To authorize appropriations for the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by rising to compliment my distinguished California colleague, the Chair of the subcommittee, for her amazing and festive outfit which includes shoes and earrings which I hope very much our colleagues will seize the opportunity to see during this holiday season.

The importance of stating that is matched by my praise for her work and the work of her staff on this important legislation. It has been nearly a decade, actually back in 1999, that we were able to first pass legislation designed to deal with a horrendous tragedy that came in the aftermath of the Cold War. It was during the Cold War that we had a wide range of defense contractors, some of which are in business today, and some of which no longer are in business; but during that period of time, they legally disposed of spent rocket fuel. They did it legally. No one knew what the ramifications of that would be at the time.

And so, Mr. Speaker, what happened? Well, in the mid-1990s there was this discovery of perchlorate which was a byproduct of the disposal of that spent rocket fuel. Unfortunately, it created the potential to contaminate the water for as many as 7 million Californians.

That is why I want to join in praising Mrs. Napolitano for her work in expanding this cleanup effort, and I want to thank all the members of her staff. I also want to express appreciation to our colleague, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who also has worked very hard on this. And I know that the discovery of perchlorate is something that has hit other parts of the country.

Well, we in the San Gabriel Valley have put together what clearly is the best model for not only our area, Mr. Speaker, but for other parts of the country, Dallas, Texas, other parts of California, where this has been found. What does that partnership consist of? It is the Federal Government, and there was a lot of litigation that was initiated in the 1990s over this problem. I decided back then in the 1990s, why should we wait for litigation to go through the courts when perchlorate was seeping into the groundwater when it was very clear that the Federal Government had contracted with these people and we won the Cold War.

And so it was obvious that this was a Federal responsibility for us to step up to the plate. But there, obviously, were a lot of others who did want to take on some of the responsibility, so companies like Aerojet and other companies did agree to participate in the cleanup effort. And the State of California and local governments as well have been part of this process.

Again, our bipartisan staffs have worked so closely together on this issue that to me, Mr. Speaker, it is a great demonstration of the willingness of Chairwoman Napolitano to reach out and work on an issue where we could find areas of agreement. Again, I can't thank her enough for that. And I will say that as we look at this challenge down the road, we hope very much that it is taken care of. But I am well aware of the fact that we will see further environmental difficulties in the future, and I believe that this legislation, H.R. 123, will be a model that can be utilized for many of the other environmental challenges that we face beyond the issue of water in the future.

So again I thank all of my colleagues who have been involved, Mr. Speaker,

and I thank those in our local area, the Water Quality Authority and other entities that have stepped up and are working with us, because they really were key in putting together this model; and I urge my colleagues to support the gentlewoman's resolution here.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill's passage. H.R. 123 is an important continuation of the successful federal-state-local partnership that already exists in providing one of the most basic necessities of life--clean drinking water. The bill extends the current authorization of the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund by a total of $61.2 million--$50 million for the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority (WQA), and $11.2 million for the Central Basin Municipal Water District (Central Basin).

The San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund was created because of the critical need to quickly implement a plan that would address the contaminated groundwater in the San Gabriel Valley. Before important environmental laws were put into place, the Federal Government had contracted with defense companies that were, at that time, legally permitted to dispose of spent-rocket fuel without proper safeguards for groundwater. There had already been clean-up efforts in the region for other contaminants but in 1997, perchlorate contamination was discovered in the groundwater in the San Gabriel Valley. Unfortunately, at the time of discovery, many of those contractors and other responsible parties had either moved their businesses to other locations, or had simply gone out of business. The region's groundwater remained threatened while mounting litigation between the Environmental Protection Agency and private parties potentially responsible for the contamination delayed any hope for a solution.

In 1999, the Federal Government rightfully stepped in with the creation of the Restoration Fund to provide a mechanism for those responsible for the contamination to partner with local, state and federal agencies to solve the crisis and immediately implement the clean-up. The willingness of the Federal Government to partner with local and state agencies proved to be the impetus for private investment and participation in the ongoing cleanup efforts.

I am proud to say that this partnership is an example of good stewardship of taxpayer money. Initially in 1999, when we first began the process for creating the Restoration Fund, the total cost of cleaning up the basin was estimated at $320 million. Congress created the Restoration Fund in 2000, with an initial authorization of $85 million, or a 25 percent investment. To date, a little over $70 million has been appropriated, with approximately 83 percent of the cleanup provided by local sources and responsible parties, with about 12 percent federal funding.

