Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I would say between 15 and 20 minutes.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to, first, the Bunning amendment, which is the one I particularly wish to talk about because it is a direct attack on children in New Jersey. I did not think I would come to the Senate and see such a refined focus on the children of anyone's State. But that is what the Bunning amendment does. I am sure I could draft amendments that would hone in on the interests of any given State, but I do not think that is where we want to go as a Congress, as a Senate. I do not think that is particularly good public policy. So right now I am fuming. Let me start off by saying I thought this was one country. One country. There are a lot of things I have voted for in the Senate and in my 15 years in the Congress, in the other body before I came here, that clearly did not specifically benefit my State, from crop disaster, to ethanol, I cannot get an E-85 pump in New Jersey; a whole host of things for farmers and the list goes on and on. I looked at it, I always looked at it as one country. Sometimes in the allocation of resources there are certain needs that get taken care of in one part of the country, where in another part there are different needs. Those amendments are an attack directly upon that notion that this is one country. I also think it is very easy to talk about income but never talk about costs, as if living in one part of the country automatically means that those costs are the same in another part of the country. Well, they are not. We recognize that in a variety of laws in which we give differentials to a whole host of different elements, from Federal employees to differentials for the military to a whole host of people based upon where they are stationed, because we recognize that, in fact, there are different costs of living in this country. So it is interesting to talk about income but not talk about costs. You know what I am for? Let's make sure anyone in the Senate--I am sure everybody here makes in excess of 350 percent of the Federal poverty level. Let's eliminate health care for all of those that you ultimately get by virtue of the taxpayers' dollars. Do you deserve health care more than children who happen to fall into that category? These are the children of working families. They are not poor, as in not working, because if they were, they would get Medicaid. But they are the children of those individuals who are working, and work at some of the toughest jobs, and yet make an income that does not allow them to purchase health insurance and their job does not seem to offer health insurance. There is a great universe of Americans whom we are trying to cover under the Children's Health Insurance Program. I agree. What is the goal? The goal is to cover children, children who do not have coverage otherwise. Well, this is exactly what we seek to do. Now, you know, in New Jersey, we do cover 126,000 children. And, yes, we cover children up to 350 percent of the Federal poverty level. That means there are 3,000 New Jersey children who happen to fall in this category who are in the direct aim of the Bunning amendment, 3,000 children who today get health care who would be knocked out by virtue of the Bunning amendment, and there may be one or two other States that focus on children as well. My question is: Why are you targeting these children? What did they do to you? What did they do to you? You know, the difference is, maybe if I lived in Kentucky, I could afford to get health care based upon the incomes, but first of all, we have heard a lot of numbers bantered around here, some of which are clearly not true. Three hundred fifty percent of the Federal poverty level is $60,095 for a family of three. So it is not $82,000, as some suggest, for starters. In fact, there is no child in this country, no child in this country covered up to that dollar amount--in the entire country. That is a scare tactic. It is shameful. We need to cover children up to 350 percent because New Jersey families face higher living costs. They get less of their return on the Federal dollar, so again we cannot have a policy that doesn't take all of that into account. But let my lay it out for you. At the top of New Jersey's current eligibility level, a family might make somewhere around this $4,428. Well, when you deduct housing costs in New Jersey, when you deduct food costs, when you deduct transportation to get to work, and I think a byproduct is that we want to, in our values, make sure we value the welfare of these children we are talking about and their health care, we also want to value work. One of the things these parents are doing is they are working. Now, they could not be working and be on welfare and ultimately be eligible for Medicaid. But we want to value work as well. They are working. So they have to get to work. They have child care costs. Here is what the Department of Insurance in New Jersey says is the cost monthly-- monthly--for family care in New Jersey, for family health insurance: $2,065. Now, this does not have utility costs, this does not have clothing, this does not have any emergency expenses for the family. This is no buffer. No buffer. What is the consequence of that to this family if they were trying to have health insurance? They would be in the red each month by $1,200, which means that they simply will not have health insurance, they simply will not have health insurance, and these kids would not have health insurance. Now, that is the goal of the program, to provide health insurance for children who are not so poor that they would get it under Medicaid, but, in fact, are in a set of circumstances where because their parents work, and not getting insurance at work, they find themselves in that category for which there is no coverage and no money to be covered by virtue of their family income. So it simply does not do it. It simply does not do it. It is basic math. That is why New Jersey enrolls children up to 350 percent of the Federal poverty level, because if you live in New Jersey with that income, without this coverage, children would not have health insurance. Purchasing a private plan--no matter the tax incentives, I have heard some of the tax incentives that are being offered. There is some suggestion of a $5,000 tax credit. Great. Well, that is 2\1/2\ months of health care coverage in New Jersey. What do we do for the rest of the time? Do we roll the dice? Are we supposed to hope for the other 10 months they do not get sick, they do not get preventative care? That is what our public policy is all about? That is what our values are as a Senate, as a country? I do not think so. Now, the fact of the matter is, I urge my colleagues to think about this, because in New Jersey, you need to have $43,060 to purchase the same goods in Kentucky for $32,669. That is about $11,000 more to do the same thing as if you are living in Kentucky. Now, the realty is, that is why one-size-fits-all does not work. I have heard many times on the debates here: States know best, let's have flexibility. Well, this is a perfect example of how that flexibility has given us the wherewithal to cover children. I must say, I wish to warn my colleagues that supporting the Bunning amendment is about dumping children off the Child Health Insurance Program. It is the beginning of a slippery slope. So now we begin to eradicate those who are at 350 percent, we take them off; so then somebody comes up with another amendment, let's do 300 percent, let's eliminate that; then let's bring someone else who brings in 275 percent, and then the list goes on and on. Before you know it, instead of having a program that covers more children in our country, we have less children covered. Less children covered in our country. I believe that, in fact, what we want to do is quite different. That is why I respect what the Senate Finance Committee did on a bipartisan basis. They looked at all the issues, all the costs, they looked at the goal of achieving, insuring more children in our country, keeping those who are in the 6.6 million, adding another 3.2 to 3.4 million, trying to reach the goal of insuring all our kids and doing it within a fiscal context that would allow it to happen. That is what this is about. That is what this is supposed to be about. So I hope my colleagues do not join on the slippery slope that begins to cut back and cut back and cut back, that takes children off health care coverage because it would set a precedent that I think none of us would want to do at the end of the day, not only on children's health but on other issues that may be critical to our States. I think this is about a set of values in the Senate. What are our values? We hear so much about children are our future. Yet our values speak to, if we pass this amendment, cutting children off health care, even though clearly there is a far greater cost to living in a State such as New Jersey than there is to living in a State such as Kentucky. Now, there are a lot of things that go on in the Senate on different issues that clearly there is an appeal because of the nature of the unique challenges that States face. Well, we face a unique challenge. We want to make sure our children who are already on--by the way, these are children who already have coverage, who will lose coverage as a result of the Bunning amendment. I am simply baffled. I thought we were about family values here. I thought we were about protecting children. I thought we were about increasing opportunity for children to ultimately be covered. I thought we were about enhancing the quality of life and protecting life. Obviously, it is the lives of children whom we are talking about, whom we put at risk by knocking off their coverage. So I find it embarrassing that some in Washington, some in the very Senate who have about the best health care coverage in the world can come and offer amendments that they cannot live under, that they could not live under if, in fact, they had to. What Member of the Senate does not make more than 350 percent of the Federal poverty level? Do you not deserve to have the Government subsidizing your health care? You should be out then. Let's have the amendment make that happen too before you take 3,000 kids off the Child Health Insurance Program. It is just incredible in my mind. So I urge my colleagues, when the time comes, and I hope there will be a timeframe when that amendment is to be pursued because I will be vigorous in pursuing it on the floor, that we do not head down the slope of pitting one part of our Nation against another, pitting the realities of the difficulties of living in one part of our Nation versus the other, pitting children in one part of the Nation versus the other, pitting the very essence of preserving children and their health against some simple formula number that ultimately Members of this body could not live under themselves. I think if it is good enough for us, it is good enough for these children. I would not want to see a vote that ultimately undermines the ability of thousands of children who presently get health care under this program to be eliminated. That would be a dark day in the Senate's history. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, one of the primary goals of the Pentagon's Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, process is to reduce costs. Unfortunately, we have seen the cost of implementing BRAC balloon out of control. Back in 2005, Congress agreed to implement the recommendations of the BRAC Commission based on the understanding that it would cost the American taxpayers $21 billion, a substantial investment. But now, only two years later, we are looking at a price tag of $30 billion, which is a 43 percent increase. If costs continue to rise at this rate, we will be looking at even more of a burden on the American taxpayer by the time the base closures and realignments are completed in 2011. In my home State of New Jersey, we are keenly aware of some of the wildly inaccurate cost estimates used in the BRAC process. The closing of New Jersey's army base at Fort Monmouth was originally expected to cost $780 million, now we are looking at a $1.5 billion price tag. Part of this inflated cost is due to the egregious miscalculations on how much it would cost to move the U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School, currently located in New Jersey, to West Point, NY. Although the BRAC Commission's original, one-time implementation cost estimate was $29 million, current estimates put the move at nearly $200 million. Many communities and families will be greatly impacted by the closing of Fort Monmouth and the relocation of the military prep school. Knowing that these decisions were based on miscalculations and misinformation does not sit well with our State, and it should not sit well with taxpayers across the country either. If American families are being forced to foot a bill they weren't expecting, there should be an escape hatch. That is why I am introducing the BRAC Cost Overruns Protection Act of 2007 or the BRAC COP Act. This legislation will work to control the excessive cost overruns in BRAC and ensure that BRAC is maximizing our taxpayers' money. This bill, which I am introducing with Senator Lautenberg, is based on principles found in existing law concerning cost overruns in weapons programs, known as the Nunn-McCurdy amendment. Let me take a few moments to discuss exactly how this legislation will work. The BRAC COP Act will create a trigger