Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to table the amendment. With all due respect, this isn't about any gag order. It is not about promoting whatever gains are made. We are happy to see whatever gains are made in the Defense Department, in the White House, and all of the Republican administration. They can roll out all of the good news they have. But what we don't need and what I hope the Senate will not vote for is $20 million of taxpayer funds for the purpose of having a public relations firm ultimately generate ``good press out of Iraq.'' That is not what we need. We need a change in policy, not a $20 million public relations contract. Our amendment specifically allows the Department of Defense to continue to collect or analyze information in the news media, as they do now, but we do not need a $20 million public relations program. If my colleagues vote for the motion to table, they are voting to have that $20 million public relations program that the taxpayers will fund. We can generate whatever good news may exist, but what we need is a change in policy. We don't need a PR program. This bill should be about flack jackets for our soldiers, not for the administration.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Ensign and Senator Lautenberg to introduce legislation to award Jerry Lewis with the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor. This well-deserved recognition pays tribute to the many outstanding and enduring contributions Jerry Lewis has made throughout his career. Born in 1926 in Newark, NJ, this gifted comedian has been a fixture in the entertainment community for more than five decades keeping spirits high and Americans laughing during some of the most turbulent periods in our history--World War II, the Cold War, and the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. But in addition to his comic persona, Lewis is also an active champion of charitable causes with an undying commitment to finding a cure for muscular dystrophy. Mr. Lewis has served for five decades as the National Chairman of the Muscular Dystrophy Association, which is an incredible organization dedicated to making a difference in the lives of countless families dealing with the challenges associated with muscular dystrophy. Forty years ago, he began the ``Jerry Lewis MDA Labor Day Telethon,'' an annual television program that benefits children and adults affected by muscular dystrophy and related neuromuscular diseases. This year, Mr. Lewis achieved an amazing accomplishment. His annual Labor Day telethon raised a record $61 million to fight this disease. In September of 1976, this great body adopted a resolution expressing their appreciation of Jerry Lewis' philanthropic endeavors, in particular, his fight to find a cure for muscular dystrophy. Today, I believe a fitting accolade to this larger than life individual would be for him to join the ranks of distinguished Congressional Gold Medal recipients. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Jerry Lewis, supporting the fight to end muscular dystrophy, and co- sponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senator Ensign and Senator Lautenberg to introduce legislation to award Jerry Lewis with the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor. This well-deserved recognition pays tribute to the many outstanding and enduring contributions Jerry Lewis has made throughout his career. Born in 1926 in Newark, NJ, this gifted comedian has been a fixture in the entertainment community for more than five decades keeping spirits high and Americans laughing during some of the most turbulent periods in our history--World War II, the Cold War, and the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. But in addition to his comic persona, Lewis is also an active champion of charitable causes with an undying commitment to finding a cure for muscular dystrophy. Mr. Lewis has served for five decades as the National Chairman of the Muscular Dystrophy Association, which is an incredible organization dedicated to making a difference in the lives of countless families dealing with the challenges associated with muscular dystrophy. Forty years ago, he began the ``Jerry Lewis MDA Labor Day Telethon,'' an annual television program that benefits children and adults affected by muscular dystrophy and related neuromuscular diseases. This year, Mr. Lewis achieved an amazing accomplishment. His annual Labor Day telethon raised a record $61 million to fight this disease. In September of 1976, this great body adopted a resolution expressing their appreciation of Jerry Lewis' philanthropic endeavors, in particular, his fight to find a cure for muscular dystrophy. Today, I believe a fitting accolade to this larger than life individual would be for him to join the ranks of distinguished Congressional Gold Medal recipients. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Jerry Lewis, supporting the fight to end muscular dystrophy, and co- sponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this amendment is in response to some breaches in our security as they relate to critical information about recruits that we are seeking in the Armed Services of the United States. In May of this year, we learned about the security breach at the Veterans' Administration that jeopardized the personnel records of 26.5 million of our Nation's veterans. Fortunately, the stolen laptop that contained this information was recovered, but we know this is not an isolated incident. In June of this year, nearly 28,000 Navy sailors and their family members had their information compromised when it was posted on a Web site. Information, including their names, Social Security numbers, and birth dates was on line for anyone to see and use for any nefarious purpose. Millions of people had access to the most sensitive personal information, and the long-term damage that it may have caused cannot be measured. But the security failures don't end there. Just last week, we learned that in my home State of New Jersey, two laptop computers were stolen from Navy officers. These computers contained the personal information of some 31,000 Navy recruiters and applicants. The theft jeopardized potentially the security of thousands of New Jerseyans, including high school students who were actively being recruited. Our country has some very strict laws to protect minors, but all of these efforts are meaningless if criminals can easily get their hands on the names and personal information of our young people by simply snatching a laptop. Senator Lautenberg and I wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Navy requesting a full accounting on how the theft occurred and the action the Navy has taken in response. The Navy came to my office and briefed us about where they are in this process. They are having a full investigation. But during the course of that discussion, it became rather clear to me that, in fact, they need assistance in trying to improve the physical security at these Navy recruiting stations, and also to improve data security. In view of what we learned during the course of these discussions, we come to the Senate floor because we believe that this is something that is incredibly important. If you are going to recruit people from our communities and say come join the Armed Services of the United States, in this case the Navy, and we ask for critical information from them as they make a decision to join, or to be considered and to be further recruited, we want people to have confidence that the critical information they give about themselves--Social Security number, birth date, and other critical information--is ultimately secure, that they can feel secure that the information will be secure. It is very important when we see these breaches that have taken place to, in fact, move forward in a way that helps us give people a sense of satisfaction that when they go to a recruiting entity, regardless of which branch of the service it is, that, in fact, the information they give will be secure. We know identity theft jeopardizes one's financial future, personal safety, and constitutional right to privacy, and allowing it to happen to men and women who seek to serve in our military is absolutely unacceptable We believe our amendment, which basically makes available from the operation and maintenance of the Navy, up to an additional $3 million to fund improvements to physical security at Navy recruiting stations and to improve data security is, in fact, critically important. We specifically note the Navy because it was in June and July of this year that we have seen two breaches of security. I think it is important to ensure that at a time in which we are already pretty dramatically stretched in terms of the Armed Forces of the United States, and we are asking Americans to consider joining the services, we are going to provide them a guarantee that their personal information, critical personal information, does not become public information, information that can ultimately dramatically affect them. This amendment basically would move in the direction of trying to ensure that these Navy recruiting sites where this information is often kept--because it is the first source of where the recruiting goes on between, in this case, the Navy and those in the communities in which the stations find themselves--can be secure so that we do not experience what we experienced in New Jersey last week. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, over the past few decades, our country has seen a major shift in the way that our Reserve component has been used. Traditionally, National guardsmen and reservists have supplemented our active-duty troops at times of a major war or conflict. But as America faces ever-increasing military challenges, we see these forces now replacing active duty troops in operations around the world. Since September 11, a large number of our Reserve component has been called to active duty, and it is expected to remain that way for the foreseeable future. Our Nation not only relies on the National Guard during times of war, but during crises and disasters within our borders. In my home State of New Jersey, we have witnessed the critical role the Guard plays in supporting our first responders and assisting with domestic emergencies. The Guard immediately responded to the 9/11 attacks, provided relief in the aftermath of the hurricanes on the gulf coast, and aided New Jerseyans after the flooding in our State. As our Nation continues to rely on the efforts of National Guard members and reservists, it is imperative that we provide them and their families the support they need at home. Unfortunately, many married Guard members and reservists on active duty lose their income from their civilian jobs when they are activated. It is unconscionable that we would make these soldiers choose between their duty to our country and the financial security of their families. That is why I am introducing the Citizen Soldier Relief Act, which would exempt from taxation incomes earned by members of the Reserve component that are called to duty outside the traditional 1 weekend per month and 2 weeks per year. My bill would address a current void that exists in tax relief for our National Guard members and reservists who serve in noncombat-related capacities. By providing tax relief for these hard-working men and women, we can show them that our Nation appreciates their service and their sacrifice. I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, over the past few decades, our country has seen a major shift in the way that our Reserve component has been