Training for Realtime Writers Act of 2007

Mr. President, I wish to speak on two bills that should have passed by unanimous consent because they are so widely supported, but there are objections to them by some Republicans.

The first is the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, and the other is Training for Realtime Writers Act. First, I am disappointed objections have been raised against the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act on the other side. I do not speak for myself, but I speak on behalf of tens of thousands of Americans who suffer from paralysis and their families.

The Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act is a bipartisan bill. It is a fiscally responsible bill. It addresses a critical need to accelerate better treatments and one day a cure for paralysis. Currently, paralysis research is carried out across multiple disciplines with no effective means of coordination and collaboration. Time, effort, and valuable dollars are used inefficiently because of this problem. Families affected by paralysis are often unaware of critical research results, information about clinical trials, and best practices. The bill will improve the long-term health prospects of people with paralysis and other disabilities by improving access to services, providing information and support to caregivers and their families, developing assistive technology, providing employment assistance, and encouraging wellness among those with paralysis.

I am, frankly, surprised there continues to be an objection to moving this bill forward. I negotiated this bill with my Republican colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee before it was marked up in July. We received specific requests relating to the NIH. We accepted those requests. We moved forward. We removed the NIH reporting provisions in response to concerns that they were duplicative of reporting requirements NIH already had. We responded to all the feedback from the Department of Health and Human Services and the NIH by incorporating both substantive and technical changes. At that point we were assured there were no objections. As a result of these good- faith negotiations, the bill passed out of the HELP Committee with no amendments. Given all of the efforts we made to meet concerns raised by Senators on the other side of the aisle, and given that Senators had an opportunity to file amendments at that time but chose not to, I had every expectation that the bill would quickly pass the full Senate. Instead, it continues to be held due to Republican objections.

One of my Republican colleagues has said he will object to all disease-specific bills because he does not believe that Congress should be able to pass legislation specifically targeting the fights against cancer, ALS, Alzheimer's, and so on. I strenuously disagree with the Senator on this point. I believe Congress can and should be involved in setting national priorities in these fields. But putting that aside, the

fact is, the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act is not a disease- specific bill. Paralysis and mobility impairment are not disease- specific issues; they are symptoms or side effects that result from numerous diseases and situations, including traumatic brain injury, stroke, ALS, injuries from athletic activities, injuries, of course, from combat in the U.S. Armed Forces, and many others. So paralysis is not disease specific.

Now, again, there seems to be another objection to this bill. One of our Republican colleagues has said he will not allow any bills to pass by unanimous consent that include spending without an offset. Well, let me be clear: There is no funding in the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act legislation. It is only an authorization that allows the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to improve the quality of life and long-term health status of people with paralysis and other physical disabilities.

Our colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, made this case very clear in his discussion of the Water Resources Development bill. He explained the significant difference between authorizing and appropriating. Authorization bills are not spending bills; they determine which projects and programs are eligible to compete for future funding and provide for congressional review and oversight. Authorization bills provide the criterion for spending bills, but they do not contain direct spending. So any spending for the paralysis program authorized by this legislation will be subject to the annual appropriations process.

The Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act passed the House in October. It is long overdue for passage in the Senate. When I introduced this bill, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Director of NIH, spoke in support of the bill, and let me read something he said that day.

So, really, as the Director of an institution that is

committed to making the discoveries that will make a

difference in people's lives, I feel proud and feel pleased.

But at the same time I'm humbled. I'm humbled because in many

ways the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act is the

harbinger of what I see as the combination of the public, the

leadership in Congress, and the administration and government

in our country that is absolutely unique, and humbled because

at the same time, I know it contains a lot of expectations

from us. And I'm at the same time confident that we can

deliver on these expectations of NIH, with our sister

agencies throughout the government. But the key thing I would

like to provide is an expression of commitment. At the end of

the day, if you do not have leaders and champions that look

at a problem in its entirety, today in the 21st century, you

cannot make progress.

