RU-486 Suspension and Review Act of 2005

Mr. President, today I am, again, introducing legislation designed to fulfill an important promise made by the Federal Government to the people of my State and my region some 40 years ago. That promise, building and completing a network of highways through the Appalachian region is known today as the Appalachian Development Highway System or ADHS. I look forward to working with my fellow Senators to have my legislation included in the reauthorization of the Federal-aid Highway Program, a program at the core of Federal infrastructure investment.

Over the course of the 108th Congress, we failed to reauthorize this program. That legislation should have been enacted into law prior to beginning fiscal year 2004. We are now more than one third of the way through fiscal year 2005 and the 109th Congress must initiate new bills to get the job done. I know I speak for many Senators in stressing the need to complete this job during this session of Congress. We must authorize a bill that addresses our deteriorating highways and bridges, and is not squeezed by the artificial funding ceiling that the administration wants.

The administration's own Conditions and Performance Report again reminds us that a great deal more investment in our infrastructure is essential to prevent the further deterioration of our nation's highways and bridges.

At a September 30, 2002 hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Administrator Mary Peters testified that, despite the historic funding increase accomplished through TEA-21, congestion on our roads continues to worsen. Funding for highway infrastructure by all levels of government will have to increase by more than 65 percent or $42.2 billion per year to actually improve the condition of our Nation's highways. A funding increase of more than 17 percent or $11.3 billion is necessary to simply maintain the current poor condition of our highway network, where more than one in four of our Nation's bridges are classified as deficient.

At the end of 2002, I worked doggedly to ensure that the Senate prevailed in the conference with the House on the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003 and rejected every penny of the $8.6 billion cut in highway funding proposed by President Bush. In 2003, I was pleased to join with Senators Bond and Reid, the respective chairman and ranking member of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee in sponsoring a bipartisan amendment to the budget resolution for fiscal year 2004 boosting funding for our Federal-aid Highway Program by several billion dollars. That amendment commanded 79 votes on the Senate floor.

Mr. President, I am one of only two members still serving in the Congress that had the privilege of casting a vote in favor of establishing the Interstate Highway System. I did so as a Member of the other body back in 1956. Of equal if not greater importance to the transportation needs of my region, however,

were the findings of the first Appalachian Regional Commission in 1964, that while the Interstate Highway System was slated to provide historic economic benefits to most of our Nation, the system would bypass the Appalachian region because of the extremely high costs of building highways through Appalachia's rugged topography.

In 1965, the Congress adopted the Appalachian Regional Development Act that promised a network of modern highways to connect the Appalachian region to the rest of the Nation's highway network and, even more importantly, the rest of the Nation's economy. Absent the Appalachian Development Highway System, my region of the country would have been left with a transportation network of dangerous, narrow, winding roads following the path of river valleys and stream beds between mountains.

One of the observations contained in Administrator Peters' testimony back in September of 2002 that especially caught my eye was her statement that ``the condition of higher-order roads, such as interstates, has improved considerably since 1993 while the condition on many lower-order roads has deteriorated.'' The pattern of road conditions mirrors the distribution of wealth in our country. The rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer. That observation becomes especially pertinent when one contemplates the challenge of completing the Appalachian Development Highway System.

We have virtually completed the construction of the Interstate Highway System and have moved on to other important transportation goals. However, the people of my region still wait for the Federal Government to make good on its 40-year-old promise to complete the ADHS. The system is still less than 80 percent complete. My home State of West Virginia is below the average for the entire Appalachian region with only 72 percent of its mileage complete and open to traffic.

Unfortunately, there are still children in Appalachia who lack decent transportation routes to school; and there are still pregnant mothers, elderly citizens and others who lack road access to area hospitals. There are thousands upon thousands of people who cannot obtain sustainable well-paying jobs because of poor roads. The entire status of the Appalachian Development Highway System is laid out in great detail in the Cost to Complete Report for 2002 completed by the Appalachian Regional Commission. This is the most comprehensive report on the status of the Appalachian Development Highway System to date, and I commend the staff of the Appalachian Regional Commission for their hard work on this report. The last report was completed in 1997 just prior to Congressional consideration of TEA-21.

The enactment of TEA-21 signaled a new day in the advancement of the Appalachian Development Highway System. Through the work of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the administration, we took a great leap forward by authorizing direct contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund to the States for the construction of the ADHS. Up until that point, funding for the Appalachian Development Highway System was limited to uncertain general fund appropriations. By providing the States of the Appalachian region with a predictable source of funds to complete ADHS segments, TEA-21 reinvigorated efforts to keep the promise made to the people of the Appalachian region.

This initiative has been a great success. States are making progress toward the completion of the system. Since the last Cost to Complete Report, 183 miles of the system have been opened to traffic and, the cost to complete the system has been reduced by roughly $1.7 billion in Federal funds.

I am pleased to report that the 13 States, to date, have succeeded in obligating just under 90 percent of the obligation authority that has been granted to them for the completion of the system. A 90-percent obligation rate compares quite favorably to some of the other transportation programs through which the States were granted multiple years to obligate their funds.