used. Traditionally, National guardsmen and reservists have supplemented our active-duty troops at times of a major war or conflict. But as America faces ever-increasing military challenges, we see these forces now replacing active duty troops in operations around the world. Since September 11, a large number of our Reserve component has been called to active duty, and it is expected to remain that way for the foreseeable future. Our Nation not only relies on the National Guard during times of war, but during crises and disasters within our borders. In my home State of New Jersey, we have witnessed the critical role the Guard plays in supporting our first responders and assisting with domestic emergencies. The Guard immediately responded to the 9/11 attacks, provided relief in the aftermath of the hurricanes on the gulf coast, and aided New Jerseyans after the flooding in our State. As our Nation continues to rely on the efforts of National Guard members and reservists, it is imperative that we provide them and their families the support they need at home. Unfortunately, many married Guard members and reservists on active duty lose their income from their civilian jobs when they are activated. It is unconscionable that we would make these soldiers choose between their duty to our country and the financial security of their families. That is why I am introducing the Citizen Soldier Relief Act, which would exempt from taxation incomes earned by members of the Reserve component that are called to duty outside the traditional 1 weekend per month and 2 weeks per year. My bill would address a current void that exists in tax relief for our National Guard members and reservists who serve in noncombat-related capacities. By providing tax relief for these hard-working men and women, we can show them that our Nation appreciates their service and their sacrifice. I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution that would honor an unsung hero who saved thousands of people from death during the Holocaust. The world knows the names of Oskar Schindler and Raoul Wallenberg, but few know the work of an American man named Varian Fry. During the Nazi takeover of Europe in World War II, Varian Fry, a resident of my home State of New Jersey, selflessly risked his life to save the lives of some 2,000 Jews and anti-Nazi refugees in Vichy, France. Although not Jewish himself, Fry understood the threat the Nazis posed. Over the course of 13 months, Fry's rescue operation saved some of Europe's most accomplished artists, writers, and intellectuals, such as Marc Chagall, Max Ernst, Jacques Lipschitz, Arthur Koestler, Hannah Arendt, Franz Werfel, Lion Feuchtwanger, and Heinrich Mann. Few of us can imagine the dangers that Fry encountered and the courage and savvy that he needed to elude the Nazis and transport thousands of refugees from France to safe havens abroad. We remember that Varian Fry sacrificed his job and his personal safety to help others and to stand up for what was right. His work to aid both Jews and anti-Nazis during this perilous time in history makes him a hero for people of all religions and all nations. Tragically, this man whose bravery and resourcefulness changed the lives of so many died in relative obscurity. It was not until 1991, 24 years after Fry's death, that the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council became the first American agency to officially recognize his work. It is now time that the country recognize his humanitarian efforts. Fry's hometown of Ridgewood, NJ, has honored him and dedicated a street in his name, but we must do more. Sixty-six years after Varian Fry began his lifesaving work in France, it is time that he earns proper recognition for his noble mission. One measure we can take is to allow Fry to join the ranks of other humanitarians and leaders who have been honored with a commemorative stamp in their name. The U.S. Postal Service has already issued a stamp honoring former U.S. Vice-Consul Horace Bingaman, who aided Fry in his rescue campaign. It is only fitting that Fry be honored with a stamp, as well. Varian Fry has been honored by France and was the first American to be named Righteous Among the Nations, Yad Vashem's highest honor for those who helped rescue people during the Holocaust. Though Fry passed away many years ago, let us now show his relatives and the world that this Nation--his Nation--also appreciates his sacrifice and commitment to saving lives at a time when the world was turning a blind eye to the evil of the Nazis. I thank my House colleague, Steve Rothman, for his work on the companion bill to this resolution which he has already introduced in the House of Representatives, and I ask that my fellow Senators join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, as we consider critical pension reform to help secure the retirement benefits of millions of our Nation's workers, I want first to commend my colleagues for all the hard work they have put into this bill and their efforts to strengthen our Nation's pension system. This bill will help ensure that companies can continue to provide pensions over the long term, it will protect the benefits of current beneficiaries, and it strengthens plans so that benefits will be there for workers for years to come. And while I welcome this bipartisan bill and all that it will do to benefit the retirement security of workers, I would like to express my strong concern over the differential treatment of airlines in this bill. In allocating that relief, not all airlines are treated fairly, and therefore not on a level playing field. Some, such as Continental which has a significant economic and employee presence in New Jersey, are not given the same benefits and flexibility to make up the underfunding of their pension plans. What especially concerns me is that Continental went to great lengths to keep it from becoming financially unstable and to protect benefits for its employees, including voluntary wage reductions and freezing one of its pension plans. And despite those actions, because of the unequal treatment in this bill, the airline is at a competitive disadvantage, and over 10,000 workers in my state could be adversely affected. As this legislation has been under negotiation for months and there is an urgency to pass a final bill, I do not want to hold up the pension bill from final passage. I do hope, however, that we can secure the support of our leadership and work with our colleagues to come to an agreement that would provide more equitable treatment for Continental Airlines and its employees. Retirement security is a pressing issue for many workers affected by this bill, including employees at Continental. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to work with us in addressing this issue when we return in September.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, since the March 2003 start of the Iraq war, more than 19,157 members of our Nation's Armed Forces have been injured, more than 18,777 of them wounded in action. Imagine that you are one of those wounded. You are an enlisted marine serving your country in Iraq. Your convoy is attacked by Iraqi gunmen and your transport explodes, killing several of your fellow soldiers and wounding many more. You are seriously wounded, so you're medevaced to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center and then transported to an appropriate medical facility in the U.S. for further stabilization and treatment. As you begin the long road to recovery in the hospital, you may be approached by a Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, counselor who provides you with information about VA medical benefits and vocational rehabilitation and employment services. You may or may not meet with someone from the VA. But you're not ready to think about those things yet. You just want to get better and rejoin your fellow marines in Iraq. Several months later, as you convalesce, Department of Defense, DOD, determines that you should be discharged due to the seriousness of your injuries. But, the discharge process won't become official for at least nine months, and you can't access VA services until it does. This leaves you in limbo, caught somewhere between the DOD and VA systems. You finally return home, still convalescing from your injuries and while there, you finally receive your discharge papers. This development means no more access to the support you received during active duty, including health care. In order to receive medical care, you need to begin enrollment in the VA system to access medical services. Enrollment is a slow and difficult process, and, in your seriously wounded state, you come up against a blizzard of paperwork, Byzantine procedures, and a number of overworked VA caseworkers. Your family has no idea how to get you into the system quickly and without having to pay more money for interim care until the VA benefits kick in. As the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan grind on, these stories are all too frequent. Many wounded soldiers, service men and women are faced with the prospect of a premature end to their military service and are struggling to reenter civilian life, often with permanent disabilities. And they now have to find their way to the VA. They need help finding their way so they can get the care they deserve. They have served their country and now their country, their military, owes them our best in return. That is why I am proud to introduce the Veterans Navigator Act, a bill that would expand and enhance the important work done by VSOs and other non-governmental organizations to guide our Nation's service men and women to and through the VA healthcare system. It would, in fact, acknowledge the work of these organizations by providing $25 million in grants over 5 years to augment their capabilities. The ``navigator'' concept is not new. It is similar to the Patient Navigator demonstration program I introduced and which was subsequently enacted into law. There, we also took a successful small-scale program being used at select medical facilities around the country and expanded it by providing grants for a scaled-up demonstration program to serve those with cancer and other chronic diseases, and in particular, to provide support to medically underserved populations. With the veterans navigator bill, I propose to do something similar, capitalizing on the successes of the Patient navigator concept, to help our troops. The $25 million over 5 years in the bill would allow VSOs and other organizations to apply for grants so that they could hire and train navigators to provide assistance, on an individualized basis, to members of the Armed Forces as they transition from military service to the VA health care system. They would do so in coordination with DOD and the VA. Right now, many VSOs rely principally on donations to perform these services. At the end of the 5 years, the VA Secretary would submit a report to Congress on the effectiveness of the veterans navigator demonstration program and to recommend whether it should be made permanent. Often called national service officers or counselors, a navigator is a ``sherpa,'' a guide through the maze of paper and people and specialists and benefits. A navigator is an advocate for those no longer able to go it alone. A navigator is a facilitator, someone who will be with you through the process, to provide the expertise you will need to transition between active duty and veterans status and to get the urgent care you need. Let me be clear: a navigator does not supplant the role of the DOD or the VA. A navigator is meant to complement the work