Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin for his leadership on this issue. As someone who voted against this war from its outset, I rise in strong support of the Feingold-Reid amendment. The last time we gathered to vote on a change of course in Iraq was July 18, approximately 2 months ago. Since that day, the Iraqi Parliament, with its country in the grips of a civil war, with much work to do to achieve political reconciliation, took a month-long vacation. Since that day, four bombs were set off in concert in northern Iraq, leaving more than 500 dead, the deadliest coordinated attack since the beginning of the war. Since that day, despite a much ballyhooed cease-fire in Al Anbar, Shiek Abu Risha, our main ally in the province, was murdered, a mere 10 days after he shook hands with President Bush. Since that day in July when we last had a chance to change course, another 160 sons and daughters of America have lost their lives in Iraq. Another 160 flag-draped caskets flown to Dover, another 160 renditions of ``Taps'' played at tear-soaked funerals, another 160 American families who will have an empty seat at the table come Thanksgiving. So here we are again. The calendar changes but the challenges do not. Yet again we meet on the Senate floor to consider another proposal to responsibly and safely transition our mission in Iraq and bring our troops home, out of another country's civil war. Yet again, as we have heard many times before through the course of this failed war policy, the President and his loyalists in this Chamber are using that tired refrain: The plan is working. It needs more time. We cannot leave. Now, as then, these words ring hollow. The administration that brought us the search for weapons of mass destruction, the ``cakewalk,'' and ``last throes'' is now pitching ``a return on success.'' But this President lost his credibility on Iraq about the time he stood on an aircraft carrier underneath a banner reading ``mission accomplished,'' almost 4\1/2\ long years ago. The administration may be shopping a new catch phrase, but we are not buying anything they are selling anymore. The President, armed with questionable statistics, presented us an open-ended, no-exit plan for the sons and daughters of America who continue to fight and die in Iraq. As a matter of fact, he said it will be up to the next President, in 2009 and beyond. The reality is that ``a return on success'' is ``staying the course'' by another name. We have tried this road. We have gone down it for 4\1/ 2\ years, with no turn of the wheel. Going down this road has diverted attention from Osama bin Laden, who is back in business and roaming free in a safe zone along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. It has fomented terrorism, creating a training ground in Iraq and allowing al- Qaida to regroup to its strongest level since September 11, according to intelligence estimates. It has stretched our military thin, wearing down troops serving extended tours, depleting our Reserves and National Guard, and compromising national security with a diminished preparedness to tackle other international threats. It has cost us dearly in national treasure and, most importantly, precious lives. Going down this road has not brought stability to Iraq nor made us any safer at home. It is clear we are being driven down a dead-end street by an administration without a roadmap for a lasting peace. Now they expect the American people to buy the no-exit occupation they are selling, the deployment of more than 130,000 American troops for as far in the future as the eye can see. No end in sight? Today we are living with the consequences of the administration's failed policy. Over 3,700 troops have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of the war, including 97 servicemembers with ties to the State of New Jersey. We have now spent over $450 billion on the war in Iraq, with a burn rate of $10 billion a month. Frankly, I never believed the administration's estimate that the so-called surge would only cost $5.6 billion, and these new numbers only prove once again we have been misled. Despite the meager improvements in the Anbar Province cited in General Petraeus's report last week, the situation in Iraq continues to grow worse. Sectarian violence surrounding Baghdad has surged this past week in connection with the holy month of Ramadan. At least 22 people have been killed in a series of bombings and shootings in Diyala and Kirkuk. Moreover, GEN William Caldwell has reported there is evidence Sunni extremist groups in Iraq have been receiving funds from Iran. In terms of reconstruction, oil production in Iraq is still lower than it was before the war 4\1/2\ years ago, and Baghdad is getting approximately 7 hours of electricity a day, significantly less than before the war. How can we be expected to support a war plan about which every independent report portrays a situation of chaos far away from stability or political reconciliation? In fact, according to the latest report card on Iraqi progress, the President's war policy is still flunking. Even if the debatable metrics used to compile the report are solid, half of the benchmarks have not even seen a minimal amount of progress. Now that it is clear the benchmarks are perhaps impossible to achieve with our current strategy, we see a concerted effort to play them down in terms of their importance. In General Petraeus's testimony, it was evident. The original goals of the escalation, to give the Iraqi Government and political factions breathing room to achieve reconciliation, have not been met. The benchmarks are now an afterthought and success is being measured in different and less stringent terms. It is a recurring pattern that no longer fools anyone: Make a bold proclamation, fail to meet expectations, fail to meet legally established benchmarks brought in by the Iraqi Government as well as our own, passed in law by the Congress, signed by the President, change the discussion. Moving the goalposts may appease some in this Chamber, but it does not help us achieve a lasting peace that is ultimately more important. When all else fails, the President and his supporters often respond to rightful criticism of their disastrous war plan with a question meant to change the subject: What are your ideas? What they fail to realize is a majority of Congress and an overwhelming majority of the American public have long been unified behind a course of action that we believe gives us the best chance for success and security, both in Iraq and at home. That is the purpose of this amendment. A responsible transition of our mission and withdrawal of our troops from Iraq on one hand gives a sense of urgency to the Iraqi Government and security forces that is currently absent. Until they actually believe we will not be there forever, they will not take control of their own country. At the same time, bringing our troops home allows our overburdened military to regroup. It allows us to have the capability to respond to other threats in the world that might arise. It allows the replenishment of our National Guard which is currently stretched so thin that response to disasters in the homeland has been affected. Yesterday it was announced that half the Army National Guard in my State of New Jersey--that is 6,200 soldiers--will be deployed as soon as next year, almost 2 years before the deployment was originally scheduled. That will leave our National Guard at half strength in a State at serious risk for a terrorist attack. That is 6,200 soldiers taken away from their loved ones to be tossed into another country's civil war. Most important about our plan and this amendment, it allows American families who have been separated and stressed by an ill-conceived war to be made whole again. The alternative is an endless occupation in Iraq with more American blood spilled and no light at the end of the tunnel. Throughout this war many have drawn the obvious parallels between this failed war policy and another quagmire 40 years ago. The comparison in some respects is valid and important. It is said those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. Because I fear history is being repeated, I wish to draw upon the words of Robert Kennedy, who served in this Chamber and delivered this statement about the Vietnam War in March of 1968: We are entitled to ask--we are required to ask--how many more men, how many more lives, how much more destruction will be asked, to provide the military victory that is always just around the corner, to pour into this bottomless pit of our dreams? But this question the Administration does not and cannot answer, it has no answer. It has no answer--none but the ever-expanding use of military force and the lives of our brave soldiers in a conflict where military force has failed to solve anything in the past. Our past teaches us our current struggle and our current predicament are best solved by a new course. Future generations will judge this war policy and the choice to continue it indefinitely harshly. They will still be paying the price. We have another opportunity today to write an end to this sad chapter, to turn the page and recommit to strengthening the military