Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill designed to improve the science learning experience for students in low-income and rural school across the country. Investing in education is about investing in our future. Today's young people will be facing a new world when they enter the workforce--a world that is globally integrated and where technology has transformed the boundaries of human capital so that our tax forms, blueprints, and x-rays can all be analyzed halfway around the world. The greatest asset we have in this country is our collective intellect, and the Nation's competitive future will depend on us nurturing the intellect of the next generation of Americans. In order to be competitive in the coming decades, we need to ensure that we have given our students the tools to be successful in science, engineering, mathematics, and technology. The America COMPETES Act, S. 761, which I was proud to join with my colleagues in introducing earlier this week, helps provide these tools at all levels of our educational system, from kindergarten through graduate school and beyond. Unfortunately, I am concerned that we may not be paying enough attention to those students that are already in the greatest danger of not reaping the full benefits of America's innovation future, such as minorities, women, and students in low-income or rural schools. For example, according to the National Science Foundation, only 7 percent of our scientists and engineers are Hispanic, African-American, or Native-American, despite the fact that they make up 24 percent of the total population. A minority scientist is also far less likely to achieve a post-graduate degree. By 2020, one-quarter of the Nation's schoolchildren will be Hispanic, and another 14 percent will be African-American. That's 40 percent of our precious human capital, and we can not neglect that tremendous resource when we talk about improving our competitiveness for the future. No business could afford to leave 40 percent of its capital sitting idle, and neither can the United States. That's why I offered an amendment during last year's Energy Committee markup of science and technology competitiveness legislation--an amendment that has made it into the America COMPETES Act--which will create a series of outreach programs designed to get more minority elementary and secondary students excited about science, to increase their interest in entering these fields that will be such a crucial part of our economic future. A program like this called Hispanic Engineering Science and Technology Week (HESTEC) has been operating very successful for the past few years as the University of Texas--Pan American, and I hope to see that success replicated throughout the nation. But these types of programs are only one part of getting students hooked on science. We can spend all the time in the world telling students how exciting it is to be a scientist, but unless we actually let them experience that excitement--unless we let them discover the joy of scientific discovery first-hand-we will still lose them. And that is the job of the science laboratory class. A well-designed, well- equipped, well-staffed high school laboratory can be an incredibly invigorating and illuminating experience for a student. It can teach them far more about scientific principles than they can learn from a book or in a lecture, and more importantly, it teaches them the thrill of actually being a scientist. That, more than anything else, can mean the difference between a student who goes on to become a chemist, an engineer, or a medical researcher, and one who loses interest in science forever. Unfortunately, a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, called America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science, made some findings that are extremely troubling for those of us who want to provide all of our students an equal opportunity to succeed in science and technology. It found that schools that have high percentages of minorities and low-income students are ``less likely to have adequate laboratory facilities'' and ``often have lower budgets for laboratory equipment and supplies'' than other schools. The study also found that students in those schools ``spend less time in laboratory instruction than students in other schools.'' Rural schools had some of the same problems. We can not expect our country to be adequately prepared for the future unless all of our students are adequately prepared for the future. And unless we do something to improve the laboratory experience for our low-income, minority, and rural students, we simply won't be prepared. That's why I am proud to re-introduce the Partnerships for Access to Laboratory Science bill, originally championed by Congressman Hinojosa, which would authorize partnerships between high-need or rural school districts, higher education institutions, and the private sector, with the goal of revitalizing the high school science labs in those schools. The bill creates a pilot program, authorized at $5 million per year, to help schools purchase scientific equipment, renovate laboratory space, design new experiments or methods of integrating the laboratory with traditional lectures, and provide professional development for high school science lab teachers. This last one is particularly important, because one of the key conclusions from the National Academy report is that ``improving high school science teachers' capacity to lead laboratory experiences effectively is critical to advancing the educational goals of these experiences.'' This bill is strongly supported by a number of scientific and educational organizations, including the American Chemical Society, the American Council on Education, the National Science Teachers Association, and more. We need to do a lot to ensure that our nation stays competitive throughout the 21st century, and this bill is only one small step. But it is a sorely needed step, particularly for those students who need our help the most. I invite my colleagues to join us in support of this bill, and I look forward to working to enact this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill designed to improve the science learning experience for students in low-income and rural school across the country. Investing in education is about investing in our future. Today's young people will be facing a new world when they enter the workforce--a world that is globally integrated and where technology has transformed the boundaries of human capital so that our tax forms, blueprints, and x-rays can all be analyzed halfway around the world. The greatest asset we have in this country is our collective intellect, and the Nation's competitive future will depend on us nurturing the intellect of the next generation of Americans. In order to be competitive in the coming decades, we need to ensure that we have given our students the tools to be successful in science, engineering, mathematics, and technology. The America COMPETES Act, S. 761, which I was proud to join with my colleagues in introducing earlier this week, helps provide these tools at all levels of our educational system, from kindergarten through graduate school and beyond. Unfortunately, I am concerned that we may not be paying enough attention to those students that are already in the greatest danger of not reaping the full benefits of America's innovation future, such as minorities, women, and students in low-income or rural schools. For example, according to the National Science Foundation, only 7 percent of our scientists and engineers are Hispanic, African-American, or Native-American, despite the fact that they make up 24 percent of the total population. A minority scientist is also far less likely to achieve a post-graduate degree. By 2020, one-quarter of the Nation's schoolchildren will be Hispanic, and another 14 percent will be African-American. That's 40 percent of our precious human capital, and we can not neglect that tremendous resource when we talk about improving our competitiveness for the future. No business could afford to leave 40 percent of its capital sitting idle, and neither can the United States. That's why I offered an amendment during last year's Energy Committee markup of science and technology competitiveness legislation--an amendment that has made it into the America COMPETES Act--which will create a series of outreach programs designed to get more minority elementary and secondary students excited about science, to increase their interest in entering these fields that will be such a crucial part of our economic future. A program like this called Hispanic Engineering Science and Technology Week (HESTEC) has been operating very successful for the past few years as the University of Texas--Pan American, and I hope to see that success replicated throughout the nation. But these types of programs are only one part of getting students hooked on science. We can spend all the time in the world telling students how exciting it is to be a scientist, but unless we actually let them experience that excitement--unless we let them discover the joy of scientific discovery first-hand-we will still lose them. And that is the job of the science laboratory class. A well-designed, well- equipped, well-staffed high school laboratory can be an incredibly invigorating and illuminating experience for a student. It can teach them far more about scientific principles than they can learn from a book or in a lecture, and more importantly, it teaches them the thrill of actually being a scientist. That, more than anything else, can mean the difference between a student who goes on to become a chemist, an engineer, or a medical researcher, and one who loses interest in science forever. Unfortunately, a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, called America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science, made some findings that are extremely troubling for those of us who want to provide all of our students an equal opportunity to succeed in science and technology. It found that schools that have high percentages of minorities and low-income students are ``less likely to have adequate laboratory facilities'' and ``often have lower budgets for laboratory equipment and supplies'' than other schools. The study also found that students in those schools ``spend less time in laboratory instruction than students in other schools.'' Rural schools had some of the same problems. We can not expect our country to be adequately prepared for the future unless all of our students are adequately prepared for the future. And unless we do something to improve the laboratory experience for our low-income, minority, and rural students, we simply won't be prepared. That's why I am proud to re-introduce the Partnerships for Access to Laboratory Science bill, originally championed by Congressman Hinojosa, which would authorize partnerships between high-need or rural school districts, higher education institutions, and the private sector, with the goal of revitalizing the high school science labs in those schools. The bill creates a pilot program, authorized at $5 million per year, to help schools purchase scientific equipment, renovate laboratory space, design new experiments or methods of integrating the laboratory with traditional lectures, and provide professional development for high school science