Risk-Based Homeland Security Grants Act of 2007

Mr. President, it has been more than 200 years since Lewis and Clark first laid eyes on Mount Hood. Today, I propose, with Senator Smith, that the spectacular mountain, seen first by our pioneers, should be preserved for all time.

The Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2007, which we introduce today, is similar to the bill Senator Smith and I introduced in the last Congress. It does include several improvements that came about from comments and constructive suggestions

from a variety of groups at home in Oregon.

The legislation also includes input from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We appreciate their input and believe their views can help speed the bill's passage.

In tribute to the great river-dependent journey of Lewis and Clark, our legislation adds nine free-flowing stretches of rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River System. This reflects the views of Oregonians, but, frankly, I hear it from folks in the Midwest, where the Presiding Officer lives, and from people from every nook and cranny in this country who have all come to treasure our spectacular mountain.

This legislation contains a number of provisions of the original Mount Hood legislation I introduced in 2004. The bill protects the lower elevation forests surrounding Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge as Lewis and Clark saw them. These forests embody the natural beauty of our home State. They provide the clean water necessary for the survival of threatened steelhead, Coho, and Chinook salmon. They provide critical habitat and diverse ecosystems for elk, deer, lynx, and the majestic bald eagle. These are the forests that provide unparalleled recreational opportunities for Oregonians and the scores and scores of visitors we get from Minnesota and every other part of the country as well.

But the legislation I offer today with Senator Smith differs from the bill I introduced several years ago because it responds to the many comments we have heard. We have received thousands of comments on our proposed legislation. Some comments came as a result of the general public meetings I held at home in Oregon. Many of the meetings lasted over 3 hours. Everybody who wanted to speak was given the opportunity to do so. Other comments came from the second Mount Hood summit that was held at Timberline Lodge, hosted by Congressmen Walden and Blumenauer. My staff and I met with over 100 community groups and local governments, the members of the Oregon congressional delegation, the Governor, and the Bush administration. More comments came from calls and letters from Oregonians who are saying that now, now, now is the time to preserve Mount Hood.

Overwhelmingly, these comments have urged that we build on Oregon's wilderness system. This goal is as important today as it was in 1804, when Lewis and Clark first viewed Mount Hood; in 1964, when the Wilderness Act was passed; or in 1984, when wilderness protections were last designated on Mount Hood. It is time to plan now to protect this treasure for future generations.

The Mount Hood National Forest is the seventh most visited national forest in our country. In the 22 years that have elapsed since any new wilderness has been designated on Mount Hood, the population in the local counties has increased significantly--25 percent in Multnomah County, 24 percent in Hood River County, and 28 percent in Clackamas County.

The predominant public use of this urban forest is nonmechanized activities such as hiking, camping, and fishing. With increasing emphasis on wild scenery, unspoiled wildlife habitats, free-flowing rivers, wilderness, and the need for opportunities for diverse outdoor recreation, sometimes it seems we are in jeopardy of loving our wild places to death. We all see Americans coming together to make sure the most special places are protected for future generations.

A few years ago, the Forest Service made a proposal to limit the number of people who could hike on the south side of Mount Hood. Suffice it to say, the public outcry in opposition was enormous. It seems to me, rather than tell people they are going to be restricted from using our public lands, part of the solution for Mount Hood lies in providing more opportunities for them to enjoy the mountain's great places. We ought to ensure that the Mount Hood National Forest can meet the increased demand for outdoor experiences, and the legislation I offer today with Senator Smith provides these opportunities. Hundreds of people spoke at the public meetings I held throughout the State. I have received 2,500 written comments urging additional wilderness on Mount Hood. There are a few key areas the citizens continually come back and refer to:

First, by astonishing numbers, they want to see additional wilderness on Mount Hood. A large number of Oregonians didn't think enough wilderness had been included, for example, in the legislation that was considered by the other body.

A second area is mountain biking. Some mountain bikers expressed concern that their recreation opportunities not be unfairly curtailed. Senator Smith and I had many discussions with them to ensure that would not be the case.

Third, fire protection and forest health was something referred to by many Oregonians. Citizens were concerned about the health of the forest. Those living in towns on the mountain and the gorge were concerned about fire protection in their communities, and we sought to address those issues as well.

An additional concern was developed recreation, with some citizens worried about maintaining a role for developed recreation, such as skiing, on Mount Hood.

In each of these areas, Senator Smith and I tried to follow up and be responsive to what citizens at home were saying.

With respect to additional wilderness, there are currently 189,200 acres of designated wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest. This bill increases wilderness on Mount Hood by designating approximately 128,000 acres of new wilderness.

The bill adds the areas surrounding the oldest Mount Hood wilderness--the mountain itself--which was designated in the original Wilderness Act of 1964. These additions include cathedral old growth forests, special trails, lava beds that were created during the Mount Hood eruptions, and much of the legendary route that Oregon's pioneers used when they came to our great State.

To the north and west of the mountain, we add the viewshed of the Columbia Gorge to the current Mark O. Hatfield Wilderness. These areas encompass the spectacular ridges that frame the gorge that we marvel at from I-84 and include perhaps the greatest concentration of waterfalls in all of North America.

To the southwest of the mountain, we add lands to the current Salmon Huckleberry Wilderness to conserve their diverse wildlife and protect unique recreational areas such as those around the extremely popular Mirror Lake. These lands include Alder Creek, the source of drinking water for the city of Sandy, and that city unanimously endorsed the draft proposal.

Over to the east are proposed additions to the Badger Creek Wilderness area. These areas provide a critical link between westside forests and eastside ecosystems. This area is known for its spectacular colors in the fall and the best deer and elk hunting in our entire Mount Hood National Forest.

Among the areas we are protecting is the newly designated Richard L. Kohnstamm Memorial area. It is dedicated in honor of Mr. Kohnstamm who restored the historic Timberline Lodge built originally by the Works Progress Administration in 1937. Our new 2007 bill adds 2,730 acres of Marion County lands in the Bull of the Woods Wilderness Additions, while removing lands where users identified potential conflicts.

Second, in the area of wild and scenic rivers, we protect over 79 miles of wild and scenic rivers on nine free-flowing rivers. This protects some of the most pristine rivers in our State. Among those proposed rivers are the picturesque waterfalls and glacial outwash of the East Fork of the Hood River, and the ancestral hunting and fishing grounds of Fish Creek. Over 17 miles of extraordinary salmon and steelhead habitat on the Collowash River have also been added for protection under our legislation.

Mountain biking is an area where there has been a lot of debate. We believed the local riders raised valid concerns, and we took two steps. First, we proposed the Mount Hood National Recreation Area. This area was so popular in our last bill that Senator Smith and I decided to greatly expand it to include 34,640 acres, an increase of over 16,000 additional acres. It is going to offer permanent environmental protection to those beautiful areas, while

providing mountain bikers, recreational users, and others an opportunity to enjoy recreation on the mountain.

Additionally, I made boundary adjustments to ensure that all open mountain biking trails were not included in this proposed legislation.

With respect to fire protection and forest health, we tried to make clear that where there are healthy, older trees, they should not be harvested on Mount Hood or in the gorge. Older healthy stands are most resistant to fire and disease. However, there is an enormous backlog of overcrowded plantation, second growth that really ought to be thinned. The legislation includes provisions that would give the Forest Service a mandate to prepare an assessment for promoting forests resilient to fire, insects, and disease. This also includes provisions to study and encourage the development of biomass in conjunction with forest health work.

We happen to think that biomass is one of the most exciting new fields for Oregonians to get into. The opportunity to generate clean energy, help small rural communities, create family wage jobs, is something that we should not miss out on. This legislation tries to tap the potential for progress in the biomass field as well.

