Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005

Mr. President, I have listened to some of the debate today. It has been very interesting. The last speaker spoke about choice and choices. I want to talk about choices in health care a bit. This is Health Week, we are told. It is an opportunity, for a change, at long last to talk about some health care issues on the floor of the Senate.

The intent, I believe, of the chairman who brings this bill to the floor is that we should speak only about and address only the issues dealing with small business health plans. However, he knows and I know there are many other health issues that have been long delayed by this Chamber and that need to be debated. I intend to offer a number of amendments. They are in order under the rules of the Senate. They are amendments that deal explicitly with health care issues.

The issue before the Senate is not unimportant. The question of rising health care costs is very significant to everybody--individuals, businesses, governments. Everyone who is a consumer has to deal with increased costs of health care and we should, indeed, address the issue of health care costs for business associations and for small businesses. There is no question about that. I wish to be a part of the group that works on that in a bipartisan way, in a way that expands opportunity, not narrows opportunity; in a way that expands coverage, not narrows coverage; in a way that covers everyone, not just a few. I do not agree that we should make health care unaffordable for the older and sicker and then make profit out of insuring people who are younger and healthier. That is not the right way to do this.

But having said all of that, let me describe some other things that have been long delayed on the floor of the Senate that need to be addressed. Let me talk about the first one. It is the

issue of reimportation of prescription drugs. A bipartisan piece of legislation has been long ago introduced and discussed here on the floor of the Senate, and we have not had the opportunity to vote on it.

The reimportation of prescription drugs, why is that important? Because the American people are charged the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs; it is not even close--the highest prices in the world. Consumers in every other country are paying lower prices. Try to buy Lipitor and if you buy it in the United States you pay a higher price than in any country in the world--France, Germany, England, you name it. You pay the highest prices in the United States. Why should U.S. consumers be charged the highest prices?

With consent, I want to show a couple of things on the floor of the Senate. Let me show, if I might, two bottles of Lipitor. I ask consent to show these on the floor of the Senate.

As you can see, they look identical: identical labels, identical pills in the same bottle made by the same company--shipped to two different places. One is shipped to Canada and one is shipped to the United States. The difference? One is half the price of the other. Guess which. It is the Canadian consumer who gets the benefit of paying half the price for the identical prescription drug.

Let me also show a couple of containers of Prevacid. This is a drug that is widely used for ulcers. Once again, as you can see, it is essentially the same bottle, same pill, made by the same company, made in an FDA-approved plant and shipped to two different locations, one to Canada and one to the United States. The difference? This one costs twice as much. Who buys this one? The U.S. consumer; twice as much for the same pill.

An old fellow sitting on a hay bale in North Dakota at a farm meeting said, my wife has been fighting breast cancer for 3 years. She took Tamoxifen for breast cancer. Every 3 months we drove to Canada to get Tamoxifen because it was the only way we could afford it, and we paid about 80 percent less than it would have cost us to buy that prescription drug to treat her breast cancer. We paid 80 percent less by driving to Canada to get it.

The fact is, they allow a small amount of drugs to come across the border for personal use. But other than that, a U.S. consumer cannot access an FDA-approved prescription drug nor can a U.S. pharmacist access that same FDA-approved prescription drug. That is unbelievable. We have a bipartisan group of Members of the Senate who say consumers ought to be able to purchase FDA prescription drugs by reimporting them from other countries. That would put downward pressure on prescription drug prices in this country. A bipartisan group of Senators wants to do that, but we are prevented from doing it by current law. We want to change the law.

Yet we are prevented from changing the law because the majority leader won't bring this legislation to the floor of the Senate. This is something we can offer as an amendment to the bill on the floor. It is well within the rules of the Senate, it deals with health care, and I am serving notice now that this is an amendment we will offer and vote on during the conduct of this discussion, providing we are allowed to offer amendments. I am hearing rumors that perhaps the majority leader will decide to fill the tree legislatively and allow no amendments. If that is the case, it will be a long week, but my hope is he will not do that. If amendments are allowed, I will offer this amendment and will get a vote.

Let me go back to about midnight on the night of March 11, 2004. That is a little over 2 years ago--midnight. The reason I remember it was midnight, I was sitting right back here and I reached an agreement with the majority leader, Senator Frist. Here is what Senator Frist announced that evening after our negotiations, and after which I agreed to release the name of Dr. Mark McClellan to be promoted from the head of FDA to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. As a result of that, Senator Frist came to the floor and put this in the Record.

I announce for the information of my colleagues that, with

consultation with the chairman of the Senate Committee on

Health, Education, Labor, Pensions, Senator Dorgan, Senator

Stabenow, Senator McCain, Senator Cochran, and other

interested Senators, the Senate will begin a process for

developing proposals that would allow for the safe

reimportation of FDA-approved prescription drugs.

Two years later, nothing: No vote on the floor of the Senate, nothing. My colleague, Senator Vitter, sent a letter around a year ago. It says:

. . . in the context of the Lester Crawford FDA

nomination, I obtained an agreement with Majority Leader

Frist regarding drug importation legislation. . . .The Senate

will probably hold some floor vote on a reimportation

amendment soon, probably on the Agriculture Appropriations

bill. Should that vote demonstrate that reimportation has 60-

vote support on the floor, then Leader Frist will be open to

and work in good faith toward a floor debate and vote on a

reimportation bill. . . .

What happened as a result of that? Nothing. No action, no votes, nothing.

This bill on the floor of the Senate is amendable. This bipartisan amendment deals with health care. It has been long delayed--and no more. I intend to offer this amendment this week.

Finally, at long last, perhaps the American consumers will no longer be charged the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs because they will be able to access FDA-approved drugs by reimporting them from virtually any other country in which the consumers are paying a lesser price for the identical prescription drug. That is unfair to the American people. The only reason we have not changed it yet is there are, regrettably, a few people in this Chamber who have blocked that opportunity, I assume on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry. But that blocking is about done. This week this bill is open for amendment. I intend to come and offer this as an amendment.

That is one.

Let me talk for a moment about another issue, once again long promised here to the Senate. We are told we are going to have an opportunity to do this--again and again and again--and we are not. We don't get the opportunity. It is called stem cell research. It is controversial; there is no question about that. I understand the controversy. But is it important? Yes, it is. We have all these people who talk about life. This is about life. This is about life-giving medical research, to find ways to unlock the mysteries and to cure some of the worst diseases known to people: Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, Parkinson's. There is an unbelievable opportunity for medical research to unlock the cures for some of these diseases. But we need to proceed with stem cell research.

We have been long promised the opportunity to have a vote on stem cell research on the floor of the Senate, and guess what. No such vote. On May 24, almost 1 year ago, the House of Representatives passed a bill on stem cell research. We are still waiting to have a vote on that here on the floor of the Senate--once again, a bill with bipartisan support.

Let me describe, if I might, the importance of this in the eyes of a young woman. I met with this young girl about 2 weeks ago. It is not the first time I met her. She is a young lady, Camille Johnson, 13 years old, diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at age 4. She is the one in the middle, playing the clarinet. She has had some very serious health problems, some very serious problems in her young life. She would like very much to live her life without diabetes. She would like diabetes to be cured for her and millions of others.

In 2002, scientists at Stanford University used special chemicals to what is called transform undifferentiated embryonic stem cells of mice into cell masses that resemble islets found in the mouse pancreas. When this tissue is transplanted into the diabetic mice, it produces insulin in response to high glucose levels in animals. Wouldn't it be wonderful if, through this stem cell research, we cure diabetes; if we could tell this young woman your life is not going to be a life of diabetes. We can cure that disease.

I have been involved in political campaigns recently and have been told by opponents that my proposal and my position on stem cell research is one that

murders embryos. Nothing could be further from the truth, nothing at all. Do you know there are 1 million people living among us, walking, breathing, talking--1 million people who were conceived through in vitro fertilization? One million people. When that in vitro fertilization takes place, the uniting of a sperm and an egg in a petri dish, more than a single embryo is created. A number of embryos are created in that process. Some are implanted into the uterus of a woman and some become a human being. Some are cryogenically frozen and stored in the event they should be used again if this did not result in a pregnancy.

There are some 400,000 of those embryos frozen at in vitro clinics right now, 400,000 of them, and 8,000 to 11,000 are discarded, thrown away, every year. They become hospital waste.

Should some perhaps be used for stem cell research with the hope of saving lives? The answer clearly is yes. This is not about murdering an embryo. If in fact this is the murder of an embryo, then the discarding of the embryos at the in vitro fertilization clinic, 8,000 to 11,000 a year, is also murder.

We had one person testify at the Commerce Committee a couple of years ago who said those 1 million people who are here as a result of in vitro fertilization should not be here; it was wrong to create these people. Tell that to the parents who had those children; the childless parents who, through in vitro fertilization, discovered the miracle of having a child.

The question of stem cell research is not about murdering an embryo, it is about an opportunity to cure some of the dreaded diseases.

The other issue--and the reason I am talking about this is this is a big issue that we are not allowed to vote on in the Senate. This, too, should be an amendment on this bill. This, too, during Health Week is a very important issue dealing with health.

The other side of this research is something called somatic cell nuclear transfer. Simply it is this: Let us assume a patient takes a skin cell from their own earlobe and that skin cell from their earlobe is then put in an evacuated egg and stimulated to become a blastocyst of a couple of hundred cells.

That blastocyst now has predictor cells. They use the predictor cells for heart muscle, to inject back into the heart muscle to grow a stronger heart, to repair a heart attack.

Some would say you have destroyed or murdered an embryo. There is no fertilized egg. There is only the skin cell from the person who had the heart attack whose cell is now being used, through somatic cell nuclear transfer, to save that person's life. This is about lifesaving. Yet we have so many here who said: Let's not worry about these diseases. Let's shut off this research because we think it is about murdering embryos.

That is not what this is about. It is about this young girl and whether we decide we want this young girl to live her life as a diabetic, a life filled with hope at this point that Congress will finally do the right thing.

The House of Representatives did it. The Senate needs to vote on it. Perhaps this week is as good a week as any. We have been promised. A year ago we were promised, just like drug reimportation. This Chamber is full of promises, but we never quite get to vote on important issues.

I am not suggesting that when I talk about stem cell research that there are not ethical considerations, without serious concerns and serious issues to which we should be attentive. We should. I don't dismiss all the other concerns. But I do say this: If you have lost a child, if you have lost a loved one, and you have watched someone die from Parkinson's or cancer or heart disease, if you have been through that and then say to yourself: But I want to shut down promising research that could potentially cure diseases, then you have not been through it the way a number of people in this Chamber have been through it. I think it is so important for us to do the right thing and to continue this breathtaking research that can save lives.

There are so many other issues. There are just a couple of minutes remaining. Then I will yield the time to my colleague from California.

