Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act of 2006

Mr. President, today I, along with Mr. Enzi and Mr. Thomas are introducing the ``Competitive and Fair Agricultural Markets Act of 2006.'' This legislation seeks to even the playing field for agricultural producers by strengthening and clarifying the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 and the Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 and requiring better enforcement of both laws by USDA.

A quick lesson in agricultural history makes clear that producers are no stranger to a marketplace often tilted against them. Roughly 100 years ago, rapid consolidation and collusive practices by meatpacking and railroad and other companies prompted Congress to eventually pass several new laws designed to ensure a competitive and fair marketplace for agricultural producers. Because earlier legislation was seen as lacking to protect livestock and poultry producers. Congress passed the Packers and Stockyards Act in 1921 to prohibit packers and processors from engaging in unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practices.

Consolidation is happening in all sectors of agriculture and having a negative effect on producers and consumers across the Nation. Consolidation in itself is not a violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act, but when some entities become larger and more powerful that makes enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act absolutely critical for independent livestock and poultry producers. The statistics speak for themselves. Today, only four firms control 84 percent of the procurement of cattle and 64 percent of the procurement of hogs. Economists have stated that when four firms control over 40 percent of the industry, marketplace competitiveness begins to decline. Taken together with fewer buyers of livestock, highly integrated firms can exert tremendous power over the industry.

The dramatic changes in the marketplace are alarming, and I have expressed my concerns to USDA on several occasions--but they showed hardly

any concern and even less action. The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) at USDA has the responsibility to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act. For years, I have had doubts whether GIPSA was effectively enforcing this important law. Concerned by the lack of action by GIPSA, I asked USDA's Inspector General to investigate this matter. Recently, the Inspector General issued a report on GIPSA that confirmed these concerns. The report described widespread inaction, agency management actively blocking employees from conducting investigations into anti-competitive behavior and a scheme to cover up the lack of enforcement by inflating the reported number of investigations conducted.

The Inspector General's troubling findings reveal gross mismanagement by GIPSA. This failure is not just at GIPSA but includes high-level officials at USDA who did nothing to identify and correct problems within GIPSA. Today, the legislation I introduce will reorganize the structure in how USDA enforces the Packers and Stockyards Act. This legislation will create an office of special counsel for competition matters at USDA. This office will oversee more effective enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act and other laws and focus attention on competition issues at USDA by removing unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. The new special counsel on competition would be appointed by the President with advice and consent from the U.S. Senate. Some would argue that this reorganization is not needed, especially given that USDA has agreed to make the necessary changes recommended by the recent Inspector General's report. However, what is important to remember here is that USDA has a long history of agreeing to making changes and then never following through with them. The Inspector General made recommendations to improve competition investigations in 1997 and the Government Accountability Office made similar recommendations again in 2000. It is 2006, yet those recommendations were never implemented and GIPSA is in complete disarray. In addition, no one above the level of deputy administrator at GIPSA seemed to have any idea that any problems were going on, despite the fact I was sending letters to the Secretary of Agriculture pointing out that USDA was failing to enforce the law. A change is needed.

In addition to the creation of a special counsel, this legislation also makes many important clarifications to the Packers and Stockyards Act so that producers need not prove an impact on competition in the market in order to prevail in cases involving unfair or deceptive practices. Court rulings have created many hoops for producers to go through in order to succeed in cases where they were treated unfairly. For example, the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a poultry grower operation failed to prove how its case involving an unfair termination of its contract adversely affected competition. The court indicated that the grower had to prove that their unfair treatment affected competition in the relevant market. That is very difficult to prove and was never the intent of the Packers and Stockyards Act.

This legislation also makes modifications to the Packers and Stockyards Act so that poultry growers have the same enforcement protections by USDA as livestock. Currently, it is unlawful for a livestock packer or live poultry dealer to engage in any unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive practice, but USDA does not have the authority to enforce and correct such problems because the enforcement section of the law is absent of any reference to poultry. This important statutory change is long overdue. In addition, to better reflect the integrated nature of the poultry industry, this legislation also ensures that protections under the law extend to all poultry growers, such as breeder hen and pullet operations, not just those who raise broilers.

The Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 was passed by Congress to ensure that producers are allowed to join together as an association to strengthen their position in the marketplace without being discriminated against by handlers. Unfortunately, this Act was passed with a clause that essentially abolishes the actual intent of the law. The Act states that ``nothing in this Act shall prevent handlers and producers from selecting their customers'' and it also states that it does not ``require a handler to deal with an association of producers.'' This clause in effect allows handlers to think of any reason possible under the sun not to do business with certain producers, as long as the stated reason is not because they belong to an association. Currently, the Agricultural Fair Practices Act focuses on the right of producers to join together without discrimination for having done so.

I propose to expand the Agricultural Fair Practices Act to provide new needed protections for agricultural contracts. As I have mentioned earlier, consolidation in all sectors of agriculture is reducing the number of buyers of commodities and for the very few who are left, many require contracts to conduct business. Some producers have little or no choice but to contract with a firm with questionable practices or face leaving the industry they have known for their whole lives.

This amendment to the Agricultural Fair Practices Act requires that contracts be spelled out in clear language what is required by the producer. This legislation prohibits confidentiality clauses by giving producers the ability to share it with family members or a lawyer to help them make an informed decision on whether or not to sign it. It prevents companies from prematurely terminating contracts without notice when producers have made large capital investments as a condition of signing the contract. And it only allows mandatory arbitration after a dispute arises and both parties agree to it in writing. Producers should not be forced to sign contracts with arbitration clauses thereby preventing them from seeking legal remedy in the courts.

History is repeating itself--in fact consolidation in the industry is even worse today. Producers deserve to have a fair and evenhanded market in which to conduct business. They should not be at the mercy of unfair and heavily consolidated markets that spurred Congress to enact legislative reforms, such as the Packers and Stockyards Act, years ago. This legislation won't be able to turn back the clock, but it will strengthen laws and enforcement of them so that markets operate more fairly.

Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill of modest scope but of great importance. The legislation would modify the existing Federal biodiesel tax credit in two ways--to make clear that only biodiesel produced from feedstocks listed, such as soy oil, are eligible and also to ensure the credit is available only for fuel of the highest quality.

Biodiesel is a home-grown renewable fuel that helps wean our country off of its oil addiction, creates economic growth and jobs in rural areas while enhancing our environment and public health.

In my State of Iowa, which leads the Nation in biodiesel production, there are three plants in operation and several more coming on-line. Each plant bolsters farm income, provides good jobs to surrounding communities and additional tax revenues to municipalities.

The biodiesel tax credit was enacted into law just a few years ago. It was extended through 2008 in the energy bill. I have been a leading proponent of the tax credit since day one. However, the tax credit has recently subsidized biodiesel production from outside the U.S. While I am certainly not averse to trade, and generally believe that it is a good thing for renewable energy to supplant fossil fuels wherever it comes from, the practice does not enhance domestic energy security, a goal which the President endorsed in his recent State of the Union address.

It would be terribly unfortunate if the Federal Government, which has sought to bolster our domestic energy security and environmental quality through the development of renewable fuels, suddenly found itself unintentionally undermining that goal. Congress intended the biodiesel tax credit to go to support production from a finite set of feedstocks. We are now off-track given how the Internal Revenue Service has been interpreting the law. The agency has improperly determined that biodiesel produced from a variety

of feedstocks, even those not listed in statute, are eligible for the credit.

So I have put together a bill, as I said, that is modest in scope. The bill fixes the tax credit language by making biodiesel made from any source not listed in the statute ineligible for the tax credit.

In addition, I have added a performance standard to help ensure that only high-quality biodiesel may receive tax benefits. There have been reports of late that some biodiesel doesn't perform as well as it should in certain situations, and this provision should help address that problem. The performance standard set forth in the bill specifies that only fuel listed with a cloud point of 45 degrees or less is eligible for the credit. Cloud point measures the point at which a fuel such as biodiesel will cloud or gel due to cold temperatures. My understanding is that cloud point is generally recognized as the best quality indicator for satisfactory performance.