lab teachers. This last one is particularly important, because one of the key conclusions from the National Academy report is that ``improving high school science teachers' capacity to lead laboratory experiences effectively is critical to advancing the educational goals of these experiences.'' This bill is strongly supported by a number of scientific and educational organizations, including the American Chemical Society, the American Council on Education, the National Science Teachers Association, and more. We need to do a lot to ensure that our nation stays competitive throughout the 21st century, and this bill is only one small step. But it is a sorely needed step, particularly for those students who need our help the most. I invite my colleagues to join us in support of this bill, and I look forward to working to enact this important piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the amendment by my distinguished colleague from Illinois. His effort is not about Illinois or any of the other significant States. His effort ultimately culminates in 34 States getting additional funds and moving far closer to the 9/11 Commission's unanimous bipartisan recommendation that funding for homeland security should follow risk and risk alone. Having said that, he still doesn't deny to other States the opportunity to have some baseline of homeland security funding. He still preserves an element for all States. But I think here is how we determine the equation. It is very interesting that one chart says 32 States and the District of Columbia will lose, but that depends upon the factor you are using. The reality is, under Senator Obama's amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor, when you include the totality of homeland security funds, 34 States receive an increase--that is a significant majority of the States--and we move closer to the public policy recommendation the 9/11 Commission made that all homeland security funding should be based on risk and risk alone. Now, whether you were on the street below at the World Trade Center or across the river in New Jersey watching the towers burn or halfway across the country watching the horrific events unfold on television, we all experienced the blow our Nation suffered that day. I say to my distinguished colleague from Maine who mentioned a stone--I forget exactly--a location in Georgia and some other locations in rural parts of America where supposedly some of the terrorists were, but where were their targets? Not where were they hiding, but where were their targets? Their targets are very clear. We all suffered a blow that day, but there is something unique about the locations that were chosen by the terrorists to strike. Thousands work in the Pentagon. Roughly 50,000 people worked in what was the World Trade Center, and 200,000 visitors used to go there on any given day, including many of the people from my home State of New Jersey who perished that day. Where were the planes coming from? They were coming from major airports--Logan, Newark, Dulles. To where? To major cities in California--Los Angeles, San Francisco. So the terrorists made calculations about where and how they could inflict the most damage on our Nation because while New York and the Pentagon were the epicenters of that act, the reality is the ripple effect came across economically as well as in terms of the loss of lives across the whole country. But they understood the unavoidable facts of where their targets were. Their targets were not in rural parts. They may have hidden there as they got ready to commit their dastardly act. Their targets were in the places they could make unavoidably the greatest impact. The fact is, these targets are consistently in some of the most densely populated areas of the Nation where the greatest risk lies. This debate should not be about fighting to maintain a certain level of funding as general revenue sharing. At issue is how to best allocate limited resources to those parts of our Nation facing the greatest risk. Senator Obama does that by having 34 States enhance their position and 6 being unchanged. We cannot deny that some States simply have more risk than others. Some States simply have more risk than others. Just as I would not argue for the same share of agricultural funding for New Jersey as Iowa, or I could not possibly make an intellectually honest fight for the same level of hurricane preparedness as Florida, neither can many of my colleagues argue that some States have the same risks as other States throughout the Nation. If we had unlimited funds, that would be different. That is not the case. The case is, we have limited funds. Senator Obama's amendment clearly drives us closer and closer to risk being the determining factor. That is what the 9/11 Commission unanimously said, that is what the 9/11 families have said, that is what the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission said, that is what the amendment of the Senator from Illinois ultimately does, and that is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment and one that ultimately understands that there clearly are greater risks in certain parts of the Nation. The terrorists know that. They understand the greatest consequences they can strike at and create the greatest horror for their efforts, and that is going to be a continuing truth. It is a continuing truth I hope the Senate will acknowledge in voting for Senator Obama's amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the present amendment be set aside and I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from South Carolina to yield briefly so I can offer an amendment and then return to the regular order.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 314

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, just a little while earlier, I offered an amendment that deals with trying to move us forward in a middle ground on the question of cargo screening. Last week, this body voted down an amendment that I offered with Senator Schumer that would have set some strong, clear deadlines to achieve 100 percent scanning of cargo coming into our Nation's ports. While I wish we could have persuaded more of our colleagues to support this framework for expanding scanning of our cargo containers, I understand a number of our colleagues have serious concerns about the consequences of setting a strict timeline to achieve 100 percent scanning. I hope this body will take a step forward toward achieving that goal rather than take no action at all. With that in mind, the amendment I have offered I hope will find a middle ground. This amendment would ensure that we are indeed on the road to 100 percent scanning of cargo, but it would not do so within the confines of any strict deadline. Instead, it builds upon the framework of the SAFE Port Act to call for a plan to meet the goal of 100 percent scanning. The SAFE Port Act already requires the Department of Homeland Security to report on the lessons learned from the pilot program currently underway at six ports. This amendment would simply expand that reporting requirement by calling on the Department to submit a plan for achieving 100 percent scanning of cargo before it reaches U.S. ports. I think all of us agree that we want to obtain the goal of 100 percent scanning of cargo containers. We may disagree on how to implement that goal or what timeline we should set, but at the end of the day I think we all know that 100 percent scanning is the ideal that we should strive for. That is essentially what this amendment is about. It simply prods the Department to come up with a plan to take the lessons learned from the pilot project and submit a proposal for reaching 100 percent scanning. We have to look at a few contradictions in our national security. Not everyone who walks into the White House is a high threat. Yet we screen 100 percent of people. We need to apply the same understanding to other aspects of our security. We must recognize that the terrorists will come to understand what we consider as high-risk cargo. As we say we are looking at high-risk cargo and we do 100 percent of that, that still leaves 95 percent of all the cargo unscanned. Eventually, the terrorists will adapt and they will determine that they should go and try to place their device in that which is not considered high-risk cargo. Without 100 percent scanning, we will not be able to adapt to terrorists as they change their tactics. We have seen in aviation security how they have changed their strategy from box cutters, to shoes, to liquids. The methods they use to infiltrate our security continue to evolve. So must we. We are naive to think only high-risk cargo should be scanned. We need to be able to be as adaptable as they are so we can stay one step ahead. My colleagues, in noting their opposition to the Schumer-Menendez amendment last week, did not object to the goal of reaching 100 percent scanning. In fact, the distinguished Senator from Maine stressed the importance of moving forward with vigorous implementation of the SAFE Port Act, including the requirement that 100 percent of all high-risk cargo be scanned. I would argue this amendment helps achieve that goal and will ensure that we continue to move forward toward 100 percent scanning. Last year, I offered an amendment that would have required the Department to develop a similar plan to achieve 100 percent scanning, and there were a few provisions my colleague from Maine took issue with, and so we have amended this version. In the scheme of things, this is a very small additional requirement for the Department, but in my opinion it takes us a significant step forward toward a very crucial goal. Finally, this amendment does not ignore the progress we are making because of the SAFE Port Act. In fact, it would build upon the SAFE Port Act's goal of expanding scanning at foreign ports on a reasonable timeline. I also hope my colleagues will not look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a way to argue that improving security of our cargo is not in line with the 9/11 Commission recommendations. There is no doubt our ports remain one of the most vulnerable transportation assets. The 9/11 Commission recognized this. Let's take a step back and look at what the Commission actually said. First, I think it is important to keep the Commission's report in context. It runs nearly 600 pages and covers an incredible amount of material, from a factual accounting of the events leading up to September 11, an assessment of the weaknesses of our national security, and, finally, what the Commission itself calls a limited number of recommendations. The recommendations are wide ranging in scope, and there is no way we can expect each recommendation to carry out each detail of what that recommendation should entail and the action that should be carried out. In discussing cargo security, the Commission lumped it together with aviation and transportation security. Given the nature of the attacks, we understand the obvious focus on aviation security. However, the Commission also noted the vulnerabilities in cargo security and lamented the lack of a strategic plan for maritime security. In making its recommendations on transportation security, the Commission called on Congress to do two very specific things: Set a specific date for the completion of these plans, and hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable for achieving them. I could not agree more. We come to the floor calling for the opportunity to work our way, building upon the present port security initiative--to work our way to see the Department of Homeland Security give us a plan to achieve that final goal, recognizing all of the challenges. In doing so, we move closer and closer to that day in which, in fact, we will be adaptable to the reality that at some point the terrorists will come to understand that only going after high-risk cargo leaves them a huge opening, 95 percent of all the other cargo, to get in their weapon of mass destruction. That is not a risk that we can afford. We need to be right all the time. They only need to be right once. Therefore, I believe this is an amendment that creates a middle ground and moves us forward to that 100 percent scanning opportunity and therefore improves our national security. I hope when the time comes to vote on it we will have the support of our colleagues in this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this effort. This amendment would enact one of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that has gone ignored time and time again by the Congress, and that is ensuring homeland security funding is based on risk. We have heard a lot during the course of the debate on this bill. Often we have had references to the 9/11 Commission when it was propitious, when it served to support the argument someone was making at a given time. Then, at other times, it has been forgotten. I have been one of those who believes we should have all of the 9/11 recommendations implemented. So I do not pick and choose. I am certainly tonight wanting to make sure we recognize as a body what the Commission said. It was not ambivalent. The Commission was not ambivalent about its recommendation. The Commission said, in its report, very clearly: Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. `` . . . strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.'' ``Strictly''--not mostly, not partially, but based strictly on the risks our States and communities face. Yet, 2\1/2\ years after the release of the 9/11 Commission report, homeland security funding continues to be based on a formula that allocates nearly 40 percent of funding with no regard--no regard--to risk or vulnerability. What else did the Commission say: We understand the contention that every State and city needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency response. But Federal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. It should supplement State and local resources based on the risks or vulnerabilities that merit additional support. Congress should not use this money as pork barrel. It is past time to correct these flawed formulas. I know many believe that, in fact, everyone should have some of these moneys. Actually, this amendment does that. This amendment recognizes that. It does not encompass the full essence of the Commission's report. It recognizes that. So, ultimately, I would say to our friends, notwithstanding that, there are times when we have legislation on this floor that benefits some States greater than others, but we look at it as we are from one country. There are times in which there is a lot more money for flood protection, and those of us who do not receive that type of money say: We understand that. That is the nature of the challenges of those fellow States in our Nation. In the agriculture bill there will be a lot of money going to other States that certainly will not be coming to States such as New Jersey, but we understand that. We are one nation. Today, I hope the Members of the Senate will come to understand in this issue, as well, we are one nation and the greatest risks--the greatest risks--flow to those who have the greatest challenges. If we had unlimited money, I would be the first to say we could use it all as part of revenue sharing to make sure the allocation for each State would be such that they could decide to use it to meet their homeland security objectives. But we do not. If there is one part of all of the largess of the Federal Government that I think has to be based on the question of necessity, has to be based on the question of risk, it clearly is in homeland security funding. Now, I believe, as do many of my colleagues who support this amendment, we should follow the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission in its entirety and base 100 percent of the homeland security funding on risk. But this amendment recognizes the need to compromise. We recognize every State should be prepared for and be able to respond to terrorism. Under this amendment, each State would receive a base amount. The difference is, we ensure the vast majority of the funds will be based on risk. In fact, under this amendment, 99 percent of all of the funds would be allocated based on risk. Senators Lieberman and Collins clearly recognize we should be basing funding more on risk. In this bill they have clearly worked to reduce the base amount for States, moving us toward a more risk-based approach. I sincerely appreciate their efforts to make more funding allocated on risk, and I certainly commend them for taking a very important step forward in the right direction. But that formula is still a detriment to States facing the most risk. Under the bill's language, money would be diverted from States with the highest risk to States that do not even have enough risk to receive the minimum base amount. What does that mean? It means after the calculation is done, there will be some States with a risk equation that will not rise to the level of receiving even the minimum base amount. Yet, under the bill, even though their risk calculation is not as great, they will receive the minimum base amount. This would cause States such as New Jersey to lose a full 6 percent of the funding they should receive based on risk. That means under the formula in this bill, New Jersey could lose three-quarters of a million dollars because that money would be redistributed to States with relatively low risk. Like many other States represented by the supporters of this amendment, New Jersey has a wide range of targets. More than a dozen sites in the State are on the FBI's National Critical Infrastructure List. The 2-mile stretch between Port Newark, Port Elizabeth and Newark International Airport has been deemed the ``most dangerous two miles in the United States when it comes to terrorism.'' The port of New York and New Jersey, which largely resides in New Jersey, is the largest container port on the east coast, the third largest in the country. Not only does our State face significant threats because of its critical infrastructure, but some of the most densely populated communities are in close proximity to these targets. In South Kearny, for instance, 12 million people live in close proximity to a chlorine chemical plant. Close to 19 million people live in the New Jersey-New York metro area who could be affected by an attack on such a plant. The loss of life due to an attack at one of New Jersey's most vulnerable targets would not only devastate New Jersey but the region and the Nation. We have to be realistic about where the greatest threats lie. Our Nation has many targets. No one would argue we should not aim to protect each of them. But we cannot pretend every community in the country faces the same risks and the same threats of terrorist attack. The fact is, terrorists want to strike where they can inflict the greatest damage. That is why our major urban areas are consistently at the top of the threat list. We cannot afford to shortchange our most at-risk targets because of revenue sharing. Each State should receive its fair share based on its risks--no more, no less. That is what this amendment is all about. Ultimately, I see our colleagues, who are the prime sponsors of this amendment, put out a statement that 70 percent of the States receive additional funding under this risk-based approach--70 percent of the States. So we, in fact, move closer and closer to the right policy determination that the 9/11 Commission called for, unequivocally, and, at the same time, by doing the right thing, 70 percent of the States get more money. The 9/11 Commission has repeatedly called on Congress to implement this key provision, and it has urged Congress not to make homeland security funds into pork barrel. The 9/11 families pleaded with this body to end the senseless formulas that leave our most at-risk targets vulnerable. Countless homeland security experts have called to end the minimum amounts to States and move to a true risk-based system. I hope my colleagues this one time will put aside their adherence to a formula that is not in the security interests of our nation as a whole--as a whole--and will now allocate funding in a way that will protect not just my State or other States similarly situated but will truly work to protect the Nation as a whole. When we had those attacks on that fateful day on September 11, yes, most of the lives lost were from New York and New Jersey, as well as other States, but the consequences to the Nation were much greater-- much greater. So I hope again, where the greatest threats lie, where the greatest risks lie, where we have seen time after time where the terrorists have chosen to try to focus their attacks, we understand this is one element of our domestic policy where we cannot afford simply to have revenue sharing. I have taken agricultural votes on behalf of our friends, understanding that a lot of that money is not coming to New Jersey. I have done the same thing with flood protection and done it on so many other issues because we are one Nation. This is one in which we are under one Nation as well, and it is one in which risk has to drive our funding. I hope that when 70 percent of other States receive additional support under this amendment, we will find a majority vote on its behalf and move us pretty close to what the 9/11 Commission called for. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate the leadership and advocacy of my colleague from New York to work with us on this issue. Look, the question is, On what side do we err? It seems to me we should err on the side of having a deadline that moves the Department of Homeland Security and us as a nation toward having the greatest possibility of security in a post-September 11 world. If this was pre-September 11 and we were arguing that a conventional means of transportation--in this case a cargo ship--could, in fact, be used as a weapon of mass destruction and we hadn't had that experience, I could see the skepticism. But the reality is we are in a post- September 11 world. Five years after we saw a traditional form of transportation be used as a weapon of mass destruction, as we saw a simple envelope be tainted ultimately and be used as a weapon against an individual, as we saw someone who boarded an aircraft and tried to ignite his shoes, the reality is it doesn't take a lot to be convinced you can take 95 percent of the cargo, which goes unscanned, comes into this country, and have a great shot of including something in there, particularly a nuclear device, that would cost us far more--far more-- than what we are talking about proceeding on today. Three years for major ports, 5 years for other ports--that is too fast? Ten years after September 11, that is too fast? I can't comprehend it. There are those who say we already have a risk-based approach, it is layered, it is whatnot. That is great if you trust algorithms to ultimately protect the Nation. I don't trust algorithms to ultimately protect the Nation. I want real scanning, and the technology is there. It seems to me if Hong Kong can do it and other places in the world can do it, we can expect it as well. There is also the suggestion of cost. How much did we spend after September 11? How much will we spend in lives and national treasure if we make a mistake by not ensuring that the traffic that comes into the ports of this country is as secure as it can be? And who among us is willing to look at the sons and daughters of those who work on the docks or the communities that surround these ports--most were built in a way where communities surround them--and what will we do about the national economy, because it won't be just a regional economy that will be affected but a ripple effect in the national economy? How much will we spend? Far more. The lives that will be lost are incalculable and priceless. I argue that, in fact, what we saw in the SAFE Port Act got the Department to act because they, in essence, had a deadline. So when we have deadlines, we see the Department acting. In my mind, all the more reason to have what I think is a very reasonable deadline--3 years for major ports, 5 years on all other ports, and even with the ability to extend beyond that by virtue of the Secretary making a determination. That moves the Department to understanding where we want to be. But ultimately, I don't believe the present risk-based approach that lets 95 percent of all the cargo coming into this country go unscanned, that we depend on algorithms, that we use the costs supposedly to achieve 100-percent scanning is something that is acceptable. The question is: How much greater will the costs be? Look at the costs we are incurring in aviation. They are enormous. Then we won't be able to get host nations to agree: The reality is those host nations want access to the greatest market in the world, the United States of America. I cannot fathom that they won't do something that is necessary to try to get access to the greatest market in the world, the most prosperous market in the world. I think they will. As someone who represents a State that lost 700 residents on September 11, I am not ready--I certainly am not ready--to take the position that we will do less than what we can do to achieve the security of our people. That is what this amendment is all about. It is structured in a reasonable way. We have seen deadlines generate the Department of Homeland Security activity we want to see. We give time frames that are reasonable, technology that is available. We have incentives for all the right reasons for the marketplace and, above all, we can look at our citizens and say, in fact, they are protected. I yield any time remaining.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, let me, first, thank my colleague for his courtesy. I appreciate it very much. I rise to join my distinguished colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, in offering this amendment. He has been a champion in this regard, and he understands that the cause of the devastation in the city of New York was the of acts of terrorism. I, too, reside right across the river and having lost 700 residents on that fateful day, I understand the consequences of inaction. What we are calling for is to move forward to implement 100 percent scanning of all the cargo containers entering the United States. This, 5 years later--5 years later--in understanding the realities of a post- September 11 world. Last year this body took action to secure a long overlooked vulnerability in our Nation's security. We passed the SAFE Port Act, which made significant progress toward improving security in our ports. But the fact remains that until we know what is in every cargo container entering our ports, we cannot definitively say we are secure. Because of our action in the SAFE Port Act, the Department of Homeland Security is now conducting a pilot project to implement 100 percent scanning of cargo at six ports. That is a crucial first step. However, reaching 100 percent scanning should not be a far-off goal but something we should be doing as quickly and as urgently as possible. When it comes to the security of our ports, we should not be comfortable with baby steps. The amendment we are offering, the Senator from New York and I, would ensure that efforts to implement 100 percent scanning move forward by setting clear deadlines for all cargo entering U.S. ports to be scanned. Now, deadlines may not be popular, but the fact is they result in action. Let's not forget that the requirements set in the SAFE Port Act got the Department to act. Within 2 months of the bill being signed into law, the Department moved forward with the pilot project now underway. The 9/11 Commission made a critical observation in how to approach securing our most at-risk targets. The Commission said: In measuring effectiveness, perfection is unattainable. But terrorists should perceive that potential targets are defended. They may be deterred by a significant chance of failure. We recognize we may not be at an ideal place to implement perfect technology, but we do have systems that work, and we should be doing everything possible to advance and implement them at every port. We cannot afford for terrorists to know our ports and our cargo are not defended. Frankly, when 95 percent of the cargo entering our ports has not been scanned, I think it is clear we have a lack of a significant deterrent. We have a 95-percent chance of getting something in. That is a pretty good percentage for the terrorists. Our ports remain some of the most vulnerable and exploitable terrorist targets our Nation has. We cannot afford to wait for years and years while we simply cross our fingers that an attack will not hit our ports or disrupt our commerce. In the years after September 11, our focus was largely and understandably on aviation security. But in narrowing in on such a singular focus, we did not start out making the strong investments needed in other areas of our security. We have spent less than $900 million in port security improvements since 2001, which is a small fraction of what we spend annually on aviation security. Only when faced with a very public and highly controversial deal that would have put American ports in the hands of a foreign government, did Congress act on port security. For some of us, however, this is not a new issue, nor was the threat unknown. For 13 years, I represented a congressional district in New Jersey that is home to the Nation's third largest container port. The Port of New York and New Jersey, the majority of which physically resides in New Jersey, has a cluster of neighborhoods literally in its backyard. Ask any New Jerseyan from that part of the State and they will tell you how close to home the threat of port security hits. Every day, they drive by the containers stacked in rows within throwing distance of major highways. Every day, they see cargo coming off the ships, ready to be put on a truck that drives through their neighborhood or to sit in a shipyard visible from a 2-mile radius around the port, with an international airport and a transnortheastern corridor. Until we can assure them we know exactly what is coming into our ports and into their neighborhoods, they have a right to question their safety. Ironically, the people who live in the backyards of the Port of New York and New Jersey also live in the shadows of what was the World Trade Center. But there are other ports throughout this country with similar neighborhoods. So not only are they keenly aware of the vulnerability of the ports, many of them have experienced or witnessed the destruction that took place on that fateful day. Despite the awful lesson I hope we learned on September 11, where we saw everyday modes of transportation turned into destructive weapons, we still seem slow to understand that everyday modes of commerce could as quickly and easily be turned into weapons with catastrophic consequences. When it comes to the security of our cargo, precision is everything. We have to be on the ball every day. We have to be right about what is in every single container entering our ports. The terrorists only have to be right once, and they have a 95-percent chance to be right once. This is not just a question of homeland security; it is also about economic security. Every year, more than 2 billion tons of cargo pass through U.S. ports. Jobs at U.S. ports generate $44 billion in annual personal income and more than $16 billion in Federal, State, and local taxes. The Port of New York and New Jersey alone handled more than $130 billion in goods in 2005. While too much of our country's and our Nation's ports are part of an invisible backdrop, they are key to an international and domestic economic chain, and if there was a major disruption, economies would be crippled and industries halted. Many of us in this body have repeatedly warned of the disastrous repercussions if there was an attack at one of our ports. Yet, as a Nation, we have moved at a snail's pace when it comes to doing what is necessary to fully secure our ports. The question is, if we continue to delay and there is an attack because we have not implemented 100 percent scanning, what price then are we willing to pay? How much are we willing to sacrifice if the worst-case scenario happens at one of our ports? I can't look at a constituent of mine or anyone in this country and say that algorithms--we presently scan only a small percentage, only 5 percent, the rest of it we do calculations by algorithms. If I tell an American that their protection is based upon algorithms, they would tell me I am crazy. But that is what is happening today. That is the layered approach. But it is an algorithm that supposedly protects you. If Hong Kong can do this, certainly the United States of America can do this. We are not talking about immediately, we are talking about 3 years for major ports, 5 years for all other ports, with the opportunity for extension. In a post-September 11 world, where we have had to think about the unimaginable and prepare for the unthinkable, how can we continue to operate as if the threat to our ports is not that great? Can we not imagine how a ship with cargo can become a weapon of mass destruction? Can we not foresee how a deadly container can get to a truck and be driven through some of the most densely populated cities? Will we be content in telling the families of those whom we let down that we didn't move fast enough? I, for one, am not willing to do that. I believe we must do everything possible now so we never have to be in that position. I hope my colleagues join Senator Schumer and myself in making sure we never have to look at a fellow American and tell them we just acted too slowly or we let economic interests overcome security interests. I think we can do much better. Our amendment does that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Ten minutes.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I would say to my colleague I have the Governor of our State with whom I am supposed to meet right now and that is the only reason I am inquiring.