Nurse Education, Expansion, and Development Act of 2007

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act of 2007. This bill would abolish the death penalty at the Federal level. It would put an immediate halt to executions and forbid the imposition of the death penalty as a sentence for violations of Federal law.

Since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court, there have been 1,060 executions across the country, including three at the Federal level. During that same time period, 123 people on death row have been exonerated and released from death row. These people never should have been convicted in the first place.

Consider those numbers. One thousand and sixty executions, and one hundred and twenty-three exonerations in the modern death penalty era. Had those exonerations not taken place, had those 123 people been executed, those executions would have represented an error rate of greater than 10 percent. That is more than an embarrassing statistic; it is a horrifying one, one that should have us all questioning the use of capital punishment in this country. In fact, since 1999 when I first introduced this bill, 46 death row inmates have been exonerated throughout the country.

In the face of these numbers, the national debate on the death penalty has intensified. For the second year in a row, the number of executions, the number of death sentences imposed, and the size of the death row population have decreased as a growing number of voices have joined to express doubt about the use of capital punishment in America. The voices of those questioning the fairness of the death penalty have been heard from college campuses and courtrooms and podiums across the Nation, to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room, to the United States Supreme Court. The American public understands that the death penalty raises serious and complex issues. The death penalty can no longer be exploited for political purposes. In fact, for the first time, a May 2006 Gallup Poll reported that more Americans prefer a sentence of life without parole over the death penalty when given a choice. If anything, the political consensus is that it is time for a change. We must not ignore these voices.

In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in 1976 to allow capital punishment, the Federal Government first resumed death penalty prosecutions after enactment of a 1988 Federal law that provided for the death penalty for murder in the course of a drug-kingpin conspiracy. The Federal death penalty was then expanded significantly in 1994, when the omnibus crime bill expanded its use to a total of some 60 Federal offenses. And despite my best efforts to halt the expansion of the Federal death penalty, more and more provisions seem to be added every year. While the use of and confidence in the death penalty is decreasing overall, the Federal Government has been going in the opposite direction, making more defendants eligible for capital punishment and increasing the size of its Federal death row. Moreover, there are now six individuals on Federal death row from States that do not have capital punishment. The Federal Government is pulling in the wrong direction as the rest of the Nation moves toward a more just system.

On this very day eight years ago, Governor George Ryan took the historic step of placing a moratorium on executions in Illinois and creating an independent, blue ribbon commission to review the State's death penalty system. The Commission conducted an extensive study of the death penalty in Illinois and released a report with 85 recommendations for reform of the death penalty system. The Commission concluded that the death penalty system is not fair, and that the risk of executing the innocent is alarmingly real. Governor Ryan later pardoned four death row inmates and commuted the sentences of all remaining Illinois death row inmates to life in prison before he left office in January 2003.

Illinois is not alone. Seven years ago, then Maryland Governor Parris Glendening learned of suspected racial disparities in the administration of the death penalty in Maryland. Governor Glendening did not look the other way. He commissioned the University of Maryland to conduct the most exhaustive study of Maryland's application of the death penalty in history. Then faced with the rapid approach of a scheduled execution, Governor Glendening acknowledged that it was unacceptable to allow executions to take place while the study he had ordered was not yet complete. So, in May 2002, he placed a moratorium on executions. Although Governor Bob Ehrlich lifted that moratorium and allowed executions to resume during his tenure, Governor Martin O'Malley has indicated that he would approve a legislative repeal of the death penalty and that he, like the majority in this country, favors life without parole.

Other States also have taken important steps. New York's death penalty was overturned by a court decision in 2004 and has not been reinstated by the legislature, and New Jersey enacted a moratorium in 2006. Along with New York and New Jersey, four other States that still have the death penalty technically on their books have not executed any individuals since 1976. In addition, there are 12 States, plus the District of Columbia, whose laws do not provide for capital punishment at all. And following in the footsteps of Illinois and Maryland, North Carolina and California both began legislative studies of their own capital punishment systems this past year.

The more we learn about the death penalty through studies like those, the more reasons we have to oppose it. For example, the Maryland study--released in January 2003--contained findings that should startle us all. The study found that blacks accused of killing whites are more likely to receive a death sentence than blacks who kill blacks, or than white killers. According to the report, black offenders who kill whites are four times as likely to be sentenced to death as blacks who kill blacks, and twice as likely to get a death sentence as whites who kill whites.

The Maryland and Illinois studies cannot be brushed aside as atypical or dismissed as revealing state-specific anomalies in an otherwise perfect system. Years of study have shown that the death penalty does little to deter crime, and that defendants' likelihood of being sentenced to death depends heavily on illegitimate factors such as whether they are rich or poor. Since reinstatement of the modern death penalty, 80 percent of murder victims in cases where death sentences were handed down were white, even though only 50 percent of murder victims are white. Nationwide, more than half of the death row inmates are African Americans or Hispanic Americans. There is evidence of racial disparities, inadequate counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and false scientific evidence in death penalty systems across the country.

At least Maryland, Illinois, North Carolina, and California have begun the process of investigating the flaws in their own systems. But there are 36 other States that have death penalty provisions in their laws, 36 other States with systems that are most likely plagued with the same flaws. And these systems come at great additional cost to the taxpayers. For example, a 2005 report found that California's death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million in additional costs each year. Similar reports detailing the extraordinary financial costs of the death penalty have been generated for States across the Nation.

Moreover, there are growing concerns about the most common method of execution, lethal injection. These concerns are so grave that eight States and the Federal system all halted individual executions in 2006 to work through these problems. And these numbers are growing. Just this last week, executions in North Carolina were halted because of challenges to lethal injection. More and more research is emerging that suggests that lethal injections are unnecessarily painful and cruel, and that this method of capital punishment--however sanitary or humane it may appear--is no less barbaric than the more antiquated methods lethal injection was designed to replace, such as the noose or the firing squad, no less horrific than the electric chair or the gas chamber.

Nothing is more barbaric, of course, than the execution of an innocent person, and it is clearer than ever that the

risk is very real. Already, information has surfaced that suggests that two men put to death in the 1990s may have been innocent. This is a chilling prospect, one that illustrates the very grave danger in imposing the death penalty. The loss of just one innocent life through capital punishment should be enough to force all of us to stop and reconsider this penalty.

And while we examine the flaws in our death penalty system, we cannot help but note that our use of the death penalty stands in stark contrast to the majority of nations, which have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. There are now 123 countries that have done so. In 2005, only China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia executed more people than we did. These countries, and others on the list of nations that actively use capital punishment, are countries that we often criticize for human rights abuses. The European Union denies membership in the alliance to those nations that use the death penalty. In fact, it passed a resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional global abolition of the death penalty, and it specifically called on all States within the United States to abolish the death penalty. This is significant because it reflects the unanimous view of a group of nations with which the United States enjoys close relationships and shares common values. We should join with them and with the over 100 other nations that have renounced this practice.

