Drug Endangered Children Act of 2007

Mr. President, today the Senate is poised to confirm two more nominations for lifetime appointments to the Federal bench: Cathy Seibel for the Southern District of New York and Glenn T. Suddaby for the Northern District of New York. These nominees each have the support of the New York Senators, who worked with the White House to identify a slate of consensus nominees. I thank both Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton for their work in connection with these nominees.

When these nominees are confirmed, that will bring the number of judicial nominees confirmed by the Senate during the slightly more than three years I have served as the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee to 158. Coincidentally, the number of President Bush's judicial nominees confirmed by the Senate during the almost four and one-half years of Republican control totaled 158.

I have always said that we would treat this President's nominees more fairly than Republicans treated President Clinton's. And we have. Indeed, we have matched the confirmation record that Republicans achieved for a President from their own party. We have not pocket filibustered more than 60 of this President's nominees. We are not going to return 17 circuit court nominees without action to this President as the Republican-led Senate did to President Clinton. We have not doubled the judicial vacancies and forced them above 100 nationwide, nor have we doubled the number of circuit court vacancies. To the contrary, we have cut judicial vacancies by more than half, and reduced circuit court vacancies by more than two-thirds from a high point of 32, to a low of just nine throughout all 13 Federal circuits.

The 100 nominations we confirmed in only 17 months in 2001 and 2002, while working with a most uncooperative White House, reduced the vacancies by 45 percent by the end of 2002. With 40 additional confirmations last year, and another 18 this year, the Senate under Democratic leadership has now confirmed 158 lifetime appointments to the Federal bench nominated by President Bush. Nearly half of the judicial nominees the Senate has confirmed while I have served as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee have filled vacancies classified by the Administrative Office of the Courts as judicial emergency vacancies. Eighteen of the 27 circuit court nominees confirmed while I have chaired the committee filled judicial emergency vacancies, including nine of the 10 circuit court nominees confirmed this Congress. This is another aspect of the problem created by Republicans that we have worked hard to improve. When President Bush took office there were 28 judicial emergency vacancies. Those have been reduced by more than half.

In the 2 full years that preceded my returning as chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2007, with a Republican chairman and a Republican Senate majority working to confirm the judicial nominees of a Republican President, 54 nominations were confirmed. After the two confirmations today, we will reach 58 judicial confirmations for this Congress. Truth be told, President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed faster by the Democratic majority than by the previous Republican majority of the Senate.

Judicial vacancies have been reduced from 10 percent as we made the transition to the Bush administration to 4.5 percent today. I wish we could say the same about unemployment, the cost of gasoline, food prices, health care costs, about inflation and the national debt, but all those indicators have been moving in the wrong direction, as is consumer confidence and the percentage of Americans who see the country as on the wrong track.

Republican critics ignore the progress we have made on judicial vacancies. They also ignore the crisis that they had created by not considering circuit nominees in 1996, 1997 and 1998. They ignore the fact that they refused to confirm a single circuit nominee during the entire 1996 session. They ignore the fact that they returned 17 circuit court nominees without action to the White House in 2000. They ignore the public criticism of Chief Justice Rehnquist to their actions during those years. They ignore the fact that they were responsible for more than doubling circuit court vacancies during their pocket filibusters of Clinton nominees or that we have reduced those circuit court vacancies by more than two thirds.

In fact, as the Presidential elections in 2000 drew closer, and when the judicial vacancy rate stood at 7.2 percent, then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch declared that ``There is and has been no judicial vacancy crisis,'' and that 7.2 percent was a ``rather low percentage of vacancies that shows the judiciary is not suffering from an overwhelming number of vacancies.'' As a result of Republican inaction, the vacancy rate continued to rise, reaching 10 percent when the Democrats took over the Senate majority in 2001.

Democrats have reversed course. We have cut circuit court vacancies by more than two-thirds, from a high of 32. With the confirmation of two nominees today, the judicial vacancy rate will be just 4.5 percent.

I have yet to hear praise from a single Republican for our work in lowering vacancies. I also have yet to hear in the Republican talking points any explanation for their actions during the 1996 congressional session, when the Republican Senate majority refused to allow the Senate to confirm even one circuit court judge. I have yet to hear explanations for why they did not proceed with the nominations of Bonnie Campbell, Allen Snyder and so many others.

I hope the American people will not witness another week in which Senate Republicans attempt to make a partisan, election-year issue out of the confirmation of judicial nominations. This is the one area where the numbers have actually improved during the Bush presidency while the life of hardworking Americans has only gotten more difficult. The Treasury Secretary has been quite sobering about the financial difficulties still ahead. Inflation is now on the rise, jobs are being lost, gas prices have skyrocketed, food prices have soared, health care is unaffordable and yet Republicans want come to the floor to pick a partisan fight about the pace of judicial confirmations while the Senate proceeds to confirm two more judges.

Americans have seen the unemployment rate rise to 5.5 percent and trillions of dollars in budget surplus have turned into trillions of dollars of debt. Last week General Motors announced layoffs. The annual budget deficit is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, the dollar has lost half its value, and the costs of the Iraq war and interest on the national debt amounts to $1.5 billion a day.

When President Bush took office, the price of gas was $1.42 a gallon. Today, it is over $4.00 a gallon. The housing crisis and mortgage crisis threatens the economy. The stock market dropped 2,000 points in the first six months of the year and went under 11,000.

Hardworking Americans trying to do the best they can for their families are more concerned about critical issues they face in their lives each day. They are concerned about affording to heat their homes this winter. They are concerned about gas prices that have skyrocketed so high they do not know how they will afford to drive to work. They are concerned about the steepest decline in home values in two decades. More and more Americans are affected by rising unemployment, with job losses for the first six consecutive months of this year tallying over 438,000. Americans are worried about soaring health care costs, rising health insurance costs, the rising costs of education and rising food prices. The partisan, election-year rhetoric over judicial nominations, at a time when judicial vacancies have been significantly reduced, is a reflection of misplaced priorities.

Our progress today in confirming two more nominations for lifetime appointments shows that when the President works with home State Senators to identify consensus, well-qualified nominees, we can make progress, even this late in an election year. I congratulate the nominees and their families on their confirmations today.