According to the ARC's Cost to Complete Report, the remaining Federal funds needed to complete the ADHS as the system was defined at the time that report was completed are now estimated to be $4.467 billion. When adjusted for inflation over the life of the next highway bill, using the standard inflation calculation for highway projects, a total of $5.04 billion will need to be authorized to complete the system. That is a lot of money and I believe that figure deserves some explanation.

The considerable cost of completing the last 20 percent of the ADHS is explained by the fact that the easiest segments of the system to build have already been built. Much of the costs associated with completing the most difficult unfinished segments are driven by the requirement to comply with other Federal laws, especially the laws requiring environmental mitigation measures when building new highways through rural areas. While the $5.04 billion figure may seem large to some of my colleagues, I would remind them that the last highway bill authorized more than $218 billion in Federal infrastructure investment over 6 years. It is my sincere hope and expectation that the next highway bill will authorize an even greater amount.

Of critical importance to this debate is the fact that the unfinished segments of the ADHS represent some of most dangerous and most deficient roadways in our entire Nation. Often lost in our debate over the necessity to invest in our highways is the issue of safety. The Federal Highway Administration has published reports indicating that substandard road conditions are a factor in 30 percent of all fatal highway accidents. I am quite certain that the percentage is a great deal higher in the Applachian region.

The Federal Highway Administration found that upgrading two-lane roads to four-lane divided highways decreased fatal car accidents by 71 percent and that the widening of traffic lanes has served to reduce fatalities by 21 percent. These are precisely the kind of road improvements that are funded through the ADHS. In my state, the largest segment of unfinished Appalachian Highway, if completed, will replace the second most dangerous segment of roadway in West Virginia. So, even those who would question the wisdom of completing these highways in the name of economic development should take a hard look at the fact that the people of rural Appalachia are taking their lives in their hands every day as they drive on dangerous roads. It is time for this Congress, in concert with the administration, to take the last great leap forward and authorize sufficient contract authority to finally complete the Appalachian Development Highway System. If we enact another six-year highway bill with sufficient funds to complete the system, we will finally pay the full costs of the ADHS some 45 years after the system was first promised to the people of my region. The legislation I am introducing today, the ``Appalachian Development Highway System Completion Act,'' will provide sufficient contract authority to complete the system. Importantly, it will guarantee that the states of the Appalachian Region do not pay a penalty, either through the distribution of minimum allocation funds, or the distribution of obligation limitation, for receiving sufficient funds to complete the Appalachian system.

I am very pleased that this administration has taken on the goal of completing the ADHS. In her letter accompanying the Cost to Complete Report, Administrator Peters said ``the completion of the ADHS is an important part of the mission of the Federal Highway Administration. We consider the accessibility, mobility and economic stimulation provided by the ADHS to be entirely consistent with the goals of our agency.'' Ms. Peters further stated that the Appalachian Regional Commission's 2002 Cost to Complete Report, ``provides a sound basis for apportioning future funding to complete the system.'' I thank Mary Peters and the entire Federal Highway Administration for their leadership on this issue and I look forward to working with Ms. Peters and her agency to ensure that this commitment is borne out in the transportation reauthorization legislation that is developed by the Congress.

Completion of a new highway bill will be an enormous task for this Congress--one that is now more than 2

years overdue. As I look back over the many years of my public career, one of the accomplishments of which I am most proud was my amendment providing an additional $8 billion in funding to break the logjam during the debate on the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991. Another was my sponsorship of the Byrd-Gramm-Baucus-Warner Amendment during the Senate debate of TEA-21 in 1998. That effort resulted in some $26 billion in funding being added to that bill and put us on a path to historic funding increases for our nation's highway infrastructure. I look forward again to working with my fellow Senators on completion of a bill that makes the necessary investments in our nation's highways, not just in the Appalachian region but across our entire country.

Mr. President, in recent years, the public profile of the National Guard has changed considerably. Known mainly for the contributions of citizen-soldiers to their States and communities, today the men and women of the National Guard are serving on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan, enduring hardships in two of the world's most dangerous places.

In spite of the long deployments, far away from the small towns and big cities that these citizen-soldiers call home, the National Guard continues its work for our States and the American people. Today, I introduce legislation to support a most successful program that has helped the National Guard change the lives of tens of thousands of young Americans.

In 1991, I provided the first funding to establish a pilot program known as the National Guard Civilian Youth Opportunities Program. Over the years, this program has expanded in size and scope and is now known as the National Guard Youth Challenge Program.

The Youth Challenge Program gives high school dropouts the skills they need to turn their lives around. The advantage of using the National Guard to provide a structured environment for these students has been confirmed in studies by the Defense Science Board in 2000, the White House Task Force on Disadvantaged Children in 2003, and the Department of Defense in 2004.

The program now operates 27 academies in 24 States, including West Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii, Georgia, Louisiana, Virginia, Michigan, Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Over 5,000 cadets are now in training, and more than 58,000 have graduated from the program since 1993. Fully three-quarters of the Youth Challenge graduates have earned their high school diplomas in the program, but the program is at the mercy of shrinking state budgets.

In March 2004, the Department of Defense recommended an increase in Federal support for the program in order to prevent any more closures of Youth Challenge academies. The bill I introduce today would write that recommendation into law, phasing in the additional Federal support over 3 years.

