Sex Offender Registration and Notification Retroactivity Correction Act of 2008

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and colleague, Senator McConnell, to introduce the Aung San Suu Kyi Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2008.

We are proud to be joined by 73 of our colleagues in sponsoring this measure to award the Congressional Gold Medal to a woman who has inspired us all with her commitment to nonviolence, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law for the people of Burma. On December 17, 2007, the House voted 400-0 to award Suu Kyi this honor and we urge the Senate to promptly follow suit.

Last September we witnessed the largest democratic demonstrations in Burma in almost 20 years. Tens of thousands of Burmese citizens took to the streets in peaceful demonstrations to speak out against the country's oppressive military regime, and to cry out for democracy.

I watched these courageous people with a deep sense of admiration and respect.

Led by respected Buddhist monks, the people of the ``Saffron Revolution'' called on the military junta to release all political prisoners, including Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, and engage in a true dialogue on national reconciliation. Yet, as it had in the past, the military junta responded to the recent peaceful protests with violence and bloodshed. Soldiers used brutal force to break up the protests, beating and sometimes killing innocent civilians.

No amount of force, however, can crush the spirit of Aung San Suu Kyi and her peaceful quest for democracy and human rights. Indeed, she is a woman of unrivaled courage. In the face of threats, intimidation, harassment, and an assassination attempt, she has never wavered from her principles and continues to support national reconciliation for all the people of Burma.

By introducing this legislation, we seek not only to honor a remarkable woman who embodies the values and standards of the Congressional Gold Medal, but also to raise our voices once again in support of her cause which is our cause: a free and democratic Burma.

By now, her story is well known. Aung San Suu Kyi was born on June 19, 1945, in Rangoon to Aung San, commander of the Burma Independence Army, and Ma Khin Kyi. In August 1988, Suu Kyi, in her first political action, sent an open letter to the military-controlled government, asking for free, open and multi-party elections. The following month, she founded the National League for Democracy, which remains dedicated to a policy of nonviolence and civil disobedience. Suu Kyi was named its general-secretary.

Recognizing the threat Suu Kyi posted to their grip on power, the Burmese junta had her placed under house arrest and held without charges or trial. Yet, despite the best efforts of the military junta to suppress the growing democratic movement, in 1990 the National League for Democracy won 82 percent of the seats in parliamentary elections. But the junta annulled the election results and refused to release Suu Kyi.

Since then, the Burmese regime--now called the State Peace and Development Council--has refused to engage in a national dialogue with Suu Kyi and the democratic opposition, and intensified its campaign of oppression and abuse. In 2003, pro-government thugs attempted to assassinate Su Kyi and other members of the National League for Democracy as they rode in a motorcade in the northern city of Depayin.

Last May, the military junta renewed her house arrest for another year. In fact, for most of the past 18 years, she has remained imprisoned or under house arrest, alone without

minimal contact with the outside world.

Yet, as in 1990, the regime has once again failed to stamp out Suu Kyi's message of democracy, human rights, non-violence and the rule of law. She continues to inspire not only the people of Burma but the entire world. Indeed, Suu Kyi's commitment to freedom and democracy has been widely recognized.

In 1990, Suu Kyi was awarded the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought by the European Parliament. The prize honors efforts on behalf of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and in opposition to injustice and oppression. It is named for the late Andrei Sakharov, the Soviet dissident and Nobel Peace Prize winner.

In 1991, Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her commitment to nonviolence and support for freedom and democracy for Burma. She was not allowed to attend the ceremony. In its recommendation, the Nobel Committee wrote:

In the good fight for peace and reconciliation, we are

dependent on persons who set examples, persons who can

symbolize what we are seeking and mobilize the best in us.

Aung San Suu Kyi is just such a person. She unites deep

commitment and tenacity with a vision in which the end and

the means form a single unit. Its most important elements

are: democracy, respect for human rights, reconciliation

between groups, non-violence, and personal and collective

discipline.

Suu Kyi donated her $1.3 million in prize money to establish a health and education fund for Burma. She is the world's only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize recipient.

In 2000, Suu Kyi was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civilian award, by President Bill Clinton.

Last year, 45 U.S. Senators signed a letter to United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon urging him to get personally involved in pressing for Suu Kyi's release.

In letter addressed to the State Peace and Development Council, a distinguished group of 59 former heads of state--including former Filipino president Corazon Aquino, former Czech president Vaclav Havel, former British prime minister John Major and former Presidents Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush--called for the regime to release Aung San Suu Kyi. They correctly noted that ``Aung San Suu Kyi is not calling for revolution in Burma, but rather peaceful, nonviolent dialogue between the military, National League for Democracy, and Burma's ethnic groups.''

