A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the special diabetes programs for Type I diabetes and Indians under that Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia, Senator Webb, be recognized for 1 minute; and then following him, the Senator from Oregon would like 3 minutes on the bill, and then Senator Vitter would be No. 3, with no time for Senator Vitter.

Mr. President, I very much compliment the Senator from North Dakota. He is absolutely correct. This legislation is on a must- pass list. I have given my commitment to mark the bill up on September 12 in the Finance Committee. The leader has indicated he will give every assurance to try to get the legislation up on the Senate floor and go on to pass it. It has passed before, but it got hung up in the last Congress. It is high time we get this legislation passed, and I thank the Senator for, first, pushing the issue so hard and, second, working with the Senate to find an expeditious way to get this legislation passed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Vitter is recognized, Senator Kohl be recognized for 5 minutes and Senator Allard be recognized for 10 minutes.

Madam President, as I have said many times in this debate, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act is good for America. I wish to take a few minutes to talk about why this children's health bill is good for my home State of Montana.

Montana ranks fifth highest in the Nation for the percentage of children without health insurance. In 2006, 37,000 Montana children did not have health insurance. That is one in every six children. More than half of those uninsured children, that is 19,000, were either eligible for Medicaid or for CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program, but not enrolled.

One of the reasons for our higher rate of uninsured kids is because the percentage of employers offering health care to Montana's working families is quite low. Less than half of all employers in the State of Montana offered health coverage in 2005. This means many working families do not have access to health coverage. Although families who do not have access to coverage through work could buy it on their own, health coverage is often priced out of reach for lower income families. The average cost of a family health plan on the open market in Montana is about $8,000 a year. That is nearly one-fifth of the family's income for a family of four earning $41,300, which is twice the poverty level. Again, the average cost is about $8,000, which is about one-fifth of a family's income for a family of four earning $40,000, and most families simply obviously cannot afford that cost.

CHIP, the legislation before us, offers affordable, comprehensive health coverage for working families. CHIP works, and it has helped thousands of Montana families.

Abigail Tuhy's family is one of those families. Abigail's mom, Fawn, is a mother of four, and Fawn's story tells volumes about why we need CHIP. She writes:

I don't know what our family of six would do without

[CHIP]. . . . In one year, my 2\1/2\-year-old had nine

stitches because she split her head open and my 6 year old

broke his arm two times. CHIP paid for the surgery, hospital

stay and all of the care provided. CHIP has also paid for all

of my children to receive all of their shots and their check-

ups. Without CHIP, I would not have insurance for my

children.

Abigail is only one of the more than 38,000 children helped by CHIP over the past decade. Today more than 14,000 Montana children are covered by it and the number is growing.

This year, the Montana legislature, for example, took a positive step forward, changing the CHIP eligibility level from 150 percent to 175 percent of the Federal poverty line. That is just over $36,000 for a family of four. Montana started implementing this expansion in July, which will bring an additional 2,000 children next year.

This is clearly good news, but we cannot rest on our

laurels. There are more uninsured children who need our help.

The CHIP Reauthorization Act will provide Montana with the

funding it needs to maintain current CHIP enrollment, fund

its expansion, and make significant strides toward covering

more of the uninsured children.

Under this legislation, Montana would receive about $28 million next year. That is $12 million more than its allotment for last year. New CHIP allotments, combined with new funds in the State to expand coverage to low-income children, could allow the State to cover as many as 12,000 children who are uninsured today.

The legislation before us also includes new funding to help Montana improve access to health care, including $200 million in new Federal grant money for States to improve the availability and comprehensiveness of dental health for children, and $100 million in Federal grants to improve outreach and enrollment, especially in rural areas.

This bill also includes provisions that specifically target Indian Country. Although Indian children are eligible for coverage through the Indian Health Service and tribal facilities, the IHS, the Indian Health Service, is only funded at 60 percent of need today, leading to tragic denials of care when funds run out. I mean it is abominable. This bill makes important changes to improve the health of Indian children. It provides new funds for outreach and enrollment in Medicaid and in CHIP. It also allows those Indians to use tribal documents to prove citizenship for Medicaid. It gives States a higher Federal match for translation and interpretation services in the program. And it requires the Secretary to monitor racial and ethnic disparities in care. All move us to a healthier future for Indian children in Montana.

