Fostering Adoption to Further Student Achievement Act

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the North Bay Water Reuse Program Act of 2007, together with my colleague Senator Boxer. This legislation authorizes Federal participation in a regional water reuse project that is the first of its kind in Northern California, and model for the West.

The program will allow urban water agencies to take treated wastewater now discharged into the sensitive bay-delta ecosystem and put it to productive use on water-short agricultural lands and environmentally valuable wetlands. It is an innovative ``win-win'' solution that will protect the environment as well as meet the future water needs of urban and agricultural

water users in the North Bay region of California.

Agricultural producers in the North Bay region are facing, and will continue to encounter, major water shortages. At the same time, as regulations continue to restrict and/or eliminate wastewater discharge, many communities in the North Bay region will face challenges as they try to determine the best way to discharge their treated wastewater.

The North Bay Water Reuse Program will address both problems and enhance the ecosystem of the San Francisco Bay. Specifically, the program will distribute reclaimed water through a conveyance system and deliver it to agricultural growers, promising a permanent and dedicated supply of about 30,000 acre-feet of water per year.

The use of reclaimed water for irrigation will reduce the demand on both surface and groundwater supplies, and thus improve instream flows for riparian habitat and fisheries recovery. Furthermore, in the off- season when irrigation demand is diminished, the reclaimed water will be used to increase surface water flows for the restoration of wetlands, creating habitat for migratory waterfowl and other wetland species.

Most notably, this program grew from a collaboration of the three major stakeholders in the region that vie for the same water. It is significant that the program is supported by the local governments in three counties, Napa, Sonoma and Marin Counties; agricultural organizations, such as the Napa and Sonoma County Farm Bureaus, the Carneros Quality Alliance, the Winegrape Growers of Napa County, the Napa Vintners Association, the North Bay Agriculture Alliance; and environmental organizations, such as The Bay Institute.

Thus, the North Bay Water Reuse Program brings stakeholders that are usually at odds with one another to the table to find a solution that is beneficial to all.

Finally, I would like to note the energy benefits of this project. The Sonoma Valley treatment plant, installing solar panels that will generate 40 percent of its energy needs. Another partner in the program, Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, generates 90 percent of its operating energy using solar panels.

The North Bay Water Reuse Program will allow vineyard managers to cease or significantly reduce their use of gas and electric powered pumps that currently deliver irrigation water. The program proponents expect to see a net reduction of overall energy use for regional irrigation operations, as well as a net reduction in the emissions of carbon dioxide from irrigation operations.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Madera Water Supply Enhancement Act. This legislation authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau, to participate in the design and construction of the Madera Water Supply Enhancement Project, project, that is essential to

improving the water supply in the Madera Irrigation District, MID, in Madera County, CA, and in California's Central Valley.

Representative George Radanovich has introduced companion legislation to this bill in the House, and I look forward to working with him to get this bill enacted.

Agriculture is a multibillion enterprise in California, which produces a significant portion of the Nation's food supply. To secure this food supply, water is essential. When constructed, the project will have the capacity to store up to 250,000 acre-feet of water and move up to 55,000 acre feet in or out of storage each year.

With increasing demands on limited water supply, the project will enable water users to store excess wet year water supply and this stored water can then be used during dry years to meet demand. To ensure the viability of the groundwater table and address overdraft problems, 10 percent of the water placed in storage would be left in the ground to replenish the aquifer over time.

This Project is also a useful complement to efforts to restore the San Joaquin River. Restoring water to the San Joaquin River may reduce the water supply available to agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley by up to 165,000 acre feet per year.

It is very important to me to do what I can to help make up this water deficit. The Madera Water Bank is one project that can help, and I will be looking at it and other projects closely to prioritize limited Federal appropriations to address this important need.

MID, the local agency that will build, own and manage the project has already made a major financial commitment to making the water bank a reality. MID has spent $37.5 million to purchase the nearly 14,000 acre Madera Ranch, which will be the site of the water bank, and millions more on studies. This land is ideal for storing water in the aquifer. Over 11,000 acres of the ranch also constitute valuable habitat for numerous species and contain large sections of the region's native grasslands that will be preserved.

The Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on the predecessor legislation, H.R. 3897, which passed the House of Representatives in the 109th Congress. As a result of that hearing, two changes were made to the legislation.

First, the total cost of the project is capped at $90 million. Under the legislation, the maximum Federal contribution will be $22.5 million or 25 percent of the total cost of the project, whichever is less. This change provides certainty and limits the Federal Government's financial exposure in supporting this project.

The second change to last year's legislation is the decision to declare the project ``feasible'' without further study. The reason for this approach relates to the project's unusual history.

The feasibility of constructing a water bank on the Madera Ranch property has been under consideration for over a decade. In 1996 the Bureau began studying this possibility, and in 1998 the Bureau finalized plans to fund a water bank on the property. After conducting extensive studies regarding the feasibility of building a water bank on the property, the Bureau was prepared to pay over $40 million for the property and $60-$70 million to construct the water bank. This total amount, in excess of $100 million, is significantly more than the cost of MID's water bank almost 10 years later. Although the Bureau eventually withdrew from the project because of local concerns regarding sizing, water quality, and nonlocal ownership issues, no one has ever disputed the suitability of the site for a water bank.

After the Bureau's involvement ended, Azurix, an Enron subsidiary, attempted to build a water bank but was unable to complete the project because of many of the same concerns raised during the Bureau's efforts. However, many more studies were done during this phase for the reformulated project. MID has also conducted further studies. To date, over $8 million has been spent on studies related to the Project, exclusive of the Bureau's own extensive studies of the project.

The legislation identifies 18 specific studies done over the past decade on this project, many by the Bureau itself and others by private parties and MID, all with the Bureau's full knowledge and involvement. In many cases, the same engineering consulting firms used by the Bureau were retained to conduct these further studies. There is simply nothing left to study, and we should proceed immediately to the construction phase of this project.

The Bureau has been a long-term supporter of California agriculture, and working in partnership with the State, local governments, water users and others has helped provide irrigation water for over 10 million farmland acres.

The MID water bank is consistent with the Bureau's historical mission of supporting such locally controlled and initiated water projects. Swift enactment of this legislation is necessary to bring over 10 years of study to a conclusion and make the water bank a reality for Madera County, the surrounding region, the Central Valley and the entire State of California.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize the Riverside-Corona feeder. This project, which is being undertaken by Western Municipal Water District, would provide one of California's fastest growing but drought prone regions, with 40,000 acre-feet of new supply at a reasonable cost of approximately $370 per acre foot. The project would efficiently integrate groundwater storage with existing surface supply management.

The purpose of the Riverside-Corona feeder water supply project is to capture and store new water in the underground aquifer in wet years in order to increase water supply, reduce water costs, and improve water quality. The project will include about 20 wells and 28 miles of pipeline. Studies have shown the safe annual yield of the aquifer is about 40,000 acre-feet.

