Floor Statements

Mr. President, the question that should be before the Senate is: Do you support the President's escalation of the war? Don't confuse it. Don't obfuscate it. Let's have a clean vote. The only charade that is being played is by those who do not want to have a clean vote on this most fundamental question.

As a Senator, John F. Kennedy wrote a Pulitzer Prize-winning book titled ``Profiles in Courage.'' His book told the stories of eight Senators from both sides of the aisle who took a stand based on principle and risked their careers to do so. Today, almost 50 years later, I believe we, too, must take a stand based on principle. Today, I believe all of us who walk on the same floor where Senator John Kennedy once stood should heed his words when he said:

The true democracy, living and growing and inspiring . . .

will not condemn those whose devotion to principles leads

them to unpopular courses, but will reward courage, respect

honor, and ultimately recognize right.

Today is an opportunity for every Member of the Senate to be a profile in courage. Frankly, I am disappointed in my Senate colleagues who voted against debating Senator Warner's resolution on Iraq. With their vote, all they have done is delay honest debate on a failed foreign policy that has been misguided since the beginning. I don't believe this Senate should turn its back on the American people and cast their lot with the President in his escalation of the war in Iraq. I believe those who support the President's ill-

advised plan should be willing to stand behind that principle and go on record, rather than hide behind parliamentary maneuvers to avoid a vote.

Our colleagues should not be running interference for the President on the floor of the Senate. In fact, I never supported the administration's war--a war of choice, not of necessity; a war based on fiction, not on fact; a war fought without enough troops from the very beginning and designed with no plan to win the peace. I didn't vote for the war, and I certainly would not vote for an escalation of the war.

I was in the minority when I voted against the war in 2002. I was in the minority, again, when I voted last year to transition and bring our troops home over a period of time. But the majority of the American people sent a clear message this last November. They said the President's plan for the Iraq war has failed. The American people elected the Senate and this Congress to change the course in Iraq. It is about time we started listening because it is clear the President has not. He didn't listen to his generals. He didn't listen to the Iraq Study Group. He didn't listen to anyone who disagreed with him. And he certainly has not listened to the American people. That is the only explanation for an Iraq plan that is simply more of the same.

As one of the witnesses before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said:

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

The President's escalation plan will not work. Look at the news over the past few days as the first wave of the new escalation troops has arrived. At least 130 people were killed and over 300 wounded on Sunday, in the deadliest single bomb blast since the U.S. invasion almost 4 years ago. The U.S. military tells us that the four U.S. helicopters that have crashed in the past 2 weeks were actually shot down, with a fifth one down today. And Iraqi insurgents are using new tactics to shoot down our helicopters. The Brookings Institute says the number of daily attacks by insurgents and militias has gone from approximately 32 in November of 2003 to 185 in November of 2006, with Iraqi civilian deaths going from 1,250 to 4,000 in that same period.

Michael O'Hanlon, an expert from Brookings, said that Iraq has become ``one of the 3 or 4 most violent places on earth.'' And this escalation and violence has happened while U.S. troops were there and in spite of previous U.S. troop surges. You only have to look to the past to see that the President's escalation plan will not work. In fact, this escalation plan is based on false assumptions and failed ideas.

To quote one of the witnesses who testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently:

This plan is just stay-the-course plus 20,000 troops.

The escalation plan will not work because it depends on Prime Minister Maliki to do the right thing. The Associated Press reported today that the ``long-awaited security drive'' is underway. ``The implementation of the prime minister's plan has already begun,'' said a military spokesman. Yet even the architect of the escalation plan for the administration, General Keane, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he doesn't know if we can count on the Prime Minister, and he admits that Prime Minister Maliki is an unknown quantity.

I don't know and certainly don't believe that we should put the lives of the sons and daughters of America on the line based on the hope--the hope--that Maliki will do the right thing. The escalation plan will not work because it depends upon Iraqis, we are told by the administration, to take the lead. The administration keeps saying that is an Iraqi plan, with the Iraqis taking the lead. But the truth is, everyone doubts that the Iraqi troops will actually show up.

Many of the troops Prime Minister Maliki promised will be Kurds. Yet an NPR story quotes General Dennis Chapman, who is commander of a team of American military advisers in Iraqi Kurdistan, saying that there have already been desertions from Kurdish troops and that out of the battalion of 1,600 Kurdish soldiers going to Baghdad, he only expects a few hundred to report for duty.

Over and over again, we heard from experts testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that there simply aren't enough Iraqi troops who are loyal to Iraq as a nation and to Maliki as Prime Minister.

A recent New York Times article painted a frightening picture of what a joint American-Iraqi patrol looks like. The article highlights the lack of troop strength and training of Iraqi forces and the confusion that comes with having underprepared Iraqi troops take the lead. To quote from the article:

. . . As the sun rose, many of the Iraqi Army units who

were supposed to do the actual searches of the buildings did

not arrive on time, forcing the Americans to start the job on

their own. When the Iraqi units finally did show up, it was

with the air of a class outing, cheering and laughing as the

Americans blew locks off doors with shotguns . . .

Many of the Iraqi units who showed up late never seemed to

take the task seriously, searching haphazardly, rifling

through personal CD collections in the apartments.

In the article, a lieutenant colonel of the Third Stryker Brigade Combat Team talked about the difficulty of conducting such operations. He said:

This was an Iraqi-led effort and with that come challenges

and risks. It can be organized chaos.

The escalation plan will not work because similar escalation plans have already failed in Iraq, when the enemy simply waited us out. We tried a troop escalation and it didn't work, when we sent 12,000 troops to Baghdad last summer and death and violence on the streets of Baghdad actually increased. The escalation plan will not work because it has benchmarks but no consequences. And benchmarks without consequences are just aspirations. The plan doesn't hold the Iraqis accountable. We have seen countless plans from this administration with benchmarks after benchmarks that are never met.

The Iraq Study Group said, in recommendation 21, that if the Iraqi Government doesn't make progress toward milestones, ``the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government.''

Yet when I asked Secretary Rice what would happen if the Iraqis failed to meet the much-heralded benchmarks, she didn't list any consequences. Instead she told me:

I don't think you go to Plan B. You work with Plan A.

Plan A hasn't been working. I will say it again: Benchmarks without consequences are just aspirations. And they are aspirations that have failed time and time again. The escalation plan, as a consequence, will break the back of our National Guard and Reserves.

Let me be clear: The President's escalation plan cannot be implemented without using the National Guard and Reserves far beyond what they already have been used. There simply aren't enough troops. We have already seen the tours of National Guard troops extended. A week ago, I was informed that the New Jersey Army National Guard troops currently stationed in Iraq will see their tours extended by 125 days as result of President Bush's policy. I fully expect to see more extended deployments in the future.

The escalation is going to hurt our security at home by keeping those National Guard and Reserve troops away in Iraq. Those who return home leave their equipment in Iraq, resulting in severe equipment shortages for our National Guard at home. In fact, Larry Korb, an expert from the Center for American Progress, says the units returned home so depleted that the Marines have been referring to this phase as ``the postdeployment death spiral.'' That is why it is time to transition our mission and set a timeframe to get our troops out of Iraq.

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

In one briefing, General Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: We need to get the Iraqis to love their children more than they hate their neighbors.

That is a powerful truism. The problem is, you don't get Iraqis to love

their children more than they hate their neighbors through military might. That is about reconciliation. It is about confidence building. It is about power sharing. It is about revenue sharing. It is about a host of other things, things that cannot be accomplished through military might.

Staying would only continue to empower and embolden Iran, a country that has turned out to be the biggest winner in our war with Iraq. Dr. Paul Pillar pointed out recently:

Among the neighbors, the largest winner has been Iran. The

war has not only toppled the dictator who initiated an

earlier war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians; it

has also crippled what had been the larger regional

counterweight to Iranian influence. Meanwhile, the all-

consuming preoccupation that the Iraq war has become for the

United States, along with the growing unpopularity of the war

among Americans, probably has made Iranian leaders less

fearful than they otherwise might have been about forceful

U.S. action, including military action, against Iran.

Our presence in Iraq only continues to serve as a battle cry for terrorists around the world. According to last year's National Intelligence Estimate on international terrorism, the war in Iraq has become ``a cause celebre'' for jihadists'' and is ``shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives.''

