Senior Professional Performance Act of 2008

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to ensure that the land on the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs, West LA VA, campus is protected for the use of America's Veterans.

The bill would: require the VA Secretary to provide the Congressional Appropriations and Veterans Committees a comprehensive report regarding the master plan for the West LA VA facility and connected property.

The VA was required under Public Law 105-368 to develop a master plan for the West LA VA property.

If the VA has failed to developed the plan, the legislation requires it to complete a master plan prior to implementing any action based on the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) initiative.

The VA would be prohibited from issuing any enhanced-use lease agreements for the West LA VA property until the master plan is completed and submitted to Congress.

Prevent the VA Secretary from implementing any portion of the master plan until 120 days after the submission of the plan to the Appropriations and Veterans Committees.

In addition, the Secretary would be expressly prohibited from pursuing development initiatives regarding the West LA VA property not relating to direct Veterans services unless explicitly authorized by Congress through legislation.

Direct Veterans services are defined in this legislation as any services ``directly related'' to maintaining the health, welfare, and support of Veterans.

Last year, the Senate approved similar language in the FY07 MILCON/VA Appropriations bill that required the VA to provide the Appropriations Committees a report on the master plan for the West LA VA Medical Center and connected land.

The fiscal year 2007 MILCON/VA Appropriations Act passed the Senate on November 18, 2006.

Unfortunately, all but 2 of the 11 Appropriations bills--including MILCON/VA--were ultimately packaged together in a Continuing Resolution for fiscal year 2007, and the language was never considered by the full Congress.

The bill I am introducing today is absolutely essential in light of a number of unacceptable actions that have previously been taken by the VA that, in my view, violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

Last month, I joined with my colleagues Senator Barbara Boxer and Congressman Henry Waxman in writing a letter to VA Secretary James Nicholson strongly objecting to recent decisions by the VA relating to the West LA VA facility and land.

Over the past year alone, the VA has permitted the construction of a facility for the Fox Entertainment Group on the West LA VA property, and has approved a lease agreement with Enterprise Car Rental to operate on the campus.

In addition, the VA has allowed the Westside Shepherd of the Hill Church to rent a building on the property in which to hold its Sunday services and provided additional housing space for the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA).

The VA reportedly has also considered lease projects such as movie productions, a drive-in theather, a circus event, and a golf course.

This must be put to a stop and the legislation I introduce today would do just that.

For too long, commercial interests have trumped the needs of our Veterans.

These 400 acres of land were donated to the government in 1888 specifically for Veterans and should remain that way--just as then-VA Secretary Anthony Principi promised during a visit to Los Angeles in February 2002.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this bill today along with Senator Boxer as cosponsor to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of expanding the Santa Monica National Recreation Area to include the Rim of the Valley Corridor.

The Rim of the Valley Corridor is an example of a highly threatened habitat area, the Mediterranean chaparral ecosystem. Connecting to the adjacent Los Padres and San Bernardino National Forests, the Corridor encircles the San Fernando Valley, La Crescenta, Simi, Conejo, and Santa Clarita Valleys, consisting of parts of the Santa Monica Mountains, Santa Susanna Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, Verdugo Mountains, and San Rafael Hills.

There is a great need for expanded parkland in southern California. While the Los Angeles metropolitan region has the second-largest urban concentration in the United States, the area has one of the lowest ratios of park-and-recreation-lands per thousand-population of any urban area in the country.

Since the creation of the Santa Monica Recreation Area in 1978, Federal, State, and local authorities have worked successfully together to create and maintain the highly successful Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, hemmed in on all sides by development.

With the passage of this legislation, Congress will hold true to its original commitment to preserve the scenic, natural, and historic setting of the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area.

With the inclusion of the Rim of the Valley Corridor in the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area, greater ecological health and diversity will be promoted, particularly for larger animals like mountain lions, bobcats, and the golden eagle. By creating a single contiguous Rim of the Valley Trail, people will enjoy greater access to existing trails in the Recreational Area.

Within a National Recreation Area, the National Park Service is prohibited from exercising the powers of eminent domain, and private property may be purchased from voluntary sellers only.

The bill includes a provision directing the Department of the Interior to analyze any effects that a proposed expansion of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area will have on private land within or bordering the area. Any such effects will be thoroughly considered as the study moves forward.

After the study called for in this bill is complete, the Secretary of the Interior and Congress will be in a key position to determine whether all or portions of the Rim of the Valley Corridor warrant inclusion in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.

This bill enjoys strong support from local and State officials and I hope that it will have as much strong bipartisan support this Congress, as it did last Congress. Congressman Adam Schiff plans to introduce companion legislation for this bill in the House and I applaud his commitment to this issue.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I ask unanimous consent that the text of this proposed legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize water recycling and other water supply projects by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency and the Cucamonga Valley Water District. These projects will produce approximately 95,000 acre-feet of new water annually in one of the most rapidly growing regions in the United States, reducing the need for imported water from the Colorado River and northern California through the California Water Project.

The federal investment required is limited to approximately 10 percent of the projects' cost, or about $30 million.

This legislation is intended to be the companion to H.R. 122, sponsored by David Dreier, Grace Napolitano, Ken Calvert, Joe Baca, and Gary Miller.

This legislation has broad support and has already passed the House, and in fact similar legislation to H.R. 122 also passed the House of Representatives in each of the previous two Congresses.

It is time for this legislation to pass the Senate as well and be enacted into law. Environmental groups such as the Mono Lake Committee, Environmental Defense, Clean Water and Natural Resources Defense Council strongly support the water recycling and groundwater remediation projects in this bill. Business leaders such as Southern Cal Edison and Building Industry Association also support these projects.

The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative would authorize two project components. The first will be constructed by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency--IEUA--and will produce approximately 90,000 acre feet of new water annually. The second of these projects, to be constructed by the Cucamonga Valley Water District--CVWD--will produce an additional 5,000 acre feet of new water annually.

The Inland Empire Regional Water Recycling Initiative has the support of all member agencies of IEUA, as well as the water agencies downstream in Orange County. IEUA encompasses approximately 242 square miles and serves the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana--through the Fontana Water Company--Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga-- through the Cucamonga Valley Water District--and the Monte Vista Water District.

I want to say a few words about the importance of water recycling projects.

The development of recycled water can bring significant amounts of water ``on line'' in a relatively short period of time. Recycled water provides our State and region with the ability to ``stretch'' existing water supplies significantly and in so doing, minimize conflict and address the many needs that exist. According to the State of California's Recycled Water Task Force, water recycling is a critical part of California's water future with an estimated 1.5 million acre- feet of new supplies being developed over the next 25 years.

Water recycling is also a bipartisan initiative in California, as witnessed by the many Republican and Democratic House cosponsors of the House versions of the bill I introduce today.

Water recycling also has significant greenhouse gas reduction benefits. The greenhouse gas emission reductions attributed to local development and use of recycled water within Inland Empire Utilities Agency's service area is roughly 100,000 tons of CO2 equivalents per year.

With only a small percentage of the total recycled water available being used in Southern California, approximately 10 percent, there is a huge potential for additional energy savings and greenhouse gas reductions from aggressive development of recycled water supplies.

California is not the only State engaged in water recycling. Today, water recycling is an essential water supply element in Albuquerque, Phoenix, Denver, Salt Lake City, Tucson, EI Paso, San Antonio, Portland, and other western metropolitan areas.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill to help meet the West's water supply needs and to reduce our dependence on the Colorado River. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise, along with my Senate Cancer Coalition cochair, Senator Brownback, to introduce the National Cancer Act of 2007, a bipartisan blueprint for winning the war against cancer.