The project would allow locally stored water to replace the need to import water from Colorado River and State water project sources in times of drought or other shortages. The project proposes to manage the ground water levels by the construction of ground water wells and pumping capacity to deliver the pumped ground water supply to water users. A new water conveyance pipeline is also proposed that will serve western Riverside County.

For water users, dependence on imported water in dry years will be reduced, water costs will be reduced, and water reliability will be improved.

There are also very important environmental remediation aspects of the project. Up to half of the wells would be placed within plumes of VOCs and perchlorate. These wells could remediate about 20,000 acre- feet of currently contaminated water per year. Detailed feasibility studies and environmental reports have been prepared and approved by Western Municipal Water District and certified by the State of California.

The California State Water Resources Control Board recognizes that the Riverside Corona feeder is an important project, recently awarding it $4.3 million from proposition 50 competitive grant funds.

Because water agencies understand that the project is integral to regional water planning, the Riverside-Corona feeder has the support of agencies upstream in San Bernardino County and downstream in Orange County. This bill is also supported by and fully consistent with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's Integrated Resource Plan, the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority's Integrated Watershed Plan, and the water management plans for the cities of Riverside, Norco and Corona as well as the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District.

This is a bipartisan initiative, as witnessed by the list of cosponsors of the House version of the bill I introduce today. 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, together with my good friend and colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman of the Committee on the Environment and Public Works, I am pleased to introduce today legislation to help the San Francisco bay area a region with a growing population, limited

water resources, and a unique environmental setting, address its critical water needs.

The bill, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Authorization Act of 2007, would help seven bay area communities increase their municipal water supplies through innovative and much-needed water recycling projects.

These projects offer significant benefits. For California and the Federal Government such benefits include: the preservation of State and Federal reservoir supplies for higher uses rather than for urban landscape irrigation, particularly in drought years; and, a cost effective, environmentally friendly, implementable solution for increased dry year yield in the sensitive bay-delta region. Regional and local benefits include: the preservation of ever declining water supplies from the Sierra and delta for higher uses; assistance in drought-proofing the region through provision of a sustainable and reliable source of water; and reduction in wastewater discharges to the sensitive bay-delta environment.

The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program is a partnership between 17 local bay area water and wastewater agencies, the California Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation that is dedicated to maximizing water recycling throughout the region. The regional approach taken by the bay area project sponsors ensures that projects with the greatest regional, statewide, and national benefits receive the highest priority for implementation.

This bill would authorize the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to participate in seven bay area water recycling program projects that are closest to completion. Each community with a project would be eligible to receive 25 percent of the project's construction cost. The total cost of the seven projects is $110 million, but the Federal Government's share is only $27.5 million. State funding is available for these projects.

For the most part, the projects are ready to proceed and start delivering their benefits the projects having been repeatedly vetted, both internally at the local level and through the various steps of the Federal review process but Federal funding is needed to make implementation a reality and to allow the many benefits of these projects to be realized.

Specifically, the bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the following bay area water reuse projects: Antioch Recycled Water project--Delta Diablo Sanitation District, city of Antioch; North Coast County Water District Recycled Water project-- North Coast County Water District; Mountain View/Moffett Area Water Reuse Project--city of Palo Alto, city of Mountain View: Pittsburg Recycled Water Project-Delta Diablo Sanitation District, city of Pittsburg; Redwood City Recycled Water project--city of Redwood; South Santa Clara County Recycled Water Project-Santa Clara Valley Water District, South County Regional Wastewater Authority; and, South Bay Advanced Recycled Water Treatment Facility--Santa Clara Valley Water District, city of San Jose.

These seven projects are estimated to make 12,205 acre-feet of water available annually in the short term, and 37,600 acre-feet annually in the long term, all while reducing demand on the delta and on existing water infrastructure.

Congressman George Miller introduced a companion bill, H.R.1526, in the House on March 14, 2007. The bill was cosponsored by other bay area lawmakers, including Representatives Anna Eshoo, Ellen Tauscher, Jerry McNerney, Tom Lantos, Mike Honda; Zoe Lofgren, and Pete Stark.

Water recycling offers great potential to States like California that suffer periodic droughts and have limited fresh water supplies. To address these issues, the bill would establish a partnership between the Federal Government and local communities to implement a regional water recycling program in the bay area. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Barbara Boxer and Daniel Inouye to introduce legislation that would authorize the National Park Service to conduct a special resource study of the Tule Lake Segregation Center, a World War II-era Japanese American internment camp, located in Northern California.

My colleagues in the House of Representatives, Congressman John Doolittle and Congresswoman Doris Matsui, also are introducing companion legislation today.

In 1942, as part of a wave of anti-Japanese sentiment following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 to authorize the U.S. military to incarcerate Japanese American families from California and other west coast States, in violation of their due process rights afforded to all Americans.

Over the years, California's political leaders have led a national bipartisan effort to ensure that this chapter in American history is not forgotten.

In 1992, my colleagues in the California congressional delegation passed bi-partisan legislation to establish the Manzanar National Historic Site, the Nation's first unit of the National Park System dedicated to telling the story of the wrongful internment of the Japanese American community during World War II.

I am pleased to say that Manzanar has been a terrific success story. My colleague Representative Jerry Lewis and I were able to secure Federal appropriations to refurbish the camp auditorium to accommodate the tens of thousands of visitors to the site. Last year, nearly 90,000 people visited the Manzanar National Historic Site to learn about this unfortunate chapter in United States history.

As part of the Manzanar legislation, Congress directed the National Park Service to conduct a study of the other camp sites and to recommend National Historic Landmark designation for these sites. Based on this study, the Department of the Interior designated Tule Lake as a National Historic Landmark last year, upon finding that the remaining 42 acres of federally owned land at the site possesses national significance.

Of all of the camp sites, Tule Lake has retained some of the most significant historic features dating back to the internment. The federally owned lands include numerous camp buildings in their original locations, most notably the camp stockade, which was a ``jail within a jail.'' The finding of the site's national significance by the Secretary of the Interior last year is a key step forward in the process to evaluate the site's potential for management by the National Park Service.

Over the past several years, the Tule Lake Preservation Committee, the Japanese American Citizens League, the Japanese American National Museum and other local, regional and national partners have worked with Modoc County and the local community to develop a recommendation to study the potential for designation of the Tule Lake Segregation Center as a National Historic Site. I am pleased that this legislation has been endorsed by the Modoc County Board of Supervisors.

Although the Tule Lake Segregation Center is already a National Historic Landmark, the 42-acre site is not managed by the National Park Service. This bill would authorize the National Park Service to study the feasibility and suitability of managing the Federal lands at Tule Lake as a 42-acre National Historic Site, to be managed as part of the Lava Beds National Monument. Through this legislation, the NPS will develop various management alternatives for the site and give the public an opportunity to comment on the alternatives, through a public process. In light of the recent National Park Service work to prepare the national historic landmark designation, the cost to complete this study is quite modest. Upon completion of the study, the NPS would transmit the study to Congress for review.