done by these organizations, particularly at a time when those systems are struggling to meet the needs of the soldiers returning from war and will continue to do so long after the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have ended. The bill focuses particular attention on four underserved groups in the military community: the seriously injured or wounded soldiers, female soldiers, those suffering from psychological problems like post- traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, and members of the activated National Guard and Reserves. These underserved groups have not been sufficiently served in existing VA and DOD transition programs and activities. It is these underserved groups who especially need continuity of care as they enter and wind their way through the VA medical system. Part of the reason they have not been adequately cared for is that the nature of the current wars we are fighting, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, are different from previous conflicts we have undertaken. During the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, we have the largest activation of National Guard and reservists since World War II. As of June 1, according to DOD, the United States had 128,789 military personnel deployed in Iraq. Of these, 102,709 were active component personnel and 26,080 were National Guard and Reserves. The recent announcement by President Bush to send additional troops to Baghdad in the face of increasing sectarian violence will likely only mean that those numbers will increase. The GAO released a report last February citing deficiencies in benefits for these soldiers. The report concluded that National Guard and Reserve soldiers ``are given little help navigating a thicket of regulations and procedures necessary to gain access to military doctors.'' To complicate matters, members of our National Guard who seek medical care must file for an extension of their active duty status in order to continue to access military bases and hospitals. In its report, GAG also concluded that, and I quote, ``the Army has not consistently provided the infrastructure needed to accommodate the needs of soldiers trying to navigate their way through the' active duty medical extension' ADME--process . . . this has resulted in injured and ill soldiers carrying a disproportionate share of the burden for ensuring that they do not fall off their active duty orders.'' The Veterans Navigator Act would help minimize such occurrences by providing National Guardsmen and Reservists someone to help bring them through the ADME process and to help correct any discrepancies before they cause a delay in accessing VA medical care. Veterans with psychological problems also need help. In the last several years, we have been hearing a lot more about post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, in veterans and those returning from conflict. A recent GAO report has concluded that almost four out of five service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who were found to be at risk for PTSD, were not provided appropriate medical assistance. All of these factors mean that now, more than ever, our Nation's soldiers need help moving between the DOD and VA realms. According to the chief of psychology at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, roughly 20 percent of those service men and women returning from Iraq suffer from PTSD. In its recently released report, GAO concluded that roughly 78 percent of those servicemembers at risk for PTSD do not get further evaluation. That means they return to active duty or are discharged without receiving the appropriate care. It is the nature of this disorder to appear not right after the traumatic event is experienced, but often not until an individual reexperiences an event, has a flashback or is somehow reminded of a battlefield event. That may not happen until after a servicemember has been discharged from service. Once PTSD does emerge, the veteran may not know how to access VA medical assistance, or he or she may not have yet enrolled into the VA medical system. Again, as in the case of the severely wounded, time is of the essence. PTSD can manifest itself so severely as to incapacitate a soldier, making medical care more urgent. In the case of returning National Guardsmen and Reservists, the problem is made more complex because of the 2 year time limit on filing for VA benefits. Since 1991, opportunities for women in our Nation's Armed Forces have grown. For the first time, the military is placing women in support units at the front line. This has come partly as the result of more than 10 years of policy changes making 91 percent of the career fields gender neutral. The Navy and the Air Force have begun to allow female soldiers to fly fighters and bombers. The Army has expanded the role of women in ground-combat operations. Right now, ``women command combat military police companies, fly Apache helicopters, work as tactical intelligence analysts, and serve in artillery units. This would have been unheard of a decade ago, but it is happening right now. Right now, record numbers of female soldiers are fighting on the front lines and, as a result, more are being seriously wounded or killed. A Baltimore reporter profiling women soldiers' participation in Iraq observed that ``the war in Iraq has been an equal opportunity employer, by killing and injuring a historic number of female soldiers in combat situations.'' Therefore, a VA medical system designed to treat wounded male soldiers must now ensure that female soldiers get the right kind of medical care. They will need help finding that care and getting access to that care. A veteran navigator can help them do that. Because of the length and size of the deployment, many more soldiers are being seriously wounded. According to the GAO, roughly 30 percent of U.S. soldiers wounded in combat during World War II later died. Today, that number has dropped to 3 percent for those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan due to advances in technology and protective gear. While this is clearly a positive development, it also means that many of these injured soldiers are returning home with severe disabilities, including traumatic brain injuries and missing limbs that require comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation services. But, severe injuries often mean a lengthy transition from active duty to veteran status. As my story earlier indicates the physical evaluation of a seriously wounded service member to determine whether he or she can return to active duty can take months to complete. In the interim, the VA has to be able to identify these soldiers so that they can perform early outreach, provided that they have the information to do so. Despite this, the GAO observed in a March 2005 report that the VA faces ``significant challenges in providing services to seriously injured service members.'' In many cases, VA staff have reported that seriously injured service members are simply not ready to begin thinking about VA benefits or dealing with the VA system during the recovery process. The problem here, as GAO has pointed out, is that the VA has no policy for maintaining contact with these soldiers down the line, once they are discharged. Contact is often conducted on an ad hoc basis. Navigators can also help these seriously wounded soldiers. VSOs such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, Jewish War Veterans and so many others have emphasized the importance of maintaining contact with seriously injured veterans who do not initially apply for VA health care benefits because it may be many months or even years before they are prepared to apply for them. The veterans navigator can help perform this function. Because this individual or individuals have reached out to the injured service member before his or her discharge, they can, in coordination with the VA caseworkers, remain in contact with them as they recover and prepare to reenter civilian life. The navigator can also help obtain information from DOD on seriously injured soldiers earlier on so that they can help ensure that all service members and veterans benefit from VA health care services at the right time. At a time when many active duty service people and veterans have fought and often made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, we cannot risk having any soldier fall through the cracks. We cannot take the risk that our female soldiers, who are fighting alongside their male colleagues, may not receive the medical care they need. We cannot risk the lives and health of soldiers with PTSD. We cannot risk the lives and the health of any service member who put their lives at risk for our country. Not so long ago we celebrated Memorial Day, a day when each and every American honors the service of our Nation's Armed Forces, both past and present and takes a moment to thank them for helping to keep America safe and secure. The very least that we can do is to ensure that all of these brave men and women are able to access the medical benefits to which they are entitled, particularly in their time of greatest need. At some point in each of our lives, we might need a guiding hand to help us find our way. Today, Mr. President, I am proposing to provide that helping hand to our troops in a time of their greatest need. It is the very least that we can do.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, since the March 2003 start of the Iraq war, more than 19,157 members of our Nation's Armed Forces have been injured, more than 18,777 of them wounded in action. Imagine that you are one of those wounded. You are an enlisted marine serving your country in Iraq. Your convoy is attacked by Iraqi gunmen and your transport explodes, killing several of your fellow soldiers and wounding many more. You are seriously wounded, so you're medevaced to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center and then transported to an appropriate medical facility in the U.S. for further stabilization and treatment. As you begin the long road to recovery in the hospital, you may be approached by a Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, counselor who provides you with information about VA medical benefits and vocational rehabilitation and employment services. You may or may not meet with someone from the VA. But you're not ready to think about those things yet. You just want to get better and rejoin your fellow marines in Iraq. Several months later, as you convalesce, Department of Defense, DOD, determines that you should be discharged due to the seriousness of your injuries. But, the discharge process won't become official for at least nine months, and you can't access VA services until it does. This leaves you in limbo, caught somewhere between the DOD and VA systems. You finally return home, still convalescing from your injuries and while there, you finally receive your discharge papers. This development means no more access to the support you received during active duty, including health care. In order to receive medical care, you need to begin enrollment in the VA system to access medical services. Enrollment is a slow and difficult process, and, in your seriously wounded state, you come up against a blizzard of paperwork, Byzantine procedures, and a number of overworked VA caseworkers. Your family has no idea how to get you into the system quickly and without having to pay more money for interim care until the VA benefits kick in. As the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan grind on, these stories are all too frequent. Many wounded soldiers, service