Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would preserve the public's right to know exactly what types and amounts of chemicals are being stored and released into their neighborhoods and communities.

The legislation would stop the Environmental Protection Agency's dangerous attempts to undermine the Toxic Release Inventory--TRI-- program--which I authored in 1986--by allowing facilities that release up to 5,000 pounds of a toxic chemical to simply provide notice of a chemical's presence at the facility, rather than disclose the actual amounts released to the land, air, and water. The 5,000 pounds standard represents a ten-fold increase of the current reporting threshold; this change would eliminate detailed reporting for thousands of facilities in communities around the country, including 92 facilities in New Jersey, and could eliminate entirely the disclosure of the releases of more than a dozen potentially dangerous chemicals. The EPA also has proposed to require reports on chemical emissions only every other year, instead of the current annual requirement. Under this wildly irresponsible proposed rule change, corporations would only be required to disclose their chemical emissions every other year. This means that communities would have no knowledge of what chemicals have been released in the 50 percent of years where emissions are not disclosed; additionally, companies would have a perverse incentive to

concentrate their most egregious releases of toxic chemicals into the environment in years which are not reported. Furthermore, the EPA has published a proposal to reduce the information available to the public regarding the management of some of the most toxic chemicals that accumulate in the environment, including lead and mercury. Needless to say, I strongly oppose all three of these rule changes; the legislation I am introducing will stop them from taking place.

I firmly believe that it is simply unacceptable for the EPA to reduce the amount of information available to the public about chemicals-- including mercury, lead and other carcinogens--stored nearby or released into their community. When Congress passed the original Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act in 1986, as a response to the 1984 Union Carbide chemical disaster in Bhopal, India, some accountability was finally established in the chemical industry. And now, the EPA is attempting to weaken these rules and reduce the amount of information available to the public on these critical issues. For instance, in my home State of New Jersey, a chemical facility that released 2,000 pounds of arsenic via air emissions in 2003 would no longer be required to disclose this pollution to the general public. Fourteen facilities that released a combined 8,600 pounds of carcinogenic styrene would no longer have to report these emissions in detail. I find these proposals absolutely outrageous. It truly begs the question: who is the EPA really ``protecting''? The general public and the environment, or corporate interests that pollute our communities?

While the EPA touts the benefits of its proposal as ``burden reduction'' for industry, I strongly believe that the benefit of annual, detailed reporting vastly outweighs the marginal reduction in burden that will be provided to industry. In fact, according to the EPA's own estimates, the average cost saved for facilities no longer required to report the release of toxic chemicals in amounts less than 5,000 pounds would be approximately $2.32 per day. It is simply stunning that the EPA is willing to jeopardize public health and safety for a daily cost savings roughly equivalent to a couple cups of coffee.

There are constructive ways to improve the TRI program, and lessen the burdens on industry, without reducing the amount of information available to the public. These include improving the system for electronic reporting, and offering technical assistance to help businesses comply with the requirements.

The bill I am introducing is simple. First, it would codify the requirement that companies which release emissions of more than 500 pounds of any standard TRI chemical must disclose the details of their releases. Releases in amounts less than 500 pounds would continue to be allowed to use the less detailed reporting form. Second, it would codify the current prohibition on using the less detailed form for the most persistent chemicals, including lead, mercury, and dioxin. Finally, it would prevent EPA from making the frequency of reporting less than every year.

I would be remiss not to thank my congressional colleagues in the House of Representatives, Frank Pallone of New Jersey, and Hilda Solis of California, with whom I have been pleased to work on this issue. Representatives Pallone and Solis have introduced the companion of this bill in the House; I now look forward to continuing to work with them to ensure its passage. I would also like to thank my colleagues Senator Menendez and Senator Boxer, for being original cosponsors of this important legislation.

As a result of the EPA's dereliction of its duty to protect the public and the environment, Congress must act to do so. I strongly encourage my colleagues to do just that by enacting this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize and congratulate a great New Jersey company, the Control Group, on completing 100 years of service to firms and facilities throughout the country. This century-old company founded in 1906 by Austrian immigrant Louis Turen is the Nation's oldest, privately owned facility maintenance service company. The Control Group is still a family-owned and operated business and one of the largest private employers in the State of New Jersey. Four generations of the Turen family have directed Control Group from their headquarters in Secaucus, NJ.

Louis Turen began a one-man enterprise washing windows and provided maintenance services. He eventually passed the torch on to sons Nathan and Sam Turen, who continued the tradition. Today, Nathan's sons Edward D. Turen and Neal L. Turen carry the mantle of leadership of the organization. A fourth generation, Scott Turen continues to carry on the family tradition. The growth of the company has been consistent and has expanded internationally as well as across our country achieving revenues in excess of $300 million annually.

Control's success has produced a well-trained, loyal workforce of more than 7,000 employees providing their services to real estate, retail, banking, airport, pharmaceutical, and manufacturing industries as well as educational and public institutions. As a tribute to Control's high-quality service capabilities, its long-term customer base continues to grow, including some 50-year client relationships. Control Group has contributed to New Jersey's economy, its business climate and its jobs market.

Faithful to its traditions of reliable service, quality, and new products, the Control Group has earned a reputation for its integrity, vision, and dedication. It is believed that the company will continue to expand its service offerings which will continue to expand its growth and opportunity. We applaud and thank the Turen family and their fine companies for their commitment to quality and client satisfaction and its allegiance to its roots in the State of New Jersey.

Mr. President, I would like to thank Commerce Committee co-chairmen Stevens and Inouye for their hard work in achieving this bill's passage. H.R. 5782 the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006 is a timely piece of legislation, and I hope that it will soon become law. I am proud to be one of the original cosponsors of the Senate version of this bill,

Mr. President, I rise to introduce and discuss my bill, the ``Guarantee of Medical Accuracy in Sex Education Act.''

My bill would require that federally-funded sex education/abstinence only programs contain medically accurate and factual information as part of any course instruction.

During the past few years, there has been an increase in the number of federally funded programs using curricula that provide medically inaccurate or misleading information.