The bill as crafted should not interfere in any way with our international trade obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules since it does not differentiate between oilseeds of U.S. and foreign origin. This view is shared by several trade experts consulted by my staff.

I stand ready to work with my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee, which has direct jurisdiction over this issue, to move this legislation forward.

In sum, I think this legislation is necessary to promote domestic energy security, ensure appropriate performance, and do so in a way that is compliant with our international trading obligations.

Mr. President, I rise to support one of our Nation's most important domestic policy issues--national security. I understand that some would expect me to say competitiveness or health care or farms or the environment or education, but what is happening with national security today greatly concerns me.

In the future, I will continue to address different aspects of this issue of national security. I will address the war on terror and future threats to our Nation. But today I will focus on the primary point of failure in keeping the United States safe: how we are meeting our responsibility to the troops.

The support of our troops is at the core of every national security issue we face. I urge Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle to join me in providing our troops with the tools they need to succeed.

We are so fortunate to have such a vast number of Americans who are committed to fighting for our country, to laying their lives on the line every day to protect the freedoms we enjoy. The first thing we must do for our warfighters is to keep them safe.

I want to know why, after 4 years of fighting the war on terror, our soldiers do not have the very best that they need to get the job done.

Last week, President Bush presented his fiscal year 2007 budget to the Congress. Even though the defense budget accounts for most of the discretionary budget, we still have service members without the equipment they need.

Last month, a Pentagon study revealed that dozens of American lives, soldiers' lives, would not have been lost in Iraq if soldiers had the proper side body armor. To make matters worse, the military is already operating with an equipment shortage. When troops deploy overseas, often most of their equipment is left behind, left in the theater and not replaced at armories and air wings. This leaves us vulnerable at home and dangerously affects national security. How will we be protected if our soldiers are not?

The administration proposes to spend $439 billion on national security this year. That is 45 percent more Pentagon funding than when President Bush took office 5 years ago.

There is a war supplemental on the way--more money. Let me make it clear that I do not oppose the defense budget. I respect that it is the job of the Secretary of Defense to assess the needs of the military in the coming year. I commend him. For example, I commend him on increasing the funding for special operations. But despite this vast budget, our troops are still taking a hit.

The funding for high-tech weapons systems doubled in current dollars from $42 billion in 1996 to $84 billion in 2007. In order to pay for these big-ticket items, the 2007 budget reins in personnel costs.

The military pay raise is only 2.2 percent. Previous years, it has been between 3 and 4 percent. During the Clinton administration, we saw military pay raises as high as 4.8 percent. It is unacceptable to me that the President proposes an increase in pay for our military that is less than the current rate of inflation, which is 3.4 percent. Our military personnel are losing ground with this so-called increase, and this at a time when we are asking so much of them--a time when we are at war. Troops have had multiple and lengthy deployments.

Haven't we all heard the stories of 18-year-olds swiftly driving humvees down the roads of Iraq, praying that they will avoid roadside bombs and shoulder-fired missiles? Some of these young men and women joined the military after 9/11 seeking retribution; others joined intent on finding a way to college. They are all patriots who should be honored.

I am concerned that we are in a fight right now between force structure and weapons systems. Our troops are caught in the crossfire. If they lose, we lose--at a time when we desperately need boots on the ground, particularly here at home.

We are well aware that our National Guard has risen to the challenges of the war on terror in an unprecedented way. Our national security, however, is compromised on the homefront. Our States do not have the ability to respond with sufficient combat structure to domestic security missions, natural emergencies, and disasters.

Former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird noted last week:

When you call out Guard and Reserve units, you call out

America.

Our Active-Duty Forces have fought bravely on our behalf, and the Guard has fought with them.

Montana is just one of the States with an infantry battalion that is facing major changes due to the Army's proposal to reduce 34 combat brigades to 28. We have based much of our State's military strategy on the capabilities and equipment our infantry battalion provides.

The combat brigades provide a balance of combat force structure to the combat service support units already in the State. This balance is essential to ensure that we have the full spectrum of capabilities within Montana for homeland defense and national security.