We passed recently in the Senate a piece of legislation that provides prescription drug benefits to senior citizens. But we did nothing to put downward pressure on drug prices. There is a special provision in the bill which my colleagues, Senators Wyden and Snowe, were talking about earlier today, that actually prevents the Federal Government from negotiating for lower prices with the pharmaceutical industry. That is unbelievably ignorant. A provision like that is unbelievably ignorant, and it ought to be repealed.

All we need is a vote on that on the Senate floor. That, too, is a health issue. There is no excuse for this Congress to say: By the way, the Federal Government cannot negotiate for a lower price. We already do it in the VA. We end up with far lower prices as a result of the negotiations.

In this case, with this bill, there is a provision that says: Don't you dare negotiate. It would be against the law for you to try to get lower prices and reduce Government spending. That, too, is a health issue. That, too, will be in order this week.

I hope very much that we will have a vote on that. Yes, the underlying bill is important. We ought to find a bipartisan way to fix it. No, it doesn't work the way it is. It will restrict choice, in my judgement, increase prices for some, and make others completely uninsurable. We ought to fix it in a bipartisan way.

But on the other three issues--reimportation of prescription drugs, stem cell research, repeal the law that prevents negotiation of lower prices with the pharmaceutical industry to save taxpayers money-- shouldn't we do all three of those? We ought to do all three of those this afternoon, right now. We have been blocked for far too long.

If there is, in fact, an amendable vehicle--and I hope it will be; we will know that tomorrow morning--then I have just described three amendments that I believe should be offered, and when offered I believe will be approved in the coming days. If not, if this is a charade, and tomorrow we discover there is a legislative approach called ``filling the tree,'' which is simply setting up a little blocking device to say we are not going to allow anybody to offer anything, then I think the Senate will have sent a very strong message that this isn't Health Week. This is a week in which you want to trot out a little proposal of your own and avoid votes on serious issues that we should be taking in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reclaiming our time, I didn't realize they would be allowed to use part of it.

It would be helpful if the other side would actually share the details of their amendment with us so that we can take a look at it. The details of our bill have been through the committee, out here, and had hearings. We don't know what is going to be in there. The last time I looked at it, there was, I think, $9 billion of cost in it each year, and the huge bureaucracy that would be built up. I make that request to the other side--that we sure would like to take a look at their bill. It is hard to do until we have a copy.

We had some latitude here to allow 20 minutes on this and we were 5 minutes late from that one.

And Senator Thune does not have the time for his speech.

I object.

Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, we are alternating every 30 minutes.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the Senator's side controls the time at that time. So if they want to give the Senator the 10 minutes, there would be no objection to that. It would come out of the Democratic time.

Mr. President, first, I apologize for the confusion over the unanimous consent that we had. It was designed early this morning to make sure each side had an opportunity to have an equal amount of say on the 30 hours that we are working on in order to actually get to amendments on this bill. Now that we have had cloture and everybody has agreed, or almost everybody, that we needed to proceed on the bill, we are talking about an issue that is huge to small businesses out there and wanting to find some kind of solution. We even suggested that perhaps they would like to reduce the number of hours of debate about the right to proceed so that we could actually get to offering amendments. But we have a 30-hour time requirement. That could be reduced by unanimous consent, or even eliminated by unanimous consent. But it has not been, so we will try to keep on a half-hour rotating basis so that as many people as possible can have something to say on the bill.

I am going to take a few minutes at this point to talk about this issue. We have been talking about health care. One advantage of having this 30 hours is to have some additional health care debate. I need to talk a little bit about prescription drugs Part D. That is not part of the motion to proceed, but it has been talked about a number of times on the Senate floor today. There are some confusing things out there for seniors that I would like to clear up.

I have been taking the last two recesses to travel across Wyoming and hold meetings with senior citizens to explain the prescription drug plan to get them signed up so they can get the benefit. There is some confusion out there. When we were designing the plan, we were worried that there would not be any plan interested in our small population in Wyoming. We have less than 500,000 people in our State. Our biggest city has 52,000 people. So we have a little bit of trouble finding a big enough pool for anything and to encourage interest. So I asked that there be kind of a Federal backup plan on it, and that was put in the bill.

But when the time came around for companies to offer plans in Wyoming, obviously, they were even excited about 500,000 people because we had 41

plans respond. That is competition. That competition brought the prices down by 25 percent before the people even applied for the benefit. A huge decrease in cost; that is cost by competition. The downside is that 41 plans create confusion. If you have ever tried to buy insurance and talk to a number of different insurance salesmen, every package is designed slightly different to make it a little bit more confusing so that their plan looks better, but it is also harder for you to make comparisons.

There is an easy way to make comparisons. Medicare saw that coming and set up a computer analyzation so that all you have to know is what your prescriptions are and what the doses are. You can put them in over the Internet or you can talk to somebody live by an 800 number or there are a lot of volunteers across America who are helping to get this information out. It lets Medicare do the math. They will present you with three or four plans that meet your prescription, your doses, and your criteria for where you want to buy it. You can look at these line by line. All the lines match up and you can compare them and find the best one for you. It has been a tremendous help.

My mother asked me to help her on her decision. There are kids across the United States--kids like me--who need to be helping their moms on these kinds of decisions. I was happy to do it because it gave me an opportunity to try out the telephone method, the Internet method, and I talked to a number of volunteers and the local pharmacist. We owe the local pharmacist a great deal of thanks for the way this is working and the difficulties that they have had doing a new program. We have not had a big change in the program in decades. When we first had Medicare, there were problems. They got worked out. When we started this one, there were problems, and I think they have mostly been worked out.

Occasionally, at these hearings, somebody was having a problem. A hour and a half was the longest it took us to straighten out any problem for anybody. I ran this process and came up with these four best at the least cost for my mom.

One of the things that people raise in those sections is they say: I don't need any drugs so I should not have to do this. I should not have to pay a penalty later.

The way insurance works is that you buy into the plan usually before you get sick. You pay a premium and when you get sick, then you have the coverage for the things that can happen to you in the future.

Medicare prescription Part D is completely different because you can already have a huge medical problem and a lot of prescriptions and you can sign up for this now and have a maximum guaranteed cost. I know of people who are actually saving thousands of dollars because they signed up. If you don't have anything the matter with you and you don't want to buy into a big plan, you run the evaluation and you can find a small plan you can buy into.

One in Wyoming is $1.87 a month. What if the $1.87 a month doesn't cover me if I have something really bad happen to me? Well, every November 15 to December 31 you can change your mind. You can change your company, and they cannot stop you. Tell me where else insurance works like that. Every November 15 to December 31, you can change your mind and sign up for a plan that has new kinds of benefits for you that match new illnesses that you might have.

This is working for the people who have paid attention. It is easy to have Medicare do the math. So everybody out there who hasn't signed up needs to talk to the volunteers, probably at their senior citizen center or call the 1-800 number or get on the Medicare Internet site and have that plan figured out for you. It takes a few minutes and you can be set so that you, first of all, won't have any penalties, but, secondly, you will have some tremendous benefits as you need the medication. It has made a huge difference.

Some people have talked about negotiating the price. When I was doing these hearings, I had some difficulty with people who showed up and said: You know, there are some medications I really want to have, that I am supposed to have, and I cannot get them. Well, when I checked, those were the veterans, and the veterans' prices are negotiated, and when they negotiate prices, they pick a similar drug and get the best price by kind of fixing the price on it and driving the price down through this bidding war. But it eliminates medications. Yes, there are medications you can take. It may not be the medication your doctor thinks is absolutely the best. But that is what happens with negotiated prices.

So what we relied on in the Medicare prescription Part D was competition, and competition has happened. Prices came down 25 percent, and then people who signed up for the program who are using medications found out that they are also saving another 25 percent as the least amount, or 37 percent as the average amount, and some people are getting 83 percent--I say some people. I know some people who are getting several thousand times more than what they are paying in because they are into the catastrophic care. I wasn't even listing the catastrophic care.

The important thing is that we need to tell people and help people to sign up by May 15. It is a tremendous benefit. We have had more people sign up than we had anticipated signing up. That means, again, a bigger market; that means lower costs. So it works for all of us when people sign up. Remember, there are plans out there. If they have them for $1.87 a month in Wyoming, I bet they have that at $1.87 or less every place in the country. Look at those if you are not using any medication.

So that is what competition does. That is the purpose of the bill that we are talking about and that we have actually had the motion to proceed on, not the ones that fall under other committees' jurisdictions, such as Medicare or stem cells or some of the other things that have been talked about here. Those are things that actually--this falls under the jurisdiction of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. We took the bill through committee that has never been through the Senate before. The House passed a bill that is considerably more liberal and difficult than the one that we passed. They passed it eight times over there in a very bipartisan way. If we have the same Democratic Senators over here vote for it that had Democrats in the House vote for it, we will pass this bill easily. Even if there is a filibuster, we will pass it because it is a concept that small businesses have been asking for. This is the first opportunity we have had to provide it for them.

We did it by being very conservative in the approach and going to a situation where we could work across State borders, so that associations could build a big enough pool that they could effectively work with their insurance companies to get these multiple competition bids. We are certain that it will work. One of the reasons we are certain that it will work is because it has been tried within States. But those who have tried it within States have found that it works very well, and they know it would work even better if they could go across State borders. So even those who are doing it are asking to do it on a wider scale than what they have been. For a lot of the States that have less population, yes, they want to be able to do it at all. They don't have big enough pools within their States to do it, so they want to be able to go across the State borders.

I want to discuss a little bit why we need to pass S. 1955 and allow for the creation of these small business health plans. First of all, the concept of allowing small businesses to join together to find better prices for health insurance is not new, as I mentioned. Many organizations have offered nationwide health plans to members in the past. But States continued to add mandated benefits and other regulations to their insurance markets during the 1980s and 1990s, and the administrative hassles and costs associated with the mandates and regulations became too much of a burden for existing plans that could no longer offer an affordable benefit on a national basis. So they discontinued the plans.

The Associated Builders and Contractors organization, known as ABC, is an unfortunate example of this problem. Their insurance carrier refused to continue doing business with the ABC insurance trust in the late 1990s because

the panoply of 50 different State regulations and excessive benefit mandates made it impractical and unattractive for the insurance company to continue the program. ABC was unable to find another carrier to pick up their business.

This chart kind of shows how health care costs have gone. I don't think there is any argument on either side of the aisle that this is what has happened. There has been a rapid escalation, and compared to what it used to be, there has been a rapid escalation for a long time, oddly enough. We are up to a national average cost per employee of about $8,000 a year. That doesn't include the part the individuals are paying, which brings it up to about $11,000 a year. That is the amount we have been talking about on both sides of the aisle today.