We are a Nation that prides itself on the fundamental principles of justice, liberty, equality and due process. We are a Nation that scrutinizes the human rights records of other nations. Historically, we are one of the first Nations to speak out against torture and killings by foreign governments. We should hold our own system of justice to the highest standard.

As a matter of justice, this is an issue that transcends political allegiances. A range of prominent voices in our country are raising serious questions about the death penalty, and they are not just voices of liberals, or of the faith community. They are the voices of former FBI Director William Sessions, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Reverend Pat Robertson, George Will, former Mississippi warden Donald Cabana, the Republican former Governor of Illinois, George Ryan, and the Democratic former Governor of Maryland, Parris Glendening. The voices of those questioning our application of the death penalty are growing in number, they are growing louder, and they are reflected in some of the decisions of the highest court of the land. In recent years, the Supreme Court has held that the execution of juvenile offenders and the mentally retarded is unconstitutional.

As we begin a new year and a new Congress, I believe the continued use of the death penalty in the United States is beneath us. The death penalty is at odds with our best traditions. It is wrong and it is immoral. The adage ``two wrongs do not make a right,'' applies here in the most fundamental way. Our Nation has long ago done away with other barbaric punishments like whipping and cutting off the ears of criminals. Just we did away with these punishments as contrary to our humanity and ideals, it is time to abolish the death penalty as we seek to spread peace and justice both here and overseas. It is not just a matter of morality. The continued viability of our criminal justice system as a truly just system that deserves the respect of our own people and the world requires that we do so. Our Nation's goal to remain the world's leading defender of freedom, liberty and equality demands that we do so.

Abolishing the death penalty will not be an easy task. It will take patience, persistence, and courage. As we work to move forward in a rapidly changing world, let us leave this archaic practice behind.

I ask my colleagues to join me in taking the first step in abolishing the death penalty in our great Nation. I also call on each State that authorizes the use of the death penalty to cease this practice. Let us together reject violence and restore fairness and integrity to our criminal justice system.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be working once again with my partner in reform, the senior Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, to introduce the 527 Reform Act.

Our purpose is simple--to pass legislation that will do what the FEC could and should do under current law, but, once again, has failed to do. Current Federal election law requires these groups to register as political committees and to stop raising and spending soft money. But the FEC has failed to enforce the law, so we must act in the Congress. This bill will make it absolutely clear that the federal election laws apply to 527 organizations.

We had to something similar with BCRA, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which passed in 2002, closing the soft money loophole that the FEC created in the late '70s and expanded in the '90s. That struggle took seven years. We have now been seeking to bring 527s within the law for four.

This bill will require all 527s to register as political committees unless they fall into a number of narrow categories. The exceptions are basically for groups that Congress exempted from disclosure requirements because they are so small or for groups that are involved exclusively in State election activity. Once a group registers as a political committee, certain activities, such as ads that mention only Federal candidates, will have to be paid for solely with hard money.

Under current rules, the FEC permits Federal political committees to maintain a non-Federal account to pay a portion of the expenses of activities that affect both Federal and non-Federal elections. Our bill sets new allocation rules that will make sure that these allocable activities are paid for with at least 50 percent hard money.

Finally, the bill makes an important change with respect to the non- federal portion of the allocable activities. We put a limit of $25,000 per year on the contributions that can be accepted for that non-federal account. This means no more million dollar soft money contributions to pay for get-out-the-vote efforts in the presidential campaign.

Nothing in this bill will affect legitimate 501(c) advocacy groups. The bill only applies to groups that claim a tax exemption under section 527.

Having laid out the central components of the bill, let me discuss how this bill has evolved, and the differences between this bill and the bill we introduced in 2005. In the last Congress, we made a great deal of progress working with the Senator from Mississippi, who at the time chaired the Rules Committee. Prior to taking the bill to a markup in the spring of 2005, Senator Lott worked with us to clarify the bill and address some of the concerns that had been raised about it. The bill we are introducing today is identical to the ``Chairman's Mark'' that Senator Lott brought before the Rules Committee last year.

While the original bill exempted 527s engaged exclusively in state elections from the registration requirement, it denied the exemption to groups that carry out ``voter drive activities''--defined as get-out- the vote, voter ID, or voter registration--during a federal election year. This made the exemption too narrow, so we looked for another way to ensure that state 527s that only work on behalf of non-Federal officeholders will not have to become Federal PACs.

The Chairman's Mark, and this year's bill, completely exempt organizations of State and local candidates or officeholders. Groups such as the Democratic Governors Association, Republican Governors Association, or a state legislative caucus would be exempt, as long as their voter drive activities only mention state candidates or ballot issues. These groups do not qualify for the exemption, however, if they mention Federal candidates in their communications.

Second, the bill provides a slightly narrower exemption for State PACs that are active only in State elections. The only additional requirements for these PACs to qualify for an exemption are that they can only be active in a single State, and they cannot have a candidate for Federal office or Federal officeholder controlling or participating in the organization or raising money for it.

Finally, we made a number of changes to ensure that Federal PACs that allocate expenditures can use non-Federal money for expenditures designed only to assist State candidates even if they make an incidental reference to a Federal candidate or political party.

The changes to the legislation that we made last year working with Senator Lott prior to the Rules Committee markup have been carried forward in the bill we introduce today. They improved and strengthened the bill. Unfortunately, other amendments were added during the Rules Committee consideration of the bill that we could not support. So the bill that we are introducing today is the same as the bill that went to markup in 2005, not the bill that was reported.

In closing, let me remind my colleagues that the soft money loophole was first opened by FEC rulings in the late '70s. By the time we started work on BCRA, the problem had mushroomed and led to the scandals we saw in the 1996 campaign. When we passed BCRA, I said we would have to be vigilant to make sure that the FEC enforced the law and that similar loopholes did not develop. That is what we are trying to do here.

I have no doubt that if we don't act on this 527 problem now, we will see more problems explode into scandals over the next few election cycles. In the 2004 cycle, Federal-oriented 527s spend $423 million. In fact, there were two donors who each contributed over $20 million. We cannot afford to wait until another presidential campaign season is in full bloom before addressing this problem. This FEC-ordained loophole threatens to further undermine the federal election laws. We must close it this year.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fair Access to Clinical Trials (FACT) Act. I want to begin by thanking Senators Grassley, Wyden, Bingaman, Durbin, and Harkin for joining me in introducing this legislation. I also would like to recognize the leadership of Senator Johnson who was involved in the crafting of this legislation from the beginning and who has been a long-standing supporter of the FACT Act.

Our bill will create an electronic databank for clinical trials of drugs, biological products, and medical devices. Such a databank will ensure that physicians, researchers, the general public, and patients seeking to enroll in clinical trials have access to basic information about those trials. It will require manufacturers and other researchers to reveal the results of clinical trials so that clinically important information will be available to all Americans, and physicians will have all the information necessary to make appropriate treatment decisions for their patients.