This year marks the 65th anniversary of the internment of Japanese- Americans, when the Federal Government ordered Japanese American men, women and children to report to temporary assembly centers, including 13 centers in California. Many families were broken up as fathers were sent to prisons, work camps and Department of Justice camps hundreds of miles away. Without hearings or any evidence of disloyalty, Japanese- American families were transported to assembly centers in April and May of 1942. The largest assembly center was at the Santa Anita racetrack, which held over 18,000 people in horse stalls and other makeshift quarters.

Deprived of their basic constitutional rights, Japanese-American citizens and resident aliens were held in these centers until the U.S. government built more permanent camps in 10 locations in California and throughout the Western States and Arkansas. Together, these camps held over 120,000 Japanese Americans, of which about three quarters were living in California before the war.

My good friend, the late-Representative Robert Matsui, was just an infant when his family was ordered from their home in Sacramento to the Pinedale Assembly Center. From there, he was sent to the Tule Lake, Segregation Center in Modoc County, CA not far from the Oregon border.

Like the other camps, the Tule Lake Relocation Center was constructed in a remote area, on a large tract of federally owned land, managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Prisoners there held frequent demonstrations and strikes, demanding their rights under the U.S. Constitution. As a result, Tule Lake was made a ``segregation camp,'' and internees from other camps who had refused to take the loyalty oath or had caused disturbances were sent there.

Despite these injustices, many young men in camp answered the call to serve in the U.S. Army and demonstrated their loyalty to the United States and to defend the same basic constitutional freedoms that had been violated by the U.S. Government's actions. Japanese Americans served with great valor and bravery in Europe, including our colleague Senator Daniel Inouye.

During its operation, Tule Lake was the largest of the 10 camps, with 18,789 people housed in makeshift barracks. Opened on May 27, 1942, Tule Lake was one of the last camps to be closed, staying open until March 20, 1946, 7 months following the end of World War II.

Following World War II, our Nation has recognized that the forced evacuation and incarceration of Japanese Americans was wrong and that there was no basis to question the loyalty and patriotism of Japanese Americans.

The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was a grim chapter in America's history. Conducting this special resources study,

and the potential creation of the Tule Lake National Historic Site, will help ensure that we honor surviving internees during their lifetime and will serve as a lasting reminder of our ability to inflict pain and suffering upon our fellow Americans.

It is important that we recognize the historic significance of Tule Lake Segregation Center within the lifetimes of the few surviving Japanese-American internees, before many of their stories are lost.

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

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:45 p.m. today, whatever is pending be set aside and the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed, with no second-degree amendments in order to the amendments prior to the vote; that prior to each vote there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that after the first vote in sequence, the other votes, if they require a rollcall, be limited to 10 minutes each: the Ensign amendment No. 2700, Lieberman amendment No. 2691, Brownback amendment No. 2707, Boxer amendment No. 2719, and the Brownback amendment No. 2708.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, both Senator Gregg and I will oppose this amendment. In doing so, we are supporting President Bush's number on these dues. The fact is, we can't ask the U.N. to carry out peacekeeping missions unless we pay our dues.

For example, this Congress pushed very hard to have the U.N. do a peacekeeping mission in Darfur just last month. After we pushed for that, they agreed to it. Now we have to do what our own Ambassador says, what President Bush has said, and what the Secretary of State has said: We have to pay our share of peacekeeping operations.

I would hope Senators will join with the distinguished ranking member and myself and oppose this amendment by voting no.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I am voting no and actually supporting the administration on this position.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated on the next amendment.

And the amendment be accepted.

I think the next amendment is 2707.

Mr. President, no one, no one supports forced abortion or forced sterilization. Let's be honest about that. What this is, there is a provision in the U.S. law called the Kemp-Kasten amendment. It is designed to ensure that U.S. Government funds do not go to organizations engaged in coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. We all support that. But the law has been construed differently by the White House to deny funds to the UNFPA because it is a program in China. The irony is they are trying to give alternatives to abortion. They are trying to give alternatives to forced sterilization. If we agree to this amendment, then what we are saying is we will turn our backs on the most populous nation on Earth, a country that is rapidly becoming the largest contributor to global warming, and we will not support a program that will give them alternatives to abortion and forced sterilization.

I oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Boxer for her leadership on this issue of such importance to the health of the world's poorest women.

On his first day in office in January 2001, President Bush, by executive order, with no prior consultation with Congress, reinstated the controversial Mexico City policy on international family planning. The President explained his decision with these words:

It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used

to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote

abortion, either here or abroad. It is therefore my belief

that the Mexico City policy should be restored.

If U.S. law did, in fact, permit taxpayer funds to be used to pay for or promote abortions overseas, then the President might have had a point. But our law does not allow that. Our law explicitly prohibits any U.S. funds from being used for abortion or to promote abortion.

That is the settled law of the United States. It was passed by the Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. It is something we have all supported. In fact, it has been the law for as long as I can remember, even during past administrations. It is already against the law to use taxpayer funds for purposes related to abortion. Somebody should have told that to President Bush.

In fact, the Mexico City policy, which he reinstated and has maintained ever since, goes much, much further. Many have called it a ``global gag rule.'' It prohibits taxpayer funds from being used to support private family planning organizations, if they use even one dollar of their own private funds--not taxpayer funds, but private funds--to provide advice, counseling, and information about abortions, and to advocate for safe abortion practices in countries where tens of thousands of women suffer injuries or die from complicatlons from unsafe abortions.

If we tried to impose the Mexico City policy on any family planning organization within our borders, it would violate the first amendment. But we impose it on those same organizations when they work overseas beyond the reach of our Constitution.

Proponents of the Mexico City policy say that it will reduce the number of abortions. There is not a shred of evidence to support that illogical argument. The reality is the opposite. The International Planned Parenthood Federation, which is cut off from U.S. Government support because of this policy, used every U.S. tax dollar it received in the past to provide voluntary family planning services, like contraceptives, to couples who lack them. By providing for the first time modern birth control methods to people in countries where abortion was the primary method of birth control, the number of abortions goes down.

I remember the distinguished former Senator from Oregon, Senator Mark Hatfield, a dear friend of mine, one of the most revered Members of this body, who became chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Hatfield was fervently pro-life, opposed to abortion, very strong in his beliefs. I remember a debate on the Mexico City policy when he stood here--and he probably said it best. I will quote what he said:

It is a proven fact that when contraceptive services are

not available to women throughout the world, abortion rates

increase. The Mexico City policy is unacceptable to me as

someone who is strongly opposed to abortion.