What is truly unfortunate is that workers at ABC's member companies were benefiting from this program, and the companies were saving money on their health care expenses. The health plan sponsored by ABC for nearly 45 years had total administrative expenses of about 13 cents for every dollar in premium. These costs included all marketing administration, insurance company risk, claim payment expenses, and State premium taxes. Compare this to the small business employers who purchase coverage directly from an insurance company. The total expenses for most small businesses today can approach 35 cents for every dollar of premium. So saving nearly 25 cents on a dollar is real money, especially in today's health insurance prices.

The other benefit to ABC's member companies and employees is that any profit generated by their health plan stays in the plan. This also helped keep costs down. So the idea isn't new, and it has worked before.

But Congress needs to act before small business organizations can resurrect their defunct programs and before other organizations can start new ones. Congress considered fixing this problem during debate over the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act in 1996-- it is better known as HIPAA--but the small business affordability provisions in the House bill were dropped during the conference between the House and the Senate in the final bill. As a result, HIPAA only addressed access to health insurance and not affordability. So now everyone has access to health insurance policies, but the policies themselves are unaffordable to many. When I became chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions last year, I announced that I would bring a health insurance affordability bill before the committee so we could finish the job we started 10 years ago--in other words, to make it possible for all Americans to have access to a health insurance policy that is affordable.

Many were skeptical then, and some may still be skeptical now, but the time for more of the same is over. America's working families want change, and they are tired of excuses from Congress.

Small businesses and working families are demanding relief from high health insurance costs. And it is no wonder. This year, employers are paying twice what they were paying in the year 2000 for health insurance. That is correct. What businesses paid for health insurance has doubled over the past 6 years. That is a pace we can't keep up.

This cost squeeze hurts small businesses the most. The highest rates of uninsured workers can be found in businesses with 25 or fewer workers. Only 60 percent of the Nation's businesses are offering health insurance these days, down from nearly 75 percent just 5 years ago.

Small businesses and working families are stuck on the escalator of rising health insurance costs, with no end in sight. And in a tight labor market, small business owners don't want to jump off this fast- moving escalator because dropping health insurance puts them at a major disadvantage in competing for the best workers. We need to give them a safe place to get off this escalator of rising costs, somewhere where it is more affordable for themselves and working families, and the small business health plan will give them that option.

Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from North Carolina.

That is assuming it comes within the 30-minute parameters?

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this bill today along with Senator Boxer as cosponsor to direct the Interior Secretary to conduct a study to evaluate 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 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, San Rafael Hills and connects to the adjacent Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forests.

This parcel of land is unique because of its rare Mediterranean ecosystem and wildlife corridor that stretches north from the Santa Monicas. With the population growth forecasted to multiply exponentially over the next several decades, the need for parks to balance out the expected population growth has become critical in California.

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, the world's largest urban park, hemmed in on all sides by development.

Park and recreational lands provide people with a vital refuge from urban life while preserving valuable habitat and wildlife. 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.

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 national park status.

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.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my good friend and colleague Senator Orrin Hatch, to introduce the ``Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2005.''

Gangs are spreading across our country, increasing in violence and power in every State. The growth and spread of these gangs illustrate the simple fact that they are no longer a local problem. They are a national problem, and require a national solution. This bill is designed to contribute to that solution by bringing together Federal, State and local law enforcement, equipping them with the right legal tools, and providing authorization for funds to make this partnership effective.

First, let me illustrate the scope of the problem we face: In 2002, there were approximately 731,500 gang members and 21,500 gangs in the United States. Additionally, the FBI report on national crime statistics found that youth-gang homicides had jumped to more than 1,100 in 2002, up from 692 in 1999. According to a report commissioned by a coalition of big city police chiefs, gang-related killings skyrocketed by 50 percent from 1999 to 2002. In 2002, there were a little more than 16,000 homicides in the United States--more than a thousand of those murders were gang-related. In Southern California alone there have been about 3,100 gang-related killings since 1999. 87 percent of U.S. cities with a population of more than 100,000 have reported gang problems, according to the Department of justice.

The bottom line is that this is a major problem.

This legislation before us today squarely addresses these serious issues. Its main point is to create a new type of crime, by defining and criminalizing ``Criminal Street Gangs.'' This recognizes the basic point of a street gang--it is more powerful, and more dangerous, than its individual members. Defeating gangs means recognizing what is so dangerous about them, and then making that conduct against the law.

This bill does exactly that. It makes illegal participation in a criminal street gang a federal crime. A ``criminal street gang'' is defined to mean a formal or informal group, club, organization or association of 3 or more persons who act together to commit gang crimes. This legislation makes it a crime for a member of a criminal street gang to commit, conspire or attempt to commit two or more predicate gang crimes; or to get another individual to commit a gang crime. The term ``gang crime'' is defined to include violent and other serious State and Federal felony crimes such as: murder, maiming, manslaughter, kidnapping, arson, robbery, assault with a dangerous weapon, obstruction of justice, carjacking, distribution of a controlled substance, certain firearms offenses and money laundering. And it criminalizes violent crimes in furtherance or in aid of criminal street gangs.

These two provisions are at the heart of this legislation. Armed with this new law, Federal prosecutors, working in tandem with State and local law enforcement, will be able to take on gangs in much the same way that traditional Mafia families have been systematically destroyed by effective RICO prosecutions. The legislation also recognizes that the core changes, standing alone, are not sufficient.

The Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act is a comprehensive bill to increase gang prosecution and prevention efforts. The bill authorizes approximately $650 million over the next five years to support Federal, State and local law enforcement efforts against violent gangs including the funding of witness protection programs and for intervention and prevention programs for at-risk youth. In support of this effort, the bill increases funding for Federal prosecutors and FBI agents to increase coordinated enforcement efforts against violent gangs.

Witness protection is particularly important--as an example, recent press reports from Boston show that gang members are distributing what is, in essence, a witness intimidation media kit, complete with graphics and CDs that warn potential witnesses that they will be killed--one CD depicts three bodies on its covers. In another incident, a witnesses' grand jury testimony was taped to his home--soon afterward he was killed.

The Act also creates new criminal gang prosecution offenses, enhances existing gang and violent crime penalties to deter and punish illegal street gangs, proposes violent crime reforms needed to effectively prosecute gang members, and proposes a limited reform of the juvenile justice system to facilitate Federal prosecution of 16 and 17 year old gang members who commit serious acts of violence--specifically it:

Makes recruiting minors to join criminal street gangs a Federal crime and requires offenders to pay the costs associated with housing and treating any recruited minor who is prosecuted for their gang activity.

Makes murder and other violent crimes committed in connection with drug trafficking Federal crimes.

Creates a new offense of multiple interstate murders, where an individual crosses State lines and intends to cause the death of two or more people.

Allows for prosecution of gang members who cross State lines to obstruct justice, intimidate or retaliate against witnesses, jurors, informants, or victims.

Creates tougher laws for certain Federal crimes like assault, carjacking, manslaughter, conspiracy, and for specific types of crimes occurring in Indian country.

Requires that someone convicted of hiring another person to commit murder be punished with imprisonment, instead of a fine.

Makes sexual assault a predicate act under RICO and increases the maximum sentences for these RICO crimes.

Allows for detention of persons charged with firearms who have been previously convicted of prior crimes of violence or serious drug offenses. Current law does not allow a prosecutor to

ask that a person be held without bail even if the person has previously been convicted of a crime of violence or a serious drug offense. This bill would allow prosecutors to make that request of a judge but would allow a criminal defendant the right to argue why he or she should not be held.

Makes it clear that in a death penalty case, the case can be tried where the murder, or related conduct, occurred.

Extends the time within which a violent crime case can be charged and tried. For violent crime cases, the time is extended from 5 years to 10 years after the offense occurred or the continuing offense was completed, and from 5 years to 8 years after the date on which the violation was first discovered.

Permits wiretaps to be used for new gang crimes created by this bill.

Allows for a murdered witness's statements to be admitted at trial in cases where the defendant caused the witness's death.

Makes clear where a case can be tried involving retaliation against a witness--in either the district where the case is being tried, or where the intimidation took place.

Increases penalties for criminal use of firearms in crimes of violence and drug trafficking.

Includes modified juvenile provisions. This bill will allow prosecutors to more easily charge 16 and 17 year olds who are charged with serious violent felonies. A judge will review every decision a prosecutor makes to charge a juvenile as an adult.

Creates and provides assistance for ``High Intensity'' Interstate Gang Activity areas. This legislation requires the Attorney General to designate certain locations as ``high intensity interstate gang activity areas'' and provides assistance in the form of criminal street gang enforcement teams made up of local, State and Federal law enforcement authorities to investigate and prosecute criminal street gangs in each high intensity interstate gang activity area.

Authorizes funding of $500 million for 2004 through 2008 to meet the goals of suppression and intervention: $50 million a year will be used to support the criminal gang enforcement teams. $50 million a year will be used to make grants available for community-based programs to provide for crime prevention and intervention services for gang members and at-risk youth in areas designated as high intensity interstate gang activity areas.

Authorizes $150 million over five years to support anti-gang efforts including: Expanding the Project Safe Neighborhood program to require U.S. Attorneys to identify and prosecute significant gangs within their district; coordinating such prosecutions among all local, State, and Federal law enforcement; and coordinating criminal street gang enforcement teams in designated high intensity interstate gang activity areas. Supporting the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Safe Streets Program. Creating and expanding witness protection programs, the hiring of additional State and local prosecutors, funding gang prevention and community prosecution programs and purchasing equipment to increase the accurate identification and prosecution of violent offenders.

The bottom line is that this legislation would provide the tools and the resources to begin that national task of destroying criminal street gangs. It is designed to emphasize and encourage Federal, State and local cooperation. It combines enforcement with prevention. It is a tough, effective and fair approach.

This is not a new bill. I have been working on it for almost ten years. In 1996, I joined Senator Hatch and others to develop the Federal Gang Violence Act, which would have increased criminal penalties for gang members, made recruiting persons into a criminal street gang a crime, and enhanced penalties for transferring a gun to a minor. Many of the provisions of that bill were incorporated into the 1999 Juvenile Justice bill, which was approved overwhelmingly (73-25) by the Senate in the 106th Congress. However, the Juvenile Justice bill stalled in conference, and these provisions were never signed into law.

In the years that followed we kept up our efforts, with Republicans and Democrats working together on this critical issue. In the 108th Congress a version of this bill was introduced, and eventually was co- sponsored by Senators Hatch and others. That bill was the subject of much discussion and debate. Some of my colleagues raised some valuable suggestions and criticisms, many of which were incorporated in the bill last year. The result of that compromise was reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee last Fall, but was never considered by the full Senate.