and targeting Osama bin Laden. We have the opportunity to change history for the better. I urge my colleagues to begin that change today and vote for a new course in Iraq by supporting the Feingold amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Webb- Hagel amendment. Both of our colleagues have served our country not only in the Senate but also in uniform, and they have done so honorably. So they speak from experience, and I, for one, do not question their sincerity of purpose. I do not know how every Member of the Senate will decide on how they will cast their vote, but I do not question their sincerity or the purpose of what they are driving at. This is about preserving our troops, enhancing their ability, and in the long term being able to continue to enlist people who want to serve their country, who bear the overwhelming burden of the national security of the United States by a small percentage of the population. That is what I believe Senator Webb is doing, and that is why I join him strongly in support of his and Senator Hagel's amendment. This amendment provides an important opportunity to recognize the courageous efforts of our men and women in uniform. This amendment provides a critical opportunity to ensure the care and safety of our troops--the care and safety of our troops--now, but I would argue not only now but for the long term. To those who believe this amendment is only about now, to change the current course of events, I believe the amendment has longstanding import now and for the long term. It sets our policy as to where we are going to be headed in the deployment of troops--the respites they need, the ability for us to sustain a voluntary Army under all of the circumstances. This amendment provides a great opportunity for us in the Senate to ignore politics and work together on behalf of our troops. This amendment simply says that our troops should have at least--at least-- the same time at home as they spend deployed abroad. It ensures that no unit, including the National Guard, which is clearly citizen soldiers who have been asked to do far beyond what many of them thought they were ever going to be called upon to do on behalf of their Nation--they would get the same treatment. This amendment simply says that after 4\1/2\ years of bravely fighting for our country, we must honor the sacrifice of the troops and their families. This amendment simply says we must make sure we are taking care--underline ``taking care''--of our troops. We believe we must protect our troops fighting in combat now, just as we must take care of our veterans when they return home from combat. Let me be clear. I do not believe this amendment ties the hands of the administration in the case of a clear threat to our national security. Senator Webb has been responsive in providing a fair and reasonable waiver for the President, as well as a waiver for those individuals in service who want to volunteer to return early. If they want to return, if they feel they are ready to return, they will be able to do so and provide the continued leadership they have been providing. I am sure many may. But the bottom line is, there are many who may not feel they can do that. So, therefore, their ability to perform at the optimum is not being preserved under the present circumstances. This amendment also responds to specific concerns raised by the Secretary of Defense and other military leaders. It allows the Department of Defense time for a transition period, for an implementation period that is well within the scope that is necessary. It also provides a specific exemption for special operations forces since the nature of their deployment schedule is much different. So I think Senator Webb has listened and responded since the last time he offered this amendment, as has Senator Hagel. Now, unfortunately, the war in Iraq has taken a terrible toll on our military. I am deeply concerned about our ground forces. I am deeply concerned about severe mental health issues, such as post-traumatic stress syndrome, which comes out of extended and repeated deployments. I am deeply concerned about our ability to retain experienced servicemembers and our ability to recruit new forces. Clearly, if someone is looking at whether to be engaged, in addition to their great desire to serve their country, especially if they have family, they are going to be looking at: Well, how are these deployments taking place? Are they taking place in a way to respond to my desire to serve but also to be able to sustain my family? That is why we have to adopt this amendment. It is about now and the long term. Some here have argued that Congress should not interfere. But the Founding Fathers put it right up there early in the Constitution. They did not wait for various later articles; they put it right up there in article I. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution is where they gave the Congress the right, the power ``to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.'' I have heard other statutory references here, but none of those statutory references have the power to undermine the Constitution. The Constitution is supreme. It comes first above all other acts. So, therefore, the Founders understood how important it was for the Congress to have the role ``to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces,'' and they put it up early in the Constitution to make it very clear. Those who wish to ignore or reject that provision of the Constitution, in my mind, undermine the Constitution by doing so. This President often acts as if the only role for the Congress is to provide a blank check for his failed war policy. I believe he is definitely wrong in believing that Congress's only role is to provide a blank check. That is not the role of the Congress. As a matter of fact, that would be an abdication of the duties and responsibilities of the Congress in its role under the Constitution. We have a fiduciary responsibility to the American people, both in national treasures and, most importantly, in lives. We have a responsibility to the men and women in uniform. This amendment before us reflects the reality on the ground and the will of the American people, but most importantly the welfare of those sacrificing the most. I have heard a lot from our colleagues in the time I have been in the Senate, and before in the House, about supporting our troops. Well, we are providing here a plan to fully support our troops who volunteer to put their lives on the line for our country. Senator Webb has referred to the Military Officers Associations' unusual movement or action of supporting this amendment. I think we need to listen to those who serve, especially when they act out of the norm and say: We believe this is in the interests of those men and women who serve. And it comes from the association of those men and women who are actively engaged in serving. I have so often heard our colleagues say: Let's listen to those on the ground. Well, this is a reflection of those in boots in service. Our brave troops have answered the call of duty. Let us now answer the call to do what is right by them. I urge all of our colleagues to support this amendment. It goes to the heart of how we truly honor those people who are serving our country, sacrificing for our country, and in my mind, when we talk about supporting the troops, making sure our long-term security can be preserved and enhanced goes to the very core of how we are going to treat them in their service. That is why I strongly support Senator Webb's and Senator Hagel's amendment, and I hope all of our colleagues will do so as well. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I honor Montclair State University of New Jersey as they celebrate 100 years of service to the students of our State. The 100th anniversary of Montclair State University is a wonderful cause for celebration. However, the real celebration lies in the extraordinary success of the faculty and administration of Montclair State University in preparing some of New Jersey's finest students to be the next leaders of this country and to succeed in a global economy. While much has changed since Montclair State University first opened its doors as a normal school in 1908, the university has remained true to its mission of providing an exceptional educational experience to a diverse student body that is reflective of the population of New Jersey. Montclair State University has become one of the leading educational institutions in our State, quickly turning into the second- largest and the fastest-growing university in New Jersey. Montclair State University is leading the way to help develop the next generation of teachers by training promising students to be successful, innovative teachers in schools across the State. The university has also maintained an active and positive role in the local community, by bridging education and community service. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me as I honor Montclair State University for its extraordinary success in providing 100 years of world-class education to New Jersey's students and for providing service to our communities.