Let me be clear, because of how this war was entered into--weapons of mass destruction that never existed--because of how it was executed, there are now no good options left for us in Iraq. But I do believe the first steps toward stabilizing Iraq is to set a date certain for troops to leave. It is only by setting a date certain for our troops to leave that Iraqis will have to take responsibility for security in their own country and work out their political power struggles. Right now as much as they dislike us being there, we still bear the true burden for trying to stop the violence. The Iraqis have little incentive to work out their turf wars over political power as long as we are in the country. Iraq's political leadership will never make the hard choices, compromises, and negotiations necessary to achieve a government of national unity, as long as they believe we will stay in an endless occupation, in which the lives of Americans will be shed and national treasure will be expended.

It is only by setting a date certain for our troops to leave that Iraq's neighbors will start to take responsibility for ending the chaos inside Iraq. Right now the violence has not reached the tipping point to get Iraq's neighbors involved. Ultimately, it is not in their national security interest to have the conflict spill across their borders and to have Iraq disintegrate. But by setting a date certain to leave, we create a new incentive for Iraq's neighbors to help quell the violence. It is only by setting a date certain for our troops to leave that the international community will take a responsible role in Iraq. Right now the international community sees this as America's war. Once we make clear we will not be there permanently, they, too, will have an incentive to get involved and help preserve stability in a region much closer to Europe than the United States.

So by setting a date certain for our troops to leave, we actually motivate the Iraqis, Iraq's neighbors, and the international community to take the necessary steps to stabilize Iraq.

But setting a date certain and getting our troops out of Iraq in a safe and orderly way is not enough. I believe we must do more.

What we need now is a surge in diplomacy. That will involve much more than a few trips to the region. We must actively engage with Iraq's neighbors in the international community.

But I cannot close without discussing the cost of this war in Iraq. Some say they want to have a talk about, or votes, not about the escalation but about whether there are resources for the troops. I think we should have a real, honest debate that will come in the budget process about what this war is costing. Let's have a real, honest debate about the administration's lack of honesty in telling the American people what this war costs.

Our expenditures in Iraq will saddle our Nation's finances and our children's future. We spend over $8 billion a month in Iraq; we spend $2 billion a week in Iraq; we spend $280 million every day in Iraq; we spend $11.5 million an hour in Iraq.

The Congress has already appropriated $379 billion for Iraq, and President Bush is now asking for an additional $179 billion. Yet the Secretary of Defense announced to the Budget Committee, on which I serve, that he is not going to come before the committee to justify this spending. To me, that is simply outrageous.

The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction released a new report saying the Bush administration cannot account for critical defense materiel, including over $36 million in weapons. Hearings in the other body revealed that the administration cannot account for over $8 billion that was sent in cash bundles of $400,000 into a war region, without any controls. They cannot account for over $8 billion. Now the administration wants the Congress to hand over another blank check.

Let me put our Iraq spending into perspective.

For what we spend in less than 2 months for operations in Iraq, we could fully fund No Child Left Behind next year, ensuring that every school district in the United States has the funds promised to them to meet the goals of the law.

For what we spend in less than 2 months in Iraq, we could make up the shortfall in the SCHIP program to help cover children who would otherwise be uninsured.

For what we spend in 4 days in Iraq, we could substantially improve security at our Nation's ports with an additional billion dollars, including increased scanning of cargo containers.

For what we spend in 2\1/2\ months in Iraq, we could pay the $21 billion cost of implementing all of the remaining 9/11 Commission recommendations to secure our homeland.

Yet we need to look beyond the economic costs of this war at its true cost: 3,099 American lives, to date. That is invaluable. It is priceless. More will die in the days ahead if we do not change the course in Iraq. We now have more than 23,000 sons and daughters of America who are wounded in ways that will affect their lives forever. We have a real obligation to all of those who are wounded and their families, and to the survivors of those who suffered the ultimate sacrifice. Yet we look at a budget that does not meet that responsibility.

Today, we should be debating the President's escalation plan, particularly since we recently learned from the CBO that the escalation proposed by President Bush would easily cost more than triple what the administration has told us.

Let me be clear for those who may have not heard about the Congressional Budget Office report. That report says the President's escalation plan of 21,000 troops actually only includes combat troops and not all of the other troops necessary for force operations. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this could mean an additional 28,000 support personnel, and that the cost could go as high as $29 billion. Now, to deviate from that would be to deviate from every standard operating procedure the Defense Department has had to support the men and women in the theater; it would be to deviate from every historical perspective. Yet that is not what they included in the budget sent to the Congress.

I am also deeply concerned that the administration has left open the possibility of yet another emergency supplemental to fund this war in fiscal year 2008. All that means is we are putting it upon the next generation of Americans, which is how most of the costs of this war have taken place--we are putting it on the backs of the next generation of Americans and not even being responsible for paying for it. We do all of this while we have the greatest tax cuts for some of the wealthiest people in the Nation, and at a time when the Nation is at war. That has never been seen before in the Nation's history.

The administration has never been honest with the American people about the cost of the war. It is time for that to end. This Senate must demand an honest accounting before we hand this administration any more money or, even more importantly, any more troops.

In the end, it is in honor of those men and women who have given the greatest sacrifice in the line of duty that we must change the course in Iraq. It is in honor of their courage we

must ensure their comrades are not sent off to carry out a failing plan designed by their civilian leadership.

I ask each of my colleagues: Are you willing to look a young soldier in the eye and tell them you are sending them off to Iraq based upon a failed policy and a recycled plan and based upon the hope that Prime Minister Maliki will get it right? How many more American lives will we lose before we realize this plan will not work? And if it were your son or daughter, how long would you be willing to wait? How long would you be willing to listen to the counsel of patience, of delay, of only one more chance, of stay the course?

I know I certainly am not willing to wait any longer.

I believe there is a difference between deference to the Commander in Chief and blind loyalty. I cannot support blind loyalty that sends more of America's sons and daughters to die for a war of choice, to die for a continuing failed policy. In my mind, that is irresponsible and I believe the very essence of the constitutional framework this country was founded on requires us to act. That is what the majority leader wants to do. It is time for some real profiles in courage. I urge my colleagues to allow us to have an up-or-down vote on the President's escalation, and to support the Warner-Levin resolution. I hope, beyond that, at a later time, to support future binding actions to stop the failed policy in Iraq.

I started today by reminding all of us of the words of John F. Kennedy and the profiles in courage he detailed in this Senate. He said:

In whatever arena of life one may meet the challenge of

courage, whatever may be the sacrifices he faces if he

follows his conscience--the loss of his friends, his fortune,

his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow man--each man

[and I add each woman] must decide for himself the course he

will follow. The stories of past courage can define that

ingredient--they can teach, they can offer hope, they can

provide inspiration. But they cannot supply courage itself.

For this, each man must look into his own soul.

I ask each Member of the Senate to look into your own soul and your own conscience, allow us to move to the Warner-Levin resolution, allow us to have a vote against the escalation of troops in Iraq. The Nation is waiting and they are watching, and there is accountability to be had.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today I wish to honor Helen Fenske, the grandmother of environmentalism in my great home State of New Jersey. I join with New Jerseyeans and environmentalists everywhere in mourning her passing on January 19, 2007.

Helen was truly a pioneer in understanding the importance of preserving our environmental resources for future generations. Her activism began in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had plans to build a jetport on swampy land in Chatham Township, in Morris County, NJ. But not on Helen Fenske's watch. Self-described as ``the little old lady in sneakers,'' she understood that the swamp was a treasure--an environmentally sensitive area--and that a jetport would be an ecological disaster to the region. With dogged determination, Helen Fenske mobilized a group of likeminded residents in the Green Village vicinity. In a grassroots effort that included raising money, creating awareness, and lobbying to retain this environmental resource, Helen Fenske managed to procure substantial acreage to be donated to the federal government. This acreage became the nucleus of the 7500 acre Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge--established by Congress in November 1960.

The Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge is, indeed, a treasure and was the first refuge to receive national wilderness recognition--signed into law by President Johnson in 1968. This was the culmination of Helen Fenske's efforts to save the Great Swamp. Thanks to Helen's perseverance and vision, today, one can walk on a boardwalk through vast portions of the swamp to enjoy the natural wildlife that inhabits it, including 244 species of birds, mammals such as red fox, coyote, beaver, raccoons, fish, reptiles, and amphibians, and many large oak and beech trees, and plants such as mountain laurel, mosses, and ferns.