My legislation also proposes to increase the authorization for the Youth Challenge program by $16.3 million, including $6.3 million for the proposed increase in the Federal share of the Youth Challenge Program's cost for Fiscal Year 2006.

My bill authorizes an additional $10 million to provide the first significant per-student increase in funding since the program began. For more than 12 years, the funding of the Youth Challenge Program has remained constant at $14,000 per student, per year. Imagine that. Think of that. At a time when the cost of education is growing by leaps and bounds, the Youth Challenge program has held the line on its budget for more than 12 years.

But such discipline means that there have been cutbacks in teachers, uniforms, and activities. The additional $10 million authorized in my bill would end these cutbacks, and may also be used to open new Youth Challenge academies, giving more at-risk youth a chance to change their lives.

Many of the citizen-soldiers of the National Guard serve our country in distant lands, but their commitment to their communities continues. The legislation I introduce today will strengthen that commitment by expanding the National Guard Youth Challenge Program for disadvantaged youth.

Mr. President, in light of the most recent evidence uncovered about Enron's participation in the Western Energy Crisis, I rise today to introduce the Energy Market Oversight Bill with Senators Levin, Harkin, Cantwell and Wyden.

This bill would: Improve Price Transparency in Wholesale Electricity Markets. The bill directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to establish an electronic system to provide information about the price and availability of wholesale electricity to buyers, and sellers, and the public.

Prohibit Round Trip Electricity Trades. The bill prohibits the simultaneous buying and selling of the same quantity of electricity at the same price in the same location with no financial gain or loss. Round trip or ``wash trades'' are essentially bogus trades whereby no electricity changes hands, but the profit from the trades enriches the bottom-line of a company's financial report.

Increase Penalties for Violations of Federal Power Act. Maximum fines for violations of the Federal Power Act are increased from $5,000 to $1,000,000.; and maximum sentences are increased from 2 to 5 years. Current fines are extraordinarily low and therefore provide no deterrence to illegal activity.

Increase Penalties for Violations of Natural Gas Act. The bill increases maximum fines for violations of the Natural Gas Act from $5,000 to $1,000,000.

Prohibit Manipulation in Electricity Markets. Manipulation is prohibited in the wholesale electricity markets and FERC is given discretionary authority to revoke market-based rates for violations. Strangely enough, manipulation of energy markets is not specifically prohibited. This would add language to Part II of the Federal Power Act.

Repeal the ``Enron exemption''. Repeals the Commodities Future Modernization Act exemption for large traders in energy commodities and applies the anti-manipulation and anti-fraud provisions of the Commodities Exchange Act to all Over the Counter trades in energy commodities and derivatives. In my view, when Congress exempted energy from the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, it created the playing field for the Western Energy Crisis of 2000 and 2001, and cost millions of people millions of dollars.

Provide CFTC the Tools to Monitor OTC Energy Markets. For Over the Counter trades in energy commodities and derivatives that perform a significant price discovery function, including trades on electronic trading facilities, the bill requires large sophisticated traders to keep records and report large trades to the CFTC. This does not change the law, only applies the law that exists for futures contracts to over the counter trades in the energy markets.

Limit on Use of Data. Requires the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to seek information that is necessary for the limited purposes of detecting and preventing manipulation in the futures and over the counter markets for energy; to keep proprietary trade and business data confidential except when used for law enforcement purposes. This does not require the real-time publication of proprietary data.

No Effect on Non-Energy Commodities or Derivatives. The bill would not alter or affect the regulation of futures markets, financial derivatives, or metals. We have specifically stated on page 20 the following: ``The amendments made by this title have no effect on the regulation of excluded commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act.''

In addition, the bill states: ``The amendments made by this title have no effect on the regulation of metals under the Commodity Exchange Act.''

The Western Energy Crisis of 2000-2001 has still not been resolved. Meanwhile, more and more information about Enron's role in the crisis emerges. On February 3, 2005, the Snohomish Public Utility District released transcripts of tapes showing that on January 17, 2001, Enron traders concocted false repairs for a Las Vegas power plant--making power unavailable that would have been delivered to California--on the very same day that supplies were so tight that Northern California experienced a Stage 3 power emergency and rolling blackouts hit as many as 2 million consumers.

By taking the plant offline, Enron was also in direct violation of an Emergency Power Order by U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson that required power generators to make power available to California.

Telephone transcripts between Enron and the Las Vegas plant

Mr. President, Senator Sessions and I are introducing legislation to combat the use of fraudulent immigration documents, particularly passports and other travel documents.

The need to prevent and prosecute passport and travel document fraud is clear, and this bill would increase penalties for the use of fraudulent travel documents.

We know that the threat of terrorism against the United States is real and as the 9/11 Commission Report states, ``for terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons.'' In order to minimize the threat of terrorism to the United States, we must make every effort to limit the use of fraudulent immigration documents.

The bill Senator Sessions and I are introducing would make the use of fraudulent travel documents--such as passports, Border Crossing Cards, Canadian driver's licenses or identification cards, transportation letters for parolees, military identification cards or green cards--an aggravated felony which will mandate detention and increase the likelihood of prosecution.

Today, this is not the case. Instead, fraudulent documents are routinely returned to the offender and individuals are allowed to return home without suffering any consequences from their attempts to circumvent our immigration laws.