I am introducing a bill today which will ensure that each adjutant general will have the resources of 50 percent of their National Guard troops available to them at all times in the State. Deployments overseas will not be allowed to exceed that number. This bill recognizes the national security contribution of the Air National Guard and the Army National Guard, in particular the brigade combat teams and their subordinate units. This will help the country to achieve a standard level of emergency preparedness.

When those troops come home, Active and Reserve, they must come home to jobs and veterans' benefits. That is the only right thing to do. In its 2007 budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs, the administration calls for a 6-percent increase in total veterans spending to $36 billion. Much of this increase, however, depends on the adoption of new health care fees. For example, the budget proposes a $250 enrollment fee and an increase in prescription drug copayments to $15, from $8, for higher income, less disabled veterans. If these new fees are adopted, they would dissuade 200,000 veterans from even enrolling in the VA health care system. The veterans themselves are paying for the increase to the veterans budget. That is what is happening.

I frequently hear that questioning issues of national security undermines the missions of our troops and that some Members of Congress just criticize and do not have a plan. Well, here is the plan: It is imperative that we provide everything possible for our troops in order to keep the United States safe. We have a responsibility to speak up on their behalf because I firmly believe that when we neglect our troops-- including our National Guard men and women--we are gambling with the national security of our Nation.

We have the best soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors in the world. I have tremendous respect for all of them, and I am committed to helping them succeed. We are engaged in a war now, and we must give our troops the tools to win overseas while simultaneously protecting our homefront.

I urge my colleagues to pay close attention to this bill I am introducing. I hope that at the appropriate time, we can get it enacted, basically get some more balance to our force structure, and also make sure our National Guard and Army and Air Guard have the support they need, not only for themselves but to keep our country safe and secure.

Mr. President, today I--along with Senator Hatch and Senator Stabenow--introduce the Trade Competitiveness Act of 2006, a bill that will provide the administration with additional tools, resources, and accountability to enforce international trade agreements.

This bill is the first in a comprehensive package of legislation that I will introduce during the next few weeks to bolster American competitiveness.

The United States is still a world leader in almost every way imaginable. But we need a bold agenda to maintain America's economic leadership and preserve high-wage American jobs here at home.

I just got back from China and India, and that trip only underscored the challenges we face in the global economy. To rise to this challenge, my bills

will address trade and all other keystones of America's competitiveness--education, energy, health, savings, research, and tax policy.

But today, we start with international trade. Trade and investment in international markets is a challenge that I have asked U.S. companies to embrace.

I want American companies to get aggressive about getting their products and their people into foreign markets to bolster the U.S. presence around the world and bring jobs and dollars back home.

But when American companies embrace these new market opportunities, they need to know that the American government will back them up. They need to know that we will do all that we can to make sure our trading partners play by the rules.

That is why trade enforcement is critical. And this bill will step up trade enforcement in five ways.

Number one: Under my legislation, every year, the USTR will be required to identify the biggest trade barriers hurting the U.S. economically. The USTR will have to get Congress's input. And the USTR will be required to act, through the WTO or in some other way, to break those barriers down.

Number two: My bill will create a ``Chief Trade Enforcement Officer'' at the USTR. This person will be confirmed by the Senate. His or her entire job will be to investigate enforcement concerns and recommend action to the USTR. This person will also answer to Congress when it has concerns about enforcement.

Number three: This new Trade Enforcement Officer is going to have some backup. My bill will create a ``Trade Enforcement Working Group'' in the Executive Branch. It will be chaired by the USTR, and include representatives of the Departments of Commerce, State, Agriculture, and Treasury. They will help the Chief Trade Enforcement Officer get the job done.

Number four: This new Trade Enforcement Officer will need resources to get the job done. My bill provides $5 million additional to the USTR for enforcement. Right now, the President's Fiscal Year 2007 budget effectively cuts enforcement funds.

Number five: This bill will send a strong message to the International Monetary Fund. It will urge our Administration to tell the IMF to get aggressive with countries that manipulate their own currency to obtain a trade advantage. It will also urge the IMF to undertake reforms so it becomes more transparent and more representative of the emerging economies in Asia.