But Helen Fenske's legend did not stop with the Great Swamp. She went on to become an environmental advocate assuming key leadership positions in State government, as special assistant to the first commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Richard Sullivan, and Assistant Commissioner for Natural and Historic Resources. Her leadership became the inspiration for a myriad of conservation efforts, including the battle to save Sunfish Pond along the Appalachian Trail at the Delaware Water Gap. She was additionally the inspiration for the formation of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation and was involved with the Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions, Patriot's Path, the Hudson River Walkway, the Morris Parks and Land Conservancy, and the preservation of the Highlands along with many other efforts.

For her groundbreaking efforts as a champion of the environment, Helen Fenske was the deserving honoree of numerous awards, including the Marcellus Hartley Dodge Award from the Great Swamp Watershed Association; a Congressional Citation for her work in saving the Great Swamp and the creation of the American Revolution Heritage Corridor; the Achievement Award of the Washington Association; and honorary degrees from Ramapo College and Drew University.

Even after she moved to New Hampshire, she remained in touch with her New Jersey roots, always connected to her fight to preserve the Great Swamp and its environs. She died in New Hampshire, but left a living legacy in New Jersey. She will be greatly missed, but the legacy of the ``old lady in sneakers'' has been passed on to a new generation of environmentalists who have taken on her very important mission.

Madam President, I am proud to join my colleagues in calling for something that is long overdue for millions of workers across this Nation, an increase in the minimum wage. Today is not our first day to make this call, but it is time, finally, to answer the voices that have cried out for change for too long. Nearly a decade after the last increase in the Federal minimum wage, this Senate has a chance to right the injustice that millions of workers and their families have endured.

America's minimum wage workers are often not in the forefront of our workforce. They may be in the stockrooms, the kitchens or on the night cleaning crew. By increasing the Federal minimum wage, we will be saying that working in the shadows does not mean a life sentence to poverty.

For far too long, we have allowed a subpar minimum wage to exist that leaves a minimum wage worker supporting a family of three at $6,000 below the poverty level. You get up every day, you work hard, you work 40 hours a week, some of the toughest jobs in America and, at the end, you are still below the poverty level. We are supposed to reward work as a value, not suppress it. We say we want work, not welfare. Yet we have people who get up every day, work some of the toughest jobs and still find themselves below the poverty level.

Those earning minimum wage do some of the toughest jobs our Nation has, and they perform some of the key services we cannot do without, from food preparers, to health care, support staff, to security officers, to cashiers. These occupations are the backbone of businesses and industries that keep our economy running. While we depend on these services they provide every day, many of these workers are earning a wage that is now at its lowest point ever, compared to average hourly wages.

A higher wage is much more than about putting a few more dollars in your pocket each week. A better wage is about fairness, about providing a decent standard of living, and giving workers what they deserve, and ensuring that everyone--everyone--can share in the American dream, not just the top wage earners.

When a minimum wage earner is more likely to be a woman or a minority, we cannot deny that increasing the minimum wage is also about greater equality and justice to nearly 7 million women, who are well over half of the minimum wage workers, or to the 4 million Hispanics and African Americans earning less than $7.25 an hour.

So we can look at the chart and see that as the progression goes down, all of those women's wages lag behind men. And then, when we look at African-American women, Hispanic women, they lag even lower. This is about creating equity, equality. It is about justice.

Our Nation has always been a place where people willing to work hard and play by the rules can earn a better life for themselves and their families. My parents, who came to this country in search of freedom, were willing to do whatever work was necessary for a little piece of the American dream. Whether it was long hours bent over a sewing machine in a factory or working in a cramped carpentry shop, they did whatever they could to provide me the opportunities they never had.

That chance to build a better life through one's labor and determination is something no one in this country should be denied. Yet, for nearly a decade, workers earning the minimum wage have been struggling to get by, struggling to provide what their families need, and struggling to realize the dream our country promises.

It is our duty to ensure everyone in this country can share in that dream. When we as a nation turn a blind eye, when we ignore the fact that millions of workers are earning wages that have been frozen for nearly a decade--how much else of our economy has been frozen for nearly a decade--we are failing those seeking out this dream. And because most minimum-wage workers have children and families to support, it is not just the workers who are struggling to make ends meet or fulfill their dreams, but behind them are families who cannot afford health insurance, or children who are growing up in poverty-- children growing up in poverty to parents who are working hard, in the toughest jobs in America, 40 hours a week, making the minimum wage, below the poverty level. So lifting up the wages of these workers is as much about improving the lives of their family members and providing a brighter future for their children.

This week we have a chance to change the course, not just for the workers still earning $5.15 an hour and their family members, but for the country. We will say it is no longer acceptable to leave behind those who may be at the bottom, that they should be as much a priority as any other worker who contributes to our Nation's economy.

I am extremely proud that New Jersey has not waited for Congress to do what is right. Instead, it has taken upon itself to increase the State minimum wage far above the Federal wage. And New Jersey is not alone. Twenty-nine other States have raised their minimum wages above the Federal minimum wage. Now at $7.15 an hour, New Jersey's minimum wage has given over a quarter million workers the chance to build a better life.

It is past time for Congress to act and give millions of other minimum wage workers across the country that chance. It is time to provide them what they have been waiting almost 10 long years for--the chance to earn a wage they deserve and to live with greater dignity. It is time to let them know Washington will no longer turn a deaf ear to their struggles.

I listen to some of our colleagues sometimes, and it is amazing. Congress has raised its salary more than $31,000 over the same time period in which many Members have voted against raising the minimum wage. It is interesting; we can vote to increase the wages of Members of Congress and the minimum wage workers get nothing. I am sure there are Members who would say it was well worth it, of course. But what about minimum wage workers? Nothing for nearly a decade. Congress raises its salary $31,000.

Now, interestingly enough, no one said: Well, we need to give a tax break in order to give the Members of Congress a raise. No one said, certainly, while they were voting for these increases, they did not deserve it. Yet families across this country are struggling in some of the toughest jobs in America. They could not get the same type of support for their struggles. It is simply wrong.

Now is our chance to correct that injustice, but I hope it is only the first step. We can never, ever again allow the hardest workers in our country to see their wages eroded by 10 years of inflation while those at the top of the pile make more and more but give less and less back.

I hope the Senate will pass this overdue increase in the minimum wage. I hope we do not have to give away the store in order to be able to get some of those who are working at some of the toughest jobs, finding themselves below the poverty level--struggling to have families be nurtured to achieve their dreams and hopes and aspirations--I hope we do not have to give away the store. I hope we do not see another increase in Congress before we see an increase in the minimum wage. Therefore, when we pass this overdue increase in the minimum wage, I hope it will work in the future to make sure this increase stands the test of time.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, today I recognize the North Jersey Chapter of the Links, Inc.'s Linkages to Life Program, and honor the program participants for their hard work and dedication to raising awareness about the importance of blood, tissue, marrow, and organ donation among minority communities.

Each year, for the past 5 years, Links, Inc., in collaboration with Roche Pharmaceutical Company, conducted the Linkages to Life Program to help save lives by educating individuals of African descent about blood, tissue, marrow, and organ donation. With the help of a publication called Can We Talk? they were able to reach a large number of individuals, and educate them about how they can help save lives by being a volunteer donor. More specifically, the North Jersey Chapter provided important education services to individuals and families in Essex, Hudson, Bergen, and Passaic Counties.

Today, approximately 93,000 people are awaiting transplant surgery, and 25 percent of the people awaiting transplants are of African descent. In New Jersey, there are close to 3,000 individuals awaiting an organ transplant. Since organs are matched by a number of factors, including blood and tissue

typing, which can vary by race, patients are more likely to find matches among donors of their same race or ethnicity. Given the large number of individuals of African descent awaiting transplants, it is critical to increase the knowledge about donating blood, tissue, marrow, and organs among all races and ethnicities.

Since 1996, our country reserves the second weekend in November to emphasize the need for life-saving and life-altering blood, organ, marrow, and tissue donation in houses of worship throughout the United States. This program is known as the National Organ Donor Sabbath, and November 10-12, 2006, marked the 10th anniversary celebration.

Links, Inc., is built on a foundation of friendship and service. Today, it contains a network or more than 10,000 African-American women. This year the motto for Links, Inc., is ``Seizing the Opportunity to Provide World Class Leadership, Friendship and Service.'' The members of the North Jersey Chapter of Links, Inc., exemplify that motto.

Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize the dedication and commitment of the North Jersey Chapter of Link's, Inc., members to help others. I urge my colleagues to join me in thanking these individuals for helping fellow New Jerseyans live longer and healthier lives.

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

Mr. President, I rise tonight to speak about the Ryan White CARE reauthorization.

We have heard a number of speakers on the Senate floor over the past few days claiming to be experts on New Jersey's HIV/AIDS community and our Ryan White Program. Now, some might choose to listen to them, but I choose to listen to the real New Jersey experts. Governor Corzine says the bill will have ``an enormous negative impact for individuals and families with HIV in New Jersey.''

New Jersey stands to lose millions of dollars in the first year alone with these losses increasing over time. The losses will disrupt and destabilize the comprehensive continuum of care that has been established. And New Jersey's HIV/AIDS providers and advocates are unified against the proposed bill and know the real impact these cuts have on real lives.

The medical director from the Monmouth Medical Center and HIV Clinic in Long Branch, NJ, a clinic funded by Ryan White funds, says:

Since our inception in 2001, we have doubled our size.

Fifty-two percent of our clients are women. Forty-eight

percent are African Americans. The majority of our clients

have no insurance and no access to medications, except to the

State ADAP program. Our patients are living longer and having

a better quality of life. In fact, this past year we have had

8 babies born to HIV-infected women. None of these infants

are infected with the virus. To ensure that we will not lose

ground in the fight against this epidemic, the Ryan White

program must be reauthorized so that existing clinics and

programs continue to provide medical access for care and

treatment. Please do not dismantle the system at the expense

of another, they tell us.

Now, I really had to bite my lip earlier because some came to the floor of the Senate and had the audacity to say that New Jersey is a privileged State. To them I say: I would gladly give up the privilege of being No. 1 in the Nation in the proportion of women living with AIDS. I would gladly give up the privilege of having the third largest proportion of children living with HIV/AIDS. I would gladly give up the privilege of having the fourth highest number of people living with HIV/AIDS. I would gladly give up the privilege of having the fifth largest number of new AIDS cases each year--each year--despite the fact that we are only the ninth largest in total population. I would gladly give up the privilege of having the fifth highest rate in reported deaths due to AIDS.

I am sure that the 32,000 people living with HIV or AIDS in New Jersey would love nothing more than to be able to

give up that privilege, or the people of color who account for 75 percent of all HIV/AIDS cases, or the women who make up more than a third of all people living with HIV/AIDS. I am sure they would gladly give up that privilege as well.

These same experts have argued that New Jersey is receiving more than its fair share of Ryan White funding. But what we are hearing is just another numbers game to try to avoid the real issue, which is the completely inadequate funding in this reauthorization bill.

When you look at the full picture, without just zooming in on the piece that happens to fit your argument, New Jersey is one of the most expensive States in which to live in this country. Yet it spends less per person--less per person--than 15 other States, including Alabama, Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, Vermont, the District of Columbia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Michigan.

So just to put things in perspective, according to the Care Coalition, Alabama spends about $5,778 per HIV/AIDS patient, and Wyoming spends $5,984 per patient. In contrast, New Jersey spends $800 less than Alabama and $1,000 less than Wyoming per patient on HIV/AIDS care. So I cannot accept the numbers as those would have it constructed for the purposes of pursuing their argument.

There are more than 2,130 new HIV/AIDS infections each year in New Jersey, and in 2004 New Jersey reported almost 2,400 new HIV and AIDS cases, more than all but 4 other States. Ryan White funding is being put to good use saving lives and helping individuals avoid disability and lead productive, successful lives. In New Jersey, we are giving 32,000 people with HIV/AIDS a new lease on life. We have one of the most effective ADAP programs in the Nation, as well as comprehensive services, including primary medical care, mental health service, substance abuse services, oral health, case management, nutritional services.

So thanks to the success of New Jersey's network of care, we have seen a sustained drop in the number of HIV/AIDS deaths each year. However, with this growing population, there is a growing need for services. It is blatantly clear that any cut to our State is a destructive blow to the very network of care that countless men, women, children, and babies are counting on.

Now, I would be happy to have a straight, one-year reauthorization in which all would be made whole if the majority is willing to accept it. I am also willing to find a solution to the real problem, which is a severe shortage of funding--a severe shortage of funding. As I said, I am happy to give up the privilege--I would be happy, as would the lives of those individuals who find themselves struggling day in and day out, they would be happy to give up the privilege that we heard about on the floor. But I cannot stand by and watch the hopes and dreams of New Jerseyans living with HIV/AIDS be extinguished by this misguided proposal.

How can I go back to constituents in New Jersey living with HIV or AIDS and tell them it is a fair deal to have them put their lives at risk? I can't and I won't, and we can't have an appropriate reauthorization.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

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

I do object based on that and much more.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, our children, from environmental pollution. We are well aware that children are especially susceptible to toxins in the environment--they spend a good deal of time playing outside, and frequently put foreign objects into their mouths. In proportion to their body weight, they eat, drink, and breathe more than adults, meaning concentrations of pollutants that might not affect adults could have serious consequences for children. Furthermore, many of their physiological

systems are still developing, making them particularly sensitive to pollutants.

I believe that our environmental laws need to first and foremost protect the most vulnerable members of our society. Unfortunately, many of our statutes are designed with adults in mind, and may not adequately protect children. In addition, there have been a number of recent reports in New Jersey about schools and day care centers being built on contaminated sites. One site in particular, the Kiddie Kollege day care center in Franklin Township, NJ, was operating at the site of a former thermometer factory, exposing the children and employees to dangerous levels of mercury. Sadly, there was no requirement for the property to be tested for environmental contamination prior to opening as a day care center. Subsequently, we have learned about a number of day care centers either built on or adjacent to sites contaminated with volatile organic chemicals and other toxins.

That is why I am introducing this legislation today. The Environmental Protection for Children Act would create a grant program that encourages States to enact laws ensuring that properties are tested for pollution before a new day care center or school is allowed to open. The grants could be used for the testing and cleanup of existing schools and day care centers as well. Furthermore, this bill tightens the Federal programs that regulate hazardous chemicals and environmental pollutants--the Toxic Substances Control Act, Superfund law, Toxic Release Inventory, and Federal Hazardous Substances Act--so that the vulnerability of children to toxins and pollutants is taken into account when public health standards are being developed. It also provides for more research into the specific vulnerabilities of children to environmental pollutants, since in many cases we don't know how much additional risk children are under.

We as a Nation have assiduously acted to protect our children from many of the dangers that they face every day, but we have dropped the ball when it comes to making sure that the places where they spend their days are free from contamination. The Environmental Protection for Children Act will help fix that, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, today, all across America, organized criminal gangs plague our communities, destroying the lives of thousands of young children each and every year. Unfortunately, this plague is currently not being treated effectively, and as a result has grown in size and power in almost every State in the Nation. Indeed, gang violence is no longer a State and local issue that predominantly occurs in highly urbanized areas, but has escalated into a national issue that affects our country as a whole.

In light of this, it is clear that we must recalibrate our efforts-- and in addition to our local initiatives--to comprehensively confront gang violence at the national level. That is why I rise today to introduce the Fighting Gangs and Empowering Youth Act of 2006. Addressing the efforts of Federal, State, and local agencies, this legislation would comprehensively deal with all aspects of gang violence, from rigorously enforcing and appropriately sentencing criminal acts, to preventing future gang members from being recruited and such crimes from occurring.

To reduce the number of young potential recruits gangs prey upon, this bill would authorize funds for after-school and community-based programs designed to economically empower young people. Disadvantaged students will be given the opportunity to realize their potential, through tutoring, mentoring, and job training programs as well as college preparation classes and tuition assistance. Additionally, millions of dollars would be authorized to enhance and expand anti-gang and anti-violence programs in elementary and secondary schools, ensuring that students can focus solely on learning, without having to be concerned for their personal safety. By providing ``at-risk'' youth with such resources and opportunities necessary to succeed in life, they will be far less susceptible to join a criminal gang.

The legislation would also expand adult and juvenile offender reentry demonstration projects to help with post-release and transitional housing, while promoting programs that hire former prisoners, and establish reentry planning procedures within communities. Prisoners with drug addictions would be forced to participate in treatment programs to be eligible for early release, which would be continued in their transition period back into society. All offenders would be encouraged to participate in educational initiatives such as, job training, GED preparation, along with a myriad of other programs. These initiatives are designed to provide offenders with the skills necessary to become legally employed when they are released from prison, which will reduce, hopefully significantly, their recidivism rates.