It includes: grants for targeted drug development; creating ``cancer quarterbacks'' in Medicare; Medicaid coverage for smoking cessation treatments; pilot projects for expanding colorectal cancer screening in underserved populations; continued research into the possible benefits of early detection for lung cancer; loan repayment assistance for cancer prevention researchers; incentives for research into drugs that

prevent cancer from developing and spreading in the first place; provisions to promote the collection and storage of tissue sample, to give researchers the tools they need to use genomic research to create individualized cures; promoting access to clinical trials, as well as investigational therapies for those who are terminally ill; addressing the health needs of the growing number of cancer survivors.

Just over 35 years ago, President Nixon signed into law the original National Cancer Act, creating the National Cancer Institute and making cancer research a priority of the Federal Government. This work has led to tremendous breakthroughs against cancer, including innovative drugs, treatments, and a better understanding of the factors that lead to cancer in the first place. Last year, death rates decreased for 11 of the 15 cancers most common in men, and 10 of the cancers most common in women.

Sixty-five percent of people diagnosed with cancer can now expect to survive at least 5 years. This is good news. But it is not enough. The cost of cancer, in both human and economic terms, remains staggering.

An estimated 1,399,790 Americans were diagnosed with some form of cancer last year.

Approximately 1 of 3 women will develop cancer at some point in her lifetime; for men, the risk is slightly less than 1 in 2.

The National Institutes of Health estimated the overall cost of cancer in 2005 at $209.9 billion.

The price of inaction is too steep. Cancer is, first and foremost, a disease of aging. About 76 percent of cancer cases are diagnosed in patients at age 55 or older. If no fundamental changes are made, the aging of the Baby Boom generation will bring a 20 percent increase in cancer diagnoses.

In the face of these challenges, the National Cancer Institute, NCI, with broad support in the cancer community, set the ambitious goal of ending death and suffering from cancer by 2015. This goal has generated unprecedented excitement and unity, with over 80 Members of the United States Senate signing a letter in support of the effort.

It is time to reexamine and reorient our Nation's cancer policy to meet this ambitious goal. This does not mean that cancer will be eradicated by 2015. As our population ages, cancer will not go away. But we can change the meaning of a cancer diagnosis, and that is what the 2015 goal is about.

Meeting this goal will take a comprehensive approach. It requires detecting cancer earlier, before it spreads and becomes harder to treat. It requires targeted therapies, capable of killing cancer cells while leaving healthy cells intact. We must provide access to high quality cancer care for those who do get sick. We must also understand more about why people get cancer in the first place, and ways it can be prevented.

Our legislation takes a multifaceted approach to changing the very nature of a cancer diagnosis. The National Cancer Act of 2007 will do the following:

Authorize grants for the development of targeted drugs.

New drug therapies continue to lead us closer to the day in which cancer is a treatable, chronic condition controlled with a simple pill or injection. It has now been 5 years since the drug company Novartis won approval for Gleevec, a targeted drug that has saved the lives of countless patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia, CML.

Gleevec demonstrates the promise of this new kind of drug therapy. It blocks the enzymes that help cancer cells grow and divide, leaving healthy cells untouched. When this drug was first introduced, CML patients who were near death recovered and left the hospital. Yet it could not be determined if their remission would last, or if long-term use of this revolutionary drug would prove safe.

We now know that Gleevec is fulfilling this early promise. Before the advent of this drug, CML patients would often suffer a relapse after 2 or 3 years. But a recent study of CML patients taking Gleevec has demonstrated a remarkable 89 percent survival rate after 5 years. The cancer progressed to a more serious stage in only 7 percent of patients during this time period, and only 5 percent were forced to discontinue treatment because of side effects.

These results suggest that patients may be able to stay on Gleevec indefinitely, keeping this formerly deadly cancer under control while leading full and productive lives.

Targeted therapies are now offering hope to patients with many different kinds of cancer: Herceptin for some breast cancers, Iressa for those with small cell lung cancer, Avastin for colorectal cancer. Avastin can extend survival by interfering with the growth of blood vessels that feed the tumor, literally starving it.

These drugs are the future of cancer research. We need more drugs like Gleevec, which transform cancer from a killer to a controllable health condition. This legislation would authorize NCI to make grants to further develop these treatments.

To help with the development of targeted drugs, the bill also calls for the establishment of a task force on surrogate endpoints and biomarkers. They are the mechanisms for measuring the efficacy of cancer treatment at the molecular level, allowing doctors to precisely gauge how a patient is reacting to a treatment, or if a cancer is progressing.

Developing biomarkers for different types of cancer is an essential step, and our bill will establish a program to develop the biomarkers with the most immediate clinical promise.

The bill will also create special reimbursements for coordinating physicians, or ``cancer quarterbacks'' in Medicare. Successful cancer treatment is increasingly complex, reaching across the entire spectrum of the medical profession. It can involve lab tests, CT-scans, surgery, chemotherapy, and a full team of specialists who offer this care. Many patients have no single physician who can guide them through the complicated and sometimes contradictory course of cancer treatment, no professional to advise them what is best.

This bill would require Medicare to pay oncology doctors or nurses to become the overall managers of patients' care, in effect providing every cancer patient with a ``cancer quarterback'' physician to help them coordinate care and make the necessary decisions.

This cancer quarterback can direct care in the manner that best meets the patient's needs, instead of focusing on only a small segment of his or her care.

This legislation requires that State Medicaid drug programs cover smoking cessation treatments in the same manner as all other approved therapies. I have long believed that we will not truly address the burden of cancer until we address tobacco use. I have asked all kinds of cancer experts about what we can do to stop death from cancer, and their answer is always the same: Stop tobacco use.

Tobacco causes 30 percent of cancer deaths and 1 in 5 of all deaths in the United States. It is the leading cause of preventable death. Smoking related costs total $167 billion annually.

According to the CDC, more than 70 percent of American smokers would like to quit. Studies indicate that tobacco use treatment, including smoking cessation aids, will double their chances of success.

Yet under current law, State Medicaid programs are exempted from providing coverage of smoking cessation agents in the same way as they provide coverage of other drugs. Other exemptions include fertility treatments, drugs to promote hair growth, and drugs for erectile dysfunction.

Simply put, smoking cessation aids, which are FDA approved and proven to be effective, do not belong on this list. Denying people access to treatments to help them break a deadly and expensive addiction is flawed policy.

Our bill will remove tobacco cessation products from this list of exemptions, leveling the playing field with other FDA approved products.

Our bill establishes pilot projects for expanding colorectal cancer screening for low-income, uninsured individuals. The Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program has proven very successful in providing low income women with access to potentially life saving screenings. It is now time to provide similar access to colorectal cancer screening.

The need is great. A 2006 study conducted by Northwestern University researchers found that only 7 percent of minority patients without regular

health care access at risk for developing colon cancer are being screened. A 2005 study of New York City residents found that those least likely to have been recommended colorectal screening are low- income or uninsured.

Early detection allows physicians to identify patients with pre- cancerous polyps, and treat them before cancer even develops. These pilot projects identify the best ways to provide access to this lifesaving care for those who are not currently receiving recommended screenings.

This bill will authorize continued research on the potential of CT scans to detect lung cancer early. before it becomes fatal. Despite all the promising advances against many types of cancer, lung cancer remains the Nation's leading cause of cancer death in both men and women. About 20,000 people who have never smoked are diagnosed with lung cancer each year, and this number is increasing.

We need to learn more about how to screen for lung cancer and detect it early, before it has advanced. There is much we need to learn before scientists can make a definitive recommendation about screening and its potential benefits for both smokers and non-smokers.