After recent evaluation of the total project, accounting for increased levels of detected contamination, increased energy costs and inflation, the total cost of cleanup now, almost a decade later, is approximately $1 billion. With a modest increase of $61.2 million, bringing the total federal investment to $146.2 million, or approximately 14 percent, the WQA and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation can continue jointly administering this cleanup program.

Their outstanding work is why this project is cost effective and such a huge success. In working with the WQA and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation over the past decade on this regional solution, there is no doubt that this increase is warranted and will be utilized in the most effective way to continue to provide safe drinking water.

The cost-effectiveness of the original authorization of the Restoration Fund is clear. And without a doubt, that cost-effective use of the federal investment will be continued in this new authorization. The federal partnership will continue to hold the coalition of local water agencies and private parties together to finish the job that we started a decade ago.

It is important to note that this bill, while originally introduced to authorize additional funds for the WQA, was amended to include additional funding for the Central Basin. The WQA and Central Basin were jointly authorized to implement the cleanup by the original Restoration Fund. These two agencies have worked side by side for many years to ensure that the millions of residents in our region have safe drinking water. While the Central Basin has realized its full authorization under the Restoration Fund, there are funds yet to be appropriated to the WQA under the original authorization. Therefore, the WQA is not responsible to provide the Central Basin with any further appropriations that are secured under the original $85 million ceiling.

However, we all recognize Central Basin's desire to seek additional funds beyond what they have already been fully provided under the original authorization to ensure the safety of the region's groundwater. Central Basin has stepped forward in committing to providing the 35 percent local cost share on any future appropriations they secure. Once the WQA receives its full appropriation under the original authorization, should the WQA and Central Basin decide to pursue and split a single appropriation as they've done in the past, then the WQA and the Central Basin have mutually agreed that the WQA will receive 90 percent, and Central Basin will receive 10 percent of any annual appropriation to the Restoration Fund under the new authorization ceiling outlined in this bill. I want to commend the cooperation between these two agencies in working out the details of the implementation of this bill and for their continued service to the residents of the San Gabriel Valley.

This bill is a product of strong bipartisan cooperation with the Chair of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power, Ms. Napolitano, an original cosponsor of the bill and great partner throughout the years in addressing the very serious challenge of keeping our groundwater supply safe for southern Californians. I am very proud to have the support of our friends Gary Miller, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Adam Schiff, Hilda Solis and Linda Sanchez. I also want to thank Ranking Member Cathy McMorris-Rodgers for her support throughout the legislative process as well as recognize the hard work of the very able Majority and Minority subcommittee staff including Steve Lanich, Kiel Weaver, Emily Knight and from Chairwoman Napolitano's personal office, Daniel Chao.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help millions of Americans overcome a deadly addiction: the addiction to tobacco. The Medicare, Medicaid and MCH Smoking Cessation Promotion Act of 2008 will help make smoking cessation therapy available to recipients of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Maternal and Child Health, MCH, Program.

More than 45 million adults in the United States smoke cigarettes. Approximately 90 percent started smoking before the age of 14. Despite the fact that we have known for decades that cigarette smoking are the leading preventable cause of death, 1,600 adults become regular smokers each day, including 4,000 kids. Depending on your race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, even where you live, the likelihood that you are a smoker varies greatly. African-Americans are twice as likely as the general population to smoke. Communities in the South are more likely to be smoker-friendly than other communities in the U.S. While 22.5 percent of the general adult population in the U.S. are current smokers, the percentage is about 50 percent higher among Medicaid recipients. Thirty-six percent of adults covered by Medicaid smoke.

We have a moral argument and an economic argument to end the addiction to nicotine. Morally, how do we ignore the deaths of 438,000 smokers or 8.6 million Americans living with serious smoking-related illnesses? Smoking causes virtually all cases of lung cancer and contributes to primary heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD, and other deadly health ailments. It is too often a bleak future for smokers and their families. An American Legacy Foundation report reminds us that second- hand smoke in children of smokers leads to asthma and chronic ear infections in children but also that 43,000 children are orphaned every year because of tobacco-related deaths.

We are not only paying a heavy health toll, but an economic price as well. According to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, health care expenditures caused by smoking is approaching $100 billion. Our federal government pays $17.6 billion in smoking-caused Medicaid payments and $27.4 billion in smoking-caused Medicare expenditures.

