A bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to improve and strengthen the safety inspection process of nuclear facilities.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Hagel, the Senator from Nebraska, to introduce the Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2007. There are currently 25 million veterans in America, including over one million who have left military service since September 11, 2001. As the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan continue, the number of veterans, including service disabled veterans, will increase and reservists will continue to carry more of the burden than ever before. As veterans and reservists reenter civilian life, the economic benefits and opportunities provided by the Federal Government will become even more critical, particularly in the field of entrepreneurship and business ownership. As the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am serious about addressing the problems affecting veterans and reservists who wish or are already engaged in small business and this bill is another step forward in doing so.

As veterans, Senator Hagel and I believe that the government has an obligation to help deployed reservists avoid economic hardship because of their service and to help veterans, particularly the service- disabled, return to civilian life when they retire. There are more veterans returning each day because of the war on terror--800,000 veterans were discharged between 2002 and 2005--and ensuring that these individuals have a secure financial future is not just a matter of fairness but of national security. The treatment of our troops affects the Nation's ability to recruit and retain the best and brightest. Veterans have told me that they feel that they are being forgotten and that the government is simply not living up to its past promises of helping veteran entrepreneurs succeed. This bill is one step in ensuring that the government is doing all it can to help those who have served and sacrificed on our behalf.

The Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2007 reauthorizes the veteran programs in the Small Business Administration. Specifically, this legislation increases the funding authorization for the Office of Veteran Business Development from $2 million today to $2.5 million in three years. In light of the large numbers of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and increased responsibilities placed on this office by Executive Order 13360, it is high time that the Office of Veteran Business Development receive the funding levels that it needs.

In addition, this bill permanently extends the SBA Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs. The committee was created to serve as an independent source of advice and policy recommendations to the SBA, the Congress, and the President. The veteran small business owners who serve on this committee provide a unique perspective which is sorely needed at this challenging time. Unfortunately, continuing uncertainty about the Committee's future has, at times, distracted the committee from focusing on its core function. Therefore, I have called for its permanent extension. It is clear to me that more needs to be done to address the issues facing veterans and reservists, and the role this committee plays will continue to be important.

Additionally, I have taken a number of steps to better serve the reservists who are serving their country abroad while their businesses are suffering at home. Over the past decade, the Department of Defense has increased its reliance on the National Guard and reserves. This has intensified since September 11 and increased deployments are expected to continue. The effect of this increase on reservists and small businesses continues to remain of concern. A 2003 GAO report indicated that 41 percent of reservists lost income when mobilized. This had a higher effect on self-employed reservists, 55 percent of whom lost income.

In 1999, I created the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan (MREIDL) program to provide loans to small businesses that incur economic injury as a result of an essential employee being called to active duty. However, since 2002, fewer than 300 of these loans have been approved by the SBA, despite record numbers of reservists being called to active duty. It is clear that changes need to be made, so that reservists are informed about the availability of the MREIDL program and that the program better meets their needs.

At a hearing of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship on January 31st, the first hearing we held in this Congress, we heard suggestions for a number of changes which would improve the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan program, and I have included those changes in this bill. They include increasing the application deadline for such a loan from 90 days to one year following the date of discharge; creating a pre-deployment loan approval process; and improved outreach and technical assistance.

This bill also creates a non-collaterized loan program. Reservist families have already sacrificed enough when a family member goes away to serve their country and when their business is harmed as a result. This loan program would allow reservist dependent businesses to access the capital they need to stay afloat without having to sacrifice beyond the service of the key employees. In order to give reservists time to repay the loans, the non-collaterized loan created in this bill would not accumulate interest or require payments for one year or until after the deployment ends, whichever is longer.

In addition, because loans aren't the answer for every business-- additional debt could permanently cripple some businesses--I have also included a grant program for reservists. This program would allow up to $25,000 in grants for small businesses that can show economic injury because of deployment and prove that they have a viable business plan for the next three years. A grant program would help small businesses that cannot afford to take on a military reservist economic injury disaster loan or that were denied such a loan, but still are viable businesses and need assistance.

