Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I am happy to yield.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I wish to rise briefly to speak to the amendment of the Senator from Texas. I think I caught him describing it as a ``technical one.'' At first blush, having just seen it for the first time, looked at it and having seen the intersection of what he seeks to do throughout title II of the bill, it is far from technical; it is very substantive. I appreciate that he has very substantive positions that might be different from mine, but they are very substantive, they are not technical. They go, in some cases, to the heart of due process for individuals, and they go to the heart of undoing what some cases in the appellate division and beyond have decided is the appropriate law of the land. I just wish to start off by saying that I certainly hope this amendment will not come to a vote tonight because I think all of us need to understand the nature, the scope, the breadth, the width of what, in fact, is being offered here, which I truly believe is far more than technical. So I just wanted to, so to speak, wave my saber early for the distinguished Senator from Texas and say that I am sure he is going to get a vote, but I will have to object if there is any intention to seek a vote tonight. You have to take all of the 12 pages that were just presented, intersect them, and see how they affect different sections of the underlying statute, and those have real meaningful consequences at the end of the day. I might agree with some; I might strongly disagree with others. So I just wanted to make it clear to the body that, from my perspective, it is a little bit more than technical. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I appreciate the offer from the distinguished Senator from Texas, and I certainly hope we will take his offer because I would have to object if we were to try to proceed tonight to a vote on his amendment. I think his amendment is important. I think it has real consequences. There are real consequences of substantive law, there are real consequences of due process, and there are real consequences of equal protection. So these are major legal issues which affect potentially millions of people. I appreciate the spirit in which he has offered it. I appreciate him saying he is more than willing to give time. I hope the bill managers would pursue that course of action and make sure that a vote on this does not take place until sometime tomorrow so that we can digest all of this and have the appropriate debate because legal protections are very important in the context of what we are doing. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I thank and applaud the distinguished Senator from Connecticut for soon offering this amendment. I am proud to join him in this effort. I want to build upon a couple of things he said as to why this amendment should be accepted, not voted but accepted. First, I have listened to a new definition of what a nuclear family is. It is amazing. I have heard so many speeches over my 15 years in the Congress about family. All of a sudden, the nuclear family doesn't involve mothers and fathers. All of a sudden it doesn't involve children, just because they happen to be over the age of 21. All of a sudden brothers and sisters are not part of a nuclear family. What is a nuclear family? Certainly as people travel throughout the country making speeches about nuclear families--about families period-- they certainly mean their parents, people who gave life to them; certainly they mean their children, individuals to whom they gave life; certainly, they mean their brothers and sisters. I have been amazed at some of the comments I have heard on the floor of the Senate about what is not nuclear family. What else is this about? This is about the right of a U.S. citizen to apply for their mother and father. That is what the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut is all about, the right of a U.S. citizen already to apply. Do everything right. Pay your taxes, serve your community, serve your country, you want to have a right, which you have under the law today, to simply bring your father and mother, or either one depending if they are not both alive, the opportunity to be reunited with you, a nuclear family, be reunited with you because you need them, be reunited, as the Senator from Connecticut says, because you have a child and now there is the opportunity to have the love and care a grandparent can offer, to create a sense of family, which is the essence of stability in our communities. Of any faith, it is the very core. What we see in the underlying bill is an elimination for the most part, a significant right of U.S. citizens dramatically reduced. The Senator's amendment actually will allow not for everybody. It still will have a certain degree of limitation because last year we gave 120,000 visas to parents. The Senator--which I think is reasonable--has looked at the historic average, and this says this is the amount that at least generally has taken place in family reunification of a U.S. citizen claiming their parents. When I hear chain migration, how dehumanizing. Chain migration, it makes me think of a bunch of paper clips hanging together. Chain migration, is that what we have come to? Parents are part of a little chain? There is this concern that they will be able to claim someone else. Who can they claim if they are being claimed by their son or daughter? That's it. You can't claim anybody else. Chain migration. How easy it is to try to take something that has so much significance in our lives and dehumanize it. Chain migration? No, this is about family reunification. It is the core of what our society is all about. It is what we hear speeches about all the time in terms of strengthening families. Families will be strengthened when they are together, not torn apart. In the universe of visas, this is very small, but it has a big consequence. Therefore, I salute the Senator from Connecticut for offering the amendment. I am proud to join with him when he offers it at the appropriate time. I hope we are not going to now say that parents are not part of the nuclear family. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Research, Cure, and Care Act of 2007. According to the National Institutes of Health, as many as 7.5 million Americans are affected by psoriasis, a chronic, inflammatory, painful, disfiguring and disabling disease for which there are limited treatments and no cure. In my State of New Jersey, the National Psoriasis Foundation estimates that 219,000 people have psoriasis. Ten to thirty percent of people with psoriasis also develop psoriatic arthritis, which causes pain, stiffness, and swelling in and around the joints. Moreover, of further concern is that people with psoriasis are at elevated risk for a myriad other comorbidities, including but not limited to heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and mental health conditions. Despite the serious adverse effects that psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis have on individuals, families and society, psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are underrecognized and underfunded by our Nation's research institutions and public health agencies. At the historical and current rate of psoriasis funding, NIH funding is not keeping pace with research needs. For that reason, I am introducing legislation to boost psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis research, improve and expand psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis data collection, increase access to care and treatment for these diseases, and help debunk the myths associated with psoriasis. I know that this legislation will go a long way in achieving these important public policy goals. The bill calls on the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, to convene a summit of researchers, public health professionals, representatives of patient advocacy organizations and policymakers to review current efforts in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis research, treatment, and quality-of-life being conducted by Federal agencies whose work involves psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis related comorbidities. The legislation also calls on the Secretary of HHS to commission a study from the Institutes of Medicine, IOM, to evaluate and make recommendations to address health insurance and prescription drug coverage as they relate to medications and treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Lastly, the bill directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop a patient registry to collect much-needed longitudinal data on psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis so we can begin to understand the long-term impact of these conditions and evaluate the effects of various therapies. I would like to thank the National Psoriasis Foundation for all of its efforts and leadership over the last four decades and am grateful to the Foundation and its members and staff for their ongoing commitment to improving quality of life for people with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Again, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Research Cure, and Care Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Research, Cure, and Care Act of 2007. According to the National Institutes of Health, as many as 7.5 million Americans are affected by psoriasis, a chronic, inflammatory, painful, disfiguring and disabling disease for which there are limited treatments and no cure. In my State of New Jersey, the National Psoriasis Foundation estimates that 219,000 people have psoriasis. Ten to thirty percent of people with psoriasis also develop psoriatic arthritis, which causes pain, stiffness, and swelling in and around the joints. Moreover, of further concern is that people with psoriasis are at elevated risk for a myriad other comorbidities, including but not limited to heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and mental health conditions. Despite the serious adverse effects that psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis have on individuals, families and society, psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are underrecognized and underfunded by our Nation's research institutions and public health agencies. At the historical and current rate of psoriasis funding, NIH funding is not keeping pace with research needs. For that reason, I am introducing legislation to boost psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis research, improve and expand psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis data collection, increase access to care and treatment for these diseases, and help debunk the myths associated with psoriasis. I know that this legislation will go a long way in achieving these important public policy goals. The bill calls on the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, to convene a summit of researchers, public health professionals, representatives of patient advocacy organizations and policymakers to review current efforts in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis research, treatment, and quality-of-life being conducted by Federal agencies whose work involves psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis related comorbidities. The legislation also calls on the Secretary of HHS to commission a study from the Institutes of Medicine, IOM, to evaluate and make recommendations to address health insurance and prescription drug coverage as they relate to medications and treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Lastly, the bill directs the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop a patient registry to collect much-needed longitudinal data on psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis so we can begin to understand the long-term impact of these conditions and evaluate the effects of various therapies. I would like to thank the National Psoriasis Foundation for all of its efforts and leadership over the last four decades and am grateful to the Foundation and its members and staff for their ongoing commitment to improving quality of life for people with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Again, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Research Cure, and Care Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, will the Senator from New Mexico yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I appreciate the distinguished Senator yielding. I ask unanimous consent that at the end of the time on the Republican side, I have 5 minutes to speak before the cloture vote.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I don't support and can't embrace the underlying agreement that has been struck, but I do believe every Senator should vote for cloture, and I want to talk about that. If you vote ``yes'' on cloture, you are voting to give the Senate an opportunity to move forward with tough, smart, and comprehensive immigration reform that secures our Nation's borders. If you vote ``no'' on cloture, you are voting to maintain the status quo of failed laws and a broken immigration system that is weak on enforcement, leaves our borders and our citizens unsecured, while also allowing for continued exploitation and human trafficking. If we have to wait a couple of years, and that is what will happen if we don't move this now, then States and municipalities will pass their own laws, which often violate equal protection laws, can discriminate against those who are U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, and create conflict within otherwise peaceful communities. By invoking cloture, we have the opportunity to strengthen the screening process at our consulates and points of entry, to better use technology along our borders, to make sure our agencies have both the necessary staff and the resources to do their jobs, thus effectively tightening our border security and workplace enforcement. By invoking cloture we have the opportunity to create an equal playing field and ensure that America's workers, wages, benefits, and health and safety standards are not undercut. Finally, by invoking cloture we have the opportunity to realize the economic realities in our society in which undocumented workers are doing the worst work that we cannot get many Americans to do, such as picking the fruits you had for breakfast, cleaning the hotel rooms for your stay, or plucking the chicken you had for dinner last night. We have an opportunity to vote to create a pathway to earned legalization--not amnesty but earned legalization that will take many years, considerable fines, payment of taxes, and a new English standard that will be required for permanent residency for the first time in our history. That is what is at stake in the vote this evening. It seems to me we have to move closer to once again controlling our borders, restoring the rule of law, and maintaining our long, proud history as a nation of immigrants. Last Thursday, the administration and a group of our colleagues came to an agreement that is often referred to as the ``grand bargain.'' Unfortunately, there are a number