Finally, we add fire-safe community zones so that the Secretary of Agriculture will construct a system of fire-safe buffer zones around the communities of Cascade Locks and Government Camp.

With respect to developed recreation, we wanted to facilitate recreational opportunities in this area and thus adopted a provision that came from the other body known as ``fee retention'' that would establish a special account for the Mount Hood National Forest.

In addition, in order to help address growth while ensuring access to recreational opportunities, we have adopted provisions originally coming, again, from language from the other body directing the Secretary of Agriculture and the State of Oregon to develop an integrated transportation plan for the Mount Hood region.

I commend particularly my colleague in the other body, Congressman Blumenauer, one of the real pioneers in thinking about transportation.

Finally, with respect to key relationships with our tribes and our local governmental bodies, we have incorporated provisions on local and tribal relationships, emphasizing the rich history of the Mount Hood area and affirming the rights of Native peoples to access the mountains as they have for generations.

The protections of these important Oregon places is going to depend on the hard work and dedication of all Oregonians. I am very pleased--I am summing up, and the Senate has been patient in giving me this extra time--to say that this has been a bipartisan effort by the Oregon congressional delegation. Senator Smith joins me in introducing this legislation. We believe this brings together our county commissioners, entrepreneurs, environmentalists, Chamber of Commerce, State-elected officials, the Governor. All of those who feel so strongly about protecting Mount Hood rolled up their sleeves, went to work, and joined myself and Senator Smith to try to find common ground to make sure that Mount Hood would be protected for all time.

We are looking forward to perfecting the legislation together in the coming weeks and looking forward to seeing a swift adoption by Congress.

The grandeur of Mount Hood and our special treasures is pretty much in the chromosomes of Oregonians. Protecting our treasures is something about which we feel so strongly. Today is a special day for us because, once again, the citizens of our State have come together and have worked with myself and Senator Smith to take action to protect our treasures.

Mr. President, Oregon's Mount Hood is a cherished State treasure. This wild place is often photographed, visited and enjoyed by scores of Oregonians and non-Oregonians. Today, I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Smith, a bi-partisan Oregon Wilderness bill: the ``Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2007.'' This bill is similar to the one Senator Smith and I introduced in the last Congress, but it includes several improvements that resulted from comments received from stakeholders. The bill also includes input from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which we hope will help speed the bill's passage. In tribute to the great riverdependent journey of Lewis and Clark, our legislation adds nine free-flowing stretches of rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River System. This reflects the Oregonian wish to protect but also actively experience our State's treasures.

This bill contains many elements of the Mount Hood bill I introduced in 2004, while also incorporating many new provisions to protect and improve the Mount Hood region. This bill protects the lower elevation forests surrounding Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge as Lewis and Clark saw them. These forests embody the natural beauty of Oregon. They provide the clean water necessary for the survival of threatened steelhead, Coho and Chinook salmon. These forests provide critical habitat and diverse ecosystems for elk, deer, lynx and the majestic bald eagle. And these are the forests that provide unparalleled recreational opportunities for Oregonians and our visitors.

But the bill I introduce today differs from the bill I introduced 2 years ago because it responds to the many comments I heard in the ensuing years. I received thousands of comments on proposed Mount Hood legislation. Some comments came as a result of the general public meetings I held in Oregon. Many of the meetings lasted over 3 hours, and everyone who wanted to speak was given an opportunity to do so. Other comments came from the second Mount Hood Summit held at Timberline Lodge hosted by Representatives Walden and Blumenauer. I and my staff met with over 100 community groups and local governments, the members of the Oregon congressional delegation, the Governor, and the Bush administration. And still more comments came from letters and phone calls from Oregonians.

Overwhelmingly, these comments urged me to protect and build on Oregon's Wilderness system. This goal is as important today as it was in 1804, when Lewis and Clark first viewed Mount Hood, 1964, when the Wilderness Act was passed, or 1984, when wilderness protections were last designated on Mount Hood--if not more so. To succeed, we must provide the tools that help us create a planned future on Mount Hood. This bill does both.

The Mount Hood National Forest is the seventh most visited National Forest in the United States. In the 22 years that have elapsed since any new wilderness has been designated in the Mount Hood area, the population in local counties has increased significantly--25 percent in Multnomah County, 24 percent in Hood River County, and 28 percent in Clackamas County.

The predominant public use of this urban forest is non-mechanized activity like hiking, camping, and fishing. With increasing emphasis on wild scenery, unspoiled wildlife habitats, free flowing rivers, wilderness and the need for opportunities for diverse outdoor recreation, sometimes it seems we are in jeopardy of ``loving our wild places to death.''

A few years ago, the Forest Service made a proposal to limit the number of people that could hike the south side of Mount Hood and the public outcry was enormous. Seems to me, rather than tell people that they are going to be restricted from using our public lands, part of the solution for the future of the Mountain lies in providing more opportunities for them to enjoy the Mountain's great places. We should ensure the Mount Hood National Forest can meet the increased use and demand for outdoor experiences--my bill will provide those opportunities.

Of the hundreds of people who attended the meetings I held throughout the State of Oregon, the vast majority spoke in favor of more wilderness. Additionally, I have received more than 2,500 written comments supporting additional wilderness for Mount Hood.

This is what I have heard: First and foremost, I heard that Oregonians in astonishing numbers support protecting Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge with additional wilderness. A large number of Oregonians didn't think that enough wilderness areas had been included in the House proposal.

Some mountain bikers expressed concerns that their recreation opportunities not be unfairly curtailed.

Some people were worried about forest health, and those living in towns on the mountain and in the gorge were concerned about fire protection for their communities.

Some people were worried about maintaining a role for developed recreation, like skiing, on Mt. Hood.

This is what my bill does to address those concerns: There are currently l89,200 acres of designated wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest. This bill increases wilderness on Mount Hood by designating approximately 128,600 new acres of wilderness.

This bill adds the areas surrounding the oldest Mt. Hood Wilderness-- the mountain itself--which was designated in the original Wilderness Act of 1964. These additions include cathedral old growth forests, the historic Tilly Jane trail, lava beds that were created during the Mt. Hood eruptions, and much of the legendary route that Oregon's pioneers used when they were settling our great State. To the north and west of the mountain, I would add the viewshed of the Columbia Gorge to the current Mark O. Hatfield wilderness. These areas encompass the spectacular ridges framing the Gorge that we all marvel at from 1-84 and include perhaps the greatest concentration of waterfalls in North America. To the southwest of the mountain I add lands to the current Salmon Huckleberry Wilderness to conserve their diverse wildlife and protect unique recreational areas like those around popular Mirror Lake. These lands include Alder Creek, the source of drinking water for the City of Sandy, which unanimously endorsed the draft proposal. Over to the east are proposed additions to the Badger Creek Wilderness. These areas provide a critical link between Westside forests and Eastside ecosystems. This area is known for beautiful fall color and the best deer and elk hunting in the entire Mount Hood National Forest. Among the areas we are protecting is the newly designated Richard L. Kohnstamm Memorial Area. It is dedicated in honor of Mr. Kohnstamm who restored the historic Timberline Lodge--built originally by the Works Progress Administration in 1937--to its former grandeur. Our new 2007 bill adds 2730 acres of Marion County lands in the Bull of the Woods Wilderness Additions, while removing lands where users identified potential conflicts.

My proposal seeks to protect over 79.6 miles of wild and scenic rivers on nine free flowing rivers. This includes some of the most pristine and beautiful rivers in Oregon. Among those proposed rivers are the picturesque waterfalls and glacial outwash of the East Fork of the Hood River, and the ancestral hunting and fishing grounds of Fish Creek. Over 17 miles of superb salmon and steelhead habitat on the Collowash River have also been proposed for protection.