Why is this a problem?

Firstly, admission to the United States is a privilege and not a right. We should not tolerate fraud and deception at our ports of entry, particularly because it should be apparent that a terrorist organization as sophisticated as Al Qaeda is well aware of our current procedures and can be expected to take full advantage of them.

Secondly, the 9/11 Commission found that as many as 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001 could have been intercepted by border officials, based in part on their travel documents. In fact, all but one of the September 11 hijackers acquired some form of U.S. identification document and some of those documents were acquired by fraud. All of the hijackers opened bank accounts in their names and used passports and other identification documents that appeared valid on their face.

Even before September 11, 2001, the use of fraudulent immigration documents to enter the United States was a threat that we did not sufficiently heed.

Let me give you some known examples of terrorists who have entered, or attempted to enter the United States, with fraudulent travel documents: Ahmed Ajaj and Ramzi Yousef attempted to enter the United States with fraudulent passports. Both were later implicated or convicted in the first World Trade Center bombing in February of 1993.

Ahmed Ressam used a fraudulently obtained Canadian passport, and, in 1999 attempted to cross the border from Canada at Port Angeles in Washington State. A border inspector felt Mr. Ressam looked nervous, and a search of his car turned up a trunk full of bombs. There is some debate about the exact target(s) of the attack; however, it seems likely that Los Angeles International Airport and perhaps the millennium celebrations in Seattle were the intended targets.

It is no secret that: as the 9/11 Commission Report makes clear, Al Qaeda has established a complex international travel network that allowed, and presumably still allows, its operatives to legally travel worldwide to train, conduct reconnaissance or otherwise prepare for an attack. This network included, and presumably still includes, the use of altered and counterfeit passports and visas.

Many countries, including France, Portugal and Saudi Arabia, have reported tens of thousands of passports and travel documents stolen. When these are stolen in large numbers, they are sold on the black market to others.

The 9/11 Commission found that had the immigration system set a higher bar for determining whether individuals are who they claim to be--and ensured consequences for any violations--it could potentially have denied entry, deported or come into further contact with the terrorists that were involved in the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States.

Last year, the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General issued the following reports on lost and stolen passports: ``A Review of the Use of Stolen passports from Visa Waiver Countries to Enter the United States'', December 2004; and, ``An Evaluation of the Security Implications of the Visa Waiver Program'' (April 2004).

I encourage my colleagues to read these reports on the vulnerabilities in our current border security. To summarize, the reports state that: In the United States alone, immigration officials have records for 1.2 million stolen passports.

Aliens applying for admission into the United States using stolen passports have little reason to fear being caught and are usually admitted. It has been standard practice to simply return a fraudulent passport to an individual seeking entry and let them return to their country. This, in effect, is the soft underbelly of the entire passport system.

The Director of the U.S. National Central Bureau of INTERPOL said that for 55 of the 181 INTERPOL countries, there probably were over 10 million lost and stolen passports that might be in circulation.

Law enforcement officials state that lost and stolen passports are the greatest security problem associated with the Visa Waiver Program.

And now that I've mentioned the Visa Waiver Program, let me say a few things about this program.

I believe the Visa Waiver Program is the Achilles heel in our immigration system. This program allows roughly 13 million individuals to enter the United States each year from 27 countries, without a visa--meaning they enter without a thorough background and security check.

Since we do not have in place a fully operational entry and exit program, specifically an exit system, we have no real way of knowing if millions of travelers who entered the United States have left as required.

Last year, Congress extended the deadline for one year for countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program to include biometric indicators in passports to verify the identity of bearers at the request of the Administration.

It is likely this deadline will again need to be extended.

I believe that granting another extension will be another opportunity for terrorists, organized crime rings, petty crooks, counterfeiters and forgers to continue entering the United States virtually unnoticed because we won't be able to confirm that they are who they say they are.

The bottom line is that we must crack down on document fraud if we are to protect our borders. There are thousands, even millions, of lost, stolen and fraudulent international passports, travel documents, driver's licenses and other identity documents in circulation, and we must now allow those to compromise our homeland security.

The purpose of this bill is twofold: first, to give the Department of Justice the incentive to vigorously prosecute all cases involving passport and travel document fraud, as well as certain other egregious cases of immigration document fraud.

Second, by encouraging policies that make these cases a priority for prosecution, it will require that Department of Homeland Security officials not return fraudulent documents to travelers, but instead turn them over to the Department of Justice so that they can institute criminal proceedings.

Unfortunately, the prosecution of immigration document fraud is not a high priority for the Department of Justice, because, although current penalties allow for a sentence of up to 25 years, typically most alien's convicted of travel document fraud serve less than one year in prison.

Also, the immigration consequences of document fraud are relatively minor. Low sentences, coupled with minimal immigration consequences, do not provide much incentive for U.S. Attorneys nationwide to consider the prosecution of immigration document cases a priority nor can they be seen as anything but a slap on the wrists of the offenders.

Senator Sessions and I pose a solution to this problem by toughening penalties so that we instill in those seeking to use fraudulent travel and immigration documents a real sense of fear that they will be caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent possible under our laws.