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, first of all, thank you for taking some time and presiding in the chair so I can make this statement. Last year, I made a very difficult decision. I voted for the Military Commissions Act because I believed it would make our Nation safer and help us fight the war on terrorism. I did not support the bill, however, without reservations. I said at the time it was not the law I would have written. To the contrary, I supported the bill with the understanding we would go back and fix some of the problems that remained unsolved. Tomorrow, the Senate has an opportunity to fix one of the most glaring of those problems, the failure to provide detainees with the right to habeas corpus. A right to habeas corpus was a fundamental right in the eyes of our Founding Fathers. It was seen as a mechanism for accountability within our Government, giving prisoners a way to challenge detentions that were unlawful or unconstitutional. A right to habeas corpus has remained a cornerstone of our criminal justice system since our very beginning as a Nation. It continues to be reaffirmed time and time again by every court in the land. Granting all prisoners the right to petition for habeas corpus is something that makes our Nation special and sets us apart. Now, I am sure many Americans may wonder: Well, what is habeas corpus? What is the big fuss about this habeas corpus thing? Well, let me try to explain. Habeas corpus gives a person, a citizen, people, the right to ensure they are being held by the Government lawfully, that they were not the victim of malfeasance or misfeasance on the part of the Government. It is not an easy standard to meet, and it is not taken lightly by the court system. To make a case for habeas corpus requires a significant amount of proof that a detention of that individual violates the laws of the United States. Let me say that one more time. Proving that you are entitled to relief, proving that you are entitled to a writ of habeas corpus by the court, is not an easy task. The claim is usually denied. Only those who truly deserve the writ are able to obtain it. I say this to reassure those who may feel that granting detainees the right to habeas corpus, as the amendment would do, would quickly let loose those who would then attack our country and our citizens. That simply will not happen. What will happen is those detainees who are being held unlawfully, if there are any who are being held unlawfully, who are being denied their basic human rights, will have a chance to make their case in court. They will, for the first time, be able to argue they are being held without any evidence of wrongdoing. They will be able to argue, possibly, they were tortured for a confession that is simply not true. In short, they will be allowed to hold our great Nation to the standard of fairness, lawfulness, and decency that our Founding Fathers established when they penned the U.S. Constitution. Some people may not believe detainees are entitled to such a basic right. They argue these people may not be U.S. citizens; that they do not believe the Constitution provides them with any protection or any guarantees. I disagree. I would ask those people one thing: If the terrorists convince us to throw away the very rights that make us free, the very rights that make our Nation what we uniquely are, does that not mean the terrorists have won? If we believe in the rule of law, and if we believe in a system of justice, we must give all people detained by our Government the right to challenge that detention. Our Government must play by the rules. It must detain people who are supposed to be detained, and it must be prepared to make that case in a court of law. The United States can do better than depending on indefinite, unchallengeable detentions to imprison an individual suspected to be a terrorist. We do not need shortcuts to keep our Nation safe. We can fight the war on terror and respect human rights at the same time. What makes America worthy of fighting for and dying for is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It sets us apart from the rest of the world, and we cannot permit its erosion or its undermining. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights need to be preserved. Therefore, I intend to fully support the Leahy-Specter amendment that will be offered tomorrow to restore habeas rights to detainees. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

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. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I had difficulty hearing the Senator. On the DeMint amendment, did I hear there was no time limit?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside and ask that amendment No. 2834 be called up.

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

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. I have no objection.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, I call up amendment No. 2826 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I have in my hand the Federal Register for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Basically, what it has done is said that under title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, they are going to have private property owners throughout the country have to devise a series of documents. Instead of HUD having a uniform document, all of these documents will be crafted by the individual private sector entities across the country. What that is going to do is shift an enormous financial burden on private property owners across the country and, equally as important in my mind, in pursuit of title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, it is going to lead to huge litigation across the country because we can have a variety of documents all for the same purposes being drafted in dozens, literally hundreds of different ways. That, in my mind, does not make common sense as it relates to the shifting of the burden on private property owners across the country, and it certainly does not make common sense in terms of having a uniform documentation that can ensure that at the end of the day, we do not see the courts flooded with different interpretations of those documents. We simply put a very modest amount, but from all the parties who are engaged with this we have determined $380,000 will ultimately ensure we do not shift this huge burden on all the private property owners across the landscape of the country and, at the same time, have uniform documents that won't lead us to a flood of lawsuits and preserve the very essence of what the title 6 Executive Order the Bush administration is pursuing under title 6 can be accomplished. I think that makes eminent sense. I look forward to the committee's acceptance of the amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate the great work the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, as well as the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, have done in crafting a bill with very tough parameters and to do so on a whole host of issues that are critical to the country's future. I look forward to being supportive of the bill overall. I hope from our conversation with the committee that, in fact, two amendments I will be offering, or versions thereof, will be accepted by the committee. Mr. President, this amendment, which I offer along with my colleague Senator Lautenberg, is about flight delays that we have been experiencing throughout the country. In my home State of New Jersey, Newark Liberty International Airport is one of the most delayed airports in the country. About half its flights were delayed this summer. These delays are unacceptable. Delays often mean a vacation cut short, a missed business meeting, or less time with loved ones. There are environmental consequences, as very often delays take place on the runway with the idling of engines and the emissions therefor. They are a demoralizing experience, an experience punctuated by long waits, little communication, and often no recourse. When I speak with the FAA and the airline industry about how to solve the problem, I hear two things. First, they say we need to upgrade air traffic control equipment, and I am wholeheartedly supportive of that effort, and I believe this bill sets us on the path for an eventual technological upgrade of the entire air traffic system. Second, I hear the FAA's airspace redesign in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia region will also ease delays. I have a difficult time, having viewed what they came out with, to believe that, in fact, is going to be largely accomplished by the very fact that we are looking, at best, at seconds, eventually reducing delays by less than 20 percent. It seems to me by fanning out arrivals and departures, there might be a slight decline in delays, but this slight reduction in delays probably will not even be noticeable. Some have calculated this benefit to be as low as 25 seconds saved per flight. I have been advocating with the FAA that they look at a variety of other issues, as well as deal with flight delays in the New York-New Jersey region. I wrote a letter asking the FAA to examine comprehensive, short-term solutions, such as whether temporary limits on