The Federal judiciary is the one arm of our Government that should never be political or politicized, regardless of who sits in the White House. I will continue in this Congress, and with a new President in the next Congress, to work with Senators from both sides of the aisle to ensure that the Federal judiciary remains independent and able to provide justice to all Americans, without fear or favor.

Last week the Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to consider a number of bipartisan measures. Several are important items on which Republicans had already delayed consideration since June. They include the bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, a bipartisan OPEN FOIA bill and the bipartisan William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. In addition, we had before us the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act, the Fugitive Information Networked Database Act, the Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act and the National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act.

I had hoped that last week we would be able to report these measures. A few words about one of them--the legislation to reauthorize the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Act. This bill would strengthen our efforts to stop the abhorrent practice of human trafficking around the world. Our bill enhances protections for victims of these terrible crimes. Human trafficking is a modern-day form of slavery, involving victims who are forced, defrauded or coerced into sexual or labor exploitation. These practices continue to victimize hundreds of thousands around the world, mostly women and children, and we must do all that we can to be more effective in confronting this continuing problem. I thank Senator Biden for his leadership. Unfortunately, Republican partisan antics have gotten in the way of progress on this front and delayed the Judiciary Committee and the Senate from acting on this measure.

Rather than meet and work on the human trafficking bill and the others, a number of the Republican Senators who serve on the Judiciary Committee came to the Senate floor while Republicans objected to the committee meeting. That was too bad. It set back our legislative agenda.

Republicans previously boycotted business meetings for the month of February when we were trying to report judicial nominations. That only slowed our progress. Then, when we tried to expedite consideration of two circuit court nominations in May, they objected. Those judicial nominations were finally confirmed late in June.

I look forward to a time when Senators from the other side of the aisle return to work with us on the important legislative business of the Judiciary Committee and the Senate. It would be refreshing if they recognized the progress we have made on filling judicial vacancies.

When they do, when they show cooperation, when we are able to make progress on our legislative agenda, at that point I will be able to turn my attention from concentrating on that legislative agenda and consider, along with the majority leader, whether there are additional judicial nominees we might be able to consider and confirm this year. It will be difficult to do so, especially in connection with nominees recently received for whom we do not have an ABA peer review rating at this time.

Let me give you some flavor of how petty the obstructionism from Republicans has become. I introduced at the request of the Chief Justice a bill to extend authorization for the Supreme Court police to remain in operation, S. 3296. I have been trying to clear this measure for passage since June 19. Although our Ranking Republican on the Committee cosponsored, he has not been able to clear it on his side of the aisle.

I have been seeking for months to find a way to extend the EB-5 investor visa pilot program that brings benefits

not only to Vermont but to Pennsylvania and Iowa, and elsewhere. Authority for this worthwhile program that leads to investments here in the United States expires in September. My efforts to clear H.R. 5569, a bill to extend the program for 5 years, have been stymied by Republicans who insist on using this bill as a vehicle for other immigration-related matters and have ensnarled it in a series of competing concerns.

More broadly, the Judiciary Committee has worked throughout this Congress to advance the priorities of Americans. We have reported legislation to support local law enforcement to make our cities and towns safe from crime that has now gone back up after consistent declines in the 1990s, like the COPS Improvements Act, S. 368, and my bill to extend the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act, S. 2511. We have reported legislation to combat fraud and corruption, like the War Profiteering Prevention Act, S. 119, and the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act, S. 1946. We have reported legislation to protect the civil rights and voting rights of Americans, like the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, S. 535, and Senator Obama's Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007, S. 453. We have reported legislation to protect Americans' data privacy like my Personal Data Privacy and Security Act, S. 495. We have reported measures to provide the Federal judiciary with increased resources both in terms of salary restoration and additional judgeships, S. 1638 and S. 2774. We have reported intellectual property measures like the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act, S. 2913. And, of course, we have reported the bill to confront the OPEC cartel, NOPEC, S. 879. I look forward to a time when Republicans work with us on these matters instead of obstructing us at every turn.

Legislation with broad bipartisan support that I have managed to move through the Judiciary Committee has then been stalled on the Senate floor by the obstruction of a few Republicans. Of the bills that have been reported from the Judiciary Committee this Congress, Republicans have blocked legislation to support runaway and homeless young people, S. 2982; to help law enforcement cope with mentally ill offenders, S. 2304; to support the investigation and prosecution of civil rights era murders left unsolved for too long, S. 535; and to protect our children from the scourges of drugs, child pornography, and child exploitation, such as S. 1210, S. 1738 and S. 2344. I joined the Majority Leader in introducing a measure yesterday that combines some of these Committee- approved and House-passed bipartisan measures into one bill, S. 3297. These should have been consent items and already been considered and passed by the Senate.

The list goes on. I say, again, Republican obstructionists have blocked legislation to ensure that law enforcement officers can obtain bulletproof vests, to give much needed resources to State and local law enforcement, to break the grip of the OPEC cartel on oil prices, to prohibit war profiteering, to train prosecutors, and to teach children to use the internet safely, just to reiterate a few examples. And that is just legislation reported by the Judiciary Committee. Every Committee in the Senate has seen simple legislation intended to help the American people in difficult times stymied by Republican obstruction.

Republicans have become masters of true obstruction, boycotting business meetings of the Judiciary Committee and cutting short important hearings, including a hearing at which two courageous women from Pennsylvania were testifying about severe injuries they suffered to help us understand the plight of hardworking Americans whose legitimate grievances have been rejected by a pro-business Supreme Court. When Republicans obstructed a meeting last week where we could have made progress on reducing youth violence, protecting women and children from human trafficking, and helping those who serve our country to cope with unmanageable debt, that was just the latest example of a pattern that has become all too familiar.

Sadly, we have seen Republican obstructionism since the beginning of this Congress, with Republicans using filibuster after filibuster to thwart the will of the majority of the Senate from doing the business of the American people. Republican filibusters prevented Senate majorities from passing the climate change bill; the Employee Free Choice Act; the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act; the DC Voting Rights Act; the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007; the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008; the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008; and the Consumer- First Energy Act.