The legislation today is the same as that which was approved by the Judiciary Committee, and I hope this year we will move quickly to pass it into law. That said, I understand that some of my colleagues are still concerned about certain aspects of the bill. My intention is to continue to negotiate in the weeks ahead. I am open to change, and welcome further discussion and analysis.

We all agree that gangs are a terrible and growing problem. We all agree that something needs to be done. I believe that this legislation is desperately needed, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take this bill and make it law.

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

Absolutely on all points.

No, it is not. The definition of a motion picture exhibition facility includes the concept that the exhibition has to be ``open to the public or is made to an assembled group of viewers outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances.'' This definition makes clear that someone recording from a television in his home does not meet that definition. It is important to emphasize that the clause ``open to the public'' applies specifically to the exhibition, not to the facility. An exhibition in a place open to the public that is itself not made to the public is not the subject of this bill.

Thus, for example, a university film lab may be ``open to the public.'' However, a student who is watching a film in that lab for his or her own study or research would not be engaging in an exhibition that is ``open to the public.'' Thus, if that student copied an excerpt from such an exhibition, he or she would not be subject to liability under the bill.

Of course not. The statute covers only a person who ``knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of a motion picture or other audiovisual work protected under Title 17, or any part thereof. . . .'' In other words, the defendant would have to be making, or attempting to make, a copy that is itself an audiovisual work, or make, or attempt to make, a transmission embodying an audiovisual work, as that term is defined in Section 101 of Title 17. As such, the Act would not reach the conduct of a person who uses a hearing aid, a still camera, or a picture phone to capture an image or mere sound from the movie.

This is a criminal provision under Title 18, not a copyright provision under Title 17. Accordingly, there is no fair use exception included. However, Federal prosecutors should use their discretion not to bring criminal prosecutions against activities within movie theaters that would constitute fair use under the copyright laws. The object of this legislation is to prevent the copying and distribution of motion pictures in a manner that causes serious commercial harm. This legislation is not intended to chill legitimate free speech.

Mr. President, I am going to be here numerous times this week. This legislation is too important to have it shortcut. There is not enough time in the debate to say it all at one time.

Last night, this body had the opportunity to vote on proceeding to changes to the liability crisis that exists in health care today, but the minority denied us the ability to move forward. They denied the ability of the American people to hear an honest debate, to consider thoughtful amendments, and then to judge up or down on the content of the legislation.

They had two opportunities: liability that was reform for all medical professionals; and, then, liability that was only changed for those who are OB/GYNs--that next generation of medical professionals who are going to deliver our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren, that profession that is going to regenerate the population of this country and, in fact, is suffering today because of the high rate of liability costs for the premiums they have to have.

Now we are here. We are in debate--30 hours of debate--to see if we can proceed on a bill to bring small business group health insurance reforms into law, to enable small businesses in America to be able to price insurance for their employees in the same way large corporations are able to produce products for their employees.

Today, small businesses' choice is between nothing and nothing. It is not something and something. It is nothing and nothing. And what will we do? We will debate, for 30 hours, whether we should proceed. Some don't believe this is important enough or, if it is important enough, that there ought to be all sorts of changes to it that are unrelated to these millions of Americans for whom their employer cannot afford to provide health care. Why? Because they are not big. The marketplace discriminates because they are small.

Let me give you some statistics about North Carolina. In North Carolina, 98 percent of firms with employees are small businesses. Ninety-eight percent of my employers are shut out of the ability to negotiate a reasonable cost of health care for their employees. Because of that, their employees have a choice between nothing and nothing.

We will have 30 hours of debate to see if we are going to proceed in this body to provide something versus nothing--not something and something. How can anybody object to providing a choice of something for those who do not have an option today?

Additionally, in North Carolina, we have 1.3 million uninsured individuals. And 898,000--almost 900,000--North Carolinians are uninsured individuals in families or on their own with one full-time worker. Those are all individuals who potentially could be covered under an individual or a family plan.

Of the 1.3 million who are uninsured in North Carolina, 900,000 could be affected with this one piece of legislation in the Senate. But for the next 30 hours, we will debate whether we proceed or never get to the process of an up-or-down vote; in other words, it is a choice as to whether we keep them with nothing and nothing and the uninsured numbers stay at 1.3 million or, in fact, we are going to provide something for North Carolina--900,000 people who today have nothing provided for them.

Later today, I am going to come to this floor, and I am going to read for my colleagues real letters, handwritten letters--handwritten letters--from people who live in North Carolina, whose choice is nothing and nothing. These are individuals who have the same health needs, individuals who would like to have health insurance but whose employers cannot afford it today, who want the opportunity in employer- based health care, but because of the way the system is designed today, it is not achievable because it is not affordable for them.

We are here today and tomorrow, and we ought to be here as long as it takes to make sure Americans at all levels have choices between something and something. These 30 hours will determine, in fact, whether this historic institution will provide that for the American people or we will walk away; whereby, once again, the American people will be denied because some in this body do not believe there is a responsibility to move to a point where there is an up-or-down vote. Truly, people can look and say: You have my future in your hands. My health security is in the hands of the Senate, the Members of the Senate, and whether they are going to, in fact, respond to that.

Well, I think people in North Carolina desperately want choice. I think they desperately want this bill. They want their employers to have the opportunity to be able to look at health insurance and to find it affordable. Why? Because that is their security. That is their ability to have coverage.

My hope today is that the outcome of this legislation will not be a quick death such as last night with medical liability reform. We all agree health care is too expensive. We disagree on what the solutions are. But to end up with nothing, to deny the ability to move forward, to deny the ability for the American people's voice to be heard through the amendment process on this floor is disgraceful.

My hope is after these 30 hours we will proceed, we will have a robust debate on the amendments, and, at the end of the day, the American people will have an opportunity for an up-or-down vote in the Senate.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the chairman has brought a carefully crafted piece of legislation to the Senate floor, one that took a tremendous amount of skill to negotiate and one that has incredible support--more support when the bill passed out of committee than it does today. Why? Because people now fear it might become law. People fear this might pass, and they never believed it would. What does it do? It brings additional competition to the marketplace, but more importantly, it brings health care coverage to Americans who have no coverage today.

Why are we here today, on Tuesday afternoon at almost 5 o'clock? Because the Senate is in a 30-hour debate about whether we are going to be willing or able to proceed. We are not even on the bill yet; we are in a procedural mode which requires us to have a vote to proceed to consider whether we are going to have a debate on this bill, S. 1955, a bill that changes the choices of the uninsured population in America.

The choices they have today are nothing and nothing. Under any scenario, you would have unanimous support to change that. But there are actually people who are against that up here, but not across the country. As a matter of fact, in this poll done by Public Opinion Strategies in March of this year, over 80 percent of the people polled overwhelmingly support small business health plans; in other words, they support this legislation--the effort to bring new choices of products that are affordable to small businesses, to employers, and, more importantly, to the employees they hire.

In North Carolina, we have 671,000 small businesses. Ninety-eight percent of firms with employees are small businesses in North Carolina. Don't let anybody come to the floor and tell you that this bill does not have an effect except on a select group of people. It may be a select group of people, but it is 98 percent of the employers of North Carolina. Women-owned small businesses have increased 24 percent in North Carolina since 1997, Hispanic-owned small businesses have increased 24 percent since the same date, Black-owned small businesses have increased 31 percent since 1997, and Asian-owned small businesses have increased 74 percent since 1997. These are companies which benefit from this legislation. These are companies which today can't afford the premium costs of health insurance; therefore, their employee base goes without. They are in that category of uninsured that so many people come and talk about on this floor, but they talk about uninsured without the solution as to how to cover them.

This is a population which in some cases today is on Medicaid. They work full-time. Their income level qualifies them for Medicaid. And what would be the incentive for them to get off of Medicaid? It would be if their employer has the option to offer them health care the way the majority of America is now provided health care: through their employer. But we are here in 30 hours of debate trying to decide whether we are going to allow Members to come to the floor and debate a bill and offer amendments which will allow us to switch from nothing and nothing to nothing and something, which will allow us to inject something, some ray of hope into the millions of Americans who don't have coverage today.

Let me read a few letters. I think it is always helpful to hear from people whom this affects, the human face behind the issues that sometimes we lose on this floor simply because we don't want to talk about names or pictures.

This is a woman from Sunbury, NC. She wrote me in mid-April of this year. I am just going to read some pieces. She says:

Support SBHP legislation, S. 1955. I feel that this is very

important because I haven't had health insurance in many

years, because my employer doesn't have access to affordable

insurance to offer us.

Some suggest on this Senate floor that is not the case, that everybody has the opportunity to have health insurance. ``I haven't had health insurance in many years.'' Why? ``Because my employer can't afford what is available.''

Another letter received in April of this year from a young lady in Elizabeth City, NC:

Please support Senate bill 1955, the Health Insurance

Marketplace Modernization and

Affordability Act. My employer cannot afford health insurance

for their employees. My husband works for Ford. They are

closing his plant soon. We will have no insurance unless my

employer offers it. I have premature twins. They were born 3

months early. It costs me $2,000 a month to feed them. That

does not include any doctor's appointments we have to go to.

I feel that this is a great bill.

What is America looking for? They are looking for hope. They are looking for us to produce a product out of this institution that actually fulfills their needs. I don't know how it can be any clearer.

It is not offered to me today, because my employer can't

afford the options that are in our marketplace.

What do we do? We create new options that are affordable. That is, in fact, what the chairman is trying to do with this bill.

Here is a third letter, also from Elizabeth City but a different business. It says:

Small businesses need help with insurance--

In big bold letters--

I am now paying $986 per month for my wife and myself. This

is for only 60 percent coverage and a $2,500 deductible. I

know people with group insurance who are paying $600 a month

for 80 percent coverage and a $250 deductible. Many of those

have dental insurance as well. My policy provides none.

Please vote for this bill. Allow small businesses to have

coverage equal to employers of other companies.

That is all we are doing. We are using the scale of what people who have a tremendous amount of employees can do, and that is they can go to insurance carriers and they can negotiate for products based upon the volume of their employees. But how does a small business owner do that when he has five or six or seven employees? Well, it is real simple. We allow them to band together. We allow them to band together into a common association, and we allow that association to then market their entire association based upon the volume.

Another letter that I received on April 6 says:

As a small business owner, it is important to enable some

economy of scale in allowing franchises to obtain more

affordable health care coverage.

The last one I am going to read is quite unique.

As a professional photographer, I have seen firsthand the

difficulty that my fellow professional photographers face

when attempting to purchase health insurance on their own. S.

1955 would allow photographers and other independent business

owners to band together across State lines and purchase

health insurance. Having this as an option and choice will

improve our access to quality health care and help control

costs through competition.

These letters are from people on the front lines. They are from employees whose employers can't offer coverage today because it is not affordable. They are from individuals who own businesses and would like to offer coverage to their employees. They are even from photographers, people whose lives are in their hands every day in a camera, but they cannot afford the individual costs of health insurance in today's marketplace.