operations should be placed on all of the regions' airports. I also asked them to examine whether priorities should be given to larger planes, particularly during periods of extreme congestion. Finally, at the very least, the FAA should have a meeting with all the regions' airports and discuss the possibility of voluntary flight reductions. It is interesting to me that the letter I sent to the Administrator today--the Administrator came out and said to the industry: You better seriously considering getting your schedules together and figuring out a reduction in the amounts of scheduled flights you have because if you don't do so, you may end up with a Federal response to that extent. So I think the Administrator, rightfully so, is trying to get the industry to do that what it needs to do I believe both for the industry and the flying public. These short-term solutions I propose will not require years to implement or billions of dollars in new funds. Instead, they require sensible planning on how to allocate the scarce resource of a seat on an airplane. This has been done in other parts of the country. We have seen in the past FAA successfully address air delays by holding scheduled reduction meetings with airlines or even capping the number of flights, as they do at Reagan National and LaGuardia. This amendment would largely have the GAO, an independent body, make sure that we have a study within a very short time, 120 days, to tell us how the tools that the FAA has used in other places in the country can be available to conquer flight delays in the short term and not simply wait for long-term, expensive solutions that only address a fraction of the problem. I do believe an independent study would be incredibly helpful. In addition to airspace redesign, we look at the other critical issues of delay that have an economic consequence and an environmental consequence and a quality-of-life consequence as well. I look forward to the committee adopting a version of this amendment. Amendment No. 2834

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in support, strong support, of the higher education reconciliation conference report before us. The bill represents a remarkable achievement this body, and this Congress, should be proud of. The billions of grant aid in this bill will make a tremendous difference for students across the Nation, students who are struggling to stay afloat because of the cost of college, students who are saving every last penny in the hopes they can achieve their dreams of college. The passage of this bill will make a change in the tide in Congress. It proves to students that when we say we will work to make college more affordable, we mean it. This bill shows them that when we say we understand the obstacles they face to finance a college education, we are not throwing words around. This bill will confirm that when we say student loans should work for students, we mean it. This Democratically led Congress laid out strong principles for how we should improve access to a college education. With this piece of landmark legislation, we are putting those principles into action. This bill is no small feat. Not since the passage of the GI bill has a piece of education legislation made this big of an investment in students' aid. Now, this historic moment could not have been possible without the leadership of Senator Kennedy, who has once again stood up for the Nation's students by engineering and moving this bill forward. I also wish to thank Senator Enzi as the Republican leader on the committee who worked so quickly to finalize this important bill. The bill could not come at a more critical time. Nationwide, the lowest income students at 4-year colleges face roughly $5,800 in unmet need after a standard financial aid package, after their loans, and after the amount their families contribute. To put it simply, for the neediest students all across the country, current aid has not kept up. Students of my home State of New Jersey are no stranger to the skyrocketing cost of a college education. In fact, within the past 5 school years, the cost of attendance, including tuition, fees, room and board at 4-year public colleges in New Jersey has increased by almost 50 percent. Unfortunately, family household incomes have not kept up with these rising costs. Even after financial aid is taken into account, nearly 40 percent of median family income in New Jersey is needed to pay for 1 year of college at 4-year public colleges. It is simply unbearable for our students. The result is some of our Nation's brightest students are locked out of a college education simply because they cannot afford it. I am pleased this legislation will reverse that troubling trend for all our students and families across the country by adding billions into new grant aid. Next year alone, New Jersey students will see more than $40 million in new grant aid. Over the next 5 years, students in my State will have access to more than 400 million Federal grant dollars because of this bill. Grant dollars equal access for many of today's college students. The bill reduces subsidies to student lenders and gives it back to our students. It is about time. For far too long, students struggling to afford college have seen their grants shrink, their loan rates go up and their debt explode after graduation. More than 60 percent of New Jersey students graduate with loan debt that averages $16,000. That is not a manageable amount of debt for a 21-year-old college graduate. It is an unfair burden. That is why I am proud of the bill, because it will help lessen the burden on our students. It will put money directly where it is most needed, into Pell grants and other critical financial assistance that benefits our Nation's students. From here on, millions of young people across the Nation will have the opportunity to see their dream of a college degree come true. They will have access to the key that will unlock their own economic empowerment, build a successful career, and succeed in a global economy. Today we have an opportunity to move critical legislation forward to be signed into law, so the doors to college will be open for all students. In the global economy we live in today, we clearly cannot afford as a nation to have our students priced out of a college education. As someone who grew up poor, the son of immigrants, the first in my family to go to college, I know the power of the programs we are ready soon to vote on. I would never have attended St. Peters College, I would have never gone to Rutgers Law School without the power of key Federal grant programs such as Pell and Perkins, I certainly would not be standing with you today on the floor of the Senate had it not been for Federal financial aid. I wish to ensure that is a birthright for all our students across the Nation, regardless of the happenstance of where they were born in life. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak to one of the amendments pending before the Senate on Cuba democracy. But before I speak to that specific amendment, I wish to start off by thanking Chairman Leahy for all of his hard work on the Foreign Operations appropriations bill. His leadership on crucial issues around the world is critical. I also appreciate his support for human rights around the world--Latin America and other places--as well as his willingness to work with me and my staff. So we appreciate his leadership on what I believe is overall an exceptional bill that has been brought to the Senate for its consideration. Amendment No. 2694 I didn't know my colleague from Florida, Senator Martinez, was going to come to the floor earlier. I would have joined him at the time. But I certainly wish to join him in promoting this amendment and Cuban democracy. This amendment is simple and for a simple but powerful purpose: to support democracy inside of Cuba. I believe that no matter where we as Members of the Senate stand on the issue of U.S. policy toward Cuba--and I recognize there are diverging views--every Member of this body, however, I suspect, supports achieving democracy in Cuba and therefore should support this particular amendment. Right now, we are at a critical time for democracy in Cuba. Some would ask: Why now? Why should we increase the funding for Cuban democracy right now in this legislation? I would answer: Right now, we face a moment of hope for the Cuban people. Right now, we face a moment of hope for the Cuban people who have suffered under the only dictatorship in the entire hemisphere--a dictatorship of 48 years. Dictatorships, whether they be from the left or the right, are nonetheless dictatorships. They are an oppression of people, and we should be against such oppression. Sometimes I hear from some the romanticism of who Fidel Castro is. They forget that he is, above all, a dictator and that he oppresses his people on a daily basis. And even at the height of what was the former Soviet Union giving billions of dollars in assistance to the Castro regime, what did he do? He still rationed, Cuban families having to wait in long lines, as they do today, because of a regime that seeks to put its money in security forces, to oppress its people, instead of feeding its own