Toxic Right-to-Know Protection Act

Mr. President, I rise with Senator Leahy, Senator Sanders, and Senator Mikulski to introduce legislation to address the continuing threat posed by cluster bombs to innocent civilians around the world.

Our legislation places common sense restrictions on the use of cluster bombs. It prevents any funds from being spent to use, sell or transfer cluster munitions: that have a failure rate of more than one percent; unless the rules of engagement or the agreement applicable to the sale or transfer of such cluster munitions specify that: the cluster munitions will only be used against clearly defined military targets and; will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians.

The bill also requires the President to submit a report to the appropriate Congressional committees on the plan, including estimated costs, by either the United States Government or the government to which U.S. cluster bombs are sold or transferred to clean up unexploded cluster bombs.

Finally, the bill includes a national security waiver that allows the President to waive the prohibition on the use, sale, or transfer of cluster bombs with a failure rate of more than one percent, if he determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States.

The human death toll and injury from these weapons are felt everyday. Innocent children think they are picking up a play toy in the field and suddenly their arm is blown off.

Last November, the International Committee for the Red Cross called for a ban on the use of cluster bombs in highly populated areas. They joined other leading organizations who have also decried the indiscriminate use of these weapons: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Friends Committee on National Legislation,

Handicap International, and Landmine Action.

Several countries, including Belgium, Germany, and Norway have either instituted a ban or a moratorium on the use and procurement of cluster bombs. More than 30 countries are actively calling for increased international controls on the weapon.

And next week, Norway will host an international conference to explore the possibility of a international treaty to ban certain types of cluster munitions and provide support for the victims of the weapons.

We need to adjust our policies for their use and can do so easily.

Every year, hundreds of civilians are killed and many more are injured due to unexploded cluster bombs.

From the fields of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, through the streets of Kosovo and Iraq, to the arid hills of Afghanistan and the playgrounds of Lebanon, these lethal relics of war continue to cripple life, hope, and peace.

Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that contain up to hundreds of small submunitions, or individual ``bomblets.''

They are intended for attacking enemy troop formations and armor covering over a half mile radius.

Yet, in practice, they pose a real threat to the safety of civilians when used in populated areas because they leave hundreds of unexploded bombs over a very large area and they are often inaccurate.

The non-profit group Handicap International studied the effects of cluster bombs in 24 countries and regions, including Afghanistan, Chechnya, Laos, and Lebanon.

Its report found that civilians make up 98 percent of those killed or injured by cluster bombs. 27 percent of the casualties are children.

As the report shows, cluster bombs end up in streets and cities where men and women go to work and do their shopping.

They end up in groves of trees and fields where children play.

They end up in homes where families live.

In some cases, up to 40 percent of cluster bombs fail to explode, posing a particular danger to civilians long after the conflict has ended.

This is particularly and sadly true of children because bomblets are no bigger than a D battery and in some cases resemble a tennis ball.

Children, outside with their friends and relatives, come across these cluster bombs, pick them up because they look a ball, and start playing with them.

A terrible result often follows as these stories demonstrate.

On March 25, 2003 Abdallah Yaqoob was sleeping in his bed in his family's home in Basra, Iraq when he was hit by shrapnel from a cluster munition strike that hit his neighborhood.

He lost his arm, and his abdomen was severely injured. Abdallah was hit by British L20A1/M85 munition.

Falah Hassan, 13, was injured by an unexploded ground-launched submunition in Iraq on March 26, 2003.

The explosion severed his right hand and spread shrapnel through his body. He lost his left index finger and soft tissue in his lower limbs. Source: Bonnie Docherty/Human Rights Watch.

Hassan Hammade, a 13 year old Lebanese boy, lost four fingers and sustained injuries to his stomach and shoulder after he picked up an unexploded cluster bomb in front of an orange tree.

He said, ``I started playing with it and it blew up. I didn't know it was a cluster bomb--it just looked like a burned out piece of metal.'' Source: Christian Science Monitor.

All the children are too scared to go out now, we just play on the main roads or in our homes.

These unexploded cluster bombs become, in essence, de facto landmines.

Instead of targeting troop formations and enemy armor, unexploded bomblets target innocent civilians, seriously maiming or killing their victims.

This runs counter to our values and counter to the laws of war.

Make no mistake, the impact of unexploded cluster bombs on civilian populations has been devastating.

