Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise tonight to speak about the Ryan White CARE reauthorization. We have heard a number of speakers on the Senate floor over the past few days claiming to be experts on New Jersey's HIV/AIDS community and our Ryan White Program. Now, some might choose to listen to them, but I choose to listen to the real New Jersey experts. Governor Corzine says the bill will have ``an enormous negative impact for individuals and families with HIV in New Jersey.'' New Jersey stands to lose millions of dollars in the first year alone with these losses increasing over time. The losses will disrupt and destabilize the comprehensive continuum of care that has been established. And New Jersey's HIV/AIDS providers and advocates are unified against the proposed bill and know the real impact these cuts have on real lives. The medical director from the Monmouth Medical Center and HIV Clinic in Long Branch, NJ, a clinic funded by Ryan White funds, says: Since our inception in 2001, we have doubled our size. Fifty-two percent of our clients are women. Forty-eight percent are African Americans. The majority of our clients have no insurance and no access to medications, except to the State ADAP program. Our patients are living longer and having a better quality of life. In fact, this past year we have had 8 babies born to HIV-infected women. None of these infants are infected with the virus. To ensure that we will not lose ground in the fight against this epidemic, the Ryan White program must be reauthorized so that existing clinics and programs continue to provide medical access for care and treatment. Please do not dismantle the system at the expense of another, they tell us. Now, I really had to bite my lip earlier because some came to the floor of the Senate and had the audacity to say that New Jersey is a privileged State. To them I say: I would gladly give up the privilege of being No. 1 in the Nation in the proportion of women living with AIDS. I would gladly give up the privilege of having the third largest proportion of children living with HIV/AIDS. I would gladly give up the privilege of having the fourth highest number of people living with HIV/AIDS. I would gladly give up the privilege of having the fifth largest number of new AIDS cases each year--each year--despite the fact that we are only the ninth largest in total population. I would gladly give up the privilege of having the fifth highest rate in reported deaths due to AIDS. I am sure that the 32,000 people living with HIV or AIDS in New Jersey would love nothing more than to be able to give up that privilege, or the people of color who account for 75 percent of all HIV/AIDS cases, or the women who make up more than a third of all people living with HIV/AIDS. I am sure they would gladly give up that privilege as well. These same experts have argued that New Jersey is receiving more than its fair share of Ryan White funding. But what we are hearing is just another numbers game to try to avoid the real issue, which is the completely inadequate funding in this reauthorization bill. When you look at the full picture, without just zooming in on the piece that happens to fit your argument, New Jersey is one of the most expensive States in which to live in this country. Yet it spends less per person--less per person--than 15 other States, including Alabama, Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, Vermont, the District of Columbia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Michigan. So just to put things in perspective, according to the Care Coalition, Alabama spends about $5,778 per HIV/AIDS patient, and Wyoming spends $5,984 per patient. In contrast, New Jersey spends $800 less than Alabama and $1,000 less than Wyoming per patient on HIV/AIDS care. So I cannot accept the numbers as those would have it constructed for the purposes of pursuing their argument. There are more than 2,130 new HIV/AIDS infections each year in New Jersey, and in 2004 New Jersey reported almost 2,400 new HIV and AIDS cases, more than all but 4 other States. Ryan White funding is being put to good use saving lives and helping individuals avoid disability and lead productive, successful lives. In New Jersey, we are giving 32,000 people with HIV/AIDS a new lease on life. We have one of the most effective ADAP programs in the Nation, as well as comprehensive services, including primary medical care, mental health service, substance abuse services, oral health, case management, nutritional services. So thanks to the success of New Jersey's network of care, we have seen a sustained drop in the number of HIV/AIDS deaths each year. However, with this growing population, there is a growing need for services. It is blatantly clear that any cut to our State is a destructive blow to the very network of care that countless men, women, children, and babies are counting on. Now, I would be happy to have a straight, one-year reauthorization in which all would be made whole if the majority is willing to accept it. I am also willing to find a solution to the real problem, which is a severe shortage of funding--a severe shortage of funding. As I said, I am happy to give up the privilege--I would be happy, as would the lives of those individuals who find themselves struggling day in and day out, they would be happy to give up the privilege that we heard about on the floor. But I cannot stand by and watch the hopes and dreams of New Jerseyans living with HIV/AIDS be extinguished by this misguided proposal. How can I go back to constituents in New Jersey living with HIV or AIDS and tell them it is a fair deal to have them put their lives at risk? I can't and I won't, and we can't have an appropriate reauthorization. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, we do have an obligation to all the people of this country and that includes the people of New Jersey. This is not just simply about money.

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.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today, all across America, organized criminal gangs plague our communities, destroying the lives of thousands of young children each and every year. Unfortunately, this plague is currently not being treated effectively, and as a result has grown in size and power in almost every State in the Nation. Indeed, gang violence is no longer a State and local issue that predominantly occurs in highly urbanized areas, but has escalated into a national issue that affects our country as a whole. In light of this, it is clear that we must recalibrate our efforts-- and in addition to our local initiatives--to comprehensively confront gang violence at the national level. That is why I rise today to introduce the Fighting Gangs and Empowering Youth Act of 2006. Addressing the efforts of Federal, State, and local agencies, this legislation would comprehensively deal with all aspects of gang violence, from rigorously enforcing and appropriately sentencing criminal acts, to preventing future gang members from being recruited and such crimes from occurring. To reduce the number of young potential recruits gangs prey upon, this bill would authorize funds for after-school and community-based programs designed to economically empower young people. Disadvantaged students will be given the opportunity to realize their potential, through tutoring, mentoring, and job training programs as well as college preparation classes and tuition assistance. Additionally, millions of dollars would be authorized to enhance and expand anti-gang and anti-violence programs in elementary and secondary schools, ensuring that students can focus solely on learning, without having to be concerned for their personal safety. By providing ``at-risk'' youth with such resources and opportunities necessary to succeed in life, they will be far less susceptible to join a criminal gang. The legislation would also expand