically attractive issue, our southern border. If I am a terrorist seeking to commit an act against the United States, I am going to go to the course of least resistance. If I have nearly 12,500 border agents at one border and 900 some odd in another border, what are my chances? Where am I better off, especially when that border is three times the size of the southern border? Where am I better off to try to cross to the United States and do harm? We must never order our security priorities based on the political winds of the time. We must examine the evidence and analyze the risks and implement the strongest, most appropriate national defense strategy that ignores the unfounded, often bigoted fears that currently influence the debate. If you are concerned about terrorists, as we all should be, you should be concerned about the state of both of our borders. I urge my colleagues to join with us in pressuring the administration to take its border security responsibilities more seriously and to send our resources out where we need them. Trying to secure our Nation by focusing on only one of two borders is a recipe for disaster. You either protect the entire country or you have protected none of it. If my Republican colleagues do not join us soon to secure our northern border, then I question their motives in past debates on immigration. I wonder whether they are more concerned about the ethnicity of immigrants crossing the border than the threats they present. I hope this newly released GAO report will be a call to action for my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. I hope they will support efforts to secure our northern border and make our Nation more secure. This is too important an issue to allow partisan politics to play a role. I will continue to fight to secure the northern border, the southern border, and all other points of entry, including those by water and by aviation. I hope my colleagues will join me. The Nation cannot afford anything less. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today, as I did when we started this whole debate on children's health insurance, on behalf of the Nation's children and working families. I wasn't intending to come to the floor, but as I have listened to the debate over the last several days, I am amazed we have to defend a program that I cannot believe actually needs defending. Today, we rise to protect the Nation's children. In this great Chamber, I often hear Members say our children are our greatest asset, and they most certainly are, but they are also our most fragile asset. And nothing is more important in preserving that asset than preserving their health so they can fulfill their God-given potential. The issue before us today is a matter of values. It is not just about a law or about a program, it is also about a matter of values. Do we value our children sufficiently to ensure that those who otherwise do not have the ability to insure themselves will have the ability to have health care coverage so no child in America goes to sleep at night worried that they not get ill because their parents cannot afford to take care of them? That is the issue before the Senate, the issue before the country, and the issue that will be before the President. If our values match our action, then this bill needs to be passed by the Senate and signed into law by the President. This is common sense to me. The bill before us today will keep 6 million children insured and will cover an additional 4 million children who presently go to sleep at night and, because they have no health care coverage, their parents worry over them; and if they get ill, what happens? They wait longer and their illness gets worse. What do they do? They go to an emergency room, which is far more costly to their lives, as well as to our collective economic consequence. The deal the Senate has before it is to save children's lives and keep children healthy. Bottom line: It is a deal that will keep millions of American children and families from being pushed into the ranks of the uninsured. I find it interesting that my colleagues talk about fiscal responsibility--now we are going to be fiscally responsible--when we have supplementals that keep coming here without payment for them and without any limitation whatsoever--a blank check. But now we are going to be fiscally responsible on the backs of children. I want to take a moment to look at the families who are actually affected by the Children's Health Insurance Program. We are not talking about the poor, because if you are poor in this country, you get Medicaid. If you are wealthy, of course, you have the wherewithal to pay for the insurance. We are talking about children whose families work in some of the toughest jobs this country has. They work at jobs that offer no health care, and they certainly don't make enough money to afford private health care coverage. This program is their last resort. I have been watching the floor this week and I have noticed that my State of New Jersey has quite unfairly become the punching bag by some Members of this body for our successful Children's Health Insurance Program. On behalf of New Jersey families, I simply cannot let that go unnoticed. On behalf of the families that the opponents of this legislation say don't deserve to have a doctor or receive medical attention, I am insulted. On behalf of children who are asking for an eyeglass to see a blackboard or get an immunization shot to ward off illness, I am offended. I will tell you about one of these families in Keyport, NJ. They earn just over $50,000 a year and they have a 16-year-old daughter. They cannot afford private health insurance coverage in New Jersey, but through the Children's Health Insurance Program they can provide their daughter with the much needed health care--health care that protected her when she came down