In Laos alone there are between 9 and 27 million unexploded cluster bombs, leftovers from U.S. bombing campaigns in the 1960s and 1970s. Approximately 11,000 people, 30 percent of them children, have been killed or injured since the war ended. Source: International Committee for the Red Cross.

In the first Gulf War, 61,000 cluster bombs were used containing 20 million bomblets. Since 1991, unexploded bomblets have killed 1,600 innocent men, women, and children and injured more than 2,500.

In Afghanistan in 2001, 1,228 cluster bombs with 248,056 bomblets were used. Between October 2001 and November 2002, 127 civilians were killed by them, 70 percent of them under the age of 18.

In Iraq in 2003, 13,000 cluster bombs with nearly 2 million bomblets were used. Combining the first and second Gulf Wars, the total number of unexploded bomblets in the region is approximately 1.2 million.

An estimated 1,220 Kuwaitis and 400 Iraqi civilians have been killed since 1991. Source: Human Rights Watch.

What gives rise, in part, to my bill are recent developments in Lebanon over alleged use of cluster bombs by Israel.

It is estimated that Israel dropped 4 million bomblets in southern Lebanon and 1 million of these bomblets failed to explode.

As Lebanese children and families have returned to their homes and begin to rebuild, they have been exposed to the danger of these unexploded bomblets lying in the rubble.

22 people, including six children have been killed and 133, including 47 children, injured.

One United Nations official estimates that 40 percent of the cluster bombs launched by Israel in Southern Lebanon failed to explode.

So far, more than 58,000 unexploded bomblets in Lebanon have been destroyed but it will take 12 to 15 months to complete the effort. Source: United Nations humanitarian coordinator for Lebanon.

Looking at these figures it is clear that several countries are awash with unexploded bomblets.

The number is indeed staggering and the consequences are real.

Each death that results from an unexploded American bomblet weakens American diplomacy and American values.

How are we supposed to win the hearts and minds of civilians in these countries when we leave behind such deadly weapons that indiscriminately kill boys and girls?

How are we supposed to speed up reconstruction efforts--building homes, schools, hospitals, clinics, and ensuring electricity and water supplies--when populated areas are littered with these bombs?

Simply put, unexploded cluster bombs fuel anger and resentment and make security, stabilization, and reconstruction efforts that much harder.

And it is not just a humanitarian problem, it is a military problem.

By showering targets with cluster bombs, we ensure that our troops will face thousands of unexploded bomblets as they move forward.

This will force them to change course and slow the mission.

During the Iraq war, U.S. troops would fire six rockets containing 4,000 bomblets to eliminate one artillery piece in a civilian neighborhood. With a 16 percent dud rate, approximately 640 duds were left behind. Source: Human Rights Watch.

As an August 2003 Wall Street Journal article noted: ``Unexploded bomblets render significant swaths of battlefield off-limits to advancing U.S. troops.''

In fact, during the first Gulf War, unexploded cluster munitions killed 22 U.S. troops--6 percent of total U.S. fatalities--and injured 58.

Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen recognized the threat cluster bombs posed to civilians and U.S. troops alike and issued a memorandum which became known as the Cohen Policy.

It stated that beginning in fiscal year 2005, all new cluster bomb would have a failure rate of less than one percent.

This was an important step forward but we must remember that we still have 5.5 million cluster bombs in our arsenals containing 728.5 million bomblets. That is, we are still prepared to use an enormous amount of cluster bombs that have significant failure rates. That is unacceptable.

Let me be clear. While this legislation prohibits the sale, use, or transfer of cluster bombs with a failure rate of more than one percent, it does include a national security waiver to allow the President to waive the restriction.

Instead of exercising the waiver, I would hope that administration would work with Congress to extend the Cohen Policy to the entire U.S. cluster bomb arsenal.

During the 1990s, a comprehensive pact was forged to protect civilians from land mines worldwide. The United States and the international community have since spent millions to remove mines in post-conflict regions.

There is no question there should be a similar program for cluster bombs.

Simply put, this legislation will save lives--civilians and soldiers alike--and will help save the reputation of the United States.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Hutchison to introduce legislation to reauthorize the extraordinarily successful Breast Cancer Research Stamp for two additional years.

Without Congressional action, this important stamp will expire on December 31 of this year.