adult and juvenile offender reentry demonstration projects to help with post-release and transitional housing, while promoting programs that hire former prisoners, and establish reentry planning procedures within communities. Prisoners with drug addictions would be forced to participate in treatment programs to be eligible for early release, which would be continued in their transition period back into society. All offenders would be encouraged to participate in educational initiatives such as, job training, GED preparation, along with a myriad of other programs. These initiatives are designed to provide offenders with the skills necessary to become legally employed when they are released from prison, which will reduce, hopefully significantly, their recidivism rates. In addition to programs focused on gang violence prevention, my proposal would provide law enforcement officials on every level of government with the resources and information they need to accurately track and effectively neutralize criminal gangs. Specifically, this legislation would establish a program similar to the current Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program, to augment the number of police officers patrolling the streets of our local communities, and would authorize $700 million annually for it. Additional funds would be used not only to increase the number of officers combating gangs, but also to provide additional forensic examiners to investigate, and more attorneys to prosecute, gang crimes. As is true with almost all problems, a better understanding of how gangs operate translates into a better understanding of how best to counter them. That is why this legislation would authorize increased funding for the National Youth Gang Survey to increase the number of law enforcement agencies whose data is collected and included in the annual survey and provide up to $8 million per year to upgrade technology to better identify gang members and include them in the National Gang Database. Additionally, this legislation would expand the Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs) to include local gang and other crime statistics from the municipal level, while also requiring the Attorney General to distinguish those crimes committed by juveniles. The bill also requires consolidation and standardization of all criminal databases, enabling law enforcement all across this country to better share information. For those who still choose a life a crime, this proposal would increase the penalties proscribed for crimes committed in the furtherance of a gang. Gangs are dependent on committing crimes such as witness intimidation, illegal firearm possession, and drug trafficking, implementing these instruments to augment their power. Subsequently, when these crimes are committed in the furtherance of gang activity, they can be more detrimental to society than if they were committed in isolation. Thus, these tougher sentencing requirements for crimes committed in the furtherance of a gang are not only appropriate, but necessary to deter gang violence and shield society from its most dangerous and unremorseful criminals. This legislation would also attack one of the roots of gang violence--gang recruiters, who seek out young, economically disadvantaged, at-risk youth and pressure them to join. Currently, there is no law specifically forbidding gang recruitment. This legislation would change that--making it illegal to do so--and would incarcerate an offender for up to 5 years if the person being recruited was over the age of 18, or up to 10 years if the individual was under the age of 18. Taken together, the provisions of this bill develop a comprehensive approach to gang violence by focusing on prevention, deterrence, and enforcement. To not address all of these gang violence catalysts in their entirety would leave us with an incomprehensive approach that would do little to quell the scourge of gang violence. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Fighting Gangs and Empowering Youth Act, and by doing so, give law enforcement and our communities the means to thoroughly and comprehensively counter the growing specter of gang violence that afflicts our great Nation. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today, all across America, organized criminal gangs plague our communities, destroying the lives of thousands of young children each and every year. Unfortunately, this plague is currently not being treated effectively, and as a result has grown in size and power in almost every State in the Nation. Indeed, gang violence is no longer a State and local issue that predominantly occurs in highly urbanized areas, but has escalated into a national issue that affects our country as a whole. In light of this, it is clear that we must recalibrate our efforts-- and in addition to our local initiatives--to comprehensively confront gang violence at the national level. That is why I rise today to introduce the Fighting Gangs and Empowering Youth Act of 2006. Addressing the efforts of Federal, State, and local agencies, this legislation would comprehensively deal with all aspects of gang violence, from rigorously enforcing and appropriately sentencing criminal acts, to preventing future gang members from being recruited and such crimes from occurring. To reduce the number of young potential recruits gangs prey upon, this bill would authorize funds for after-school and community-based programs designed to economically empower young people. Disadvantaged students will be given the opportunity to realize their potential, through tutoring, mentoring, and job training programs as well as college preparation classes and tuition assistance. Additionally, millions of dollars would be authorized to enhance and expand anti-gang and anti-violence programs in elementary and secondary schools, ensuring that students can focus solely on learning, without having to be concerned for their personal safety. By providing ``at-risk'' youth with such resources and opportunities necessary to succeed in life, they will be far less susceptible to join a criminal gang. The legislation would also expand adult and juvenile offender reentry demonstration projects to help with post-release and transitional housing, while promoting programs that hire former prisoners, and establish reentry planning procedures within communities. Prisoners with drug addictions would be forced to participate in treatment programs to be eligible for early release, which would be continued in their transition period back into society. All offenders would be encouraged to participate in educational initiatives such as, job training, GED preparation, along with a myriad of other programs. These initiatives are designed to provide offenders with the skills necessary to become legally employed when they are released from prison, which will reduce, hopefully significantly, their recidivism rates. In addition to programs focused on gang violence prevention, my proposal would provide law enforcement officials on every level of government with the resources and information they need to accurately track and effectively neutralize criminal gangs. Specifically, this legislation would establish a program similar to the current Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program, to augment the number of police officers patrolling the streets of our local communities, and would authorize $700 million annually for it. Additional funds would be used not only to increase the number of officers combating gangs, but also to provide additional forensic examiners to investigate, and more attorneys to prosecute, gang crimes. As is true with almost all problems, a better understanding of how gangs operate translates into a better understanding of how best to counter them. That is why this legislation would authorize increased funding for the National Youth Gang Survey to increase the number of law enforcement