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would ask the Senator how long he intends to speak.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, the Improving America's Security Act is not only about unfinished business, it is not only about doing what others have failed to do, it is about living up to the responsibilities we have as a Congress and a government to protect our Nation and its people and to do everything possible to prevent what was once unthinkable from happening again. As a Senator from New Jersey, I take that responsibility as a solemn promise to the 700 New Jerseyans who lost their lives on September 11 and their families who survived them. More than 5 years ago, it became painfully clear that we, as a Nation that believed it was the most secure in the world, were unprotected. In the glimpse of a few minutes and over the course of a few short horrific hours, our Nation and the security we thought we had was changed forever. We entered into the stark reality of a post-September 11 world. On that day, glaring gaps in our security were exploited, lax systems were taken advantage of, and a trusting nation paid the price. Thousands of innocent lives, everyday Americans whom this Nation has grieved every day since, were lost. We can never go back to rectify past mistakes that could have prevented that day, but we can work to better secure our Nation moving forward. We have a roadmap of how to get there. The 9/11 Commission laid out a plan, provided guidance, and delivered 41 specific and wide-ranging recommendations. Yet more than 2 years after the Commission issued those recommendations, many of them remain just that--recommendations that have not been acted on or fully implemented. This legislation already comes before this body far later than it should. But the fact that it is on the floor of this Chamber just 2 short months into a new Congress speaks boldly of our new leadership and how important finishing the 9/11 Commission's work is to our leadership. I commend both Majority Leader Reid and Chairman Lieberman for making this a top priority for this Congress, as well as Chairman Inouye and Chairman Dodd for their roles in crafting this legislation. Many of us have been pushing for a long time to see all 41 recommendations fully implemented and to make significant improvements to our Nation's security that have been under the radar screen for far too long. As a former Member of the House of Representatives, I fought to see that all 41 recommendations were fully implemented in the 2004 intelligence reform legislation. I was proud to serve as the lead Democratic negotiator in the House on the conference committee that created the final intelligence bill. While that legislation made essential and urgently needed reforms to our Nation's intelligence, unfortunately, it fell far short on implementing all of the recommendations. I have also since introduced legislation that ensures that all of these recommendations will be fully implemented and to hold the executive branch accountable for implementing each recommendation. It is my hope that with the bill we are working on now before the Senate, and with the vigorous oversight under the leadership of Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins, we will be able to see all these recommendations enacted and implemented. It was just over a year ago the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, led by former members of the 9/11 Commission, published its disturbing report card, giving far more Fs than As on the implementation of those 41 recommendations. There is no excuse left for Congress, the White House, or our Federal agencies for not finishing what is so direly needed: improving the security of our Nation. Yes, we have made some great steps forward. Yes, we have made some significant improvements that have likely saved lives and stopped terrorists in their tracks. But no one--no one-- should use the lack of another catastrophic attack on our soil as proof that we have succeeded in fully meeting our goals. The fact is, so long as we do not heed the advice of the 9/11 Commissioners who spent months examining how we could improve our Nation's security, so long as we do not make dramatic improvements to our security--at our Nation's ports, on our trains and buses, around our chemical plants, and in how we allocate homeland security funding-- we continue to leave our Nation at risk. I cannot imagine talking about the security of our Nation without the 41 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The Commission's findings and recommendations are integral to understanding our deepest flaws, the complexity of our intelligence and security networks, the obstacles that lie ahead and, most of all, what needs to be done. Yet if some in our Government had had their way, there would have been no Commission, there would have been no digging into the secrecy and ineffectiveness of our Nation's security, no poring over thousands upon thousands of documents, no reviewing of every action Federal agencies took or did not take to prevent and respond to the attacks of September 11, no asking of some of the toughest questions our Nation has had to bear. So once we pass this final legislation, have it signed into law and implemented, we will come to the day--I hope sooner rather than later-- when our Nation's security funding is based more on risk, when our ports are fully secure because of 100 percent scanning, when we are making the necessary investments in mass transit security, and when our first responders have a strong emergency communications system that works in interoperable ways, so that those who are sworn to protect us can speak to each other effectively. These are only a few of the dimensions in this fight. Unfortunately, this is a fight that would not have taken place without the commitment and strength of the families of the victims of September 11. When the loved ones of those who were lost on September 11 have to become full-time advocates, spending every possible hour lobbying Congress, when they have to be the constant reminder for our Government to do its job, we know we have failed them. Many of them are here and have been here today watching this body, waiting to finally see this legislation become law, hoping that all their suffering, their work, and their tireless advocacy will not be in vain. Let us not only fulfill their wishes but the wishes of all Americans to have a nation as secure as possible for their families and neighbors. Let's work to pass this legislation and make sure it is fully enacted. Let's finally accomplish what should have been finished several years ago. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association, AHEPA, on their 85th anniversary this year. Since 1922, AHEPA has diligently served the Hellenic community and all Americans through a variety of programs and outreach endeavors. Initially created to combat discrimination and hate, AHEPA's mission has expanded during its distinguished history. As the largest and oldest American-based, Greek heritage grassroots membership organization, AHEPA works to promote the Greek ideals of philanthropy, education, civic responsibility, and family and individual excellence within the community. Such principles can be appreciated by people of all backgrounds, and I commend AHEPA for inspiring and supporting generations of Americans. AHEPA's work has touched people from all walks of life. The organization raised funds for U.S. war bonds during World War II, and currently contributes more than $2,000,000 each year to educational, medical, and other philanthropic causes. AHEPA's positive contributions stem from both the organization and the outstanding people involved. Members of AHEPA have served in the U.S. Armed Forces and have held positions in local, State, and Federal Government throughout the years. As we honor AHEPA's many successes, we also celebrate the contributions of the more than 1 million Greek-Americans in this country, some 61,000 of whom live in my home State of New Jersey. The Hellenic community in America contributes daily to the economic, political and cultural fabric of this Nation, and the United States shares a close relationship with Greece and the Republic of Cyprus. I look forward to working with my colleagues and AHEPA to strengthen America's relationship with our Hellenic friends. I commend AHEPA's commitment to serving the United States and the Hellenic community. I congratulate them on their 85 years of advocacy, and I look forward to their bright future.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the question that should be before the Senate is: Do you support the President's escalation of the war? Don't confuse it. Don't obfuscate it. Let's have a clean vote. The only charade that is being played is by those who do not want to have a clean vote on this most fundamental question. As a Senator, John F. Kennedy wrote a Pulitzer Prize-winning book titled ``Profiles in Courage.'' His book told the stories of eight Senators from both sides of the aisle who took a stand based on principle and risked their careers to do so. Today, almost 50 years later, I believe we, too, must take a stand based on principle. Today, I believe all of us who walk on the same floor where Senator John Kennedy once stood should heed his words when he said: The true democracy, living and growing and inspiring . . . will not condemn those whose devotion to principles leads them to unpopular courses, but will reward courage, respect honor, and ultimately recognize right. Today is an opportunity for every Member of the Senate to be a profile in courage. Frankly, I am disappointed in my Senate colleagues who voted against debating Senator Warner's resolution on Iraq. With their vote, all they have done is delay honest debate on a failed foreign policy that has been misguided since the beginning. I don't believe this Senate should turn its back on the American people and cast their lot with the President in his escalation of the war in Iraq. I believe those who support the President's ill- advised plan should be willing to stand behind that principle and go on record, rather than hide behind parliamentary maneuvers to avoid a vote. Our colleagues should not be running interference for the President on the floor of the Senate. In fact, I never supported the administration's war--a war of choice, not of necessity; a war based on fiction, not on fact; a war fought without enough troops from the very beginning and designed with no plan to win the peace. I didn't vote for the war, and I certainly would not vote for an escalation of the war. I was in the minority when I voted against the war in 2002. I was in the minority, again, when I voted last year to transition and bring our troops home over a period of time. But the majority of the American people sent a clear message this last November. They said the President's plan for the Iraq war has failed. The American people elected the Senate and this Congress to change the course in Iraq. It is about time we started listening because it is clear the President has not. He didn't listen to his generals. He didn't listen to the Iraq Study Group. He didn't listen to anyone who disagreed with him. And he certainly has not listened to the American people. That is the only explanation for an Iraq plan that is simply more of the same. As one of the