I believe that local riders raised some valid concerns, so I did two things. I have proposed Mount Hood National Recreation Area. This area was so popular in our last bill that Senator Smith and I decided to greatly expand it to include 34,640 acres--an increase of over 16,700 acres. It will offer greater, permanent environmental protections to those beautiful areas, while providing mountain bikers and other recreational users an opportunity to continue to recreate in these areas. Additionally, I made boundary adjustments to ensure all open mountain biking trails were not included in my proposed wilderness.

I protect wilderness, where there are healthy, older trees that should never be harvested on Mount Hood or in the Gorge. Older, healthy stands are the most resistant to fire and disease. However, there is an enormous backlog of over-crowded, plantation, second-growth that should be thinned. My bill includes provisions that would give the Forest Service a mandate to prepare an assessment for promoting forests resilient to fire, insects and disease. This also includes provisions to study and encourage the development of biomass in conjunction with forest health work. In addition, I added fire safe community zones so that the Secretary will construct a system of fire safe buffer zones around the communities of Cascade Locks and Government Camp.

In order to facilitate developed recreation opportunities, I have adopted the House provisions establishing a ``feeretention'' provision that will establish an account for the Mount Hood National Forest. In addition, in order to help address growth while ensuring access to recreational opportunities, I have adopted provisions, originally coming from the language passed in the House last Congress, directing the Secretary and the State of Oregon to develop an integrated transportation plan for the Mount Hood region.

I have also incorporated provisions on local and tribal relationships emphasizing the rich history of the Mount Hood region and affirming the rights of Native peoples to access the mountain's resources, as they have for generations.

The protection of these important Oregon places will depend on the hard work and dedication of all Oregonians and particularly that of my Oregon colleagues here in the Congress. I am especially pleased that Senator Smith has joined me in developing this bipartisan legislation and putting forth our proposal for wilderness. I am hopeful everyone will pull together: county Commissioners, environmentalists, entrepreneurs, chambers of commerce, State elected officials, the Governor, and the Oregon delegation here in the Capitol. I look forward to perfecting legislation together in the coming weeks, and seeing its swift adoption by Congress thereafter. Then the grandeur of Mount Hood and other Oregon treasures can be assured for future generations.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Competitive and Fair Agricultural Markets Act of 2007.'' Cosponsors joining me in introducing this legislation are: Senators Enzi, Feingold, Thomas, Dorgan, Baucus and McCaskill. This legislation seeks to level the playing field for agricultural producers by strengthening and clarifying the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 and the Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 and strengthening enforcement of both laws by USDA. I intend to use this legislation as the basis for developing a proposed competition title in the new farm bill this year.

Consolidation is happening in all sectors of agriculture and having a negative effect on producers and consumers across the Nation. Consolidation in itself is not a violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act, but when some entities become larger and more powerful that makes enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act absolutely critical for independent livestock and poultry

producers. The statistics speak for themselves. For example, today, only four firms control 84 percent of the procurement of cattle and 64 percent of the procurement of hogs. Economists have stated that when four firms control over 40 percent of the industry, marketplace competitiveness begins to decline. Taken together with fewer buyers of livestock, highly integrated firms can exert tremendous power over the industry.

The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, GIPSA, at USDA has the responsibility to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act. This Act is critical, and protects livestock producers from unfair, unjustly discriminatory and anti-competitive practices in the marketplace. For years I have had my doubts about whether USDA was serious about enforcing the Packers and Stockyards Act. In 2005, I requested an audit by USDA's Inspector General to investigate USDA's oversight, and enforcement of the law. Last year, the Inspector General confirmed the concerns I had and uncovered even more systemic problems. The report described widespread inaction, management of the agency actively blocking employees from conducting investigations into anti- competitive behavior and a scheme to cover up the lack of enforcement by inflating the reported number of investigations conducted.

That is why today, the legislation I introduce will reorganize the structure in how USDA enforces the Packers and Stockyards Act and create an office of special counsel on competition matters. The special counsel would be appointed by the President with advice and consent from the U.S. Senate. Some would argue that Senate advice and consent is not needed. However, for over five years, GIPSA failed to move competition investigations forward and no one above the level of deputy administrator at GIPSA seemed to have any idea that any problems were going on, despite the fact I was sending letters to the Secretary of Agriculture pointing out that USDA was failing to enforce the law.

In the past year, GIPSA has worked in good faith to improve its enforcement activities. However, GIPSA only investigates potential violations of the law, they do not litigate and follow-through with the investigation to the end. Litigating cases is reserved only for USDA's Office of General Counsel, OGC, unless they refer it to the Department of Justice.

USDA's Office of General Counsel has not been active on cases involving anti-competitive practices in recent years since GIPSA was not referring cases to them. To be sure, only two cases involving anti- competitive practices were referred to OGC in 5 years. But there are concerns that OGC is not as committed to enforcing competition investigations as they should be. This lack of commitment was clearly evident last year in testimony provided by OGC Assistant General Counsel in the Trade Practices Division at a hearing by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Concerns about OGC's attitude toward enforcing the Packers and Stockyards Act are not new. USDA's Inspector General stated in its 1997 audit that Packers and Stockyards program officials were concerned that OGC did not want to litigate competition cases ``because they are complicated and time consuming'' and OGC had ``limited expertise'' with them. In 2000, the Government Accountability Office found ``disagreements'' between OGC and GIPSA regarding the interpretation of the Act's competition provisions. By combining investigation and prosecution activities into the proposed special counsel office, designated to handle competition issues, it reduces the ability for investigations to be batted back and forth within USDA.

This legislation also makes many important clarifications to the Packers and Stockyards Act. The Packers and Stockyards Act prohibits unfair, unjustly discriminatory and anti-competitive practices, but some courts have ruled that producers need to prove an impact on competition in the market in order to prevail in such cases involving unfair or deceptive practices. For example, the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a poultry grower operation failed to prove how its case involving an unfair termination of its contract adversely affected competition. The court indicated that the grower had to prove that their unfair treatment affected competition in the relevant market. That is very difficult to prove and was never the intent of the Packers and Stockyards Act.

This legislation also modifies the Packers and Stockyards Act so that poultry growers have the same enforcement protections by USDA as livestock. Currently, it is unlawful for a livestock packer or live poultry dealer to engage in any unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive practice, but USDA does not have the authority to enforce violations because the enforcement section of the law is absent of any reference to poultry. This important statutory change is long overdue. In addition, to better reflect the integrated nature of the poultry industry, this legislation also ensures that protections under the law extend to all poultry growers, such as breeder hen and pullet operations, not just those who raise broilers.

The Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 was passed by Congress to ensure that producers are allowed to join together as an association to strengthen their position in the marketplace without being discriminated against by handlers. Unfortunately, this act was passed with a clause that essentially abolishes the actual intent of the law. The act states that ``nothing in this Act shall prevent handlers and producers from selecting their customers'' and it also states that it does not ``require a handler to deal with an association of producers.'' This clause in effect allows handlers to think of any reason possible to not do business with certain producers, as long as the stated reason is not because they belong to an association.

I propose to expand the Agricultural Fair Practices Act to provide new needed protections for agricultural contracts. As I have mentioned earlier, consolidation in all sectors of agriculture is reducing the number of buyers of commodities and for the very few who are left, many require contracts to conduct business. With so few buyers, it increases the chances that some firms will force unfair contracts upon producers. As a result, some producers have little or no choice but to contract with a firm with questionable practices or face leaving the industry they have known for their whole lives.