agencies whose data is collected and included in the annual survey and provide up to $8 million per year to upgrade technology to better identify gang members and include them in the National Gang Database. Additionally, this legislation would expand the Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs) to include local gang and other crime statistics from the municipal level, while also requiring the Attorney General to distinguish those crimes committed by juveniles. The bill also requires consolidation and standardization of all criminal databases, enabling law enforcement all across this country to better share information. For those who still choose a life a crime, this proposal would increase the penalties proscribed for crimes committed in the furtherance of a gang. Gangs are dependent on committing crimes such as witness intimidation, illegal firearm possession, and drug trafficking, implementing these instruments to augment their power. Subsequently, when these crimes are committed in the furtherance of gang activity, they can be more detrimental to society than if they were committed in isolation. Thus, these tougher sentencing requirements for crimes committed in the furtherance of a gang are not only appropriate, but necessary to deter gang violence and shield society from its most dangerous and unremorseful criminals. This legislation would also attack one of the roots of gang violence--gang recruiters, who seek out young, economically disadvantaged, at-risk youth and pressure them to join. Currently, there is no law specifically forbidding gang recruitment. This legislation would change that--making it illegal to do so--and would incarcerate an offender for up to 5 years if the person being recruited was over the age of 18, or up to 10 years if the individual was under the age of 18. Taken together, the provisions of this bill develop a comprehensive approach to gang violence by focusing on prevention, deterrence, and enforcement. To not address all of these gang violence catalysts in their entirety would leave us with an incomprehensive approach that would do little to quell the scourge of gang violence. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Fighting Gangs and Empowering Youth Act, and by doing so, give law enforcement and our communities the means to thoroughly and comprehensively counter the growing specter of gang violence that afflicts our great Nation. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Lautenberg, and Senators from New York, Illinois and Florida, in support of a one year reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act, and to raise my serious reservations about the current committee proposal. I recognize and respect the dedication and hard work of Senators Enzi and Kennedy, Congressmen Barton and Dingell and their staff to reauthorization this vital program. But unfortunately, their proposal, as it currently stands, threatens lives by destroying networks of care in New Jersey and in other States across the country. In reviewing the committee's proposal, I cannot help but wonder why we are not doing more and providing additional resources to address a growing need in our communities. More people are getting infected and more communities are having to provide care for individuals with HIV/ AIDS, which means we need more resources, not less. We need to address the growing need for care. Unfortunately, this legislation doesn't address the spread of the disease; it simply spreads already limited funding even thinner. In New Jersey, we are still struggling with the HIV/AIDS battle and unfortunately, at this point, we are not winning the war. It is a sad reality, but New Jersey continues to rank fifth in the country for overall AIDS cases. We have the highest proportion of AIDS cases in women, and rank third in pediatric AIDS cases. We have not yet won the battle--we are still fighting. And we need weapons, in terms of funding, to win. New Jersey has stepped-up to the plate to develop a comprehensive array of medical services, which are funded in part by the CARE Act. People infected with HIV/AIDS living in New Jersey have access to one of the most effective ADAP programs in the nation, as well as primary medical care, mental health service, substance abuse services, oral health, case management, and nutritional services. I'm proud of our State's networks of care, and recognize how important they are to the well-being of countless New Jerseyans. But in order to help this program to grow and be effective, we must maintain our Federal support. During the debate surrounding the reauthorization some are saying we should cut funding for certain States and their HIV/AIDS services. I disagree and so do New Jerseyans. I am proud of the strong voice of New Jersey's advocates. Beneficiaries from across the State, members of our HIV Health Services Planning Councils from our eligible metropolitan areas or EMAs, representatives from all counties that are part of the Philadelphia EMA, and individuals from the consortiums of the remaining counties have been fully engaged in this reauthorization process. Our elected officials, the Governor's office, and our entire New Jersey delegation have all been supportive of making sure New Jersey has the resources to continue fighting this battle. Our State--but apparently not this Congress--is united in providing care, saving lives and ending this epidemic once and for all. Unfortunately, the committee's proposed reauthorization threatens to destroy and dismantle critical networks of care that are keeping people alive and healthy in New Jersey. With our current network of care, our healthcare providers have been instrumental in helping prevent people with HIV from developing full-blown AIDS. Without these services, the impact will be devastating for patients, their ability to work and provide for their families and most importantly, their lives. My concerns continue to grow. Most recently, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended routine HIV testing for all Americans ages 13 to 64, saying that an HIV test should be as common as a cholesterol check. The CDC estimates 250,000 Americans are infected and don't even know it. At a time when we are identifying more and more individuals with HIV, our country is destroying the very networks of care that will help educate and care for these individuals. We need testing, but we also need so much more. That is why I propose that we try again--and this time, get it right. That we try to find a way to build on our networks of care, and provide the services that our entire Nation needs to win the war on HIV/AIDS. Today, I join Senator Lautenberg in offering a proposal that would provide a 1-year reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act under current law. It would provide a 3.7 percent increase in authorization levels through 2007, while preventing funding from reverting back to the Treasury. This bill would provide a 1-year extension of the names- based reporting requirement set to go into effect beginning October 1, 2006. In addition, it would provide $30 million under Title II for States who have an ``unmet need'' and ``no title I entities.'' This proposal would help all States across the country without doing any harm. Instead of 5 years of a detrimental reauthorization, I support another year to get it right. I believe America can do better, and today I am standing up for the HIV/AIDS community across the country. Today is a day to make our country's budget reflect our values by expanding funding for this important program. I call on my colleagues to save the Ryan White CARE Act. Wait to implement formula changes that could destroy existing networks of care, and instead, work out a solution that addresses the needs of the entire country. Please join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Lautenberg, and Senators from New York, Illinois and Florida, in support