In This Section...

You are filtering your view of the Congressional Record on the following Member of Congress: (view all)

	Sen. Biden [D-DE]: [Introducing S. 1044] Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity today to introduce an important piece of legislation to improve the ability of the Department...
	Sen. Biden [D-DE]: [Introducing S. 1055] Mr. President, today I am introducing The American Automobile Industry Promotion Act of 2007 to jump-start next generation battery technology...
	Sen. Biden [D-DE]: [Introducing S. 1060] Mr. President, I introduce today with my colleagues Senators SPECTER, BROWNBACK, and LEAHY the Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act of...

Record Text

Sen. Herbert Kohl [D-WI]: [Introducing S. 1027] Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act with Senators Specter, Leahy, Kyl, and Schumer.

As the problem of cigarette trafficking continues to worsen, we must provide law enforcement officials with the tools they need to crack down on cigarette trafficking. The PACT Act closes loopholes in current tobacco trafficking laws, enhances penalties for violations, and provides law enforcement with new tools to combat the innovative new methods being used by cigarette traffickers to distribute their products. Each day we delay its passage, terrorists and criminals raise more money, States lose significant amounts of tax revenue, and kids have easy access to tobacco products sold over the internet.

The cost to Americans is not merely financial. Tobacco smuggling also poses a significant threat to innocent people around the world. It has developed into a popular, and highly profitable, means of generating revenue for criminal and terrorist organizations. Hezbollah, for example, earned $1.5 million between 1996 and 2000 by engaging in tobacco trafficking in the United States. Al Qaeda and Hamas have also generated significant revenue from the sale of counterfeit cigarettes. That money is often raised right here in the United States, and it is then funneled back to these international terrorist groups. Cutting off financial support to terrorist groups is an integral part of protecting this country against future attacks, and it was an important recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. We can no longer continue to let terrorist organizations exploit weaknesses in our tobacco laws to generate significant amounts of money. The cost of doing nothing is too great.

This is not a minor problem. Cigarette smuggling is a multibillion dollar a year phenomenon and is getting worse. In 1998, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) had six active tobacco smuggling investigations. In 2005, that number swelled to 452.

The number of cases alone, however, does not sufficiently put this problem into perspective. The amount of money involved is truly astonishing. Cigarette trafficking, including the illegal sale of tobacco products over the internet, costs States billions of dollars in lost tax revenue each year. It is estimated that $3.8 billion of tax revenue were lost, at the Federal and State level, in 2004 to tobacco smuggling. As lost tobacco tax revenue lines the pockets of criminals and terrorist groups, States are being forced to increase college tuition and restrict access to other public programs because of lost revenues. Tobacco smuggling may provide some with cheap access to cigarettes, but those cheap cigarettes are coming at a significant cost to the rest of us.

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), cigarette trafficking investigations are growing more and more complex, and take longer to resolve. More people are selling cigarettes illegally, and they are getting better at it. As these cases become more difficult to crack, we owe it to law enforcement officials to do our part to lend a helping hand. The PACT Act does that by enhancing BATFE's authority to enter premises to investigate and enforce cigarette trafficking laws. It also increases penalties for cigarette trafficking. Unless these existing laws are strengthened, traffickers will continue to operate with near impunity.

Just as important, though, we must enable our country's law enforcement officials to combat the cigarette smugglers of the 21st century. The internet represents a new obstacle to enforcement. Illegal tobacco vendors around the world evade detection by conducting transactions over the internet, and then shipping their illegal products around the country to consumers. Just a few years ago, there were less than 100 vendors selling cigarettes online. Today, approximately 500 vendors sell illegal tobacco products over the internet.

Without new and innovative enforcement methods, law enforcement will not be able to effectively address the growing challenges facing them today. The PACT Act sets out to do just that by empowering States to go after out-of-State sellers who are violating their tax laws and by cutting off their method of delivery. A significant part of this problem involves the shipment of contraband cigarettes through the United States Postal Service (USPS). This bill would cut off online vendors' access to the USPS. We would treat cigarettes just like we treat alcohol, making it illegal to ship them through the U.S. mails and cutting off a large portion of the delivery system.

In addition, it would facilitate cooperation between law enforcement and private carriers, who are sometimes the unwitting delivery arm of these tobacco traffickers. The bill authorizes the Attorney General to compile a list of sellers who are engaging in illegal cigarette sales, and that list would be distributed to private carriers, like UPS and FedEx. Providing this information to these companies, who have already begun to cooperate with law enforcement in this area, would then be empowered to cut off shipments for those of their customers who are engaging in tobacco smuggling.

The PACT Act is a comprehensive bill to put these illegal smugglers out of business. It enjoys the strong support of tobacco companies, law enforcement officials, and the public health community. The bill contains important authorities that will enable our federal, state, and local law enforcement officials to crack down on cigarette trafficking, and thereby close off a very lucrative funding stream for international terrorist groups and other criminal enterprises. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Herbert Kohl [D-WI]: [Introducing S. 1029] Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill that amends the Food Security Act of 1985 to provide incentives for landowners to protect and improve streams and riparian habitat. This legislation would provide cost-share payments to landowners who protect and repair streamside and in-stream habitat, improve water flow and quality and initiate watershed management and planning.

The Stream Habitat Improvement Program, funded at $60 million annually, would direct resources to important fish habitat projects. The fisheries community has recognized the loss of habitat as a major threat to the health of sport fish populations. Farmers who participate in the program will make improvements on streams running through their property. Improvements could include repairing shoreline, removing barriers to fish passage, and planting trees to shade the water and strengthen stream banks. Further, existing partnerships, such as the National Fish Habitat Action Plan, could provide invaluable input to guide the program.

Healthy fisheries mean healthy communities. The EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service have found that 81 percent of all stream fish communities in the U.S. have been adversely affected by either pollution or other disturbances. Rivers and streams provide essential habitat for numerous plant and animal species. Many of these species are threatened, endangered, or at risk for extinction. Degraded and altered habitats are the most frequently cited factors contributing to the decline among threatened or endangered aquatic species and among many native recreational and non-game fish species.

In Wisconsin alone there are almost 950,000 anglers, and almost half a million more come from out of State to fish in Wisconsin. Together these anglers spend $1 billion on fishing-related expenses in our State. This new program would advance efforts to support stream habitat restoration more effectively, which in turn will support a thriving economy and aquatic species populations. Further, healthy stream and river habitats also play an important role in the Nation's economy. Each year, about 34 million anglers spend $17 billion directly on fishing equipment and another $15 billion on trip-related expenses, food and lodging, and other recreational fishing-related expenses.

Successful management of stream and river habitat requires cooperative partnerships among producers, landowners, as well as Federal and State agencies. Offering producers and private landowners incentives and opportunities for restoring stream habitat will prevent the decline and listing of aquatic species. Building strong relationships between farm owners, private landowners and the angler community ensures that healthy fisheries will be maintained for future generations to enjoy.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I-CT]: [Introducing S. 1033] Mr. President, today, along with my friend Senator SAM BROWNBACK, I am introducing the Great Cats and Rare Canids Act, which will protect and foster populations of imperiled great cats and rare canines outside of North America.

These species, including the cheetah and the Asiatic wild dog, are threatened by habitat loss, poaching, disease, and pollution. The conservation fund established by the bill we are introducing today would sustain current conservation efforts and expand strategic measures to restore imperiled populations.

The struggle of the African wild dog is one example of the plight these large carnivores face. The less than 2,500 adults that remain not only have to combat the widespread misconception that they are livestock killers, but are extremely susceptible to those diseases common in domesticated animals. They have lost 89 percent of their habitat and are now found in only 14 of the 39 countries that comprise their historic range.

The snow leopard is another example. Like all great cats, the snow leopard needs a large tract of uninterrupted land in which to live, but the snow leopard's habitat in China has been fragmented due to human encroachment. The cats are also under extreme poaching pressures as their fur is sold on the black market.

The bill we are introducing today would help protect these predators at the top of the food chain. Our legislation is modeled after the highly successful Multinational Species Conservation Funds, which conserve rhinos, great apes, Asian elephants, African elephants, and marine turtles. Our bill would authorize $5 million in annual spending for the conservation of more than a dozen species of great cats and rare canines.

I do not think our children and grandchildren will forgive us if we stand by and let these magnificent animals drift into extinction. With a relatively small investment, we can invigorate ongoing conservation efforts around the world.

Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]: [Introducing S. 1035] Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Samuel Brownback [R-KS]: [Introducing S. 1036] Mr. President, I rise to speak on bipartisan legislation that Senator Landrieu and myself are introducing, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act. We do this today with 26 other cosponsors. It is important to talk about this matter as we set up for the bioethical debate which will be taking place after Easter and discuss some of the parameters and issues surrounding this topic. We have a continuum of discussion points, as this body and the rest of the country and, indeed, the world is engaged on the subject.

There is an ethical way to move forward on stem cell research that is producing treatments and applications for human maladies, now in over 70 areas. The science continues to grow, and it is promising. I have held press conferences involving people with spinal cord injuries who could not walk and are walking again with the aid of braces. I have hosted people at press conferences who are suffering from congestive heart failure yet are now able to go up flights of stairs they couldn't even imagine previously with treatments utilizing their own adult stem cells. I have visited with cancer patients who have been treated with cord blood stem cells who are cancer-free now.

We have new discoveries taking place. For example, in the amniotic fluid surrounding the child in the womb exists an abundant supply of stem cells that are malleable into many different types of cells. We just learned about this breakthrough less than 6 months ago, and there are no ethical problems with it whatsoever. It is a beautiful science that is developing. In the near future, I believe we are going to see these adult stem cell advances taking root and moving forward in a glorious fashion: so that people can literally walk again who were not able to walk; so that people can literally be cured of heart conditions who had no cure and were only hoping for the possibility of a transplant; so that people, instead of having a mechanical bladder control on their side, are able to have a bladder grown of their own adult stem cells around a matrix and a frame that can be inserted back in the body that would be functioning again. The science is beautiful.

The ethical quagmire is significant as well: if we decide the route to pursue is to clone human beings; if we decide the route to pursue is to treat some humans as property, as a commodity to be researched and to be used. Human cloning and treating some humans as property are not the way to go.

What we are seeing from the clear science that has taken place in the past and the present is that human embryonic stem cells produce tumors. This has occurred in cloning situations and in noncloning embryonic stem cell situations. Embryonic stem cells produce tumors. A tumor in this situation is a growth of tissue that doesn't fit the intended purpose. Scientists are experiencing significant problems in this embryonic area. While we are developing treatments and applications using adult stem cells, cord blood, and, hopefully in the future, amniotic fluid, we are not seeing the same success using human embryonic cells.

The legislation that we put forward today, with 28 sponsors, would affirm that the United States places tremendous value on the dignity of each and every human life at whatever stage that life is in, from the very earliest moments to the very end of life. It would recognize the dignity of human life in this country and around the world. We don't want to see people recruiting women in a foreign country to give eggs on a massive scale for research purposes for the development of human clones. This legislation affirms that we stand for human dignity, from the very young human embryo to vulnerable women who could be coerced into donating eggs at potentially significant health risk to themselves. The legislation would make clear that the cloning of human persons is not something that we as a society will accept.

The Brownback-Landrieu Human Cloning Prohibition Act is endorsed by the President. It will bring the United States into conformity with the United Nations, whose General Assembly called on all member states "to prohibit all forms of human cloning" by a strong 84-to-34 margin. The problem with cloning human beings is that it violates the inherent dignity of a human being on so many levels. Cloning transgresses our heritage's sacred values about what is good and what is true and what is beautiful.

Western civilization is built on the tenet that every human life has immeasurable value at every stage. Human beings are ends in themselves. It is wrong to use any human purpose as a means to an end. Upon this principle are our laws founded. Without this principle, much of our law has little basis. That inherent beauty and dignity of each person at every phase of life, no matter where they are or who they are, no matter what they look like, no matter what their physical condition is, they are beautiful and unique. They are sacred. They are a child of a loving God, period.

Human cloning for whatever purpose is wrong because it turns humans into commodities or spare parts or even research animals. In recent debate, human cloning has been referred to as therapeutic cloning, research cloning, or simply SCNT, somatic cell nuclear transfer. These are presented as contrasts to reproductive cloning. But it should be noted that "therapeutic," "research," and "reproductive" are merely adjectives used to describe what is done with a human clone or with a cloned human. SCNT is just the scientific description of the cloning process. It is like calling a butterfly a lepidoptera--it still is a butterfly.

A CRS report for Congress notes:

[A] human embryo produced via cloning involves the process called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). In SCNT the nucleus of an egg is removed and replaced by the nucleus from a mature body cell, such as a skin cell. In cloning, the embryo is created without sexual reproduction.

That is the CRS report definition of a human clone.

Stem cell pioneer Dr. James Thomson has said:

If you create an embryo by [SCNT cloning] and give it to somebody who didn't know where it came from, there would be no test you could do to that embryo to say where it came from. It is what it is. .....If you try to define it away, you're being disingenuous.

These quotes note that the SCNT process is cloning.

With reproductive and therapeutic cloning, human beings are turned into commodities or in some cases spare parts to be dissected in the laboratory, with the claim that some day they may be administered to other humans to provide a treatment. Treatments are praiseworthy but not at the expense of the destruction of other members of the human family. We all want to treat people. I want to find a cure for cancer. However, it is wrong to turn humans into a means to an end.