mechanism to require a re- evaluation of any major base closure or realignment should the actual cost exceed BRAC's estimated cost by more than 25 percent. In order to monitor BRAC costs, this bill will require the Secretary of Defense to write biannual reports on the costs of implementing the pending base closure or realignment recommendations mandated by BRAC law. If the secretary determines that the actual cost of implementing a major base closure or realignment recommendation has exceeded the 25 percent threshold, the Defense Secretary will then notify the Chairman and Ranking Member the Congressional Defense Committees and devise a business plan to reduce the cost, without readjusting the baseline estimated cost, so that it does not exceed the 25 percent limit. The Secretary will then make a recommendation to the President on whether to continue the base closure or realignment. The BRAC COP Act also supports transparency in this process, so if the Defense Secretary recommends that the President continue or modify the base closure or realignment, despite the excessive cost overruns, the Secretary must include an explanation of why it is necessary to continue with these expenditures. After reviewing the Secretary's recommendation, the President will make his own recommendation and submit it to Congress. Just like the congressional procedure for voting on BRAC law, Congress will then have the option to vote to disapprove the President's recommendation. Let me be clear: this legislation will not overturn BRAC, nor is it intended to re-open the BRAC process. This bill simply asks that the Secretary of Defense, the President, and the Congress take a second look when we face exhorbant cost overruns. The BRAC COP Act will only affect the largest base closures and realignments that are over budget, so we will not be analyzing every single one of the BRAC recommendations. It is time that the Defense Department is held more accountable for its expenditures. This Congress and the American people do not want to continue providing blank checks so that the Pentagon can rework its accounting tables, regardless of the costs. Congress supported the recommendations of the 2005 BRAC Commission based on the fact that these closures and realignments, although inconvenient, would end up saving money in the long run and addressing the changing requirements of our military. It now appears that cost-benefit analysis has changed. The BRAC COP Act will work to ensure that the 2005 BRAC law, and any future BRAC laws, do not go grossly over budget. This bill is good for our military and our communities, and I ask my colleagues to support this fiscally responsible legislation.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, one of the primary goals of the Pentagon's Base Realignment and Closure, BRAC, process is to reduce costs. Unfortunately, we have seen the cost of implementing BRAC balloon out of control. Back in 2005, Congress agreed to implement the recommendations of the BRAC Commission based on the understanding that it would cost the American taxpayers $21 billion, a substantial investment. But now, only two years later, we are looking at a price tag of $30 billion, which is a 43 percent increase. If costs continue to rise at this rate, we will be looking at even more of a burden on the American taxpayer by the time the base closures and realignments are completed in 2011. In my home State of New Jersey, we are keenly aware of some of the wildly inaccurate cost estimates used in the BRAC process. The closing of New Jersey's army base at Fort Monmouth was originally expected to cost $780 million, now we are looking at a $1.5 billion price tag. Part of this inflated cost is due to the egregious miscalculations on how much it would cost to move the U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School, currently located in New Jersey, to West Point, NY. Although the BRAC Commission's original, one-time implementation cost estimate was $29 million, current estimates put the move at nearly $200 million. Many communities and families will be greatly impacted by the closing of Fort Monmouth and the relocation of the military prep school. Knowing that these decisions were based on miscalculations and misinformation does not sit well with our State, and it should not sit well with taxpayers across the country either. If American families are being forced to foot a bill they weren't expecting, there should be an escape hatch. That is why I am introducing the BRAC Cost Overruns Protection Act of 2007 or the BRAC COP Act. This legislation will work to control the excessive cost overruns in BRAC and ensure that BRAC is maximizing our taxpayers' money. This bill, which I am introducing with Senator Lautenberg, is based on principles found in existing law concerning cost overruns in weapons programs, known as the Nunn-McCurdy amendment. Let me take a few moments to discuss exactly how this legislation will work. The BRAC COP Act will create a trigger mechanism to require a re- evaluation of any major base closure or realignment should the actual cost exceed BRAC's estimated cost by more than 25 percent. In order to monitor BRAC costs, this bill will require the Secretary of Defense to write biannual reports on the costs of implementing the pending base closure or realignment recommendations mandated by BRAC law. If the secretary determines that the actual cost of implementing a major base closure or realignment recommendation has exceeded the 25 percent threshold, the Defense Secretary will then notify the Chairman and Ranking Member the Congressional Defense Committees and devise a business plan to reduce the cost, without readjusting the baseline estimated cost, so that it does not exceed the 25 percent limit. The Secretary will then make a recommendation to the President on whether to continue the base closure or realignment. The BRAC COP Act also supports transparency in this process, so if the Defense Secretary recommends that the President continue or modify the base closure or realignment, despite the excessive cost overruns, the Secretary must include an explanation of why it is necessary to continue with these expenditures. After reviewing the Secretary's recommendation, the President will make his own recommendation and submit it to Congress. Just like the congressional procedure for voting on BRAC law, Congress will then have the option to vote to disapprove the President's recommendation. Let me be clear: this legislation will not overturn BRAC, nor is it intended to re-open the BRAC process. This bill simply asks that the Secretary of Defense, the President, and the Congress take a second look when we face exhorbant cost overruns. The BRAC COP Act will only affect the largest base closures and realignments that are over budget, so we will not be analyzing every single one of the BRAC recommendations. It is time that the Defense Department is held more accountable for its expenditures. This Congress and the American people do not want to continue providing blank checks so that the Pentagon can rework its accounting tables, regardless of the costs. Congress supported the recommendations of the 2005 BRAC Commission based on the fact that these closures and realignments, although inconvenient, would end up saving money in the long run and addressing the changing requirements of our military. It now appears that cost-benefit analysis has changed. The BRAC COP Act will work to ensure that the 2005 BRAC law, and any future BRAC laws, do not go grossly over budget. This bill is good for our military and our communities, and I ask my colleagues to support this fiscally responsible legislation.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate my distinguished colleague from Washington State providing the time. I rise in strong support of the Salazar-Menendez amendment. I expect from all of the voices I have heard in our debate about immigration as part of this Homeland Security bill that we will have resounding support for this amendment, because I know those who want to protect the United States at its border crossings are going to want to protect all of its border crossings. I have heard a lot about our challenges along our southern border, but I have heard nothing about our challenges along our northern border. In that respect, I think it is important to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that over the last several years, according to official reports, the Congressional Research Service tells us there have been nearly 69,000 individuals who have crossed over the northern border and, of course, that number is small in comparison because we don't have the Border Patrol agents on the northern border to be dealing with the interdictions that would be called for. So while there are 13,488 Border Patrol agents in the entire force, there are only 965 agents along the northern border. That northern border has over 5,525 miles of border between the United States and the North, significantly more than the 1,993 miles along the southern border. Yet over 69,000 people have crossed, to our knowledge, because if you divide out the number of Border Patrol agents at any given time on the northern border, they are looking at patrolling hundreds and hundreds of miles for a fraction of what is the Border Patrol on any given shift. Therefore, what that number tells us is that while thousands cross on the northern border, we don't even know the magnitude of it, because we are not paying attention. We are not paying attention on the northern border. I will remind my colleagues that it was Ahmed Ressam in 1999, December of 1999, the millennium bomber, who came in through the northern border of the United States. We don't seem to be concerned about the northern border. What Senator Salazar's and my amendment simply does is to make sure that we are, in fact, looking at all of our international borders and allocating the resources appropriately. Now, unless this debate is about something more than protecting the United States, we should have a resounding vote. Because if you are concerned about one terrorist coming through a border, you should be concerned about a border that is far more porous, far greater in length; the one that actually has a history of having someone who sought to commit an act of violence within the United States crossing that northern border--one that is totally undermanned in the context of protecting that border and, obviously, it means we have far greater numbers than the 69,000; at the same time, one in which we have actually seen the number of Border Patrol agents decrease. We have a mandate in the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act that mandated that the Canadian border receive increases in Border Patrol agents equal to 20 percent of the Border Patrol agents that exist. And, ultimately, we have seen a reduction during fiscal year 2005-2006 in the total number of Border Patrol agents by nearly 9 percent. So we have a history of people crossing the border, a history of the millennium bomber. Yet we have a decrease in Border Patrol agents who are on the northern border. You are either for protecting the country or you are not. By the way, if I were a terrorist, and I wanted to get into the United States, and the bottom line is that I know they are going to put everybody down at the southern border, guess what. I would be coming through the northern border because with over 5,500 miles and with only 965 total Border Patrol agents for three shifts around the clock for that whole stretch, that makes it a much greater percentage for me to be able to come over the northern border than to face the challenges of the southern border. I know our colleagues here who care so much, as we do, about the national security and the defense of this country are going to give this amendment an overwhelming vote. I expect it to be accepted by a voice vote. If the answer is no, we are not concerned about the northern border, then I have to question the motives of some in this debate because we are either concerned about the security of the country or we have a certain prejudice over a certain part of what we consider a threat to the United States. Porous borders are a collective threat. But when we focus all of our time and attention at one end, let's leave a wide gaping hole on the other part, the one that has over 2\1/2\ times more territory to cover and has probably 10 percent of all the Border Patrol agents in the country. I am sure this will be accepted by voice or we will have an overwhelming vote because the absence of having an overwhelming vote to make sure we protect our country indicates to me that the concern of some is not about protecting our country, the concern of some is that, in fact, they have a concern about who comes to this country--not because they seek to provide an act of terrorism, but because of who they are. So I think this will be a defining moment in which we can collectively work to protect our country, make sure we have the appropriate resources and allocations of them to the northern border as well as the southern border, make sure that we fill up all of our security gaps and, therefore, strengthen the security of the country. In the absence of that, many of us will have to question what this debate has really been about. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Is it the intention of the Senator from Washington-- while I understand this is simply for the purposes of an order, are we expecting, regardless of the order, a vote to be called on the Salazar amendment?