of a one year reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act, and to raise my serious reservations about the current committee proposal. I recognize and respect the dedication and hard work of Senators Enzi and Kennedy, Congressmen Barton and Dingell and their staff to reauthorization this vital program. But unfortunately, their proposal, as it currently stands, threatens lives by destroying networks of care in New Jersey and in other States across the country. In reviewing the committee's proposal, I cannot help but wonder why we are not doing more and providing additional resources to address a growing need in our communities. More people are getting infected and more communities are having to provide care for individuals with HIV/ AIDS, which means we need more resources, not less. We need to address the growing need for care. Unfortunately, this legislation doesn't address the spread of the disease; it simply spreads already limited funding even thinner. In New Jersey, we are still struggling with the HIV/AIDS battle and unfortunately, at this point, we are not winning the war. It is a sad reality, but New Jersey continues to rank fifth in the country for overall AIDS cases. We have the highest proportion of AIDS cases in women, and rank third in pediatric AIDS cases. We have not yet won the battle--we are still fighting. And we need weapons, in terms of funding, to win. New Jersey has stepped-up to the plate to develop a comprehensive array of medical services, which are funded in part by the CARE Act. People infected with HIV/AIDS living in New Jersey have access to one of the most effective ADAP programs in the nation, as well as primary medical care, mental health service, substance abuse services, oral health, case management, and nutritional services. I'm proud of our State's networks of care, and recognize how important they are to the well-being of countless New Jerseyans. But in order to help this program to grow and be effective, we must maintain our Federal support. During the debate surrounding the reauthorization some are saying we should cut funding for certain States and their HIV/AIDS services. I disagree and so do New Jerseyans. I am proud of the strong voice of New Jersey's advocates. Beneficiaries from across the State, members of our HIV Health Services Planning Councils from our eligible metropolitan areas or EMAs, representatives from all counties that are part of the Philadelphia EMA, and individuals from the consortiums of the remaining counties have been fully engaged in this reauthorization process. Our elected officials, the Governor's office, and our entire New Jersey delegation have all been supportive of making sure New Jersey has the resources to continue fighting this battle. Our State--but apparently not this Congress--is united in providing care, saving lives and ending this epidemic once and for all. Unfortunately, the committee's proposed reauthorization threatens to destroy and dismantle critical networks of care that are keeping people alive and healthy in New Jersey. With our current network of care, our healthcare providers have been instrumental in helping prevent people with HIV from developing full-blown AIDS. Without these services, the impact will be devastating for patients, their ability to work and provide for their families and most importantly, their lives. My concerns continue to grow. Most recently, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended routine HIV testing for all Americans ages 13 to 64, saying that an HIV test should be as common as a cholesterol check. The CDC estimates 250,000 Americans are infected and don't even know it. At a time when we are identifying more and more individuals with HIV, our country is destroying the very networks of care that will help educate and care for these individuals. We need testing, but we also need so much more. That is why I propose that we try again--and this time, get it right. That we try to find a way to build on our networks of care, and provide the services that our entire Nation needs to win the war on HIV/AIDS. Today, I join Senator Lautenberg in offering a proposal that would provide a 1-year reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act under current law. It would provide a 3.7 percent increase in authorization levels through 2007, while preventing funding from reverting back to the Treasury. This bill would provide a 1-year extension of the names- based reporting requirement set to go into effect beginning October 1, 2006. In addition, it would provide $30 million under Title II for States who have an ``unmet need'' and ``no title I entities.'' This proposal would help all States across the country without doing any harm. Instead of 5 years of a detrimental reauthorization, I support another year to get it right. I believe America can do better, and today I am standing up for the HIV/AIDS community across the country. Today is a day to make our country's budget reflect our values by expanding funding for this important program. I call on my colleagues to save the Ryan White CARE Act. Wait to implement formula changes that could destroy existing networks of care, and instead, work out a solution that addresses the needs of the entire country. Please join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in recognition of the fifth annual National School Backpack Awareness Day, September 20, 2006. Today, the American Occupational Therapy Association, AOTA, in collaboration with more than 350 occupational therapy practitioners across the country will be educating thousands of children and their families about how to stay healthy and succeed in school, especially how to prevent backpack related injuries. These organizations are taking real steps towards protecting our children during their most formative years. Occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants play an incredibly important role in our local communities. Occupational therapy practitioners work directly with students, parents, and teachers to modify educational environments so that all students can achieve academic success. They often develop plans to improve function and productivity, so as to maximize independence within the academic environment. Their knowledge about how children can stay healthy and succeed in school is invaluable. Today's effort to protect them from backpack injuries is much needed, and I know it will have a positive impact on thousands of families. Many children enjoy picking out a backpack at the start of the school year, usually based on a certain color or design, but if worn incorrectly or if too heavy, there is a serious potential for injury. In light of this concern, today at schools, stores, hospitals, and shopping malls all over the Nation, children's backpacks will be ``weighed-in.'' This will ensure that children are not carrying more than 15 percent of their bodyweight on their back. According to U.S. and international studies, children using overloaded and improperly worn backpacks experience neck, shoulder and back pain. Furthermore, children wearing backpacks improperly suffer from compromised breathing and increased fatigue at significantly higher rates than students wearing their backpacks properly and with appropriate loads. In our great State of New Jersey, these ``weigh-ins'' are being conducted at nine locations throughout the State. By the end of the day, children all over America will be healthier and equipped with information about how to properly load and carry a backpack. National School Backpack Awareness Day is a prime example of how occupational therapy works within our schools and communities to promote wellness and improve quality of life. I know today will be a success and ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating September 20, 2006, as National School Backpack Awareness Day.