It is also wrong to exploit women for their eggs. That is the other side of the human cloning story. SCNT cloning, as proposed by proponents of the technique, would require millions of human eggs. Poor and disadvantaged women in particular would be vulnerable to exploitation via financial incentives for donation. This is troubling because retrieving such eggs violates the dignity of a woman and may cause serious harm to her health.

The Brownback-Landrieu Human Cloning Prohibition Act is the only effective ban on human cloning. Any other so-called human cloning bans outside of this one are bans in name only and, in fact, most of them provide for human cloning for research purposes. So, under other bans, you can actually create a clone. They won't call it a clone; they will call it a product of SCNT. They will say you may create and do research on the clone; we just won't let you implant it. What is the clone, then, at that point in time? Is it in the human species at that point? Is it genetic material at that point in time? Indeed, it is. Biologically, it is a human.

Others would only regulate what could be done with a human clone, normally requiring its destruction, but they do nothing to prevent the process of human cloning, which inherently violates human dignity. We should take a stand against turning young humans into commodities, research animals, and spare parts. We should not destroy young human lives for research purposes.

That is why I urge my colleagues to support this human cloning prohibition ban.

Sen. John Cornyn [R-TX]: [Introducing S. 1038] Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Workforce Health Improvement Program Act of 2007, otherwise known as the WHIP Act. This bipartisan bill I introduce today is the same legislation I introduced in the 109th Congress. I am very pleased to be joined again by my good friend and colleague, Senator TOM HARKIN, who shares my commitment to helping keep America fit.

Public health experts unanimously agree that people who maintain active and healthy lifestyles dramatically reduce their risk of contracting chronic diseases. And as the government works to reign in the high cost of health care, it is worth talking about what we all can do to help ourselves. As you know, prevention is key, and exercise is a primary component in the prevention of many adverse health conditions that can arise over one's lifetime. A physically fit population helps to decrease health-care costs, reduce governmental spending, reduce illnesses, and improve worker productivity.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the economic cost alone to businesses in the form of health insurance and absenteeism is more that $15 billion. Additionally, Medicare and Medicaid programs currently spend $84 billion annually on five major chronic diseases: diabetes, heart disease, depression, cancer, and arthritis.

Reports also show that only about 15 percent of adults perform the recommended amount of physical activity, and 40 percent of adults do not participate in any physical activity. With physical inactivity being a key contributing factor to overweight and obesity, and adversely affecting workforce productivity, we quite simply need to do more to help employers encourage exercise.

Given the tremendous benefits exercise provides, I believe Congress has a duty to create as many incentives as possible to get Americans off the couch, up, and moving.

With this in mind, I am introducing the WHIP Act.

Current law already permits businesses to deduct the cost of on-site workout facilities, which are provided for the benefit of employees on a pre-tax basis. But if a business wants or needs to outsource these health benefits, they and/or their employees are required to bear the full cost. In other words, employees who receive off-site fitness center subsidies are required to pay income tax on the benefits, and their employers bear the associated administrative costs of complying with the IRS rules.

The WHIP Act would correct this inequity in the tax code to the benefit of many smaller businesses and their employees. Specifically, it would provide an employer's right to deduct up to $900 of the cost of providing health club benefits off-site for their employees. In addition, the employer's contribution to the cost of the health club fees would not be taxable income for employees creating an incentive for more employers to contribute to the health and welfare of their employees.

The WHIP Act is an important step in reversing the largely preventable health crisis that our country is facing, through the promotion of physical activity and disease prevention. It is a critical component of America's health care policy: prevention. It will improve our nation's quality of life by promoting physical activity and preventing disease. Additionally, it will help relieve pressure on a strained health care system and correct an inequity in the current tax code.

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

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Edward Kennedy [D-MA]: [Introducing S. 1041] Mr. President, for far too long, we've acquiesced in a lop-sided economy that benefits wealthy individuals and corporations, but not America's working families. Tens of millions of our men and women are working harder than ever, but they aren't receiving their fair share of the economy they helped do so much to create and sustain.

Since President Bush took office, corporate profits have increased 65 percent. Productivity is up 18 percent. But household income has declined; the wages of working Americans are stagnant. Six million have lost their health insurance. Their retirement is uncertain as well--only 1 in 5 workers today has a guaranteed pension. In short, working families are finding that the American dream is beyond their reach. This injustice is worsening each year, and it is time for Congress to deal with it.

The best way to see that employees receive their fair share of America's prosperity is to give them a stronger voice in the workplace. Unions were fundamental in building America's middle class, and they have a vital role today in preserving the American dream for working families.

Unions can make all the difference between an economy that's fair, and an economy where working people are left behind. Union wages are 30 percent higher than non-union wages. 80 percent of union workers have health insurance, compared to only 49 percent of non-union workers. Union members are 4 times more likely to have a secure, guaranteed pension.

No wonder most American workers want union representation. The question is, why don't more of them have it?

The reason is clear. In 2005 alone, more than 30,000 workers were illegally fired or retaliated against for attempting to exercise their right to have a union in their workplace. Every 17 minutes, a worker is fired or punished in some illegal way for supporting a union. Unscrupulous employers routinely break the law to keep unions out--they intimidate employees, harass them, and discriminate against them. They shut down whole departments--or even entire plants--to avoid negotiating a union contract. It's illegal and unacceptable, but it happens every day.

Clearly, the current system is broken. It can't stop these illegal, anti-worker, anti-labor, anti-union tactics that take place every day. The penalties are so minor that employers treat them as just another cost of doing business. Even when workers succeed in forming a union, they often can't obtain a first contract because management stonewalls them and refuses to negotiate. Half of all cases alleging that employers refused to bargain are filed during first-contract negotiations--and in most of those cases, the National Labor Relations Board finds an unfair labor practice.

Year after year, Congress has refused to act against these union-busting tactics that are now all too familiar in the workplace. It's time to listen to the voice of America's working men and women, and give them what they want and deserve--a fair voice in the workplace and a fair chance at the American dream.

That's why I'm reintroducing the Employee Free Choice Act today. This essential legislation will strengthen protections for workers' freedom to choose union representation. It will restore their democratic right to join together for better wages, better benefits, and better working conditions. It will help millions of working men and women to build a better life for themselves and a better future for their children.

I am proud to have 46 of my fellow Senators joining me in sponsoring this important bill, and I hope that all of my colleagues will support it.

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

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]: Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to ensure that the land on the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs, West LA VA, campus is protected for the use of America's Veterans.

The bill would: require the VA Secretary to provide the Congressional Appropriations and Veterans Committees a comprehensive report regarding the master plan for the West LA VA facility and connected property.

The VA was required under Public Law 105-368 to develop a master plan for the West LA VA property.

If the VA has failed to developed the plan, the legislation requires it to complete a master plan prior to implementing any action based on the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) initiative.

The VA would be prohibited from issuing any enhanced-use lease agreements for the West LA VA property until the master plan is completed and submitted to Congress.

Prevent the VA Secretary from implementing any portion of the master plan until 120 days after the submission of the plan to the Appropriations and Veterans Committees.

In addition, the Secretary would be expressly prohibited from pursuing development initiatives regarding the West LA VA property not relating to direct Veterans services unless explicitly authorized by Congress through legislation.

Direct Veterans services are defined in this legislation as any services "directly related" to maintaining the health, welfare, and support of Veterans.

Last year, the Senate approved similar language in the FY07 MILCON/VA Appropriations bill that required the VA to provide the Appropriations Committees a report on the master plan for the West LA VA Medical Center and connected land.

The fiscal year 2007 MILCON/VA Appropriations Act passed the Senate on November 18, 2006.

Unfortunately, all but 2 of the 11 Appropriations bills--including MILCON/VA--were ultimately packaged together in a Continuing Resolution for fiscal year 2007, and the language was never considered by the full Congress.

The bill I am introducing today is absolutely essential in light of a number of unacceptable actions that have previously been taken by the VA that, in my view, violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

Last month, I joined with my colleagues Senator BARBARA BOXER and Congressman HENRY WAXMAN in writing a letter to VA Secretary James Nicholson strongly objecting to recent decisions by the VA relating to the West LA VA facility and land.

Over the past year alone, the VA has permitted the construction of a facility for the Fox Entertainment Group on the West LA VA property, and has approved a lease agreement with Enterprise Car Rental to operate on the campus.

In addition, the VA has allowed the Westside Shepherd of the Hill Church to rent a building on the property in which to hold its Sunday services and provided additional housing space for the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA).

The VA reportedly has also considered lease projects such as movie productions, a drive-in theather, a circus event, and a golf course.

This must be put to a stop and the legislation I introduce today would do just that.

For too long, commercial interests have trumped the needs of our Veterans.

These 400 acres of land were donated to the government in 1888 specifically for Veterans and should remain that way--just as then-VA Secretary Anthony Principi promised during a visit to Los Angeles in February 2002.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Joseph Biden [D-DE]: [Introducing S. 1044] Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity today to introduce an important piece of legislation to improve the ability of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide medical care for our Nation's Armed Forces and veterans. We are currently finishing up a debate in the Senate on additional war time funding for Iraq. As in past years, we are trying to mitigate the damage caused by the failure to properly plan for and manage the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's fall. I have spoken many times about how damaging this lack of planning has been to our efforts in Iraq and to our standing in the world.

For the past two months, the spotlight has shone on another administration failure in this war: the shameful conditions our wounded soldiers face as outpatients navigating the military health system when they return from Iraq or Afghanistan. This is another example of gross mismanagement and a strained system. To alleviate the strain on this system, I am offering legislation today--the Effective Care for the Armed Forces and Veterans Act--to improve the care that members of the Armed Forces and veterans receive at Walter Reed and other military medical facilities.

The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that some of the reasons for concern at Walter Reed do not occur in the future. As the living conditions for outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center indicate, moving to private contracts for maintenance at military medical facilities can cause problems. After a private contract was awarded for maintenance and upkeep of buildings on the campus of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, a maintenance crew of approximately 300 was whittled down to 50 by the time the contract went in to effect. Many of the terrible living conditions in Building 18 that we read about in the Washington Post were a direct result of delays in building repair and maintenance because of a shortage in manpower. To prevent this situation from occurring again, this legislation

Other problems discovered at Walter Reed are directly attributable to shortages resulting from pressures to cut budgets for military medical services. These cuts cannot be tolerated at a time when military medical services are needed to treat servicemembers who have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. As such, this legislation would require medical command budgets to be equal to or exceed the prior year amount while the nation is involved in a major military conflict or war.

Another issue that the conditions at Walter Reed brought up is whether or not the facility should be closed as the Base Realignment and Closure Commission recommended. The Commission recommended building new, modern facilities at the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda and at Fort Belvoir to improve the overall quality of care and access to care in this region. Military leaders have indicated that the planned closure has limited their ability to attract needed professionals to jobs at Walter Reed and there have been concerns raised whether adequate housing for the families of the wounded has been properly planned. To deal with that, this legislation requires the Department of Defense to submit to Congress within one year a detailed plan that includes an evaluation of the following: the desirability of being able to guarantee

Another major problem and source of frustration for injured soldiers is the length of time it takes to receive a disability determination. In order to hasten the disability determination process, we need to ensure that the Department of Defense has information systems capable of communicating with those in the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA has been a leader in implementing electronic medical record keeping, but we have to improve the capability of the Department of Defense to send electronic medical records to the VA to speed up the disability determination process. Making the disability determination system more efficient can reduce the stress on the soldiers and their families going through the determination process.

Caseworkers are also critical. They schedule appointments and make sure wounded servicemembers get the rehabilitative and follow-up care they need. As more and more soldiers and marines come home wounded, many military caseworkers are overwhelmed. To improve the care given to servicemembers, this legislation requires a minimum ratio of case managers to patients of 1 to 20, that case managers have contact with recovering servicemembers at least once a week, and that case managers be properly trained on the military's disability and discharge systems so they can better assist patients with their paperwork.

Currently, many combat veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have service-related mental health issues like post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI). Many have labeled TBI the "signature injury" of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. It is estimated that as many as 10 percent of those serving or who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have brain injuries. That would mean about 150,000 of the 1.5 million soldiers and marines who have served in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom have suffered a brain injury. In many cases, these injuries are not diagnosed because there is not an external wound. Depending on the severity of these injuries, returning soldiers can require immediate treatment or not have symptoms show up until several years later. This legislation calls

We often hear about the 25,000 soldiers and marines who have been wounded in these wars--but that figure grossly underestimates the demand that the VA health care system faces. Since our country was attacked on September 11, 2001, more than 1.5 million soldiers have been deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other locations. Of these, 630,000 are now veterans and, according to the Department of Defense, more than 205,000 have already received medical treatment through the Department of Veterans Affairs. A recent Harvard study on the long-term costs of treating these new veterans estimates that by 2012 more than 643,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan will be using the VA system, an almost three-fold increase of what the system faces now. With a significant

It is our highest obligation to heal the hundreds of thousands of brave men and women who will bear the physical and emotional scars of these wars for the rest of their lives. Those of us who have the privilege of serving in Congress must act now to improve the medical care we provide to our Armed Forces and veterans.