This stamp deserves to be extended as it has proven to be highly effective.

Since 1998, over 747 million breast cancer research stamps have been sold--raising $53.76 million for breast cancer research.

California continues to be one of the leading contributors, purchasing over 47 million stamps with $3.6 million going to research-- almost 15 percent of the nationwide contribution.

Furthermore, in September 2005, the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report showing that the Breast Cancer Research Stamp has been a success and an effective fund-raiser in the effort to increase funds to fight the disease.

The report also indicated that ``grants funded by NIH and DOD using Breast Cancer Research Stamp proceeds have produced significant findings in breast cancer research.''

The National Institutes for Health and the Department of Defense have received approximately $36.7 million and $15.7 million, respectively, putting these research dollars to good use by funding innovative advances in breast cancer research.

For example, a 2002 Department of Defense Concept Award enabled researchers to develop Medical Hyperspectral Imaging (MHSI) technology. This method of imaging helps surgeons determine if they have removed all cancerous tissue during breast cancer surgery.

Thanks to breakthroughs in cancer research, more and more people are becoming cancer survivors rather than cancer victims. Every dollar we continue to raise will help save lives.

One cannot calculate in dollars and cents how the stamp has focused public awareness on this terrible disease and the need for additional research funding.

There is still so much more to do because this disease has far reaching effects on our nation: breast cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among women after skin cancer. More than three million women are living with breast cancer in the U.S. today, one million of who have yet to be diagnosed. Though much less common, over 1,700 men were diagnosed with breast cancer last year.

This legislations would: extend the authorization of the Breast Cancer Research stamp for two additional years--until December 31, 2009; allow the stamp to continue to have a surcharge of up to 25 percent above the value of a first-class stamp with the surplus revenues going to breast cancer research; not affect any other semi- postal proposals under consideration by the U.S. Postal Service.

I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Hutchison in passing this important legislation to extend the Breast Cancer Research Stamp for another two years.

Until a cure is found, the money from the sale of this unique postal stamp will continue to focus public awareness on this devastating disease and provide hope to breast cancer survivors.

We ask for unanimous consent that the text of the legislation directly follow this statement in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help American workers and companies.

The bill that I am introducing, the Buy American Improvement Act, focuses on the Federal Government's responsibility to support domestic manufacturers and workers and on the role of Federal procurement policy in achieving this goal. The reintroduction of this bill, which I first introduced in 2003, is part of my ongoing efforts to stem the flow of manufacturing jobs abroad.

The Buy American Act of 1933 is the primary statute that governs Federal procurement. The name of this law accurately describes its purpose: to ensure that the Federal Government supports domestic companies and domestic workers by buying American-made goods. Regrettably, this law contains a number of loopholes that make it too easy for government agencies to buy foreign-made goods.

My bill, the Buy American Improvement Act, would strengthen the existing law by tightening its waiver provisions. Currently, the heads of Federal departments and agencies are given broad discretion to waive the Act and buy foreign goods with little or no accountability. We should ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to give Federal contracts to companies that will perform the work domestically. We should also ensure that certain types of industries do not leave the United States completely, thus making the Federal Government dependent on foreign sources for goods, such as plane or ship parts, that our military may need to acquire on short notice.

I have often heard my colleagues say on this floor that American-made goods are the best in the world. I could not agree more. Regrettably, nearly 90,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs have left my State since 2000. And the country has lost around 3 million manufacturing jobs since January 2001. This hemorrhaging of jobs shows that Congress needs to do more to support domestic manufacturers and their employees. One way to do this is to ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to buy American-made goods.

There are five primary waivers to the Buy American Act, and my bill addresses four of them. The first of these waivers allows an agency head to buy foreign goods if complying with the Act would be ``inconsistent with the public interest.'' I am concerned that this waiver, which includes no definition for what is ``inconsistent with the public interest,'' is actually a gaping loophole that gives too much discretion to department secretaries and agency heads. My bill would modify this waiver provision to prohibit it from being invoked by an agency or department head after a request for proposals, or RFP, has been published in the Federal Register. Once the bidding process has begun, the Federal Government should not be able to pull an RFP by saying that it is in the ``public interest'' to do so. This determination, sometimes referred to as the Buy American Act's national security waiver, should be made well in advance of placing a contract up for bid. To do otherwise pulls the rug out from under companies that are spending valuable time and resources to prepare a bid for a Federal contract.