Some of these medical inaccuracies include teaching young people that HIV can be transmitted by sweat and tears, citing failure rates of condoms as high as 69 percent, as well as giving inaccurate symptoms and outcomes of sexually transmitted diseases. In addition, some federally funded programs

provided erroneous information about basic scientific facts, for example, stating that human cells have 24 chromosomes from each parent when in fact the number is 23.

Inaccurate information regarding contraception and STD/HIV prevention can make sex education both dangerous and counterproductive. Responsible sex education, by contrast, is an important component of a strategy to reduce unintended pregnancies, decrease the number of abortions, and mitigate the incidence of STD's.

Instruction regarding sexual health and reproduction that includes inaccurate or biased information is not only irresponsible, but it is also dangerous, and it puts our young people at risk for unintended pregnancy and disease.

I urge my colleagues to support medically accurate sex-education-- programs that helps young people to develop the proper understanding of their sexuality, so they can make responsible decisions throughout their lives.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for enabling me to make some remarks about the war and where things are as we see them.

It has been more than a month since we were last together in the Senate. While we were out of session, the war in Iraq continued to rage. We in the Congress had the pleasure of going home to our families, our friends, familiar circumstances and surroundings. Our troops in Iraq, however, didn't have that opportunity while we were off, so to speak, for almost 6 weeks. Everyone knows that we did work at home, but we were in familiar, safe territory. The troops were in harm's way, trying to bring order to a country in absolute chaos.

Tragically, many of our people there did not survive since the Senate was last in session. During the recess, America lost 157 brave men and women in combat, 146 in Iraq and 11 in Afghanistan, and 649 were seriously wounded. Most of us have been to Walter Reed and the naval hospital in Bethesda and had opportunities to talk to some of those people who are so seriously wounded, some limbless, some sightless. Their pain goes way beyond that which is directly part of their wound; their pain goes on for the rest of their lives.

Now here we are, almost at Thanksgiving. Americans are looking forward to sharing a holiday with family and friends. But in this season of giving and cheer, we have to find a serious way to give some cheer, some recognition for the sacrifices of our soldiers. Outside my office, I have found a way to express thanks to them. We have established a photographic display of those who have lost their lives. It is called the ``Faces of the Fallen.'' It is visited daily by tourists and others who search the gallery for people they may have known from a hometown or region.

Today I offer another way to honor our courageous men and women. I am going to place the names and hometowns of the 157 troops that we lost since the Senate was last in session in the Congressional Record.

Too often when we talk about our fallen troops, they become faceless, if it is not your family, statistics, but we don't want that anymore. We want to recognize, and the American people want to recognize, what is really happening to the fathers, mothers, sisters, and children. They are our children, and many have children of their own.

Among those who perished are PFC Donald S. Brown, 19 years of age, from Succasunna, NJ. I attended his wake 2 weeks ago, met with his family, and LCpl Christopher B. Cosgrove III of Cedar Knolls, NJ. There are many more New Jerseyans who have perished there. The number is almost 80 now. We look around, and they are from States across the country. Almost every State has seen the loss of a former resident, someone with roots in that State:

SGT Bryan Burgess of Garden City, MI;

SGT Courtland A. Kennard of Starkville, MS;

CWO Miles P. Henderson of Amarillo, TX;

CPL Kyle W. Powell of Colorado Springs, CO;

SPC James L. Bridges of Buhl, ID;

LTC Paul J. Finken of Mason City, IA;

LCpl James Brown of Owensville, IN;

SSG Jason D. Whitehouse of Phoenix, AZ;

PFC Jason Franco of Corona, CA;

SGT Luke J. Zimmerman of Luxemburg, WI;

SGT Thomas M. Gilbert of Downers Grove, IL;

SPC Nicholas K. Rogers of Deltona, FL;

MAJ David G. Taylor of Apex, NC;

LCpl Eric W. Herzberg of Severna Park, MD;

CPL Joshua C. Watkins of Jacksonville, FL;

SSG Patrick O. Barlow of Greensboro, NC;

CPL David M. Unger of Leavenworth, KS;

SGT Norman R. Taylor of Blythe, CA;

SSG Garth D. Sizemore of Mount Sterling, KY;

2LT Joshua L. Booth of Fiskdale, MA;

PFC Keith J. Moore of San Francisco, CA; and

1SG Charles M. King of Mobile, AL.

There are too many more to read them all now.

I ask unanimous consent that a full list of the 157 persons be printed in the Record.

I want their families to know that they can find their names in the permanent Record. Around many dinner tables across the Nation this Thanksgiving, the conversation will no doubt turn to the Iraq war. By this Thanksgiving, we will have been at war in Iraq as long as we were in World War II. I served in that war for almost 3 years. By reading these names today, my hope is that the dinner table conversations will discuss our foreign policy and the reasons that we are there, the reasons that they think put us there. I would ask them to contact their Senators, Representatives in Washington with views and questions that are on their minds.

Think about it. There are proposals now from outstanding leaders in this body suggesting that we need more troops than we have there, when it is the desire of most of us to get out of there. We can argue about timetables and should we have timetables, but we know this: we want our people home. It is shocking to hear suggestions that maybe we ought to be--not maybe, that we ought to be sending more troops. Where were those suggestions when General Shinseki, a very high ranking chief of the Army, said to the Pentagon, to the President, to the American people that we ought to have at least 300,000 people on the ground there? Why, then, if this war was planned properly, didn't we respect the opinions of so many senior officers in the military who said we needed more and were denied?

When we hear pleas that say put more troops there, I, for one--I am sure colleagues of mine feel the same way--don't know where they are going to get them. We are stretched thin now. So I think it is a fairly arbitrary suggestion, unless there is a plan accompanying it that says whatever we do, this is what we intend to do. I don't want to get into that argument about timetables, and cut and run. No, stay and die. Is that the alternative that we are talking about? No.

I don't want us to leave in a fashion that negates some of the sacrifices that have been made, but we are now being left alone as other countries pull out the few people who were there as part of a coalition which never really materialized. We want a plan. We want some idea as to what the President, the administration thinks about when we can start to look ahead, think more about it from this side, from the American side, and not have some false hopes, dismal hopes that we are going to be able to stay there and correct this situation without telling the American people, without telling the Congress that some program has to be presented that says we will not stay there forever. The price is far too costly.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Joel Rubin, a congressional fellow in my office, be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of my comments.