Contrary to a lot of the press reports, this issue is about far more than abortion. It is about protecting the health of women in desperately poor countries where more than half a million women die each year from complications relating to pregnancy, and where women have little control over their own bodies or their lives. We have the opportunity, at very little expense, to help. Instead--not to save money but to make a political point--we cut off that help.

The Mexico City policy has been the subject of more political posturing, more press releases, more fundraising letters, more debates, more votes, and more Presidential vetoes, than virtually any other issue I can think of.

I remember when President Clinton did the right thing by repealing the Mexico City policy. When he did that, a Republican Congress responded by sharply cutting funding for voluntary family planning--not funding for abortions but for voluntary family planning. President Bush's fiscal year 2008 budget request for family planning does the same thing. His budget would cut it drastically, contrary to what he said he would do back in 2001.

The predictable, tragic result would be an increase in the number of abortions and of deaths of women from botched abortions.

Again, the evidence is indisputable that when family planning services are available, the number of abortions goes down.

I have traveled to many parts of the world. My wife is a registered nurse. She has traveled with me. We have seen how bad the situation is. We have seen how a little help can move women in many parts of the world generations ahead of where they are today.

That is what the Boxer amendment would do. It would restore U.S. credibility and leadership on an issue of great importance to global health, to population growth, to global warming, and to the work of private organizations to make lifesaving services available to the world's poorest women.

Will the Senator from Nevada yield to me?

I hope we will do that. In a few minutes, it will be our intent to begin a series of rollcalls. Apparently, there are a number of amendments Senator Gregg and I were willing to accept, but the Senator said he would prefer having rollcalls. That means we will be here for a few more hours than we needed to be.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

We are willing to have a voice vote on it right now.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, Senator Gregg and I are trying again to get a finite number of amendments. I appreciate that we have had two amendments that could have gone to rollcall votes. We accepted them and saved time. We have a number of other amendments that fall into that same category. But I guess as the hour goes on, people want to demonstrate how good they are, and if we want to accept it, they want a rollcall vote. I have never been able to figure that out, but that is their right. Of course, it keeps everybody here beyond the time we otherwise would have to be here.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the only amendments remaining in order to H.R. 2764 be the following, and a managers' amendment which has been cleared by the managers and the leaders; that there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to each amendment equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that no second-degree amendment be in order prior to the vote; and that after the first vote in the sequence, the vote time be limited to 10 minutes each: Coburn amendment No. 2773; Coburn amendment No. 2716; Coburn amendment No. 2706; Coburn amendment No. 2704; Cardin amendment No. 2689; Brown amendment No. 2701; Vitter amendment No. 2774; a Levin sense of the Senate on Iraq refugees; a Kyl amendment on material support; a Coleman amendment on UNDP; Obama amendment No. 2692, with a modification; a Kyl-Leahy sense of the Senate on Egypt; a Bingaman amendment on UNFPA; that upon disposition of all amendments, the bill be read a third time, and without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to amend my previous consent request to reflect, where I said Kyl material support. It is Kyl-Leahy material support; and where I said Kyl-Leahy sense of the Senate, Egypt, it is Kyl-Lieberman.

The first one in order will be Coburn No. 2773.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all votes after the first vote be 10-minute votes.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Vitter amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2773

Mr. President, I would yield back time on this. Again, I will always protect any Senator to have the right to vote for whatever reason they want to hold up the Senate at this time of the night, but this one is something everybody is going to vote for, and it could have easily been a voice vote. But if we want to waste time at this time of the night and have a rollcall vote, of course that is a Senator's absolute right, to waste as much time as they may want.

Mr. President, of all programs to cut funding for, it would be hard to think of anything more shortsighted than to cut funding for the Global Environment Facility. Unless, I guess, you are among the dwindling few who still believes global warming is a hoax, that the pollution of the Earth's rivers and sources of drinking water is of no concern, that the destruction of the remaining areas of tropical forests and endangered species does not matter, and that we don't need the ozone layer.

Because that is what the GEF works to protect or prevent, and the United States has been a leader in the GEF and the President has requested the funding in the bill for it.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2704

Mr. President, I would hope people would vote against this amendment. It would completely prohibit the World Bank from supporting programs to combat malaria.

We have $1 billion in this bill for the U.S. contribution to the World Bank--money the United States has pledged and President Bush has requested.

Malaria kills a million children a year and infects half a billion people, 95 percent of whom are in Africa. We should do everything we can to combat malaria.

I agree with the administration on this request. I agree with President Bush, who has stated throughout the world his support for these antimalaria matters. I would hope that all people, all Senators of good will and good conscience, would vote no on this amendment.

Mr. President, I send a package of amendments, that are agreed to, to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration en bloc and ask that the amendments be deemed to be read en bloc and agreed to en bloc.

Mr. President, before we go to third reading, I wish to thank Senator Gregg for his tireless efforts on this bill and the Members of the Appropriations Committee which passed this bill originally 28 to 1. I will say more about Senator Gregg's staff and my staff tomorrow so as not to hold up third reading.

I thank the Senator from Hawaii for bringing this issue to my attention. I agree about the importance of continuity and momentum in natural resource management research. I will work to ensure that your concerns are communicated to the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development and that the Agency is encouraged to utilize funds appropriated for 2008 to accelerate the RFA process for a Soil, Water, and Ecosystems Services CRSP in 2008.

That is true. I would say to my colleague from Arkansas that this subcommittee is not satisfied with the performance of the Department in the last few months with respect to the adjudication and distribution of passports in a timely fashion. We recognize that a tremendous number of dedicated public servants at all levels of the State Department have been putting in long hours trying to get rid of the backlog in passports. We think it is very important, however, especially as the deadline for implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative gets closer, that the Department be better prepared to handle spikes in demand for passports and to disseminate better information about the procedures and options available for getting expedited passports.

I agree that we should encourage the Department to consider providing such dedicated infrastructure, especially if it will help to alleviate the backlogs that have occurred all over the country.

I share Senator Boxer's concern about extrajudicial violence in the Philippines and will continue to monitor this situation carefully. I will consider additional limitations on future U.S. military assistance if the Philippine Government fails to adequately address this issue.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I call up en bloc amendments Nos. 2704, 2705, 2706, and 2716.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Madam President, I have three amendments that I will discuss in a group, and I believe one of them will be accepted by the majority and ranking member, and that is an amendment creating transparency at the World Bank on the malaria program. I will spend a very short time talking about that.

What we know is we have seen in the last 2\1/2\ years a tremendous change--much of it thanks to the chairman of this committee in terms of transparency and in working with us on the malaria program--but we have seen a change from using the wrong medicines, the wrong techniques, and the wrong prevention techniques. We have 2 million people a year in Africa die from a preventable, curable, treatable disease.