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the minimum wage increase, which takes effect today. Today, millions of hard-working Americans will finally receive the first increase of a $2.10 raise in the Federal minimum wage. Today, we are putting an end to a decade-long stagnant wage that has kept those who are working their hardest at the bottom of the ladder. Today, they are getting the chance that everyone in this country deserves--the opportunity to build a better life. Now, $2.10 may not sound like much to most Americans. But that small increase will make a difference in the pockets and in the lives of millions of Americans. Those $2.10 add up to more than $4,400 more every year enough to help a low-income family depending on a minimum wage income to afford 2 years of child care, a year and a half in utility bills, or a year of tuition at a public college. I am also proud that my State of New Jersey has not waited for Congress to do what is right. Instead, New Jersey has taken it upon itself to increase the State minimum wage far in advance of Congress, which now is at $7.15 per hour. New Jersey's minimum wage has given more than a quarter million workers the opportunity to build a better life for themselves and their families. And today, all Americans earning minimum wage will have that same opportunity to build a better life. In enacting the first minimum wage increase in over a decade, Congress took a critical first step towards correcting a grave injustice. For far too long, we have let some of our hardest working employees--those who prepare our food, clean our offices, treat us at the doctor, and guard our buildings at night--see their wages erode by 10 years of inflation. Ten years is far too long for those who work round the clock, hoping to save a little extra for groceries, for those working so they can buy school supplies or clothes for their children, or for those saving so one day they can live in a place they are proud to call home. Today, we should also commit that never again will we let this injustice persist for 10 years. The increase going into effect today is an important improvement, but it is not the end of the battle. An increase in the minimum wage is only part of the solution. We cannot ignore that the income gap has been widening--and now it has taken on a new twist. We no longer have inequality just between those living comfortably and those struggling to make ends meet. Income is now more concentrated at the top than it has been in the past 70 years. In fact, as the wealthiest 1 percent have seen their income grow by 20 percent or more within the past few years, everyone else has seen their income grow by less than 4 percent. And that inequality is ever too real for women and minorities, who are more likely to be minimum wage earners. So while increasing the minimum wage is just one step toward closing the income gap, it is an important step. Ultimately, a wage increase is about fairness, about ensuring all Americans, not just those at the top, can share in the American dream. Before today, 13 million minimum wage workers did not have the chance to share in that dream. Before today, 4 million Latinos and African Americans earned less than $7.25 an hour with no expectation that their wages would rise. Before today, nearly 7 million women, who make up well over half of minimum wage workers, would not have seen their wages increase. And before today, a minimum wage earner with a family of three would be making $6,000 below the poverty level. Before today, that family would not have a way out of poverty and into prosperity. We have changed the course, not just for minimum wage workers but for our country. We have finally taken steps toward providing greater equality and given our hardest workers and their families the chance to earn a wage of dignity and respect. A wage increase is only a downpayment on our promise to all Americans--it is a preview of what is to come. Democrats pledge to continue to change the course to ensure all Americans and their families have a fair shot at achieving the American dream. Thank you. I yield the floor

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to talk about a bill that I am proud of, and of which all Americans should be proud. I first want to commend the esteemed chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd for his commitment to drafting a bill that is in our Nation's best interest. I also would like to convey my respect for Senator Byrd and the ranking member, Senator Cochran, for the exemplary bipartisan they have shown in negotiating this bill and bringing it to the floor. The Homeland Security Appropriations bill that will be before us later today is a clear indication that our priorities have changed. After years of neglecting key homeland security initiatives, this bill ends a trend that has been straining our first responders, forcing our States to come up with more, and leaving us more vulnerable than we should be 6 years after September 11. This bill is part of a framework that we have created this year to restructure our priorities--and it is clear that homeland security is at the top of the list. I am proud of the levels we set in the budget resolution we passed earlier this year. As a member of the Budget Committee, one of my top requests to Chairman Conrad was that we provide enough to the Appropriations Committee so that it could not just reject the President's cuts to key homeland security funding, but go above and beyond what has been funded in recent years. I thank Chairman Conrad, for his commitment to homeland security funding in the budget resolution and for understanding what those funds mean to a State like New Jersey. This year we have set the tone. The message is clear--when it comes to homeland security, the status quo just won't cut it. This bill says that loud and clear. By increasing overall funding by 8 percent over last year, we recognize that those on our front lines need our support. In this bill, they will get it. For New Jersey, the funds in this bill mean the difference between having what we need to protect our high-risk areas and leaving our infrastructure vulnerable. The grants this bill provides means millions more for our ports to increase site security and implement key initiatives. The increases for next year mean our fire departments will have the resources they need to hire new firefighters, to upgrade their equipment, and to reduce the long shifts far too many of them are working. The focus on first responder funding means our law enforcement will continue to have support to carry out key terrorism prevention efforts in our cities. Perhaps most importantly, this bill does not take the approach that we can do what is minimally required and pretend that is enough. For all of the President's talks about how critical security at home is, for all the administration continues to warn us about how at risk we are for an attack, I am just dumbfounded because no matter where I look, I cannot find where he makes supporting our first responders a priority. No matter how hard I try, I cannot see how he expects our ports to be as secure as they should be 6 years after September 11. For all the reminders this administration likes to give the American people that we are at war, that we are vulnerable, that we must be vigilant, I do not see where we are matching that rhetoric with dollars. This bill is about more than rhetoric. It is about providing what is needed. I am proud that this bill rejects the President's cuts to first responders, and actually increases funding by $644 million. Nearly 6 years after September 11, would seem unfathomable that we would actually cut funding for first responders, but that is exactly what the President's budget called for. In this bill, we provide more than $400 million than the President for firefighters. We increase funding for FIRE grants by $25 million more than last year so that fire departments can purchase new equipment. When nearly a third of firefighters are not equipped with a self-contained breathing apparatus or portable radios, I think there is no question that these funds are sorely needed. One of the grant programs I hear about the most, as I am sure do many members, is the SAFER grants. I have listened to firefighters from my State far too many times plead for the SAFER grants not to be cut. And yet, every year, this is a fight we have had to have with the administration. I truly hope this is the last year. These grants help departments increase their staff, often so they can cover more 24-hour shifts. Our bill increases funding by $13 million over last year. I am also extremely proud of the direction this bill takes us for improving key grant funding to States and our most at-risk areas. This bill restores the two major grant programs, the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and increases funding for urban area security grants. For reasons I cannot explain, the President sought to cut State homeland grants in half, and practically eliminate the law enforcement grants. For States like New Jersey, these funds are not just an added bonus-- they are essential. These grants allow States to purchase equipment, train first responders, put in place response plans, and a whole host of other critical activities. By restoring cuts to these programs, officials in New Jersey will have the confidence that we are working to provide them every last dollar, and that we understand how critical this funding is. Our bill also provides an increase for the Urban Area Security Initiative, the only fully-risked based funding of its kind, designed to help the most high-threat urban areas. I have spoken on this floor before about the unique threats that our UASI--Urban Area Security Initiative--region in northern New Jersey faces. As one of the most densely populated areas in the Nation, we face the complexity of populous neighborhoods nestled among high-profile infrastructure, including the largest port on the east coast, a major international airport, and a string of chemical plants--which makes up what is known as the ``2 most dangerous miles'' in America. When people back home hear that, they ask me what we are doing to protect that area, because those 2 miles are not isolated--thousands drive by it every day, and many live close enough to call it their backyard. When we pass this bill, I can tell them that yes, we are working to make more funding available, yes, we are addressing those areas most at risk. Our bill also seeks to end the trend of pouring our resources into aviation security and spending pennies in comparison on rail, mass transit, port, and chemical security. This bill more than doubles funding for rail and transit security, and far exceeds what our past funding bills have done for port security. We provide $400 million for port security grants, a level which our ports have been calling for for some time. Anyone who knows the Port of New York and New Jersey understands the daunting task of securing the perimeter of the port. The port is surrounded by storage facilities and warehouses, with waterways on one side, and a major highway and an airport on the other, and rail lines and a major pipeline running along side it. So, for a site as complex as our port, perimeter security is no easy feat. Our Nation's ports have a long to-do list, and I guarantee you, every one of the improvements they want to make costs money. In the wake of the SAFE Port Act, which the President signed into law last year, our ports have even more requirements they are supposed to carry out. Yet the President did not call for any funding to implement these initiatives. Our bill does. We double port security grants, to the level authorized in the SAFE Port Act. We provide $15 million for the Coast Guard so they can increase the number of inspections at facilities, conduct vulnerability assessments, and develop long-range vessel tracking systems. We provide $60 million for operational centers as called for in the SAFE Port Act that will help coordinate information sharing, intelligence gathering, and support cooperation among Federal, State, and local agencies. And, we provide $15 million to help ports implement the TWIC port worker ID program, which has been delayed again and again. It is past time for us to have something as simple as uniform, technologically advanced ID cads for those workers at our ports. This bill also contains a very short, but very crucial provision that is well known to people in New Jersey. It allows States to have more stringent chemical security standards. If you have ever been to Newark's Liberty Airport, than you were within a few short miles of the Kuehne plant in South Kearny, in a range that would without question be devastated by an attack at that facility. Because plants like this one are uniquely sandwiched between highways and neighborhoods, in an area that rises to the level of being called the ``2 most dangerous miles,'' New Jersey has taken action to make sure we are doing everything possible to keep these plants secure. Because it is far ahead of the curve when it comes to chemical security, the notion that the Department of Homeland Security can issue regulations that could preempt New Jersey's, and possibly be weaker than our standards, turns logic on its head. The bottom line is, when it comes to the security of things uniquely New Jersey, like the location of this chemical plant, no one knows what we need better than our State. And that is the position that this bill takes. I applaud my fellow Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, for ensuring this language is part of this bill, and I thank Senator Byrd for realizing how essential preserving New Jersey's standards are for the future of chemical security. When this Homeland Security appropriations bill is passed and signed into law, we will be able to definitively say we have passed legislation that makes us smarter and stronger when it comes to our Nation's security. The bill ensures we are protecting, not neglecting, our critical infrastructure; our first responders have more, not less, to do their jobs; and our States will have the critical resources they deserve. I urge all my colleagues to support this incredibly sound bill and take this important step to getting our homeland security funding where it should be in finally meeting the challenge of securing our Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. For about 15 minutes.