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 4999 be called up at this time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in strong support today of the amendment offered by my colleague Senator Baucus. At the end of the last year, the higher education deduction, along with a number of other important tax credits, expired. This means that unless we act to extend it, nearly 4 million families and students will not be able to deduct their college tuition from their taxes for this year. At a time when college prices have more than doubled over the last 5 years, now is not the time for this deduction to disappear. In my State of New Jersey, as across the Nation, tuition is becoming a heavier burden on our students. New Jersey families spend an average of 34 percent of their income on tuition at a 4-year public university. The higher education deduction is a simple way that we can reduce that burden, by allowing taxpayers to deduct up to $4,000 in tuition costs. Despite this, Congress has sat by while this and other crucial tax provisions expired. In addition to the higher education deduction, Senator Baucus's amendment would also extend the $250 deduction for out-of-pocket expenses that teachers spend on supplies for their classrooms. Purchasing supplies with their own money is only one of the many sacrifices our teachers make--this small deduction is the least we can do to help them shoulder that cost. In addition, the amendment would extend and expand the research and development credit for companies to spur innovation and continue new research, and the new markets tax credit, which helps bring loans and new investments to lower income communities. Today is now the fourth time this year we have considered extending the important tax credits contained in this amendment. We had our first chance in February, when a majority of this body voted to extend these provisions. Then in May, when we should have passed these extensions, instead, our Republican colleagues made a choice. Instead of extending the deduction for college tuition or out- of-pocket teacher expenses, both of which have expired, our colleagues chose to extend tax cuts on something that does not expire for 2 more years--investment and capital gains income. Our colleagues chose to spend $50 billion to extend these tax cuts for 2 more years, when the cost to extend both the teacher out-of-pocket and college tuition deductions is less than $8 billion. The fact is, we are running out of time. As a hearing last week highlighted, if these extensions are not enacted into law by October 15, it will be too late for the IRS to adhere to them for this tax year. We likely have less than 10 legislative days left in this body. If we do not act today, the question is, when? So, we have a choice once again today. Are we going to act to help students with the cost of their college tuition, or teachers with the sacrifices they make for their students, or are we going to sit by and pretend that these costs are not a hardship for millions of Americans? I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will see the need and the urgency to extend these provisions today, and not continue to wait, putting off tax relief that our students and families deserve. I urge my colleagues to support the Baucus amendment, and to extend this relief today.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, with reference to the concerns the Senator from Maine raised, let me just say the amendment we just adopted says we are going to scan 100 percent of the containers that have been identified as high risk before they leave the United States. So that is the very essence of what we seek to do as well. Secondly, the only amendment before the Senate that will move us to a plan to get to 100 percent scanning of all cargo in this country is the amendment presently before the Senate. If you want to continue to allow a mathematical equation to determine how we inspect only 5 percent of the cargo in this country, then that is what you just accomplished. If you want to move toward a plan to get 100 percent scanning of all the cargo that comes into this country, giving the Department of Homeland Security the opportunity to develop such a plan, then this amendment is the one you want to vote for.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Lautenberg as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding time. After listening to this debate, I think my distinguished colleagues are talking about another pending amendment, not my amendment. My amendment is very clear and forthright. It asks for a plan to achieve 100 percent scanning--a plan. Now, after listening to the debate, the reality is that after all of the items that were discussed, that still is only 1 percent scanning of 5 percent of the cargo. Let's not get confused. Words matter. There is a difference between screening and scanning. Who in our country will be satisfied with a mathematical equation being used as the way in which we determine what 5 percent ultimately gets taken care of? What it still says, notwithstanding all those layers of security that the distinguished Senator from Maine spoke about, is that still only has us reviewing 5 percent of the cargo. That is what it does. So who among us is willing to allow mathematical equations that are based upon information that can be either intentionally or unintentionally faulty to ultimately protect the ports of this country, the people who work there, the communities that surround them, and the commerce of the Nation? I wouldn't. If Hong Kong can do this, the United States of America can do it. All we say is let's have the Department of Homeland Security develop a plan to achieve it. We do not insist on specific ways in which we do that. We allow them to develop the plan. But let's get to a plan for 100 percent of the cargo. As for domestic, we say it will include benchmarks that they will determine in the plan for what type of cargo inspectors are inspecting here in the United States before they leave. It doesn't say specifically the amount, and as it relates to the loss of access to U.S. ports and fines, it says it may include such loss of access if we believe that is the way in which we should seek enforcement. It doesn't say ``it shall.'' It says ``it may.'' At the end of the day, if we adopt the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota, we are still saying: OK, 5 percent is something we are willing to live with. At the end of the day, we do not move to a plan of 100 percent scanning of the Nation's cargo. Doesn't the Nation deserve a plan to get there, a plan that largely can be devised to ensure that both technological accomplishments, as well as security concerns, are brought together to achieve the goal? I think the Nation deserves a plan. So it is very important to understand that when we keep saying screen--screen means looking at a cargo manifest. I had the Port of Elizabeth in Newark in what was my former congressional district for 13 years and dealt with them for quite a bit on a number of issues. Screening just means let's look at what is in that container. Let's see the list. Where is it coming from? What port is it coming from? Let's ultimately take all of that and put it in a mathematical equation and look at what is inside the cargo. But that is not scanning 100 percent of what comes into the Nation. Let America not be confused by that. Also, this is about scanning it abroad. When we wait until it comes into a port of the United States, if it has a nuclear device in it, it is a little late. We need to be doing that scanning abroad. I urge my colleagues to understand the difference between these amendments. Ours produces a plan to get us to 100 percent of scanning, and it gives flexibility for the Department to do so, but it does move us toward that ultimate goal. With that, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Washington, and I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Inouye, Senator