Lower PRICED Drugs Act

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the California Ocean and Coastal Protection Act, introduced by Senator Boxer and myself, to permanently protect California's coast from oil and gas drilling.

We simply cannot gamble away California's majestic coastline. An oil spill would scar our coastline, costing billions and destroying ecosystems. We cannot allow this to happen. The time has come to permanently protect this treasure.

California is virtually unified in its opposition to lifting the moratoria on drilling the Outer Continental Shelf.

Governor Schwarzenegger has publicly opposed offshore oil drilling and has called for the Federal Government to buy back the remaining 36 undeveloped Federal offshore oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of central California.

The Governor has said that he ``oppose(s) any efforts to weaken the federal moratorium for oil and gas leasing off the coast of California and I support efforts to make the moratoria and the Presidential deferrals for California permanent.'' Letter to Congressman Pombo, 11/ 3/05.

That is what the bill we are introducing today would do--permanently protect California's coast from oil and gas drilling.

California's Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman, the secretary of California Environmental Protection Agency, Alan Lloyd, and the Lieutenant Governor, Cruz Bustamante, have also been on record opposing any effort to lift the congressional moratorium on offshore oil and gas leasing activities.

Secretary Chrisman, who is also the chairman of the California Ocean Protection Council, has in fact stated ``Any pending federal legislation regarding Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas leasing must retain all protections from the Congressional leasing moratorium and should seek to make these protections permanent.'' Letter to Congressman Pombo, 9/27/05.

Californians are all too familiar with the consequences of offshore drilling. An oil spill in 1969 off the coast of Santa Barbara killed thousands of birds, dolphins, seals, and other animals. We know this could happen again.

A healthy coast is vital to California's economy and our quality of life. Ocean-dependent industry is estimated to contribute $17 billion to California each year.

Californians have spoken loud and clear that they do not want drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. This bill will provide the coast of California with the permanent protection needed.

Mr. President, I'm pleased to introduce this bill today to help California drinking water providers address the growing problem of perchlorate contamination.

The California Perchlorate Contamination Remediation Act authorizes funds for perchlorate remediation of contaminated water sources.

The bill provides: $50 million in grants for cleanup and remediation of perchlorate in water sources, including groundwater wells; and $8 million for research and development of new, cheaper, and more efficient perchlorate cleanup technologies.

The bill also expresses the sense of Congress that the Environmental Protection Agency should promulgate a national drinking water standard for perchlorate as soon as practicable.

The Defense Department and NASA use perchlorate in rocket fuel, missiles, and at least 300 types of munitions.

The Defense Department has used perchlorate since the 1950s. Perchlorate has a short shelf-life, and must be periodically replaced in the country's rocket and missile inventories.

Perchlorate readily permeates through soil and can spread quickly from its source. Over the last half century, improper disposal has allowed perchlorate to seep into surface and groundwater supplies.

Perchlorate contamination of drinking and irrigation water is a serious threat to public health.

Perchlorate interferes with the uptake of iodide into the thyroid gland. Since iodide helps regulate thyroid hormone production, perchlorate disrupts normal thyroid function. In adults, the thyroid helps regulate metabolism.

Infants and children are especially susceptible to the effects of perchlorate because the thyroid plays a critical role in proper development. Even unborn babies can be affected by perchlorate. Insufficient thyroid hormone production can severely retard a child's physical and mental development.

Perchlorate first appeared in drinking water wells in Rancho Cordova, CA in 1964. In 1985, the Environmental Protection Agency discovered perchlorate in several wells in the San Gabriel Valley in Southern California.

By 1997, it was detected in 4 counties in California and in the Colorado River, and by 1999 perchlorate was discovered in the water supplies of 12 States.

According to the California Department of Health Services at least 350 water sources in California, operated by 84 different local water agencies, now have perchlorate contamination.

But perchlorate is not just a California problem. A study by Government Accountability Office found perchlorate in the water supplies of 35 States.

The scope and magnitude of the perchlorate problem is still being defined and we are only beginning to discover the extent to which perchlorate has penetrated the food supply.

Recent sampling by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found perchlorate in people living in States without contaminated drinking water. This suggests people all over the country are exposed to at least trace levels of perchlorate.

In November 2004, the Food and Drug Administration released the results of its recent evaluation of perchlorate in the Nation's food. The FDA detected perchlorate in 90 percent of the lettuce samples taken from 5 different States, including California.

The FDA also found perchlorate in 101 out of 104 milk samples taken from retail stores around the country. Samples labeled as organic also contained perchlorate.

Last February, a study by researchers from Texas Tech University found perchlorate in all 36 samples of breast milk they tested. The milk was collected from women in 18 States, including California.

With such widespread contamination in my State and across the country, I have serious concerns about the health and well-being of the most vulnerable among the population--infants, toddlers, pregnant women, and those with compromised immune systems.

Let me speak for a moment about the challenges our water agencies are facing. As the population grows, so do the

demands on our water supply. During times of drought, these demands are particularly challenging.

States and communities rely upon their local water supplies, but are increasingly finding that these supplies are contaminated with perchlorate and other pollutants.

When Federal agencies fail to protect adjacent water supplies from perchlorate contamination, the problem falls to local and regional water agencies to fix.

These agencies already face staggering challenges both in delivering drinking water and managing wastewater services. Compounding these challenges with cleanup responsibilities for Defense Department activities is unfair, unreasonable, and unacceptable.

Perchlorate contamination in California is primarily the result of releases from 12 defense sites and several government contractor sites.

I applaud those contractors that have taken an active role in the cleanup of perchlorate. Unfortunately, clean up has only begun at a handful of contaminated sites.

In many cities and counties around California, wells are being taken out of service because of perchlorate contamination. Sometimes cities and water agencies are forced to bring in water from other sources, often at a much higher price. Other times, they must install costly perchlorate removal equipment.

This bill will provide much needed funds to water agencies for perchlorate remediation projects.