The Buy American Act may also be waived if the head of the agency determines that the cost of the lowestpriced domestic product is ``unreasonable,'' and a system of price differentials is used to assist in making this determination. My bill would modify this waiver to require that preference be given to the American company if that company's bid is substantially similar to the lowest foreign bid or if the American company is the only domestic source for the item to be procured.

I have a long record of supporting efforts to help taxpayers get the most bang for their buck and opposing wasteful Federal spending. I don't think anyone can argue that supporting American jobs is ``wasteful.'' We owe it to American manufacturers and their employees to make sure they get a fair shake. I would not support awarding a contract to an American company that is price gouging, but we should make every effort to ensure that domestic sources for goods needed by the Federal Government do not dry up because American companies have been slightly underbid by foreign competitors.

The Buy American Act also includes a waiver for goods bought by the Federal Government that will be used outside of the United States. There is no question that there are occasions when the Federal Government needs to procure items quickly for use outside the United States. However, there may be items that are bought on a regular basis and used at foreign military bases or United States embassies, for example, that could reasonably be procured from domestic sources and shipped to the location where they will be used. My bill would require Federal agencies to compare the difference in cost for obtaining articles that are used on a regular basis outside the U.S., or that are not needed immediately, between an overseas versus a domestic source-- including the cost of shipping--before awarding the contract to the company that will do the work overseas.

The Buy American Act's domestic source requirements may also be waived if the articles to be procured are not available from domestic sources ``in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of

a satisfactory quality.'' My bill would require that an agency or department head, prior to issuing such as waiver, determine whether domestic production can be initiated to meet the procurement needs and whether a comparable article, material, or supply is available domestically.

My bill would also strengthen the Buy American Act in four other ways. It would, for the first time, make the Buy American requirement applicable to the United States Congress. The current definition of a Federal agency in the Act specifically exempts the Senate, the House, and the Architect of the Capitol, and activities under the direction of the Architect. I believe that Congress should lead by example and comply with the Buy American Act, a requirement that we have imposed on executive agencies.

Secondly, my bill would increase the minimum American content standard for qualification under the Act from the current 50 percent to 75 percent. The definition of what qualifies as an American-made product has been a source of much debate. To me, it seems clear that ``American-made'' means manufactured in this country. This classification is a source of pride for manufacturing workers around our country. The current 50 percent standard should be raised to a minimum of 75 percent.

In addition, my bill would put in place for the next five years the expanded reporting requirement that I authored which was first enacted as part of the fiscal year 2004 omnibus spending bill and was included again by this body as an amendment to the recent minimum wage bill. Prior to the enactment of these provisions, only the Department of Defense was required to report to Congress on its use of Buy American waivers and purchases of foreign goods. It is virtually impossible to get hard numbers on the Federal Government's purchases of foreign--and domestic--made goods and to ensure that there is disclosure and accountability in the waiver process. This reporting requirement seeks to hold agencies accountable by requiring agencies to report on their foreign-made purchases and make that information available to Congress and the American public.

The annual report to be submitted by agency heads will be required to include the following information: the dollar value of any items purchased that were manufactured outside of the United States; an itemized list of all applicable waivers granted with respect to such items under the Buy American Act, including the type of waiver used; and a summary of the total procurement funds spent by the Federal agency on goods manufactured in the United States versus on goods manufactured overseas. In addition, my bill also requires that the heads of all Federal agencies make these annual reports publicly available on the Internet.

Finally, my bill would require the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress with recommendations for defining the terms ``inconsistent with the public interest'' and ``unreasonable cost'' for purposes of invoking the corresponding waivers in the Act. I am concerned that both of these terms lack definitions, and that they can be very broadly interpreted by agency or department heads. GAO would be required to make recommendations for statutory definitions of both of these terms, as well as for establishing a consistent waiver process that can be used by all Federal agencies.

The gaping loopholes in the Buy American Act and the trade agreements and defense procurement agreements that contain additional waivers of domestic source restrictions have combined to weaken our domestic manufacturing base by allowing--and sometimes actually encouraging--the Federal Government to buy foreign-made goods. Congress can and should do more to support American companies and American workers. We must strengthen the Buy American Act and we must stop entering into bad trade agreements that send our jobs overseas and undermine our own domestic preference laws.