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I also rise in strong support of the higher education reauthorization bill before the Senate today. I first thank my colleague, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, a true champion for education in our country. Senator Kennedy's vision for higher education will help make sure college is more accessible and affordable to all our young people regardless of their race, their class, or their income. It is because of the vision of Senator Kennedy, of Senator Pell before, and others that the doors to college have been opened to millions of Americans who otherwise would not have had access to that American dream. I appreciate Senator Enzi's leadership as well in bringing and moving this bill on the floor. I salute him for all of his work, both on the bill we had last week and now the bill we have today. It is a tremendous testament of what we can do when we join in a common cause. As someone whose dreams of college could not have been realized without the power of the Pell grant and without other Federal aid, I am proud to be able to support legislation that will open the doors for the next generation of students in this country. Without the critical assistance I received, I would never have been able to be the first in my family to graduate from college, then later from law school, and I certainly wouldn't be speaking here on the floor of the Senate. The bill before us takes great steps toward improving and leveling the playing field for all students so that more students are able to access and afford a higher education. Today, all students do not have an equal chance to attend college. As an example, Latinos and African Americans are less likely to be able to afford college and, therefore, more likely to qualify for Federal financial aid. Latinos and African Americans are 40 to 60 percent less likely to earn a bachelor's degree in their lifetime than other students. By also expanding Federal aid opportunities for minorities, the bill will help improve those numbers and close the gap in higher education. My own story of growing up poor yet having the opportunity to fulfill my dream of attending college because of Federal aid is still true as a challenge for so many of our young people today, and it will continue to be for the young people of tomorrow. The changes in this bill come at a critical time. It is projected that by the year 2015, 8 short years from now, college enrollment of African-American students will increase by 23 percent, and for Latinos that number will increase by a whopping 73 percent. Moreover, 75 percent of undergraduate students are nontraditional students, meaning they either are attending part time and working full time, non-high school graduates, or have dependents, among other characteristics. The student populations of our Nation's colleges will increasingly reflect the changing landscape of our country. So this bill is going to help all of our students. More and more of our students will not be the sons and daughters of previous college graduates. The student of tomorrow will be a mother who juggles a full-time job and attends community college part time at night so she can gain skills that will lead to a better job and provide her children economic security. The student of tomorrow will be a naturalized U.S. citizen who, with the help of Federal aid, can fulfill his dream of becoming an engineer who can give back to this country by helping build new infrastructure. The student of tomorrow will be a foster child who is able to attend college with Federal aid and fulfill her dream of becoming a nurse so she can not only live a stable life but give back to a system that saved hers. The student of tomorrow will be a bright high school student who works part time through college and despite his family's low income can attend the college of his choice because of Pell and Perkins. These are the students who will help define the students of our Nation--the first-generation students breaking through new barriers, the parents working to improve life for their children, the naturalized citizen building a better life in this country. They will each be charting their own path, able to realize their dreams because of the opportunity only a college education can provide. How well educated they are will not just determine how successful they are in the workforce but how successful our Nation is in the global economy. As a nation, I am convinced that the single greatest asset we will have in this global economy is our collective intellect. To be a leader globally, we will have to be at the apex of the curve of intellect. That means the most highly educated generation this Nation has ever known. To get there, our education pipeline must be accessible and affordable to a great cross-section of young people. However, rising costs, combined with far too stagnant growth in family income and declining Federal aid, have effectively priced out many students. Even with student loans and work study, today's students have thousands in unmet financial need they often cannot afford to pay. As a nation, we simply cannot afford to have our students priced out of a college education. Our Nation's future depends on it. The legislation before us will make key changes to help ensure the doors to college remain open to all, not just those who can afford it out of pocket. This bill realizes that improving access to college does not just mean increasing funding. Improving access to college means curbing rising tuition costs so that young people will be able to better afford a higher education. This bill will hold colleges accountable for rising tuition costs by making tuition data public and available so students and their families can compare costs. By publicizing costs to prospective families, colleges will need to justify tuition increases that far exceed those of comparable institutions. Improving access to college means reforming the student loan system so students get loans that are fair, not loans that wash them away in debt. Outrageous loan debt is forcing borrowers to delay either buying a home in the future or taking the dream job of their choice after college simply because it will not pay enough. This bill reverses this troubling trend by not only expanding Federal aid but ensuring students are getting the best possible deal when they take out a loan. Improving access to college also means starting at the first step-- filling out the forms. As someone who had to fill out the FAFSA form by myself, it was pretty daunting. For any student facing this process on their own or for families with income, language, or other barriers, the financial aid process itself can be overwhelming. By reducing the FAFSA from 10 pages to 2 pages, we make it easier for students to accomplish the very first step necessary to get financial aid. By improving access to college, it also means helping students get on the right path early by strengthening and expanding programs such as GEAR UP and TRIO, by promoting quality teacher preparation programs, and helping high-needs public schools recruit and retain high-quality teachers. This bill takes low-income and first-generation students closer to their dreams of college. We also need to expand access beyond the undergraduate realm. I am particularly pleased that this bill expands funding for minority- serving institutions and specifically supports the creation of graduate programs at Hispanic-serving institutions, a proposal I have supported for a long time. Latinos currently make up less than 6 percent of graduate students, and by expanding opportunities at Hispanic-serving institutions which enroll more than 50 percent of all Latino students in this country, this expansion is an important step to ensuring the Nation's graduate and doctorate students reflect the diversity of our Nation. Ensuring our students are prepared to be the next generation of innovators, business owners, and leaders requires a serious commitment to making college affordable and accessible. This means making education work for all students. That is why we must take the steps to increase critical grant aid and strengthen key programs to help open the doors to college for all our young people. We must ensure our young people are getting the best possible deal when they apply to college and that every student who is willing to work hard has the opportunity to graduate from college. I believe that in this Nation in which this challenge for us globally is so significant, in which an engineer's report is created in India and transmitted back to the United States for a fraction of the cost, in which a radiologist's report is done in Pakistan and sent to your local hospital, read by your local doctor, if you have a problem with a credit card, as I recently did, you may end up in a call center in South Africa, in the pursuit of human capital for the creation of a product for the delivery of a service; we are globally challenged. That is why this ability to have a generation that has the greatest educational achievement is so important to the Nation's competitive future. I want to make sure that the opportunity I had as someone who had challenges is an opportunity that can be met by every student who is willing to work hard, has the ability, and gives something back to their country. This bill is going to make that happen. I think this bill takes us significantly in the right direction. I hope it will have incredibly robust support when its final passage comes up for a vote.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Let me thank my distinguished colleague and the chairman of the committee from Massachusetts for his kind words. Above all, I wish to commend him for his incredible leadership, for standing up for the Nation's students, and for putting forth a bill that will make a tremendous difference for students across the Nation who are struggling to afford college. I know in an era in which we lament the lack of bipartisanship, I also wish to commend the ranking Republican on the committee, Senator Enzi. I was privileged to be sitting in the chair when he was talking about this bill. I appreciate very much the same spirit he brings to this legislation, the leadership he has also shown working with Senator Kennedy to make the legislation that has come to the floor that I think should receive the very broad support of the Senate. Certainly, I wish to rise in strong support of the Higher Education Access Act, which takes some critical steps to making higher education more accessible and more affordable for our Nation's young people. In a world that has been transformed by technology, in which the boundaries of mankind have largely been erased in the pursuit of human capital, for the creation of a product and the delivery of a service, so that an engineer's report that is created in India and transmitted back to the United States for a fraction of the cost or a radiologist's report may have been done in Pakistan and read by your doctor in your local hospital or if you have a problem with your credit card, as I recently did, you end up with a call center in South Africa. Well, in the pursuit of human capital, we are globally challenged. So for America to continue to be the global economic leader, it needs to be at the apex of the curve of intellect. That means the most highly educated generation of Americans the Nation has ever known. Of course, to achieve that, there must be both access and affordability for this next generation of Americans to be able to be the scientists, the engineers, the mathematicians who can fuel our competitiveness in the world. This bill, in my mind, in addition to providing educational opportunities, is about meeting the Nation's challenge in this global competitive marketplace we are in. The bill begins to right the imbalance that has plagued student financial aid. For far too long, students struggling to afford college have seen their grants shrink, their loan rates go up, their debt explode--their debt explode. This bill turns that trend around, by increasing grant aid for the neediest students and making a $17 billion investment in student aid, the largest since the passage of the GI bill. We all know that education is the key--the key--that unlocks social mobility and economic empowerment and opportunity in this country. I know that, as Senator Kennedy suggested, from my own personal experience. I have said before, that as someone who is the first in his family to go to college, the reality is, but for the power of the Federal Government's financial assistance, without Pell grants, one of the programs we are talking about today, I certainly would not have been able to afford college or go to law school, nor would I have had access to opportunities that my college education afforded me, and I certainly would not be here today as the junior Senator from New Jersey, without that educational foundation and opportunity. I am not alone. Millions of young people across this Nation have dreams of earning a college degree, of having access to that key that unlocks their own economic empowerment of fulfilling their God-given potential. Some dream of building a successful career or going on to graduate education or, as in my case, to be first in their family to graduate from college. The power of those dreams is why our students and their families are making sacrifices to meet the high cost of college, why they are scraping together what they can to finance education that will let them fulfill their dreams. That reality is becoming harder and harder in terms of achieving that goal. Every year, nearly half of all college students, college-ready students, and families with incomes under $50,000 cannot go to a 4-year college, not because they do not have the ability, not because they did not gain admission but because the cost is too much of a barrier. Despite current aid, grants and money that students earn working, many students face a growing gap between the aid they receive and the cost of college. As a matter of fact, lowest income students at a 4- year college face almost a $6,000 gap in unmet needs. I worked when I was going through college. I understand those challenges. You are getting financial aid, you are working, and still you have an unmet gap. That means debt. That means debt. The lowest income students at 4-year colleges face roughly $5,800 in unmet needs after a standard financial aid package, after their loans, and after the amount their families contribute. The fact is that for the neediest students, current aid is simply not enough. The fact is students have been squeezed on two ends, one by declining Federal aid that has sent students the message they are on their own; and, two, by having to rely increasingly on student loans, which in essence, is debt. We are supposed to provide a needed boost to students but instead have left them with deals that are not in their best interests. I am proud of this bill because it will put money where it is needed most, Pell grants and other critical financial assistance that benefits our Nation's students with the most need. Instead of another empty promise to increase Pell grants--we have heard plenty of those--this bill will increase the maximum Pell grant to $5,100 next year, and beyond that, climbing to $5,400. There simply is no excuse for the fact that Pell grants have not increased by even $1 over the last 5 years. Tell any family that is trying to have their child fulfill their dream. We have seen tuition rates go up. We are seeing costs again go up. But we have seen the Pell rate stagnant. That means, in terms of buying power, that has even meant far less. With this bill, we are ending the neglect of our Nation's neediest students. We also will expand who is automatically eligible for a Pell grant. Currently, a student is eligible for Pell grants if their family makes $20,000 per year. This bill increases the annual income limit to $30,000, so more students can be eligible to benefit from Pell grants. That