In any kind of meaningful border protection plan, one must have a good sense of who is entering and exiting the country. That simply cannot be known if the individual is using a fraudulent document.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Sessions, Senator Durbin and Senator Dodd in introducing the ``National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act.'' Our goal is to help States establish electronic databases to monitor the use of prescription drugs and deal more effectively with the growing national problem of prescription drug abuse.

Over 6 million Americans currently use prescription drugs for non- medical purposes. 31 million say they've abused such drugs at least once in their lifetime. Since 1992, the number of young adults who abuse prescription pain relievers and other addictive drugs has more than tripled. Prescription drug abuse among youths 12 to 17 has soared tenfold.

State programs to monitor addictive medications can help curb this abuse. Currently, 20 States have such programs in place, including Massachusetts, but they vary greatly in the collection and storage of the data, and in the methods for using the databases.

The information contained in these databases is important, because it can be used to identify physicians and patients who encourage the non- medical use of prescription drugs. It can also be used to reduce the diversion of prescription drugs for illegal use.

Our bill authorizes the Secretary of HHS to make grants to States to establish these needed monitoring programs. For States with existing programs, the grants can be used to improve their systems and standardize the data collected to allow easy sharing of the information between the States.

Any such program, however, must include strong safeguards for medical privacy, and make certain that the database cannot be used to put improper pressure on physicians to avoid prescribing essential drugs. The proper treatment of pain, for example, is an enormous medical challenge, but this essential care will be much more difficult if patients fear that their prescription histories will not be protected, or if physicians begin to look over their shoulder every time they prescribe pain medication.

We all share the goal of reaching the right balance between the interests of patients, physicians, and law enforcement, and we think this legislation does that. It requires that in grant applications, States must propose security standards for the electronic databases, including appropriate encryption or other information technology. States also must propose standards for using the database and obtaining the information, including certifications to be sure that requests for information are legitimate. The bill requires the Secretary to provide a follow-up analysis of the privacy protections within two years after enactment.

The national problem of prescription drug abuse worsens every year. Physicians want to treat pain without contributing to addiction. Law enforcement officials want to stop the flow of prescription drugs from pharmacies to the streets. A national prescription drug monitoring program will provide a valuable resource to achieve these goals. I commend Senator Sessions for his leadership on this important health issue, and I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort to fight prescription drug abuse.

Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senators Hutchinson, Schumer, and Cornyn in introducing the Hepatitis C Epidemic Control and Prevention Act. Our goal is to provide for the prevention, control, and treatment of Hepatitis C viral infection through education, surveillance, early detection, and research.

Hepatitis C is the most common, chronic, blood-borne infection in the United States. An estimated 5 million Americans are now infected with the Hepatitis C virus, and 30,000 more are infected every year. The rate of infection continues to rise--between 1990 and 2015, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention project a 4-fold increase in the number of persons with chronic infection of the virus.

Persons infected with the Hepatitis C virus come from all walks of life, but those at greatest risk include health workers, emergency service personnel, and drug users. Tragically, the majority of infected individuals are unaware of their infection, are not receiving treatment, and are sources of transmission of the virus to others.

Infection with the Hepatitis C virus has serious health effects. It can cause liver disease, including cirrhosis and liver cancer, and is the leading indicator for liver transplants. The illnesses are often life-threatening--up to 10,000 Americans die yearly from Hepatitis C complications, and it is the 7th leading cause of death for men between the ages of 25 and 64. In addition to the human costs, the disease has massive financial implications. Direct costs associated with care are expected to exceed $1 billion a year by 2010. Without intervention, the epidemic is projected to result in costs of over $54 billion by the year 2019.

Greater Federal investment will have a critical role in reversing this silent epidemic. Our Hepatitis C bill will increase public awareness of the dangers of Hepatitis C, and make testing widely available. For those already infected, it will provide counseling, referrals, and vaccination against Hepatitis A and B and other infectious diseases. It will also support research to develop a vaccine against Hepatitis C, just as we now have for Hepatitis A and B. It will create a multiagency Liver Disease Research Advisory Board and mandate a study of programs used by the Veteran's Administration, in order to provide important lessons and models of care for the nation. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will increase surveillance activities, and provide Hepatitis C coordinators to provide technical assistance and training to state public health agencies.

This bill will have a major impact on the lives of millions of Americans who are infected by Hepatitis C, and the families and loved ones who care for them. I look forward to working closely with my colleagues to act quickly to pass this needed legislation. I especially commend the impressive work of the students at Robinson Secondary School in Fairfax, VA, for their continuing dedication to informing Members of Congress about this important issue and bringing national attention to it.

Mr. President, I'm pleased to join my colleagues in introducing the Caring for Children Act of 2005. We were able to work together on both sides of the aisle to prepare this bill to reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant program. The Caring for Children Act reflects our common goals to expand access and improve the quality of child care for children and families throughout the Nation.

Child care is a key issue in both welfare reform and education reform. The success of our welfare system rests on our ability to provide dependable and consistent child care support for low-income families, so that they can work and provide for their families. Improving the quality of child care and the environment in which our children develop is an essential responsibility of our society as a whole, and this legislation can be an important part of our effort in Congress to meet that responsibility.