of details in this deal that, in my mind, create an unfair and impractical immigration system, undercutting the more sensible provisions. It is my intention, working with many colleagues, through a series of amendments, to help lead a charge to improve the deal by ultimately creating on the Senate floor tough, smart, and fair immigration reform. Very briefly, I believe the ``grand bargain'' has at least three serious flaws that must be fixed--an antifamily bias that clogs the system, a temporary worker program that creates a permanent working underclass, and exorbitant fines. If we don't improve the ``grand bargain,'' we could tear at the fabric of family reunification by eliminating four out of five family-based green card categories and capping green cards for parents at 40,000 a year. So much for family values not stopping at the Rio Grande River, as the President has talked about. If we don't improve the ``grand bargain,'' we would enact a truly temporary worker program that labor doesn't support and that bars most temporary workers from any path to permanent residence. Without such a chance, these workers would be driven underground and could be exploited while creating yet another underclass of undocumented workers. If we don't improve the ``grand bargain,'' we will require a family of four to pay up to $19,000 in fines and fees, which is far more punitive than what I have seen in the Federal criminal code for a variety of criminal offenses, such as the possession of firearms, possession of narcotics, and other things, and is impractical to luring those in the shadows to come forward and be identified and regularize their stays in this country. I believe what this country does on immigration represents the core of American values. How we treat this subject will either show the best or worst of America, and so while I am not supportive at this stage of the bipartisan comprehensive agreement that has been reached here, I urge Senators on both sides of the aisle to stand up, to vote for cloture, and to permit a comprehensive debate to start in the Senate and, hopefully, to work a bill we can ultimately be proud of, that can secure the Nation, fuel our economy, and at the same time guarantee we bring millions of people out of the darkness and into the light. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I say to the distinguished Senator that before his time expires, we are going to try to work it out with the two leaders to make sure it will be appropriate to ask consent again. So before the Senator's time expires, I will again ask unanimous consent.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. (Speaking in Spanish.) Mr. President, what I just said is I could not sign on to the agreement announced in principle because it tears families apart, and it says to many that they are only good enough to work here but not good enough to stay. Depending upon the category of individuals, it levies rather high penalties and fines, and it does not provide the confidentiality or judicial review necessary to bring those people who are undocumented in the country out of the shadows and into the light. Now, I have serious concerns about the workability and the fairness of the agreement announced earlier because, first and foremost, it tears at the fabric of family reunification by limiting and eliminating the ability of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to petition for their children, their parents, and siblings to join them in this country. I took it very much to heart when President Bush said family values don't stop at the Rio Grande, that we all share those family values. Yet here we are with a piece of legislation which I gather is largely supported by the White House which undermines the very essence of that. Even under a new point structure that is envisioned under this bill, it seems to me the essence of family could get much more weighty within the context of a whole new process of how we are going to move our immigration system forward. Family is a critical value--I thought--in our country. It calls for a truly temporary and, I am concerned, potentially Bracero-style worker program that labor ultimately will not support and that could repeat the same problem all over, having us face this challenge in the years ahead by the way it is devised. It does not have confidentiality and judicial review, at least not of the standard I have seen to date; it is still one of those floating things out there. The reality is, if we want people to come out of the shadows into the light, to know who is here to pursue the American dream versus who is here to destroy it, then we need to be able to have those individuals understand that they will, in fact, and should come forth so that, in fact, they can go through the process envisioned by the framework agreement but that they will have confidentiality and judicial review in the process. Without addressing those issues, the system that would be created under the proposal would do little to fix our broken immigration system in the long term. Now, I support fines for those who have broken the law. But the fines that are proposed are prohibitive, and they make a pathway to legalization a path in name only. A family of four would have to pay $10,000 in fines and fees, which is more than last year's bill even after it was amended twice on the floor to increase those fines. That does not even include the cost of their trip to ``touch back'' when they seek to become a permanent resident. Unable to pay these fines and fees, some of the undocumented workers will be unable to come out of the shadows and into the light of American's progress and promise. Giving people the opportunity to come out of the shadows is an essential and necessary component of immigration reform because it will allow us to recognize who is here to seek the American dream versus who is here to destroy it through criminal or terrorist acts such as those which were recently almost carried out at Fort Dix in my home State of New Jersey. If we had the right set of standards, which I envision us having in our bill, and people would come forward, we would have caught those individuals by the background checks we would have conducted. But for those people to come forth, obviously, there has to be some sense that in fact there is a real opportunity; otherwise, no one will come forward. They also propose virtually doing away with provision for family reunification which has been the bedrock of our immigration policy throughout our history. This idea not only changes the spirit of our immigration policy, it also emphasizes the family structure. If this system had been in place when my mother and father attempted to come to this country, they certainly would not have qualified. As I have listened to the stories of so many of our fellow colleagues in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, I know many of their parents would never have qualified to come to this country. I would like to think that they made, and continue to make, some very significant contributions to our Nation. It seems to me a new paradigm could have been structured where family values and reunification have more of a fighting chance than under the framework agreement. As for the temporary worker program, we are inviting in temporary workers but, of course, we expect them to leave. Yes, temporary is temporary, and we are going to rotate them through, but how we do that and what pathway at the end of the day we might provide for saying you are human capital is incredibly important to this country. As if you perform enough of it, there may be an