men and women are faced with the prospect of a premature end to their military service and are struggling to reenter civilian life, often with permanent disabilities. And they now have to find their way to the VA. They need help finding their way so they can get the care they deserve. They have served their country and now their country, their military, owes them our best in return. That is why I am proud to introduce the Veterans Navigator Act, a bill that would expand and enhance the important work done by VSOs and other non-governmental organizations to guide our Nation's service men and women to and through the VA healthcare system. It would, in fact, acknowledge the work of these organizations by providing $25 million in grants over 5 years to augment their capabilities. The ``navigator'' concept is not new. It is similar to the Patient Navigator demonstration program I introduced and which was subsequently enacted into law. There, we also took a successful small-scale program being used at select medical facilities around the country and expanded it by providing grants for a scaled-up demonstration program to serve those with cancer and other chronic diseases, and in particular, to provide support to medically underserved populations. With the veterans navigator bill, I propose to do something similar, capitalizing on the successes of the Patient navigator concept, to help our troops. The $25 million over 5 years in the bill would allow VSOs and other organizations to apply for grants so that they could hire and train navigators to provide assistance, on an individualized basis, to members of the Armed Forces as they transition from military service to the VA health care system. They would do so in coordination with DOD and the VA. Right now, many VSOs rely principally on donations to perform these services. At the end of the 5 years, the VA Secretary would submit a report to Congress on the effectiveness of the veterans navigator demonstration program and to recommend whether it should be made permanent. Often called national service officers or counselors, a navigator is a ``sherpa,'' a guide through the maze of paper and people and specialists and benefits. A navigator is an advocate for those no longer able to go it alone. A navigator is a facilitator, someone who will be with you through the process, to provide the expertise you will need to transition between active duty and veterans status and to get the urgent care you need. Let me be clear: a navigator does not supplant the role of the DOD or the VA. A navigator is meant to complement the work done by these organizations, particularly at a time when those systems are struggling to meet the needs of the soldiers returning from war and will continue to do so long after the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have ended. The bill focuses particular attention on four underserved groups in the military community: the seriously injured or wounded soldiers, female soldiers, those suffering from psychological problems like post- traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, and members of the activated National Guard and Reserves. These underserved groups have not been sufficiently served in existing VA and DOD transition programs and activities. It is these underserved groups who especially need continuity of care as they enter and wind their way through the VA medical system. Part of the reason they have not been adequately cared for is that the nature of the current wars we are fighting, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, are different from previous conflicts we have undertaken. During the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, we have the largest activation of National Guard and reservists since World War II. As of June 1, according to DOD, the United States had 128,789 military personnel deployed in Iraq. Of these, 102,709 were active component personnel and 26,080 were National Guard and Reserves. The recent announcement by President Bush to send additional troops to Baghdad in the face of increasing sectarian violence will likely only mean that those numbers will increase. The GAO released a report last February citing deficiencies in benefits for these soldiers. The report concluded that National Guard and Reserve soldiers ``are given little help navigating a thicket of regulations and procedures necessary to gain access to military doctors.'' To complicate matters, members of our National Guard who seek medical care must file for an extension of their active duty status in order to continue to access military bases and hospitals. In its report, GAG also concluded that, and I quote, ``the Army has not consistently provided the infrastructure needed to accommodate the needs of soldiers trying to navigate their way through the' active duty medical extension' ADME--process . . . this has resulted in injured and ill soldiers carrying a disproportionate share of the burden for ensuring that they do not fall off their active duty orders.'' The Veterans Navigator Act would help minimize such occurrences by providing National Guardsmen and Reservists someone to help bring them through the ADME process and to help correct any discrepancies before they cause a delay in accessing VA medical care. Veterans with psychological problems also need help. In the last several years, we have been hearing a lot more about post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, in veterans and those returning from conflict. A recent GAO report has concluded that almost four out of five service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who were found to be at risk for PTSD, were not provided appropriate medical assistance. All of these factors mean that now, more than ever, our Nation's soldiers need help moving between the DOD and VA realms. According to the chief of psychology at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, roughly 20 percent of those service men and women returning from Iraq suffer from PTSD. In its recently released report, GAO concluded that roughly 78 percent of those servicemembers at risk for PTSD do not get further evaluation. That means they return to active duty or are discharged without receiving the appropriate care. It is the nature of this disorder to appear not right after the traumatic event is experienced, but often not until an individual reexperiences an event, has a flashback or is somehow reminded of a battlefield event. That may not happen until after a servicemember has been discharged from service. Once PTSD does emerge, the veteran may not know how to access VA medical assistance, or he or she may not have yet enrolled into the VA medical system. Again, as in the case of the severely wounded, time is of the essence. PTSD can manifest itself so severely as to incapacitate a soldier, making medical care more urgent. In the case of returning National Guardsmen and Reservists, the problem is made more complex because of the 2 year time limit on filing for VA benefits. Since 1991, opportunities for women in our Nation's Armed Forces have grown. For the first time, the military is placing women in support units at the front line. This has come partly as the result of more than 10 years of policy changes making 91 percent of the career fields gender neutral. The Navy and the Air Force have begun to allow female soldiers to fly fighters and bombers. The Army has expanded the role of women in ground-combat operations. Right now, ``women command combat military police companies, fly Apache helicopters, work as tactical intelligence analysts, and serve in artillery units. This would have been unheard of a decade ago, but it is happening right now. Right now, record numbers of female soldiers are fighting on the front lines and, as a result, more are being seriously wounded or killed. A Baltimore reporter profiling women soldiers' participation in Iraq observed that ``the war in Iraq has been an equal opportunity employer, by killing and injuring a historic number of female soldiers in combat situations.'' Therefore, a VA medical system designed to treat wounded male soldiers must now ensure that female soldiers get the right kind of medical care. They will need help finding that care and getting access to that care. A veteran navigator can help them do that. Because of the length and size of the deployment, many more soldiers are being seriously wounded. According to the GAO, roughly 30 percent of U.S. soldiers wounded in combat during World War II later died. Today, that number has dropped to 3 percent for those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan due to advances in technology and protective gear. While this is clearly a positive development, it also means that many of these injured soldiers are returning home with severe disabilities, including traumatic brain injuries and missing limbs that require comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation services. But, severe injuries often mean a lengthy transition from active duty to veteran status. As my story earlier indicates the physical evaluation of a seriously wounded service member to determine whether he or she can return to active duty can take months to complete. In the interim, the VA has to be able to identify these soldiers so that they can perform early outreach, provided that they have the information to do so. Despite this, the GAO observed in a March 2005 report that the VA faces ``significant challenges in providing services to seriously injured service members.'' In many cases, VA staff have reported that seriously injured service members are simply not ready to begin thinking about VA benefits or dealing with the VA system during the recovery process. The problem here, as GAO has pointed out, is that the VA has no policy for maintaining contact with these soldiers down the line, once they are discharged. Contact is often conducted on an ad hoc basis. Navigators can also help these seriously wounded soldiers. VSOs such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, Jewish War Veterans and so many others have emphasized the importance of maintaining contact with seriously injured veterans who do not initially apply for VA health care benefits because it may be many months or even years before they are prepared to apply for them. The veterans navigator can help perform this function. Because this individual or individuals have reached out to the injured service member before his or her discharge, they can, in coordination with the VA caseworkers, remain in contact with them as they recover and prepare to reenter civilian life. The navigator can also help obtain information from DOD on seriously injured soldiers earlier on so that they can help ensure that all service members and veterans benefit from VA health care services at the right time. At a time when many active duty service people and veterans have fought and often made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, we cannot risk having any soldier fall through the cracks. We cannot take the risk that our female soldiers, who are fighting alongside their male colleagues, may not receive the medical care they need. We cannot risk the lives and health of soldiers with PTSD. We cannot risk the lives and the health of any service member who put their lives at risk for our country. Not so long ago we celebrated Memorial Day, a day when each and every American honors the service of our Nation's Armed Forces, both past and present and takes a moment to thank them for helping to keep America safe and secure. The very least that we can do is to ensure that all of these brave men and women are able to access the medical benefits to which they are entitled, particularly in their time of greatest need. At some point in each of our lives, we might need a guiding hand to help us find our way. Today, Mr. President, I am proposing to provide that helping hand to our troops in a time of their greatest need. It is the very least that we can do.