It is only fitting, that Congress join this international chorus in support of Aung San Suu Kyi and award her the Congressional Gold Medal.

As a U.S. Senator, I have worked hard to raise awareness about the situation in Burma and pass legislation to put pressure on the military junta to release Suu Kyi and begin a true dialogue on national reconciliation. In 1997, former Senator Bill Cohen and I authored legislation requiring the President to ban new U.S. investment in Burma if he determined that the Government of Burma had physically harmed, rearrested or exiled Aung San Suu Kyi or committed large-scale repression or violence against the Democratic opposition. President Clinton issued the Executive Order in 1997 and the ban remains on the books today.

In 2003, after the regime attempted to assassinate Aung San Suu Kyi, Senator McConnell and I introduced the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 which placed a complete ban on imports from Burma. It allowed that ban to be renewed one year at a time for up to 3 years. It was signed into law and has been renewed one year at a time for each of the past 4 years.

Last year, the women of the United States Senate came together to form the Women's Caucus on Burma to express our solidarity with Suu Kyi, call for her immediate release, urge the United Nations to pass a binding resolution on Burma. At our inaugural event, we were pleased to be joined by First Lady Laura Bush who added her own voice to those calling for peace and democracy in Burma. Our message is clear: We will not remain silent, we will not stand still until Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners are released and democratic government is restored in Burma.

This legislation is but one small step on the path to that goal. I remain hopeful that the military regime will heed the will of its people and the international community and we will be able to present Aung San Suu Kyi with this honor in person.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lieberman, the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I rise to introduce the Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act, a bill to convert the annual budget and appropriations process to a 2-year cycle and to enhance oversight of Federal programs.

Mr. President, our most recent experience with the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act shows the need for a biennial appropriations and budget process. That one bill clearly demonstrated Congress is incapable of completing the budget, authorizing, and appropriations process on an annual basis and unfortunantly, this is not the first time.

Congress should now act to streamline the system by moving to a 2- year, or biennial, budget process. This is the most important reform we can enact to streamline the budget process, to make the Senate a more deliberative and effective institution, and to make us more accountable to the American people.

Moving to a biennial budget and appropriations process enjoys very broad support. President George W. Bush has supported a biennial budgeting process. Presidents Clinton, Reagan, and Bush also proposed a biennial appropriations and budget cycle. Leon Panetta, who served as White House Chief of Staff, OMB Director, and House Budget Committee chairman, has advocated a biennial budget since the late 1970s. Former OMB and CBO Director Alice Rivlin has called for a biennial budget the past two decades. Vice President Gore's National Performance Review and the 1993 Joint Committee on the Reorganization of Congress both recommended a biennial appropriations and budget cycle.

A biennial budget will dramatically improve the current budget process. The current annual budget process is redundant, inefficient, and destined for failure each year. Look at what we struggle to complete each year under the current annual process. The annual budget process consumes 3 years: 1 year for the administration to prepare the President's budget, another year for the Congress to put the budget into law, and the final year to actually execute the budget.

Today, I want to focus just on the congressional budget process, the process of annually passing a budget resolution, authorization legislation, and multiple appropriation bills. The record clearly shows that last year's experience was nothing new. Under the annual process, we consistently fail to complete action on multiple appropriations bills, to authorize programs, and to meet our deadlines.

While we have made a number of improvements in the budget process, the current annual process is redundant and inefficient. The Senate has the same debate, amendments and votes on the same issue three or four times a year--once on the budget resolution, again on the authorization bill, and finally on the appropriations bill.

Several years ago, I asked the Congressional Research Service, CRS, to update and expand upon an analysis of the amount of time we spend on the budget. CRS looked at all votes on appropriations, revenue, reconciliation, and debt limit measures as well as budget resolutions. CRS then examined any other vote dealing with budgetary levels, Budget Act waivers, or votes pertaining to the budget process. Beginning with 1980, budget related votes started dominating the work of the Senate. In 1996, 73 percent of the votes the Senate took were related to the budget.

If we cannot adequately focus on our duties because we are constantly debating the budget throughout the authorizing, budgeting, and appropriations process, just imagine how confused the American public is about what we are doing. The result is that the public does not understand what we are doing and it breeds cynicism about our Government.