with a flu that would not go away, and care that provides relief to her parents, who don't have to worry about medical bills if their child gets sick. Even on New Jersey FamilyCare they pay a premium of $74 a month because they are higher on the Federal poverty level. But that is far less than private insurance would cost them, which they could not possibly afford on that $50,000 income for that family of three. Talking about premiums, let me take a moment to talk about families at 350 percent of the Federal poverty level in New Jersey, since that is a particular point of contention in this debate. Families at 350 percent of the Federal poverty level in New Jersey earn about $60,000 for a family of three. These families, under New Jersey FamilyCare, are paying $125 each month in premiums and between $5 and $35 in copays. It is not a free ride. In fact, most federally elected officials, including my colleagues in the Senate, pay about $190 each month in premiums for their family coverage and their earnings are well above 350 percent of the Federal poverty level. It is hard to see how it is OK for Members of this body but it is not OK for children in this country. If the President made the decision, it seems he would say ``tough luck'' to these families, ``go ahead and roll the dice on your daughter's health care.'' That is not an action that I think is dignified by a compassionate conservative. The President doesn't want to cover families above 200 percent of the Federal poverty level--this child and so many others like her. I believe that is disgraceful and it should be embarrassing to even threaten a veto of this bill. Here is my question to those who oppose this bill: Is the greatest Nation on the Earth going to permit its children to have no health coverage? The President gets some of the best health care coverage in the world, paid by the taxpayers of this country. He can go, as Members of this body can, to Bethesda Naval Hospital, or Walter Reed, or, in the case of the Members of this body, to the Capitol doctor. That is subsidized by the taxpayer. Talk about socialized medicine. It is good enough for Members of this Chamber but not for these children. The President gets the best health care coverage in the world. He deserves to have it, but so do the children of this country. When you think about using your veto pen, Mr. President, think about your health care coverage that we all pay for as taxpayers. Do these children deserve less? In New Jersey there are 130,000 children depending on this program for their health coverage. They, along with 6 million children nationwide, depend on this program to stay healthy and, in some cases, stay alive. Proper coverage is often the difference between life and death, between health and sickness, between compassion and heartlessness. I urge my colleagues to act wisely as this is not a political game, nor is it time to make a point. This is about one thing only: the health of our Nation's children. What troubles me is that the President is prepared to turn his back and close the doors but, simply put, if his priorities were different, we could provide health care to all children in this country. If we were to take what we spend in Iraq in one day--$300 million--and spend that on children's health care, we could cover 245,000 children. In the past 41 days, we have spent over $12 billion on the war, and what changed in Iraq during that time? But I can tell you what we can do in the lives of children in this country. Finally, I bristle when colleagues come to this floor and still bring up the red herring of immigrant children being covered who should not have the right. The law has been clear--the law that exists, the law we are renewing. Undocumented immigrants have never--I underline ``never''--been eligible for regular Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program. This bill maintains that prohibition. It maintains that. So to continue to come to the floor and bring the bogeyman of those who are coming because they want the health care coverage that this program would provide, it is not permitted under the law, has not been, and is not under this law, and won't be under this law. I will tell you what is incredibly remarkable. During the immigration debate, we heard a great deal that we should differentiate between those who follow law and the rules and came here legally, and did the right thing and are living legally as permanent residents of the United States versus those who do not. Guess what. We don't even cover the children of those legal permanent residents of the United States who have obeyed the law, followed the rules, and ultimately are working hard in our country. Many of them, by the way--over 70,000--are serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. So to say that children are getting covered who are not legal and who are not permitted under the law, that is outrageous. This bill doesn't do it, but we should cover those children of legal permanent residents who have obeyed the law and the rules and are contributing to our society. But we don't do that either. So I hope we stop using children, whether they be those who cannot afford, because of their status in life and because of their parents' hard work but they don't make enough money, to have insurance and ultimately don't get it at their workplace, or those children who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in this country but who are not covered under this provision anyhow under the law--stop using all of these images to try to undermine the very essence of what this bill is all about. You either stand with children in this country who, through no fault of their own, have no health care coverage whatsoever, or you stand against them. You stand for the proposition that no child in America should go to sleep at night without health care coverage; you