In North Carolina, we have 1.3 million uninsured North Carolinians. Of that 1.3 million, almost 900,000 uninsured individuals are in families or are on their own where one person at least works full-time. With the passage of this bill, 900,000 of the 1.3 million uninsured in North Carolina could potentially be offered health insurance. We can narrow it down from 1.3 million to 400,000 individuals who are uninsured in North Carolina with the passage of one simple bill, or at least they would have the option to be able to purchase it for once. Ninety-one percent of workers in large firms of 1,000 employees or more have health insurance, yet 66 percent of workers in small businesses defined as 10 employees or fewer have health insurance. Well, if you remember the North Carolina numbers, I said 98 percent of firms with employees were small businesses. Think of the millions of Americans who are going to be touched by the passage of this one piece of legislation that provides them choice. Where today their choice is between nothing and nothing, tomorrow their choice is between nothing and something.

Why are we here? We are here for 30 hours of debate--not debate on the bill, not debate about the amendments, debate about whether we are going to move forward. We do that at a time when--I just went back and did a quick calculation on the back of my calendar--we have 76 legislative days left between now and adjournment. That is assuming we have productive days on Fridays and Mondays, and as the chairman knows, Fridays and Mondays are not always productive in the Halls of Congress. People are either slow to get here or quick to leave. If you take out Fridays and Mondays, we are down to 45 days. But we are going to spend 30 hours trying to decide whether we are going to move forward to debate this bill, and we will spend another 30 hours after we file cloture on the bill to get to a point where we can have an up-or-down vote, if, in fact, we get that far.

Last night, we voted on two medical liability bills--medical liability that covers the entire medical professional world--and last night, we were denied the ability to proceed and to debate the legislation, much less amend it. The second bill is legislation in which--and I think the American people would be shocked at this--we were denied the ability to move forward to debate or amend legislation that limited the liability to OB/GYNs in America, a specialty we are losing specialists out of every day, where every year people aren't continuing to practice. But we will spend 30 hours debating whether we proceed to debate not necessarily the merits of the bill--and my hope is that the chairman will be successful, and I will be beside him arguing every step of the way, because without this, these Americans don't have hope of a choice of anything other than nothing and nothing.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in the fall of 2003, I introduced S. 1932, the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2003, along with my friend from California, Senator Feinstein. As introduced, the ART Act was a modest but necessary first step to combat the rampant piracy plaguing the motion picture, recording and general content industries. The Bill focuses on the most egregious form of copyright piracy plaguing the entertainment industry today--the piracy of film, movies, and other copyrighted materials before copyright owners have had the opportunity to market fully their products.

Now, as part of a comprehensive package, ``the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005,'' it is even more significant. This package contains a number of targeted, important reforms that help strengthen our intellectual property laws. I rise to express my strong support for the bill and ask my colleagues to move it expeditiously.

Intellectual property laws and the American businesses that rely on them deserve our strongest support. Our Nation was founded on a number of important ideas. One central one was that the value created by the work and sweat of a person should be recognized as that person's property and should be protected. Protecting the creativity and capital that American innovators invest to make our lives richer is the right thing to do. Failure to do so not only would diminish the quality of our individual lives, but our country would suffer too. Intellectual property-related industries are a central driver of our Nation's economy and a staple of our international trade.

The copyright-based industries alone accounted for more than 5 percent of the U.S. GDP or $535,100,000,000 in 2001 and almost 6 percent of U.S. employment, and led all major industry sectors in foreign sales and exports in 2001, the last year for which we have figures.

As the Justice Department recently has pointed out:

Ideas and the people who generate them serve as critical

resources both in our daily lives and in the stability and

growth of America's economy. The creation of intellectual

property--from designs for new products to artistic

creations--unleashes our Nation's potential, brings ideas

from concept to commerce, and drives future economic and

productivity gains. In the increasingly knowledge-driven,

information age economy, intellectual property is the new

coin of the realm. . . . [Report of the DOJ Task Force on

Intellectual Property, p. 7.]

As the DOJ IP Task Force Report notes, America's economy relies more and more on ideas we create, not things we make. We need to protect our Nation's innovative and creative works with strong laws and enforcement of those laws because doing so is vital to our national economic security.

Having noted and quoted the DOJ Report, I want to pause to thank the Justice Department and outgoing Attorney General John Ashcroft for taking these issues seriously and for taking significant steps to address them. The formation of the Intellectual Property Task Force spotlighted these issues at the Justice Department and the work of the Task Force, headed by David Israelite did a superb job in developing comprehensive and serious steps better protecting our intellectual property interests. The DOJ engaged in serious domestic and international investigations and prosecutions against digital thieves who have misused promising digital technology like the Internet to further their attacks on American businesses. General Ashcroft and the Justice Department, who deserve our gratitude for so many reasons, certainly deserve it for their efforts on this area.

Having provided that foundation, let me discuss briefly some of the important provisions contained in this legislative package.

We have purposefully compiled a package of legislation that strikes a balance between innovation and copyright protection. One needn't be sacrificed to encourage the other--rather they go hand-in-hand.

First, I would mention the Cornyn-Feinstein ``Artist's Rights and Theft Prevention Act'' or the ART Act. Notably, it contains a provision making it a felony to record a movie in a theater. One of the principal ways that movie piracy happens is by thieves sitting in a movie theater, or bribing a projectionist to help them, and recording movies with small camcorders. These camcorded copies can then make their way around the world on the internet and usually land on the streets of cities around the world in pirated copies sold on the street, often the day the movie opens in the U.S. or even before the movie opens in many countries.

All it takes is a single or a small handful of camcorded copies distributed worldwide to have a devastating effect on a movie's profitability. Movies are generally an investment of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars that rely on box office and home video and other subsequent sales to recoup this investment. A camcorded copy released early in any of these cycles can undermine the economics of this business, and especially if they hit the streets or the internet while the movie is still in theaters. This is theft, and it is theft that supports organized crime groups, and perhaps, even terrorism. It deserves to be stopped by the specter of a federal felony.

Its second key provision focuses on so-called ``pre-released'' works. Because serious harm can be done to both the reputation of and market for creative products if they are pirated before they actually come to market, we have included reforms in the ART Act and this package that make it easier for the Justice Department to prosecute those who steal and distribute copies of copyrighted works on the internet before they are released to the public by their owners or authorized distributors. We make the prosecutor's job easier by allowing certain presumptions with regard to the harm caused, including the dollar amount and number of copies, necessary to allow the prosecutor to bring a felony action where the works in question are being prepared for commercial release but have not been released to the public legitimately. This is fair because no one can legitimately believe that they are within their rights copying and distributing works that are not yet available in the marketplace. Again this is a common sense concept, which deserves the support of the Congress.

Also, I would mention the Family Movie Act--another important component of this package. This provision allows the use of certain, specified technology to skip or mute content that may be objectionable to certain viewers when watching a movie at home, so long as no fixed copy of the edited work is made.

Very few would argue that many of the movies produced today contain significant amounts of gratuitous sex, violence, foul language or other potentially objectionable content. A number of innovative companies have stepped forward to solve this problem by providing filters that tag such scenes and allows consumers to tailor their viewing experience.

This legislation is designed to solve an on-going controversy surrounding the use of such technology. Specifically, there is litigation pending over the issue of whether providing edited versions of movies to consumers creates a ``derivative work'' that violates the rights of those who created or own the copyrights and trademarks for the original movies. The existence of this controversy arguably is hampering the development of the technology that families may find helpful in protecting children from potentially objectionable content.

Let me make clear that this bill is not designed to deal with ad- skipping by consumers in the home. I know that there has been some misinformation about this by groups who apparently oppose copyright protections generally, but this bill has nothing to do with anything other than using a certain kind of technology to modify the viewing experience of a movie to skip over objectionable content.

Finally, the two remaining provisions--though relatively small--are not insignificant. The Film Preservation Act, legislation that I recognize is particularly important to Senator Leahy, and I thank him for his efforts in promoting it, will reauthorize a Library of Congress Program dedicated to saving rare and significant films. Additionally, we make a small but necessary change to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. Correction of this error will allow libraries to create copies of certain copyrighted works, such as films and musical compositions that are in the last 20 years of their copyright term, are no longer commercially exploited, and are not available at a reasonable price.

Before I relinquish my time, I do want to thank a number of people who have worked tirelessly on behalf of this bill. Allow me to thank David Jones and Tom Sydnor of the staff of Chairman Orrin Hatch, who is not only our previous Judiciary Committee Chairman, but a leader on copyright and intellectual property issues; Susan Davies and Dan Fine of Senator Leahy's staff, who also has long been a leader on intellectual property issues; and finally, David Hantman of Senator Feinstein's staff, a Senator with whom I am happy to have teamed to introduce the ART Act in the last Congress.

Having begun with the staff, who rarely get mentioned as much as they deserve for the great work they do, let me also thank the Senators they work for: Senators Hatch, Leahy, and Feinstein for their co- sponsorship, as well as the Majority Leader, who has taken a personal interest in this legislation and worked to make it happen.

Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a quick question?

As the chairman knows, he and I and our other cosponsors have worked throughout last Congress on the provisions of the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 that we have introduced today. With respect to the Family Movie Act portion of the bill, I just wanted to raise the point that there had been some concern over the potential effect of the FMA on future cases involving ``ad skipping'' technologies and ask if you would have any objection to including in the record the relevant portion of the floor discussion on that issue from last Congress?

Section 102 addresses a serious piracy issue facing the movie business: the use of camcorders in a motion picture theater. Sad to say, there are people who go to the movie theater, generally during pre-opening ``screenings'' or during the first weekend of theatrical release, and using sophisticated digital equipment, record the movie. They're not trying to save $8.00 so they can see the movie again. Instead, they sell the camcorded version to a local production factory or to an overseas producer, where it is converted into DVDs or similar products and sold on the street for a few dollars per copy. This misuse of camcorders is a significant factor in the estimated $3.5 billion per year of losses the movie industry suffers because of hard goods piracy. Even worse, these camcorded versions are posted on the Internet through ``P2P'' networks such as KaZaA, Grokster and Morpheus--and made available for millions to download. The goal of our bill is to provide a potent weapon in the arsenal of prosecutors to stem the piracy of commercially valuable motion pictures at its source.

Absolutely not. The offense is only applicable to transmitting or copying a movie in a motion picture exhibition facility, which has to be a movie theater or similar venue ``that is being used primarily for the exhibition of a copyrighted motion picture.'' In the example of Best Buy--the store is being used primarily to sell electronic equipment, not to exhibit motion pictures. For the same reason, the statute would not cover a university student who records a short segment of a film being shown in film class, as the venue is being used primarily as a classroom, and not as a movie theater.