Under the legislation we are introducing today, the President would submit a 2-year budget and Congress would consider a 2-year budget resolution and 2-year appropriation bills during the first session of a Congress. The second session of the Congress would be devoted to consideration of authorization bills and for oversight of Government agencies.

Most of the arguments against a biennial budget process will come from those who claim we cannot predict or plan on a 2-year basis. For most of the budget, we do not actually budget on an annual basis. Our entitlement and revenue laws are under permanent law, and Congress does not change these laws on an annual basis. The only component of the budget that is set in law annually are the appropriated, or discretionary, accounts.

The most predictable category of the budget are these appropriated, or discretionary, accounts of the Federal Government. Much of this spending is associated with international activities or emergencies. Because most of this funding cannot be predicted on an annual basis, a biennial budget is no less deficient than the current annual process. My bill does not preclude supplemental appropriations necessary to meet these emergency or unanticipated requirements.

In 1993 I had the honor to serve as cochairman on a joint committee that studied the operations of the Congress. Senator Byrd testified before that committee that the increasing demands put on us as Senators has led to our ``fractured attention.'' We simply are too busy to adequately focus on the people's business. This legislation is designed to free up time and focus our attention, particularly with respect to the oversight of Federal programs and activities.

Frankly, the limited oversight we are now doing is not as good as it should be. Our authorizing committees are increasingly crowded out of the legislative process. Under a biennial budget, the second year of the biennium will be exclusively devoted to examining Federal programs and developing authorization legislation. The calendar will be free of the budget and appropriations process, giving these committees the time and opportunity to provide oversight, review, and legislate changes to Federal programs. Oversight and the authorization should be an ongoing process, but a biennial appropriations process will provide greater opportunity for legislators to concentrate on programs and policies in the second year.

A biennial budget cannot make the difficult decisions that must be made in budgeting, but it can provide the tools necessary to make much better decisions. Under the current annual budget process, we are constantly spending the taxpayers' money instead of focusing on how best and most efficiently we should spend the taxpayers' money. By moving to a biennial budget cycle, we can plan, budget, and appropriate more effectively, strengthen oversight and watchdog functions, and improve the efficiency of government agencies.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a critical health issue affecting thousands of our children every day but about which few people have ever even heard. All across this country, thousands of children suffer from rare genetic diseases called ``orphan diseases,'' thus named because

of the relatively small number of people these diseases strike.

An orphan disease is defined as affecting fewer than 200,000 people. The National Institutes of Health, NIH, estimate that there are approximately 6,000 of these orphan diseases, affecting about 25 million Americans on the whole. Most of these rare diseases are genetic and many affect children.

Last spring, I met with a group of mothers who shared their struggles and frustrations in getting ongoing and consistent treatment for their children, each of whom suffers from an orphan disease. Many of these parents had been able to enroll their children in clinical trials at the NIH and had found experimental treatments for their children that had proven extremely successful. The doctors at NIH do miraculous work in finding treatments for children with rare genetic diseases. But oftentimes, when the trial ends, these children and parents are left on their own, with no access to the previously free and effective treatment that their children were getting.

Imagine if you can, for one moment, the predicament of these children and their parents? After months and sometimes years of first not knowing what was ailing their sick children, desperately seeking help, then finally getting a diagnosis, only to find out that there was no FDA approved treatment. Then after searching for some kind of treatment and then finally, finally finding--and being admitted to--a clinical trial on medication that miraculously gave their children the ability to function like other kids--to be able to play soccer and go to school and have friends over and just have the energy to be a child. For all of us who are parents, you can imagine the joy of seeing your child finally alleviated from the suffering he or she has been going through, finally able to enjoy him- or herself and do all the things that children are supposed to do.

Then imagine, if you can, what it would be like to suddenly have that taken away. The clinical trial ends, or funding for the trial ends. Suddenly, you no longer have access to this drug that your child needs to be able to function, to do their homework, eat well and have fun. If it is a drug that has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration or specifically approved for a child's particular disease, then insurance companies typically will not cover it because the treatment is considered ``experimental.'' In some cases, a drug has been approved for other uses than the orphan disease, known as ``off- label'' use. If a family has enough insurance, and there is off-label FDA approval, sometimes families can get coverage of the drugs. If not, the resulting cost to families is astronomical--ranging anywhere from $10,000 to $30,000 per month.