Ironically, we do not hear that much about how many smokers America-- 70 percent--want to quit. Unfortunately, they face long odds--in 2000, only about 5 percent of smokers were successful in quitting long-term. Overcoming an addiction to tobacco is arguably one of the single most important lifestyle changes that can improve and extend lives. However, most smokers who want to quit don't appreciate how hard it really is to break an addition to nicotine.

This is why it is essential that we make this decision and the courage that it takes as easy as possible. States are already stepping up to the plate when it comes to smoking cessation. Last year in my home State of Illinois, a record-breaking 36 cities and counties enacted smoke-free laws, more than any other State in the Nation. More and more Illinoisans and Americans nationwide are realizing that life without smoking is possible. And the support for cessation does not end there. In fact, in 2003, 37 States had some form of coverage under Medicaid for at least one evidence-based treatment for smoking addiction. States like New Jersey and Oregon now have some of the lowest smoking-related Medicaid costs.

Studies have shown that reducing adult smoking through tobacco use treatment pays immediate dividends, both in terms of health improvements and cost savings. Shortly after quitting smoking, blood circulation improves, carbon monoxide levels in the blood decrease, the risk of heart attack decreases, lung function and breathing are improved, and coughing decreases.

Pregnant women who quit smoking before their second trimester decrease the chances that they will give birth to a low-birth-weight baby. Over the long term, quitting will reduce a person's risk of heart disease and stroke, improve symptoms of COPD, reduce the risk of developing smoking-caused cancer, and extend life expectancy.

We are fortunate to have identified clinically proven, effective strategies to help smokers quit. Advancements in treating tobacco use and nicotine addiction using pharmacotherapy and counseling have helped millions kick the habit. An updated clinical practice guideline released in May of 2008 by the U.S. Public Health Service urges health care insurers and purchasers to include counseling and FDA-approved pharmacologic treatments as a covered benefit. The Guideline also emphasizes the role that counseling, especially in conjunction with medication, increases the odds of success in quitting. As we urge healthcare insurers and purchasers to offer this important benefit, so too should our government sponsored health programs keep pace.

I am proud to be joined by my colleagues Senators Kennedy and Lautenberg to introduce the Medicare, Medicaid and MCH Smoking Cessation Promotion Act of 2008 and require government-sponsored health programs to cover this important benefit. The Medicare, Medicaid, and MCH Smoking Cessation Promotion Act of 2008 makes it easier for people to have access to smoking cessation treatment therapies. It does three meaningful things.

First, this bill adds a smoking cessation counseling benefit and coverage of FDA-approved tobacco cessation drugs to Medicare. By 2020, 17 percent of the U.S. population will be 65 years of age or older. It is estimated that Medicare will pay $800 billion to treat tobacco related diseases over the next 20 years.

Second, this bill provides coverage for counseling, prescription and non-prescription smoking cessation drugs in the Medicaid program. The bill eliminates the provision in current federal law that allows States to exclude FDA-approved smoking cessation therapies from coverage under Medicaid. Despite the fact that the States have received payments from their successful Federal lawsuit against the tobacco industry, less than half the States provide coverage for smoking cessation in their Medicaid program. Even if Medicaid covered cessation products and services exclusively to pregnant women, we would see significant cost savings and health improvements. Children whose mothers smoke during pregnancy are almost twice as likely to develop asthma as those whose mothers did not. Over 7 years, reducing smoking prevalence by just one percentage point among pregnant women would prevent 57,200 low birth weight births and save $572 million in direct medical costs.

Third, this bill ensures that the Maternal and Child Health Program recognizes that medications used to promote smoking cessation and the inclusion of anti-tobacco messages in health promotion are considered part of quality maternal and child health services.

As Congress begins to examine more closely the impact of tobacco on our country--considering regulation by the FDA or raising taxes to pay for public health priorities--we must make sure we assist those fighting this deadly addiction. I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this legislation and taking a stand for the public health of our Nation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of myself and Senators Sessions, Murkowski, and Landrieu, a bill that establishes the foundation for a sustainable nuclear fuel cycle for the U.S. A sustainable nuclear fuel cycle is the key to nuclear energy reaching its full potential to provide the large scale base load electrical generating capacity our country needs, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Today, nuclear energy provides nearly 20 percent of our electricity generation capacity and does so more reliably, and with a lower cost per kilowatt hour than coal, with essentially no greenhouse gas emissions. In the decades to come, we will need nuclear energy to play an even greater role, not only in electrical generation, but also in the transportation and industrial sectors, if we are to achieve the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions needed to address the challenge of global climate change. The Strengthening Management of Advanced Recycling Technologies Act, or SMART Act, represents the first important step in building the bridge to that future.