While addressing the funding needs of reservists is essential, I also want to make sure that reservists receive the technical and management assistance they need to succeed. For that reason, this bill also includes the establishment of the Reservists Enterprise Transition and Sustainability Task Force. This grant program would allow Small Business Development Centers, Women's Business Centers and veteran centers to compete for grants to create programs that help small businesses prepare for and cope with the mobilization of reservist- employees and owners.

Veterans possess great technical skills and valuable leadership experience, but they require financial resources to turn that potential into a viable enterprise. A recent report by the Small Business Administration stated that 22 percent of veterans plan to start or are starting a business when they leave the military. For service-disabled veterans, this number rises to 28 percent. So the legislation I introduce today will create a new program, administered by the Small Business

Administration, to provide very-low-interest loans, up to $100,000, to help veterans start new small businesses.

Lastly, this bill calls for two reports from the Government Accountability Office. One report will look at the needs of service- disabled veterans who are interested in becoming entrepreneurs. As a result of the war on terror and improved medicine, we are seeing more service-disabled veterans than we have seen in decades. For some service-disabled veterans, entrepreneurship is the best or only way of achieving economic independence. Therefore, it is essential that we understand and take steps to address the needs of the service-disabled veteran entrepreneur or small business owner.

I am also calling for a study to investigate allegations that the changes the Department of Defense has made in regard to the use of reservists is harming the ability of reservists to find jobs and the ability of small business owners to continue hiring reservists. At the Committee's hearing on veteran small business issues, witnesses testified about reservists being turned down or not considered for jobs because they are reservists. I have heard reservists talk about being pressured to leave the reserves if they would like to continue to advance at work. I have also heard the concerns of small business owners who want to support servicemembers; however, they cannot do so if it means the survival of their business. Understanding more about this issue is important and essential to making sure that policymakers can continue to support citizen soldiers and the small businesses that employ them across the Nation.

One of the issues I am not addressing in my legislation today is Federal procurement. I heard clearly the concerns from veterans that they are not being treated fairly when it comes to selling goods and services to the Federal Government, and I am committed to making changes. However, to make real changes, changes that can pass the Senate and the House and become law, these changes must be part of a bigger package. Legislation that addresses not just the concerns of service-disabled veteran small business owners, but the concerns of all small business owners who want their fair share of Federal contracts. I am committed to taking the difficult steps necessary to address these issues and will do so.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will clarify which dividends are eligible for a lower rate of 15 percent for upper-income taxpayers or a 5 percent rate for lower-income taxpayers. I am concerned that some foreign companies have a tax advantage over their American competitors.

Since dividend rates were lowered in 2003, some banks have promoted hybrid debt instruments from foreign corporations that may qualify for the lower rate. These hybrid arrangements are treated as debt in the host foreign country and the entity takes a deduction. In the United States, these instruments are classified as equity and thus treated as dividends eligible for the lower rate.

This was not the intention of Congress, and this abuse needs to stop. There should not be preferences in our tax code which make it easier for foreign corporations to raise capital at the expense of American companies. I believe that changes need to be made to our tax system to ensure that U.S companies can compete fairly in a global market place.

The legislation that I am introducing today is the same legislation introduced by Ways and Means Subcommittee on Select Revenue Chairman Neal. This legislation amends Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code to disallow the preferential dividends rate for payments from foreign entities not subject to tax in the foreign country, for payments that are deductible in the foreign country, or payments with respect to an instrument not treated as stock in the foreign country. In addition, the bill does not allow dividends from an entity not subject to or exempt from corporate tax in a foreign country to be eligible for the lower rate. If the entity is a passive foreign investment company (PFIC), the dividend would not be eligible for the lower rate even if the entity is also classified as a controlled foreign corporation.