opportunity for you to adjust your status. But the way that the framework document envisions, it can simply create another undocumented workforce. It also sends the message that there are some people good enough to work here but not good enough to stay here; there are others good enough to work here and to stay here. If one didn't know what year it was, one might think we were discussing the National Origins Act of 1924. These and other problems with the proposed deal have to be improved to be able to support the type of reform that will meet the principles I have outlined. Generally speaking, it seems to me we have taken a radical departure from what we were able to collectively achieve last year. We need to take a hard look at it as we open the debate next week. For the sake of much needed reform, many Democrats, including myself, showed a willingness, even more than I would have envisioned, to make strides toward the White House's proposal. Even so there are certain issues where too much bend ultimately creates an impractical and ineffective immigration system. Unfortunately, that is what I believe will occur under the agreement announced earlier this afternoon. I, for one, cannot settle for something that isn't sufficiently responsible in terms of meeting these values--security of the country, making sure we deal with our economy in a way that doesn't depress wages but at the same time realizes certain economic sectors need help and preserves family values, and at the same time makes sure we end the exploitation that often takes place when those people are languishing in the darkness. It doesn't have to be perfect, but it does have to be fair, humane, and practical. Part of the magic of our Constitution is that it eventually allows the better parts of our nature to prevail. The better part of our national character is found in the strength we have achieved through our diversity. But that better nature must be fought for and fostered; in my mind, one of the greatest parts of America's experiment that has made it the great country that it is. I look forward to leading efforts on the floor of the Senate that will strengthen our security, protect American workers, deal with the necessities of our economy, while at the same time upholding the promise and the value of the American story that we hold so dear. We need to improve the framework document that has been announced through the legislative process next week. This is too important an issue to allow partisan politics to play a role. It is too important an issue to only be concerned about appeasing a relatively small part of a political base that is unrepresentative of the American public at large. 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, talking points, fear, and smear tactics. I know in my heart this is possible. I pray that it is practical and that we can end up with a bill next week that does these things: secures our country in a meaningful way and at the same time makes sure that we can preserve the economic interests of our country in all of the different aspects of our economy; that can say that the promise of family values we hold so dear and that has been at the core for over four decades of our immigration system can continue to be a reality; that we can end the human exploitation of people within our country, and in doing so, we actually make our country safer, more secure, and more robust in its economy. That is where I hope to lead efforts on the Senate floor next week. I appreciate the work that has been done by the Senators who have agreed to the framework agreement. I just believe it falls too short in some of the key principles for me to be supportive. I am looking forward to a bill on which we can join together and say: We did the best for the Nation. We did what is humanely right. We did what is right for the Nation in terms of its security and its economy, and we have preserved the very essence of what this Nation has been about. From my home State of New Jersey, which was a gateway to millions of people across this country, particularly during the period of Ellis Island, we can almost touch Lady Liberty. Ellis Island is a short bridge walk across. The reality is that because of those people who have contributed so dramatically to our country, we all have a relationship to immigration--whether you can trace your history to the Mayflower and the voyage of that first opportunity, whether you are part of the Daughters of the American Revolution, whether you came with the millions in the European experience that crossed a great ocean through Ellis Island and then throughout our country, whether you came, as my parents did, in search of freedom, the reality is, we all have a connection. Let's honor that connection in a way that meets these values. Let' meet that challenge. I hope we can do so next week as the Senate convenes on this historic debate. I look forward to that opportunity. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, over the coming week the Senate has a historic opportunity to move forward with tough, smart, and fair comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders, that ensures our economy continues to thrive, that protects American workers, and that at the same time undoes the process of committing millions of people to languish in the darkness and be exploited, or we can choose to abdicate our responsibilities and tacitly maintain the status quo of failed laws and a broken immigration system that is weak enforcement, that leaves our borders and our citizens unsecured and at the same time permits human exploitation to continue. As a group, several Senators, including myself, have been meeting and negotiating on comprehensive immigration reform over the past couple of months. I appreciate the President making Secretary Chertoff and Secretary Gutierrez available to try to reach an agreement that would do those things. I have come, during the course of that process with other colleagues, to a better understanding of my colleagues and their thoughts on this issue through the many hours we have spent talking together about solving the immigration problems, though I have not always agreed with them. I would like to believe our discussions were serious, thorough, and in good faith. At times they were productive, at other times they hit obstacles, but when one considers the enormity of the task at hand, along with what is at stake, one would have to be naive in thinking this would be an easy process. One thing we know for sure is that beginning next week, if cloture is invoked, an immigrating bill, in some form, will be considered on the floor of the Senate. I sincerely appreciate the commitment in regard to the time spent and the thought invested on this issue from all sides involved. The amount of work that has been put into this effort represents the interest level, not to mention the stakes. I will say, however, that in large part, part of the problem in getting agreement this year was where the administration started off in their proposal, which acted as a marker in these negotiations. From the minute I saw that proposal, it was clear to me we were no longer where we were last year on this issue. Last year, we passed a bipartisan bill, one that a majority of Americans could get behind. It was a historic effort that joined 23 Republicans with 39 Democrats to address an issue of urgent national importance. The bill is the basis of what Majority Leader Reid has scheduled a cloture vote for next Monday afternoon. I do hope we will be able to get a vote to be able to continue to proceed. I appreciate the majority leader making