So that is what Dr. Elias Zerhouni said on the day we introduced the bill. I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Zerhouni. Progress is vital in science and biomedical research. It is also vital in the legislative process. As Senators, we have a duty to ensure due diligence in considering legislation. But for one Senator, or two Senators or three, to stall this bill, I believe without legitimate cause--if the objections are that it is disease specific, I have pointed out it is not. Secondly, if it is being held up because there is not an offset, I point out it is only an authorization bill, not a spending bill. If it were an appropriations bill, it would then be legitimately subject to a hold or objection to unanimous consent because it did not have an offset, if that were the case. Anyway, I think for a handful of Senators to block action on this bill seems to undermine the trust that people put in us as legislators to move forward on things, to respond to certain national needs.

Let us be clear: By putting this bill on hold, Senators are also putting people with paralysis and their families on hold. It is a shame, I say to these Senators. I am not asking you to vote for the bill. If you don't like it, you don't have to vote for it. I am only asking you to allow the entire Senate to work its will. Don't slam the door on our fellow citizens who are living with paralysis. There are some 2 million Americans right now living with paralysis of the arms or legs, or both. Many others are living with multiple sclerosis. Hundreds of young soldiers are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with spinal cord injuries and paralysis, facing a lifetime of disability. They should not be placed on hold. They shouldn't have to wait. They shouldn't have to have further delay. They should have this bill passed.

I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reconsider their decision to block this bill. As I said, I worked with Republicans before it went to the HELP Committee. We worked with the Department of Health and Human Services downtown, with NIH, and we met all their objections. We redrafted it and there weren't any objections when it went through the HELP Committee. No amendments were offered. That is the kind of legislation you would think would be subject to a unanimous consent procedure here on the Senate floor. It is a fiscally responsible bipartisan bill, as I said, that does not spend any money. It only authorizes.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Four minutes.

I also wanted to talk about the Training for Realtime Writers Act. On behalf of more than 30 million Americans who are deaf or hard of hearing, I express my deep disappointment that again one or two Senators on the other side of the aisle are blocking passage of this important legislation, the Realtime Writers Act of 2007. Again, it is a bipartisan bill. It is fiscally responsible. It addresses an urgent national need to train more real-time captioners at a time when the demand for these professionals has far outstripped the supply, and when, in fact, the law of the land says that all programs have to be real-time captioned.

For those who don't know what real-time captioning is, these are the people, if you are in your offices and you are watching the Senate floor and you put your button on mute, you see the little closed caption go across the bottom of the screen. That is someone sitting down here in the bowels of the Capitol watching what we say and, on a machine, typing this in so that if you are deaf or hard of hearing you can read what is happening. This is true on programs you watch on normal television as well.

Again, we all use that, I know, at different times. You don't have to be deaf or hard of hearing to use closed captioning. But what has happened, and how this came about is very simple. In 1996, in the Telecom Act, it required that all English language television broadcasts be captioned by the year 2006. All television broadcasts must be real-time captioned by 2006. That was last year. So it is now 2007, and many stations across the country are not in compliance with the law. As a result, a lot of deaf and hard of hearing Americans are not able to access the full range of television programming we take for granted. And why aren't they compliant? Well, it is a legal requirement, but the fact is there are not enough captioners. We knew that back when the bill was passed in 1996. That is why we gave it 10 years for implementation. And little by little we have been trying to get more real-time captioners, but we don't have them.

This bill is an effort to bolster that program and to put focus on it. Again, it is an authorization bill. It is an authorization bill. It authorizes the creation of a competitive grant program to train captioners at the funding level of $20 million a year for 5 years. So, again, it is an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill.

There has been a shortage of real-time captioners. And you might say, well, if there is a shortage, why aren't there more people? Well, a lot of people don't know about it. They don't know about the demand. We need the training and expertise. This is a difficult job. I mean, our stenographers here, who take down our words, have a difficult job, but at least they have time to go back and print it out after they put it into the machines. A real-time captioner has to listen and watch what we are saying and put it on immediately. So it takes a lot of expertise and training to do this.