Today, 65 percent of parents with young children and 79 percent of parents with school age children are in America's workforce. During the working day, 14 million children are cared for by someone other than a parent.

For low-income families and single mothers, child care assistance is a lifeline. Low-income mothers who receive child care assistance are 40 percent more likely to remain employed after 2 years, compared to those who do not receive such support. Yet child care is still unaffordable for far too many families--full-day care can easily cost thousands of dollars a year and become an impossible expense for millions of families.

The Caring for Children Act will expand access to child care and do more to deliver the support that working parents need in obtaining effective child care. The bill supports activities to help parents fmd quality care through State Resource and Referral Centers, so that greater information and outreach to parents will be available.

Child care is a vital support for working parents, and it is also an essential link in preparing young children for school. Research shows that the early environments in which children learn and develop have a profound impact on their later development and on their success in school. Unfortunately, much remains to be done to improve the quality of child care. Nearly half of all kindergarten teachers report that the majority of children in each entering class has specific problems, including difficulty in following directions, lack of even the most basic academic skills, troubled situations at home, or difficulty in relating to other children.

The Caring for Children Act seeks to improve the quality of child care available to low-income children and their families through the Child Care and Development Block Grant. The bill will raise the amount of funds that States must dedicate to quality activities from 4 to 6 percent.

Most important, the Act will promote better child care by focusing on activities that make children ready to learn, and encouraging States to improve child safety and well-being. Funds will be used to provide greater training and support for child care workers, establish voluntary guidelines for school preparedness, and enhance the early learning of young children.

Investments in the child care workforce are also essential to improve the quality of care. Today, only one in

seven child care centers provides a level of quality adequate for child development. Thirty states have no pre-service training requirements for child care workers. Our bill supports professional development and education opportunities for child care providers to upgrade their skills and to use proven and effective early learning materials and teaching strategies in their work. It encourages states to increase the recruitment and retention of qualified child care staff and reduce the high turnover rates in child care centers.

We must also do more to ensure that states provide timely and adequate payments for high quality care. The Caring for Children Act will improve reimbursement rates for care in the states, and more effectively use the market survey required under current law to establish payment rates. I commend Senator Reed for his leadership on those provisions.

Finally, the Caring for Children Act creates a new Federal commitment to serve children in need, including families with infants and toddlers, children with disabilities, and families that require special care during non-traditional work hours. Thanks to Senator Harkin's leadership, the needs of infants and toddlers will continue to be addressed in this bill.

The Caring for Children Act builds on effective practices already underway in many states, but we still have a long way to go to see that all children have access to good child care. More resources are clearly required, and the need is urgent.

In nearly half the states, eligible children are being placed on waiting lists or being turned away altogether. In Massachusetts, over 16,000 low-income children are on waiting lists.

Instead of responding to this need, the President's budget for Fiscal Year 2006 freezes funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant. Under the Administration's own calculations, 300,000 fewer low- income children will have access to child care assistance by 2010. Surely, we can do better.

It makes no sense to cut back on child care for low-income children. We need to serve as many needy children as possible. I look forward very much to working with our colleagues on the Finance Committee to make that goal a reality as the reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant moves forward this year.

I commend Senators Enzi, Alexander, and Dodd for their impressive work on this bill. I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to support this important legislation and work with us to provide the support for quality child care that low-income families throughout America need and deserve.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join with Senators Levin, Stabenow, Reed, and Voinovich to introduce the National Invasive Species Council Act--a bill to permanently establish the National Invasive Species Council. I would like to thank my colleagues for their hard work on this legislation.

Recognizing the need for better coordination to combat the economic, ecologic, and health threats posed by invasive species, the federal government established the National Invasive Species Council by Executive Order in 1999. Today, the Council continues to operate and develop invasive species management plans. However, the Council is not as effective as it could be. The GAO reported that implementing these management plans is difficult because the Council does not have a congressional mandate to act. GAO further reported that most of the agencies that have responsibilities under the National Invasive Species Management Plan have not been completing activities by established due dates and that these agencies lack coordination. These are significant problems that must be addressed.

Invasive species are a national threat that we cannot afford to ignore. Many states are trying to combat these species that are threatening their local environments. Examples of such plants and animals include the emerald ash borer, which has been particularly troublesome in my home state of Ohio; the Chinese mitten crab; and hydrilla, considered to be one of the most problematic aquatic plants in the United States. If left unchecked, these and other invasive species pose dangerous environmental, health, and economic threats. Estimates of the annual economic damages caused by invasive species in this nation are as high as $137 billion. It is clear that more must be done.

To combat the serious threats posed by invasive species, we need federal coordination and planning. Our bill would provide just that and on a permanent basis. Under this legislation, the Secretaries of State, Commerce, Transportation, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Interior, Defense, and Treasury, along with the Administrators of EPA and USAID, would continue to work together through the National Invasive Species Council to develop a National Invasive Species Management Plan.

The duties of the Council are generally to coordinate federal activities in an effective, complementary, cost-efficient manner; update the National Invasive Species Management Plan; ensure that federal agencies implement the Management Plan; and develop recommendations for international cooperation. Additionally, if recommendations are not implemented, agencies would have to report to the Council. The Council is directed to develop guidance for federal agencies on prevention, control, and eradication of invasive species so that federal programs and actions do not increase the risk of invasion or spread non-indigenous species. And finally, the bill would establish an Invasive Species Advisory Committee to the Council.