Events of the past few years have made it clear that such a databank is needed. For example, serious questions were raised about the effectiveness and safety of antidepressants when used in children and youth. It has now become clear that the existing data indicates that these drugs may very well put children at risk. However, because the data from antidepressant clinical trials was not publicly available, it took years for this risk to be realized. In the meantime, millions of children have been prescribed antidepressants by well-meaning physicians. While these drugs undoubtedly helped many of these children, they also led to greater suffering for others.

The news is similarly disturbing for a popular class of painkillers known as Cox-2 inhibitors. These medicines, taken by millions of Americans, have been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events, such as heart attack and stroke. It has been suggested that one of these medicines, which has since been pulled from the market, may have been responsible for tens of thousands of deaths.

Most recently, a drug manufacturer acknowledged that it did not inform the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the public about the results of a 67,000 person study it conducted of an FDA-approved drug used commonly during heart surgery to reduce the need for a transfusion. The study revealed the drug may increase patients' risk of death, serious kidney damage, congestive heart failure, and stroke.

Unfortunately, these are just a few examples of stories that have become all too common. It has been suggested that negative data might actually have been suppressed; and if this is discovered to be the case, those responsible should be dealt with harshly. However, because of what is known as ``publication bias,'' the information available to the public and physicians can be misleading even without nefarious motives. The simple fact is that studies with a positive result are far more likely to be published, and thus publicly available, than a study with a negative result. Physicians and patients hear the good news. Rarely do they hear the bad news. In the end, the imbalance of available information hurts patients.

Our bill would correct this imbalance in information, and prevent manufacturers from suppressing negative data. It would do so by creating a two-part databank, consisting of an expansion of clinicaltrials.gov--an existing registry that is operated by the National Library of Medicine (NLM)--and a new database for clinical trial results.

Under the FACT Act, the registry would continue to operate as a resource for patients seeking to enroll in clinical trials for drugs and biological products intended to treat serious or life-threatening conditions--and for the first time, it would also include medical device trials. The new results database would include all trials (except for preliminary safety trials), and would require the submission of clinical trial results data.

Our legislation would enforce the requirement to submit information to the databank in two ways. First, by requiring registration as a condition of Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, no trial could begin without submitting preliminary information to the registry and database. This information would include the purpose of the trial, the estimated date of trial completion, as well as all of the information necessary to help patients to enroll in the trial.

Once the trial is completed, the researcher or manufacturer is required to submit the results to the database. If they refuse to do so, they are subject to monetary penalties or, in the case of federally-funded research, a restriction on future federal funding. It is my belief that these enforcement mechanisms will ensure broad compliance. However, in the rare case where a manufacturer does not comply, this legislation also gives the FDA the authority to publicize the required information.

Let me also say that any time you are collecting large amounts of data and making it public, protecting patient privacy and confidentiality is

paramount. Our legislation would in no way threaten patient privacy. The simple fact is that under this bill, no individually-identifiable information would be available to the public.

I believe that the establishment of a clinical trials databank is absolutely necessary for the health and well-being of the American public. But I would also like to highlight two other benefits that such a databank will have. First, it has the potential to reduce health care costs. Studies have shown that publication bias also leads to a bias toward new and more expensive treatment options. A databank could help make it clear that in some cases less expensive treatments are just as effective for patients.

In addition, a databank will ensure that the sacrifice made by patients who enroll in clinical trials is not squandered. We owe it to patients to make sure that their participation in a trial will benefit other individuals suffering from the same illness or condition by making the results of the trial public, no matter the outcome of the trial.

The problems associated with publication bias have recently drawn more attention from the medical community, and there is broad consensus that a clinical trials registry is one of the best ways to address the issue. Accordingly, the American Medical Association (AMA) has recommended creating such a databank. Additionally, the major medical journals have established a policy that they will only publish the results of trials that were registered in a public database before the trial began. Our legislation meets all of the minimum criteria for a trial registry set out by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. In fact, our bill closely follows recommendations issued by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in its recent report on drug safety.

To its credit, the pharmaceutical industry has also acknowledged the problem, and has created a database where manufacturers can voluntarily submit clinical trials data. I applaud this step. However, if our objective is to provide the public with a complete and consistent supply of information, a voluntary database is unlikely to achieve that goal. Some companies will provide information, but others may decide not to participate. We need a clinical trials framework that is not just fair to all companies, but provides patients with the peace of mind that they will receive complete information about the medicines they rely on.

The American drug industry is an extraordinary success story. As a result of the innovations that this industry has spawned, millions of lives have been improved and saved in our country and around the globe. Due to the importance of these medicines to our health and well-being, I have consistently supported sound public policies to help the industry succeed in protecting the public's health and well-being. This legislation aims to build upon the successes of this industry, and help ensure that the positive changes to our health care system that prescription drugs have brought are not undermined by controversies such as the ones surrounding antidepressants and Cox-2 inhibitors, which are at least in part based on a lack of public information. This bill will help ensure that well-informed patients will use new and innovative medicines.

Creating a clinical trials databank is a critical step toward ensuring the safety of drugs, biological products, and medical devices in this country--but it should not be the end of our efforts. However, other steps are necessary to fully restore patient confidence in the safety of the medicines they rely on.

That is why today I am also introducing the Food and Drug Administration Safety Act (FDASA) with Senator Grassley. We are joined by Senators Mikulski and Bingaman in introducing this legislation and thank them for their support for reforming our nation's system to ensure that FDA-approved drugs being used by millions are safe and effective.

Our legislation would enhance the FDA's drug-safety monitoring system by setting up an independent center within the FDA called the Center for Postmarket Evaluation and Research for Drugs and Biologics (CPER). This Center would be responsible for monitoring the safety of drugs and biologics once they are on the market, in consultation with other existing Centers at the FDA, and would have the authority to take corrective action if a drug or biologic presents a risk to patients. Under the bill, the Center Director is authorized to require manufacturers to conduct post-market clinical or observational studies if there are questions about the safety or efficacy of a drug or biologic once it is already on the market. The Center Director can take corrective actions to include labeling changes, restricted distribution, and other risk management tools if an unreasonable risk is found to exist. The bill also gives the Center Director the authority to review drug advertisements before they are disseminated, and to require certain disclosures about increased risk, and in extreme cases, the authority to pull the product off the market. Our bill authorizes $500 million over the next 5 years to provide the new center with the resources necessary to carry out the critically important provisions of this legislation.

Under our legislation, the Director of CPER will report directly to the FDA Commissioner. Our bill will ensure that CPER consults with the other Centers at FDA as it conducts risk assessments, benefiting from their knowledge and expertise, but not being beholden to them if corrective action is needed.