These are critical pieces of legislation to address urgent priorities like the energy crisis, the environment, voting rights, health care, and fair wages for working men and women. All of them had the support of the majority of the Senate. And all were blocked by a minority of Republican Senators bent on preventing us from making progress. Republicans have now filibustered more than 80 pieces of legislation in this Congress. We can only imagine what we could have accomplished in this Congress with cooperation rather than obstruction.

This long list of priorities unaddressed because of the Republicans in Congress would be even longer if we were to include the many important bills President Bush has vetoed since the beginning of this Congress. This list includes legislation to fund stem cell research to fight debilitating and deadly diseases, to extend and expand the successful State Children's Health Insurance Program that would have provided health insurance to more of the millions of American children without it, to set a timetable for bringing American troops home from the disastrous war in Iraq, and to ban waterboarding and help restore America as a beacon for the rule of law.

The American people are going through increasingly difficult times, and their Congress should be working to make their lives better. Time is running short in this Congress. It is past time for Republicans to stop their foot stomping and work with us to get things done. That is what I have been trying to do throughout this Congress. I hope, despite their recent antics, that Republicans will reconsider and join with me to make progress on legislative matters of concern to the American people.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Boxer in introducing the Channel Islands National Park Management Act of 2007.

This legislation seeks to clarify the future use and management of the park, and specifically protects Santa Rosa Island for the use of the public.

The taxpayers paid approximately $30 million to acquire Santa Rosa Island in 1986 to restore its native ecology and provide public access.

Unfortunately, late last year during conference negotiations a provision was slipped into the fiscal year 2007 Defense Authorization bill seeking to overturn a court-approved settlement agreement which requires the phasing out of private hunting on Santa Rosa Island.

Under a binding court settlement in the late 1990s, non-native deer and elk must be removed from Santa Rosa Island over a phased, 4-year period beginning in 2008.

Today, from mid-August through mid-November, a large portion of the island is closed to the public so that the island's prior owners can run a trophy hunting operation targeting the deer and elk on the island.

Under the settlement, this hunting operation was to end in 2011 allowing the island to be completely open to the public year round.

Now, under last year's provision, the prior owners will seek to continue charging $16,000 or more for their privately operated hunting trips.

Even though the Government purchased the island from them for $30 million in taxpayer money, the prior owners would seek to keep essentially everything they had before--and that's simply not in the public interest.

Some may be interested in learning a little history and background on this gem of an island: Santa Rosa Island is approximately 53,000 acres and lies about 50 miles west of Ventura Harbor. It is the second largest of the five islands making up the Channel Islands National Park. It is extremely rugged and pristine, with terrain ranging from grassy hills to steep, wind-carved canyons to white sandy beaches. Craggy, steep cliffs overlook rocky tide pools along its coast. Wildflowers cover many parts of the island during the spring and summer. It is ecologically sensitive and includes several endemic plants and species. For example, it is the only place in the world to see the island fox and spotted skunk in their natural habitat. A variety of shore birds--like the snowy plover--and sea mammals--such as seals and sea lions--breed on its beaches. It is seen by many scientists as one of the nation's most unique places. In addition to being the home of rare flora and fauna, it is an archaeological and paleontological treasure, with some sites dating back 11,000 years or to the Pleistocene-era. In fact, in 1994, the world's most complete skeleton of a pygmy mammoth was excavated on the island. It offers incredible recreational opportunities for the public, including hiking, camping, kayaking, fishing, sea sports, and wildlife watching.

The limitation of public access to the island to accommodate privately run hunting trips would be a tragedy. This is the public's land. It's a national park, and the public should be able to visit it and enjoy its breath-taking beauty and remoteness.

I also want to address one issue the provision in last year's Defense Authorization bill purportedly seeks to address: enhancing hunting opportunities for disabled veterans.

While no one opposes providing hunting opportunities for our veterans, it is clear that it is neither a practical nor viable option to use Santa Rosa Island as a hunting reserve for injured and disabled veterans.

This view is now supported by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, PVA, an organization which previously expressed support for the provision overturning the settlement.

Notably, in July 2006, the PVA reached the conclusion following an investigative visit to Santa Rosa that the ``numerous obstacles inherent to the island, including ingress and egress, logistics, personal safety and cost, far outweigh the possible, limited benefit it could provide.''

Furthermore, it should be pointed out that in California today, there are already 9 military installations that permit hunting--five that can accommodate disabled servicemembers.

Two of these military installations, Camp Pendleton and Vandenberg Air Force Base, are relatively close to the Channel Islands National Park, and allow disabled veterans to hunt a variety of animals, including deer, waterfowl, quail, feral pigs, small game, and coyote.

Altogether there are over 100 U.S. military installations where hunting is permitted, over 70 of which are currently accessible to disabled servicemembers and veterans.

Naturally, the Park Service is firmly opposed to the provision seeking to overturn the settlement. But it is also important to note that neither the Department of Defense nor the Veterans Administration asked for the language.

Consequently, I strongly believe that the Park Service should continue managing this National Park for the benefit of the general public. To allow any less would be a waste of taxpayer dollars and wrongly limit the public's access to this national treasure.

I strongly believe that we must do everything to protect the island for the public and oppose any measures that could continue to restrict access to the island.

This legislation we are introducing today would safeguard the island in just this manner. 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, today I am introducing with Senator Grassley, as well as Senators Kohl, Feingold and Durbin as original co- sponsors, the Drug Endangered Children Act of 2007. This bill would take an important grant program for drug-endangered children that Congress authorized in the USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act, and extend it for two additional years.

In particular, the USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act authorized $20 million in Federal grants for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to States to assist in the treatment of children who have been endangered by living at a home where methamphetamine has been manufactured or distributed. But unless we pass new legislation, that authorization will not continue beyond the current fiscal year.

A companion bill was introduced earlier this year by California Congressman Dennis A. Cordoza, with bipartisan support in the House.

The White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, or ONDCP, has documented that innocent children are sometimes found in homes and other environments, hotels, automobiles, apartments, etc., where methamphetamine and other illegal substances are produced.

According to the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) National Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System, there were 1,660 children affected by or injured or killed at methamphetamine labs during 2005.