This act authorizes, again, the funding. It creates no new entitlements. It sunsets after 5 years, because once we get the number up and we get schools across the country teaching this, I have no doubt that we will have enough in the pipeline. And let me point out that this bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent three times before, only to languish in the House of Representatives.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Again, the House indicated they would take it up. It languished here. It passed the Senate, as I said, by unanimous consent three times already. Again, it is time to keep the promise that Congress made to 30 million Americans in 1996. I would hope we would not block the Realtime Writers Act, and let it go through, and with unanimous consent, as it has done three times in the Senate before. I would ask those who have a hold on the bill, are they saying that 100 Senators before, who let this legislation go through, didn't know what they were doing? We all have staffs, and we all pay attention to what legislation goes through here. I think it is indicative of the support we had on both sides of the aisle that the Realtime Writers Act, as I said, passed by unanimous consent three times in the past.

I wanted to talk about these bills because again I think they are both widely supported. We have worked out agreements with people in the past, and I don't think there is any real, legitimate reason to keep a hold on these bills and not let them pass.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate take up and pass Calendar No. 326, S. 1183, the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, and Calendar No. 291, S. 675, the Training for Realtime Writers Act.

Mr. President, as part of my closing remarks, in case an objection was raised to the Training for Realtime Writers Act, I want to say this is something that can be done already by the administration, but I would point out that they have not done it in 10 years, either Democratic or Republican Presidents. Quite frankly, they are not focusing on it. They have said they can do it as part of their high-growth job training initiative, but they haven't done it. That is the point of the legislation. They have not done this.

And for those interested in earmarks around here, 90 percent of the money in the high-growth job training----

Well, I want to close with 30 seconds, by saying that 90 percent----

Ninety percent of the money is noncompetitive. Over $235 million over 6 years has gone out in noncompetitive grants, and not one penny for real-time writers.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss my vote on July 28 against cloture--to end debate--on the motion to proceed to S. 3297, the so-called Reid omnibus bill or ``Coburn package.'' As I stated on the Senate floor Monday, July 28, it is my inclination that the majority leader called for a vote on cloture on proceeding to this bill in order to dislodge the pending legislation on oil speculation. By using his position of power, he seeks to force the Senate to prematurely move away from the No. 1 issue facing the people from my State and the Nation namely energy legislation.

I did not support cloture to move to the Reid omnibus bill not because I do not support many of its provisions, rather because I believe we should complete work on energy legislation before moving on to other matters. Further, I am seeking my right as a U.S. Senator to offer amendments to a bill in a fair and balanced legislative process.

For instance, Senator Kohl and I had a bipartisan amendment prepared to offer to the speculation bill that would have brought OPEC nations under U.S. antitrust laws to prohibit them from meeting in a room, lowering production and supply, and thus raising prices. Unfortunately, this effort was denied by the majority leader's blocking of amendments by filling the so-called amendment tree, disallowing mine and a number of other amendments that ought to be considered.

This procedure is nothing new for this majority leader who has filled the amendment tree on 15 occasions in the current 110th Congress, surpassing all other majority leaders in modern history. As a result of the majority leader's curtailing Senate procedure and amendments, I have been faced with voting against cloture on measures I would have ordinarily supported including this past Saturday's vote on LIHEAP. I have also opposed cloture in instances such as the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill which was considered the first week of June--2 to 6. In that case, the majority leader filled the amendment tree at the first opportunity and filed cloture on the bill without ever allowing consideration of amendments. The 5-day debate culminated in a fait accompli cloture vote that failed on June 6.

Most recently, I voted against cloture to move to the Reid omnibus bill that was a conglomeration of legislation that has been described as non-controversial and may benefit a wide variety of interests. As I stated on the Senate floor on Monday, July 28, I am supportive of most, if not all of the substance in this bill. In fact, I am a cosponsor of six of the items.