As we debate CHIP today, let us remember the uninsured children in our home States, those kids who need help. In Montana, there are mothers whose daughters have cystic fibrosis. There are Native American children without health care coverage because they do not have a birth certificate. So let's keep in mind the children of Montana and every other State who need and deserve our help. Let's reauthorize this Children's Health Insurance Program today and improve the health of all American children.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the following Senators be recognized for the following amounts of time: first, Senator Dodd for 5 minutes; Senator Clinton for 5 minutes; and Senator Coburn for 15 minutes.

Madam President, it is being written up right now.

We do have a block of votes. It has been agreed to.

Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I might say to my good friend, we have noticed.

I don't see the Senator from New York here yet, but she is on her way. In the meantime, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Georgia be recognized and, following the Senator from Georgia, Senator Clinton be recognized.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 4:30 p.m. today be for debate with respect to the amendments listed below, and that they be debated concurrently; that all time be between the managers; that no amendments be in order to any of the amendments covered in this agreement prior to the votes; that the votes with respect to the amendments occur in the order in which the amendments are listed here; further that after the first vote, the time for votes be limited to 10 minutes, and there be 2 minutes of debate prior to each vote; and that at 4:30, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendments; that the Graham amendment No. 2558 be modified with the changes at the desk; that Senators Kyl and Graham be recognized respectively at 3:45 and 4 p.m. The amendments are Specter amendment No. 2557, Graham amendment No. 2558, Ensign amendment No. 2540, Thune amendment No. 2579, and Kyl amendment No. 2537.

Yes--well, I struck some of those words you read and inserted ``the managers.'' The thought was, it gives more flexibility so the two managers of the bill could then work with the sponsors of the amendments to allocate time. Some may want to speak longer than others. I felt that was just a way to better organize the time.

I am sure he does.

Mr. President, it is my understanding under the previous order Senator Clinton is the next to be recognized.

Mr. President, I see the Senator from Texas is seeking recognition. I ask unanimous consent that she be allowed to speak next for--10 minutes?

Certainly.

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

Mr. President, I ask that the time consumed by the Senator from Texas be charged against the time controlled by the minority, and further, that the time for the quorum call be equally divided.

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

Mr. President, a couple of words with respect to the amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada. I might as well finish them now, since he spoke. Basically, his amendment means that no State, after the date of enactment, could provide for adults--childless adults or parents, parents of kids. No State. That is what this is.

I also point out that the standard of 95 percent is an impossible standard. No State can meet that standard. There is no State in the Nation that could meet 95 percent. We have mandatory driver's license requirements in States, and even those mandatory requirements average, nationwide, about 85 percent. That is mandatory, and we are talking about something voluntary here.

So no State can possibly reach 95 percent compliance, which would mean, at the beginning of the date of enactment, all adults would be off--right now, immediately; all parents off--right now, immediately. And I don't think that is what we want to do. Why? Because the administration has granted lots of waivers to a lot of States for a lot of adults, and States are reliant on them.

In this legislation, over a 2-year period, we are stopping that, but we give States 2 years to stop providing coverage for childless adults and for parents. States can provide for parents with those waivers, but it is written in a way to discourage the use of CHIP money for parents unless States go the extra mile and seek out more low-income kids to provide coverage for them.

The legislation before us is a good compromise, but the amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada is way too Draconian. I might also add that all experts say if you cover parents, you will cover more kids. If you don't cover more parents, you are going to cover fewer kids. There is a very strong correlation between health insurance coverage for parents and parents getting good health care for their children. Put in reverse, there is a strong correlation of parents who do not have health insurance--we are talking low-income families here-- who will not provide good health care, on average, for their kids.

On the basis of policy, I don't think it is a good idea. It totally disrupts the compromise worked out on both sides of the aisle on this legislation. Senator Grassley, Senator Hatch, myself, and Senator Rockefeller worked very hard to get a compromise here. This legislation starts to squeeze down on adults, but it doesn't cold turkey say no. That would be unfair, especially with respect to parents, because parents who have health insurance themselves will tend to provide better health care for their kids.

When the appropriate time comes to vote on this amendment, I think the right thing to do would be not to support this amendment because of the reasons I indicated.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator is always interesting, sometimes entertaining, but the Senator from Mississippi raised a couple of good questions. The real question is what are the answers to the questions.