The National Invasive Species Council could enhance its effectiveness and better protect our environment from invasive species with a congressional mandate. I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this measure so that the Federal Government can better respond to the threat posed by invasive species.

Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Act with my colleague, Senator Levin. I would like to thank him for all of his hard work on this legislation.

For those who have seen one of the five Great Lakes, it is not difficult to understand their importance. Covering more than 94,000 square miles and draining more than twice as much land, these freshwater seas hold an estimated six quadrillion gallons of water--or one-fifth of the world's surface freshwater. The Great Lakes ecosystem includes such diverse elements as northern evergreen and deciduous forests, lake plain prairies, and coastal wetlands. Over 30 of the basin's biological communities and over 100 species are globally rare or found only in the Great Lakes basin. The 637 State parks in the region accommodate more than 250 million visitors each year, and the Great Lakes basin is home to more than 33 million people--or one-tenth of the U.S. population.

As co-chairs of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, Senator Levin and I have worked together on legislation and other initiatives to protect this natural resource. We secured funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for water level gauges, a replacement ice-breaking vessel, and funding for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for sea lamprey control. Additionally, Senator Levin and I met with the U.S. Trade Representative Office in an effort to prevent Great Lakes water from being diverted abroad. We worked to authorize the Great Lakes Basin Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Program in the 2002 Farm Bill, and three years ago, we joined our colleagues in the House to pass the Great Lakes Legacy Act. This legislation provides up to $50 million per year to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to remove contaminated sediments at Areas of Concern.

These steps are positive, but we are not keeping pace with the problems facing the Great Lakes--the Federal Government simply is not providing the funding to protect them. An April 2003 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that the Federal Government spent roughly $745 million over the last ten years on Great Lakes restoration programs. Now consider that the GAO reported that the eight Great Lakes States spent $956 million during that same ten-year period.

There is ample evidence that this current level of commitment is simply not enough to address the challenges. In 2001, there were approximately 600 beach closings as a result of e-coli bacteria. Further, State and local health authorities issued approximately 1,400 fish consumption advisories in the Great Lakes. In 1978, the United States and Canada amended the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to give priority attention to 43 designated Areas of Concern. Since the signing, the Federal Government has not been able to

remove any U.S. sites from the Areas of Concern list. Invasive species are one of the largest threats to the ecosystem and the $4.5 billion Great Lakes fishing industry. There are now over 160 aquatic invasive species threatening the Great Lakes. It is imperative that we fix these problems.

For several years, I have been calling for a plan to restore the Lakes. I have been urging the governors, mayors, the environmental community, and other regional interests to agree on a vision for the future of the Great Lakes--not just for the short-term, but for the long-term. It is time for us to come together to develop a plan and put it in place.

The bill we are introducing today builds upon the efforts by those in the Great Lakes states who are working with the congressional delegation and federal officials on the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration group. It provides the funding needed to implement their recommendations.

This legislation would provide the tools needed for the long-term future of the Great Lakes. First, our bill creates a $6 billion Great Lakes Restoration Grant Program to augment existing federal and state efforts to clean, protect, and restore the Great Lakes. An additional $600 million in annual funding will be appropriated through the EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office. The Program Office will provide grants to the Great Lakes States, municipalities, and other applicants in coordination with the Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Advisory Board. This funding will provide the extra resources that existing programs do not have.

While the Great Lakes are a national resource, leaders in the region, not Washington bureaucrats, should set priorities and guide restoration efforts. That is why our bill requires close coordination between the EPA and state and regional interests before grants are released. The Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Advisory Board, led by the Great Lakes governors, will include mayors, federal agencies, Native American tribes, environmentalists, industry representatives, and Canadian observers. This Advisory Board will prioritize restoration projects, such as invasive species control and prevention, wetlands restoration, contaminated sediments cleanup, and water quality improvements. Additionally, this Advisory Board will provide recommendations on which grant applications to fund. The input from the Advisory Board ensures that regional leaders will be critical in determining the long-term future of the Great Lakes.

As the April 2003 GAO study reported, environmental restoration activities in the Great Lakes suffer from lack of coordination. The second goal of this legislation is the codification of the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force to coordinate Federal activities in the Great Lakes region. The EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office would serve as the council leader, and participants would include key federal agencies involved in Great Lakes restoration efforts. The council would ensure that the efforts of federal agencies are coordinated, effective, and cost-efficient.

Lastly, this bill would help address a GAO recommendation that a monitoring system and environmental indicators be developed to measure progress on new and existing restoration programs in the Great Lakes.

Our bill is a major step in the right direction. I would again like to thank my colleague, Senator Levin, for his dedication to the Great Lakes and to their restoration. We need to continue to refocus and improve our efforts in order to reverse the trend of additional degradation of the Great Lakes. They are a unique natural resource for Ohio and the entire region--a resource that must be protected for future generations. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this bill and in our efforts to help preserve and protect the long-term viability of our Great Lakes.