To help scientists learn more, this bill will authorize funding to provide CT scans to those with a history of heavy smoking. This further study will help determine whether this promising technology is indeed the method we need to make progress against the leading cancer killer.

This legislation expands the existing NIH loan repayment program to provide assistance to researchers who make a commitment to working on cancer prevention research. This will encourage the best and brightest to pursue work that will help us to better understand what causes cancer and how we can stop it from occurring.

The bill will encourage and support research into new drugs and treatments, called chemopreventatives, which can stop precancerous cells from becoming tumors. Decades of research has enabled physicians to prescribe medications to prevent serious illness, such as statin drugs to lower cholesterol, and drugs to treat high blood pressure before it leads to strokes.

Progress in drug development to stop cancer has been far more limited. The promise of this field was made clear when, last year, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, licensed Gardasil, a vaccine to stop the spread of cervical cancer. Gardasil protects against the two forms of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, which causes approximately 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. This vaccine could virtually eliminate cervical cancer during the lifetime of our daughters and granddaughters.

We need more chemoprevention techniques like Guardasil to guard against other types of cancer. People at high risk for a specific type of cancer may one day take a daily pill to stop abnormal cells from progressing to full blown cancer. Though it will take a long time for these promises to become reality, this research is the future of cancer care.

In order to encourage this work, our legislation would grant Orphan Drug Act protections to treatments designed to treat high-risk conditions in individuals who have not yet been diagnosed with cancer, but if left untreated, face a high risk of developing cancer.

This research will require new resources in order to have the best chance of success. To build the foundations for success, our bill will encourage biospecimen collection.

Scientists are beginning to understand the significant role that genetics plays in the development of cancer. To encourage further study, scientists need access to a variety of tissue, blood, and other samples from both cancer patients and those who are healthy. Our bill codifies guidelines for the collection of these samples and requires that the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, draft a report examining potential payment systems for these activities.

We are on the cusp of an age of personalized medicine, in which a cancer patient's tumor can be analyzed to determine what type of treatment will be most effective. Patients will no longer undergo round after round of chemotherapy or radiation in the hopes of finding a treatment regime that works. Collecting and storing blood and tissue samples will provide our researchers with the materials they need to make these important discoveries.

Our bill will promote clinical trial enrollment. Patients willing to try these cutting edge cancer therapies as they emerge face a variety of obstacles. They, or their physicians, might not know what clinical trial opportunities exist. They may need to travel to a far away facility to participate. Our legislation requires the Director of the National Cancer Institute to create a clinical trials program, which includes: an outreach program, to assure that all patients, especially minorities, participate in trials; and a coordination program, to help patients with logistical challenges and the support costs of trial participation.

Our bill creates an oncology compassionate access program. No patient should lose a battle with cancer because bureaucratic hurdles denied him or her access to a potentially lifesaving therapy. Our bill provides for the creation of a new compassionate access program to speed access of investigational therapies for terminally ill patients who have exhausted all other available treatment options.

Our bill will address the needs of a growing number of cancer survivors. As cancer increasingly becomes a manageable, chronic condition, there will be an increasing number of cancer survivors confronting yet-unknown health challenges. Current cancer survivors number almost 10 million, and this number will only grow. This bill will: expand current cancer surveillance systems to track the health status of cancer survivors; implement a national cancer survivorship action plan, including post treatment health programs; require States to consider the needs of cancer survivors, and their families, in addition to current patients, when drafting their comprehensive cancer control plans.

Require the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, to report on their strategies, benchmarks, and progress in meeting the 2015 goal. This will allow Congress to adjust policy as necessary to ensure that the promise of ending death and suffering from cancer is realized.

The state of cancer care has changed drastically since 1971, and it is time that our Federal policies reflect these changes. The 2015 goal is ambitious, and it requires no less than ambitious legislation in response.

I urge you to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Collins and Snowe to introduce legislation that will significantly reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from our Nation's transportation sector.

This bill would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from passenger vehicles and motor vehicle fuels by 22 percent below projected levels under business as usual by 2030. This reduction is equivalent to the removal of 662 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or taking over 108 million cars off the road for a year. This would save 3.6 million barrels of oil per day by 2030.

It would achieve these reductions by requiring a: 3 percent reduction in emissions from the motor vehicle fuel pool by 2015, with an additional 3 percent reduction every 5 years, and 30 percent reduction in vehicle tailpipe emissions by 2016, with additional reductions every 5 years.

Highway vehicles are responsible for 32 percent of annual U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary global- warming gas. And, motor vehicle emissions will continue to increase as more and more Americans purchase vehicles and the number of miles driven grows.

With more than 240 million motor vehicles on the road, producing 2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year, increasing our use of low carbon fuels is an essential part of a climate-safe transportation strategy.

So, the signs could not be clearer: It's time to sound the death- knell for the era of gas-guzzling motor vehicles. It is time to utilize improved vehicle technology and to increase access to cleaner, renewable fuels at the pump.

First, this bill will achieve this goal by increasing the availability of low carbon emitting fuels for motor vehicles.

We must start considering fuel emissions not only in terms of emissions produced at the tailpipe, but also in terms of the emissions generated by the production and transportation of fuels. The total emissions of a fuel,

from production to end-use, are known as the ``lifecycle emissions'' of a fuel.

Not all fuels are created equal in terms of emissions; in fact, not all fuels within a give fuel category are created equal.

For example, ethanol produced from corn emits only about 10 to 20 percent less greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy delivered compared to petroleum-based gasoline. In contrast, ethanol produced from cellulosic biomass achieves an 80 to 90 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy.

Electricity would also qualify as an alternative fuel under this bill. The lifecycle emissions of electricity produced by traditional coal-fired power plants will be far greater than that produced by wind or other zero-carbon electricity generation technologies.

By 2009, this bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to quantify the total lifecycle emissions of all motor vehicle fuels. The bill would also require EPA to develop a fuel labeling process to provide this information to consumers at the pump.

Armed with this information about the lifecycle emissions of different fuels, oil refiners and importers would be required to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of their entire fuel pool by 3 percent below projected levels by 2015. And, every 5 years thereafter, emissions would be cut by an additional 3 percent.

To help fuel providers meet the mandated emissions reductions in a cost-effective manner, the bill would establish a carbon-credit trading market.

This would reduce emissions from motor vehicle fuels by 10 percent below projected levels by 2030 and would increase the supply of low- carbon fuels such as biodiesel, E-85, hydrogen, electricity, and others.

Second, the bill would achieve reductions in transportation sector emissions by federalizing California's landmark tailpipe emissions standard. California passed a landmark law in 2002 that required a reduction in tailpipe emissions and was the first State in the country to do so. This would require automakers to reduce tailpipe emissions, such as carbon dioxide, by 30 percent by 2016. It will also require EPA to tighten the reductions every 5 years.

Combined, these provisions would achieve a 22 percent reduction in transportation sector emissions below projected levels by 2030.

Additional provisions in the bill mandate: auto manufacturers to optimize dual-fueled vehicles to improve their fuel economy when running on alternative fuels, and alternative fuel vehicles, and only alternative fuel vehicles, come with a green fuel cap. This would alert consumers that these vehicles can accept other fuels besides traditional gasoline.

Just as it is necessary to reduce emissions in the electricity and industrial sectors, it is equally necessary to reduce emissions from the transportation sector. This bill makes significant, yet feasible, strides to reduce emissions through upgrades in vehicle technology and the incorporation of lower lifecycle emission fuels into the motor vehicle fuel pool. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1507 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1507.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1507 provides for the consideration of H.R. 7110, the Job Creation and Unemployment Relief Act of 2008. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, the past 8 years have not been kind to American workers and their families. Since President Bush was inaugurated 8 years ago, people's wages have stagnated while the cost of food and energy have skyrocketed.