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

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Sen. George Voinovich [R-OH]: [Introducing S. 1047] Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three important pieces of legislation that I believe will improve the ability of the Federal Government to recruit and retain a world class workforce: the Federal Workforce Performance Appraisal and Management Improvement Act, the Senior Professional Performance Act, and the Generating Opportunity by Forgiving Educational Debt for Service Act.

As my colleagues know, my interest in the Federal workforce developed after working with the Federal Government for 18 years, for 10 years as mayor of Cleveland and 8 years as Governor of Ohio. Through my work on the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, I continue to observe that investing in personnel and workforce management, and management in general, struggles to be a priority in the Federal Government. My own experience as county auditor, county commissioner, mayor, and Governor has taught me that, of all the things in which government can invest, resources dedicated to human capital bring the greatest return.

Effective performance management is fundamental to building a results-oriented culture. In fact, the Merit Systems Protection Board just published a report entitled, "Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005." In that report, the MSPB found that, "Nonsupervisory employees feel uninformed about performance evaluation, organizational changes, and other issues at times." The Federal Workforce Performance Appraisal and Management Improvement Act that I am introducing today will help address that problem. By requiring supervisors and employees to have regular conversations about expectations and job performance, every employee will understand how their job performance is perceived by their boss and, more importantly, how individual work contributes to the agency's mission. In addition, this legislation would

As I said last year when I first introduced this legislation, employees should receive annually a rigorous evaluation. Pay should be determined by an individual's performance. I agree with the observation of Comptroller General David Walker that the passage of time should not be the single most important factor in determining an employee's pay. Instead, it should be determined by the productivity, effectiveness, and the contributions of an employee.

Today I also am pleased to introduce the Senior Professional Performance Act. In 2003, Congress enacted legislation to reform the pay and performance management systems for the Senior Executive Service. The legislation I introduce today would authorize agencies to develop and implement similar pay and performance management systems for senior level and scientific and professional personnel in order to keep these talented and capable employees on equal footing.

Finally, today I am introducing Generating Opportunity by Forgiving Educational Debt for Service Act, or GOFEDS, a bill that will help Federal agencies and the Armed Forces recruit talented individuals to serve in all areas of the Federal Government and the military. Current law--authorizes Federal agencies to pay student loans up to $10,000 a year with a cumulative cap of $60,000, but the incentive is taxed. The Active-Duty Educational Loan Repayment Program allows the Services to repay certain federally guaranteed educational loans for enlistments in military specialties designated by the Service Secretary. GOFEDS would amend the Federal tax code to allow the Federal Government's student loan repayment programs to be offered on a tax-free basis. The potential impact of this bill far outweighs its minimal cost.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI]: [Introducing S. 1048] Mr. President, I am introducing the Crane Conservation Act of 2007. I am very pleased that the Senators from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, Florida, Mr. Martinez, Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, Maryland, Mr. Cardin, and Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, have joined me as cosponsors of this bill. I propose this legislation in the hope that Congress will do its part to protect the existence of these birds, whose cultural significance and popular appeal can be seen worldwide. This legislation is particularly important to the people of Wisconsin, as our State provides habitat and refuge to several crane species. But this legislation, which authorizes the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to distribute funds and grants to crane conservation

In October of 1994, Congress passed and the President signed the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The passage of this act provided support for multinational rhino and tiger conservation through the creation of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, or RTCF. Administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the RTCF distributes up to $10 million in grants every year to conservation groups to support projects in developing countries. Since its establishment in 1994, the RTCF has been expanded by Congress to cover other species, such as elephants and great apes.

Today, with the legislation I am introducing, I am asking Congress to add cranes to this list. Cranes are the most endangered family of birds in the world, with 11 of the world's 15 species at risk of extinction. Specifically, this legislation would authorize up to $5 million of funds per year to be distributed in the form of conservation project grants to protect cranes and their habitat. The financial resources authorized by this bill can be made available to qualifying conservation groups operating in Asia, Africa, and North America. The program is authorized from Fiscal Year 2008 through Fiscal Year 2012.

In keeping with my belief that we should balance the budget, this bill proposes that the $25 million in authorized spending over 5 years for the Crane Conservation Act established in this legislation should be offset through the Secretary of the Interior's administrative budget. The Secretary of the Interior would be required to transfer any funds it does not expend under the Crane Conservation Act back to the Treasury at the end of fiscal year 2012.

I am offering this legislation due to the serious and significant decline that can be expected in crane populations worldwide without further conservation efforts. Those efforts have achieved some success in the case of the North American whooping crane, the rarest crane on earth. In 1941, only 21 whooping cranes existed in the entire world. This stands in contrast to the over 450 birds in existence today. The North American whooping crane's resurgence is attributed to the bird's tenacity for survival and to the efforts of conservationists in the United States and Canada. Today, the only wild flock of North American whooping cranes breeds in northwest Canada, and spends its winters in coastal Texas. A new flock of cranes is currently being reintroduced to the wild in an eastern flyway from Wisconsin to Florida.

The movement of this flock of birds shows how any effort by Congress to regulate crane conservation needs to cross both national and international lines. As this flock of birds makes its journey from Wisconsin to Florida, the birds rely on the ecosystems of a multitude of states in this country. In its journey from the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin to the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge in Florida in the fall and eventual return to my home State in the spring, this flock also faces threats from pollution of traditional watering grounds, collision with utility lines, human disturbance, disease, predation, loss of genetic diversity within the population, and vulnerability to catastrophes, both natural and man-made.

The birds also rely on private landowners, the vast majority of whom have enthusiastically welcomed the birds to their rest on their land. Through its extensive outreach and education program, the Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership has obtained the consistent support of farmers and other private landowners to make this important recovery program a success. On every front, this partnership is unique.

Despite the remarkable conservation efforts taken since 1941, however, this species is still very much in danger of extinction. While over the course of the last half-century, North American whooping cranes have begun to make a slow recovery, many species of crane in Africa and Asia have declined, including the sarus crane of Asia and the wattled crane of Africa.

The sarus crane stands four feet tall and can be found in the wetlands of northern India and south Asia. These birds require large, open, well-watered plains or marshes to breed and survive. Due to agricultural expansion, industrial development, river basin development, pollution, warfare, and heavy use of pesticides prevalent in India and southeast Asia, the sarus crane population has been in decline. Furthermore, in many areas, a high human population concentration compounds these factors. On the Mekong River, which runs through Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and China, human population growth and planned development projects threaten the sarus crane. Reports from India, Cambodia, and Thailand have also cited incidences of the trading of adult birds and chicks, as well as hunting and egg stealing in the drop in population of the sarus crane.

Only three subspecies of the sarus crane exist today. One resides in northern India and Nepal, one resides in southeast Asia, and one resides in northern Australia. Their population is about 8,000 in the main Indian population, with recent numbers showing a rapid decline. In Southeast Asia, only 1,000 birds remain.

The situation of the sarus crane in Asia is mirrored by the situation of the wattled crane in Africa. In Africa, the wattled crane is found in the southern and eastern regions, with an isolated population in the mountains of Ethiopia. Current population estimates range between 6,000 to 8,000 and are declining rapidly, due to loss and degradation of wetland habitats, as well as intensified agriculture, dam construction, and industrialization. In other parts of the range, the creation of dams has changed the dynamics of the flood plains, thus further endangering these cranes and their habitats. Human disturbance at or near breeding sites also continues to be a major threat. Lack of oversight and education over the actions of people, industry, and agriculture is leading to reduced preservation for the lands on which cranes live, thereby threatening the ability of cranes to survive in these regions.

If we do not act now, not only will cranes face extinction, but the ecosystems that depend on their contributions will suffer. With the decline of the crane population, the wetlands and marshes they inhabit can potentially be thrown off balance. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting legislation that can provide funding to the local farming, education, and enforcement projects that can have the greatest positive effect on the preservation of both cranes and fragile habitats. This modest investment can secure the future of these exemplary birds and the beautiful areas in which they live. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support the Crane Conservation Act of 2007.

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

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Sen. Thomas Harkin [D-IA]: [Introducing S. 1050] Mr. President, today I introduce the Promoting Wellness for Individuals with Disabilities Act. This important legislation will help ensure that people with disabilities have the same health and wellness opportunities as everyone else--through increasing access to accessible medical equipment, creating a health and wellness grant program, and improving the competency of medical professionals in providing care to patients with disabilities.

The health and wellness of America's citizens has long been one of my top priorities. Too often, many Americans don't know about or lack access to health screenings and preventive services. As Ben Franklin said, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

However, it is often difficult for many people with disabilities to access this ounce of prevention. Visits to physicians' offices often do not include accessible examination and diagnostic equipment, such as accessible examination tables, weight scales, and mammography machines for people with mobility or balance issues. The presence of these physical barriers can reduce the likelihood that persons with disabilities will receive timely and appropriate medical services.

For example, one woman--a physician herself--told me that she has not had a complete physical examination since her spinal cord injury more than a decade ago because the tables are too high for her to get onto. She has not had a mammogram or colonoscopy because, as she puts it, it seems like such an effort to have to explain to the technicians her needs, to get them to lift her, and so on. These issues, which many of us take for granted, represent significant barriers to people with disabilities.

Further, health and wellness programs on topics such as smoking cessation, weight control, nutrition, or fitness may not focus on the unique challenges faced by individuals with disabilities. And it may be difficult for persons with particular disabilities, such as those with intellectual disabilities, to find physicians or dentists who are willing to take them on as patients. All of these factors can also increase the incidence of secondary conditions for people with disabilities.

I believe that the "Promoting Wellness for Individuals with Disabilities Act" is a good first step toward addressing these problems. The bill would: authorize the U.S. Access Board to establish accessibility standards for medical diagnostic equipment--including examination tables, examination chairs, weight scales, and mammography equipment, x-ray machines, and other radiological equipment commonly used for diagnostic purposes by medical professionals; establish a national wellness grant program that will help fund programs or activities for smoking cessation, weight control, nutrition or fitness that focus on the unique challenges faced by individuals with disabilities; preventive health screening programs for individuals with disabilities to reduce the incidence of secondary conditions; and athletic, exercise, or sports programs that provide individuals

I invite my fellow Members to join me in support of this legislation. Together, we can make certain that people with disabilities are not limited in their access to quality medical care, or in their opportunities for health and wellness.

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

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Christopher Dodd [D-CT]: [Introducing S. 1051] Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Liberty Memorial Act along with my colleagues, Senators CHARLES E. GRASSLEY and Sen. BARACK OBAMA. Representatives DONALD M. PAYNE, WILLIAM LACY CLAY, STEVE COHEN, SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, HENRY C. "HANK" JOHNSON, Jr., NITA M. LOWEY, ALBIO SIRES, and BETTY SUTTON have introduced companion language in the House.

The depth and breadth of patriotic contributions by African Americans in the Revolutionary War have gone practically unacknowledged. Historians are now beginning to uncover their forgotten heroism, and estimate that 5,000 slaves and free blacks fought in the army, navy, and militia during that harrowing time. They served and struggled in major battles from Lexington and Concord to Yorktown and made significant contributions to the revolutionary effort. More than 400 hailed from my State of Connecticut.

More than twenty years ago, Congress authorized a memorial to black Revolutionary War soldiers and sailors, those who provided civilian assistance, and the many slaves who fled slavery or filed petitions to courts or legislatures for their freedom. A site was selected in Constitution Gardens, fittingly near the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence Memorial and the great war memorials. Unfortunately, the group originally authorized to raise funds for and build the memorial was unable to conclude its task, and the site sits empty today.

A group of committed citizens has formed the National Mall Liberty Fund DC, "Liberty Fund D.C.", to carry out the vision of Congress. Last year, the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission concluded that there are no legal impediments that would preclude the Liberty Fund DC from assuming the prior group's site approvals on the Mall. The legislation that we offer today would amend the 1986 enactment to authorize the Liberty Fund to raise money for and build this valuable memorial.

The time has come to recognize the sacrifice and the impact of the African Americans who fought for the birth of our country. I urge my colleagues to support the National Liberty Memorial Act.

Sen. Ken Salazar [D-CO]: [Introducing S. 1052] Mr. President, I rise today to make the health of American children and families a top priority with the Healthy Children and Families Act of 2007, which I introduced earlier today with Senator Specter. I am honored that Senator Specter has co-sponsored this important legislation, and I thank Senator Specter for his leadership and commitment to children's health and to empowering families to lead healthy lives.

The Children's Health Insurance Program has successfully improved the health of over six million low-income children, allowing them to grow, learn and reach their fullest potential. In the coming months, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Finance Committee to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program so that it continues to fulfill its promise to provide quality health care to all low-income children.

The reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program provides us with an opportunity to strengthen and improve it. The Healthy Children and Families Act does just that by allowing states to offer nurse home visitation services in their Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance programs. The Healthy Children and Families Act models nurse home visitation services after the Nurse Family Partnership program.

The Nurse Family Partnership program provides low-income pregnant women with trained, registered nurses who counsel their clients in their homes on prenatal care, child health and development, proper nutrition, life-coping strategies and skills, healthy family relationships, educational development and opportunities, employment training, family planning information, family support mechanisms and a variety of other services that children and families need to maintain healthy, economically stable lives.