Senator Hatch wanted to make sure that the Federal Government does not lose sight of Federal and State sovereignty when negotiating, implementing, and enforcing trade agreements. That's an important issue to consider, and I'm glad it's in this bill.

The bottom line is that improving enforcement of our trade agreements will allow American companies to play hard and win big in the global marketplace. A level playing field is the foundation of American competitiveness on trade. This bill will help to provide it.

Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, to introduce the Safe Teen and Novice Driver Uniform Protection, STANDUP, Act of 2006--an important piece of legislation that seeks to protect and ensure the lives of the 20 million teenage drivers in our country.

We all know that the teenage years represent an important formative stage in a person's life, They are a bridge between childhood and adulthood--the transitional and often challenging period during which a person will first gain an inner awareness of his or her identity. The teenage years encompass a time for discovery, a time for growth, and a time for gaining independence--all of which ultimately help boys and girls transition successfully into young men and women.

As we also know, the teenage years also encompass a time for risk- taking, A groundbreaking study published last year by the National Institutes of Health concluded that the frontal lobe region of the brain which inhibits risky behavior is not fully formed until the age of 25. In my view, this important report requires that we approach teenagers' behavior with a new sensitivity. It also requires that we have as a Nation an obligation to steer teenagers towards positive risk-taking that fosters further growth and development and away from negative risk-taking that has an adverse effect on their well-being and the well-being of others.

Unfortunately, we see all too often this negative risk-taking in teenagers when they are behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. We see all too often how this risk-taking needlessly endangers the life of a teenage driver, his or her passengers, and other drivers on the road. And we see all too often the tragic results of this risk-taking when irresponsible and reckless behavior behind the wheel of a motor vehicle causes severe harm and death.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans between 15 and 20 years of age. Between 1995 and 2004, 63,851 young Americans between the ages of 15 and 20 died in motor vehicle crashes-- an average of 122 teenage deaths a week. Teenage drivers have a fatality rate that is four times higher than the average fatality rate for drivers between 25 and 70 years of age. Teenage drivers who are 16 years of age have a motor vehicle crash rate that is almost ten times the crash rate for drivers between the ages of 30 and 60.

A recent analysis by the American Automobile Association's Foundation for Traffic Safety concluded that teenage drivers comprise slightly more than one-third of all fatalities in motor vehicle crashes in which they are involved, whereas nearly two-thirds of all fatalities in those crashes are other drivers, passengers, and pedestrians.

Finally, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety concludes that the chance of a crash by a driver either 16 or 17 years of age is doubled if there are two peers in the motor vehicle and quadrupled with three or more peers in the vehicle.

Crashes involving teenage injuries or fatalities are often high- profile tragedies in the area where they occur. However, when taken together, these individual tragedies speak to a national problem clearly illustrated by the staggering statistics I just mentioned. It is a problem that adversely affects teenage drivers, their passengers, and literally everyone else who operates or rides in a motor vehicle. Clearly, more work must be done to design and implement innovative methods that educate our young drivers on the awesome responsibilities that are associated with operating a motor vehicle safely.

One such method involves implementing and enforcing a graduated driver's license system, or a GDL system. Under a typical GDL system, a teenage driver passes through several sequential learning stages before earning the full privileges associated with an unrestricted driver's license. Each learning stage is designed to teach a teenage driver fundamental lessons on driver operations, responsibilities, and safety. Each stage also imposes certain restrictions, such as curfews on nighttime driving and limitations on passengers, that further ensure the safety of the teenage driver, his or her passengers, and other motorists.