This amendment to the Agricultural Fair Practices Act requires that the contract spell out in clear language what is required by the producer. This legislation prohibits confidentiality clauses, ensuring producers the ability to share the contract with family members or a lawyer to help them make an informed decision on whether or not to sign it. This legislation also prevents companies from prematurely terminating contracts without notice when producers have made large capital investments as a condition of signing the contract. And it only allows mandatory arbitration after a dispute arises and both parties agree to it in writing. Producers should not be forced to sign contracts with arbitration clauses thereby preventing them from seeking legal remedy in the courts.

Mr. President, producers deserve to have a fair and evenhanded market in which to conduct business. This legislation won't be able to turn back the clock, but it will strengthen laws and enforcement of them so that markets operate more fairly.

Mr. President, I am honored to join with the distinguished senior Senator from Oregon, Senator Smith, to introduce the Safe Babies Act of 2007.

It is a tragic fact that America's child welfare system is failing our most vulnerable. From birth to age five, children develop their social, emotional, cognitive and moral capacities more rapidly than at any other time in life. Early experiences and relationships are absolutely critical to future development; they set the stage for how well individuals learn, think, control their emotions, and relate to others.

This critical period is a time of tremendous promise, but also a time of great vulnerability. Unfortunately, infants and toddlers are disproportionately affected by child abuse and neglect. Children between birth and age three are twice as likely as older children to become victims of maltreatment, and are three times more likely to be placed in foster care. Abuse and neglect during this significant period can lead to perilous developmental outcomes, including school failure, delinquency and crime, substance abuse, and mental health problems.

Yet the current child welfare system does a particularly poor job of serving infants and toddlers. Once in foster care, infants and toddlers are more likely to be abused. And they stay in foster care longer than older children. More than 40 percent of infants and toddlers involved in a maltreatment investigation are developmentally delayed, yet only 10 percent of these young people currently receive treatment for developmental problems.

A Federal review of 19 States' performance on child welfare outcomes found that all of the States received failing grades on outcomes related to providing adequate physical and mental health services.

Without intervention, we put our future generation at risk and perpetuate the cycle of maltreatment. But we can alter these developmental outcomes by ensuring that children are in safe, permanent homes and have access to necessary mental and physical health care. The Safe Babies Act authorizes funding for juvenile courts to create Court Teams for the integrated handling of infant and toddler abuse and neglect cases. By bringing together the legal, child welfare, and children's services communities, we can promote the health and well- being of our babies and toddlers.

First, this bill establishes a National Court Teams Resource Center. This Resource Center would provide grants and technical assistance to juvenile courts for the creation of local Court Teams to better handle infant and toddler abuse and neglect cases. Few judges have all the necessary knowledge about early childhood development and they frequently lack resources in the community for services necessary for young children. They are often frustrated by the piecemeal provision of services and the overburdened child welfare system. To adequately serve children, they need the expertise of child welfare workers, Guardians Ad Litem, Court Appointed Special Advocates, substance abuse treatment providers and mental health care providers. Court Teams bring together this expertise. Through monthly case reviews, judges can coordinate efforts by all members of the team to ensure efficient and effective provision of services. The goal of these courts is to prevent multiple placements for infants and toddlers in foster care, secure needed services, and find a permanent home for these children as quickly as possible.

Court Teams work with families in an effort to reunite children with their parents. By bringing together multiple service providers, they can facilitate opportunities for parents to learn to create a safe and nurturing home environment. Court Teams ensure support for future reunification only when the

parent is ready and able to step up to provide an appropriate and safe environment. We know from research that each visit between a child and birth parent triples the likelihood of achieving permanence. Through the Court Teams, judges are able to coordinate education and supervision so parents can visit their children and continue to nurture a loving bond.

Although reunification with parents is the ultimate goal, when that is not possible, Court Teams are also focusing on Plan B. By conducting concurrent planning, Court Teams are more likely to find an appropriate placement that will lead to permanency and minimize disruptions. By supporting training for foster parents and newly reunified biological parents, we can prevent children from being bounced around in the foster care system.

Court Teams are also able to coordinate services for children. Judges and child welfare services are able to collaborate to include necessary medical and developmental interventions. By improving access to mental health and substance abuse treatment for parents and children, Court Teams make sure children are able to access needed services and increase the chances of successful, healthy development.

Finally, Court Teams provide services and supports for families to preserve and stabilize homes for children. Judges are able to use court oversight to ensure compliance, facilitate visits with caregivers to promote positive attachments, and make sure that children are in safe environments after placement.

The Safe Babies Act will make an important impact in the way we treat infants and toddlers in the court system. By facilitating involvement from all parties, Court Teams are better equipped to ensure that young children have the community support and services they need. Early evaluation research in the Miami/Dade County court project finds a high rate of permanency for children in the court and increased quality of parent-child interaction. By finding permanent homes, children were able to escape the limbo of the foster care system. More importantly, the court was successful in preventing any future recurrence of abuse or neglect.

Together we can work to protect the safety and well-being of our infants and toddlers. With this legislation, we have the opportunity to ensure that children are placed quickly in safe and loving homes. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this legislation is passed and signed into law.

Mr. President, as you may have heard, today we are launching the Partnership for Play Every Day and it has been spearheaded by three terrific organizations: the YMCA, the National Recreation and Park Association, and the National Association for Sport and Physical Education. Together, they have 350 years of experience in helping our kids to be physically active or, to use the old-fashioned word, ``to play.''

More than a century ago, these groups came together to support the Playground Movement, which took kids out of factories and coal mines, and gave them parks and playgrounds where they could be children again.

Well, today we face a different challenge. As we confront an epidemic of childhood obesity, as many new elementary schools are built without playgrounds, as recess and PE are phased out of so many of our schools, we need a 21st century Playground Movement. And that's what we are launching this morning.

On a personal note, I have been a lifelong admirer of the YMCA. When I was in my early 20s and aspiring to join the Navy as a fighter pilot, they told me: First you've got to learn how to swim. So what did I do? I signed up at the Y in downtown Des Moines for swimming lessons.

Well, the Y was there for me, just as the Y is there for millions of American families, giving them the facilities and tools to stay fit and healthy.

You know, there is something fundamentally wrong when kids spend their free time parked in front of the TV instead of playing in parks.

I mentioned the childhood obesity epidemic. ``Epidemic'' is not my word. That's what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call it. Today, nearly 15 percent of American children and teenagers are obese. A quarter of the children between the ages of 5 and 10 already show the early warning signs of heart disease. Cases of adult-onset diabetes in children--which used to be almost unheard of--have exploded tenfold in the last two decades.

Add it all up, and experts say there is a very real prospect that today's kids could be the first generation in American history to have a shorter lifespan than their parent's generation.

And that is unacceptable. We are not going to let that happen. And that is why we have set the goal of ensuring that every child in America gets 60 minutes of play and physical activity every day.

Hand in hand with this important new initiative, today I am honored to introduce with Senator Hillary Clinton a bill called the PLAY Every Day Act. That first word, PLAY, is an acronym for ``Promoting Lifelong Active Communities.''

The PLAY Every Day Act will help to promote the national physical- activity standards for both children and adults.

To that end, the legislation will do two things:

One, it will mandate the development of a well-validated assessment tool called the ``community play index,'' to identify barriers preventing young people from being physically active in a given community.

And two, it will help local coalitions to use this ``community play index'' as they craft plans to promote physical activity and wellness in their communities.

My vision is to have every community in America focused on promoting

health and preventing disease--instead of just dealing with the bad consequences of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

By the way, I am grateful to the good corporate citizens that are joining in the Partnership for Play Every Day, including PepsiCo, Toyota, Kellogg Company, General Mills, PlayCore, and Landscape Structures. Your support of this legislation and new initiative is going to be critical to the Partnership's success.

So, again, I salute all the players in this new Partnership. Together, we can build a better, healthier future for America's children.