Yes, on all points.

Mr. President, would the chairman yield for a question?

As the chairman knows, he and I and our other co-sponsors have worked throughout this Congress on the provisions of the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2004 that we have introduced today. I just want to confirm what I believe to be our mutual understanding about the effect of certain provisions of the Family Movie Act. Title II of the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2004 that we introduced today modifies slightly the Family Movie Act provisions of H.R. 4077 as passed by the House of Representatives. That bill created a new exemption in section 110(11) of the Copyright Act for skipping and muting audio and video content in motion pictures during performances that take place in the course of a private viewing in a household from an authorized copy of the motion picture. The House- passed version specifically excluded from the scope of the new copyright exemption computer programs or technologies that make changes, deletions, or additions to commercial advertisements or to network or station promotional announcements that would otherwise be displayed before, during, or after the performance of the motion picture.

My understanding is that this provision reflected a ``belt and suspenders'' approach that was adopted to quiet the concerns of some Members in the House who were concerned that a court might misread the statute to apply to ``ad-skipping'' cases. Some Senators, however, expressed concern that the inclusion of such explicit language could create unwanted inferences as to the ``ad-skipping'' issues at the heart of the recent litigation. Those issues remain unsettled, and it was never the intent of this legislation to resolve or affect those issues. In the meantime, the Copyright Office has confirmed that such a provision is unnecessary to achieve the intent of the bill, which is to avoid application of this new exemption in potential future cases involving ``ad-skipping'' devices; therefore, the Senate amendment we offer removes the unnecessary exclusionary language.

Would the chairman confirm for the Senators present his understanding of the intent and effect, or perhaps stated more appropriately, the lack of any effect, of the Senate amendment on the scope of this bill?

I thank the chairman. I am pleased that we share a common understanding. If the chairman would yield for one more question about the Family Movie Act?

This bill also differs from the House-passed version because it adds two ``savings clauses.'' As I understand it, the ``copyright'' savings clause makes clear that there should be no ``spillover effect'' from the passage of this law: that is, nothing shall be construed to have any effect on rights, defenses, or limitations on rights granted under title 17, other than those explicitly provided for in the new section 110(11) exemption. The second, relating to trademark, clarifies that no inference can be drawn that a person or company who fails to qualify for the exemption from trademark infringement found in this provision is therefore liable for trademark infringement. Is that the chairman's understanding as well?

Mr. President, I rise to address some issues my colleagues have raised. I am appreciative of the debate and the chance to talk about health care. It is a critically important topic. It is one that we have to talk a lot more about, how we can provide as much health care as possible to everybody at the lowest price that we

can get it and get more people insured. That is at the root of what we are trying to get done with the proposal of Senator Enzi and others to get more health insurance, better coverage to more people across the United States. That is a worthy goal, something we need to do. We have far too many people uninsured. We need more people insured. That is central to us. It is central to the hospital and the provider community that we have people who are insured. Because of those who are not insured and then can't pay the price of their health care, that is spread across to other people, which is what we do today. That is what we need to do, but it would be better if we could get more people insured and have a direct system of payment.

Others have said that what we need to be talking about is different than this, rather than expanding health insurance coverage. I respect that. Some of my colleagues have raised the stem cell issue. I want to address the concerns my colleagues have raised on stem cells. I want to report to my colleagues what a tremendous positive story we have to tell about stem cells, an exciting story of people receiving treatments, living longer and healthier lives because of stem cell treatments. These are not the controversial ones. This does not involve the destruction of a young human in the embryonic stage. This involves the use of adult stem cells, which the Presiding Officer and others, everybody in this room has in their body, adult stem cells. It also involves cord blood stem cells. These are the stem cells that are in the umbilical cord between the mother and child, while the mother is carrying the child.

I want to show two charts to start off. I think it is best if we make this a personal debate. I challenge my colleagues who have challenged me about this topic to come forward with pictures of individuals who are being treated with embryonic stem cells. I would like to see the people who are being treated with embryonic stem cells. We have put nearly half a billion dollars of research money into embryonic stem cell research. We have known about embryonic stem cells for 20 years. I don't know of the people being treated by embryonic stem cells.

I can show people who are being treated with adult stem cells or cord blood. This is Erik Haines. He is 13 years old. He was diagnosed with Krabbes disease, the first patient to receive cord blood for this rare, inherited metabolic disease. The date of transplant was 1994. He is alive today. He would be dead without this having taken place.

Let me show you a picture of Keone Penn. I had him in to testify before a Commerce Committee hearing a couple years ago. He has sickle cell anemia. The date of transplant was December 11, 1998. He had been very sick. He wasn't expected to live. As a matter of fact, it says in a statement that he made: If it wasn't for cord blood, I would probably be dead by now. It is a good thing I found a match. It saved my life.

We have now many more people being treated for sickle cell, a whole host of diseases. As a matter of fact, I want to read off a few of these. These are human clinical trials, real people getting real treatments, living longer lives, if not being cured, by the use of adult stem cells and cord blood stem cells in 69 different disease areas.

My colleagues have heard this debate for a period of years. We have been debating stem cells for a number of years. We have been debating the controversial area of embryonic stem cells, which the Federal Government funds, which State governments fund, which private industry and the private sector is fully free to fund completely, every bit of the way that they want to do that. They can. They have been. And we have no human treatments from embryonic stem cells to date. We don't have any. They are funded globally. There is no prohibition against embryonic stem cell research in the United States.

My colleagues seek more than the nearly $500 billion that we have put into embryonic stem cell research, an area that has not produced any human treatments to date. I want to be clear that that is what we are talking about. When we started this debate, my colleagues pushing embryonic stem cells, who in their hearts absolutely believe they are doing the right thing and this will lead to cures, listed cancer, sickle cell anemia, Lou Gehrig's disease. We are going to deal with all of these things. With the promise of embryonic stem cells, we will cure these things. That is what they said on their side when we started this debate 6 years ago. Six years later--I could be off a year or 2--where are the cures? I say we have them. They are in adult and cord blood stem cells.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record at the end of my statement a sheet of human clinical applications using adult stem cells.

I want to read a few of the 69 from this document: Sickle cell anemia, aplastic anemia, chronic Epstein-Barr infection, lupus, Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile arthritis, multiple sclerosis, brain tumors, different cancers, lymphoma, non- Hodgkins lymphoma, a number of solid tumors, cardiovascular. This is an exciting area that is taking place where we now have people with acute heart damage, chronic coronary artery disease being treated with adult stem cells. Primarily, this has been an adult stem cell treatment where they harvest stem cells out of their own body and inject them right back into the damaged heart tissue.

Now we are seeing people who couldn't walk up a flight of steps going up eight flights, having hard tissue being regenerated with the use of their own adult stem cells. There is no rejection problem. This is their own cells. They take these adult stem cells from your body, which are repair cells, grow them outside of the body, put them back into the damaged heart tissue area, and now instead of congestive heart failure, without any ability to get enough blood throughout the body, the heart is pumping harder and better. It is actually working. They are regenerating the heart in these people. This is actually taking place in human clinical trials today. It is a beautiful issue.

The list goes on: chronic liver failure, Parkinson's disease. I had a gentleman in to testify who had taken stem cells out of a part of his body, grew them, put them in the left part of the brain. The right side of the body started functioning without Parkinson's disease. Later it came back, after several years, but he had several years free and was starting to learn how better this can work with Parkinson's disease.

Again, continuing from the list: spinal cord injury, stroke damage, limb gangrene, skull bone repair. We have recently had advances. For example, they took the stem cells out of a person's body. They had a form around which the bladder could be grown, outside a new bladder could be grown. They took the stem cells, put them around this form, and actually grew a bladder out of a person's own stem cells. These are marvelous, miraculous things that are taking place in 69 different areas of human clinical trials, adult and cord blood. I ask my colleagues from the other side, the ones who promised all of the cures from embryonic stem cells, as this debate moves forward, we will bring out statements that people made 5, 6 years ago about the cures that would come from embryonic stem cells. The cures have come from these noncontroversial areas. This is where we ought to be funding. This is what we ought to be doing. This is where we are getting treatments.

I ask my colleagues from the other side, where are the treatments with embryonic stem cells? Colleagues on the other side, for whom I have great respect and I know in their hearts are doing what they believe is the right thing to do, asked about reputable scientists opposed to embryonic stem cells. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record this letter at the conclusion of my statement.

It is dated October 27, 2004. It is to Senator John F. Kerry, running for President at the time, signed by 57 scientists who have a real problem with embryonic stem cell research.

They say in this letter:

As professionals trained in the life sciences we are

alarmed at these statements.

They are referring to what Senator Kerry was saying, that this would be a

centerpiece issue for him in moving forward with science. This is in 2004.

First, your statement misrepresents science. In itself,

science is not a policy or a political program.

Second, it is no mere ``ideology'' to be concerned about

the possible misuse of humans in scientific research.

Here we come to the real rub of the issue on embryonic stem cell research. Is the embryo human life or isn't it? It is one or the other. It is either a human life or it isn't. It is alive. It is human in its genetic form. Is it a human life or not? If it is not a human life, do with it as you choose. If it is a human life, it deserves protection and respect. We do it for everybody in this room, no matter what your State is, your physical condition. Why wouldn't we do it while you are in the womb?

I have a letter signed by 57 scientists with a real problem with embryonic stem cell research. My colleague asked me to produce scientists who are opposed to embryonic stem cell research. Here they are.

I finally say to my colleagues on this topic, the promises they have made about embryonic stem cell research have not been realized to date, and reputable scientists question whether they will ever be realized. We are half a billion dollars later after investment from the Federal Government on embryonic stem cell research, animal and human. Now you are seeing--this is just the Federal Government, not about the private sector or other governments around the world. I will read to you what other scientists who support embryonic stem cell research are saying about the prospects of embryonic stem cell research. A British stem cell research expert, named Winston, warned colleagues that the political hype in support of human embryonic stem cells needs to be reined in. This is dated June 20, 2005, where he says this:

One of the problems is that in order to persuade the public

that we must do this work, we often go rather too far in

promising what we might achieve. This is a real issue for the

scientists. I am not entirely convinced that embryonic stem

cells will, in my lifetime, and possibly anybody's lifetime,

for that matter, be holding quite the promise that we

desperately hope they will.

Let's look at another researcher talking in this field. I want to get testimony in here from Jamie Thompson, the first scientist to grow human embryonic stem cells. This is the question posed to him:

People who use nuclear transfer generally say that the

technique is optimized for producing stem cells rather than

making babies. They would not want to equate this with the

process that produces embryos that were fit for implantation,

and they argue that they are used in the reproductive process

differently.