These children who live at or visit drug-production sites or are present during drug production face a variety of health and safety risks, including: inhalation, absorption, or ingestion of toxic chemicals, drugs, or contaminated foods that may result in nausea, chest pain, eye and tissue irritation, chemical burns, and death; fires and explosions; abuse and neglect, and hazardous lifestyles, presence of booby traps, firearms, code violations, and poor ventilation.

Where children are involved, drug lab seizures must go beyond the normal response from law enforcement, fire and HAZMAT organizations. Additional agencies and officials often must be called in to assist, including emergency medical personnel, social services, and physicians.

Recognizing this need, the ONDCP several years ago announced a national Drug Endangered Children (DEC) initiative to assist with coordination between existing State programs and create a standardized training program to extend DEC to states where such a program does not yet exist.

As a result of this initiative, several states developed DEC programs, to coordinate the efforts of law enforcement, medical services, and child welfare workers, to ensure that children found in these environments receive appropriate attention and care.

These DEC programs began to develop interagency protocols to support drug-endangered children, addressing issues such as: staff training, including safety and cross training; roles and responsibilities of agencies involved; appropriate reporting, cross-reporting, and information sharing; safety procedures for children, families, and responding personnel; interviewing procedures; evidence collection and preservation procedures, and medical care procedures.

Protocols were designed to identify and provide guidance on the variety of issues that responding agencies needed to address in these situations, such as taking children into protective custody and arranging for child protective services, immediately testing the children for methamphetamine exposure, conducting medical and mental health assessments, and ensuring short- and long-term care.

Unfortunately, the ONDCP's initiative, which had been funded in part through a DOJ award of $2.124 million under the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Methamphetamine Initiative of 2003, was not continued thereafter.

The USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act that we passed in 2005, establishing a specific grant program for this purpose, recognized the need to continue this initiative. Unfortunately, this grant program that we authorized was never funded. In fiscal year 2006, the program that we authorized was appropriated no funds at all.

In fiscal year 2007, the House of Representatives voted to include $5 million for this important program as part of its CJS Appropriations bill. But unfortunately, the 109th Congress adjourned without passing most of its FY2007 appropriations bills, and the Continuing Resolution we passed to keep the government running did not fund this provision either.

So the bill that I introduce today would give the Congress another chance to revive this important initiative. And it can't come too soon for places like Merced, California, where three-quarters of all foster care cases are reported to be methamphetamine-related.

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

Mr. President, today I join with Senator Grassley in introducing the Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act of 2007. This bill would increase the criminal penalties that apply when criminals market their illegal drugs to our children, using appalling techniques like the recently reported sales on our streets of candy-flavored methamphetamine.

In particular, the bill would: double the maximum penalties applicable to drug crimes if a criminal defendant manufactures, offers, distributes, or possesses with intent to distribute a controlled substance that is flavored, colored, packaged or otherwise altered in a way that is designed to make it more appealing to a person under the age of 21; if the violation is a repeat offense, the maximum sentence would be tripled; and a mandatory minimum prison sentence of at least a year would apply in every case involving illegal drugs that targets its marketing at minors.

The growing problem of marketing illegal drugs to minors was highlighted in a recent USA Today article, entitled ``Flavored Meth Use on the Rise,'' which stated, ``Reports of candy-flavored methamphetamine are emerging around the nation, stirring concern among police and abuse prevention experts that drug dealers are marketing the drug to younger people.''

Normally, methamphetamine--a highly addictive stimulant--is a brownish, bitter-tasting crystalline powder. But drug dealers, recognizing that this may not be appealing to children or teenagers, have reacted by reaching a new low: they are using candy and soda flavors to market their meth.

Soda flavors. Strawberry methamphetamine that they market as ``Strawberry Quick.'' Reddish methamphetamine marketed as an energy drink like ``Red Bull.'' Even ``chocolate quick.''

Scott Burns, Deputy Drug Czar at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, warns that this development may negatively affect the gains we have recently made in getting the word out to our young people about how horrible this drug is.

According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the number of people 12 and older who used methamphetamine for the first time in the previous year decreased from 318,000 people in 2004 to 192,000 people in 2005. That's the good news.

But Deputy Drug Czar Burns warns that with drug dealers having a tougher time selling their product, especially to young people, ``they have to come up with some sort of gimmick.'' And that gimmick, he warns, is the use of flavored methamphetamine.

In my own State of California, San Francisco police since late January have arrested teens with quantities of meth designed to taste like chocolate. The Haight-Asbury clinic also confirms chocolate- flavored methamphetamine being used on the streets.

Dr. Alex Stalcup, a nationally renowned drug counselor, reports seeing teenage patients at the New Leaf Treatment Center suffering the ill effects of flavored methamphetamine since the first of this year.

One of Dr. Stalcup's patients was unaware that the substance was meth at all, and said he was told that it was a solidified form of the energy drink Red Bull. Dr. Stalcup warns that this new form of the drug also may be more likely to lead to an overdose, by users who may not be aware of, or who may underestimate, a candy-flavored drug's impact.

Perhaps the first report of this problem emerged in late January, when a Carson City, Nevada police informant purchased 2 grams of a strawberry-flavored methamphetamine from an alleged member of the Lima Street gang. Officers later served a search warrant on his home and found more. Police bulletins warned this ``new type of meth will be more attractive to a younger crowd and may surface in schools.''

Additional reports also came in. On February 13, a police officer in Greene County, MO, seized a bag of ``strawberry meth'' from a female passenger in a car stopped in a rural area of Greene County, MO. And in Idaho, the Administrator of the Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy warned of how drug dealers were producing ``strawberry quick'' and ``chocolate quick'' forms of meth, to attract young buyers and spawn a new generation of drug buyers.

The Idaho Press-Tribune even reported that at Valentine's Day, drug dealers compressed the flavored form of the drug into heart-shapes, colored it bright pink, and wrapped it in shiny paper.

Based on intelligence gathered by Drug Enforcement Administration agents from informants, users, police and drug counselors, flavored crystals are now available in California, Nevada, Washington, Idaho, Texas, New Mexico, Missouri and Minnesota.

The bill I offer today would address this problem, by enacting penalties to discourage colored and flavored drugs and the marketing of drugs to minors.