Mr. President, today, we are introducing legislation to give the Food and Drug Administration broad authority to regulate tobacco products. Congress cannot in good conscience allow the Federal agency most responsible for protecting the public health to remain powerless to deal with the enormous risks of tobacco, the most deadly of all consumer products. Health experts believe this legislation is the most important action Congress could take to protect children from this deadly addiction.

This is a bipartisan, bicameral initiative. The bill that Senator Cornyn and I are introducing already has over 25 cosponsors. Congressman Waxman and Davis will introduce identical legislation in the House. Our bill has the support of a broad coalition of public health organizations led by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association. They all recognize the importance of enacting this bill this year.

The legislation we are introducing today is well known. It is the same bill that passed the Senate in 2004, and that we introduced in the last Congress. However, in this new Congress, the likelihood of passage is greatly enhanced. Last November's election swept away many of the barriers to passage from prior years. We believe 2007 is the year that legislation empowering the FDA to regulate tobacco products will finally become law.

We intend to move forward on the legislation quickly. I have already scheduled a hearing in the HELP Committee for February 27, and a markup is planned soon thereafter.

The stakes are vast. Four thousand children have their first cigarette every day, and one thousand become daily smokers. More than one-third of them will die prematurely from tobacco-induced diseases. Cigarettes kill well over 400,000 Americans each year. That is more lives lost than from automobile accidents, alcohol abuse, illegal drugs, AIDS, murder, and suicide combined. Congress's response to a public health problem of this magnitude is long overdue.

Regulating the conduct of tobacco companies is as necessary today as it has been in years past. The facts presented in the Federal Government's landmark lawsuit against the tobacco industry demonstrate that the misconduct is substantial and ongoing. The decision of the court states: ``The evidence in this case clearly establishes that Defendants have not ceased engaging in unlawful activity . . . Defendants continue to engage in conduct that is materially indistinguishable from their previous actions, activity that continues to this day.''

We must deal firmly with tobacco company marketing practices that target children and mislead the public. The Food and Drug Administration needs broad authority to regulate the sale, distribution, and advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.

The tobacco industry currently spends over $15 billion a year to promote its products. Much of that money is spent in ways designed to tempt children to start smoking, before they are mature enough to appreciate the enormity of the health risk. The industry knows that nearly 90 percent of smokers begin as children and are addicted by the time they reach adulthood.

Documents obtained from tobacco companies prove, in the companies' own words, the magnitude of the industry's efforts to trap children into dependency on their deadly product. Studies by the Institute of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control show the substantial role of industry

advertising in decisions by young people to use tobacco products.

If we are serious about reducing youth smoking, FDA must have the power to prevent industry advertising designed to appeal to children wherever it will be seen by children. This legislation will give FDA the authority to stop tobacco advertising that glamorizes smoking to kids. It grants FDA full authority to regulate tobacco advertising ``consistent with and to the full extent permitted by the First Amendment.''

FDA authority must also extend to the sale of tobacco products. Nearly every State makes it illegal to sell cigarettes to children under 18, but surveys show that those laws are rarely enforced and frequently violated. FDA must have the power to limit the sale of cigarettes to face-to-face transactions in which the age of the purchaser can be verified by identification. This means an end to self- service displays and vending machine sales. There must also be serious enforcement efforts with real penalties for those caught selling tobacco products to children. This is the only way to ensure that children under 18 are not able to buy cigarettes.

The FDA conducted the longest rulemaking proceeding in its history, studying which regulations would most effectively reduce the number of children who smoke. Seven hundred thousand public comments were received in the course of that rulemaking. At the conclusion of its proceeding, the agency promulgated rules on the manner in which cigarettes are advertised and sold. Due to litigation, most of those regulations were never implemented. If we are serious about curbing youth smoking as much as possible, as soon as possible; it makes no sense to require FDA to reinvent the wheel by conducting a new multi- year rulemaking process on the same issues. This legislation will give the youth access and advertising restrictions already developed by FDA the immediate force of law, as if they had been issued under the new statute.

The legislation also provides for stronger warnings on all cigarette and smokeless tobacco packages, and in all print advertisements. These warnings will be more explicit in their description of the medical problems which can result from tobacco use. The FDA is given the authority to change the text of these warning labels periodically, to keep their impact strong.

The nicotine in cigarettes is highly addictive. Medical experts say that it is as addictive as heroin or cocaine. Yet for decades, tobacco companies vehemently denied the addictiveness of their products. No one can forget the parade of tobacco executives who testified under oath before Congress that smoking cigarettes is not addictive. Overwhelming evidence in industry documents obtained through the discovery process proves that the companies not only knew of this addictiveness for decades, but actually relied on it as the basis for their marketing strategy. As we now know, cigarette manufacturers chemically manipulated the nicotine in their products to make it even more addictive.

A newly released analysis by the Harvard School of Public Health demonstrates that cigarette manufacturers are still manipulating nicotine levels. Between 1998 and 2005, they significantly increased the nicotine yield from major brand name cigarettes. The average increase in nicotine yield over the period was 11 percent.

The tobacco industry has a long, dishonorable history of providing misleading information about the health consequences of smoking. These companies have repeatedly sought to characterize their products as far less hazardous than they are. They made minor innovations in product design seem far more significant for the health of the user than they actually were. It is essential that FDA have clear and unambiguous authority to prevent such misrepresentations in the future. The largest disinformation campaign in the history of the corporate world must end.

Given the addictiveness of tobacco products, it is essential that the FDA regulate them for the protection of the public. Over 40 million Americans are currently addicted to cigarettes. No responsible public health official believes that cigarettes should be banned. A ban would leave 40 million people without a way to satisfy their drug dependency. FDA should be able to take the necessary steps to help addicted smokers overcome their addiction, and to make the product less toxic for smokers who are unable or unwilling to stop. To do so, FDA must have the authority to reduce or remove hazardous ingredients from cigarettes, to the extent that it becomes scientifically feasible. The inherent risk in smoking should not be unnecessarily compounded.

Recent statements by several tobacco companies make clear that they plan to develop what they characterize as ``reduced risk'' cigarettes. Some are already on the market making unsubstantiated claims. This legislation will require manufacturers to submit such ``reduced risk'' products to the FDA for analysis before they can be marketed. No health-related claims will be permitted until they have been verified to the FDA's satisfaction. These safeguards are essential to prevent deceptive industry marketing campaigns, which could lull the public into a false sense of health safety.

Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in America. Congress must vest FDA not only with the responsibility for regulating tobacco products, but with full authority to do the job effectively.

This legislation will give the FDA the legal authority it needs to reduce youth smoking by preventing tobacco advertising which targets children, to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors, to help smokers overcome their addiction, to make tobacco products less toxic for those who continue to use them, and to prevent the tobacco industry from misleading the public about the dangers of smoking.

Enacting this bill this year is the right thing to do for America's children. They are depending on us. By passing this legislation, we can help them live longer, healthier lives.

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

Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Bond in introducing ``The Arthritis Prevention, Control and Cure Act.''

Our goal in this important initiative is to provide a strong federal response to arthritis. Early diagnosis, treatment, and appropriate management of arthritis can control its symptoms, improve the quality of life of patients, and Federal action will improve the lives of the family members and caregivers of those affected by the disease.

Arthritis exits in more than a hundred different forms. It's one of the most devastating diseases impairing the health of the American people. It's second only to heart disease as a cause of work disability. It undermines everyday activities such as walking, dressing and bathing for more than seven million Americans.

One out of very five adults in the United States suffers from some form of arthritis. The number of patients in the U.S. with arthritis will keep growing as the number of older Americans continues to increase dramatically in the next few decades. Today, 8.7 million adults, ages 18 through 44, have arthritis and millions of others are at risk of developing the disease.