this issue a priority, having given us 2 months of lead time, telling us a very significant part of the Senate's calendar was being reserved for this debate. I appreciate his leadership in that regard. However, unfortunately, the administration, along with several of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, decided to radically alter their views and began the process this year with a far more impractical, in my mind, far more partisan proposal. Evidently, the White House convinced itself that it must have the support of some Republican Senators who opposed and worked to defeat last year's bill in order to pass something this year. Therefore, the White House has proposed an immigration reform plan that is far to the right of the Senate's passed bill of a year ago. Let me tell you what I believe the principles should be as to how the Senate should guide itself as it debates next week. I believe any immigration reform we pass must be tough in terms of the security of our country, it must be fair, it must be workable, it must be comprehensive in nature; that preserves, among other things, family values, keeps us safe as a country, rewards hard work and sacrifice, benefits all Americans, and promotes safe, legal, and orderly immigration. Now, I could not sign on to the agreement announced in principle earlier today because, in my mind, it does not meet the principles I just described. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to just state that very briefly in Spanish.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, let me say, as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I am extremely proud of the budget resolution conference report before us. I commend the distinguished chairman of the committee for his leadership and for succeeding in the daunting goal of putting together a final budget resolution. It would not have happened without him. I appreciate his depth of experience in changing the direction of our values in this budget. This budget accomplishes what we set out to achieve at the outset of this Congress. It fulfills our responsibilities in key priorities, such as children's health care, education, and veterans services. It sets us on a strong fiscal path, balancing in 5 years, and achieving a surplus in 2012. It allows for key tax relief for middle-class families. Now, I have heard a lot of claims being made today about what the budget does and does not do. So let's be clear. I think Americans should know the choices that are at stake because this budget makes some clear choices and sets a very different set of priorities than the budget the President sent to us. Our budget allows for up to $50 billion to be spent on reauthorizing SCHIP, so we can ensure that America's neediest children get the care and health coverage they need. Now, making the health coverage of our Nation's most vulnerable children a top priority would seem like a no- brainer for Members of Congress who have access to some of the best health coverage in the world, but that was not the case in the President's budget. His budget fell far short of what is needed to continue coverage for children who are already enrolled, let alone enough to expand coverage moving forward. Our budget provides more than $9 billion--$9 billion more than the President for education. Now, why such a high increase? Well, look back at the past few years of education funding under the President, and you will see how much damage we are trying to repair. For the next year alone, the President would have slashed $1.5 billion in Federal education funds, stifled student aid, deepened the hole in No Child Left Behind funding, and eliminated 44 programs, from education technology, to dropout prevention, to low-cost Perkins loans. This budget rejects that long list of cuts to education. We increase funding by $3.5 billion over last year, so we can start to reverse the downward spiral that has plagued education under this President and the Republican majorities of the past and provide students the opportunities they deserve. Our budget will increase funding for veterans' benefits and health services by $6.7 billion. It meets the request of the independent veterans groups and would increase veterans funding by $3.5 billion over the President's request. For far too long, under this administration's watch, our veterans have been held hostage to a subpar system that has failed to provide the care they deserve. Our budget puts an end to the funding deficiencies that have set that system up for failure. It also rejects the President's proposal to raise fees and copays for veterans. Our budget shows our first responders that we will put our money where our mouth is. We will not tell our fire fighters, police officers, and emergency responders that we support them day in and day out but then provide them a fraction of the resources they need to do their jobs. So in addition to rejecting the President's mind-boggling proposal to cut first responder grants by more than $1 billion, we provide key increases for homeland security programs, including enough to double grants for port, rail, transit, and chemical security. We also restore funds that would have decimated the COPS Program--to put police officers on the streets of our communities--and the SAFER fire grants. Despite all the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle about our budget plan, the fact is, we extend tax cuts that we all agree are pivotal for middle-class families. Our budget would continue marriage tax relief, extend the child tax credit, and lower tax brackets targeted to help the middle class. It would ensure that no new taxpayers would fall subject to higher taxes because of the alternative minimum tax next year. Madam President, does the chairman have an additional minute?

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the Senator. But what is key in our budget is how we achieve this tax relief. The difference is, we pay for it. Under our strong pay-go rule, we will end the days of promising tax cuts now and paying for them 10 years down the road. Madam President, I think our plan is clear. This budget is a significant departure from the debt-drenched plans we have seen from the President and Republicans year after year. This budget ends an era of dumping the fiscal burden on our children, our schools, and our veterans. Instead of undermining education, abdicating our responsibilities in health care, and neglecting our veterans, this budget restores a commonsense balance to our values that we should expect from the greatest Nation in the world. We have a long road to digging ourselves out of the holes this President has created. But this budget is a first and sound step toward building a stronger nation.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I say to the Senator, if you have time, I will be happy to.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I do not have that listing before me right now. But the bottom line is, in this budget, whatever are those increases I cited, they are paid for and ultimately meet the challenges we have as a country. Does the Senator disagree with any of those priorities we have?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I think it is a reprioritization of those values within the context of the budget.