Murray, and Senator Collins, for their work and attention to this critical subject. I am pleased to stand with them in trying to work to ensure that a concrete port security measure takes place that makes our Nation's ports safer than they are presently. We have just commemorated the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. I cannot think of a way in which we can learn from those lessons more than to finally come to an agreement on a strong, well- funded port security bill. For those of us who represent States such as mine, New Jersey, with the largest ports in the country, it is not a moment too soon. In fact, some would argue that it comes rather late in the game. I have to agree. Five years after that tragic September day, nearly 4 years after Congress passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act, and 2 years after the September 11 Commission issued its report and its 41 recommendations, our Nation's busiest ports remain underfunded, understaffed, and overwhelmed. A myriad of new stories over the last week in the runup of the fifth anniversary of September 11 have consistently pointed to one irrefutable fact: our ports remain vulnerable to a terrorist attack. This is not news for some of us. In December of 2001, I introduced a port security measure in the House of Representatives which sought to fully understand the vulnerabilities we face at all of our ports. I certainly hope this will move us along in that way. I urge, certainly, that we come to that conclusion. Let's remember that an attack at our ports would not just hurt trade and commerce. Such an attack at a port would devastate surrounding communities. In August, the Rand Corporation released a report concluding that ``a nuclear explosion at the port of Long Beach could kill 60,000 people immediately, expose 150,000 more to radiation, and cause 10 times the economic loss of the September 11 attacks.'' In my State of New Jersey, the Elizabeth-Newark Port, the largest container seaport on the east coast, handled more than $132 billion in goods in 2005 and creates over 200,000 jobs. Imagine what would happen to the Nation--not just New York or New Jersey--if commerce were shut down in this port. Imagine the number of lives in that immediate region, one of the greatest concentrations of population in the Nation. According to retired Coast Guard CDR Stephen Flynn, the cargo containers ``are a potential Trojan horse in the age of terrorism.'' He is right. Mr. Flynn pointed out that we are not keeping pace with the terrorists' capabilities. The threat continues to evolve. When we patched up one security hole, they found another gap, another vulnerability. In December 2005, small undercover teams of investigators from the Government Accountability Office were able to carry small amounts of Cesium 137, a radioactive material used for medical and industrial purposes, in the trunks of rental cars in the States of Washington and Texas. The Washington Post reported that the radioactive materials did set off alarms, but GAO agents were able to use phony documents to persuade U.S. border guards and Customs officers to let them pass into the country. As long as cargo containers remain a mainstay of international commerce, and as long as we cannot verify what is inside each and every one of them, we are vulnerable. Right now, only 5 percent of containers entering this country are inspected. That is a number which I believe would shock most Americans. Let me be clear. It would be unacceptable to screen only 5 percent of White House visitors every day, so why is it acceptable to scan only 5 percent of cargo entering our country every day? Scanning anything less than 100 percent of cargo that enters our ports is irresponsible and downright negligent. Only scanning 5 percent of cargo containers that enter our ports is the equivalent of locking the car doors but leaving the windows down and the keys in the ignition. It is unacceptable. Even the system we now use to determine which of the 5 percent of containers to inspect is riddled with flaws. Customs inspectors rely on manifests and intelligence data--both of which can be unintentionally incorrect or even manipulated--to develop algorithms that tell them which container to open. We cannot take the risk that complex mathematical equations relying on faulty inputs will catch a chemical, nuclear, or biological weapon shipped into our ports. We need to develop a system that will eventually ensure that 100 percent of containers bound for this country are inspected, either physically or through effective nonintrusive scanning that will find and detect weapons no matter how they are disguised. We need to take advantage of existing technologies that can scan the inside of a container, even before it leaves a foreign port, and create a downloadable image of what is inside. That image can be reviewed in real time by security officials in the United States so we know exactly what the container holds before it even sets sail for our shores. By combining this technology with scans for radioactive material, we can find dangerous materials before they ever arrive in our ports. Port security is a serious matter that should be addressed with a comprehensive and consistent plan, not a game of ``Eeny Meeny Miney Mo'' to figure out which cargo container to scan. Five years after September 11, we must have a plan, a clear roadmap that describes how we will move our Nation to 100 percent scanning at our ports. To accomplish this, this amendment would require just that: to produce an initial plan, a tangible document that clearly outlines how to increase scanning to 100 percent at our ports. The plan must include yearly benchmarks and consequences for supply chain entities that fail to comply, and this could include loss of access to U.S. ports and levying of fines. My amendment also includes a requirement for an update of the initial 100-percent scanning plan that would include lessons learned from the pilot system. The definition of 100 percent scanning is very important here, and I hope our colleagues will focus on this issue. The American public should not be misled by anyone stating that screening is sufficient or that offering amendments for 100-percent screening is a step in the right direction. Let me be very clear: 100 percent screening means just looking at manifests, manifests that are often incomplete and incorrect. Relying on manifests is simply not the way to ensure cargo containers do not contain items they should not, items that could endanger the security of our ports, the surrounding communities, and the people in our country. I want to emphasize that I am not calling for all containers entering the United States to be opened up and examined. What I am calling for, and something that is well within our technical capabilities, is to ensure that all containers entering the United States have been scanned using nonintrusive technology. But to get to 100 percent container inspection and to have true container security, we also need to take immediate steps to put scanners in place here and abroad to track containers as they move across the ocean and to start protecting against not only nuclear but chemical and biological agents. In conclusion, we have been debating the details of this cargo inspection regime for far too long. It is not a new issue. But the time has come to act decisively and with one voice to make our ports safer than they are now. Five years after September 11, we still do not know what is entering our ports. Recently, a commercial airplane was diverted because someone forgot their BlackBerry on board. Yet thousands of cargo containers stream into our Nation every day without us knowing exactly what they contain. Just this past Monday, we commemorated the fifth anniversary of the attacks that shocked the Nation and took the lives of 3,000 Americans, including 700 New Jerseyans. We must remember the terrorists used methods beyond our wildest imaginations and spurred the Congress into some action to better protect our Nation. Here we stand 5 years later and we are still not scanning 100 percent of the cargo that enters our country. We are tempting fate in a most reckless way. We have identified a clear vulnerability and we must do everything we can to decrease the threat before it is too late. If we could roll back the clock 10 years and spend a few billion dollars to raise the levees in New Orleans to be able to withstand a category 5 hurricane, we would have saved hundreds of lives, as well as the billions of dollars it will take to rebuild that city. I don't want this country to look back in hindsight a few years from now with the realization that if we had taken action today, we could have prevented a major terrorist attack. Who among us would be satisfied in the aftermath of an attack that we did not take the steps that could have prevented it because we were unwilling to dedicate the necessary resources? That is the choice the Congress faces and the Senate faces today. And for the security of our country, it is essential that we make the right one. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that we can do so and move toward a plan that will give us 100 percent scanning. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, my amendment is amendment No. 4999. It is to ultimately have a plan to move toward the scanning of cargo. I intend to speak for about 10 minutes on the amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senators Clinton, Lautenberg, and Schumer to introduce the James Zadroga Act. This bicameral and bipartisan legislation would reopen the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund, VCF, to provide financial assistance to victims and first responders of the attacks of 9/11 who became ill, in addition to their respective family members. James Zadroga was a New York Police Department, NYPD, detective and New Jersey resident, who when he died earlier this year was the first 9/11 responder to have his death directly attributed to exposure to the toxins of Ground Zero. He became ill just weeks after working at Ground Zero, but because he retired in 2004, the NYPD determined that his four-year-old daughter Tylerann could only receive a disability pension, instead of the full death benefit to which she should be entitled. That is why in April, I authored a letter with my colleagues Senators Lautenberg, Clinton, and Schumer that called on New York officials to enact legislation that would provide full benefits to Tylerann and other beneficiaries like her. In August, New York enacted three new laws, including one that would allow those recovery workers who have retired from public service to have their retirement status reclassified as accidental disability if they later become ill due to their efforts at Ground Zero. That action by the State of New York is vitally important, because we unfortunately know that Detective Zadroga's death will not be the last to be suffered by the brave Americans who rushed to Ground Zero in the hours and days after September 11. As our Nation continues to heal from the wounds inflicted by the 9/11 terror attacks, there are many first responders whose wounds have yet to heal from the aftermath of that day. We as a nation must care for those who cared for America in its time of need. We cannot let bureaucratic red tape stand between those who helped America pick up the pieces and the compensation they deserve. Today, by introducing this legislation we take the next step in working to ensure that the heroes who sacrificed their health--and in Detective Zadroga's case, his life--will be justly compensated. I believe we owe them nothing less. This legislation reopens the fund created to care for the families of 9/11 victims and for those injured or who became ill as a direct result of the attacks. Unfortunately, many who should have received compensation from the VCF never did because their illnesses did not develop or have become significantly worse since the original filing deadline of December 22, 2003. In other instances, original guidelines prohibited the VCF to make awards if injuries were sustained more than 96 hours after the attacks. Specifically, the ``James Zadroga Act'' would: Reopen September 11 Victims Compensation Fund for individuals who became ill or did not file before the original December 22, 2003 deadline; Allow for adjustment of previous awards if the Special Master of the fund determines the medical conditions of the claimant warrants an adjustment; and Amend eligibility rules so that responders to the 9/11 attacks who arrived later than the first 96 hours could be eligible if they experienced illness or injury from their work at the site. Congress needs to pass this bill--we need to stand up for these American heroes and their families. I urge my colleagues to join with us in this important effort by cosponsoring this piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, before I speak to an amendment, let me join in the commendations to our colleague, Senator Domenici. I am privileged to serve on the Energy Committee which Senator Domenici chairs. I appreciate his leadership, as well as his commitment to our country. I am pleased to join the many voices that have spoken about his service.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ. Sure. I would consider such an agreement.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the Senator.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support Senator Conrad's and Senator Dorgan's amendment and to join with them in it. It seems to me, as someone who on the anniversary of September 11 is reminded of the 700 New Jersey lives that were lost on that fateful day, as well as all of those other Americans who lost their lives on that fateful day, that the central figure, the individual who was the mastermind of their deaths, who struck on that fateful day, is Osama bin Laden. It is very clear to me that we must either catch or kill Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of those attacks. I know many Americans were as shocked as I was when they heard the news reports that the administration had allegedly closed down or realigned the Osama bin Laden unit at the CIA. And while there is a very difficult process to publicly confirm these reports, I believe the Senate must make it very clear that the United States can in no way reduce or dilute our efforts to kill or capture Osama bin Laden. With this amendment, we ensure that not only is that unit not disbanded and not merged and not diluted, but, in fact, we ensure that we increase our efforts. To anyone who would like to argue that we do not need to focus on al- Qaida or bin Laden, I would remind them that just because there has not been another terrorist attack on U.S. soil that does not mean al-Qaida has been eliminated or that bin Laden has been rendered ineffective. So I am in incredibly strong support of Senator Conrad's amendment. Perhaps the face of Islamic terrorism has evolved, but he still is our central focus.