This is what happened to Nino Todaro, a young boy from Newville, Pennsylvania, and that is why Senator Specter and I are today introducing Nino's Act. Nino suffers from Periodic Fever Syndrome, an unpredictable genetic condition that can cause uncontrolled inflammation throughout the body. When this disease acts up, Nino has days where he cannot do much more than lie on the couch. Left untreated, this condition could leave Nino unable to walk and even be life-threatening. Fortunately Nino found help through an NIH clinical trial, but funding ran out last year. The drug that returned Nino to a joyous soccer-playing kid was approved for arthritis and Crohn's disease, but not Periodic Fever Syndrome. Facing costs of $12,000 a month, and initial rejections from their insurance company, Nino's parents turned to Congress.

Nino's Act will allow children to transition out of successful treatment in NIH studies without a gap in treatment. There are thousands of children like Nino across this country who desperately need the continuity of ongoing successful treatment for their rare disorders. These are children who have been very ill, sometimes incapacitated, and have been able to resume normal childhoods through successful drug treatment. Parents advocating for their children understandably refuse to accept that their children have no choice but to regress because their insurance company will not cover humongous medical bills that no middle class family could even begin to absorb.

No parent should ever have to face a situation in which the care they need for their seriously ill child is too expensive or held up by regulatory red tape. It is unthinkable to me that any ill child in this country, the richest nation on earth, with all our medical advancements, should ever be denied medical treatment that is available and proven successful. Our bill will give these children and their parents peace of mind that when a study ends, their children's successful ongoing treatment will not be threatened. To address this, Nino's Act will require Medicaid to cover the cost of treatment of in the event that a child's health insurance does not.

This is the least we can do for these children and families. No child for whom treatment is available should have to forego that treatment to the serious detriment of their health. That is just plain wrong. Senator Specter and I share the belief that ensuring ongoing treatment for children with rare disorders is something this Congress should get behind. I urge my colleagues to support Nino's Act and I will work hard for its passage. My hope is it will go a long way toward ensuring that children with orphan diseases can get the successful treatment they deserve, freeing them and their families to focus on what is truly important--keeping them well, and living out happy and productive lives.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce Nino's Act, to provide for the continuance of successful treatment for children who are required to leave National Institutes of Health, NIH, research studies. The NIH provides the greatest medical research in the world on innumerable diseases, including cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's. The NIH also conducts excellent research on diseases that affect children. To conduct that research many brave children must partake in research studies including observational, or natural history, studies and clinical trials to test experimental therapies. This participation is critical to understanding diseases and ultimately finding cures at the NIH.

To participate in the trials and studies, children and their families often make considerable sacrifices. Families will travel great distances to receive treatment that may provide relief from the child's illness. In many cases, parents and doctors will have tried many treatments for the child's disease about which little may be known or understood. The NIH studies represent an opportunity for both the medical community to learn more about the disease and the child to be studied and potentially treated by the best researchers in the world.

When the experimental treatments are successful, it is cause for great celebration for the child. The joy, however, can end quickly as the studies come to end but the children who have been part of them continue to be stricken by these terrible illnesses.

Nino's Act seeks to transition children out of the NIH studies as they end so they don't experience a gap in their important treatment. This legislation continues the successful treatment initiated in NIH studies by providing access to the same prescription drugs for children who are required to leave NIH clinical studies due to the studies ending, researcher leaving, or other reason. Often drugs that are used successfully in these studies have not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration or have not been approved for treatment of the child's specific disease. As such, it is nearly impossible for children to get access or insurance coverage for these drugs. This bill makes that access possible by requiring Medicaid to cover the cost of treatment in the event that the children's health insurance does not.

On occasion, insurers will cover the cost of the treatment for these children if they have adequate insurance and the FDA has approved the drug for off-label uses. More often then not, however, children do not have health insurance, or have insufficient insurance to obtain these drugs. As a result, children suffer their diseases without relief from the treatment as established in the clinical NIH studies. To ensure that these children have access to successful care post-study, Nino's Act requires Medicaid to cover the cost of treatment for these children. While Medicaid access is traditionally based on income, due to the importance of these drugs to the child's well-being the income component will be waived. To ensure Medicaid is not unnecessarily covering medication, Nino's Act requires the physicians participating in the research to certify the treatment as successful and essential.

This important issue was introduced to me by Lori Todaro of Newville, PA. Lori's son Nino suffers from Undifferentiated Auto-Inflammatory Periodic Fever Syndrome. This disease takes a devastating toll on those who suffer from it. The auto-inflammatory

disease can cause joint inflammation arthritis, Crohns, colitis, irritable bowel syndrome, and cyclical high fevers. Treatment for Periodic Fever Syndrome is experimental at best; Lori and Nino have visited a number of doctors and tried many medications in an effort to control the disease.