is the reality of having so many of our families be able to at least get some assistance in this respect. This bill works to protect students working hard to stay in college by doubling the amount a student can earn but remain eligible for aid from $3,000 to $6,000. This bill ensures a student will not lose their financial aid from simply working to make extra money. Let me tell you, when I went to college back in New Jersey at St. Peters College, for the first month I did not have the money to get to St. Peters College, which was in a neighboring community from where I lived but a good several miles away. For that first month, until I entered the work study program and started to earn money for transportation, I walked. Now, I was a lot leaner as a result of it, a lot thinner as a result of it. But the bottom line is that as a result of working, I was able to get the transportation funds I needed. But when we, in fact, say to a student: We want to reward work and we want them also to have the sense that when they work there is a benefit, not a punishment, in fact, that has worked to the contrary. So Senator Kennedy and the committee have done something that is exceptional. As someone who had to work in order to get to school, this actually incentivizes the opportunity to do so but does not penalize them. This bill also helps students who are struggling to pay back their Federal loans by capping the amount they will pay at 15 percent of their income. This helps ensure they are not paying back more than they can afford. One of our challenges is that our students graduate under a mountain of debt. Then, as they try to fulfill their hopes and dreams, they are squeezed even more in terms of the repayment process. This is a critical step toward ensuring that loan repayments are affordable and not overly burdensome for some recent graduates. I also am extremely pleased this bill builds on a proposal I have supported for a long time from my days in the House of Representatives, expanding loan forgiveness for those who are working in jobs that serve the public. By providing some of the our most needed public servants, our teachers, police officers, early educators, social workers, school librarians the chance to have their loans forgiven after they have been working hard to pay off those loans, we are sending a powerful message. We have a whole new generation of teachers we are going to need in this country. We have an explosion, a bubble that is about to burst of those who are, in fact, going to be in the retirement age and will be retiring. As I said earlier, in this global challenge, education is the key to being the continuing global leader in competitiveness; having the most highly educated generation of Americans ever. That means having the firm foundation to ultimately be able to achieve higher education. That means having a cadre of educators who are among the most highly skilled and educated professionals we have ever had. This incentivizes people to head in that direction. We are sending a powerful message. We are saying: If you are willing to serve the public, we will give back. If you make sacrifices in your daily job, we appreciate that sacrifice, and we want to lessen the financial burden. We will help ensure that today's students do not shy away from a career in public service simply because they think they cannot afford it. I am proud of the direction this legislation takes. This bill is sensible. It is reasonable. It is fair. It makes our priorities clear. Instead of subsidizing lenders, we should be putting every last dollar possible into the pockets of students. In addition, we are providing $17 billion in new aid to students without charging taxpayers a dime. In this bill, we are actually also putting nearly $1 billion toward deficit reduction. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I am pleased to see this bill recognizes the responsibilities we have, not just to our students but to future generations who do not deserve to be saddled with the Nation's rising debt. I look forward to, as a member of the Senate Banking Committee, working with our chairman, Senator Dodd, to deal with these issues in this bill. In my mind, this is integral to making higher education more accessible, more affordable for this next generation. It is a step forward to ensuring the student loan system works for students and their families; that is who it is supposed to work for, for students and their families. It is a key to preserving the integrity of our Nation's higher education system. It is a key to having a continuing ability to be the global economic leader. It is the key to fulfilling the American dream. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Levin- Reed amendment. That is the amendment that, unlike the Iraq Study Group, has a date certain for changing and transitioning our mission and bringing our troops home. Maybe if the Senate had listened to the Iraq Study Group last year when it presented its report and had adopted it and moved in that direction, we would not be where we are today. I personally believe it is well past time to now suggest that it is appropriate to adopt their recommendations when what we need is a date certain. We are here tonight to ask for a vote, not just any vote. We are here to ask for a fundamental American principle: a majority vote for majority rule. Not a supermajority vote of 60 votes. A majority vote for majority rule, the same principle that has stood our country over the test of time, the same principle that average Americans fully understand, the same principle that would reflect the reality of where the American public is as it relates to this critical issue. A majority vote for a majority rule. Not just any vote. We are here tonight because the American people deserve an up-or-down vote on this important amendment that will finally bring an end to this mismanaged war. The war in Iraq, in my mind, is the most pressing issue of our day, and the fact that the Republican leadership and those who join them will not allow the Senate to have a straight up-or-down vote, a simple majority vote, speaks of obstructionism and of hiding behind procedural roadblocks in order to avoid facing the American people who have called for a change of course in Iraq. Those of us who voted against the war, as I did in the first place, against popular opinion of the time, have been vindicated by history. I say to my colleagues, history will judge the votes we cast tomorrow, and I believe those who vote against a simple majority rule and changing the course will be judged harshly. The President has lost the support of the American public and the confidence of the global community. The only support for his misguided policy in Iraq is a minority, a minority, in the Senate. That is why they are afraid of a simple up-or-down vote on this issue because given in this body a simple majority vote proposition, a majority of the Senate would vote to transition us out of Iraq and bring our men and women home. That is why they are afraid of the vote that we ask for. Unfortunately, some--and I say ``some'' because I know some of our Republican colleagues have joined us in the past and will again--some of my Republican colleagues seem more interested in protecting the President than doing right, in my mind, by our troops. To the Republican leadership and those who support them, I say it is time to stop filibustering and time to start a vote, a simple majority vote for majority rule. Maybe if more of the sons and daughters, husbands and wives, or sisters and brothers of Members of the Senate were in Iraq, some of my colleagues would not be so cavalier about filibustering an up-or-down, simple majority vote. If our loved ones were in Iraq, who among us would be content with the counsels of patience and delay? Who among us would be satisfied with another mission accomplished? Who among us would be satisfied with ``victory is around the next corner''? Who among us would be satisfied with benchmarks of which not one--not one-- has been accomplished, and yet we somehow suggest that is progress years later? After 4 years of a failed policy, it is time to stop hiding behind procedural hurdles and allow the Senate to cast a definitive vote about our future course in Iraq. A majority vote for majority rule. The American people are waiting impatiently for the Senate to heed their calls and face the facts on the ground. It is time for a responsible change of course in Iraq. And that is exactly what the amendment on which we want a simple majority vote--let's see how people vote, a simple majority vote--does. The Levin-Reed amendment says our forces should be out of Iraq by April 30 of next year, except those needed to protect U.S. personnel, to train Iraqi security forces and for counterterrorism activities. Last week, the House of Representatives passed very similar legislation, sending a clear message that the time for change has come. The only obstacle left is for this body to act with a simple majority vote. Now the Senate, once again, faces a critical vote on Iraq, and I point out, as I did a few days ago when we debated an amendment to take care of our troops--we hear all the time about ``support the troops.'' Yet we had to have a supermajority vote to simply permit the rotation of our troops to be able to have a year back at home for every year they served abroad, a proposition that even the Defense Department has as its goal. No, we couldn't have a simple majority vote on that issue; we had to have a 60-vote threshold. Support the troops? The only way we could have done that was with bipartisan support, and we didn't get it. The only way we can stop this war is with bipartisan support. But so long as we keep having these 60-vote thresholds, Democrats have 51 votes in this body and that leaves us 9 votes short. The American people know that. That is why we want a simple majority vote for majority rule. Despite overwhelming public support, the public is way ahead of this institution, the American people are way ahead of this institution, and growing support from some of our Republican colleagues, which I respect--Democrats do not have the 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster in the Senate. I know that many more of our Republican colleagues have serious concerns about the war in Iraq. I have been reading about it. I have been reading in the local and national papers of so many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying: We have grave reservations about where the President is continuing to take us. We believe we have to have some type of change. I urge them to listen to their inner voice. I urge them to find their moral compass. I urge them to back their strong words with meaningful votes. A vote for Levin-Reed, a simple up-or-down vote, is a vote to transition out of Iraq, a vote to change the course, a vote to end the war. Robert Kennedy said about the war in Vietnam: Past error is no excuse for its own perpetuation. Tragedy is a tool for the living to gain wisdom, not a guide by which to live. ``Past error is no excuse for its own perpetuation.'' He went on to say: All men make mistakes, but a good man-- And I would paraphrase in today's terms, a good woman-- yields when [they] know [their] cost is wrong, and repairs the evil. The only sin-- The only sin-- is pride. This is not an issue where we can afford the sin of pride to deviate us, to take us into the appropriate course, to change the course in Iraq. The lessons of history are poignant and instructive about today's quagmire. Rather than hiding behind a shrinking minority and procedural posturing, Republicans should listen to the American people and change the course of this failed war policy. They should stand with the American people and tell the President, even though we have given him opportunities, even though previous efforts of the Senate have given him flexibility, he has outright rejected it and, so, yes, there must be a date certain, and the message to the President by this body is if you are not going to bring our troops home, then we will. I have heard many of my colleagues claim that what is happening now on the Senate floor is nothing more than political theater. The war in Iraq is the single greatest issue before the country and before this Senate. How many lives, how much money, how much risk to our security by being bogged down in Iraq, when we have real challenges in the world such as Iran, when we have a reconstituted al-Qaida in Afghanistan, that is the real challenge. That is the real challenge, I say to my friends. This is not about political theater. If there is political theater here, it is the sad, sad plot that the Republican leadership has weaved in creating this procedural hurdle to not permit a simple majority vote for majority rule. I heard my distinguished colleague from Connecticut, for whom I have enormous respect, lament the proceedings as partisan. I have the deepest respect for him, but I couldn't more passionately disagree with him. This isn't about partisanship. These are deeply held views of principle--principle that moves us to take these extraordinary measures so we can get a simple majority vote for majority rule. That is what we are simply seeking tonight. So to the Republican leadership and those who support them, I say it is time to stop filibustering and time to permit a simple majority vote to allow us to change the course in Iraq. Today we are living with the consequences of the administration's failed policy, and only a minority of the Senate wants to stay that failed course. Over 3,600 troops have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of the war, including 87 servicemembers with ties to my home State of New Jersey. April and May was the deadliest 2-month period of the war for U.S. troops, with 230 servicemembers killed. 