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend Senator Lautenberg to reintroduce Danielle's Act, an important piece of legislation that I know will save countless lives. I would also like to recognize Representative Rush Holt, who has championed the bill in the House and has been a tireless advocate for individuals with disabilities. This bill is named in memory of a young woman from New Jersey, Danielle Gruskowski, whose life was cut tragically short by a failure to call 9-1-1. The great State of New Jersey has already passed Danielle's Law, and it is time for Congress to act as well. In order to understand the importance of this legislation, I would like to share Danielle's story. She was born December 6, 1969, to Diane and Doug Gruskowski and raised in Carteret, NJ. Danielle was developmentally disabled and diagnosed with Rett Syndrome, a neurological disorder that causes a delay or regression in development, including speech, hand skills, and coordination. While Danielle needed help with daily activities, she managed to lead a full and active life. As a young adult, Danielle moved to a group home to experience the positive benefits of independent living. Tragically, on November 5, 2002, Danielle passed away at the age of 32 because no one in the group home called 9-1-1 when she was clearly in need of emergency medical attention. So that no other mother would lose her child in such a tragic circumstance, Danielle's mother and her aunt, Robin Turner, developed a strong coalition of supporters and worked with their State representatives to develop and pass what we know as Danielle's Law. Like the New Jersey law, my bill will require staff working with individuals who have a developmental disability or traumatic brain injury to call emergency services in the event of a life-threatening situation. The legislation would raise the standard of care by improving staff training and ensuring that individuals with developmental disabilities get emergency care when they need it. All Americans deserve an advocate, and today I am speaking for those who often cannot speak for themselves. I am proud to be an advocate for individuals with disabilities, and I am proud to be an advocate for the families in New Jersey who are counting on safe, secure, and healthy independent living environments for their loved ones with disabilities. I also would like to recognize the hard-working caregivers and staff who help provide for the needs of those with disabilities. They show their compassion every day when they show up for work, performing one of the most difficult but rewarding jobs in our society--caring for someone's mother, father, son, or daughter. These caregivers play such a critical role in our society and their contributions are to be commended. By raising awareness and education about Danielle's Law, my hope is that more caregivers will realize how important it is to call 9-1-1 for all life-threatening situations and that better training and support will be provided to staff across the country. I am reintroducing this legislation to remember Danielle and to make sure no other family or community experiences the pain and suffering of losing a loved one to an avoidable death. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend Senator Lautenberg to reintroduce Danielle's Act, an important piece of legislation that I know will save countless lives. I would also like to recognize Representative Rush Holt, who has championed the bill in the House and has been a tireless advocate for individuals with disabilities. This bill is named in memory of a young woman from New Jersey, Danielle Gruskowski, whose life was cut tragically short by a failure to call 9-1-1. The great State of New Jersey has already passed Danielle's Law, and it is time for Congress to act as well. In order to understand the importance of this legislation, I would like to share Danielle's story. She was born December 6, 1969, to Diane and Doug Gruskowski and raised in Carteret, NJ. Danielle was developmentally disabled and diagnosed with Rett Syndrome, a neurological disorder that causes a delay or regression in development, including speech, hand skills, and coordination. While Danielle needed help with daily activities, she managed to lead a full and active life. As a young adult, Danielle moved to a group home to experience the positive benefits of independent living. Tragically, on November 5, 2002, Danielle passed away at the age of 32 because no one in the group home called 9-1-1 when she was clearly in need of emergency medical attention. So that no other mother would lose her child in such a tragic circumstance, Danielle's mother and her aunt, Robin Turner, developed a strong coalition of supporters and worked with their State representatives to develop and pass what we know as Danielle's Law. Like the New Jersey law, my bill will require staff working with individuals who have a developmental disability or traumatic brain injury to call emergency services in the event of a life-threatening situation. The legislation would raise the standard of care by improving staff training and ensuring that individuals with developmental disabilities get emergency care when they need it. All Americans deserve an advocate, and today I am speaking for those who often cannot speak for themselves. I am proud to be an advocate for individuals with disabilities, and I am proud to be an advocate for the families in New Jersey who are counting on safe, secure, and healthy independent living environments for their loved ones with disabilities. I also would like to recognize the hard-working caregivers and staff who help provide for the needs of those with disabilities. They show their compassion every day when they show up for work, performing one of the most difficult but rewarding jobs in our society--caring for someone's mother, father, son, or daughter. These caregivers play such a critical role in our society and their contributions are to be commended. By raising awareness and education about Danielle's Law, my hope is that more caregivers will realize how important it is to call 9-1-1 for all life-threatening situations and that better training and support will be provided to staff across the country. I am reintroducing this legislation to remember Danielle and to make sure no other family or community experiences the pain and suffering of losing a loved one to an avoidable death. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, as I rise today to talk about the genocide in Darfur, I ask myself: How long will we wait until we invoke real sanctions on the Sudan? How long will we wait until a hybrid African Union/United Nations peacekeeping force is in place? And how many more reports must we read about how the African Union troops are overstretched, underfunded, and ill-equipped before the international community provides them with the support they need to be effective? How many more people from Darfur must be driven from their homes and forced to give up their livelihoods before the world says enough is enough? How many more hundreds of thousands of people must die before we do everything--everything--in our power to stop the atrocities? When will we give real meaning to our commitment to the phrase ``never again?'' After 4 years, hundreds of thousands of Darfurians killed, more than 2.5 million people displaced, and some 80,000 people in Darfur who have spilled into refugee camps this year alone, it is time that we act more strategically and effectively to stop the genocide in Darfur. Despite our efforts thus far, it is clear that we have seen no real change for the people of Darfur who continue to be attacked and killed. It is time to stop wringing our hands. We must take a hard look at our current policy and ask ourselves: Why, after years of international engagement, has the genocide not stopped in Darfur, and what can we do differently now? The simple answer is: We must deal with