In fact, arthritis is one of the most prevalent chronic illnesses and the

leading cause of disability among Americans over age 15. More than 40 percent of adults with arthritis are limited in their activities because of their arthritis. By 2030, nearly 25 percent of the projected United States adult population will have arthritis and these numbers don't account for the current trends in obesity, which may contribute to future cases of the disease.

It is an illness that affects all types of people in the U.S., not just older Americans. Arthritis knows no boundaries. Men, women and children are all afflicted with the disease. According to the Arthritis Foundation, 24 million women and 17 million men have been diagnosed with arthritis by their doctors. Women are still disproportionately affected by the disease.

Nearly 3 out of every 1,000 American children are affected by arthritis. The devastating effects of pediatric arthritis justifies greater investment by the federal government in research and to identify more effective treatments.

Special concerns are raised by juvenile arthritis because of its impact on family relationships, school life, dating, sports and other aspects active, growing youths. Teens and young adults entering the workforce face even greater challenges.

Arthritis an other rheumatic diseases cost our economy $128 billion annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2003, the cost was equivalent to 1.2 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. $80 million of that amount were direct costs for medical care and $47 million were indirect costs for lost earnings. National medical costs attributed to arthritis grew by 24 percent between 1997 and 2003, with an increase attributed to the growing number of people affected with the disease.

In 1975, Congress enacted the National Arthritis Act to encourage basic and clinical research, establish Multipurpose Arthritis Centers and expand clinical knowledge of the illness. The act was successful in implementing and continued funding of research and has led to important advances in the control, treatment and prevention of the illness.

Early diagnosis, treatment and management can control symptoms and improve the quality of life. Weight control and exercise can help lower risks. Patient education, training and self-management also contribute to greater control of these diseases. Innovative and increasingly effective drug therapies, joint replacements, and other therapeutic alternatives are being developed.

Despite much research identifying effective interventions, many of them are not being used well enough and the inevitable result is unnecessary loss of life, poorer health and poorer quality of life.

Our legislation will expand the effort to find new ways to prevent, treat and care for patients with arthritis and related rheumatic diseases.

It will enhance the National Arthritis Action Plan by providing additional support to federal, state and private efforts to prevent and manage arthritis. It will establish a National Arthritis Education and Outreach Campaign to inform the health care profession and the public about the most successful self-management strategies for controlling the illness.

With greater coordination and intensification of federal research, this bill will organize a National Arthritis and Rheumatic Diseases Summit to look at the challenges and opportunities related to these efforts.

In addition, the bill will provide greater attention to juvenile arthritis research by offering planning grants for research specific to juveniles and by prioritizing the activities that create better understanding of the incidence and outcomes associated with juvenile arthritis.

Finally the bill contains incentives to encourage health professionals to enter the field of pediatric rheumatology by education loan repayment and career development awards.

I urge my colleagues to support this public health initiative to reduce the pain and disability of arthritis. Early diagnosis, effective treatment and greater investment in research and prevention can help us wage a stronger battle against one of the most widespread and devastating conditions affecting our Nation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the third in a series of bills intended to support American companies and American workers. Earlier this week, I introduced a resolution which would set some minimum standards for future trade agreements into which our country enters, and legislation which would strengthen the Buy American Act. Today I am introducing legislation that would help workers who have lost their manufacturing or service sector jobs to be retrained for jobs in high-demand health care fields. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Mikulski, is cosponsoring this important legislation and I look forward to working with her to advance it during the 110th Congress.

According to statistics from the Department of Labor, Wisconsin has lost over 90,000 manufacturing jobs between January 2000 and November 2006. Nationally, the country has lost around 3 million manufacturing jobs since January 2001, yet the administration has continued to support policies that lead to the outsourcing of American jobs. I continue to be deeply troubled by the Bush Administration's contention that the outsourcing of American service sector and other jobs is good for the economy. I am concerned about the message that this policy sends to Wisconsinites and all Americans who are currently employed in these sectors.

There is something of a silver lining to the looming cloud of manufacturing and other jobs loss: the country's workforce development system.

In spite of stretched resources and long waiting lists for services, our workforce development boards are making a tremendous effort to retrain laid-off workers and other job seekers for new jobs. And this effort is clearly evident in Wisconsin, where my State's workforce development boards--despite shoestring budgets--are leading the way in finding innovative solutions to retraining workers for new careers.

I strongly support the work of these agencies, and have urged the Administration and Senate appropriators to provide adequate funding for the job training programs authorized by the Workforce Investment Act. I look forward to the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act this year and I will continue to work to ensure that the workforce development boards in my state and across our country receive the resources that they need to help job seekers get the training they need to be successful.

I am committed to finding resources to retrain those who have been laid off from the manufacturing and service sectors and who wish to find new jobs in high-demand fields such as health care.

As most of my colleagues know all too well, we are facing a significant shortage of health care workers. Congress has made some progress in addressing the nursing shortage, but we need to expand our efforts. Shortages of health professionals pose a real threat to the health of our communities by impacting access to timely, high-quality health care. Studies have shown that shortages of nurses in our hospitals and health facilities increase medical errors, which directly affects patient health.

As our population ages, and the baby-boomers need more health care, our need for all types of health professionals is only going to increase. This is particularly true for the field of long-term care. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we are going to need an additional 1.4 million nursing aides, home health aides, and other health professionals in long-term care before the year 2014. In total, there will be almost 1.7 million job openings in health care support occupations through 2012.

As our demand for health care workers grows, so does the number of jobs available within this sector. According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, the surging job growth in health care will translate into a real need for workers, and real opportunity. In Wisconsin alone, there will be an additional 61,910 health care positions by 2014. This represents a 27 percent increase in jobs in health care by 2014.

Workforce development agencies in my home State of Wisconsin are already working to support displaced workers in their communities by training them for health care jobs, since there is a real need for workers in these fields. These agencies are helping communities get and maintain access to high-quality health care by ensuring that there are enough health care workers to care for their communities.

As the executive director of one of the workforce development boards in my State put it, ``[t]here are simply not many good quality jobs to replace manufacturing jobs lost to rural communities. The medical professions, by offering a `living wage' and good benefits, provide an excellent alternative to manufacturing for sustaining a higher, family- oriented standard of living.''

I believe we should support our communities in these efforts by providing them with the resources they need to establish, sustain, or expand these important programs. For that reason, today I am introducing the Community-Based Health Care Retraining Act. This bill would amend the Workforce Investment Act to authorize a demonstration project to provide grants to community-based coalitions, led by local workforce development boards, to create programs to retrain unemployed workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care professions. My bill would authorize a total of $25 million for grants between $100,000 and $500,000, and, in the interest of fiscal responsibility, my legislation is fully offset.

This bill will help provide communities with the resources they need to run retraining programs for the health professions. The funds could be used for a variety of purposes, from increasing the capacity of our schools and training facilities, to providing financial and social support for workers who are in retraining programs. This bill allows for flexibility in the use of grant funds because I believe that communities know best about the resources they need to run an efficient program.

This bill represents a nexus in my efforts to support workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas and to ensure that all Americans have access to the high-quality health care that they deserve. By providing targeted assistance to train laid-off workers who wish to obtain new jobs in the health care sector, we can both help unemployed Americans and improve the availability and quality of health care that is available in our communities.

I am pleased that this bill is supported by a variety of organizations that are committed to providing high-quality job training and health care services, including: the Wisconsin Association of Job Training Executives, the Wisconsin Hospital Association, Madison Area Technical College, the Northwest Wisconsin Concentrated Employment Program, the Workforce Development Board of South Central Wisconsin, the Bay Area Workforce Development Board, the Healthcare Workforce Network, the Southwest Wisconsin Workforce Development Board, Sauk County Development Corporation, the American Osteopathic Society, Umos, the Fox Valley Workforce Development Board, and the West Central Wisconsin Workforce Development Board.