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 estimates that the so-called surge would only cost $5.6 billion. We have been misled time and time again, and these new numbers only prove once again we have been misled. Each day we read horrific stories about the violence and tragedy on the streets of Iraq. This week officials report that dozens of Shiites were massacred by Sunni extremists during an overnight raid in Diyala Province. Yesterday, suicide car bombs in Kirkuk killed more than 80 people and injured some 150 others. It was the deadliest attack the city had seen since the beginning of the war. In fact, suicide attacks have more than doubled across Iraq from 26 in January to 58 in April. In terms of reconstruction, measurements we all previously swore ourselves to be listening to, oil production in Iraq is still lower than it was before the war, and Baghdad is getting less than 6 hours of electricity a day, significantly less than before the war. That is why we must proceed with a vote on the Levin-Reed amendment and bring an end to our military involvement in Iraq which has cost our country so dearly in human lives and national treasure. Even all of the military personnel tell us we cannot have a military victory in Iraq. When I listen to General Pace say we need the Iraqis to love their children more than they hate their neighbors, that is probably a powerful truism, but it does not come through the power of military might. That is about reconciliation, confidence-building measures, revenue sharing, and participation of all Iraqi society in the Government. It does not come through the barrel of a gun to have the Iraqis love their children more than they hate their enemies. So to the Republican leadership and those who support them, it is time to stop filibustering and time to permit us a simple majority vote for majority rule. Let me take a minute to discuss the administration's recent report on benchmarks in Iraq which President Bush is using as a justification for the United States to stay in Iraq. Just as some were misled into the war, I think this report is misleading. I wish to make sure everyone understands exactly what it says because I have listened to the debate and, boy, has it been mischaracterized, as far as I am concerned. I am sure not intentionally because people read the document different ways. Let me tell what it clearly says to me. The report did not say that eight of the benchmarks had been met. Instead, the report said that satisfactory progress, a very significant distinction, has been made on only 8 of 18 benchmarks in Iraq, while the rest have not even seen--not even seen--satisfactory progress. In simple terms, none of the benchmarks were met. Let's make it clear: None of the benchmarks were met. And when this report came out, President Bush said: Those who believe that the battle in Iraq is lost will likely point to the unsatisfactory performance on some of the political benchmarks. Those of us who believe that the battle in Iraq can and must be won see the satisfactory performance on several of the security benchmarks as a cause for optimism. I want to reiterate to the President the fact that none of the benchmarks were actually met. None. Now, let me be clear. The absolute best version of the story is that the Iraqis made some progress on some of the benchmarks. That is it. But the fact is, zero out of 18 benchmarks were met, and this is after years, and this is after changing the goalposts so that we can continue to suggest that we are making progress. If we kept the goalposts where they were supposed to be, we would have an even greater rate of failure. So I don't see any cause for optimism for this failed strategy of escalation. Frankly, I think the President's comments represent yet another example of the administration's delusion and denial. For years, this administration has refused to face the truth about Iraq. Let's take a look at some of the benchmarks the Bush administration told us would be met. We were told by the end of 2006 that a provincial election law would be approved and new election laws would be put in place. But that benchmark has not been met. We were told the Iraqis would approve a law for debaathification. But that benchmark has not been met. In fact, the Iraqi Parliament is barely functioning. It is stuck in gridlock. Even worse, one of the Bush administration's best Iraqi allies, Ahmed Chalabi, has been leading the charge--this is one of the administration's best allies who has been leading the charge--to block the debaathification legislation. We were told the Iraqis would create a law to help restrain sectarian militias. But that benchmark has not been met. In fact, the Iraqi Government hasn't disarmed the Shia militias, and the security situation on the ground continues to rage out of control. The surge hasn't staunched the violence, and civilian casualties were actually higher in June than in February when the surge began. We were told that the Iraqis would establish a law to regulate the oil industry and share revenues in Iraqi society. But that benchmark has not been met. In fact, the oil law is stuck in parliamentary gridlock, and it is unclear whether it actually addresses even the core issues. We were told that by March, this past March, that the Iraqi Government was supposed to hold a referendum on constitutional amendments necessary for a government of national unity to possibly exist. But that benchmark has not been met. In fact, 3 years after the United States turned over power to the Iraqi Government, the Iraqis still don't have the constitution finished. The Bush administration seems to think that ``satisfactory progress'' has been made on performing a constitutional review committee. But in fact this committee has had to keep extending deadlines to get their work done, and it is unclear whether they will even meet the next deadline at the end of this month. As I said before, it is time that the administration and the President finally face the real facts. And the fact is, by invading Iraq, the President took our focus away from the war in Afghanistan-- the birthplace of the Taliban, the home to al-Qaida, the land of Osama bin Laden, and the place where the attacks of September 11 were planned. Now, nearly 6 years after those terrible attacks on the United States, the most recent National Intelligence Estimate tells us that al-Qaida is operating where? In a safe zone along the Afghanistan- Pakistan border. Let me repeat that. Al-Qaida is operating, according to the National Intelligence Estimate, in a safe zone along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. In fact, according to the New York Times: U.S. officials have warned publicly that a deal between the Pakistani government and tribal leaders allowed al-Qaida to plot and train more freely in parts of western Pakistan for the last 10 months. It is clear that by shifting our efforts to Iraq, we have taken our eye off the original threat in Afghanistan. We cannot forget that our fight against terrorism started where it should have, in Afghanistan-- an engagement that I supported--where it should have remained. But we have not yet been able to end the fight in Afghanistan. Now, as I listened to the debate here today, some of our Republican colleagues are back to the same parroting of the same old refrains--it won't work--criticizing Democrats as being weak on defense. It is we who have consistently called for finishing the job we started in Afghanistan, and bringing Osama bin Laden and his followers to justice, and as far as I am concerned, to have him meet his maker. It was a Democratic Senator who offered a higher ransom on Osama bin Laden's head. It is Democrats, through the supplemental appropriations bill, who funded the resources for those men and women whom we supposedly are going to stand by so that they would have the plated jackets that they needed, and whom we sent into war without having the resources they needed, the vehicles to protect their lives as they seek to pursue their mission, the opportunity to make sure that a grateful nation says we are grateful not just on Memorial Day, marching in a parade, or on Veterans Day, going to an observance, which we should, but in how we treat those men and women in their injuries, in their disabilities, and for those who commit the ultimate sacrifice, in how we take care of their survivors. That is what Democrats did when they achieved the majority in this institution. So that old refrain, my friends, that Democrats are weak on defense, that dog won't hunt. I joined a rally earlier tonight outside the Capitol with Iraqi war veterans. In my mind, no one--no one--has a greater right to question their Government and to say, as they did, that it is time to change the course in Iraq and bring their fellow soldiers home, and that is what they said tonight. They hold the high ground in any debate. Afghanistan was the right place to pursue the national security of the United States. It was in Afghanistan that the murderers of September 11 were located. We had Osama bin Laden pinned down in the mountains of Tora Bora. But instead of having a large contingent of the best trained, most equipped, most technologically advanced military in the world go after him, we outsourced the job to the warlords. We gave them money, and they put the money in their pockets and they let bin Laden get away. Many of us have been horrified as we have watched the resurgence of the Taliban, the new threats of al-Qaida in Afghanistan, and the increasing poppy cultivation. A few years ago, I talked about the possibility of the Iraqitization of Afghanistan, and now we see some of those fears coming true. Just last month, Afghan security forces found a new type of sophisticated roadside bomb, one that is very similar to that being used in Iraq. Afghans, and our troops in Afghanistan, face the daily horror of roadside bombs targeting civilians or coalition forces. The Taliban continues its battle to terrorize the Afghan people. As the New York Times article said last week: Shootings, beheadings, burnings, and bombings: These are the tools of intimidation used by the Taliban and others to shut down hundreds of Afghanistan's public schools. To take aim at education is to make war on the government. Afghanistan now produces 92 percent of the world's poppy, and it has a record crop again this year. Again, according to the New York Times: Not so long ago, we trumpeted Afghanistan as a success, a country freed from tyranny and al-Qaeda. But as the Taliban's grip continues to tighten, threatening Afghanistan's future and the fight against terrorism, Americans and Afghans are frequently asking what went wrong. My friends, what went wrong is that instead of finishing the mission in Afghanistan, the President took us to Iraq. Of course, we remember all the reasons why: weapons of mass destruction, uranium from Niger-- this in a State of the Union speech before the entire Congress, none of it true. The battle in Afghanistan, the battle against al-Qaida, the Taliban, against terrorism is far from over. Yet the United States is still held hostage by the President's war in Iraq--a war that we were led into based on a false premise, with false promises, with no plan to win the peace and no plan to succeed. The President is fond of evoking Franklin Roosevelt and our noble mission in World War II when he talks about Iraq. But he must have forgotten that when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt didn't run off and invade China. That would have made no sense. Just like our going to Iraq made no sense because we dropped the ball in Afghanistan. The failures in Iraq, coupled with the reinvigoration of al-Qaida in Afghanistan, underscore the fiasco of the Bush administration's decision to take its focus off Afghanistan, its disastrous war policy, and the consequences of its ``stay the course'' mentality. They took their eye off the ball and created a quagmire in Iraq. We didn't have al-Qaida in Iraq. We now have elements of al-Qaida in Iraq, but we did not have al-Qaida in Iraq before we invaded. Now we are paying the price in the form of less security and a beefed-up terrorist network. Maybe Secretary Chertoff's infamous gut feeling about an increased terror threat was caused by knowing that Osama bin Laden and his terrorist allies are still out there plotting and planning thousands of miles away from Iraq--thousands of miles away from Iraq. Madam President, let me conclude by saying that the President says that the only role for Congress is to provide a blank check for his failed war policy. He is so wrong. He is so wrong. Time to reread the Constitution. This body's responsibility is not to blindly sign a blank check to the President for a failed policy. We have a responsibility to the American people as fiduciaries both in terms of national treasure and lives. Most importantly, we have a responsibility to the men and women in uniform to do the right thing and stand up to the President's failed policy so that we may give them a mission worthy--worthy--of their sacrifice. We should honor the troops who continue to sacrifice and shed blood not by being silent, not by being hoarded like sheep, not by signing on to a blank check, and not by being complicit in the President's failed war. I have heard some of our colleagues on the other side cry that we are fighting for freedom in Iraq, but here in America, here tonight, we have a tyranny of a minority in the Senate who want to use the procedures of the Senate, in my mind in a way that is totally unacceptable, to thwart the will of the majority of the Senate, and, more importantly, the majority of the American people. We want a vote--not just any vote, a simple majority vote for majority rule. The amendment before us reflects the reality on the ground and the will of the American people. It changes the course in Iraq by setting a responsible timetable for our troops to leave. How many more lives--how many--I hope we all go home before tomorrow's vote and say to ourselves, how many more lives, how many more tens of billions of dollars, how much more chaos? We have heard about chaos. What will happen, how much more chaos can unfold than that which we see unfolding as we have 160,000 troops there? Years from now, we will come to the same conclusion. Or we can act with courage tomorrow in a vote, a simple majority vote, and by doing so we will be in a position to meet our national security challenges and our national interests. Our brave troops have answered the call of duty. Let's now answer the call to do what is right by them. It is clear to me that the President continues to live in a world where the reality in Iraq never collides with his fantasy of what is happening there. It is time for the President, and a minority in the Senate who support him, to give the American people a chance for a majority vote, for a majority rule. The American people have awoken way before the Senate, and they want the nightmare to end. The American people know it is time to responsibly withdraw from Iraq. The House of Representatives voted to do so, and it is time for the Senate to finally vote for a responsible withdrawal from Iraq. And so we close again. It is time for a simple majority vote for majority rule. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act. This legislation will bring long needed reforms to the transition process between the Department of Defense and the VA. The controversy at Walter Reed again brought to light the shortcomings in the process our returning veterans must deal with in their difficult transition from soldier to civilian. Just as the living conditions that came to light are unacceptable, so too are the countless stories detailing the maze of forms, hearings, and medical evaluations that prevent so many of our veterans from getting the health care and benefits they need and a grateful nation wishes to provide them. Too often, it seems that rather than thanking the soldier for their sacrifice, this system sets up yet another battle of bureaucracy. Too often, it seems that the system is stacked against the very soldiers it is designed to help. Too often, veterans must seek out their own treatment options and benefits or risk missing deadlines and losing benefits. It doesn't have to be this way. We have an obligation not only to fulfill the promises we make to America's fighting men and women, but to do so in a manner that ensures the benefits we owe them are made readily available. That this bill will push DOD and VA to prepare a comprehensive and coordinated strategy to help the soldier in their transition to civilian is a critical correction to a long-flawed process. Currently, soldiers can be discharged with little more than directions to the nearest VA and a stack of paperwork a team of lawyers would struggle to complete. The chasm that currently exists between DOD and VA has swallowed too many bright and talented individuals trying to put their life back together after sacrificing so much for this great Nation. This amendment requires a comprehensive policy on the transition of our wounded soldiers back to civilian life. It will push the reform of such problem areas such as the medical hold status, a situation in which soldiers can sit for months on end with their life on hold while DOD decides what to do with them; the medical evaluation process where soldiers' disability ratings are chronically underrated; and improved sharing of records between DOD and VA, amazingly not a common practice even in this day and age. I am particularly proud to support this bill because of the priority it places on treatment of traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder. Medical research still has a long way to go before we can wholly treat TBI's and PTSD, but this bill goes a long way towards creating an extensive strategy for diagnosing and rehabilitating servicemembers afflicted with these conditions. We must lift the stigma and educate soldiers that these conditions are as real as a bullet wound, and can be just as deadly. This bill does just that. The emphasis on pre-and post-deployment assessments will revolutionize the military's process of diagnosis and treatment. Due to the unique nature of these injuries and the delay in symptoms that so often occurs, many veterans have gone without treatment and suffered a lifetime of pain and anguish because we have not had these safeguards in place. Thankfully, with this bill the Congress is saying, ``no longer.'' No longer will we stand idly by while veterans are discharged from DOD and fade into the shadows of society. No longer will we turn a blind eye to cries for help from America's bravest. No longer will we ignore the needs of veterans who have sacrificed so much for their country. I am proud to support this proposal extending health care to medically retired servicemembers for 3 additional years. Sometimes we forget that when these veterans leave the military, they leave behind their career, their pay and their way of life. By allowing them steady access to health care, we give them some sense of normalcy as they begin a new chapter in their lives. I do believe there is much work left to be done, and as a Congress we must remain vigilant to ensure that the spirit as well as the letter of this legislation becomes law and the reforms are carried out to their fullest. One way of remaining vigilant in the pursuit of a smooth transition from solider to veteran is to provide resources to outside watchdogs to help ensure transparency and advocacy in the process. That is why I have introduced the Veterans Navigator Act, which will provide $25 million in Federal grants over the next 5 fiscal years to create a pilot program to fund ``Navigators'' to help veterans enter the system and will build on existing programs run by veterans service organizations, VSOs, and other experienced organizations. While the dignified treatment of wounded warriors amendment will bring about many long-overdue reforms to the transition process, veteran navigators could be particularly critical as independent nongovernmental sources of information and advice for the veteran during their transition. In fact, navigators could play a vital role in the successful implementation of the changes made in the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act, as they can be watchdog and counsel, whistleblower and advocate. In short, because the veteran navigators will not be part of the government system, they will be better able to advocate for veterans. The very least that we can do is ensure that all of these brave men and women are able to access the medical benefits to which they are entitled and the care which they require, particularly in this, their time of greatest need. At some point in each of our lives, we might need a guiding hand to help us find our way. These brave men and women went out across the world for us, with this bill I believe we are stepping out for them.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to speak out once again against the war in Iraq and in support of our troops. Today, we had an opportunity to do just that--to support the troops, troops such as these who are pictured here who actually have been serving our country and recently became U.S. citizens. ``Support the troops''--how many times have we heard that said on the floor of the Senate? We have heard that refrain time and time again from the very people who earlier today voted against the very essence of what it is to support the troops. From the beginning of the Iraq war, we have heard its supporters say that somehow supporting the war equals supporting the troops. But from the beginning of this fiasco, it has been clear that the troops have been a secondary consideration for those who were bent on rushing into an ill-conceived war. Going to war without a postwar plan to stabilize Iraq, is that supporting the troops? Refusing to listen to generals about the troop levels needed to win the peace, is that about supporting the troops? Sending our soldiers into a war zone without the appropriate bulletproof vests, without the appropriate vehicles, with inferior equipment, is that supporting the troops? Letting Walter Reed's conditions worsen, is that supporting the troops? Extending tours of duty without regard to the consequences to our soldiers and their families, is that supporting the troops? Giving our soldiers only a brief stop at home before shipping them back in to a civil war in Iraq, is that supporting the troops? It seems to me that the very least we can do for our brave men and women who carry out their orders with exquisite skill and bravery in an unimaginable situation in Iraq is to give them enough time to catch their breath before they are sent back. Clearly, never have so few been asked to do so much in these continuing deployments. If one thinks about it, the number of men and women who are presently deployed and have been deployed compared to 300 million people in this country, how is it so few have been asked to do and sacrifice so much. Today, the Republican leadership wouldn't even let them have the right opportunity for the respite they need in between these continuing deployments, deployments that are taking our troops and virtually grilling them into the ground. A Republican minority stopped a majority of the Senate and overwhelmingly the will of the American people in supporting the troops through a procedural roadblock. This should not have been a partisan effort by Republicans. It should not have been. In essence, those who put those roadblocks up have voted once again to stay the course, no change to the President's failed war policy, no alteration to this dead-end course, not even to give our troops some well-deserved rest. I applaud my colleague from Virginia, Senator Webb, as well as my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, both decorated combat veterans who stood up for our troops in their amendment. They know personally--this is not esoteric for them--they know personally of the sacrifice our soldiers make each and every day for the country they love, the country we all love. But they are not pawns. They are the best and bravest, and they deserve better than what the Senate did today. I hope the American people speak out in support of our troops. I ask those Senators who oppose giving them the appropriate recess between deployment, the appropriate time so that they, even having to go back into the war, could have the appropriate time, as the military itself devises and has as goals as to what it should be, that at least for whatever time they are deployed abroad, that they have that time back here at home, back here with their families, back here to be able to rejuvenate themselves and go back to do the mission which they willfully do, could we not do that much for them? I hope the American people will speak out with an incredibly loud voice to our colleagues who don't believe they deserve that much, who used a procedural roadblock. Mr. President, I am outraged. As someone who voted against the war, I am outraged that 4 years after the start of an elective and unnecessary war which we were led into based on false premises and false promises, we have not yet ended it. I am outraged that every delay in moving toward a transition out of Iraq and ending the war in Iraq means more American lives lost. I am outraged that we have spent $450 billion on this war and that for each additional month we continue to be engaged in Iraq under the present course, we spend another $10 billion a month. I am outraged that the President's war has cost us our prestige and influence abroad and has undermined our security around the world. I am outraged that the war in Iraq has kept our focus away from the war in Afghanistan, the birthplace of the Taliban, home to al-Qaida, the land of Osama bin Laden, and the place where the attacks of September 11 were planned. I am outraged that we always hear the same story and the same promises from this administration. As I listen to some of my colleagues, as well as the administration, fear should not be the basis for our policy. But that is what the administration and its supporters in the Senate offer each time--fear. The Bush administration always says that change is just around the corner, that we should wait just a little longer for success. The Bush administration always has a new plan with new benchmarks and new deadlines, but they never meet those benchmarks or those deadlines, so they just change them. The Bush administration always says we are making progress on the ground. Yet the facts contradict them. The truth is that we still haven't stopped the insurgency, that hundreds of Iraqis are still being killed each day, and that the Iraqi Government still hasn't acted on key benchmarks. The truth is that we are being driven down a dead-end street by an administration without a roadmap for a lasting peace. So I say, as Senator Robert Kennedy did in March of 1968 in a speech about Vietnam: 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--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. Those were his words then. I believe they ring true today. Today, we are living with the consequences of the administration's failed policy. Over 3,600 American troops have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of this war, including 87 servicemembers with ties to my home State of New Jersey. April and May was the deadliest 2-month period of the war for U.S. troops, with 230 servicemembers killed. We have now spent over $400 billion on the war in Iraq. We continue a burn rate of about $10 billion a month. Frankly, as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I never believed the administration's estimate that the so-called surge would cost only $5.6 billion, and these new numbers prove once again that we have been misled. This was a terrible weekend, with over 250 people killed in Iraq, including 150 Iraqis who perished in a bombing that the New York Times described as ``one of the deadliest, if not the deadliest'' single bombing since the start of the war. Suicide attacks have more than doubled across Iraq, from 26 in January to 58 in April. In terms of reconstruction, oil production in Iraq is still lower than it was before the war 4 years ago. Baghdad is getting under 6 hours of electricity a day, significantly less than before the war. And the President's escalation plan, the so-called surge, simply isn't achieving the results we were promised. Imagine that, another broken promise. Just like when we were told: We know where the weapons of mass destruction are. Just like we were told about the yellow cake uranium from Niger, when the President came before the Congress in his State of the Union speech and used that term to engender support for his war policy. We found out it wasn't true, and that ended up having a CIA agent outed because her husband, a former United States Ambassador, proved that, in fact, that wasn't true. If that had been under any other administration, it would have been called treason. Just like we were told: We will be greeted as liberators. Just as the President landed on the aircraft carrier with a big banner behind him saying ``Mission Accomplished.'' How many lives have been lost since mission accomplished? Just like ``the insurgency is in its last throes.'' We have heard that so many times. Well, it is about time to add the surge to that infamous list. I think we all knew that the strategy to secure Baghdad would simply lead insurgents to move into other areas, and that is exactly what has happened. As Anthony Cordesman from the Center for Strategic and International Studies said in recent testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee: The U.S. is having to expand its counterinsurgency operations broadly outside Baghdad. Limited tactical successes really don't matter unless such casualties include substantial cadres of leaders and experts that cannot be easily and rapidly replaced. The insurgents can simply disperse, stand down, and regroup. Now, I know the administration likes to tout victories in individual Iraqi provinces or cities as markers of success, but I believe all we are seeing is what is sometimes called the balloon effect. We clamp down on insurgents in one area, they spring up in another. We never actually solve the problem. Let's be frank about the status of the Iraqi Government. The New York Times describes the Iraqi Parliament and Cabinet as ``barely able to function.'' Apparently, 12 Cabinet members aren't even attending Cabinet meetings anymore; 74 out of the 275 Members of Parliament are boycotting the Parliament. And numerous others don't attend anyway. We have heard a lot about benchmarks. They keep changing, of course. It is now clear to anyone and should be to everyone that the Iraqi Government will not meet any of the much-touted benchmarks the Bush administration has outlined. I believe we are engaged in a ceaseless act of repetitive denial by this administration. In fact, the Bush administration is shortly going to try to present a completely new set of ``accomplishments'' and downplay their previous benchmarks. A recent Washington Post article notes: Those achievements are markedly different from the benchmarks Bush set when he announced his decision to send tens of thousands of additional American troops to Iraq. Let's take a look at the benchmarks the Bush administration told us would be met. We were told that by the end of 2006 a provincial election law would be approved and new election laws would be put in place. It is the middle of 2007. That benchmark has not been met. We were told the Iraqis would approve a law for debaathification. But that benchmark has not been met. We were told the Iraqis would create a law to help restrain sectarian militias. That benchmark has not been met. We were told the Iraqis would establish a law