Now that perchlorate has been detected in the water sources of 35 States, it has become a national problem requiring a national solution.

I've approached several of my colleagues with a proposal that would address perchlorate contamination on a national level. My hope is that those representing States facing this problem will work with me on this issue.

Today there is no Federal drinking water standard for perchlorate. In the absence of a Federal standard, States have acted independently to establish health-related guidance or regulatory limits for perchlorate in drinking water.

The result is that each State has adopted a different preliminary guideline for perchlorate.

Let me give you a few examples: California established a Public Health Goal of 6 parts per billion; Texas has a Drinking Water Action Level of 4 part per billion; Nevada has a Public Notice Standard of 18 parts per billion; New York has a Drinking Water Planning Level of 5 parts per billion; Arizona has a Health-Based Guideline of 14 parts per billion; and Massachusetts has an interim public health goal of 1 part per billion.

Each of these States has adopted a different kind of regulatory guideline for perchlorate sending a confusing message to the public about what level is safe. It also frustrates the water agencies that strive to provide safe drinking water to consumers.

Clearly, it is time for the Federal Government to establish a national standard for perchlorate.

This bill would assist California water providers in their efforts to remove perchlorate from contaminated drinking water sources by providing $50 million dollars for 50 percent federally matched grants.

To address the challenge of removing perchlorate from all of our water supplies, we must invest in costeffective and timely remediation solutions. To underwrite this effort, $8 million will be authorized for grants for research and development of new, cheaper, more efficient perchlorate cleanup technologies.

It is time for the EPA to fulfill its obligation to protect public health. This bill expresses the sense of Congress that the EPA should promulgate a national drinking water standard for perchlorate under the timeline of the Safe Drinking Water Act as soon as practicable.

Perchlorate contamination has placed an enormous financial burden on the water agencies who strive to provide high quality, safe drinking water to the citizens of California. Cleaning up contaminated water sources is equivalent to creating new water, a growing need in my state and throughout the West.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homeland Security Trust Fund Act of 2006. And, I do so because it is my sincere belief, that in order to better prevent attacks here at home, we must dramatically reorder the priorities of the Federal Government.

This legislation, which I unsuccessfully attempted to attach to the port security legislation 2 weeks ago, will reorder our priorities by creating a homeland security trust fund that will set aside $53.3 billion to invest in our homeland security over the next 5 years. Through this trust fund we will allocate an additional $10 billion per year over the next 5 years to enhance the safety of our communities.

Everyone in this body knows that we are not yet safe enough. Independent experts, law enforcement personnel, and first responders have warned us that we have not done enough to prevent an attack and we are ill-equipped to respond to one. Hurricane Katrina, which happened just over a year ago, demonstrated this unfortunate truth and showed us the devastating consequences of our failure to act responsibly here in Washington. And, last December, the 9/11 Commission issued their report card on the administration's and Congresses' progress in implementing their recommendations. The result was a report card riddled with D's and F's.

And, to add to this, the FBI reported earlier this summer that violent crime and murders are on the rise for the first time in a decade. Given all of this, it is hard to argue that we are as safe as we should be.

To turn this around, we have to get serious about our security. If we establish the right priorities, we can do the job. We can fund local law enforcement, which the President has attempted to slash by over $2 billion for fiscal year 2007. We can give the FBI an additional 1,000 agents to allow them to implement reforms without abandoning local crime. We can secure the soft targets in our critical infrastructure, to ensure that our chemical plants and electricity grids are protected from attacks. We can immediately re-allocate spectrum from the television networks and give it to our first responders so they can talk during an emergency.

I know what many of my colleagues here will argue. They will argue that it is simply too expensive to do everything. This argument is complete malarkey. This is all about priorities. And, quite frankly this Congress and this administration have had the wrong priorities for the past 5 years.

For example, this year the tax cut for Americans that make over $1 million is nearly $60 billion. Let me repeat that, just one year of the Bush tax cut for Americans making over $1 million is nearly $60 billion. In contrast, we dedicate roughly one-half of that-- approximately $32 billion--to fund the operations of the Department of Homeland Security. We have invested twice as much for a tax cut for millionaires--less than 1 percent of the population--than we do for the Department intended to help secure the entire nation.

For a Nation that is repeatedly warned about the grave threats we face, how can this be the right priority? The Homeland Security Trust Fund Act of 2006 would change this by taking less than 1 year of the tax cut for millionaires--$53.3 billion--and investing it in homeland security over the next 5 years. By investing this over the next 5 years at just over $10 billion per year, we could implement all the 9/11 Commission recommendations and do those commonsense things that we know will make us safer.

For example, under this amendment, we could hire 50,000 additional police officers and help local agencies create locally based counter- terrorism units. We could hire an additional 1,000 FBI agents to help ensure that FBI is able to implement critical reforms without abandoning its traditional crime fighting functions. We could also invest in security upgrades within our critical infrastructure and nearly double the funding for state homeland security grants. And, the list goes on.

We continually authorize funding for critical homeland security programs, but a look back at our recent appropriations bills tells us that the funding rarely matches the authorization. Just this July we passed the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Budget. In that legislation, the Senate allocated only $210 million for port security grants--which is just over one-half of the amounts authorized in the

bipartisan port security legislation that passed the Senate 2 weeks ago.

Yet, another example of this problem is our shameful record on providing funding for rail security. For the last two Congresses, the Senate has passed bipartisan rail security legislation sponsored by myself, Senator McCain and others. This legislation authorizes $1.2 billion to secure the soft targets in our rail system, such as the tunnels and stations. Notwithstanding, we have only allocated $150 million per year for rail and transit security with less than $15 million allocated for intercity passenger rail security.

So, while it is critical that we have acknowledged the need for increased rail security funding by passing authorizations, unless we invest the money, it doesn't really mean much. Unfortunately, this is an example that is repeated over and over.

We know that the murder rate is up and that there is an officer shortage in communities throughout the Nation. Yet, we provide $0 funding for the COPS hiring program and we've slashed funding for the Justice Assistance Grant.