By strengthening Federal procurement policy, we can help to bolster our domestic manufacturers during these difficult times. As I have repeatedly noted, Congress cannot simply stand on the sidelines while tens of thousands of American manufacturing jobs have been and continue to be shipped overseas. While there may be no single solution to this problem one way in which Congress should act is by strengthening the Buy American Act.

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

Mr. President, today Senator Rockefeller and I are introducing the Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act of 2007. This legislation would reduce the tremendous economic and human losses that fire inflicts on the National economy and the quality of life.

In 2005, fire departments responded to about 1.6 million fires. These fires resulted in about 3,500 deaths and almost 18,000 civilian injuries. Fire also caused over $10 billion in direct property damages in 2005.

Fire sprinklers can dramatically decrease loss of life and injury as a result of fires. The National Fire Protection Association has no record of a fire killing more than two people in a completely sprinklered public assembly, educational, institutional, or residential building where the system was properly installed and fully operational. Fire sprinklers also mitigate economic losses resulting from fires. Fire sprinklers are responsible for a 70-percent reduction in property damage from fires in public assembly, educational, residential, commercial, industrial, and manufacturing buildings.

The Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act will provide an incentive for businesses to protect their buildings with fire sprinklers. Under current law, the cost of retrofitting an existing building with automatic fire sprinklers generally would be depreciated over a 39-year period. Our legislation would reduce the depreciation period to 5 years, greatly reducing the economic burden of retrofitting a building.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to spur investment in and deployment of fuel cells and solar energy systems. I am joined today by my colleague, Senator Salazar, and eleven other Senators in introducing this important bill to encourage the development if these clean energy facilities.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created new commercial and residential investment tax credits that have helped stimulate market growth for these innovative technologies. Those tax credits, which were extended in 2006, are set to expire at the end of 2008. However, in order to drive down future production costs and encourage the development of these facilities, this bill provides for an eight-year extension of the investment tax credits for solar and fuel cell facilities. It also provides for the accelerated depreciation of commercial solar and fuel cell projects.

The long-term extension is needed within these industries because these emerging energy technologies have longer planning horizons than traditional power plants. A long-term extension will also help developers secure the financing for these facilities.

There are numerous benefits of extending these investment tax credits. It is estimated that an eight-year extension of the tax credits will displace over 4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and save consumers over $32 billion. An estimated 70,000 new jobs will be created in the solar and fuel cell industries and over $50 billion in economic investment will be made in these industries. In addition, distributed generation facilities can serve remote sites and help address transmission congestion issues.

Home-grown energy technologies and sources help reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Moreover, both solar equipment and fuel cells provide zero emissions energy. I would urge my colleagues to join us in providing America's entrepreneurs and households with these important tax incentives. Together, we can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and restore our nation's leading role in these important industries.

Mr. President, today, I am honored to introduce the School Based Health Clinic Act of 2007. I developed this legislation in partnership with parents and healthcare advocates, all of whom are affiliated with Oregon's vibrant school based health center network. This important legislation will create a federal authorization to support the work of school based health centers (SBHCs) across the Nation. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Dodd, Snowe, Collins, Kennedy, Vitter and Bingaman.

Currently, there are approximately 1700 SBHCs operating across the country, and Oregon is home to 44 of them. These special health clinics--with the input of parents, school personnel, healthcare providers and other youth advocate--provide vital primary and mental healthcare services to all children, regardless of their income or insurance status. Communities around the country are beginning to realize the enormous benefits of SBHCs, not only to the health of children, but to the broader healthcare system. Study after study show that SBHCs can help curtail inappropriate emergency room use, reduce Medicaid expenditures and prevent costly hospitalizations. Findings such as these have convinced me that Congress should be supporting programs like SBHCs that provide convenient points of access to basic healthcare services.

Along with Community Health Centers, SBHCs serve as an invaluable

component of the Nation's healthcare safety net. Sadly, more than nine million children in the U.S. still lack any form of health insurance coverage. As a consequence, they face enormous challenges in accessing primary, preventive and mental health services. Even those children who are fortunate to have consistent health coverage face access barriers, which may result in increased absences or undiagnosed health conditions. SBHCs help tear down those barriers so that all children-- regardless of insurance or socioeconomic status--have access to a comprehensive range of health services.