Nurse home visitation programs empower women and children to transform their lives, families and communities. The nurses provide the education and tools for pregnant women and their families to improve their health by getting early prenatal care, preventative healthcare and proper nutrition. In addition, the nurses provide help for pregnant women and families to change risky behaviors such as substance abuse, and also teach pregnant women parenting skills so that they can welcome their babies into households that are prepared to raise physically and mentally healthy children. Nurses in the program also help mothers continue their own education and obtain employment so that the family is able to be economically stable.

We all recognize that the most critical time for childhood development begins in infancy. Nurse home visitation programs nurture the cognitive development of children during those critical early years so that children are equipped to learn.

The success of nurse home visitation services is nothing short of inspiring. Statistics from multiple, controlled studies prove that mothers and children served by nurse visitation services have a: 79 percent reduction in preterm delivery; 48 percent reduction in child abuse and neglect; 59 percent reduction in child arrests; 61 percent fewer arrests of the mother; 72 percent fewer conviction for the mother; 46 percent increase in father presence in household; 32 percent fewer subsequent pregnancies; 50 percent reduction in language delays of child age 21 months; 67 percent reduction in childhood behavioral problems at age 6.

With these amazing, life-altering results, it is no surprise that nurse visitation programs have been found to save taxpayer dollars. The Rand Corporation conducted a cost-benefit analysis and found that for every dollar spent on Nurse Family Partnership services, a savings of $5.70 is yielded in diminished health care costs and governmental and social costs associated with child abuse and neglect, unwanted pregnancy, childhood developmental delays, and criminal justice costs.

The life transforming impact of nurse home visitation programs led the Brookings Institute to recently publish a report in which it identified nurse home visitation services as one of the most cost-effective returns on investment for children. The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence has identified nurse home visitation services such as Nurse Family Partnership as a "blueprint" for violence prevention. At a time when youth violence is on the rise, these programs hold the key to reducing violent conduct.

The Healthy Children and Families Act will allow states to offer nurse home visitation services to over half a million pregnant women annually. The Act will empower mothers and children to live healthy and economically stable lives that enrich their communities. Moreover, the Act will save scarce resources by improving prenatal health, birth outcomes, increasing intervals between first and subsequent births, reducing early childhood injuries and hospitalizations, reducing child abuse and neglect, reducing involvement in the criminal justice system, and improving maternal employment and economic self-sufficiency of families.

I encourage my colleagues to support the Healthy Children and Families Act as cost effective, smart legislation that will transform the health and lives of children and families.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]: [Introducing S. 1053] Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this bill today along with Senator BOXER as cosponsor to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of expanding the Santa Monica National Recreation Area to include the Rim of the Valley Corridor.

The Rim of the Valley Corridor is an example of a highly threatened habitat area, the Mediterranean chaparral ecosystem. Connecting to the adjacent Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forests, the Corridor encircles the San Fernando Valley, La Crescenta, Simi, Conejo, and Santa Clarita Valleys, consisting of parts of the Santa Monica Mountains, Santa Susanna Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, Verdugo Mountains, and San Rafael Hills.

There is a great need for expanded parkland in southern California. While the Los Angeles metropolitan region has the second-largest urban concentration in the United States, the area has one of the lowest ratios of park-and-recreation-lands per thousand-population of any urban area in the country.

Since the creation of the Santa Monica Recreation Area in 1978, Federal, State, and local authorities have worked successfully together to create and maintain the highly successful Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, hemmed in on all sides by development.

With the passage of this legislation, Congress will hold true to its original commitment to preserve the scenic, natural, and historic setting of the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area.

With the inclusion of the Rim of the Valley Corridor in the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area, greater ecological health and diversity will be promoted, particularly for larger animals like mountain lions, bobcats, and the golden eagle. By creating a single contiguous Rim of the Valley Trail, people will enjoy greater access to existing trails in the Recreational Area.

Within a National Recreation Area, the National Park Service is prohibited from exercising the powers of eminent domain, and private property may be purchased from voluntary sellers only.

The bill includes a provision directing the Department of the Interior to analyze any effects that a proposed expansion of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area will have on private land within or bordering the area. Any such effects will be thoroughly considered as the study moves forward.

After the study called for in this bill is complete, the Secretary of the Interior and Congress will be in a key position to determine whether all or portions of the Rim of the Valley Corridor warrant inclusion in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.

This bill enjoys strong support from local and State officials and I hope that it will have as much strong bipartisan support this Congress, as it did last Congress. Congressman ADAM SCHIFF plans to introduce companion legislation for this bill in the House and I applaud his commitment to this issue.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of this proposed legislation be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]: [Introducing S. 1054] Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize water recycling and other water supply projects by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency and the Cucamonga Valley Water District. These projects will produce approximately 95,000 acre-feet of new water annually in one of the most rapidly growing regions in the United States, reducing the need for imported water from the Colorado River and northern California through the California Water Project.

The federal investment required is limited to approximately 10 percent of the projects' cost, or about $30 million.

This legislation is intended to be the companion to H.R. 122, sponsored by DAVID DREIER, GRACE NAPOLITANO, KEN CALVERT, JOE BACA, and GARY MILLER.

This legislation has broad support and has already passed the House, and in fact similar legislation to H.R. 122 also passed the House of Representatives in each of the previous two Congresses.

It is time for this legislation to pass the Senate as well and be enacted into law. Environmental groups such as the Mono Lake Committee, Environmental Defense, Clean Water and Natural Resources Defense Council strongly support the water recycling and groundwater remediation projects in this bill. Business leaders such as Southern Cal Edison and Building Industry Association also support these projects.

The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative would authorize two project components. The first will be constructed by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency--IEUA--and will produce approximately 90,000 acre feet of new water annually. The second of these projects, to be constructed by the Cucamonga Valley Water District--CVWD--will produce an additional 5,000 acre feet of new water annually.

The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative has the support of all member agencies of IEUA, as well as the water agencies downstream in Orange County. IEUA encompasses approximately 242 square miles and serves the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana--through the Fontana Water Company--Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga--through the Cucamonga Valley Water District--and the Monte Vista Water District.

I want to say a few words about the importance of water recycling projects.

The development of recycled water can bring significant amounts of water "on line" in a relatively short period of time. Recycled water provides our State and region with the ability to "stretch" existing water supplies significantly and in so doing, minimize conflict and address the many needs that exist. According to the State of California's Recycled Water Task Force, water recycling is a critical part of California's water future with an estimated 1.5 million acre-feet of new supplies being developed over the next 25 years.

Water recycling is also a bipartisan initiative in California, as witnessed by the many Republican and Democratic House cosponsors of the House versions of the bill I introduce today.

Water recycling also has significant greenhouse gas reduction benefits. The greenhouse gas emission reductions attributed to local development and use of recycled water within Inland Empire Utilities Agency's service area is roughly 100,000 tons of CO

2 equivalents per year.

With only a small percentage of the total recycled water available being used in Southern California, approximately 10 percent, there is a huge potential for additional energy savings and greenhouse gas reductions from aggressive development of recycled water supplies.

California is not the only State engaged in water recycling. Today, water recycling is an essential water supply element in Albuquerque, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Tucson, EI Paso, San Antonio, Portland, and other western metropolitan areas.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill to help meet the West's water supply needs and to reduce our dependence on the Colorado River. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Sen. Joseph Biden [D-DE]: [Introducing S. 1055] Mr. President, today I am introducing The American Automobile Industry Promotion Act of 2007 to jump-start next generation battery technology development in the United States and extend incentives to American-made highly efficient vehicles.

This legislation authorizes $100 million a year for 5 years to advance new battery technology--an amount double the administration's current budget request. On a national and international level, we must do whatever it takes to help our domestic auto manufacturers remain competitive.

Right now, the Japanese dominate the market for lithium ion batteries because they invested hundreds of millions of dollars in developing this technology and in supporting their domestic industry. And, the Koreans and the Chinese are not far behind. American auto manufacturers are playing catch-up and we need to move quickly.

Specifically, I am proposing to support the development of advanced electric components, systems and vehicles, by providing funds for battery research to national laboratories, small businesses, and institutes of higher learning. The bill will also establish, through a competitive selection process, an Industry Alliance of private, U.S. based, for-profit firms whose primary business is battery development. The Industry Alliance would be an advisory resource on short and long term battery technology development.

The new research initiative will have four major areas of focus: (1) Research and Development including battery technology, high-efficiency charging systems, high-powered drive-train systems, control systems and power train development, and nanomaterial technology for battery and fuel cell systems. (2) Demonstration. The initiative also creates a demonstration program which would devote resources toward demonstration, testing and evaluation of hybrid electric vehicles for many different applications including military, mass market passenger and SUV vehicles. (3) Education. The initiative will support curriculum development in secondary, high school, as well as higher education institutions that focus on electric drive systems and component engineering. (4) Testing. Finally, the initiative would work with the EPA to develop testing and certification procedures for criteria pollutants, fuel economy, and petroleum use in vehicles.

In addition to research and development for the lithium ion battery, the American Automobile Industry Promotion Act will also set a national standard for biodiesel, a cleaner-burning fuel made from natural and renewable sources; and expand tax credit eligibility for consumers who purchase more fuel-efficient diesel vehicles. Today's diesels are cleaner than their predecessors, are in compliance with EPA emissions standards, and are 30 percent more fuel efficient than an equivalent gasoline engine. Specifically, the bill expands the emissions requirements to qualify for a tax credit for various weight diesel vehicles, increasing the number of American-manufactured more fuel efficient diesel vehicles that qualify. This provision would expire in four years, at which time all highly efficient vehicles will have to meet higher emissions standards to qualify for the tax credit.

Now is the time to act. It's not too late, but we do not have the luxury of waiting. If we are ever to be truly competitive in the global auto market and free from our dependence on foreign oil, we must move forward on all fronts.

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

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]: [Introducing S. 1056] Mr. President, I rise, along with my Senate Cancer Coalition cochair, Senator Brownback, to introduce the National Cancer Act of 2007, a bipartisan blueprint for winning the war against cancer.

It includes: grants for targeted drug development; creating "cancer quarterbacks" in Medicare; Medicaid coverage for smoking cessation treatments; pilot projects for expanding colorectal cancer screening in underserved populations; continued research into the possible benefits of early detection for lung cancer; loan repayment assistance for cancer prevention researchers; incentives for research into drugs that prevent cancer from developing and spreading in the first place; provisions to promote the collection and storage of tissue sample, to give researchers the tools they need to use genomic research to create individualized cures; promoting access to clinical trials, as well as investigational therapies for those who are terminally ill; addressing the health needs of the growing number of cancer survivors.

Just over 35 years ago, President Nixon signed into law the original National Cancer Act, creating the National Cancer Institute and making cancer research a priority of the Federal Government. This work has led to tremendous breakthroughs against cancer, including innovative drugs, treatments, and a better understanding of the factors that lead to cancer in the first place. Last year, death rates decreased for 11 of the 15 cancers most common in men, and 10 of the cancers most common in women.

Sixty-five percent of people diagnosed with cancer can now expect to survive at least 5 years. This is good news. But it is not enough. The cost of cancer, in both human and economic terms, remains staggering.

An estimated 1,399,790 Americans were diagnosed with some form of cancer last year.

Approximately 1 of 3 women will develop cancer at some point in her lifetime; for men, the risk is slightly less than 1 in 2.

The National Institutes of Health estimated the overall cost of cancer in 2005 at $209.9 billion.

The price of inaction is too steep. Cancer is, first and foremost, a disease of aging. About 76 percent of cancer cases are diagnosed in patients at age 55 or older. If no fundamental changes are made, the aging of the Baby Boom generation will bring a 20 percent increase in cancer diagnoses.

In the face of these challenges, the National Cancer Institute, NCI, with broad support in the cancer community, set the ambitious goal of ending death and suffering from cancer by 2015. This goal has generated unprecedented excitement and unity, with over 80 Members of the United States Senate signing a letter in support of the effort.

It is time to reexamine and reorient our Nation's cancer policy to meet this ambitious goal. This does not mean that cancer will be eradicated by 2015. As our population ages, cancer will not go away. But we can change the meaning of a cancer diagnosis, and that is what the 2015 goal is about.

Meeting this goal will take a comprehensive approach. It requires detecting cancer earlier, before it spreads and becomes harder to treat. It requires targeted therapies, capable of killing cancer cells while leaving healthy cells intact. We must provide access to high quality cancer care for those who do get sick. We must also understand more about why people get cancer in the first place, and ways it can be prevented.

Our legislation takes a multifaceted approach to changing the very nature of a cancer diagnosis. The National Cancer Act of 2007 will do the following:

Authorize grants for the development of targeted drugs.

New drug therapies continue to lead us closer to the day in which cancer is a treatable, chronic condition controlled with a simple pill or injection. It has now been 5 years since the drug company Novartis won approval for Gleevec, a targeted drug that has saved the lives of countless patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia, CML.

Gleevec demonstrates the promise of this new kind of drug therapy. It blocks the enzymes that help cancer cells grow and divide, leaving healthy cells untouched. When this drug was first introduced, CML patients who were near death recovered and left the hospital. Yet it could not be determined if their remission would last, or if long-term use of this revolutionary drug would prove safe.

We now know that Gleevec is fulfilling this early promise. Before the advent of this drug, CML patients would often suffer a relapse after 2 or 3 years. But a recent study of CML patients taking Gleevec has demonstrated a remarkable 89 percent survival rate after 5 years. The cancer progressed to a more serious stage in only 7 percent of patients during this time period, and only 5 percent were forced to discontinue treatment because of side effects.