stand for the proposition that it is in the societal interest of this country to ensure that the greatest asset we always talk about, our children--they are also the most fragile asset--can be protected; you stand for the proposition that in this great country of ours, among the high and mighty here, who have great health care coverage, well over 350 percent of the Federal poverty level, that we deserve no more than children in this country do. That is what this debate and vote is all about. Before I close, there is one part of this bill that is missing and it leaves this entire bill and mission to increase children's health care unfulfilled. And that is the lack of language to provide health care for legal immigrant children and pregnant women in this bill. I am a proud cosponsor of the bipartisan Legal Immigrant Chidren's Health Improvement Act, also known as ICHIA, which would have repealed the morally objectionable law that prohibits new legal immigrants from accessing Medicaid and SCHIP until they have lived in the United States for 5 years. This bill today should have included a provision that would have given States the flexibility to provide coverage to this population. I am proud of my home State of New Jersey. They have taken it upon themselves to use 100 percent State funds to cover over 8,000 legal immigrant pregnant women and children--at a cost of over $22 million. My State has temporarily fixed the problem but it is up to Congress to pass the solution into law. How can you tell a 7-year-old child with an ear infection he has to wait 5 years to see a doctor? We cannot bar these families from accessing our health care system simply because they haven't lived here long enough. During the immigration debate, our colleagues emphasized the difference between those here legally and those here illegally, so it is appalling to me that a legal immigrant child, whose family waited their time, came here legally and obeyed the law, are still subject to republican criticism and are denied health care. These fully legal, taxpaying pregnant women and their children deserve to be covered under our children's health program. I am disheartened that we could not agree to include this language but you have my promise that I will work to pass ICHIA in coming months. This is not a question of if but a question of when it will pass. In conclusion, a great Republican, Abe Lincoln, once said: A child is a person who is going to carry on what you have started. They are going to sit where you are sitting, and when you are gone; attend to those things, which you think are important. The fate of humanity is in their hands. So it might be well to pay them some attention. I ask my colleagues to now pay attention to our children and support this important bill. I ask this for our children, for our families and for the well-being of our country.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3047

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, in recent years, our country has seen a major shift in the way that our National Guard has been used. Traditionally, our Guard units have supplemented our active duty troops during a major war or conflict. But as America faces ever-increasing military challenges, we see these citizen soldiers now replacing active duty troops in operations around the world. Since September 11, many Guard members have been called to active duty for multiple tours, and this is likely to continue in the foreseeable future. The National Guard has played a critical role in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Currently, almost 15,000 guardsmen and women are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and 242,271 have been deployed since the beginning of Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. These tours have stretched our National Guard to the limit, and have severely depleted our Guard's equipment. In reality, much of the equipment that is sent into theater never returns with the Guard units when their tour of duty is complete. This exacerbates the issue of equipment reset. While we consider the strain that our current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are placing on our National Guard, we must also remember that the Guard has another important responsibility: providing security at home. In the past few years, we have seen the valuable role that the Army and Air National Guard play in providing support during domestic emergencies. I know that in my State of New Jersey, the National Guard came to the rescue during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and was also instrumental in helping during the aftermath of the flooding that wracked New Jersey last year. The guardsmen and women also provided critical support in response to the hurricanes that severely damaged the gulf coast in 2005. Unfortunately, our current military operations abroad have left our National Guard without much of the equipment it needs to respond to some of the domestic emergencies I have just mentioned. In February of this year, the National Guard Bureau released a report entitled ``National Guard Equipment Requirements,'' which detailed the ``Essential 10'' equipment needs to support domestic missions. The shortfalls in equipment total $4 billion, and cover areas including logistics, security, transportation, communications, medical, engineering, aviation, maintenance, civil support teams and force protection, and join force headquarters and command and control. Without the proper equipment, the National Guard will not be able to respond as quickly and effectively in missions here at home. We saw an example of this in May when tornadoes ripped through Kansas. Although the Kansas National Guard was able to respond to the disaster, Governor Sebelius spoke out about the challenges her State faces due to the severe equipment shortages. National