Floor Statements

Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee for yielding, and let me get right to it. Only in Washington, with those who have some of the best health care coverage in the Nation, would there be a proposal to cut coverage to America's neediest children.

An example of what would happen if this were to be passed: In New Jersey alone, more than a half million children depend upon our State's successful SCHIP program. Providing less than what is required to keep these children safe and healthy isn't only reckless, it is a dereliction of our duty here in Congress.

The President is spending a lot of time this week talking about Congress's role and responsibilities. The President had a responsibility to send us a budget that took care of children in this country, and we have had members of his administration cite the successes of what we have done in New Jersey and, therefore, in other places in the country.

Tom Scully, who is the CMS administrator, said:

Even in tight economic times New Jersey is setting an

example of how Federal waivers can help them cut into the

numbers of citizens with no health coverage.

That is what he said on January 31 of 2003.

If the Cornyn amendment is passed, as many as 30,000 children in New Jersey could lose coverage for needed medical service. Worse still, it would prevent another 75,000 children in New Jersey from even being eligible for the critical health coverage they need. That is not only bad policy, it is downright reckless and it is flatout wrong.

We live in the greatest country in the world, and there is no reason our neediest children should go without the medical services they need. No child in America should go to sleep at night in pain because they don't have the health care coverage they need or, as we saw recently, a young boy in Maryland who had a toothache, and it abscessed and it ended up getting infected and he died. No child in America should face that reality.

We know the success of covering parents, because when we cover parents, we end up covering children. That is not because I say it, but look at what the CMS administrator Mark McClellan said last year before the Senate Finance Committee. He said:

Extending coverage to parents and caretaker relatives not

only serves to cover additional insured individuals, but it

may also increase the likelihood that they will take the

steps necessary to enroll their children. Extending coverage

to parents and caretakers may also increase the likelihood

that their children remain enrolled in SCHIP, and that is our

experience.

That is New Jersey's experience.

Who are we talking about, not only in New Jersey but across the country? We are talking about some of the children in our Nation who come from communities that already have great health disparities. Yet when we see what SCHIP has done, we have seen those disparities narrow. Here is a chart that shows before enrollment in SCHIP what many children faced--White, African American, and Latino children--and after the enrollment, the percentage of children lacking a regular source of care dramatically reduces; dramatically reduces. Now, Latino and African-American children in this country will represent over 40 to 45 percent of all of the Nation's schoolchildren. Would we leave 45 percent of any capital, human capital in this case, unhealthy, uneducated? That is what this amendment seeks to do.

Madam President, we need to defeat the Cornyn amendment. We need to keep the reality of where SCHIP is today: insuring our children and their families and making sure we are preserving that human capital.

Mr. President, I rise today along with several of my colleagues to introduce the Healthy Farms, Foods, and Fuels Act of 2007. I am also proud to be joined in this effort by my friend and former colleague, Representative Ron Kind of Wisconsin, who is introducing this legislation today in the House of Representatives.

This legislation is crucial because we have a tremendous opportunity this year to set a healthier course for American agriculture. To allow our farmers, ranchers, and foresters to thrive while giving them the tools they need to meet our environmental and energy challenges; to open up new markets and opportunities for our small farmers; and to provide consumers and schoolchildren with more fresh fruits and vegetables, and make it easier for low-income Americans and the elderly to have access to healthier foods.

Like all legislation, a Farm Bill is a statement of priorities and of values. And the Healthy Farms, Foods, and Fuels Act embodies many of the priorities and values that I believe we as a nation should be focused on.

Although many people are not aware of New Jersey's thriving agricultural sector, the fact is that we are the Garden State, and a healthy agricultural sector nationwide--one that addresses the needs of all of our farmers, whether

they grow corn in the Midwest or blueberries in the Mid-Atlantic--is essential for New Jersey to remain the Garden State.

However, New Jersey's farmers are under a tremendous amount of pressure. They operate in a very high-cost environment and see development encroaching on their farms from all sides. Conservation programs are crucial to the survival of agriculture in the Garden State, as well as for the protection of sensitive wetlands and animal habitats, which is why the Healthy Farms bill increases funding and expands eligibility for the Environment Quality Incentives Program, Conservation Reserve Program, Conservation Security Program, Farmland and Ranchland Protection Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program.

New Jersey's farmers are also among the most prolific in the country in growing fruits and vegetables, yet they are often just a few miles from distressed communities where children struggle for access to nutritious food. That's why the Healthy Farms bill expands the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program to schools in all states, giving more children access to healthy snacks. The bill also expands the Farmers Market Promotion Program, and provides additional funding for programs that allow seniors and low-income families to obtain food at farmers markets. Not only do these programs help people eat healthier, they provide an additional market for local farmers.

This bill is, of course, just the start of this conversation. As we move forward this year, we must work together on issues of farm profitability, entrepreneurship and innovation, toward a Farm Bill that emphasizes flexibility, efficiency and equitable distribution of government programs. This will help to ensure success for our farm family enterprises and the wider community of Farm Bill beneficiaries, both large and small, near urbanized areas and in more rural settings, throughout all regions of the country.

Ideally, an emphasis on the diversity of agricultural and related businesses, their interaction with the citizens who are their ultimate customers, and the role these enterprises play in addressing issues of nutrition, hunger and economic growth throughout our nation will join with conservation and environmental issues to form a comprehensive Farm Bill that will serve the nation well for the next five years and beyond.

Mr. President, I rise today along with several of my colleagues to introduce the Healthy Farms, Foods, and Fuels Act of 2007. I am also proud to be joined in this effort by my friend and former colleague, Representative Ron Kind of Wisconsin, who is introducing this legislation today in the House of Representatives.

This legislation is crucial because we have a tremendous opportunity this year to set a healthier course for American agriculture. To allow our farmers, ranchers, and foresters to thrive while giving them the tools they need to meet our environmental and energy challenges; to open up new markets and opportunities for our small farmers; and to provide consumers and schoolchildren with more fresh fruits and vegetables, and make it easier for low-income Americans and the elderly to have access to healthier foods.

Like all legislation, a Farm Bill is a statement of priorities and of values. And the Healthy Farms, Foods, and Fuels Act embodies many of the priorities and values that I believe we as a nation should be focused on.

Although many people are not aware of New Jersey's thriving agricultural sector, the fact is that we are the Garden State, and a healthy agricultural sector nationwide--one that addresses the needs of all of our farmers, whether

they grow corn in the Midwest or blueberries in the Mid-Atlantic--is essential for New Jersey to remain the Garden State.

However, New Jersey's farmers are under a tremendous amount of pressure. They operate in a very high-cost environment and see development encroaching on their farms from all sides. Conservation programs are crucial to the survival of agriculture in the Garden State, as well as for the protection of sensitive wetlands and animal habitats, which is why the Healthy Farms bill increases funding and expands eligibility for the Environment Quality Incentives Program, Conservation Reserve Program, Conservation Security Program, Farmland and Ranchland Protection Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program.

New Jersey's farmers are also among the most prolific in the country in growing fruits and vegetables, yet they are often just a few miles from distressed communities where children struggle for access to nutritious food. That's why the Healthy Farms bill expands the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program to schools in all states, giving more children access to healthy snacks. The bill also expands the Farmers Market Promotion Program, and provides additional funding for programs that allow seniors and low-income families to obtain food at farmers markets. Not only do these programs help people eat healthier, they provide an additional market for local farmers.

This bill is, of course, just the start of this conversation. As we move forward this year, we must work together on issues of farm profitability, entrepreneurship and innovation, toward a Farm Bill that emphasizes flexibility, efficiency and equitable distribution of government programs. This will help to ensure success for our farm family enterprises and the wider community of Farm Bill beneficiaries, both large and small, near urbanized areas and in more rural settings, throughout all regions of the country.

Ideally, an emphasis on the diversity of agricultural and related businesses, their interaction with the citizens who are their ultimate customers, and the role these enterprises play in addressing issues of nutrition, hunger and economic growth throughout our nation will join with conservation and environmental issues to form a comprehensive Farm Bill that will serve the nation well for the next five years and beyond.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the resolution on which I hope we will have an opportunity to vote. As we hear this debate, it is a good debate that should move forward. I hope we will actually get to vote on the resolution.

I am amazed at some of our colleagues who would suggest that this debate shouldn't even take place. The Senate, the greatest marketplace of ideas, the clash of ideas, should be the place in which one of the most momentous issues facing the Nation should have the opportunity for those 100 Senators, elected by their constituencies across the country, to come and not only debate but cast a vote so that the American people know which way the Senate intends to lead on this question of changing the course in Iraq.