This legislation builds upon a bill that Senator Baucus and I introduced last Congress, S. 1363, which prevents dividends received from corporations in a tax haven from receiving the lower rate. This legislation was introduced in the 109th Congress out of concern that the definition of qualifying foreign corporations is overly broad and includes companies in tax haven countries with little or no tax system.

The legislation that I am introducing today includes the provisions of S. 1363 which require that only dividends from foreign companies which are located in countries with a comprehensive income tax and are traded on a U.S. stock exchange may qualify for the preferential rate. In total, this legislation carries out the intent of the 2003 rate deduction on dividends.

The initial proposal to address dividends taxation was designed to eliminate the double taxation of corporate earnings. Eventually, this proposal was modified to lower the tax rate on dividends. I believe that it was never the original intent of Congress to provide the lower rates to dividends which are not subject to double taxation.

I urge my colleagues to support these common sense changes. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Wyoming's late, great country music star Chris LeDoux has a song Some Things Never Change. I wish that were the case for Wyoming's hardworking livestock producers. As production agriculture has evolved and improved in the United States, producers in Wyoming continue to be held hostage to a regulatory nightmare and bound by the chains of unfair and manipulative marketing contracts. It is this regulatory nightmare that must be addressed. That is why I am reintroducing legislation today to break the chains and require livestock contracts to contain a fixed base price and be traded in open, public markets.

From Kaycee to Kansas City, captive supply is destroying the health of our family ranches. Many of these small businesses have operated for generations. Unfortunately, a handshake and an honest day's labor cannot compete with deceptive business practices. Captive supply is a business practice not well known to those outside of the industry, but a practice that has had a tremendous impact on the ranchers of the West.

I go back to Wyoming almost every weekend. Because Wyoming is such a large State, my travels take me to a different section of the State on each trip. Throughout Wyoming I hear the same concerns from my constituents. They are all clamoring for attention and relief so they can continue the work that so many in their families have done for so many years. These concerns are not unique to Wyoming. Captive supply is an industry-wide problem.

So what is captive supply--and how is it harming our Nation's ranchers to such an extent? Simply put, captive supply refers to the ownership by meat packers of cattle or the contracts they issue to purchase livestock. It is done to ensure that packers will always have a consistent supply of livestock on the kill floor which keeps slaughterhouses in perpetual operation.

The original goal of captive supply makes good business sense. All businesses want to maintain a steady supply of animals to ensure a constant stream of production and control costs.

But captive supply allows packers to go beyond good organization and business performance--to market manipulation--and this is where the problem lies.

The packing industry is highly concentrated. Using captive supply and the market power of concentration, packers can purposefully drive down the prices by refusing to buy in the open market. This deflates all livestock prices and limits the market access of producers that have not aligned with specific packers.

We made an attempt to address the problem of captive supply on the Senate floor during the 2002 Farm Bill debate, but the amendment to ban packer ownership of livestock more than 14 days before slaughter did not survive the conference committee deliberation. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the reauthorization of the Farm Bill this year. I will press this issue during the drafting of the Competition Title of the Farm Bill with my congressional colleagues.

The problems caused by captive supply are alive and well, just as Wyoming producers have testified to me in the phone calls, letters, faxes and emails I receive from them. Although I supported the packer ban and have cosponsored it again this Congress, I do not think that banning packer ownership of livestock will solve the entire captive supply problem. Packers are using numerous methods beyond direct ownership to control cattle and other livestock.

Currently, packers maintain captive supply through various means including direct ownership, forward contracts, and marketing agreements. The difference between the three is subtle, so let me take a moment to describe how they differ. Direct ownership refers to livestock owned by the packer. In forward contracts, producers agree to the delivery of cattle one week or more before slaughter with the price determined before slaughter. Forward contracts are typically fixed, meaning the base price is set.