In addition to programs focused on gang violence prevention, my proposal would provide law enforcement officials on every level of government with the resources and information they need to accurately track and effectively neutralize criminal gangs. Specifically, this legislation would establish a program similar to the current Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program, to augment the number of police officers patrolling the streets of our local communities, and would authorize $700 million annually for it. Additional funds would be used not only to increase the number of officers combating gangs, but also to provide additional forensic examiners to investigate, and more attorneys to prosecute, gang crimes.

As is true with almost all problems, a better understanding of how gangs operate translates into a better understanding of how best to counter them. That is why this legislation would authorize increased funding for the National Youth Gang Survey to increase the number of law enforcement agencies whose data is collected and included in the annual survey and provide up to $8 million per year to upgrade technology to better identify gang members and include them in the National Gang Database. Additionally, this legislation would expand the Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs) to include local gang and other crime statistics from the municipal level, while also requiring the Attorney General to distinguish those crimes committed by juveniles. The bill also requires consolidation and standardization of all criminal databases, enabling law enforcement all across this country to better share information.

For those who still choose a life a crime, this proposal would increase the penalties proscribed for crimes committed in the furtherance of a gang. Gangs are dependent on committing

crimes such as witness intimidation, illegal firearm possession, and drug trafficking, implementing these instruments to augment their power. Subsequently, when these crimes are committed in the furtherance of gang activity, they can be more detrimental to society than if they were committed in isolation. Thus, these tougher sentencing requirements for crimes committed in the furtherance of a gang are not only appropriate, but necessary to deter gang violence and shield society from its most dangerous and unremorseful criminals.

This legislation would also attack one of the roots of gang violence--gang recruiters, who seek out young, economically disadvantaged, at-risk youth and pressure them to join. Currently, there is no law specifically forbidding gang recruitment. This legislation would change that--making it illegal to do so--and would incarcerate an offender for up to 5 years if the person being recruited was over the age of 18, or up to 10 years if the individual was under the age of 18.

Taken together, the provisions of this bill develop a comprehensive approach to gang violence by focusing on prevention, deterrence, and enforcement. To not address all of these gang violence catalysts in their entirety would leave us with an incomprehensive approach that would do little to quell the scourge of gang violence. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Fighting Gangs and Empowering Youth Act, and by doing so, give law enforcement and our communities the means to thoroughly and comprehensively counter the growing specter of gang violence that afflicts our great Nation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, our children, from environmental pollution. We are well aware that children are especially susceptible to toxins in the environment--they spend a good deal of time playing outside, and frequently put foreign objects into their mouths. In proportion to their body weight, they eat, drink, and breathe more than adults, meaning concentrations of pollutants that might not affect adults could have serious consequences for children. Furthermore, many of their physiological

systems are still developing, making them particularly sensitive to pollutants.

I believe that our environmental laws need to first and foremost protect the most vulnerable members of our society. Unfortunately, many of our statutes are designed with adults in mind, and may not adequately protect children. In addition, there have been a number of recent reports in New Jersey about schools and day care centers being built on contaminated sites. One site in particular, the Kiddie Kollege day care center in Franklin Township, NJ, was operating at the site of a former thermometer factory, exposing the children and employees to dangerous levels of mercury. Sadly, there was no requirement for the property to be tested for environmental contamination prior to opening as a day care center. Subsequently, we have learned about a number of day care centers either built on or adjacent to sites contaminated with volatile organic chemicals and other toxins.

That is why I am introducing this legislation today. The Environmental Protection for Children Act would create a grant program that encourages States to enact laws ensuring that properties are tested for pollution before a new day care center or school is allowed to open. The grants could be used for the testing and cleanup of existing schools and day care centers as well. Furthermore, this bill tightens the Federal programs that regulate hazardous chemicals and environmental pollutants--the Toxic Substances Control Act, Superfund law, Toxic Release Inventory, and Federal Hazardous Substances Act--so that the vulnerability of children to toxins and pollutants is taken into account when public health standards are being developed. It also provides for more research into the specific vulnerabilities of children to environmental pollutants, since in many cases we don't know how much additional risk children are under.

We as a Nation have assiduously acted to protect our children from many of the dangers that they face every day, but we have dropped the ball when it comes to making sure that the places where they spend their days are free from contamination. The Environmental Protection for Children Act will help fix that, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, today, all across America, organized criminal gangs plague our communities, destroying the lives of thousands of young children each and every year. Unfortunately, this plague is currently not being treated effectively, and as a result has grown in size and power in almost every State in the Nation. Indeed, gang violence is no longer a State and local issue that predominantly occurs in highly urbanized areas, but has escalated into a national issue that affects our country as a whole.

In light of this, it is clear that we must recalibrate our efforts-- and in addition to our local initiatives--to comprehensively confront gang violence at the national level. That is why I rise today to introduce the Fighting Gangs and Empowering Youth Act of 2006. Addressing the efforts of Federal, State, and local agencies, this legislation would comprehensively deal with all aspects of gang violence, from rigorously enforcing and appropriately sentencing criminal acts, to preventing future gang members from being recruited and such crimes from occurring.

To reduce the number of young potential recruits gangs prey upon, this bill would authorize funds for after-school and community-based programs designed to economically empower young people. Disadvantaged students will be given the opportunity to realize their potential, through tutoring, mentoring, and job training programs as well as college preparation classes and tuition assistance. Additionally, millions of dollars would be authorized to enhance and expand anti-gang and anti-violence programs in elementary and secondary schools, ensuring that students can focus solely on learning, without having to be concerned for their personal safety. By providing ``at-risk'' youth with such resources and opportunities necessary to succeed in life, they will be far less susceptible to join a criminal gang.

The legislation would also expand adult and juvenile offender reentry demonstration projects to help with post-release and transitional housing, while promoting programs that hire former prisoners, and establish reentry planning procedures within communities. Prisoners with drug addictions would be forced to participate in treatment programs to be eligible for early release, which would be continued in their transition period back into society. All offenders would be encouraged to participate in educational initiatives such as, job training, GED preparation, along with a myriad of other programs. These initiatives are designed to provide offenders with the skills necessary to become legally employed when they are released from prison, which will reduce, hopefully significantly, their recidivism rates.

In addition to programs focused on gang violence prevention, my proposal would provide law enforcement officials on every level of government with the resources and information they need to accurately track and effectively neutralize criminal gangs. Specifically, this legislation would establish a program similar to the current Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program, to augment the number of police officers patrolling the streets of our local communities, and would authorize $700 million annually for it. Additional funds would be used not only to increase the number of officers combating gangs, but also to provide additional forensic examiners to investigate, and more attorneys to prosecute, gang crimes.

As is true with almost all problems, a better understanding of how gangs operate translates into a better understanding of how best to counter them. That is why this legislation would authorize increased funding for the National Youth Gang Survey to increase the number of law enforcement agencies whose data is collected and included in the annual survey and provide up to $8 million per year to upgrade technology to better identify gang members and include them in the National Gang Database. Additionally, this legislation would expand the Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs) to include local gang and other crime statistics from the municipal level, while also requiring the Attorney General to distinguish those crimes committed by juveniles. The bill also requires consolidation and standardization of all criminal databases, enabling law enforcement all across this country to better share information.

For those who still choose a life a crime, this proposal would increase the penalties proscribed for crimes committed in the furtherance of a gang. Gangs are dependent on committing

crimes such as witness intimidation, illegal firearm possession, and drug trafficking, implementing these instruments to augment their power. Subsequently, when these crimes are committed in the furtherance of gang activity, they can be more detrimental to society than if they were committed in isolation. Thus, these tougher sentencing requirements for crimes committed in the furtherance of a gang are not only appropriate, but necessary to deter gang violence and shield society from its most dangerous and unremorseful criminals.

This legislation would also attack one of the roots of gang violence--gang recruiters, who seek out young, economically disadvantaged, at-risk youth and pressure them to join. Currently, there is no law specifically forbidding gang recruitment. This legislation would change that--making it illegal to do so--and would incarcerate an offender for up to 5 years if the person being recruited was over the age of 18, or up to 10 years if the individual was under the age of 18.