What we seek to do is put forward a new direction and a clear plan for Iraq--a clear plan that is very different than the President's current plans to escalate the war in Iraq. We have a plan that, if effectuated, would end the war in Iraq.

Our plan is relatively straightforward and says: One, our troops should leave Iraq by March 31, 2008, with a small number remaining to help with security and counterterrorism.

Those who say we shouldn't have any date because the enemy will outwait us, we see that Sadr's militias have already retracted, that they are already willing to spend the time to wait until it is propitious to strike.

Two, we should start the process of leaving within 120 days.

Three, our troops' mission should immediately change to the priority of training--priority of training--Iraqi security forces, focusing on counterterrorism.

I heard some of our colleagues talk about that element of al-Qaida in Anbar Province. Well, that is 5,000 or so. We have roughly 140,000 troops, and 140,000 U.S. troops could certainly take

care of 5,000 elements of al-Qaida in Iraq and protecting U.S. personnel in Iraq. Or we should take all these steps as part of a comprehensive diplomatic plan, working with Iraq's neighbors and our allies to bring stability to Iraq.

I support this plan. I would like to see it be much more than a goal. I would like to see it move more along the lines of a mandate. I support the plan because it matches the goals of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan group that met unanimously, agreed upon all of its recommendations, and who said that U.S. combat forces should leave Iraq by the end of March 2008.

I know some of my colleagues have mentioned comments made by Democrats in previous statements. Well, I would point out that this was a bipartisan group and it had prominent Republicans on it, such as former Secretary of State James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger, Ed Meese, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Alan Simpson. They all came to the conclusion, as we have in this resolution, that, in fact, our goal should be to have our troops out by March of 2008.

I support the plan because it transitions the mission for our troops, instead of keeping them fighting in the middle of a civil war. I support the plan because it sets a clear timeframe for our troops to leave Iraq. In my mind, unlike the way in which our opponents in this regard pass a negative light on a timeframe, I think a timeframe is the most powerful element to achieve success in Iraq. It is only by setting a clear timeframe for our troops to leave that Iraqis will have to take the responsibility for security in their country and to work out their political power struggles.

Some of these hearings that I have been part of in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, you hear how so much of the struggle among Iraqis is about political power. Is it the mission of the U.S. troops, the sons and daughters of America, to sit in the crossfire as people are pursuing political power? I think not.

Unless we have the Iraqis understand this is not an open-ended commitment, they will never make the hard choices, compromises, and negotiations necessary for a government of national unity, if that is possible. They will never get there so long as they believe we will shed the blood and our national treasure in an unlimited fashion. It is only by setting a clear timeframe for our troops to leave that Iraq's neighbors will start to take responsibility for ending the chaos inside of Iraq.

Right now, that violence hasn't reached the tipping point for them to get Iraq's neighbors involved. Ultimately, it is not in their national security interest to have the conflict spill across their borders and have Iraq disintegrate, but they do not yet feel the pressure to do this. By setting a date certain to leave, we create a new incentive for Iraq's neighbors to help quell the violence.

It is only by setting a clear timeframe for our troops to leave that the international community will take its responsible and necessary role in Iraq. Right now, the international community sees this as America's war. Once we make it clear we will not be there permanently or indefinitely, they, too, will have an incentive in getting involved to help preserve security in a region that is incredibly important to them, much closer to Europe than the United States. By setting a clear timeframe for our troops to leave, we actually motivate Iraq's neighbors and the international community to take the steps necessary to stabilize Iraq.

Let me be clear, for my friends who are saying we shouldn't vote for this resolution. They say we shouldn't try to micromanage the war. No one is trying to micromanage a war. There is a constitutional responsibility by Members of the Senate to act as a legislative body. I say the era of blank checks, both in lives and national treasure, is over. They say don't micromanage the war. Well, you have had a blank check under this administration. You have rubberstamped everything they have wanted, with virtually no oversight, until this new Congress started. That is not the responsible exercise of the Senate. They say slow bleed. How about the endless bleeding going on now?

Let me take a moment to talk about the President's plan to escalate the war and stay there without any timeframes that bind. First, let's be frank. I simply don't believe the recent escalation of troops in Iraq is a temporary surge. I believe it is a long-term escalation. Even General Petraeus has said we are in it for the long haul, and that, to me, is undefined.

I wish this administration would be honest with the American people and the Congress about the total cost of the escalation and the total number of troops needed for the escalation. I sit as a member of the Budget Committee, and we had the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defense, Mr. England, testifying in a hearing. I said to him: If the chairman would put you under oath, would you say that the $5.6 billion that you want in addition for the escalation of the war would be the total amount; the total cost? He told me: Yes, even if I was under oath it would be roughly that amount. Of course, depending on the needs of the commanders. And then that weekend--that weekend, after the hearing--the administration said they needed another $2 billion. They needed $2 billion more over a weekend? That is not a small amount of money that he didn't know about. We are also told the administration will need more troops, and there may be additional billions added to the supplemental. Each time we ask, we get a different answer. I, for one, would like a clear and honest answer for the total number of troops and the total cost of the troop escalation.

Staying indefinitely in Iraq isn't in the national interest or the national security interest of the United States. Our troops are caught in the middle of a civil war they can't solve. Adding more troops will only put them more directly in the middle of an Iraqi fight. Keeping our troops there or adding more troops is trying to solve a political problem with a military solution.

I have heard General Pace and others in the past say: You know, we have to get the Iraqis to love their children more than they hate their neighbors. That is a powerful truism. We have to get the Iraqis to love their children more than they hate their neighbors. That, however, cannot be accomplished by military might. That is accomplished by reconciliation measures. That is accomplished by confidence- building measures. That is accomplished by revenue sharing. That is accomplished by power sharing. It cannot be accomplished at the point of a gun. It cannot be accomplished at the point of a gun.

Staying there would only continue to empower and embolden Iran, a country that has turned out to be, by many experts who have testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, one of the biggest winners in our war with Iraq. Staying in Iraq actually keeps the Iraqis from making the hard choices, compromises, and negotiations necessary to achieve a government of national unity.

Frankly, what we hear from the other side doesn't make sense to me. They talk about victory. What is the definition of victory? Is it when the President landed on the aircraft carrier, fully decked out, and said, ``Mission accomplished''? Is it the many times we have heard the administration say, victory is right around the corner? How many lives, how much national treasure, what victory are we talking about? They talk about benchmarks for the Iraqis, but they set no consequences. Benchmarks without consequences are simply aspirations, nothing more.

Victory. How many lives must we lose? How much more money must we spend? How long will we be in this war under a plan without end of the President? I believe it is long past time to change the course in Iraq. That is why this vote to allow us to move forward, to allow us to have a final vote on changing the course in Iraq and laying out a plan that can create the best possibility for victory in Iraq is essential, and that is what I hope we will do between today and tomorrow.

Finally, in the time it takes me to finish my remarks this afternoon, the United States will have spent over $2 million on the Iraq war today. Our Nation spends over $8 billion a month in Iraq. We spend $2 billion a week in Iraq. We spend $280 million every day. And the loss in money pales, pales in comparison to our Nation's loss of our best and our brightest, with almost 3,200 lives lost in the conflict and over 24,000 who have been wounded.

I visited them again this past weekend in New Jersey at the Veterans Hospital at Fort Dix. I listen to the stories they tell me, especially now as they face challenges in this part of their life. I know that may be another subject matter, but it is something for which we have to be responsible. A grateful Nation does not just say they are grateful, a grateful Nation takes care of those who serve their country, in how we treat them in their health care, how we treat them in their disability, and how we treat their families, for those who commit the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the Nation. The stories I heard from those soldiers do not indicate a grateful Nation.

I didn't vote for the Iraq war when I was in the House of Representatives. I believe that was one of the most important votes I ever cast. I don't support the President's escalation of the war. I was in the minority when I voted against the war in 2002, and there were those who said voting against the war would be political suicide. Even with that knowledge, I put my seat in the Congress on the line because my conscience told me this was simply not the right thing to do.

In a speech about the war, the President said the following:

In speaking of the consequences of a precipitous

withdrawal, I mentioned that our allies would lose confidence

in America. Far more dangerous, we would lose confidence in

ourselves. Oh, the immediate reaction would be a sense of

relief that our men were coming home. But as we saw the

consequences of what we had done, inevitable remorse and

divisive recrimination would scar our spirit as a people.