Not long after I came to the Senate, myself along with Norm Coleman and other people who have done great work--and Senator Brownback as well--on malaria, as well as the chairman, what we saw was an ineffective program. The President had a malaria initiative--PMI--and it was set out and peer-reviewed--scientific data to approach this disease from both prevention and treatment. What we saw at the World Bank was a failed $500 million program and an attempt at another program for which there is no transparency. But the reports from the scientific literature Lancet, the greatest medical periodical from the British, had a devastating article outlining the fact that the World Bank continues to use drugs that don't treat, drugs that have resistance, it does not do preventive indoor spraying, does not distribute on a free basis bed netting--the three significant, consistent ways in which we treat African malaria, as well as the way we treat it throughout the rest of the world.

So I want to thank them in advance for doing that. This simply says that the World Bank has to be transparent with what they are doing on malaria.

What we know is the World Health Organization has also changed significantly. We are going to see hundreds of millions of people's lives markedly changed through an appropriate drug treatment prevention strategy for malaria. Of those 2 million people who die every year, 500 million of them are 5 years of age and under--I mean 500,000. Five hundred thousand are pregnant women. There are another 500,000 children who are permanently brain damaged from malaria. If we are going to help in foreign aid, then it ought to be effective foreign aid. So I thank the chairman and ranking member for their consideration on that.

The next amendment I would like to bring up talks about having some transparency with the $5.3 billion we send to the United Nations every year. This body, as well as the House, unanimously passed transparency and accountability for our own Government and our own agencies. We are going to see this next January where everything in this country where the taxpayers' money is spent is going to be online and available for taxpayers, peer-reviewed looks, watchdog groups, as well as the press to see how we are spending money.

What this amendment does is it ensures that the U.S. contribution to the United Nations is not being wasted to fraud, which we have seen multiple times at the United Nations--waste, abuse, corruption, which we have seen and which has been documented--by maximizing the public transparency of all U.N. spending or our contribution thereof. This amendment says that the Secretary of State certify publicly that the United Nations is publicly transparent about its spending this year, before any of the money we are going to send to the United Nations next year is sent. The basic transparency required by this amendment would include a posting on a publicly available Web site of copies of all contracts, grants, program reviews, audits, budgets, and progress reports relating to fiscal year 2007.

There are a lot of reasons the U.N. should be accountable and transparent, the first of which--and I won't go into a lot of details-- is the Oil for Food Program where $10 billion was mismanaged, stolen, and fraudulently used in a way that was totally unaccountable, to the detriment of the people of Iraq. As of this time, there have been eight guilty pleas, two guilty verdicts, two agreements of forfeiture judgments, and nine pending cases. There are also fugitives from the corruption of that.

The U.N. to this day refuses to fully and publicly release the Oil for Food Program's contracts and financial documents. Some people will say: Well, you can't force this on the U.N.

(Mrs. BOXER assumed the Chair.)

There is not an accountability that we can require.

We are the largest contributor to the United Nations. We have a requirement and a responsibility to the people of this country to make sure that money is well spent. The easiest way to make sure money is well spent and properly spent is for it to be transparent and available to the people who are making these contributions.

The second reason we should be concerned about how the U.N. spends money is procurement fraud. Last year, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton testified to the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee that of the $1 billion in U.N. peacekeeping contracts that were audited--they didn't audit all of them but just the first $1 billion that they audited--a third was found to be lost to waste and fraud and corruption. The U.N. refused to release this audit, even to Secretary Bolton, our representative at the U.N; however, he was able to secure a leaked copy of it. What that $1 billion represents in terms of waste, fraud, and abuse is our entire contribution to peacekeeping. For all the money we pay for worldwide peacekeeping through the U.N., what we can extrapolate from this audit is that our entire contribution was wasted.

There is an even more worrisome program at the U.N. called the United Nations Development Program. What we know over the last 10 years is that over $100 million has been funneled inappropriately, fraudulently, and without any oversight to North Korea for things which it should not have gone. Ten million dollars, at least, was transferred in cash directly to the leaders of the North Korean regime. We know some of that cash was used to purchase homes in Europe and Canada. The Chicago Tribune reported there was evidence that they deposited cash into the same account that North Korea used to buy ballistic missiles. The United Nations Development Program refuses to allow our own investigators from our own Government to audit and review its financial information. It refuses, despite the United States sitting on the UNDP Executive Board and being the largest contributor to the UNDP budget.

Basic transparency--the idea that we give money and they spend money to accomplish good in the world--can only be effective if we know where the money is spent and how it is spent. The idea to have the U.N. transparent will protect against future scandals.

One of the things that bothers me the most about this and our contribution is the fact that the U.N. refuses to be transparent with the money we give them. Every domestic agency, every government program in this country is required to provide this body detailed financial information, program reviews, audits, and budgets. According to OMB, we spend an excessive $5.3 billion of the taxpayers' money on the United Nations, but despite repeated

requests by Ambassador Bolton, by congressional committees, by oversight committees, by committees on investigation, the U.N. refuses to make available information as to how it spends its money, make its audits available, program reviews available, or any other financial data available to the Congress or the world at large or the public in this country.

The only way we have been able to find out what we have been able to find out is that documents have been leaked. This amendment matters. The reason it matters is that every dollar lost to U.N. corruption is one less dollar that can save the life of an African child, one more dollar that could efficiently prevent violence around the world. Just in what we know on UNDP waste and fraud last year, 20,000 lives could have been saved in Africa from HIV. Or take the country of Uganda, plagued by civil war, and epidemics, and other things; according to the World Bank, their whole GDP was less than what we have wasted.

Think about the impact we could have. Some will say the U.N. has a procurement Web site where information on all contracts that are granted is posted. They didn't have that until 2\1/2\ years ago when we started pushing. It only shows a very small percentage of moneys. It is not thorough or comprehensive. It is controlled by the U.N. Secretariat and not all the other agencies under the U.N. So we don't get a look at how our money is spent at the U.N.

This is an amendment that has real teeth. This says what is good for our country in terms of how we spend our money, making it publicly available and transparent to hold us accountable, ought to apply to the

Yes.

Mr. President, the next amendment I want to spend some time on has been in the news of late. The Global Fund initiative has been a very important tool in terms of fighting HIV, TB, and malaria, which are the three significant diseases around the world that are limiting progress, health, life, and sustainability for many people throughout the world.

What this amendment does is eliminate the secrecy of the operation of that group. I am not highly critical of discretionary spending to accomplish a goal, but I am highly critical of not having transparency on where money goes. We can do that in a way that protects whistleblowers and in a way that satisfies the American public that if we are going to send their money overseas, we know exactly what it is spent on and how it is spent.

This is a very simple amendment. It conditions 20 percent of our contributions to the Global Fund, which is significant, on certification by the Secretary of State that the Global Fund has made all the financial and programmatic documents available to the public on a Web site. That says if you are going to spend $100 million on a drug, put it on a Web site and say whether you competitively bid it, and here is what we paid for it. If you paid a consultant, say here is how much we paid them for it. It is the American taxpayers' money.