In 2003, Nino was fortunate to be selected to take part in an observational study at NIH in Bethesda, Maryland for Undifferentiated Auto-inflammatory Periodic Fever Syndrome. During the course of the study, Nino was given a new medication and his condition greatly improved. Before he participated in the study he was being fitted for wheelchairs and was home schooled because his symptoms were so disruptive and unpredictable. The NIH treatment allowed him to resume a normal life and enabled him to attend school and play soccer. While Nino's treatment was successful he could not remain part of the study indefinitely and was encouraged to seek coverage for his treatments through his private insurer. Initially, the Todaro's insurer would not agree to cover the cost of the experimental drug and only after an intense lobbying effort by Lori, did the insurer agree to cover Nino's prescriptions.

Nino's story is a successful one, but also serves to highlight the issue that children and their families are facing as they transition out of NIH studies. For many, NIH trials are a source of hope for relief from the worst diseases known to man. The excellent doctors and research teams at NIH make invaluable contributions to our understanding of complex and debilitating diseases. This legislation seeks to amplify the NIH's contributions by allowing America's sickest children to continue their successful treatment under Medicaid coverage. I encourage my colleagues to work with Senator Casey and me to move this legislation forward promptly.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to support the Commercial Fishing Industry Healthcare Coverage Act of 2008. My good friend Senator Kennedy and I, along with Senators Kerry and Murkowski, are introducing this bill to improve healthcare options for our Nation's fishermen and fishing families.

Few things are more Alaskan than fishing. Long before Alaska was even a U.S territory, our people were fishing for their livelihood. The first Alaskans, Alaska Natives depended on subsistence fishing, as many do today. Russian settlers built salteries to preserve their catch through our long, harsh winters. In the 1800s, the first canneries were built in Sitka and Klawock, marking the birth of Alaska's modern commercial fishing industry.

Today, Alaska's seafood industry is the State's largest private employer and a fundamental part of Alaskan culture. All around our State, from Ketchikan, at the Southern end of the panhandle, to Kotzebue, above the Arctic Circle, fishermen brave the elements so all Americans may enjoy the bounty of Alaskan waters. Their work is vital to the economies of numerous communities in our State.

While Alaskans have fishing in their blood, skyrocketing costs have made it increasingly difficult for these hard-working men and women to earn a living. One of the major challenges our commercial fishermen face is obtaining affordable healthcare.

The problem is not unique to my State. Lack of health coverage is a dilemma for fishermen in other coastal States. Surveys conducted in different parts of the country show fishing families are significantly more likely to be uninsured than other Americans.

The commercial fishing industry produces billions of dollars for the U.S. economy each year. Despite their contributions, the seasonal and dangerous nature of their profession bars many commercial fishermen from obtaining health insurance; most work for themselves or for small employers. Fishermen are forced to pay high premiums and deductibles, which can effectively put health insurance out of reach.

In my State, fishermen face additional complications when looking for affordable health insurance. A study by the United Fishermen of Alaska found that our fishermen are more likely to work and live in communities without a hospital. Also, fewer private insurance companies offer individual or small business medical coverage in Alaska than in other States. And, most fishermen simply cannot afford the rates charged by these providers.

That lack of basic health services impacts everyone in our fishing fleet, from our older fishermen, who may be most in need of health coverage, to the younger generation of fishermen, who find the lack of affordable healthcare a barrier to entering the profession.

As one fisherman from Juneau put it:

I've applied with two different major health insurance

providers, and both have declined me coverage because of my

occupation . . . living and working without health insurance

is like living on borrowed time. I constantly feel I am

pushing my luck, and a single illness or injury could mean

bankruptcy for me.

With the high cost of individual health insurance and the lack of proximity to healthcare facilities in Alaska families are less likely to seek preventive care, resulting in medical emergencies that could have been avoided. When uninsured fishermen end up in emergency rooms with serious diseases and injuries, taxpayers often absorb the costs.

Our bill is inspired by the successful fishermen's healthcare plan adopted by Senator Kennedy's home State of Massachusetts, which has proven that health insurance can be made affordable for fishing families. This legislation will establish a grant program to help States and fishing organizations create and administer group health insurance programs for fishermen and fishing families.

Americans are consuming more and more seafood as they discover its great taste and considerable health benefits. We cannot forget where these fish come from. They come from the labor of men and women working up and down the coasts of this country, many struggling to earn a living and preserve a tradition that has spanned generations.

This measure would help put affordable medical care within their reach. I encourage my fellow Senators to support the bill.