I thank the Senator from Iowa. I thank my colleague for yielding time, his time. I do not want to take too much time, aside from my response to what comments I heard here, but I do want to say that I regret this is among the last opportunities we will have to meet on the floor with our distinguished colleague from Minnesota, who has always been forthright on the issues, sticking up for what he believes, no matter what the penalty.

Mr. President, I want to talk to another issue. I want to respond to these challenges that I hear on television about where are the-- essentially, and I will inject the word; they don't use it, but they say--cowards who won't come down on the floor to defend their position? Who are they? Challenge me on cowardice? You have to look at my record before they start that stuff.

I was an original cosponsor of the Ryan White CARE Act. That was back in 1990. I have been an active supporter of this legislation for many years now. So I do not appreciate some of the lectures I have been hearing from people who claim that this is a principled issue with them and that we are being cruel and unfair and all kinds of

things. It is nonsense. Let's discuss the issue rationally and see where they have been all these years when we have had practically flat funding on this critical issue for some 4 years now, not even meeting the growth in inflation.

I have heard lectures about the effect on minorities. I will tell you something. The National Minority AIDS Council opposes this bill and supports our objection.

I ask unanimous consent that a communication from them be printed in the Record.

The Ryan White CARE Act reauthorization legislation that is before us now would shift already inadequate Ryan White money away from States such as New Jersey where the epidemic first appeared and where the need is still growing, to States where the epidemic is emerging.

I have been to an AIDS ward in a hospital in Jersey City. I have looked in those cribs where those little things are, twitching and moving because they come from mothers who have been HIV-infected, and the effect is horrible to witness. These are poor people.

In this State of mine we have five of America's poorest urban centers. That is where we see the dominance of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

This bill pits cities against cities, States against States, women against men, and urban areas against rural areas. That is not the way to do it, if you really care. We need to fully fund the Ryan White CARE Act. But the majority is not willing to do that. So they are trying to steal the funds away from States that have the need and already have the population to serve.

It is less than amusing for me to hear people who oppose adequate funding for this program suddenly act like this is the primary concern to them, that everybody else who doesn't agree with them is cowardly. And these four Senators they keep identifying--I am one of the four, proud to be one of those four. If there is a newly emerging problem in rural areas, then there is one answer--add money, add funding. But instead of funding AIDS treatment, the Senators on the other side of the aisle who are not here to defend the tax giveaways or the cost of the war--they voted to give away AIDS funding money to wealthy Americans, the wealthiest among us, in massive tax cuts. That's OK. Give that money to the rich so these poor little things, shivering in their cribs, can just do with a little bit less than they have. How about, instead of the estate tax cut for Paris Hilton--substantial funds--I ask my colleagues, why don't they come out here, protest that, and say let's give that money to help people with AIDS?

The majority has allowed President Bush to turn Iraq into such a mess that we are spending over $2 billion a week. Our whole program is $2 billion a year. So why don't we cut back for a couple of weeks, give it to support treatment for HIV/AIDS. What if we could take just 1 week's worth of spending in Iraq for AIDS treatment?

We still have a massive problem in our States, and maybe they have an emerging problem. My suggestion, with all my heart, fund it. Find the money for it. But don't take it away from a neighbor or another State where the problems are overwhelming as well.

In my home State of New Jersey, we have the highest proportion of cumulative AIDS cases in women. We rank third in cumulative pediatric AIDS cases. Furthermore, we have consistently ranked fifth in overall cumulative AIDS cases since the beginning of this epidemic.

Yet under the reauthorization proposal, we stand to lose $70 million. It is unacceptable. It is not acceptable for us to simply say this is a formula fight and there will undoubtedly be winners and losers because the losers in this case pay a terrible price.

With the Ryan White CARE Act, when we talk about losers we are talking about lives being lost. I for one will not settle for such an outcome. I object to this process and to this bill because it is a shortsighted approach to how we take care of HIV and AIDS patients in the future.

This bill will take hope away from people living with HIV/AIDS to urban areas in large States. I will not let it happen on my watch, no matter how challenging or how vitriolic the suggestions are made talking as if we are afraid to come out. We are not afraid at all to defend our position. We just think theirs is wrong.

Come out and tell the truth about how you feel about it and say, let's find more money. Let's have a debate about higher funding for the Ryan White CARE Act and see if we can get the necessary means to cover our needs.

I don't think you are going to hear that from the Senators who were so bold in their accusations.

Mr. President, I thank you. I will continue to object to going forward with this bill.

Mr. President, one of the most important parts of this Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill is a section that should not be in it at all. It is a perfect example of how the majority has decided to legislate: make back room deals and pass phony protections instead of real ones.

I am speaking about the section that purports to adopt chemical security protections for our country.

To illustrate what chemical security means, and why it is so important, let me tell you what happened on Tuesday in Elizabeth, NJ. A worker at a trucking company accidentally ruptured a small pressurized gas tank and released a cloud of sulfur dioxide into the air. Workers at nearby storage and shipping facilities became ill. Truck drivers in the area abandoned their vehicles as their lungs burned and they couldn't breathe. People on the side of the road were vomiting. Fifty- eight people--including a first responder--were taken to the hospital. That was a small accident. Imagine if a terrorist blew up a large chemical facility.

To understand the impact, all you have to do is drive 9 miles down the

road from Elizabeth to Kearny, NJ, home to the Nation's most dangerous chemical plant. Kearny is a blue-collar, working-class town. Forty- thousand residents--men, women and children--make Kearney home. An act of terror at the Kuehne chemical facility could put Kearny--and the twelve million Americans who live within fourteen miles of the plant at risk. No wonder that facilities storing large amounts of chemicals have been called ``pre-positioned weapons of mass destruction'' by homeland security experts.

One would think that the majority and the administration would do all it can to stop an attack in Kearny--or at any of America's nearly 15,000 chemical facilities. Republican leaders have put together a counterfeit bill that they are trying to pawn off as ``chemical security,'' but we are not buying it, and neither should the American people.

Recognizing that this was a problem even before 9/11, I introduced the Nation's first chemical plant security bill in 1999. And earlier this year, Senator Obama and I introduced a new comprehensive chemical security bill that seeks to protect the American people--not the chemical industry. The Republican leadership has brushed aside our strong bill, and other legislation that has come out of the Homeland Security committees in the Senate and the House.