What truly sets SBHCs apart is their unique model of delivering care. Working with parents, school personnel and other community based programs, they provide direct care in a manner that helps foster the development of positive behaviors and long-term healthy lifestyles. They also play an important role in helping students achieve their full academic potential. An Oregon survey found that 75 percent of SBHC users would have missed one or more classes if they had to seek treatment in a traditional care setting. Clearly, SBHCs play a vital role not only in keeping children healthy, but in supporting their long-term educational success. We cannot expect children to excel in the classroom if they are forced to miss school to seek treatment from a traditional healthcare provider.

Despite the enormous value they add to our nation's educational and healthcare systems, SBHCs receive little to no federal support. Most of their funding comes from state and local resources, patient revenue and private contributions. However, as budgets tighten and deficits grow larger, SBHCs find themselves competing alongside other programs for limited public health dollars. Many have been forced to scale back services or close altogether.

Some SBHCs have been fortunate to receive limited support through the Federal Community Health Center (CHC) program, if they are affiliated with or operated by a center. While this relationship has proven beneficial, over time it has placed an increasing demand on CHC's source of revenue and has limited the ability of SBHCs to cultivate the resources needed to expand into other vulnerable and underserved areas.

To realize their full potential, the Federal Government needs to establish a separate authorization for SBHCs. Even a small amount of Federal support can serve as much needed seed money to attract funding from other sources. In Oregon, centers have been able to generate as much as $3 to $4 dollars in funding from other public and private sources with every $1 of State general revenue. This clearly underscores the value of the SBHC-model of service delivery to the government. My legislation is asking for only a $50 million annual appropriation to support the work of SBHCs--an investment that could lead to a return many times over.

As Congress prepares to consider the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program this year, my colleagues and I have turned our attention to finding innovative and effective ways we can support the health and well-being of our Nation's children. I am hopeful that along with that important piece of legislation, we also can generate the support to pass the School Based Health Clinics Establishment Act. I believe we must support a variety of means of healthcare access so that all children are able to receive the care they need to stay healthy and well-prepared to excel in their educational pursuits.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today along with my colleagues, Senators Harry Reid, John Warner, Hillary Clinton, Olympia Snowe, Lisa Murkowski, and Bernie Sanders, the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2007.

The American Cancer Society estimates that a woman in the United States has a one in eight chance of developing invasive breast cancer during her lifetime. This risk was about 1 in 11 in 1975. All women are at risk for breast cancer. About 90 percent of women who develop breast cancer do not have a family history of the disease. The most recent available statistics show that 40 percent of all women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer died from the disease within 20 years. These are frightening statistics.

Furthermore, the disease is not limited by gender--in 2007, approximately 1,750 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed among men in the United States. In my home State of Utah, as indicated by the Utah Cancer Registry, breast cancer has the highest incidence rate of the ten leading cancer types. This disease has an impact on nearly every American's life.

Breast cancer death rates have been dropping steadily since 1991; however, challenges still remain. The bottom line is that we still do not know what causes this disease, or how to prevent it. Although scientists have discovered some risk factors for breast cancer, the known risk factors account for only a small percentage about 30 percent--of breast cancer cases. There are no proven interventions to prevent breast cancer and there is no cure.

There is general belief within the scientific community that the environment plays a role in the development of breast cancer, but the extent of that role has been less-examined. Research has investigated the effect of isolated environmental factors such as diet, pesticides, and electromagnetic fields; but, in most cases, there has been no conclusive evidence. Some scientists hypothesize that certain subgroups of women have genetic variants that may make them more susceptible to adverse environmental exposures.

In addition, a large study of twins demonstrated that the majority of breast cancers cannot be explained by inherited factors. The incidence of breast cancer in Western industrialized countries, such as the United States, is much higher than the incidence in Africa and Asia. When women migrate from a country with low incidence to a country with high incidence, their daughters experience the breast cancer risk of the new country's population. The discrepancy in incidence among various countries suggests that some of the differences in incidence may be explained by environmental exposures.

In-depth study of these potential risks could provide invaluable information in understanding the causes of breast cancer, and could lead to new prevention strategies. Clearly, more research needs to be done to determine the impact of environmental factors on breast cancer.

My colleagues and I are introducing the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2007 to address this palpable need for research. It creates a national strategy to conduct research into the possible links between breast cancer and the environment. The time to address these frightening statistics is now.