people. We should be against such repression. Right now we are faced with a moment of hope for the Cuban people with Castro ailing. Right now we face a potential tipping point for the Cuban opposition leaders and dissidents who risk their lives and well-being and their security and their freedom every day to speak out for democracy. Right now we have to seize this moment of hope and increase our support for democracy inside of Cuba. Now, as we look at the history of democratic movements around the world, we have learned it is at such moments that internal democratic movements need external support. Look at similar moments in Eastern Europe. Look at Poland's Solidarity movement; look at the former Czechoslovakia's Charter 77 movement in 1989. In each case, these internal moments were also supported from the outside. We must remember our responsibility when we hear those who formerly languished under Communist rule, when we hear people such as the famous Polish human rights activist and former President of Poland Lech Walesa say: The United States led the free world defending values of democracy and humanism. Your determination and your civilization bloomed with the hope of Poles. That is why it is critical that we increase our funds to support democracy in Cuba right now. A few weeks ago I participated in a video conference at the State Department with Cuban human rights activists, political dissidents, independent journalists, who took great risk to travel to the U.S. Interest Section in Havana from different parts of Cuba to speak to a group of Members of Congress, of which I was one. We heard one clear message: that they are facing increased pressure. Think about it. Already under a totalitarian dictatorship, even under that oppression they are facing increased pressure from the regime, and U.S. funds are critical to their ability to continue speaking out against repression. I would add that dissidents and opposition leaders were united. There was well over a dozen of them in this video conference at the U.S. Interest Section, and they were united on this point, even though they are sometimes divided on other issues. On this point of receiving assistance in order to nurture the opportunity for civil society and the opportunity for change to take place, they were united. In fact, I received a letter from these same leaders which said their needs were, among others: Medicine to keep a political prisoner or dissident from dying to food, water filters, medical equipment, clothing, shoes, coats, toys for the children of political prisoners who suffer doubly the loss of a loved one who is in prison and social repression on the streets and in schools, essential vitamins, office supplies and the tools of democracy (computers, printers, phones, fax machines). Because in a closed society in which only the dictatorship owns the airwaves, whether it be that of radio, or that of television, or the state newspaper, when you cannot express your God-given right as an individual to have a different view and to speak out, and you have no form of expressing that view to those of your fellow countrymen, to have them seek to move in a different direction, what we do by providing computers and printers and phones and fax machines is the very essence of what we take for granted here at home but for them are the very seeds, the tools they need to promote democracy. This letter was signed by a diverse group of Cuban dissidents, including Julio Cecilia Delgado Gonzalez, Juan Gonzalez Febles, Laura Pollan Toledo, Gidal Delgado Sablon, Candido J. Hidalgo-Gato, Vladimiro Roca Antunez, Guillermo Farinas Hernandez, Hector Palacio Ruiz, and Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz. This is a very diverse group of human rights activists, political dissidents, independent journalists. They do not all agree, just as sometimes we do not all agree here, but they all seek to have democracy and human rights. They may have come at it in different ways, but they all agree that they need help from the United States and from others throughout the world in order to achieve this. This is why this amendment, increasing funding in the bill to $45.7 million, is important. This is the same level of funding the President requested, the same level of funding that was included in the House version of this bill that was passed by a strong bipartisan vote. Let me be clear. We are asking for an increase in these funds. We are asking for an increase in these funds because this is exactly the moment to increase funds for Cuban democracy. We do provide an offset for these funds, so we are not increasing the overall total of the bill. The offset is exactly what was included in the House-passed version of this bill. It is from the largest pot of money in the entire bill, for general expenses, for general administration. I wish also to remind my friends that these programs I am talking about for democracy inside of Cuba--health, helping the human rights activists, political dissidents, journalists and activists--are carried out by organizations well known to my Senate colleagues: the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, Pan American Development Foundation. Our Cuba Democracy Program also works with well-known international organizations such as France's Reporters Without Borders, the Netherlands' Pax Christi, and the Czechs' People in Need Foundation. I think we would all support the type of work the Cuba Democracy programs carry out. U.S. funds support helping victims of repression. U.S. funds support advocating for human rights, including helping the wives of political prisoners advocate for their release from prison and defending their rights in jail. U.S. funds support pro-democracy activists, grantees of training Cuban dissidents on information technology, leadership, civil society activities, facilitating coordination among activists, and making small institutional developmental grants to strengthen the organizational capacity of democracy groups. U.S. funds give Cubans a voice and help disseminate activists' writing and provide Internet coverage by independent Cuban journalists. The work they do is powerful and meaningful. Between 2004 and 2005, there was a 54 percent increase in civil resistance actions within Cuba, 89 percent of which occurred outside of Havana in Cuba's provinces. A 2005 study by the Cuban Democratic Directorate found that actions of civil resistance have increased from 444 in the year 2000 to 3,322 in the year 2005. It is a positive trend of those who seek to create civil society and peaceful change inside of their country, toward that which we promote around the world, human rights, democracy. Ignoring this opportunity would only undermine this historic undertaking. In conclusion, I believe this is a vote that should unite all of us wherever we stand on general U.S. policy toward Cuba. Let me remind my friends, this is not a vote on the embargo, this is not a vote on basic U.S. policies toward Cuba; we may have that discussion on some other day. By voting for this amendment, you are voting to support those in Cuba who continue to go out in the street every day, to ask for peaceful democratic change, who risk their lives, who risk their liberty. That is not an overdramatization of the reality of the challenge those who seek to create change in the country of Cuba face. I represent many in New Jersey who have languished in Castro's jails for 10, 20, even 30 years. What was their crime? What was their crime that they had languished for 10, 20, or 30 years in Castro's jails? Simply to suggest, simply to suggest, that there was a better way for the Cuban people simply to speak out for those freedoms we enjoy here in this country, simply to be able to have the opportunity to worship at the altar that we choose, simply to be able to elect those who represent us in our Government as we are privileged to serve here, simply to be able to come together and organize and demonstrate a different view than that which the Government might have at any given time, simply to speak your mind without the fear that the consequences of doing so will have you languishing 10, 20, or 30 years in Castro's gulags. Anyone who doubts that is welcome to come to my home State of New Jersey, I am sure to the home State of my colleague from Florida, and others in the country who can visit with these human living examples of that oppression, and in many cases of the torture that they receive under the hand of this dictatorship. By voting for this amendment, you are voting to support those in Cuba who are seeking and trying to create peaceful democratic change. By voting for this amendment you are voting to provide food and clothing to support political prisoners in Castro's jails who have been imprisoned for doing nothing more than reading the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or other democratic documents. I wrote, when I was in the House, what is still the law of the land, title II of the Helms-Burton legislation, which is the document of that law which talks about how the United States stands ready to assist a future government pledged to democracy and transition, and then a future democratic government. We put in, under President