We know that our first responders can't talk because they don't have enough interoperable equipment. Yet, we have not forced the networks to turn over critical spectrum, and we vote down funding to help local agencies purchase equipment every year.

We know that only 5 percent of cargo containers are screened, yet we do not invest in the personnel and equipment to upgrade our systems.

We know that our critical infrastructure is vulnerable. Yet, we allow industry to decide what is best and provide scant resources to harden soft targets.

The 9/11 Commission's report card issued last December stated bluntly that ``it is time we stop talking about setting priorities and actually set some.''

This legislation will set some priorities. First, we provide the funding necessary to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Next, we take the commonsense steps to make our Nation safer. We make sure that law enforcement and first responders have the personnel, equipment, training they need, and are sufficiently coordinated to do the job by providing $1.15 billion per year for COPS grants; $160 million per year to hire 1,000 FBI agents; $200 million to hire and equip 1,000 rail police. $900 million for the Justice Assistance Grants; $1 billion per year for interoperable communications; $1 billion for Fire Act and SAFER grants.

In addition, we could invest in new screening technologies to protect the American people by providing $100 million to improve airline screening checkpoints and $100 million for research and development on improving screening technologies. We also set aside funding to soften hard targets by setting aside $500 million per year for general infrastructure grants; $500 million per year for port security grants, and $200 million per year to harden our rail infrastructure. And the list goes on.

I will conclude where I started. This is all about setting the right priorities for America. Instead of giving a tax cut to the richest Americans who don't need it, we should take some of it and dedicate it towards the security of all Americans. Our Nation's most fortunate are just as patriotic as the middle class. They are just as willing to sacrifice for the good of our Nation. The problem is that no one has asked them to sacrifice.

The Homeland Security Trust Fund Act of 2006 will ask them to sacrifice for the good of the Nation, and I'm convinced that they will gladly help us out. And to those who say this won't work, I would remind them that the 1994 Crime Bill established the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, specifically designated for public safety, that put more than 100,000 cops on the street, funded prevention programs and more prison beds to lock up violent offenders. It worked; violent crime went down every year for 8 years from the historic highs to the lowest levels in a generation.

Our Nation is at its best when we all pull together and sacrifice. Our Nation's most fortunate citizens are just as patriotic as those in the middle class, and I am confident that they will be willing to forgo 1 year of their tax cut for the greater good of securing the homeland. The bottom line is that with this legislation, we make clear what our national priorities should be, we set out how we will pay for them, and we ensure those who are asked to sacrifice, that money the government raises for security actually gets spent on security.

This legislation is about re-ordering our homeland security priorities. I realize that it will not be enacted this year, but I will introduce this legislation again in the next Congress and I will push for its prompt passage and I hope to gain the support of my colleagues in this effort.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed to address the disposal of chemical weapons by the military from World War II until 1970. A report titled, Off-Shore Disposal of Chemical Agents and Weapons Conducted by the United States, lists possible sites and types of munitions that may be found in Hawaii.

The Department of Defense has made tremendous strides in protecting the health and welfare of our citizens. However, it still is working on being better stewards of our environment. I am pleased the Army has taken preliminary steps to investigate these munition disposal sites in and around Hawaii. Given the health and safety threats that these munitions may pose, I am introducing legislation to ensure the Army will obtain a full accounting of the munitions found and the state of their condition. Furthermore, it requires the Army to monitor these areas for any health, safety, and environmental risks that these weapons may pose. Lastly, and more important, the Army will provide a report on remediation plans for these areas.

Sadly the issue of disposing hazardous ordnance and waste is not new to the State of Hawaii. Our citizens are keenly aware of the dangers that hazardous waste poses to the health and safety of the public and the environment. In fact, Departments of Defense installations are responsible for generating half of all hazardous waste in Hawaii. For these reasons, it is important for Congress to send the right message, specifically in this case, and ensure that the Army completes its survey, monitors the sites, and provides a plan for remediation. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this important legislation to ensure that, if the Department of Defense is responsible for disposing of hazardous materials, wherever it may be, then it should be held accountable for monitoring and providing a plan for remediation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to repeal a provision in the Deficit Reduction Act that will require people applying or reapplying for Medicaid to verify their citizenship with a U.S. passport or birth certificate. I thank my cosponsors of this legislation, Senators Obama, Bingaman, Inouye, Lautenberg, Jeffords, Kerry, and Lieberman for their support.

This provision must be repealed before it goes into effect July 1, 2006. We have arrived at this conclusion because it will create barriers to health care, and from information we have gathered from agencies, it is unnecessary and will be an administrative burden to implement. These are reasons for this legislation. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that more than 51 million individuals in this country would be burdened by having to produce additional documentation. In 16 States--Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington--more than a million Medicaid beneficiaries will be required to submit the additional documents to receive or stay on Medicaid. In Hawaii, an estimated 392,000 people who are enrolled in Medicaid will be required to produce the additional documentation.

The requirements will disproportionately impact low-income, racial and ethnic minorities, indigenous people, and individuals born in rural areas without access to hospitals. Due to discriminatory hospital admission policies, a significant number of African-Americans were prevented from being born in hospitals. One in five African Americans born during 1939-1940 do not have birth certificates.

We need to ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries are not discriminated against and do not lose access to care, simply because they do not have a passport or birth certificate. Data from a survey commissioned by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is helpful in trying to determine the impact of the legislation. One in 12 U.S.-born adults, who earn incomes less than $25,000, report they do not have a U.S. passport or birth certificate in their possession. Also, more than 10 percent of U.S.-born parents, who have incomes below $25,000, do not have a birth certificate or passport for at least one of their children. An estimated 3.2 to 4.6 million U.S. born citizens may have their Medicaid coverage threatened simply because they do not have a passport or birth certificate readily available.