Over the past 8 years, more people have been forced into poverty. Over the past 8 years, student loans have become even harder to get, denying access to a college education. Over the past 8 years, more people have trouble putting food on their table. Over the past 8 years, more people have lost their jobs. Over the past 8 years, our infrastructure, our roads and our bridges and levees have deteriorated, and in some cases have collapsed. I hope that the American public sees a pattern here.

And these problems didn't just magically happen. We're in this mess today because of the way the Republican party has turned their backs on anyone not fortunate to make millions of dollars, because of President Bush's insistence on tax cuts for the wealthy, and because of the reckless spending originating from the then Republican-controlled Congress.

My friends, we are in this mess today because of reckless fiscal and financial mismanagement proposed by this President and rubber-stamped by the Republicans in Congress. And now that the past 8 years has led us to the biggest and most desperate financial crisis since the Great Depression, the Republicans in the House are proposing more tax breaks for their rich friends on Wall Street. Their answer to a frozen market is more tax cuts for the people who got us into this mess in the first place.

When the times get tough, the Republicans try to cut taxes for the rich. That's not leadership, Mr. Speaker; that's just more of the same bad policies that got us here. There is a different way, a way that looks out for Main Street.

We recognize, those of us in the Democratic Caucus, we recognize that everyday Americans, not the Donald Trumps of the world or the big oil companies, need help in these very tough times. We know that rising food prices are causing people to cut back on the food that they're putting on their tables. We know that jobs are increasingly hard to find, and that unemployed Americans are exhausting the unemployment benefits that are helping them scrape by as they look for new jobs. We know that the crumbling infrastructure in our Nation must be fixed, that we cannot risk another bridge collapse like the one that took place in Minnesota last year. And we know that investments in infrastructure will create new jobs and make our people safer.

The people who are calling our offices angry about the bailout for Wall Street are saying, ``Wait a minute. What about us? What about us?'' And that is exactly the question we are here to answer today. Today, Democrats are saying to the American people, to the people of Massachusetts, ``We hear you.'' That's why we have an economic stimulus bill that will provide a $60 billion jump start to the economy.

In this bill, Democrats will provide almost $37 billion in infrastructure development. That means more highway construction, funding for passenger rail improvements, increases in clean water and flood control. There is funding for school modernization and public housing in this bill. These are not just improvements in our infrastructure--which are badly needed after years of neglect by this President and his allies in this Congress, these are jobs programs. More funding for infrastructure programs will mean more people being hired to build roads and bridges, to repair schools, and to improve our waterways.

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that we are providing funding for communities like those in my district that are struggling with complying with clean water requirements and are looking to the Federal Government for just a little bit of help.

As a Member of Congress who represents a regional airport, I know how important airport improvement grants really are. In this bill, Democrats provide $600 million for AIG grants to help regional airports alleviate the massive congestion at our major hubs.

In this bill, Democrats provide $1.6 billion for development of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. In particular, $1 billion will be dedicated to an advanced battery loan program, which will allow for U.S. companies to invest and develop technology for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

In this bill, Democrats provide an increase in the Medicaid matching rate to prevent cuts in health insurance and health care services for low-income children and families.

And in this bill, Democrats provided an additional 7 weeks of extended benefits for workers who have exhausted regular unemployment compensation. Extending unemployment benefits is one of the quickest, most cost-effective forms of economic stimulus because workers who have lost their paychecks spend benefits quickly.

And very importantly, Mr. Speaker, in this bill, Democrats provide $2.6 billion to address rising food costs for seniors, people with disabilities, and very poor families with children. We know that millions of our fellow citizens are struggling to put food on the table. Seniors are being forced to choose between eating and taking their medications. And we know food stamps will provide a targeted stimulus to the economy. We know that every Federal food dollar generates twice that in economic activity. Experts at CBO and Moody's, as well as economists from across the political spectrum, agree that increasing money for food stamps is a powerful economic stimulus that can reach the low-income families who may not have benefited from the first stimulus package.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely grateful to Chairman Obey for including this provision in this bill. I am also grateful for the leadership of Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for their advocacy on behalf of food and nutrition programs.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I expect many of my friends on the other side of the aisle to oppose this package. I expect them to say that it's too much money and that it's unnecessary. Well, if I'm right, then it will show the American people just how out of touch they really are.

Mr. Speaker, we need a stimulus package today, not just for Wall Street, but for Main Street. People are struggling, and they need and deserve our help. They don't need your empathy, they don't need your sympathy, they don't need your kind words, they don't want you to feel their pain, what they want is your vote, your vote on a stimulus package that will help them, that will benefit everyday people on Main Street.

So I hope the Republicans, Mr. Speaker, will finally join us in meeting the real needs of the working families of this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say that I think my friends on the Republican side just don't get it. This President, with their help, has driven this economy into a ditch. And we need to take the responsibility to get us out of that ditch. And that is what this stimulus package in part is about.

People are hurting, not just people on Wall Street, but people on Main Street. People are hurting all over this country. People have lost their jobs. There are more people after 8 years of this President who are unemployed. There are more people who are hungry. There are more people without health care. I could go on and on and on. And our infrastructure is crumbling. This is an attempt to help those people.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say I have a great deal of respect for my friend from Arizona, but I have to respond by saying that another tax cut is not going to rebuild a broken bridge in Massachusetts that because of years of underfunding and years of a lack of commitment by the Federal Government is now dangerous. A tax giveaway to an oil company, another tax giveaway to an oil company is not going to build a school in California or Arizona or anywhere else, and another corporate tax break is not going to provide anybody health care.

The bottom line is that I will respectfully say to the gentleman that this Democratic Congress has been way more fiscally responsible, by light-years, than his party has been. Bill Clinton left office and left this country with a surplus. We now have the biggest debt in the history of this country. We have a war in Iraq that is $10 billion a month, and nobody on the other side believes that we have an obligation to pay for it. It goes on our credit card.

We cannot neglect the basic needs of this country, which we have been doing, unfortunately, for the last 8 years. We need to get back to basics.

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but again I disagree with him. What I am talking about is investing in infrastructure to make our roads and our bridges safer, to create more jobs, to help stimulate this economy. So we have a very different approach.

We need to do something. We are in a fiscal emergency. The President is asking for $700 billion, don't pay for it, $700 billion to bail out Wall Street, and what we are saying is, look, we have to do a little something for Main Street, in the area of infrastructure, education, health care.

I don't think that is too much to ask. Yet this is a big deal to my friends on the Republican side, that we can't do this. It is too much. No, we can't do this. Everyday people don't deserve the

same consideration that the President of the United States is now asking that we give to big companies on Wall Street.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee.

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.

I would just remind the gentleman that on June 5, we brought to the House floor H.R. 3058, which would have reauthorized the very program he talked about, and he and Mr. Hastings both voted against it. Thank you very much.

Why didn't the gentleman vote for it when he had a chance to?

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

Again, I think I responded to the gentleman. I would just say two other things that I think are important to make note of.

The gentleman, while his party was in control for 12 years, consistently voted for budgets that underfunded the very programs that we are talking about. Secondly, when he talks about a closed process, I don't recall a single incidence when the gentleman ever voted against his party on a closed rule when in fact his party was in control.

So let's get back to the point of this bill, which is to provide everyday people, who have been neglected by this President and by his allies in the Republican Congress for too long, this is to provide a little relief, to try to stimulate some job creation, to try to help with infrastructure, with rebuilding schools, with health care. I mean, the President of the United States is coming before the Nation saying $700 billion, I don't want to pay for it, for a bailout for Wall Street, and then he is telling us we can't do anything to help people on Main Street.