I support and have worked to pass a number of the Judiciary Committee-related bills in the proposed omnibus. For example, I am an original cosponsor of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Protection Act, S. 2982, which makes changes in the grant program for centers for runaway youths. I am also a cosponsor of the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2008, S. 2304, which would provide grants for the improved mental health treatment and services provided to offenders with mental illness. In addition, I am a cosponsor of the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, S. 535, which authorizes funding to solve pre-1970 civil rights crimes. Moreover, in committee, I supported a Federal commission to commemorate the bicentennial of the writing of the Star-Spangled Banner and the War of 1812, S. 1079.

Additionally, I voted in favor of the following child protection bills which were passed by the Judiciary Committee: The Combating Child Exploitation Act of 2008, S. 1738, which authorizes grants to combat child exploitation; and the Drug Endangered Children Act of 2007, S. 1210, which extends a grant program directed at drug-endangered children.

I directed my staff to work to clear the child exploitation bills from the omnibus package in the same manner I worked to pass the Adam Walsh Act without extraneous add-ons during the 109th Congress. To that end, my staff worked with Senator Coburn's staff to draft a proposed compromise child exploitation bill that includes the key provisions of the child pornography and exploitation legislation in the proposed omnibus, as well as important legislation to strengthen the powers of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the SAFE Act, which was omitted from the omnibus bill.

My support is also invested in efforts to maintain the natural beauty of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed while simultaneously preserving its resources for the communities it serves. S. 2707, The Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Water Trails Network Continuing Authorization Act, will permanently authorize appropriations for these vital programs. I cosponsored this legislation because I believe it is a critical organization whose mission to protect the bay is vital for the communities affected by this watershed.

Another environmental act I have fervently supported and of which I am an original cosponsor, is S. 496, the Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008. The bill renews the Appalachian Regional Commission for 5 years--2007-2011--and authorizes $510 million to be appropriated over that timeframe for the Commission's economic development activities in distressed rural counties.

Numerous health care provisions I have worked hard for can also be found in this package, including S. 1382, which establishes a registry of those suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, better known as Lou Gehrig's disease. The registry will gather data about those who are diagnosed with the disease to better understand and research the illness. As Ranking Member of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education--LHHS--Appropriations Subcommittee, I support research and an ALS registry. I worked to provide $39 million for NIH research of ALS in 2008 and $2.8 million to plan the ALS registry.

I am also a cosponsor of S. 1183, the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, to expand paralysis research at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and set up a network to allow patients and their families to quickly learn the result of clinical trials on paralysis rehabilitation drugs. The LHHS fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill provided $64 million for NIH spinal cord research.

The package also included bills, H.R. 3112, S. 1810 intended to create a new Federal grant program to pay for information and support services regarding Down syndrome and other prenatally or postnatally diagnosed conditions. While awaiting these authorization bills, I have worked with Senator Harkin to get a jump start on these much-needed activities by including $1 million to establish the congenital disabilities program in the fiscal year 2009 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bill. In addition, the Labor-HHS Subcommittee provided almost $1 million to the CDC in fiscal year 2009 for awareness activities related to Down syndrome.

One of the bills, H.R. 477, would permit the issuing of grants to states for stroke care systems. As ranking member of the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked to increase CDC funding for heart disease and stroke activities in the States to over $50 million and NIH funding for stroke research to over $340 million in fiscal year 2008.

Another bill, S 1375, would establish a grant program for services to mothers suffering from postpartum depression. As ranking member of the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked with Chairman Harkin to include $4.9 million for a first-time motherhood initiative within the maternal and child health block grant.

I also support S. 675, the Training for Realtime Writers Act of 2007. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires 100 percent closed captioning for all new English broadcast programming by January 1, 2006. That deadline has come and gone. There are not enough real time writers and captioners to meet this unfunded mandate out in the workforce. Furthermore, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires 100 percent closed captioning for all new Spanish broadcast programming by January 1, 2010. America is very far from achieving this goal. S. 675 will assist with training the workforce to provide closed captioning for the 30 million Americans who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.