I am talking about the use of embryonic stem cell research in a cloning procedure, where you create a clone, take the embryonic stem cells from the clone.

This is what Professor Thompson says:

So you are trying to define it away and it doesn't work. If

you create an embryo by nuclear transfer and you give it to

somebody, you didn't know where it came from, there would be

no test you could do on that embryo to say where it came

from. It is what it is. It is an embryo. It is a young human

life. It's true that they have much lower probability of

giving rise to a child, but by any reasonable definition, at

least at some frequency, you are creating an embryo. If you

are trying to define it away, you are being disingenuous.

My colleagues started to raise the issue that if you create an embryo by process of cloning, it is not really a young human life. But if you create an embryo that is a sheep, like Dolly, and grow it up to be Dolly the sheep, is Dolly not a sheep? Would that be the contention? That is simply not the case when they are creating a cloned individual or cloned human being, and that goes into the next step in this debate, to discuss human cloning. The other side calls it somatic nuclear cell transfer--the same process that created Dolly.

My point is that that is the next step on this continuum. We are talking about embryonic stem cell research funding and the lack of production taking place there for human treatment. The next step is that we need to clone and then we need to clone the individual and not harvest it in a day or two, but we need to grow the fetus out several weeks so we have sort of fetal farming, which is a ghastly thing to even consider. Yet it is being talked about in some research circles.

I conclude with the statement that if we want to be successful in this area and treat people, which I believe is the measure that we should go by--the treatment of individuals--our best bet, if my colleagues want human treatments to take place, they want to cure people, if that is what their effort is, let's fund what is working, which is adult cord blood. Let's move off of this politicized debate which is about the definition of young human life. Let's move off this debate and do something that is curing people. And we can.

That is the way we ought to go in this debate. We ought to also pass the Enzi proposal that gets more people health insurance, which is where we should focus this debate now because that is what we are talking about, rather than a politicized issue of embryonic stem cell research, which has not worked and is not working.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Adult & Non-Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Advances & Updates for April 2006

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce the National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area Act.

The story behind and about the Mormon pioneers' 1,400-mile trek from Illinois to the Great Salt Lake Valley is one of the most compelling and captivating in our Nation's history. This legislation would designate as a National Heritage Area an area that spans some 250 miles along Highway 89 and encompasses outstanding examples of historical, cultural, and natural resources that demonstrate the colonization of the western United States, and the experience and influence of the Mormon pioneers in furthering that colonization.

The landscape, architecture, artisan skills, and events along Highway 89

convey in a very real way the legacy of the Mormon pioneers' achievements. The community of Panquitch for example, has an annual Quilt Day celebration to commemorate the sacrifice and fortitude of its pioneers whose efforts saved the community from starvation in 1864. The celebration is in remembrance of the Quilt Walk, a walk in which a group of men from Panquitch used quilts to form a path that would bear their weight across the snow. This quilt walk enabled these men to cross over the mountains to procure food for their community, which was facing starvation as it experienced its first winter in Utah.

Another example of the tenacity of pioneers can be seen today at the Hole-in-the-Rock. Here, in 1880, a group of 250 people, 80 wagons, and 1,000 head of cattle upon the Colorado River Gorge. Finding no pathways down to the river, the pioneers decided to use a narrow crevice leading down to the bottom of the gorge. To make the crevice big enough to accommodate wagons, the pioneers spent 6 weeks enlarging the crevice by hand, using hammers, chisels, and blasting powder. They then attached large ropes to the wagons as they began their descent down the steep incline. It is because of such tenacity and innovation on the part of pioneers that the western United States was shaped the way it was and much of that has contributed to the way of life and landscape still found in the West today.

The National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area will serve as a special recognition of the people and places that have contributed greatly to our Nation's development. It will allow for the conservation of historical and cultural resources, the establishment of interpretive exhibits, will increase public awareness of the surviving skills and crafts of those living along Highway 89, and specifically allows for the preservation of historic buildings. In light of the benefits associated with preserving the rich heritage of the founding of many of the communities along Highway 89, my legislation has broad support from Sanpete, Sevier, Piute, Garfield, and Kane counties and is a locally based, locally supported undertaking.

Since the introduction of this legislation in the 108th Congress, I am pleased that the local counties, who have been unanimously supportive of this legislation, have come together to outline in a Memorandum of Understanding, with the local coordinating entity identified in the legislation, the cooperative relationship the coordinating entity enjoys with the elected officials of the local counties.

This legislation passed the Senate both in the 107th and 108th Congresses as part of packages agreed upon by the committee of jurisdiction. Unfortunately, both times the packages were not able to be considered by the other body prior to adjournment. I reintroduce this bill today with the hope that during this session of Congress we might achieve success in this body early enough to be considered by the House.

Mr. President, today I am re-introducing a bill which is intended to bring to a close the Federal acquisition of an important piece of privately held land, located within the federally designated desert tortoise reserve in Washington County, UT.

As some of my colleagues are aware, this is not the first time legislation has been introduced in an attempt to resolve this issue. Most recently, on December 7, 2004, at the conclusion of the 108th Congress, the Senate passed by unanimous consent an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 620, which adopted as title XVI agreed upon provisions of S. 1209. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives adjourned sine die before it had time to act upon H.R. 620. The legislation I am introducing today is virtually the same as the language earlier adopted by the Senate, except for a technical clarification regarding management of the acquired lands.

I want to personally express my appreciation to Chairman Domenici and his staff for their leadership and assistance on this issue. I would also like to thank the ranking minority member, Mr. Bingaman, the Department of the Interior, and their respective staffs, for their assistance and support of this measure.

Earlier in July of 2000, I introduced S. 2873, which was referred to and reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. In addition, similar legislation was twice approved by the House of Representatives, both in the 106th and 107th Congresses. For over a decade, the private property addressed by this bill has been under Federal control and the Federal Government has enjoyed the benefits of the private property without fulfilling its constitutional obligation to compensate the landowner. The government's failure to timely acquire the landowner's private property has forced the landowner into bankruptcy. It is my hope that the time has come to finally resolve this issue.

In March of 1991, the desert tortoise was listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. Government and environmental researchers determined that the land immediately north of St. George, UT, was prime desert tortoise habitat. Consequently, in February 1996, nearly 5 years after the listing, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS, issued Washington County a Section 10 permit under the Endangered Species Act which paved the way for the adoption of a habitat conservation plan, HCP, and an implementation agreement. Under the Plan and Agreement, the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, committed to acquire all private lands in the designated habitat area for the formation of the Red Cliffs Reserve for the protection of the desert tortoise.

One of the private land owners within the reserve is Environmental Land Technology, Ltd., ELT, which began acquiring lands from the State of Utah in 1981 for residential and recreational development several years prior to the listing of the species. Moreover, in the years preceding the listing of the desert tortoise and the adoption of the habitat conservation plan, ELT completed appraisals, cost estimates, engineering studies, site plans, surveys, utility layouts, and right- of-way negotiations. ELT staked out golf courses, and obtained water rights for the development of this land. Prior to the adoption of the HCP, it was not clear which lands the Federal and local governments would set aside for the desert tortoise, although it was assumed that there were sufficient surrounding Federal lands to provide adequate habitat. However, when the HCP was adopted in 1996, the decision was made to include ELT's lands within the boundaries of the reserve primarily because of the high concentrations of tortoises. The tortoises on ELT land also appeared to be one of, if not the only population without an upper respiratory disease that afflicted all of the other populations. As a consequence of the inclusion of the ELT lands, ELT's development efforts were halted.

With assurances from the Federal Government that the acquisition of the ELT development lands was a high priority, the owner negotiated with, and entered into, an assembled land exchange agreement with the BLM in anticipation of intrastate land exchanges. The private land owner then began a costly process of identifying comparable Federal lands within the State that would be suitable for an exchange for his lands in Washington County. Over the last 7 years, BLM and the private land owners, including ELT, have completed several exchanges, and the Federal Government has acquired, through those exchanges or direct purchases, nearly all of the private property located within the reserve, except for approximately 1,516 acres of the ELT development land. However, with the unforeseen creation of the Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monument in September 1996, and the subsequent land exchanges between the State of Utah and the Federal Government to consolidate Federal lands within that monument, there are no longer sufficient comparable Federal lands within Utah to complete the originally contemplated intrastate exchanges for the remainder of the ELT land.

Faced with this problem, and in light of the high priority the Department of the Interior has placed on acquiring

these lands, BLM officials recommended that the ELT lands be acquired by direct purchase. During the FY 2000 budget process, BLM proposed that $30 million be set aside to begin acquiring the remaining lands in Washington County. Unfortunately, because this project involves endangered species habitat and the USFWS is responsible for administering activities under the Endangered Species Act, the Office of Management and Budget shifted the $30 million from the BLM budget request to the USFWS's Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund budget request. Ultimately, however, none of those funds was made available for BLM acquisitions within the Federal section of the reserve. Instead, the funds in that account were made available on a matching basis for the use of individual States to acquire wildlife habitat. The result of this bureaucratic fumbling has resulted in extreme financial hardship for ELT.

The lands within the Red Cliffs Reserve are ELT's only asset. The establishment of the Washington County HCP has effectively taken this property and prevented ELT from developing or otherwise disposing of the property. ELT has been brought to the brink of financial ruin as it has exhausted its resources in an effort to hold the property while awaiting the compensation to which it is entitled. ELT has had to sell its remaining assets, and the private land owner has also had to sell his personal assets, including his home, to simply hold the property. This has become a financial crisis for the landowner. It is simply wrong for the Federal Government to expect the landowner to continue to bear the cost of the government's efforts to provide habitat for an endangered species. That is the responsibility of the Federal Government. Moreover, while the landowner is bearing these costs, he continues to pay taxes on the property. This situation is made more egregious by the failure of the Department of the Interior to request any acquisition funding for FY 2004 or FY 2005, even though this acquisition has been designated a high priority by the agency. Over the past several years, ELT has pursued all possible avenues to complete the acquisition of these lands. The private land owner has spent millions of dollars pursuing both intrastate and interstate land exchanges and has worked cooperatively with the Department of the Interior. Unfortunately, all of these efforts have thus far been fruitless.

The bill that I am introducing today will finally bring this acquisition to a close. In my view, a legislative taking should be an action of last resort. But, if ever a case warranted legislative condemnation, this is it. This bill will transfer to the Federal Government all right, title, and interest in the ELT development property within the Red Cliffs Reserve, including an additional 34 acres of landlocked real property owned by ELT adjacent to the land within the reserve. Subject to existing law, the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions and the Uniform Standards and Practices for Appraisal Professionals, USPAP, a United States Court of competent jurisdiction shall determine the value for the land.