The President added:

I recognize that some of my fellow citizens disagree with

the plan for peace I have chosen. Honest and patriotic

Americans have reached different conclusions as to how peace

should be achieved. I share your concern for peace. I want

peace as much as you do. I have chosen a plan for peace. I

believe it will succeed.

That plan did not succeed. The man speaking wasn't President Bush but President Richard Nixon, and the war he spoke of was not the war in Iraq but the war in Vietnam. It is painful to hear the similarities between what was said by the President of the United States in that conflict and the one in which our Nation is currently ensnared. It is even more painful to see an administration and a President similarly disconnected from the American people.

In soaring speeches, President Bush, the Vice President, and Republican allies invoke the ``will and courage'' of the American people. They say, if the American people would have the ``will and the courage'' to persevere in Iraq, then we can succeed militarily. This administration fails to understand this war is not just about will and courage, it is also about wisdom and clarity of judgment, traits that have been sorely lacking in this administration.

No one should doubt the will of the American people. In fact, they expressed their will last November, a point that seems to elude many Members of this Chamber. The American people have the will, they have the nerve. What they no longer have is patience with this administration and the continued failed policy in Iraq, and they are losing patience with Members of this body.

It is time for the Senate to take a stand against the President's failed plan in Iraq and to vote for a new plan, a new plan and a new course to end the war in Iraq.

I urge my colleagues to support the ability to move ahead, to have a final vote, and then I urge them to support the resolution that would lead us out of the war in Iraq, that could give us the greatest opportunity for victory, that would give the greatest opportunity for the Iraqis to make the hard choices, compromises, negotiations for a government of national unity, and in doing so would honor those who have served their country with courage, with valor, and with distinction.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I wish to address one of the largest problems plaguing our home buyers today; that is, predatory lending. Over the past few days, the Wall Street Journal has written a number of articles about abuses in the subprime lending industry prompting a much needed crackdown on dishonest practices and deceitful lending. In addition, on Tuesday, the Mortgage Bankers Association reported that the number of new foreclosures reported during the fourth quarter of 2006 reached the highest level in 40 years. Not surprisingly, foreclosure and delinquency rates were highest among subprime lenders.

Mr. President, enough is enough. The recent scandal at the New Century Financial Corporation, one of the largest subprime lenders, is a final straw. As the Wall Street Journal describes in one instance, an elderly woman was struggling to make her $952 monthly mortgage payments when a mortgage broker called and offered her a ``senior citizen's loan'' from New Century Financial. They told her she wouldn't need to make payments for years. Well, she didn't get years. Instead, her monthly payment skyrocketed to $2,200 per month, more than double her income. With the assistance of a lawyer, she escaped foreclosure, but many others are not as fortunate. This is a prime example of the consumer exploitation occurring in subprime lending, and it is simply unacceptable.

Unfortunately, there are many more examples. Unscrupulous predatory lenders prey upon the innocent and unsuspecting. We know these lenders are more likely to target women, racial minorities, and the elderly. In fact, a recent academic study by the University of Denver found that more than 130 million Americans without prime credit scores--the type you need to get a low-cost loan--are disproportionately African American and Hispanic. How can we sit by while these groups are not only being robbed of their savings but robbed of their dream? For many, home ownership is the key to making the American dream a reality.

I have been a longtime advocate for increasing home ownership in underserved and minority communities. More and more Hispanics, for example, are realizing their dream of home ownership, with more than 50 percent of all Hispanics in the country owning homes. But when an average of 63 percent of Hispanic household wealth comes from ownership equity alone--the highest percentage of any group--it becomes clear the power that home ownership has to bring more families out of poverty, increase safety in our

neighborhoods, and help make the American dream a reality for all.

I have worked to create innovative mortgage products to help more people achieve their dream of home ownership, and I strongly believe we should not act in such a way that we dry up access to capital and mortgage options for those who are legitimately prepared to take on the responsibilities of home ownership. There are legitimate lenders who fill that need, and we should continue to work with them to preserve safe and secure loan options for consumers.

Unfortunately, predatory lending is making a mockery of the home- ownership dream for far too many individuals. Ironically, however, deceitful subprime lenders are living the dream. They are making enormous amounts, often making millions in profits. They do that by undermining the very essence of that dream for so many in our country. Last year, subprime loans totaled about $605 billion, which is one- fifth of the total overall market for U.S. home loans. We simply cannot ignore this segment of the market which serves some of the most vulnerable populations, including women, seniors, and minorities.

Many Americans listening probably think they could never be a victim of these predatory lenders. Judging from their financial success and the significant impact their practices are having on the stock market and the economy as a whole, it is clear that far too many Americans are falling victim, in many instances through no fault of their own. In communities across America, people are losing their homes and their investments because of predatory lenders. Let me take a moment to list their tactics.

Deceptive subprime lenders encourage borrowers to lie about their income, expenses, or cash available for downpayments in order to get a loan. They approve loan applications in which the income fields have been left blank. They knowingly lend more money than a borrower could possibly afford to repay. Furthermore, these lenders tell borrowers they have no other chance of getting a loan or owning a home. For many who dream of home ownership, it is hard to ignore. Home buyers are asked to sign sales contracts or loan documents that are blank or that contain information which isn't true. They sign forms where the cost- of-loan terms at closing are not what they agreed to.

The lenders' tactics are deceptive, and their words are convincing. It is no wonder many Americans have fallen into the trap. That is why I believe those who engage in predatory lending practices must be held accountable. We should no longer sit by while our communities are being targeted by these individuals and companies. We must address predatory lending through vigorous enforcement of safety and soundness standards, consumer protection, financial education programs, and credit counseling. Well-informed consumers are less likely to be the victims of predatory lenders and more likely to make better choices. However, at the same time, there are market forces that absolutely, without a doubt, prey upon the innocent and unsuspecting.

I would have preferred to have the industry fix this situation, but I personally am no longer willing to wait. This has been going on far too long. Time has run out, and I believe we need a legislative solution. As a member of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, I look forward to working with the chairman of the committee, Senator Dodd, to address predatory lending and to develop a solution that will protect the Nation's home buyers.

I wish to assure the American people, those who are currently struggling to pay their mortgage and those who are looking to own a home, that I will not rest until they are protected against the claws of predatory lenders. Enough is enough. American consumers deserve safe and secure mortgage options and new protections against predatory lending.

Finally, for those across the country who believe this is an issue which affects just homeowners or minority communities or those who should know better, I say ``think again.'' As today's Wall Street Journal reports, this issue has a chilling rippling effect across our Nation's economy, leading to sharp declines in the stock market and a sense that we are ``kind of back to panic mode,'' according to one economist quoted in the article. So don't be fooled. This is a serious issue which has far-reaching effects across our economy. Without prompt action, we put not only more individuals at risk of deceitful predatory lending practices but we put our financial markets and our economy at risk as well. The time to act is now, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to do just that.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, since the March 2003 start of the Iraq war, more than 24,042 members of our Nation's armed forces have been injured, more than 10,685 of them too severely to be returned to action.

I have visited these soldiers at Walter Reed, at Fort Dix, and at the East Orange Veterans Hospital. I have heard stories consistently from our veterans about fighting against DoD and VA bureaucracy for months and even years simply to receive the basic benefits they are owed by a grateful Nation.

The controversy at Walter Reed again brings to light the shortcomings in the process our returning veterans must deal with in their difficult transition from soldier to civilian. Just as

the deplorable conditions that have come to light are unacceptable, so too are the countless stories detailing the maze of forms, hearings, and medical evaluations that prevent so many of our veterans from getting the health care and benefits they need.

Too often, it seems that rather than thanking the soldier for their sacrifice, this system sets up yet another battle of bureaucracy. Too often, it seems that the system is stacked against the very soldiers it is designed to help. Too often, veterans must seek out their own treatment options and benefits or risk missing deadlines and losing benefits. It doesn't have to be this way. We have an obligation not only to fulfill the promises we make to America's fighting men and women, but to do so in a manner that ensures the benefits we owe them are made readily available.

At the East Orange VA hospital in my State of New Jersey, for instance, we have a modern War-Related Illness and Injury Study Center that stands underutilized because many veterans aren't even informed that it's there. Patients whose quality of life could be drastically improved by the technology the center provides miss the opportunity simply because they are not aware the option is available. This country can do better; the will of the American people is to do better; now this government must do better.

That's 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 servicemen 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 healthcare 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 recommend whether or not 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.

While all veterans will benefit, 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, is different from previous conflicts we've undertaken.