Guard units throughout the country are facing such equipment shortfalls, and with tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, and forest fires affecting our nation annually, it is imperative that the National Guard have the equipment it needs to respond accordingly in the face of these emergencies. That is why I introduced the recently passed amendment that expresses the sense of Congress that the Army and Air National Guard should have sufficient equipment available to achieve their missions inside the United States and to protect the homeland. This Congress always talks about supporting our troops--well we need to remember that supporting our troops means supporting the National Guard and providing them with the equipment they need not only for missions abroad but here at home. In the coming months, I will be working with my colleagues to see that this Congress provides the necessary funding to address these severe equipment shortages. In the meantime, I hope that the entire Senate will support this amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an amendment that we will have a cloture vote on at some point today or tomorrow, Senator Kennedy's and Senator Smith's Hate Crimes Prevention Act--a vote by which I hope the Senate will succeed, in a robust way, to invoke cloture and to move forward. Nine years ago, a young man sat in a bar having a good time, like many young men throughout America. Not unlike thousands of young adults at bars across America, this young man needed a ride home from the bar. So he asked two people he had befriended for a ride. They agreed. On the way home, they robbed him, they pistol whipped him, and tied him to a fence, leaving him for dead. They committed this brutal crime for one reason--and one reason only--because the victim was gay. Since that time, the Congress has been struggling to enact the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act--a bill I am proud to cosponsor. It has received bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. But for some reason, we have been unable to make the bill a law. Today--as soon as this vote takes place--I hope that will change. Hate crimes violate every principle upon which this country was founded. When our Declaration of Independence proclaimed that ``all men are created equal''--of course, I would take that to mean today all men and women are created equal--it did not go on to say, however, ``except Muslim or Sikh or homosexual Americans.'' It had no exceptions to the rights and liberties Americans had under the Constitution and that Declaration. The freedoms we often take for granted--freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion--become empty promises if we do not protect all those who seek to exercise these freedoms under the Constitution. Sadly, right now we are not protecting all of our citizens. This is not, by the way, about providing special rights. It is about ensuring constitutional rights. Local, State, and Federal governments need additional resources and authority to investigate and prosecute hate crimes based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability, and gender identity. That is exactly what this bill will do. It will allow the Department of Justice to assist in these investigations and prosecutions, and it will provide grants for State and local governments struggling with the costs and logistics of prosecuting these crimes. Some people may not think hate crimes are a real problem in this country. They are absolutely mistaken. In 2005--the most recent year we have data on--8,380 hate crimes were reported. Of the single-bias incidents, 54.7 percent were racially motivated; 17.1 percent were motivated by religious bias; 14.2 percent resulted from sexual orientation bias; 13.2 percent by ethnicity or national origin bias; and a little under 1 percent by disability bias. My home State of New Jersey experienced at least 756 bias incidents, 47 percent of which were based on racial bias, 36 percent were based on religious bias, and 11 percent were based on ethnic bias. I say ``at least 756 bias incidents'' because we do not know how many of these vile attacks have gone unnoticed and unprosecuted due to the scarce resources currently available to local law enforcement. Now, I am proud to have been the author of New Jersey's landmark bias crimes law when I was in the State legislature. We said then we could not eradicate hate or bigotry in New Jersey with a single law, but we could send a strong societal message that such acts would not be tolerated. With this law, we can do the same for our great Nation. Of course, you do not need to rely on my numbers or my experiences to know that hate crimes are alive and well in the United States. All you have to do is watch television. Last Thursday, thousands of protesters descended on the small town of Jena, LA, to protest the treatment of six young African Americans. The town was a picture of racial tension, all of which came to the surface months ago when three nooses were hung from a ``whites-only'' tree at the Jena High School. Perhaps if we had stronger hate crimes enforcement, this original action which provoked such violence and started the town down its path would have been properly handled and would have never escalated to the degree it did. Make no mistake about it, hate crimes are a serious problem in the United States--a problem we can no longer afford to ignore. Some may protest that this is not the time or place to be debating hate crimes legislation. I disagree. For some, it never seems to be the right time or the right place. Members of our military are not immune from hate crimes. To the contrary, hate crimes can happen anywhere there are emotions, anywhere there are people with the capability to hate. In 1992, a Navy sailor, Allen Schindler, was murdered by two fellow sailors because