One question is, what about adults? This is a children's program, and I think most Senators react a little adversely to covering adults. This Senator does too. It is a children's program, not an adult program. The Senator acknowledged graciously that most of the adult coverage problem is due to waivers this administration has given the States. The States want to cover adults. Why do they want to cover adults? Well, basically, because of the match rate, the money the States get under the Children's Health Insurance Program is higher, so they want to cover adults. What we are trying to do is figure how are we going to put the lid back on this. That is what we are trying to do here. It probably gets to the question of what is a fair transition period. What is the fair way to wean the States off of covering adults?

I guess it is important to remember there are a lot of people, adults out in the country who are getting health insurance, and they do not know what we are debating here in Washington, DC. They do not know the difference between CHIP, Medicaid, and match rates. All they know is they are getting some health insurance. And I don't know if it is right to just willy-nilly, automatically, cold turkey cut them off entirely, because they are depending on it.

I do think it is right, however, to wean States off this, and the States can, when their legislatures meet, figure out ways to cover adults they wish to but not on this program. That is what we are doing. That is what this legislation does. It says in the first year you can get a free ride, but in the second year your match rate is way down to the Medicaid match rate, which is basically about 30 percent less than the match rate under the Children's Health Insurance Program. A 30- percent cut will have a real effect on a lot of these States and discourage them from proceeding further.

In addition, legislation not too long ago repealed waivers so the States could no longer apply for waivers to get childless adult coverage. So question No. 1 is, what is the right thing to do about some States adding adults? Let us not forget, 91 percent of beneficiaries under the Children's Health Insurance Program today, 91 percent, are kids under 200 percent of poverty. Today. The vast bulk are kids. So when we talk about adults, we are talking about less than 9 percent, because some States have up to 200 percent of poverty. We are talking not too many people when we are talking about adults. This is kind of a philosophical question as much as anything else.

What is the best way to put the lid back on the can, to keep States from providing it for too many adults? We think we have a fair way to do it, as I just described, a fair transition period, and that is why we negotiated out this position.

Point No. 2 is, what is going to happen in conference. I have no idea. Senators know there are lots of ways to skin a cat around here. On the surface it looks like maybe if the Senate and House go to conference on these two bills--the Senate bill is much less, the House bill is much larger. They contain the Medicare provisions, physicians update provisions, and they are two different animals. When that happens, generally some other solution presents itself. That is why I say to my good friend from Mississippi, I hear what he is saying about the views of many Senators who do not want the conference report to come back with a number that is too difficult for many Senators to swallow, especially on the Republican side of the aisle. But I also say to my good friend, there are ways to do this. We may not go to conference exactly; the House may send back something else, maybe just a CHIP bill, and we will do the physicians update at a later date. There are many kinds of ways to do things around here.

Our goal is to help low-income kids who do not have insurance today so a few more get it. This is not a huge, massive expansion. This has nothing to do with national health insurance, none of that.

We are saying: Here is a program passed in 1997, it is bipartisan, Senators on both sides of the aisle like this program, there have never been any problems with it, it has worked real well, it just came up with reauthorization. The only slight problem is waivers for adults, but we are managing that. That is not a big deal. We can take care of that. So let's just reauthorize it, give it a little bump up to help a few more--not a lot, a few more kids get health insurance, and it costs a few dollars because health care costs are going up so much in this country.

While we are helping a few kids get health insurance, at a later date, next year, the following couple of years--clearly, Congress has to address the rising cost of health insurance in this country. But as a bottom line, this is a good thing to do, to help low-income kids get some health insurance.

Let's remember, in the United States of America there are about 48 million people without health insurance. We are the only industrialized country with that many people without health insurance. It is an outrage. The very least we can do is help our kids get some health insurance, particularly those who are low-income kids. That is what we are trying to do in a fair and reasonable way.

I am honored to yield to my friend from North Dakota.

That is correct.

The Senator is correct. But not only is it 3 million, it is 3 million low-income kids.

And they usually do not have health insurance because they can't afford it, even if their employer provides it.

Mr. President, I expect, frankly, the Senate will finish tonight, late tonight, and get this legislation passed--as well it should. In addition to the five amendments pending beginning at 4:30, there could be at least about 10 more later today--maybe a package about 8:00, another about 10 o'clock, something like that. My hope is some of those will not all be offered.

Mr. President, I don't know if we have much time left. I am trying to figure out how much time we have.

Sure. How about 3 minutes?

I say to my good friend, this is not a new program. We are just reauthorizing a current program. It is not new.

Currently, there are about 6.6 million children covered.

About 3.3 million, roughly.