During the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, we have the largest activation of National Guard and reservists since World War II. As of March 12, according to DoD, the United States had 141,000 military personnel deployed in Iraq. Of these, 119,005 were active component personnel and 21,995 were National Guard and Reserves. These numbers are set to increase due to the recent announcement by President Bush to send at least 20,000 more troops to Iraq by May.

The GAG released a report in February 2005 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've been hearing a lot more about post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD in veterans and those returning from conflict. The GAO report 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 a recent study commissioned by the Department of Veterans Affairs, roughly 13 percent of service men and women returning from Iraq suffer from PTSD. GAO has concluded that roughly 78 percent of those service members 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 re- experiences an event, has a flashback or is somehow reminded of a battlefield event. That may not happen until after a service member 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's 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 re-enter 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.

As we have seen with the situation at Walter Reed, DoD and VA simply do not have the manpower to effectively handle the influx of veterans cases coming into the system. With a backlog of over half a million claims, the VA can not adequately address the individual needs of America's warriors. Our service members didn't have to wait to sign up to serve their country; they shouldn't have to wait and fight to get the benefits they are seriously entitled to.

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, 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. President, since the March 2003 start of the Iraq war, more than 24,042 members of our Nation's armed forces have been injured, more than 10,685 of them too severely to be returned to action.

I have visited these soldiers at Walter Reed, at Fort Dix, and at the East Orange Veterans Hospital. I have heard stories consistently from our veterans about fighting against DoD and VA bureaucracy for months and even years simply to receive the basic benefits they are owed by a grateful Nation.

The controversy at Walter Reed again brings to light the shortcomings in the process our returning veterans must deal with in their difficult transition from soldier to civilian. Just as

the deplorable conditions that have come to light are unacceptable, so too are the countless stories detailing the maze of forms, hearings, and medical evaluations that prevent so many of our veterans from getting the health care and benefits they need.

Too often, it seems that rather than thanking the soldier for their sacrifice, this system sets up yet another battle of bureaucracy. Too often, it seems that the system is stacked against the very soldiers it is designed to help. Too often, veterans must seek out their own treatment options and benefits or risk missing deadlines and losing benefits. It doesn't have to be this way. We have an obligation not only to fulfill the promises we make to America's fighting men and women, but to do so in a manner that ensures the benefits we owe them are made readily available.

At the East Orange VA hospital in my State of New Jersey, for instance, we have a modern War-Related Illness and Injury Study Center that stands underutilized because many veterans aren't even informed that it's there. Patients whose quality of life could be drastically improved by the technology the center provides miss the opportunity simply because they are not aware the option is available. This country can do better; the will of the American people is to do better; now this government must do better.

That's 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 servicemen 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 healthcare 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 recommend whether or not 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.

While all veterans will benefit, 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, is different from previous conflicts we've undertaken.

During the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, we have the largest activation of National Guard and reservists since World War II. As of March 12, according to DoD, the United States had 141,000 military personnel deployed in Iraq. Of these, 119,005 were active component personnel and 21,995 were National Guard and Reserves. These numbers are set to increase due to the recent announcement by President Bush to send at least 20,000 more troops to Iraq by May.

The GAG released a report in February 2005 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've been hearing a lot more about post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD in veterans and those returning from conflict. The GAO report 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 a recent study commissioned by the Department of Veterans Affairs, roughly 13 percent of service men and women returning from Iraq suffer from PTSD. GAO has concluded that roughly 78 percent of those service members 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 re- experiences an event, has a flashback or is somehow reminded of a battlefield event. That may not happen until after a service member 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's 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 re-enter 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.

As we have seen with the situation at Walter Reed, DoD and VA simply do not have the manpower to effectively handle the influx of veterans cases coming into the system. With a backlog of over half a million claims, the VA can not adequately address the individual needs of America's warriors. Our service members didn't have to wait to sign up to serve their country; they shouldn't have to wait and fight to get the benefits they are seriously entitled to.

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, 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. President, I rise today to introduce a bill designed to improve the science learning experience for students in low-income and rural school across the country. Investing in education is about investing in our future. Today's young people will be facing a new world when they enter the workforce--a world that is globally integrated and where technology has transformed the boundaries of human capital so that our tax forms, blueprints, and x-rays can all be analyzed halfway around the world. The greatest asset we have in this country is our collective intellect, and the Nation's competitive future will depend on us nurturing the intellect of the next generation of Americans.

In order to be competitive in the coming decades, we need to ensure that we have given our students the tools to be successful in science, engineering, mathematics, and technology. The America COMPETES Act, S. 761, which I was proud to join with my colleagues in introducing earlier this week, helps provide these tools at all levels of our educational system, from kindergarten through graduate school and beyond. Unfortunately, I am concerned that we may not be paying enough attention to those students that are already in the greatest danger of not reaping the full benefits of America's innovation future, such as minorities, women, and students in low-income or rural schools.

For example, according to the National Science Foundation, only 7 percent of our scientists and engineers are Hispanic, African-American, or Native-American, despite the fact that they make up 24 percent of the total population. A minority scientist is also far less likely to achieve a post-graduate degree. By 2020, one-quarter of the Nation's schoolchildren will be Hispanic, and another 14 percent will be African-American. That's 40 percent of our precious human capital, and we can not neglect that tremendous resource when we talk about improving our competitiveness for the future. No business could afford to leave 40 percent of its capital sitting idle, and neither can the United States.

That's why I offered an amendment during last year's Energy Committee markup of science and technology competitiveness legislation--an amendment that has made it into the America COMPETES Act--which will create a series of outreach programs designed to get more minority elementary and secondary students excited about science, to increase their interest in entering these fields that will be such a crucial part of our economic future. A program like this called Hispanic Engineering Science and Technology Week (HESTEC) has been operating very successful for the past few years as the University of Texas--Pan American, and I hope to see that success replicated throughout the nation.

But these types of programs are only one part of getting students hooked on science. We can spend all the time in the world telling students how exciting it is to be a scientist, but unless we actually let them experience that excitement--unless we let them discover the joy of scientific discovery first-hand-we will still lose them. And that is the job of the science laboratory class. A well-designed, well- equipped, well-staffed high school laboratory can be an incredibly invigorating and illuminating experience for a student. It can teach them far more about scientific principles than they can learn from a book or in a lecture, and more importantly, it teaches them the thrill of actually being a scientist. That, more than anything else, can mean the difference between a student who goes on to become a chemist, an engineer, or a medical researcher, and one who loses interest in science forever.

Unfortunately, a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, called America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science, made some findings that are extremely troubling for those of us who want to provide all of our students an equal opportunity to succeed in science and technology. It found that schools that have high percentages of minorities and low-income students are ``less likely to have adequate laboratory facilities'' and ``often have lower budgets for laboratory equipment and supplies'' than other schools. The study also found that students in those schools ``spend less time in laboratory instruction than students in other schools.'' Rural schools had some of the same problems.

We can not expect our country to be adequately prepared for the future unless all of our students are adequately prepared for the future. And unless we do something to improve the laboratory experience for our low-income, minority, and rural students, we simply won't be prepared. That's why I am proud to re-introduce the Partnerships for Access to Laboratory Science bill, originally championed by Congressman Hinojosa, which would authorize partnerships between high-need or rural school districts, higher education institutions, and the private sector, with the goal of revitalizing the high school science labs in those schools. The bill creates a pilot program, authorized at $5 million per year, to help schools purchase scientific equipment, renovate laboratory space, design new experiments or methods of integrating the laboratory with traditional lectures, and provide professional development for high school science lab teachers. This last one is particularly important, because one of the key conclusions from the National Academy report is that ``improving high school science teachers' capacity to lead laboratory experiences effectively is critical to advancing the educational goals of these experiences.'' This bill is strongly supported by a number of scientific and educational organizations, including the American Chemical Society, the American Council on Education, the National Science Teachers Association, and more.

We need to do a lot to ensure that our nation stays competitive throughout the 21st century, and this bill is only one small step. But it is a sorely needed step, particularly for those students who need our help the most. I invite my colleagues to join us in support of this bill, and I look forward to working to enact this important piece of legislation.

I ask unanimous consent the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill designed to improve the science learning experience for students in low-income and rural school across the country. Investing in education is about investing in our future. Today's young people will be facing a new world when they enter the workforce--a world that is globally integrated and where technology has transformed the boundaries of human capital so that our tax forms, blueprints, and x-rays can all be analyzed halfway around the world. The greatest asset we have in this country is our collective intellect, and the Nation's competitive future will depend on us nurturing the intellect of the next generation of Americans.