Under current law, there is already an enhanced penalty if someone distributes illegal drugs to a minor. The maximum sentence is doubled, and tripled for a repeat offense, and there is a minimum of at least a year in prison. But the enhancement applies only if there is an actual distribution to a minor. Even possession with intent to distribute doesn't qualify. And current law doesn't address flavored drugs or marketing illegal drugs in ways appealing to kids.

The bill I introduce would fix that. If someone manufactures, creates, distributes, or possesses with intent to distribute an illegal drug that is flavored, colored, packaged or altered in a way designed to make it more appealing to someone under age 21, they would face this same enhanced penalty.

This bill will send a strong and clear message to the drug dealers-- if you flavor up your drugs or alter them in a way that makes it more appealing to our children, there will be a very heavy price to pay.

Flavored meth is designed to get people to try it a few times. It's all about hooking young people. And that is truly tragic. Listen to what one former addict wrote after hearing about this new development:

They do need to worry about our children because I happen

to know quite a few 10 and 12 year olds on up that are

already using it and selling it out there. So whoever thinks

it's not a threat to our children--WRONG WRONG WRONG! It's

more and more dangerous out there when people cannot handle

it and they develop a chemical imbalance and lose their mind

to where they don't even know who they are anymore. I happen

to know a very, very young pretty girl I've met, and she will

never come back to who she was. She's gone. She is crazy and

is gonna end up hurt then dead one of these days. I pray for

this girl all the time . . .

Estimates now place the number of habitual meth users worldwide at 26 million worldwide--more than the combined total for heroin and cocaine. It is extraordinarily addictive. We must act to preserve the gains we have made, and keep kids from getting cruelly tricked into an addiction they may never break.

These new penalties will make dealers think twice before flavoring up their drugs, and punish them appropriately if they don't. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation entitled Giving Reductions to Energy Efficient New Buildings, the GREEN Buildings Act. This bill will extend the energy efficient building tax deduction from December 31, 2008 until December 31, 2013. This bill will also increase the tax deduction from $1.80 to $2.25 per square foot.

Our Nation is diligently searching to find the long-term solutions to global warming and, how to reduce our carbon foot print. As Congress continues to search for these solutions, we must continue to provide incentives to those who have the knowledge and resources to make an impact now. Congress understands the impact `green buildings' have on reducing our Nation's energy consumption and carbon emissions. That is why in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 we created a tax deduction for energy efficient buildings. Unfortunately, that deduction will expire on December 31, 2008. Congress must not allow this deduction to expire. Building energy efficient buildings is one of the key things being done right now to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as well as reduce our Nation's energy consumption.

Commercial buildings are a substantial part of our Nation's energy consumption and can be a key to reducing demand for electricity. These buildings are responsible for 40 percent of total U.S. energy consumption, they use 70 percent of the nation's electricity and they are accountable for 40 percent of the U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. They are a major piece to enabling our Nation's energy independence and to solving the global warming puzzle and Congress must not overlook them or leave them out.

The average life-span of a commercial building is 75 years. We must use our resources, to build energy-efficient buildings today and make these buildings truly ready for the future. One way to do so is to provide incentives to those who are willing to step up to the plate and accept the challenge.

Another benefit from building energy efficient or green buildings is that they also improve our health. Americans spend about 90 percent of their time indoors. The concentration of indoor pollutants is sometimes 10 to 100 times more than outdoor pollutants increasing the frequency of illnesses and ailments.

Researchers have proven that employees who are exposed to more sunlight are more productive workers. They have proven that by changing the carpets on the floor and paint on the walls workers have less respiratory ailments. These are simple things that can be done to increase employees' health and their productivity and our nation's overall success.

Our Nation is doing a good job of researching and developing new technologies to reduce our dependence on foreign energy and to combat global warming, and Congress has helped move these technologies along by providing incentives in the way of tax deductions. Unfortunately, many of these incentives have an expiration date that expires too soon to provide the help it is intended to provide. Congress needs to keep these incentives intact and provide stability so companies and investors can be assured of their investment. In turn, maintaining these incentives will advance our Nation's energy independence and reduce our carbon dioxide emissions--two very important goals. I urge my fellow Senators to support this sensible and much needed tax incentive. We don't have another 75 years to wait.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the First Response Broadcasters Act, legislation I am introducing today along with Senators Stevens, Carper and Pryor.

As my State suffered the devastating impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the levee breaks that followed, we learned that one of the most vital relief supplies is information. In providing it, all of our local media--newspapers, broadcasters and web sites included--did amazing work to keep the people of my State informed, even when displaced thousands of miles away. But with phone lines down and streets too flooded to move around, the sound of a local radio or television station was for many of my constituents the only voice in those first few dark nights after the hurricanes. Our local broadcasters provided life-saving information and comfort when both were needed the most. Many of them worked through unimaginable technical and emotional obstacles, staying on the air as their facilities and staff homes were destroyed, and loved ones remained missing.

With the entire industry dependent on public airwaves, broadcasters have a duty to serve the public in times of crisis. As local radio and television stations stand up, as so many did, to put commercial interests aside to serve the public interest, the federal government

should be ready to stand with them. This is not a new partnership.

Under laws going back to 1951, radio and television stations are today required to participate in the national Emergency Alert System (EAS), and many stations have protected, government-funded circuits connecting them to emergency command centers. This legislation would directly connect more stations nationwide to this network by authorizing $6.5 million to FEMA to set up Primary Entry Point radio stations in another twenty five states and U.S. territories. Currently there are thirty-two stations and two under development in Alabama and Mississippi.

A Primary Entry Point (PEP) station is a radio broadcast station designated to provide public information following national and local emergencies where there is no commercial power. For example, WWL Radio in New Orleans was the only PEP station in the Gulf Coast after Katrina and it provided radio broadcasts for two weeks after the storm until commercial power was restored. FEMA commissioned recommendations from the Primary Entry Point Advisory Committee, a non-profit group they set up to oversee the stations, and just needs the additional funds to build the additional facilities. Included in the findings of the legislation is a comprehensive list of the states that are currently without PEP stations and which would benefit from this provision. There are also States which have PEP stations, but because of geographic limitations, require an additional station to fully cover the State. This bill would provide those two additional stations in Kansas and Florida.