I think it is significant that the total amount of money contributed to date for the Global Fund, which I support, has been $2.9 billion. If we follow both what the committee or the Senate happened to do, we are going to have that above $6 billion at the end of next year; $6 billion is a significant amount of money. What the global fund says is they have an Inspector General and that we don't need this. The problem is that Inspector General reports are good only if the people who have decisionmaking capability on the funding get to see those reports. The board at the Global Fund doesn't even get to see the reports. As a matter of fact, the IG of the Global Fund recently retired over the controversy of his IG report that was very critical of the management of the Global Fund.

The answer to accountability is transparency in what we do. This is a straightforward amendment that conditions only 20 percent of the money--less than the increase of what we will be funding with the Global Fund--by saying you have to become transparent, you have to become accountable, and it has to be accessible. It is

simple. We will get better value for the dollars we contribute to the Global Fund if, in fact, we adopt this amendment.

The other thing that will happen is more people will have lifesaving treatments or preventive strategies applied to them if we have transparency and accountability.

All of the amendments we have talked about today are essentially about transparency. It is about if we are going to send American money into foreign places through independent agencies, separate from our own Government, we ought to know how that money is spent. It is straightforward. All of us would do the same thing as we give our money--we look at church budgets and we look at nonprofits' budgets when we contribute to them, and we find out how they are spending their money. We have independent reporting in this country on nonprofits on how they spend money and how much percentage on overhead and whether they waste money. So all these amendments are about accountability-- accountability through transparency. I admit they have some teeth. But we are not going to be accountable for the American taxpayers' dollars unless we apply enough pressure to get transparency so we know where the American taxpayers' dollars are going.

I also want to submit for the Record a copy of a whistleblower conversation at UNDP, associated with one of the other amendments. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

This outlines the fact that in the Global Fund, UNDP has true corruption in terms of directing how the money is spent to their friends, not the people who can actually do the work or not those who are best suited for the work, but rather at the whim of a friend of somebody working at UNDP. It is very revealing.

What is even more revealing is that UNDP refused to accept a U.N. ethics office and so, therefore, the whistleblower at UNDP doesn't even have the protections of other people at the United Nations. So we have an individual who was doing a great job, but because he reported and refused to send money to somebody not capable of doing a job, not capable of performing with a good portion of our taxpayers' money, he gets fired. That is the kind of transparency we need to have at the UNDP and at the Global Fund.

It is my hope the Members of this body will seriously consider that we ought to be applying the same standards to where we send money outside of our Government that we are now applying to our Government. It is my hope that I will have the consideration of the ranking member and the chairman in supporting these amendments.

Amendment No. 2705 Withdrawn

Amendment No. 2773

I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 2705 and call up amendment No. 2773. Amendment No. 2705 is one of the en bloc amendments and it is the wrong number. I wish to replace it with amendment No. 2773.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I yield back my time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, for the sake of our security, economy and environment, America needs a comprehensive energy policy that is independent of foreign energy sources and weans America off of fossil fuels.

Last year, I introduced comprehensive energy legislation that would address the many challenges across our economy to achieving sustainable energy independence. I am very hopeful that this Congress will soon take steps to bring forward a comprehensive energy bill that will address many of the areas I believe are essential to this effort. I have cosponsored many of the individual planks of this comprehensive effort, and today I want to address how we can ensure that this energy policy does not have an expiration date or fall short of its laudable goals.

Today I am introducing the Energy Independence Act.

The Energy Independence Act will deliver energy independence to Americans by providing an energy plan that has the capacity to change with innovation. My bill will ensure that our energy policy will increase the efficiency and decrease the environmental impact of America's energy policy, and encourage our energy policy to adapt to our needs and abilities.

My bill will set a congressional goal of achieving energy independence by 2017. ``Energy independence'' is defined as meeting all but 10 percent of our energy needs from domestic energy sources. The bill will also set a congressional goal of achieving independence from fossil fuels by 2037.

My bill will also create a Blue Ribbon Energy Commission, which will meet every two years starting in 2009, to evaluate our progress in efforts to become energy independent, and to recommend changes to be made in reports to Congress.

These are achievable goals.

Petroleum, mostly used for transportation, accounts for 84 percent of our imported energy. Transportation accounts for roughly 28 percent of our energy use. I support raising CAFE standards, and have cosponsored S. 357, legislation by Senator Feinstein which would raise these standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2019. Studies show that raising CAFE standards to 40 miles per gallon would save over 36 billion gallons of gas per year, and creating efficiency standards for replacement tires would save more than 7 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years. Creating incentives for commuting by train or bus, and funding upgrades and new starts in public transit services, such as the purple line of the DC metro, will also make a difference--in an average year, the round trip to work uses over 250 gallons of gas and creates about 5,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions.

As part of a comprehensive energy bill we should also be mindful of the long-term effects of our energy policy on the environment, our landscape, and our health. I cosponsored S. 309, legislation by Senators Sanders and Boxer that provides for an economy-wide emissions cap and trade program. Enacting an economy-wide cap and trade program will ensure that our energy policy will be truly sustainable.

America currently gets only 6.3 percent of its energy from renewable energy sources. Current ideas for addressing this problem focus on trying to make the large up-front investment in infrastructure required to produce renewable energy less daunting, by creating a long-term market for renewable energy through increasing the Federal Government's use of renewables and creating a Federal renewable portfolio standard to make utilities offer renewable energy to American consumers, and by making incentives like the renewable production tax credit permanent. I support creating Federal renewable portfolio standard, and will cosponsor legislation to be offered by Senator Bingaman to do so. I have also cosponsored S. 590, Senator Smith's legislation that would extend solar tax incentives through 2016, while expanding these incentives to cover more of the up-front investment required to use solar energy.

In order to get to energy independence we must substantially increase our investment in energy research. I cosponsored S. 761, Senator Reid's America COMPETES Act, which will increase R&D funding for the Department of Energy, increase the DOE's emphasis on advanced energy research to overcome the long-term and high-risk technological barriers to the development of energy technologies, and implement recommendations made by the National Academies of Sciences report Rising Above a Gathering Storm.

I will be advocating other areas of energy policy reform, including increasing funding for weatherization, providing incentives for telecommuting, and providing additional energy efficiency standards for appliances.

We can do better, and the one overarching theme in the quest for a sustainable, long-term energy policy is the need to be able to be flexible and change our energy policy to suit our needs, capacity, research and development. My bill will give us the ability to provide long-term, bipartisan solutions that will address our energy policy going forward, and give us the flexibility, and the considered solutions of experts, to give the American people the energy policy they deserve.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Voluntary Medicare Quality Reporting Act of 2007. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, for joining me in this effort. This is an important bill for tens of millions of Medicare beneficiaries, for the physicians, nurse practitioners and allied health professionals who treat them, and for the future of the Medicare program.