Some groups are at a greater risk for losing their Medicaid coverage. Nine percent of African-American adults reported they did not have the needed documents. Seven percent of people over age 65 also report that they do not have birth certificates. Many others will also have difficulty in securing these documents, such as Native Americans born in home settings, Hurricane Katrina survivors, and homeless individuals.

It is difficult enough to get access to health care, let alone acquire a birth certificate or a passport before seeking treatment. Some beneficiaries may not be able to afford the financial cost or time investment associated with obtaining a birth certificate or passport. The Hawaii Department of Health charges $10 for duplicate birth certificates. The costs vary by State and can be as much as $23 to get a birth certificate or $87 to $97 for a passport. Taking the time and obtaining the necessary transportation to acquire the birth certificate or a passport, particularly in rural areas where public transportation may not exist, creates a hardship for Medicaid beneficiaries. Failure to produce the documents quickly may result in a loss of Medicaid eligibility.

Further compounding the hardship is the failure to provide an exemption for individuals suffering from mental or physical disabilities from the new requirements. I am really afraid that those suffering from diseases such as Alzheimer's may lose their Medicaid coverage because they may not have or be able to easily obtain a passport or birth certificate.

It is likely these documentation requirements will prevent beneficiaries who are otherwise eligible for Medicaid to enroll in the program. This will result in more uninsured Americans, an increased burden on our healthcare providers, and the delay of treatment for needed health care.

The hardships that will be imposed are unnecessary due to existing requirements that check immigration status. A 2005 study by the Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General concluded there is no substantial evidence indicating that illegal immigrants claiming to be U.S. citizens are successfully enrolling in Medicaid.

Twenty-eight of 47 Medicaid directors, surveyed by the Health and Human Services Inspector General, indicated that requiring documentary evidence of citizenship would delay eligibility determination. Twenty- five believe that providing additional evidence would result in increased eligibility personnel costs. State Medicaid Agencies would likely have to hire additional personnel to handle the increased workload with significant, additional administrative and financial costs. Twenty-one believe that it would be burdensome or expensive for applicants to obtain a birth certificate or other documentation.

In my home State, the Hawaii Primary Care Association estimates the administrative costs for our Department of Human Services will result in an increased cost of $640,000. Mr. John McComas, the Chief Executive Officer, of AlohaCare, stated, ``We anticipate that there will be significant administrative costs added to our already overburdened Medicaid programs. These

provisions are absolutely unnecessary and place an undue burden on the Medicaid beneficiary, to our entire Medicaid program, and ultimately to our entire state.''

I am frequently frustrated by the inability of the Congress to enact measures to improve health care for Americans. A misconceived provision to mandate these additional documentation requirements will cause real people real pain, and create public health and administrative difficulties. The provision in the Deficit Reduction Act will force every current and future Medicaid beneficiary to produce a passport or birth certificate. I look forward to my colleagues working with me to repeal this provision. I am hopeful that as my friends in the Senate go home during recess, they talk with their constituents at health centers, State Medicaid offices, and social service organizations, and hear how important it is to them for this legislation to be enacted to protect access to Medicaid.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record, as well as letters of support and concern from AlohaCare, the Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations, Maternal and Child Health Access, the Hawaii Primary Care Association, and Siren.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce a bill that will help inform the Congress and the American people about our Nation's trade agreements.

The trade policy debate here in Washington is heated and polarized. Supporters of ``free trade'' often view trade agreements uncritically and without question while others are suspicious of any agreement that makes it easier to trade with other countries. I believe that trade policy decisions should be based on an understanding of the concrete results of these agreements and the impact that they have on our economy and the American people, rather than on preconceived notions.

My bill, the Trade Agreement Accountability Act, will inject factual analysis in to this debate. The bill requires the International Trade Commission to report on the effects of every trade agreement we sign. These reports will examine the good and the bad of every trade agreement after two years, after five years and then every five years after it goes into effect. They will study the effect of each trade agreement on a sector-by-sector basis, and conduct an assessment and quantitative analysis of how each agreement is fostering economic growth, improving living standards and helping to create jobs.

In short, this bill will help educate policymakers and the American people about this important debate. I hope that by evaluating the results of past agreements, we will be able to better understand the consequences of future ones.

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

Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Obama, in support of the Lead Poisoning Reduction Act of 2006. This legislation would close an important gap in primary prevention strategies by providing critical resources to make all nonhome-based childcare facilities and Head Start Programs lead-safe within 5 years.

Lead is highly toxic and continues to be a serious, persistent, and entirely preventable threat to the health and well-being of our children. Lead poisoning continues to pose an unacceptable environmental health risk to infants, children, and pregnant women in the United States, particularly in minority and low-income communities. A CDC survey conducted between 1999 and 2002, estimated that 310,000 American children under 6 were at risk for exposure to harmful lead levels in United States. Childhood lead poisoning has been linked to impaired growth and function of vital organs and problems with intellectual and behavioral development. A study from the New England Journal of Medicine also found that children suffered up to a 7.4- percent decrease in IQ at lead levels that CDC considers safe. At very high levels, lead poisoning can cause seizures, coma, and even death.

It is critical that we remove lead hazards where our children live, learn, and play. We especially need to eliminate these risks and hazards that continue to persist in childcare facilities and schools. Nearly 12 million children under age 5 spend 40 hours a week in childcare. Lead paint in older buildings is a primary source of exposure, but significant lead exposure can also come from tap water. The Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates that about 14,200 childcare facilities have considerable lead-based hazards present. In addition, a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO, identified significant, systemic problems with the way in which the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, monitors and regulates the levels of lead in our Nation's drinking water, including a complete lack of reliable data on which to make assessments and decisions. The GAO study found that few schools and childcare facilities nationwide have tested their water for lead, and no focal point exists at either the national or State level to collect and analyze test results. Few States have comprehensive programs to detect and remediate lead in drinking water at schools and childcare facilities. Only five States have required general lead testing for schools, and of those, only four require childcare facilities to test for lead when obtaining or renewing their licenses. Almost half the States reported having no lead efforts of any kind. State and local officials need more information on the pervasiveness of lead contamination to know how best to address the issue.