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this bill which would do little, if anything, to improve the energy situation in this country. It would end up costing the Federal Government tens of billions of dollars in the long run, and it would create an opening for those who want to eliminate coastal protections that tens of millions of Americans want and enjoy. My primary concern with this bill is the fact that it does absolutely nothing to protect New Jersey. I don't think it does anything for 44 other States, either, but I am here to represent the people of New Jersey, and they are ill-served by the legislation. We do have a large chemical industry in the State, and I am sensitive to the problems they are facing with the high cost of natural gas, which is a critical feedstock for them. I have received letters from the industry urging me to support this bill, saying we must pass this bill to lower gas prices and put ourselves on the path toward energy independence. But this bill will do nothing of the sort, particularly in the short term. I believe the outside groups supporting this bill know this, and they are hoping this is a ticket into a conference with the bill the House of Representatives passed last month, a bill that is stunning in its disregard for environmental protections. The bill passed by the House would immediately eliminate the long- standing moratoria that protect our coastlines, not just in one part of the country but everywhere along the Atlantic, along the Pacific, the Arctic, and gulf coasts. Then it would be a free-for-all. States that wanted to could allow drilling a few miles off their shores. Neighboring States that could be heavily impacted by the drilling, particularly in the event of a spill, would have almost no say in the process. States that didn't want to drill would be given 50 miles of protection, way down from the 200 miles we have now. If a State wanted to get an extra 50 miles, it would have to apply to the Federal Government every 5 years for that privilege. The House bill also has a provision that opens national parks and marine sanctuaries to drilling. As long as your rig is parked outside of a protected area, you are free to directionally drill into that region. No thought is given to the environmental damage that might be occurring, the drill cuttings and toxic metals that can litter the sea floor. But then again, some thought must have been given, because the House bill also provides broad waivers for a number of environmental laws. One of the fundamental flaws of the House bill is an idea that we can split up the ocean into administrative boxes with each State controlling its offshore territory. But the ocean has no boundaries, and an oil spill will not respect any artificial lines we draw. There is territory off the eastern seaboard less than 75 miles from the coast of New Jersey the administration has already proposed opening to drilling. The House bill is yet another opportunity for that to happen. It is another assault on the Jersey shore, one of the most ecologically sensitive and economically important parts of the State of New Jersey. Our beaches are part of our $222 billion tourism industry, which is responsible for over 10 percent of the jobs in the State. The New Jersey coastal counties are home to over 1.5 million people. New Jersey is also home to a huge fishing industry. According to the American Sports Fishing Association, there are over 800,000 recreational anglers in the State, contributing over $1.3 billion and 12,000 jobs to the State economy. Our commercial fisheries are critical as well. The port of Cape May and Wildwood is the fifth largest commercial port in the country, by value. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, New Jersey landed over 185 million pounds of fish last year, worth over $139 million. The waters off the coast of New Jersey are home to over 300 species of fish and 300 species of birds, and our beaches are crucial stopping points for countless numbers of migratory birds, including some endangered and threatened ones such as the red knot. The House bill is a direct threat to all of this, and if S. 3711 passes, the House will have an opportunity to move their bill forward another step toward becoming law. I know we have been told that the Senate will try to avoid a conference--and I certainly appreciate that--and that we may be able to get the House to accept this bill as is. I have not heard any sort of commitment to that effect from the majority leader, and no one has presented a clear way to this body to avoid a conference with the House. The House, meanwhile, seems quite clear that it doesn't find this bill satisfactory at all. Richard Pombo, the chairman of the House Resources Committee who would lead the House delegation in a conference, has been fairly blunt about this. Here are two of his quotes: Given the fact that the House bill passed with overwhelming support, it is unlikely that the House would accept the Senate bill without having the opportunity to debate at least a couple of provisions, if not the opportunity to bring it up to par with the House bill. Referring to the Senate bill: It is a third of the bill that the House passed overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion just two weeks ago, Pombo spokesman Brian Kennedy said yesterday: The House passed a comprehensive national solution. Here are two news reports from this week: House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, the lead advocate of the House plan, has scoffed at the idea of simply accepting the Senate plan. Richard Pombo said that if the Senate passes its bill this week, he plans to work in conference to add as many of the House provisions as possible. Then yesterday, in an AP report: Representative Richard Pombo, a key sponsor of the House bill passed last month, said Tuesday he saw no way the House would accept the limited Senate legislation as a substitute for its bill--no way. Any Member of this Chamber who believes we can get the House to accept this bill as is should listen to these statements and think again. But I also don't believe this is all that great a bill to begin with. First, the fact is it doesn't do that much. Let me show you this map of the region we are talking about. This region outlined in black, the contours of it are lease sale 181. The purple lines are the existing pipelines in the gulf over here, and the gray squares are the oil and gas platforms that already exist. This orange rectangle right here has already been opened. So S. 3711 would open this red area in the middle, and these two tan areas, but the red area is already likely to be open next year by the administration anyway. Congressional action isn't necessary here at all. It is not under a moratorium, it is not under withdrawal, so there is no need for us to act to get that gas. The only new areas the bill opens are these two tan areas here, a wedge-shaped area in 181, and a bigger area called 181 south. They may look pretty big, particularly this one here in the south, but combined, these two areas have less gas than this red region alone. Look how far these new regions are from the existing infrastructure in the region. Even if they were opened today, it would take years for companies to start developing them. And once they do start developing them some years down the road, there is not all that much gas there to begin with. Here is the claim the proponents of this bill make: 5.8 trillion cubic feet of gas opened in this whole bill, which would be enough to heat and cool 6 million homes for 15 years. It would take care of the Nation's needs for 3 months. That is what they say. But how long will it take to get that gas? Here are the estimates that the Mineral and Mines Management Service say even going out 50 years--even going out 50 years--we only get about 80 percent of that 5.8 trillion cubic feet, about 2\1/2\ months' worth. Looking into the median term, in the next 15 years, this whole bill would open half a trillion cubic feet of gas. That is about 9 days' worth. The new areas, the areas that wouldn't be opened, anyway, provide less than half of that, enough to take care of the country for a cozy Thanksgiving weekend. But in the near term, in the next 10 years, we get almost nothing out of this bill, and there will be absolutely nothing until 2011. Take a look at these numbers from the Minerals Management Service and ask yourself, will this have a real effect on natural gas prices, with this type of supply? Will this have any effect on natural gas supply? Nothing in the short term. But, in exchange for that ``nothing,'' we give away 37.5 percent of the royalties, money that could be used for homeland security, defense, housing, education--or actually helping the coastal States in this region to actually meet their challenges. I do believe we should help them meet their challenges, particularly Louisiana. Senator Landrieu has made a powerful argument on behalf of her State and those needs. But the question is, How do we best achieve that? Money for these other priorities we cede to four States, and for those four States it is a great deal, but for New Jersey and the other 45 States, I don't see how it is. There are some people who might support this bill because of the money that will go directly to the Land and Water Conservation Fund stateside program. But the amount of money in that fund that we will get in the first 10 years is a trifle. These are the funding levels for the stateside grant program for the past 6 years--see where they are-- and the amount in this year's Senate Appropriations Committee report. The average over that time is about $82.3 million. Under the bill we are debating, this new direct funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund would provide a small fraction of what it had been getting in the past and barely even meet the lower funding levels of recent years. While this does not replace the appropriations process for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, it could make it harder in the future to get appropriators to provide additional funds to this program, beyond that which is allocated in this bill. This is no windfall for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and it certainly doesn't make up for the giveaways from the Federal Treasury. Finally, this bill provides statutory protections for Florida's western coast until 2022. That is unprecedented and treats Florida differently from all other coastal States. I do not begrudge Florida their attempts to get statutory protections to 2022. They deserve the right to try to protect their coastline. But New Jersey also deserves the right to protect our own. While we must fight each year for a 1- year extension to the drilling moratorium and are beholden to the whims of the executive branch which could remove the Presidential withdrawal at any time, Florida would be protected. We simply seek the same protections Florida is being offered, a continuation of the moratorium until 2022. So I will be filing an amendment, cosponsored by a broad, bipartisan coalition of Members from both coasts, including Senators Snowe, Feinstein, Lautenberg, Boxer, Collins, and many others, that would put the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans off limits to oil and