In order to be competitive in the coming decades, we need to ensure that we have given our students the tools to be successful in science, engineering, mathematics, and technology. The America COMPETES Act, S. 761, which I was proud to join with my colleagues in introducing earlier this week, helps provide these tools at all levels of our educational system, from kindergarten through graduate school and beyond. Unfortunately, I am concerned that we may not be paying enough attention to those students that are already in the greatest danger of not reaping the full benefits of America's innovation future, such as minorities, women, and students in low-income or rural schools.

For example, according to the National Science Foundation, only 7 percent of our scientists and engineers are Hispanic, African-American, or Native-American, despite the fact that they make up 24 percent of the total population. A minority scientist is also far less likely to achieve a post-graduate degree. By 2020, one-quarter of the Nation's schoolchildren will be Hispanic, and another 14 percent will be African-American. That's 40 percent of our precious human capital, and we can not neglect that tremendous resource when we talk about improving our competitiveness for the future. No business could afford to leave 40 percent of its capital sitting idle, and neither can the United States.

That's why I offered an amendment during last year's Energy Committee markup of science and technology competitiveness legislation--an amendment that has made it into the America COMPETES Act--which will create a series of outreach programs designed to get more minority elementary and secondary students excited about science, to increase their interest in entering these fields that will be such a crucial part of our economic future. A program like this called Hispanic Engineering Science and Technology Week (HESTEC) has been operating very successful for the past few years as the University of Texas--Pan American, and I hope to see that success replicated throughout the nation.

But these types of programs are only one part of getting students hooked on science. We can spend all the time in the world telling students how exciting it is to be a scientist, but unless we actually let them experience that excitement--unless we let them discover the joy of scientific discovery first-hand-we will still lose them. And that is the job of the science laboratory class. A well-designed, well- equipped, well-staffed high school laboratory can be an incredibly invigorating and illuminating experience for a student. It can teach them far more about scientific principles than they can learn from a book or in a lecture, and more importantly, it teaches them the thrill of actually being a scientist. That, more than anything else, can mean the difference between a student who goes on to become a chemist, an engineer, or a medical researcher, and one who loses interest in science forever.

Unfortunately, a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, called America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science, made some findings that are extremely troubling for those of us who want to provide all of our students an equal opportunity to succeed in science and technology. It found that schools that have high percentages of minorities and low-income students are ``less likely to have adequate laboratory facilities'' and ``often have lower budgets for laboratory equipment and supplies'' than other schools. The study also found that students in those schools ``spend less time in laboratory instruction than students in other schools.'' Rural schools had some of the same problems.

We can not expect our country to be adequately prepared for the future unless all of our students are adequately prepared for the future. And unless we do something to improve the laboratory experience for our low-income, minority, and rural students, we simply won't be prepared. That's why I am proud to re-introduce the Partnerships for Access to Laboratory Science bill, originally championed by Congressman Hinojosa, which would authorize partnerships between high-need or rural school districts, higher education institutions, and the private sector, with the goal of revitalizing the high school science labs in those schools. The bill creates a pilot program, authorized at $5 million per year, to help schools purchase scientific equipment, renovate laboratory space, design new experiments or methods of integrating the laboratory with traditional lectures, and provide professional development for high school science lab teachers. This last one is particularly important, because one of the key conclusions from the National Academy report is that ``improving high school science teachers' capacity to lead laboratory experiences effectively is critical to advancing the educational goals of these experiences.'' This bill is strongly supported by a number of scientific and educational organizations, including the American Chemical Society, the American Council on Education, the National Science Teachers Association, and more.

We need to do a lot to ensure that our nation stays competitive throughout the 21st century, and this bill is only one small step. But it is a sorely needed step, particularly for those students who need our help the most. I invite my colleagues to join us in support of this bill, and I look forward to working to enact this important piece of legislation.

I ask unanimous consent the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 314

Mr. President, just a little while earlier, I offered an amendment that deals with trying to move us forward in a middle ground on the question of cargo screening.

Last week, this body voted down an amendment that I offered with Senator Schumer that would have set some strong, clear deadlines to achieve 100 percent scanning of cargo coming into our Nation's ports. While I wish we could have persuaded more of our colleagues to support this framework for expanding scanning of our cargo containers, I understand a number of our colleagues have serious concerns about the consequences of setting a strict timeline to achieve 100 percent scanning. I hope this body will take a step forward toward achieving that goal rather than take no action at all.

With that in mind, the amendment I have offered I hope will find a middle ground. This amendment would ensure that we are indeed on the road to 100 percent scanning of cargo, but it would not do so within the confines of any strict deadline. Instead, it builds upon the framework of the SAFE Port Act to call for a plan to meet the goal of 100 percent scanning. The SAFE Port Act already requires the Department of Homeland Security to report on the lessons learned from the pilot program currently underway at six ports. This amendment would simply expand that reporting requirement by calling on the Department to submit a plan for achieving 100 percent scanning of cargo before it reaches U.S. ports.

I think all of us agree that we want to obtain the goal of 100 percent scanning of cargo containers. We may disagree on how to implement that goal or what timeline we should set, but at the end of the day I think we all know that 100 percent scanning is the ideal that we should strive for. That is essentially what this amendment is

about. It simply prods the Department to come up with a plan to take the lessons learned from the pilot project and submit a proposal for reaching 100 percent scanning.

We have to look at a few contradictions in our national security. Not everyone who walks into the White House is a high threat. Yet we screen 100 percent of people. We need to apply the same understanding to other aspects of our security. We must recognize that the terrorists will come to understand what we consider as high-risk cargo. As we say we are looking at high-risk cargo and we do 100 percent of that, that still leaves 95 percent of all the cargo unscanned. Eventually, the terrorists will adapt and they will determine that they should go and try to place their device in that which is not considered high-risk cargo. Without 100 percent scanning, we will not be able to adapt to terrorists as they change their tactics.

We have seen in aviation security how they have changed their strategy from box cutters, to shoes, to liquids. The methods they use to infiltrate our security continue to evolve. So must we. We are naive to think only high-risk cargo should be scanned. We need to be able to be as adaptable as they are so we can stay one step ahead.

My colleagues, in noting their opposition to the Schumer-Menendez amendment last week, did not object to the goal of reaching 100 percent scanning. In fact, the distinguished Senator from Maine stressed the importance of moving forward with vigorous implementation of the SAFE Port Act, including the requirement that 100 percent of all high-risk cargo be scanned. I would argue this amendment helps achieve that goal and will ensure that we continue to move forward toward 100 percent scanning.

Last year, I offered an amendment that would have required the Department to develop a similar plan to achieve 100 percent scanning, and there were a few provisions my colleague from Maine took issue with, and so we have amended this version. In the scheme of things, this is a very small additional requirement for the Department, but in my opinion it takes us a significant step forward toward a very crucial goal.

Finally, this amendment does not ignore the progress we are making because of the SAFE Port Act. In fact, it would build upon the SAFE Port Act's goal of expanding scanning at foreign ports on a reasonable timeline.

I also hope my colleagues will not look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a way to argue that improving security of our cargo is not in line with the 9/11 Commission recommendations. There is no doubt our ports remain one of the most vulnerable transportation assets. The 9/11 Commission recognized this. Let's take a step back and look at what the Commission actually said.

First, I think it is important to keep the Commission's report in context. It runs nearly 600 pages and covers an incredible amount of material, from a factual accounting of the events leading up to September 11, an assessment of the weaknesses of our national security, and, finally, what the Commission itself calls a limited number of recommendations. The recommendations are wide ranging in scope, and there is no way we can expect each recommendation to carry out each detail of what that recommendation should entail and the action that should be carried out.

In discussing cargo security, the Commission lumped it together with aviation and transportation security. Given the nature of the attacks, we understand the obvious focus on aviation security. However, the Commission also noted the vulnerabilities in cargo security and lamented the lack of a strategic plan for maritime security.

In making its recommendations on transportation security, the Commission called on Congress to do two very specific things: Set a specific date for the completion of these plans, and hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable for achieving them.

I could not agree more. We come to the floor calling for the opportunity to work our way, building upon the present port security initiative--to work our way to see the Department of Homeland Security give us a plan to achieve that final goal, recognizing all of the challenges. In doing so, we move closer and closer to that day in which, in fact, we will be adaptable to the reality that at some point the terrorists will come to understand that only going after high-risk cargo leaves them a huge opening, 95 percent of all the other cargo, to get in their weapon of mass destruction.