Specifically, the bill authorizes the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to award grants for the development and operation of up to eight centers for the purpose of conducting research on environmental factors that may be related to breast cancer. These centers will work across institutions, across disciplines, and with community organizations to study environmental factors that may cause breast cancer.

This legislation is modeled after the highly successful and promising Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program (DOD BCRP), which operates under a competitive, peer-reviewed grant-making process that involves consumers.

Isolated studies have been conducted to look at suspected environmental links to breast cancer; but these studies are only a small step toward the broad strategic research that is required. What is needed is a collaborative, comprehensive, nationally-focused strategy to address this oversight a strategy like the one outlined in this bill.

It is important to note that while we have made progress in the fight against breast cancer, we are still a long way from prevention or a cure--breast cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death among women worldwide. Studies have shown that environmental factors that cause breast cancer may exist, but conclusive evidence is scarce. This bill will go a long way in helping the scientific community explore environmental triggers of breast cancer.

The Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act had strong bipartisan support in the 109th Congress, with 66 Senate cosponsors. In the House of Representatives, 262 Members supported the legislation.

I urge my colleagues to think of breast cancer patients and their loved ones, and support this important bill. This Federal commitment is critical for the overall, national strategy and the long-term investments required to discover the environmental causes of breast cancer so that we can better prevent it, treat it more effectively, and, ultimately, cure it.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pioneer National Historic Trails Studies Act which would update the feasibility and suitability studies of four national historic trails and allow possible additions to them. The trails in question are the Oregon, the Mormon, the Pony Express, and the California National Historic Trails.

In 1978, the Oregon and Mormon trails were established by the National Trails System Act which defined these trails as ``point A to point B,'' limiting them to one beginning point and one final destination. At that time, The Mormon Pioneer National Historic trail was defined as the route Brigham Young took in 1846 through Iowa and then to the Salt Lake Valley in 1847. The Oregon Trail was defined narrowly as the route taken by settlers from Independence, MO, to Oregon City from 1841 to 1848. It was limited to a single trail with only three variants as well. Unfortunately, we have come to realize that this rigid definition precludes designation of some very important historical sites.

Congress passed an amendment for the establishment of the California and Pony Express National Historic Trails in 1992. This amendment broadened the statute to include the possibility of trail variants for the California Trail and provided a more accurate depiction of the original trail. The legislation I am introducing today will provide additional authority for variation to these four trails to provide a more accurate depiction of history.

To those of us in the West, these trails are the highways of our history. With this legislation, I hope to capture the important stories made along the variations of these main trails. Since the enactment of the National Trails System Act in 1978, there has been a great deal of support to broaden the Act to include these side roads of the trails.

Not every pioneer embarked on their journey from Omaha, NE, or Independence, MO and not every great or tragic event took place along the main routes. Tens of thousands of settlers began from other starting points. These trail variations and alternate routes show the ingenuity and adaptability of the pioneers as they were forced to contend with inclement weather, lack of water, difficult terrain, and hostile Native American tribes.

The Act requires comprehensive management for the historic trails. In 1981, such plans were completed for the Mormon and Oregon trails. Since that time, however, endless hours of research by the Park Service and trails organizations have produced a more complete picture of the westward expansion. The National Park Service has determined, however, that legislation is required to update the trails with this newfound history.

That is why I am introducing this legislation today. This bill would authorize the study of further important additions to the California, Mormon Pioneer, Oregon, and Pony Express National Historic Trails and allow for a more complete story to be told of our history of the West.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, today Senator Tom Coburn, Representatives Rahm Emanuel and Walter Jones and I, in the House of Representatives, are re-introducing bipartisan legislation to close the capital gains tax gap. The legislation, entitled the Simplification Through Additional Reporting Tax

(START) Act of 2007, will require brokerage houses and mutual fund companies to track and report cost basis information to their customers and the IRS. In the Senate, the legislation has 15 original co- sponsors: Senators Coburn, Biden, Brown, Carper, Clinton, Durbin, Feinstein, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Obama, Klobuchar, Schumer, and Stabenow. The House version has seven co-sponsors. The legislation is based upon a recommendation made by the National Taxpayer Advocate, the organization created as part of the 1998 IRS Restructuring and Reform Act whose explicit purpose is to make recommendations to Congress to simplify the tax code.