But what good is this successful emergency information chain if the last link fails? By technical necessity, this last link is right in the disaster's path. Simply put, the transmitter needs to be in the same area as the people in need of warning. Despite our Federal investments in the emergency system and entry point stations, there were several Gulf Coast broadcasters after the hurricanes that could not stay on the air simply because the government took their fuel away. They were told they weren't on the list.''

This legislation puts these broadcasters on the list, where they belong. To protect vital broadcast infrastructure and encourage more broadcasters to deploy disaster-resistant telecommunications equipment, this bill would also create a 3-year pilot program managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide annual matching grants to qualified First Response Broadcasters for the protection and reinforcement of critical-to-air facilities and infrastructure. The program would receive $10 million per year to fund matching program grants, and grants could also be used for projects to enhance essential disaster-related public information services.

As the program encourages both disaster preparedness and community coordination, increased scoring would be granted to applications from broadcasters who form cooperative proposals with other broadcasters in the area or those who submit plans in conjunction with local or State governments. Priority scoring would also be given to applicants in disaster-prone areas and also based on the public service merits of the broadcasters disaster programming plan.

No disaster warning, evacuation plan or emergency instruction matters if it can't get to the people who need it. This is why the Federal Communications Commission and a presidential advisory panel have each recommended we take steps to keep these lifesaving broadcasts on the air.

In particular, this bill would require that the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other Federal response agencies, in coordination with State and local authorities and the National Guard, honor press access guidelines and credentials set by the local governing authority in the declared disaster area. For example, if the City of New Orleans issued press credentials before the disaster and the city decided to continue honoring them post-disaster, FEMA officials operating in the area would be required to honor those credentials as well. The local entity, at its own discretion, would be able to request that this credentialing authority be passed instead to federal or state officials.

Along these same lines, the bill would also direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency to coordinate with local and State agencies to allow access, where practicable and not impeding recovery or endangering public safety, into the disaster area for personnel and equipment essential to restoring or maintaining critical-to-air broadcast infrastructure. The priority policies and procedures for this coordination would be similar to those practiced for restoring public utilities, and would include access for refueling generators and re- supplying critical facilities.

For all journalists working to tell the story-newspapers and web sites included-the First Response Broadcasters Act makes sure that the local officials, who know local reporters best, decide where the journalists can go, not some Washington bureaucrat who just stepped off the plane.

In closing, I would like to submit for the record the stories of a few incredible broadcasters who through recent disasters have demonstrated exactly the type of response this bill is intended to encourage. I would also like to submit for the record a list of organizations which have already endorsed this legislation-including the state broadcasting associations from every one of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Broadcasters have a duty to the American people to spread the word in times of crisis. No one else can do it. They are already a key part of our national emergency response plan, and have been for more than 50 years. This bill merely reinforces this fact and secures the logical extension of commitments already made by Federal government. We have a responsibility to make sure the tools are protected to make the system work.

Broadcasters are first responders--and with this bill today, we will strengthen our essential partnership with them for the benefit of all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, the broadcaster stories, and a list of the organizations already supporting this bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I am going to now visit about an issue I often visit with my colleagues about, the issue of drugs, because I served with Senator Biden as cochairman of the drug caucus.

As a parent and now grandparent, I remain deeply concerned about the hazardous environment to which our children are exposed. Every day, we see more and more heartbreaking stories of a child being victimized in one way or another. Some of the most disturbing trends involve deadly drugs and our own kids. More specifically, there is an alarming number of kids who are being exposed to environments where illegal drugs are being manufactured and sold. Kids are also falling prey to unscrupulous drug dealers who are disguising highly addictive drugs to make them appear as if they were candy. I believe we have a moral obligation in this country to ensure our young people have every opportunity to grow up without being accosted by drug pushers at every turn, whether it is on TV in the home or on the way to school.

As a Senator representing a State that has been among the hardest hit by the scourge of methamphetamine abuse, I have witnessed firsthand how this horrible drug has devastated individual lives and families. I have seen the havoc wreaked on the environment as well as the child welfare system. I have listened to the horror stories of those caught in the grips of addiction. This is why I joined a number of my colleagues in passing the Combat Meth Act of 2005. This landmark legislation has shown dramatic results in decreasing the number of clandestine meth labs and increasing methamphetamine seizures.

While this is certainly welcome news, particularly for our first responders and local law enforcement community, meth labs in our communities are still a reality. For instance, in 2006, there were still over 6,400 clandestine meth lab incidents throughout the country. In my home State of Iowa, we have seen an 88-percent decrease in the number of meth lab incidents since 2004 when the Iowa Legislature passed a very important piece of legislation cutting down on the number of labs. Yet there were still 240 incidents of clandestine labs last year alone.

The Combat Meth Act has been particularly helpful in cutting down on mom-and-pop meth labs. However, our efforts have given rise to new and more disturbing instances of meth production, trafficking, and abuse that are becoming more prevalent throughout our country.

A case in point can be found in the State of Missouri, where police recently made seven meth-related arrests in just as many hours in the tiny quiet town of Ozark. The house where these arrests were made belonged to a 45-year-old grandmother, who was babysitting her infant grandson while his mother was away at school. Upon her arrest, she admitted using meth but denied that she was a dealer. However, while police searched the house, six more individuals were picked up on meth- related charges.

When it was all said and done, three children under the age of 3 watched as the police arrested their parent or grandparent for selling or possessing this terrible drug.

Sadly, this is not an unusual incident. We have here a picture of a baby. Scenes such as the one depicted on this chart are seen throughout the country. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration--DEA, as we call it around this town--more than 12,000 children throughout the country have been affected, injured, or killed at meth lab sites since 2002. Thousands more have been sent to foster homes or were victims of meth-related abuse in the home during the same period.

In my State of Iowa, the Department of Human Services reports that over 1,000 children over the past 4 years were classified as victims of abuse and that nearly half of child abuse cases have been meth-related. In 2006, there were 107 reported cases of child abuse where meth was manufactured in the presence of a minor.

Due to the shocking number of children who were being victimized by drugs in one form or another, I joined my colleagues in supporting a bill called the Drug Endangered Children Act of 2005.

This bipartisan legislation established a national grant program to support state Drug Endangered Children--DEC programs. These programs assist local law enforcement, medical services, and child welfare workers to ensure that victimized children receive proper attention and treatment after living in these terrible environments.