First implemented over ten years ago, three-stage GDL systems now exist in 38 States. Furthermore, every State in the country has adopted at least one driving restriction for new teenage drivers. Several studies have concluded that GDL systems and other license restriction measures have been linked to an overall reduction on the number of teenage driver crashes and fatalities. In 1997, in the first full year that its GDL system was in effect, Florida experienced a 9 percent reduction in fatal and injurious motor vehicle crashes among teenage drivers between 15 and 18 years of age. After GDL systems were implemented in Michigan and North Carolina in 1997, the number of motor vehicle crashes involving teenage drivers 16 years of age decreased in each State by 25 percent and 27 percent, respectively. And in California, the numbers of teenage passenger deaths and injuries in crashes involving teenage drivers 16 years of age decreased by 40 percent between

1998 and 2000, the first three years that California's GDL system was in effect. The number of ``at- fault'' crashes involving teenage drivers decreased by 24 percent during the same period.

These statistics are promising and clearly show that many States are taking an important first step towards addressing this enormous problem concerning teenage driver safety. However, there is currently no uniformity between States with regards to GDL system requirements and other novice driver license restrictions. Some States have very strong initiatives in place that promote safe teenage driving while others have very weak initiatives in place. Given how many teenagers are killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes each year, and given how many other motorists and passengers are killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes involving teenage drivers each year, Senator Warner and I believe that the time has come for an initiative that sets a national minimum safety standard for teen driving laws while giving each State the flexibility to set additional standards that meet the more specific needs of its teenage driver population. The bill that Senator Warner and I are introducing today--the STANDUP Act--is such an initiative. There are four principal components of this legislation which I would like to briefly discuss.

First, The STANDUP Act mandates that all States implement a national minimum safety standard for teenage drivers that contains four core requirements recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board. These requirements include implementing a three-stage GDL system, implementing at least some prohibition on nighttime driving, placing a restriction on the number of passengers without adult supervision, and implementing a restriction on the use of electronic communications devices, such as cell phones, during non-emergency situations.

Second, the STANDUP Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue voluntary guidelines beyond the three core requirements that encourage States to adopt additional standards that improve the safety of teenage driving. These additional standards may include requiring that the learner's permit and intermediate stages be six months each, requiring at least 30 hours of behind- the-wheel driving for a novice driver in the learner's permit stage in the company of a licensed driver who is over 21 years of age, requiring a novice driver in the learner's permit stage to be accompanied and supervised by a licensed driver 21 years of age or older at all times when the novice driver is operating a motor vehicle, and requiring that the granting of an unrestricted driver's license be delayed automatically to any novice driver in the learner's permit or intermediate stages who commits a motor vehicle offense, such as driving while intoxicated, misrepresenting his or her true age, reckless driving, speeding, or driving without a fastened seatbelt.

Third, the STANDUP Act provides incentive grants to States that come into compliance within three fiscal years. Calculated on a State's annual share of the Highway Trust Fund, these incentive grants could be used for activities such as training law enforcement and relevant State agency personnel in the GDL law or publishing relevant educational materials on the GDL law.

Finally, the STANDUP Act calls for sanctions to be imposed on States that do not come into compliance after three fiscal years. The bill withholds 1.5 percent of a State's Federal highway share after the first fiscal year of non-compliance, three percent after the second fiscal year, and six percent after the third fiscal year. The bill does allow a State to reclaim any withheld funds if that State comes into compliance within two fiscal years after the first fiscal year of non- compliance.

There are those who will say that the STANDUP Act infringes on States' rights. I respectfully disagree. I believe that it is in the national interest to work to protect and ensure the lives and safety of the millions of teenage drivers, their passengers, and other motorists in our country. I also believe that the number of motor vehicle deaths and injuries associated with teenage drivers each year compels us to address this important national issue today and not tomorrow.

The teenage driving provisions within the STANDUP Act are both well- known and popular with the American public. A Harris Poll conducted in 2001 found that 95 percent of Americans support a requirement of 30 to 50 hours of practice driving within an adult, 92 percent of Americans support a six-month learner's permit stage, 74 percent of Americans support limiting the number of teen passengers in a motor vehicle with a teen driver, and 74 percent of Americans also support supervised or restricted driving during high-risk periods such as nighttime. Clearly, these numbers show that teen driving safety is an issue that transcends party politics and is strongly embraced by a solid majority of Americans. Therefore, I ask my colleagues today to join Senator Warner and myself in protecting the lives of our teenagers and in supporting this important legislation.

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

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 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.