These results suggest that patients may be able to stay on Gleevec indefinitely, keeping this formerly deadly cancer under control while leading full and productive lives.

Targeted therapies are now offering hope to patients with many different kinds of cancer: Herceptin for some breast cancers, Iressa for those with small cell lung cancer, Avastin for colorectal cancer. Avastin can extend survival by interfering with the growth of blood vessels that feed the tumor, literally starving it.

These drugs are the future of cancer research. We need more drugs like Gleevec, which transform cancer from a killer to a controllable health condition. This legislation would authorize NCI to make grants to further develop these treatments.

To help with the development of targeted drugs, the bill also calls for the establishment of a task force on surrogate endpoints and biomarkers. They are the mechanisms for measuring the efficacy of cancer treatment at the molecular level, allowing doctors to precisely gauge how a patient is reacting to a treatment, or if a cancer is progressing.

Developing biomarkers for different types of cancer is an essential step, and our bill will establish a program to develop the biomarkers with the most immediate clinical promise.

The bill will also create special reimbursements for coordinating physicians, or "cancer quarterbacks" in Medicare. Successful cancer treatment is increasingly complex, reaching across the entire spectrum of the medical profession. It can involve lab tests, CT-scans, surgery, chemotherapy, and a full team of specialists who offer this care. Many patients have no single physician who can guide them through the complicated and sometimes contradictory course of cancer treatment, no professional to advise them what is best.

This bill would require Medicare to pay oncology doctors or nurses to become the overall managers of patients' care, in effect providing every cancer patient with a "cancer quarterback" physician to help them coordinate care and make the necessary decisions.

This cancer quarterback can direct care in the manner that best meets the patient's needs, instead of focusing on only a small segment of his or her care.

This legislation requires that State Medicaid drug programs cover smoking cessation treatments in the same manner as all other approved therapies. I have long believed that we will not truly address the burden of cancer until we address tobacco use. I have asked all kinds of cancer experts about what we can do to stop death from cancer, and their answer is always the same: Stop tobacco use.

Tobacco causes 30 percent of cancer deaths and 1 in 5 of all deaths in the United States. It is the leading cause of preventable death. Smoking related costs total $167 billion annually.

According to the CDC, more than 70 percent of American smokers would like to quit. Studies indicate that tobacco use treatment, including smoking cessation aids, will double their chances of success.

Yet under current law, State Medicaid programs are exempted from providing coverage of smoking cessation agents in the same way as they provide coverage of other drugs. Other exemptions include fertility treatments, drugs to promote hair growth, and drugs for erectile dysfunction.

Simply put, smoking cessation aids, which are FDA approved and proven to be effective, do not belong on this list. Denying people access to treatments to help them break a deadly and expensive addiction is flawed policy.

Our bill will remove tobacco cessation products from this list of exemptions, leveling the playing field with other FDA approved products.

Our bill establishes pilot projects for expanding colorectal cancer screening for low-income, uninsured individuals. The Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program has proven very successful in providing low income women with access to potentially life saving screenings. It is now time to provide similar access to colorectal cancer screening.

The need is great. A 2006 study conducted by Northwestern University researchers found that only 7 percent of minority patients without regular health care access at risk for developing colon cancer are being screened. A 2005 study of New York City residents found that those least likely to have been recommended colorectal screening are low-income or uninsured.

Early detection allows physicians to identify patients with pre-cancerous polyps, and treat them before cancer even develops. These pilot projects identify the best ways to provide access to this lifesaving care for those who are not currently receiving recommended screenings.

This bill will authorize continued research on the potential of CT scans to detect lung cancer early. before it becomes fatal. Despite all the promising advances against many types of cancer, lung cancer remains the Nation's leading cause of cancer death in both men and women. About 20,000 people who have never smoked are diagnosed with lung cancer each year, and this number is increasing.

We need to learn more about how to screen for lung cancer and detect it early, before it has advanced. There is much we need to learn before scientists can make a definitive recommendation about screening and its potential benefits for both smokers and non-smokers.

To help scientists learn more, this bill will authorize funding to provide CT scans to those with a history of heavy smoking. This further study will help determine whether this promising technology is indeed the method we need to make progress against the leading cancer killer.

This legislation expands the existing NIH loan repayment program to provide assistance to researchers who make a commitment to working on cancer prevention research. This will encourage the best and brightest to pursue work that will help us to better understand what causes cancer and how we can stop it from occurring.

The bill will encourage and support research into new drugs and treatments, called chemopreventatives, which can stop precancerous cells from becoming tumors. Decades of research has enabled physicians to prescribe medications to prevent serious illness, such as statin drugs to lower cholesterol, and drugs to treat high blood pressure before it leads to strokes.

Progress in drug development to stop cancer has been far more limited. The promise of this field was made clear when, last year, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, licensed Gardasil, a vaccine to stop the spread of cervical cancer. Gardasil protects against the two forms of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, which causes approximately 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. This vaccine could virtually eliminate cervical cancer during the lifetime of our daughters and granddaughters.

We need more chemoprevention techniques like Guardasil to guard against other types of cancer. People at high risk for a specific type of cancer may one day take a daily pill to stop abnormal cells from progressing to full blown cancer. Though it will take a long time for these promises to become reality, this research is the future of cancer care.

In order to encourage this work, our legislation would grant Orphan Drug Act protections to treatments designed to treat high-risk conditions in individuals who have not yet been diagnosed with cancer, but if left untreated, face a high risk of developing cancer.

This research will require new resources in order to have the best chance of success. To build the foundations for success, our bill will encourage biospecimen collection.

Scientists are beginning to understand the significant role that genetics plays in the development of cancer. To encourage further study, scientists need access to a variety of tissue, blood, and other samples from both cancer patients and those who are healthy. Our bill codifies guidelines for the collection of these samples and requires that the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, draft a report examining potential payment systems for these activities.

We are on the cusp of an age of personalized medicine, in which a cancer patient's tumor can be analyzed to determine what type of treatment will be most effective. Patients will no longer undergo round after round of chemotherapy or radiation in the hopes of finding a treatment regime that works. Collecting and storing blood and tissue samples will provide our researchers with the materials they need to make these important discoveries.

Our bill will promote clinical trial enrollment. Patients willing to try these cutting edge cancer therapies as they emerge face a variety of obstacles. They, or their physicians, might not know what clinical trial opportunities exist. They may need to travel to a far away facility to participate. Our legislation requires the Director of the National Cancer Institute to create a clinical trials program, which includes: an outreach program, to assure that all patients, especially minorities, participate in trials; and a coordination program, to help patients with logistical challenges and the support costs of trial participation.

Our bill creates an oncology compassionate access program. No patient should lose a battle with cancer because bureaucratic hurdles denied him or her access to a potentially lifesaving therapy. Our bill provides for the creation of a new compassionate access program to speed access of investigational therapies for terminally ill patients who have exhausted all other available treatment options.

Our bill will address the needs of a growing number of cancer survivors. As cancer increasingly becomes a manageable, chronic condition, there will be an increasing number of cancer survivors confronting yet-unknown health challenges. Current cancer survivors number almost 10 million, and this number will only grow. This bill will: expand current cancer surveillance systems to track the health status of cancer survivors; implement a national cancer survivorship action plan, including post treatment health programs; require States to consider the needs of cancer survivors, and their families, in addition to current patients, when drafting their comprehensive cancer control plans.

Require the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, to report on their strategies, benchmarks, and progress in meeting the 2015 goal. This will allow Congress to adjust policy as necessary to ensure that the promise of ending death and suffering from cancer is realized.

The state of cancer care has changed drastically since 1971, and it is time that our Federal policies reflect these changes. The 2015 goal is ambitious, and it requires no less than ambitious legislation in response.

I urge you to join me in supporting this legislation.

Sen. Samuel Brownback [R-KS]: Mr. President, today, I introduce the National Cancer Act of 2007, along with my colleague Dianne Feinstein. Thirty-five years ago, President Richard Nixon signed the original National Cancer Act, and today, we are moving forward with a new, comprehensive bill that takes us one step closer to ending death and suffering from cancer within 10 years. This bill addresses impact-oriented issues such as the development of cancer prevention drugs and a screening for the most lethal cancer.

Lung cancer is the number one cancer killer in America. Individuals afflicted with lung cancer historically have had only 15 percent survival rate. Our legislation includes a new demonstration program to continue research on a screening that uses a spiral CT scan. Screenings using this tool and appropriate follow-up procedures have shown very encouraging results in early detection.

We also include accountability mechanisms in this bill. We request a report from the Federal Government regarding the manner in which Federal cancer research funding is being spent by requiring an estimate of the number of individuals who have benefited from such investment and the number of new treatments developed.

Another issue our legislation addresses is the fact that less than 5 percent of adults diagnosed with cancer each year will be treated through enrollment in a clinical trial; this is often due to lack of awareness. Our bill creates an education program about the availability of clinical trials.

Our legislation also includes efforts to ensure the availability of compassionate access options. Making decisions about treatment options for cancer is a decision best made between the cancer patient and their doctor. Compassionate access offers cancer patients, who have exhausted all of their treatment options, access to promising investigational treatments that have not yet received full approval by the Food and Drug Administration.

Finally, our bill includes measures to accelerate the progress of the National Cancer Institute's initiative of mapping the genome of the most lethal cancers in America, which will lead to earlier cancer diagnosis and the use of personalized medicine.

I look forward to working with my colleague Dianne Feinstein and others in moving forward with this legislation in the Senate.

Sen. Carl Levin [D-MI]: [Introducing S. 1058] Mr. President, the Grand River Bands of Ottawa Indians, commonly referred to as the Grand River Bands, has been in some form indigenous to the State of Michigan for over 200 years. The Grand River Bands consists of the 19 bands of Indians who occupied the territory along the Grand River in what is now southwest Michigan, including the cities of Grand Rapids and Muskegon. The members of the Grand River Bands are the descendants and political successors to signatories of the 1821 Treaty of Chicago and the 1836 Treaty of Washington. They are also one of six tribes which is an original signatory of the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. However, the Grand River Bands is the only one of those tribes which is not recognized by the Federal Government.

In the 109th Congress, I introduced a bill, with my colleague, Senator Stabenow, which would direct the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior to make a recognition determination, for the Grand River Bands, in a timely manner. I am pleased to re-introduce that bill now. I would also like to affirm that this bill does not federally recognize the tribe nor does it address the issue of gaming. Furthermore, I would like to stress the timely manner in which this determination must be made.

If federally recognized, the Grand River Bands is eligible for funds set aside for them from a Federal consent judgment. These funds are expected to be distributed this year. In order for the Grand River Bands to receive their portion of this fund, they must be federally recognized before this money is distributed. They have completed all of the necessary items for a determination to be made by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but the Bureau has failed to act on the petition for the past ten years.

I hope that this legislation will help to provide a timely remedy so that the Grand River Bands can receive funds that are currently set aside for them, and enjoy the full benefits and status of Federal recognition.

Sen. Joseph Biden [D-DE]: [Introducing S. 1060] Mr. President, I introduce today with my colleagues Senators SPECTER, BROWNBACK, and LEAHY the Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act of 2007, which takes direct aim at reducing recidivism rates by improving the transition of offenders from prison back into the community. As this bill reflects, preventing recidivism is not only the right thing to do, it makes our communities safer and it saves us money.

Today, we have over two million individuals in our Federal and State prisons and millions more in local jails. Our Federal and State prisons will release nearly 650,000 of these offenders back into our communities this year. A staggering 2/3 of released State prisoners will be rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years of release.

It's not difficult to see why. These ex-offenders face a number of difficult challenges upon release. The unemployment rate among former inmates is as high as 60 percent; 15-27 percent of prisoners expect to go to homeless shelters upon release; and 57 percent of Federal and 70 percent of State inmates used drugs regularly before prison. This addiction and dependency often continues during incarceration.

Unless we address these problems, these individuals will commit hundreds of thousands of serious crimes after their release, and our communities will bear the human and economic cost. If we are going to reduce recidivism and crime, we simply have to make concerted, common-sense efforts now to help ex-offenders successfully reenter and reintegrate into their communities.

The Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act of 2007 confronts head-on the dire situation of prisoners reentering our communities with insufficient monitoring, little or no job skills, inadequate drug treatment, insufficient housing, lack of basic physical and mental health services, and deficient basic life skills. Through commonsense and cost effective measures, it offers a second chance for ex-offenders, and the children and families that depend on them, and it strengthens our communities and ensures safe neighborhoods.

The Second Chance Act provides a competitive grant program to study current approaches to reducing recidivism rates. It also provides grants for the development and implementation of comprehensive substance abuse treatment programs, academic and vocational education programs, housing and job counseling programs, and mentoring for offenders who are approaching release and who have been released. To ensure accountability, the bill requires grantees to establish performance goals and benchmarks and report the results to Congress.

The bill authorizes $192 million per year in competitive grant funding. This represents an investment in our future and an acknowledgement of the problem we face. We must remember that the average cost of incarcerating each prisoner exceeds $20,000 per year, with expenditures on corrections alone having increased from $9 billion in 1982 to $60 billion in 2002. That's more than a six-fold increase, and the costs keep going up.