Each year in New York State an additional 10,000 children under the age of 6 years are newly identified as having elevated blood lead levels, and over 200,000 children in New York have had documented lead poisoning between 1992 to 2004. Exposure to lead results in increased expenses each year for New York in the form of special educational and other educational expenses, medical care for lead-poisoned children, and expenditures for delinquent youth and others needing special supervision. It is estimated that these increased expenses, as well as lost earnings, exceed $4 billion annually. New York City and Rochester have been at the forefront of grassroots efforts to combat lead poisoning, and this bill would provide important resources and incentives to implement their model programs nationwide.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Debit and Check Card Consumer Protection Act of 2006, an important piece of legislation in the battle against consumer fraud. Despite consumers' best efforts, debit and check card fraud is a serious problem making consumer liability an important issue. Unfortunately, current consumer protection laws do not adequately protect debit and check card holders from fraud.

Over the last decade, debit and check card use has experienced double digit growth and now over 80 percent of American consumer households possess a debit or check card. This growth has outpaced that of credit cards and recent reports indicate that between 2001 and 2003 consumers made 42.5 billion

transactions with debit cards, 2.3 billion more transactions than with credit cards.

While debit and check card growth benefits the American economy, consumers continually face greater challenges to prevent and protect themselves from debit and check card fraud. Recent statistics show that in 2005, ATM/debit card fraud in the United States generated losses of $2.75 billion. During the same period, ATM fraud alone affected 3 million U.S. consumers.

Despite these findings, debit and check card consumer liability protections under the law remain substandard as compared to credit cards. Under current law, debit and check card holders are liable for fraudulent transactions dependent upon when they report the fraud. In some cases the consumer can be held accountable for $500 worth of fraudulent transactions. Conversely, credit card holders who face similar consumer challenges are liable for a maximum payment of $50 and are allowed to refuse or ``chargeback'' a payment when goods or services fail to arrive or they are dissatisfied with a transaction. Debit and check card holders are not provided with similar ``chargeback'' protections. Fortunately, some debit and check card issuers provide customers with stronger liability protections; however, it is essential that consumers are assured liability protections under the law, not just through a company's policy.

The Debit and Check Card Consumer Protection Act of 2006 remedies these inconsistencies between credit card liability protections and debit and check card liability protections by simply affording the same level of protection to debit and check card users given to credit card users. This legislation is an important step in ensuring consumer protections in an economy increasingly driven by electronic commercial transactions, and I am proud that Consumers Union, one of the largest nonpartisan advocate organizations for consumer rights, has endorsed it.

The time has come to strengthen debit and check card liability protections for the American consumer, and I urge my colleagues to support this simple and commonsense remedy to a growing problem. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to overhaul the Mine Safety and Health Act to make this Nation's mines the safest in the world. The recent events at the Sago mine in Tallmansville and the Alma Mine in Mellville, WV, and the death of a miner of Pikeville, KY, demonstrates that improvements need to be made in all areas of mine safety. The West Virginia disasters remind us of the one at the Pennsylvania Quecreek mine where on July 24, 2002, a mining machine broke through an abandoned section of the mine, unleashing 60 million gallons of groundwater and trapping 9 miners. Some 78 hours after the accident, all 9 miners were pulled safely from the mine. Unfortunately, the 12 men at the Sago mine were not as lucky.

A recent article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette stated: ``The rest of the world will move on. In the weeks and months to come, there will be other disasters, other wars, other political scandals. But for the families of the 12 men who died inside the mine in Tallmansville, WV, for the one who survived, for their relatives and friends, for the investigators searching for the cause of the mine explosion, for the people of these coal-rich hills 100 miles south of Pittsburgh, Sago will be a daily litany. Some questions about the January 2 accident may never be answered.''

Mining is a dangerous business. There have already been 4 coal mine accidents since the January 2, 2006, Sago disaster. One on January 10, when a miner was killed in Kentucky after a mine roof cave-in, another on January 19, when 2 miners became trapped at

the Alma mine in Melville, West Virginia, and two more accidents on February 1, 2006, where a miner was killed at an underground mine when a wall support popped loose, and a second fatality when a bulldozer struck a gas line at a surface mine sparking a fire and killing the operator. Last year, the safest year on record, there were 22 fatalities in underground coal mines, in 20 separate accidents with 4 men killed in my home State of Pennsylvania; 3 in West Virginia; 8 in Kentucky and 7 in other States.

The Sago mine had 208 citations, orders and safeguards issued against it in 2005, with nearly half of these violations cited as ``significant and substantial''. Eighteen of the violations were cited as ``withdrawal orders'', which shut down activity in specific areas of the mine until problems were corrected.

While the budget for mine safety and health has increased by 42 percent over the past 10 years, these increases barely keep pace with inflationary costs. This has forced the agency to reduce staffing by 183 positions over that same time period. In FY 2006, the final appropriation was $2.8 million below the budget request and $1.4 million below the FY 2005 appropriation due to the 1 percent across- the-board reduction that was required to stay within the budget resolution ceiling.

I chaired a hearing on January 23, 2006, that included testimony from Federal mining officials and mine safety experts from labor, business, and academia, which resulted in many of the proposals in my legislation.