Taken together, the provisions of this bill develop a comprehensive approach to gang violence by focusing on prevention, deterrence, and enforcement. To not address all of these gang violence catalysts in their entirety would leave us with an incomprehensive approach that would do little to quell the scourge of gang violence. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Fighting Gangs and Empowering Youth Act, and by doing so, give law enforcement and our communities the means to thoroughly and comprehensively counter the growing specter of gang violence that afflicts our great Nation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Lautenberg, and Senators from New York, Illinois and Florida, in support of a one year reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act, and to raise my serious reservations about the current committee proposal. I recognize and respect the dedication and hard work of Senators Enzi and Kennedy, Congressmen Barton and Dingell and their staff to reauthorization this vital program. But unfortunately, their proposal, as it currently stands, threatens lives by destroying networks of care in New Jersey and in other States across the country.

In reviewing the committee's proposal, I cannot help but wonder why we are not doing more and providing additional resources to address a growing need in our communities. More people are getting infected and more communities are having to provide care for individuals with HIV/ AIDS, which means we need more resources, not less. We need to address the growing need for care. Unfortunately, this legislation doesn't address the spread of the disease; it simply spreads already limited funding even thinner.

In New Jersey, we are still struggling with the HIV/AIDS battle and unfortunately, at this point, we are not winning the war. It is a sad reality, but New Jersey continues to rank fifth in the country for overall AIDS cases. We have the highest proportion of AIDS cases in women, and rank third in pediatric AIDS cases. We have not yet won the battle--we are still fighting. And we need weapons, in terms of funding, to win.

New Jersey has stepped-up to the plate to develop a comprehensive array of medical services, which are funded in part by the CARE Act. People infected with HIV/AIDS living in New Jersey have access to one of the most effective ADAP programs in the nation, as well as primary medical care, mental health service, substance abuse services, oral health, case management, and nutritional services. I'm proud of our State's networks of care, and recognize how important they are to the well-being of countless New Jerseyans. But in order to help this program to grow and be effective, we must maintain our Federal support.

During the debate surrounding the reauthorization some are saying we should cut funding for certain States and their HIV/AIDS services. I disagree and so do New Jerseyans. I am proud of the strong voice of New Jersey's advocates. Beneficiaries from across the State, members of our HIV Health Services Planning Councils from our eligible metropolitan areas or EMAs, representatives from all counties that are part of the Philadelphia EMA, and individuals from the consortiums of the remaining counties have been fully engaged in this reauthorization process.

Our elected officials, the Governor's office, and our entire New Jersey delegation have all been supportive of making sure New Jersey has the resources to continue fighting this battle. Our State--but apparently not this Congress--is united in providing care, saving lives and ending this epidemic once and for all.

Unfortunately, the committee's proposed reauthorization threatens to destroy and dismantle critical networks of care that are keeping people alive and healthy in New Jersey. With our current network of care, our healthcare providers have been instrumental in helping prevent people with HIV from developing full-blown AIDS. Without these services, the impact will be devastating for patients, their ability to work and provide for their families and most importantly, their lives.

My concerns continue to grow. Most recently, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended routine HIV testing for all Americans ages 13 to 64, saying that an HIV test should be as common as a cholesterol check. The CDC estimates 250,000 Americans are infected and don't even

know it. At a time when we are identifying more and more individuals with HIV, our country is destroying the very networks of care that will help educate and care for these individuals. We need testing, but we also need so much more.

That is why I propose that we try again--and this time, get it right. That we try to find a way to build on our networks of care, and provide the services that our entire Nation needs to win the war on HIV/AIDS.

Today, I join Senator Lautenberg in offering a proposal that would provide a 1-year reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act under current law. It would provide a 3.7 percent increase in authorization levels through 2007, while preventing funding from reverting back to the Treasury. This bill would provide a 1-year extension of the names- based reporting requirement set to go into effect beginning October 1, 2006. In addition, it would provide $30 million under Title II for States who have an ``unmet need'' and ``no title I entities.'' This proposal would help all States across the country without doing any harm. Instead of 5 years of a detrimental reauthorization, I support another year to get it right.

I believe America can do better, and today I am standing up for the HIV/AIDS community across the country. Today is a day to make our country's budget reflect our values by expanding funding for this important program. I call on my colleagues to save the Ryan White CARE Act. Wait to implement formula changes that could destroy existing networks of care, and instead, work out a solution that addresses the needs of the entire country. Please join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Lautenberg, and Senators from New York, Illinois and Florida, in support of a one year reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act, and to raise my serious reservations about the current committee proposal. I recognize and respect the dedication and hard work of Senators Enzi and Kennedy, Congressmen Barton and Dingell and their staff to reauthorization this vital program. But unfortunately, their proposal, as it currently stands, threatens lives by destroying networks of care in New Jersey and in other States across the country.

In reviewing the committee's proposal, I cannot help but wonder why we are not doing more and providing additional resources to address a growing need in our communities. More people are getting infected and more communities are having to provide care for individuals with HIV/ AIDS, which means we need more resources, not less. We need to address the growing need for care. Unfortunately, this legislation doesn't address the spread of the disease; it simply spreads already limited funding even thinner.

In New Jersey, we are still struggling with the HIV/AIDS battle and unfortunately, at this point, we are not winning the war. It is a sad reality, but New Jersey continues to rank fifth in the country for overall AIDS cases. We have the highest proportion of AIDS cases in women, and rank third in pediatric AIDS cases. We have not yet won the battle--we are still fighting. And we need weapons, in terms of funding, to win.

New Jersey has stepped-up to the plate to develop a comprehensive array of medical services, which are funded in part by the CARE Act. People infected with HIV/AIDS living in New Jersey have access to one of the most effective ADAP programs in the nation, as well as primary medical care, mental health service, substance abuse services, oral health, case management, and nutritional services. I'm proud of our State's networks of care, and recognize how important they are to the well-being of countless New Jerseyans. But in order to help this program to grow and be effective, we must maintain our Federal support.

During the debate surrounding the reauthorization some are saying we should cut funding for certain States and their HIV/AIDS services. I disagree and so do New Jerseyans. I am proud of the strong voice of New Jersey's advocates. Beneficiaries from across the State, members of our HIV Health Services Planning Councils from our eligible metropolitan areas or EMAs, representatives from all counties that are part of the Philadelphia EMA, and individuals from the consortiums of the remaining counties have been fully engaged in this reauthorization process.

Our elected officials, the Governor's office, and our entire New Jersey delegation have all been supportive of making sure New Jersey has the resources to continue fighting this battle. Our State--but apparently not this Congress--is united in providing care, saving lives and ending this epidemic once and for all.

Unfortunately, the committee's proposed reauthorization threatens to destroy and dismantle critical networks of care that are keeping people alive and healthy in New Jersey. With our current network of care, our healthcare providers have been instrumental in helping prevent people with HIV from developing full-blown AIDS. Without these services, the impact will be devastating for patients, their ability to work and provide for their families and most importantly, their lives.

My concerns continue to grow. Most recently, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended routine HIV testing for all Americans ages 13 to 64, saying that an HIV test should be as common as a cholesterol check. The CDC estimates 250,000 Americans are infected and don't even

know it. At a time when we are identifying more and more individuals with HIV, our country is destroying the very networks of care that will help educate and care for these individuals. We need testing, but we also need so much more.

That is why I propose that we try again--and this time, get it right. That we try to find a way to build on our networks of care, and provide the services that our entire Nation needs to win the war on HIV/AIDS.

Today, I join Senator Lautenberg in offering a proposal that would provide a 1-year reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act under current law. It would provide a 3.7 percent increase in authorization levels through 2007, while preventing funding from reverting back to the Treasury. This bill would provide a 1-year extension of the names- based reporting requirement set to go into effect beginning October 1, 2006. In addition, it would provide $30 million under Title II for States who have an ``unmet need'' and ``no title I entities.'' This proposal would help all States across the country without doing any harm. Instead of 5 years of a detrimental reauthorization, I support another year to get it right.

I believe America can do better, and today I am standing up for the HIV/AIDS community across the country. Today is a day to make our country's budget reflect our values by expanding funding for this important program. I call on my colleagues to save the Ryan White CARE Act. Wait to implement formula changes that could destroy existing networks of care, and instead, work out a solution that addresses the needs of the entire country. Please join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise in recognition of the fifth annual National School Backpack Awareness Day, September 20, 2006. Today, the American Occupational Therapy Association, AOTA, in collaboration with more than 350 occupational therapy practitioners across the country will be educating thousands of children and their families about how to stay healthy and succeed in school, especially how to prevent backpack related injuries. These organizations are taking real steps towards protecting our children during their most formative years.

Occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants play an incredibly important role in our local communities. Occupational therapy practitioners work directly with students, parents, and teachers to modify educational environments so that all students can achieve academic success. They often develop plans to improve function and productivity, so as to maximize independence within the academic environment. Their knowledge about how children can stay healthy and succeed in school is invaluable. Today's effort to protect them from backpack injuries is much needed, and I know it will have a positive impact on thousands of families.

Many children enjoy picking out a backpack at the start of the school year, usually based on a certain color or design, but if worn incorrectly or if too heavy, there is a serious potential for injury. In light of this concern, today at schools, stores, hospitals, and shopping malls all over the Nation, children's backpacks will be ``weighed-in.'' This will ensure that children are not carrying more than 15 percent of their bodyweight on their back. According to U.S. and international studies, children using overloaded and improperly worn backpacks experience neck, shoulder and back pain. Furthermore, children wearing backpacks improperly suffer from compromised breathing and increased fatigue at significantly higher rates than students wearing their backpacks properly and with appropriate loads. In our great State of New Jersey, these ``weigh-ins'' are being conducted at nine locations throughout the State. By the end of the day, children all over America will be healthier and equipped with information about how to properly load and carry a backpack.

National School Backpack Awareness Day is a prime example of how occupational therapy works within our schools and communities to promote wellness and improve quality of life. I know today will be a success and ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating September 20, 2006, as National School Backpack Awareness Day.

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Inouye, Senator Murray, and Senator Collins, for their work and attention to this critical subject. I am pleased to stand with them in trying to work to ensure that a concrete port security measure takes place that makes our Nation's ports safer than they are presently.

We have just commemorated the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. I cannot think of a way in which we can learn from those lessons more than to finally come to an agreement on a strong, well- funded port security bill. For those of us who represent States such as mine, New Jersey, with the largest ports in the country, it is not a moment too soon. In fact, some would argue that it comes rather late in the game. I have to agree.

Five years after that tragic September day, nearly 4 years after Congress passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act, and 2 years after the September 11 Commission issued its report and its 41 recommendations, our Nation's busiest ports remain underfunded, understaffed, and overwhelmed. A myriad of new stories over the last week in the runup of the fifth anniversary of September 11 have consistently pointed to one irrefutable fact: our ports remain vulnerable to a terrorist attack. This is not news for some of us.

In December of 2001, I introduced a port security measure in the House of Representatives which sought to fully understand the vulnerabilities we face at all of our ports. I certainly hope this will move us along in that way. I urge, certainly, that we come to that conclusion.

Let's remember that an attack at our ports would not just hurt trade and commerce. Such an attack at a port would devastate surrounding communities. In August, the Rand Corporation released a report concluding that ``a nuclear explosion at the port of Long Beach could kill 60,000 people immediately, expose 150,000 more to radiation, and cause 10 times the economic loss of the September 11 attacks.''

In my State of New Jersey, the Elizabeth-Newark Port, the largest container seaport on the east coast, handled more than $132 billion in goods in 2005 and creates over 200,000 jobs. Imagine what would happen to the Nation--not just New York or New Jersey--if commerce were shut down in this port. Imagine the number of lives in that immediate region, one of the greatest concentrations of population in the Nation.

According to retired Coast Guard CDR Stephen Flynn, the cargo containers ``are a potential Trojan horse in the age of terrorism.'' He is right. Mr. Flynn pointed out that we are not keeping pace with the terrorists' capabilities. The threat continues to evolve. When we patched up one security hole, they found another gap, another vulnerability.

In December 2005, small undercover teams of investigators from the Government Accountability Office were able to carry small amounts of Cesium 137, a radioactive material used for medical and industrial purposes, in the trunks of rental cars in the States of Washington and Texas. The Washington Post reported that the radioactive materials did set off alarms, but GAO agents were able to use phony documents to persuade U.S. border guards and Customs officers to let them pass into the country.

As long as cargo containers remain a mainstay of international commerce, and as long as we cannot verify what is inside each and every one of them, we are vulnerable.

Right now, only 5 percent of containers entering this country are inspected. That is a number which I believe would shock most Americans. Let me be clear. It would be unacceptable to screen only 5 percent of White House visitors every day, so why is it acceptable to scan only 5 percent of cargo entering our country every day? Scanning anything less than 100 percent of cargo that enters our ports is irresponsible and downright negligent. Only scanning 5 percent of cargo containers that enter our ports is the equivalent of locking the car doors but leaving the windows down and the keys in the ignition. It is unacceptable.

Even the system we now use to determine which of the 5 percent of containers to inspect is riddled with flaws. Customs inspectors rely on manifests and intelligence data--both of which can be unintentionally incorrect or even manipulated--to develop algorithms that tell them which container to open. We cannot take the risk that complex mathematical equations relying on faulty inputs will catch a chemical, nuclear, or biological weapon shipped into our ports. We need to develop a system that will eventually ensure that 100 percent of containers bound for this country are inspected, either physically or through effective nonintrusive scanning that will find and detect weapons no matter how they are disguised.

We need to take advantage of existing technologies that can scan the inside of a container, even before it leaves a foreign port, and create a downloadable image of what is inside. That image can be reviewed in real time by security officials in the United States so we know exactly what the container holds before it even sets sail for our shores. By combining this technology with scans for radioactive material, we can find dangerous materials before they ever arrive in our ports.

Port security is a serious matter that should be addressed with a comprehensive and consistent plan, not a game of ``Eeny Meeny Miney Mo'' to figure out which cargo container to scan. Five years after September 11, we must have a plan, a clear roadmap that describes how we will move our Nation to 100 percent scanning at our ports. To accomplish this, this amendment would require just that: to produce an initial plan, a tangible document that clearly outlines how to increase scanning to 100 percent at our ports. The plan must include yearly benchmarks and consequences for supply chain entities that fail to comply, and this could include loss of access to U.S. ports and levying of fines.

My amendment also includes a requirement for an update of the initial 100-percent scanning plan that would include lessons learned from the pilot system.

The definition of 100 percent scanning is very important here, and I hope

our colleagues will focus on this issue. The American public should not be misled by anyone stating that screening is sufficient or that offering amendments for 100-percent screening is a step in the right direction.

Let me be very clear: 100 percent screening means just looking at manifests, manifests that are often incomplete and incorrect. Relying on manifests is simply not the way to ensure cargo containers do not contain items they should not, items that could endanger the security of our ports, the surrounding communities, and the people in our country.

I want to emphasize that I am not calling for all containers entering the United States to be opened up and examined. What I am calling for, and something that is well within our technical capabilities, is to ensure that all containers entering the United States have been scanned using nonintrusive technology.

But to get to 100 percent container inspection and to have true container security, we also need to take immediate steps to put scanners in place here and abroad to track containers as they move across the ocean and to start protecting against not only nuclear but chemical and biological agents.

In conclusion, we have been debating the details of this cargo inspection regime for far too long. It is not a new issue. But the time has come to act decisively and with one voice to make our ports safer than they are now.

Five years after September 11, we still do not know what is entering our ports. Recently, a commercial airplane was diverted because someone forgot their BlackBerry on board. Yet thousands of cargo containers stream into our Nation every day without us knowing exactly what they contain.

Just this past Monday, we commemorated the fifth anniversary of the attacks that shocked the Nation and took the lives of 3,000 Americans, including 700 New Jerseyans. We must remember the terrorists used methods beyond our wildest imaginations and spurred the Congress into some action to better protect our Nation. Here we stand 5 years later and we are still not scanning 100 percent of the cargo that enters our country. We are tempting fate in a most reckless way. We have identified a clear vulnerability and we must do everything we can to decrease the threat before it is too late.

If we could roll back the clock 10 years and spend a few billion dollars to raise the levees in New Orleans to be able to withstand a category 5 hurricane, we would have saved hundreds of lives, as well as the billions of dollars it will take to rebuild that city. I don't want this country to look back in hindsight a few years from now with the realization that if we had taken action today, we could have prevented a major terrorist attack. Who among us would be satisfied in the aftermath of an attack that we did not take the steps that could have prevented it because we were unwilling to dedicate the necessary resources? That is the choice the Congress faces and the Senate faces today. And for the security of our country, it is essential that we make the right one.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that we can do so and move toward a plan that will give us 100 percent scanning.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding time.