These new authorities will allow the FDA to act quickly to get answers when there are questions about the safety of a drug, and to act decisively to mitigate the risks when the evidence shows that a drug presents a safety issue. With these authorities, we will never again have a situation where a critical labeling change takes 2 years to complete, as was the case with Vioxx. When we are talking about drugs that are already on the market and in widespread use, any delay can put millions of patients in harm's way.

By creating CPER we hope to restore confidence in the medicines that so many Americans rely on to safeguard their health and well-being. Patients should have the peace of mind that the drugs they take to help them will not hurt them instead. We must restore public confidence in the words ``FDA-Approved.'' Unfortunately, events of the past few years have seriously tarnished the FDA's image and put millions of patients at undue risk. Recent developments have cast into doubt the FDA's ability to ensure that the drugs that it approves are safe--especially once they are on the market. These concerns are bad for patients, bad for physicians, and bad for the pharmaceutical industry.

Like many Americans, I have been deeply disturbed by the revelations of the significant risk associated with widely-used medications to treat pain and depression. These revelations raise legitimate questions about the safety of drugs that have already been approved. It would be one thing if these drugs were in a trial phase, but safety issues are being identified in drugs once they are on the market and in widespread use. Health risks significant enough to remove drugs from the market or significantly restrict their use are becoming clear only after millions of Americans have been exposed to real or potential harm.

It has been estimated that more than 100,000 Americans might have been seriously injured or killed by a popular pain medication, while millions of children have been prescribed antidepressants that could put them at risk. This recent spate of popular medicines being identified as unsafe underscores the need to take additional steps to monitor and protect patient safety after a drug has been approved. Allowing the status quo on drug safety at the FDA is unacceptable. Real reform is needed now.

An internal study conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the Inspector General in 2002 revealed that approximately one-fifth of drug reviewers were pressured to approve a drug despite concerns about safety, efficacy, or quality. In addition, more than one-third said they were ``not at all'' or only ``somewhat'' confident that final decisions of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) adequately assessed safety. A more recent survey of 997 FDA scientists conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility found that 420

FDA scientists reported that they knew of cases in which HHS or FDA political appointees inappropriately injected themselves into FDA determinations or actions.

I look forward to working with industry, physicians, medical journals, patient groups, and my colleagues--including the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi--to move this legislation forward. These bills have already been endorsed by Consumers Union, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), the National Women's Health Network, and Public Citizen. I thank these organizations for lending their expertise as we crafted these bills. I also want to recognize the New England Journal of Medicine and the American Psychiatric Association for their support in the crafting of the FACT Act.

Clinical trials are critically important to protecting the safety and health of the American public. For this reason, clinical trial results must not be treated as information that can be hidden from scrutiny. Recent events have made it clear that a clinical trials databank is needed. Patients and physicians agree that such a databank is important to our public health. At the same time, there have been disturbing reports that suggest the FDA does not place enough emphasis on drug safety, and that concerns raised by those in the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology (formerly the Office of Drug Safety) at CDER are sometimes ignored and even suppressed. Our legislation will ensure that those who are responsible for monitoring the safety of drugs already on the market at the FDA will have the independence, resources, and authority to ensure medicines intended to help patients won't instead end up causing them harm. I urge my colleagues to support these bills, and I am hopeful that they will become law as soon as possible.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the American Psychiatric Association supporting the FACT Act be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch and a bipartisan group of at least 15 original cosponsors in introducing comprehensive antiaging legislation--the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007.

This bill will provide a comprehensive approach to gang violence by: helping those on the front lines of enforcement, by adopting new criminal laws and tougher penalties against those who commit gang- related and other violent acts; authorizing hundreds of millions of dollars for gang-related investigations and prosecutions, and new funds for witness protection; and identifying successful community programs, and investing significant resources in schools and civic and religious organizations to prevent teenagers and other young people from joining gangs in the first place.

On January 10 of this year, officials in Van Nuys, CA, reported that two teenage boys were shot in a reported gang-related shooting.

A few weeks earlier, on December 29, Visalia, CA, law enforcement officials reported two separate shootings and the wounding of two minors.

On December 24, San Diego officials noted how a 16 year old was shot in the leg in gang violence.

On December 22, a 9-year-old girl in Los Angeles was just washing dishes with her mom inside her home--until gang members exchanged fire across the street, and a bullet tore through the front wall of her house and struck her in the head.

And that came 5 days after Cheryl Green, a 14-year-old black girl who was talking to friends, was shot and killed by two Hispanic gang members.

The New York Times just reported on the Cheryl Green shooting, but unfortunately, I see gang violence in the news almost every day in California, with gang-related shootings of children almost too numerous to count. Perhaps the worst occurred last September, when Los Angeles experienced a new low.

Three-year-old Kaitlyn Avila was shot point-blank by a gang member who mistakenly thought her father was a member of a rival gang. The gang member shot and wounded her father, then intentionally fired into little Kaitlyn's chest.

It is the first time ever that law enforcement officials remember a young child being ``targeted'' in a gang-related shooting.

Unfortunately, this shooting is only a symptom of the disease that has taken hold of our cities--gang violence. The violence perpetrated by gang members affects not only those associated with gangs, but also police officers and innocent bystanders. It impacts not only individuals, but also our communities.

It stops mothers from allowing their children to play outside. It prevents

the elderly from taking walks in their neighborhoods. And it creates an environment of fear.

It is past time for the Federal Government to provide a hand of assistance to state and local law enforcement. And it is past time to come to grips with our country's escalating levels of gang violence.

Just last month the FBI released its Uniform Crime Report for the first half of 2006. The news was disturbing.

The report showed an alarming increase in homicides, assaults, robberies and other violent crimes across the U.S.--a surge of nearly 3.7 percent for the first 6 months of 2006.

This, of course follows on the heels of the FBI's 2005 figures, which had showed a 2.5 percent jump in violent crime.

At the time, those 2005 figures had represented the largest increase in violent crime in the U.S. in 15 years. But this newly announced increase for the first half of 2006 is almost 50 percent higher.

Of course, a big part of this increase is due to gang violence. Just as we heard when the 2005 figures were released, criminologists point to the spread of violent street gangs as a major cause of the 2006 increase in violent crime as well.

The warnings we have received about the links between the increase in violent crime and gangs have been steady and consistent.

When the FBI announced its 2005 figures last June, the Washington Post reported how criminal justice experts specifically identified ``an influx of gangs into medium-sized cities'' as a big reason for this increase. According to the Los Angeles Times, Houston police attributed their 2005 increase to gang members who evacuated New Orleans after Katrina.

When the 2006 figures were announced, the Washington Post quoted criminologist James Alan Fox, who described how ``[w]e have many high- crime areas where gangs have made a comeback.'' The L.A. Times noted how ``[e]xperts said the crime upsurge reflected an increase in gang violence, particularly in midsized cities.'' Cities like Houston, which experienced a massive 28 percent increase in violent crime.