Actually, the Senator is making another point, which is about 6 million kids are eligible today under the current law but just are not covered. So we are saying we are not increasing the eligibility, we just want to help give a little stimulus so those who are currently eligible but not covered--a few more of them will be covered by health insurance.

The Senator is correct. There are many medical associations that support this bill.

I don't know if I want to answer that question, because I can think of one major bill that many thought was socialized medicine but they now strongly support.

That is a very good point. I might say, this legislation received endorsements from over 50 different organizations, major organizations--AARP, pharmaceutical companies, the American Medical Association. This bill has wide endorsements.

As the Senator has just implied--yes, this program says: OK, States, you figure out how you want to administer it. It is up to you, the States, not Uncle Sam.

Most States say we are going to utilize health insurance companies, private health insurance companies to administer this, with copays and deductibles, and so forth.

That is correct. This legislation also provides assistance for States to provide--the fancy term is ``premium assistance''; that is, to help families pay the insurance companies.

Mr. President, we have five votes now. Senator Specter is detained. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the first amendment we vote on in the package would be the Kyl amendment. I see Senator Kyl on the floor. I make that request that we proceed immediately to the Kyl amendment, with 2 minutes equally divided prior to the vote, and subsequent to the Kyl amendment, that we go back in the same order; that 10 minutes be allotted between votes.

Yes.

I appreciate that. I am trying to move this along. The Judiciary Committee did break up some time ago.

No, longer than that.

I ask for the regular order.

Amendment No. 2557

Mr. President, I very much share the concerns of the Senator from Pennsylvania, I think every Member of this body does. That is, no one wants the Americans who currently do not pay the alternative minimum tax to have to pay it next year. They will have to unless this body, this Congress, makes the appropriate change in the adjustment.

I am fully committed to finding a solution so anybody who has not paid alternative minimum tax in 2006, when he or she files their tax returns next April, does not have to pay it for 2007.

This is not a good solution. Frankly, with this solution by the Senator from Pennsylvania, many more Americans are going to have to pay the AMT; it is not paid for, it is at a cost of about $420 billion.

Therefore, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 201 of the Senate Concurrent Resolution 21, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. President, the Senator clearly described his amendment. There is a slight problem that the cost of about $36 billion over 10 years is not paid for. I think we should adhere to the Budget Act and pay for provisions we enact.

So, Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 201 of Senate Concurrent Resolution 21, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. President, this is a poison pill. The effect of it is to kill this legislation.

The Senator is correct, no State can meet 95 percent. No state currently meets 95 percent. Driver's license participation, which is mandatory and not voluntary, is 85 percent. Participation in Medicare Part D, which is voluntary and not mandatory, is only 56 percent. There is no way in the world any State can meet a voluntary compliance rate of 95 percent, so this is a killer amendment. It kills the bill. It ostensibly applies to adults, but it kills the bill. I urge Senators not to kill the SCHIP program and vote against the amendment.

Mr. President, the Senator raises two issues, the AMT and this legislation. They are two entirely separate, independent issues. We will deal with the AMT at the appropriate time, not on this bill. The AMT is a huge problem. This Congress and the committee are going to, as sure as I am standing here, make sure we have some kind of AMT patch so taxpayers who did not pay the AMT tax in 2006 will not have to pay it for 2007.

We should not try to solve the AMT problem on the backs of the low- income kids. It is wrong, dead wrong. I strongly urge Senators to keep first things first. This is a kids bill, not an AMT bill. We deal with kids today and help low-income kids and we will deal with the AMT at a later date. Believe me, we will find a solution to that.

I urge Senators to keep their eye on the ball with kids and not to support the amendment.

Mr. President, this is plainly, simply, clearly a killer amendment. There is no way in the world that CBO can certify 20 percent crowd-out. They cannot do it.

There are many organizations trying to figure out what is the so- called crowd-out rate. They are all over the lot. It is almost impossible to tell what it is. That is the reason for the big range to which the Senator referred. The one to one is not accurate. If you read the CBO table closely and go down to the next line, you will see it is much less, about one-third under the table. There is no way CBO can certify this. It cannot happen.

If this amendment is adopted, you are basically saying no State can have a Children's Health Insurance Program. This is clearly a killer amendment. We should not kill the Children's Health Insurance Program. We should help more kids get health insurance, kids who are not now getting it.

I urge refusal of this amendment.

Mr. President, before we vote, I wish to set up a series of colloquies among several Senators after this vote. I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be recognized for the following amounts of time on the Lincoln amendment No. 2621: Senator Lincoln, 5 minutes; Senator Nelson of Nebraska, 3 minutes; and Senator Snowe, 3 minutes.