I support H.R. 3320, the Support for the Museum of the History of Polish Jews Act of 2007, which requires assistance from the Department of State to support the development of a permanent collection at the Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw, Poland. It is in the national interest of the United States to encourage the preservation and protection of artifacts associated with the heritage of U.S. citizens who trace their forbearers to other countries and to encourage the collection and dissemination of knowledge about that heritage. Most recently, I traveled to Poland on August 27, 2007, and observed fist hand the importance of museums that examine Poland in WW II, specifically the Polish uprising and the Home Army. The Museum of the History of Polish Jews will complement the current museum facilities in Warsaw by preserving and presenting the history of the Jewish people in Poland, which had the largest Jewish population in Europe at the beginning of World War II.

Having outlined a number of priorities and areas of support I have with this omnibus bill, let the record show that I support the package as a whole. However, as evidenced by my vote against cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill, I believe the energy situation is too important to set aside until we have completed or frankly even started our work on it by allowing amendments to be considered. It has been said on this floor that explaining opposition to this omnibus bill to our constituents will be difficult. While this premonition may have some merit,

I trust that the people of Pennsylvania and the Nation will support efforts to deal with high energy prices and encouraging the kind of open and fair debate that leads to better policies across the board.

I reinitiate my suggestion that the Senate stay in session during the month of August, if the majority leader would hold a legitimate session that provides the kind of deliberation that has led many to call the U.S. Senate ``the greatest deliberative body in the world.'' Members of this body should be prepared to work as long and hard as necessary in order to reach a solution to the energy crisis not based upon political appeasement, but results. It is time we allow debate and compromise to reverberate through this chamber as we find areas of agreement in the best tradition of the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on April 25, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in SD-106. The title of this committee hearing is, ``Challenges and Opportunities Facing American Agriculture Producers Today, Part III.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 25, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this meeting will be to consider and approve the following legislation following bills: S. 294, S. 428, S. 924, S. 311, S. 675, S. 1142, the Identity Theft Prevention Act, and the promotion of Mr. Gribbin, in the United States Coast Guard.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Wednesday, April 25, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226.

I. Committee Authorization: Authorization of Subpoenas in Connection with Investigation into Replacement of U.S. Attorneys.

II. Bills: S. 376, Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007; Leahy, Specter, Grassley, Kyl, Sessions, Cornyn, S. 119, War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007; Leahy, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, Durbin, Cardin, S. 1079, Star-Spangled Banner and War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission Act; Cardin, Warner, Kennedy, S. 735, Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007; Kennedy, Kyl, Coleman, Schumer, Leahy, Grassley, Cornyn, H.R. 740, Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement (PHONE) Act of 2007; Scott, Conyers, Forbes, Boucher, Jackson-Lee, Gutierrez, Sherman, S. 221, Fair Contracts for Growers Act of 2007; Grassley, Feingold, Kohl, Leahy, Durbin, S. 495, Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2007; Leahy, Specter, Feingold, Schumer, S. 239, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act of 2007; Feinstein, S. 879, No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2007; (Kohl, Specter, Leahy, Grassley, Feingold, Schumer, Coburn, Durbin.

III. Nominations: Robert Gideon Howard, Jr. to be United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Arkansas; Frederick J. Kapala to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois; Benjamin Hale Settle to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington; John Roberts Hackman to be United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Virginia.