At the end of this year, providers will again face the prospect of an across-the-board cut in their Medicare reimbursements. The scheduled cut for 2008 is the largest ever, 9.9 percent. These cuts are the result of a flawed reimbursement system created in 1997 that uses the Sustainable Growth Rate formula, or SGR, to determine an acceptable increase in the growth of provider expenditures.

Medicare reimbursements increase when the previous year's payments do not exceed a target level that is based on the growth of our economy. However, when the previous year's payments exceed that target level, reimbursements are cut. According to MedPAC, the SGR formula would reduce Medicare provider reimbursements by 40 percent over the next eight years if Congress does not act. MedPAC is also concerned that over the next several years these reductions ``would threaten beneficiary access to physician services over time, particularly those provided by primary care physicians.'' MedPAC recognizes the importance of provider participation in the Medicare program, particularly in our rural and underserved urban areas where the decision to not accept new Medicare patients can make all the difference in seniors' access to medical care.

Congress recognizes this as well, and so we have intervened to prevent scheduled cuts resulting from SGR from taking effect. For all except the newest members of this body, this process of enacting a ``physician fix'' is a familiar scenario. For the past four years, Congress has acted to prevent these cuts to providers, usually through a last-minute provision added to a must-pass bill.

In the 109th Congress, I introduced bipartisan legislation implementing MedPAC's recommendations and calling for Congress to repeal the SGR formula and update provider reimbursements by the cost of care. Replacing SGR will require a thoughtful and protracted process involving the input of lawmakers and the provider community, and it is costly, but it is something that we must do.

The most recent ``fix'' was made to the 2006 Tax Relief and Health Care Act, Public Law 109-432. That law froze payment rates, staving off an across-the-board cut of 5.1 percent. Congress also added a quality reporting system called the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative program PQRI, which made providers eligible for a bonus payment of 1.5 percent of their total allowed Medicare charges if they report to HHS on certain quality measures starting in July 2007.

This new system is also known as ``pay-for-reporting,'' and it is based on the concept that physicians should receive an increase in Medicare reimbursement only once they have participated in extensive quality reporting. Across my State, I have heard serious concerns that this will lead to a mandatory reporting system in the near future, and that we will soon see an untested ``pay-for-performance'' system in place.

Now, I think all my colleagues would agree that our seniors deserve the highest quality care. But in our quest for improved quality, we must answer two questions here: should we proceed with an untested system of reporting requirements just for the sake of reporting, and will we actually achieve better care for our seniors via the PQRI.

I am very concerned about implementing reporting requirements that have not been tested. I believe that we must have the right process in place for defining a quality reporting system for services provided to Medicare beneficiaries by health care professionals. We should not be establishing reporting requirements for health professionals just for the sake of reporting, and we should not be moving forward with this system until we have adequate time to evaluate each stage of its development.

Current law does not provide sufficient time to assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of this new system. Nor do they take into account the fact that most physicians and other health professionals have no experience in quality reporting and do not have in place the necessary health information technology and administrative infrastructures to participate in a reporting system.

The bill I am introducing today will assure that health professionals will be at the center of the process for defining areas where quality measures are needed, as well as for defining the relevant measures themselves. Why is this important? Health professionals must be actively engaged in developing and implementing an effective reporting system because they are on the front lines of health care delivery, and they best understand the nexus between care delivery and quality measurement. The development process for quality measures must be transparent and consistent for all health professionals because they are the ones who will determine its successful implementation.

Additionally, quality measures should be tested across a variety of specialties and practice settings before they are included in a reporting system because measures must be clinically valid to be relevant for defining quality, and because physicians and health professionals practice in a variety of settings, for example: small vs. large practices, urban vs. suburban vs. rural locations, office-based vs. hospital-base practices.

Most importantly, we should not be using hastily devised quality measures to justify reimbursement cuts. There are some who advocate pay-for-performance as a way to slow the growth of physician spending. They think we can accomplish lower physician expenditures by setting arbitrary standards and then cutting payments to physicians who fail to meet them. But across America, there are practices that would face tremendous obstacles in meeting such standards: they lack of the information technology necessary to document and report standards in a timely manner; they see patients with economic and language barriers that will result in higher noncompliance rates; they treat a patient population for whom ethnic and racial differences require different clinical interventions than for other patients. Ignoring these considerations will not only fail to dramatically improve quality, it will significantly penalize providers who treat traditionally underserved populations.

This bill provides an opportunity to thoughtfully and carefully develop effective quality measures that reflect differences in practice patterns, to share our findings, and to determine and encourage the most cost-effective methods of providing the highest quality care.

Rather than moving forward precipitously in 2008 with a permanent Medicare quality reporting system after a transitional 6-month period this year, as current law requires, our bill, the Voluntary Medicare Quality Reporting Act of 2007, instead would establish a more realistic timeline for quality measure reporting by health professionals. It does so by:

Requiring the Secretary first to evaluate the 6-month transitional reporting system and reporting findings to the Congress by June 1, 2008;

Requiring the Secretary to undertake demonstrations for defining appropriate mechanisms whereby health professionals may provide data on quality measures to the Secretary through an appropriate medical registry;

Allowing physicians and other eligible professionals to continue reporting to the Secretary quality measures developed for 2007, in order for the Secretary to refine systems for reporting quality measures;

After completion of the evaluation, phasing in a permanent Voluntary Medicare Quality Reporting Program, with implementation beginning January 1, 2010, based on a consistent set of rules that define an orderly and transparent process of quality measure development;

Requiring that the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement of the American Medical Association be the beginning point for the designation of clinical areas where quality measures are needed;

Having the Consortium, in collaboration with physician specialty organizations and other eligible professional organizations, develop and propose quality measures to a consensus organization such as the National Quality Forum for endorsement; and

Prohibiting the Secretary from using any measures that have not been recommended by the Consortium and endorsed by the consensus organization.

I am confident that with all of these measures we will achieve a successful and effective quality reporting system that will truly make a difference in the quality of care that our Medicare beneficiaries receive. At the end of this year, as Congress moves forward to address the physician reimbursement issue, I urge my colleagues to support this rational approach to promoting quality and guaranteeing access to care.

Mr. President, broadband communications are quickly becoming the great economic engine of our time. Broadband deployment drives opportunities for business, education, and healthcare. It provides widespread access to information that can change the way we communicate with one another and improve the quality of our lives. From our smallest rural hamlets to our largest urban centers, communities across this country should have access to the opportunities ubiquitous broadband can bring. The state of our broadband union should be broadband for all.