Clinton, the first plan that described the proactive nature, the first time we proactively prepared for the possibility of a transition in a country. That document was sent to the U.S. Interest Section and reproduced, was given to Cubans who came to the section. Those who had the audacity to have that simple document in their possession were often arrested and thrown into jail. The power of the thought, the liberating thought of the freedoms and the real attitude the United States had with the Cuban people as to where we wanted to help the people, not those who oppressed them, was so powerful that the regime could not afford for people to read it and would arrest them as they left the Interest Section. By voting for this amendment, you give those who read that document or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or other democratic documents the opportunity to be able to survive those jails. By voting for this amendment you are voting to do what the international community did in Poland, in Hungary, in Eastern Europe. By voting for this amendment, you are voting to support democracy and human rights as we do in other programs in countries such as China, Burma, Cambodia, and many others. By voting for this amendment, you are making a simple statement--whether or not we disagree on how we achieve the policy goals--we support democracy, freedom, and human rights of the Cuban people. That is what this amendment does. I hope we will have, as the House did, a strong bipartisan vote to send a message to those who struggle every day inside Cuba to create freedom, to promote the rights of individuals, as we are able to enjoy here in this country, that 90 miles away from the shores of the United States there can be the same opportunity as people aspire to throughout the world. This is the moment. This is the time. This is the opportunity. I hope the Senate will avail itself of it and vote for this amendment. I yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I am happy to join with my distinguished colleague from Florida in offering this amendment. I appreciate what I understand I hope will be the acceptance of the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the amendment by voice. I appreciate the fact that even those who have different views as to how we promote democracy in Cuba are willing to allow resources to have the ability to nurture human rights activists, political dissidents, independent journalists, those who struggle inside Cuba every day to promote civil society and peaceful change in their country which has languished for 48 years under a dictatorship--are willing to allow that to move forward. This is about promoting the opportunities of nurturing those people who risk their life and liberty every day to create change in their country, and in doing so the United States has always been a beacon of light of democracy throughout the world and a strong advocate for human rights. The adoption of the amendment would continue in that fine tradition. I urge our colleagues, when the distinguished Senator from Florida seeks to do so, with hopefully the distinguished acquiescence of the chairman of the committee and ranking Republican, to have the amendment adopted and take advantage of this most propitious and historic moment. With that, I yield the floor. Amendments Nos. 2695, 2696, and 2697 Withdrawn

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I agree and I support this legislation as well. It will provide critical money to make sure our veterans are given the health care they deserve.

Mr. MENENDEZ. The BRAC Commission knew about that important work and wanted to make sure our troops in the field would not be harmed by closing the base. They included a requirement that the Secretary of Defense issue a report to Congress proving that ``movement of organizations, functions, or activities from Fort Monmouth to Aberdeen Proving Ground will be accomplished without disruption of their support to the Global War on Terrorism.''

Mr. MENENDEZ. When we raised concerns about this to the Army, it halted the transfer and our understanding was that the Army would wait until the report required by BRAC was completed. But now the Army has reversed course and plans to start transferring people soon.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, fighting wars involves not just the men and women on the ground overseas but also dedicated workers here at home. It depends on the training and research done at military bases like Fort Monmouth. Fort Monmouth provides intelligence and reconnaissance support for our Armed Forces, making them more effective fighters and protecting their lives.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, not only for making the time available but, more importantly, for his leadership on this critical issue of insuring the Nation's children. There is no stronger voice in the Senate on this issue. I am incredibly proud to have worked with Senator Baucus, someone who is keenly interested in this program. I appreciate what he has done in bringing a solid bill to the floor. I rise today on behalf of our Nation's children and working families. I am reminded every day when I come to the Senate that it is my privilege--privilege--to represent these individuals in the Senate, and with every vote I cast in this great Chamber, I try to always ensure I am protecting and serving our hard-working families. This week, we are considering a bill to reauthorize our children's health program--a program that affects millions of families across the country. This week, every vote--every vote--we cast will have a direct impact on the health and well-being of our Nation's children and their families. I cannot overstate how important and how successful this program has been. It currently provides health care to 6.6 million children. Sometimes I think it is important to remember exactly what it means to provide health care for children. It is the immunization shot before school begins. It is a well-child doctor visit that catches early signs of cancer. It is the emergency care coverage after a car accident. It is the new eyeglass prescription to finally see the blackboard. It is an x ray for a broken ankle and a prescription medication for a strep throat. It is about ensuring the well-being of that child so they can fulfill their God-given potential. Proper coverage can be the difference between life and death, between health and sickness, and between compassion and heartlessness. In the next few days, we have choices to make, and I hope each of my colleagues ask themselves one question before they cast their vote: Is this good for our Nation's children? Because that should be the only question and the only goal. I am proud of my home State of New Jersey for always keeping this goal in its mind. Our program, New Jersey FamilyCare, currently covers over 126,000 children and 80,000 parents. These are working families who don't qualify for Medicaid but can't afford private coverage, and they don't get health care at their job. They work at some of the toughest jobs our State has to offer. They get up every day, 5 days a week--sometimes more--to try to make ends meet for their families, but they don't have health insurance. These are families who, without the children's health program, would yet be another American family cast into the ocean of the uninsured. This program saves them from that fate. Let me take a moment to humanize what we are talking about, because we talk about these programs in the abstract. They are about lives; they are about people. Elizabeth Geronikos relied on the children's health program for her necessary allergy and asthma medication when her father suddenly lost his job. Jonathan Hale, who discovered a cyst in his brain, was able to get medical attention that his family would not otherwise have been able to afford because of the children's health insurance program. The Cannon family no longer has to worry about their son Jason, who now has a constant supply of asthma medication and has suffered no serious asthma attacks since being on the Children's Health Insurance Program. This is truly a life-changing, if not a lifesaving, program. But there are also stories of children who were not so lucky. Devante Johnson, who depended on Medicaid for his cancer treatment, died, not for failed chemotherapy, but because his paperwork was never processed. He was 14 years old. Deamonte Driver died because he did not receive treatment for an abscessed tooth--something that, if treated early, would clearly not have been fatal. He was 12 years old. These stories are heartbreaking not only because a child's life was lost but also because it could have been prevented. We must ensure that no more children go without treatment they need and that no more lives are lost. Our job as Senators is to protect these children. What greater honor and responsibility do we have but protecting our children? As a father, I can't imagine the anguish I would feel if I could not provide health care for my son and daughter. Thus, as a Senator, I feel it is our obligation to provide health care for every single child. I strongly believe we have a responsibility to ensure that no child in