DEC programs greatly benefit local law enforcement by helping law enforcement coordinate in close cooperation with the Department of Human Services. This ensures a seamless coverage of child welfare and law enforcement joint operations. I am pleased to report that since this program was implemented a large number of communities throughout the Nation have

formed multi-disciplinary alliances for the benefit of drug-exposed children. There are 16 communities throughout Iowa that have set up DEC programs and more are in the process of setting up additional programs.

Unfortunately, the authorization for this grant program expired for fiscal year 2008. That is why Senator Feinstein and I introduced S. 1210, the Drug Endangered Children Act of 2007. This legislation would reauthorize this important grant program for an additional 2 years to assist States in coordinating law enforcement, medical services, and child welfare efforts to ensure children found in such environments receive appropriate attention and care. The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously reported this bipartisan legislation to the floor. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this important legislation and pass the Drug Endangered Children Act of 2007.

As cochairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, I can tell you that the most at-risk population for drug abuse is our young people. Research has shown time and again that if you keep children drug-free until they turn 20, chances are very slim that they will ever try or become addicted to drugs. Unfortunately, unscrupulous drug dealers are all too aware of statistics like these. They have developed new techniques and marketing gimmicks to lure in younger users. The DEA and the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy have recently issued warnings about highly addictive and dangerous drugs being colored, packaged, and flavored in ways that appear to attract use by children.

These drug dealers are flavoring drugs with additives to make them taste like candy. For instance, some drugs that have been recovered by the DEA and local law enforcement have been flavored to taste like strawberry. I have two charts just to show you the seriousness of this problem. One of these charts is of the popular novelty candy ``Pop Rocks.'' The other is of some strawberry-flavored methamphetamine, which is known on the street as ``Strawberry Quick,'' that was seized by police during a traffic stop in Missouri. You can see how similar these two products appear. It would be very difficult for a child to distinguish between these two.

Other flavors, such as lemon, coconut, cinnamon and chocolate are clearly being used to make highly addictive and dangerous drugs seem less harmful and more appealing. These flavored drugs are also being marketed in smaller amounts, making it cheaper and more accessible to children. According to an article in USA Today, at least eight States have reported instances involving candy-flavored drugs, and many law enforcement officials are expecting these deadly substances to infiltrate their communities in the near future.

Meth is not the only drug that is being flavored or disguised by drug dealers. The DEA recently arrested three men in an undercover operation in California where candy flavored cocaine was being distributed. The DEA seized at least four different flavors of cocaine along with other dangerous substances. The estimated street value of the flavored cocaine seized in this operation was over $272,000.

The DEA also arrested 12 people in connection to a marijuana-laced candy operation in 2006. The marijuana-laced candy that was seized in this operation was packaged to look like well-known brand name candy bars. You can see in this chart, all the varieties of marijuana-laced candy that this operation produced. Once again, you can see how it would be difficult for a child to distinguish between these marijuana candies and the real product. These drug busts further illustrate the fact that drug dealers will stop at nothing to hook a new generation on these deadly drugs.

Due to the growing trend of these candy-flavored drugs, I joined Senator Feinstein in co-sponsoring S. 1211, the Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act of 2008, a bill that ought to currently move forward. Currently, Federal law enhances the criminal penalties that apply when a person sells drugs to anyone under the age of 21. When this occurs, the Federal penalties are doubled--or tripled for a repeat offense--and a mandatory minimum of at least 1 year must also apply. However, this penalty applies only to someone who actually sells drugs to someone under 21.

The Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended in the Judiciary Committee, would expand the circumstances under which these enhanced penalties apply to cover the entire operation. Under our bill, the enhanced penalties that already exist would also apply to anyone over 18 years of age who knowingly or intentionally manufactures, creates, distributes, dispenses or possesses a schedule I or II controlled substance that has been combined with a candy product, is marketed or packaged as if it were similar to a candy product, or has been modified by flavoring or coloring with the intent to distribute, or sell that controlled substance to a person under 21 years of age. The DEA busts are prime examples of why we need this bipartisan bill to keep drug dealers from pedaling their poison to our children.

The fight against deadly drugs is an ongoing struggle. We must continue to do all we can to protect the most vulnerable among us. We must send a clear message to those wishing to prey on our youth that you risk serious prison time when you target our future. The National Narcotics Officers Associations Coalition is strongly supporting this measure. This organization represents 69,000 law enforcement officers who encounter these terrible substances on a daily basis and work endlessly to keep our children and communities safe. I am pleased that my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee overwhelmingly voted in favor of reporting this important legislation to the floor. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in passing the Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act of 2008.

I urge all my colleagues to join us--meaning myself and Senator Feinstein, the main sponsors of the bill--in passing the Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act of 2008.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss my vote on July 28 against cloture--to end debate--on the motion to proceed to S. 3297, the so-called Reid omnibus bill or ``Coburn package.'' As I stated on the Senate floor Monday, July 28, it is my inclination that the majority leader called for a vote on cloture on proceeding to this bill in order to dislodge the pending legislation on oil speculation. By using his position of power, he seeks to force the Senate to prematurely move away from the No. 1 issue facing the people from my State and the Nation namely energy legislation.

I did not support cloture to move to the Reid omnibus bill not because I do not support many of its provisions, rather because I believe we should complete work on energy legislation before moving on to other matters. Further, I am seeking my right as a U.S. Senator to offer amendments to a bill in a fair and balanced legislative process.

For instance, Senator Kohl and I had a bipartisan amendment prepared to offer to the speculation bill that would have brought OPEC nations under U.S. antitrust laws to prohibit them from meeting in a room, lowering production and supply, and thus raising prices. Unfortunately, this effort was denied by the majority leader's blocking of amendments by filling the so-called amendment tree, disallowing mine and a number of other amendments that ought to be considered.

This procedure is nothing new for this majority leader who has filled the amendment tree on 15 occasions in the current 110th Congress, surpassing all other majority leaders in modern history. As a result of the majority leader's curtailing Senate procedure and amendments, I have been faced with voting against cloture on measures I would have ordinarily supported including this past Saturday's vote on LIHEAP. I have also opposed cloture in instances such as the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill which was considered the first week of June--2 to 6. In that case, the majority leader filled the amendment tree at the first opportunity and filed cloture on the bill without ever allowing consideration of amendments. The 5-day debate culminated in a fait accompli cloture vote that failed on June 6.