IV. Resolutions: S. Res. 125, designating May 18, 2007 as ``Endangered Species Day''; Feinstein, Collins, Feingold, Biden, S. Res. 116, designating May 2007 as ``National Autoimmune Disease Awareness Month''; Biden, S. Res. 146, designating June 20, 2007, as ``American Eagle Day''; Alexander, Byrd, Kennedy, Feinstein, S. Res. 162, commemorating and acknowledging the dedication and sacrifice made by the men and women who have lost their lives while serving as law enforcement officers; Leahy, Specter, Biden, Grassley, Cornyn, Durbin.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 to hold a hearing on mental health issues. The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building beginning at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 25, 2007, at 10 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on whether the army is properly sized, organized, and equipped to respond to the most likely missions over the next two decades while retaining adequate capability to respond to all contingencies along the spectrum of combat in review of the Defense Authorization request for fiscal year 2008 and the Future Years Defense Program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 25, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The agenda to be considered: Oversight Hearing on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 25, 2007, at 2 p.m., to receive testimony on efforts to improve the Department of Defense's language and cultural awareness capabilities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces be authorized to meet in open session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 25, 2007, at 3:30 p.m., to receive testimony on Department of Energy atomic energy defense programs in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 175, to provide for a feasibility study of alternatives to augment the water supplies of the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District and cities served by the District; S. 324, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of water resources in the State of New Mexico; S. 542, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and Payette River systems in the State of Idaho, and for other purposes; S. 752, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the implementation of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Species in the Central and Lower Platte River Basin and to modify the Pathfinder Dam and Reservoir; S. 1037, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to assist in the planning, design, and construction of the Tumalo Irrigation District Water Conservation Project in Deschutes County, OR; S. 1116 and H.R. 902, to facilitate the use for irrigation and other purposes of water produced in connection with development of energy resources; and S. 1112 and H.R. 235, to allow for the renegotiation of the payment schedule of contracts between the Secretary of the Interior and the Redwood Valley County Water District, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, today I am introducing two bills that will help drive the renewable energy revolution that is currently underway in our rural communities. The Rural Community Renewable Energy Bonds Act, which I am introducing with Senator Smith, and the Rural Wind Energy Development Act, which I am introducing with Senators Smith, Dorgan and Craig, will help spur much needed private investment in renewable energy infrastructure in rural areas.

I have spoken countless times about the great possibilities that rural America holds for our Nation's energy future. I have also expressed my alarm at how our rising dependence on foreign oil is undermining our security and our interests around the world.

How do we build a more energy secure economy--one that is less vulnerable to wild swings in oil prices, political instability, and supply disruptions? Unfortunately, we don't have the resources in this country to drill our way to energy independence. We do, however, have the most productive lands in the world, and the most productive farmers, ranchers, engineers and entrepreneurs in the world. If we give them the right tools, they can build a new, clean energy economy that will rely heavily on biofuels, wind power, solar energy, and alternative sources.

If you spend time in places like Prowers County or Alamosa County, you see that a clean energy revolution is already underway in our heartland. In these rural communities, like so many across the country, people are banding together to build small biofuels plants, solar farms, and wind turbines. These projects are already underway, and they are the seeds for a full-blown clean energy revolution in rural America.

The farmers, ranchers, and entrepreneurs who are behind these projects want to be a part of the solution to our Nation's energy challenges. They also understand that home-grown energy can revitalize the Main Streets that have been boarded up in the last few years.

The bills I am introducing today provide tools that rural communities can use to build a renewable energy economy.

The first bill, the Renewable Energy Bonds Act, provides incentives for investment in wind and other renewable energy projects by giving private developers access to tax-exempt bond markets.

Currently, the Federal tax code only allows municipal and public entities access to tax-exempt bond markets for wind and other renewable energy projects. Private developers, who are more likely to invest in smaller projects and who are currently responsible for nearly 75 percent of current renewable energy development, are not eligible to use these federally tax-exempt bonds.

This is unfortunate because these are the same small developers who don't benefit much from the production tax credit, as their Federal tax liabilities usually aren't big enough to reap the tax credit's benefits.

Renewable energy bonds make sense for these small developers and, because they cost the Federal Government less than the production tax credit, they also make sense from a fiscal perspective. This bill may actually save the Government money.

The second bill I am introducing, the Rural Wind Energy Development Act, would extend the production tax credit to include small wind systems. We have made great strides in wind development over the last few years, as evidenced by wind energy's growing availability to Colorado consumers.

The trouble is that the existing production tax credit only benefits larger producers that want to build wind farms with million-dollar turbines. Small businesses, towns, farms, and families aren't given the same incentive to produce their own renewable power from smaller, more affordable turbines.

This is unfortunate because the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, Colorado, and others are making great strides in the development of small wind systems that can be installed on homes and businesses. The system now available costs around $50,000 for 10kW of capacity.