America goes to bed at night without proper health care and treatment, and that is why this reauthorization is so crucial. Under this bill, over the next 5 years we would be able to continue covering the 6.6 million children currently enrolled, and we would be able to reach out and cover an additional 3.2 million children. So the answer to the question, Is this good for the Nation's children, is clearly yes, especially for those 3.2 million children waiting to receive care. That answer is a resounding ``yes.'' There are even more whom we must work to cover. I want to ask my colleagues who say they may not support this bill, Where are the values we talk about in this institution? Where are the family values voices that so often are heard in this Chamber? Now is not the time to be silent. Now is when families need you most. Now is the time to stand by your values and stand up to protect our future generation. To these colleagues, I wish to take a moment to answer some questions about New Jersey's effort to reach out and enroll more children. Over the past few weeks, New Jersey has received a lot of attention for covering children up to 350 percent of the Federal poverty level. In our regard, we think we are doing the right thing, and the statistics prove we are right. I can understand that some might think these families have enough money to afford private insurance, but for New Jersey families, that is simply not the case. New Jersey families face higher living costs, and they get less return on their Federal dollar, so we cannot set a policy that suggests that one size fits all. I did some of the math which I want to share with my colleagues. At the top end, a working New Jersey family, their family budget, shows they have about $4,428 in income. Housing in New Jersey is incredibly expensive, about $1,500 a month. Food for that family is $547; transportation to get to work, or if they happen to have a car to pay for their commutes back and forth, with the high gas prices, $820; child care, if they are not in school, and health insurance. I looked up under the Bureau of Banking and Insurance what is the average health insurance coverage for a family a month--a month. The statistic on the Web site is $2,065. So that puts this family, if they have to be forced to purchase health insurance, in the negative $1,200 a month. That means they can't make ends meet. This doesn't take into account any unforeseen circumstance on the family budget. So it doesn't end up adding up. That is why this program is so important. That is why, when New Jersey enrolls children up to 350 percent of the Federal poverty level, they do it because without this coverage, we would have thousands more children more without health insurance. Purchasing a private plan, no matter what tax incentives you give--I hear some of our colleagues talk about giving a $5,000 maximum credit per family. Well, that is great. That buys us 2\1/2\ months of insurance. What do we do for the rest of the year for that family? Do we roll the dice on their health care? I don't think so--not when we as an institution have some of the best health care in the Nation. I am grateful to the Finance Committee for recognizing what we already knew on a bipartisan basis: The one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work. Remember, our objective is to cover more children, not less. I can't believe I even need to mention what I am about to say, but in light of some of the comments I have heard over the past few weeks about the President saying: Well, let them go to the emergency room, I think it might be necessary to look at what happens to children without health insurance and how they suffer serious consequences. Research has shown that uninsured children not only miss regular checkups and visits to the doctors for less serious conditions that ultimately become far more serious in their personal health and far more consequential and far more expensive, but they also receive less than lower quality care. In fact, uninsured children admitted to a hospital due to injuries were twice--twice--as likely to die while in the hospital as their insured counterparts, and that is simply unacceptable. There is no morality if upon hearing this, every Member of this Chamber does not do everything in his or her power to cover more children. It is, I believe, a moral obligation. I often hear about the value of life and I cherish it as well. Now is the time to honor the value of the lives of these children. Another way New Jersey has been successful in covering more children is because we also cover low-income and working parents. In New Jersey, we have found a strong correlation between enrollment of parents and enrollment of children. After the State implemented its parent expansion in 2000, not only did it experience rapid enrollment of parents, but it also saw a significant increase in the enrollment of children, which is our goal. In 2002, the State stopped enrolling parents, and what happened? As parent enrollment began to fall, children's enrollment began to level off. Once the State began reenrolling parents in 2005, children's coverage began to rise again. There is clear evidence that by allowing those States that choose to do so to cover parents, you increase the number of children who have health coverage, achieving our ultimate goal of covering more children and, by the way, we end up covering more Americans. To further prove this point, former Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag recently stated that: Restricting eligibility to parents does have an effect on take up among children, in part because when you pick up the parent you are more likely to pick up the child. Thus, if we stop covering parents under the Children's Health Insurance Program, as some in the Congress and the White House want to do, you end up covering fewer children. In fact, Peter Orszag said: For every three of four parents you lose, you lose 1 or 2 kids. Based on this, in New Jersey, if we were forced to disenroll all of our parents, over 40,000 children would lose their coverage. This doesn't help us achieve our goal of covering more children. So again, we have to ask: Is covering parents of eligible children good for our Nation's children? The answer is clearly yes. As I said at the beginning of my statement, I fully support the legislation we are considering today. Senator Baucus has done an excellent job. I appreciate the bipartisan vote of the committee. I am proud of the reauthorization bill because of what it prioritizes, but also because I know how hard it was to reach this compromise. This is a bipartisan bill that Members of both sides of the aisle support. I know it has taken long nights and serious conversation and many difficult decisions to reach where we are today. I appreciate again Senator Baucus's incredible efforts, the members of the committee, as well as Majority Leader Reid, for their efforts on behalf of the program. That being said, I simply want to say that if I had my druthers, I would have sought to achieve a greater height. I understand that so would many of the Members who actually created the compromise. I would have liked to have seen, as I did as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, $50 billion provided. I worked hard to make sure we had that in the budget resolution. I know that is the funding that will be necessary to reach out to the 6 million eligible but uninsured children in America, and it is the funding these children deserve. Another area of major concern is the lack of language to provide health care for legal immigrant children and pregnant women in the Children's Health Insurance Program. I am a proud cosponsor of the bipartisan Legal Immigrant Children'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 CHIP until they have lived in the United States for 5 years. I think we should have the flexibility for States to make that decision. I am proud that in my home State of New Jersey, they have taken it upon themselves to use 100 percent of State funds to cover over 8,000 legal immigrant pregnant women and children at a cost of over $22 million. The State has temporarily fixed the problem, but I had hoped Congress would do the same. How can you tell a 7-year-old child with an ear infection he has to wait 5 years to see the doctor? How can you tell a child who may have the incipiency of some incredibly terrible disease you have to wait 5 years to go see the doctor? It seems to me we can't bar these families from accessing our health care supply simply because they haven't lived here long enough. During the immigration debate, our colleagues emphasized the difference between those who are here legally and those who are not. So it is appalling to me that a legal immigrant child--one whose family waited their time to come to this country, came here legally, obeyed the law, are working, paying taxes--is still subject to the lash of those people who, even for a child who is here legally, seem to punish. It seems to me that is simply wrong. Let me close by addressing the President's veto threat. He is basically opposed to this bill because he says it covers too many children and families. I don't know how more outrageous and