As with forward contracts, marketing agreements also call for the delivery of livestock more than one week before slaughter, but the price is determined at or after slaughter. A formula pricing method is commonly used for cattle sold under marketing agreements. In formula pricing, instead of a fixed base price, an external reference price, such as the average price paid for cattle at a certain packing plant during one week, is used to determine the base price of the cattle. I find this very disturbing because the packer has the ability to manipulate the weekly average at a packing plant by refusing to buy in the open market. Unfortunately, marketing agreements and formula pricing are much more common than forward contracts.

Livestock producers have the same questions when they lose to the market pressures applied by captive supply. Captive supply gives packers the ability to discriminate against some producers. And those producers pay for it with their bottom line. At the same time, packers use contracts and marketing agreements to give privileged access and premiums to other producers regardless of the quality of their product. These uses of captive supply should be illegal. In fact, they are.

Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act states in (3) (a) and (b):

``It shall be unlawful for any packer with respect to livestock . . . to:

``(a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device; or

``(b) Make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect, or subject any particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect.''

Packers that practice price discrimination toward some producers and provide undue preferences to other producers are clearly in violation of the

law. But this law is not being enforced. So what we are left with are unenforced laws or no laws at all to protect the independent producer. The Packers and Stockyards Act is not being enforced and the cost of enforcing the law on a case-by-case basis in the courts is expensive and time-consuming.

A law is not worth the paper it is printed on if it is not enforced. The posted speed limit is not a suggestion. Our law enforcement officers enforce the law when motorists fail to heed the posted sign. This section of the Packers and Stockyards Act is like a sign on the road of commerce that no one is paying attention to because the police are busy doing something else. The bill I am introducing today is not just another sign on the road. It is a speed bump. It does not just warn cars to go slower; it makes it much more difficult for them to speed.

My bill does two things to create the speed bump. It requires that livestock producers have a fixed base price in their contracts. It also puts these contracts up for bid in the open market where they belong.

Under this bill, forward contracts and marketing agreements must contain a fixed base price on the day the contract is signed. This prevents packers from manipulating the base price after the point of sale. You may hear allegations that this bill ends quality-driven production, but it does not prevent adjustments to the base price after slaughter for quality, grade or other factors outside packer control. It prevents packers from changing the base price based on factors that they do control. Contracts that are based on the futures market are also exempted from the bill's requirements.

In an open market, buyers and sellers would have the opportunity to bid against each other for contracts and could witness bids that are made and accepted. Whether they take the opportunity to bid or not is their choice, the key here is that they have access to do so.

My bill also limits the size of contracts to the rough equivalent of a load of livestock, meaning 40 cattle or 30 swine. It does not limit the number of contracts that can be offered by an individual. This key portion prevents small and medium-sized livestock producers, like those found in Wyoming, from being shut out of deals that contain thousands of livestock per contract.

Requiring a firm base price and an open and transparent market ends the potential for price discrimination, price manipulation and undue preferences. These are not the only benefits of my bill. It also preserves the very useful risk management tool that contracts provide to livestock producers. Contracts help producers plan and prepare for the future. My bill makes contracts and marketing agreements an even better risk management tool because it solidifies the base price for the producer. Once the agreement is made, a producer can have confidence on shipping day in his ability to feed his family during the next year because he will know in advance how much he can expect to receive for his livestock.

This bill also encourages electronic trading. An open and public market would function much like the stock market, where insider trading is prohibited. The stock market provides a solid example of how electronic livestock trading can work to the benefit of everyone involved. For example, price discovery in an open and electronic market is automatic.

Captive supply is still weighing on the minds and hurting the pocketbooks of ranchers in Wyoming and across the United States. Wyoming ranchers encourage me to keep up the good fight on this issue on every trip I make to my home state. The economic soul of Wyoming is built on the foundation of small towns and small businesses. All livestock producers, even small and medium-sized ones, should have a fair chance to compete that allows them to get the best price possible for their product. We must do everything we can to keep our small producers in business.