That is not a risk that we can afford. We need to be right all the time. They only need to be right once. Therefore, I believe this is an amendment that creates a middle ground and moves us forward to that 100 percent scanning opportunity and therefore improves our national security. I hope when the time comes to vote on it we will have the support of our colleagues in this body.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise in strong support of the amendment by my distinguished colleague from Illinois. His effort is not about Illinois or any of the other significant States. His effort ultimately culminates in 34 States getting additional funds and moving far closer to the 9/11 Commission's unanimous bipartisan recommendation that funding for homeland security should follow risk and risk alone.

Having said that, he still doesn't deny to other States the opportunity to have some baseline of homeland security funding. He still preserves an element for all States. But I think here is how we determine the equation. It is very interesting that one chart says 32 States and the District of Columbia will lose, but that depends upon the factor you are using.

The reality is, under Senator Obama's amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor, when you include the totality of homeland security funds, 34 States receive an increase--that is a significant majority of the States--and we move closer to the public policy recommendation the 9/11 Commission made that all homeland security funding should be based on risk and risk alone.

Now, whether you were on the street below at the World Trade Center or across the river in New Jersey watching the towers burn or halfway across the country watching the horrific events unfold on television, we all experienced the blow our Nation suffered that day.

I say to my distinguished colleague from Maine who mentioned a stone--I forget exactly--a location in Georgia and some other locations in rural parts of America where supposedly some of the terrorists were, but where were their targets? Not where were they hiding, but where were their targets? Their targets are very clear.

We all suffered a blow that day, but there is something unique about the locations that were chosen by the terrorists to strike. Thousands work in the Pentagon. Roughly 50,000 people worked in what was the World Trade Center, and 200,000 visitors used to go there on any given day, including many of the people from my home State of New Jersey who perished that day. Where were the planes coming from? They were coming from major airports--Logan, Newark, Dulles. To where? To major cities in California--Los Angeles, San Francisco.

So the terrorists made calculations about where and how they could inflict the most damage on our Nation because while New York and the Pentagon were the epicenters of that act, the reality is the ripple effect came across economically as well as in terms of the loss of lives across the whole country. But they understood the unavoidable facts of where their targets were. Their targets were not in rural parts. They may have hidden there as they got ready to commit their dastardly act. Their targets were in the places they could make unavoidably the greatest impact. The fact is, these targets are consistently in some of the most densely populated areas of the Nation where the greatest risk lies.

This debate should not be about fighting to maintain a certain level of funding as general revenue sharing. At issue is how to best allocate limited resources to those parts of our Nation facing the greatest risk. Senator Obama does that by having 34 States enhance their position and 6 being unchanged.

We cannot deny that some States simply have more risk than others. Some States simply have more risk than others. Just as I would not argue for the same share of agricultural funding for New Jersey as Iowa, or I could not possibly make an intellectually honest fight for the same level of hurricane preparedness as Florida, neither can many of my colleagues argue that some States have the same risks as other States throughout the Nation. If we had unlimited funds, that would be different. That is not the case. The case is, we have limited funds.

Senator Obama's amendment clearly drives us closer and closer to risk being the determining factor. That is what the 9/11 Commission unanimously said, that is what the 9/11 families have said, that is what the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the 9/11 Commission said, that is what the amendment of the Senator from Illinois ultimately does, and that is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment and one that ultimately understands that there clearly are greater risks in certain parts of the Nation. The terrorists know that. They understand the greatest consequences they can strike at and create the greatest horror for their efforts, and that is going to be a continuing truth. It is a continuing truth I hope the Senate will acknowledge in voting for Senator Obama's amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this effort. This amendment would enact one of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that has gone ignored time and time again by the Congress, and that is ensuring homeland security funding is based on risk.

We have heard a lot during the course of the debate on this bill. Often we have had references to the 9/11 Commission when it was propitious, when it served to support the argument someone was making at a given time. Then, at other times, it has been forgotten. I have been one of those who believes we should have all of the 9/11 recommendations implemented. So I do not pick and choose.

I am certainly tonight wanting to make sure we recognize as a body what the Commission said. It was not ambivalent. The Commission was not ambivalent about its recommendation. The Commission said, in its report, very clearly:

Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an

assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.

`` . . . strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.'' ``Strictly''--not mostly, not partially, but based strictly on the risks our States and communities face. Yet, 2\1/2\ years after the release of the 9/11 Commission report, homeland security funding continues to be based on a formula that allocates nearly 40 percent of funding with no regard--no regard--to risk or vulnerability.

What else did the Commission say:

We understand the contention that every State and city

needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency

response. But Federal homeland security assistance should not

remain a program for general revenue sharing. It should

supplement State and local resources based on the risks or

vulnerabilities that merit additional support.

Congress should not use this money as pork barrel.

It is past time to correct these flawed formulas.

I know many believe that, in fact, everyone should have some of these moneys. Actually, this amendment does that. This amendment recognizes that. It does not encompass the full essence of the Commission's report. It recognizes that. So, ultimately, I would say to our friends, notwithstanding that, there are times when we have legislation on this floor that benefits some States greater than others, but we look at it as we are from one country. There are times in which there is a lot more money for flood protection, and those of us who do not receive that type of money say: We understand that. That is the nature of the challenges of those fellow States in our Nation. In the agriculture bill there will be a lot of money going to other States that certainly will not be coming to States such as New Jersey, but we understand that. We are one nation.

Today, I hope the Members of the Senate will come to understand in this issue, as well, we are one nation and the greatest risks--the greatest risks--flow to those who have the greatest challenges. If we had unlimited money, I would be the first to say we could use it all as part of revenue sharing to make sure the allocation for each State would be such that they could decide to use it to meet their homeland security objectives. But we do not. If there is one part of all of the largess of the Federal Government that I think has to be based on the question of necessity, has to be based on the question of risk, it clearly is in homeland security funding.

Now, I believe, as do many of my colleagues who support this amendment, we should follow the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission in its entirety and base 100 percent of the homeland security funding on risk. But this amendment recognizes the need to compromise. We recognize every State should be prepared for and be able to respond to terrorism. Under this amendment, each State would receive a base amount. The difference is, we ensure the vast majority of the funds will be based on risk. In fact, under this amendment, 99 percent of all of the funds would be allocated based on risk.

Senators Lieberman and Collins clearly recognize we should be basing funding more on risk. In this bill they have clearly worked to reduce the base amount for States, moving us toward a more risk-based approach. I sincerely appreciate their efforts to make more funding allocated on risk, and I certainly commend them for taking a very important step forward in the right direction. But that formula is still a detriment to States facing the most risk.

Under the bill's language, money would be diverted from States with the highest risk to States that do not even have enough risk to receive the minimum base amount. What does that mean? It means after the calculation is done, there will be some States with a risk equation that will not rise to the level of receiving even the minimum base amount. Yet, under the bill, even though their risk calculation is not as great, they will receive the minimum base amount. This would cause States such as New Jersey to lose a full 6 percent of the funding they should receive based on risk. That means under the formula in this bill, New Jersey could lose three-quarters of a million dollars because that money would be redistributed to States with relatively low risk.

Like many other States represented by the supporters of this amendment, New Jersey has a wide range of targets. More than a dozen sites in the State are on the FBI's National Critical Infrastructure List. The 2-mile stretch between Port Newark, Port Elizabeth and Newark International Airport has been deemed the ``most dangerous two miles in the United States when it comes to terrorism.'' The port of New York and New Jersey, which largely resides in New Jersey, is the largest container port on the east coast, the third largest in the country.

Not only does our State face significant threats because of its critical infrastructure, but some of the most densely populated communities are in close proximity to these targets. In South Kearny, for instance, 12 million people live in close proximity to a chlorine chemical plant. Close to 19 million people live in the New Jersey-New York metro area who could be affected by an attack on such a plant. The loss of life due to an attack at one of New Jersey's most vulnerable targets would not only devastate New Jersey but the region and the Nation.

We have to be realistic about where the greatest threats lie. Our Nation has many targets. No one would argue we should not aim to protect each of them. But we cannot pretend every community in the country faces the same risks and the same threats of terrorist attack. The fact is, terrorists want to strike where they can inflict the greatest damage. That is why our major urban areas are consistently at the top of the threat list.

We cannot afford to shortchange our most at-risk targets because of revenue sharing. Each State should receive its fair share based on its risks--no more, no less. That is what this amendment is all about. Ultimately, I see our colleagues, who are the prime sponsors of this amendment, put out a statement that 70 percent of the States receive additional funding under this risk-based approach--70 percent of the States. So we, in fact, move closer and closer to the right policy determination that the 9/11 Commission called for, unequivocally, and, at the same time, by doing the right thing, 70 percent of the States get more money.