That's a steep investment for any family or any business. But our bill, by providing a tax incentive for their purchase, would not only reduce the cost, but it would create more market certainty for manufacturers of small wind systems. With more systems in production, costs will fall further and small wind will be a real option for more people.

The bill is simple: it creates a five year tax credit of $1500 per half-kW. There is no cap for the purchase and installation of small wind systems, so long as they are smaller than 100kW. It will put more small wind systems on the market and it will give consumers more choices of how to power their homes and businesses.

I'm proud to introduce these bills with my colleagues because they represent two more building blocks for a new, clean energy economy and because they will help revitalize a rural America that has been forgotten for too long.

I hope we can move these straightforward, bipartisan solutions through as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Roberts, along with Senators Kennedy, Burr, Murray, Clinton, Brown, Bingaman, Collins, Isakson, and Biden in introducing the Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act.

Our Nation's emergency medical system is a system on the brink. We need to support and strengthen this essential component of our health care system. The Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act is an important building block to achieving an improved national network of care across the country.

Unintentional injury is the leading cause of death among people between the ages of 1 to 44 and in 2002, injuries were responsible for 161,000 deaths. In 2004, about 29.6 million people were treated for an injury in U.S. hospital emergency departments, of which nearly 2 million injuries were severe enough to require hospitalization. Yet, between 20,000 and 25,000 trauma deaths are preventable each year.

A trauma system is an organized, coordinated effort in a specific area that delivers the full range of care to all injured patients. It provides resources, supporting equipment, and personnel along a continuum of care including pre-hospital, hospital, and rehabilitation services. Trauma systems have been proven to reduce mortality rates and provide efficient, cost-effective, and timely care. Since 1990, the Federal Government, through Title XII of the Public Health Service Act, has helped States and territories develop and implement regional and statewide trauma care systems.

The legislation I am introducing today along with my colleagues will reauthorize and reaffirm the Federal Government's commitment to trauma care systems. It will also authorize additional resources for systems planning and development, as well as improved data collection and analysis and the inclusion of an Institute of Medicine study on the state of trauma care and trauma research.

Trauma care is not only critical to providing timely access to lifesaving interventions for persons suffering from serious unintentional injuries, it is central to our national security and disaster preparedness. The tragic events of September 11, 2001 and Hurricanes Rita and Katrina serve as stark reminders of the potential intentional and natural disasters that threaten our Nation. Trauma care systems are an important element of our security and response efforts.

I look forward to working with my colleagues toward expeditious passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Trauma Care Systems Planning and Development Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I join Senator Isakson in introducing the Tanning Accountability and Notification (TAN) Act.

Approximately 1 in 5 Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetime. While the decline in cancer deaths reported earlier this year is an indication that we are starting to turn the corner on our fight against cancer, approximately 1 million people will be diagnosed with skin cancer and 10,850 are expected to die in 2007 alone.

There are many factors that contribute to these startling figures. In recent years efforts have been undertaken by various organizations to better inform the public about the risk of sun exposure and ways to decrease the chance of developing skin cancer. One area, however, where better information is sorely needed is on the use of indoor tanning salons.

Every day approximately 1 million people visit a tanning salon. It is a practice particularly popular among teens, the group that seems most at risk from the effects of indoor tanning. The American Academy of Dermatology, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, the National Institutes of Health, NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, and the World Health Organization, WHO, all discourage the use of indoor tanning equipment.

This message and the current information about the risks of indoor tanning I fear are not being adequately passed on to consumers. The FDA has not updated its warnings on tanning beds since 1979. Regular users of indoor tanning beds deserve to be fully informed.

The TAN Act calls upon the FDA to revisit the current label on indoor tanning beds and determine through a process of public hearings and consumer testing what kind of labeling requirements would convey important information on the risks of indoor tanning.

This legislation is not about introducing new regulations but ensuring that the current FDA regulations remain effective in communicating accurate, current, and clear information to consumers about indoor tanning salons.

I look forward to working with my colleagues toward passage of this bipartisan legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.