Most recently, I voted against cloture to move to the Reid omnibus bill that was a conglomeration of legislation that has been described as non-controversial and may benefit a wide variety of interests. As I stated on the Senate floor on Monday, July 28, I am supportive of most, if not all of the substance in this bill. In fact, I am a cosponsor of six of the items.

I support and have worked to pass a number of the Judiciary Committee-related bills in the proposed omnibus. For example, I am an original cosponsor of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Protection Act, S. 2982, which makes changes in the grant program for centers for runaway youths. I am also a cosponsor of the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2008, S. 2304, which would provide grants for the improved mental health treatment and services provided to offenders with mental illness. In addition, I am a cosponsor of the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, S. 535, which authorizes funding to solve pre-1970 civil rights crimes. Moreover, in committee, I supported a Federal commission to commemorate the bicentennial of the writing of the Star-Spangled Banner and the War of 1812, S. 1079.

Additionally, I voted in favor of the following child protection bills which were passed by the Judiciary Committee: The Combating Child Exploitation Act of 2008, S. 1738, which authorizes grants to combat child exploitation; and the Drug Endangered Children Act of 2007, S. 1210, which extends a grant program directed at drug-endangered children.

I directed my staff to work to clear the child exploitation bills from the omnibus package in the same manner I worked to pass the Adam Walsh Act without extraneous add-ons during the 109th Congress. To that end, my staff worked with Senator Coburn's staff to draft a proposed compromise child exploitation bill that includes the key provisions of the child pornography and exploitation legislation in the proposed omnibus, as well as important legislation to strengthen the powers of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the SAFE Act, which was omitted from the omnibus bill.

My support is also invested in efforts to maintain the natural beauty of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed while simultaneously preserving its resources for the communities it serves. S. 2707, The Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Water Trails Network Continuing Authorization Act, will permanently authorize appropriations for these vital programs. I cosponsored this legislation because I believe it is a critical organization whose mission to protect the bay is vital for the communities affected by this watershed.

Another environmental act I have fervently supported and of which I am an original cosponsor, is S. 496, the Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008. The bill renews the Appalachian Regional Commission for 5 years--2007-2011--and authorizes $510 million to be appropriated over that timeframe for the Commission's economic development activities in distressed rural counties.

Numerous health care provisions I have worked hard for can also be found in this package, including S. 1382, which establishes a registry of those suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, better known as Lou Gehrig's disease. The registry will gather data about those who are diagnosed with the disease to better understand and research the illness. As Ranking Member of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education--LHHS--Appropriations Subcommittee, I support research and an ALS registry. I worked to provide $39 million for NIH research of ALS in 2008 and $2.8 million to plan the ALS registry.

I am also a cosponsor of S. 1183, the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, to expand paralysis research at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and set up a network to allow patients and their families to quickly learn the result of clinical trials on paralysis rehabilitation drugs. The LHHS fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill provided $64 million for NIH spinal cord research.

The package also included bills, H.R. 3112, S. 1810 intended to create a new Federal grant program to pay for information and support services regarding Down syndrome and other prenatally or postnatally diagnosed conditions. While awaiting these authorization bills, I have worked with Senator Harkin to get a jump start on these much-needed activities by including $1 million to establish the congenital disabilities program in the fiscal year 2009 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bill. In addition, the Labor-HHS Subcommittee provided almost $1 million to the CDC in fiscal year 2009 for awareness activities related to Down syndrome.

One of the bills, H.R. 477, would permit the issuing of grants to states for stroke care systems. As ranking member of the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked to increase CDC funding for heart disease and stroke activities in the States to over $50 million and NIH funding for stroke research to over $340 million in fiscal year 2008.

Another bill, S 1375, would establish a grant program for services to mothers suffering from postpartum depression. As ranking member of the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked with Chairman Harkin to include $4.9 million for a first-time motherhood initiative within the maternal and child health block grant.

I also support S. 675, the Training for Realtime Writers Act of 2007. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires 100 percent closed captioning for all new English broadcast programming by January 1, 2006. That deadline has come and gone. There are not enough real time writers and captioners to meet this unfunded mandate out in the workforce. Furthermore, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires 100 percent closed captioning for all new Spanish broadcast programming by January 1, 2010. America is very far from achieving this goal. S. 675 will assist with training the workforce to provide closed captioning for the 30 million Americans who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.

I support H.R. 3320, the Support for the Museum of the History of Polish Jews Act of 2007, which requires assistance from the Department of State to support the development of a permanent collection at the Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw, Poland. It is in the national interest of the United States to encourage the preservation and protection of artifacts associated with the heritage of U.S. citizens who trace their forbearers to other countries and to encourage the collection and dissemination of knowledge about that heritage. Most recently, I traveled to Poland on August 27, 2007, and observed fist hand the importance of museums that examine Poland in WW II, specifically the Polish uprising and the Home Army. The Museum of the History of Polish Jews will complement the current museum facilities in Warsaw by preserving and presenting the history of the Jewish people in Poland, which had the largest Jewish population in Europe at the beginning of World War II.

Having outlined a number of priorities and areas of support I have with this omnibus bill, let the record show that I support the package as a whole. However, as evidenced by my vote against cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill, I believe the energy situation is too important to set aside until we have completed or frankly even started our work on it by allowing amendments to be considered. It has been said on this floor that explaining opposition to this omnibus bill to our constituents will be difficult. While this premonition may have some merit,

I trust that the people of Pennsylvania and the Nation will support efforts to deal with high energy prices and encouraging the kind of open and fair debate that leads to better policies across the board.

I reinitiate my suggestion that the Senate stay in session during the month of August, if the majority leader would hold a legitimate session that provides the kind of deliberation that has led many to call the U.S. Senate ``the greatest deliberative body in the world.'' Members of this body should be prepared to work as long and hard as necessary in order to reach a solution to the energy crisis not based upon political appeasement, but results. It is time we allow debate and compromise to reverberate through this chamber as we find areas of agreement in the best tradition of the Senate.