to regulate the oil industry and share revenues. That benchmark has not been met. We were told by March the Iraqi Government was supposed to hold a referendum on constitutional amendments. But, again, that benchmark has not been met. As I have said time and time again, benchmarks without consequences are just aspirations. And I am sick and tired of hearing about goals that are never met. Yet despite this lack of results, the administration refuses to admit their strategy has failed. Instead, they want to move the goalpost. They just want to alter their perception of reality. Finally, I cannot close without discussing the cost of the war in Iraq. Our expenditures in Iraq saddle our Nation's finances and our children's future. We spend approximately $10 billion a month in Iraq. We spend $2.5 billion a week in Iraq. We spend more than $328 million every day in Iraq. And we spend more than $13.5 million an hour--an hour--in Iraq. Let me just put our Iraq spending in perspective. For what we spend in a month and a half in Iraq, we could fully fund No Child Left Behind next year, ensuring that every school district in the United States has the funds promised to them to meet the goals of the law for a quality education for every child. Just for what we spend in 1\1/2\ months, we could meet all of that goal next year. For what we spend in approximately 3 days in Iraq, and with an additional $1 billion, we could substantially improve security at our Nation's ports, including increased scanning of cargo containers. I represent one of the largest ports on the eastern seaboard, clearly one of our huge gaping holes to our domestic security. For what we spend in just over 2 months in Iraq, we could pay the $21 billion cost of implementing the remaining 9/11 Commission recommendations to secure our homeland, implementations that would truly make our country, its communities, and its families far more secure. Yet we need to look beyond the economic cost of the war at its true cost: 3,609 American lives. That has no price to it. It is invaluable. These are the sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives of fellow Americans, and we now have more than 26,695 sons and daughters of America who are wounded in ways that will affect their lives forever. I hope a grateful nation remembers them now and in the future. In conclusion, I ask, Mr. President, how many more deadlines will be missed? How many more benchmarks will be set, not met, and then forgotten? How many more times will we be told to wait just a few more months? How many more times will the administration say that change will happen soon, 4 years later? How many more broken promises? And how many lives must be lost in the meantime? How long will this administration wait to come to the inevitable conclusion that we must transition out of this war? Mr. President, it is over. Your failed strategy, your ill-conceived war must come to an end before more damage is done, before more lives are lost, before more national treasure is squandered. Let's get our troops home so we can start the hard work of meeting our domestic homeland security challenges, of meeting our security challenges elsewhere in the world--for which we have real challenges--of strengthening our foreign policy and mending our international relations. I know as I visit back in New Jersey, so many of my constituents say to me: Why is it that you all in the Senate cannot just simply put an end and seek the transition to this war? To do that, we truly need profiles in courage in the Senate. We need bipartisan support. Democrats do not have the 60 votes in the Senate to stop a filibuster, the procedural process by which the Republican minority thwarts the will of a majority of the Senate and the American people, nor do we have the 67 votes needed to override a Presidential veto. It will take colleagues from both sides of the aisle to meet that challenge. I challenge my Republican colleagues, who now say they are dismayed and have a different view than the President--and I applaud them for coming to that conclusion. And I say it is time to back their words with meaningful votes here on the floor of the Senate--now, before we lose more lives and national treasure. Now is the time, not tomorrow. Now is the time, not next month. Now is the time, not next year. I will end today by reminding all of us of what Senator Robert Kennedy said about the war in Vietnam. He said: Past error is no excuse for its own perpetuation. Tragedy is a tool for the living to gain wisdom, not a guide by which to live. Now, as ever, we do ourselves best justice when we measure ourselves against ancient tests, as in the Antigone of Sophocles, where he said, ``All men make mistakes, but a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil. The only sin is pride.'' The only sin is pride. The only sin is pride. Let's not allow pride to be the obstacle to changing our course in Iraq, to making sure we save more lives of the men and women who bravely answer the call of the Nation's trumpets. Let's make sure ultimately we strengthen our security by having the resources both at home and abroad to meet our real challenges. Let's change the course. And over the next week, we will have that opportunity. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate the Senator yielding. I don't know whether he voted for cloture on the amendment offered by Senator Webb and Senator Hagel. But when we talk about supporting the troops, here are two Members of this body who are distinguished, decorated combat veterans who know what it is to fight a war, and they both, as well as others, said it is critical for our troops to have a rotational cycle that gives them some respite equal to the time they are deployed. I don't know why we couldn't have had a straight up-or-down vote. That would be about supporting the troops. Last, I say to my distinguished friend, we can have differences on the war. I believe that, in fact, having these blinders in which we continue to say ``stay the course regardless of consequences'' is ultimately leading us down a road that is not in the best interests of the United States and its security. So we differ. I hope you will consider voting for the Levin-Reed amendment. That will give us an opportunity to begin the end of the war and transition out in a way that ultimately will secure the United States.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, and I don't intend to object, I ask my colleague from Kentucky if he would amend his request to have myself recognized after he finishes speaking.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, from my State of New Jersey and that part of the State in which I live, we can almost touch Lady Liberty. She is that close to us from a State park called Liberty State Park, an area I had the unique privilege of representing in the House of Representatives for 13 years and an area I still represent as the junior Senator from New Jersey, an area I have fond memories of because of the power of what it means. From that same park we can cross a bridge and go to Ellis Island, a place to which millions came to America to start a journey, a journey that contributed enormously to its great promise, enormously to the great country that it is today. I rise to discuss the recent cloture vote on immigration with that context in mind. The Senate had a historic opportunity to move forward today with comprehensive immigration reform that truly secured our borders, that realized the economic realities of our time and allowed people the opportunity to come out of the shadows into the light to earn their legalization. Unfortunately, the Senate decided to maintain the status quo, a status quo of broken borders, that does not meet our economic challenges, and that permits human exploitation and trafficking to take place. As someone who was part of the early negotiations back in March of this year on the question of immigration reform, I maintained then that the administration had leaped away from the largely bipartisan bill of last year that received 23 Republican votes and 39 Democratic votes to a much more conservative, much more impractical, and a much more partisan proposal this year. I was unable to join several of my colleagues in what has become known as the grand bargain. I acknowledge and appreciate several of those who advocated, because we were only on the floor on immigration reform, truly a critical issue for this country, as a result of their leadership, colleagues such as Senators Kennedy and Salazar and Graham, to name a few, who truly believed in that opportunity; at the same time, because of the leadership of the majority leader, who was willing to take on one of the most contentious issues, an issue that has been contentious throughout our country's history. I have often remarked on the floor how on the question of immigration, it is interesting to have heard the language of those debates at different times in our history. Ben Franklin referred to no longer being able to accept those who were coming to our shores in negative terms. He was talking then about the Germans. The former Governor of Massachusetts, in the early 1900s, said that, in fact, they are sending the most illiterate of their people to our shores. He was talking then about the Irish. In 1925, in an official report of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, they said: We need the Mexicans because of their bending and crouching habits which the whites cannot attain themselves to in order to pick our produce. We had the Chinese exclusionary provisions. So while this has always been a welcoming country, the debate has not been as welcoming. On that day when the ``Grand Bargain'' was announced, I came to this Chamber to express my opposition to the deal that was announced because I believed it was deficient in some regard and to say that I would work to improve it. Looking back at what I said then, in light of today's vote, it was strikingly clairvoyant to me, to say the least. I said on that day we must come together not as Democrats and Republicans or liberals and conservatives but as statesmen and, in doing so, honor the traditions of the Senate as a body that values reasoning, honest debate, and compromise over sound bites and talking points but especially over the politics of fear. Unfortunately, today, the voices that appealed to that fear and the lowest common denominator won out. Only 12 of our Republican colleagues were willing to stand up and vote to invoke cloture, almost half of those who voted for last year's bipartisan immigration bill. Only 12 Republican colleagues were willing to move forward, at least for the final essence of debates and amendments, and to a final vote, which is about half of those who voted last year for immigration reform. Now, personally, I still had serious concerns about the direction of the bill, but I voted to keep it alive because I wanted to work to make it better and because I believe in comprehensive immigration reform as something that is in the national interest and national security of the United States and because America's promise and its security should not have been snuffed out by one single vote. I said back on that day in May that I could not sign on to the agreement because it tore families apart, and it says to many they are only good enough to work here and give their human capital and slave but never good enough to stay here. But instead of responding to those erstwhile concerns from those of us willing to be supportive of comprehensive immigration reform, the appeal was constantly made to the right of the spectrum, to those who actually achieved some of the things they wanted in the bill but, obviously, never even intended to vote for comprehensive immigration reform--not even to vote to allow it to move forward. As it moved to the right, it got less and less support from the right. Unfortunately, instead of working with those of us who were willing to not only work to improve this bill but also put our votes where our mouths were, they kept giving in to demand after demand from conservative Republicans, and in turn this bill moved further and further to the right. In fact, at least two Members who were at the press conference on May 17 and got things included in the bill voted against keeping this process moving forward by voting against cloture today. Ultimately, in my mind, this came down to a President and a party who was, once again, there for the photo ops and the press conferences but was not willing to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work to improve this bill and help it move forward for our Nation: a Republican Party that was not about progress but about partisanship; a Republican Party that was not about solving our Nation's problems but seeking political gain by stopping progress of any sort in this Senate; the same President who used large amounts of political capital misleading our country into a disastrous war in Iraq, with little political capital on truly improving our Nation's security through tough yet practical and comprehensive immigration reform; a President who used political capital on tax cuts for the wealthiest in our country but not on truly meeting our Nation's economic needs through fair and comprehensive immigration reform; and it is either a President who has no political capital or one who was not willing to use it. Finally, throughout my life, and most recently on the Senate floor, I have heard the phrase ``those people''--``those people.'' Those who use that phrase are the voices of division and discrimination. They are the xenophobes who exist today and have existed at different times in our Nation's history but whose voices have ultimately been overcome to give way to the greatest successful experiment in the history of mankind-- the United States of America that we know today. But the last phrase of Emma Lazarus's poem emblazed on the inner wall of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty says: I lift my lamp beside the golden door! Maybe today that lamp is somewhat dimmer, but it will shine again. The course of history is unalterable, the human spirit cannot be shackled forever, the drumbeat for security, economic vitality and, most importantly, justice will only grow stronger. Finally, to those who have often referred to ``those people'' in this debate, let me say on behalf of ``those people,'' we have seen the light, and we simply will not be thrust back into the darkness.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate the majority leader yielding for a question. My question to the majority leader is----

Mr. MENENDEZ. My question to the majority leader is: Is it his understanding that the next amendment that is up in the divisions is the Menendez-Obama-Feingold amendment that would, in essence, give the right to U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents the ability to be able to claim their family under the new point system that is envisioned under the bill, where that point system would, in fact, allow for up to 10 points, out of a 100-point score, to be subscribed on the basis of----

Mr. MENENDEZ. And would also give them the wherewithal at least to have a fighting chance to come in under our visa system.