The headline for the Sacramento Bee, reporting on the FBI's 31 percent reported increase in violent crime for that county, said it all: ``Gangs blamed for increase, which is part of [a] national hike in mayhem in '06.''

Even among the cities that experienced a 2006 reduction in violent crime--such as Los Angeles, which moved into the ranks of the safest cities in the U.S.--Mayor Villairaigosa described gang violence as the ``glaring exception.'' Gang crime was up by 14 percent in Los Angeles-- and up 40 percent in San Fernando Valley, and 57 percent of Los Angeles' 478 homicides for 2006 were attributed to gangs--up 50 percent from 2005. And 86 percent of those murder victims were African American or Latino.

There can no longer be serious debate that gang violence is a big part of this problem.

The problem of gang violence in America is daunting. According to the FBI, there are now at least 30,000 gangs nationwide, with 800,000 members.

In California, the State attorney general now estimates that there are 171,000 juveniles and adults committed to criminal street gangs and their way of life. That's greater than the population of 28 California counties.

From 1992 to 2003, there were more than 7,500 gang-related homicides reported in California.

In 2004, more than one-third of the 2,000 homicides in California-- 698--were gang-related.

And it is worse among teens and young adults. In that same year, nearly 50 percent of the murders of 18 to 29 year olds were gang related. And nearly 60 percent of the murders of teens under 18 were gang related.

The list of people murdered by gangs includes some of our finest law enforcement officers:

Oceanside Police Officer, Dan Bessant, gunned down from behind just last month, in an incident described as eerily similar to a similar killing in 2003, when Oceanside Police Officer, Tony Zepetella, was shot and killed by a known gang member.

Los Angeles Police Officer Ricardo Lizarraga, killed while responding to a domestic violence call, by a man who drew a gun and shot him twice in the back. The suspect was a known member of the Rollin20s Bloods.

Merced Police Officer Stephan Gray, a member of his department's gang violence unit. Gray was shot and killed when a suspect--a gang member he had encountered before--fired two bullets into his chest.

Los Angeles Sherriff's Deputy Jeffrey Ortiz: As a member of his department's anti-gang task force, Ortiz had been going door to door in a gang-plagued neighborhood of L.A. He had just knocked on a door and was checking IDs when he was shot in the head at point-blank range. The alleged gunman is a suspected gang member wanted on an outstanding warrant for attempted murder.

Burbank Police Officer Matthew Pavelka: Two gunmen whom he had stopped for driving without license plates got out and showered him with gunfire. They were allegedly affiliated with the Vineland Boys gang.

California Highway Patrol Officer Thomas Steiner, killed after walking out of the Pomona courthouse after testifying in a series of traffic cases, by a 16-year-old intent on ``killing a cop'' to prove himself to the Pomona 12th street gang.

San Francisco Police Officer Isaac Espinoza: The first San Francisco police officer slain on duty in more than a decade, killed when an apparent ``Westmob'' gang member fired 14 rounds from an AK-47 assault rifle.

Gang killings also impact children and families. Unfortunately, 3- year-old Kaitlyn Avila is not alone: There is also 11-year-old Mynisha Crenshaw of San Bernardino, CA, a little girl shot and killed in November 2005;

Seven-week-old infant Glenn ``Baby G'' Molex, shot and killed on September 28, 2003, by one of the ``Down Below'' Gang after 28 bullets penetrated his family's apartment in San Francisco's Bayview District;

Joseph Swift, a 13-year-old boy shot outside a home after attending church in Los Angeles in 2003; and

Eight-year-old Sunny Elijah Peralez, shot in East Los Angeles by the Ghetto Boyz in 1999.

And this problem extends far beyond California--as evidenced by 8- year-old Kyron Butler, killed by a stray bullet during a Jersey Park Boys gang shootout in Smithfield, VA, in 2003, and 9-year-old Genesis Gonzalez, a little girl shot by a car of Crips gang members in Nevada in 2002.

As gangs have continued to spread across our country, increasing in violence and power in every State, they are no longer just a big city problem. They have metastasized from Los Angeles and Chicago to the medium and smaller cities where they face less competition.

The FBI now estimates that gangs are having an impact on at least 2,500 communities across the nation.

In the latest FBI statistics, violent crime and murder grew fastest in the midsized and smaller cities--not in our largest urban areas. The average midsized city, in fact, had a surge in overall violent crime of more than 5 percent in a single year.

It is clear that gangs engage in drug trafficking, robbery, extortion, prostitution, gun trafficking, and murder. They destroy neighborhoods, cripple families and kill innocent people.

Los Angeles Police Department Chief Bill Bratton put it bluntly:

There is nothing more insidious than these gangs. They are

worse than the Mafia. Show me a year in New York where the

Mafia indiscriminately killed 300 people. You can't.

Our national gang problem is immense and growing, and it is not going away. Our cities and States need help. The many law enforcement officers that have spoken to me and others in my office say one thing clearly--short-term infusions are great, but what they really need is a long-term Federal commitment to combat gang violence.

A massive report just prepared for the City of Los Angeles even suggested that what is needed is a ``Marshal Plan'' initiative to combat gang violence.

Senator Hatch and I have been introducing comprehensive Federal gang legislation for over a decade. Our gang bills have been modified and refined over the years, most recently in legislation that we negotiated with the House for possible inclusion in the DOD Authorization bill last year.

The bill that we introduce today essentially takes that bill, but removes

all of its new death penalties. It has no mandatory minimums, and we have eliminated juvenile justice changes that previously proved to be an impediment to the larger bill's passage.

The bill that we offer today will provide a comprehensive solution to gang violence, combining enforcement and prevention efforts in a collaborative approach that has proven effective in models like Operation Ceasefire, and in Modesto, CA.

This bill would establish new Federal gang crimes and tougher Federal penalties.

Today's Federal street gang laws are frankly weak, and are almost never used. Currently, a person committing a gang crime might have extra time tacked on to the end of their Federal sentence. That is because Federal law currently focuses on gang violence only as a sentencing enhancement, rather than a crime unto itself.

The bill that I offer today would make it a separate Federal crime for any criminal street gang member to commit, conspire or attempt to commit violent crimes--including murder, kidnapping, arson, extortion-- in furtherance of the gang.

And the penalties for gang members committing such crimes would increase considerably.

For gang-related murder, kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse or maiming, the penalties would range up to life imprisonment.

For any other serious violent felony, the penalty would range up to 30 years--which in the Federal system means without parole.

And for other crimes of violence--defined as the actual or intended use of physical force against the person of another--the penalty could bring up to 20 years in prison.

The bill would also create a new crime for recruiting juveniles and adults into a criminal street gang, with a penalty of up to 10 years, or if the recruiting involved a juvenile or recruiting from prison, up to 20 years;

Create new Federal crimes for committing violent crimes in connection with drug trafficking, and increase existing penalties for violent crimes in aid of racketeering;

Enact a host of other violent crime reforms, including closing a loophole that had allowed carjackers to avoid convictions, increasing the penalties for those who use guns in violent crimes or transfer guns knowing they will be used in crimes, limiting bail for violent felons who possess firearms, and in a number of other respects cracking down harder on those who commit violent crimes; and

Make a long-term Federal commitment to fight gangs, by authorizing over $1 billion in new funds over the next 5 years for enforcement, prevention, and witness protection.