A relatively modest investment in offender reentry efforts today is far more cost-effective than the alternative--building more prisons for these ex-offenders to return to if they can't reenter their communities and are convicted of further crimes. An ounce of prevention, as the saying goes, is worth a pound of cure.

I'm proud today to join with Senator SPECTER, Senator BROWNBACK, and Senator LEAHY in introducing the Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act and ask that our colleagues join with us in this vital effort. The safety of our neighbors, our children, and our communities depends on it.

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

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]: Mr. President, I am proud to be joined today by my colleagues, Senator GRASSLEY from Iowa, and Representative STARK in the House, to introduce the William H. Frist Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act. This important legislation gives long overdue recognition to the courageous act of organ donation and encourages others to become new donors.

This bill establishes a congressional medal to recognize organ donors and their families for their selfless acts of organ donation. The medal is named in honor of Dr. William H. Frist, a former transplant surgeon, later Senate majority leader, who first offered the Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act during his time in the Senate.

Nearly 100,000 people are currently waiting for an organ transplant. Over 2,000 are children under age 18. In my home State of Illinois, nearly 5,000 men, women, and children wait for a life-saving donation. Sadly, the national waiting list continues to grow every year. Since the waiting list began, at least 75,000 donation-eligible Americans have died waiting for an organ to become available; in 2005 alone, over 6,000 people died for lack of a suitable organ, including some 300 Illinois residents. Minorities representing approximately 25 percent of the population comprise over 40 percent of the organ transplant waiting list and half of the patients who die while patiently waiting for their gift of life.

Every 16 minutes, a new name is added to the growing list, while the hope of those who have been waiting for months and years at a time begins to diminish. To narrow the gap between the limited supply and the increasing demand for donated organs, willing donors must make their desire to donate clear to the only people able to make the decision if the occasion should arise--their immediate family members. Although there are up to 15,000 potential donors annually, families consent to donation for less than 6,000 donors.

Congressional medals are awarded to individuals who perform an outstanding deed or act of service to the security, prosperity, and national interest of the United States. Is there a more outstanding deed or act than that of the gift of life? Over 21,000 Americans receive the gift of life each year through transplantation surgery made possible by the generosity of organ and tissue donors. The Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act would allow us to recognize these donors and their families and inspire others to become donors.

This is noncontroversial, nonpartisan legislation to recognize the selfless act of donating one's organ for another's well-being and to hopefully increase the rate of organ donation. I ask my colleagues to help bring an end to transplant waiting lists and give recognition to the faith and courage displayed by organ donors and their families. This bill honors these brave acts, while publicizing the critical need for increased organ donation. I urge all of my colleagues to support the William H. Frist Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act.

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

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Hillary Clinton [D-NY]: [Introducing S. 1065] Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Heroes at Home Act of 2007, the Restoring Disability Benefits for Injured and Wounded Warriors Act of 2007, and the Protecting Military Family Financial Benefits Act of 2007 to serve our servicemembers and send a message: you will be treated as heroes before deployment, during deployment, and upon returning home. You didn't offer excuses and do not deserve to be offered excuses by your country.

I want to thank Senator Collins for co-sponsoring the Heroes at Home Act of 2007 and for partnering with me on numerous pieces of legislation and initiatives related to these and other important health issues.

This is a moment of profound challenge for our country, for our military, and for our men and women in uniform. And while there are often strong disagreements here in Washington, I hope we can unite around our common values and patriotism when it comes to how we treat our servicemembers and veterans.

If you serve your country your country should serve you. That is the promise our country must keep to the men and women who enlist, who fight, and who return home often bearing the visible and invisible scars of sacrifice. Sadly, too often in the past several years, that promise has been broken: whether it's a lack of up-armored vehicles on the ground in Iraq or a lack of appropriate care in outpatient facilities at Walter Reed.

Last year, I authored and passed into law the Heroes at Home initiative to assist returning servicemembers experiencing the complex, diffuse, and life-altering symptoms of traumatic brain injury and other mental health difficulties.

One out of every 10 returning servicemembers are affected by traumatic brain injury (TBI), which has been widely identified as the "signature wound" of the Global War on Terror. This includes severe injuries as well as invisible wounds that result in trouble remembering appointments, holding down a job, and returning to civilian life. Unfortunately, troops have an increased risk of sustaining more than one mild or moderate TBI because of multiple deployments and the prevalent use of Improved Explosive Devices by enemy combatants in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. However, mild and moderate TBI may go undetected, especially if the servicemember has sustained more obvious injuries. Further, it can be difficult to distinguish mild TBI from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder since both conditions have common symptoms,

When I visited Walter Reed a few weeks ago, I met a young Army soldier who had lost one arm and lost his ring finger because his wedding band had melted onto it. I asked him how he was doing, and he said, "You know, I'm working hard at my rehabilitation and they're taking great care of me with my prosthetics."

He said, "but what really bothers me is my memory. I don't have the focus that I used to have. I can't really set out tasks and know that I can accomplish them." And he said, "That's the thing that really bothers me I've got to have my brain back."

His story, and the stories of hundreds of other servicemembers like him, demonstrates that we need to do more to help rapid identification of traumatic brain injury in order to facilitate the best care once the servicemembers return home, and expand support systems for members and former members of the Armed Services with traumatic brain injury and their families.

That's why I, along with Senator Collins, am introducing the Heroes at Home Act of 2007 today, to build on last year's Heroes at Home initiative. I am grateful to have developed this proposal with the Wounded Warrior Project, the National Military Family Association, the Military Officers Association of America, and the American Academy of Neurology.

We should provide pre-deployment cognitive screening to better diagnose and treat traumatic brain injury when these men and women return home. This legislation will improve detection of mild and moderate TBI by implementing an objective, computer-based assessment protocol to measure cognitive functioning both prior to and after deployment. This baseline test will help detect mild and moderate cases of TBI and distinguish them from PTSD. My legislation will also require that the same assessment tool be used across all branches of the 6yArmed Services and for every member of the Armed Forces who will be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

We should also help families take care of a loved one by providing them with training to become certified caregivers, so that they can receive compensation for care giving they already provide. Family members of returning soldiers with TBI are often ill-equipped to handle the demands of caring for their loved one, which in some bases can become a full-time responsibility. My legislation will establish a Traumatic Brain Injury Family Caregiver Personal Care Attendant Training and Certification Program, which would train and certify family caregivers of TBI patients as personal care attendants, enabling them to provide quality care at home and at the same time qualify for compensation from the VA.

Finally, we should explore new ways to treat TBI in rural settings and outpatient clinics through telemedicine. Servicemembers and veterans continue to face problems in accessing needed medical and mental health care, especially veterans or Guard and Reserve members who live in rural areas. The Heroes at Home Act of 2007 will help increase the reach of needed care for TBI by creating a demonstration project, administered jointly by the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs that would use telehealth technology to assess TBI and related mental health conditions and facilitate rehabilitation and dissemination of educational material on techniques, strategies and skills for servicemembers with TBI.

On March 6, 2007 Chief of Staff of the Army General Peter Schoomaker and the then Army Surgeon General Lieutenant General Kevin C. Kiley, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that soldiers appearing before the Physical Evaluation Board were "short-changed" and had not received appropriate disability benefits. According to the Congressional Research Service, since the enactment of the Traumatic Servicemembers Group Life Insurance program at least 45 percent of claims have been denied. In March 2006 the Comptroller General issued GAO Report 06-362: Military Disability System: Improved Oversight Needed to Ensure Consistent and Timely Outcomes for Reserve and Active Duty Service Members--the Department of Defense did not heed the recommendations provided in this report and as a result injured and wounded warriors continue to languish in an inefficient and adversarial disability system.

I am also introducing legislation to fix the disability benefits system for our wounded warriors. When I've visited Walter Reed, one common thread uniting the problems is the disjointed and unfair process for evaluating disabilities. There were only three lawyers and one paralegal assigned to Walter Reed's entire evaluation process. Compare that to 4,000 Army JAG lawyers assigned to active duty, the National Guard, and the Reserves.

The "Restoring Disability Benefits for Injured and Wounded Warriors Act of 2007" will restore disability benefits for wounded and injured members of the Armed Forces. The act will direct reviews of disability claims, traumatic injury claims, and the Physical Evaluation Board process. Additionally, the "Restoring Disability Benefits for Injured and Wounded Warriors Act of 2007" will increase the availability of legal counsel for members appealing their disability cases, and direct the Comptroller General to provide a follow up report on the efforts currently being made by the Department of Defense to address certain deficiencies in the Disability Evaluation Systems; the adequacy of the Department of Veterans Affairs Disability Schedule for Ratings as it relates to the nature of wounds our warriors suffer in combat today; and to report on the standards and procedures of Physical Evaluation Boards.

So I am proposing an up-and-down review of previously-denied cases and failed appeals, an independent review of traumatic injury claims under the Traumatic Servicemembers Group Life Insurance program where up to 45 percent of claims have been denied, and a fix to ensure members have the proper liaison and legal assistance when appearing before the Physical Evaluation Board. We must stop short-changing our wounded warriors.

Finally, I am introducing the Protecting Military Family Financial Benefits Act of 2007 to close gaps in coverage for the Death Gratuity and Survivor Benefits beneficiaries and improve pre-deployment counseling and services for all members of the Armed Forces.

Every day single-parents deploy to distant battlefields and leave their minor children in the care of a financially ill-prepared guardian or caretaker. Unfortunately, when tragedy strikes and a military servicemember makes the ultimate sacrifice, minor dependent children and families are excluded from benefits and entitlements. In too many cases pre-deployment counseling and help are under-funded or unavailable.

These provisions will add an option for members of the Armed Forces to designate guardians or caretakers as a beneficiary for Death Gratuity benefits for care of dependent children and to receive annuities under the Survivor Benefit Plan for care of dependent children. These options do not exist under current law.

The Department of Defense will be required to commission an independent panel to review and assess military pre-deployment counseling and services, and implement recommended changes and best practices within 120 days of receiving the report. This review will include pre-deployment counseling and services available for unmarried members of the Armed Forces with dependent children, unmarried single members without dependent children, and married members with or without dependent children.

Specifically, what level of counseling or services are available for these members to maximize financial protections for the proper care of their surviving dependents under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, Traumatic Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, Death Gratuity, Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, Survivor Benefits Plan, and benefits payable under the Social Security Act.

The review will include the preparation and maintenance of Family Care Plans for single-parents including elements for such plans relating to death benefits, wills, powers of attorney, trusts, safeguarding of the plan during deployment, and the acknowledgement of specific guardian and caretaker duties relating to use of financial benefits for the care of minor dependent children.

Finally, this review will determine the adequate level of resources available at military pre-deployment centers including: the availability of legal and financial counseling, training level of pre-deployment counselors, Family Support Group involvement, availability of PTSD screening, and availability of suicide prevention counseling.

Let us all join together in accepting our responsibility as a nation to those who serve and resolve to improve their care for traumatic brain injuries, reform their disability benefits, and fix their survivor benefits.

I ask unanimous consent letters of support for this legislation be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the record, as follows:

Sen. Christopher Dodd [D-CT]: [Introducing S. 1066] Mr. President, I rise today with Senators KERRY, DURBIN, and FEINGOLD to introduce the Medical Education Affordability Act, MEAA. The purpose of this bill is to make medical and dental education more affordable.

Upon graduation from college, students who can demonstrate economic hardship are eligible to extend their student loan deferment for up to 3 additional years. Using the economic hardship deferment, a formula that takes into account earnings and debt level, the majority of medical and dental residents defer repayment of their student loans until the end of their residency period. Unfortunately, for those specialties that require a residency of more than 3 years--OB/GYN, psychiatry, general surgery, and oral maxillofacial dentistry to name a few--student loan repayment begins before a resident's medical or dental education is completed. This situation creates an enormous financial burden for residents who have, in most cases, incurred significant debt. In 2006, the average indebtedness

The Medical Education Affordability Act would solve this problem by extending the economic hardship deferment to cover the entire length of a medical or dental residency. By altering the definition we are removing a significant financial obstacle facing students with residency periods longer than 3 years. I want to stress again, residents will still have to demonstrate economic hardship--MEAA only extends the deferment for borrowers that continue to meet the debt-to-income requirements of the economic hardship deferment.

Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in support of medical education by signing onto this bill. By working together, I believe that the Senate as a body can act to ensure that more individuals are able to pursue a full range of medical specialties. I ask unanimous request that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL]: [Introducing S. 1068] Mr. President, next week is National Public Health week--a week to raise awareness about the importance of public health all around this Nation. I applaud the efforts of the American Public Health Association in organizing events across the country to assist in this awareness building.

We all know the alarming statistics demonstrating the worsening health status in both children and adults in this Nation. Without intervention, 1 in 3 children born in 2000 can expect to develop diabetes in their lifetime because of obesity resulting from poor nutrition and sedentary lifestyles. In my home State of Illinois, we have the highest number of lead-poisoned children in the Nation because of the large amount of older housing in places like Chicago. And asthma rates are on the rise in minority populations, reflecting worsening air quality in many areas.

But what many don't know is how, and the degree to which, changes in the environment are contributing to this health decline. Yet, study after study has shown that environmental factors can be just as problematic as poor genes in causing disease.