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that would limit funds for any future public relations campaign being commissioned by the Pentagon to promote positive coverage of the war in Iraq. We first learned about this $20 million PR campaign to improve the image of President Bush's Iraq policy in the Washington Post last week. In my mind, this proposal is not just irresponsible, it is an insult to the thousands of Iraqi citizens and coalition forces who have died in this war. At a time when this violent insurgency continues to expand and American troops are putting their lives on the line day in and day out, what is the administration's focus? A better public relations campaign? The Bush administration doesn't need a new PR campaign in Iraq. They need a new policy in Iraq. We must change the course in Iraq, not waste time or money for public relations efforts. We must work to reduce the insurgency, not suppress news reports of its existence. We must strive to improve the situation on the ground in Iraq, not focus on changing the spin. That is why I am offering this amendment that would prohibit funds being used for this type of public relations campaign. Let me be clear. This amendment prohibits the use of funds for a public relations campaign and a database of news stories that is designed to promote positive coverage of the war. But the amendment specifically does not prohibit the normal work of the Department of Defense for collecting or analyzing information in the news media. The fact is, we do not need more propaganda. We need a new policy. I can certainly understand why the Bush administration would want to sugarcoat the news coming out of Iraq. The facts and the figures about the reality on the ground tell a somber story. When more than 250 Iraqis were killed last week alone, and the killings continue today; when kidnapping by those wearing Iraqi security force uniforms becomes commonplace, and average Iraqis now flee from Iraqis in uniform; when the U.S. Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction comes out with a report that paints a picture of incompetence, fraud, and failure, and USAID, the agency in charge of over $1.4 billion in reconstruction, has been hiding millions of dollars in construction overruns and failing to report the true costs and problems to the Congress; when some Iraqis are now too afraid to go to the morgue to retrieve the bodies of their loved ones for fear of being killed or kidnapped themselves; and when instead of reducing troops, thousands of troops have been ordered to go to Baghdad, and an Army brigade had its tours extended, it is time to change the course in Iraq. It is certainly easy to see why the Bush administration is afraid of the truth, and it is no surprise that a CNN poll released on Monday showed that 61 percent of Americans said they oppose the war as it is in Iraq, the highest opposition shown in any CNN poll since the war began. For those in the Bush administration who complain that the media only reports bad news coming out of Iraq, I invite them to look at the facts and figures offered by the Pentagon itself last week. In its latest report to Congress, the Pentagon found that Iraqi casualties are up by more than 50 percent in recent months. Violence in Iraq continues to rise, and innocent Iraqi civilians are paying the price. The casualty rate is now almost 120 a day, compared to 30 a day 2 years ago. The President continues to speak of progress, but the numbers tell a different story. From the time the new Iraqi Government was established on May 20, until August 11, the number of attacks were almost 800 per week. That is a huge increase from the beginning of the year and almost double from the beginning of 2004. So it is clear that the Bush policy in Iraq simply is not working, and it is time for a new direction. The President needs to realize that we do not need a new propaganda campaign, we need a new policy. Frankly, I personally never believed the administration's false arguments about why we should go to war in Iraq, and I believe this administration never had a strategy for success in Iraq, and that is why I voted against the war in Iraq even when that vote was unpopular. That is why I am standing up for a new direction in Iraq today. The President led us into this war based on false premises and false promises. President Bush went into the war without a plan to win the peace. Unfortunately, this administration still doesn't have a real plan for success in Iraq. Our soldiers have performed bravely under the most difficult of circumstances. But as Iraq moves closer and closer to an all-out civil war, as even the commander, General Abizaid, admitted was possible, it is time to change policy. The fact is that the war in Iraq has hurt us along the way in terms of our national security. By changing course in Iraq, we can make our own country more secure. I look back at Hurricane Katrina just a year ago. I see the terrible price the people of the gulf paid when their National Guard troops were away in Iraq and unable to protect their neighbors here at home. Our homeland is simply less secure when our National Guard and Reserves are being kept in permanent rotation in Iraq. This war has also distracted us from the great international security threats to the United States. While the administration is focused on the war in Iraq, North Korea has only become more defiant because they know we are bogged down in Iraq and have lost credibility with the international community. Under this administration, North Korea has conducted launched missile tests and has likely increased the size of its nuclear arsenal. They have withdrawn from the Non-proliferation Treaty. The Congressional Research Service has estimated that the number of simple, fission-type weapons produced by the North Koreans prior to 2001 was between zero and two. Now this defiant regime has an estimated three to nine nuclear weapons. While the administration has been distracted in Iraq, Iran has also become more defiant and has started enriching uranium, flaunting an international package designed to help end their nuclear weapons program, and is supporting Hezbollah's attacks against Israel. It is in Afghanistan that we have paid one of the heaviest security costs for the war in Iraq. The bottom line is the administration never finished the job in Afghanistan. Afghanistan--not Iraq--was the right place to pursue the national security of the United States. It was in Afghanistan--not Iraq--that the murderers of September 11 were located. Our lack of attention and resources in Afghanistan has allowed the country to once again become a land of increased turmoil. Many of us have been horrified as we have watched the resurgence of Taliban and strong anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan. In the past 3 years, there have been 284 attacks by the Taliban, and the number of suicide attacks continues to rise sharply. We have also seen poppy cultivation more than double since 1999. That ultimately is what emanates the opium on the streets of our cities and across the world. I believe it is long past time for the United States to focus attention on Afghanistan and on the current threats from Iran and North Korea. Let me simply say that the war in Iraq has not helped quell terrorism. In fact, it has fueled the proliferation of terrorist organizations and has increased instability in Iraq at the expense of our Nation's economy and the lives of our service men and women. The Iraq war has drained our Treasury of $320 billion. Well over 2,600 of our bravest men and women have lost their lives, and nearly 20,000 have been injured. That is the most fundamental issue facing our country today. Three and a half years into the war and the administration's overhyped spin has become unwound. Predictions that we would be greeted as liberators have proven false, and the President's partisan attacks on anyone who dares criticize his failed policy have led to the hollow truth behind both the original decision to go to war and the propaganda he and his supporters still spew forth every day. The facts are as clear as the day, and a majority of Americans know the decision to invade Iraq was the wrong one. In light of this knowledge, it is time to tell the President that we don't need a new propaganda campaign; we need a new policy. It is time to make clear that the Defense bill should be about flak jackets for our troops, not PR flak for the Bush administration. That is why I have offered this amendment which tells the administration to forget about the spin and concentrate on the mission at hand. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. I yield the floor.

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