Specifically, the legislation that I am introducing today amends the Mine Safety and Health Act by requiring: 1. MSHA to release the internal review and accident investigation reports to the House and Senate authorizing and appropriating committees, within 30 days of completing their investigation of a mine disaster. 2. MSHA to publish formal rules for conducting accident investigations and hearing procedures. 3. That fines for a flagrant violation be increased from $60,000 to $500,000; defining that violation as a reckless or repeated failure to make reasonable efforts to eliminate a known violation of a standard that substantially and proximately caused, or reasonably could have been expected to cause death or serious bodily injury; and prohibiting the reduction of penalties by an administrative law judge for any violation termed as ``flagrant or habitual''. 4. That no fine less than $10,000 can be assessed for a safety violation that could cause serious illness or injury, and no less than $20,000 can be assessed to a habitual violator for a violation that could significantly and substantially contribute to a safety or health hazard. 5. MSHA inspectors to follow-up on all violations no later than 24 hours. 6. MSHA to ensure that the ventilation and roof control plans are reviewed on a quarterly basis. 7. That mining companies be subject to a fine of no less than $100,000 if MSHA officials are not informed of a disaster within 15 minutes of an accident. The MSHA Director may waive the penalty if it is found that failure to give notice was caused by circumstances outside the control of the mine operator. 8. That mine representatives not be present during accident investigation interviews with miners. 9. MSHA to train all mine personnel in the proper usage of wireless devices and do refresher training courses during each calendar year. 10. That rescue teams do training exercises twice a year and conduct emergency rescue drills at operating mines--on a surprise, unannounced basis. 11. That communications between rescue teams be strictly confined between the command center and the team members. 12. MSHA to have a central communications Emergency Call Center--which includes manned telephone operation with all calls answered by a live operator, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This provision will apply to all types of mining operations. To assist in implementing and operating the Emergency Call Center, MSHA shall--on a quarterly basis-- provide the Center with a mine emergency contact list. 13. That wireless Emergency Tracking Devices be made available to each miner by the operator which will enable rescuers to locate miners in case of an accident. 14. That wireless text messaging or other wireless communications devices be made by the operator and shall be worn by underground personnel to enable rescuers or mine operators to communicate with underground personnel. 15. MSHA to place secondary telephone lines in a separate entry in order to increase the likelihood that communications could be maintained between miners and those on the surface in the event of an emergency. 16. That strategically placed oxygen stations be provided to miners with four days of oxygen--in the section of the mine where miners are working. 17. That fines will be increased from $5,500 to $55,000 for operators who fail to correct a violation. 18. That an operator who knowingly exposes workers to situations likely to cause death or serious bodily injury or willfully violates a mandatory health or safety standard will have fines increased from $25,000 to $250,000. 19. That if any person gives advance notice of the mine inspection the fine will be increased from not more than $1,000 to not more than $20,000. 20. That if any person makes a false statement regarding complying with the MSHA Act the fine will be increased from $10,000 to $100,000.

All metal, non-metal and coal mines as defined in section 3 of the Act, shall be subject to a user fee of $100.00 for each penalty assessed, to be collected by MSHA and deposited into its account to augment funding above fiscal year 2006 enacted appropriations, for the following activities: reimburse operators for the costs of training, research and development, rescue teams, safe rooms, and other miner safety supplies and equipment, and supplement MSHA funding of technical support, educational policy and development, and program evaluation and information activities.

These amendments that I have proposed to the Mine Safety and Health Act will improve the conditions in this Nation's mines. The provisions set forth in this legislation will provide increased protections for miners; put in place new equipment and technology to locate miners working underground; increase their oxygen supplies and speed up rescue operations so that the tragedy of the last few months will be not be repeated. I ask that you join me in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. President, in recent years, we have become increasingly aware of the great challenges facing our Nation as our population ages. While much discussion revolves around health care, social security, and pension systems, there is another daunting challenge that is rarely addressed in a comprehensive way.

I am referring to the challenge of senior transportation.

We Americans love our automobiles. From the time most of us were old enough to drive, we have been behind the wheel. Cars mean freedom--not in some grand philosophical sense--but in the real and practical sense that matters to us in our everyday lives. Having a car, and being able to drive it, means the freedom to go where we want, when we want.

But as we age, we will find it harder and harder to use the freedom given to us by automobiles. Because as we age, our abilities decline, and driving becomes less and less simple. And then the day comes when we wonder whether we should keep driving at all, and if we don't, how we will get about our daily lives.

That day has already come for millions of our senior citizens.

All around the Nation, older Americans are struggling to stay active and independent while their ability to drive themselves declines. A few live in communities with well-developed public transportation services geared to our senior citizens, but most do not. Many seniors drive as long as they can, perhaps longer than they think they should, simply because they feel they have no alternative.

That is why I am today introducing the Older Americans Sustainable Mobility Act of 2006. Despite its rather

awkward name, this legislation has a great purpose. It would create a 5-year demonstration project, overseen by the Administration on Aging, to establish a national, nonprofit senior transportation network to help provide some transportation alternatives to our aging population. The goal of this network is to build upon creative, successful models that are already showing how the transportation needs of older Americans can be met in a manner that is economically sustainable.

This last point is important. Senior transportation is a complex and expensive logistical problem. We cannot expect to address this problem by creating a brand new, expansive, Federal Government program that requires the commitment of vast sums year after year in order to succeed. We can't afford that, and that really isn't what older Americans want.

What older Americans want is what most of us have and take for granted--the freedom and mobility that our automobiles provide.

My legislation would build upon models that have demonstrated how senior citizens can stay active and mobile even after they stop driving. One such model is ITNAmerica, which has been operating in my home State of Maine since the mid-1990s and has since branched out to communities across the Nation. ITNAmerica uses private automobiles to provide rides to senior citizens whenever they want, almost like a taxi service. Riders open an account which is automatically charged when the service is used. Riders can get credits for rides through volunteer services, through donations--and this is what I think is most intriguing--by donating their private car to the program after they have decided that they should no longer drive.

Kathy Freund, the founder of ITNAmerica, sees this as a way of taking something people see as a liability, and turning it into an asset. Through Kathy's extraordinary vision and hard work, ITNAmerica has developed a model that works because it allows older Americans to make the transition away from driving themselves without asking them to sacrifice their independence, or to learn at an older age how to navigate public transportation systems that may simply be inappropriate for their needs, or widely unavailable in many parts of the country. They can still be mobile, they can still go where they want and when they want, and they can go by car.