Instead, the Republican leaders borrowed a page from the ``Dick Cheney Energy Task Force'' playbook: lock the windows, bolt the doors and meet with industry lobbyists. And what did the Republicans and chemical industry lobbyists come up with? A fraudulent bill. The chemical industry bill put forward by the Republicans fails to require the safest practices at the highest-risk facilities. It is a bill that fails to secure the nearly 15,000 facilities that store dangerous chemicals. A bill that fails to protect drinking and waste water facilities. And a bill that fails to make clear that states can adopt stronger chemical security laws than the federal government.

So will this chemical security bill authored by the chemical industry, the majority, and the administration make the Nation safer? No. The public should not be fooled. Because this fake chemical security bill has been attached to the Homeland Security appropriations bill, most Senators will vote for it. But make no mistake, it is not what we want or need.

We need a bill that requires all chemical plant owners to improve the security of their sites, and when possible, replace toxic chemicals with safer ones. We need a bill that makes perfectly clear that states can adopt stronger laws than the toothless version the majority are doing here. We don't need the majority, the White House, and the chemical industry deciding the fate of towns like Kearny or Elizabeth behind closed doors.

All of this is more reason we need a new direction in Washington.

Mr. President, I will speak on the port security conference report we are just passing. I am a conferee on that bill and this conference has been a sham. It is shameful because the Democratic members of the conference committee have not been allowed to offer amendments to the conference report. We were sitting on our hands for virtually an hour while the chairman of the conference committee was absent, without a piece of paper in front of us about what was in the port security bill. Nothing. There was no indication of what was there. No guide, nothing--just sitting there wiling away the time.

Why, we asked, did the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate allow this perversion of the democratic process? Why make promises we would have a chance to offer amendments but never be able to do so?

They wanted this conference to be a plain backroom deal. Their agenda is to strip from this bill important provisions on rail security, transit security and aviation security and replace them with legislation that has nothing to do with our homeland security at all, our port security.

I would like to understand from the majority what it is they were trying to tell the American people. What was so objectionable about the provisions Democratic conferees wanted to offer to bolster aviation, transit, rail, truck, bus, and pipeline security?

The Senate has agreed to the rail security legislation and twice the Senate has approved transit security legislation. Twice the Senate agreed to my amendment to remove the arbitrary cap on the number of airport screeners that can be hired, but each time these measures died due to the inaction by the House of Representatives. Now Republican leaders, once again, want to kill them.

Last night, the Republican chairman assured the Democratic conferees that they could offer amendments to the conference report, but they put obstacles in the way to permit it from happening. Republicans were fearful of showing votes against common sense for rail, transit and aviation security measures. This challenges logic beyond belief.

Last night, the House had actually approved, had voted 281-140, to instruct their conferees to support the Senate provisions on rail, transit and aviation security. Transit systems have always been terrorist targets. They are open, accessible and teeming with innocent people. Since we have not done what we need to do to protect them, they are vulnerable.

Recent attacks in Madrid, London and Mumbai have shown just how devastating these attacks can be. Hundreds of people have been killed just commuting to and from their jobs in those cities.

The Senate rail security provision mandated measures to help protect 25 million Amtrak riders each year, but the House leadership dismissed recent attacks on the rail systems as not significant enough to guard against. It would protect millions more who live near rail tracks where trains carrying hazardous materials pass by, with some very close to this facility, on nearby tracks. Once again, logic failed.

The aviation security provision dealing with airport screeners was approved in the Senate by a vote of 85-12. It would have removed the arbitrary caps on hiring TSA airport screeners. I repeat, the Senate, by a vote of 85-12, would have removed the arbitrary cap on hiring TSA airport screeners even though burgeoning numbers of passengers are flooding our airports. Lifting the cap could have made air travel safer. And it would have reduced the amount of time passengers have to wait in line at terminals to pass through security lines.

It is important for the American people to understand the enormous opportunity taken away from them to protect themselves. It is important for our people to understand the leadership in the Congress stood against rail security, transit security or shorter airport-airline passenger security.

We did not finish the conference on the port security bill. We finished a sham. The majority ought to be embarrassed by their thoughtless abandonment of essential security protection for the American people as they travel.

The leadership stripped out--in the conference that never took place--rail transit and aviation security but made sure that Texas Hold'em Poker games are illegal to play on your computer.

I regret this took place. I hope America does not see in its near future that they were foolishly careless in not protecting our citizens as much as they could.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today with great pride to introduce legislation which would create a national park in my hometown, Paterson, NJ. The Paterson Great Falls National Park Act of 2006 would bring long-deserved recognition and accessibility to one of our Nation's most beautiful and historic landmarks. I am pleased that my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, is cosponsoring this legislation.

The Great Falls are located where the Passaic River drops nearly 80 feet straight down, on its course towards New York Harbor. It is one of the tallest and most spectacular waterfalls on the east coast, but the incredible natural beauty of the falls should not overshadow its tremendous importance as the powerhouse of industry in New Jersey and the infant United States. Indeed, in 1778, Alexander Hamilton visited the Great Falls and immediately realized the potential of the falls for industrial applications and development. Hamilton was instrumental in creating the planned community in Paterson--the first of its kind nationwide--centered on the Great Falls, and industry thrived on the power generated by the falls. Rogers Locomotive Works, the premier steam locomotive manufacturer of the 19th century, was located in the shadow of the falls, as were many other vitally important manufacturing enterprises.

President Ford recognized the importance of the area by declaring the falls and its surroundings a ``National Historic Landmark'' in 1976; he called the falls ``a symbol of the industrial might which helps to make the United States the most powerful nation in the world.'' Now, it is time that we recognize the importance of this historic area by making it New Jersey's first national park. This would be of special importance because so few of our national parks are in urban areas. I believe that it is time we acknowledge that many of our most significant national treasures are located in densely populated areas.