I would like to yield a minute to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Point of Order

I will yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the gentleman voted against H.R. 3508 and, hopefully, he can offer a better explanation to his constituents.

At this point I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I ask the gentleman how many more speakers he has on his side?

I am the last speaker on my side, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me say with regard to the rural school issue, I was very proud to be able to vote on behalf of rural schools when the gentleman voted against it. I'm sorry he did that. But what we are talking about here today is an economic stimulus package to help everyday people. This is to help working people, to help people who have lost their jobs, to help people afford their health care, to help communities rebuild their roads and bridges and put people back to work. This is to help rebuild our schools. This is a bill to provide much-needed resources to our communities who have been neglected for far too long by this President and his Republican allies in this Congress.

This country, this economy, is in trouble. That is no secret to anyone here. Read the newspapers, turn on the news, it is there. We need to do something. What we need to do is not just bail out Wall Street, we need to help people on Main Street. People are tired. They are sick and tired of the rhetoric, the expressions of sympathy and the speeches by politicians who say ``I get it.'' ``I know things are bad in your community, I feel your pain.'' What they want us to do is to take action, to actually vote on something that means something in their lives.

This economic stimulus package invests in highway infrastructure. It invests to help rebuild our crumbling schools. It invests in clean water projects and in transit and Amtrak. It invests in public housing. It invests in energy development to help create green-collar jobs to get this economy moving in the right direction. It extends unemployment benefits. The gentleman from Michigan talked about the plight of so many workers who, because of this lousy economy, have lost their jobs and have exhausted their unemployment benefits. We are all talking about bailing out Wall Street, but we can't extend unemployment benefits to these workers? I mean, shame on us if you can't vote for that.

Medicaid assistance is in this bill.

Food assistance is in this bill. There is not a community in the United States of America, I am sad to say, that is hunger free. Go to any grocery store in your district and people will complain about the high cost of food. There are people in poverty and there are people who are working families who cannot afford their groceries. They need help. That is what this bill is all about.

So for the life of me, with all that is going on in this country, with all that is happening to this economy, for the life of me I can't understand why anyone would vote against this stimulus package.

This is a good bill. Chairman Obey deserves great credit for putting this together the way he did. It is not perfect. It doesn't include everything, but it is help. It is real help to real people, to everyday people, to working people, to people who have lost their jobs. This is absolutely necessary that we pass it. And we need to work with the President to make this part of the package.

The material previously referred by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1507 Offered by Rep. Hastings of Washington

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the

following:

That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in

order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7110) making

supplemental appropriations for job creation and

preservation, infrastructure investment, and economic and

energy assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30,

2009, and for other purposes. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived except those arising

under clause 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as

read. All points of order against the bill are waived. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,

and any amendment thereto, to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally

divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the amendment

relating to the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools

and Community Self-Determination Act printed in section 3 of

this resolution, if offered by Representative Walden of

Oregon or his designee, which shall be in order without

intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as

read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally

divided and controlled by the proponent, and an opponent; and

(3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 7110 pursuant to this

resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous

question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the

bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as

follows:

At the end of the bill add the following new section:

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity today to introduce an important piece of legislation to improve the ability of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide medical care for our Nation's Armed Forces and veterans. We are currently finishing up a debate in the Senate on additional war time funding for Iraq. As in past years, we are trying to mitigate the damage caused by the failure to properly plan for and manage the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's fall. I have spoken many times about how damaging this lack of planning has been to our efforts in Iraq and to our standing in the world.

For the past two months, the spotlight has shone on another administration failure in this war: the shameful conditions our wounded soldiers face as outpatients navigating the military health system when they return from Iraq or Afghanistan. This is another example of gross mismanagement and a strained system. To alleviate the strain on this system, I am offering legislation today--the Effective Care for the Armed Forces and Veterans Act--to improve the care that members of the Armed Forces and veterans receive at Walter Reed and other military medical facilities.

The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that some of the reasons for concern at Walter Reed do not occur in the future. As the living conditions for outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center indicate, moving to private contracts for maintenance at military medical facilities can cause problems. After a private contract was awarded for maintenance and upkeep of buildings on the campus of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, a maintenance crew of approximately 300 was whittled down to 50 by the time the contract went in to effect. Many of the terrible living conditions in Building 18 that we read about in the Washington Post were a direct result of delays in building repair and maintenance because of a shortage in manpower. To prevent this situation from occurring again, this legislation calls for public- private competitions of maintenance services at military medical complexes to stop while our country is engaged in military conflicts. It also calls for a General Accountability Office review of contracting-out decisions for basic maintenance work at military facilities.

Other problems discovered at Walter Reed are directly attributable to shortages resulting from pressures to cut budgets for military medical services. These cuts cannot be tolerated at a time when military medical services are needed to treat servicemembers who have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. As such, this legislation would require medical command budgets to be equal to or exceed the prior year amount while the nation is involved in a major military conflict or war.

Another issue that the conditions at Walter Reed brought up is whether or not the facility should be closed as the Base Realignment and Closure Commission recommended. The Commission recommended building new, modern facilities at the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda and at Fort Belvoir to improve the overall quality of care and access to care in this region. Military leaders have indicated that the planned closure has limited their ability to attract needed professionals to jobs at Walter Reed and there have been concerns raised whether adequate housing for the families of the wounded has been properly planned. To deal with that, this legislation requires the Department of Defense to submit to Congress within one year a detailed plan that includes an evaluation of the following: the desirability of being able to guarantee professional jobs in the D.C. area for two years or more following the closure in order to foster a stable workforce; detailed construction plans for the new facilities and for new family housing; and the costs and benefits of building all of the needed medical treatment, rehabilitation, and housing before a single unit is moved.

Another major problem and source of frustration for injured soldiers is the length of time it takes to receive a disability determination. In order to hasten the disability determination process, we need to ensure that the Department of Defense has information systems capable of communicating with those in the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA has been a leader in implementing electronic medical record keeping, but we have to improve the capability of the Department of Defense to send electronic medical records to the VA to speed up the disability determination process. Making the disability determination system more efficient can reduce the stress on the soldiers and their families going through the determination process.

Caseworkers are also critical. They schedule appointments and make sure wounded servicemembers get the rehabilitative and follow-up care they need. As more and more soldiers and marines come home wounded, many military caseworkers are overwhelmed. To improve the care given to servicemembers, this legislation requires a minimum ratio of case managers to patients of 1 to 20, that case managers have contact with recovering servicemembers at least once a week, and that case managers be properly trained on the military's disability and discharge systems so they can better assist patients with their paperwork.

Currently, many combat veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have service-related mental health issues like post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI). Many have labeled TBI the ``signature injury'' of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. It is estimated that as many as 10 percent of those serving or who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have brain injuries. That

would mean about 150,000 of the 1.5 million soldiers and marines who have served in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom have suffered a brain injury. In many cases, these injuries are not diagnosed because there is not an external wound. Depending on the severity of these injuries, returning soldiers can require immediate treatment or not have symptoms show up until several years later. This legislation calls for every returning soldier to be screened for TBI. While the VA has announced plans to do this, it needs to happen in active-duty military medical facilities too. In addition, the legislation calls for a study on the advisability of treating TBI as a presumptive condition in every service's disability evaluation system, as well as the VA disability evaluation system.