Senior citizens will often keep their vehicles long after they have stopped driving. I am sure you have seen these vehicles in your State as I have in mine. You will see them sitting in driveways--unattended and poorly maintained, sometimes not driven for many months at a time. In this form, these cars are ``wasting'' assets. But ITNAmerica has found that the value of these cars can be unlocked by allowing seniors to exchange them for rides. That is why my bill calls for the creation of a once-in-a-lifetime tax benefit for seniors who exchange their cars for rides, valued at the amount of the ride-credit they are provided.

One of my senior citizen constituents, June Snow from Falmouth, ME, has been using the system that I described--the ITNAmerica system-- since 1995, when her eyesight began to fail. At first, she used the program only to get into the city, Portland, and only after dark, when she found it more difficult to drive. But more recently she has traded her car for rides, and now she depends on the system to go everywhere she needs to go. She finds that the program allows her to get around town, to run errands, and do the things she has to do and wants to do without worrying about whether she will be able to get safely from one place to another. She told me: It's not like riding a bus, where you have to work with their schedules, and they won't stop and help you with your groceries. They won't make you get your feet wet walking through the snow to the bus stop.

But what she loves most is the personal attention she gets from the drivers, most of whom are volunteers. ``They help you to the door, and they even carry your bundles and put them in the trunk,'' she says.

My bill also creates a limited-time matching grant program to help communities establish sustainable transportation alternatives for seniors as part of a national network. Programs that wish to compete for these matching grants must be able to show that they can become self-sustaining after 5 years, and that they can operate after that period without reliance on public funds. So what I am proposing, is that we just provide some seed money as a catalyst, to get these programs going, with the full expectation--indeed the requirement--that they become self-sustaining without any public funds after the initial period. My bill also provides smaller grants to help transportation providers acquire the technology they need to connect to this network, and grants to encourage efforts to get the baby boomers more involved in supporting transportation alternatives in their communities. The total cost of these grant programs would be only $25 million over the full 5 year period. Then the program sunsets, and these wonderful transportation programs that would be created all over the country would be sustainable on their own without public funding.

The challenge of providing transportation alternatives to our Nation's senior citizens is literally growing by the day. The bill I am offering is one step toward a reasonable, practical, solution to this important challenge. I think all of us know of neighbors and family members who reach their senior years and really shouldn't be driving anymore but are very reluctant to give up those car keys because there are simply no workable alternatives for them. This bill would provide those alternatives, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Citizen Petition Fairness and Accuracy Act of 2006. This legislation will help speed the introduction of cost-saving generic drugs by preventing abuses of the Food and Drug Administration citizen petition process.

Consumers continue to suffer all across our country from the high-- and ever rising--cost of prescription drugs. A recent independent study found that prescription drug spending has more than quadrupled since 1990, and now accounts for 11 percent of all health care

spending. At the same time, the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most profitable industries in the world, returning more than 15 percent on their investments.

One key method to bring prescription drug prices down is to promote the introduction of generic alternatives to expensive brand name drugs. Consumers realize substantial savings once generic drugs enter the market. Generic drugs cost on average of 63 percent less than their brand-name equivalents. One study estimates that every 1 percent increase in the use of generic drugs could save $4 billion in health care costs.

This is why I have been so active in the last year in pursuing legislation designed to combat practices which impede the introduction of generic drugs--including S. 3582, the Preserve Access to Generics Act, which would forbid payments from brand name drug manufacturers to generic manufacturers to keep generic drugs off the markets, and S. 2300, the Lower Priced Drugs Act, legislation I co-sponsored to combat other conduct which impedes the marketing of generic drugs. The legislation I introduce today targets yet another practice by brand name drug companies to impede or block the marketing of generic drugs-- abuse of the FDA citizen petition process.

FDA rules permit any person to file a so-called ``citizen petition'' to raise concerns about the safety or efficacy of a generic drug that a manufacturer is seeking FDA approval to bring to market. While this citizen petition process was put in place for a laudable purpose, unfortunately in recent years it has been abused by frivolous petitions submitted by brand name drug manufacturers (or individuals acting at their behest) whose only purpose is to delay the introduction of generic competition. The FDA has a policy of not granting any new generic manufacturer's drug application until after it has considered and evaluated any citizen petitions regarding that drug. The process of resolving a citizen petition (even if ultimately found to be groundless) can delay the approval by months or years. Indeed, brand name drug manufacturers often wait to file citizen petitions until just before the FDA is about to grant the application to market the new generic drug, solely for the purpose of delaying the introduction of the generic competitor for the maximum amount of time possible. This gaming of the system should not be tolerated.

In recent years, FDA officials have expressed serious concerns about the abuse of the citizen petition process. Last year, FDA Chief Counsel Sheldon Bradshaw noted that ``[t]he citizen petition process is in some cases being abused. Sometimes, stakeholders try to use this mechanism to unnecessarily delay approval of a competitor's products.'' He added that he found it ``particularly troublesome'' that he had ``seen several examples of citizen petitions that appear designed not to raise timely concerns with respect to the legality or scientific soundness of approving a drug application, but rather to delay approval by compelling the agency to take the time to consider the arguments raised in the petition, regardless of their merits, and regardless of whether the petitioner could have made those very arguments months and months before.''

And a simple look at the statistics gives credence to these concerns. Of the 21 citizen petitions for which the FDA has reached a decision since 2003, 20 or 95 percent of them have been found to be without merit. Of these, ten were identified as ``eleventh hour petitions'', defined as those filed less than 6 months prior to the estimated entry date of the generic drug. None of these ten ``eleventh hour petitions'' were found to have merit, but each caused unnecessary delays in the marketing of the generic drug by months or over a year, causing consumers to spend millions and millions more for their prescription drugs than they would have spent without these abusive filings.

Despite the expense these frivolous citizen petitions cause consumers and the FDA, under current law the government has absolutely no ability to sanction or penalize those who abuse the citizen petition process, or who file citizen petitions simply to keep competition off the market. Our legislation will correct this obvious shortcoming and give the Department of Health and Human Services--the FDA's parent agency-- the power to sanction those who abuse the process.