But the news on this front is not all good. Last month, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reported that the United States has fallen to 15th in the world in broadband penetration. In some Asian and European countries, households have high-speed connections that are 20 times faster than ours, for half the cost. While some will debate what, in fact, these rankings measure, one thing that cannot be debated is the fact that we continue to fall precipitously down the list. In 2000 the United States ranked 4th; last year we dropped to 12th; and just last month we dropped to 15th. The broadband bottom line is that too many of our international counterparts are passing us by. For this we are paying a price. Some experts estimate that universal broadband adoption would add $500 billion to the U.S. economy and create more than a million new jobs.

In a digital age, the world will not wait for us. It is imperative that we get our broadband house in order and our communications policy right. But we cannot manage what we do not measure. So the first step in an improved broadband policy is ensuring that we have better data on which to build our efforts.

That is why I am here today to introduce the Broadband Data Improvement Act. This legislation will improve the quality of Federal and State data regarding the availability of broadband service. This, in turn, can be used to craft policies that will increase the availability of affordable broadband service in all parts of the Nation. This legislation will improve broadband data collection at the Federal Communications Commission and Bureau of the Census. It will direct the Comptroller General and the Small Business Administration to study our broadband challenge. It will encourage State initiatives to improve broadband adoption by establishing a State broadband data and development grant program that will authorize $40 million for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

With too many of our industrial counterparts ahead of us, we sorely need the kind of granular data that will inform our policies and propel us to the front of the broadband ranks. I believe that the Broadband Data Improvement Act will give us the tools to make this happen.

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

Mr. President, the telecommunications industry started in this country as a series of wires criss-crossing the country to provide simple telegraph service. The telegraph allowed people to communicate from coast to coast in a matter of minutes, which was a marked improvement over the days required to deliver postal correspondence via the pony express. The industry quickly evolved from those initial telegraph lines with Alexander Graham Bell's invention of the telephone. This revolutionized telecommunications and created a multi- billion dollar industry.

Today, telecommunications accounts for 3 percent of this country's gross domestic income, or roughly $335 billion. It employs over 1.25 million U.S. workers. The industry is a critical driver of U.S. economic growth and innovation. Historically, advances in telecommunications resulted from AT&T's steady funding of Bell Laboratories, the world-famous research facility that discovered the transistor, the laser, radar and sonar, digital signal processors, cellular telephone technology, and data-networking technology. Indeed, research in this last field, data-networking, is the basis of the 21st century's greatest resource, the Internet.

However, today, the pace of innovation in the United States is no longer as swift or as certain. For example, much of the world's wireless technologies come from Europe, and many of the handsets are designed and manufactured in other countries like China and South Korea. Part of the problem is the decline of Bell Labs, but financial pressures from Wall Street to perform in the short-term are also partly to blame. Companies can no longer afford to invest in basic, fundamental telecommunications research with project horizons beyond 5 years. Unless we can reverse this trend, I fear that the United States may fall permanently behind in the telecommunications innovation race.

That is why I am here today, to introduce the advanced Information and Communications Technology Research Act. By rededicating our efforts to the pursuit of innovation through basic, fundamental research, we can begin to restore our Nation's historic leadership in this critical industry. Toward that end, the legislation that I am introducing today will establish a telecommunications program within the National Science Foundation to focus research on the development of affordable advanced communications services in America. It would authorize $40 million in fiscal year 2008, increasing in $5 million increments to reach $60 million in FY 2012. The bill would also establish a Federal Advanced Information and Communications Technology Board within NSF to advise the program on appropriate research topics. Finally, the bill would accelerate efforts initiated almost 4 years ago to promote spectrum sharing technologies. It would require NTIA and the FCC to initiate a pilot program within 1 year that would make a small portion of spectrum available for shared use between Federal and nonFederal government users.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation in the weeks ahead.

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

Mr. President, foreign registered ships now carry 97 percent of the imports and exports moving in the U.S. international trade. These foreign vessels are held to lower standards than U.S. registered ships, and are, virtually, untaxed. Therefore, their costs of operation are lower than U.S. ship operating costs, which explains their 97 percent market share.

Three years ago, in order to help level the playing field for U.S. flag ships that compete in international trade, Congress enacted, under the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Public Law 108-357, Subchapter R, a ``tonnage tax'' that is based on the tonnage of a vessel, rather than taxing the U.S. flag ship's international income at a 35 percent corporate income tax rate. However, during the House and the Senate conference, language was included, which states that a U.S. vessel cannot use the tonnage tax on international income if that vessel also operates in U.S. domestic commerce for more than 30 days per year.

This 30-day limitation dramatically limits the availability of the tonnage tax for those U.S. ships that operate in both domestic and international trade and, accordingly, severely hinders their competitiveness in foreign commerce. It is important to recognize that ships operating in U.S. domestic trade already have significant cost disadvantages vis-a-vis U.S. ships operating in international trade. Specifically, U.S-flag ships that operate solely in international trade: 1. are built in foreign shipyards at one-third U.S. shipyard prices; 2. receive $2.6 million per ship per year in Federal maritime security payments in return for making these vessels available to the Department of Defense in time of national emergency; and 3. are owned by U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations. By contrast, U.S. flag ships that operate both in international trade a domestic trade are: 1. built in higher priced U.S. shipyards; 2. do not receive maritime security payments, even when operated in international trade, but have the same commitments to the Department of Defense; and 3. are owned by U.S.-based American corporations. Furthermore, the inability of these domestic operators to use the tonnage tax for their international service is an unnecessary burden on their competitive position in foreign commerce.

When windows of opportunity present themselves in international trade, American tax policy and maritime policy should facilitate the participation of these American-built ships. Instead, the 30-day limit makes them ineligible to use the tonnage tax, and further handicaps American vessels when competing for international cargo. Denying the tonnage tax to coastwise qualified ships further stymies the operation of American built ships in international commerce, and further exacerbates America's 97 percent reliance on foreign ships to carry its international cargo.

These concerns were of such sufficient importance that in December 2006, the Congress repealed the 30-day limit on domestic trading but only for approximately 50 ships operating in the Great Lakes. These ships primarily operate in domestic trade on the Great Lakes, but also carry cargo between the United States and Canada in international trade Section 415 of P.L. 109-432, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006.

The identifiable universe of remaining ships other than the Great Lakes ships that operate in domestic trade, but that may also operate temporarily in international trade, totals 13 U.S. flag vessels. These 13 ships normally

operate in domestic trades that involve Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Alaska, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In the interest of providing equity to the U.S. corporations that own and operate these 13 vessels, my bill would repeal the tonnage tax 30-day limit on domestic operations and enable these vessels to utilize the tonnage tax on their international income so they receive the same treatment as other U.S. flag international operators. I stress that, under my bill, these ships will continue to pay the normal 35 percent U.S. corporate tax rate on their domestic income.

Repeal of the tonnage tax's 30-day limit on domestic operations is a necessary step toward providing tax equity between U.S. flag and foreign flag vessels. I strongly urge the tax writing committees of the Congress to give this legislation their expedited consideration and approval. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.