We often hear about the 25,000 soldiers and marines who have been wounded in these wars--but that figure grossly underestimates the demand that the VA health care system faces. Since our country was attacked on September 11, 2001, more than 1.5 million soldiers have been deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other locations. Of these, 630,000 are now veterans and, according to the Department of Defense, more than 205,000 have already received medical treatment through the Department of Veterans Affairs. A recent Harvard study on the long-term costs of treating these new veterans estimates that by 2012 more than 643,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan will be using the VA system, an almost three-fold increase of what the system faces now. With a significant backlog of claims currently existing, the system is in desperate need of an upgrade. To address this concern, my legislation directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a plan for the long-term care needs for veterans for the next 50 years.

It is our highest obligation to heal the hundreds of thousands of brave men and women who will bear the physical and emotional scars of these wars for the rest of their lives. Those of us who have the privilege of serving in Congress must act now to improve the medical care we provide to our Armed Forces and veterans.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing The American Automobile Industry Promotion Act of 2007 to jump-start next generation battery technology development in the United States and extend incentives to American-made highly efficient vehicles.

This legislation authorizes $100 million a year for 5 years to advance new battery technology--an amount double the administration's current budget request. On a national and international level, we must do whatever it takes to help our domestic auto manufacturers remain competitive.

Right now, the Japanese dominate the market for lithium ion batteries because they invested hundreds of millions of dollars in developing this technology and in supporting their domestic industry. And, the Koreans and the Chinese are not far behind. American auto manufacturers are playing catch-up and we need to move quickly.

Specifically, I am proposing to support the development of advanced electric components, systems and vehicles, by providing funds for battery research to national laboratories, small businesses, and institutes of higher learning. The bill will also establish, through a competitive selection process, an Industry Alliance of private, U.S. based, for-profit firms whose primary business is battery development. The Industry Alliance would be an advisory resource on short and long term battery technology development.

The new research initiative will have four major areas of focus: (1) Research and Development including battery technology, high-efficiency charging systems, high-powered drive-train systems, control systems and power train development, and nanomaterial technology for battery and fuel cell systems. (2) Demonstration. The initiative also creates a demonstration program which would devote resources toward demonstration, testing and evaluation of hybrid electric vehicles for many different applications including military, mass market passenger and SUV vehicles. (3) Education. The initiative will support curriculum development in secondary, high school, as well as higher education institutions that focus on electric drive systems and component engineering. (4) Testing. Finally, the initiative would work with the EPA to develop testing and certification procedures for criteria pollutants, fuel economy, and petroleum use in vehicles.

In addition to research and development for the lithium ion battery, the American Automobile Industry Promotion Act will also set a national standard for biodiesel, a cleaner-burning fuel made from natural and renewable sources; and expand tax credit eligibility for consumers who purchase more fuel-efficient diesel vehicles. Today's diesels are cleaner than their predecessors, are in compliance with EPA emissions standards, and are 30 percent more fuel efficient than an equivalent gasoline engine. Specifically, the bill expands the emissions requirements to qualify for a tax credit for various weight diesel vehicles, increasing the number of American-manufactured more fuel efficient diesel vehicles that qualify. This provision would expire in four years, at which time all highly efficient vehicles will have to meet higher emissions standards to qualify for the tax credit.

Now is the time to act. It's not too late, but we do not have the luxury of waiting. If we are ever to be truly competitive in the global auto market and free from our dependence on foreign oil, we must move forward on all fronts.

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

Mr. President, I introduce today with my colleagues Senators Specter, Brownback, and Leahy the Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act of 2007, which takes direct aim at reducing recidivism rates by improving the transition of offenders from prison back into the community. As this bill reflects, preventing recidivism is not only the right thing to do, it makes our communities safer and it saves us money.

Today, we have over two million individuals in our Federal and State prisons and millions more in local jails. Our Federal and State prisons will release nearly 650,000 of these offenders back into our communities this year. A staggering \2/3\ of released State prisoners will be rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years of release.

It's not difficult to see why. These ex-offenders face a number of difficult challenges upon release. The unemployment rate among former inmates is as high as 60 percent; 15-27 percent of prisoners expect to go to homeless shelters upon release; and 57 percent of Federal and 70 percent of State inmates used drugs regularly before prison. This addiction and dependency often continues during incarceration.

Unless we address these problems, these individuals will commit hundreds of thousands of serious crimes after their release, and our communities will bear the human and economic cost. If we are going to reduce recidivism and crime, we simply have to make concerted, common- sense efforts now to help ex-offenders successfully reenter and reintegrate into their communities.

The Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act of 2007 confronts head-on the dire situation of prisoners reentering our communities with insufficient monitoring, little or no job skills, inadequate drug treatment, insufficient housing, lack of basic physical and mental health services, and deficient basic life skills. Through commonsense and cost effective measures, it offers a second chance for ex-offenders, and the children and families that depend on them, and it strengthens our communities and ensures safe neighborhoods.

The Second Chance Act provides a competitive grant program to study current approaches to reducing recidivism rates. It also provides grants for the development and implementation of comprehensive substance abuse treatment programs, academic and vocational education programs, housing and job counseling programs, and mentoring for offenders who are approaching release and who have been released. To ensure accountability, the bill requires grantees to establish performance goals and benchmarks and report the results to Congress.

The bill authorizes $192 million per year in competitive grant funding. This represents an investment in our future and an acknowledgement of the problem we face. We must remember that the average cost of incarcerating each prisoner exceeds $20,000 per year, with expenditures on corrections alone having increased from $9 billion in 1982 to $60 billion in 2002. That's more than a six-fold increase, and the costs keep going up.

A relatively modest investment in offender reentry efforts today is far more cost-effective than the alternative--building more prisons for these ex-offenders to return to if they can't reenter their communities and are convicted of further crimes. An ounce of prevention, as the saying goes, is worth a pound of cure.

I'm proud today to join with Senator Specter, Senator Brownback, and Senator Leahy in introducing the Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act and ask that our colleagues join with us in this vital effort. The safety of our neighbors, our children, and our communities depends on it.

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

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Heroes at Home Act of 2007, the Restoring Disability Benefits for Injured and Wounded Warriors Act of 2007, and the Protecting Military Family Financial Benefits Act of 2007 to serve our servicemembers and send a message: you will be treated as heroes before deployment, during deployment, and upon returning home. You didn't offer excuses and do not deserve to be offered excuses by your country.

I want to thank Senator Collins for co-sponsoring the Heroes at Home Act of 2007 and for partnering with me on numerous pieces of legislation and initiatives related to these and other important health issues.

This is a moment of profound challenge for our country, for our military, and for our men and women in uniform. And while there are often strong disagreements here in Washington, I hope we can unite around our common values and patriotism when it comes to how we treat our servicemembers and veterans.

If you serve your country your country should serve you. That is the promise our country must keep to the men and women who enlist, who fight, and who return home often bearing the visible and invisible scars of sacrifice. Sadly, too often in the past several years, that promise has been broken: whether it's a lack of up-armored vehicles on the ground in Iraq or a lack of appropriate care in outpatient facilities at Walter Reed.

Last year, I authored and passed into law the Heroes at Home initiative to assist returning servicemembers experiencing the complex, diffuse, and life-altering symptoms of traumatic brain injury and other mental health difficulties.

One out of every 10 returning servicemembers are affected by traumatic brain injury (TBI), which has been widely identified as the ``signature wound'' of the Global War on Terror. This includes severe injuries as well as invisible wounds that result in trouble remembering appointments, holding down a job, and returning to civilian life. Unfortunately, troops have an increased risk of sustaining more than one mild or moderate TBI because of multiple deployments and the prevalent use of Improved Explosive Devices by enemy combatants in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. However, mild and moderate TBI may go undetected, especially if the servicemember has sustained more obvious injuries. Further, it can be difficult to distinguish mild TBI from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder since both conditions have common symptoms, such as irritability, anxiety and depression. Although many wounded

servicemembers receive cognitive evaluations upon returning from deployment, the lack of a baseline test conducted prior to the injury leads these servicemembers to question the validity of their post- deployment assessments.