While working as a community organizer in the mid-1980s on Chicago's south side, I became intimately aware of the impact of the built environment on public health. One of the neighborhoods in which I worked was bordered by the highly polluted Calumet River on one side and railroad tracks on the other side. People didn't just grow up in this neighborhood--generation after generation stayed in a community with pollutants and extremely limited access to physical activity and healthy <center><pre>[Page: S. 4208]</pre></center>

The American Public Health Association and countless other expert organizations have shown us that if we make a real commitment to, and investment in, building healthy communities, we can substantially improve the health of children and adults.

There are many simple ways we can do this. Whenever we build a new highway or a new condo complex, we could also build a park where kids can play. Whenever we plan new communities, we could put grocery stores, restaurants and post offices within easy walking distance. We could take steps to ensure that factories or power plants aren't located near schools. We could ensure that kids are not exposed to lead hazards. And we could encourage the development of "green" homes and buildings that decrease energy consumption.

And that is why I come to the floor today to reintroduce the Healthy Places Act, and the Healthy Communities Act. The Healthy Places Act would help State and local governments assess the health impact of new policies or projects, whether it's a new highway or a shopping center. And once the health impact is determined, the bill gives grant funding and technical assistance to help address the potential health problems. And while we already know a great deal about the relationship between the built environment and the health status of residents, the bill supports additional research so we can look into new environmental health hazards.

The Healthy Communities Act goes hand in hand with the Healthy Places Act, calling for the assessment of the impact of federal policies on environmental health and justice. To make sure our policy decisions are not hurting public health, this legislation requires an Environmental Health Report Card for each state and the Nation at large. Since areas with poor environmental health tend to be disproportionately fiscally poor as well, this legislation establishes health action zones that qualify for grant assistance to address these problems. And since much more remains to be understood in this arena, the bill calls for environmental health research and for environmental health workforce development.

We as a society are moving in the direction of designing communities with healthy living and public health in mind. For example, in Chicago, city leaders recognized the lack of grocery stores in many lower income neighborhoods, forcing families to go without fresh foods. To address this issue, the city's Department of Planning and Development developed a program called Retail Chicago, which used redevelopment funds to attract local developers to build grocery stores in low-income neighborhoods.

While we celebrate the success of such local efforts, we must call upon the Federal Government to provide adequate support. And we must ensure that all segments of society reap the rewards of building and maintaining healthy communities. I thank you for this time, and I urge my colleagues to support the Healthy Places Act and the Healthy Communities Act.

Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME]: [Introducing S. 1069] Mr. President, I rise today to introdnce the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act of 2007. This bill is a companion bill to H.R. 1198, introduced in the House by Representative LOIS CAPPS. I am pleased to be joined again this year by my colleague from Iowa, Senator HARKIN, who has long been a champion of the hearing impaired. Together we worked to address hearing impairment in children in 1999, and today we unite again to achieve even greater progress for children.

The number of Americans with a hearing loss has doubled during the past 30 years. Most of us associate hearing problems with the aging process, and it is true that the largest group of Americans suffering from hearing impairment are those in the 65 to 75 year age range. At the same time, each year more than 12,000 babies in the United States are born with permanent hearing loss. With another 2 to 3 of every 1,000 newborns suffering partial hearing loss, this is the number one birth defect in America. Unfortunately, hearing loss can go undiagnosed for years.

In recent years, scientists have stressed how crucial the first years of a child's life are to their future development. Specialists in speech and language development tell us that the crucial period for developing speech and communication in a child's life can begin as early as 6 months of age. Many babies with hearing loss experience delays in speech, language, and cognitive development which compromises the foundation they need for later schooling and success in society. This makes early detection and intervention of hearing loss a necessity if we are to ensure that all our children get the strong start they deserve.

The ability to hear is a major element of one's ability to read and communicate. To the extent that we can help infants and young children overcome disabilities detected early in life, we will improve their ability to function in society, receive an education, obtain meaningful employment, and enjoy a better quality of life. Without early diagnosis and intervention, these children are behind the learning curve, literally. before they have even started. They should not be denied a strong start in life simply for the lack of a simple screening test.

For 50 years, expert commissions and task forces have emphasized the need to detect hearing loss early. In 1989, concerned about the lack of progress in this area, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop set a goal that by the year 2000, all infants--at least 90 percent of all births or admissions--would be screened for hearing loss prior to discharge from hospital. Subsequent Federal initiatives, combined with improved technology and concerted action from hospitals and State agencies, have since led to dramatic advances in procedures for early identification. By the beginning of 1993, about a dozen hospitals had instituted essentially universal screening--defined as testing at least 90 percent of all newborns or infants admitted, prior to discharge. In 1997, an expert panel at the National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders recommended that the first hearing screening be carried out before an infant is 3 months old in order to ensure that treatment can begin before

Today we have seen substantial progress in screening, 69 percent of babies are now screened for hearing loss before one month of age. This is an increase of 47 percent compared to back in 1998. That improvement is the result of a bipartisan effort I undertook with Senators HARKIN and FRIST in 1999 when we introduced the Newborn and Infant Hearing Screening and Intervention Act of 1999.

That act helped states to establish programs to detect and diagnose hearing loss in all newborn children and to promote appropriate treatment and intervention for newborns with hearing loss. The legislation funded research by the National Institutes of Health to determine the best detection, diagnostic, treatment and intervention techniques and technologies.

The legislation we are introducing today builds on that success. The bill we are introducing today provides the additional assistance necessary to help States in implementing programs to ensure that all our newborns are tested and to ensure that those identified with a hearing impairment get the help they need. Therefore, this legislation assures that reasonable action will be taken to identify hearing loss within the groups of newborns and infants, so we reach each child as early as possible. Furthermore, the bill supports the recruitment, retention, education, and training of qualified personnel and health care providers, which will provide us with the healthcare professionals we need. And finally the legislation sets targets for a long-term follow-up. It requires the development of models that reduce the loss to follow-up of newborns and infants who are identified with a hearing loss through screening.

A baby born today will be part of this country's future. Surely we owe it to that child to give them a strong start on that future by ensuring that if they do have a hearing impairment it is diagnosed and treatment started well before their first year of life is completed. I urge my colleagues to join with Senator HARKIN and myself in supporting the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act of 2007.

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Orrin Hatch [R-UT]: [Introducing S. 1070] Mr. President, with my colleagues, Senator BLANCHE LINCOLN, Senator GORDON SMITH and Senator HERB KOHL, I rise to introduce the Elder Justice Act of 2007.

Senators LINCOLN, SMITH, KOHL and I introduced similar legislation last Congress and former Senator John Breaux and I were the lead sponsors of the Elder Justice Act in the 107th and 108th Congresses, with the strong support of Senators LINCOLN, SMITH and KOHL. While the legislation has been reported unanimously by the Finance Committee in the 109th and 108th Congresses, it, unfortunately, has not become law. I am here to say that will not be the case this Congress.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the provision of the Elder Justice Act. This legislation establishes an Elder Justice Coordinating Council to make recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the coordination of activities of the Federal, State, local and private agencies and entities relating to elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. It also provides a first time direct funding stream separate from the Social Services Block Grant for adult protective services. In addition, the Elder Justice Act creates an advisory board to create a short and long-term multidisciplinary strategic plan for the developing field of elder justice.

The legislation creates new forensic centers to promote detection and increase expertise--new programs will train health professionals in both forensic pathology and geriatrics. The bill also authorizes $10 million for national organizations or States that represent or train long-term care ombudsman representatives to provide training, technical assistance, demonstration programs and research to improve ombudsman effectiveness in addressing abuse and neglect in nursing homes and assisted living facilities.

In addition, the Elder Justice Act requires immediate reporting to law enforcement of crimes in a long-term care facility. It also allows the seven State demonstration projects authorized through the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 to be completed and directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report the findings to the appropriate congressional committees no later than six months after the completion of the demonstration projects. The bill also authorizes $500,000 to determine the efficacy of establishing and maintaining a national nurse aide registry. Finally, the legislation authorizes $20 million in grants to enhance long-term care staffing through training and recruitment to establish employee incentives including career and wage benefit ladders and programs to improve management practices.

With more than 77 million baby boomers retiring over the next three decades, we cannot wait any longer for this legislation to pass. One of my top priorities of the 110th Congress is having the Elder Justice Act signed into law. Older Americans deserve nothing less.

In closing, our legislation has been endorsed by the Elder Justice Coalition, a national membership organization dedicated to eliminating elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation in America. This coalition, which has been a strong advocate and supporter of the Elder Justice Act, has over 500 members.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so we can provide older Americans the same protections that we provide to our children and victims of domestic violence.

Sen. Herbert Kohl [D-WI]: Mr. President, today I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Elder Justice Act of 2007. As in previous Congresses, I am an original cosponsor and fully support the bill's goals and passage. I want to thank Senators HATCH, LINCOLN and SMITH for their continued leadership to make sure that our Nation finally acts in a comprehensive way to prevent elder abuse.

Our Nation has for far too long turned its back on the shame of elder abuse. Congress has held hearings on the devastating effects of elder abuse for a quarter of a century. With this bill, we are finally saying enough is enough--elder abuse is unacceptable and we are going to act to stop it.

This bill takes several important steps to make improvements to what is now an inadequate system of protection for our vulnerable elders. First, it boosts funding for the long-term care ombudsman program, which serves as an advocate for the elderly and disabled in long-term care. It also establishes an adult protective services grant program and forensics centers that are charged with developing expertise on elder abuse. In addition, it elevates the importance of elder justice issues by creating a coordinating council of Federal agencies that will make policy recommendations and submit reports to Congress every 2 years. And the legislation requires the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services to take a proactive role in funding initiatives aimed at improving training programs and working conditions for long-term care professionals as a strategy for increasing the number of such workers during the coming years.

As much as I support this bill, however, I am disappointed that it does not include one important policy that can prevent abuse--a common-sense background check system that can screen out potential workers with serious criminal convictions that may put fragile seniors in long-term care at risk.

Almost every day, we read terrible stories about elderly patients who are beaten, sexually assaulted, or robbed by the very people who are charged with their care. Research shows that many instances of elder abuse could be avoided by a simple background check. It is time to put in place a nationwide system that can detect and prevent elder abuse. The seven-State pilot program that began in 2003 is an excellent start. Already, it is showing that States can successfully implement comprehensive, cost-effective programs that consolidate checks from State registries, State criminal records, and FBI records. In the coming weeks, I plan to introduce legislation that will take steps to make these pilot programs a reality for all States. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Again, I want to thank Senators HATCH, LINCOLN, and SMITH for their commitment to the cause of elder justice. The legislation we are introducing today will go a long way to focusing more attention on solutions for elder abuse, and developing new approaches to improve the quality of long-term care.

Sen. Ted Stevens [R-AK]: [Introducing S. 1072] Mr. President, the bill that I introduce today seeks to codify the initiatives announced by President Bush in January of this year in his Executive order to strengthen Federal environmental, energy, and transportation management. The bill would require the head of agencies to improve their agency's energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the reduction of energy intensity by 3 percent annually through the end of fiscal year 2014 or by 30 percent by the end of fiscal year 2014.

The bill would require that at least half of an agency's statutorily required renewable energy consumed in a fiscal year come from a new renewable source and allows agencies, to the extent possible, to implement renewable energy generation projects on agency property. The bill would also set energy efficiency goals for water consumption, acquisition of goods and services, operation of Government vehicles, and the acquisition of electronic products.

This bill would put the Federal Government at the forefront of the Nation's efforts to improve our energy efficiency and ultimately reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

A September 2002 report from the U.S. Department of Energy entitled, U.S. Lighting Market Characterization. Volume I: National Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption Estimate, states that 38 percent of all energy consumed in the United States is used to generate electricity and that lighting consumes 22 percent of all the electricity produced in the United States.

Lighting consumes a significant percentage of the Nation's energy production. Because of this consumption, the bill would also require the Federal Government to take the lead in the use of energy efficient light bulbs. The bill does not specify any particular technology, but would define energy efficient light bulbs as those with an efficiency rating of not less than 30 lumens per watt. This definition would change from 30 lumens per watt to 45 lumens per watt in the year 2018. The replacement of low energy efficient light bulbs to more energy efficient light bulbs on Federal properties would be required to be completed within the next 5 years.

Many of the new energy efficient bulbs, such as compact fluorescent light bulbs, contain mercury. The bill would require that a disposal plan be developed to support the use of these bulbs and their proper disposal.

As the Nation looks to take advantage of the new energy efficient light bulbs at significant savings to individual households and businesses, the Federal Government should lead the way. The Government should be setting the standard for energy efficiency. This bill would mandate Federal Government leadership in this area with substantial savings in our energy consumption.

I urge my colleagues to support these legislative concepts.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]: [Introducing S. 1073] Mr. President, I rise today with Senators COLLINS and SNOWE to introduce legislation that will significantly reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from our Nation's transportation sector.

This bill would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from passenger vehicles and motor vehicle fuels by 22 percent below projected levels under business as usual by 2030. This reduction is equivalent to the removal of 662 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or taking over 108 million cars off the road for a year. This would save 3.6 million barrels of oil per day by 2030.

It would achieve these reductions by requiring a: 3 percent reduction in emissions from the motor vehicle fuel pool by 2015, with an additional 3 percent reduction every 5 years, and 30 percent reduction in vehicle tailpipe emissions by 2016, with additional reductions every 5 years.