unacceptable a statement can be. I find it embarrassing that some in Washington--those who have the best health care coverage in the world-- would propose to cut America's neediest families--neediest families who work hard every day, because if you are poor, you are on Medicaid. These are families who get up and work hard, don't have enough to pay insurance, don't have coverage through work, and can't afford it. Yet the President of the United States, who has the best coverage in the world, and the Vice President of the United States, whom we saw recently in the hospital--happy that everything went well for him--have no worries. They have no worries every night--and for them to say these children are less worthy than them. If the President had his way, over 110,000 New Jerseyans would lose their coverage, and tens of thousands more across the Nation would lose their coverage. I find that morally reprehensible. I find it ironic that the President doesn't want to cover parents with this program, considering the fact that since 2001, it was his administration that granted 24 waivers for adult coverage in 15 States, including my home State of New Jersey. In fact, when a waiver was issued in 2003 to New Jersey, the administrator of CMS, the Federal agency that supervises the program, said: New Jersey is setting an example of how Federal waivers can help them cut into the numbers of citizens with no health coverage. Tom Scully, Administrator of CMS, the Federal agency overseeing this program, said we are setting an example. In 2004, President Bush made a promise to insure all of the Nation's children, but his latest proposal would only serve to cut children and increase the number of uninsured. Rather than adding to the ranks of the uninsured, we should be working together to expand access to even more children and families. Mr. President, it is time to make good on your word. It is time to make good on your promise. It is time to cover all children. At the end of the day, this bill is about low-income and working families getting much needed care. This is about our Nation's children having access to a doctor for preventive care and receiving treatments for more serious conditions. This is about the health and safety of current and future generations. There is only one question left to be asked: Is this good for our Nation's children? The answer is yes. Let me close with a great Republican I admire, Abraham Lincoln. He said: A child is a person who is going to carry on what you have started. He [and I add she] is going to sit where you are sitting, and when you are gone, attend to those things which you think are important. You may adopt all the policies you please, but how they are carried out depends on him. He will assume control of your cities, states, and nations. All your books are going to be judged, praised, or condemned by him. The fate of humanity is in his hands. So it might be well to pay him some attention. I ask my colleagues to now pay attention to our children and support this important bill. It is important our children. It is for our families. It is in pursuit of our values, and it is for the well-being of our country. I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time. (Ms. KLOBUCHAR assumed the Chair.)

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I wish to thank my distinguished colleague, Senator Durbin, for bringing us together today to talk about the ongoing genocide in Darfur and, more specifically, the upcoming U.N. Security Council resolution and for his continuing efforts in the Senate. I am also honored and pleased to be with Senator Feingold, who has been such an incredibly powerful voice on this issue, both in his position as the chairman of the African Subcommittee on Foreign Relations and in his principle position itself. I am honored to join with them in this effort. Today, as we speak on the Senate floor, the U.N. Security Council is negotiating a new Darfur resolution. So today we are on the Senate floor to send a loud and clear message to the United Nations. The people of Darfur need a strong and meaningful resolution that puts into action the end of the genocide and ensures that a United Nations- African Union troop force gets into Darfur. Today, we are here to add our voices to those who call for a U.N. resolution with strong authority, for a robust hybrid United Nations- African Union force, and a full mandate and speedy deployment. It has long been clear that the overstretched and underfunded African Union troops cannot end the genocide. If this new force is not allowed in, the carnage and the destruction we have witnessed now for over 4 years will continue. We have known that a U.N. force is the key to ending the violence in Darfur, and we have tried in the past to put it into place. Over a year ago, when I first came to the Senate, I got the Senate to pass an amendment for $60 million to fund the U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur. I was joined by my colleagues in that effort. Almost 1 year ago, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1706, which called for 22,500 U.N. troops and police officers to support the African Union force in Sudan. Yet we still see no hybrid force on the ground. We still hear of attacks on humanitarian workers, we still learn of atrocities against civilians. The lives of these millions of displaced persons now hang in a delicate balance between life and death. If we were in the refugee camps being attacked, who among us would be content with the counsels of: patience, patience, and delay. Who? Let's be frank; it has been the Government of Sudan that has kept this force from entering. Now they recently have agreed to allow a force in. Yet we have heard these words before. Words mean little without real action. That is why I am pleased this new U.N. Security Council will likely include the transfer of authority to a hybrid United Nations-African Union mission that will allow the use of force to ensure the security and movement of the mission's personnel and humanitarian workers. But to be meaningful, this force must be deployed, and it must be deployed as quickly as humanly possible. I am disappointed, however, that after rounds of negotiations, the resolution was ultimately watered down. From what I understand, there will be no reference to sanctions, there will be no right to seize and dispose of illegal arms, there will be no reference to the jingaweit, the brutal pro-Khartoum militia force responsible for many of the atrocities. While I understand the need to negotiate a resolution that will pass, ultimately, we cannot let this manipulation continue. We cannot let Sudan's Ambassador have veto power over these lives. We cannot let nations with permanent seats and veto power on the Council continue to act irresponsibly. That is where I wish to close. China says they generally approve, generally approve of the new resolution. They have been working, however, behind the scenes to weaken it. They reportedly helped remove references to sanctions. They reportedly objected to its ``controversial tone'' about genocide. Simply put, they continue to act in their own economic interest. We have seen them take some positive steps in the past, and it is positive that they are reportedly not going to block this resolution and that they may even support it. But such a small step when China is under public international pressure is simply not enough. That is why I am pleased my resolution on China and Darfur passed the Senate last night. This resolution, which my colleagues on the floor supported, calls on China to use its unique influence and economic leverage to stop the genocide and violence in Darfur. China has longstanding economic and military ties with Sudan, and they must use their economic leverage to do more than fill their wallet. As China prepares to host the 2008 Olympic Summer Games, we must hold the Chinese Government accountable to act consistently with the Olympic standard of preserving human dignity around the world, including in Darfur. Once again, the international community finds itself with another opportunity to bring about real change in Darfur. The resolution being passed by the U.N. Security Council will only be meaningful if measures with teeth are included. As John Prendergast, senior adviser to the International Crisis Group, said recently in testimony before Congress: Barking without biting is the diplomatic equivalent of giving comfort to the enemy. Time has run out for negotiations. Time has run out for the Khartoum Government to balk. Time has run out for watered down U.N. Security Council resolutions. We must get that hybrid force on the ground. We must end the genocide. If ``never again'' is to have real meaning, if those words we use are to have real meaning, it has to have strong action to stop the genocide, strong action that history will judge as among the righteous, anything less will lend to our collective condemnation, and to the ever-nagging conscience that will not rest as others die. That is the choice before the U.N. Security Council. I am glad those of us here are making our voices felt so, hopefully, the Council will act and we can have meaningful action to ``never again.''