When I visited Walter Reed a few weeks ago, I met a young Army soldier who had lost one arm and lost his ring finger because his wedding band had melted onto it. I asked him how he was doing, and he said, ``You know, I'm working hard at my rehabilitation and they're taking great care of me with my prosthetics.''

He said, ``but what really bothers me is my memory. I don't have the focus that I used to have. I can't really set out tasks and know that I can accomplish them.'' And he said, ``That's the thing that really bothers me I've got to have my brain back.''

His story, and the stories of hundreds of other servicemembers like him, demonstrates that we need to do more to help rapid identification of traumatic brain injury in order to facilitate the best care once the servicemembers return home, and expand support systems for members and former members of the Armed Services with traumatic brain injury and their families.

That's why I, along with Senator Collins, am introducing the Heroes at Home Act of 2007 today, to build on last year's Heroes at Home initiative. I am grateful to have developed this proposal with the Wounded Warrior Project, the National Military Family Association, the Military Officers Association of America, and the American Academy of Neurology.

We should provide pre-deployment cognitive screening to better diagnose and treat traumatic brain injury when these men and women return home. This legislation will improve detection of mild and moderate TBI by implementing an objective, computer-based assessment protocol to measure cognitive functioning both prior to and after deployment. This baseline test will help detect mild and moderate cases of TBI and distinguish them from PTSD. My legislation will also require that the same assessment tool be used across all branches of the 6yArmed Services and for every member of the Armed Forces who will be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

We should also help families take care of a loved one by providing them with training to become certified caregivers, so that they can receive compensation for care giving they already provide. Family members of returning soldiers with TBI are often ill-equipped to handle the demands of caring for their loved one, which in some bases can become a full-time responsibility. My legislation will establish a Traumatic Brain Injury Family Caregiver Personal Care Attendant Training and Certification Program, which would train and certify family caregivers of TBI patients as personal care attendants, enabling them to provide quality care at home and at the same time qualify for compensation from the VA.

Finally, we should explore new ways to treat TBI in rural settings and outpatient clinics through telemedicine. Servicemembers and veterans continue to face problems in accessing needed medical and mental health care, especially veterans or Guard and Reserve members who live in rural areas. The Heroes at Home Act of 2007 will help increase the reach of needed care for TBI by creating a demonstration project, administered jointly by the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs that would use telehealth technology to assess TBI and related mental health conditions and facilitate rehabilitation and dissemination of educational material on techniques, strategies and skills for servicemembers with TBI.

On March 6, 2007 Chief of Staff of the Army General Peter Schoomaker and the then Army Surgeon General Lieutenant General Kevin C. Kiley, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that soldiers appearing before the Physical Evaluation Board were ``short-changed'' and had not received appropriate disability benefits. According to the Congressional Research Service, since the enactment of the Traumatic Servicemembers Group Life Insurance program at least 45 percent of claims have been denied. In March 2006 the Comptroller General issued GAO Report 06-362: Military Disability System: Improved Oversight Needed to Ensure Consistent and Timely Outcomes for Reserve and Active Duty Service Members--the Department of Defense did not heed the recommendations provided in this report and as a result injured and wounded warriors continue to languish in an inefficient and adversarial disability system.

I am also introducing legislation to fix the disability benefits system for our wounded warriors. When I've visited Walter Reed, one common thread uniting the problems is the disjointed and unfair process for evaluating disabilities. There were only three lawyers and one paralegal assigned to Walter Reed's entire evaluation process. Compare that to 4,000 Army JAG lawyers assigned to active duty, the National Guard, and the Reserves.

The ``Restoring Disability Benefits for Injured and Wounded Warriors Act of 2007'' will restore disability benefits for wounded and injured members of the Armed Forces. The act will direct reviews of disability claims, traumatic injury claims, and the Physical Evaluation Board process. Additionally, the ``Restoring Disability Benefits for Injured and Wounded Warriors Act of 2007'' will increase the availability of legal counsel for members appealing their disability cases, and direct the Comptroller General to provide a follow up report on the efforts currently being made by the Department of Defense to address certain deficiencies in the Disability Evaluation Systems; the adequacy of the Department of Veterans Affairs Disability Schedule for Ratings as it relates to the nature of wounds our warriors suffer in combat today; and to report on the standards and procedures of Physical Evaluation Boards.

So I am proposing an up-and-down review of previously-denied cases and failed appeals, an independent review of traumatic injury claims under the Traumatic Servicemembers Group Life Insurance program where up to 45 percent of claims have been denied, and a fix to ensure members have the proper liaison and legal assistance when appearing before the Physical Evaluation Board. We must stop short-changing our wounded warriors.

Finally, I am introducing the Protecting Military Family Financial Benefits Act of 2007 to close gaps in coverage for the Death Gratuity and Survivor Benefits beneficiaries and improve pre-deployment counseling and services for all members of the Armed Forces.

Every day single-parents deploy to distant battlefields and leave their minor children in the care of a financially ill-prepared guardian or caretaker. Unfortunately, when tragedy strikes and a military servicemember makes the ultimate sacrifice, minor dependent children and families are excluded from benefits and entitlements. In too many cases pre-deployment counseling and help are under-funded or unavailable.

These provisions will add an option for members of the Armed Forces to designate guardians or caretakers as a beneficiary for Death Gratuity benefits for care of dependent children and to receive annuities under the Survivor Benefit Plan for care of dependent children. These options do not exist under current law.

The Department of Defense will be required to commission an independent panel to review and assess military pre-deployment counseling and services, and implement recommended changes and best practices within 120 days of receiving the report. This review will include pre-deployment counseling and services available for unmarried members of the Armed Forces with dependent children, unmarried single members without dependent children, and married members with or without dependent children.

Specifically, what level of counseling or services are available for these members to maximize financial protections for the proper care of their surviving dependents under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, Traumatic Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, Death Gratuity, Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, Survivor Benefits Plan, and benefits payable under the Social Security Act.

The review will include the preparation and maintenance of Family Care Plans for single-parents including elements for such plans relating to death

benefits, wills, powers of attorney, trusts, safeguarding of the plan during deployment, and the acknowledgement of specific guardian and caretaker duties relating to use of financial benefits for the care of minor dependent children.

Finally, this review will determine the adequate level of resources available at military pre-deployment centers including: the availability of legal and financial counseling, training level of pre- deployment counselors, Family Support Group involvement, availability of PTSD screening, and availability of suicide prevention counseling.

Let us all join together in accepting our responsibility as a nation to those who serve and resolve to improve their care for traumatic brain injuries, reform their disability benefits, and fix their survivor benefits.

I ask unanimous consent letters of support for this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking (PACT) Act with Senators Specter, Leahy, Kyl, and Schumer.

As the problem of cigarette trafficking continues to worsen, we must provide law enforcement officials with the tools they need to crack down on cigarette trafficking. The PACT Act closes loopholes in current tobacco trafficking laws, enhances penalties for violations, and provides law enforcement with new tools to combat the innovative new methods being used by cigarette traffickers to distribute their products. Each day we delay its passage, terrorists and criminals raise more money, States lose significant amounts of tax revenue, and kids have easy access to tobacco products sold over the internet.