Highway vehicles are responsible for 32 percent of annual U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide (CO

2), the primary global-warming gas. And, motor vehicle emissions will continue to increase as more and more Americans purchase vehicles and the number of miles driven grows.

With more than 240 million motor vehicles on the road, producing 2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year, increasing our use of low carbon fuels is an essential part of a climate-safe transportation strategy.

So, the signs could not be clearer: It's time to sound the death-knell for the era of gas-guzzling motor vehicles. It is time to utilize improved vehicle technology and to increase access to cleaner, renewable fuels at the pump.

First, this bill will achieve this goal by increasing the availability of low carbon emitting fuels for motor vehicles.

We must start considering fuel emissions not only in terms of emissions produced at the tailpipe, but also in terms of the emissions generated by the production and transportation of fuels. The total emissions of a fuel, from production to end-use, are known as the "lifecycle emissions" of a fuel.

Not all fuels are created equal in terms of emissions; in fact, not all fuels within a give fuel category are created equal.

For example, ethanol produced from corn emits only about 10 to 20 percent less greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy delivered compared to petroleum-based gasoline. In contrast, ethanol produced from cellulosic biomass achieves an 80 to 90 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy.

Electricity would also qualify as an alternative fuel under this bill. The lifecycle emissions of electricity produced by traditional coal-fired power plants will be far greater than that produced by wind or other zero-carbon electricity generation technologies.

By 2009, this bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to quantify the total lifecycle emissions of all motor vehicle fuels. The bill would also require EPA to develop a fuel labeling process to provide this information to consumers at the pump.

Armed with this information about the lifecycle emissions of different fuels, oil refiners and importers would be required to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of their entire fuel pool by 3 percent below projected levels by 2015. And, every 5 years thereafter, emissions would be cut by an additional 3 percent.

To help fuel providers meet the mandated emissions reductions in a cost-effective manner, the bill would establish a carbon-credit trading market.

This would reduce emissions from motor vehicle fuels by 10 percent below projected levels by 2030 and would increase the supply of low-carbon fuels such as biodiesel, E-85, hydrogen, electricity, and others.

Second, the bill would achieve reductions in transportation sector emissions by federalizing California's landmark tailpipe emissions standard. California passed a landmark law in 2002 that required a reduction in tailpipe emissions and was the first State in the country to do so. This would require automakers to reduce tailpipe emissions, such as carbon dioxide, by 30 percent by 2016. It will also require EPA to tighten the reductions every 5 years.

Combined, these provisions would achieve a 22 percent reduction in transportation sector emissions below projected levels by 2030.

Additional provisions in the bill mandate: auto manufacturers to optimize dual-fueled vehicles to improve their fuel economy when running on alternative fuels, and alternative fuel vehicles, and only alternative fuel vehicles, come with a green fuel cap. This would alert consumers that these vehicles can accept other fuels besides traditional gasoline.

Just as it is necessary to reduce emissions in the electricity and industrial sectors, it is equally necessary to reduce emissions from the transportation sector. This bill makes significant, yet feasible, strides to reduce emissions through upgrades in vehicle technology and the incorporation of lower lifecycle emission fuels into the motor vehicle fuel pool. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Sen. Daniel Akaka [D-HI]: [Introducing S. 1074] Mr. President, I am delighted to reintroduce the Free Internet Filing Act as the tax filing deadline approaches. The bill requires the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to provide universal access to individual taxpayers filing their tax returns directly through the IRS Web site. I thank Senator Bingaman for cosponsoring this bill and working with me on taxpayer rights issues.

It is frustrating that individual taxpayers completing their own returns are still not able to electronically file directly with the IRS. Taxpayers are dependent on commercial preparers to electronically file their taxes. If taxpayers take the time necessary to prepare their returns by themselves, they must be given the option of electronically filing directly with the IRS. My legislation would make this direct filing possible.

The current system, the Free File Alliance, provides only a select group of taxpayers with the ability to file electronically for free using third party intermediaries. The current Free File Alliance agreement is a failure because it leaves out too many taxpayers. Taxpayers that make more than $52,000 are not eligible.

Taxpayers should not have the additional worry associated with sharing their private financial information with a tax preparation company. In an era when there have been so many electronic breaches of financial information, taxpayers should not be forced to hand over their private information if they want to electronically file their return with the IRS. Taxpayers should not lose out on the benefits of electronic filing simply because they are worried about sending their data to third parties.

IRS Commissioner Mark Everson has stated, "E-file is the fastest, safest, and most accurate way to file a tax return. People will get their returns faster through E-file. E-file greatly reduces the chances for making an error compared to filing a paper 1040." I simply want to provide every individual taxpayer the ability to electronically file their taxes at no cost and without having to use a commercial tax preparer.

My legislation will lead to an increase in the number of electronically filed returns. Approximately 45 million returns prepared using software are mailed in rather than electronically filed. With universal access to free e-file, this number could be substantially reduced. Electronic filing helps taxpayers receive their refunds faster than mailing in paper returns.

My legislation would also reduce errors and IRS administrative costs. According to Mr. Bert Dumars, the Director of the IRS Electronic Tax Administration, it costs 55 to 75 cents to process an electronic return while it costs about two dollars to process a paper return. In addition, the error rate for electronic returns is one percent while the error rate for paper returns is 20 percent.

We have an obligation to make free electronic filing available to all individual taxpayers. Electronic filing benefits both taxpayers and the IRS. I have appreciated the attention paid to this issue by Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley. I will continue to work with my colleagues to enact the Free Internet Filing Act.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that a letter of support from the Hawaii Alliance for Community-Based Economic Development be included in the Record. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support from the National Consumer Law Center, Consumer Federation of America, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, California Reinvestment Coalition, Center for Economic Progress, Consumer Action, and the Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project, be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Sen. Daniel Inouye [D-HI]: Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction, by request, of the Next Generation Air Transportation System Financing Reform Act of 2007, the Bush administration's proposal for the Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), reauthorization.

As chairman of the Commerce Committee, I, along with vice chairman STEVENS, introduce this bill out of courtesy to the Bush administration. They have outlined an aggressive proposal for the FAA reauthorization and while I cannot support all portions of this bill, I believe our colleagues should have an opportunity to consider the ideas outlined.

While I commend the Department of Transportation and the FAA for their work on the proposal, I have great concerns with some of the provisions. Specifically, I am troubled by the proposal to dramatically increase the general aviation fuel tax and substantially cut the Airport Improvement Program, AIP, funding level.

The Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over the FAA and I will work with Senator JAY ROCKEFELLER, the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, and Senator TRENT LOTT, the ranking member of the subcommittee, along with other members of the committee, to craft a bipartisan bill that we can bring before the full Senate.

It is important that we act quickly, as the current aviation tax structure expires at the end of the fiscal year. Therefore, we must present our committee and this body with a bill that not only solves funding issues for our Nation's air system, but also puts us on a course to fully modernize our aviation system to safely and efficiently handle the increase in air traffic that is expected.

In the coming weeks, we will be back here with a bill that I believe will gain the support of the majority of the Commerce Committee and the support of the Senate.

Sen. Ted Stevens [R-AK]: Mr. President, as vice chairman of the Commerce Committee I concur with my good friend and colleague. I applaud the administration for moving the process forward but I echo Senator INOUYE's concerns with the proposal. I look forward to working with him and our colleagues on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee to craft a Committee proposal in the coming weeks.

By Mr. BYRD (for himself, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. LOTT, and Mr. ISAKSON).

S. J. Res. 11. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify that the Constitution neither prohibits voluntary prayer nor requires prayer in schools; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Sen. Robert Byrd [D-WV]: Mr. President, West Virginians have always been a deeply spiritual people. Historically, we have stood fast in our devotion to the Creator, even when--or especially when--faced with adversity, deprivation, or misfortune. Just as we recognize that joyful events are best celebrated with prayers of gratitude, we also believe that hardship can be endured and, in fact, diminished through the infinite power of the healing word.

As we leave for Easter recess to celebrate the resurrection, we lift our heads from the darkness to the light. We ask for God's blessings. The Gospel at John 14:13 tells us that God answers prayer, meaning that he hears us whenever we ask for anything according to his will.

The importance of prayer is recognized by people of faith in nearly every denomination. Yet, in America, too many of our citizens belittle, ignore, or denigrate the power of prayer. They believe that the doctrine of separation of powers means that we can pray only within the four walls of a house of worship, and nowhere else. But that viewpoint does not reflect the intent of the Creator.

Prayer, no matter where undertaken, by design, provides both inspiration and solace. It is comforting, particularly during a time of war. No wonder, then, that prayer has always had a place in the lives of our military. In December 1944, General George S. Patton, Jr., ordered Colonel James H. O'Neill, the chaplain of the Third Army, to produce a prayer to the heavens, which requested clear weather. The prayer, written by Chaplain O'Neill, reads as follows:

Almighty and most merciful Father, we humbly beseech Thee, of Thy great goodness ..... Grant us fair weather for Battle. Graciously hearken to us as soldiers who call upon Thee, that, armed with Thy power, we may advance from victory to victory ..... and establish Thy justice among men and nations. Amen.

Chaplain O'Neill's prayer was provided on behalf of all soldiers, regardless of denomination, when or where they prayed, and with whom. It was a prayer in addition to the silent or outspoken, individual and voluntary prayers of each of the enlisted men and women of the Army.

Although I cannot be sure of it, I would imagine that soldiers in the field responded favorably to the prayer of Chaplain O'Neill. They assuredly did not object to his expression of faith--one in which they were free to participate or not. Undoubtedly, the soldiers drew inspiration from the Chaplain's words.

Now, while our children do not normally face the mortal peril that U.S. troops inevitably face in a time of war, all Americans--whether young or old--in school or in battle, surely from time to time need to draw upon the blessings of a higher power to face whatever tests fate may throw their way on any given day.

Yet, one wonders what would happen if a student in an American classroom today decided, of his or her own volition, to recite a prayer like the one by Chaplain O'Neill. In some jurisdictions, it is probable that the student would be disciplined and his/her teachers punished for potentially violating the First Amendment.

Is today's state of affairs consistent with the intent of the Framers? No. The Founding Fathers believed in a Supreme Being, and they were proud of their faith. On February 22, 1756, John Adams wrote:

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ..... what a Utopia, what a paradise would this region be.

As his words reflect, John Adams knew and recognized that we were and are a religious people.

The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution state: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ....."

In my opinion, too many have not given equal weight to both of these clauses. Instead, they have focused only on the first clause, which prohibits the establishment of religion, at the expense of the second clause, which protects the right of Americans to worship as they please. This country was founded by men and women of strong faith, whose intent was not to suppress religion, but to ensure that the government favored no single religion over another.

In particular, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment states that Congress cannot make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. Consequently, I believe that any prohibition of voluntary prayer in school, either spoken aloud or recounted in silence, violates the right of our schoolchildren to practice freely their religion. And that's not right. Any child should be free to pray to God, of his or her own volition, whether at home, in church, or at school. Period.

I am not a proponent of repeatedly amending the U.S. Constitution. I believe that such amendments should be done only rarely and with great care. However, because I feel as strongly about this today as I have for over four decades, I am going to take this opportunity, once again, as I have at least eight times over the past 45 years, to introduce today a joint resolution to amend the Constitution to clarify the intent of the Framers with respect to voluntary prayer in school.

The language of the resolution that I am introducing today to amend the Constitution simply states: "Nothing in this Constitution, including any amendment to this Constitution, shall be construed to prohibit voluntary prayer or require prayer in a public school, or to prohibit voluntary prayer or require prayer at a public school extracurricular activity."

This resolution is similar to legislation that I introduced or cosponsored starting in 1962, but more recently in 1973, 1979, 1982, 1993, 1995, 1997, and 2006. This resolution is not a radical departure. It simply reiterates what should already be permissible under a correct interpretation of the First Amendment. It does not change the language of the First Amendment, and it would not permit any school to advocate a particular religious message endorsed by the government. The resolution seeks neither to advance nor to inhibit religion. It does not signify government approval of any particular religious sect or creed. It does not compel a "non-believer" to pray. In fact, it does not require an atheist to embrace or adopt any religious action, belief, or expression. It does not coerce or compel anyone to do anything, and it does not foster excessive government entanglement with religion.

This Constitutional Amendment simply allows children to pray, voluntarily, if they wish to do so. The Supreme Court has held that the Establishment Clause is not violated so long as the government treats religious speech and other speech equally. The resolution has a preeminently secular purpose, which is to ensure that religious and non-religious speech are treated equally.

The First Amendment is to secure religious liberty. Justice Stevens has written that, "nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by this Court prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during or after the school day."

Similarly, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has written that the Religion Clauses of our Constitution have "kept religion a matter for the individual conscience, not for the prosecutor or bureaucrat."

And we should make certain that religion is a matter for the individual conscience. But keeping religion a matter for the individual conscience should not mean that a schoolchild must stand silent, unable to turn to God for comfort or guidance in times of need. Not every reference to God represents the impermissible establishment of religion. Instead, let us make certain that every individual, including every schoolchild, can be assured of his/her right to pray voluntarily to God, as he/she pleases, consistent with the intent of the Framers, who wrote the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.