This would include $500 million for the development of High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Areas, or HIIGAAs.

These HIIGAAs would mirror the successful HIDTA--High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area model--under which Federal, State and local agents coordinate investigations and prosecutions. And this $500 million would also be split 50/50, so that for every dollar spent on law enforcement, a dollar would be spent on prevention and intervention.

This balanced approach--of prevention and intervention plus tough penalties--will send a clear message to gang members: a new day has arrived. This bill will provide them with new opportunities, with schools and social services agencies empowered to make alternatives to gangs a realistic option. But if gang members continue to engage in violence, they will face new and serious Federal consequences.

I am pleased to report that this bill has already been endorsed by the National Sheriff's Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Association of Police Officers.

For more than 10 years now, Senator Hatch and I have been trying to pass Federal anti-gang legislation. There have been times when we have gotten close. Unfortunately, while Congress has failed to act, violent street gangs have only expanded nationwide and become more empowered and entrenched in other States and communities.

I believe this bill can pass the Senate and be enacted into law, especially after these changes that we have made and our previous negotiations conducted with members of the House and Senate.

The time has arrived for us to finally address this problem, and this bill is well-suited to help solve it. 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, I rise today to introduce the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007. I am honored to have the support and cosponsorship of Senator Leahy and Senator Specter, the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, on this important legislation. I look forward to working closely with Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter to advance it through the Judiciary Committee and secure its enactment into law. I also appreciate the cosponsorship of Senator Smith, Senator Kerry and Senator Collins on this bipartisan bill.

Our bill seeks to enhance our criminal justice system by encouraging talented law school graduates to serve as criminal prosecutors and public defenders. The bill would establish a student loan repayment program for qualified attorneys who agree to remain employed for at least 3 years as State or local criminal prosecutors, or as State, local, or Federal public defenders in criminal cases.

This legislation is supported by the American Bar Association, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Association of Prosecutor Coordinators, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

For our criminal justice system to function effectively, we need to have a sufficient supply of dedicated and competent attorneys working in prosecutor and public defender offices. However, many qualified law school graduates who have a strong motivation to work in the public sector find it economically impossible due to the overwhelming burden of student loan debt.

The legal profession and our communities pay a severe price when law graduates are shut out from pursuing public service careers due to educational debt. When prosecutor and public defender offices cannot attract new lawyers or keep experienced ones, their ability to protect the public interest is compromised. Such offices may find themselves unable to take on new cases due to staffing shortages, and their existing staff may be forced to handle unmanageable workloads. Cases may suffer from lengthy and unnecessary delays, and some cases may be mishandled by inexperienced or overworked attorneys. As a result, innocent people may be sent to jail, and criminals may go free.

Our bill, the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act, is designed to help remedy some of these problems. The availability of student loan repayment can be a powerful incentive for attracting talented new lawyers to public service employment. Our proposal complements loan forgiveness options that currently exist for Federal prosecutors. Passage of this bill will help make prosecutor and public defender jobs at all levels of government more attractive and financially viable for law school graduates who have incurred significant educational debt.

Our bill is named after the late John R. Justice, former president of the National District Attorneys Association and a distinguished prosecutor from the State of South Carolina. John Justice was instrumental in promoting student loan repayment efforts for law school graduates seeking to work in public service. This bill is a fitting tribute to his dedicated efforts.

The need for this legislation is evident. In recent years, the costs of a law school education have skyrocketed. Researchers found that tuition increased about 340 percent from 1985 to 2002 for private law school students and for out-of-State students at public law schools. In-State students at public law schools saw their tuition jump about 500 percent during that time. In 2005, the average annual tuition was $28,900 for private law schools, $22,987 for nonresident students at public law schools, and $13,145 for resident students at public law schools. These tuition costs do not include the costs of food, lodging, books, fees and personal expenses over 3 years of law school.

Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of law students--over 80 percent-- must borrow funds to finance their legal education. According to the American Bar Association, the average total cumulative educational debt for law school graduates in the class of 2005 was $78,763 for private schools and $51,056 for public schools. Two-thirds of law students generally carry additional unpaid debt from their undergraduate studies. These education debts are serious financial obligations that must be repaid, as any default on a loan triggers significant consequences.

Many law students graduate with a deep commitment to pursuing a career in public service. However, they need a level of income sufficient to meet the demands of their educational loan liabilities, and public service salaries have not kept up with rising law school debt burdens. From 1985 to 2002, while law school tuition increased 340 percent for private law school students and 500 percent for in-state students at public law schools, salaries for public service lawyers such as prosecutors and public defenders increased by just 70 percent. According to the National Association for Law Placement, NALP, the median entry-level salary for public defenders is $43,000. With 11 to 15 years of experience, the median salary

increases only to $65,500. The salary progression for State prosecuting attorneys is similar, starting at around $46,000 and progressing to about $68,000 for those with 11 to 15 years of experience.

Many law school graduates can earn much more and repay their student loans much faster by entering the private sector. According to a NALP survey, in 2005 the median salary for first-year attorneys at law firms ranged from $67,500 in firms of 2 to 25 attorneys to $135,000 in firms of 500 attorneys or more. The median first-year salary for all firms participating in the survey was $100,000. When choosing between a private sector job and a job as a prosecutor or defender, talented law graduates with large debt burdens must take into consideration this salary differential.

It is clear that large student debt deters many law graduates from pursuing public service careers. According to a national survey of 1,622 students from 117 law schools conducted by Equal Justice Works, the Partnership for Public Service, and NALP in 2002, 66 percent of respondents stated that law school debt prevented them from considering a public interest or government job.

Some law graduates initially accept public service jobs despite their high debt burdens. However, many attorneys cannot repay their loan obligations as well as pay all their other living expenses on a government salary. Attorneys who begin careers in public service, and who would like to remain, frequently leave after a few years when they find their debts are hindering their ability to provide for themselves, much less support their families or save for retirement.

Many public service employers report having a difficult time attracting and retaining talented law graduates. Prosecutor and public defender offices across the country have vacancies they cannot fill because new law graduates cannot afford to work for them. Alternatively, those who do hire law graduates find that, because of educational debt burdens, those whom they do hire leave just at the point when they have acquired the experience to provide the most valuable services. According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics survey, 24 percent of state prosecutors' offices reported problems in 2005 with recruiting new attorneys, and 35 percent reported problems in retaining attorneys. Another survey administered by Equal Justice Works and the National Legal Aid & Defender Association in 2002 found that over 60 percent of public interest law employers, including state and local prosecutor and public defender offices, reported difficulty in attorney recruitment and retention.