gas drilling until 2022. While we file those amendments, we are being told, unfortunately, that we will not be given the opportunity to offer any amendments to this bill. I believe that is wrong. We have record-high gas prices. We face even higher ones in the future due to instability in the Middle East. We are putting a squeeze on families around the country while allowing oil and gas companies to report new record profits this week. We also have an electric grid in California that is straining under a record heat wave, and global warming threatens to bring us even more heat waves like this in the future. Yet this is the only piece of energy legislation which is likely to move this year, and we are not likely to be given the opportunity to address any of the real energy problems this country faces. There are a number of excellent amendments that are being filed by people on both sides of the aisle, amendments that would raise fuel efficiency or provide for a real plan to cut down on the amount of oil we use or create new incentives for renewable energy. I will be filing amendments to encourage the production of biofuels and the development of new vehicle technologies, increase the amount of renewable energy the Federal Government is required to purchase, spur the growth of transit-oriented development corridors to help reduce people's dependence on cars, and others. But at the very least, we should be allowing other coastal States, such as New Jersey, the opportunity to protect their own beaches the same way Florida has already been taken care of in this bill. The complete lack of protections for the New Jersey shore in this bill and the lack of guarantees that something much worse will not come out of a conference with the House forces me to oppose this bill. That is our fundamental problem. I certainly hope, if the bill is to pass the Senate, it certainly does not come back in any way other than its present version, or else we will clearly be forced to do anything and everything necessary to achieve its defeat. I yield the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I yield myself 20 minutes of Senator Bingaman's time.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished senior Senator from New Jersey for yielding time and for his leadership on this issue. I rise in opposition to the Child Custody Protection Act in support of a real solution to the problem of teen pregnancy. I don't support the legislation because it is nothing more than a misguided election- year ploy based on a false premise. Instead of punishment, we should be focused on prevention. Instead of putting people in jail, we should be preventing teens from getting pregnant in the first place. That is why I am joining my fellow Senator from New Jersey in offering a comprehensive approach to prevent teen pregnancy. Our amendment will help prepare young people with the knowledge and skills to make responsible decisions and offer them an opportunity to succeed in life. In a Senate filled with many different views on the right path for our country, it is refreshing to recognize we can all agree that we need to reduce the number of teenage abortions. But there is still disagreement about how to achieve that goal. Many in this Senate believe the answer is to criminalize caring adults and threaten innocent youth. I cannot disagree more. The solution to this problem does not lie in the courtroom but rather in our classrooms and afterschool programs. Don't take my word for It. Look at this past weekend's Wall Street Journal--not a bastion of liberalism. In an article ``Winning the Battle on Teen Pregnancy'' the Wall Street Journal examines a comprehensive sex education program in rural South Carolina and compares two similar neighboring counties. One has a very intensive, comprehensive sex education program, the other does not. The findings show that between 1982 when the Teen Life Center Program began and 2004, the county's estimated pregnancy rate among girls age 15 to 19 fell by nearly two-thirds, making its teen pregnancy rate among the lowest in the State. By contrast, the neighboring counties, which did not have such a program, had one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the State, about 2\1/2\ times their neighbor's rate. The article cites Douglas Kirby, a sex education expert: The Teen Life Center has played a major role over the years in reducing teen pregnancy in the community it serves. Also: I do think it's one of the most promising approaches. He notes the program devotes an unusual amount of time in the regular school curriculum to comprehensive sex education. As this case study shows, we clearly need to be putting more resources into preventing teen pregnancy, not punishing pregnant teens. Rather than invest in proven programs such as the Teen Life Center, the Bush administration continues to insist on a narrow-minded, misguided approach of abstinence-only education. As this chart demonstrates, abstinence only simply does not cut it. The Bush administration invested almost $600 million for abstinence-only education between 2001 and 2005. Not only did we not see a reduction in the number of teens having sex, we actually saw a slight increase. What a rate of return. With a rate of return like that, any reasonable investor would have already fired their investment adviser long ago. The American taxpayers deserve a better rate of return on their investment, particularly one that is so critical on this subject. The amendment Senator Lautenberg and I are offering takes a comprehensive approach to preventing teen pregnancy by providing medically and scientifically accurate sex education programs and funding important afterschool programs--such as 21st Century Community Learning Centers, Trio, and GEAR UP, and the Carol White Physical Education Program--that build life skills, put teens on a path to college, and ultimately help open the door of opportunity for young people. And our amendment also includes a demonstration program to encourage new approaches to reducing teen pregnancy. It is time to do something more than criminalize grandmothers, trusted confidants, and clergy. It is time we do something to actually reduce the number of teen abortions. But, once again, the administration and this Congress have demonstrated their misplaced priorities by bringing this bill to the floor instead of meaningful legislation to prevent teen pregnancy. Instead of debating comprehensive sex education, which is supported overwhelmingly by 94 percent of parents in our country, the Bush administration has continued to pursue its unproven abstinence-only programs, which have the support of only about 15 percent of parents. And instead of working in a bipartisan manner to prevent teen pregnancy, the Senate leadership is continuing to pursue their misguided proposal to limit the options for young women. When the New Jersey Supreme Court struck down a law that would have required parental notification, they considered the effect that notification laws have had on other States. Their conclusion was the same as mine, and I quote: [A] law mandating parental notification prior to an abortion can neither mend nor create lines of communication between parent and child. For example, in Texas, a pregnant 16-year-old explained why she could not tell her mother she was pregnant. She said: My oldest sister got pregnant when she was 17. My mother pushed her against the wall, slapped her across the face and then grabbed her by the hair, pulled her through the living room, out the front door and threw her off the porch. We don't know where she is now. Furthermore, the underlying bill does nothing to protect a young woman whose father rapes her. Despite such a despicable violation, he would still be allowed to make parental decisions on her behalf. Instead of punishing him, we would punish grandmothers or clergy who actually have to try to protect her from such an abusive relationship. Now, these are horrible situations, but they are real life situations, and by forcing a minor to ask an abusive, violent parent for permission, we are only adding to the abuse. Now, as a father of a beautiful and bright daughter and fabulous son, I would hope that my children would feel comfortable talking to me about their serious life decisions. And because I am blessed to have a great, open relationship with my children, I believe they would be comfortable bringing these issues to me. Unfortunately, our Government cannot legislate positive family relationships in every home, and not all families function like yours or mine. Sadly, not every parent can be their daughter's best advocate. Further, the New York Times analyzed six States that recently passed parental consent laws and discovered that these laws have done little to reduce the number of teen pregnancies or the number of abortions. As a matter of fact, look at this chart. You can see that the United States has the highest rate of teen pregnancy among all westernized developed countries. Despite what you hear from the Bush administration and some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, abstinence- only programs and restrictions on a woman's right to choose are not the way to solve this problem. Clearly, we need a different direction. Our amendment offers a real, proven solution to this problem--not just a hallowed, base-building effort. We need to make sure we are standing up first and foremost for the health and safety of our children. The time has come to reduce the number of teen pregnancies, and thus teen abortions, in this country, and our commonsense amendment will do just that. We need to invest in our school, community, and faith-based organizations so they can teach scientifically and medically accurate family life education. We need programs that encourage teens to abstain from sexual activity. We need to educate young men and women about the responsibilities and challenges associated with parenting. We need to encourage parents to communicate with their teens about sex. We need to teach young people how to make responsible decisions. And we need to fund afterschool programs that will enrich their education and replace unsupervised hours that can lead to destructive behavior with constructive activities and positive role models. We know afterschool programs reduce risky adolescent behavior. Teenage girls who play sports, for instance, are more likely to wait to become sexually active, which means they are less likely to become pregnant. We know teen pregnancy has serious consequences for young women, their children, and communities as a whole. Too-early childbearing increases the likelihood that a young woman will drop out of high school and that she and her child will live in poverty. Unfortunately, this administration has done nothing to support these initiatives that reduce the number of teen pregnancies. Instead, the administration has brought a politically charged debate to the floor in the name of politics, while the real solutions for our teenagers are being ignored. Instead of preparing future generations with the important information they need to make responsible decisions, this administration keeps young people in the dark about medically and scientifically accurate sex information. Instead of funding important afterschool programs that will build life skills and put teens on the road to college, this administration is shutting the door of opportunity on young people. Instead of breaking the cycle of daughters of teen moms becoming teen moms themselves, this administration has made it harder for young mothers to go back to school and raise their children. Instead of ending the trend of sons of teen moms ending up in prison, this administration has increased the number of unsupervised hours and decreased the number of positive activities and role models in a teen's day. Let's join together to recommit ourselves to continuing to decrease the incidence of teen pregnancy and recommit ourselves to offering family life education and positive afterschool programs that will foster responsible young adults and responsible decisions. The time is now to invest in our teens. As all parents know, we place overwhelming pressure on ourselves to make sure we raise our children well. The decisions we make--and they make--will affect them for the rest of their lives. We cannot afford to let the doors close on them. Instead, we must continue to open that door of opportunity. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important amendment. We have an obligation to stand up and do the right thing. It is time to stop talking about putting people in jail, and time to start creating real opportunities for future generations. This amendment does that. With that, Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise as an original cosponsor and strong supporter of the Voting Rights Act reauthorization. One of the most fundamental of American values is the right to cast a meaningful vote in a free and fair election. As the Supreme Court stated in 1964, ``Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.'' However, just over 40 years ago, in many parts of the American South, it was almost impossible for people of color to even register to vote. People were turned away from the courthouse when they attempted to register, while others were jailed. We sometimes talk romantically about the Civil Rights era, as if it were 200 or even 100 years ago. But the flagrant injustices that we see captured in black and white video reels were during a time not too long ago. On March 7, 1965, about 600 people attempted to peacefully march from Selma, AL, to Montgomery, the State capital, to dramatize to the world their desire to register to vote. And the world watched in horror as these peaceful demonstrators, including my good friend and former colleague, Representative John Lewis, were beaten bloody. That day marked a sad, sad chapter in the history of our Nation. For some, the tragedy in Selma is simply a footnote in a speech or a timely anecdote during Black History Month. But we must not lose sight of what those brave Americans were fighting for. And we must never forget the price they--and others--paid for their successes: Americans--Black, White, young, old, northern and southern--shed blood and, in some cases, gave the ultimate sacrifice so all Americans could enjoy the basic right to vote. Five months after what is now known as ``Bloody Sunday,'' the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was signed into law. It granted all American citizens the right to vote in any Federal, State, or local election and in doing so ensured that they had access to the American political process and a voice in determining their future. The passage of the Voting Rights Act helped expand and open our democracy to let in millions of our citizens. The Voting Rights Act has empowered thousands of communities to elect candidates of their choice and has ensured that a full spectrum of voices is heard in our national dialogue. In stark contrast to the days prior to the Voting Rights Act, today it is the Voting Rights Act that ensures that the elections of people like Senators Barack Obama, Dan Inouye, Mel Martinez, Daniel Akaka, and Ken Salazar are no longer electoral anomalies, but reflections of the will of the communities and States they represent. Today, there are 81 Members of Congress of African American, Hispanic, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Native American descent, and thousands of minorities in elected offices around the country. If it were not for the Voting Rights Act and its provisions, I very well may not be standing before you today. In the 21st century, at a time when we are working to bring democracy to both Iraq and Afghanistan, we must ensure that democracy is protected here at home in every circumstance. One citizen unfairly discouraged from voting is one too many. When people are denied the right to vote, they are denied a say in their Government, they are denied a say in the laws they are required to obey, and they are denied a say in the policies their tax dollars support. It has been said that those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it. That is why the annual walk that Congressman Lewis leads across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in commemoration of the anniversary of the voting rights march is so vitally important. I was fortunate to visit Selma with him and the Faith and Politics Institute. Nothing brings one closer to a sense of what those young men and women experienced--the hatred and bigotry--than standing on and walking across the Pettus Bridge with Representative Lewis and learning what happened that day over 41 years ago. As I listened to John Lewis and the other heroes of the movement, I was reminded how average citizens committed to an ideal can effect change. I was reminded through this pilgrimage that the journey is still not finished and that our goal must be social justice--not simply social service. I was also touched by those who suffered so much having so much love in their heart. It is a lesson still timely for us today and tomorrow. The need for the Voting Rights Act has not gone away. In my State of New Jersey, a consent decree was reached after violations of the Voting Rights Act by the Republican National Committee and the New Jersey Republican State Committee that deterred minorities from voting occurred during the 1981 gubernatorial election. This just illustrates voting rights violations can happen anywhere and at anytime, and are unfortunately a part of the historic fabric of our election process. Such violations were so widespread in the 2000 elections that Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act. If anything, need to strengthen and update the Voting Rights Act is demonstrated in new ways every year. The Voting Rights Act has been effective in eliminating barriers to the ballot box. Yet, several key provisions of the act regarding preclearance, observers, and language assistance are scheduled to expire in 2007. H.R. 9 will reauthorize these important and temporary provisions for an additional 25 years. Personally, I support making these provisions permanent. H.R. 9 is the product of a thoughtful, thorough, bipartisan, and bicameral effort that carefully weighed the competing concerns and considerations that have been a part of the Voting Rights Act debate since its original passage. As my colleagues well know, the act has been extended on four other occasions, very possibly making it the most carefully reviewed civil rights measure in our Nation's long history. This legislation we have before us today would renew the Voting Rights Act's temporary provisions for 25 years; restore the ability of the Attorney General, under section 5 of the act, to block implementation of voting changes motivated by a discriminatory purpose; clarify that section 5 is intended to protect the ability of minority citizens to elect their candidates of choice; and authorize recovery of expert witness fees in lawsuits brought to enforce the Voting Rights Act. The right to vote is so fundamental to our citizenship, so vital, that we as Members of Congress must make every effort to ensure that this right is a reality across the length and breadth of this great Nation. The Voting Rights Act ensures that all American citizens have access to both the ballot box and the American political process, and a voice in determining their future. That is why the Voting Rights Act remains so desperately needed and why Congress must reauthorize the special provisions that are set to expire. In addressing a joint session of Congress on the very legislation we are debating today, President Lyndon Baines Johnson said: In our time we have come to live with the moments of great crisis. Our lives have been marked with debate about great issues--issues of war and peace, issues of prosperity and depression. But rarely in any time does an issue lay bare the secret heart of America itself. Rarely are we met with a challenge, not to our growth or abundance, or our welfare or our security, but rather to the values, and the purposes, and the meaning of our beloved nation. We must heed President Johnson's admonition and take inventory of our Nation's values, purposes and meaning. Some members of the House recently argued that the Voting Rights Act is somehow outdated, has outlived its intended usefulness, and that it unfairly punishes those covered jurisdictions for past actions and sins. I have nothing but respect and esteem for that body, and look fondly upon my years of service in that Chamber; but, I wholeheartedly disagree with some of my former colleagues. In enacting the original Voting Rights Act and its four reauthorizations, past Congresses have declared to the world that America stands for freedom and democracy. But our rhetoric of equality and freedom must be ratified by an authentic pursuit of true freedom, true equality, and true democratic ideals. If we are to be a beacon of democracy and freedom to Baghdad, Beirut and Beijing--then we must first be a beacon of freedom and democracy to Bloomfield, Buffalo, and Birmingham. Over 40 years ago, Senators stood on the floor of this Chamber to right a monumental wrong inflicted upon millions of Americans. Inspired by the quiet strength and principled courage of John Lewis and others like him, this body acted out of courage, conviction, and conscience. I don't know what senators will say 40 years from now. But, if nothing else, it is my prayer that they will say this Senate kept faith with the highest ideals and promises of this great Nation. And that Senators from all corners of America, and of all political stripes, stood up in defense of democracy and freedom here at home. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to strongly support this legislation and in doing so protect the voting rights of all Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

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