My bill removes one of the largest obstructions preventing livestock producers from competing--formula-priced contracts. I ask my colleagues to assist me in giving their constituents and mine the chance to perform on a level playing field.

While Some Things Never Change, it is time for a sea change in the area of captive supply.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``United States Brazil Energy Cooperation Pact.'' This bill would direct the Secretary of State to work with the Government of Brazil and other foreign governments to develop partnerships that will strengthen diplomatic relations and energy security, including through accelerated development of biofuels production, research and infrastructure. This will help to alleviate poverty, create jobs, and increase income, while improving energy security and protecting the environment..

Earlier this month President Bush and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva agreed in Sao Paulo to cooperate to promote ethanol in the Americas as an alternative to oil. The agreement aims to increase cooperation on biofuels technology and to develop international biofuels standards. President Bush is following up by hosting President da Silva at Camp David this Saturday, March 31.

President Bush intended his trip to rebuild bridges to Latin America. Many Latin Americans are critical, even hostile, over what they see as the administration's neglect of the region. Strained relationships often are repaired in small steps. The ethanol accord promises mutual benefits for the United States and Brazil, Latin America, and potentially, the rest of the world. If executed in a spirit of partnership and funded generously, it could have a significant regional and global impact on the development of ethanol markets, climate change and the ability of many poor countries to endure oil price shocks.

Although the agreement is overall a win-win-win deal for Brazil, the United States and the region, it has been criticized. Some opponents are simply trying to thwart better U.S.-Brazilian cooperation. But others have raised concerns about the dislocations and unintended consequences of promoting biofuel crops.

Only by addressing such worries and quelling the doubts can the Brazil-U.S. pact fully meet its promise to be a launching pad for what I envision as a transformational Americas-wide energy program that will radically improve the hemisphere's strategic and economic posture. Today I introduce the United States-Brazil Energy Cooperation Pact to capitalize on the opportunity it presents to reestablish strong U.S. relations with our neighbors while also building a more secure energy future.

The bill calls on Brazil and the United States to help fund feasibility studies to assess each Latin American country's biofuel needs and biomass production potential, with special attention to food security and the environment. By encouraging cellulosic ethanol that does not rely on grains, it should help assuage fears, shared by American and Latin American livestock producers alike, that excessive reliance on corn for ethanol will further drive up animal feed costs and thus prices of beef, pork and chicken. For Mexico, where skyrocketing tortilla prices have been blamed on the diversion of corn for ethanol, the bill calls for special efforts to find non-corn sources of biofuels.

The legislation envisions a special hemispheric carbon trading system to encourage preservation of tropical rain forests in the face of growing demand for energy crops, and it calls on the regional development banks, as well as U.S. foreign assistance, to support biofuel infrastructure projects.

The bill contains special provisions to help our closest and poorest neighbors in the Caribbean and Central America revive their moribund sugar cane industries so they can produce their own ethanol. Currently nearly all the ethanol they sell is processed product from Brazil.

And while biofuels are a key element of energy security, better utilization of conventional resources also plays a role. The bill seeks ways to help optimize Mexican oil output, which is lagging to the detriment of both countries, and encourages South America to exploit fully its natural gas supplies with new pipelines and liquefied natural gas facilities.

Giving the United States easy access to foreign ethanol supplies, even as we increase domestic production, is an essential component to meet President Bush's target of 35 billion gallons of renewable fuels use by 2017, which cannot be met by U.S. corn ethanol alone. U.S. corn ethanol production will peak around 14 billion gallons in 2010, experts estimate. Reducing dependence on oil imported from unstable and often hostile regions is a paramount foreign policy imperative.

The U.S. doesn't tax imported oil, but currently levies a 54-cents- per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol to protect U.S. producers from cheaper Brazilian ethanol. It is clear that this barrier to trade in Americas-grown fuel is inconsistent with our political goals in the region, and with our long-term energy security.