I recently received a letter from Bernard Murray, President of the Prosecutors Bar Association and Chief of the Criminal Prosecutions Bureau for the Cook County State's Attorney's Office in Chicago. He wrote: ``[W]e are faced with enormous hurdles in attracting first-rate candidates to pursue a career with the Cook County State's Attorney's Office. We simply cannot afford to pay new assistants a salary high enough to offset the enormous debt load that follows them from their law school graduation.''

His letter also stated: ``We are observing an exodus of talent at about the three to five year experience mark in the office when assistants are no longer able to postpone life events such as marriage, home ownership, and starting a family. We are losing much of our best talent before they even have a chance to put their skills to use in felony cases.''

I also received a copy of a letter from Michael Judge, Chief Defender of the Los Angeles County Public Defender Office, the oldest and largest such office in the Nation. His letter states the following about his office's efforts to recruit new lawyers: ``It became necessary to expand the ambit of recruiting from locally to statewide, to the western region of the country and now to the entire nation to ensure the success of our recruiting in the face of the deterrent of crushing student loan debt. . . . In some sense we are `poaching' in the territory of other defender offices. . . . I have experienced more `turndowns' of employment offers in the recent past than during my first 9 or 10 years as Chief Defender. I attribute that to the `ice cold water in the face syndrome' experienced by motivated candidates making the final net calculations and discovering a defender career can be an adventure in deficit financing.''

It harms the public interest when communities face a shortage of attorneys who can effectively prosecute cases and provide criminal defendants with their constitutional right to counsel. Sadly, these situations occur all too frequently. We can--and should--do more to help prosecutor and public defender offices recruit and retain attorneys in the face of increasing student debt burdens and higher private sector salaries.

Our legislation would help by establishing, within the Department of Justice, a program of student loan repayment for borrowers who agree to remain employed for at least three years as State or local criminal prosecutors, or as State, local, or Federal public defenders in criminal cases. It would allow eligible attorneys to receive student loan debt repayments of up to $10,000 per year, with a maximum aggregate over time of $60,000. The bill would cover student loans made, insured, or guaranteed under the Higher Education Act of 1965, including consolidation loans.

Under our bill, repayment benefits for public sector attorneys would be made available on a first-come, first-served basis, and would be subject to the availability of appropriations. Priority would be given to borrowers who received repayment benefits for the preceding fiscal year and who have completed less than three years of the first required service period. Borrowers could enter into an additional agreement, after the required three-year period, for a successive period of service which may be less than three years. Attorneys who do not complete their required period of service would be required to repay the government.

In addition to covering those who agree to serve in State and local prosecutor and defender offices, our bill complements existing loan forgiveness programs that are currently available for Federal prosecutors by making loan relief available to Federal public defenders as well.

Our bill is modeled on a loan repayment program that has been created for Federal executive branch employees and that has enjoyed growing success. Federal law currently permits Federal executive branch agencies to repay their employees' student loans, up to $10,000 in a year, and up to a lifetime maximum of $60,000. In exchange, the employee must agree to remain with the agency for at least three years. According to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), during fiscal year 2005 there were 479 lawyers working in Federal agencies who received loan repayments under this program, including 242 lawyers for the Securities and Exchange Commission and 85 attorneys for the Department of Justice. According to OPM, Federal agencies across the board say that the program has been of tremendous benefit in recruiting and retaining attorneys.

As I have worked on behalf of our legislation, I have been moved by the personal stories of attorneys who have been trying to embark on a career of public service but have been struggling because of student loans. One compelling letter I received came from Aisha Cornelius, an Assistant State's Attorney in Cook County, Illinois. Her letter said the following: ``I am a full-time prosecutor in Cook County. I wanted this job because I desired to use my law degree for public service. Although making a lot of money was not my primary goal, I had hoped at least for financial stability. This, however, is difficult to accomplish as my student loan payments take up a considerable amount of my income. I have more than $100,000 in student loan debt. I am also a single mother with a five-year-old daughter in kindergarten. In order to work, I have to pay for before- and after-school care for her. . . . I depleted my savings while studying for the bar exam last year and I essentially live check to check. In order to supplement my income, I sell cosmetics and skin care. I am also in the process of applying for a part-time evening teaching position. I love my job and serving the greater good. The only reason I would ever leave public service is if I could no longer afford to stay. This is much more of a possibility than I would like it to be. Loan repayment assistance would help me stay longer in a position

that allows me to serve the community during the day while giving me the freedom and peace of mind to focus [on] my daughter at night.''

I appreciate Ms. Cornelius's willingness to share her story with me. By enacting and funding this legislation, we can take a meaningful step toward alleviating some of the financial burden for attorneys such as Ms. Cornelius who choose careers as criminal prosecutors and public defenders.

I know there are many other law graduates who, like Aisha Cornelius, want to apply their legal training and develop their skills in the public sector, but are deterred by the weight of student loan obligations. Passage of the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act will help them make their career dreams a reality. I urge its swift adoption.

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

Mr. President, we are going to have a debate on Iraq, and it will be a historic debate about that war, a war that has demanded unparalleled sacrifices from our men and women in uniform.

While we have our disagreements with the President's conduct of the war, all 100 Senators stand side by side in supporting our troops. They have done everything asked of them, carrying out a difficult mission with honor and skill. We as a country owe the brave men and women in our military a debt of gratitude and have responsibility to ensure our veterans receive both the thanks of a grateful nation and the benefits they have earned,

and that is a subject I would like to discuss briefly this morning.

About 8 years ago, one of my staff came to me and said: Senator, do you realize that if a person is disabled in the military and retires from the military, they cannot draw on both their benefits? I said: What? And he repeated that. If you are in the military and you become disabled and you retire, you cannot draw both your benefits. I thought my staffer didn't know what he was talking about, but he did. That was the law in our country and had been for many years, and it was a wrong law. That law is still mostly in effect, and that is too bad.

When someone who is disabled retires from the U.S. military, he or she cannot draw on both their benefits. If you retire from any other branch of the Federal Government, such as the Bureau of Land Management, you can draw both your disability pay and your retirement pay but, no, not if you are in the military. These people have been robbed of their benefits, in my opinion, and I refer specifically to thousands of men and women who have been denied their retirement because of an unfair policy referred to as concurrent receipt.

By law, disabled veterans, as I have said, cannot collect disability pay and retirement pay at the same time. What does this mean? It means for every dollar of compensation a disabled veteran receives as a result of their injuries, they must sacrifice a dollar of their retirement pay they earned in the service of our Nation. In many cases, this ban takes away a veteran's full retirement pay, wiping away the benefits he or she earned in 20 or more years of service. That is wrong.

Concurrent receipt is a special tax on the men and women who keep us safe. Few veterans can afford to live on their retirement pay alone. Those burdened with disability face an even greater struggle, often denied any postservice work. They receive disability compensation to pay for pain, suffering, and loss of future earnings caused by a service-connected illness or injury. No other Federal retiree is forced to make forfeit of their retirement--only our disabled military retirees. This is not just an error, it is a disgrace.