The SMART Act promotes the establishment of privately owned and operated used nuclear fuel storage and recycling facilities. These facilities will help resolve the current deadlock in spent nuclear fuel management while providing a means to extract additional energy from used nuclear fuel. I believe that a commercially viable used fuel recycling strategy, combined with a responsible waste disposition strategy, will enable the expansion of nuclear energy necessary to meet all our goals for the future of nuclear energy. The SMART Act advances this vision through incentives--rather than mandates--for both industry and local communities.

The SMART Act establishes a competitive 50-50 cost share program between the Department of Energy and private industry to finance engineering and design work and the development of license applications for up to 2 spent fuel recycling facilities. The SMART Act restricts facility designs to commercial scale facilities that do not separate pure plutonium. The recycling technology must also reduce the burden on geologic repositories used for ultimate disposal of waste and promote extraction of additional energy from used fuel stocks. Beyond these restrictions, the choice of recycling technology is left up to industry.

The resulting reference licenses for recycling facilities may then be used by industry to construct domestic used nuclear fuel recycling capacity. To assist industry in securing the necessary financing for these facilities, the SMART Act authorizes DOE to offer long term contracts for spent fuel recycling services. All construction and financing costs, however, would be born by industry.

Although ultimate geologic disposition of waste will always be needed, interim storage of used nuclear fuel is a

necessary component of the nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure. To encourage development of interim storage facilities the SMART Act establishes an economic incentive program for communities and states that wish to host a facility within their jurisdiction. All interim storage facilities would be privately owned and operated and licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The SMART Act incentives are designed to encourage the development of two large scale facilities with enough capacity to accommodate our annual domestic used nuclear fuel generation.

As with the used fuel recycling facilities, the SMART act authorizes the Department of Energy to enter into long term contracts with storage facility operators. In addition, the SMART Act allows the Department of Energy to enter into agreements with utilities for the settlement of all future claims against the department for failure to take title to spent nuclear fuel by 1998.

Currently, the Nuclear Waste Fund established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 has a balance of approximately $20 billion and is growing by nearly $1.8 billion annually from fees paid by the utilities and interest on the fund. Unfortunately, this fund is currently ``on budget'' and amounts to little more than an IOU to the U.S. ratepayers. The SMART Act will allow access to a small portion of this fund so that it can begin working to resolve the nuclear waste issue as it was intended.

The SMART Act establishes a revolving fund from $1 billion of the current waste fund as well as the annual interest on the fund. The remaining 95 percent of the current waste fund, as well as all future fees, would be placed in a legacy fund for the purposes of constructing a geologic repository. Expenditures from the revolving fund for the provisions of the act could be made without further appropriations but would be subject to limitations in appropriations acts. In this way the revolving fund could be put to use without being subject to the uncertainty of the annual appropriations process while still retaining the authority of Congress to oversee the fund.

The resolution of the used nuclear fuel issue has been deadlocked for decades. Fortunately time has been on our side since nuclear energy produces so little waste. For example the nuclear waste generated by a family of four during their entire lives is only a couple of pounds. Some have even said that we do not need to begin recycling used nuclear fuel for 30 or 40 years. I do not believe we can wait that long before we resolve the used nuclear fuel issue, however. We must begin taking steps today that will place us on the path to a secure and sustainable nuclear energy industry in the future. We must demonstrate to industry and financial institutions the Government's commitment to resolving the used nuclear fuel issue. The SMART bill will place us on that path to the future.

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2008, which is a modified version of my earlier legislation by the same name. This legislation, which adds original cosponsors, continues to address the Department of Justice's corporate prosecution guidelines. Those guidelines, last revised by former Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty in December 2006, erode the attorney-client relationship by allowing prosecutors to request privileged information backed by the hammer of prosecution if the request is denied.

Like my previous bill, S. 186, this bill will protect the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship by prohibiting federal prosecutors and investigators from requesting waiver of attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protections in corporate investigations. The bill would similarly prohibit the government from conditioning charging decisions or any adverse treatment on an organization's payment of employee legal fees, invocation

of the attorney-client privilege, or agreement to a joint defense agreement.