Mr. President, I grew up in Paterson, and I have appreciated the majesty and beauty of the Great Falls for many years. By creating a national park in Paterson, more Americans can be exposed to the exceptional cultural, natural, and historic significance of the Great Falls, and that is why I will passionately advocate for the passage of this bill. I have been delighted to work with my good friend, Congressman Bill Pascrell--another longtime resident of Paterson--on this issue and with a bipartisan group of lawmakers from my home State, all of whom believe strongly in this cause. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation, which is so important to New Jersey and all of America.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about my bill to provide a temporary reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act.

I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Menendez, Clinton, Schumer, Obama, Durbin, and Bill Nelson, for cosponsoring this important and life-saving measure.

I was an original cosponsor of the Ryan White CARE Act and I have been an active supporter of this legislation for many years now. Never have I been as concerned about the future as I am right now.

The Ryan White CARE Act Reauthorization legislation that has been proposed in both the House and the Senate actually attempts to shift already inadequate Ryan White money away from States like New Jersey, where the epidemic first appeared and the need is still growing, to States where the epidemic is emerging.

The Committee bill pits cities against cities, States against States, women against men, and urban areas against rural. This is not the way to go. We need to fully fund the Ryan White CARE Act to realize the promise of its original intentions.

Today I am introducing an alternative bill to reauthorize Ryan White. My bill has something for everyone in it. This legislation to reauthorize the Ryan White Care Act includes provisions that would help remedy funding disparities and permit a temporary extension to allow negotiations to continue.

My bill would simply extend current law through Fiscal Year 2007. Additionally it would provide for a 3.7 percent increase in authorizations over the 2006 amounts to account for inflation. Importantly, my bill also protects States

that have not yet transitioned to ``names based'' reporting for HIV cases by giving them an extra year to make that change. Without this protection these States would lose significant money.

Finally, I recognize the need of those States who have a growing incidence of HIV, which is why I include a one-time emergency authorization of $30 million to be distributed to those States who have unmet need and no Title I entities.

The original Ryan White CARE Act provides critical funding to help provide health care and support services for low-income individuals and families affected by HIV or AIDS. Since its enactment in 1990, Ryan White funds have helped millions of HIV/AIDS patients receive the care and treatment services they need to live healthy and productive lives.

The Senate and House bills to reauthorize the Ryan White Care Act are named the ``Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act.'' Ironically, it does not modernize the care of folks living with HIV/ AIDS in our communities. Rather, it will bring us back to the early 1990s when the disease was spreading even more rampantly than it is now, and people were dying quickly.

I know firsthand that many of the stakeholder groups, those people who are on the ground providing and receiving services funded by the Ryan White CARE Act, are terrified of what will happen to our system of care should this reauthorization move forward.

In my home State of New Jersey, we have the highest proportion of cumulative AIDS cases in women, and we rank third in cumulative pediatric AIDS cases. Furthermore, we have consistently ranked fifth in overall cumulative AIDS cases since the beginning of this epidemic. And yet, under the reauthorization proposal we stand to lose millions of dollars.

That is unacceptable. It is not acceptable for us simply to say that this is a formula fight and there will undoubtedly be winners and losers. With the Ryan White CARE Act, when we talk about losers, we are talking about lives being lost. I, for one, am not willing to settle for such an outcome.

It's not just my State that stands to lose money, either. New York, Florida, and Illinois all stand to lose millions of dollars under this proposal. All those states that have substantial need.

My bill is clearly not meant to be a permanent substitute for reauthorizing Ryan White. It is meant to give us all more time to continue our negotiations and try to work out a compromise that may keep all of our systems of care in tact.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with great pride to introduce legislation which would create a national park in my hometown, Paterson, NJ. The Paterson Great Falls National Park Act of 2006 would bring long-deserved recognition and accessibility to one of our Nation's most beautiful and historic landmarks. I am pleased that my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, is cosponsoring this legislation.

The Great Falls are located where the Passaic River drops nearly 80 feet straight down, on its course towards New York Harbor. It is one of the tallest and most spectacular waterfalls on the east coast, but the incredible natural beauty of the falls should not overshadow its tremendous importance as the powerhouse of industry in New Jersey and the infant United States. Indeed, in 1778, Alexander Hamilton visited the Great Falls and immediately realized the potential of the falls for industrial applications and development. Hamilton was instrumental in creating the planned community in Paterson--the first of its kind nationwide--centered on the Great Falls, and industry thrived on the power generated by the falls. Rogers Locomotive Works, the premier steam locomotive manufacturer of the 19th century, was located in the shadow of the falls, as were many other vitally important manufacturing enterprises.

President Ford recognized the importance of the area by declaring the falls and its surroundings a ``National Historic Landmark'' in 1976; he called the falls ``a symbol of the industrial might which helps to make the United States the most powerful nation in the world.'' Now, it is time that we recognize the importance of this historic area by making it New Jersey's first national park. This would be of special importance because so few of our national parks are in urban areas. I believe that it is time we acknowledge that many of our most significant national treasures are located in densely populated areas.

Mr. President, I grew up in Paterson, and I have appreciated the majesty and beauty of the Great Falls for many years. By creating a national park in Paterson, more Americans can be exposed to the exceptional cultural, natural, and historic significance of the Great Falls, and that is why I will passionately advocate for the passage of this bill. I have been delighted to work with my good friend, Congressman Bill Pascrell--another longtime resident of Paterson--on this issue and with a bipartisan group of lawmakers from my home State, all of whom believe strongly in this cause. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation, which is so important to New Jersey and all of America.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about my bill to provide a temporary reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act.

I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Menendez, Clinton, Schumer, Obama, Durbin, and Bill Nelson, for cosponsoring this important and life-saving measure.

I was an original cosponsor of the Ryan White CARE Act and I have been an active supporter of this legislation for many years now. Never have I been as concerned about the future as I am right now.

The Ryan White CARE Act Reauthorization legislation that has been proposed in both the House and the Senate actually attempts to shift already inadequate Ryan White money away from States like New Jersey, where the epidemic first appeared and the need is still growing, to States where the epidemic is emerging.

The Committee bill pits cities against cities, States against States, women against men, and urban areas against rural. This is not the way to go. We need to fully fund the Ryan White CARE Act to realize the promise of its original intentions.

Today I am introducing an alternative bill to reauthorize Ryan White. My bill has something for everyone in it. This legislation to reauthorize the Ryan White Care Act includes provisions that would help remedy funding disparities and permit a temporary extension to allow negotiations to continue.