In order to ensure that our workers are able to compete in the new economy, we must ensure that they have the tools they need to be trained or retrained for high-demand jobs such as those in the health care field. My bill is a small step toward providing the resources necessary to achieve this goal. I will continue to work to strengthen the American manufacturing sector and to support those workers who have been displaced due to bad trade agreements and other policies that have led to the loss of American jobs.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce the Wartime Treatment Study Act. This bill would create two fact-finding commissions: one commission to review the U.S. government's treatment of German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans during World War II, and another commission to review the U.S. government's treatment of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution during World War II. This bill is long overdue.

I am very pleased that my colleagues Senators Grassley, Kennedy, Lieberman and Inouye have joined me as cosponsors of this important bill. I thank them for their support. And I thank Congressman Wexler, who has been the unflagging champion of this legislation in the House of Representatives.

The victory of America and its allies in the Second World War was a triumph for freedom, justice, and human rights. The courage displayed by so many Americans, of all ethnic origins, should be a source of great pride for all Americans.

But, at the same time that so many brave Americans fought for freedom in

Europe and the Pacific, the U.S. government was curtailing the freedom of people here at home. While, it is, of course, the right of every nation to protect itself during wartime, the U.S. Government must respect the basic freedoms for which so many Americans have given their lives to defend. War tests our principles and our values. And as our Nation's recent experience has shown, it is during times of war and conflict, when our fears are high and our principles are tested most, that we must be even more vigilant to guard against violations of the basic freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

Many Americans are aware that during World War II, under the authority of Executive Order 9066, our government forced more than 100,000 ethnic Japanese from their homes and ultimately into internment camps. Japanese Americans were forced to leave their homes, their livelihoods, and their communities and were held behind barbed wire and military guard by their own government. Through the work of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, created by Congress in 1980, this shameful event finally received the official acknowledgement and condemnation it deserved. Under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, people of Japanese ancestry who were subjected to relocation or internment later received an apology and reparations on behalf of the people of the United States.

February 19, 2007, is the ``Day of Remembrance,'' the 65th anniversary of the signing of Executive Order 9066. On this day, we should remember the freedoms all of these individuals were forced to give up, and resolve never to make these mistakes again.

While I commend our government for finally recognizing and apologizing for the mistreatment of Japanese Americans during World War II, I believe that it is time that the government also acknowledge the mistreatment experienced by many German Americans, Italian Americans, and European Latin Americans, as well as Jewish refugees.

The Wartime Treatment Study Act would create two independent, fact- finding commissions to review this unfortunate history, so that Americans can understand why it happened and work to ensure that it never happens again. One commission will review the treatment by the U.S. government of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans, as well as European Latin Americans, during World War II.

I believe that most Americans are unaware that, as was the case with Japanese Americans, approximately 11,000 ethnic Germans, 3,200 ethnic Italians, and scores of Bulgarians, Hungarians, Romanians or other European Americans living in America were taken from their homes and placed in internment camps during World War II. We must learn from this history and explore why we turned on our fellow Americans and failed to protect their basic freedoms.

A second commission created by this bill will review the treatment by the U.S. government of Jewish refugees who were fleeing Nazi persecution and genocide. We must review the facts here as well and determine how restrictive immigration policies failed to provide adequate safe harbor to Jewish refugees fleeing the persecution of Nazi Germany. It is a horrible truth that the United States turned away thousands of refugees, delivering many refugees to their deaths at the hands of the Nazi regime.

As I mentioned earlier, there has been a measure of justice for Japanese Americans who were denied their liberty and property. It is now time for the U.S. government to complete the accounting of this period in our nation's history. It is time to create independent, fact- finding commissions to conduct a full and through review of the treatment of all European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees during World War II.

Up to this point, there has been no justice for the thousands of German Americans, Italian Americans, and other European Americans who were branded ``enemy aliens'' and then taken from their homes, subjected to curfews, limited in their travel, deprived of their personal property, and, in the worst cases, placed in internment camps.

There has been no justice for Latin Americans of European descent who were shipped to the United States and sometimes repatriated or deported to hostile, war-torn European Axis powers, often in exchange for Americans being held in those countries.

Finally, there has been no justice for the thousands of Jews, like those aboard the German vessel the St. Louis, who sought refuge from hostile Nazi treatment but were callously turned away at America's shores.

The injustices to European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees occurred more than fifty years ago. Americans can learn from these tragedies now, while the people who survived these injustices are still with us, and are still here to teach us. We cannot put this off any longer. If we wait, the people who were affected will no longer be here to know that Congress has at last recognized their sacrifice and resolved to learn from the mistakes of the past.

We should never allow this part of our Nation's history to repeat itself. And, while we should be proud of our Nation's triumph in World War II, we should not let that justifiable pride blind us to the treatment of some Americans by their own government.

As the Day of Remembrance approaches, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Wartime Treatment Study Act, and to allow this bill to become law as soon as possible. I have been seeking to enact this legislation for six years. It is time for a full accounting of this tragic chapter in our Nation's history.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Wartime Treatment Study Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized, following the Senator from Arizona for 3 minutes and the Senator from Connecticut for 5 minutes, for such time as I might consume on an amendment on this bill.

I have no problem agreeing to debate this again tomorrow.

Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?

I ask unanimous consent that pending amendment be set aside in consideration of an amendment that has already been called up, my amendment, No. 345.

This is a pretty straightforward amendment.

I also ask unanimous consent Senator McCain be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

One of the first things we found out after 9/11 was a lot of our emergency workers could not talk to each other. That was one of the most glaring, obvious defects in our response to emergencies--that emergency personnel had difficulty, from one group to another, talking to one another. As a matter of fact, it limited their ability to save lives.

From the beginning of the 9/11 Commission and from the start, in 2002, that has been addressed in multiple ways. The purpose of this amendment is to describe what is obviously something that is not good for us as a nation.

We presently have occurring with the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 an electromagnetic spectrum which was sold off and $1 billion reserved under a program called the Public Safety Interoperability Public Service Grant Program. That $1 billion was carved off and that is where we are going to spend it. I don't disagree with that at all.

What this bill has is another $3.4 billion for interoperable grants addressing the same problem in a different way than what the other grant program was. One of our problems as a nation is we have too many programs that are doing the same thing. They duplicate one another. One is better and the other is not. Yet we continue sending money down both holes, not making adjustments as to which gives us the best value for our money.

What has happened with this money from the Commerce Department, through a memorandum of understanding, is the administration of this grant program has been transferred to the Department of Homeland Security with a little fiat that the Department of Commerce kept $12 million for themselves.

This memorandum of understanding was dated just a few weeks ago, February 16, and what it did is it gave the administration near complete administrative control of this grant program, the one from Commerce, the one from 2005, to the Department of Homeland Security. This grant program has yet, to date, to receive any applications for any grants to be administered under the program. This is 2005; 2006 we did this. Now we are into March of 2007, and we have not received the first application.

S. 4, being considered on the Senate floor now, as I said, creates yet another interoperable grant program, the Emergency Communications and Interoperability Grant Program. This program is also going to be administered by the Department of Homeland Security. The purpose of this grant program is to make grants to States for purchasing interoperable equipment and training personnel, testing on how and when to use it--similar to the PSIC grant which was mainly for equipment. This program authorizes $3.3 billion to be authorized in grants over the first 5 years of the program and indefinite amounts, ``such sums as are necessary,'' after that.

A question comes to mind: How much money would it take for every first responder in this country to have interoperable communications? We don't address that in this bill. We just keep sending the money for it, after we send the first $3.3 billion and then whatever it takes after that, rather than looking and reassessing what our need is.