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.

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.

I thank the Chair.

Since the Senator is running for President, we are glad to accommodate him for what time he needs. He is serious and very emotional about this issue, and he should be. We all should be. I commend the Senator from Connecticut for spending a good bit of time on talking about this issue. I commend the Senator from New York for bringing this issue to the forefront. We are in a war unlike any war we have ever been in before. We are in different times today with respect to military conflicts, and the inclusion of our wounded warriors in the Family and Medical Leave Act is certainly well deserved and something that I hope we get passed before we leave.

I rise to commend the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors for their hard, high-quality work in analyzing and recommending improvements for our Nation's treatment of wounded warriors. The Dole-Shalala Commission has boldly addressed one of the most important issues facing our military today and has created a simple roadmap that will help make monumental improvements to the military health care system. I am pleased the Commission's recommendations span agencies, cross services, and take into consideration the needs of both veterans as well as their families.

During their review, they visited 23 health care facilities, including military and VA hospitals and treatment centers nationwide, held 7 public meetings, heard testimony from military health care experts, and communicated directly with servicemembers, their families, and health care professionals. This dialog is greatly needed and must continue. I provided my own input directly to the Commission regarding one of Georgia's own success stories in providing care to wounded warriors through a partnership between the Eisenhower Army Medical Center at Fort Gordon, GA, and the Augusta VA hospital. This Commission untangled a web of complex issues and provided six recommendations based on their findings. Former Senator Dole and Secretary Shalala did what others have been trying to do since World War II. Their joint statement succinctly describes the culmination of these efforts.

The face of our military has changed, as have their needs. Some returning servicemembers, injured in the line of duty, have complex and often multiple injuries placing greater challenges on the DOD and VA as well as family members. Well-meaning attempts over the years to reform health care in the military and VA have produced many positive results that have also made the system more complex and confusing in some areas. In these cases, it is difficult for servicemembers, their families, and caregivers to understand how to navigate the system. The events that brought us to this point were inexcusable and could have been prevented. However, I would be remiss if I did not mention a letter I received from a constituent whose son was a patient at Walter Reed Medical Center, after being evacuated from Iraq due to injuries he sustained in an IED attack. The letter said to the commander and staff at Walter Reed:

You and your staff are a remarkable team that has the

welfare of our soldiers and families foremost in mind as you

execute your critically important duties. My family and I owe

you and your team our heartfelt thanks and debt of gratitude

we can never repay.

This kind of feedback tells me the Army's improvements are taking hold. Through the Commission and recent legislation, these improvements will continue. I applaud the Commission's work and am equally pleased that much of it parallels the initiatives set forth by the Senate's Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act. The President's Commission recommended that seriously wounded servicemembers receive a patient- centered recovery plan developed by a cadre of highly skilled recovery coordinators. Such a plan can only increase the level of support given to our wounded warriors.

Along these same lines, the Wounded Warrior bill requires development of a unified and comprehensive policy between the VA and the Department of Defense that addresses personnel strength, training, access, standards, family counseling, and creation of a DOD-wide ombudsman. Of central importance, the Commission recommends a complete restructure of the disability and compensation systems. We have all heard case after case of lost paperwork, endless waste, bureaucratic delays, and confusing redundant processes. Both the Commission and the Wounded Warrior bill provide guidance to consolidate systems and streamline this process.

One of the most important recommendations made by the Commission, also addressed in the Wounded Warrior bill, concerns increased support to the families of our Wounded Warriors. Although the Commission did not visit Georgia, I have spent time at Fort Stewart and Fort Benning with family members of deployed troops, and I have spent as much time with the troops themselves in my five visits to Iraq. I can tell you that when it comes to taking care of our servicemembers, the well-being of their families is of paramount, if not greater, importance to them than their own well-being. These troops can count on their families. The more we support the families, the better we are taking care of our troops.

Among other things, the Dole-Shalala report recommends extending privileges under the Family and Medical Leave Act from 12 weeks to 6 months, which will allow family members to take up to 6 months of leave to care for a wounded servicemember. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill that introduces legislation that enacts this recommendation.

The bill Senator Pryor and I cosponsored on this subject, the Wounded

Warrior Assistance Act, S. 1283, also contains provisions along these lines, such as advocating counseling and job placement services for family members, as well as the creation of an ombudsman's office which will provide support to members and their families.