The 9/11 Commission has repeatedly called on Congress to implement this key provision, and it has urged Congress not to make homeland security funds into pork barrel. The 9/11 families pleaded with this body to end the senseless formulas that leave our most at-risk targets vulnerable. Countless homeland security experts have called to end the minimum amounts to States and move to a true risk-based system.

I hope my colleagues this one time will put aside their adherence to a formula that is not in the security interests of our nation as a whole--as a whole--and will now allocate funding in a way that will protect not just my State or other States similarly situated but will truly work to protect the Nation as a whole.

When we had those attacks on that fateful day on September 11, yes, most of the lives lost were from New York and New Jersey, as well as other States, but the consequences to the Nation were much greater-- much greater.

So I hope again, where the greatest threats lie, where the greatest risks lie, where we have seen time after time where the terrorists have chosen to try to focus their attacks, we understand this is one element of our domestic policy where we cannot afford simply to have revenue sharing. I have taken agricultural votes on behalf of our friends, understanding that a lot of that money is not coming to New Jersey. I have done the same thing with flood protection and done it on so many other issues because we are one Nation. This is one in which we are under one Nation as well, and it is one in which risk has to drive our funding. I hope that when 70 percent of other States receive additional support under this amendment, we will find a majority vote on its behalf and move us pretty close to what the 9/11 Commission called for.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

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

Ten minutes.

Mr. President, let me, first, thank my colleague for his courtesy. I appreciate it very much. I rise to join my distinguished colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, in offering this amendment. He has been a champion in this regard, and he understands that the cause of the devastation in the city of New York was the of acts of terrorism. I, too, reside right across the river and having lost 700 residents on that fateful day, I understand the consequences of inaction.

What we are calling for is to move forward to implement 100 percent scanning of all the cargo containers entering the United States. This, 5 years

later--5 years later--in understanding the realities of a post- September 11 world.

Last year this body took action to secure a long overlooked vulnerability in our Nation's security. We passed the SAFE Port Act, which made significant progress toward improving security in our ports. But the fact remains that until we know what is in every cargo container entering our ports, we cannot definitively say we are secure.

Because of our action in the SAFE Port Act, the Department of Homeland Security is now conducting a pilot project to implement 100 percent scanning of cargo at six ports. That is a crucial first step. However, reaching 100 percent scanning should not be a far-off goal but something we should be doing as quickly and as urgently as possible. When it comes to the security of our ports, we should not be comfortable with baby steps.

The amendment we are offering, the Senator from New York and I, would ensure that efforts to implement 100 percent scanning move forward by setting clear deadlines for all cargo entering U.S. ports to be scanned. Now, deadlines may not be popular, but the fact is they result in action. Let's not forget that the requirements set in the SAFE Port Act got the Department to act. Within 2 months of the bill being signed into law, the Department moved forward with the pilot project now underway.

The 9/11 Commission made a critical observation in how to approach securing our most at-risk targets. The Commission said:

In measuring effectiveness, perfection is unattainable. But

terrorists should perceive that potential targets are

defended. They may be deterred by a significant chance of

failure.

We recognize we may not be at an ideal place to implement perfect technology, but we do have systems that work, and we should be doing everything possible to advance and implement them at every port. We cannot afford for terrorists to know our ports and our cargo are not defended. Frankly, when 95 percent of the cargo entering our ports has not been scanned, I think it is clear we have a lack of a significant deterrent. We have a 95-percent chance of getting something in. That is a pretty good percentage for the terrorists.

Our ports remain some of the most vulnerable and exploitable terrorist targets our Nation has. We cannot afford to wait for years and years while we simply cross our fingers that an attack will not hit our ports or disrupt our commerce.

In the years after September 11, our focus was largely and understandably on aviation security. But in narrowing in on such a singular focus, we did not start out making the strong investments needed in other areas of our security. We have spent less than $900 million in port security improvements since 2001, which is a small fraction of what we spend annually on aviation security. Only when faced with a very public and highly controversial deal that would have put American ports in the hands of a foreign government, did Congress act on port security.

For some of us, however, this is not a new issue, nor was the threat unknown. For 13 years, I represented a congressional district in New Jersey that is home to the Nation's third largest container port. The Port of New York and New Jersey, the majority of which physically resides in New Jersey, has a cluster of neighborhoods literally in its backyard. Ask any New Jerseyan from that part of the State and they will tell you how close to home the threat of port security hits. Every day, they drive by the containers stacked in rows within throwing distance of major highways. Every day, they see cargo coming off the ships, ready to be put on a truck that drives through their neighborhood or to sit in a shipyard visible from a 2-mile radius around the port, with an international airport and a transnortheastern corridor. Until we can assure them we know exactly what is coming into our ports and into their neighborhoods, they have a right to question their safety.

Ironically, the people who live in the backyards of the Port of New York and New Jersey also live in the shadows of what was the World Trade Center. But there are other ports throughout this country with similar neighborhoods. So not only are they keenly aware of the vulnerability of the ports, many of them have experienced or witnessed the destruction that took place on that fateful day.

Despite the awful lesson I hope we learned on September 11, where we saw everyday modes of transportation turned into destructive weapons, we still seem slow to understand that everyday modes of commerce could as quickly and easily be turned into weapons with catastrophic consequences. When it comes to the security of our cargo, precision is everything. We have to be on the ball every day. We have to be right about what is in every single container entering our ports. The terrorists only have to be right once, and they have a 95-percent chance to be right once.

This is not just a question of homeland security; it is also about economic security. Every year, more than 2 billion tons of cargo pass through U.S. ports. Jobs at U.S. ports generate $44 billion in annual personal income and more than $16 billion in Federal, State, and local taxes. The Port of New York and New Jersey alone handled more than $130 billion in goods in 2005. While too much of our country's and our Nation's ports are part of an invisible backdrop, they are key to an international and domestic economic chain, and if there was a major disruption, economies would be crippled and industries halted.

Many of us in this body have repeatedly warned of the disastrous repercussions if there was an attack at one of our ports. Yet, as a Nation, we have moved at a snail's pace when it comes to doing what is necessary to fully secure our ports. The question is, if we continue to delay and there is an attack because we have not implemented 100 percent scanning, what price then are we willing to pay? How much are we willing to sacrifice if the worst-case scenario happens at one of our ports?

I can't look at a constituent of mine or anyone in this country and say that algorithms--we presently scan only a small percentage, only 5 percent, the rest of it we do calculations by algorithms. If I tell an American that their protection is based upon algorithms, they would tell me I am crazy. But that is what is happening today. That is the layered approach. But it is an algorithm that supposedly protects you. If Hong Kong can do this, certainly the United States of America can do this. We are not talking about immediately, we are talking about 3 years for major ports, 5 years for all other ports, with the opportunity for extension.

In a post-September 11 world, where we have had to think about the unimaginable and prepare for the unthinkable, how can we continue to operate as if the threat to our ports is not that great? Can we not imagine how a ship with cargo can become a weapon of mass destruction? Can we not foresee how a deadly container can get to a truck and be driven through some of the most densely populated cities? Will we be content in telling the families of those whom we let down that we didn't move fast enough? I, for one, am not willing to do that. I believe we must do everything possible now so we never have to be in that position.

I hope my colleagues join Senator Schumer and myself in making sure we never have to look at a fellow American and tell them we just acted too slowly or we let economic interests overcome security interests. I think we can do much better. Our amendment does that.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I appreciate the leadership and advocacy of my colleague from New York to work with us on this issue. Look, the question is, On what side do we err? It seems to me we should err on the side of having a deadline that moves the Department of Homeland Security and us as a nation toward having the greatest possibility of security in a post-September 11 world.

If this was pre-September 11 and we were arguing that a conventional means of transportation--in this case a cargo ship--could, in fact, be used as a weapon of mass destruction and we hadn't had that experience, I could see the skepticism. But the reality is we are in a post- September 11 world. Five years after we saw a traditional form of transportation be used as a weapon of mass destruction, as we saw a simple envelope be tainted ultimately and be used as a weapon against an individual, as we saw someone who boarded an aircraft and tried to ignite his shoes, the reality is it doesn't take a lot to be convinced you can take 95 percent of the cargo, which goes unscanned, comes into this country, and have a great shot of including something in there, particularly a nuclear device, that would cost us far more--far more-- than what we are talking about proceeding on today. Three years for major ports, 5 years for other ports--that is too fast? Ten years after September 11, that is too fast? I can't comprehend it.