Our bill will, for the first time, require all those who file citizen petitions to affirm certain basic facts about the truthfulness and good faith of the petition, similar to what is required of every litigant who makes a filing in court. The party filing the citizen petition will be required to affirm that the petition is well grounded in fact and warranted by law; is not submitted for an improper purpose, such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay in approval of competing drugs; and does not contain any materially false, misleading or fraudulent statement. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services is empowered to investigate a citizen petition to determine if it has violated any of these principles, was submitted for an improper purpose, or contained false or misleading statements. Further, the Secretary is authorized to penalize anyone found to have submitted an abusive citizen petition. Possible sanctions include a fine up to one million dollars, a suspension or permanent revocation of the right of the violator to file future citizens' petition, and a dismissal of the petition at issue. HHS is also authorized to refer the matter to the Federal Trade Commission so that the FTC can undertake its own investigation as to the competitive consequences of the frivolous petition and take any action it finds appropriate. Finally, the bill directs the HHS that all citizen petitions be adjudicated within six months of filing, which will put an end to excessive delays in bringing needed generic drugs to market because of the filings of these petitions.

While our bill will not have any effect on any person filing a truly meritorious citizen petition, this legislation will serve as a strong deterrent to attempts by brand name drug manufacturers or any other party that seeks to abuse the citizen petition process to thwart competition. It will thereby remove one significant obstacle exploiting by brand name drug companies to prevent or delay the introduction of generic drugs. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined by Senators DeWine, Dorgan and Bond in introducing legislation that will save lives by increasing the number of kidneys available for transplantation. Our bill addresses relatively new procedures that did not exist when the National Organ Transplant Act--NOTA--was passed more than two decades ago. No Federal dollars will be needed to implement it. More importantly, it will make it possible for thousands of people who wish to donate a kidney to a spouse, family member or friend, but find that they are medically incompatible, still to become living kidney donors.

Kidney paired donations involve two living donors and two recipients--the intended recipient of each donor is incompatible with the intended donor but compatible with the other donor in the arrangement. For example, person A wants to donate her kidney to her husband, person B, but cannot because of a biological incompatibility. Likewise, person C wants to donate to his wife, person D, and cannot because of a biological incompatibility. However, testing reveals that A and D are biologically compatible, and C and B are biologically compatible. Therefore, a paired kidney donation can be made whereby A donates to D and C donates to B. Every paired donation transplant avoids burdening the kidney waiting list and increases access to organs for all kidney transplant candidates.

Kidney list donations involve three individuals: a living donor; the recipient of the living donor's kidney, who is allocated the organ through the waiting list; and the donor's intended recipient who receives an allocation priority on the kidney waiting list. In this circumstance, a person intends to donate a kidney to a recipient but is found to be medically incompatible, and there are no other donor- recipient pairs available for a simultaneous paired donation. The person donates his or her kidney, and the kidney is allocated to a medically suitable patient on the national Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network--OPTN--waiting list according to OPTN organ allocation policy. The donor's originally intended recipient then receives allocation priority through the national system to receive a deceased donor kidney, thus fulfilling the donor's original intent to donate to a particular person. It is estimated that clearing the way for these procedures will not only save lives, it would save Medicare tens of millions of dollars each year in avoided costs for renal dialyses of these patients. By permitting living paired donations, this bill will also have the effect of increasing the number of kidneys available to patients already on the kidney waiting list.

The legislation we are introducing removes an unintended impediment to kidney donations by clarifying ambiguous language in Section 301 of the National Organ Transplant Act--NOTA. That section has been interpreted by a number of transplant centers to prohibit such donations. In Section 301 of NOTA, Congress prohibited the buying and selling of organs. Subsection (a), titled ``Prohibition of organ purchases,'' says: ``It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration. . . . '' The legislation we are introducing does not remove or alter any current provision of NOTA, but simply adds a line to Section 301 which states that paired donations do not violate it. When we originally enacted NOTA we expressly exempted several other actions from the valuable consideration provision, such as expressly permitting reimbursement of travel and subsistence costs for living donors, and for reimbursement of their lost wages. We did not know to include paired kidney donation events with these exceptions because they were not being performed then.

Congress surely never intended that the living donation arrangements that permit either a kidney paired donation or a kidney list donation be impeded by NOTA. Our bill simply makes that clear. A number of transplant professionals involved in these and other innovative living kidney donation arrangements have proceeded in the reasonable belief that these arrangements do not violate Section 301 of NOTA, and they are being performed in many states already. This legislation is necessary because some have questioned whether these paired donation situations might somehow involve valuable consideration in that the mutual promises to donate could be considered a thing of value being given in exchange for an organ. We do not believe that this is the case. Certainly, Congress never intended to impede paired donation when it outlawed buying and selling of organs.

There is no known opposition to this legislation. It is supported by numerous medical organizations, including the United Network for Organ Sharing, the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the American Society of Transplantation, the National Kidney Foundation and the American Society of Pediatric Nephrology.

It is important that we make the intent of Congress explicit so that transplant centers which have hesitated to implement paired donation programs can feel free to do so; and in order that the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network, which is operated by UNOS under contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, may implement a national registry of pairs who need to find other compatible pairs so that their loved ones can get the transplant they so desperately need.

The experts in the field of organ donation and transplantation estimate that our legislation will result in well over 2,000 additional transplants annually and that Medicare would save millions in kidney dialysis costs. By its own estimate, Medicare spends more than $55,000 annually for each dialysis patient, which equates to more than $3.6 billion per year. Savings to Medicare due to removal of an additional 2,000 patients from the dialysis program through living kidney donation would exceed $110 million. Since the median waiting time for each patient is four years, removal of each patient translates into a total Medicare savings of $220,000.

It is our hope that the Senate will promptly act on this necessary legislation.