Darfur's economic lifeline, China. Right now, China has unique ties, influence, and leverage over the Sudanese Government. Here we see the Chinese Prime Minister meeting with the Sudanese President in Beijing, the capital of China. China has unique ties, influence, and leverage over the Sudanese Government. Because of China's close economic relationship with Khartoum, Sudan is able to expand its infrastructure, increase its defense budget, and profit from its oil exports. It is time to diminish the strength of this lifeline. Over the last decade we have watched China and Sudan forge a strong economic partnership. We have here, as I said, a picture of the Chinese Premiere meeting with the Sudanese President last November. China currently has at least $3 billion invested in the Sudanese energy sector for a total of $10 billion since the 1990s. China reportedly buys as much as 70 percent of Sudan's oil. They recently canceled over $100 million in Sudanese debt, and they are building vast infrastructure and new government offices for Sudan. China has even committed to providing funds so that Khartoum can build a new $20 million Presidential palace. A Presidential palace. The fact is, with China as their friend, the impact of international action against the Sudanese Government has been diluted, and the genocide has continued. Because of China's investment and attention, Sudan has reportedly been able to double--double--its defense budget. In fact, according to the Heritage Foundation, Sudan is spending between 60 percent to 80 percent of its oil revenue, its national treasure, on what? On weapons. A report by Amnesty International released last week concluded that these weapons come from--guess where--China, which has continued its arms sales to the Sudanese Government despite the March 2005 arms embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council. Simply put, Chinese investment fuels the atrocities taking place in Darfur. It is time that China uses its power and influence over Khartoum to do more than fill its own pocketbook. China is an emerging power on the world stage, and it is time they act accordingly with this responsibility. Because of their close economic ties with the Sudan, China is in the position to significantly influence Khartoum, and it must use its clout to convince President Bashir to allow a hybrid African Union/United Nations peacekeeping force into Darfur. This is one of the most pressing actions to help stop the genocide in Darfur. Last year, Chinese President Hu mentioned the peacekeeping with Sudan's President when the two met in Khartoum. But talk is cheap. It is time for real action. As John Prendergast, the senior adviser to the International Crisis Group, said a few weeks ago in testimony before Congress, ``Barking without biting is the diplomatic equivalent of giving comfort to the enemy.'' Now is the time to bite. Now is the time for China to use the full weight of its economic influence to change Khartoum's policies. Now, I know China has taken some positive steps in the past to address the crisis in Darfur. They helped facilitate the Addis Ababa framework in November of 2006; they have pledged to provide military engineers to support African Union peacekeepers in Darfur; and they have appointed a special Africa envoy to focus on Darfur. While we are certainly happy to see those positive measures, I am still concerned that China will continue its habit of taking small steps each time the international community turns up the heat but will not take major steps that will affect Darfur in the long run. The simple fact is, China needs to do more to be actively involved in the solution. Next year, we will see China take center stage when it hosts the 2008 Olympic games. Frankly, I find it shocking that China is going to host an Olympics under the theme ``One World and One Dream'' while they help fuel the economy of a nation that has allowed genocide to ravage its country for some 4 years. This is certainly not the ``One World One Dream'' we share. That is why today I am introducing a bipartisan resolution with Senator Brownback, Senator Feingold, and others, a version of which is also being introduced in the House, to let China know that as much as it cherishes its Olympic moment, the country should be held accountable to act consistently with the Olympic standard of preserving human dignity around the world, including in Darfur. The resolution recognizes that the spirit of the Olympics, which is to bring nations and people from all over the world in peace, is incompatible with any actions to support acts of genocide. This legislation specifically calls on China to use its full influence to urge the President of Sudan to allow a robust peacekeeping force into Darfur; to comply with past United Nations Security Council resolutions and the Darfur Peace Agreement, which demand that the Government of the Sudan disarm militias in Darfur; and to improve the conditions for humanitarian organizations. It also calls on all parties involved in the conflict to adhere to the 2004 ceasefire agreement and to work toward a legitimate peace deal. This resolution I am submitting is only a first step. It is an invitation to the Chinese Government to take more of an initiative to set President Bashir on a straight path and allow a hybrid African Union/United Nations force into the country. I hope China takes this opportunity to act now, and that they understand Congress will be watching very closely to see what they actually do. Our message for today is clear. We need to see real progress from China on this issue. We need to see it now. Along with stronger measures by the Chinese Government, the United States must continue in its efforts to end the genocide in Darfur. After threatening more punitive measures for months, the administration must stop talking about what they define as plan B, which is more significant sanctions, and start enacting plan B. If we were stuck in the refugee camps in Darfur in the Sudan, being attacked by the jinjaweit, with our children slaughtered, seeing women raped, who among us would be content with those who counsel patience and delay? Plan B's tightening sanctions against Sudan, targeting individuals responsible for the atrocious acts, and negotiating a new United Nation's Security Council resolution is the right thing to do now. Finally, the fact is, the situation in Darfur is a timebomb that could explode at any moment. The humanitarian crisis has become ever more perilous. As we speak today, the number of dead and displaced persons continues to grow, and women and young girls continue to be raped. The refugee crisis continues to worsen. This year alone, at least 80,000 people in Darfur have spilled into refugee camps. The atrocities against these innocent refugees are no longer contained within Sudan, as refugees spill across borders into eastern Chad and the Central African Republic. The lives of these millions of displaced persons hang in a delicate balance between life and death. The world's largest humanitarian effort has been keeping that balance from tipping completely toward death. The new United Nations Humanitarian chief, John Holmes, has warned that if the situation does not get better or if there are more serious incidents involving humanitarian workers, some organizations could start to withdraw and the humanitarian operation could start to unravel. I am deeply concerned we could soon begin to witness a catastrophic collapse of the humanitarian aid effort. Several international aid agencies, including the British group Oxfam, Save the Children Spain, and the United States-based