The new version of the bill makes many subtle improvements, including defining ``organization'' to make clear that continuing criminal enterprises and terrorist organizations will not benefit from the bill's protections. The bill also clarifies language that the Department of Justice had previously criticized as ambiguous. The bill also makes clear in its findings that its prohibition on informal privilege waiver demands is far from unprecedented. The bill states: ``Congress recognized that law enforcement can effectively investigate without attorney-client privileged information when it banned Attorney General demands for privileged materials in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1968(c)(2).''

There is no need to wait to see how the McNulty memorandum will operate in practice. There is similarly no need to wait for another internal Department of Justice reform that will likely fall short and be the fifth policy in the last 10 years. Any such internal reform will not address the privilege waiver policies of other government agencies that refer matters to the Department of Justice and allow in through the window what isn't allowed through the door.

As I said when I introduced S. 186, the right to counsel is too important to be passed over for prosecutorial convenience. It has been engrained in American jurisprudence since the 18th century when the Bill of Rights was adopted. The 6th Amendment is a fundamental right afforded to individuals charged with a crime and guarantees proper representation by counsel throughout a prosecution. However, the right to counsel is largely ineffective unless the confidential communications made by a client to his or her lawyer are protected by law. As the Supreme Court observed in Upjohn Co. v. United States, ``the attorney-client privilege is the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law.'' When the Upjohn Court affirmed that attorney-client privilege protections apply to corporate internal legal dialogue, the Court manifested in the law the importance of the attorney-client privilege in encouraging full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients, as well as the broader public interests the privilege serves in fostering the observance of law and the administration of justice. The Upjohn Court also made clear that the value of legal advice and advocacy depends on the lawyer having been fully informed by the client.

In addition to the importance of the right to counsel, it is also fundamental that the Government has the burden of investigating and proving its own case. Privilege waiver tends to transfer this burden to the organization under investigation. As a former prosecutor, I am well aware of the enormous power and tools a prosecutor has at his or her disposal. The prosecutor has enough power without the coercive tools of the privilege waiver, whether that waiver policy is embodied in the Holder, Thompson, McCallum, McNulty--or a future Filip--memorandum.

As in S. 186, this bill amends title 18 of the United States Code by adding a new section, Sec. 3014, that would prohibit any agent or attorney of the U.S. Government in any criminal or civil case to demand or request the disclosure of any communication protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product. The bill would also prohibit government lawyers and agents from basing any charge or adverse treatment on whether an organization pays attorneys' fees for its employees or signs a joint defense agreement.

This legislation is needed to ensure that basic protections of the attorney-client relationship are preserved in Federal prosecutions and investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 123) to authorize appropriations for the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 123 was introduced by our colleague and good friend, Congressman David Dreier of California, to provide additional funds for the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund. This bill, which is a very important bill for my whole area, has worked to clean up a contamination, a Superfund site, that has cleaned up much of the contamination in an area that comprises probably around 30 cities, and as amended will raise the appropriation ceiling by an additional $61.2 million.

We need this to further continue to provide the cleanup on this water to millions of people in dozens of cities. This bill has been worked on in a bipartisan basis. Both my colleague, Mr. Dreier, myself, our staffs have worked diligently for a long time to carry this bill to where it is.

When H.R. 123 was introduced earlier this year, it only included funds for cleanup in the San Gabriel Basin. Since then, my staff, committee staff and Congressman Dreier's staff have worked together to amend the bill to include additional funds for cleanup in the central basin as well. While this legislation provides a central basin with access to much-needed additional funds, all funds left under the original authorization should remain dedicated to the Water Quality Authority, the entity which is responsible for coordinating cleanup efforts in the San Gabriel Basin.

Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to this noncontroversial, bipartisan bill and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 123, as amended.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no speakers waiting. I still remain committed to reserving my time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has very well outlined the background of the bill. Due to his vision, this started over a decade over ago, brought all the parties together, had many hurdles that were accomplished only when people were brought to the table and were able to seek the solution to be more expediently cleaning up that area. And I can tell you that this has been, as he has outlined, a very hard- worked, joint effort, not only at the local level with the State, the locals, the Fed, the EPA, all the water districts, but also our staffs who have run into difficulties and had been able to work to iron them out. So kudos also, Mr. Speaker, to Chairman Dreier's staff in being willing to work with our staff in bringing this to the solution where we are now.

I have no further speakers, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments about my dress and demeanor. I only feel that we are hoping to wrap it up this week and not be here through Christmas.

I yield back the balance of my time.