If S. 4 passes in its current form, Congress will have authorized the creation of two nearly identical interoperability grant programs. Again, interoperability is this concept that first responders can talk to one another: if there is a fire going on in Tulsa, and there is a need that Oklahoma City firefighters will be there, that they can talk to them; that if there is something going on in Arkansas and Oklahoma first responders need to be there, there is the ability for them to talk to one another over their communications gear.

One of these grant programs is housed at Commerce but run by DHS. The other is going to be housed at DHS. The differences between these two programs in their details are minimal. Both provide for funding of equipment, both provide for funding for training, and both will exist side by side until 2010, when PSIC expires.

The purpose of this amendment would be to combine the two duplicative grant programs for interoperability. It does it by repealing the PSIC Grant Program at Commerce and it redirects the funding set aside for the PSIC Grant Program at Commerce to funding the Emergency Communications and Interoperability Grant Program at DHS. This will not decrease the amount of money. We are going to still spend $4.3 billion. But we are going to do it through one grant program rather than two.

There are not going to be two sets of signals out there for the States that want to go after this money or the communities that need to go after this money. There is going to be one.

There are a couple of technical changes with this that are required, which is repealing the Call Home Act of 2006, which sets a deadline of September 30, 2007. We haven't had the first grant application right now, so that gives us less than 6 months to get grants in and advised and granted on the PSIC Grant Program.

Finally, I think a very important part of this amendment requires that DHS study and report to Congress on the feasibility of engaging the private sector in developing a national interoperable emergency communications network. Neither of these grant programs address the national focus that would be needed. One of the problems in Katrina was all the people who went down there, the 9/11 responders and emergency responders, couldn't communicate with the emergency responders in Louisiana.

What this says is, aren't there some brains out there in the private sector who could tell us what we need to do and then we could have our grant programs actually go to buy the equipment, the training, so the program is already figured out so we don't have duplication so the people in Oklahoma can talk to the people in Kansas and Nebraska and in New York--all across the country. There is no national security reason why we need two interoperable communication grant programs for the States.

The second point: The administration--this is another area of this bill that they strongly oppose, setting up two identical or very similar grant programs.

No. 3, the Department of Commerce has essentially contracted this grant program out to DHS. It rightfully should be.

No. 4, the 9/11 economic report explicitly stated that Congress should not use grant programs as porkbarrel. If we have two grant programs running side by side and one isn't talking to another and a State has gotten one and they don't know the State is applying for the same thing at the other, how much stewardship have we practiced with the American taxpayers' money? We have not.

One of the prime recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was to reorganize the grant programs to eliminate confusion. That is exactly what this amendment does. It reorganizes the grant programs into one grant program, one place where you go to get it, one source of planning, one source of administration for it.

I will not go into the reasons why we have two programs, but needless to say it is because Members of Congress are not talking to each other. We have two interoperability grant programs that are not interoperable because we have a Congress that is not interoperable in communications with one another in terms of committee to committee or Member to Member.

The Department of Homeland Security has been cleared as the lead Federal agency for interoperability emergency communications. That is where these grants ought to be. That is who we are going to hold accountable. By not having them both in the same department, then we are not going to be able to hold them accountable when we do oversight.

The other thing is the average American cannot afford to purchase two of anything. Many times with these two programs, we are going to see the same thing paid for twice because the right hand is not going to know what the left hand is doing. There is no good policy reason for the Federal Government to have these two programs.

The other thing I think is fairly easy to recognize is if you have two grant programs, it is hard for the American public to realize how much money we are spending on the grant programs because you have got to find one and then the other. The total, which is going to be $4.3 billion, is not recognized now.

The final reason is our first responder organizations write grants. They are already required, in terms of all of the things we have done in terms of emergency preparedness, to provide multiple proposals annually right now to get Federal funding. Why would we not want them to have one application for interoperability? It is a waste of their time and the State's time.

The arguments you are going to hear tomorrow--we are going to debate this amendment again tomorrow afternoon with my colleagues from Hawaii and Alaska. They are going to say the PSIC Grant Program is only authorized until 2010, so after that there would not be a problem anymore for two grant programs. That is not a good reason to have two grant programs.

The public safety interoperability program requires the department to coordinate its efforts with the Secretary of Homeland Security. Yes, they did. They signed a memorandum of understanding that says they are going to run it all.

Finally, the Commerce Department has the authority and expertise over emergency communication grant programs. Although the PSIC Program was placed in Commerce, all of the operational authority for that grant program was essentially transferred to the Department of Homeland Security.

The Department of Homeland Security essentially treats the PSIC as part of its own budget, showing that Commerce has no real role in administering this program.

Another argument would be the programs are not identical but focus on different aspects of communications interoperability; it would hurt the emergency response community to get rid of either one of the programs.

Well, the one that is in this bill does it all. The one that is in the Commerce bill that we have already allocated $1 billion for is mainly about equipment, it is not as much about training.

We ought to know, if we are going to spend $4.3 billion that emergency responders anywhere ought to be able to talk to one another. We do not know that with this money. There is no string on this money that says that is the end goal. That is why a study coming out of the Department of Homeland Security that says go look at the outside and ask the private sector to tell us how do we take this spectrum that has been set aside, two different sections of spectrum for this, and how do we create a plan so that throughout the whole country, no matter what the need is, one group of emergency responders can talk to another?

That is what we ought to be getting for our $4.3 billion. That is not in either one of those programs. So what we are going to do is we are going to spend $4.3 billion on these grant programs, with no assurances that we are going to accomplish the very thing we seek to accomplish.

I believe there could not be a more wasteful attempt at our spending when we do not know what we are going to do for an endpoint on the spending.

A few comments about the overall bill. There has to come a point in time in this country where we recognize that we do not have enough money to do everything we need to do to protect us. That is true today. Where we ought to be putting our money is where we think the highest risks are. I agree with the Presiding Officer. Areas such as New Jersey are at much greater risk and ought to get much greater funding. They have a greater risk and a greater need.

Does that mean I am pleased if that means soft targets in Oklahoma are going to be exposed? No, but there has to be a dispensing of the money based on what the most likely risks are. So when we finish all of this, we will have gotten what we wanted.

Earlier today, I offered an amendment to sunset this bill in 5 years. We will look at it again and see what have we accomplished. What is left to accomplish? Where is the greatest area of risk? What do we still need to do? We have not done that in this bill. That is how we are going to make good policy--making sure that the dollars we spend to protect America are spent on the areas that will get us the most in this bill that we are debating today. We refuse to do that. It authorizes this bill to continue forever.

There is no sunset to it. There is no stop to say that we need to relook at this. There is nothing for the Congress to come back and look at as we did in the PATRIOT Act, where we required that we had to come back and look at it. We sunsetted it. And even though we passed the PATRIOT Act last year, we took sections of it that we said we know we are going to want to look at again, so we sunsetted it.

If we are going to be good stewards with the American taxpayer's money, we ought to sunset this bill. We ought to sunset these two interoperability programs so that we know whether we have accomplished what we desire and know what the problems are so that we can predict them. By not sunsetting, by not combining the programs, by not efficiently spending and wisely planning the spending of the American taxpayer dollars is getting us on down the road where we do not want to be, which is more and more of what we are spending today being paid for more and more by our grandchildren and children of tomorrow.

I thank you for the time. I look forward to debating this bill tomorrow with Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye. My hope is that Senator McCain, who is a member of the Commerce Committee, will be here to aid in this. There is no reason for us to have two programs making States apply for two different grant programs that essentially do the same thing.

We would not do that ourselves in our homes. We would not set up two parallel requirements to accomplish the same goal. We should not be doing it in this bill.