After listening to this debate, I think my distinguished colleagues are talking about another pending amendment, not my amendment. My amendment is very clear and forthright. It asks for a plan to achieve 100 percent scanning--a plan.

Now, after listening to the debate, the reality is that after all of the items that were discussed, that still is only 1 percent scanning of 5 percent of the cargo. Let's not get confused. Words matter. There is a difference between screening and scanning.

Who in our country will be satisfied with a mathematical equation being used as the way in which we determine what 5 percent ultimately gets taken care of? What it still says, notwithstanding all those layers of security

that the distinguished Senator from Maine spoke about, is that still only has us reviewing 5 percent of the cargo. That is what it does. So who among us is willing to allow mathematical equations that are based upon information that can be either intentionally or unintentionally faulty to ultimately protect the ports of this country, the people who work there, the communities that surround them, and the commerce of the Nation? I wouldn't.

If Hong Kong can do this, the United States of America can do it. All we say is let's have the Department of Homeland Security develop a plan to achieve it. We do not insist on specific ways in which we do that. We allow them to develop the plan. But let's get to a plan for 100 percent of the cargo.

As for domestic, we say it will include benchmarks that they will determine in the plan for what type of cargo inspectors are inspecting here in the United States before they leave. It doesn't say specifically the amount, and as it relates to the loss of access to U.S. ports and fines, it says it may include such loss of access if we believe that is the way in which we should seek enforcement. It doesn't say ``it shall.'' It says ``it may.''

At the end of the day, if we adopt the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota, we are still saying: OK, 5 percent is something we are willing to live with. At the end of the day, we do not move to a plan of 100 percent scanning of the Nation's cargo. Doesn't the Nation deserve a plan to get there, a plan that largely can be devised to ensure that both technological accomplishments, as well as security concerns, are brought together to achieve the goal? I think the Nation deserves a plan. So it is very important to understand that when we keep saying screen--screen means looking at a cargo manifest.

I had the Port of Elizabeth in Newark in what was my former congressional district for 13 years and dealt with them for quite a bit on a number of issues. Screening just means let's look at what is in that container. Let's see the list. Where is it coming from? What port is it coming from? Let's ultimately take all of that and put it in a mathematical equation and look at what is inside the cargo. But that is not scanning 100 percent of what comes into the Nation. Let America not be confused by that.

Also, this is about scanning it abroad. When we wait until it comes into a port of the United States, if it has a nuclear device in it, it is a little late. We need to be doing that scanning abroad.

I urge my colleagues to understand the difference between these amendments. Ours produces a plan to get us to 100 percent of scanning, and it gives flexibility for the Department to do so, but it does move us toward that ultimate goal.

With that, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Washington, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, with reference to the concerns the Senator from Maine raised, let me just say the amendment we just adopted says we are going to scan 100 percent of the

containers that have been identified as high risk before they leave the United States. So that is the very essence of what we seek to do as well.

Secondly, the only amendment before the Senate that will move us to a plan to get to 100 percent scanning of all cargo in this country is the amendment presently before the Senate.

If you want to continue to allow a mathematical equation to determine how we inspect only 5 percent of the cargo in this country, then that is what you just accomplished. If you want to move toward a plan to get 100 percent scanning of all the cargo that comes into this country, giving the Department of Homeland Security the opportunity to develop such a plan, then this amendment is the one you want to vote for.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support today of the amendment offered by my colleague Senator Baucus. At the end of the last year, the higher education deduction, along with a number of other important tax credits, expired. This means that unless we act to extend it, nearly 4 million families and students will not be able to deduct their college tuition from their taxes for this year. At a time when college prices have more than doubled over the last 5 years, now is not the time for this deduction to disappear.

In my State of New Jersey, as across the Nation, tuition is becoming a heavier burden on our students. New Jersey families spend an average of 34 percent of their income on tuition at a 4-year public university. The higher education deduction is a simple way that we can reduce that burden, by allowing taxpayers to deduct up to $4,000 in tuition costs. Despite this, Congress has sat by while this and other crucial tax provisions expired.

In addition to the higher education deduction, Senator Baucus's amendment would also extend the $250 deduction for out-of-pocket expenses that teachers spend on supplies for their classrooms. Purchasing supplies with their own money is only one of the many sacrifices our teachers make--this small deduction is the least we can do to help them shoulder that cost. In addition, the amendment would extend and expand the research and development credit for companies to spur innovation and continue new research, and the new markets tax credit, which helps bring loans and new investments to lower income communities.

Today is now the fourth time this year we have considered extending the important tax credits contained in this amendment.

We had our first chance in February, when a majority of this body voted to extend these provisions. Then in May, when we should have passed these extensions, instead, our Republican colleagues made a choice. Instead of extending the deduction for college tuition or out- of-pocket teacher expenses, both of which have expired, our colleagues chose to extend tax cuts on something that does not expire for 2 more years--investment and capital gains income. Our colleagues chose to spend $50 billion to extend these tax cuts for 2 more years, when the cost to extend both the teacher out-of-pocket and college tuition deductions is less than $8 billion. The fact is, we are running out of time. As a hearing last week highlighted, if these extensions are not enacted into law by October 15, it will be too late for the IRS to adhere to them for this tax year. We likely have less than 10 legislative days left in this body. If we do not act today, the question is, when?

So, we have a choice once again today. Are we going to act to help students with the cost of their college tuition, or teachers with the sacrifices they make for their students, or are we going to sit by and pretend that these costs are not a hardship for millions of Americans?

I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will see the need and the urgency to extend these provisions today, and not continue to wait, putting off tax relief that our students and families deserve.

I urge my colleagues to support the Baucus amendment, and to extend this relief today.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senators Clinton, Lautenberg, and Schumer to introduce the James Zadroga Act. This bicameral and bipartisan legislation would reopen the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund, VCF, to provide financial assistance to victims and first responders of the attacks of 9/11 who became ill, in addition to their respective family members.

James Zadroga was a New York Police Department, NYPD, detective and New Jersey resident, who when he died earlier this year was the first 9/11 responder to have his death directly attributed to exposure to the toxins of

Ground Zero. He became ill just weeks after working at Ground Zero, but because he retired in 2004, the NYPD determined that his four-year-old daughter Tylerann could only receive a disability pension, instead of the full death benefit to which she should be entitled.

That is why in April, I authored a letter with my colleagues Senators Lautenberg, Clinton, and Schumer that called on New York officials to enact legislation that would provide full benefits to Tylerann and other beneficiaries like her.

In August, New York enacted three new laws, including one that would allow those recovery workers who have retired from public service to have their retirement status reclassified as accidental disability if they later become ill due to their efforts at Ground Zero. That action by the State of New York is vitally important, because we unfortunately know that Detective Zadroga's death will not be the last to be suffered by the brave Americans who rushed to Ground Zero in the hours and days after September 11.

As our Nation continues to heal from the wounds inflicted by the 9/11 terror attacks, there are many first responders whose wounds have yet to heal from the aftermath of that day. We as a nation must care for those who cared for America in its time of need. We cannot let bureaucratic red tape stand between those who helped America pick up the pieces and the compensation they deserve.

Today, by introducing this legislation we take the next step in working to ensure that the heroes who sacrificed their health--and in Detective Zadroga's case, his life--will be justly compensated. I believe we owe them nothing less.

This legislation reopens the fund created to care for the families of 9/11 victims and for those injured or who became ill as a direct result of the attacks. Unfortunately, many who should have received compensation from the VCF never did because their illnesses did not develop or have become significantly worse since the original filing deadline of December 22, 2003. In other instances, original guidelines prohibited the VCF to make awards if injuries were sustained more than 96 hours after the attacks.

Specifically, the ``James Zadroga Act'' would: Reopen September 11 Victims Compensation Fund for individuals who became ill or did not file before the original December 22, 2003 deadline;

Allow for adjustment of previous awards if the Special Master of the fund determines the medical conditions of the claimant warrants an adjustment; and

Amend eligibility rules so that responders to the 9/11 attacks who arrived later than the first 96 hours could be eligible if they experienced illness or injury from their work at the site.

Congress needs to pass this bill--we need to stand up for these American heroes and their families. I urge my colleagues to join with us in this important effort by cosponsoring this piece of legislation.

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