As you can see from the members that are supporting this proposal, addressing the issue of the tax gap is not a partisan issue. Taxpayers who pay the right amount each year should not be subsidizing those who don't. According to the National Taxpayer Advocate, Nina Olson, honest taxpayers are paying an additional $2700 in taxes to subsidize dishonest taxpayers.

It is also an issue of fairness. Middle-class Americans cannot underpay their taxes because their employers submit wage information reports, called W-2s, to the IRS. If a factory worker in Kokomo, Indiana underreports his income, the IRS is going to know about it because his employer sent his wage report to the IRS. By contrast, taxpayers who rely on stocks and bonds for their income are on the honor system to report their income accurately because the IRS receives virtually no information on what taxpayers paid for their investment. A $17 billion capital gains tax gap is ample proof that there are some taxpayers that are doing some Enron accounting when it comes to paying their capital gains taxes.

This is also an economic issue--we are failing to collect, at a minimum, $345 billion in taxes that are legally owed each year. In light of our economic challenges--a national debt approaching $9 trillion, the eve of the Baby Boomer retirement only a year away-- Democrats and Republicans need to come together and address this issue as a first step toward solving our longer-term fiscal challenges. This bill is only a small part of the solution but hopefully this will pave the way for other practical solutions that not only close the tax gap but also simplify the tax code.

The START Act of 2007 requires brokerage houses and mutual fund companies to track and report the purchase price of a security, plus any adjustments, to their customers and the IRS. This simple change will allow taxpayers to have accurate information regarding their investments, saving them considerable time and effort when they file their taxes and have to figure out how much they owe each year in capital gains taxes. For the average taxpayer with capital gains, simply filling out the capital gains tax form adds 12 hours to the tax return filing process--more than a full work day. According to a recent GAO report, over one-third of taxpayers with capital gains or losses are not paying the right amount in taxes.

The problem involves people who are cheating the system and underpaying the amount of capital gains taxes that they owe, but also involves honest taxpayers who are simply overwhelmed by the complexity of the tax code and make mistakes. A principal reason for the complexity involved in paying capital gains taxes is the need to obtain what is called ``adjusted cost basis'' information, a technical term for the purchase price of an investment, plus any necessary changes. This bill closes the loophole that dishonest taxpayers are using, but also offers a hand to taxpayers who spend hours simply trying to fill out the capital gains portion of their tax return.

The bill will also help the IRS enforce the law and close the capital gains loophole. For the first time, the IRS will have the ability to see both sides of the picture, the purchase price and the sell price of a security. For decades, the IRS has only had half the picture. The IRS receives information about the price of a security when it is sold, but doesn't receive any information about the purchase price of the security.

This loophole has resulted in the Federal Government being short- changed by $17 billion per year in capital gains taxes owed but not paid. With the passage of this bill, the capital gains reporting loophole will be eliminated.

I first introduced this proposal in the 109th Congress and, unfortunately, no action was taken on the bill. However, over the course of the past year, this proposal gained significant momentum, in part due to work done by the non-partisan General Accountability Office (GAO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation. Both of these organizations evaluated this proposal and made a recommendation to Congress that it be adopted.

There has also been significant activity in the Congress. Last year alone, Congress held 7 hearings on the tax gap and Sen. Coburn's Homeland Security subcommittee held one of those hearings that specifically focused on this proposal. During that hearing, IRS Commissioner Mark Everson recommended this approach. The proposal also has support from non-profit taxpayer groups, such as the Citizens for Tax Justice.

In addition to the bipartisan support our bill enjoys in the House and Senate, last week President Bush included this proposal in his budget submission. With the introduction of the President's proposal, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the preeminent association representing the securities and bond industry, publicly stated that the proposal was ``very constructive.''

In conclusion, this should be an issue that honorable members from both sides of the aisle can agree needs to be addressed. Democrats and Republicans will fight endlessly about what tax rates should be, but I believe all members should agree on the principle that all taxpayers should pay what you owe. We should also all agree that we need to reduce our deficit, simplify the tax-filing process, and promote a fair and equitable tax system. The START Act of 2007 is intended to make progress on all of these goals. I hope it can start a civil conversation about ways to improve our tax system. I look forward to working with all interested parties to craft a workable proposal that provides some needed relief to our overburdened taxpayers.