My bill would simply extend current law through Fiscal Year 2007. Additionally it would provide for a 3.7 percent increase in authorizations over the 2006 amounts to account for inflation. Importantly, my bill also protects States

that have not yet transitioned to ``names based'' reporting for HIV cases by giving them an extra year to make that change. Without this protection these States would lose significant money.

Finally, I recognize the need of those States who have a growing incidence of HIV, which is why I include a one-time emergency authorization of $30 million to be distributed to those States who have unmet need and no Title I entities.

The original Ryan White CARE Act provides critical funding to help provide health care and support services for low-income individuals and families affected by HIV or AIDS. Since its enactment in 1990, Ryan White funds have helped millions of HIV/AIDS patients receive the care and treatment services they need to live healthy and productive lives.

The Senate and House bills to reauthorize the Ryan White Care Act are named the ``Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act.'' Ironically, it does not modernize the care of folks living with HIV/ AIDS in our communities. Rather, it will bring us back to the early 1990s when the disease was spreading even more rampantly than it is now, and people were dying quickly.

I know firsthand that many of the stakeholder groups, those people who are on the ground providing and receiving services funded by the Ryan White CARE Act, are terrified of what will happen to our system of care should this reauthorization move forward.

In my home State of New Jersey, we have the highest proportion of cumulative AIDS cases in women, and we rank third in cumulative pediatric AIDS cases. Furthermore, we have consistently ranked fifth in overall cumulative AIDS cases since the beginning of this epidemic. And yet, under the reauthorization proposal we stand to lose millions of dollars.

That is unacceptable. It is not acceptable for us simply to say that this is a formula fight and there will undoubtedly be winners and losers. With the Ryan White CARE Act, when we talk about losers, we are talking about lives being lost. I, for one, am not willing to settle for such an outcome.

It's not just my State that stands to lose money, either. New York, Florida, and Illinois all stand to lose millions of dollars under this proposal. All those states that have substantial need.

My bill is clearly not meant to be a permanent substitute for reauthorizing Ryan White. It is meant to give us all more time to continue our negotiations and try to work out a compromise that may keep all of our systems of care in tact.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the inhumane and unnecessary annual slaughter of small cetaceans, including Dall's porpoise, the bottlenose dolphin, Risso's dolphin, false killer whales, pilot whales, the striped dolphin, and the spotted dolphin, by Japan's drive fishery.

Drive hunts are run by fishers who use scare tactics to herd, chase, and corral the animals into shallow waters where they are trapped and then killed or hauled off live to be sold into captivity. The overexploitation of these highly social and intelligent animals for decades has resulted in the serious decline, and in some cases, the commercial extinction, of these species.

On April 7, 2005, I introduced Senate Resolution 99 to help end this inhumane and unnecessary practice and urged participating countries to stop the brutal treatment of these animals. Fishers have killed small cetaceans along the coastlines of Japan for centuries with no regard for the humaneness or sustainability of the hunt. Currently, up to 20,000 small cetaceans of several species are killed in Japanese drive and harpoon hunts each year. In the last two decades, more than 400,000 have been slaughtered in Japan alone.

The cruelty endured by dolphins and whales caught in drive hunts is immense. Aboard motorized boats, drive hunt fishers loudly bang metal pipes over the side of their boats to disorient the animals and drive them toward shore where they are trapped by nets and stabbed with long knives, usually just behind the blowhole or across the throat. Many of the animals eventually die from blood loss and hemorrhagic shock or their spinal cord is severed.

Today, the Humane Society of the United States/Humane Society International, Animal Welfare Institute, and Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society are joining with concerned citizens throughout this country and around the world to gather in peaceful demonstrations to express their concern for the welfare of these animals. I, too, join them in condemning these brutal and senseless hunts.

Mr. President, I just want to say a few words about an amendment, No. 4942, that was accepted in the managers' package.

On April 28 of this year, the administration announced a plan to check ``all individuals seeking access to port facilities. . . .'' They wanted to check all individuals seeking access to port facilities. The plan was to check these individuals' names against the terrorist watch list and to check for citizenship status. But a major loophole was created when it intentionally left out port truck drivers from this process.

Now, we are reminded that when the first attack on the World Trade Center, in 1993, took place, the explosives were hidden in a van. When the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City was blown up, the explosives were hidden in a van. And not to recognize that these trucks entering a port area could be carrying anything--whether it is taking cargo containers out of the port that had been brought to our shores from foreign ports or whether it is taking an empty cargo container back into the port--my gosh, you could almost hide a tank in one of those.

So to me it really did not make sense when the Department of Homeland Security's excuse was that it was simply too hard to do, to vet all of these truck drivers who come in, and get them an ID card to show they have been checked for any security concerns. Certainly, I do not think that is a valid excuse when it comes to protecting us from a terrorist attack. ``Too hard'' is never an acceptable reason. Just look at our brave troops in Iraq and in other places, places of great danger. No one is saying it is too hard. They are doing their duty to protect all of us and our interests.

One of the largest truck driver labor organizations in the world fully supports my amendment. They know they have nothing to hide, and they want to know that their workplaces are secure from terrorism.

The amendment simply requires that the IDs of truck drivers who have access to secure areas of ports be checked against terrorist watch lists and to confirm their American citizenship.

Earlier this year, DHS Customs Enforcement agents did an investigation of port truck drivers. Of about 10,000 port truck drivers working in the Port of New York and New Jersey, almost half had criminal histories. Some had been charged with the possession of millions of dollars of stolen pharmaceutical goods, or trying to smuggle cocaine and Iranian carpets into the United States.

This failure to check port truck drivers along with all other port workers is

a dangerous shortcut. It is unacceptable. When it comes to protecting our security, we do not seek shortcuts. We do not want to. We want full measures taken to keep us, our families, our constituents, and the people in the area safe.

I want to thank the manager, the Senator from Maine, and Senator Stevens from Alaska for accepting this amendment. It will help make sure our attempts for security are better fulfilled. I thank them. and I thank the chairman for working with me on this important issue. I understand there may be concerns with some technical aspects of my amendment, but I think it is clear that everyone here recognizes the problem of not checking port truck driver names against the terror watch list and for citizenship status.

Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment brought by my colleague, Senator Menendez, because I think it covers the bases we are concerned about. This amendment, very simply, demands accountability from the Bush administration on port security. The bill before us contains an amendment as well, that I authored in committee, to require 100 percent screening of containers coming into the United States. These containers would have to be screened before they are loaded on ships at a foreign port. I think that is the time to do it.

We have already seen attempts by the majority to downplay or even duck this requirement. I am not suggesting, in the interests of safety and security, that the Senator from Minnesota or the Senator from Maine is less concerned about the security or the safety of our people. But I am supporting the Menendez amendment because he gets specifically to the point, and I think the approach that we take is the strongest one and in the best interests of the American people.

We need the administration to tell the American people exactly how long it will take them to provide the security necessary to reach the level of a 100-percent screening requirement. Right now, as we all know, we only inspect around 5 percent of shipping containers coming into our country. Terrorists could smuggle weapons, nuclear or chemical weapons, into a harbor and potentially launch an attack even more devastating than the 9/11 attack we experienced.

I listened very carefully to Senator Menendez review his amendment, and that is to get us to the 100 percent opportunity. The Senator from Minnesota says he believes there would be 100 percent screening. But that would come only after there have been paper documents saying what was being shipped was OK.

I ask you, would we take the most honest presentation of a clergyman, a doctor, a lawyer, a judge, or an individual and say: OK, that individual can bypass security at the airport? Not on your life. And we should not do it here.

Why do we want to put trust in a paper-laden system where the GAO says that many of the manifests and the documents for shipping cargo are unreliable, that they are not trustworthy. I think if we are really going to do the job people expect of us, we are going to have to try to get as quickly as we can to 100 percent screening. The amendment of Senator Menendez does absolutely that, so we ought not to tinker any further.

Are we really serious about getting to the end of the game, protecting our citizens as much as we can? Then we have to do it by a 100-percent screening. What we are not saying is do it overnight or do it by next week or next month. But we are saying: Give us the plan, Mr. President and this administration, on how you expect to do this.

We have to remember one thing: Senator Menendez has, in his former territory, in his former constituency, the second largest port in the country; the New York-New Jersey Harbor is just that. He has worked with people who run the cargo operations. He knows the people who are terminal operators. He is very conscious of what it takes to protect ourselves to the last detail that we can.

I believe we have to be in support of the Menendez amendment that says: OK, come on, tell us what it is that you plan to do to protect the people of America in a way that gives us comfort--not 1 out of 20 cargo containers that arrive that might be supported by a paper manifest that doesn't mean an awful lot because there is plenty of opportunity to tinker with that cargo container before it leaves the shore unless we have scanned it at the last moment possible.

I urge our colleagues to support the Menendez amendment. Let's not waste any more of the time that the people of America need to feel secure about those ships that enter our harbors bringing goods into this country.

I yield whatever time there is back to the Senator from Washington.

I thank the Senator from Washington.

I listened very carefully to what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said. I wonder about why it is we are defending a voluntary system, of sorts, that raises the question about why a shipper would waste any time tracing the source of the product if they are going to be inspected again. What are we doing? Are we saying the question is whether we trust the shipper? That is not the position we take at all.

The position we take, that the amendment of Senator Menendez takes, is tell us when you are going to have 100 percent security. That is the right objective. We know that it works. We know in Hong Kong they can process a scan of a cargo container in something around 2 minutes at an average cost of about $8. Is it not worth it? We pass the cost along to the shipper. That is their cost, not the American taxpayer's cost.

As regards relying on paperwork to give us a head's up as to whether that cargo should be inspected, GAO has found that shipping documents are one of the least reliable sources of information that Customs collects.

One audit pre-9/11 showed that over 60 percent of these documents had major discrepancies. So who are we trying to defend? Are we trying to defend the well-being of the American people, of the economy that relies so much on harbor activity, on imported goods, or are we trying to satisfy an industrial perspective that says don't take the time, don't do that, let's trust, right now, 95 percent of the cargo that comes in here as being safe to reach our shores.

I do not think that is a very good way for us to be reacting when everyone is so concerned about another terrorist attack, something that everybody is concerned about, a repetition of something that resembles 9/11, or even worse.

The best thing to do is stick to our guns and say that we want to see 100 percent of those cargo containers scanned so we know what is in there. After it has been closed up, after everything else has been done, the paper manifest is still there, and whether they are exactly precise would not matter. We will know what is in that cargo container, and we will be able to protect the American people as we should.

I, once again, hope Members will reject the amendment and support Senator Menendez's amendment.

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

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

Mr. President, I wish to talk about the current hiring limit on TSA screeners at our Nation's airports. That is what this amendment deals with--to eliminate the current hiring. One can ask: Why can't we just add more funding to TSA's budget and let them hire the personnel they need?

Unfortunately, it is not that simple. Each year, in the Homeland Security appropriations bill, the House Republican leaders tie the hands of TSA officials by setting an arbitrary limit on the number of screeners they can hire.

This cap has no basis in security. It is not what the security experts at TSA want. This cap only undermines our security, while forcing Americans to wait in longer security lines at airports.

This arbitrary cap currently restricts the TSA screener population to 45,000. Now, 45,000 is a large number, until you consider that 2 million people fly within the United States every day. In our discussions with TSA officials, it is clear that we need more than 45,000 screeners.

Mr. President, we are at a point in time, I am told by the managers of airports, particularly at Newark Liberty Airport, that we are likely to be exceeding the gross travel numbers in aviation that were achieved in the year 2000. So here we are with more people traveling, more concern about terrorist invasions of our country and particularly in aviation.

So why do we have this cap? Well, it is not for security, it is not for efficiency. Believe it or not, it is based on ideology.

Conservatives in the House want this cap to limit the growth of a so- called big Government workforce. But do you know what? The American people want this workforce, and they want it fully staffed, as I do; we should all want it fully staffed.

The result of this ill-advised cap is the shortage of screeners. We witnessed this last month when British and U.S. authorities foiled a plot to attack airliners headed to our shores using liquid explosives.