The bill includes language to allow, as part of the legislative taking, for the landowner to recover reasonable costs, interest, and damages, if any, as determined by the court. It is important to understand that, while Federal acquisitions should be completed on the basis of fair market value, when the Federal Government makes the commitment to acquire private land, the landowner should not have to be driven into financial ruin while waiting upon the Federal Government to discharge its obligation. While the Federal Government has never disputed its obligation to acquire the property, it has had the benefit of the private land for all these years without having to pay for it. The private landowner should not have to bear the costs of this Federal foot-dragging.

This legislation is consistent with the high priority the Department of the Interior has repeatedly placed on this land acquisition, and is a necessary final step towards an equitable resolution. The time for pursuing other options has long since expired and it is unfortunate that it requires legislative action. Without commenting on the Endangered Species Act itself, it would seem that if it is the government's objective to provide habitat for the benefit of an endangered species, then the government ought to bear the costs, rather than forcing them upon the landowner. It is also time to address this issue so that the Federal agencies may be single-minded in their efforts to recover the desert tortoise which remains the aim of the creation of the reserve. This legislation simply codifies the status quo by enabling the private land owner to obtain the compensation to which he is constitutionally entitled. It is time to right this wrong and get on with the efforts to recover the species and I encourage my colleagues to again support the immediate enactment of this important legislation.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Cape Wind Facility in Nantucket Sound

Mr. President, I am here to discuss the provision in the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006 and the provision which allows the State of Massachusetts to have a say in the siting of a 24-square- mile, 130-wind turbine energy facility.

I have a chart I want to use and describe.

First, let me say why the Senator from Alaska is involved in this issue. What I am trying to say is that this is a tremendous precedent.

We have a series of areas of various States where there is a gap in State jurisdiction and where Federal waters are adjacent to and sometimes almost surrounding State waters. That is particularly true in my State. With the Cook Inlet on either side of Kalgin Island, there are gaps of Federal waters surrounded by the mainland of Alaska going down the inlet.

The Minerals Management Service tells us there are roughly 2.5 million acres of Federal waters going down that inlet that could be used for projects such as I am going to discuss today.

A similar situation exists with Chandeleur Island, LA; the Channel Islands in California; the Farallon Islands in California; the Hawaiian Islands in many instances; and in Puerto Rico.

What I am here to talk about is the precedent that would be established by locating this facility in Nantucket Sound, less than 2 miles beyond the State of Massachusetts' jurisdiction.

If we look at this chart, you can see very clearly the area with the darkest color on the chart, which is the proposed site of this power facility. It is 9 miles from one part of Massachusetts, 13.8 miles from the other side, and 6 miles from the other direction.

When you look at the situation, we realize the State has jurisdiction over at least 3 miles in that area.

This is very close to the area of Massachusetts where people have a right to be concerned over this project. Before the Federal Government claimed ownership of this area, there was a judicial dispute over which government had jurisdiction over it. I am informed that the State of Massachusetts had established a marine park in this area. As a matter of fact, it was listed as part of a proposed marine sanctuary, even in the Federal listings. It is now the proposed site for the largest and most expansive offshore wind energy project ever undertaken in the world.

This facility would include turbines that stand 417 feet tall.

This is a chart that describes it. Those windmills would be 417 feet tall, taller than the Statue of Liberty. The one little point at the bottom shows a 30-foot sailboat. You can see the size of it. People sail their boats that size on Nantucket Bay, and the Great Point Lighthouse is supposed to keep sailors and mariners warned about the area. It is only 73 feet tall.

When you look this area, it is 24 miles across, more than half the size of Boston Harbor itself. It is going to be the site of this enormous facility.

As I said, it is larger than any similar kind of wind energy project in the world.

It is a very small area of Federal jurisdiction, completely surrounded by the mainland and islands of Massachusetts.

Some in the media have insinuated that by including this provision in the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act, I am doing it as an old friend to Senator Ted Kennedy. He is an old friend. It is true that Senator Kennedy and the Governor of Massachusetts support the provision in the Coast Guard bill, but this is my amendment. They have agreed with me. I didn't seek their agreement. It is not an issue based on friendship or on past favors or future favors. It is strictly a provision based upon my long-held belief that States should have the final say on projects which will directly impact their lands, resources, and constituents.

Some in the press have claimed this provision is embedded in ``obscure legislation to be passed in the dead of the night.'' We hear this all the time. But the Coast Guard authorization bill is hardly obscure legislation, and there is nothing secretive about this bill.

The version of this bill that passed the House of Representatives included a provision related to offshore wind farms. It was in the House-passed bill to start with. The House and the Senate, in a bicameral, bipartisan group of Members of a conference committee, discussed and negotiated language to provide the State of Massachusetts a greater voice in the siting of this windmill farm in Nantucket Sound.

This bicameral, bipartisan group also negotiated language requiring the Coast Guard to assess the potential navigational impacts of the proposed offshore powerplant.

This is the normal legislative process for passing legislation of this type through the Congress.

Again, let me point out this chart. I don't live in this area, but I have studied it very well. This is the path the ferries take coming out of these areas and going through this sound, and it is the path which the commercial traffic, steamships, and cargo ships use going into that port.

As a consequence of this location, this line demonstrates the State's jurisdiction and how close it is to the State's jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, the area that is has been lined shows the previous plan which would have gone partially into the State's jurisdiction. The project was amended, so it does not touch the State waters or State jurisdiction areas at all.

It is this area of solid brown on this chart.

By the way, this is the very shallow portion of this area. There is no question about it. Nantucket Island is out here. But there are equally shallow portions outside of the sound that could have been used. But, of course, it is deeper going in there, and that access to this interior part of this sound I think is strictly a financial decision.

At the heart of the debate on the issue is States' rights. The fact is this project will be located entirely in the sound--in this small doughnut hole of the Federal water surrounded by islands and mainland of the State of Massachusetts.

The debate over this project is similar to the fights those of us in Alaska have been engaged in for decades. Our State lands are surrounded by Federal lands, and we often don't have any decision regarding the development of our resources or projects which will be located in our State.

This is one of those situations where Congress ought to listen to the Governor. They ought to listen to the senior Senator, in my opinion.

Those in Massachusetts have raised legitimate concerns about the impact of this wind farm and what its impact will be on maritime navigation, aviation, and radar installations critical to our homeland security.

This proposed site is an area already known for its treacherous flight conditions, and this facility could make those conditions much worse. According to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, this facility will be located in the flight path of thousands

of small planes. Both the Barnstable and Nantucket Airport Commissions are opposed to the construction of this facility, as are the major ferry lines that operate in Nantucket Sound.

As the chart I have described shows, ferry routes pass within a mile of the proposed location for this project on two sides. The 24-square- mile footprint for this facility is nearly half the size of Boston Harbor, a 471-foot wind farm.

Again, those windmills are larger than this building. Those windmills are larger than the Capitol.

You have to get the specter of this size being built in the center of this sound. It is a 24-square-mile footprint for this facility. As I have said, it is half the size of Boston Harbor and has shipping and ferry channels bordering on three sides.

There is not a single local fishing group from Massachusetts that supports this project, I am informed. It would effectively close a 24- mile-square-mile footprint of many kinds of fishing that has taken place in this sound for generations. Horseshoe Shoal, where the facility will be built, is one of the most productive fishing grounds in the area. That means this area produces offspring. This is where the fish spawn.

The impact of the shoal will be significant. The piling for each one of these windmills--there are 130 of them--are 16 feet in diameter and will be bored down into the shoal to a depth of about 80 feet. This productive area will be littered with 130 drilled holes. Each piling will occupy 2 acres of productive fishing ground. Navigating in and around 130 turbines will make fishing and fishing reproduction in this area nearly impossible.

In addition, these turbines will make Coast Guard search and rescue missions much more difficult in this area, already known for severe weather and sea conditions in parts of the year.

Those in Massachusetts raise another important point. Developing a wind farm of this size and scale offshore has never been done before, let alone in an environment as extreme as the waters of the North Atlantic.

To put this challenge in perspective, it helps to compare the Massachusetts project to the wind farm currently operating in Palm Springs, CA. I know a little bit about this. I have gone into that town several times by air. That facility stands 150 feet at the tallest point. The blades are half the length of a football field, but they are one-third of this size. Even on dry land and a relatively calm desert climate, the Palm Springs wind farm has been plagued by serious maintenance complications. Many of the turbines require constant maintenance and repair.

Put that in the Massachusetts Sound. They require maintenance and repair constantly. This Massachusetts project would require maintenance and repair to take place in icy waters of Nantucket Sound. The size of the windmills for this facility would dwarf the existing land-based wind projects. The windmills in Nantucket Sound would stand nearly three times as tall as those in Palm Springs, with wind blades over a football field in length. Just the blade is a football field in length.

Now, given the legitimate issues raised by the people of Massachusetts and their representative, I believe it is only fair to allow the State to have an equal voice in the debate over the siting of this project. Nantucket Sound, as I have said, is not the only place where a project of this kind can be built. In Europe, deepwater wind energy technologies are currently being developed as far out as 15 miles in 138 feet of water. Placing wind energy facilities further from their shore reduces their impact on maritime navigation.

If this 24-square-mile wind farm is built further away from shore, there would be a number of benefits. It would be removed from boating, fishing, ferrying, shipping channels, reducing the risk of collision and reducing the potential impact on the navigation which we have asked the Coast Guard to look into.

I do support America's use of alternative energy sources, including wind farms and wind power. I have supported wind projects in the past during my time as chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Our committee appropriated over $105 million for wind projects in fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2006. There was even one in my State around Kotzebue.

It is the right of a State to determine if this type of project is consistent with its efforts to protect its resources. I believe Congress should defer to the judgment of the Massachusetts congressional delegation, the Governor of Massachusetts, and the people of Massachusetts on this matter. States should have a say in the activities taking place in the waters adjacent to their shores. This location, in particular, deserves special consideration due to the geographic peculiarities of the region.

California blocked oil platforms, Oregon and Washington blocked them before they were even built.

We now have a dispute before the Congress over a potential development of gas resources 170 miles off the State of Florida. This is 3 miles. This is within a sound that is one of the--I have only been there two or three times, but it is a place if you ever go to it you would not forget. It is not a place that deserves to have this impact. The residents of Massachusetts will have to live with the impact of this project. They must have a greater role in determining the fate of this treasured area.

This bill, H.R. 889, as agreed to by the conference committee, rightly awards the State of Massachusetts this greater authority in the decisions regarding this project. So I am here today to urge the House and the Senate to listen to the people of Massachusetts and particularly to listen to their senior Senator.

I am pleased to yield whatever time I have remaining. I think I have only another 10 minutes or so. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

I think we have 30 minutes on this side and 30 minutes on that side, is that correct?

Is there time on the Democratic side for the Senator from Massachusetts?

We will work that out.

I talked too long.

That is right.

I believe the Senator is correct.