Of course, concurrent receipt is not a new problem. I hope most everyone in the Senate knows about it. This is the seventh year I have introduced legislation to give disabled veterans the support they have earned, and I will continue fighting until we succeed, ending this unacceptable policy.

I first of all want to suggest that the two managers of the Defense bill, every year since I have worked on this, have been Senator Warner and Senator Levin, and they have helped me. I appreciate that very much. They have been thoughtful and understanding in their approach to this issue. What has happened these past 7 years is good but not really good. We have chipped away at this unfair policy of concurrent receipt.

In 2000, I introduced legislation to eliminate this unfair policy for the first time. I did it at the end of the 106th Congress. This legislation passed the Senate but was removed by the House during conference. So I reintroduced the legislation in the 107th Congress, in both 2001 and 2002. Unfortunately, it was once again adopted by the Senate but removed in conference.

In 2003, I proposed legislation to allow disabled veterans with at least a 50-percent disability rating to become eligible for full concurrent receipt over a 10-year phase-in period. Despite veto threats from the Bush administration, Congress passed this very important version of concurrent receipt.

In 2004, I took it a step further. I introduced legislation to eliminate the 10-year phase-in period for veterans with a 100-percent disability. The motivation here was to get concurrent receipt to the most severely disabled veterans. We thought many of these veterans would never see the benefits with a 10-year phase-in. They are old World War II veterans, where the average age is well over 80 now, and to think they would have to wait 10 years for a phase-in isn't very fair.

In 2005, we focused on the most severely disabled veterans and successfully eliminated the 10-year phase-in for veterans listed as unemployable. I was pleased with the passage of that 2005 amendment but disappointed that the conference committee chose not to enact this valuable legislation for veterans rated as unemployable until 2009. So in 2006, I sought to get unemployable veterans immediate relief, but we didn't act. Congress didn't act.

So here we are in 2007, back at it again. Today, concurrent receipt remains one of my highest priorities. It is a priority, I believe, in fairness. We need to continue to chip away at this policy, and I am committed to that goal 100 percent, so that 100 percent of disabled veterans get the money they earn in being part of the great fighting force of this Nation.

We are blessed in this country to be defended by an All-Volunteer Army. These patriots put their lives and safety on the line because they love this country. I believe it is time for this country and this Congress to repay their service and sacrifice, and that is why I am reintroducing today the Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2007.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to resolve a Nevada water rights matter that has lasted more than a decade.

This bill, the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley Water Rights Settlement Act, would ratify an agreement reached last fall by the State of Nevada, the Tribes, many individual water users, and the United States. I am pleased that the parties came together, asserted their interests, made compromises, and reached an agreement. Each party had different--and frequently conflicting--water claims, water needs, and ideas on water use and conservation. I appreciate the parties' hard work and their commitment to end expensive litigation to reach an agreement that will permanently resolve the water rights matters along the East Fork of the Owyhee River. This bill, if enacted, will ratify the agreement reached by the parties.

The primary purpose of this bill is to approve, ratify and confirm the agreement that addresses the Tribes' water rights, the rights of upstream water users, and the implementation of a plan for the parties to exercise their water rights.

The Agreement quantifies the Tribes' surface water rights and groundwater claims in Nevada. The Tribes will establish a water code and administer the quantified rights on the Reservation accordingly.

The Agreement also states that the water rights of the upstream water users who live off the Reservation will be determined and administered by the State Engineer. Under the settlement, the parties have agreed to a limitation on the number of acres that can be irrigated by the upstream water users.

The settlement's implementation plan describes how the rights of the respective parties will be administered and disputes will be resolved. It describes that the surface water basin will be closed, and provides that a groundwater basin will be declared a basin in need of additional administration under state law. The agreement further addresses operation of the system particularly during times of shortage. Under this part of the plan, upstream water users gain a small amount of water storage in the Wild Horse Reservoir.

The second purpose of this bill is to settle the Tribes' long- standing claims against the United States for damages caused by the Bureau of Reclamation's Duck Valley Irrigation Project, related Bureau of Indian Affairs projects, and the mismanagement of tribal resources, particularly the destruction of the Tribe's salmon and steelhead trout fishing stock.

The Shoshone-Paiutes have a long history in Nevada and Idaho. The Tribes roamed the region well before the Duck Valley Reservation was established by Executive Order in 1877. The Reservation today encompasses approximately 290,000 acres of land held in trust by the federal government for the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes.

The Reservation draws water from three primary sources: 1. the East Fork of the Owyhee River that flows through the Reservation from south to north from the Nevada side; 2. Blue Creek, a tributary to the Owyhee that flows north to south through the Reservation until it meets the Owyhee on the Idaho side of the Reservation; and 3. Mary's Creek, located in the northeastern part of the Reservation, flowing northeasterly through the Reservation and into Idaho.

When the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Duck Valley Indian Irrigation Project was initiated in the 1930s, the project placed over 12,000 acres of land under irrigation. Like many Indian water projects, the Project was only partially completed and never fully funded, which accounted for the Projects' disrepair, resulted in reduced storage capacity, and an inability to reach the goal of maximizing the acres in production.

With the construction of the Bureau of Reclamation's Owyhee Irrigation Project Dam in the 1930s, the Tribes' salmon runs were destroyed.

The affects of these federal projects on the Tribes' resources and culture and the Federal Government's failure to protect tribal water rights require places the United States in the position of compensating the Tribes for their loss. The Tribes value the loss to their resources and culture at level much higher than what Senator Ensign and I propose. While the United States can never fully compensate the Tribes for their loss, I appreciate the Tribes' willingness to accept the settlement figure and put an end to this painful part of our sovereign- to-sovereign relationship.

The bill, if enacted, would authorize two settlement funds--a development fund and a maintenance fund.

The development fund, to be authorized at $45 million over 5 fiscal years, would fund tribal water development projects. After careful research and consultation with its members and advisors, the Tribes have identified many projects to increase their economic opportunities. The Tribes are preparing to rehabilitate the dilapidated Duck Valley Irrigation Project, increase the amount of irrigable lands in agricultural production, develop a Wildlife Habitat Project, and undertake other economic development projects to enhance the Reservation economy and contribute to the permanent homeland purpose of the Duck Valley Reservation.

The maintenance fund, authorized at $15 million over 5 fiscal years, would fund the refurbishment and maintenance of the Reservation's water infrastructure.

The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley Water Rights Settlement Act is important legislation. It reflects the compromises of our constituents who worked hard to reach agreement on matters that affect their livelihoods and cultures. I believe this bill benefit the Tribes, the ranchers and upstream water users, and those residents in the northern Nevada and southern Idaho region.

I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to ensure timely review and passage of this bill.

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