The cost to Americans is not merely financial. Tobacco smuggling also poses a significant threat to innocent people around the world. It has developed into a popular, and highly profitable, means of generating revenue for criminal and terrorist organizations. Hezbollah, for example, earned $1.5 million between 1996 and 2000 by engaging in tobacco trafficking in the United States. Al Qaeda and Hamas have also generated significant revenue from the sale of counterfeit cigarettes. That money is often raised right here in the United States, and it is then funneled back to these international terrorist groups. Cutting off financial support to terrorist groups is an integral part of protecting this country against future attacks, and it was an important recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. We can no longer continue to let terrorist organizations exploit weaknesses in our tobacco laws to generate significant amounts of money. The cost of doing nothing is too great.

This is not a minor problem. Cigarette smuggling is a multibillion dollar a year phenomenon and is getting worse. In 1998, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) had six active tobacco smuggling investigations. In 2005, that number swelled to 452.

The number of cases alone, however, does not sufficiently put this problem into perspective. The amount of money involved is truly astonishing. Cigarette trafficking, including the illegal sale of tobacco products over the internet, costs States billions of dollars in lost tax revenue each year. It is estimated that $3.8 billion of tax revenue were lost, at the Federal and State level, in 2004 to tobacco smuggling. As lost tobacco tax revenue lines the pockets of criminals and terrorist groups, States are being forced to increase college tuition and restrict access to other public programs because of lost revenues. Tobacco smuggling may provide some with cheap access to cigarettes, but those cheap cigarettes are coming at a significant cost to the rest of us.

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), cigarette trafficking investigations are growing more and more complex, and take longer to resolve. More people are selling cigarettes illegally, and they are getting better at it. As these cases become more difficult to crack, we owe it to law enforcement officials to do our part to lend a helping hand. The PACT Act does that by enhancing BATFE's authority to enter premises to investigate and enforce cigarette trafficking laws. It also increases penalties for cigarette trafficking. Unless these existing laws are strengthened, traffickers will continue to operate with near impunity.

Just as important, though, we must enable our country's law enforcement officials to combat the cigarette smugglers of the 21st century. The internet represents a new obstacle to enforcement. Illegal tobacco vendors around the world evade detection by conducting transactions over the internet, and then shipping their illegal products around the country to consumers. Just a few years ago, there were less than 100 vendors selling cigarettes online. Today, approximately 500 vendors sell illegal tobacco products over the internet.

Without new and innovative enforcement methods, law enforcement will not be able to effectively address the growing challenges facing them today. The PACT Act sets out to do just that by empowering States to go after out-of-State sellers who are violating their tax laws and by cutting off their method of delivery. A significant part of this problem involves the shipment of contraband cigarettes through the United States Postal Service (USPS). This bill would cut off online vendors' access to the USPS. We would treat cigarettes just like we treat alcohol, making it illegal to ship them through the U.S. mails and cutting off a large portion of the delivery system.

In addition, it would facilitate cooperation between law enforcement and private carriers, who are sometimes the unwitting delivery arm of these tobacco traffickers. The bill authorizes the Attorney General to compile a list of sellers who are engaging in illegal cigarette sales, and that list would be distributed to private carriers, like UPS and FedEx. Providing this information to these companies, who have already begun to cooperate with law enforcement in this area, would then be empowered to cut off shipments for those of their customers

who are engaging in tobacco smuggling.

The PACT Act is a comprehensive bill to put these illegal smugglers out of business. It enjoys the strong support of tobacco companies, law enforcement officials, and the public health community. The bill contains important authorities that will enable our federal, state, and local law enforcement officials to crack down on cigarette trafficking, and thereby close off a very lucrative funding stream for international terrorist groups and other criminal enterprises. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill that amends the Food Security Act of 1985 to provide incentives for landowners to protect and improve streams and riparian habitat. This legislation would provide cost-share payments to landowners who protect and repair streamside and in-stream habitat, improve water flow and quality and initiate watershed management and planning.

The Stream Habitat Improvement Program, funded at $60 million annually, would direct resources to important fish habitat projects. The fisheries community has recognized the loss of habitat as a major threat to the health of sport fish populations. Farmers who participate in the program will make improvements on streams running through their property. Improvements could include repairing shoreline, removing barriers to fish passage, and planting trees to shade the water and strengthen stream banks. Further, existing partnerships, such as the National Fish Habitat Action Plan, could provide invaluable input to guide the program.

Healthy fisheries mean healthy communities. The EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service have found that 81 percent of all stream fish communities in the U.S. have been adversely affected by either pollution or other disturbances. Rivers and streams provide essential habitat for numerous plant and animal species. Many of these species are threatened, endangered, or at risk for extinction. Degraded and altered habitats are the most frequently cited factors contributing to the decline among threatened or endangered aquatic species and among many native recreational and non-game fish species.

In Wisconsin alone there are almost 950,000 anglers, and almost half a million more come from out of State to fish in Wisconsin. Together these anglers spend $1 billion on fishing-related expenses in our State. This new program would advance efforts to support stream habitat restoration more effectively, which in turn will support a thriving economy and aquatic species populations. Further, healthy stream and river habitats also play an important role in the Nation's economy. Each year, about 34 million anglers spend $17 billion directly on fishing equipment and another $15 billion on trip-related expenses, food and lodging, and other recreational fishing-related expenses.

Successful management of stream and river habitat requires cooperative partnerships among producers, landowners, as well as Federal and State agencies. Offering producers and private landowners incentives and opportunities for restoring stream habitat will prevent the decline and listing of aquatic species. Building strong relationships between farm owners, private landowners and the angler community ensures that healthy fisheries will be maintained for future generations to enjoy.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Elder Justice Act of 2007. As in previous Congresses, I am an original cosponsor and fully support the bill's goals and passage. I want to thank Senators Hatch,

Lincoln and Smith for their continued leadership to make sure that our Nation finally acts in a comprehensive way to prevent elder abuse.

Our Nation has for far too long turned its back on the shame of elder abuse. Congress has held hearings on the devastating effects of elder abuse for a quarter of a century. With this bill, we are finally saying enough is enough--elder abuse is unacceptable and we are going to act to stop it.

This bill takes several important steps to make improvements to what is now an inadequate system of protection for our vulnerable elders. First, it boosts funding for the long-term care ombudsman program, which serves as an advocate for the elderly and disabled in long-term care. It also establishes an adult protective services grant program and forensics centers that are charged with developing expertise on elder abuse. In addition, it elevates the importance of elder justice issues by creating a coordinating council of Federal agencies that will make policy recommendations and submit reports to Congress every 2 years. And the legislation requires the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services to take a proactive role in funding initiatives aimed at improving training programs and working conditions for long- term care professionals as a strategy for increasing the number of such workers during the coming years.

As much as I support this bill, however, I am disappointed that it does not include one important policy that can prevent abuse--a common- sense background check system that can screen out potential workers with serious criminal convictions that may put fragile seniors in long- term care at risk.

Almost every day, we read terrible stories about elderly patients who are beaten, sexually assaulted, or robbed by the very people who are charged with their care. Research shows that many instances of elder abuse could be avoided by a simple background check. It is time to put in place a nationwide system that can detect and prevent elder abuse. The seven-State pilot program that began in 2003 is an excellent start. Already, it is showing that States can successfully implement comprehensive, cost-effective programs that consolidate checks from State registries, State criminal records, and FBI records. In the coming weeks, I plan to introduce legislation that will take steps to make these pilot programs a reality for all States. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Again, I want to thank Senators Hatch, Lincoln, and Smith for their commitment to the cause of elder justice. The legislation we are introducing today will go a long way to focusing more attention on solutions for elder abuse, and developing new approaches to improve the quality of long-term care.