So, once again, I commend Senator Clinton for her initiative in getting this bill on the Family Medical Leave Act introduced and I concur again with the Senator from Connecticut. I hope this legislation is completed before we leave here in the next couple of days.

The global war on terror has brought recognition of the enormous impact of two previously silent and little-noticed conditions to the forefront: post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. Accordingly, both the Commission and the Wounded Warrior bill address these issues. The Dole-Shalala report advocates the most aggressive treatment for both conditions by the DOD and the VA, and also recommends private-sector involvement to capitalize on the most recent and valuable findings and treatments.

Similarly, the Wounded Warrior bill provides comprehensive and coordinated policies between DOD and the VA on PTSD and TBI. The Wounded Warrior bill creates a level of accountability for the DOD and VA by requiring an annual report on PTSD and TBI expenditures and reports assessing progress in the overall treatment of these conditions.

The bill also includes a provision I proposed that builds upon a study at Emory University for TBI treatment and the use of progesterone and directs collaboration between DOD and other Federal agencies in TBI-related research and clinical trials.

The approach taken by the Commission and in the Wounded Warrior Act capitalizes on cooperation among Federal agencies, as well as between the Federal Government and private sector. As part of the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, I proposed a sense-of-the- Senate amendment that DOD continue to encourage collaboration between the Army and the VA in the treatment of wounded warriors.

A prime example of this type of collaboration is in Augusta, GA, between the only Active-Duty rehabilitation unit, located at the Augusta Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and the behavioral health care services program at the Eisenhower Army Medical Center at Fort Gordon, GA. This unique, unprecedented collaboration between the Augusta VA and the Eisenhower Army Medical Center has been growing since its inception in 2004, assisted by GEN Eric Schoomaker, now the head of Walter Reed and former commander of the Eisenhower Army Medical Center. Our wounded warriors deserve the best possible care. The recommendations of the President's Commission and the requirements set forth in the Dignity for Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act pave a clear path for the type of medical treatment and support the people defending our Nation deserve.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Wounded Warrior Act, unanimously approved by the Senate. I am pleased with the comprehensive recommendations provided by Senator Dole and Secretary Shalala. I especially thank the servicemembers and their families who have shared openly and bravely about their experiences to this body as well as to the Commission. Their stories made the need for this reform real to all of us, and their experiences can help us transform the quality of military health care. Doing so will be one small way of saying thank you to the men and women in the U.S. military for their service and their sacrifice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 2 additional minutes to address the bill before the Senator from New York is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I would like to address the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the bill that currently is before the Senate. I have been a strong advocate of this particular program. We, in Georgia, I think, have one of the model SCHIP programs in the country. We call it PeachCare. It provides health insurance to 290,000 uninsured poor children in my State. We cover no adults in Georgia. Every single dime that is spent on this program in Georgia is spent on children, and that is the way it should be.

That is one of the problems I have with the reauthorization of this bill as it came out of committee. It does three things that really bother me.

First of all, the bill that came out of committee does not take all parents off of coverage under the SCHIP program on a national basis. It does remove, over a 2-year period, all adults who are not parents of some of the children who are eligible for this particular subsidy, and that is good. The problem is, it still covers any number of adults. This is a children's program, and that is where the money ought to be spent. Every single dollar we spend on an adult takes money away from children.

Secondly, under this bill, States are authorized to go up to 300 percent of the Federal poverty level for coverage. The previous bill authorized up to 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. In Georgia, we are at 235 percent of the Federal poverty level, which means that a family of four making $48,000 is eligible for coverage under our PeachCare program.

Unfortunately, once you reach the level of 300 percent of the Federal poverty level, you are at almost $62,000 for a family of four in income, and you are still eligible under this program.

Lastly, I would simply say the bill out of the Finance Committee is financed by the creation of new and additional taxes. I think the American taxpayers--I do not care in what form the taxes are--are already an overburdened group of citizens.

From the standpoint of trying to find funding for this program, the Lott amendment did exactly what we needed to do in Georgia to cover all 290,000 of our existing children who are covered, plus all who will be coming on within the next 5 years, which is the term of this bill.

Senator Lott found offsets in his amendment that would not have required the raising of any taxes to cover those children. That is the type of sensible approach that should have been taken. I regret that it did not pass.

Unfortunately, I am not going to be able to support this bill in its current form.

With that, Mr. President, I thank the chairman for being generous, and thank the Senator from New York for allowing me to extend my time, and I yield the floor.

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.