There are those who say we already have a risk-based approach, it is layered, it is whatnot. That is great if you trust algorithms to ultimately protect the Nation. I don't trust algorithms to ultimately protect the Nation. I want real scanning, and the technology is there. It seems to me if Hong Kong can do it and other places in the world can do it, we can expect it as well.

There is also the suggestion of cost. How much did we spend after September 11? How much will we spend in lives and national treasure if we make a mistake by not ensuring that the traffic that comes into the ports of this country is as secure as it can be? And who among us is willing to look at the sons and daughters of those who work on the docks or the communities that surround these ports--most were built in a way where communities surround them--and what will we do about the

national economy, because it won't be just a regional economy that will be affected but a ripple effect in the national economy? How much will we spend? Far more. The lives that will be lost are incalculable and priceless.

I argue that, in fact, what we saw in the SAFE Port Act got the Department to act because they, in essence, had a deadline. So when we have deadlines, we see the Department acting. In my mind, all the more reason to have what I think is a very reasonable deadline--3 years for major ports, 5 years on all other ports, and even with the ability to extend beyond that by virtue of the Secretary making a determination. That moves the Department to understanding where we want to be.

But ultimately, I don't believe the present risk-based approach that lets 95 percent of all the cargo coming into this country go unscanned, that we depend on algorithms, that we use the costs supposedly to achieve 100-percent scanning is something that is acceptable.

The question is: How much greater will the costs be? Look at the costs we are incurring in aviation. They are enormous.

Then we won't be able to get host nations to agree: The reality is those host nations want access to the greatest market in the world, the United States of America. I cannot fathom that they won't do something that is necessary to try to get access to the greatest market in the world, the most prosperous market in the world. I think they will.

As someone who represents a State that lost 700 residents on September 11, I am not ready--I certainly am not ready--to take the position that we will do less than what we can do to achieve the security of our people. That is what this amendment is all about. It is structured in a reasonable way.

We have seen deadlines generate the Department of Homeland Security activity we want to see. We give time frames that are reasonable, technology that is available. We have incentives for all the right reasons for the marketplace and, above all, we can look at our citizens and say, in fact, they are protected.

I yield any time remaining.

Madam President, the Improving America's Security Act is not only about unfinished business, it is not only about doing what others have failed to do, it is about living up to the responsibilities we have as a Congress and a government to protect our Nation and its people and to do everything possible to prevent what was once unthinkable from happening again.

As a Senator from New Jersey, I take that responsibility as a solemn promise to the 700 New Jerseyans who lost their lives on September 11 and their families who survived them.

More than 5 years ago, it became painfully clear that we, as a Nation that believed it was the most secure in the world, were unprotected. In the glimpse of a few minutes and over the course of a few short horrific hours, our Nation and the security we thought we had was changed forever. We entered into the stark reality of a post-September 11 world.

On that day, glaring gaps in our security were exploited, lax systems were taken advantage of, and a trusting nation paid the price. Thousands of innocent lives, everyday Americans whom this Nation has grieved every day

since, were lost. We can never go back to rectify past mistakes that could have prevented that day, but we can work to better secure our Nation moving forward.

We have a roadmap of how to get there. The 9/11 Commission laid out a plan, provided guidance, and delivered 41 specific and wide-ranging recommendations. Yet more than 2 years after the Commission issued those recommendations, many of them remain just that--recommendations that have not been acted on or fully implemented.

This legislation already comes before this body far later than it should. But the fact that it is on the floor of this Chamber just 2 short months into a new Congress speaks boldly of our new leadership and how important finishing the 9/11 Commission's work is to our leadership. I commend both Majority Leader Reid and Chairman Lieberman for making this a top priority for this Congress, as well as Chairman Inouye and Chairman Dodd for their roles in crafting this legislation.

Many of us have been pushing for a long time to see all 41 recommendations fully implemented and to make significant improvements to our Nation's security that have been under the radar screen for far too long.

As a former Member of the House of Representatives, I fought to see that all 41 recommendations were fully implemented in the 2004 intelligence reform legislation. I was proud to serve as the lead Democratic negotiator in the House on the conference committee that created the final intelligence bill. While that legislation made essential and urgently needed reforms to our Nation's intelligence, unfortunately, it fell far short on implementing all of the recommendations.

I have also since introduced legislation that ensures that all of these recommendations will be fully implemented and to hold the executive branch accountable for implementing each recommendation. It is my hope that with the bill we are working on now before the Senate, and with the vigorous oversight under the leadership of Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins, we will be able to see all these recommendations enacted and implemented.

It was just over a year ago the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, led by former members of the 9/11 Commission, published its disturbing report card, giving far more Fs than As on the implementation of those 41 recommendations.

There is no excuse left for Congress, the White House, or our Federal agencies for not finishing what is so direly needed: improving the security of our Nation. Yes, we have made some great steps forward. Yes, we have made some significant improvements that have likely saved lives and stopped terrorists in their tracks. But no one--no one-- should use the lack of another catastrophic attack on our soil as proof that we have succeeded in fully meeting our goals.

The fact is, so long as we do not heed the advice of the 9/11 Commissioners who spent months examining how we could improve our Nation's security, so long as we do not make dramatic improvements to our security--at our Nation's ports, on our trains and buses, around our chemical plants, and in how we allocate homeland security funding-- we continue to leave our Nation at risk.

I cannot imagine talking about the security of our Nation without the 41 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The Commission's findings and recommendations are integral to understanding our deepest flaws, the complexity of our intelligence and security networks, the obstacles that lie ahead and, most of all, what needs to be done.

Yet if some in our Government had had their way, there would have been no Commission, there would have been no digging into the secrecy and ineffectiveness of our Nation's security, no poring over thousands upon thousands of documents, no reviewing of every action Federal agencies took or did not take to prevent and respond to the attacks of September 11, no asking of some of the toughest questions our Nation has had to bear.

So once we pass this final legislation, have it signed into law and implemented, we will come to the day--I hope sooner rather than later-- when our Nation's security funding is based more on risk, when our ports are fully secure because of 100 percent scanning, when we are making the necessary investments in mass transit security, and when our first responders have a strong emergency communications system that works in interoperable ways, so that those who are sworn to protect us can speak to each other effectively.

These are only a few of the dimensions in this fight. Unfortunately, this is a fight that would not have taken place without the commitment and strength of the families of the victims of September 11.

When the loved ones of those who were lost on September 11 have to become full-time advocates, spending every possible hour lobbying Congress, when they have to be the constant reminder for our Government to do its job, we know we have failed them. Many of them are here and have been here today watching this body, waiting to finally see this legislation become law, hoping that all their suffering, their work, and their tireless advocacy will not be in vain.

Let us not only fulfill their wishes but the wishes of all Americans to have a nation as secure as possible for their families and neighbors. Let's work to pass this legislation and make sure it is fully enacted. Let's finally accomplish what should have been finished several years ago.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association, AHEPA, on their 85th anniversary this year. Since 1922, AHEPA has diligently served the Hellenic community and all Americans through a variety of programs and outreach endeavors.

Initially created to combat discrimination and hate, AHEPA's mission has expanded during its distinguished history. As the largest and oldest American-based, Greek heritage grassroots membership organization, AHEPA works to promote the Greek ideals of philanthropy, education, civic responsibility, and family and individual excellence within the community. Such principles can be appreciated by people of all backgrounds, and I commend AHEPA for inspiring and supporting generations of Americans.

AHEPA's work has touched people from all walks of life. The organization raised funds for U.S. war bonds during World War II, and currently contributes more than $2,000,000 each year to educational, medical, and other philanthropic causes. AHEPA's positive contributions stem from both the organization and the outstanding people involved. Members of AHEPA have served in the U.S. Armed Forces and have held positions in local, State, and Federal Government throughout the years.

As we honor AHEPA's many successes, we also celebrate the contributions of the more than 1 million Greek-Americans in this country, some 61,000 of whom live in my home State of New Jersey. The Hellenic community in America contributes daily to the economic, political and cultural fabric of this Nation, and the United States shares a close relationship with Greece and the Republic of Cyprus. I look forward to working with my colleagues and AHEPA to strengthen America's relationship with our Hellenic friends.

I commend AHEPA's commitment to serving the United States and the Hellenic community. I congratulate them on their 85 years of advocacy, and I look forward to their bright future.