In the days following the British threat, DHS raised the security alert level and overworked screeners at American airports. They had to doublecheck bags, conduct random searches at gates, and help calm anxious crowd fears. At Newark Liberty Airport in New Jersey, screeners worked 12-hour shifts and 60-hour weeks for several weeks after the London incident. There were reports of exhausted screeners falling asleep at x-ray machines. One screener said that his colleagues ``can't maintain these

12-hour days.'' Remember, this work is on your feet. You are mandated to look at every little detail in front of you. It is exhausting work. Overstretching this workforce puts the American people at risk, and that is unacceptable.

Now, with my amendment, TSA will be able to hire enough well-trained, alert screeners to give us the safety and efficiency we deserve. Since 9/11, long lines have been the rule rather than the exception at our Nation's airports. Each year, 760 million people fly in the United States, and by 2015, we will hit 1 billion passengers a year.

Anyone who has traveled by air in the last few years has seen this congestion at airport security checkpoints. To give an example, this is Orlando Florida International Airport. The lines are waiting to go through security. We see the same thing throughout the country. This is Denver, a very efficient airport, but one cannot get through security in time enough, in many cases, to reach the flights. It is an unacceptable condition. This is the international airport in Nashville, TN--lines and lines. We see it wherever we travel in almost any part of the country.

The Senate accepted an amendment I offered in July to the Homeland Security appropriations bill to eliminate this arbitrary cap, but the Republican majority in the House of Representatives wanted to remove my amendment in the final bill that will be sent to the President. They want to keep the 45,000-worker cap rather than letting TSA decide what its workforce needs are. Security cannot be based on arbitrary numbers. Conservative ideology must not trump commonsense security needs.

Americans stuck in long security lines at airports don't care about ideology. They want to get through, and they want to get through on time. The mission for our system to operate efficiently is to have no longer than 10-minute waits, and we can only accomplish that if we have the people and the equipment to review this baggage as it comes to them.

The American people want to know that they and their families are safe when they fly. This body needs to go on record on this issue so it can scrap this limit once and for all. I hope my colleagues will look carefully at this amendment. Listen, remember, it might be their family who is on an airplane, it might be their friends who are on a particular airplane, it might be anybody who is entitled to feel secure when they are in an airplane. But judge it by one's personal attitude and say this is a responsibility we have as Senators to want enough people to assure security wherever we can get it. One way to do that is to have enough of these screeners working these lines, fully awake, able to handle their jobs, and reduce what we find is significant growth in sick days among the screener population. There are a lot of absences.

Perhaps we will hear: We have a 45,000-person limit, but we only have 43,000 people working. The problem is we will always have some absentees. We will always have some job turnovers. These are not easy jobs. So we are going to have a difference between the number hired and the number at work at a given time. We should raise the limit so we know we are increasing the likelihood that all of the places will be covered, that the flying public will be able to get through their security check within a 10-minute timeframe.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

How many do we need, Mr. President, for the yeas and nays?

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I wish to ask the Senator from Alaska a question, if I might, in relation to his comments.

Is it not possible that with the increased passenger volume we are seeing--and it is about to break the record held since the year 2000 in terms of volume of people traveling--is the manager, the committee chairman, aware of the fact that TSA has said that in order to have a 10-minute wait or less, they need more screeners than they have? They need as many as 48,000.

Mr. President, if I may ask the Senator from Alaska another question, and that is, if we had a higher cap and were able to persuade the management of TSA to search for a larger pool of people, might we have more people available presently to serve? My experience from my corporate life tells me that you never quite reach the level you have. We see that in our staffing here.

I urge the Senator from Alaska to respond to whether the Senator thinks we can improve our population of screeners who are readily available if we search a little bit harder, train a little bit better, reduce the fatigue factor which now occurs and causes so many sick days, so many absences, and so much turnover because the job, at 60 hours a week, as many of our people are working, is a strain on them and they just can't take it.

I have so much respect for the Senator from Alaska. He is on top of the issues of security, as well as aviation. But is the Senator aware that many of the screeners are on military duty or medical leave because of exhaustion? Shouldn't we try to improve the pool of people from which we can choose? We have as much as 10 percent of the workforce out at a time. If it is 10 percent of 48,000, that is 4,800. That is quite different from having a population that is short on the job. We don't have enough time.

I can simply add that at Newark Airport, we are about 10 percent short of the number we need, something over a thousand. We can't get them. The recruiters can't search for them because they will be bumping up against the cap. I think and I hope the Senator will reconsider. I believe--and I throw this in for the Senator's consideration with my question; that is, aren't we better off taking the limit off and trying to find a way--we are talking about security of the people. The Senator doesn't need any lecture from me. But aren't we better off knowing that everybody who can make a connection can get through in 10 minutes, thoroughly screened, and having a population that is equal to the growing population of those who want to travel by air?

Mr. President, is the Senator aware of the fact that this was an amendment which was already there, it was already conferenced and was dropped in conference? The Senator is certainly aware of the process here. If you don't like it, accept it; it will die of its own weight.

For the Senator's information, before the screeners were federalized, the turnover rate was 400 percent and we were ignoring the risks we were putting people under. That was a porous thing. You could walk through there with almost anything.

What we want to do is get a stable workforce of screeners who have passed the vetting, who work normal hours, who have--and by the way, the Senator is absolutely right about the improvement in equipment so the baggage lifting doesn't have to be as strenuous as it is.

So I would ask the Senator whether we can have a vote.

And when we meet with the House, let the conferees, when the issue goes to conference, look at the issue and review what it is that is keeping them from----

Mr. President, if I may respond to say I am so pleased that the Senator is asking for more money for screeners, and we will try to convince the appropriators jointly to increase the funding for those workers.

Mr. President, we obviously don't agree. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

I appreciate that.

Mr. President as we are now prepared to consider the amendment, in the minute I have--which I assume is the time--I would like to tell everybody that the purpose of this amendment is to ask that we take the cap off the number of TSA screeners we can hire. The cap is 45,000. We have had it in legislation before, but the House insisted on the cap being continued. It is silly, when passenger volume on airlines, as of this point in the year is almost at the alltime high, and it is expected this year we will see the largest number of airline passengers in the history of the country.

We have these constant reviews to protect ourselves from terrorist attack from those who want to sabotage an airplane. So it is simple. Just remove that cap. Remove it and let the TSA figure out what to do with it.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4931