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

Mr. President, the pace of technological innovation offers American consumers an eye-catching array of electronic gadgets. But for every new lap top or HDTV that goes home from the store with a consumer, an old computer or TV gets moved to the garage or shoved into the back of a closet. What to do with the growing amount of trash from the digital economy is a question that Senator Talent and I believe must be addressed before our landfills are full and foreign countries close their ports to ships loaded down with old US computers. Today we are introducing bipartisan legislation to jumpstart a nationwide electronic waste recycling initiative.

When I was a member of the Commerce Committee, I helped write the

ground rules for the digital economy. My goal was to help create a climate that would spur the development of technology so it would become accessible and affordable to all Americans. This approach seems to be working. One measure of the success of the digital economy is the sheer number of computers and electronic gadgets that Americans own. Americans now spend more than $130 billion a year on electronics, from computers to HDTVs.

The boom in consumer spending on electronics and the growth in the digital economy are not without a downside. In one year alone, some 60 million computers and 20 million television sets become obsolete and more than 500 million computers will be discarded in the decade ending in 2007. These obsolete computers alone will result in over 6.3 billion pounds of plastic and 1.6 billion pounds of lead in our landfills or incinerators.

Electronic waste, or e-waste, is not even a blip on the radar screen of most policymakers. There have been a few news articles here and there, but so far they've been buried, well behind page one. I want to tackle the problem of e-waste in the same way we went about solving the Y-2K problem: putting policies in place to help all stakeholders deal with it before it overtakes us.

Some communities across the country have begun to talk about how to deal with the accumulation of electronic waste. A few States, like California and Maine, recently passed laws to get recycling programs going. Several other States, including my own State of Oregon, will likely consider legislation this year. Among the options, some States favor an upfront fee, tacked onto the price of electronics, intended to help pay for the cost of recycling, others are looking at end-of-life fees. No one yet has looked at the approach Senator Talent and I are proposing.

My own sense is that slapping a fee on consumers for the purchase of a new computer or television is not necessarily the best way to encourage them to drag those old 80-pound computers and TVs out of the basement and get them to a recycling facility. Someone who needs a new one may just pay the fee but leave their old computers and TVs at home. End-of-life fees mean that today's manufacturers and retailers end up paying for e-trash left over from manufacturers that have gone out of business or from off-shore companies.

The bipartisan legislation Senator Talent and I are introducing today, The Electronic Waste Recycling Promotion and Consumer Protection Act, takes a novel approach to the problem.

First, to get consumers motivated to move their old computers or televisions out of the garage and to a recycling facility, the bill would give them a one-time tax credit based on showing they gave their old computers or televisions to a qualified recycler.

Second, to build up the recycling infrastructure nationwide, the legislation would give manufacturers, retailers and qualified recyclers tax credits over a 3-year period, based on showing that they had recycled a certain amount of e-waste each year and done it in a way that is safe and environmentally sound.

Third, the bill would give the Environmental Protection Agency a year to come up with options for a nationwide e-waste recycling program that would, if approved by Congress, preempt State plans. Manufacturers, retailers and recyclers are going to find it increasingly difficult to deal with a crazy quilt of 50 different State e-waste recycling laws.

These are the incentives, but incentives without teeth won't work. So at the end of 3 years of tax credits, if EPA determines that there are enough recyclers in place, no one who operates a municipal solid waste facility could knowingly accept any computer, computer monitor or television unless the e-waste is to be recycled.

The bill would also ask EPA to consider the benefits of requiring manufacturers who sell computers and TVs to take them back for recycling. And, to make sure we're keeping our own house in order, the legislation would require the federal government to properly recycle its computers.

The goal here is to provide incentives to build a nationwide e-waste recycling infrastructure. EPA estimates that electronic waste already constitutes 40 percent of the lead and 70 percent of the heavy metals found in landfills today. If this waste is not handled properly, there is a real risk that toxins from the lead, mercury and cadmium will leach into the air, soil and water. The health effects of these toxins are well known and include an increased risk of cancer as well as harm to kidneys, the brain and the nervous system.

As one who has worked so hard to foster the digital economy, I believe there is also a duty to assure that e-waste is handled responsibly. Consumers need to know that potentially harmful e-waste is being handled properly and I can't find a reason to add millions of tons of new toxic waste to our environment.

I also believe that the United States, as the leading innovator and consumer of electronic products in the world, has a duty to deal with e-waste responsibly. Sending shiploads full of e-junk that contains harmful lead, mercury and cadmium to poor countries overseas is not my idea of responsible.

Senator Talent and I have worked with a group of folks that normally don't see eye to eye on such issues. Through many hours of negotiation they have helped us produce a bill that represents a solid first step toward solving this problem. I am pleased that we have support for the approach taken in our legislation from environmental groups and industry groups, ranging from manufacturers like HP and Intel to retailers and solid waste recyclers, like Waste Management. We are committed to continuing to work with them to move the legislation through Congress.

In closing, electronic waste is not going away. It's time to put bipartisan policies in place that will jumpstart the creation of a nationwide e-waste recycling infrastructure so that consumers have access to recycling facilities and get in the habit of recycling these items. I've talked to manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, environmental and consumer groups and they tell me that this issue must be addressed now by a national rather than state-by-state approach. This bill is a common-sense, first step that will help us get a handle on the growing problem of electronic waste.

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