Altering the import tax would affect a number of industries and interests. Therefore, the bill calls for a comprehensive study on the current political and economic impacts of the tariff and the potential costs and benefits of repealing it or modifying it.

In this way, I believe that passage of this bill would encourage Administration officials to rethink old policies in order to improve energy cooperation, and encourage other Governments in the region to do likewise. With this legislation, Congress can demonstrate to citizens of the Americas that the U.S. is ready to embark on an equal partnership for progress.

In conclusion, I look forward to working with each of my colleagues to ensure the energy security of our country and the region.

Mr. President, today, Senator Hagel and I introduced the bipartisan Global Climate Change Security Oversight Act. We were joined by Senator Feinstein. Our bill states that the consequences of global climate change represent a clear and present danger to the security of the United States.

For years, many of us have examined global warming as an environmental or economic issue. We also need to consider it as a security concern. Our bill begins this process by requiring a National Intelligence Estimate to assess the strategic challenges presented by the world's changing climate.

The National Security Strategy of 2006 stated that the United States now faces new security challenges, including ``environmental destruction, whether caused by human behavior or cataclysmic mega- disasters such as floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, or tsunamis. Problems of this scope may overwhelm the capacity of local authorities to respond, and may even overtax national militaries, requiring a larger international response. These challenges are not traditional national security concerns, such as the conflict of arms or ideologies. But if left unaddressed they can threaten national security.''

Global climate change represents one of the new environmental challenges outlined in the National Security Strategy that poses a threat to our national security. Failing to recognize and plan for the geopolitical challenges of global warming would represent a serious mistake.

A National Intelligence Estimate is a comprehensive review of a potential security threat that combines, correlates and evaluates intelligence from all of the relevant U.S. intelligence agencies. Various intelligence agencies--the CIA, NSA, the Pentagon, FBI, etc. must pool data, share perspectives and work together to assemble an accurate picture of threats to U.S. security.

Without an NIE, the various agencies may never have an opportunity to examine each other's data, and any differences or similarities between the reports could provide important information for policymakers.

In this legislation, we ask for the intelligence community to provide a strategic estimate of the risks posed by global climate change for countries or regions that are of particular economic or military significance to the United States or that are at serious risk of humanitarian suffering. This NIE will assess the political, social, agricultural, and economic challenges for countries and their likely impact.

Every region will be affected differently by global warming and it is critical that our intelligence and military communities are prepared to handle the situations most likely to arise.

For example, rising sea levels will have a profound impact on low lying coastal areas, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. This region is home to 58 percent of the world's population and 57 percent of the world's poorest population. More than 5 million people live in major cities that are in low lying coastal areas.

People in the Asia-Pacific region already endure coastal natural disasters, such as tsunamis, and inland flooding. Between 2001 and 2005, 62,273 people were killed annually by water related disasters in this region. This number is only going to increase as the world warms.

Africa is a place where changes in precipitation patterns will be particularly devastating. Many areas are already under enormous stress from drought and hunger. In 2005, 30 million people in 34 countries confronted food shortages as a result of drought. It is estimated that the droughts will become more severe and impact more people if the temperature continues to rise.

Environmental changes caused by global warming represent a potential threat multiplier for instability around the world. Scarce water, for example, may exacerbate conflict along economic, ethnic, or sectarian divisions.

Water shortages, food insecurity, or flooding all of which may occur as a result of rising global temperatures could also displace people, forcing them to migrate. Many of the most severe effects of global warming are expected in regions where fragile governments are least capable of responding to them.

This NIE will examine these questions and more. It will also do something that we don't do often enough here in Congress: it will look beyond the near horizon of the next election or the next few years and require the intelligence community to think about these issues in the context of the next 30 years.

The bill we introduced today will also fund additional research by the Department of Defense in order to examine the impact of climate change on military operations.