Mercy Corps, reported in April that they were temporarily suspending their work in Darfur because of attacks. They reported attacks on their operations had increased over the past 3 weeks. Soon only a small number of aid workers may be left in this region, which could result in unimaginable destruction and death. Who would be there to protect these innocent victims? The overstretched and inadequately funded African Union Mission in Sudan? Recently, chairperson of the African Union Commission said that if the current trend continues, the peacekeeping operation in Darfur will be in serious jeopardy. In reality, the African Union Mission may already be in deep jeopardy. According to a Washington Post article published last Sunday: The African Union's first major peacekeeping mission--once considered the last line of defense for Darfur civilians--has been crippled by funding and equipment shortages, government harassment and an upsurge in armed attacks by rebel forces that last month left seven African troops dead. The setbacks have sapped morale among peacekeepers, many of whom have not been paid for months. It has also compelled the force--which numbered 7,000 troops at its peak--to scale back its patrols and has diminished its capacity to protect civilians, aid workers and its own peacekeepers. Simply put, the African Union force alone cannot end the violence in Darfur. That is why it is imperative that the international community, with the explicit help of the Chinese Government, convince Sudan to allow a hybrid African Union-United Nations peacekeeping force into Darfur. Unfortunately, Khartoum continues to be complicit in allowing the destruction to continue. A recent United Nations report, described in the New York Times, detailed how the Government of Sudan is flying arms and heavy military equipment into Darfur in clear violation of Security Council resolutions. Even more egregious, the report describes how the Sudanese Government is painting their military planes white to disguise them as United Nations or African Union aircraft. President Bashir has toyed with the international community for long enough. Time and time again he has balked at agreements and promises. Time and time again he has manipulated the international community with last-minute agreements that he reneges on only a minute later. It is time for the games to end. Because in this respect, silence in the face of genocide is complicity, we must continue to speak out. ``Never again'' is an empty promise if we do not take action to stop the murder of innocent people when we know it is happening. Once again, we find ourselves in a position to make that choice. We must choose to exhaust all options until our collective voices are heard and murder ends. We must convince China to use its power and influence over Khartoum to do more than fill its own pocketbook. We must ensure that rather than standing here a year from now talking about ending genocide in Darfur, we are celebrating a peaceful solution to the 21st century's first, and hopefully last, genocide. We must choose--I urge members of the Senate to join us in this regard--to make sure that when we say ``never again,'' we mean never again.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today with my friends Senators Durbin and Snowe to reintroduce the Mom's Opportunity to Access Help, Education, Research, and Support for Postpartum Depression, MOTHERS, Act. Senator Durbin has been and continues to be a leader on this issue and I am grateful for the opportunity to work with him on this important legislation. I would also like to recognize Representative Rush, who has been a champion for women battling postpartum depression, PPD, in the House for many years. I am proud to say that his bill, The Melanie Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act, shares the same goals as the MOTHERS Act. Mr. President, in the United States, 10 to 20 percent of women suffer from a disabling and often undiagnosed condition known as postpartum depression. Unfortunately, many women are unaware of this condition and often do not receive the treatment they need. That is why I am introducing the MOTHERS Act, so that women no longer have to suffer in silence and feel alone when faced with this difficult condition. Last year, the great State of New Jersey passed a first of its kind law requiring doctors and nurses to educate expectant mothers and their families about postpartum depression. This bill was introduced in the State legislature by State Senate President Richard Codey. The attention of Senator Codey and his wife, Mary Jo Codey, who personally battled postpartum depression, have brought to the issue is remarkable. Brooke Shields, a graduate of Princeton University, has also shared her struggle with postpartum depression publicly and should be commended for her efforts to bring awareness to this condition. Postpartum depression affects women all across the country, not just in New Jersey, and that is why I believe the MOTHERS Act is so important. In America, 80 percent of women experience some level of depression after childbirth. This is what people often refer to as the ``baby blues.'' However, each year, there are between 400,000 and 800,000 women across America who suffer from postpartum depression, a much more serious condition. These mothers often experience signs of depression and may lose interest in friends and family, feel overwhelming sadness or even have thoughts of harming their baby or harming themselves. People often assume that these feelings are simply the ``baby blues'', but the reality is much worse. Postpartum depression is a serious and disabling condition and new mothers deserve to be given information and resources on this condition so, if needed, they can get the appropriate help. The good news is that treatment is available. Many women have successfully recovered from postpartum depression with the help of therapy, medication, and support groups. However, mothers and their families must be educated so that they understand what might occur after the birth of their child and when to get help. This legislation will require doctors and nurses to educate every new mother and their families about postpartum depression before they leave the hospital and offer the opportunity for new mothers to be screened for postpartum depression symptoms during the first year of postnatal check up visits. It also provides social services to new mothers and their families who are suffering and struggling with postpartum depression. By increasing education and early treatment of postpartum depression, mothers, husbands, and families, will be able to recognize the symptoms of this condition and help new mothers get the treatment they need and deserve. The MOTHERS Act has another important component. While we continue to educate and help the mothers of today, we must also be prepared to help future moms. By increasing funding for research on postpartum conditions at the National Institutes of Health, we can begin to unravel the mystery behind this difficult to understand illness. The more we know about the causes and etiology of postpartum depression, the more tools we have to treat and prevent this heartbreaking condition. We must attack postpartum depression on all fronts with education, screening, support, and research so that new moms can feel supported and safe rather than scared and alone. Many new mothers sacrifice anything and everything to provide feelings of security and safety to their innocent, newborn child. It is our duty to provide the same level of security, safety and support to new mothers in need.