of his sexual orientation. In 1999, PFC Barry Winchell was similarly killed because his attackers believed--believed--he was gay. The military has recognized that hate crimes are a problem and sought to prevent them, but more can and must be done. It is absolutely appropriate to protect members of our Armed Forces from the vicious attacks that constitute hate crimes while we are debating the Department of Defense authorization bill. It is absolutely the right time to enact this hate crimes legislation. After all, what are our men and women doing in uniform? They are fighting for us around the world to preserve our way of life and to promote democracy, and all of them take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Let the preservation of the rights of all Americans be the essence of what they are fighting for. I will vote to invoke cloture on the hate crimes amendment offered by Senator Kennedy and Senator Smith, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I am here to offer a resolution which calls on Turkey to immediately begin the withdrawal of its troops from Cyprus and end its military occupation. Turkish troops have now been in Cyprus for over 33 years. The number of these troops has increased over the last three decades so that there are now more than 43,000, making this area one of the most militarized in the world. Let me be clear. There is no legitimate justification for the 43,000 Turkish troops to be in Cyprus. Cyprus is a peaceful country. Millions of people have been crossing the buffer zone without incident for years. There are no military attacks and there is no need for military protection of Turkish Cypriots. In the end, these troops only serve to create military tension. Again, there is absolutely no legitimate justification for this military occupation. In fact, Cyprus has historically been an oasis of generally peaceful relations. When Turkish-Cypriots and Greek-Cypriots emigrate to Great Britain from Cyprus, they often seek to live next to each other as neighbors. This resolution highlights these examples and uses them as evidence to urge Turkey to immediately begin the withdrawal of its military occupation. And it notes the importance of Turkey fulfilling this as soon as possible so that Turkey, Cyprus, the region and the United States can work more closely on other strategic issues. This resolution, in addition, calls on the U.S. Government to initiate a new effort to help Turkey understand the benefits of ending its military occupation of Cyprus. Such benefits include: Improving Turkey's European Union accession prospects; improving regional stability; improving relations with Greece; improving relations with the United States and; improving Turkey's image on religious tolerance. It is also in the best interest of the U.S., the European Union, and NATO for Turkey to end its military occupation of the Republic of Cyprus. Sadly, Turkey ranked last in a recent 47-nation Pew survey for favorable views of the U.S. Ending their occupation will offer more opportunities for U.S.-Turkey cooperation which will only improve our image in this key U.S. ally. For the U.S. to remain silent during this unjust occupation injures our moral standing internationally. Because silence is complicity, we must speak out. That is why I am proud to be the lead on this resolution with Senator Snowe which calls on Turkey to end its unjust military occupation in Cyprus.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with my friend the distinguished Senator from Colorado, Mr. Ken Salazar, who I have the pleasure of serving with as cochair of the Senate Democratic Hispanic Task Force. As we celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month, I would like to spend a moment talking about the landmark 1947 discrimination case Mendez v. Westminster, which established the legal precedent on which Brown v. Board of Education was based. It is an extremely important piece of our civil rights history, but sadly, it is often overlooked. Senator Salazar and I would like to remedy that. Let me illustrate the importance of this case. I want you to picture two students, both equally bright, eager to learn, and full of possibility. One student sits in a beautiful new school building surrounded by the best books, a good heating system, and a clean cafeteria. The other sits in a dilapidated old shed with torn and tattered books that are far too old. The heat doesn't work because there's no furnace, and the cafeteria doesn't exist. As you all know, this was what occurred in towns throughout our country for far too long before Brown v. Board of Education ruled that separate was inherently unequal. Sylvia Mendez, a victim of separate but equal before Brown v. Board of Education, was only 8 years old when she and her brothers were prohibited from attending a Whites-only school in Westminster, CA, in Orange County. Her father, along with five other Mexican-American fathers whose children were forced to attend subpar, segregated schools, challenged school segregation in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, claiming their children were victims of unconstitutional discrimination. This historic court battle ultimately ended school segregation in California and set in motion the legal process that would eventually end school segregation in America.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank Senator Ken Salazar for the work he does on the Senate Democratic Hispanic Task Force on behalf of Latinos. My colleague understands, like I do, that we must not only celebrate the accomplishments of Latinos but turn to the future in to ensure that Latinos are protected by our laws and able to achieve the American dream. Sylvia Mendez, who has become a premier civil rights advocate and leader as a result of this case, is a clear example of what it means to achieve that dream.