Rising temperatures are altering the international environment. We need to be prepared for this new world.

We hope that our colleagues will join us in this bipartisan effort to assess the strategic implications of climate change. The scientific community has demonstrated that the earth is growing warmer. We are asking the intelligence community to analyze the geopolitical implications of these changes.

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

Mr. President, for nearly 35 years I've been working on this floor to address the all too real public health and safety issues associated with drug and alcohol addiction. Stiff prosecution of trafficking and possession of illegal drugs is important; but just as critical is an intense focus on prevention and treatment. To this end, if we are to be successful in this fight, we--you, me, all of us--must understand that addiction is a neurobiological disease, not a lifestyle choice. The frank and constructive approach to help those struggling with the disease of addiction, and to protect society from the crime and violence that sometimes accompany drug trafficking and use, is through treatment. We must continually work hard to resist the counterproductive social stigma that too often brands addicts and thereby encourages them to slip into seclusion rather than seek treatment. As such, we must begin to change the nature of public discourse about addiction by more appropriately naming our own research institutes to reflect this reality: Addition is a preventable and treatable disease.

Today, I rise to introduce legislation recognizing this reality that addiction is a disease and not a chronic, stigmatizing life-sentence. The Recognizing Addiction as a Disease Act of 2007 changes the names of two institutes at the National Institutes of Health: the National Institute on Drug Abuse will become the National Institute on Diseases of Addiction, and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism will become the National Institute on Alcohol Disorders and Health.

These name changes accomplish two important objectives. First, they remove the pejorative term ``abuse'' from the institutes' names and properly help to distance that notion from the disease of addiction. Second, the new names more clearly link the concepts of addiction and disease, a connection that scientific study clearly supports. Identifying addiction as a neurobiological disease will diminish the social stigma, discrimination, and the personal shame that is often a barrier to seeking treatment, and it will further a common understanding of diseases of addiction.

The 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported that addiction affects 23.2 million Americans in our country, of whom only about 10 percent are receiving the treatment they need. Many are deterred from seeking such treatment because of the social stigma associated with admitting to a drug or alcohol dependency. This bill is a small but important step towards remedying this problem, fighting drug use, and successfully treating addiction.

Addiction is now understood to be a disease because scientific research has shown that alcohol and other drugs can change the brain's structure and function. Advances in brain imaging science now make it possible to see inside an addict's brain and pinpoint the parts of the brain affected by drugs or alcohol. These insights will enable the development of new approaches to prevention and treatment. In fact, we now have data indicating that excessive alcohol use and alcohol dependence (alcoholism) are not separate diagnostic categories, but exist along a single continuum of alcohol-disorders associated with increased frequency of a harmful drinking pattern.

Today's introduction of this legislation is timely. Two weeks ago HBO premiered an important new documentary movie, Addiction, which presents an encouraging look at addiction as a treatable disease and the film chronicles the major scientific advances that have helped us better understand and treat addiction. The Institutes collaborated with HBO to create this eye-opening documentary that seeks to help Americans understand addiction. HBO's Addiction Project will acquaint viewers with available evidence-based medical and behavioral treatments. This is especially important for disorders like addiction that for many years were treated outside the medical mainstream. From emergency rooms to living rooms to research laboratories, the documentary follows the trail of an illness that affects one in four families in the United States.

The facts surrounding addiction are self-evident. With nearly 1 in 10 Americans over the age of 12 suffering from some form of substance dependency, addiction takes an emotional, psychological, and social toll on the country. The economic costs of substance dependency and addiction alone are estimated to exceed a half trillion dollars annually in the United States due to health care expenditures, lost productivity, and crime.

I am proud to say that my friends and very distinguished colleagues Senators Kennedy and Enzi, chairman and ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, respectively, are cosponsors of this important bill.

Today, the Recognizing Addiction as a Disease Act of 2007 takes a small but important stride towards helping those struggling with diseases of addiction.