witnesses before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said: When you're in a hole, stop digging. The President's escalation plan will not work. Look at the news over the past few days as the first wave of the new escalation troops has arrived. At least 130 people were killed and over 300 wounded on Sunday, in the deadliest single bomb blast since the U.S. invasion almost 4 years ago. The U.S. military tells us that the four U.S. helicopters that have crashed in the past 2 weeks were actually shot down, with a fifth one down today. And Iraqi insurgents are using new tactics to shoot down our helicopters. The Brookings Institute says the number of daily attacks by insurgents and militias has gone from approximately 32 in November of 2003 to 185 in November of 2006, with Iraqi civilian deaths going from 1,250 to 4,000 in that same period. Michael O'Hanlon, an expert from Brookings, said that Iraq has become ``one of the 3 or 4 most violent places on earth.'' And this escalation and violence has happened while U.S. troops were there and in spite of previous U.S. troop surges. You only have to look to the past to see that the President's escalation plan will not work. In fact, this escalation plan is based on false assumptions and failed ideas. To quote one of the witnesses who testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently: This plan is just stay-the-course plus 20,000 troops. The escalation plan will not work because it depends on Prime Minister Maliki to do the right thing. The Associated Press reported today that the ``long-awaited security drive'' is underway. ``The implementation of the prime minister's plan has already begun,'' said a military spokesman. Yet even the architect of the escalation plan for the administration, General Keane, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he doesn't know if we can count on the Prime Minister, and he admits that Prime Minister Maliki is an unknown quantity. I don't know and certainly don't believe that we should put the lives of the sons and daughters of America on the line based on the hope--the hope--that Maliki will do the right thing. The escalation plan will not work because it depends upon Iraqis, we are told by the administration, to take the lead. The administration keeps saying that is an Iraqi plan, with the Iraqis taking the lead. But the truth is, everyone doubts that the Iraqi troops will actually show up. Many of the troops Prime Minister Maliki promised will be Kurds. Yet an NPR story quotes General Dennis Chapman, who is commander of a team of American military advisers in Iraqi Kurdistan, saying that there have already been desertions from Kurdish troops and that out of the battalion of 1,600 Kurdish soldiers going to Baghdad, he only expects a few hundred to report for duty. Over and over again, we heard from experts testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that there simply aren't enough Iraqi troops who are loyal to Iraq as a nation and to Maliki as Prime Minister. A recent New York Times article painted a frightening picture of what a joint American-Iraqi patrol looks like. The article highlights the lack of troop strength and training of Iraqi forces and the confusion that comes with having underprepared Iraqi troops take the lead. To quote from the article: . . . As the sun rose, many of the Iraqi Army units who were supposed to do the actual searches of the buildings did not arrive on time, forcing the Americans to start the job on their own. When the Iraqi units finally did show up, it was with the air of a class outing, cheering and laughing as the Americans blew locks off doors with shotguns . . . Many of the Iraqi units who showed up late never seemed to take the task seriously, searching haphazardly, rifling through personal CD collections in the apartments. In the article, a lieutenant colonel of the Third Stryker Brigade Combat Team talked about the difficulty of conducting such operations. He said: This was an Iraqi-led effort and with that come challenges and risks. It can be organized chaos. The escalation plan will not work because similar escalation plans have already failed in Iraq, when the enemy simply waited us out. We tried a troop escalation and it didn't work, when we sent 12,000 troops to Baghdad last summer and death and violence on the streets of Baghdad actually increased. The escalation plan will not work because it has benchmarks but no consequences. And benchmarks without consequences are just aspirations. The plan doesn't hold the Iraqis accountable. We have seen countless plans from this administration with benchmarks after benchmarks that are never met. The Iraq Study Group said, in recommendation 21, that if the Iraqi Government doesn't make progress toward milestones, ``the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government.'' Yet when I asked Secretary Rice what would happen if the Iraqis failed to meet the much-heralded benchmarks, she didn't list any consequences. Instead she told me: I don't think you go to Plan B. You work with Plan A. Plan A hasn't been working. I will say it again: Benchmarks without consequences are just aspirations. And they are aspirations that have failed time and time again. The escalation plan, as a consequence, will break the back of our National Guard and Reserves. Let me be clear: The President's escalation plan cannot be implemented without using the National Guard and Reserves far beyond what they already have been used. There simply aren't enough troops. We have already seen the tours of National Guard troops extended. A week ago, I was informed that the New Jersey Army National Guard troops currently stationed in Iraq will see their tours extended by 125 days as result of President Bush's policy. I fully expect to see more extended deployments in the future. The escalation is going to hurt our security at home by keeping those National Guard and Reserve troops away in Iraq. Those who return home leave their equipment in Iraq, resulting in severe equipment shortages for our National Guard at home. In fact, Larry Korb, an expert from the Center for American Progress, says the units returned home so depleted that the Marines have been referring to this phase as ``the postdeployment death spiral.'' That is why it is time to transition our mission and set a timeframe to get our troops out of Iraq. Staying in Iraq isn't in the national interest or national security interest of the United States. Our troops are caught in the middle of a civil war they can't solve. Increasing troops will only put more of them directly into a sectarian Iraqi fight. Keeping our troops there or adding more troops is trying to solve a political problem with a military solution. In one briefing, General Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: We need to get the Iraqis to love their children more than they hate their neighbors. That is a powerful truism. The problem is, you don't get Iraqis to love their children more than they hate their neighbors through military might. That is about reconciliation. It is about confidence building. It is about power sharing. It is about revenue sharing. It is about a host of other things, things that cannot be accomplished through military might. Staying would only continue to empower and embolden Iran, a country that has turned out to be the biggest winner in our war with Iraq. Dr. Paul Pillar pointed out recently: Among the neighbors, the largest winner has been Iran. The war has not only toppled the dictator who initiated an earlier war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians; it has also crippled what had been the larger regional counterweight to Iranian influence. Meanwhile, the all- consuming preoccupation that the Iraq war has become for the United States, along with the growing unpopularity of the war among Americans, probably has made Iranian leaders less fearful than they otherwise might have been about forceful U.S. action, including military action, against Iran. Our presence in Iraq only continues to serve as a battle cry for terrorists around the world. According to last year's National Intelligence Estimate on international terrorism, the war in Iraq has become ``a cause celebre'' for jihadists'' and is ``shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives.'' Let me be clear, because of how this war was entered into--weapons of mass destruction that never existed--because of how it was executed, there are now no good options left for us in Iraq. But I do believe the first steps toward stabilizing Iraq is to set a date certain for troops to leave. It is only by setting a date certain for our troops to leave that Iraqis will have to take responsibility for security in their own country and work out their political power struggles. Right now as much as they dislike us being there, we still bear the true burden for trying to stop the violence. The Iraqis have little incentive to work out their turf wars over political power as long as we are in the country. Iraq's political leadership will never make the hard choices, compromises, and negotiations necessary to achieve a government of national unity, as long as they believe we will stay in an endless occupation, in which the lives of Americans will be shed and national treasure will be expended. It is only by setting a date certain for our troops to leave that Iraq's neighbors will start to take responsibility for ending the chaos inside Iraq. Right now the violence has not reached the tipping point to get Iraq's neighbors involved. Ultimately, it is not in their national security interest to have the conflict spill across their borders and to have Iraq disintegrate. But by setting a date certain to leave, we create a new incentive for Iraq's neighbors to help quell the violence. It is only by setting a date certain for our troops to leave that the international community will take a responsible role in Iraq. Right now the international community sees this as America's war. Once we make clear we will not be there permanently, they, too, will have an incentive to get involved and help preserve stability in a region much closer to Europe than the United States. So by setting a date certain for our troops to leave, we actually motivate the Iraqis, Iraq's neighbors, and the international community to take the necessary steps to stabilize Iraq. But setting a date certain and getting our troops out of Iraq in a safe and orderly way is not enough. I believe we must do more. What we need now is a surge in diplomacy. That will involve much more than a few trips to the region. We must actively engage with Iraq's neighbors in the international community. But I cannot close without discussing the cost of this war in Iraq. Some say they want to have a talk about, or votes, not about the escalation but about whether there are resources for the troops. I think we should have a real, honest debate that will come in the budget process about what this war is costing. Let's have a real, honest debate about the administration's lack of honesty in telling the American people what this war costs. Our expenditures in Iraq will saddle our Nation's finances and our children's future. We spend over $8 billion a month in Iraq; we spend $2 billion a week in Iraq; we spend $280 million every day in Iraq; we spend $11.5 million an hour in Iraq. The Congress has already appropriated $379 billion for Iraq, and President Bush is now asking for an additional $179 billion. Yet the Secretary of Defense announced to the Budget Committee, on which I serve, that he is not going to come before the committee to justify this spending. To me, that is simply outrageous. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction released a new report saying the Bush administration cannot account for critical defense materiel, including over $36 million in weapons. Hearings in the other body revealed that the administration cannot account for over $8 billion that was sent in cash bundles of $400,000 into a war region, without any controls. They cannot account for over $8 billion. Now the administration wants the Congress to hand over another blank check. Let me put our Iraq spending into perspective. For what we spend in less than 2 months for operations 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 what we spend in less than 2 months in Iraq, we could make up the shortfall in the SCHIP program to help cover children who would otherwise be uninsured. For what we spend in 4 days in Iraq, we could substantially improve security at our Nation's ports with an additional billion dollars, including increased scanning of cargo containers. For what we spend in 2\1/2\ months in Iraq, we could pay the $21 billion cost of implementing all of the remaining 9/11 Commission recommendations to secure our homeland. Yet we need to look beyond the economic costs of this war at its true cost: 3,099 American lives, to date. That is invaluable. It is priceless. More will die in the days ahead if we do not change the course in Iraq. We now have more than 23,000 sons and daughters of America who are wounded in ways that will affect their lives forever. We have a real obligation to all of those who are wounded and their families, and to the survivors of those who suffered the ultimate sacrifice. Yet we look at a budget that does not meet that responsibility. Today, we should be debating the President's escalation plan, particularly since we recently learned from the CBO that the escalation proposed by President Bush would easily cost more than triple what the administration has told us. Let me be clear for those who may have not heard about the Congressional Budget Office report. That report says the President's escalation plan of 21,000 troops actually only includes combat troops and not all of the other troops necessary for force operations. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this could mean an additional 28,000 support personnel, and that the cost could go as high as $29 billion. Now, to deviate from that would be to deviate from every standard operating procedure the Defense Department has had to support the men and women in the theater; it would be to deviate from every historical perspective. Yet that is not what they included in the budget sent to the Congress. I am also deeply concerned that the administration has left open the possibility of yet another emergency supplemental to fund this war in fiscal year 2008. All that means is we are putting it upon the next generation of Americans, which is how most of the costs of this war have taken place--we are putting it on the backs of the next generation of Americans and not even being responsible for paying for it. We do all of this while we have the greatest tax cuts for some of the wealthiest people in the Nation, and at a time when the Nation is at war. That has never been seen before in the Nation's history. The administration has never been honest with the American people about the cost of the war. It is time for that to end. This Senate must demand an honest accounting before we hand this administration any more money or, even more importantly, any more troops. In the end, it is in honor of those men and women who have given the greatest sacrifice in the line of duty that we must change the course in Iraq. It is in honor of their courage we must ensure their comrades are not sent off to carry out a failing plan designed by their civilian leadership. I ask each of my colleagues: Are you willing to look a young soldier in the eye and tell them you are sending them off to Iraq based upon a failed policy and a recycled plan and based upon the hope that Prime Minister Maliki will get it right? How many more American lives will we lose before we realize this plan will not work? And if it were your son or daughter, how long would you be willing to wait? How long would you be willing to listen to the counsel of patience, of delay, of only one more chance, of stay the course? I know I certainly am not willing to wait any longer. I believe there is a difference between deference to the Commander in Chief and blind loyalty. I cannot support blind loyalty that sends more of America's sons and daughters to die for a war of choice, to die for a continuing failed policy. In my mind, that is irresponsible and I believe the very essence of the constitutional framework this country was founded on requires us to act. That is what the majority leader wants to do. It is time for some real profiles in courage. I urge my colleagues to allow us to have an up-or-down vote on the President's escalation, and to support the Warner-Levin resolution. I hope, beyond that, at a later time, to support future binding actions to stop the failed policy in Iraq. I started today by reminding all of us of the words of John F. Kennedy and the profiles in courage he detailed in this Senate. He said: In whatever arena of life one may meet the challenge of courage, whatever may be the sacrifices he faces if he follows his conscience--the loss of his friends, his fortune, his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow man--each man [and I add each woman] must decide for himself the course he will follow. The stories of past courage can define that ingredient--they can teach, they can offer hope, they can provide inspiration. But they cannot supply courage itself. For this, each man must look into his own soul. I ask each Member of the Senate to look into your own soul and your own conscience, allow us to move to the Warner-Levin resolution, allow us to have a vote against the escalation of troops in Iraq. The Nation is waiting and they are watching, and there is accountability to be had. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, today I wish to honor Helen Fenske, the grandmother of environmentalism in my great home State of New Jersey. I join with New Jerseyeans and environmentalists everywhere in mourning her passing on January 19, 2007. Helen was truly a pioneer in understanding the importance of preserving our environmental resources for future generations. Her activism began in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had plans to build a jetport on swampy land in Chatham Township, in Morris County, NJ. But not on Helen Fenske's watch. Self-described as ``the little old lady in sneakers,'' she understood that the swamp was a treasure--an environmentally sensitive area--and that a jetport would be an ecological disaster to the region. With dogged determination, Helen Fenske mobilized a group of likeminded residents in the Green Village vicinity. In a grassroots effort that included raising money, creating awareness, and lobbying to retain this environmental resource, Helen Fenske managed to procure substantial acreage to be donated to the federal government. This acreage became the nucleus of the 7500 acre Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge--established by Congress in November 1960. The Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge is, indeed, a treasure and was the first refuge to receive national wilderness recognition--signed into law by President Johnson in 1968. This was the culmination of Helen Fenske's efforts to save the Great Swamp. Thanks to Helen's perseverance and vision, today, one can walk on a boardwalk through vast portions of the swamp to enjoy the natural wildlife that inhabits it, including 244 species of birds, mammals such as red fox, coyote, beaver, raccoons, fish, reptiles, and amphibians, and many large oak and beech trees, and plants such as mountain laurel, mosses, and ferns. But Helen Fenske's legend did not stop with the Great Swamp. She went on to become an environmental advocate assuming key leadership positions in State government, as special assistant to the first commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Richard Sullivan, and Assistant Commissioner for Natural and Historic Resources. Her leadership became the inspiration for a myriad of conservation efforts, including the battle to save Sunfish Pond along the Appalachian Trail at the Delaware Water Gap. She was additionally the inspiration for the formation of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation and was involved with the Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions, Patriot's Path, the Hudson River Walkway, the Morris Parks and Land Conservancy, and the preservation of the Highlands along with many other efforts. For her groundbreaking efforts as a champion of the environment, Helen Fenske was the deserving honoree of numerous awards, including the Marcellus Hartley Dodge Award from the Great Swamp Watershed Association; a Congressional Citation for her work in saving the Great Swamp and the creation of the American Revolution Heritage Corridor; the Achievement Award of the Washington Association; and honorary degrees from Ramapo College and Drew University. Even after she moved to New Hampshire, she remained in touch with her New Jersey roots, always connected to her fight to preserve the Great Swamp and its environs. She died in New Hampshire, but left a living legacy in New Jersey. She will be greatly missed, but the legacy of the ``old lady in sneakers'' has been passed on to a new generation of environmentalists who have taken on her very important mission.