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of millions of Americans and their families holding out hope that the Senate will do the right thing today, which is to support embryonic stem cell research so that scientists have the resources they need to potentially save millions of lives. I voted for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act when I was in the House, and I strongly support it. My support for this promising research is painfully personal. When I visit my mother, who suffers from Alzheimer's, and see her vacant stare, in which she doesn't even recognize her own family, I just cannot comprehend how anyone in this body can vote against this bill and deny families their last hope for a cure from the loneliness and confusion caused by this horrible disease. Embryonic stem cells have the ability to grow into virtually any cell in the body and thus have the potential to cure people like my mother and many others. That is why this research is so vitally important. Millions of Americans just like my family are waiting in hope that we will do the right thing. Those with loved ones suffering from Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or juvenile diabetes wait in hope that their prayers will be answered and cures will be found in their lifetime. Across America, families in which a child or a parent is paralyzed from a traumatic accident hold out hope that we will do the right thing and give their loved ones back the life they knew before their injury. President Bush and other opponents of this legislation know all too well the overwhelming public support for this promising research, but they still can't bring themselves to stand up for the people's interests over the special interests, stand up for sound science over ideology. Instead, they say one thing and do another. You can't say you support cures, then turn around and oppose the most promising research. You can't say you support research and turn around and oppose the vital funding that will make breakthroughs possible. For those who insist on playing politics with people's lives, make no mistake about it: The American people are watching, and they will not take kindly to seeing their last flicker of hope being extinguished. The only thing more callous than no hope is false hope. To those who say they are for research but vote against this legislation, they must answer to the mother who must care for her child who can't walk because of a spinal cord injury, to the wife who must help her ailing husband battling Parkinson's disease, to the father forced to watch his daughter inject herself with countless insulin needles for the rest of her life. By saying one thing and doing another on this issue, you are creating false hope and putting these and millions of other families on yet another roller coaster of despair. I know this is true because my sister and I and our children deal with it when we look into the eyes of my mother who no longer recognizes our faces. My mother and her terrible suffering brought me to this fight, but my children and the hope for a cure for future generations inspires me to keep fighting. We have an obligation to stand up and do what is right today in the Senate. American families and future generations simply cannot afford for us to fail them now.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, let me first say I totally agree with my colleague from Vermont. We are dramatically underfunded for what we need for homeland security. That truly is the core of the issue. I appreciate the spirit of the debate he has had with us on this issue and his comments. I simply believe that as we seek to fund it fully, the question becomes, What do we do now? The bipartisan, unanimous 9/11 Commission recommended that homeland security funding be based on risk. That is what this amendment does. Many of my colleagues have actually made the case, by virtue of what they have said, that risk-based funding should be the very essence of our foundation. They made a good case for their respective States for risk-based funding when they argued that their States have high-risk targets. This amendment does nothing to eliminate the effectiveness component. It does not eliminate the minimum guarantees for States. But threat after threat has been revealed, and that makes it very clear where the greatest threats are in our country. That ultimately should be our thrust, driving our resources, those which we have, as we try to build more to where the risk is. We are all in this together. We are called upon to vote for agriculture, hurricanes, and other things. I ask Senators to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I would have hoped we could come together on this amendment. I do not consider it an effort to pit States against States. I heard the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Homeland Security refer many times to the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission's unanimous bipartisan recommendation said all Homeland Security funding should be driven by risk, allocation should be driven by risk and strictly by risk. Our amendment, however, does not take their conclusion, in recognition that States have responsibility and needs, to the ultimate conclusion of all money should be focused strictly by risk. It recognized that all States have some degree of responsibility within the context of a Federal mandate. It says, as the administration has said, that it should at least receive .25 percent of all of those funds. We are in line with what the 9/11 Commission said. If we are going to quote the 9/11 Commission, then we should quote it in its entirety. Also, we are in line with where the administration's own recognition is. In my mind, this is not small States versus big States, small cities versus large cities, rural versus urban. It is about risk. Very small States can have very big risk. Ultimately, they would be--if their risks are established as they believe them to be--beneficiaries at the end of the day with our amendment. While the District of Columbia is obviously not a State, it is small in size and in population compared to many of the States of the Union, but it has great risk because it is at the seat of our Government, with national monuments and national landmarks. In fact, when it is driven based on risk, it should do much better. To suggest I would offer an amendment that would hurt my own State, as I saw on that chart, is simply not the reality. I understand a number of small States, for example, face great risks from nuclear plants, to ports, to dealing with security risks at their borders. Those risks, if we use risk assessment, will drive where the money should go. Of course, risk can change in the future, depending on the nature of the threats we face. Just as Members of this Senate are asked to support issues in the national interest, such as supporting our agriculture, protection from hurricanes, help after flooding, whether those issues impact our particular State, we and all Senators act in this respect in the national interest to support getting our Homeland Security dollars to the places at greatest risk. In fact, the Senator from Hawaii mentioned the cuts to communities such as New York City. When it is not based on risk assessment, that is the result we have. I agree with those who have said that the Department of Homeland Security can do a far better job. We are in unanimous agreement with that. I looked at the list of national critical infrastructure. I look at some popcorn factories, some petting zoos. Those are in this infrastructure of which there is great risk. That obviously is not the case. Ultimately, we need a process that drives our limited resources to where the greatest risks are and where the greatest threat is. Certainly, I believe that allocation as the 9/11 Commission called for in a bipartisan unanimous report, looking at all of the equation of Homeland Security and intelligence reform, is the way we should drive these moneys. We are silent on effectiveness. We do not alter effectiveness as part of the equation. We stated so yesterday to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security when he asked us. As a matter of fact, our legislation says to the maximum extent practicable. It does not undermine the very essence of making sure we have effectiveness. We want effectiveness. But is there effectiveness when you are giving allocations of moneys for which there is virtually no risk in many parts of the country or a much lesser risk? I hope those who come from small States but have big risks would actually be supportive of our amendment. In my mind, I find it interesting there are those who continuously vote against the amendments that have been offered to try and raise the Homeland Security funding overall but suggest we should not distribute the existing funding based on risk. In my mind, our amendment is actually about creating a standard in which all--large and small, rural and urban, regardless of what part of the country--receive a baseline guarantee but also receive those moneys needed to deal with risk. Any formula is always subject to, when there is an element that is to be determined on the basis of risk, how well the executive branch operates, but that is true no matter what. We need to keep the executive branch's feet to the fire and make sure that risk is truly risk, not as we see on some of the lists given in terms of infrastructure in the country that clearly has no risk. At the end of the day, to suggest we should have a general distribution formula of Homeland Security moneys when the September 11 Commission unanimously said that is not in the best interests of the country, that is not the best way to protect the country, and ultimately where those entities who complain they do not have the resources necessary to meet their homeland security challenge could get greater resources if their risks are, in fact, established, is to undercut the very essence of their argument. I ask unanimous consent to have Senator Cornyn added as a cosponsor of our amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wish to ask a question. Does that allow the remainder of the time I had reserved to be used by myself for the purposes of responding?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by several of my colleagues, the distinguished Senators from Vermont and Delaware. I agree with them that one of the core issues is overall homeland security funding. There is no question about that. The No. 1 responsibility, certainly, of the Federal Government and of government in general is to protect its citizens. We are woefully underfunding the ability to protect our citizens, whether that is in the cargoes of our ports or the cargoes underneath our airplanes, whether that is in the context of first responders, interoperable communications, whether that is in the context of mass transit. Unfortunately, in the wake of London, in the wake of Madrid, and in the wake of Mumbai, the Senate voted against amendments that ultimately would have increased the funding so that those wake-up calls would never be realized in the United States. That was the will of the Senate. Several of my colleagues have actually made the case that their States have very significant risks, whether that risk is a nuclear powerplant by a border with another country, whether that risk is chemical facilities right across the river, whatever those risks are. I find it interesting that our colleagues have come to the floor to make the case that they, too, have risks. We acknowledge that. We do not eliminate all funding for all States. On the contrary. We guarantee a baseline of funding for all States. But we say that the bulk of that funding, as it has been time and time again, even very recently, supported by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, the former chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission in a letter to House Members who offered legislation that, among other things, would make sure that all homeland security funding would be based on risk, as their unanimous bipartisan vote took place in the 9/11 Commission outside of the constraints of the politics of the situation--they made that conclusion. They still support that conclusion. That is the very essence of the Menendez- Lautenberg amendment. We understand. And we believe that those who have made the case for risk should do better because they have real risks. That is, in essence, what our amendment says. If you have the risk, you should have the resources. I agree with all of my colleagues who said they deserve to have more funding to protect America and to protect Americans. That is certainly what I believe is the very essence of what we tried to do in the first instance by taking that money which we do have and focusing it on risk. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Obama be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.