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I am proud to join my colleagues in calling for something that is long overdue for millions of workers across this Nation, an increase in the minimum wage. Today is not our first day to make this call, but it is time, finally, to answer the voices that have cried out for change for too long. Nearly a decade after the last increase in the Federal minimum wage, this Senate has a chance to right the injustice that millions of workers and their families have endured. America's minimum wage workers are often not in the forefront of our workforce. They may be in the stockrooms, the kitchens or on the night cleaning crew. By increasing the Federal minimum wage, we will be saying that working in the shadows does not mean a life sentence to poverty. For far too long, we have allowed a subpar minimum wage to exist that leaves a minimum wage worker supporting a family of three at $6,000 below the poverty level. You get up every day, you work hard, you work 40 hours a week, some of the toughest jobs in America and, at the end, you are still below the poverty level. We are supposed to reward work as a value, not suppress it. We say we want work, not welfare. Yet we have people who get up every day, work some of the toughest jobs and still find themselves below the poverty level. Those earning minimum wage do some of the toughest jobs our Nation has, and they perform some of the key services we cannot do without, from food preparers, to health care, support staff, to security officers, to cashiers. These occupations are the backbone of businesses and industries that keep our economy running. While we depend on these services they provide every day, many of these workers are earning a wage that is now at its lowest point ever, compared to average hourly wages. A higher wage is much more than about putting a few more dollars in your pocket each week. A better wage is about fairness, about providing a decent standard of living, and giving workers what they deserve, and ensuring that everyone--everyone--can share in the American dream, not just the top wage earners. When a minimum wage earner is more likely to be a woman or a minority, we cannot deny that increasing the minimum wage is also about greater equality and justice to nearly 7 million women, who are well over half of the minimum wage workers, or to the 4 million Hispanics and African Americans earning less than $7.25 an hour. So we can look at the chart and see that as the progression goes down, all of those women's wages lag behind men. And then, when we look at African-American women, Hispanic women, they lag even lower. This is about creating equity, equality. It is about justice. Our Nation has always been a place where people willing to work hard and play by the rules can earn a better life for themselves and their families. My parents, who came to this country in search of freedom, were willing to do whatever work was necessary for a little piece of the American dream. Whether it was long hours bent over a sewing machine in a factory or working in a cramped carpentry shop, they did whatever they could to provide me the opportunities they never had. That chance to build a better life through one's labor and determination is something no one in this country should be denied. Yet, for nearly a decade, workers earning the minimum wage have been struggling to get by, struggling to provide what their families need, and struggling to realize the dream our country promises. It is our duty to ensure everyone in this country can share in that dream. When we as a nation turn a blind eye, when we ignore the fact that millions of workers are earning wages that have been frozen for nearly a decade--how much else of our economy has been frozen for nearly a decade--we are failing those seeking out this dream. And because most minimum-wage workers have children and families to support, it is not just the workers who are struggling to make ends meet or fulfill their dreams, but behind them are families who cannot afford health insurance, or children who are growing up in poverty-- children growing up in poverty to parents who are working hard, in the toughest jobs in America, 40 hours a week, making the minimum wage, below the poverty level. So lifting up the wages of these workers is as much about improving the lives of their family members and providing a brighter future for their children. This week we have a chance to change the course, not just for the workers still earning $5.15 an hour and their family members, but for the country. We will say it is no longer acceptable to leave behind those who may be at the bottom, that they should be as much a priority as any other worker who contributes to our Nation's economy. I am extremely proud that New Jersey has not waited for Congress to do what is right. Instead, it has taken upon itself to increase the State minimum wage far above the Federal wage. And New Jersey is not alone. Twenty-nine other States have raised their minimum wages above the Federal minimum wage. Now at $7.15 an hour, New Jersey's minimum wage has given over a quarter million workers the chance to build a better life. It is past time for Congress to act and give millions of other minimum wage workers across the country that chance. It is time to provide them what they have been waiting almost 10 long years for--the chance to earn a wage they deserve and to live with greater dignity. It is time to let them know Washington will no longer turn a deaf ear to their struggles. I listen to some of our colleagues sometimes, and it is amazing. Congress has raised its salary more than $31,000 over the same time period in which many Members have voted against raising the minimum wage. It is interesting; we can vote to increase the wages of Members of Congress and the minimum wage workers get nothing. I am sure there are Members who would say it was well worth it, of course. But what about minimum wage workers? Nothing for nearly a decade. Congress raises its salary $31,000. Now, interestingly enough, no one said: Well, we need to give a tax break in order to give the Members of Congress a raise. No one said, certainly, while they were voting for these increases, they did not deserve it. Yet families across this country are struggling in some of the toughest jobs in America. They could not get the same type of support for their struggles. It is simply wrong. Now is our chance to correct that injustice, but I hope it is only the first step. We can never, ever again allow the hardest workers in our country to see their wages eroded by 10 years of inflation while those at the top of the pile make more and more but give less and less back. I hope the Senate will pass this overdue increase in the minimum wage. I hope we do not have to give away the store in order to be able to get some of those who are working at some of the toughest jobs, finding themselves below the poverty level--struggling to have families be nurtured to achieve their dreams and hopes and aspirations--I hope we do not have to give away the store. I hope we do not see another increase in Congress before we see an increase in the minimum wage. Therefore, when we pass this overdue increase in the minimum wage, I hope it will work in the future to make sure this increase stands the test of time. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I recognize the North Jersey Chapter of the Links, Inc.'s Linkages to Life Program, and honor the program participants for their hard work and dedication to raising awareness about the importance of blood, tissue, marrow, and organ donation among minority communities. Each year, for the past 5 years, Links, Inc., in collaboration with Roche Pharmaceutical Company, conducted the Linkages to Life Program to help save lives by educating individuals of African descent about blood, tissue, marrow, and organ donation. With the help of a publication called Can We Talk? they were able to reach a large number of individuals, and educate them about how they can help save lives by being a volunteer donor. More specifically, the North Jersey Chapter provided important education services to individuals and families in Essex, Hudson, Bergen, and Passaic Counties. Today, approximately 93,000 people are awaiting transplant surgery, and 25 percent of the people awaiting transplants are of African descent. In New Jersey, there are close to 3,000 individuals awaiting an organ transplant. Since organs are matched by a number of factors, including blood and tissue typing, which can vary by race, patients are more likely to find matches among donors of their same race or ethnicity. Given the large number of individuals of African descent awaiting transplants, it is critical to increase the knowledge about donating blood, tissue, marrow, and organs among all races and ethnicities. Since 1996, our country reserves the second weekend in November to emphasize the need for life-saving and life-altering blood, organ, marrow, and tissue donation in houses of worship throughout the United States. This program is known as the National Organ Donor Sabbath, and November 10-12, 2006, marked the 10th anniversary celebration. Links, Inc., is built on a foundation of friendship and service. Today, it contains a network or more than 10,000 African-American women. This year the motto for Links, Inc., is ``Seizing the Opportunity to Provide World Class Leadership, Friendship and Service.'' The members of the North Jersey Chapter of Links, Inc., exemplify that motto. Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize the dedication and commitment of the North Jersey Chapter of Link's, Inc., members to help others. I urge my colleagues to join me in thanking these individuals for helping fellow New Jerseyans live longer and healthier lives.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I do object based on that and much more.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, we just received this proposal about 15 minutes ago. This is a monumental issue, very important to my State and others. Therefore, I must object at this time.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, our children, from environmental pollution. We are well aware that children are especially susceptible to toxins in the environment--they spend a good deal of time playing outside, and frequently put foreign objects into their mouths. In proportion to their body weight, they eat, drink, and breathe more than adults, meaning concentrations of pollutants that might not affect adults could have serious consequences for children. Furthermore, many of their physiological systems are still developing, making them particularly sensitive to pollutants. I believe that our environmental laws need to first and foremost protect the most vulnerable members of our society. Unfortunately, many of our statutes are designed with adults in mind, and may not adequately protect children. In addition, there have been a number of recent reports in New Jersey about schools and day care centers being built on contaminated sites. One site in particular, the Kiddie Kollege day care center in Franklin Township, NJ, was operating at the site of a former thermometer factory, exposing the children and employees to dangerous levels of mercury. Sadly, there was no requirement for the property to be tested for environmental contamination prior to opening as a day care center. Subsequently, we have learned about a number of day care centers either built on or adjacent to sites contaminated with volatile organic chemicals and other toxins. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. The Environmental Protection for Children Act would create a grant program that encourages States to enact laws ensuring that properties are tested for pollution before a new day care center or school is allowed to open. The grants could be used for the testing and cleanup of existing schools and day care centers as well. Furthermore, this bill tightens the Federal programs that regulate hazardous chemicals and environmental pollutants--the Toxic Substances Control Act, Superfund law, Toxic Release Inventory, and Federal Hazardous Substances Act--so that the vulnerability of children to toxins and pollutants is taken into account when public health standards are being developed. It also provides for more research into the specific vulnerabilities of children to environmental pollutants, since in many cases we don't know how much additional risk children are under. We as a Nation have assiduously acted to protect our children from many of the dangers that they face every day, but we have dropped the ball when it comes to making sure that the places where they spend their days are free from contamination. The Environmental Protection for Children Act will help fix that, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important piece of legislation.